102074 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

required for § 721.63(a)(1), engineering 

control measures (e.g., enclosure or 

confinement of the operation, general 

and local ventilation) or administrative 

control measures (e.g., workplace 

policies and procedures) shall be 

considered and implemented to prevent 

exposure, where feasible. 

(ii) Hazard communication. 

Requirements as specified in § 721.72(a) 

through (d), (f), (g)(1), (2)(i) through (iii), 

(v), (3)(i) and (ii), and (5). For purposes 

of § 721.72(g)(1), this substance may 

cause: acute toxicity, skin irritation, 

serious eye damage, skin sensitization, 

genetic toxicity, reproductive toxicity, 

and specific target organ toxicity. 

Alternative hazard and warning 

statements that meet the criteria of the 

Globally Harmonized System and OSHA 

Hazard Communication Standard may 

be used. 

(iii) Industrial, commercial, and 

consumer activities. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.80(f), (k), and (t). It is 

a significant new use to import the 

substance other than in solution, or in 

sealed containers weighing 5 kilograms 

or less. It is a significant new use to 

modify the processing of the substance 

in any way that generates dust, mist, or 

aerosol in a non-enclosed process. It is 

a significant new use to manufacture the 

substance longer than 18 months. 

(b) Specific requirements. The 

provisions of Subpart A of this part 

apply to this section except as modified 

by this paragraph (b). 

(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping 

requirements as specified in 

§ 721.125(a) through (i) are applicable to 

manufacturers, importers, and 

processors of this substance. 

(2) Limitation or revocation of certain 

notification requirements. The 

provisions of § 721.185 apply to this 

section. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29275 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2024–0117; 

FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] 

RIN 1018–BI15 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble 

Bee 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee 

(Bombus suckleyi), an invertebrate 

species from North America, as an 

endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). This determination also 

serves as our 12-month finding on a 

petition to list the Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee. After a review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing the 

species is warranted. Accordingly, we 

propose to list the species as an 

endangered species under the Act. If we 

finalize this rule as proposed, it would 

add this species to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and extend the Act’s protections to the 

species. Due to the current lack of data 

sufficient to perform required analyses, 

we conclude that the designation of 

critical habitat for the species is not 

determinable at this time. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

February 18, 2025. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

eastern time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by January 31, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: 

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

Search box, enter FWS–R7–ES–2024– 

0117, 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.’’ 

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

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R7–ES–2024–0117, 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 at https://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2024–0117. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Daigneault, Acting Field 

Supervisor, Southern Alaska Fish and 

Wildlife Field Office, 4700 BLM Road, 

Anchorage, AK 99507; telephone 907– 

271–1467. 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–R7–ES–2024–0117 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, a species warrants listing if it 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species (in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range) or a threatened species (likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range). If we 

determine that a species warrants 

listing, we must list the species 

promptly and designate the species’ 

critical habitat to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. We have 

determined that Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee meets the Act’s definition of 

an endangered species; therefore, we are 

proposing to list it as such. Listing a 

species as an endangered or threatened 

species 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 list Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee as an endangered species under the 

Act. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or a threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee meets the Act’s definition of 

an endangered species due to threats 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102075 

from host species decline, pathogens, 

pesticides, habitat fragmentation and 

conversion, and climate change. 

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

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), to 

the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, concurrently with listing 

designate critical habitat for the species. 

We have not yet obtained the necessary 

economic information needed to 

develop a proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee, although we are in the 

process of obtaining this information. At 

this time, we find that designation of 

critical habitat for the Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee is not determinable. When 

critical habitat is not determinable, the 

Act allows the Service an additional 

year to publish a critical habitat 

designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and 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) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns and the 

locations of any additional populations 

of this species; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Threats and conservation actions 

affecting the species, including: 

(a) Factors that may be affecting the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors; 

(b) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species; 

and 

(c) Existing regulations or 

conservation actions that may be 

addressing threats to this species. 

(3) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status of this 

species. 

(4) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including 

information to inform the following 

factors that the regulations identify as 

reasons why designation of critical 

habitat may be not prudent: 

(a) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of such 

threat to the species; 

(b) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of a species’ habitat or range 

is not a threat to the species, or threats 

to the species’ habitat stem solely from 

causes that cannot be addressed through 

management actions resulting from 

consultations under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act; 

(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the 

United States provide no more than 

negligible conservation value, if any, for 

a species occurring primarily outside 

the jurisdiction of the United States; or 

(d) No areas meet the definition of 

critical habitat. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the 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 determination 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. Based on 

the new information we receive (and, if 

relevant, any comments on that new 

information), we may conclude that the 

species is threatened instead of 

endangered, or we may conclude that 

the species does not warrant listing as 

either an endangered species or a 

threatened 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

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 

We were petitioned on April 23, 2020, 

by the Center for Biological Diversity to 

list Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee as an 

endangered species and to designate 

critical habitat for this species under the 

Act. On May 11, 2021, we announced in 

the Federal Register (86 FR 25833) that 

the petition presented substantial 

information indicating that this species 

may be warranted for listing; that 

document also announced the initiation 

of a status review for the species. On 

April 22, 2022, the Center for Biological 

Diversity filed a complaint that the 

Service failed to meet our statutory 

deadline to complete a 12-month 

finding on the petition. On September 

27, 2022, the Service agreed to submit 

a finding to the Federal Register by 

December 10, 2024. This action 

constitutes our 12-month finding on the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
102076 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

2020 petition to list Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee. 

Peer Review 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for 

Suckley’s cuckoo 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), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review in listing and recovery actions 

under the Act (https://www.fws.gov/ 

sites/default/files/documents/peerreview-policy-directors-memo-2016-08- 

22.pdf), we solicited independent 

scientific review of the information 

contained in the Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee SSA report. We sent the 

SSA report to nine independent peer 

reviewers and received seven responses. 

Results of this structured peer review 

process can be found at https:// 

www.regulations.gov. In preparing this 

proposed rule, we incorporated the 

results of these reviews, as appropriate, 

into the SSA report, which is the 

foundation for this proposed rule. 

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments from seven peer 

reviewers on the draft SSA report. We 

reviewed all comments we received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the contents of the SSA report. The peer 

reviewers generally concurred with our 

methods and conclusions, and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions. These suggestions 

included providing more detailed 

explanations of assumptions and 

uncertainties, more discussion of model 

strengths and limitations, and 

clarifications in terminology and 

discussions of genetic diversity; they 

also made other minor editorial 

suggestions. Otherwise, no substantive 

changes to our analysis and conclusions 

within the SSA report were deemed 

necessary, and peer reviewer comments 

are addressed in version 1.0 of the SSA 

report (Service 2024, entire). 

I. Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee is presented in the 

SSA report (version 1.0; Service 2024, 

pp. 11–28). Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee is an obligate social parasite (it 

depends on social hosts for survival and 

raising young) in the subgenus 

Psithyrus. Bumble bees in this subgenus 

lack a mechanism to carry pollen and 

are unable to produce worker bees, so 

they are entirely dependent on social 

bumble bee hosts to collect pollen to 

rear their young (Lhomme and Hines 

2019, p. 126). Since Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bees are entirely dependent on 

host bumble bee colonies, host colony 

availability is critical for the species’ 

survival and overall viability. Cuckoo 

bumble bees are generally observed in 

low abundance at the margins of a host 

species’ range, and cuckoo bumble bee 

distributions are less than that of the 

host species (Antonovics and Edwards 

2011, p. 1003). 

Cuckoo bumble bee females emerge 

from hibernation in the spring and 

usurp the nest of a suitable host colony, 

where host workers care for their young. 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee is 

described as a semi-specialist parasite 

(Lhomme and Hines 2019, p. 129) and 

is confirmed to usurp nests of western 

bumble bees (Bombus occidentalis) and 

Nevada bumble bees (B. nevadensis), 

with other potential hosts in subgenus 

Bombus throughout the extent of its 

range (see Host Species Decline, below). 

The species has a broad historical 

distribution across North America and it 

has been found in various habitat types 

including prairies, grasslands, 

meadows, urban and agricultural areas, 

and woodlands from 2 to 3,200 meters 

(6 to 10,500 feet) in elevation (Williams 

et al. 2014, pp. 164–165; Committee on 

the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada (COSEWIC) 2019, p. 26; Martin 

et al. 2023, p. 22; Montana Natural 

Heritage Program 2023, entire; Service 

2024, pp. 17–19). The analytical units 

and occurrences of Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee are shown below in figure 

1. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

EP17DE24.075</GPH>ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Post-2018 

ti Po;t-2000 

" Pre-,2qoo 

o Date unimown 

Analytical Units 

Atlantic Highland• 

Boreal Cotdlller• Boreal Plail'l!l 

l!roO!t• Range Tu:ndra 

O;>id De,erts 

Huoson Pia ins 

Marine W~st Co•st FOrest• 

Mli<El!I Wood Pial,ns, 

M'ixed WOOd, St1Ield 

IIJj Soil:woo,l Shlekl 

Ill So.th ,ontroi ~mi-1\rld Proirl .. 

Taiga Plains Temporat• Pr•mo•' 

IHfl We<I C•nrtal S•ml•Arid Pralr; .. 

Westem Cordillera 

Figure 1. Analytical units and all occurrence records of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee. The date of the most r

analytical unit is labelled. 
102078 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

threatened species. 

The Act defines an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ as a species that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis, which is 

further described in the 2009 

Memorandum Opinion on the 

foreseeable future from the Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://

www.doi.gov/sites/ 

doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/ 

uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable 

future extends as far into the future as 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(hereafter, the Services) can make 

reasonably reliable predictions about 

the threats to the species and the 

species’ responses to those threats. We 

need not identify the foreseeable future 

in terms of a specific period of time. We 

will describe the foreseeable future on a 

case-by-case basis, using the best 

available data and taking into account 

considerations such as the species’ lifehistory characteristics, threat projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

over which we can make reasonably 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction, in light of 

the conservation purposes of the Act. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent our decision on 

whether the species should be proposed 

for listing as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

However, it does provide the scientific 

basis that informs our regulatory 

decisions, which involve the further 

application of standards within the Act 

and its implementing regulations and 

policies. 

To assess the viability of Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee, we used the three 

conservation biology principles of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, 

pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency is the 

ability of the species to withstand 

environmental and demographic 

stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 

warm or cold years); redundancy is the 

ability of the species to withstand 

catastrophic events (for example, 

droughts, large pollution events); and 

representation is the ability of the 

species to adapt to both near-term and 

long-term changes in its physical and 

biological environment (for example, 

climate conditions, pathogens). In 

general, species viability will increase 

with increases in resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Smith 

et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these 

principles, we identified the species’ 

ecological requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of a species to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time, which we then used to inform our 

regulatory decision. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

report; the full SSA report can be found 

at Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2024–0117 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102079 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

Species Needs 

There have been few studies focused 

specifically on understanding Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee biology and needs. 

Thus, we relied on information 

available for cuckoo bumble bees 

(subgenus Psithyrus) or bumble bees 

(genus Bombus) where appropriate. 

Host Species 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bees cannot 

successfully reproduce without the 

availability of suitable host bumble bee 

colonies. Female cuckoo bumble bees 

invade host bumble bee nests where 

they will often eliminate the host queen, 

destroy host eggs, and eject host larvae 

from the nest. This may be driven by the 

need to create space for parasitic eggs 

and/or to increase the incubation effort 

of host workers towards parasitic eggs. 

Cuckoo bumble bees lack a mechanism 

to carry pollen and are unable to 

produce worker bees, and thus depend 

on social bee hosts to collect the pollen 

on which they rear their young 

(Lhomme and Hines 2019, p. 126). 

Thus, survival of Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bees is dependent upon the 

survival and health of the host colony. 

Food Resources 

Cuckoo bumble bees require diverse 

native floral resources (pollen and 

nectar) for nutrition. Limited 

information exists regarding key forage 

plants for cuckoo bumble bees (Dozier et 

al. 2023, p. 643), but abundant spring 

floral resources are important to cuckoo 

bumble bee females for ovary 

development (Lhomme and Hines 2019, 

p. 132) and abundant fall floral 

resources are important to the fitness of 

the colony (Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007, 

pp. 156–157), since this is when new 

gynes (the primary reproductive 

females) and drones (male bees that are 

solely responsible for reproduction) are 

produced (Goulson 2010a, pp. 6–8). In 

addition, fall floral resources are 

important for females who must survive 

an overwintering diapause (a period of 

suspended development) without 

foraging (Beekman et al. 1998, p. 207; 

Ogilvie and CaraDonna 2022, p. 2419). 

Because cuckoo bumble bees are 

dependent on host workers to raise their 

offspring, females tend to emerge from 

hibernation later than their hosts to feed 

on nectar and pollen in preparation for 

laying eggs (Lhomme and Hines 2019, p. 

132). While specific requirements for 

overwintering sites are unknown, 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee females 

likely overwinter in and under mulch or 

other decomposing vegetation that is 

separated from nesting habitat 

(COSEWIC 2019, p. 27; Liczner and 

Colla 2019, p. 793; Martin et al. 2023, 

p. 25). 

Habitat and Population Connectivity 

Dispersal of bees is necessary to find 

unrelated mates and is aided by the 

proximity of other usurped colonies and 

the presence of suitable dispersal 

corridors. Bumble bee reproductive 

individuals (drones and gynes) can 

disperse up to 10.0 kilometer (km) (6.2 

mile (mi)) (Darvill et al. 2006, p. 606; 

Jha and Kremen 2013, p. 2490; Lepais et 

al. 2010, p. 287). Dispersal distance can 

vary widely across species, and it has 

not yet been described for Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bees. The indiscriminate 

cuckoo bumble bee (B. insularis) was 

found to disperse up to 7.0 km (4.3 mi) 

which is comparable to research on 

other Bombus species (Koch et al. 2021, 

p. 5). Connectivity is a constraint for 

cuckoo bumble bees because they live in 

small, fragmented populations as a 

result of their dependence on host 

bumble bee colonies (Suhonen et al. 

2016, p. 529). Population connectivity is 

important for Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee’s viability as it increases the 

likelihood of genetic diversity, which 

promotes successful reproduction. 

Bumble bees are prone to producing 

unviable sterile males when genetic 

diversity between mating pairs is low 

(Zayed 2009, p. 239). Sterile males are 

unable to contribute to the following 

year’s cohort, which can have negative 

impacts to the population and overall 

species viability. 

Dispersal of bees to find unrelated 

mates is aided by the proximity of other 

usurped colonies. Consequently, the 

sharp historical decrease in the 

prevalence of both Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee, and many of its confirmed 

and potential host species (see 

Historical, Current, and Near-term 

Condition of Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble 

Bee, below), has likely reduced 

population connectivity relative to 

historical conditions. Reduced gene 

flow may have consequences on the 

genetic diversity of Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee, because small populations 

can experience stronger genetic drift 

(Zayed 2009, p. 246). This is important 

because high genetic diversity reduces 

prevalence of some pathogens (Parsche 

and Lattorff 2018, p. 900), and the risk 

of matched mating, which produces 

sterile males that do not contribute to 

population growth (Zayed 2009, p. 239). 

Thermal Suitability 

Bumble bees require temperatures to 

be within a suitable range throughout 

their lifecycle; however, this 

temperature range appears to be highly 

variable both across and within bumble 

bee species (Service 2024, pp. 20–22). 

Based on occupancy modeling results 

for Suckely’s cuckoo bumble bee, 

occupancy is greatest when the average 

maximum temperature is near 20 

Celsius (°C) (68 Fahrenheit (°F)) and 

declines when temperatures are lower 

and higher than the average maximum 

temperature (Service 2024, p. 64). In 

general, as bumble bees approach the 

lower end of their thermal limits, they 

become lethargic (Oyen et al. 2016, p. 

53). Additionally, extreme cold can 

affect foraging behavior; exposure to 

cold (approximately 4°C (39°F) for 5 

minutes) reduced bumble bee foraging 

for days after exposure (Wilson et al. 

2006, p. 171). The upper end of some 

bumble bee thermal limits, where loss of 

muscle control occurs, ranged from 

approximately 38 to 53°C (100–129°F) 

(Hamblin et al. 2017, p. supplemental 

dataset; Oyen et al. 2016, p. 54; Oyen 

and Dillon 2018, p. 4). Compared to 

other bee species, bumble bees may be 

particularly sensitive to increases in 

temperature (Hamblin et al. 2017, p. 3). 

Further, bumble bee abundance was 

observed to decrease following heat 

waves in Europe (Rasmont and Iserbyt, 

2012, p. 276). 

Nest temperatures are important to 

the maintenance and growth of the 

colony (Heinrich 1979, p. 68; Vogt 1986, 

p. 64). Temperatures in underground 

bumble bee nests fluctuate less than in 

the surrounding environment, 

maintaining around 30°C (86°F) (Vogt, 

1986, p. 61; Goulson, 2010a, p. 20; 

Heinrich 1979, p. 66), due to insulating 

qualities and colony behavior. Nest 

temperatures outside of ideal thermal 

ranges can slow larvae development and 

colony growth (Heinrich 1979, p. 68; 

Vanderplanck et al. 2019, p. 3; Vogt 

1986, p. 64). The brood is most 

susceptible to cold temperatures earlier 

in the season when ambient 

temperatures are low, and the colony is 

small. 

In summary, Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee must have availability of 

suitable host colonies, sufficient food 

resources, connectivity, and thermal 

suitability to support viability. Highly 

resilient populations consist of many 

genetically diverse individuals that have 

all their basic resource needs met (host 

colony availability, floral resource 

abundance and diversity, overwintering 

site availability, population 

connectivity, and thermal suitability). 

This translates into a diverse collection 

of individuals on the landscape with 

high survival and reproduction success, 

which ultimately results in population 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
102080 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

growth and larger populations. Survival 

and reproduction of Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bees depend on the survival and 

health of the host colony. Host colony 

workers are paramount to the growth 

and survival of new generations of 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bees because 

they forage and care for the brood of 

parasite larva. 

Redundancy for Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee is described as having 

multiple, healthy populations widely 

distributed across the breadth of 

adaptive diversity relative to the spatial 

occurrence of catastrophic events (e.g., 

pathogen outbreak, wildfire, or drought 

events). In addition to guarding against 

a single or series of catastrophic event(s) 

extirpating all populations of Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee, redundancy is 

important to protect against losing 

irreplaceable sources of adaptive 

diversity. Having multiple populations 

distributed across the range of the 

species will help preserve the breadth of 

adaptive diversity and, hence, the 

evolutionary flexibility of the species. 

The adaptive capacity, as it relates to 

representation, of Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee is a function of the amount 

and spatial distribution of genetic and 

phenotypic diversity. Based on genetic 

studies of other bumble bee species with 

similar ecologies, and given the 

potential dispersal capability, Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee may not exhibit 

much genetic differentiation across its 

broad range. Genetic variation can be 

negatively affected by genetic drift; 

small populations experience stronger 

drift (Zayed 2009, p. 246). Thus, 

preserving the genetic diversity of 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee may 

require maintaining relatively large 

populations and connectivity among 

them. 

Threats 

Host Species Decline 

Cuckoo bumble bees have higher 

threat indices (higher extinction 

vulnerability) than host species because 

they are entirely dependent on host 

colonies for reproduction (Suhonen et 

al. 2015, pp. 238–239). The presence of 

parasitic bees depends on the presence 

of their hosts; any stressor effects on the 

host will be reflected in the status of the 

parasite (Sheffield et al. 2013, p. 508). 

Because cuckoo bumble bees depend on 

host species, there is a co-extinction risk 

for host and parasite species (Suhonen 

et al. 2015, p. 238). Thus, signs that host 

species are declining are of major 

concern to the viability of Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee. The effect of all the 

stressors impacting Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee are compounded through 

the additional effects of these stressors 

on host species availability (Service 

2024, p. 33). 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee is part 

of a group in the subgenus Psithyrus 

which primarily parasitizes bumble bees 

in the subgenus Bombus (Lhomme and 

Hines 2019, p. 129). Bumble bee nests 

are rare to encounter at a baseline, and 

usurped nests are even rarer to 

encounter, making observations 

supporting host choice limited 

(Lhomme and Hines 2019, pp. 132–133). 

Additionally, cuckoo bumble bee 

females may shelter in nests they do not 

usurp, leading to inconclusive 

observations. 

Given these challenges, our current 

understanding is that Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee has two confirmed hosts 

and numerous potential hosts. The 

western bumble bee is the most widely 

known host of Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee (Hobbs 1968, p. 164; Williams et al. 

2014, p. 165; Lhomme and Hines 2019, 

p. 128). The western bumble bee occurs 

throughout the core of Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee’s range in western North 

America. There are also three records of 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee nesting 

successfully (i.e., rearing young) in 

Nevada bumble bee nests (Hobbs 1965, 

p. 127). 

Aside from these two confirmed 

hosts, there are numerous potential 

hosts (Service 2024, pp. 35–37) 

including yellow-banded bumble bee (B. 

terricola), red-belted bumble bee (B. 

rufocinctus), yellow bumble bee (B. 

fervidus), and white-shouldered bumble 

bee (B. appositus) (Hobbs 1968, pp. 157, 

164; Williams et al. 2014, p. 165). 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bees are also 

observed in locations beyond the range 

of these confirmed and potential hosts 

(based on nest observations). Because of 

this, it is reasonable to assume there are 

additional hosts not yet confirmed 

through observations. The following 

additional potential hosts have been 

identified for Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee: rusty patched bumble bee (B. 

affinis), McKay’s bumble bee (B. 

mckayi), and cryptic bumble bee (B. 

cryptarum) (COSEWIC 2019, p. 17; 

Service 2024, pp. 5–6). 

Over the past century, many species 

parasitized by Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee have documented declines (Hatfield 

et al. 2014, p. 46; Hatfield et al. 2015, 

p. 4; COSEWIC 2019, p. vi). Trends 

observed across North America suggest 

subgenus Bombus species are 

experiencing widespread declines (Giles 

and Ascher 2006, pp. 217–218; Colla 

and Packer 2008, p. 1387; Schweitzer et 

al. 2012, p. 7; Janousek et al. 2023, p. 

2). For the SSA report, we updated a 

multi-species occupancy model (Jackson 

et al. 2022, entire) to evaluate host 

species declines for two confirmed hosts 

(western bumble bee and Nevada 

bumble bee), and four potential hosts in 

the subgenus Bombus (rusty patched 

bumble bee, McKay’s bumble bee, 

yellow-banded bumble bee, and cryptic 

bumble bee). The western bumble bee, 

McKay’s bumble bee, rusty patched 

bumble bee, and yellow-banded bumble 

bee all exhibited statistically significant 

temporal declines in occupancy 

rangewide (Service 2024, pp. 69–70). 

Since Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee is 

dependent on host species for survival, 

declines in host species abundance is 

having significant impacts to Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee viability. 

Managed Bees 

Generally, the term ‘‘managed bees’’ 

describes hives or colonies of bees that 

are used commercially to provide 

pollination services for a wide variety of 

crops over the growing season. Some 

hives or colonies are moved within and 

between States multiple times 

throughout a single growing season. 

Within the range of Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee, managed bees are used for 

a wide variety of crops including, but 

not limited to, alfalfa, almonds, apples, 

avocado, canola, cherries, sunflowers, 

squash, melon, berries, cucumbers, and 

clover (Bond et al. 2014, entire). The use 

of managed bees is expanding in some 

portions of the range of Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee, including western 

Canada (COSEWIC 2019, p. 49). 

Managed bees also include hobby or 

backyard bee keeping, as well as smallscale greenhouse operations. Managed 

bees include many different species of 

bees, such as the introduced European 

honey bee (Apis mellifera) and several 

species of native North American 

bumble bees, including common eastern 

bumble bee (B. impatiens), an eastern 

species that has recently been moved 

into the range of Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee for commercial pollination 

services (Palmier and Sheffield 2019, p. 

9). 

Managed bees are a threat to Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee in two primary 

contexts—as a pathway for pathogen 

introduction and spread, and 

competition for resources (Thomson 

2004, p. 467; Winter et al. 2006, entire; 

Goulson et al. 2008, p. 193; Goulson 

2010b, p. 10; Fu ̈rst et al. 2014, p. 365; 

Goulson et al. 2015, p. 11). For example, 

wild bumble bees located more closely 

to managed honey bee colonies had 

significantly higher disease rates than 

wild bumble bees located farther away 

(Alger et al. 2019, p. 5). Similarly, 

infection rates for several bumble bee 

pathogens were higher in multiple 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102081 

Bombus species near commercial 

greenhouses where managed bees were 

used than in areas located far away from 

commercial greenhouses (Colla et al. 

2006, pp. 462–464). 

While individual Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bees need floral resources for 

nectar and pollen, competition for 

resources likely more directly affects the 

hosts for Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bees, 

such as western bumble bees, whose 

colonies may have hundreds of foraging 

workers. As a result of competition, 

populations of wild Bombus species 

have been shown to decrease with an 

increase in honey bee density (Thomson 

2016, p. 1251). In particular, western 

bumble bee colonies that were found 

near higher densities of managed honey 

bees had reduced reproductive success 

(Thomson 2004, p. 464). 

Pathogens 

Bumble bees are susceptible to a 

variety of pathogens including fungal 

pathogens, parasites, tracheal mites, 

viruses, and nematodes. Many of these 

pathogens are widespread and cause 

lethal and sublethal effects for Bombus 

species. We provide a brief summary 

below of some pathogens that are 

known to affect Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee, its hosts, or both. Please see 

the SSA report for a detailed review of 

all pathogens affecting Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bees (Service 2024, pp. 38–34). 

The fungal pathogens Vairimorpha 

bombi (formerly Nosema bombi; 

Tokarev et al. 2020, p. 11) and V. 

ceranae (formerly Nosema ceranae; 

Tokarev et al. 2020, p. 11) which are 

caused by microsporidian parasites, can 

have lethal and sublethal effects on 

bumble bees, including disabled wings 

and impacts to reproduction (Otti and 

Schmid-Hempel 2007, p. 122), 

suppressed immune response, and 

increased mortality (Graystock et al. 

2013, pp. 116–117; Graystock et al. 

2014, p. 9; Rotheray et al. 2017, p. 294; 

Service 2018, p. 52). Vairimopha bombi 

has been documented in Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee, one confirmed host 

species (western bumble bee), and four 

suspected host species (rusty patched 

bumble bee, yellow bumble bee, redbelted bumble bee, yellow-banded 

bumble bee) (Kissinger et al. 2011, p. 

222; Cordes et al. 2012, p. 212), and it 

is classified as an emerging infectious 

disease (Sachman-Ruiz et al. 2015, p. 

2044; Wilfert et al. 2016, pp. 595–596). 

Many protozoan parasites have been 

documented in bumble bees in North 

America and can negatively affect 

populations by reducing colony 

founding success, lowering colony 

fitness and growth, causing delayed 

reproduction and inadequate fat 

reserves in hibernating queens, and 

causing adult mortality (Shykoff and 

Schmid-Hempel 1991, p. 242; SchmidHempel 2001, pp. 148, 150–154; Brown 

et al. 2003, pp. 995–1000). In particular, 

Apicystis bombi is a protozoan parasite 

classified as an emerging infectious 

disease (Sachman-Ruiz et al. 2015, p. 

2044; Wilfert et al. 2016, pp. 595–596). 

This disease has not been documented 

in Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee, but it 

has been documented in Nevada bumble 

bee, one of two confirmed host species 

(Maxfield-Taylor et al. 2011, p. 4). 

Several honey bee viruses (e.g., 

deformed wing virus, black queen cell 

virus, sacbrood virus, Kashmire bee 

virus, Israeli acute paralysis virus, and 

acute bee paralysis virus) are also 

known to infect bumble bees (Singh et 

al. 2010, p. 8; Robson-Hyska 2017, pp. 

124–125; Tehel et al. 2022, p. 4). These 

viruses have not been documented in 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee, but they 

have been documented in several of its 

potential hosts, including red-belted 

bumble bee, yellow bumble bee, and 

yellow-banded bumble bee (RobsonHyska 2017, pp. 63–65, 124–125). 

Parasitic nematodes, such as 

Sphaerularia bombi, can result in 

multiple negative effects to bumble bee 

queens, including changes in gene 

expression affecting energy usage, 

translation, and circadian rhythm 

(Colgan et al. 2020, p. 170), and in 

endocrine gland function involved in 

growth and development in the larva 

and pupa (Maxfield-Taylor et al. 2011, 

p. 134). Sphaerularia bombi has not 

been documented in Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee, but it has been documented 

in western bumble bee (Poinar 1974, p. 

305). 

In summary, bumble bees are 

susceptible to a variety of pathogens and 

parasites, many of which are 

widespread and cause lethal and 

sublethal effects for Bombus species. 

Although we lack information on 

pathogen studies specific to Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee (Dozier et al. 2023, 

p. 642), we know many of these 

pathogens and parasites have negative 

impacts to host species. 

Pesticides 

A variety of pesticides are widely 

used in agricultural, urban, and natural 

environments, including herbicides, 

insecticides, fungicides, miticides, 

rodenticides, and adjuvants. The 

pesticides with greatest effects on 

bumble bees are herbicides and 

insecticides (particularly, 

neonicotinoids, see below for more 

detail). Herbicide use can cause changes 

in vegetation and the loss or reduction 

of flowers needed to provide consistent 

sources of pollen, nectar, and nesting 

material (Johansen 1977, p. 188; Kearns 

et al. 1998, pp. 91–92; Kearns and 

Inouye 1997, p. 302; Plowright et al. 

1978, p. 1145; Smallidge and Leopold 

1997, p. 264). Insecticides are 

specifically designed to directly kill 

insects, which includes bumble bees, 

and herbicides reduce available floral 

resources, thus indirectly affecting 

bumble bees. For a full review of 

pesticides and the effects on bumble 

bees, please see the SSA report (Service 

2024, pp. 42–44). 

Neonicotinoids are a class of 

insecticides that are used in a wide 

variety of agricultural applications, 

including common use as seed coatings 

in corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton 

(Alford and Krupke, 2017, p. 1) and 

have been strongly implicated in the 

decline of several Bombus species (Colla 

and Packer 2008, p. 10; Goulson 2013, 

pp. 7–8; Pisa et al. 2015, p. 69). 

Neonicotinoids are currently used 

throughout the range of Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee in North America. 

Neonicotinoids kill insects by 

interfering with the receptors of their 

nervous systems, causing 

overstimulation, paralysis, and death 

(Buszewski et al. 2019, p. 34728). 

Sublethal effects of neonicotinoids to 

bumble bees can include impairments to 

reproduction (Whitehorn et al. 2012, pp. 

351–352; Baron et al. 2017, p. 4; Raine 

2018, p. 40; Wu-Smart and Spivak 2018, 

pp. 4–5). Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee 

have been observed in and around 

regions of agricultural production, 

including those involved in the 

production of crops commonly treated 

with neonicotinoids. 

Habitat Conversion and Fragmentation 

The conversion of natural habitat to 

agricultural and urban areas is the 

primary cause of bumble bee habitat 

loss (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 2). 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee is 

associated with a wide variety of 

habitats including prairies, grasslands, 

meadows, and woodlands as well as 

urban and agricultural areas (COSEWIC 

2019, p. 26; Martin et al. 2023, p. 22; 

Montana Natural Heritage Program 

2023, entire). Habitat conversion and 

fragmentation reduce the amount and/or 

accessibility of suitable host nests and 

foraging and overwintering habitat. 

Habitat conversion and fragmentation 

also reduce the connectivity required for 

healthy populations to expand in 

response to environmental or 

demographic changes and to maintain 

genetic diversity. High populations of 

bumble bee species are associated with 

diverse floral resources, particularly 

when surrounded by a complexity of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
102082 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

natural habitats across the landscape 

(Hines and Hendrix 2005, pp. 1481– 

1483; Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007, pp. 

154–157). Due to their foraging, nesting 

and overwintering requirements, 

bumble bees are sensitive to the 

negative effects of habitat fragmentation 

(Kearns and Inouye 1997, p. 298). 

Habitat loss is commonly cited as a 

long-term contributor to bee declines 

through the 20th century, and it may 

continue to contribute to current 

declines, at least for some species 

(Goulson et al. 2008, pp. 191–198; 

Brown and Paxton 2009, pp. 411–412; 

Goulson et al. 2015, p. 2). As generalist 

foragers, Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee 

and its confirmed host species may not 

be as severely affected by historical and 

ongoing habitat loss compared to habitat 

specialists. However, habitat loss or 

degradation reduces bee diversity and 

abundance (Potts et al. 2010, pp. 348– 

349), and small, isolated patches of 

habitat may not be sufficient to support 

healthy bee populations (O ̈ ckinger and 

Smith 2006, pp. 55–56; Hatfield and 

LeBuhn 2007, pp. 154–156). 

Habitat conversion leads to the 

reduction of abundant and diverse floral 

resources, which can lead to a lack of 

sufficient nutritional resources; can 

reduce colony growth, health, and 

reproduction; and can negatively 

influence long-term bee populations 

(Vaudo et al. 2015, p. 4040). Food 

shortfalls because of habitat loss can 

induce longer larval development, can 

produce smaller and fewer individuals, 

and can cause an early shift to male 

production (Beekman and van Stratum 

1998, entire; Sutcliffe and Plowright 

1990, pp. 1056–1057). Larval and 

colony growth can be significantly 

affected by pollen type (plant species), 

pollen diversity, and the varying 

nutritional quality and quantity. 

Nutritional stress caused by habitat loss 

can affect learning and memory that can 

lead to reduced foraging efficiency, 

increased competition, and overall 

decline in colony fitness (TownsendMehler and Dyer 2011, pp. 275–286; 

Colla 2016, p. 413). 

Monoculture farming is another factor 

that impacts plant community changes 

and thus reduces nesting opportunities 

for host colonies (Kearns and Inouye 

1997, p. 298). Agricultural manipulation 

and changes across various landscape 

types likely impacted the availability of 

host nest sites in North America in the 

20th century due to habitat degradation, 

modification, conversion, and loss 

(Goulson 2003, p. 142). These are 

important changes because diet breadth 

and coexistence in bumble bees can 

become limited due to habitat loss 

(Goulson et al. 2008, pp. 193–200) and 

coexistence is important for parasitic 

species such as the Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee that rely on host colonies to 

raise their young. Decreases in foraging 

habitat increases competition among 

bumble bee species, because there is 

overlap in resources that these species 

use (Goulson et al. 2008, p. 196). 

While habitat conversion and 

fragmentation are well documented 

throughout the range of Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee, limited recent 

observations show Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee, western bumble bee, and 

rusty patched bumble bee populations 

do occur in urban and agricultural 

settings. However, these areas may not 

represent high-quality habitat with 

diverse native floral resources, and 

records of species in these habitats may 

represent refugia from the primary 

threats in these areas (i.e., application of 

pesticides in agricultural settings) 

(Everett 2023, pers. comm.). 

Climate Change 

Changes in ambient temperatures and 

heatwaves—Global annual surface 

temperatures have risen an average of 

0.09 °C (0.17 (°F)) each decade from 

1901 to 2020 (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) 2021, n.p.). 

Temperature increases in the contiguous 

United States since the late 1970s have 

surpassed the global rates for that 

period, increasing from 0.17 °C to 

0.30 °C (0.31 °F to 0.54 °F) each decade. 

The northern and western parts of the 

United States have experienced the 

greatest temperature increases (EPA 

2021, n.p.), representing much of the 

range of Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee. 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee has been 

observed at latitudes up to 68.9 degrees 

North, within the Arctic Circle. Based 

on the most recent climate models, 

temperatures in the Arctic have 

increased at three times the global rate, 

and are expected to continue to increase 

at a higher rate than the global average, 

with surface temperatures exceeding 

6 °C (42.9 °F) above preindustrial times 

by the end of the 21st century (Ma et al. 

2022, pp. 1, 7; Hayhoe et al. 2018, pp. 

91–92). Climate change is contracting 

temperate, arctic, and alpine zones 

(Staten et al. 2018, p. 770) in which 

bumble bees are distributed and to 

which they are adapted (Goulson 2010a, 

p. 2). 

In addition to increasing average 

temperatures, heatwaves in the United 

States have become more frequent, more 

intense, and longer in duration (EPA 

2021, n.p.). Rising ambient temperatures 

and heatwaves can negatively affect 

bumble bee individuals and colonies by 

reducing survival, increasing energy 

expenditures, reducing flight and 

foraging, reducing reproduction, and 

impacting when bees enter diapause 

(Bartomeus et al. 2011, p. 20645; Maebe 

et al. 2021, p. 4229; Service 2024, pp. 

20–22). 

Bumble bees have low variation in 

heat stress resistance and, therefore, 

may have low capacity to adapt 

physiologically to warming 

temperatures (Martinet et al. 2021, p. 7). 

Bumble bee species that occur across a 

relatively broad climatic range, such as 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee, likely 

have a greater capacity to adapt to 

warming temperatures than species with 

narrow ranges. While we do not know 

how well Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee 

will adapt to rising temperatures, their 

main host species, the western bumble 

bee, appears to be sensitive to 

temperature (Janousek et al. 2023, p. 2). 

Heat waves are projected to increase, 

particularly in the western portions of 

North America (Hicke et al. 2022, p. 

1937), which represents the bulk of the 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee’s range. 

Temperature changes could make the 

southern portions of the Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee’s range less suitable 

for the species, while additional habitat 

may become more suitable in the 

northern portions of the range and at 

higher elevations. Colonizing new areas 

may be dependent on dispersal ability 

and may require adapting to novel 

communities where Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bees could be exposed to new 

environmental conditions (e.g., extreme 

heat or extreme cold) and potential 

hosts (Cameron et al. 2011, pp. 39–40; 

Pradervand et al. 2014, p. 5). 

Additionally, warming ambient 

temperatures and heatwaves commonly 

co-occur with drought, another 

influence that could compound the 

effects of any one of the other threats to 

this species (see Drought frequency and 

intensity, below) (Cameron et al. 2011, 

pp. 39–40; Pradervand et al. 2014, p. 5). 

While northern areas may become 

suitable in the future, an analysis of 

long-term observations of 67 bumble bee 

species from Europe and North America 

showed southern range contractions as 

a result of climate change, with no 

change in northern limits (Kerr et al. 

2015, p. 178). Future projections of the 

distribution of bumble bee species 

under different climate scenarios and 

dispersal assumptions also predict 

widespread declines, and possible 

extirpations, in the southern portions of 

species ranges. (Sirois-Delisle and Kerr 

2018, pp. 4–5; Soroye et al. 2020, pp. 

685, 687). 

Warming temperatures could 

additionally affect Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee and its hosts by affecting 

floral resources. Shifts in flowering 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102083 

times (in response to warming 

temperatures) could result in 

phenological mismatch between 

pollinators and their foraging resources 

(Service 2024, pp. 47–48). Heatwave 

conditions directly reduce bumble bee 

foraging, as well as have indirect effects 

on bumble bee foraging from heatstressed flowering resources (Williams 

and Hemberger 2023, p. 597). Decreased 

pollination due to phenological 

mismatch could reduce plant 

reproduction and further affect floral 

resource availability (Forrest et al. 2010, 

p. 438; Thomson 2010, p. 3197). 

Drought frequency and intensity— 

Drought negatively impacts floral 

resources and the pollinators that 

depend on them. A large portion of 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee’s range is 

within water-limited areas of western 

North America where drought is 

frequent and has major implications for 

floral resources. The frequency of 

biologically significant drought events is 

projected to increase within the range of 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee and its 

host species due to changes in climate 

and resource impacts (Swain and 

Hayhoe 2015, pp. 2737–2750). 

Drought indirectly impacts bumble 

bees by altering or reducing floral 

resources, including reductions to the 

quality, quantity, and availability of 

pollen and nectar (Carroll et al. 2001, p. 

443; Waser and Price 2016, p. 1405; 

Phillips et al. 2018, pp. 3226–3235) 

Shifts in the spatial and temporal 

patterns of flowering, which result in 

mid-summer floral gaps (Aldridge et al. 

2011, entire), highlight that droughtstress impacts on a plant community 

could reduce pollen and nectar 

resources needed for successful 

pollinator reproduction. Since droughts 

have a direct effect on floral resources, 

this in turn has an effect on pollinators 

at the population level (Roulston and 

Goodell 2011, p. 305). Drought may also 

lead to increased competition with 

honey bees in areas where their 

resources overlap. When drought 

conditions impact preferred floral 

resources, bumble bees will forage on 

less preferred, drought-resistant species 

sought after by the more populous 

honey bees (Thomson 2016, pp. 1247– 

1255). 

A model of cumulative effects of 

climate changes, landcover, and 

pesticide use on western bumble bee 

occupancy found that consecutive years 

of severe drought was the second most 

influential cause of occupancy declines 

(Janousek et al. 2023, pp. 2–3). In 

addition, suitable habitats may be 

restricted with rising temperatures, 

reducing the range of some bumble bee 

species, especially at range edges where 

abundance may decline when floral 

resources decline in response to drought 

(Thomson 2016, pp. 1247–1255). 

Although drought may be locally and 

temporarily alleviated by precipitation, 

the impacts to the growing season may 

persist and reduced floral resources 

could impact Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bees that require pollen and nectar to 

overwinter with adequate body mass 

(Service 2024, pp. 22–23). 

Droughts, especially in consecutive 

years (Janousek et al. 2023, p. 2), will 

likely amplify biologically significant 

negative effects on Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee resources and host species, 

though the direct drought impacts on 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee 

individuals and populations are 

unstudied. Droughts are expected to 

negatively affect floral resources, alter 

floral communities to less preferred 

flowering conditions or timing, increase 

competition between pollinators, and 

negatively impact Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee and its hosts throughout 

much of the species’ range. 

Wildfire—Wildfires pose complex 

effects to bumble bees, from decreasing 

resource availability (Mola and 

Williams 2018, p. 7; Galbraith et al. 

2019, p. 15; Mola et al. 2020, p. 1807) 

to increasing floral and bee abundance 

and diversity (Mola and Williams 2018, 

pp. 4–8; Carbone et al. 2019, entire; 

Galbraith et al. 2019, entire; Mola et al. 

2020, pp. 1804–1808). Fire disturbance 

can temporarily increase floral 

resources, thereby enhancing bee body 

size, reproductive output, genetic 

diversity, and population size (Carbone 

et al. 2019, entire; Mola et al. 2020, pp. 

1804–1808), although these effects may 

vary by habitat type (i.e., forested vs. 

grassland habitats). The relative effect of 

high-intensity fires varies based on the 

ecological conditions in which they 

occur. Since Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee is a broad-ranging species with 

multiple hosts, fire is likely to have 

variable and diverse effects throughout 

its range. 

Early spring frosts—Early spring frosts 

pose a risk to bumble bees, specifically 

to new queens and newly established 

colonies, by damaging floral resources 

(CaraDonna and Bain 2015, pp. 61–62). 

Flowers, compared to vegetative parts, 

are generally more sensitive to damage 

from frost events (CaraDonna and Bain 

2015, pp. 61–62), and spring frosts 

reduce the overall availability of floral 

resource abundance across the 

subsequent summer (CaraDonna et al. 

2014, p. 4919). 

Despite some plants with early 

phenology exhibiting some tolerance to 

freezing temperatures (CaraDonna and 

Bain 2015, pp. 61–63), an advancing 

bloom date for plants triggered by 

climate change (CaraDonna et al. 2014, 

p. 4919) exposes early floral growth to 

an additional risk of frost damage 

(Willmer 2012, p. R131). The increased 

frost damage to flowering plants could 

also contribute to an observed change in 

flowering dates across small geographic 

and altitudinal distributions (Inouye 

2008, pp. 357, 361). 

Floral resources are important 

throughout the lifecycles of both 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee and its 

hosts, but they are particularly 

important for host colony establishment 

in early spring. Negative effects of early 

spring frost on host colony queens, 

workers, and overall colony size may 

reduce their ability to persist within 

season, and to successfully support 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee. Spring 

frost damage to floral resources has been 

linked to within-season declines in wild 

bee populations (Graham et al. 2021, p. 

6). Spring frosts could have a negative 

impact on the success of local bumble 

bee colonies (Inouye 2008, p. 361) by 

reducing existing and future withinseason availability of pollen and nectar 

resources on which pollinators, 

including host colonies for Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee, rely. Inadequate 

floral resources could especially affect 

colony establishment and growth if they 

occur during critical times, such as early 

spring when new queens emerge from 

diapause and are establishing their 

colonies. Delays in emergence or colony 

initiation after emergence may hinder 

the ability of bees to complete their life 

cycle before the end of the relatively 

short subarctic season (Vogt et al. 1994, 

p. 1554). 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing occurs throughout 

much of the historical range of 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee, primarily 

by cattle, sheep and wild horses, and it 

can have complex effects on bumble 

bees. In general, grazed sites have 

reduced floral resources and lower 

bumble bee diversity and abundance 

(Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007, p. 150; 

Sjo ̈din 2007, pp. 2110–2113; Sjo ̈din et 

al. 2008, p. 763). Although grazing can 

be a useful management tool for 

maintaining early successional habitat, 

benefits are dictated by frequency, 

intensity, species (i.e. sheep, cattle, 

horses, etc.) and timing (Carvell 2002, p. 

44; Kimoto et al. 2012, pp. 9–13). Lowintensity grazing preserves floral 

resources benefiting bumble bees 

(Scohier et al. 2012, pp. 287–292), while 

increased intensity of grazing can 

reduce bee species richness as a result 

of altered floral composition, including 

invasive species establishment and soil 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
102084 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

compaction (Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007, 

p. 156; Va ́zquez and Simberloff 2003, p. 

1080). Bumble bees are sensitive to 

grazing intensity early in the season, 

potentially because of altered foraging 

behavior (Kimoto et al. 2012, pp. 9–13). 

Intense summer grazing, compared to 

areas only grazed in winter, reduces 

vegetation height and floral resources, 

leading to fewer bee visits to preferred 

food plants and decreased bumble bee 

diversity (Xie et al. 2008, pp. 699–700). 

The reduction of vegetation height and 

structure from high-intensity grazing in 

the Pacific Northwest bunchgrass 

prairies has been linked to declines in 

bumble bee richness and abundance 

(Kimoto et al. 2012, pp. 12–13). 

Grazing may compact soil and change 

plant communities (Connors 2016, pers. 

comm.), thus impacting nesting habitat 

for Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee hosts 

(Defenders of Wildlife 2015, p. 14). 

Livestock may also trample nesting sites 

(Kearns et al. 1998, p. 90) and negatively 

impact ground-nesting rodents (Johnson 

and Horn 2008, p. 444), which in turn 

may reduce the number of nest sites 

available for bumble bees (The Xerces 

Society and Thorp 2010, p. 13). 

Livestock grazing also impacts 

hydrology through compaction of soils 

and degraded riparian areas and may 

lead to increased fire cycles through the 

introduction of exotic species (Dwire et 

al. 1999, pp. 319–321). 

In summary, grazing can assist in 

maintaining open habitat, and lowintensity grazing can preserve floral 

resources. However, high-intensity 

grazing can have a negative impact on 

floral resources and can negatively 

impact nest site availability. Thus, 

grazing has varied and complex effects 

on bumble bees, which makes the 

impacts difficult to analyze. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee is 

assessed as threatened in Canada 

(COSEWIC, 2019, p. iii) and is listed as 

critically endangered by the 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (Hatfield et al., 2015, p. 1). In the 

United States, Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee is on the sensitive species list for 

the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management Interagency Special 

Status/Sensitive Species Program 

(ISSSSP) in the Pacific Northwest 

(ISSSSP 2021, entire). It is also listed as 

a species of greatest conservation need 

in Idaho, Washington, Colorado, and 

California, where it is also a candidate 

for listing under the California 

Endangered Species Act (Colorado Parks 

and Wildlife 2015, p. B–1; Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015, 

pp. 3–39; Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game 2017, p. xvii; California Natural 

Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2023, p. 6). 

These States generally outline research 

and conservation needs for species of 

greatest conservation need in State 

Wildlife Action Plans, but these plans 

do not offer regulatory protection. 

Some States regulate the import of 

nonnative bee species, which can help 

protect native bee species, including 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee. The 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

restricts some potential sources of the 

pathogen Vairimorpha bombi from 

entering the State; only Bombus species 

native to Oregon are permitted for 

commercial pollination purposes 

(Oregon Department of Agriculture 

2017, p. 5). California requires permits 

to import some bee species for 

pollination services (California 

Department of Food and Agriculture 

2023, entire). 

The U.S. Forest Service has taken 

steps to reduce impacts of nonnative bee 

species. The Pacific Northwest Region 

of the U.S. Forest Service is working on 

finalizing apiary guidelines, which 

include recommendations for 

management practices and 

considerations to protect native 

pollinators and minimize negative 

effects from managed bees and apiaries 

on lands managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service (Everett 2023, pers. comm.). 

Additionally, at least one U.S. Forest 

Service National Forest in the Pacific 

Northwest already restricts commercial 

and privately owned bees on their 

managed lands (Everett 2023, pers. 

comm.). For example, the Colville 

National Forest plan directs that 

apiaries should not be placed where 

they would pose a risk to native 

pollinators, butterflies, or rare bee 

species (U.S. Forest Service 2019, p. 67). 

These measures highlight that the U.S. 

Forest Service takes the threat of 

managed bees seriously and is actively 

working in some regions to protect 

native bees. 

States have also begun implementing 

strategies to limit pesticide effects on 

bees. The Oregon Bee Project was 

initiated in 2017, as a collaboration 

between the Oregon Department of 

Agriculture, the Oregon State University 

Extension Service, and the Oregon 

Department of Forestry. One project goal 

is to mitigate bee exposure to pesticides 

through increased pesticide label 

comprehension, adoption of new 

application practices, and increasing 

coordination between beekeepers and 

pesticide applicators (Oregon 

Department of Agriculture et al. 2022, 

pp. 2–3). Washington State has 

established similar goals, as stated in 

their Managed Pollinator Protection 

Plan, which offers best management 

practices for beekeepers, growers, and 

pesticide applicators to help protect 

pollinators from pesticides (Washington 

State Department of Agriculture 2018, p. 

5). Washington State also adopted 

additional recommendations and 

funding for pollinator health 

(Washington State Bill 5253, effective 

July 25, 2021). 

In Washington, neither the Managed 

Pollinator Protection Plan nor State Bill 

5253 restrict the use of pesticides, but 

several other States have begun passing 

regulations on pesticides that are 

harmful to bees and other pollinators. 

For example, California recently 

developed regulations that will 

implement mitigation measures to 

protect pollinators by limiting the 

agricultural uses of certain 

neonicotinoid pesticides, which went 

into effect January 1, 2024 (California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

2024, entire). Other States that have 

enacted various regulations on 

neonicotinoid pesticides to reduce 

impacts to bees and other pollinators 

include Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, 

Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland, 

Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont (Malfi 2023, 

entire). 

Other recent efforts aim to better 

understand bees at risk and implement 

broader protections. The Pacific 

Northwest Bumble Bee Atlas (a 

collaborative effort between the 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, the Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game, the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, and the Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation) 

seeks to increase understanding of 

bumble bee distributions and their 

habitats (Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife et al. 2023, entire). 

This effort has contributed to the 

creation of a statewide strategy to 

protect bumble bee species of 

conservation concern in Washington, 

with one of the focal species being 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee (Martin et 

al. 2023, p. 12). In Alaska, the Alaska 

Center for Conservation Science at the 

University of Alaska Anchorage and the 

Bureau of Land Management have 

developed the Alaska Bee Atlas. The 

program aims to collect data on bee 

biodiversity within Alaska; these data 

can eventually be used to inform 

sensitive species lists and management 

(Fulkerson et al. 2023, p. 18). The 

number of bumble bee atlases is 

increasing across the United States and 

increasingly covering the range of 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee. The 

expanding coverage of these atlases will 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102085 

increase understanding of bumble bee 

status and distribution in North 

America. 

On a broader scale, the Colla 

Laboratory at York University in 

Toronto has released a national 

pollinator strategy for Canada. This 

national strategy identifies specific goals 

and actions to protect pollinators and 

needed research to fill knowledge gaps 

(Colla and Nalepa 2023, p. 5). The 

Service is also working on a nationwide 

plan through a bumble bee conservation 

benefit agreement, known as The 

Nationwide Conservation Benefit 

Agreement for Bumble Bees on Energy 

and Transportation Lands. This 

conservation benefit agreement is 

modeled after the nationwide monarch 

butterfly candidate conservation 

agreement with assurances, which is a 

voluntary agreement with transportation 

and utility landowners that provides 

incentives for monarch conservation 

measures on their lands. The bumble 

bee conservation benefit agreement will 

likely include many of the same acres 

enrolled for the protection of several 

bumble bee species, including Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee and some of its host 

species (i.e., western bumble bee, rusty 

patched bumble bee, and yellow-banded 

bumble bee). The Nationwide 

Conservation Benefit Agreement for 

Bumble Bees on Energy and 

Transportation Lands is expected to be 

completed in 2024 (Everett 2023, pers. 

comm.). 

Together, these voluntary and 

regulatory measures highlight an 

increase in effort to protect native 

bumble bee species across North 

America. Some of these measures 

specifically target Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee, its host species, or both for 

conservation. Broad efforts to protect 

and conserve native pollinators and 

bees will also likely benefit Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee. 

Cumulative Effects 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have analyzed the 

cumulative effects of identified threats 

and conservation actions on the species. 

To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we evaluate the 

effects of all the relevant factors that 

may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative-effects 

analysis. 

Historical, Current, and Near-Term 

Condition of Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble 

Bee 

We assessed Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee viability by evaluating the historical 

and current condition and identifying 

the primary influences leading to the 

species’ current and near-term 

condition. We delineated 15 analytical 

units for Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee: 

4 in eastern North America and 11 in 

western North America (figure 1). 

Analytical units are based on ecoregions 

and further detailed in the SSA report 

(Service 2024, pp. 55–56). 

We used a published multi-species 

occupancy model (Jackson et al. 2022, 

entire) with updated Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee occurrence records (Service 

2024, pp. 56–57) to understand trends 

in both Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee 

and host species occupancy. Our dataset 

included 2,317 occurrence records of 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee. The 

occupancy model also incorporated 

floral resources and climate variables. 

For a detailed review of the methods, 

please refer to the SSA report (Service 

2024, pp. 56–57, 120–123). We provide 

a summary below of the methods and 

key findings. 

We used the output of the multispecies occupancy model to assess 

historical trends, and to support our 

assessment of current and near-term 

condition. We used decadal projections 

of rangewide probability of occupancy 

to visualize and characterize overall, 

rangewide trends in occupancy from 

1900–2020 (Service 2024, pp. 63–64). 

We used spatially explicit estimates of 

probability of occupancy from 1900– 

1960 to characterize the historical 

probability of occupancy in each 

analytical unit; we specifically used 

1900–1960 to represent the historical 

baseline, as this is the period before 

declines were apparent (Service 2024, 

pp. 63–64). We used spatially explicit 

occupancy estimates in each analytical 

unit for the 2000–2020 period to 

provide a current snapshot or baseline 

of species condition relative to 

historical. We used spatially explicit 

projections of near-term (2020–2040) 

occupancy in each analytical unit to 

assess near-term risk of extinction. 

The near-term occupancy projections 

were made under two scenarios. 

Scenario 1 assumes moderate climate 

warming under representative 

concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5. 

Scenario 2 assumes a high warming 

scenario (RCP 8.5), and also projects the 

observed, historical rates of decline due 

to other, non-climatic (i.e., trend 

momentum) forward. Both scenarios 

hold floral resources constant at their 

2020 levels, as data are not available to 

project this variable forward. Thus, 

under scenario 1, any changes in 

occupancy are based solely on changes 

in climate (RCP 4.5), while under 

scenario 2, any changes in occupancy 

are based on both climate change (RCP 

8.5), as well as historical rates of change 

due to non-climatic factors. Projections 

for all host species followed the same 

procedures. 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee has 

exhibited a statistically significant 

decline, resulting in lower occupancy 

from historical condition. Historically, 

the median probability of occupancy of 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee rangewide 

was 0.65. By the 2000–2020 period all 

analytical units are estimated to have 

lower probability of occupancy, with 

median probability of occupancy less 

than 0.16 for all analytical units and 

0.13 rangewide (table 1). 

TABLE 1—MEDIAN ESTIMATED PROBABILITY OF OCCUPANCY FOR SUCKLEY’S CUCKOO BUMBLE BEE IN EACH ANALYTICAL

UNIT DURING THE HISTORICAL PERIOD (AVERAGE FROM 1900–1960) AND THE CURRENT (2000–2020) PERIOD

[The percent change in median occupancy from historical to current period is also noted for each analytical unit, as is the total land area of each 

analytical unit (square kilometers (km2)) and the percent of the range the unit represents, in terms of land area.] 

Analytical unit Area 

(km2) 

Percent 

of range 

Last 

detection 

Median 

historical 

occupancy 

Median 

current 

occupancy 

Percent 

change 

Atlantic Highlands (East) ............................................................................... 44,482 0.6 1924 0.712 0.149 ¥79 

Boreal Cordillera ........................................................................................... 532,782 7.4 2019 0.706 0.147 ¥79 

Boreal Plains ................................................................................................. 772,369 10.8 2022 0.661 0.145 ¥78 

Brooks Range Tundra ................................................................................... 99,755 1.4 2019 0.705 0.147 ¥79 

Cold Deserts ................................................................................................. 1,047,895 14.7 2011 0.485 0.061 ¥87 

Hudson Plains (East) .................................................................................... 55,863 0.8 1949 0.682 0.133 ¥80 

Marine West Coast Forests .......................................................................... 250,206 3.5 1982 0.580 0.095 ¥84 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
102086 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—MEDIAN ESTIMATED PROBABILITY OF OCCUPANCY FOR SUCKLEY’S CUCKOO BUMBLE BEE IN EACH ANALYTICAL

UNIT DURING THE HISTORICAL PERIOD (AVERAGE FROM 1900–1960) AND THE CURRENT (2000–2020) PERIOD— 

Continued 

[The percent change in median occupancy from historical to current period is also noted for each analytical unit, as is the total land area of each 

analytical unit (square kilometers (km2)) and the percent of the range the unit represents, in terms of land area.] 

Analytical unit Area 

(km2) 

Percent 

of range 

Last 

detection 

Median 

historical 

occupancy 

Median 

current 

occupancy 

Percent 

change 

Mixed Wood Plains (East) ............................................................................ 360,958 5.0 1971 0.640 0.106 ¥83 

Mixed Wood Shield ....................................................................................... 205,107 2.9 1995 0.590 0.098 ¥83 

Softwood Shield (East) ................................................................................. 119,152 1.7 2010 0.685 0.142 ¥79 

South Central Semi-Arid Prairies .................................................................. 208,917 2.9 2014 0.118 0.013 ¥89 

Taiga Plains .................................................................................................. 905,619 12.7 1969 0.708 0.161 ¥77 

Temperate Prairies ........................................................................................ 501,088 7.0 2018 0.263 0.028 ¥89 

West Central Semi-Arid Prairies ................................................................... 832,871 11.6 2022 0.577 0.100 ¥83 

Western Cordillera ........................................................................................ 1,214,900 17.0 2018 0.692 0.140 ¥80 

Rangewide ............................................................................................. 7,151,965 100 1 2022 0.653 0.128 2¥85 

1The last detection of Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee in our dataset was 2022. However, field data from across the country from the 2023 field season or beyond 

had not been fully curated in time to include in the SSA. 2 Rangewide decline from 1900 to present, based on an analysis of all Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee occurrence records (Service 2024, pp. 63–68). 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee has not 

been observed in the United States since 

2016, despite widespread historical 

occurrence records and increased 

sampling effort for bumble bees. 

Additionally, the species has only been 

detected since 2000 (detections after 

2000 are considered modern detections) 

in 9 of the 15 analytical units (60 

percent of the total analytical units; see 

table 1, above). We considered 

analytical units to be quasi-extirpated 

(when the density of reproductive 

individuals in a population becomes so 

small that extirpation is likely inevitable 

without intervention) if there were no 

detections since 2000. In the species’ 

eastern range, three of the four 

analytical units of Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee were considered quasiextirpated, including the Atlantic 

Highlands (last detection in 1924), 

Hudson Plains (last detection in 1949), 

Mixed Wood Plains (last detection in 

1971). 

In the west of the species’ range, 3 of 

the 11 analytical units lack modern 

detections (i.e., since 2000) of Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee. Notably, the Marine 

West Coast Forest analytical unit has 

515 historical occurrence records (23 

percent of total occurrences), but no 

occurrence records after 1982. The 

Mixed Wood Shield analytical unit has 

two historical records of the species, 

with the most recent occurrence in 

1995. Thus, we consider the Marine 

West Coast Forest and the Mixed Wood 

Shield analytical units to be quasiextirpated. Although the species has not 

been observed in the Taiga Plains since 

1962, this area has not been extensively 

sampled for bees, and, therefore, we did 

not consider it to be quasi-extirpated. 

Additionally, four (western bumble 

bee, McKay’s bumble bee, rusty patched 

bumble bee, and yellow-banded bumble 

bee) of six host species exhibited 

statistically significant temporal 

declines in occupancy rangewide 

(Service 2024, pp. 69–70). These results 

are similar to other studies that found 

rangewide population declines for 

bumble bees in the subgenus Bombus 

(Giles and Ascher 2006, pp. 217–218; 

Colla and Packer 2008, p. 1387; 

Schweitzer et al. 2012, p. 7; Janousek et 

al. 2023, p. 2;). 

In the near-term (by 2040), probability 

of occupancy is expected to continue to 

decline. Under scenario 1, median 

probability of occupancy is estimated to 

be less than 0.11 across all analytical 

units. This represents a 26 to 77 percent 

decline relative to 2000–2020 estimates. 

Under scenario 2, median probability of 

occupancy is estimated to be less than 

0.05 across all analytical units. This 

represents a 73 to 92 percent decline 

relative to 2000–2020 estimates. 

Resiliency 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee has 

experienced a statistically significant, 

rangewide, 85 percent decline in 

occupancy. Additionally, the species 

has not been observed in the contiguous 

United States since 2016, despite 

widespread historical occurrence 

records and increased sampling effort 

for bumble bees. These results suggest 

that the species is currently found in 

fewer locations across its range than 

historically. High abundance and 

survival are demographic needs of 

healthy Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee 

populations. While there are some areas 

in Canada where the species is still 

regularly observed, these results suggest 

resiliency is low across all analytical 

units. In the near-term, resiliency is 

projected to continue to decline, further 

reducing the species ability to sustain 

populations over time. 

Redundancy 

Redundancy buffers the species 

against catastrophic events and can be 

summarized based on the spatial 

distribution of sufficiently resilient 

populations relative to catastrophic 

events. Currently, three eastern 

analytical units and two western 

analytical units are considered quasiextirpated. This apparent contraction of 

the range results in a loss of redundancy 

for the species. In the near-term, the 

continued decline in occupancy 

projected will likely further reduce 

redundancy. Given that one confirmed 

host species (western bumble bee) and 

three potential host species (rusty 

patched bumble bee, McKay’s bumble 

bee, and yellow-banded bumble bee) are 

in decline, redundancy in terms of host 

species is considered low. For instance, 

if a catastrophic event wipes out one 

host species in an area, then there is less 

likely to be an alternative host species 

available for the Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee. 

Representation 

Due to estimated and observed 

declines in occupancy, Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee has substantially 

lower connectivity, and representation 

than historically. Population 

connectivity is important for Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee’s viability as it 

increases the likelihood of genetic 

diversity and promotes successful 

haplodiploid reproduction (genetic sexdetermination system in which females 

develop from fertilized (diploid) eggs 

and males from unfertilized (haploid) 

eggs). Loss of connectivity, genetic drift, 

and inbreeding may be particularly 

consequential for bumble bees due to 

their low effective population size and 

their haplodiploid sex determination 

(Goulson et al. 2008, p. 205). However, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102087 

population connectivity is naturally a 

constraint for cuckoo bumble bees 

because they live in small, fragmented 

populations due to their dependence on 

host bumble bee colonies (Suhonen et 

al. 2016, p. 529). Dispersal of bees to 

find unrelated mates is aided by the 

proximity of other usurped host 

colonies. Consequently, the sharp 

decrease in the prevalence of both 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee and many 

of its confirmed and potential host 

species has likely reduced population 

connectivity relative to historical 

conditions. Reduced gene flow may 

have consequences on the genetic 

diversity of Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee, because small populations can 

experience stronger genetic drift (Zayed 

2009, p. 246). This is important because 

high genetic diversity reduces 

prevalence of some pathogens (Parsche 

and Lattorff 2018, p. 900), and the risk 

of matched mating, which produces 

diploid males that do not contribute to 

population growth (Zayed 2009, p. 239). 

Given the observed 85 percent 

decrease in the species’ occupancy 

relative to historical conditions, the low 

current and projected near-term 

occupancy across all analytical units, 

and the potential that the species is 

extirpated or quasi-extirpated in 

portions of its range, the species has 

likely lost representation across 

longitudinal and ecological gradients. 

The adaptive capacity of Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee is also dependent on 

host species, as the distribution of the 

parasitic bee is restricted by the 

geographic distribution and population 

health of host bees, and parasite 

abundance is low where host abundance 

is low (Antonovics and Edwards 2011, 

p. 1003). Therefore, availability of host 

species may also indirectly restrict the 

adaptive capacity of Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee, given that four of the six 

host species are also in decline. 

Future Condition 

As part of the SSA, the same methods 

to model near-term condition were also 

used to mode the two future condition 

scenarios out to the year 2100. Our 

scenarios assumed a moderate to major 

increase in climate change (warming 

conditions) and either a continuation of 

factors that resulted in the historical 

decline of the species, or no 

continuation of these factors (just the 

impacts of climate change) to the 

species. Because we determined that the 

current and near-term condition of 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee is 

consistent with the Act’s definition of 

an endangered species (see 

Determination of Suckley’s Cuckoo 

Bumble Bee’s Status, below), we are not 

presenting the results of the future 

scenarios beyond 2040 in this proposed 

rule. Please refer to the SSA report 

(Service 2024, pp. 73–83) for the full 

analysis of future conditions. 

Determination of Suckley’s Cuckoo 

Bumble Bee’s Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

We presented summary evaluations of 

the main drivers of the species’ current 

and near-term condition analyzed in the 

SSA report including habitat conversion 

and fragmentation (Factor A), livestock 

grazing (Factor A), pathogens (Factor C), 

host species decline (Factor E), climate 

change (Factor E), and pesticides (Factor 

E). We also evaluated existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) and ongoing 

conservation measures. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we have determined that 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee has 

limited resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation to maintain viability over 

time. Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee has 

exhibited a statistically significant 

decline (85 percent) in probability of 

occupancy rangewide. Historically, the 

median probability of occupancy of 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee rangewide 

was 0.65. By the current time period 

(2000–2020), all analytical units are 

estimated to have lower probability of 

occupancy, with median probability of 

occupancy less than 0.16 for all 

analytical units and 0.13 rangewide. In 

the near-term (by 2040), the probability 

of occupancy is projected to continue to 

decline, with probability of occupancy 

for all analytical units projected to be 

below 0.05 (scenario 1) and 0.11 

(scenario 2). Additional analyses of host 

species occupancy indicate that four of 

six known or potential host species 

exhibited statistically significant 

temporal declines in probability of 

occupancy rangewide. Thus, resiliency 

for all analytical units is considered 

low. 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee has lost 

redundancy because 5 of the 15 

analytical units are currently considered 

to be in a quasi-extirpated state, the 

species has not been observed in the 

contiguous United States since 2016, 

and the remaining analytical units are 

all considered to have low resiliency. 

Near-term projections indicate 

continued declines in occupancy, 

further reducing redundancy. 

Representation has also declined as a 

result of range contraction and 

occupancy decline, as phenotypic, 

genetic, and ecological diversity have 

declined. As host colonies become less 

common across the landscape, Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bees will likely have 

lower likelihood of finding unrelated 

mates. Population fragmentation, 

genetic drift, and inbreeding are likely 

to be exacerbated in the near-term as the 

species becomes even less prevalent. 

Finally, it is important to note that the 

viability of Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee is also highly dependent on its host 

species, many of which have declined 

historically, and are expected to 

continue to do so in the near-term. 

We do not find Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee meets the Act’s definition of 

a threatened species because the species 

currently has low resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation and 

near-term projections are estimated to 

further reduce overall species viability. 

Because Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee 

has low redundancy and representation, 

the species is vulnerable to even a single 

catastrophic event such as a pathogen 

outbreak, wildfire, or drought event. 

Thus, after assessing the best scientific 

and commercial data available, we 

determine that Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We have 

determined that Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
102088 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

accordingly did not undertake an 

analysis of any significant portion of its 

range. Because Suckley’s cuckoo 

bumble bee warrants listing as 

endangered throughout all of its range, 

our determination does not conflict with 

the decision in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 

(D.D.C. 2020), because that decision 

related to significant portion of the 

range analyses for species that warrant 

listing as threatened, not endangered, 

throughout all of their range. 

Determination of Status 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, we 

determine that Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species. Therefore, we 

propose to list Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee as an endangered species in 

accordance with sections 3(6) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition as a listed species, 

planning and implementation of 

recovery actions, requirements for 

Federal protection, and prohibitions 

against certain practices. Recognition 

through listing results in public 

awareness, and conservation by Federal, 

State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign 

governments, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies, 

including the Service, and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the 

Act calls for the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

The recovery planning process begins 

with development of a recovery outline 

made available to the public soon after 

a final listing determination. The 

recovery outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions while a recovery plan is being 

developed. Recovery teams (composed 

of species experts, Federal and State 

agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) may be 

established to develop and implement 

recovery plans. The recovery planning 

process involves the identification of 

actions that are necessary to halt and 

reverse the species’ decline by 

addressing the threats to its survival and 

recovery. The recovery plan identifies 

recovery criteria for review of when a 

species may be ready for reclassification 

from endangered to threatened 

(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from 

protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan 

may be done to address continuing or 

new threats to the species, as new 

substantive information becomes 

available. The recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, final recovery plan, and 

any revisions will be available on our 

website as they are completed (https:// 

www.fws.gov/program/endangeredspecies) or from our Southern Alaska 

Fish and Wildlife Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

If this species is listed, funding for 

recovery actions will be available from 

a variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost-share 

grants for non-Federal landowners, the 

academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. In 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the States of Washington, Oregon, 

Idaho, California, Colorado, Nevada, 

Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, 

and Minnesota would be eligible for 

Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection or recovery of the Suckley’s 

cuckoo bumble bee. Information on our 

grant programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: 

https://www.fws.gov/service/financialassistance. 

Although Suckley’s cuckoo bumble 

bee is only proposed for listing under 

the Act at this time, please let us know 

if you are interested in participating in 

recovery efforts for this species. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7 of the Act is titled, 

‘‘Interagency Cooperation,’’ and it 

mandates all Federal action agencies to 

use their existing authorities to further 

the conservation purposes of the Act 

and to ensure that their actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Regulations 

implementing section 7 are codified at 

50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal 

action agency shall, in consultation with 

the Secretary, ensure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of designated critical habitat. Each 

Federal agency shall review its action at 

the earliest possible time to determine 

whether it may affect listed species or 

critical habitat. If a determination is 

made that the action may affect listed 

species or critical habitat, formal 

consultation is required (50 CFR 

402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in 

writing that the action is not likely to 

adversely affect listed species or critical 

habitat. At the end of a formal 

consultation, the Service issues a 

biological opinion, containing its 

determination of whether the Federal 

action is likely to result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification. 

In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any 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 

critical habitat proposed to be 

designated for such species. Although 

the conference procedures are required 

only when an action is likely to result 

in jeopardy or adverse modification, 

action agencies may voluntarily confer 

with the Service on actions that may 

affect species proposed for listing or 

critical habitat proposed to be 

designated. In the event that the subject 

species is listed or the relevant critical 

habitat is designated, a conference 

opinion may be adopted as a biological 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102089 

opinion and serve as compliance with 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Examples of discretionary actions for 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee that may 

be subject to conference and 

consultation procedures under section 7 

are management of Federal lands 

administered by the National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and U.S. Forest Service, as well as 

actions that require a Federal permit 

(such as a permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers under section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.) or actions funded by Federal 

agencies such as the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. Federal agencies should 

coordinate with the Southern Alaska 

Fish and Wildlife Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with any 

specific questions on section 7 

consultation and conference 

requirements. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the 

Service’s implementing regulations 

codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal 

for any person subject to the jurisdiction 

of the United States to commit, to 

attempt to commit, to solicit another to 

commit or to cause to be committed any 

of the following acts with regard to any 

endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or 

export from, the United States; (2) take 

(which includes harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct) within the United States, 

within the territorial sea of the United 

States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, 

sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by 

any means whatsoever, any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) 

deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 

in interstate or foreign commerce, by 

any means whatsoever and in the course 

of commercial activity; or (5) sell or 

offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. Certain exceptions to these 

prohibitions apply to employees or 

agents of the Service, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal 

land management agencies, and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits for endangered 

wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 

and general Service permitting 

regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 

13. With regard to endangered wildlife, 

a permit may be issued: for scientific 

purposes, for enhancing the propagation 

or survival of the species, or for take 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities. 

The statute also contains certain 

exemptions from the prohibitions, 

which are found in sections 9 and 10 of 

the Act. 

II. Critical Habitat 

Background 

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

that, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, we designate a 

species’ critical habitat concurrently 

with listing the species. Critical habitat 

is defined in section 3 of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (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 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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
102090 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 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. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) 

state that critical habitat is not 

determinable when one or both of the 

following situations exist: 

(i) Data sufficient to perform required 

analyses are lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

identify any area that meets the 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the species and habitat 

characteristics where this species is 

located. A careful assessment of the 

economic impacts that may occur due to 

a critical habitat designation is still 

ongoing, and we are in the process of 

acquiring the complex information 

needed to perform that assessment. 

Therefore, due to the current lack of 

data sufficient to perform required 

analyses, we conclude that the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee is not 

determinable at this time. The Act 

allows the Service an additional year to 

publish a critical habitat designation 

that is not determinable at the time of 

listing (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

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. 

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. 

We sent letters to all Tribes within the 

range of the species. We received 

responses back from the Tsleil-Waututh 

Nation and the Nottawaseppi Huron 

Band of the Potawatomi; both Tribes 

provided support for our SSA efforts, 

but no new data or information. We will 

continue to work with Tribal entities 

during the development of any 

subsequent rules for Suckley’s cuckoo 

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 Southern 

Alaska Fish and Wildlife 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102091 

Assessment Team and the Southern 

Alaska Fish and Wildlife 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 adding an entry for ‘‘Bee, 

cuckoo bumble, Suckley’s’’ in 

alphabetical order 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, cuckoo bumble, 

Suckley’s.

Bombus suckleyi ........... Wherever found ............ E [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]. 

*******

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28729 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 216, 300, and 635 

[Docket No. 241010–0269] 

RIN 0648–BK86 

Seafood Import Procedures and 

Certification of Admissibility 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to revise 

regulations to provide for electronic 

entry filing of data from the Certification 

of Admissibility (COA) form, which 

allows entry of certain fish or fish 

products otherwise subject to trade 

restrictions pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), High 

Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium 

Protection Act (Moratorium Protection 

Act), or Atlantic Tunas Convention Act 

(ATCA). This proposed rule would 

standardize and consolidate existing 

permit, reporting, recordkeeping, and 

entry filing requirements and allow 

nations to use their own aggregate catch 

documentation. The intent of these 

actions are to enable the continued flow 

of trade while adhering to existing 

statutory requirements. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 18, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this 

action, identified by NOAA–NMFS– 

2022–0057, may be submitted by either 

of the following methods: 

Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

NOAA–NMFS–2022–0057 in the Search 

box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

Mail: Submit written comments to 

Bryan Keller, Office of International 

Affairs, Trade, and Commerce, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway (F/IS5), Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on https://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements addressed in the proposed 

rule may be submitted to the Office of 

International Affairs, Trade, and 

Commerce, and/or to NMFS. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bryan Keller, Office of International 

Affairs, Trade, and Commerce, National 

Marine Fisheries Service (phone: 301– 

427–7725; or email: bryan.keller@

noaa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Several statutes, including the MMPA 

(16 U.S.C 1361 et seq.), Moratorium 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1826d–k), and 

ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.), authorize 

the U.S. Government to impose trade 

restrictions on certain fish or fish 

products (both wild-caught and 

aquaculture) of a foreign nation, or other 

entities that have competency to enter 

into international fishery management 

agreements as per the Moratorium 

Protection Act, where the nation has 

failed to meet the standards or 

requirements of the United States. In 

order to allow for entry of similar fish 

and fish products that are not subject to 

trade restrictions, NMFS developed the 

COA fish harvest record form, which is 

designed to accompany a nonprohibited shipment of fish or fish 

product to attest to its method and 

location of harvest. NMFS currently 

uses paper-format COAs that require 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1