[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3186-3209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00195]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for the rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis), a 
species that occurs in the eastern and Midwestern United States and 
Ontario, Canada. The effect of this regulation will be to add this 
species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

DATES: This rule becomes effective February 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and on the Midwest Region Web site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/. Comments and materials we received, as 
well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are 
available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. 
Comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this 
rulemaking will be available by appointment, during normal business 
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Ecological 
Services Field Office, 4101 American Blvd. E., Bloomington, MN 55425; 
telephone 952-252-0092, extension 210.

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 Relay Service at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, a 
species may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or 
threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be 
completed by issuing a rule. This rule will finalize the listing of the 
rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) as an endangered species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species 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.
    Peer review and public comment. 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 also invited these peer reviewers to comment on our 
listing proposal. We also considered all comments and information 
received during the public comment period.
    An SSA team prepared an SSA 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 species). 
We incorporated peer review suggestions into the SSA. The SSA and other 
materials relating to this final rule can be found on the Midwest 
Region Web site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/ or on http://www.regulations.gov.

Previous Federal Action

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the rusty patched 
bumble bee (81 FR 65324; September 22, 2016) for a detailed description 
of previous Federal actions concerning this species.

[[Page 3187]]

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 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/ and at http://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 the rusty patched bumble bee 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 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 
(gynes, or reproductive females) 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.
    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 14 States/Provinces: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ontario, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, 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 http://www.regulations.gov and at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/. The reader is directed to the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 
(Bombus affinis) Species Status Assessment (SSA; 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 and 
demographic 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 plausible 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, effects of climate change, 
and small population dynamics. To assess resiliency, we evaluated the 
trend in rusty patched bumble bee occurrences (populations) over time. 
To forecast future abundance, we used a population model to project the 
number of populations expected to persist based on plausible future 
risk scenarios. To

[[Page 3188]]

assess representation (as an indicator of adaptive capacity) of the 
rusty patched bumble bee, we evaluated the spatial extent of 
occurrences over time. That is, we tallied the number of counties, 
States, and ecoregions occupied by the species historically, currently, 
and projected into the future. Ecoregions are areas delineated to 
capture the variation (representation) in the species. We relied on 
unique climate conditions to delineate variations, and thus, used the 
Bailey Ecoregions (Bailey 1983, Bailey et al. 1994) and the equivalent 
Canadian Ecoregions (Ecological Stratification Working Group, 1996) in 
our analyses. To assess redundancy, we calculated the risk of 
ecoregion-wide extirpations given the past frequency of catastrophic 
drought events in each of the ecoregions.
    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. This 
information has also been reported by others.
    Since the late 1990s, rusty patched bumble bee abundance and 
distribution has declined significantly. Historically, the rusty 
patched bumble bee has been documented from 926 populations; since 
1999, the species has been observed at 103 populations, which 
represents an 88 percent decline from the number of populations 
documented prior to 2000). We assumed any population with at least one 
record (one individual rusty patched bumble bee seen) since 1999 is 
current, and thus, the overall health and status of these 103 current 
populations is uncertain. Indeed, many populations have not been 
reconfirmed since the early 2000s and may no longer persist. For 
example, no rusty patched bumble bees were observed at 41 (40 percent) 
of the current sites since 2010 and at 75 (73 percent) of the 103 sites 
since 2015. Furthermore, many of the current populations are documented 
by only a few individuals; 95 percent of the populations are documented 
by 5 or fewer individuals; the maximum number found at any site was 30. 
The number of individuals constituting a healthy colony is typically 
several hundred, and a healthy population typically contains tens to 
hundreds of colonies (Macfarlane et al. 1994, pp. 3-4).
    Along with the loss of populations, a marked decrease in the range 
and distribution 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 394 
U.S. counties and 38 county-equivalents in Canada. Since 2000, the 
species' distribution has declined across its range, with current 
records from 6 ecoregions, 14 States or Provinces, and 55 counties 
(figure 1); this represents an 87-percent loss of spatial extent 
(expressed as a loss of counties with the species) within the 
historical range. The losses in both the number of populations and 
spatial extent render the rusty patched bumble bee vulnerable to 
extinction even without further external stressors (e.g., habitat loss, 
insecticide exposure) acting upon the species.

[[Page 3189]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA17.014

    Many of the existing populations, however, continue to face the 
effects of past and ongoing stressors, including pathogens, pesticides, 
habitat loss and degradation, small population dynamics, and effects of 
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 the present was 
contemporaneous with the collapse in populations of 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; 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 virus, 
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

[[Page 3190]]

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 1 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, and thus are 
susceptible to pesticides applied 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, and 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 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. 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 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 bumble bee is a eusocial bee species 
(cooperative brood care, overlapping generations within a colony of 
adults, and a division of labor into reproductive and nonreproductive 
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 for the rusty patched bumble bee the effective population sizes are 
inherently small due to the species' 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 (as is 
more likely to happen in small populations), however, 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 small sizes of the current 
populations, some populations may not 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

[[Page 3191]]

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, 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 these 4 States, Wisconsin is 
the only State with current records (18 populations). Existing 
regulatory mechanisms that address threats to the species vary across 
the species' range; one such mechanism is the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), under which the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines the ecological risk of 
all registered pesticides. Also, one way the Service works to ensure 
pesticides are used with the least amount of hazards to human and 
environmental health is through its pesticide consultations with the 
EPA. Since 2013, the Service and EPA, together with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NOAA-Fisheries), have been working collaboratively 
on the Act's section 7 consultation process. The agencies are currently 
working together to complete consultations on nine pesticides 
(carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, methomyl, atrazine, 
simazine, propazine, and glyphosate), with biological opinions to be 
completed in December 2017, 2018, and 2022 for those chemicals.
    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. An example of 
such efforts is the Ohio Pollinator Habitat Initiative, which is 
working to improve and create pollinator habitat and raise awareness of 
the importance of pollinators in Ohio (http://www.ophi.info/ (accessed 
December 14, 2016)). Actions such as 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 has 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.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered 
comments from the public and peer reviewers on the proposed rule. This 
final rule incorporates minor changes to our proposed listing based on 
the comments we received, as discussed below in Summary of Comments and 
Recommendations, and newly available occurrence data. These data 
allowed us to refine occurrence information, thus, the final numerical 
results are slightly different from those in the proposed rule.
    We have reevaluated the viability of the rusty patched bumble bee 
in the SSA given this new information, and found that the probability 
of the species' persistence has not changed from the proposed rule. 
Specifically, in four of the ecoregions, the probability of extirpation 
exceeds 90 percent within 10 years, and extirpation in the remaining 
ecoregions is greater than 90 percent by year 30. The new information 
we received in response to the proposed rule did not change our 
determination that the rusty patched bumble bee is an endangered 
species, nor was it significant enough to warrant reopening the public 
comment period.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on September 22, 2016 (81 FR 65324), 
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by November 21, 2016. We also contacted appropriate Federal 
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A 
newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in USA 
Today on October 6, 2016. We did not receive any requests for a public 
hearing.
    We reviewed all comments received in response to the proposed rule 
for substantive issues and new information. Over 70 commenters provided 
substantive information. Those commenters included members of the 
general public, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, State 
agencies, species experts, agricultural organizations, and industry. We 
did not receive comments from Federal agencies or Tribes.
    We also received more than 100 individual comments supporting the 
proposed rule to list rusty patched bumble bee, and thousands (more 
than 90,000) of supportive comments submitted in form-letter format by

[[Page 3192]]

members of Environment America, Environmental Action, Friends of the 
Earth, League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, and the Natural 
Resources Defense Council. Although comments simply expressing support 
or opposition to the proposed action do not affect the final 
determination, we appreciate knowing of the public's opinion regarding 
our action.
    All substantive information provided during the comment period has 
either been incorporated directly into this final determination or 
addressed below. The new occurrence data we received was incorporated 
into our SSA analysis.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited review of the SSA report from 25 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included 
familiarity with the rusty patched bumble bee and its habitat, 
biological needs, and threats. We received responses from 15 of the 
peer reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the rusty patched 
bumble bee. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and 
conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and 
suggestions to improve the assessment. Peer reviewer comments are 
addressed in an appendix to the SSA, as appropriate; therefore, our 
proposal and this final rule were developed in consideration of peer 
reviewer comments.

Comments From States

    (1) Comment: One State transportation agency recommended the 
Service review literature on bumble bee mortality from vehicle 
collisions prior to listing, particularly in regard to areas where 
suitable habitat and highway rights-of-way intersect. The commenting 
agency was concerned about undue constraints being placed on 
transportation agencies that may be responsible for implementing 
wildlife-friendly road crossings.
    Our Response: To date, we have not found evidence that suggests 
vehicle collision is a threat to the rusty patched bumble bee. Through 
the recovery process, we will be conducting population-specific 
assessments to identify the stressors acting upon the populations. If 
vehicle collisions are found to be a problem for a specific population, 
the Service will work with the applicable county, State, or Federal 
agency to strategize on measures that could be used to reduce the 
mortality.
    (2) Comment: A few State transportation and agriculture agencies 
and other commenters indicated that we should conduct additional 
population surveys prior to listing, because they believed additional 
populations would likely be found.
    Our Response: The listing decision must be made using the best 
scientific and commercial data available at that time. In this case, we 
have access to rangewide, rusty patched bumble bee specific survey data 
from the late 1990s through 2016. Since we published the proposed 
listing rule, additional survey data have become available to us from 
large-scale bumble bee surveys in the States of Maine, Michigan, and 
Minnesota, as well as several smaller scale searches for the species, 
including citizen science surveys. These surveys were generally focused 
on prairies and grasslands with good-quality habitat for the species 
and, therefore, a good potential of hosting the species. However, as in 
the majority of previous surveys, the rusty patched bumble bee was not 
detected at most sites.
    In 2016, no rusty patched bumble bees were found at the 50 sites 
surveyed in Michigan, and the species was detected at 15 of the 
approximately 120 locations surveyed in Minnesota. Maine initiated a 
statewide 5-year bumble bee atlas program in 2015 to better understand 
the status of the State's bumble bees through citizen science. The 
rusty patched bumble bee was not among approximately 4,500 submitted 
vouchers and photos from Maine in 2015, nor was it detected in the 2016 
survey effort. Given the amount of sampling within the range of the 
rusty patched bumble bee, we find that the likelihood of discovering a 
significant number of new populations is low. Further, given the 
condition of the persisting populations and the stressors that those 
populations face, adding a small number of new populations does not 
change our endangered determination, since the additional populations 
likely face similar stressors.
    (3) Comment: One State agency expressed an interest in converting 
more rights-of-way into pollinator habitat to benefit the rusty patched 
bumble bee and other species, but is concerned that, as these areas 
become suitable habitat for a listed species, projects in these 
locations may require section 7 consultations. The agency further 
stated that consultation concerns could be alleviated via a rule issued 
under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act, if evidence supports 
the species being listed as threatened, or by other methods such as 
assurances from the Service, Safe Harbor Agreements, or programmatic 
consultations. A few industry groups also requested that the Service 
develop a species-specific section 4(d) rule, if threatened status is 
warranted. Such a rule, they state, would help protect the species and 
allow ongoing conservation efforts. One commenter suggested that a 
threatened listing, as opposed to endangered, would be a more 
appropriate classification for this species.
    Our Response: We appreciate the agency's interest in enhancing 
pollinator habitat. These plantings can offer foraging and breeding 
habitats for pollinators and may connect previously separated habitats 
and aid in species recovery. Although an increased workload for section 
7 consultations may be associated with listing, section 4 of the Act 
requires the Service to determine whether any species is an endangered 
or threatened species because of any of the section 4(a)(1) factors. 
The Service will work with the consulting agency as expeditiously as 
possible to complete the section 7 consultation processes in a timely 
manner. Once a species is listed, we offer private or other non-Federal 
property owners voluntary Safe Harbor Agreements that can contribute to 
the recovery of species, Habitat Conservation Plans that facilitate 
private activities (e.g., grazing) while minimizing effects to species, 
funding through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to help 
promote conservation actions, and grants to the States under section 6 
of the Act.
    We have determined that, based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available at the time of listing, the rusty patched 
bumble bee warrants listing as an endangered species. A complete 
discussion is provided in the Determination section of the preamble to 
this rule. Section 4(d) of the Act allows for development of rules for 
species listed as threatened. As this species is being listed as an 
endangered species, a section 4(d) rule cannot be promulgated.
    (4) Comment: Several commenters stated that, because the rusty 
patched bumble bee has such a large historical range, overly burdensome 
regulations could be placed on a large geographic area. Specifically, 
one State transportation agency commented that, based on the available 
status information, the State would support listing with rules that 
would encourage conservation plan elements that allow State 
transportation agencies to plan highway roadside management without a 
large section 7 consultation burden. The agency further commented that 
it is willing to maintain roadsides that

[[Page 3193]]

provide environmental benefits, as long as safety of the traveling 
public is not compromised and resources are available. Also, the agency 
wanted to ensure that the Service is aware of potential conflicts with 
other federally mandated practices related to roadside vegetation 
management.
    Our Response: For federally listed species, 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 enters into consultation with the 
Service regarding the degree of impact and measures available to avoid 
or minimize adverse effects. We look forward to working with the States 
and other agencies and organizations in developing ways to conserve the 
rusty patched bumble bee while streamlining consultation requirements. 
We may also issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified in title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations 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.
    (5) Comment: One State agency was concerned that, although habitat 
loss and pesticide use may be less likely to be the causes of the 
decline than pathogens and the effects of climate change, habitat and 
pesticide use will be the only two factors addressed in the species' 
recovery plan. If the Service focuses on only those two threats, the 
commenter stated that recovery will be less efficient, and the listing 
will impact landowners and farmers to a greater degree than other 
members of the regulated community. The commenter believes that the 
Service should consider approaches to pollinators that address all of 
the relevant factors to truly protect and preserve the rusty patched 
bumble bee.
    Our Response: Landowners deserve great credit for their land 
stewardship, and we want to continue to encourage those management 
practices that support bumble bees and other insect pollinators. The 
Service also strives to find ways to meet people's needs while 
protecting imperiled species. The Service is committed to working with 
private landowners, public land managers, conservation agencies, 
nongovernmental organizations, and the scientific community to conserve 
the rusty patched bumble bee. Determining why populations persist in 
some areas and not others will be a key question during recovery 
planning for this species. All primary stressors will be considered 
during recovery planning and implementation. More information about 
stressors acting on each remaining population will help inform 
effective and efficient recovery planning and recovery actions.
    (6) Comment: One State transportation agency recommended that the 
Service more clearly define the phrase ``where the rusty patched bumble 
bee is known to occur'' in the discussion of activities that could 
result in take if performed in areas currently occupied by the species. 
The agency requested that the Service clarify what is considered as 
occupied habitat (historical range, current range, or specific known 
locations). The agency recommended limiting the definition of occupied 
habitat to current collection records, and limiting requirements for 
survey work to areas within and directly adjacent to currently known 
locations.
    Our Response: The Service maintains a list of counties that are 
within the current range of the species on publicly accessible Web 
sites. We suggest that project proponents contact their State's U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Field Office for specific 
information for their locality. The species is likely to be present 
only in areas with suitable habitat. Suitable habitats are described in 
the Background section of the preamble to this final listing rule. The 
phrase ``known to occur'' was inserted to clarify that the rusty 
patched bumble bee would have to be exposed to actions for those 
actions to cause take and that the bees would be exposed only if they 
occur in the area that would be affected by a particular action. That 
is, we want to avoid the interpretation that the general use of 
pesticides, for example, could be prohibited per the listing of the 
rusty patched bumble bee. However, the species will be protected under 
the Act in any area where it is found to occur.
    (7) Comment: The Ohio Department of Transportation (DOT) 
recommended allowing specialists to start applying for collector's 
permits before the species is listed so that permitted surveyors are 
available as needed once the listing process is complete.
    Our Response: The Service can include proposed species on section 
10(a)(1)(a) permits and encourages the submission of permit 
applications as soon as possible.
    (8) Comment: The Ohio DOT provided information about past 
conservation projects in Ohio that may benefit the rusty patched bumble 
bee, even though they were not specifically designed to conserve the 
species. Examples of existing conservation efforts that have been 
completed by the agency include protection of mitigation areas that are 
under conservation easement, development of procedures to limit moving 
certain rights-of-way, partnerships with the Ohio Pollinator Habitat 
Initiative, and pilot testing of pollinator plots within rights-of-way.
    Our Response: We appreciate Ohio's interest and contribution to 
conservation and look forward to continuing a cooperative relationship 
with Ohio and other States as we proceed with recovery planning and 
implementation for the rusty patched bumble bee. Despite these 
beneficial measures, however, the status of the species remains dire.
    (9) Comment: The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture noted that 
one of the threats to the rusty patched bumble bee identified in the 
proposal is the spread of pathogens from commercial honey and bumble 
bees. The commenter stated that the Pennsylvania Department of 
Agriculture does not have the authority or the mandate to regulate or 
inspect bumble bee colonies that are reared for agricultural purposes. 
The commenter expressed concern over this lack of oversight if the 
spread of pathogens from captive to wild bees is going to be better 
understood and addressed.
    Our Response: We appreciate this information and will consider it 
during the recovery planning process.
    (10) Comment: Several State agencies and other commenters provided 
information regarding ongoing or planned pollinator conservation 
actions and plans that the Service should consider. One State agency 
commented that its government is in the process of developing a 
Pollinator Protection Plan intended to improve and protect the health 
of pollinators, while also protecting crops, property, and human 
health. The plan is a nonregulatory guidance document that provides 
voluntary measures for apiarists and pesticide applicators. Two other 
State agencies provided information regarding planned future 
conservation actions, specifically in the States of Ohio and North 
Dakota. These activities include seeking funding for population 
surveys, monitoring, and research, and developing pollinator strategy 
plans. Other commenters cited, for example, that the White House has 
developed several documents outlining measures

[[Page 3194]]

to protect honey bees and other pollinators and that a number of other 
groups and companies are involved in voluntary efforts to support 
pollinator health. The commenters note that these efforts will 
contribute to conservation of the rusty patched bumble bee.
    Our Response: We appreciate the pollinator conservation efforts our 
State partners and others are currently implementing and planning for 
the future. We look forward to working cooperatively on pollinator, and 
specifically rusty patched bumble bee, conservation. Despite these 
beneficial measures, however, the status of the species remains dire.
    (11) Comment: Several State agencies and other organizations 
expressed their support for bumble bee and general pollinator 
conservation. The commenters conveyed their commitment and willingness 
to continue or initiate cooperative participation in habitat management 
and other conservation efforts. Some commenters mentioned beneficial 
actions they are able to fulfill, such as the following: (1) Creating 
and maintaining flowering plant habitat and overwintering sites by 
revegetating project areas with appropriate native seed mixes, (2) 
timing vegetation-related maintenance activities to minimize impacts to 
the rusty patched bumble bee and other pollinators, and (3) restricting 
pesticide and herbicide use at appropriate times of the year.
    Our Response: The Service appreciates the commenters' support and 
interest in rusty patched bumble bee and other pollinator conservation 
efforts. We agree that the actions as described will contribute to the 
conservation of the rusty patched bumble bee and other pollinator 
species. We welcome the involvement of these agencies and organizations 
as stakeholders in recovery planning for the species. We will work with 
stakeholders through recovery planning to identify areas that would aid 
in recovery of this species and to determine the appropriate actions to 
take. The Service understands the importance of stakeholder 
participation and support in the recovery of the rusty patched bumble 
bee and will continue to work with all stakeholders to this end.
    (12) Comment: One State agriculture agency questioned the relative 
role of habitat loss versus other stressors as the true cause of 
population declines. Specifically, the commenter indicated the Service 
contradicts the statement that the rusty patched bumble bee may find 
suitable habitat in agricultural cropping systems by then noting that 
the flowering period for most crops is too short to sustain their 
population.
    Our Response: Our assessment determined that there is uncertainty 
about the relative role of the cause(s) of the population declines and 
range contraction since 1990. Based on the available information, we 
cannot narrow the primary driver down to a single cause, nor do we have 
reason to assume that bumble bee losses were due to uniform impacts 
across the range. Although listing the rusty patched bumble bee is 
based on population trends showing a severe decline over the past 2.5 
decades with no evident prospect of a natural reversal, the individual 
and combined effects of the multiple possible causes of this decline 
cannot be ascertained based on available information. Further research 
into past and ongoing stressors on the species will be an essential 
component of any future conservation strategy for this species. Rusty 
patched bumble bees have been observed in agricultural landscapes, 
although such observances are declining with the decrease in diversity 
of floral resources in such areas.
    (13) Comment: Two North Dakota State agencies commented that the 
range where the rusty patched bumble bee would be listed should not 
include North Dakota, nor should critical habitat be designated in the 
State, because the species has not been found there since 2000.
    Our Response: The species receives the protections of the Act 
wherever found; thus, if the species does occur in North Dakota, it 
would be protected there. We will consider a range of recovery actions 
following listing, and will work with local and State partners to 
determine and implement actions in locations that will benefit the 
species.
    (14) Comment: A few State natural resource agencies, several 
species experts, and numerous other public commenters concluded that 
endangered species protections would benefit the recovery of the rusty 
patched bumble bee and provided additional suggestions for future 
conservation actions. Some examples of suggested actions include: 
Creating new pollinator habitat; enhancing existing habitat, limiting, 
reducing, or eliminating pesticide use and exposure (in part through 
work with the EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other agencies); 
limiting novel disease exposure by regulating commercial bumble bee 
colony movement; incentivizing habitat improvement activities; 
increasing or enacting penalties for failure to comply with 
restrictions and regulations; requiring municipalities to set aside a 
proportion of undisturbed areas for pollinator use; protecting habitat; 
initiating captive-rearing programs; conducting additional population 
surveys; limiting mowing and herbicide spraying; addressing legal 
barriers (e.g., local weed ordinances) to planting and maintaining 
habitat with flowering plants; and conducting public outreach and 
education.
    Our Response: There are potentially many pathways to achieving 
rusty patched bumble bee conservation, including many of the actions 
suggested by commenters. The most prudent course for recovering the 
rusty patched bumble bee will be developed in the ensuing years, with 
input from species experts, appropriate agency personnel, and the 
public.

Public Comments

    (15) Comment: Several commenters questioned the validity of the 
data sets we used or the analytical methods of those data. Those 
commenters stated that the Service's assessment relied on incomplete or 
nontarget survey data and that the analysis had significant data gaps 
and uncertainties. Thus, those commenters questioned the species' 
decline as depicted in the SSA. Other commenters validated the 
Service's use of the best available science and a robust dataset. For 
example, one of the commenters (a scientist with bumble bee expertise) 
stated that the analyses and data are reliable and the SSA employs 
similar techniques as other status assessment tools (e.g., NatureServe 
rank calculator or IUCN ranking process). They also stated that the SSA 
analyses are consistent with internationally accepted quantitative 
methods for assessing extinction risk (Mace et al. 2008; IUCN 2012). 
Several species experts and State natural resource agencies commented 
that there is strong evidence suggesting that the species has 
experienced a severe decline and warrants protection.
    Our Response: Our analysis of the species' status and the 
determination to list it as an endangered species is based on the best 
available information. We thoroughly searched the published literature 
and sought out unpublished information from bumble bee and other 
subject matter experts in the United States, Canada, England, and 
Germany, as well as information from all States within the historical 
range of the rusty patched bumble bee. The datasets on which we relied 
span more than 100 years and contain more than 94,000 bumble bee 
records from within the rusty patched bumble bee's range. Each record 
has been verified. Furthermore, although surveys were not targeted for

[[Page 3195]]

any specific bumble bee, the rusty patched bumble bee was consistently 
and routinely observed prior to the late 1990s; since then, however, 
the observations have dropped off precipitously. In response to the 
decline, a concerted effort was put forth by several experts in the 
early 2000s to search for rusty patched bumble bees. Despite this 
increase in effort specifically targeting the rusty patched bumble bee, 
observations of the rusty patched bumble bee continued to drop. 
Further, to account for the lack of standardization in the annual 
survey interval, we grouped records into 10-year blocks to assess 
populations over time. Finally, although we agree that there are gaps 
in our knowledge of rusty patched bumble bee ecology, this information 
is not germane to determining whether the species warrants protection 
under the Act. These unknowns are important to devising a conservation 
strategy, and we will be working with partners to resolve many of these 
information gaps as we proceed with recovery.
    (16) Comment: Several industry groups commented that there is no 
evidence in the SSA report, proposed rule, or elsewhere in the 
administrative record that the Service requested all available data 
from each of the States within the historical range of the rusty 
patched bumble bee or from the cooperative extensions of the USDA 
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
    Our Response: In December of 2015, we requested data and reports 
from all of the 31 States within the known historical range of the 
species. We also invited them to attend a followup webinar regarding 
the SSA process and reminded them of the information request. 
Furthermore, we requested a review of the draft SSA report from 
numerous species experts and State natural resources agency staff 
(e.g., Department of Natural Resources or equivalent) within the range 
of the rusty patched bumble bee. During that review, we received 
responses from 15 species experts (as peer reviewers), and 6 State 
agencies provided us with additional data and information. We also used 
verified location data available from Bumble Bee Watch 
(www.bumblebeewatch.org), a collaborative project to gather baseline 
data about the distribution and abundance of North America's bumble 
bees. Thus, we requested available data from all State agencies, 
multiple species experts, and other organizations throughout the 
historical range of the species. Additionally, we requested comments 
and information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, 
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any 
other interested party during the public comment period on the proposed 
rule. We considered all information that we received throughout the 
process in this final listing determination.
    (17) Comment: A few commenters stated that the Service did not 
utilize the best available science and should revise the SSA and the 
proposed rule to ensure that it is based on the best available science. 
Further, two commenters requested that the proposed listing be 
withdrawn until a more complete and thorough evaluation is completed.
    Our Response: In accordance with section 4 of the Act, we are 
required to make listing determinations on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards under the 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 (www.fws.gov/informationquality/), 
provide criteria and guidance and establish procedures to ensure that 
our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They 
require us, 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 make listing 
determinations.
    Primary or original information sources are those that are closest 
to the subject being studied, as opposed to those that cite, comment 
on, or build upon primary sources. The Act and our regulations do not 
require us to use only peer-reviewed literature, but instead they 
require us to use the ``best scientific and commercial data available'' 
in listing determinations. We have relied on published articles, 
unpublished research, habitat modeling reports, digital data publicly 
available on the Internet, and the expertise of subject biologists to 
make our determination for the rusty patched bumble bee. Although many 
information sources were used, we acknowledge that data gaps for the 
species still exist; however, our analyses made the data gaps explicit 
and we utilized expert opinion to help bridge the data gaps.
    Furthermore, in accordance with our peer review policy published on 
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited peer review from knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and 
conservation biology principles. Additionally, we requested comments or 
information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American 
Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested 
parties concerning the proposed rule. Comments and information we 
received helped inform this final rule.
    (18) Comment: A few industry organizations commented that the 
existing administrative record does not support the proposed listing 
decision. One commenter further stated that, for the Service to find 
that a species is ``endangered'' or ``in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' it needs to 
show that the species is ``currently on the brink of extinction in the 
wild.'' They stated that, while the proposed rule suggests that the 
Service likely believes that the rusty patched bumble bee fits into the 
third and/or fourth category in the December 22, 2010, memo to the 
polar bear listing determination file, ``Supplemental Explanation for 
the Legal Basis of the Department's May 15, 2008, Determination of 
Threatened Status for the Polar Bear,'' signed by then Acting Director 
Dan Ashe (hereafter referred to as Polar Bear Memo), the administrative 
record shows that it fits into neither.
    Our Response: The Service used the SSA framework to assess the 
biological status of the rusty patched bumble bee and describe the 
species' overall viability. See the Summary of Biological Status and 
Threats section of this rule for our analysis. As required by section 
4(a)(1) of the Act, the Service determined whether the rusty patched 
bumble bee is an endangered or threatened species based on the five 
listing factors. The Service did not substitute the assessment of the 
species' overall viability for the standards and definitions in the 
Act, but used the SSA report to relate the species' biological status 
and threats to the five listing factors and definitions of 
``endangered'' and ``threatened'' in the Act. A complete discussion of 
how the Service has applied these terms to the rusty patched bumble bee 
is provided in the Determination section of this final rule.
    In assessing the status of the rusty patched bumble bee, we applied 
the general understanding of ``in danger of extinction'' discussed in 
the Polar Bear Memo. The Polar Bear Memo provides further guidance on 
the statutory difference between a threatened species and an endangered 
species and clarifies that if a species is in danger of

[[Page 3196]]

extinction now, it is an endangered species. In contrast, if it is 
likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future, it 
is a threatened species. As detailed in the Determination section of 
this final rule, we conclude, based on our analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial information, that the rusty patched bumble 
bee is currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, and thus meets the Act's definition 
of an endangered species.
    (19) Comment: One species expert commented that he has collected 
thousands of bumble bee specimens in the range of this species since 
1999, but has not observed new rusty patched bumble bee populations in 
those targeted searches. One entomological organization noted that 
several of their members who have taken up the study of native 
pollinators within the last 5 years have never seen a rusty patched 
bumble bee in the wild. Additionally, two species experts (who also 
were peer reviewers of the SSA) and two private citizens, who have 
discussed the decline of this species with numerous other species 
experts, commented that there is strong evidence the species has 
disappeared from most of its former range; without legal protection, 
the scientific consensus is that this species is heading for imminent 
extinction. Another species expert stated that the rusty patched bumble 
bee was common throughout the upper Midwest in the early 1990s. The 
expert started systematic surveys at sites with relatively recent 
records (1990s) in 2007 but did not find any rusty patched bumble bees 
until 2010.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenters' confirmation of the 
data we have, which show a significant decline in rusty patched bumble 
bee occurrences.
    (20) Comment: Several commenters asserted that the proposal fails 
to account for assumptions in the SSA report or the uncertainties 
underlying the projections, or that the proposal is premised on 
uncertainty rather than data. Some of those commenters stated that, 
although the SSA provides a list of 12 key assumptions made in the 
analysis, the Service did not acknowledge those assumptions in the 
proposed listing rule and does not evaluate how those assumptions could 
affect the conclusions. The commenters further added that limitations 
and uncertainties are prevalent throughout the SSA report and proposed 
listing rule, but are not acknowledged or accounted for in either.
    Our Response: As stated in the SSA report, our analyses are 
predicated on multiple assumptions, which could lead to over- and 
underestimates of viability. In total, however, we find that our 
predictions overestimated viability of the species. Specifically, we 
conclude that 9 of the 12 key assumptions overestimated viability. It 
was unclear to us whether the remaining three assumptions were 
underestimated or overestimated. Therefore, even without these 
assumptions, we would have likely underestimated the future extinction 
risk of the rusty patched bumble bee. Peer reviewers also indicated 
that our analyses underestimated extinction risk. Although not 
explicitly stated in the rule, this potential underestimation of the 
extinction risk to the species would only strengthen our endangered 
determination.
    (21) Comment: Industry groups commented on the Service's approach 
to modeling and analyses. One group commented the Service should revise 
the modeling and analysis to account for ongoing public and private 
efforts to conserve pollinators. The group further encouraged the 
Service to include additional model scenarios in the SSA addressing 
changes in habitat while including different disease risk scenarios.
    Our Response: We evaluated both positive and negative influences 
acting upon the species currently and potentially into the future. We 
developed three scenarios that represent the most likely future 
scenario, a reasonable worse-case future scenario, and a better-case 
future scenario. These future scenarios were based on how the primary 
stressors might act on the populations into the future; all scenarios 
assumed the current conservation efforts would continue into the 
future. We could have devised additional future scenarios accounting 
for different disease and conservation efforts, but the scenarios 
developed represent a reasonable range of possible outcomes. As all 
three scenarios yielded similar population trajectories, we did not see 
a need to model additional scenarios.
    (22) Comment: Several other industry groups commented on the 
inherent limitations and uncertainties associated with conservation 
biology and projections of species viability. The commenters referenced 
multiple sources in the publication, Endangered Species Act: Law, 
Policy, and Perspectives (Baur and Irvin, 2010) and explained that 
limitations and uncertainties are prevalent throughout the SSA Report 
and proposed listing, but are not acknowledged or accounted for in 
either.
    Our Response: The Service recognizes inherent limitations and 
uncertainties in the field of conservation science. We considered the 
best scientific and commercial data available regarding the rusty 
patched bumble bee to evaluate its potential status under the Act (see 
our response to comment 15). In addition, the Service uses the SSA 
analytical framework to address uncertainties, and the report states 
multiple assumptions (see our response to comment 20). Modelers, 
species experts, and endangered species biologists work cooperatively 
to best match modelling goals and information needs. Further, our 
Policy on Information Standards under the 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 (www.fws.gov/informationquality/) 
provide criteria and guidance, and establish procedures to ensure that 
our decisions are based on the best scientific data available.
    (23) Comment: Multiple commenters provided additional expert-
verified rusty patched bumble bee observations that were not included 
in our original SSA analyses. In particular, commenters provided rusty 
patched bumble bee locations that were either verified by experts or 
submitted to the Bumble Bee Watch database after we conducted our 
analyses.
    Our Response: We have incorporated the information into the 
Background section of the preamble to this final listing rule. After 
our original analysis was complete, a small number of additional 
expert-verified rusty patched bumble bee records were discovered on 
citizen science Web sites and/or were provided to us by species 
experts. Of the records provided to us during the comment period, we 
were not aware of eight additional rusty patched bumble bee records 
that were located in Wisconsin. All additional rusty patched bumble bee 
records were incorporated into our database and we re-ran the 
extinction risk analyses in the SSA; this information is considered in 
this final rule. The additional records received since our original 
analyses do not change our overall determination.
    (24) Comment: Two commenters provided survey or museum data. In 
particular, these commenters provided some clarifications about the 
species in Maine and Virginia and stated that most museum records for 
this species are

[[Page 3197]]

available from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) Web 
site.
    Our Response: We have incorporated the commenters' clarifications 
into the Background section of the preamble to this final listing rule. 
We were already aware of the Maine, Virginia, and GBIF records and 
utilized those data in our SSA analyses.
    (25) Comment: A few commenters claimed that there have been recent 
rusty patched bumble bee observations in Monroe County in West 
Virginia. They further stated that there may be suitable habitat for 
the species in Monroe, Summers, and Greenbrier counties in West 
Virginia.
    Our Response: We followed up on this claim and determined that 
these observations have not been verified by experts. We have asked for 
further proof of the observations, such as a specimen or clear 
photographs, such that the species could be positively identified by 
experts, but have not received the requested information. We have taken 
note that there may be suitable habitat in additional locations.
    (26) Comment: One group commented that the SSA does not support the 
claim that the rusty patched bumble bee is suffering from significant 
habitat loss and degradation. Specifically, the group asserted that the 
Service cannot reconcile the long-term habitat loss with the assertion 
that the declines in the rusty patched bumble bee populations began in 
the late 1990s or that the species is a habitat generalist, which would 
minimize habitat impacts.
    Our Response: Although empirical data are currently unavailable 
regarding the level of habitat loss and degradation affecting the rusty 
patched bumble bee, we do know that habitat impacts have caused 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). This, 
in conjunction with the declines in distribution and relative abundance 
since the 1990s lead us to infer that habitat changes are, at the 
least, a contributing factor to the current precarious status of this 
species. Recognizing the uncertainty regarding the effects of habitat 
loss, we consulted with bumble bee experts with regard to the likely 
contribution of habitat impacts to the decline of this species. 
Although their conclusions varied, none of these experts stated that 
habitat loss and/or degradation played no role in the decline.
    We agree that habitat impacts are not likely the sole cause of the 
rusty patched bumble bee declines; rather, as explained, we find there 
are a multitude of stressors acting on the species. We acknowledge, 
however, that habitat losses may have become more of a factor as the 
colonies have been compromised by other, seemingly new, exposures to 
specific insecticides and pathogens.
    (27) Comment: One commenter stated that habitat loss and 
degradation as a factor of the rusty patched bumble bee decline is 
based on the assumption that the abundance of wildflowers has declined 
due to agricultural intensification, urban development, and increased 
fragmentation of natural landscapes, but it is not clear that 
persisting populations of the rusty patched bumble bee are associated 
with a particular habitat type, such as native prairie, that has 
undergone a precipitous decline. The commenter asserted that floral 
abundance has probably not declined greatly in the nonagricultural and 
relatively undeveloped Appalachian region where the rusty patched 
bumble bee has likely disappeared.
    Our Response: We agree that habitat loss alone cannot explain the 
disappearance of the rusty patched bumble bee in regions where 
apparently suitable habitat conditions, including abundant wildflower 
resources, remain. It follows that multiple stressors, with habitat 
impacts being only one, have had different relative effects in 
different parts of the range. We hasten to add, however, that these are 
inferences based on the conjunction of increased use of pesticides, 
possible impacts from the pathogen N. bombi, and ongoing habitat 
changes with the drastic decline of the rusty patched bumble bee from 
the 1990s to present. More investigation needs to be done into the 
habitat requirements of this species to design effective and focused 
habitat conservation strategies.
    (28) Comment: One group emphasized the importance of woodland 
habitats that provide early spring ephemeral flowers, which are 
important food sources for foundress rusty patched bumble bee queens 
during the time they are establishing colonies. As stated by the 
commenter, these woodland habitats are subject to a variety of threats 
including invasive plant and insect species, development, and 
overgrazing from the overpopulation of white-tailed deer.
    Our Response: We agree that early spring floral resources are vital 
for colony establishment. Conservation strategies for meeting the 
essential habitat requirements for the rusty patched bumble bee will 
necessarily include local and microhabitat conditions that address its 
needs throughout its life cycle and at the population level.
    (29) Comment: Several commenters expressed that the information the 
Service provided on pathogens and their role in the decline of the 
rusty patched bumble bee is well-supported by available literature and 
current research findings, whereas another commenter stated that the 
proposed rule does not cite any evidence that pathogens are affecting 
the species. That commenter indicated that the proposal states that 
experts have surmised that N. bombi may not be the culpable pathogen 
causing declines in the species.
    Our Response: We acknowledged the uncertainty regarding the role of 
pathogens in the decline of the rusty patched bumble bee in the SSA 
report and the proposed rule. Our current understanding of this 
stressor on the species is largely extrapolated from studies and 
observations of pathogenic effects on other bumble bee species, as the 
rusty patched bumble bee is too depleted to provide needed sample 
sizes. Nonetheless, as several commenters noted and as pathogen experts 
have determined, there is considerable evidence of pathogens adversely 
affecting bumble bees. Although, for the most part, bumble bee species 
carry a large pathogen load with which they have co-evolved, the 
congruence between the decline of the rusty patched bumble bee and the 
collapse of the commercially bred western bumble bee (B. occidentalis), 
attributed by some researchers to the microsporidium Nosema bombi, led 
researchers to suspect that this pathogen was at least one agent of the 
decline. The experts we consulted during the course of the assessment 
agreed that transmission of one or more pathogens, whether N. bombi or 
not, is very likely to be at least a contributory, if not the primary, 
cause of the decline of the rusty patched bumble bee. Indeed, one 
eminent expert pointed out that the rapid and widespread decline of the 
species may be plausibly explained only by an epizootic event, even if 
the particular pathogen remains, to date, unknown.
    (30) Comment: A commenter stated that the proposal asserts that a 
variety of pesticides are impacting the rusty patched bumble bee but 
provides no direct evidence. They further commented that specific data 
showing that neonicotinoids have affected the rusty patched bumble bee 
specifically are not cited, because, they assert, no studies have been 
performed to examine the asserted impacts of neonicotinoid use on the 
rusty patched bumble bees. The commenter stated that, absent such data, 
alleged impacts from pesticides do

[[Page 3198]]

not support the proposed listing decision.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that although other bumble bee species 
have been studied, we are not aware of any direct studies of the 
effects of pesticides on the rusty patched bumble bee. As with most 
species that have exhibited severe declines, potentially lethal studies 
(e.g., toxicity studies) on the species are no longer feasible, because 
not enough specimens are available for a scientifically meaningful 
study. We infer, however, that studies of the effects of pesticides on 
other bumble bee species will likely reflect their effects on the rusty 
patched bumble bee, because these species have similar life-history 
traits (e.g., generalist foragers collecting pollen from the same food 
sources). We used studies that documented impacts to other bumble bees 
as surrogates to estimate the impacts of various stressors on the rusty 
patched bumble bee. The pesticide discussions in the SSA focused on 
research that studied the effects of various chemicals on bumble bees 
(Bombus spp.), noting that much research has also been conducted on the 
European honey bees (Apis mellifera). Bumble bees may, in fact, be more 
vulnerable to pesticide exposure than European honey bees.
    (31) Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Service use the 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Pesticide Synthesis data to 
illustrate trends such as the increasing application of neonicotinoids 
over time within the rusty patched bumble bee's range.
    Our Response: We used USGS National Pesticide Synthesis data to 
help understand the annual regional trends of three neonicotinoids 
(imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam) within the historical 
range of the rusty patched bumble bee. We understand the limitations of 
the data: specifically, only county-level estimates were provided in 
the USGS dataset and extrapolation methods were used to estimate 
pesticide use for some counties. Therefore, we used these graphs simply 
to discern possible temporal correlations between bumble bee (and some 
species of butterfly) declines and neonicotinoid use. We acknowledged 
that the exact causes of the decline remain uncertain. In the SSA, we 
noted that we could have also evaluated the trends in use of numerous 
other chemicals, but focused only on the three commonly used 
neonicotinoids, as they represent a class of chemicals that have been 
implicated in the decline of bees. We will continue to review and 
evaluate the use of various chemicals and impacts on the rusty patched 
bumble bee during recovery planning.
    (32) Comment: Two commenters provided recent research papers on 
risks to bees posed by pesticides that were not included in our 
analyses, including new studies on the effects of pesticides to bumble 
bees and other bees, research on the effects fungicides have on bees, 
studies about pesticide contamination of pollinator habitat, as well as 
correlational studies attempting to understand the effects of 
pesticides on pollinators at a timescale relevant to population-level 
processes.
    Our Response: We appreciate the new information. Studies 
demonstrating lethal and sublethal effects of pesticides to bees and 
studies correlating pesticide use trends to pollinator population 
declines provide further evidence that pesticides likely contributed to 
the decline of the rusty patched bumble bee. We will continue to review 
the effects of pesticides during recovery planning and may use an 
adaptive management approach to recovery to refine actions related to 
pesticides.
    (33) Comment: A commenter, citing Watts and Williamson (2015), 
stated that the persistent organochlorines, like Endosulfan and the 
highly toxic organophosphates, have been replaced by the neonicotinoids 
in several countries, trading one set of problems for another. The 
commenter noted that replacement of one suite of harmful chemicals with 
another perpetuates an endless cycle of replacing one chemical with 
another.
    Our Response: We mention the potential risk of organophosphates to 
honey bees in our SSA and will consider reviewing the effects of 
organochlorines to bumble bees in greater detail during recovery 
planning for this species.
    (34) Comment: One commenter requested that the Service review the 
pesticides used in mosquito control to see if they have resulted in bee 
declines, and, if so, ban their use.
    Our Response: The issue of banning use of specific chemicals is 
outside the scope of this rulemaking. During the recovery planning 
process, we will work closely with contaminant specialists within and 
outside the government to investigate chemicals that may be causing 
population-level harm to the rusty patched bumble bee.
    (35) Comment: Several commenters asserted that the analysis of the 
relationship between neonicotinoids and rusty patched bumble bee 
population declines relies on the assumption that the introduction of 
neonicotinoids coincided with a steep decline in rusty patched bumble 
bee populations. They suggest that the decline in rusty patched bumble 
bee populations preceded the widespread use of neonicotinoids in its 
range, and that the bees are persisting in places with widespread 
neonicotinoid use on corn and soybeans. The decline of the rusty 
patched bumble bee, the commenters conclude, began before the advent of 
the neonicotinoids, with the sharpest decline of the bee beginning in 
the 1990s and coinciding with the use of imidacloprid beginning in 
1995, which had minimal use compared to imidacloprid usage beginning in 
2000. Given the uncertainty about the relevance of the timing of 
neonicotinoids' introduction to rusty patched bumble bee population 
decline, the commenters question its emphasis in the SSA.
    Our Response: The EPA approved the registration of imidacloprid in 
1994, and it became widely used in the United States starting in the 
mid-1990s; clothianidin and thiamethoxam entered the market beginning 
in the early 2000s. According to the USGS National Synthesis database, 
beginning in 1995, imidacloprid was used in nearly every State with 
historical records of the rusty patched bumble bee, and use increased 
and spread in the following years. Although it is difficult to pinpoint 
exactly when the species' decline began, the data show that the 
precipitous declines of the rusty patched bumble bee manifested around 
1995 and continued into the early 2000s. This time period coincides 
with increased neonicotinoid use.
    It is difficult to determine how much of the species' decline is 
due to a single factor, including neonicotinoids, as there are a myriad 
of other stressors (e.g., pathogens, parasitoids, and diseases) acting 
upon the species, and all likely interacting synergistically. However, 
lethal and sublethal effects to bees have been documented for this 
class of chemicals, so it is reasonable to think that they likely are 
contributing to the decline. Furthermore, the additive and synergistic 
effects of exposure to multiple pesticides at multiple times may 
exacerbate the toxicity of exposure to any single pesticide, and thus, 
additional pesticides in combination with others may pose risks to bees 
as well.
    (36) Comment: Several commenters stated that, by focusing on 
pesticides as a risk factor in the SSA, the Service appears to have 
ignored the advice of the experts they surveyed, who concluded that 31 
percent of the rusty patched bumble bee decline was likely due to 
pathogens and 23 percent of the decline was likely due to habitat loss.

[[Page 3199]]

Other stressors included pesticides (15 percent), climate change (15 
percent), and small population dynamics (15 percent). Yet, in the SSA 
synopsis, pesticides are listed second among the top three stressors 
causing the decline of the species.
    Our Response: The list of potential causative factors in the SSA 
synthesis was not ordered by relative importance; rather, it was listed 
alphabetically. According to expert input and literature review, we 
find that habitat loss and degradation, pathogens, pesticides, and 
small population dynamics are the primary contributing factors to the 
declines of the rusty patched bumble bee. Although the relative 
contribution of pesticides, pathogens, loss of habitat, small 
population size, and climate changes is not known, the prevailing data 
indicate that multiple threats are acting, most likely synergistically 
and additively, on the species. This combination of multiple threats is 
likely more harmful than a single threat acting alone.
    (37) Comment: One commenter noted that the SSA does not cite field 
studies that found no adverse effects when bees are placed near treated 
crops and allowed to forage naturally. The commenter provided citations 
for four field studies with bumble bee colonies placed in or near bee-
attractive crops grown from seeds treated with neonicotinoids, and 
which reported no adverse effects. They further stated that several 
published studies have reported adverse effects on developing bumble 
bee colonies that were exposed in confined settings to artificial diets 
spiked with various levels of neonicotinoids. The commenter also stated 
that the SSA does not mention that test levels or exposure scenarios in 
most of these studies have been criticized as unrealistically high.
    Our Response: We reviewed over 100 published reports and papers 
regarding the effects of pesticides to bees, focusing primarily on 
bumble bee studies. Most of the laboratory studies that we reviewed 
reported at least one sublethal and/or lethal effect to bees, as did 
some of the field studies. We acknowledge that many studies that we 
reviewed were not conducted in the field, and we acknowledge that there 
are studies that did not find adverse effects. The totality of data, 
however, suggests some insecticides kill bumble bees and others cause 
sublethal effects. Further, researchers often also note the limitations 
of laboratory studies. For example, many lab studies that we reviewed 
were conducted over relatively short-term exposure durations (e.g., 4 
to 28 days), which may not reflect realistic longer term exposures in 
the field. Additionally, although bees likely experience exposure to 
multiple chemicals in the field, most studies did not address the risk 
posed from the additive and synergistic effects of multiple exposures 
to multiple pesticides. Exposure to multiple pesticides over multiple 
time periods may exacerbate the toxicity of exposure to any single 
pesticide.
    (38) Comment: Two commenters were concerned that the pesticide 
discussion fails to consider all of the information and expertise 
available from the government and private sources. For example, these 
commenters state that there is no reference to any of the EPA pesticide 
evaluation methods for bees, risk assessments for pesticide products, 
or discussions with scientists and risk managers in EPA's Office of 
Pesticide Programs, whose input should be essential in any science-
based discussion of pesticide risks to pollinators. According to the 
commenters, this can lead to an emphasis on pesticides as a causal 
agent that may not be warranted. The commenters noted that the EPA is 
currently reviewing the risk of neonicotinoids to pollinators, and has 
released draft pollinator risk assessments for some of the compounds.
    Our Response: The Service considered several documents that were 
not cited in the SSA. Although not cited in the SSA document, for 
example, the Service reviewed EPA's ``Preliminary pollinator assessment 
to support the registration review of imidacloprid'' (January 2016); 
this assessment evaluated the risk of imidacloprid to managed honey 
bees at both the individual and colony levels and concluded that 
imidacloprid can pose risks to honey bee health. Notably, the 
assessment did not evaluate risks to other bee or bumble bee species, 
nor did it evaluate the risk when imidacloprid is mixed with other 
chemicals, which is a more realistic field condition. We also reviewed 
the summary of EPA and Health Canada's ``Re-evaluation of 
Imidacloprid--Preliminary Pollinator Assessment'' (dated January 18, 
2016 and available online at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_rev2016-05/rev2016-05-eng.php); this assessment 
indicated that the results of the available Tier II colony-level 
feeding studies with non-Apis bees (non-honey bee) suggested that 
bumble bees may be more sensitive to imidacloprid exposure than honey 
bees, and that measured pollen and nectar residues were often above the 
lowest dose where colony effects were detected in bumble bee feeding 
studies, suggesting a potential for risk to bumble bees. Lastly, we 
reviewed ``Joint PMRA/USEPA Re-evaluation Update for the Pollinator 
Risk Assessment of the Neonicotinoid Insecticides''(January 6, 2016), 
which provided a timeline of anticipated milestones for EPA's 
pollinator assessments--only the imidacloprid assessment was 
anticipated to be in preliminary form before the Service needed to 
complete its proposed determination. Thus, although not cited in the 
SSA, we reviewed the pertinent literature that was available to us.
    (39) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service should 
analyze the potential effects of herbicides separately from 
insecticides and fungicides in the stressor analyses. As ``pesticides'' 
is used as a general term to describe insecticides, fungicides, and 
herbicides, the commenters note that the SSA analysis and supporting 
scientific studies are specific to the effects of neonicotinoids, a 
distinct class of insecticides. They assert that the Service did not 
provide enough discussion or justification for including herbicides, or 
pesticides in general, as a primary stressor for the rusty patched 
bumble bee.
    Our Response: While the SSA evaluated neonicotinoids as potential 
stressors to the rusty patched bumble bee, we also acknowledged that 
numerous other chemicals have documented lethal and sublethal effects 
to bumble bees. Our discussion of herbicides in the SSA primarily 
focused on the use of herbicides in agricultural, urban, and natural 
landscapes and the likely consequential loss in flowering plants and, 
therefore, food availability for the rusty patched bumble bee.
    (40) Comment: One group requested that the Service provide 
definitive and functional guidance addressing herbicide use 
specifically, as distinct from pesticide or insecticide use.
    Our Response: Functional guidance addressing herbicide use methods 
goes beyond the scope of this final listing document and is more 
appropriate for recovery planning. We will consider developing 
management protocols for herbicide use during recovery planning for 
this species. In the interim, there are guidelines available from 
Xerces Society and other organizations engaged in pollinator 
conservation and management.
    (41) Comment: Some industry groups asserted that the information on 
possible effects of climate change is too speculative to use in the 
analysis, as the potential effects identified in the assessment have 
not yet occurred, and the potential impact on the rusty

[[Page 3200]]

patched bumble bee specifically remains unstudied and unknown. One 
commenter also expressed that, because the proposal does not project 
when such effects might occur, there is a ``temporal disconnect that 
precludes relevance to any determination that the rusty patched bumble 
bee currently is `on the brink of extinction.' '' The commenters 
requested that the Service provide additional information on the 
species' climate change vulnerability assessment and relevant data to 
support the conclusion that climate change is one of the factors 
contributing to the proposed endangered status.
    Our Response: Although we developed a potential future scenario in 
the SSA that included impacts from climate change, all the future 
scenarios contribute to our understanding of the risk to the species, 
and thus the decision to list the rusty patched bumble bee as an 
endangered species. The widespread, precipitous decline that has 
occurred to date has rendered the rusty patched bumble bee in danger of 
extinction. During the recovery planning process, however, we will 
investigate more closely the vulnerability of rusty patched bumble bee 
to the effects of climate change and the implications of this 
vulnerability.
    (42) Comment: One commenter claimed that the Service's assertion 
that the small population size of the rusty patched bumble bee and the 
species' reproduction strategy make the species more susceptible to 
impacts from other factors is faulty, because that position assumes 
that the species' population size and range have dramatically 
decreased. The commenter contended that the proposal does not 
demonstrate such a decline with reliable data.
    Our Response: Based on the best available data, we have determined 
that the rusty patched bumble bee has declined precipitously with 
remaining known populations documented by only a few individual bees. 
As explained in the SSA, a healthy population consists of multiple 
viable colonies, which are composed of hundreds of worker bumble bees. 
It is unknown what exact small population size would trigger a diploid 
extinction vortex phenomenon, but given the data, it is reasonable to 
conclude that the remaining populations are below sustainable levels, 
and, if they have not yet reached vortex levels, they will soon if 
declines are not arrested.
    (43) Comment: Several commenters mentioned additional stressors or 
threats the Service did not evaluate in the assessment, including the 
role of natural predators, the role that managed pollinators play in 
spreading and amplifying diseases to bumble bees and the pathogenic 
effects those diseases can have on bumble bees, vehicle collisions, and 
invasive plant and animal species.
    Our Response: Our analysis in the SSA focused on what we determined 
to be the primary stressors negatively affecting the rusty patched 
bumble bee: pathogens, pesticides, the effects of small population 
size, habitat loss and degradation, and the effects of climate change. 
Although we recognize there may be other factors negatively affecting 
the species, these factors are not likely as influential as those 
mentioned. We will, however, consider the role of additional stressors 
in our recovery planning efforts and the effects of such stressors on 
specific populations, as appropriate.
    (44) Comment: One organization expressed concerns about how the 
Service defined the range of individual populations of the rusty 
patched bumble bee. Specifically, the Service assigns a 10-kilometer 
(km) range for colonies in the habitat needs discussion, but the 
comment notes that an individual rusty patched bumble bee range is less 
than 1 km (0.62 miles).
    Our Response: We used a 10-km x 10-km area to delineate 
populations, not colonies. All records found within a 10-km x 10-km 
area were considered to be a single population, which is composed of 
multiple colonies. An individual bumble bee generally occupies an area 
less than 1 square km, but the populations, which are composed of 
multiple individual bees in multiple colonies, span across a larger 
range.
    (45) Comment: One organization expressed concern that the Service 
did not incorporate growing season hardiness zones into the range 
estimates, especially since the species is active early and late in the 
growing season. They provide the example that there may be portions of 
a county with a shorter floral growing season than other parts of the 
same county.
    Our Response: The range of the rusty patched bumble bee represents 
the broad-scale occurrence of the species and was derived by plotting 
all records of occurrence; that is, where individual bumble bees were 
recorded. The suitability of any given site is influenced by a myriad 
of factors, including providing sufficient quantity of floral resources 
for the entire active season. Whether a particular spot on the 
landscape provides this requirement was not assessed in the SSA; 
however, this assessment is not needed to determine the broad range of 
the species.
    (46) Comment: A few commenters stated that rusty patched bumble bee 
populations appear to be persisting in the Midwest or areas of high 
agriculture, where pesticide use is prevalent.
    Our Response: Rusty patched bumble bee populations still exist in 
the Midwest. Although we have not completed a thorough site-specific 
analysis, and although there are some survey biases to consider, we 
noticed that many of the remaining populations are within urban areas 
where they may not be exposed to the same level of pesticides as in the 
rural, agricultural areas. The extent of rusty patched bumble bee 
persistence in agricultural areas and the corollary impact of 
pesticides on the species will be investigated further during recovery 
planning.
    (47) Comment: A few industry commenters stated that there are 
ongoing studies by USDA--Agricultural Research Service and others that 
will aid in addressing knowledge gaps and assist the Service in making 
an informed decision and complying with the Act's mandate to use the 
best available science. Many of these studies conclude in 2017.
    Our Response: While we are pleased to hear of additional studies 
that may soon become available and assist us and our partners with a 
recovery plan for the species, we are required to make our listing 
determinations based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available at the time of our rulemaking. We searched the published and 
gray literature, and solicited peer review of our evaluation of the 
available data. These studies are not available for the rulemaking, but 
results will certainly be used in future recovery planning efforts.
    (48) Comment: A few commenters noted that the EPA has a statutory 
role to determine the ecological risk of all registered pesticides 
under FIFRA. They referenced the EPA's comprehensive, regulatory 
process for registering pesticides.
    Our Response: We recognize the work that EPA does to protect 
pollinators and acknowledge the statutory role that EPA has under 
FIFRA. The EPA uses honey bees in its pesticide risk assessments (EPA 
2014, pp. 2 and 6); however, our SSA details why we conclude that 
bumble bees are likely more susceptible than are honey bees to 
pesticides. In fact, the EPA ``acknowledges the uncertainty regarding 
the extent to which honey bees may be a reasonable surrogate for native 
insect pollinators'' (EPA 2015, p. 2). However, we have added an 
acknowledgment of FIFRA as a regulatory mechanism in the final rule.
    (49) Comment: One commenter stated that, ``considering the wide-
ranging and

[[Page 3201]]

extensive impact to farmers attempting to use pesticides vital to 
sustaining crop production,'' inconsistent recommendations from the 
Service and EPA could create an ``impossible situation'' for the 
agricultural community if they follow label restrictions according to 
one federal standard, but are then in potential violation of another 
federal standard for that same action.
    Our Response: In this final rule, we provide some actions 
prohibited by section 9 of the Act and specifically use the phrase 
``where the species is known to occur.'' We use this phrase to clarify 
that there is a geographical context to potential avenues of illegal 
take; that is, we want to avoid the interpretation that the general use 
of pesticides, for example, could be prohibited per the listing of the 
rusty patched bumble bee. More specifically, the rusty patched bumble 
bee would have to be exposed to particular actions for those actions to 
cause take, and the bee could only be exposed if it occurs in the 
project area. The Service can provide technical assistance to help 
determine whether the rusty patched bumble bee may be present in a 
specific area. If noxious weed control is needed where the rusty 
patched bumble bee is likely to be present, for example, the Service 
will work with landowners or land managers to identify techniques that 
avoid take or allow for it to occur legally.
    (50) Comment: One utility company expressed concerns that, if the 
rusty patched bumble bee is listed, the requirements of two regulatory 
agencies will be in conflict; the North American Electric Reliability 
Corporation requires a utility to clear vegetation that interferes with 
transmission and distribution lines, and the Service would prevent a 
utility from doing so to protect a listed species and its habitat. The 
commenter suggests that, because of this potential conflict between two 
legal requirements, the Service should work with electric cooperatives 
to identify a means by which they are able to meet both obligations.
    Our Response: Listing the rusty patched bumble bee as an endangered 
species does not prevent utilities or any other entity from complying 
with other laws. If such compliance will incidentally lead to take of 
rusty patched bumble bees, the project proponent is required to obtain 
the appropriate permit or exemption before implementing the action. 
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.
    (51) Comment: One commenter noted that the major crops grown within 
the range of the rusty patched bumble bee that receive neonicotinoid 
treatment are corn and soybeans, and that use of neonicotinoids on 
these crops is mainly as a seed treatment, which limits potential 
exposure to bees.
    Our Response: The Service is aware that many seed treatments are 
widely used for corn and soybean crops. The EPA's risk assessment 
process for evaluating soil applications and seed treatments is similar 
to its assessments for foliar applications, ``except that risk from 
contact exposure is not evaluated'' (EPA 2014 p. 10). The EPA states, 
``For soil application, it is generally assumed that exposure of honey 
bees from direct contact with the pesticide is minimal, given the 
nature of the application to bare soil, although exceptions may occur 
if applications are made with bee-attractive weeds present.'' However, 
they noted that ``Contact exposure of non-Apis bees (solitary and 
ground-nesting bees) may be significant with soil applications, 
although the extent of this potential exposure is uncertain. It is also 
noted that for seed treatments, exposure of bees to pesticides has been 
documented via drift of abraded seed coat dust when planting under 
certain conditions; however, there are multiple factors determining the 
extent to which dust-off occurs'' (EPA 2014, p. 10). Because rusty 
patched bumble bee is a ground-nesting species and fertilized queens 
overwinter in the soil, they could be susceptible to additional 
exposure pathways that honey bees are not (e.g., neonicotinoids in the 
soil that have not yet been taken up by plants and thus cause an 
additional dermal exposure pathway). Therefore, it is reasonable to 
conclude that rusty patched bumble bees may be more exposed to 
insecticides used as seed treatments (because the chemical can move 
through the soils (e.g., Goulson 2013, pp. 979-980)) than are honey 
bees, which nest above ground.
    (52) Comment: One commenter stated that, under section 4(b) of the 
Act, the Service is required to take ``into account those 
[conservation] efforts, if any, being made by any State'' before making 
a listing decision. Moreover, the Service's Policy for Evaluation of 
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) requires the 
Service to consider conservation efforts, including conservation 
efforts that have not yet been implemented or demonstrated their 
effectiveness, so long as the Service is certain that the conservation 
effort will be implemented and, once implemented, will be effective. 
The commenters contended that failure to comply with PECE is grounds 
for vacating a final listing rule. Other commenters stated that the 
proposed rule does not sufficiently address the significant public and 
private efforts currently under way to address pollinator issues that 
will benefit the rusty patched bumble bee.
    Our Response: In the Summary of Biological Status and Threats 
section of this final rule, we include consideration of conservation 
efforts by States and other beneficial factors that may be affecting 
the rusty patched bumble bee. The Service's PECE policy applies to 
formalized conservation efforts (i.e., conservation efforts identified 
in a conservation agreement, conservation plan, management plan, or 
similar document) that have not yet been implemented or those that have 
been implemented but have not yet demonstrated whether they are 
effective at the time of listing. We acknowledge that increased 
awareness of and conservation measures for pollinators in general may 
have fortuitous beneficial effects on rusty patched bumble bee. We are 
not aware of any formalized conservation efforts for any of the 
specific rusty patched bumble bee locations.
    (53) Comment: One commenter supports creating environments where 
the rusty patched bumble bee can rebound while avoiding a regulatory 
framework that impedes responsible agricultural practices. They further 
noted that doing so would require cooperating agencies to receive 
adequate long-term Federal funding to promote habitat restoration or 
enhancements.
    Our Response: The listing determination must be made solely on the 
biological status of the species. That said, the Service generally 
considers regulatory restrictions alone to be both insufficient and 
less preferred as a primary means of achieving the conservation of 
listed species. We seek to work collaboratively with other agencies and 
organizations (public and private), and with individual private 
landowners on proactive conservation efforts.
    (54) Comment: One commenter, supporting the action to list the 
rusty patched bumble bee, urged the Service to work cooperatively with 
Canada on conservation efforts for this species.
    Our Response: We appreciate the interest in bumble bee conservation 
and look forward to continuing our coordination with Canada as we begin 
recovery planning and implementation for the rusty patched bumble bee.

[[Page 3202]]

    (55) Comment: One commenter stated that accurate identification of 
the rusty patched bumble bee in the field may be difficult, even for a 
trained specialist. Voucher specimens of sterile female workers or 
males may be essential to understand and study pollinator populations. 
As such, the possibility of accidental take of a listed insect should 
be considered and permitted. Another commenter stated that unauthorized 
handling or collecting of the species is not enforceable because, as 
the species is difficult to identify, the specimen would require 
handling when conducting surveys to verify that a prohibited violation 
had taken place.
    Our Response: Under section 10 of the Act, the Service may permit 
limited take of listed species for scientific purposes or to enhance 
the propagation or survival of the species. The Service will consider 
incidental take for otherwise legal activities in our permitting (e.g., 
section 10 recovery permits) processes. Because the objectives of 
surveys may vary across the range of these species, we recommend 
contacting the Service's Ecological Services Field Office in your State 
to discuss the appropriate survey protocol to use for particular 
projects, habitat types, and geographic areas. To facilitate effective 
cooperation among agencies, organizations, and individuals interested 
in the distribution of the rusty patched bumble bee, the Service will 
consider maintaining a list of individuals who meet certain 
qualifications for conducting reliable identification for the target 
species.
    (56) Comment: A commenter remarked that there are several other 
apparently declining species of bumble bee including yellow-banded 
bumble bee (B. terricola) and American bumble bee (B. pennsylvanicus) 
that need evaluation and monitoring.
    Our Response: As part of its ongoing efforts to improve the 
effectiveness and implementation of the Act and provide the best 
possible conservation for our nation's imperiled wildlife, the Service 
has developed a National Listing Workplan (Workplan) for addressing 
listing and critical habitat decisions over the next 7 years. The 
yellow-banded bumble bee (B. terricola), for example, is in the 
Workplan schedule for evaluation under the Act.
    (57) Comment: Several commenters asserted that the Act has failed 
to recover or delist 98 percent of all listed species, and that those 
that have been removed were due to extinction or data error. Therefore, 
they contend, listing the rusty patched bumble bee as an endangered 
species will have no positive impact on its recovery. The commenters 
feel that listing the rusty patched bumble bee as endangered may 
negatively impact current pollinator conservation efforts being 
undertaken across the country.
    Our Response: The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of 
endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they 
depend. Protection under the Act has prevented the extinction of more 
than 98 percent of listed species. Once a species is listed as either 
endangered or threatened, the Act provides protections from 
unauthorized take and many tools and opportunities for funding to 
advance the conservation of such listed species. Further, receiving 
protections under the Act facilitates conservation planning and the 
development of conservation partnerships. The Act has been and 
continues to be extremely effective in preventing the extinction of 
species. The statement that the commenter made that ``the Act has 
failed to recover or delist 98 percent of all listed species, and that 
those that have been removed were due to extinction or data error'' is 
erroneous--there are notable exceptions to this statement where species 
have been removed due to successful recovery, such as the bald eagle 
and peregrine falcon.
    The listing of a species does not obstruct the development of 
conservation agreements or partnerships to conserve the species. Once a 
species is listed as either endangered or threatened, the Act provides 
many tools to advance the conservation of listed species. Conservation 
of listed species in many parts of the United States depends on working 
partnerships with a wide variety of entities, including the voluntary 
cooperation of non-Federal landowners. Building partnerships and 
promoting cooperation of landowners are essential to understanding the 
status of species on non-Federal lands, and may be necessary to 
implement recovery actions such as reintroducing listed species, 
habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
    (58) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service should 
recognize current national attention on pollinators, and that these 
ongoing conservation efforts should allow a warranted but precluded 
listing because the wide array of conservation actions for other 
pollinators may lead to recovery of the rusty patched bumble bee.
    Our Response: In making our determination as to whether the rusty 
patched bumble bee meets the Act's definition of an endangered or 
threatened species, we considered the current conservation measures 
available to the species (see Summary of Biological Status and 
Threats--Beneficial factors). The increased effort to conserve 
pollinators may have an incidental positive impact on the rusty patched 
bumble bee. However, we are not aware of specific conservation measures 
for bumble bees at any of the current rusty patched bumble bee 
locations in the United States. Although general pollinator 
conservation efforts can provide some benefits to the rusty patched 
bumble bee, bumble bees like this species have unique life-history 
characteristics and biological requirements that are not addressed by 
these general efforts. Because the rusty patched bumble bee has 
experienced such severe population declines throughout its range, there 
is a need to develop and implement regionally appropriate, bumble bee-
specific recommendations to aid in recovery of the species.
    (59) Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concern about the 
decline of pollinators and the need to prevent extinction of the rusty 
patched bumble bee to protect biodiversity and address pollinator 
declines. These commenters cited the value of bumble bees as important 
pollinators of wildflowers (and other wild plants) and as the chief 
pollinator of many economically important crops. Another commenter 
stated that, although they agreed that the rusty patched bumble bee is 
an important pollinator, there are still numerous other species, wind, 
and other methods that act as pollinators.
    Our Response: Although these comments do not directly address 
information pertaining to the listing determination of the rusty 
patched bumble bee, we want to acknowledge their validity and 
importance. In the United States and globally, native bees are 
responsible for most pollination of plants that require insect 
pollination to produce fruits, seeds, and nuts. As such, they not only 
pollinate economically important crops, but provide the foundation of 
functioning ecosystems; pollination is required for plant reproduction, 
and plants are the base of the food chain. The plight of the rusty 
patched bumble bee is not an isolated occurrence, but a symptom of 
widespread decline of many insect pollinators. Measures to identify and 
address threats and prevent the extinction of the rusty patched bumble 
bee will help conserve other native pollinators. It is important to 
recognize that the rusty patched bumble bee occurs in very few 
locations. Measures to identify and address threats to pollinators is 
needed beyond the current

[[Page 3203]]

occurrences of the rusty patched bumble bee--they are needed throughout 
the United States. It is true that there are other forms of pollination 
as mentioned (e.g., wind, other insect species, birds, and mammals). 
However, the Act requires us to determine whether listing is warranted 
based on whether a species meets the definitions of an endangered or 
threatened species because of any of the section 4(a)(1) factors, not 
on the basis of whether it fulfills a unique ecosystem function.
    (60) Comment: Several commenters noted how the rusty patched bumble 
bee would benefit from listing under the Act. Those commenters noted 
such benefits as the following: (1) Protecting remaining populations 
from site-specific threats, (2) the bees' habitat will benefit from 
critical habitat designation, (3) developing a recovery plan, (4) 
Federal agencies will need to address threats to the species, (5) 
increased research into the causes of decline, (6) increased economic 
benefits to U.S. farmers who benefit from the ecosystem service of crop 
pollination by wild bees.
    Our Response: As these commenters stated, there are many potential 
benefits to a species in being listed under the Act. For additional 
information, please refer to the Available Conservation Measures 
section of the preamble to this final rule.
    (61) Comment: Several commenters requested that the Service act 
quickly in providing protection to the rusty patched bumble bee and 
asked if there is a way to expedite the listing process. Some of those 
commenters expressed concern that the Service might have not acted fast 
enough in protecting the rusty patched bumble bee, and that the ability 
to prevent the species' extinction may already be diminished. Other 
commenters, particularly those representing industry, requested that 
the Service extend the final listing decision deadline by 6 months or 
withdraw the proposed rule to provide additional time needed to 
evaluate the rusty patched bumble bee appropriately; consider new 
information and data provided in comments; collect and evaluate 
additional data; and consider results of ongoing studies that are 
anticipated to be completed in 2017.
    Our Response: Given the precipitous decline and the few populations 
that remain, we are hopeful that, by affording the species protection 
now and working expeditiously with all partners, the rusty patched 
bumble bee will be saved from extinction. See our response to comment 
15 for information about our use of the best available science.
    We do not find substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency 
or accuracy of the available scientific data relevant to this 
determination. Therefore, we are not extending the period for making a 
final determination for the purposes of soliciting additional data. 
However, we agree that results from ongoing studies would further our 
understanding and help us with recovery planning and implementation. We 
will consider further research needs in our recovery planning efforts.
    (62) Comment: Several commenters agreed that critical habitat is 
not determinable at this time, contending that there is insufficient 
scientific understanding of the rusty patched bumble bee's biology, 
current occurrences and threats to allow the Service to identify the 
requisite physical and biological features necessary to designate 
critical habitat. Some commenters expressed concern that designating 
critical habitat may impact agriculture or other industries. Others 
commented that, if critical habitat is ultimately designated, only 
occupied habitat should be included. A comment from bumble bee experts 
provided information on physical and biological features and habitat 
types (including information on forage; nesting sites; overwintering 
sites; habitats that are protected from pesticides and disease) to 
consider when designating critical habitat.
    Our Response: We will consider this information when we designate 
critical habitat for this species.
    (63) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service should 
acknowledge the benefits to the rusty patched bumble bee and other 
pollinators from habitat management.
    Response: We agree that compatible habitat management is beneficial 
for rusty patched bumble bee conservation. Indeed, we will be working 
with conservation partners to implement good management practices for 
bumble bees as we work towards preventing the extinction, and working 
toward recovery, of this species.
    (64) Comment: Some utility groups commented that specific 
activities should be excluded from activities that may result in 
``take.'' The activities specifically requested to be excluded as 
``take'' were the use of herbicides to maintain electronic transmission 
rights-of-way when applied in accordance with label requirements and 
seasonal recommendations, and utility infrastructure construction or 
rights-of-way maintenance practices. The commenters provided reasons 
why such activities would not lead to ``take.'' The commenters also 
sought acknowledgement that herbicide use to maintain utility rights-
of-way is likely to benefit, rather than harm, pollinator insect 
species, including the rusty patched bumble bee.
    Our Response: It is the policy of the Service to identify, to the 
extent known at the time a species is listed, specific activities that 
are unlikely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To the 
extent possible, we also strive to identify the activities that are 
likely to result in violation. Activities that may lead to take, even 
those having a net benefit, cannot be authorized without a section 10 
permit or section 7 exemption. For certain activities, the Service will 
assist the public in determining whether they would constitute a 
prohibited act under section 9 of the Act.
    We acknowledge that proper herbicide use can reduce invasive or 
unwanted plant species from rusty patched bumble bee habitat, but label 
restrictions alone may not be protective of the rusty patched bumble 
bee. For example, one common herbicide label allows a mixture with 
imidacloprid, which has documented sublethal and lethal effects to 
bees. It is unclear which populations could be affected by these 
activities, what the effects might be, and how the effects might be 
minimized. The Service can provide technical assistance to help 
determine whether the rusty patched bumble bee may be present in a 
project area. If noxious weed control is needed where the rusty patched 
bumble bee is likely to be present, for example, the Service will work 
with landowners or land managers to identify techniques that avoid 
take. As we work to conserve the rusty patched bumble bee, we will 
provide landowners and land managers with information to assist with 
understanding what activities are likely to cause take of the species 
and what actions may be implemented to conserve the species.
    (65) Comment: A few commenters requested that the Service clarify 
what constitutes ``unauthorized use'' of biological control agents in 
the following statement, ``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 is listed in the proposed rule as an activity that may result in 
a violation of section 9 of the Act.'' Specifically, they request 
clarification as to whether this includes using or releasing registered 
pesticides in a manner consistent with its EPA-approved labeling 
instructions.

[[Page 3204]]

    Our Response: We use the word ``unauthorized'' here to mean those 
activities that have not been permitted or exempted from the section 9 
prohibitions due to their appropriate and full consideration under 
section 10 or section 7 of the Act.
    (66) Comment: Several commenters noted that pathogens discussed in 
the proposal are also commonly found in honey bees and commercial 
bumble bees, and thus honey bees and commercial bumble bees could be 
seen as an unauthorized release of nonnative species under section 9 of 
the Act. The commenters expressed concern that restricted use of 
commercial bees would harm that industry.
    Our Response: Our response to comment 65 clarifies the term 
``unauthorized'' as used in this final listing rule. We recognize that 
honey bee and bumble bee species naturally carry high pathogen loads 
and that under normal circumstances this characteristic will not affect 
their fitness. In the case of any pathogen that is found to adversely 
affect listed species, we need to investigate the source of the 
pathogen and undertake actions to ameliorate its negative effects. If 
commercial bumble bees, or wild bees, are found to transmit pathogens 
that cause take of rusty patched bumble bees, the Service will work 
with the industry to identify and implement conservation measures that 
will support the survival or recovery of the species while being 
practicable from the industry's perspective. We emphasize, however, 
that under the Act, our concern is the continued existence of this 
endangered species.
    (67) Comment: The unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill 
material into any wetlands in which the rusty patched bumble bee is 
known to occur is listed in the proposed rule as an activity that may 
result in a violation of section 9 of the Act. A few commenters 
mentioned that they assume the reference to ``fill material'' in this 
phrase is a reference to the term as used in the Clean Water Act (CWA), 
which broadly includes soil, plants, and other biological material. 
They stated that, given this broad scope, it is unclear how ``fill 
material'' poses a risk to the rusty patched bumble bee.
    Our Response: The commenter is correct that the reference to ``fill 
material'' is a reference to the term as used in the CWA. The 
unauthorized discharge of fill material in wetland areas utilized by 
the rusty patched bumble bee may result in habitat loss or destruction, 
for example through the loss of floral resources, which could lead to 
death or harm of rusty patched bumble bees.
    (68) Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns that listing 
the rusty patched bumble bee may affect private property rights and 
restrict land use. For example, one commenter was concerned that 
listing would inhibit the use of Federal crop insurance, because 
recipients must allow government access to private land for bumble bee 
habitat restoration efforts. Others suggested that landowners who 
enhance their lands could become susceptible to restrictions or 
lawsuits from private special interest groups.
    Our Response: Programs are available to private landowners for 
managing habitat for listed species, and permits can be obtained to 
protect private landowners from the take prohibition when such taking 
is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise 
lawful activity. In addition, presence of a listed species does not 
authorize government access to private lands. Private landowners may 
contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ecological Services Field Office in 
their State to obtain information about these programs and permits.
    (69) Comment: One commenter contends that consultations on actions 
affecting critical habitat cause delay and extra expenses to proposed 
projects. The commenter believes there is also a risk that landowners 
may unintentionally violate the regulations.
    Our Response: The Service has determined that critical habitat is 
not determinable at this time. Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 
agencies to use their legal authorities to promote the conservation 
purposes of the Act and to consult with the Service to ensure that 
effects of actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. This added 
requirement may result in a delay in the project, but we will work as 
expeditiously as possible to complete the required section 7 
consultation process in a timely manner. Furthermore, coordination with 
the Service early in the project development can help expedite the 
project and minimize the likelihood of delays.
    (70) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that listing 
this species may hinder research and conservation efforts for the rusty 
patched bumble bee rather than protect it and may hamper conservation 
of other native pollinators overall.
    Our Response: Research that is conducted for the purpose of 
recovering a species is an activity that can be authorized under 
section 10 of the Act, normally referred to as a recovery permit, or 
can be conducted by certain State conservation agencies by virtue of 
their authority under section 6 of the Act. We will continue to support 
research important for recovery of the rusty patched bumble bee. 
Similarly, management efforts that support the species but may result 
in some level of take can be authorized through use of incidental take 
statements or permits. It is not the intent of the Service to hamper 
conservation of other natural resources through its efforts to recover 
listed species, and we strive to prevent undue impediments.
    (71) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that listing the 
rusty patched bumble bee could restrict vital uses of pesticides that 
promote public health and safety, protect our nation's infrastructure, 
and create healthy homes and greenspaces.
    Our Response: Although we are required to base listing 
determinations solely on the best available scientific and commercial 
data, we will continue to work with organizations and agencies in 
reviewing the effects of specific pesticides on bumble bees during 
recovery planning and in section 7 consultations for this species. In 
so doing, we will work closely with involved parties to craft effective 
recovery strategies that benefit the species without incurring 
unnecessary restrictions or risking public health and safety.

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

[[Page 3205]]

formerly contiguous native habitat. Habitat loss and degradation have 
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 have 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 (as measured by the number of counties occupied) 
has been reduced by 87 percent, and its current distribution is limited 
to just one to a few populations in each of 12 States and Ontario, with 
an 88-percent decrease in the number of populations known historically. 
Of the 103 known current populations, 96 percent have been documented 
by 5 or fewer individual bees; only 1 population has had more than 30 
individuals observed in any given year. 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. 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 87 percent of its range, and 
these threats are likely to continue or increase in severity. Although 
the relative contributions of pesticides, pathogens, loss of floral 
resources, and other threats to the species' past and continued decline 
are 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. 
Regardless of the sources of the decline, the last 16 years of 
population data are not indicative of healthy colonies or healthy 
populations. Thus, the species is vulnerable to extinction even without 
further external stressors acting upon the populations.
    Existing regulatory mechanisms vary across the species' range. The 
rusty patched bumble bee is listed as State endangered in Vermont 
(which prohibits taking, possessing, or transporting) and as special 
concern (no legal protection) in Connecticut, Michigan, and Wisconsin, 
and is protected under Canada's Species at Risk Act. Although these and 
other regulatory mechanisms exist, they do not currently ameliorate 
threats to the rusty patched bumble bee, as evidenced by the species' 
rapid, ongoing decline.
    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.
    Further adding to the species' imperilment, its reproductive 
strategy (haplodiploidy) renders it particularly sensitive to loss of 
genetic diversity, which is further exacerbated by decreasing 
population size (for example, diploid male vortex). The persisting 
colonies are few in number and continue 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' spatial extent 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 the number of remaining populations is small, most of those 
populations are extremely small in size (all but 2 have 10 or fewer 
individuals), and the species' range is severely reduced. Therefore, on 
the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, 
we are 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 
presently lacks the ability to withstand physical and biological 
changes in the environment; (2) based on the prediction that all but 
one ecoregion will be extinct within 5 years, the species presently has 
a high probability of extinction; and (3) even if the current stressors 
were to be reduced or eliminated, the species would still be 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 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

[[Page 3206]]

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 that 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 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.

[[Page 3207]]

    Delineation of critical habitat requires identification of the 
physical or biological features, within the geographical area occupied 
by the species, essential to the species' conservation. In considering 
whether features are essential to the conservation of the species, the 
Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and 
temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the 
life-history needs, condition, and status of the species. These 
characteristics include but are not limited to space for individual and 
population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, 
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or 
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance. 
Information regarding the rusty patched bumble bee life-history needs 
is complex, and complete data are lacking for most of them. For 
example, little is known about the overwintering habitats of foundress 
queens; however, information is currently being collected that may 
provide important knowledge on this topic. Consequently, a careful 
assessment of the biological information is still ongoing, and we are 
still in the process of acquiring the information needed to perform 
that assessment. The information sufficient to perform a required 
analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking, and therefore, 
we find designation of critical habitat 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 (http://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. 
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 
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 are 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: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery 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)(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 
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include management 
and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands, for 
example, lands administered 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

[[Page 3208]]

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

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 (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 http://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 final 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.

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

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 follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Common name                       Scientific name                  Where listed           Status    Listing citations and applicable rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         INSECTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bumble bee, rusty patched.............  Bombus affinis................  Wherever found...............        E   82 FR [insert Federal Register page
                                                                                                                  where the document begins], 1/11/2017.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: December 27, 2016.
Teresa R. Christopher,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-00195 Filed 1-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P