[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