Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93245 

4See ‘‘West Virginia; Finding of Failure To 

Submit State Implementation Plan Revision in 

Response to the 2015 Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction,’’ 88 FR 23353 

(April 17, 2023). 

5See 87 FR 1680, 1682. 

6See 88 FR 88 FR 23353, 23354–23355. 

reasons.4 In total, the 13 States and/or 

local air agencies that were issued an 

FFS can be found in Table 1 of Section 

II of the direct final action. 

The EPA is taking direct final action 

with parallel proposal because we view 

the partial FFS withdrawals as 

administrative, noncontroversial, and 

anticipate no significant adverse 

comments. The EPA has identified the 

State and/or local air agency SIP 

provisions for which the partial FFS 

withdrawals are applicable to and 

explained our reasons for the 

withdrawal in the direct final action. At 

the same time, the EPA is proposing to 

make the same partial withdrawals. If 

no significant adverse comments are 

received on this proposed action, no 

further action will be taken on this 

proposal, and the direct final action will 

become effective as provided in that 

action. For further supplementary 

information and the rationale and 

consequences of this proposal, see the 

direct final action published in the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

issue of the Federal Register. 

III. Consequences of Withdrawn 

Portions of Findings of Failure To 

Submit and Remaining Air Agency 

Obligations 

As further discussed in the direct 

final action, because certain SIP calls 

were vacated by the D.C. Circuit, the 

States and/or local air agencies with 

provisions to which those SIP calls 

previously applied no longer have an 

obligation to submit the revisions that 

the EPA had originally determined 

pursuant to the 2015 SSM SIP Call. As 

there is no longer a predicate 

submission obligation for those 

particular SIP-called provisions, the 

EPA’s findings that such obligation were 

not met are no longer valid and must be 

withdrawn. The SIP provisions for 

which the EPA is proposing to 

withdraw the Agency’s FFS can be 

found in Table 3 of Section III of the 

direct final action. 

For those State and/or local 

jurisdiction SIP provisions listed in 

Table 3 of Section III of the direct final 

action for which the FFS are withdrawn, 

the CAA deadlines for the EPA to 

impose sanctions under CAA sections 

179(a) and (b) and promulgate a FIP 

under CAA section 110(c) are no longer 

applicable. For those State and/or local 

jurisdiction SIP provisions in which the 

FFS are not withdrawn and are still 

applicable, the CAA deadlines for the 

EPA to impose sanctions under CAA 

sections 179(a) and (b) and promulgate 

a FIP under section 110(c) remain in 

effect as previously established.5 6 The 

States and/or local air agencies for 

which the FFS are not withdrawn and 

mandatory CAA deadlines remain in 

effect can be found in Table 4 Section 

IV of the direct final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.) can 

be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

For a complete discussion of the 

administrative requirements applicable 

to this action, see the direct final action 

published in the Rules and Regulations 

section of this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Approval and 

promulgation of implementation plans, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Joseph Goffman, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27262 Filed 11–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2024–0132; 

FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] 

RIN 1018–BH72 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Rusty Patched Bumble 

Bee 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

designate critical habitat for the rusty 

patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis), a 

bumble bee historically known to occur 

broadly across the eastern United States 

and portions of Canada, under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). In total, we are 

proposing the designation of 

approximately 1,635,746 acres (661,963 

hectares) of occupied critical habitat in 

14 units across 33 counties in 6 States. 

We also announce the availability of an 

economic analysis of the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

rusty patched bumble bee. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

January 27, 2025. We must receive 

requests for a public hearing, in writing, 

at the address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by January 10, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may 

submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. In the 

Search box, enter FWS–R3–ES–2024– 

0132, which is the docket number for 

this rulemaking. Then, click on the 

Search button. On the resulting page, in 

the panel on the left side of the screen, 

under the Document Type heading, 

check the Proposed Rule box to locate 

this document. You may submit a 

comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

Comments submitted electronically 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

must be received by 11:59 p.m. eastern 

time on the closing date. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R3–ES–2024–0132, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

species status assessment report, are 

available on the Service’s website at 

https://www.fws.gov/species/rustypatched-bumble-bee-bombus-affinis or 

at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R3–ES–2024–0132. If we 

finalize the critical habitat designation, 

we will make the coordinates or plot 

points or both from which the maps are 

generated available athttps://

www.regulations.govat Docket No. 

FWS–R3–ES–2024–0132 and on the 

Service’s website athttps://

www.fws.gov/species/rusty-patchedbumble-bee-bombus-affinis. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93246 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Betsy Galbraith, Acting Field 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Minnesota-Wisconsin 

Ecological Services Field Office, 3815 

American Blvd. East, Bloomington, MN 

55425–1665; telephone 952–858–0793. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2024–0132 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), when 

we determine that any species warrants 

listing as an endangered or threatened 

species, we are required to designate 

critical habitat, to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. Designations 

of critical habitat can be completed only 

by issuing a rule through the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. We 

propose to designate critical habitat for 

the endangered rusty patched bumble 

bee. 

The basis for our action. Section 

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

of the Interior (Secretary), to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, to designate critical 

habitat concurrent with listing. Section 

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

as (i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

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

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific data 

available and be as accurate and as 

effective as possible. Therefore, we 

request comments or information from 

other governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

rusty patched bumble bee habitat; 

(b) Any additional areas occurring 

within the range of the species that 

should be included in the designation 

because they (i) are occupied at the time 

of listing and contain the physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection, or (ii) are 

unoccupied at the time of listing and are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species; and 

(c) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed in the critical habitat areas we 

are proposing, including managing for 

the potential effects of climate change. 

(2) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(3) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation, and 

the related benefits of including or 

excluding specific areas. 

(4) Information on the extent to which 

the description of probable economic 

impacts in the economic analysis is a 

reasonable estimate of the likely 

economic impacts and any additional 

information regarding probable 

economic impacts that we should 

consider. 

(5) Whether any specific areas we are 

proposing for critical habitat 

designation should be considered for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, and whether the benefits of 

potentially excluding any specific area 

outweigh the benefits of including that 

area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If 

you think we should exclude any areas, 

please provide information supporting a 

benefit of exclusion. 

(6) Information on areas owned by the 

Department of Defense that overlap with 

the proposed designation. 

(7) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific 

information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a designation. Section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act directs that the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Our final designation may differ from 

this proposal because we will consider 

all comments we receive during the 

comment period as well as any 

information that may become available 

after this proposal. Our final designation 

may not include all areas proposed, may 

include some additional areas that meet 

the definition of critical habitat, or may 

exclude some areas if we find the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion will 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. In our final rule, we will clearly 

explain our rationale and the basis for 

our final decision, including why we 

made changes, if any, that differ from 

this proposal. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93247 

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. We 

may hold the public hearing in person 

or virtually via webinar. We will 

announce any public hearing on our 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

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. 

On January 11, 2017, we published in 

the Federal Register (82 FR 3186) a final 

rule listing the rusty patched bumble 

bee as an endangered species. The rule 

became effective on March 21, 2017 (see 

82 FR 10285, February 10, 2017). On 

September 1, 2020, we published a 

determination in the Federal Register 

(85 FR 54281) that designating critical 

habitat for the rusty patched bumble bee 

was not prudent. 

On March 24, 2021, the Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Center for 

Biological Diversity, and Friends of 

Minnesota Scientific and Natural Areas 

filed a complaint challenging the 

Service’s critical habitat prudency 

determination for the rusty patched 

bumble bee. On August 11, 2023, a court 

order vacated and remanded the 

Service’s prudency determination. On 

February 8, 2024, the Service and 

plaintiffs reached a stipulated 

settlement agreement whereby the 

Service agreed to submit to the Federal 

Register either a proposed critical 

habitat rule or a determination that 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species is not prudent no later than 

November 20, 2024. This document 

addresses the court’s opinion in 

compliance with the February 8, 2024, 

stipulated settlement agreement. 

Peer Review 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

rusty patched bumble bee. The SSA 

team was composed of Service 

biologists, in consultation with other 

species experts. The SSA report 

represents a compilation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the species, 

including the impacts of past, present, 

and future factors (both negative and 

beneficial) affecting the species. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

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

we solicited independent scientific 

review of the information contained in 

the rusty patched bumble bee SSA 

report. The SSA report underwent 

review by 15 scientists with expertise in 

bumble bee biology, habitat 

management, and stressors (factors 

negatively affecting the species). Results 

of this structured peer review process 

can be found in the docket for this 

proposed rule on https://www.

regulations.gov. We incorporated the 

results of these reviews, as appropriate, 

into the SSA report (Service 2016, 

entire). Additionally, we will solicit 

peer review for this proposed critical 

habitat designation during this public 

comment period. These comments will 

be available along with other public 

comments in the docket for this 

proposed rule on https://www.

regulations.gov. 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define 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 (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that each Federal action 

agency 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 designated critical 

habitat. The designation of critical 

habitat does not affect land ownership 

or establish a refuge, wilderness, 

reserve, preserve, or other conservation 

area. Such designation also does not 

allow the government or public to 

access private lands. Such designation 

does not require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures by non-Federal landowners. 

Rather, designation requires that, where 

a landowner requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization for an action 

that may affect an area designated as 

critical habitat, the Federal agency 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may 

affect the listed species itself (such as 

for occupied critical habitat), the 

Federal agency would have already been 

required to consult with the Service 

even absent the designation because of 

the requirement to ensure that the 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the listed 

species. Even if the Service were to 

conclude after consultation that the 

proposed activity is likely to result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat, the Federal action 

agency and the landowner are not 

required to abandon the proposed 

activity, or to restore or recover the 

species; instead, they must implement 

‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ 

to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, those physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species (such as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93248 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

space, food, cover, and protected 

habitat). 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4(b)(2) 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. 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. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information compiled in 

the SSA report and information 

developed during the listing process for 

the species. Additional information 

sources may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of the species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best scientific 

data available at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future revised recovery 

plans, habitat conservation plans 

(HCPs), or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available at the time of those planning 

efforts calls for a different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

Essential to the Conservation of the 

Species 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, 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. For 

example, physical features essential to 

the conservation of the species might 

include gravel of a particular size 

required for spawning, alkaline soil for 

seed germination, protective cover for 

migration, or susceptibility to flooding 

or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics. 

Biological features might include prey 

species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 

ages of trees for roosting or nesting, 

symbiotic fungi, or absence of a 

particular level of nonnative species 

consistent with conservation needs of 

the listed species. The features may also 

be combinations of habitat 

characteristics and may encompass the 

relationship between characteristics or 

the necessary amount of a characteristic 

essential to support the life history of 

the species. 

In considering whether features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, we may consider an appropriate 

quality, quantity, and spatial and 

temporal arrangement of habitat 

characteristics in the context of the lifehistory 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. 

Species Needs 

Overwintering 

Little is known about the 

overwintering habitats of rusty patched 

bumble bee queens, but based primarily 

on observations of other species, we 

assume that rusty patched bumble bee 

queens overwinter in upland closedcanopy forest interior. Forest interiors 

are large blocks of unfragmented forest 

with continuous canopy that shows no 

detectable edge influences (Harper et al. 

2005, p. 771). Most overwintering 

Bombus queens reported in the 

literature in North America were 

underground, and most were in shaded 

areas near trees and in banks without 

dense vegetation (Liczner and Colla 

2019, p. 787). The only documented 

overwintering rusty patched bumble bee 

queen, discovered in a hemlock grove 

within a larger maple oak-forest (about 

0.3 mile (mi) (0.5 kilometer (km)) into 

the forest) in Wisconsin in 2016, was 

found on a level area near the bottom of 

a north-facing slope under a few 

centimeters of leaf litter and loose soil 

(B. Herrick, University of WisconsinMadison Landscape Arboretum, 2016 

and 2024, pers. comm.). Other species of 

the Bombus genus typically form a 

chamber in loose, soft soil, a few 

centimeters deep in bare earth, in moss, 

under tree litter, or in bare patches 

within short grass, and they may avoid 

areas with dense vegetation (Alford 

1969, p. 156; Liczner and Colla 2019, p. 

792). Overwintering habitat preferences 

may be species-specific and dependent 

on factors such as slope orientation and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93249 

timing of emergence. Most queens in 

England were found in well-drained soil 

that was shaded from direct sunlight in 

banks or under trees and was free from 

living ground vegetation (Alford 1969, 

pp. 150–152). For underground sites, 

soil type is often described as sandy and 

well-drained (Alford 1969, p. 169), 

which suggests that maintaining a 

consistently low moisture level is 

important (Sladen 1912, pp. 94–101). 

Because soil temperature influences 

diapause duration and emergence 

(Alford 1969, pp. 161–168; Beekman et 

al. 1998, p. 207), it has been 

hypothesized that the apparent 

preference for north-facing slopes and 

shaded areas is to prevent the 

overwintering queens from emerging too 

early on relatively warm days in the 

winter or early spring (Alford 1969, pp. 

149–169), and more generally, it could 

suggest selection of sites that buffer 

hibernating bees from both temperature 

and moisture fluctuations (Williams et 

al. 2019, pp. 1–3). 

Nesting 

Rusty patched bumble bee nests are 

typically 1 to 4 feet underground in 

abandoned rodent nests, other mammal 

burrows, or other underground cavities 

with ample cover, and occasionally at 

the soil surface or in aboveground 

structures (Plath 1922 pp. 190–191, 

Macfarlane 1974, p. 5; Macfarlane 1994, 

pp. 5–6). Among the 43 rusty patched 

bumble bee nests studied in Ontario, 95 

percent were underground (Macfarlane 

1974, p. 5). Most recent rusty patched 

bumble bee nest observations were 

associated with rodent burrows (Boone 

et al. 2022, p. 381; Smith et al. in 

review), as were recently discovered 

nests of a closely related species, the 

western bumble bee (B. occidentalis) 

(Everett et al. in process, entire), which 

is in the same subgenus as rusty patched 

bumble bee. Three western bumble bee 

nests excavated in 2022 and 2023 in 

central Oregon were located in 

abandoned rodent burrows with soils 

classified as loamy sand, with an 

average of 84 percent sand particles 

(Everett et al. in process, entire). The 

transition zone between forest and 

grassland, as well as field boundaries, 

meadow margins, and forest edges, can 

be particularly valuable bumble bee 

nesting habitat due to the presence of 

abandoned rodent nests and 

undisturbed habitat with diverse floral 

resources (Hines and Hendrix 2005, p. 

1483). Forest edge is the interface 

between forested and non-forested 

habitats that extends approximately 30 

meters into the forest (Harper et al. 

2005, pp. 771, 774). 

Foraging 

Bumble bees are generalist foragers 

that collect nectar and pollen from a 

wide diversity of plants (Xerces 2013, 

pp. 27–28). The rusty patched bumble 

bee is one of the first bumble bee 

species to emerge early in the spring 

and last to go into hibernation in the 

fall. To meet its nutritional needs, the 

species requires a constant and diverse 

supply of flowers that bloom throughout 

the colony’s flight period from spring 

through the fall (MacFarlane et al. 1994, 

p. 5). The nectar from flowers provides 

carbohydrates and the pollen provides 

protein, fatty acids, and micronutrients 

for the species (Di Pasquale et al. 2013, 

p. 4; Lau et al. 2022, pp. 6–8). The 

number of new queens that a colony can 

produce is directly related to the 

amount of pollen that is available 

(Burns 2004, p. 150). 

Based on other Bombus species, 

which typically exhibit foraging 

distances of less than 0.6 mi (1 km) from 

their nesting sites (Knight et al. 2005, p. 

1816; Wolf and Moritz 2008, p. 422; 

Dramstad 1996, pp. 163–182; Osborne et 

al. 1999, pp. 524–526; Rao and Strange 

2012, pp. 909–911), the rusty patched 

bumble bee may need floral resources in 

close proximity to its nest, although 

studies have not confirmed this to date. 

The rusty patched bumble bee may also 

be dependent on forest spring 

ephemeral flowers because of the 

species’ early emergence in the spring 

and its association with forests and near 

forested habitats (Colla and Dumesh 

2010, pp. 45–46, 48). 

Readily available access to highquality foraging habitats near nests 

allows other bumble bee species’ 

workers to maintain short foraging 

distances (Crowther et al. 2019, p. 994). 

Detection probabilities of all bumble bee 

species, including rusty patched bumble 

bees, studied in Wisconsin by Nunes et 

al. (2024, p. 221), increased with floral 

abundance. Furthermore, colonies with 

low floral abundance around their nests 

may produce few workers, and males 

may fail to produce any new queens 

(Pelletier and McNeil 2003, pp. 691– 

692; Burns 2004, pp. 149, 155–156; 

Samuelson et al. 2018, pp. 57; 

Timberlake et al. 2021, p. 1013). 

Workers of other bumble bee species 

can forage 0.6 mi (1 km) or more from 

nests but may predominantly forage 

within a few hundred meters (Dramstad 

1996, pp. 170–175; Osborne et al. 1999, 

pp. 524–526, 529; Wolf and Moritz 

2008, p. 422; Rao and Strange 2012, p. 

911). A paucity of spring floral 

resources contributed to high pathogen 

loads in one bumble bee species studied 

in Pennsylvania and may exacerbate the 

threat posed by disease transmission 

from honeybee apiaries (McNeil et al. 

2020, p. 3). 

The availability of floral resources is 

dependent on the proper soil and 

precipitation conditions to sustain 

them. Extended periods of drought, for 

instance, may lessen the availability and 

diversity of flowering plants in a given 

area because plant phenology is 

primarily driven by temperature, 

precipitation, and the timing of 

snowmelt in the spring (Inouye and 

Wielgolaski 2003, p. 207; Wielgolaski 

and Inouye 2003, pp. 179–181; Pyke et 

al. 2016, p. 12). 

Dispersal Habitat 

Based on studies of a closely related 

species, the buff-tailed bumblebee 

(Bombus terrestris) (Kraus et al. 2009, p. 

249; Lepais et al. 2010, pp. 826–827; Jha 

and Kremen 2013, p. 2492), the 

maximum dispersal distance of rusty 

patched bumble bee males and new 

queens is estimated to be up to 10 km 

to find mates in the autumn. 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the rusty patched 

bumble bee from studies of the species’ 

habitat, ecology, and life history as 

described above. Additional information 

can be found in the SSA report (Service 

2016, entire; available on https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R3–ES–2015–0112–0245). We 

have determined that the following 

physical or biological features are 

essential to the conservation of the rusty 

patched bumble bee: 

(1) For overwintering, upland forest 

interior habitat containing leaf litter and 

without dense understory vegetation. 

(2) For nesting, upland forest edge 

interface between forested and nonforested natural habitats that extends 

approximately 30 meters into the forest. 

(3) For nesting, abandoned rodent 

burrows, other mammal burrows, 

existing cavities with ample cover, or 

similar existing cavities at the soil 

surface or below to 4 feet underground. 

(4) For nesting and overwintering, 

well-drained, loose soils sheltered from 

the elements. 

(5) For foraging, diverse, abundant, 

native floral resources for the entire 

active flight season. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93250 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

features essential to the conservation of 

this species may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to reduce stressors that are 

anticipated to degrade the physical or 

biological features, including, but not 

limited to, ground disturbance or 

compaction activities (e.g., road and rail 

construction), habitat management (e.g., 

prescribed burns, herbicide use), 

forestry activities (e.g., timber harvest), 

actions that cause an increase in the 

extent or duration of surface flooding or 

soil saturation (e.g., water 

impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), 

actions that increase competition for 

floral resources (e.g., use of managed 

bees), and pesticide applications (e.g., 

rodenticides that may reduce rodents 

and therefore potential nesting areas). 

Sources of these stressors include, but 

are not limited to, agricultural, 

municipal, and residential land uses. 

The physical or biological features for 

the rusty patched bumble bee may 

require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

these threats. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include, but are 

not limited to: management techniques 

to enhance floral resources or reduce 

invasive plants or both, such as planting 

or seeding to increase the abundance 

and diversity of native wildflowers, 

removing and controlling invasive 

plants, using prescribed fire, and 

mowing; reduced or ceased use of 

rodenticides; use of best management 

practices for managed bees to reduce or 

eliminate competition for resources; and 

use of forestry best management 

practices to enhance early spring 

foraging resources (e.g., spring 

ephemerals, native flowering trees) and 

to reduce ground disturbance in forested 

areas during the overwintering season. 

These management activities would 

protect the physical or biological 

features for the species by maintaining 

and increasing nectar and pollen 

resources, maintaining or increasing the 

availability of suitable nesting habitat 

and potential nesting sites (e.g., rodent 

burrows), and maintaining or increasing 

the availability of suitable overwintering 

habitat for the species. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. In general, habitat is 

not limiting for the rusty patched 

bumble bees. However, there are no 

areas outside the areas identified as 

proposed critical habitat that would 

facilitate the recovery of the species. We 

are not currently proposing to designate 

any areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species because we 

have not identified any unoccupied 

areas that meet the Act’s definition of 

critical habitat. There are no 

unoccupied areas that are essential for 

the conservation of the rusty patched 

bumble bee. We identified no 

unoccupied areas that are free from 

potential interactions with managed 

bees or large-scale agricultural lands. 

There are many unoccupied areas that 

may contain suitable habitat for the 

rusty patched bumble bee; however, we 

did not identify any specific 

unoccupied areas that are essential for 

the conservation of the species. Areas 

that contain unoccupied suitable habitat 

can be considered in our recovery 

efforts with or without a critical habitat 

designation. 

Sources of data for the rusty patched 

bumble bee and its habitat needs 

include research published in peerreviewed articles on the species and 

related species, agency reports, 

communication with species experts, 

the 2021 rusty patched bumble bee 

recovery plan (Service 2021, entire), 

data submitted from 10(a)(1)(A) 

scientific recovery permit holders and 

public participation websites (e.g., 

https://www.inaturalist.org/), and the 

Service’s published ‘‘High Potential 

Zones’’ and potential dispersal area data 

for rusty patched bumble bee (available 

from ArcGIS online at https://www.arc

gis.com/home/item.html?id=15b68d967

aab4737981d172e8e25f78f, accessed 

June 9, 2024). 

After identifying areas that contain 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, we then identified overlapping 

areas that likely have multiple colonies 

interacting with each other. A minimum 

of 50 verified rusty patched bumble bee 

observations since 2007 within 

estimated foraging and dispersal 

distances of one another likely 

represents multiple, interacting colonies 

existing over time, rather than single 

observations of a single individual (most 

observations are of female workers; 

however, some are males or queens). 

Clustered, interacting colonies foster 

gene flow among them, thereby helping 

to facilitate genetic health. Maintaining 

gene flow among colonies is especially 

important in species like the rusty 

patched bumble bee because of genetic 

characteristics that can produce inviable 

or sterile males (that is, single locus 

complementary sex determination), 

which may lead to rapid extirpation, 

especially as colonies become small and 

isolated (Zayed and Packer 2005, p. 

10744; Zayed 2009, entire). 

We used the High Potential Zone 

(HPZ) model developed at the time of 

listing to determine areas with the 

highest potential for the species to be 

present and for which observation 

points were within likely foraging or 

dispersal distances from each other. 

This model uses ArcGIS software that 

considers the likelihood of rusty 

patched bumble bee movement based on 

the National Land Cover Database 

(NLCD, https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ 

eros/science/national-land-coverdatabase). This model assesses the 

likelihood of rusty patched bumble bee 

distribution from the locations of known 

records based on the manner in which 

various land cover types may affect 

bumble bee movement and behavior. 

Land cover types are grouped as having 

strong, moderate, weak, or no limits on 

the species’ movement based on the best 

available information for this species or 

similar bumble bee species. This 

methodology was based on a similar 

model created to examine movement of 

the yellow-faced bumble bee (Bombus 

vosnesenskii) (Jha and Kremen 2013, 

entire). The polygons generated from the 

HPZ model suggest areas with the 

highest potential for the species to be 

present, based on typical bumble bee 

foraging distances, estimated dispersal 

distances, and the ability of bumble bees 

to move through various land cover 

types, but the model does not attempt to 

identify or quantify suitable habitat for 

the species (for more details, see https:// 

www.fws.gov/media/high-potentialzone-model-rusty-patched-bumble-bee). 

After identifying areas that likely have 

multiple interacting colonies and are 

within a contiguous HPZ, we then 

identified areas that are genetically 

distinct. Analyses of rangewide genetic 

data collected from extant records show 

that rusty patched bumble bees in the 

Appalachian region of West Virginia 

and Virginia represent a genetically 

distinct population cluster with 

substantial differentiation from the rest 

of the extant range (Mola et al. 2024, p. 

8). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93251 

Finally, we included areas free from 

the impacts of pesticides and managed 

bees. Prior to its listing as endangered 

in 2017, the species experienced a 

widespread and steep decline. The exact 

cause of the decline is unknown, but 

evidence suggests a synergistic 

interaction between an introduced 

pathogen and exposure to pesticides 

(specifically, insecticides and 

fungicides; Service 2016, p. 53). 

Pathogens can be introduced to rusty 

patched bumble bees through managed 

bees. Generally, the term ‘‘managed 

bees’’ is defined as hives or colonies of 

bees that are used commercially to 

provide pollination services for a wide 

variety of crops over the growing 

season, with some hives or colonies 

moved within and among States 

multiple times throughout any one 

growing season. We, therefore, include 

only areas that are at least 0.6 mi (1 km) 

away from large-scale and intensive 

agricultural areas that rely on pesticides, 

or use a variety of managed bees for 

pollination, or both. This distance is 

used to buffer areas from the potential 

impacts of managed bees and pesticides 

that may be used in large-scale 

agriculture. 

In summary, for areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing, we 

delineated critical habitat unit 

boundaries using the following criteria: 

(1) Areas within a contiguous high 

potential zone (HPZ) with 50 or more 

positive observations since 2007. 

(2) Areas that include any known 

genetically distinct populations. 

(3) Areas that are at least 0.6 mi (1 

km) away from large-scale agriculture 

that use pesticides, managed bees, or 

both. 

This proposed critical habitat 

overlaps a great deal of developed areas, 

such as lands covered by buildings, 

pavement, and other structures. These 

structures are not designated as critical 

habitat themselves because such 

structures lack the physical or biological 

features necessary for the rusty patched 

bumble bee. However, the physical or 

biological features for rusty patched 

bumble are interspersed throughout the 

developed lands at such a scale that 

they cannot be mapped. The scale of the 

maps we prepared under the parameters 

for publication within the Code of 

Federal Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such structures. Any such 

structures left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

proposed rule have been excluded by 

text in the proposed rule and are not 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat 

is finalized as proposed, a Federal 

action involving such structures would 

not trigger section 7 consultation with 

respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the physical or biological features in the 

surrounding critical habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation is defined by the map or 

maps, as modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document under Proposed 

Regulation Promulgation. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing 14 units as critical 

habitat for the rusty patched bumble 

bee. The critical habitat areas we 

describe below constitute our current 

best assessment of areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the rusty 

patched bumble bee. The 14 areas we 

propose as critical habitat are: (1) 

Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan; (2) 

Northfield; (3) Rochester; (4) Winona; 

(5) Denzer; (6) Bunker Hill; (7) Madison; 

(8) Milwaukee; (9) Rockford; (10) 

McHenry; (11) Elgin; (12) Lost Nation; 

(13) Iowa City; and (14) Black Creek 

Mountain. Table 1 shows the proposed 

critical habitat units and the 

approximate area of each unit; all units 

are considered occupied. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE RUSTY PATCHED BUMBLE BEE

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] 

Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type Size of unit in acres 

(hectares) State(s) 

1. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan ........... Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

499,204 (202,021) 

5,741 (2,323) 

59,769 (24,188) 

3,091 (1,251) 

Minnesota. 

Total ........................................................ 567,805 (229,782) 

2. Northfield .................................................. Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

12,056 (4,879) 

0 

501 (203) 

0 

Minnesota. 

Total ........................................................ 12,557 (5,082) 

3. Rochester ................................................. Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

41,819 (16,924) 

0 

1,271 (515) 

0 

Minnesota. 

Total ........................................................ 43,091 (17,438) 

4. Winona ..................................................... Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

29,340 (11,873) 

0 

483 (195) 

0 

Minnesota. 

Total ........................................................ 29,823 (12,069) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93252 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE RUSTY PATCHED BUMBLE BEE—Continued 

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] 

Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type Size of unit in acres 

(hectares) State(s) 

5. Denzer ..................................................... Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

26,471 (10,712) 

0 

538 (218) 

0 

Wisconsin. 

Total ........................................................ 27,009 (10,930) 

6. Bunker Hill ............................................... Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

13,559 (5,487) 

0 

5,126 (2,075) 

0 

Wisconsin. 

Total ........................................................ 18,686 (7,562) 

7. Madison ................................................... Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

195,952 (79,299) 

515 (208) 

14,283 (5,780) 

4 (2) 

Wisconsin. 

Total ........................................................ 210,753 (85,289) 

8. Milwaukee ................................................ Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

232,722 (94,179) 

131 (53) 

20,130 (8,146) 

10 (4) 

Wisconsin. 

Total ........................................................ 252,992 (102,382) 

9. Rockford ................................................... Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

136,826 (55,371) 

0 

13,283 (5,375) 

0 

Illinois. 

Total ........................................................ 150,108 (60,747) 

10. McHenry ................................................. Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

59,158 (23,940) 

2 (1) 

9,135 (3,697) 

0 

Illinois and Wisconsin. 

Total ........................................................ 68,295 (27,638) 

11. Elgin ....................................................... Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

56,318 (22,791) 

0 

18,762 (7,593) 

0 

Illinois. 

Total ........................................................ 75,080 (30,384) 

12. Lost Nation ............................................. Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

14,416 (5,834) 

0 

627 (254) 

0 

Illinois. 

Total ........................................................ 15,043 (6,088) 

13. Iowa City ................................................ Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

30,397 (12,301) 

11,362 (4,598) 

4,144 (1,677) 

0 

Iowa. 

Total ........................................................ 45,902 (18,576) 

14. Black Creek Mountain ........................... Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

11,200 (4,532) 

105,558 (42,718) 

1,845 (747) 

0 

Virginia and West Virginia. 

Total ........................................................ 118,603 (47,997) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93253 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE RUSTY PATCHED BUMBLE BEE—Continued 

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] 

Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type Size of unit in acres 

(hectares) State(s) 

Totals .................................................... Private .........................................................

Federal ........................................................

State/local/school ........................................

Tribal ...........................................................

1,359,437 (550,145) 

123,307 (49,901) 

149,897 (60,661) 

3,105 (1,257) 

Total ........................................................ 1,635,746 (661,963) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the rusty 

patched bumble bee, below. 

Unit 1: Minneapolis-St. Paul 

Metropolitan 

Unit 1 consists of 567,805 ac (229,782 

ha) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul 

metropolitan area of Minnesota in 

Ramsey, Scott, Dakota, Pierce, 

Washington, Carver, Hennepin, and St. 

Croix Counties. The unit is occupied 

and contains all of the essential physical 

or biological features. This unit consists 

of private lands (499,204 ac (202,021 

ha)), local government-owned lands 

(40,596 ac (16,429 ha)), Minnesota State 

lands (11,983 ac (4,849 ha)), university 

or school lands (7,190 ac (2,910 ha)), 

Tribal lands (3,091 ac (1,251 ha)), and 

Federal lands (5,741 ac (2,323 ha)). The 

Federal lands include the National Park 

Service’s Mississippi National River and 

Recreational Area and Lower St. Croix 

National Scenic Riverway, and the 

Service’s Minnesota Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 212 ac 

(86 ha) of privately owned lands are 

managed by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (USDA–NRCS) 

Wetlands Reserve Program. Tribal lands 

include Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community and Shakopee 

Mdewakanton Sioux Community OffReservation Land Trust. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 1 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 2: Northfield 

Unit 2 consists of 12,557 ac (5,082 ha) 

in the Northfield, Minnesota, 

metropolitan area in Dakota and Rice 

Counties. The unit is occupied and 

contains all of the essential physical or 

biological features. This unit consists of 

private lands (12,056 ac (4,879 ha)), 

local government-owned lands (489 ac 

(198 ha)), and Minnesota State lands (12 

ac (5 ha)). There are no Federal or Tribal 

lands identified in this unit. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 2 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 3: Rochester 

Unit 3 consists of 43,091 ac (17,438 

ha) in the Rochester, Minnesota, 

metropolitan area in Olmsted County. 

The unit is occupied and contains all of 

the essential physical or biological 

features. This unit consists of private 

lands (41,819 ac (16,924 ha)), local 

government-owned lands (939 ac (380 

ha)), and Minnesota State lands (332 ac 

(134 ha)). There are no Federal or Tribal 

lands identified in this unit. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 3 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 4: Winona 

Unit 4 consists of 29,823 ac (12,069 

ha) in the Winona, Minnesota, area in 

Winona County. The unit is occupied 

and contains all of the essential physical 

or biological features. This unit consists 

of private lands (29,340 ac (11,873 ha)), 

local government-owned lands (423 ac 

(171 ha)), and Minnesota State lands (60 

ac (24 ha)). There are no Federal or 

Tribal lands identified in this unit. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 4 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93254 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 5: Denzer 

Unit 5 consists of 27,009 ac (10,930 

ha) in Sauk County near Denzer, 

Wisconsin. The unit is occupied and 

contains all of the essential physical or 

biological features. This unit consists of 

private lands (26,471 ac (10,712 ha)), 

including 2,345 ac (949 ha) owned by 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 

and Wisconsin State lands (538 ac (218 

ha)). There are no Federal or Tribal 

lands identified in this unit. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 5 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 6: Bunker Hill 

Unit 6 consists of 18,686 ac (7,562 ha) 

in Iowa County near Bunker Hill, 

Wisconsin. The unit is occupied and 

contains all of the essential physical or 

biological features. This unit consists of 

private lands (13,559 ac (5,487 ha)) and 

Wisconsin State lands (5,126 ac (2,075 

ha)). There are no Federal or Tribal 

lands identified in this unit. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 6 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 7: Madison 

Unit 7 consists of 210,753 ac (85,289 

ha) in Dane and Iowa Counties near 

Madison, Wisconsin. The unit is 

occupied and contains all of the 

essential physical or biological features. 

This unit consists of private lands 

(195,952 ac (79,299 ha)), local 

government-owned lands (8,679 ac 

(3,512 ha)), university or school lands 

(1,086 ac (440 ha)), Wisconsin State 

lands (4,518 ac (1,828 ha)), Tribal lands 

(4 ac (2 ha)), and Federal lands (515 ac 

(208 ha)). The Federal lands include the 

U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Products 

Experimental Laboratory, National Park 

Service’s Ice Age National Scenic Trail, 

and the Service’s Dane County 

Waterfowl Production Area. 

Approximately 304 ac (123 ha) of 

private lands in this unit are managed 

by the USDA-NRCS Wetlands Reserve 

Program, and approximately 53 ac (21 

ha) are managed by the USDA-NRCS 

Emergency Waters Protection Program. 

The Tribal lands are managed by the 

Ho-Chunk Nation. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 7 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 8: Milwaukee 

Unit 8 consists of 252,992 acres 

(102,382 hectares) in the Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin, metropolitan area in 

Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, 

Washington, and Waukesha Counties. 

The unit is occupied and contains all of 

the essential physical or biological 

features. This unit consists of private 

lands (232,722 ac (94,179 ha)), local 

government-owned lands (17,995 ac 

(7,282 ha)), Wisconsin State lands 

(2,121 ac (858 ha)), university or school 

lands (14 ac (6 ha)), Tribal lands (10 ac 

(4 ha)), and Federal lands (131 ac (53 

ha)). The Federal lands in this unit are 

owned by the Bureau of Land 

Management (5 ac (2 ha)) and the 

Department of Defense (126 ac (51 ha)). 

Approximately 66 ac (27 ha) of private 

lands in this unit are managed by the 

USDA-NRCS Wetlands Reserve 

Program. Tribal lands are in the Forest 

County Potawatomi Off-Reservation 

Land Trust. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 8 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 9: Rockford 

Unit 9 consists of 150,108 ac (60,747 

ha) in Boone, Ogle, and Winnebago 

Counties near Rockford, Illinois. The 

unit is occupied and contains all of the 

essential physical or biological features. 

This unit consists of private lands 

(136,826 ac (55,371 ha)), local 

government-owned lands (7,898 ac 

(3,196 ha)), university or school lands 

(2,395 ac (969 ha)), and Illinois State 

lands (2,990 ac (1,210 ha)). There are no 

Federal or Tribal lands identified in this 

unit. Approximately 669 ac (271 ha) of 

private lands in this unit are managed 

by the USDA-NRCS Wetlands Reserve 

Program. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 9 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93255 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 10: McHenry 

Unit 10 consists of 68,295 ac (27,638 

ha) near McHenry, Illinois, in McHenry 

and Lake Counties, Illinois, and 

Kenosha County, Wisconsin. The unit is 

occupied and contains all of the 

essential physical or biological features. 

This unit consists of private lands 

(59,158 ac (23,940 ha)), local 

government-owned lands (1,406 ac (569 

ha)), Illinois State lands (5,445 ac (2,204 

ha)), university or school lands (2,284 ac 

(924 ha)), and Federal lands (2 ac (1 

ha)). The Federal lands are owned by 

the Bureau of Land Management. 

Thirty-nine ac (16 ha) of a conservation 

easement within the Hackmatack 

National Wildlife Refuge, managed by 

the Service, falls within this unit. 

Approximately 412 ac (167 ha) of 

private lands within this unit are 

managed by the USDA–NRCS Wetlands 

Reserve Program. There are no Tribal 

lands identified in this unit. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 10 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 11: Elgin 

Unit 11 consists of 75,080 ac (30,384 

ha) in Cook, Kane, Lake, and McHenry 

Counties near Elgin, Illinois. The unit is 

occupied and contains all of the 

essential physical or biological features. 

This unit consists of private lands 

(56,318 ac (22,791 ha)), local 

government-owned lands (13,710 ac 

(5,548 ha)), university or school lands 

(4,884 ac (1,977 ha)), and Illinois State 

lands (168 ac (68 ha)). There are no 

Federal or Tribal lands identified in this 

unit. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 11 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 12: Lost Nation 

Unit 12 consists of 15,043 ac (6,088 

ha) in Lee and Ogle Counties near Lost 

Nation, Illinois. The unit is occupied 

and contains all of the essential physical 

or biological features. This unit consists 

of private lands (14,416 ac (5,834 ha)), 

including 2,189 ac (886 ha) owned by 

NGOs, and Illinois State lands (627 ac 

(254 ha)). There are no Federal or Tribal 

lands identified in this unit. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 12 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 13: Iowa City 

Unit 13 consists of 45,902 ac (18,576 

ha) in Johnson County near Iowa City, 

Iowa. The unit is occupied and contains 

all of the essential physical or biological 

features. This unit consists of private 

lands (30,397 ac (12,301 ha)), Iowa State 

lands (2,287 ac (926 ha)), local 

government-owned lands (1,857 ac (751 

ha)), and Federal lands (11,362 ac (4,598 

ha)). The Federal lands include the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers’ Coralville 

Lake and Coralville Reservoir. A portion 

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 

land is managed by the State of Illinois 

(1,333 ac (539 ha)) and the University of 

Iowa (421 ac (170 ha)). 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 13 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

agricultural, municipal, and residential 

land uses. 

Unit 14: Black Creek Mountain 

Unit 14 consists of 118,603 ac (47,997 

ha) near Black Creek Mountain in 

Highland and Bath Counties, Virginia, 

and Greenbrier and Pocahontas 

Counties, West Virginia. The unit is 

occupied and contains all of the 

essential physical or biological features. 

This unit consists of private lands 

(11,200 ac (4,532 ha)), Virginia State 

lands (1,845 ac (747 ha)), and Federal 

lands (105,558 ac (42,718 ha)). The 

Federal lands include the Monongahela 

and George Washington–Jefferson 

National Forests. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 14 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that are anticipated to degrade 

the physical or biological features, 

including, but not limited to, ground 

disturbance or compaction activities 

(e.g., road and rail construction), habitat 

management (e.g., prescribed burns, 

herbicide use), forestry activities (e.g., 

timber harvest), actions that cause an 

increase in the extent or duration of 

surface flooding or soil saturation (e.g., 

water impoundments, alteration or 

interruption of existing drainage 

patterns, surface runoff alterations), and 

pesticide applications (e.g., rodenticides 

that may reduce rodents and therefore 

potential nesting areas for the rusty 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93256 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

patched bumble bee). Sources of these 

stressors include, but are not limited to, 

forestry, recreational, municipal, and 

residential land uses. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

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

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action which 

is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. 

Destruction or adverse modification 

means a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of a listed species (50 CFR 

402.02). 

Compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2) is documented through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during formal consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the listed species or avoid the likelihood 

of destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

reinitiate consultation. Reinitiation of 

consultation is required and shall be 

requested by the Federal agency, where 

discretionary Federal involvement or 

control over the action has been 

retained or is authorized by law and: (1) 

if the amount or extent of taking 

specified in the incidental take 

statement is exceeded; (2) if new 

information reveals effects of the action 

that may affect listed species or critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not 

previously considered; (3) if the 

identified action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an 

effect to the listed species or critical 

habitat that was not considered in the 

biological opinion or written 

concurrence; or (4) if a new species is 

listed or critical habitat designated that 

may be affected by the identified action. 

As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, the 

requirement to reinitiate consultations 

for new species listings or critical 

habitat designation does not apply to 

certain agency actions (e.g., land 

management plans issued by the Bureau 

of Land Management in certain 

circumstances). 

Destruction or Adverse Modification of 

Critical Habitat 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat for the conservation of 

the listed species. As discussed above, 

the role of critical habitat is to support 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of a listed 

species and provide for the conservation 

of the species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires that 

our Federal Register documents ‘‘shall, 

to the maximum extent practicable also 

include a brief description and 

evaluation of those activities (whether 

public or private) which, in the opinion 

of the Secretary, if undertaken may 

adversely modify [critical] habitat, or 

may be affected by such designation.’’ 

Activities that may be affected by 

designation of critical habitat for the 

rusty patched bumble bee include those 

that may affect the essential physical or 

biological features of the rusty patched 

bumble bee’s critical habitat (see 

Physical or Biological Features Essential 

to the Conservation of the Species, 

above). 

Exemptions 

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

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the 

Secretary shall not designate as critical 

habitat any lands or other geographical 

areas owned or controlled by the 

Department of Defense (DoD), or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act 

Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

670a), if the Secretary determines in 

writing that such plan provides a benefit 

to the species for which critical habitat 

is proposed for designation. 

An INRMP that does not include the 

rusty patched bumble was completed by 

the 88th Readiness Division (RD) of the 

Army Reserve in 2017. As currently 

written, the 2017 INRMP does not 

provide a benefit to the rusty batched 

bumble bee. The 88th RD is in the 

process of updating its INRMP to 

incorporate the rusty patched bumble 

bee and its habitat. After we receive the 

updated INRMP, we will assess its 

conservation benefit to the rusty 

patched bumble bee under 50 CFR 

424.12(h) before the final critical habitat 

designation. Based on the 

considerations outlined in 50 CFR 

424.12(h), and in accordance with 

section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, if we 

determine that conservation efforts 

identified in the INRMP will provide a 

benefit to the rusty patched bumble bee, 

we will exempt lands within this 

installation from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act; approximately 47 ac (19 ha) of Unit 

1 (Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan), 

127 ac (51 ha) of Unit 8 (Milwaukee), 

and 15 ac (6 ha) of Unit 9 (Rockford) of 

88th RD land would be exempted from 

the final designation. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

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

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude any area 

from critical habitat if the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, 

so long as exclusion will not result in 

extinction of the species concerned. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93257 

Exclusion decisions are governed by the 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 

Policy Regarding Implementation of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act (hereafter, the ‘‘2016 

Policy’’; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016), 

both of which were developed jointly 

with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 

Department of the Interior Solicitor’s 

opinion entitled ‘‘The Secretary’s 

Authority to Exclude Areas from a 

Critical Habitat Designation under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (M–37016). 

In considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

identify the benefits of including the 

area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and evaluate whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. In making the determination to 

exclude a particular area, the statute on 

its face, as well as the legislative history, 

are clear that the Secretary has broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. In our final rules, we explain any 

decision to exclude areas, as well as 

decisions not to exclude, to make clear 

the rational basis for our decision. We 

describe below the process that we use 

for taking into consideration each 

category of impacts and any initial 

analyses of the relevant impacts. 

Consideration of Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

proposed. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a proposed critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, which includes the existing 

regulatory and socio-economic burden 

imposed on landowners, managers, or 

other resource users potentially affected 

by the designation of critical habitat 

(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). Therefore, the baseline 

represents the costs of all efforts 

attributable to the listing of the species 

under the Act (i.e., conservation of the 

species and its habitat incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts would 

not be expected without the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs. These are the 

costs we use when evaluating the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas from the final 

designation of critical habitat should we 

choose to conduct a discretionary 

section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 

supplements and reaffirms E.O. 12866 

and E.O. 13563 and directs Federal 

agencies to assess the costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives in 

quantitative (to the extent feasible) and 

qualitative terms. Consistent with the 

E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, 

our effects analysis under the Act may 

take into consideration impacts to both 

directly and indirectly affected entities, 

where practicable and reasonable. If 

sufficient data are available, we assess 

to the extent practicable the probable 

impacts to both directly and indirectly 

affected entities. To determine whether 

the designation of critical habitat may 

have an economic effect of $200 million 

or more in any given year (which would 

trigger section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as 

amended by E.O. 14094), we used a 

screening analysis to assess whether a 

designation of critical habitat for the 

rusty patched bumble bee is likely to 

exceed this threshold. 

For this particular designation, we 

developed an incremental effects 

memorandum (IEM) considering the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

that may result from this proposed 

designation of critical habitat. The 

information contained in our IEM was 

then used to develop a screening 

analysis of the probable effects of the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

rusty patched bumble bee (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2024, entire). We 

began by conducting a screening 

analysis of the proposed designation of 

critical habitat in order to focus our 

analysis on the key factors that are 

likely to result in incremental economic 

impacts. The purpose of the screening 

analysis is to filter out particular 

geographical areas of critical habitat that 

are already subject to such protections 

and are, therefore, unlikely to incur 

incremental economic impacts. In 

particular, the screening analysis 

considers baseline costs (i.e., absent 

critical habitat designation) and 

includes any probable incremental 

economic impacts where land and water 

use may already be subject to 

conservation plans, land management 

plans, best management practices, or 

regulations that protect the habitat area 

as a result of the Federal listing status 

of the species. Ultimately, the screening 

analysis allows us to focus our analysis 

on evaluating the specific areas or 

sectors that may incur probable 

incremental economic impacts as a 

result of the designation. The presence 

of the listed species in occupied areas 

of critical habitat means that any 

destruction or adverse modification of 

those areas is also likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of the species. 

Therefore, designating occupied areas as 

critical habitat typically causes little if 

any incremental impacts above and 

beyond the impacts of listing the 

species. As a result, we generally focus 

the screening analysis on areas of 

unoccupied critical habitat (unoccupied 

units or unoccupied areas within 

occupied units). Overall, the screening 

analysis assesses whether designation of 

critical habitat is likely to result in any 

additional management or conservation 

efforts that may incur incremental 

economic impacts. This screening 

analysis combined with the information 

contained in our IEM constitute what 

we consider to be our economic analysis 

of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for the rusty patched 

bumble bee and is summarized in the 

narrative below. 

As part of our screening analysis, we 

considered the types of economic 

activities that are likely to occur within 

the areas likely affected by the critical 

habitat designation. In our evaluation of 

the probable incremental economic 

impacts that may result from the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the rusty patched bumble bee, first 

we identified, in the IEM dated June 

2024, probable incremental economic 

impacts associated with the following 

categories of activities: (1) bridge 

replacements; (2) spotted lanternfly 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93258 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

control; (3) spill response; (4) Federal 

grants; (5) navigation channel 

improvements; (6) recreation 

construction; (7) forest management; (8) 

insect pest monitoring; (9) prescribed 

burns; (10) tree removal and harvest; 

(11) water supply facility maintenance; 

(12) road maintenance and construction; 

(13) scientific monitoring and research; 

and (14) habitat management. We 

considered each industry or category 

individually. Additionally, we 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation generally will not 

affect activities that do not have any 

Federal involvement; under the Act, 

designation of critical habitat affects 

activities conducted, funded, permitted, 

or authorized by Federal agencies only. 

In areas where the rusty patched bumble 

bee is present, Federal agencies are 

required to consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act on activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out that 

may affect the species. If we finalize this 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

Federal agencies would be required to 

consider the effects of their actions on 

the designated habitat, and if the 

Federal action may affect critical 

habitat, our consultations would 

include an evaluation of measures to 

avoid the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

would result from the species being 

listed and those attributable to the 

critical habitat designation (i.e., 

difference between the jeopardy and 

adverse modification standards) for the 

rusty patched bumble bee’s critical 

habitat. The following specific 

circumstances in this case help to 

inform our evaluation: (1) The essential 

physical or biological features identified 

for critical habitat are the same features 

essential for the life requisites of the 

species, and (2) any actions that would 

likely adversely affect the essential 

physical or biological features of 

occupied critical habitat are also likely 

to adversely affect the species itself. The 

IEM outlines our rationale concerning 

this limited distinction between 

baseline conservation efforts and 

incremental impacts of the designation 

of critical habitat for this species. This 

evaluation of the incremental effects has 

been used as the basis to evaluate the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

of this proposed designation of critical 

habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation for the rusty patched 

bumble bee consists of approximately 

1,635,746 acres (661,963 hectares) of 

occupied habitat in 14 units. Ownership 

of lands within the proposed critical 

habitat units is approximately 83 

percent private; 9 percent State, local 

government, university, or school; 8 

percent Federal; and less than 1 percent 

in Tribal ownership. All proposed units 

are occupied by the species. 

Consultation to determine if projects 

would jeopardize the species would be 

required regardless of the critical habitat 

designation. Additionally, the activities 

that may require section 7 consultation 

are not different with or without critical 

habitat. As a result, designating critical 

habitat is not expected to result in 

additional consultations beyond those 

required due to the presence of the 

species. 

For future consultations in the 

proposed critical habitat area, we 

anticipate that the same kinds of 

conservation recommendations made to 

avoid jeopardy would also avoid 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

Conservation measures to protect rusty 

patched bumble bee habitat would be 

the same with and without a critical 

habitat designation. We do not expect a 

critical habitat designation to result in 

recommendations for new, changed, or 

lengthened seasonal restrictions for 

rusty patched bumble bees. Thus, the 

outcome of these consultations is 

unlikely to be different with or without 

the designation of critical habitat. 

At the time of this proposal, 29 cooccurring species listed under the Act 

occur within the rusty patched bumble 

bee’s proposed critical habitat. 

Conservation efforts for other listed 

species or existing critical habitat 

designations are likely to provide 

conservation benefits to the rusty 

patched bumble bee under the baseline 

(i.e., even absent designation of new 

critical habitat for this species). 

Additionally, there are multiple 

overlapping conservation requirements 

for some of the listed species. 

For these reasons, incremental effects 

of the critical habitat designation on the 

costs of future section 7 consultations 

are likely to be limited to the additional 

administrative effort to evaluate the 

potential for adverse modification of 

rusty patched bumble bee critical 

habitat (IEc 2024, p. 10). The breakdown 

of the anticipated annual cost of section 

7 consultations for the proposed 

designation is approximately $11,000 

for programmatic consultations, $90,000 

for formal consultations, $250,000 for 

informal consultations, and $31,000 for 

technical assistance. Therefore, the 

incremental costs of designating critical 

habitat for the rusty patched bumble bee 

are likely to be on the order of $390,000 

(2024 dollars) in a given year (IEc 2024, 

p. 15). In conclusion, the rule is 

unlikely have an economic effect of 

$200 million or more in any given year 

and, therefore, is unlikely meet the 

threshold in section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 

12866, as amended by E.O. 14094 (IEc 

2024, p. 18). 

We are soliciting data and comments 

from the public on the economic 

analysis discussed above. During the 

development of a final designation, we 

will consider the information presented 

in the economic analysis and any 

additional information on economic 

impacts we receive during the public 

comment period to determine whether 

any specific areas should be excluded 

from the final critical habitat 

designation under the authority of 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19, and the 2016 Policy. We may 

exclude an area from critical habitat if 

we determine that the benefits of 

excluding the area outweigh the benefits 

of including the area, provided the 

exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of this species. 

Consideration of National Security 

Impacts 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may 

not cover all DoD lands or areas that 

pose potential national-security 

concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is 

in the process of revising its INRMP for 

a newly listed species or a species 

previously not covered). If a particular 

area is not covered under section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, then nationalsecurity or homeland-security concerns 

are not a factor in the process of 

determining what areas meet the 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

However, we must still consider 

impacts on national security, including 

homeland security, on those lands or 

areas not covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

because section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

requires us to consider those impacts 

whenever we designate critical habitat. 

Accordingly, if DoD, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), or another 

Federal agency has requested exclusion 

based on an assertion of nationalsecurity or homeland-security concerns, 

or we have otherwise identified 

national-security or homeland-security 

impacts from designating particular 

areas as critical habitat, we generally 

have reason to consider excluding those 

areas. 

However, we cannot automatically 

exclude requested areas. When DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency requests 

exclusion from critical habitat on the 

basis of national-security or homelandsecurity impacts, we must conduct an 

exclusion analysis if the Federal 

requester provides information, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93259 

including a reasonably specific 

justification of an incremental impact 

on national security that would result 

from the designation of that specific 

area as critical habitat. That justification 

could include demonstration of 

probable impacts, such as impacts to 

ongoing border-security patrols and 

surveillance activities, or a delay in 

training or facility construction, as a 

result of compliance with section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act. If the agency requesting the 

exclusion does not provide us with a 

reasonably specific justification, we will 

contact the agency to recommend that it 

provide a specific justification or 

clarification of its concerns relative to 

the probable incremental impact that 

could result from the designation. If we 

conduct an exclusion analysis because 

the agency provides a reasonably 

specific justification or because we 

decide to exercise the discretion to 

conduct an exclusion analysis, we will 

defer to the expert judgment of DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency as to: 

(1) Whether activities on its lands or 

waters, or its activities on other lands or 

waters, have national-security or 

homeland-security implications; (2) the 

importance of those implications; and 

(3) the degree to which the cited 

implications would be adversely 

affected in the absence of an exclusion. 

In that circumstance, in conducting a 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis, we will give great weight to 

national-security and homeland-security 

concerns in analyzing the benefits of 

exclusion. 

We are aware of a number of small 

parcels of land that are owned or leased 

by the DoD that overlap with this 

proposed designation. During the 

development of this proposed rule, we 

have initiated coordination efforts with 

the DoD agency that owns each parcel, 

and we will continue to work with those 

DoD agencies that may be affected by 

this designation as we develop any final 

rule. These parcels are generally small 

and highly dispersed throughout the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

Consideration of Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security discussed 

above. To identify other relevant 

impacts that may affect the exclusion 

analysis, we consider a number of 

factors, including whether there are 

approved and permitted conservation 

agreements or plans covering the 

species in the area—such as safe harbor 

agreements (SHAs), candidate 

conservation agreements with 

assurances (CCAAs), ‘‘conservation 

benefit agreements’’ or ‘‘conservation 

agreements’’ (‘‘CBAs’’) (CBAs are a new 

type of agreement replacing SHAs and 

CCAAs in use after April 2024 (see 89 

FR 26070, April 12, 2024)), or HCPs— 

or whether there are non-permitted 

conservation agreements and 

partnerships that may be impaired by 

designation of, or exclusion from, 

critical habitat. In addition, we look at 

whether Tribal conservation plans or 

partnerships, Tribal resources, or 

government-to-government 

relationships of the United States with 

Tribal entities may be affected by the 

designation. We also consider any State, 

local, social, or other impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

Tribal Lands 

Several Executive Orders, Secretary’s 

Orders, and policies concern working 

with Tribes. These guidance documents 

generally confirm our trust 

responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that 

Tribes have sovereign authority to 

control Tribal lands, emphasize the 

importance of developing partnerships 

with Tribal governments, and direct the 

Service to consult with Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. 

A joint Secretary’s Order (S.O.) that 

applies to both the Service and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS)—Secretary’s Order 3206, 

‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights, 

Federal–Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 

and the Endangered Species Act’’ (June 

5, 1997) (S.O. 3206)—is the most 

comprehensive of the various guidance 

documents related to Tribal 

relationships and Act implementation, 

and it provides the most detail directly 

relevant to the designation of critical 

habitat. In addition to the general 

direction discussed above, the appendix 

to S.O. 3206 explicitly recognizes the 

right of Tribes to participate fully in any 

listing process that may affect Tribal 

rights or Tribal trust resources; this 

includes the designation of critical 

habitat. Section 3(B)(4) of the appendix 

requires the Service to consult with 

affected Tribes when considering the 

designation of critical habitat in an area 

that may impact Tribal trust resources, 

Tribally-owned fee lands, or the 

exercise of Tribal rights. That provision 

also instructs the Service to avoid 

including Tribal lands within a critical 

habitat designation unless the area is 

essential to conserve a listed species, 

and it requires the Service to ‘‘evaluate 

and document the extent to which the 

conservation needs of the listed species 

can be achieved by limiting the 

designation to other lands.’’ 

Our implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424.19 and the 2016 Policy are 

consistent with S.O. 3206. When we 

undertake a discretionary exclusion 

analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

in accordance with S.O. 3206, we 

consult with any Tribe whose Tribal 

trust resources, Tribally-owned fee 

lands, or Tribal rights may be affected 

by including any particular areas in the 

designation. We evaluate the extent to 

which the conservation needs of the 

species can be achieved by limiting the 

designation to other areas and give great 

weight to Tribal concerns in analyzing 

the benefits of exclusion. 

However, S.O. 3206 does not override 

the Act’s statutory requirement of 

designation of critical habitat. As stated 

above, we must consult with any Tribe 

when a designation of critical habitat 

may affect Tribal lands or resources. 

The Act requires us to identify areas 

that meet the definition of ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ (i.e., areas occupied at the time 

of listing that contain the essential 

physical or biological features that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection and 

unoccupied areas that are essential to 

the conservation of a species), without 

regard to land ownership. While S.O. 

3206 provides important direction, it 

expressly states that it does not modify 

the Secretaries’ statutory authority 

under the Act or other statutes. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation includes portions of the 

following Tribal lands or resources, as 

noted above in table 1 and the unit 

descriptions: Shakopee Mdewakanton 

Sioux Community and Shakopee 

Mdewakanton Sioux Community OffReservation Land Trust (proposed Unit 

1), Ho-Chunk Nation (proposed Unit 7), 

and Forest County Potawatomi OffReservation Land Trust (proposed Unit 

8). 

Summary of Exclusions Considered 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that no HCPs or other 

management plans for the rusty patched 

bumble bee currently exist. We have 

determined that there are lands within 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for rusty patched bumble bee 

owned or managed by the DoD, and we 

have reached out the DoD to evaluate if 

there is a need to exclude these lands 

from the designation based on national 

security. In addition, the proposed 

critical habitat designation includes 

Tribal lands or resources that we may 

consider for exclusion, in keeping with 

S.O. 3206. 

If through the public comment period 

we receive information that we 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93260 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

determine indicates that there are 

potential economic, national security, or 

other relevant impacts from designating 

particular areas as critical habitat, then 

as part of developing the final 

designation of critical habitat, we will 

evaluate that information and may 

conduct a discretionary exclusion 

analysis to determine whether to 

exclude those areas under the authority 

of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19. If we receive a request for 

exclusion of a particular area and after 

evaluation of supporting information we 

do not exclude, we will fully describe 

our decision in the final rule for this 

action. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 

12988 and by the Presidential 

Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write 

all rules in plain language. This means 

that each rule we publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14904) 

Executive Order 14094 amends and 

reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 

and E.O. 13563 and states that 

regulatory analysis should facilitate 

agency efforts to develop regulations 

that serve the public interest, advance 

statutory objectives, and are consistent 

with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563, and the 

Presidential Memorandum of January 

20, 2021 (Modernizing Regulatory 

Review). Regulatory analysis, as 

practicable and appropriate, shall 

recognize distributive impacts and 

equity, to the extent permitted by law. 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; title II of Pub. L. 104–121, 

March 29, 1996), whenever an agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of the 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

whether potential economic impacts to 

these small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in light of recent court 

decisions, Federal agencies are required 

to evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of rulemaking on those entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking 

itself; in other words, the RFA does not 

require agencies to evaluate the 

potential impacts to indirectly regulated 

entities. The regulatory mechanism 

through which critical habitat 

protections are realized is section 7 of 

the Act, which requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, it is 

our position that only Federal action 

agencies would be directly regulated if 

we adopt the proposed critical habitat 

designation. The RFA does not require 

evaluation of the potential impacts to 

entities not directly regulated. 

Moreover, Federal agencies are not 

small entities. Therefore, because no 

small entities would be directly 

regulated by this rulemaking, the 

Service certifies that, if made final as 

proposed, the proposed critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that, if made 

final, the proposed critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare statements of energy effects 

‘‘to the extent permitted by law’’ when 

undertaking actions identified as 

significant energy actions (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as an action 

that (i) is a significant regulatory action 

under E.O. 12866 (or any successor 

order, such as E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879, 

April 11, 2023)); and (ii) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. In 

our economic analysis, we did not find 

that this proposed critical habitat 

designation would significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93261 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no statement of 

energy effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following finding: 

(1) This proposed rule would not 

produce a Federal mandate. In general, 

a Federal mandate is a provision in 

legislation, statute, or regulation that 

would impose an enforceable duty upon 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or 

the private sector, and includes both 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’ 

and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions are not 

likely to destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat under section 7. While 

non-Federal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Small governments 

will be affected only to the extent that 

any programs having Federal funds, 

permits, or other authorized activities 

must ensure that their actions will not 

adversely affect the critical habitat. 

Therefore, a Small Government Agency 

Plan is not required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the rusty 

patched bumble bee in a takings 

implications assessment. The Act does 

not authorize the Services to regulate 

private actions on private lands or 

confiscate private property as a result of 

critical habitat designation. Designation 

of critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership, or establish any closures or 

restrictions on use of or access to the 

designated areas. Furthermore, the 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect landowner actions that do not 

require Federal funding or permits, nor 

does it preclude development of habitat 

conservation programs or issuance of 

incidental take permits to permit actions 

that do require Federal funding or 

permits to go forward. However, Federal 

agencies are prohibited from carrying 

out, funding, or authorizing actions that 

would destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed for the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the rusty patched bumble bee, and 

it concludes that, if adopted, this 

designation of critical habitat does not 

pose significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant federalism effects. 

A federalism summary impact statement 

is not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with, appropriate State resource 

agencies. From a federalism perspective, 

the designation of critical habitat 

directly affects only the responsibilities 

of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no 

other duties with respect to critical 

habitat, either for States and local 

governments, or for anyone else. As a 

result, the proposed rule does not have 

substantial direct effects either on the 

States, or on the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments because the areas 

that contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist State and 

local governments in long-range 

planning because they no longer have to 

wait for case-by-case section 7 

consultations to occur. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would 

be required. While non-Federal entities 

that receive Federal funding, assistance, 

or permits, or that otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action, may be indirectly 

impacted by the designation of critical 

habitat, the legally binding duty to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that this 

proposed rule would not unduly burden 

the judicial system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the order. We have proposed 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. To assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

species, this proposed rule identifies the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. The 

proposed areas of critical habitat are 

presented on maps, and the proposed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93262 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

rule provides several options for the 

interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This proposed rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do 

not require an environmental analysis 

under NEPA. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

includes listing, delisting, and 

reclassification rules, as well as critical 

habitat designations. In a line of cases 

starting with Douglas County v. Babbitt, 

48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts 

have upheld this position. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 

1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), the President’s 

memorandum of November 30, 2022 

(Uniform Standards for Tribal 

Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 

2022), and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations (ANCs) on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretary’s Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

During the development of this 

proposed rule, we approached the 

Tribes whose lands overlapped with the 

range of the rusty patched bumble bee 

in an effort to coordinate with them on 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation. We received interest from 

the Prairie Island Indian Community in 

working with us on rusty patched 

bumble bee conservation (unrelated to 

this proposed designation). The 

proposed critical habitat does not 

overlap with Prairie Island Indian 

Community lands, but we will continue 

to coordinate with the Tribe in recovery 

efforts for the species. We will continue 

to work with all interested Tribal 

entities during the development of a 

final rule for the designation of critical 

habitat for the rusty patched bumble 

bee. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the MinnesotaWisconsin Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the MinnesotaWisconsin Ecological Services Field 

Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife by revising the entry for ‘‘Bee, 

bumble, rusty patched’’ under INSECTS 

to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

*******

Insects 

*******

Bee, bumble, rusty patched ................ Bombus affinis ........... Wherever found ......... E 82 FR 3186, 1/11/2017; 50 CFR 17.95(i).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (i) by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Rusty Patched 

Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis)’’ before 

the entry for ‘‘Casey’s June Beetle 

(Dinacoma caseyi)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(i) Insects. 

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus 

affinis) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Boone, Cook, Kane, Lake, Lee, 

McHenry, Ogle, and Winnebago 

Counties, Illinois; Johnson County, 

Iowa; Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, 

Olmsted, Pierce, Ramsey, Rice, Scott, St. 

Croix, Washington, and Winona 

Counties, Minnesota; Bath and Highland 

Counties, Virginia; Greenbrier and 

Pocahontas Counties, West Virginia; and 

Dane, Iowa, Kenosha, Milwaukee, 

Ozaukee, Racine, Sauk, Washington, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93263 

and Waukesha Counties, Wisconsin, on 

the maps in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the rusty patched 

bumble bee consist of the following 

components: 

(i) For overwintering, upland forest 

interior habitat containing leaf litter and 

without dense understory vegetation. 

(ii) For nesting, upland forest edge 

interface between forested and nonforested natural habitats that extends 

approximately 30 meters into the forest. 

(iii) For nesting, abandoned rodent 

burrows, other mammal burrows, 

existing cavities with ample cover, or 

similar existing cavities at the soil 

surface or below to 4 feet underground. 

(iv) For nesting and overwintering, 

well-drained, loose soils sheltered from 

the elements. 

(v) For foraging, diverse, abundant, 

native floral resources for the entire 

active flight season. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

human-made structures (such as 

buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, 

and other paved areas) and the land on 

which they are located existing within 

the legal boundaries on [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using the data from the 

Service’s modeled High Potential Zones 

and potential dispersal areas for rusty 

patched bumble bee. The projection 

used in mapping and calculating 

distances and locations within the units 

was EPSG code 4269—North American 

Datum 1983 (NAD83), which is a 

geographic coordinate system used for 

mapping locations in North America. 

The maps in this entry, as modified by 

any accompanying regulatory text, 

establish the boundaries of the critical 

habitat designation. The coordinates or 

plot points or both on which each map 

is based are available to the public at the 

Service’s internet site at https://

www.fws.gov/species/rusty-patchedbumble-bee-bombus-affinis, at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R3–ES–2024–0132, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Index map follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
93264 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Figure 1 to Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) Paragraph (5) 

(6) Unit 1: Minneapolis-St. Paul 

Metropolitan; Ramsey, Scott, Dakota, 

Pierce, Washington, Carver, Hennepin, 

and St. Croix Counties, Minnesota. 

(i) Unit 1 consists of 567,805 acres 

(ac) (229,782 hectares (ha)) in the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area 

of Minnesota in Ramsey, Scott, Dakota, 

Pierce, Washington, Carver, Hennepin, 

and St. Croix Counties. Unit 1 is 

composed of primarily private lands 

(499,204 ac (202,021 ha)), local 

government-owned lands (40,596 ac 

(16,429 ha)), university or school lands 

(7,190 ac (2,910 ha)), Minnesota State 

lands (11,983 ac (4,849 ha)), and Tribal 

lands (3,091 ac (1,251 ha)). Federal 

lands (5,741 ac (2,323 ha)) in Unit 1 

include National Park Service’s 

Mississippi National River and 

Recreational Area and Lower St. Croix 

National Scenic Riverway, and the 

Service’s Minnesota Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 212 ac 

(86 ha) of privately owned lands are 

managed by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (USDA–NRCS) 

Wetlands Reserve Program. Tribal lands 

include Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community and Shakopee 

Mdewakanton Sioux Community OffReservation Land Trust. 

(ii) Map of Units 1, 2, and 3 follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26NO24.003</GPH>

Index Map: Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) Critical Habitat Units 

....... County Boundary 

-'Ii State Boundary 

0 75 150 

I I I I I I I I I I 

0 120 240 

I I 

I I 

480 Kilometers 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93265 

Figure 2 to Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) Paragraph (6)(ii) 

(7) Unit 2: Northfield; Dakota and 

Rice Counties, Minnesota. 

(i) Unit 2 consists of 12,557 ac (5,082 

ha) in Dakota and Rice Counties. This 

unit includes private lands (12,056 ac 

(4,879 ha)), local government-owned 

lands (489 ac (198 ha)), and Minnesota 

State lands (12 ac (5 ha)). 

(ii) Map of Unit 2 is provided at 

paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry. 

(8) Unit 3: Rochester; Olmsted 

County, Minnesota. 

(i) Unit 3 consists of 43,091 ac (17,438 

ha) in Olmsted County. This unit 

includes private lands (41,819 ac 

(16,924 ha)), local government-owned 

lands (939 ac (380 ha)), and Minnesota 

State lands (332 ac (134 ha)). 

(ii) Map of Unit 3 is provided at 

paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry. 

(9) Unit 4: Winona; Winona County, 

Wisconsin. 

(i) Unit 4 consists of 29,823 ac (12,069 

ha) in Winona County. This unit 

includes private lands (29,340 ac 

(11,873 ha)), local government-owned 

lands (423 ac (171 ha)), and Minnesota 

State lands (60 ac (24 ha)). 

(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26NO24.004</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

Unit 1: Minneapolis-St. Paul; Ramsey, Scott, Dakota, Pierce, Washington, Carver, 

Hennepin, St. Croix Counties, Minnesota 

Unit 2: Northfield; Dakota and Rice Counties, Minnesota 

Unit 3: Rochester; Olmsted County, Minnesota 

Sherburne 

... ,.""'"''\-, 1 Anoka 

,,i.,_,,,.,.._ 

Wright '-, 

Le Suem 

r '""'""""'''''"" 

81Ul:', l 

Eartti Waseca 

Rice 

- Critical Habitat 

Major Road 

~---~ County Boundary 

0 7 

I 

0 11.5 

Chisago l 

j; Washington :~ , .... "' 

Northfield Ii 

Goodhue 

I 

Dodge UN11i 3 

Roche~te 

Polk 

St Croix 

Pierce 

i'" 

l 

Wabasha 

\I 

\Olmsted 

~ 1 

N 

14 A 28 Miles 

I 

I I I 

23 
93266 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Figure 3 to Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) Paragraph (9)(ii) 

(10) Unit 5: Denzer; Sauk County, 

Wisconsin. 

(i) Unit 5 consists of 27,009 ac (10,930 

ha) in Sauk County. This unit is 

composed of private lands (26,471 ac 

(10,712 ha)), including 2,345 ac (949 ha) 

owned by nongovernmental 

organizations, and Wisconsin State 

lands (538 ac (218 ha)). 

(ii) Map of Units 5, 6, and 7 follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26NO24.005</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

Unit 4: Winona; Winona County, Minnesota 

Winona 

... Critical Habitat 

= MajorRoad 

----- County Boundary 

0 

I 

I 

0 

1.3 2.6 

I I I 

I I I 

2.05 4.1 

Buffalo 

N 

A 

I I I I 

I I I I 

8.2 Kilometers 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93267 

Figure 4 to Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) Paragraph (10)(ii) 

(11) Unit 6: Bunker Hill; Iowa County, 

Wisconsin. 

(i) Unit 6 consists of 18,686 ac (7,562 

ha) in Iowa County. This unit includes 

private lands (13,559 ac (5,487 ha)) and 

Wisconsin State lands (5,126 ac (2,075 

ha)). 

(ii) Map of Unit 6 is provided at 

paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry. 

(12) Unit 7: Madison; Dane and Iowa 

Counties, Wisconsin. 

(i) Unit 7 consists of 210,753 ac 

(85,289 ha) in Dane and Iowa Counties. 

This unit includes primarily private 

lands (195,952 ac (79,299 ha)), local 

government-owned lands (8,679 ac 

(3,512 ha)), university or school lands 

(1,086 ac (440 ha)), and Wisconsin State 

lands (4,518 ac (1,828 ha)). This unit 

contains 4 ac (2 ha) of Ho-Chunk Nation 

Tribal lands. Federal lands (515 ac (208 

ha)) in Unit 7 include the U.S. Forest 

Service’s Forest Products Experimental 

Laboratory, National Park Service’s Ice 

Age National Scenic Trail, and the Dane 

County Waterfowl Production Area 

owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. In this unit, approximately 304 

ac (123 ha) of private lands are managed 

by the USDA–NRCS Wetlands Reserve 

Program, and approximately 53 ac (21 

ha) of private lands are managed by the 

USDA–NRCS Emergency Waters 

Protection Program. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26NO24.006</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

Unit 5: Denzer; Sauk County, Wisconsin 

Unit 6: Bunker Hill; Iowa County, Wisconsin 

Unit 7: Madison; Dane and Iowa Counties, Wisconsin 

Juneau \ I Marquette 1 

------------- -----~--------------

-o I C 

ro 

Sauk 

:E I Denzer (.) 

ii 

Iowa 

Bunker Hill 

I 

I 

I 

--.J 

I 

l 

t--------

J 

Dane 

r---------- -----------~--1 

Lafayette 

I 

I 

I 

! 

I 

i 

Green 

N 

.. Critical Habitat A 

= Major Road O 4 8 16 Miles 

I II I I I I I ----- County Boundary 1=, :::!;,~,::::!:::;::, !:::1;::!::::::;,!::::::::l==r-, .... ,

0 7.5 15 30 Kilometers 

Columbia 

Rock 
93268 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Map of Unit 7 is provided at 

paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry. 

(13) Unit 8: Milwaukee; Waukesha, 

Ozaukee, Washington, Milwaukee, and 

Racine Counties, Wisconsin. 

(i) Unit 8 consists of 252,992 acres 

(102,382 hectares) in Waukesha, 

Ozaukee, Washington, Milwaukee, and 

Racine Counties. This unit includes 

primarily private lands (232,722 ac 

(94,179 ha)), local government-owned 

lands (17,995 ac (7,282 ha)), university 

or school lands (14 ac (6 ha)), and 

Wisconsin State lands (2,121 ac (858 

ha)). Tribal lands include the Forest 

County Potawatomi Off-Reservation 

Land Trust (10 ac (4 ha)). Federally 

owned lands include 5 ac (2 ha) owned 

by the Bureau of Land Management and 

126 ac (51 ha)) of Department of 

Defense-owned lands. Approximately 

66 ac (27 ha) of private lands in this unit 

are managed by USDA–NRCS Wetlands 

Reserve Program. 

(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows: 

Figure 5 to Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) Paragraph (13)(ii) 

(14) Unit 9: Rockford; Winnebago, 

Boone, and Ogle Counties, Illinois. 

(i) Unit 9 consists of 150,108 ac 

(60,747 ha) in Boone, Ogle, and 

Winnebago Counties. This unit includes 

primarily private lands (136,826 ac 

(55,371 ha)), local government-owned 

lands (7,898 ac (3,196 ha)), university or 

school lands (2,395 ac (969 ha)), and 

Illinois State lands (2,990 ac (1,210 ha)). 

Approximately 669 ac (271 ha) of 

private lands in this unit are managed 

by the USDA–NRCS Wetlands Reserve 

Program. 

(ii) Map of Unit 9 and 12 follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26NO24.007</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

Unit 8: Milwaukee; Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Milwaukee, Racine 

.. 

County Boundary 

o 

I 

I 

o 

Counties, Wisconsin 

3.88 7.75 

I I I I 

I I I I I 

5 10 

N 

A 

I I I I 

I I I 

20 Kilometers 

Lake Michigan 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93269 

Figure 6 to Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) Paragraph (14)(ii) 

(15) Unit 10: McHenry; McHenry and 

Lake Counties, Illinois, and Kenosha 

County, Wisconsin. 

(i) Unit 10 consists of 68,295 ac 

(27,638 ha) in McHenry and Lake 

Counties, Illinois, and Kenosha County, 

Wisconsin. This unit includes primarily 

private lands (59,158 ac (23,940 ha)), 

local government-owned lands (1,406 ac 

(569 ha)), university or school lands 

(2,284 ac (924 ha)), and Illinois State 

lands (5,445 ac (2,204 ha)). The Bureau 

of Land Management owns 2 ac (1 ha) 

of land in this unit. A conservation 

easement within the Hackmatack 

National Wildlife Refuge, managed by 

the Service, falls partially (39 ac (16 ha)) 

within this unit. Approximately 412 ac 

(167 ha) of private lands within this unit 

are managed by the USDA–NRCS 

Wetlands Reserve Program. 

(ii) Map of Units 10 and 11 follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26NO24.008</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

Unit 9: Rockford; Winnebago, Boone, Ogle Counties, Illinois 

Unit 12: Lost Nation; 0 le and Lee Counties, Illinois 

Green Rock 

Stephenson Winnebago 

Ogle 

UNIT 12 

Lost Nation 

- Critical Habitat 

= Major Road 

-···- County Boundary 

N 

0 2. 75 5.5 A1 Miles 

' I fl ' I I I I I I I i I I I I I 

0 5 1 0 20 Kilometers 

Dekalb 

88 
93270 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Figure 7 to Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) Paragraph (15)(ii) 

(16) Unit 11: Elgin; Lake, Cook, Kane, 

and McHenry Counties, Illinois. 

(i) Unit 11 consists of 75,080 ac 

(30,384 ha) in Cook, Kane, Lake, and 

McHenry Counties. This unit includes 

primarily private lands (56,318 ac 

(22,791 ha)), local government-owned 

lands (13,710 ac (5,548 ha)), university 

or school lands (4,884 ac (1,977 ha)), 

and Illinois State lands (168 ac (68 ha)). 

(ii) Map of Unit 11 is provided at 

paragraph (15)(ii) of this entry. 

(17) Unit 12: Lost Nation; Ogle and 

Lee Counties, Illinois. 

(i) Unit 12 consists of 15,043 ac (6,088 

ha) in Lee and Ogle Counties. This unit 

is composed of private lands (14,416 ac 

(5,834 ha)), including 2,189 ac (886 ha) 

owned by nongovernmental 

organizations, and State lands owned by 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

(627 ac (254 ha)). 

(ii) Map of Unit 12 is provided at 

paragraph (14)(ii) of this entry. 

(18) Unit 13: Iowa City; Johnson 

County, Iowa. 

(i) Unit 13 consists of 45,902 ac 

(18,576 ha) in Johnson County. This 

unit includes primarily private lands 

(30,397 ac (12,301 ha)), local 

government-owned lands (1,857 ac (751 

ha)), and Iowa State lands (2,287 ac (926 

ha)). Federal lands (11,362 ac (4,598 ha)) 

in this unit include U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers’ Coralville Lake and the 

Coralville Reservoir. A portion of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ land in 

this unit is managed by the State of 

Illinois (1,333 ac (539 ha)) and the 

University of Iowa (421 ac (170 ha)). 

(ii) Map of Unit 13 follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26NO24.009</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

Unit 10: McHenry; McHenry and Lake County, Illinois; Kenosha County, 

Wisconsin 

Unit 11: Elgin; Lake, Cook, Kane, McHenry Counties, Illinois 

Walworth Kenosha 

WISCONSIN 

ILLINOIS 

McHenry 

Cook 

Kane 

- Critical Habitat N 

= MajorRoad 

-···- County Boundary 0 3.1 6.2 A 12.4 Mile 

I I I I I 

I I I I I I 

0 5 10 20 Kilometers 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 93271 

Figure 8 to Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) Paragraph (18)(ii) 

(19) Unit 14: Black Creek Mountain; 

Highland and Bath Counties, Virginia, 

and Greenbrier and Pocahontas 

Counties, West Virginia. 

(i) Unit 14 consists of 118,603 ac 

(47,997 ha) in Highland and Bath 

Counties, Virginia, and Greenbrier and 

Pocahontas Counties, West Virginia. 

This unit includes Federal lands 

(105,558 ac (42,718 ha)), private lands 

(11,200 ac (4,532 ha)), and Virginia State 

lands (1,845 ac (747 ha)). Federal lands 

include the Monongahela and the 

George Washington–Jefferson National 

Forests. 

(ii) Map of Unit 14 follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26NO24.010</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

Unit 13: Iowa City; Johnson County, Iowa 

! 

Linn County ! 

l ~ I 

----------------- -----~ 

Johnson County 

Washington County 

... Critical Habitat 

= MajorRoad 

----- County Boundary 0 1.85 3.7 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

0 3.05 6.1 

N 

A 

7.4 Miles 

I I I 

I I I 

12.2 Kilometers 

I 

I 

I 

I 

! 

! 

I 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

(I) 

0. 

(I) 

-, 
93272 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Figure 9 to Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) Paragraph (19)(ii) 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27316 Filed 11–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26NO24.011</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

Unit 14: Black Creek Mountain; Highland and Bath Counties, Virginia; 

Greenbrier and Pocahontas Counties, West Vir inia 

WEST VIRGINIA 

Pocahontas 

Greenbrier 

... Critical Habitat 

-- Major Road 

-···- County Boundary 0 

I 

I 

0 8 

Highland 

Bath VIRGINIA 

N 

6 A 

I 

16 Kilometers