`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Case No. 21-00770
`ECF Case
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
`COUNCIL, INC.,
`40 West 20th Street, 11th Floor
`New York, NY 10011-4231
`
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
`DIVERSITY,
`P.O. Box 710
`Tucson, AZ 85702
`
`and
`
`FRIENDS OF MINNESOTA SCIENTIFIC
`AND NATURAL AREAS,
`2854 Cambridge Lane
`Mound, MN 55364
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendants.
`
`________________________________________ )
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE
`SERVICE,
`
`
`MARTHA WILLIAMS, in her official
`capacity as the Acting Director of the U.S.
`Fish & Wildlife Service,
`
`and
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`THE INTERIOR,
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This action challenges the failure of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
`
`Acting Director Martha Williams, and the U.S. Department of the Interior
`
`(collectively, the Service) to designate critical habitat for the endangered rusty
`
`patched bumble bee (the bee). Despite a statutory mandate that such habitat must
`
`generally be designated when a species is listed as endangered, and
`
`notwithstanding ample evidence that habitat safeguards would be beneficial for—
`
`and indeed necessary to—the bee’s survival and recovery, the Service refused to
`
`designate critical habitat on the basis that doing so would be “not prudent.”
`
`2.
`
`Once common throughout the midwestern and northeastern United
`
`States, northward into Canada, the bee has disappeared from the vast majority of
`
`its native range and now stands on the brink of extinction, owing to habitat loss and
`
`destruction, pesticide use, disease, parasites, and climate change.
`
`3.
`
`As a result, in 2017, the Service listed the bee as an “endangered
`
`species” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Endangered Species Status for
`
`Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, 82 Fed. Reg. 3186, 3205 (Jan. 11, 2017).
`
`4.
`
`The bee’s listing triggered the Service’s duty to designate critical
`
`habitat for the bee “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.” 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1533(a)(3)(A)(i). However, despite continued threats to the bee from habitat loss
`
`and degradation, in September 2020 the Service determined that designating
`
`critical habitat for the bee would be “not prudent” and declined to protect any
`
`critical habitat for the bee. Determination That Designation of Critical Habitat is
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`Not Prudent for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, 85 Fed. Reg. 54,281, 54,284 (Sept.
`
`1, 2020).
`
`5.
`
`But the ESA allows the Service to withhold critical-habitat designation
`
`as “not prudent” only in those rare instances where designation would not benefit a
`
`species.
`
`6.
`
`In withholding designation as “not prudent” for reasons other than
`
`lack of benefit to the bee, the Service stretched this narrow exception far beyond its
`
`legal limits, and ignored abundant evidence that protecting habitat facilitates the
`
`species’ survival and recovery. If permitted to stand, the Service’s unlawfully broad
`
`interpretation of the “not prudent” exemption may also deprive countless other
`
`vulnerable species of crucial habitat protections.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs seek an order setting aside the Service’s decision not to
`
`designate critical habitat for the bee and requiring the Service to designate such
`
`habitat within one year.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) is a non-
`
`profit membership organization dedicated to safeguarding the earth—its people, its
`
`plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. Promoting
`
`and enforcing strong protections for endangered and threatened species is central to
`
`NRDC’s work to protect wildlife and ecosystems.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`9.
`
`NRDC is headquartered in New York, NY, and has additional offices in
`
`Washington, DC; Chicago, IL; Santa Monica and San Francisco, CA; Bozeman, MT;
`
`and Beijing, China.
`
`10. NRDC brings this lawsuit on behalf of its hundreds of thousands of
`
`members nationwide. Many of these members regularly observe, visit, study, or
`
`otherwise enjoy threatened and endangered species, including the bee. Leaving the
`
`habitat of such species without critical-habitat protection harms the interests of
`
`these members in viewing listed species in the future.
`
`11. For example, NRDC member Clay Bolt of Livingston, Montana, is a
`
`professional photographer, documentarian, and leader in the conservation field who
`
`has on several occasions photographed the bee in its habitat. Mr. Bolt plans to
`
`continue visiting the bee’s habitat, including areas in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and
`
`Appalachia, to seek out and photograph the bee. Mr. Bolt plans to use these
`
`photographs to publish a field guide to bumble bees of the Americas.
`
`12. Mr. Bolt derives aesthetic, recreational, and economic benefits from the
`
`bee’s continued existence and his visits to the bee’s habitat. Those interests are
`
`threatened by the Service’s decision not to designate critical habitat for the bee
`
`under the ESA.
`
`13. Additionally, NRDC member Jason Taylor is the Executive Director of
`
`the Bur Oak Land Trust (the Land Trust), which owns and maintains twelve
`
`properties spanning about 500 acres, predominantly in Johnson County, Iowa. Mr.
`
`Taylor developed a personal and professional interest in the bee in 2018, soon after
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`he learned it was listed as a federal endangered species, and he identified one in the
`
`prairie he planted in his backyard. As a result, he began developing habitat
`
`restoration projects for the bee on Land Trust properties and continues to train
`
`volunteers to identify the bee throughout Johnson County. These volunteers have
`
`identified rusty patched bumble bee populations on five Land Trust properties.
`
`14. Mr. Taylor also regularly visits the Coralville Reservoir, a federally
`
`owned recreational area in Johnson County. He visits Coralville Reservoir about
`
`twice a month and searches for the bee every time he visits. Although he has not
`
`been successful yet, one of his goals for 2021 is to spot the bee at Coralville
`
`Reservoir. The Land Trust owns two properties adjacent to Coralville Reservoir,
`
`Turkey Creek and Big Grove Nature Preserves, each containing rusty patched
`
`bumble bee populations. Mr. Taylor and the Land Trust seek to preserve land
`
`surrounding the Coralville Reservoir because the Reservoir creates a natural
`
`corridor home to myriad native species, from bobcats to bees. Mr. Taylor values the
`
`Coralville Reservoir and these surrounding nature areas as important recreational
`
`fixtures of the community.
`
`15. Through his work at the Land Trust and regular visits to Coralville
`
`Reservoir and other areas of Johnson County to search for the bee, Mr. Taylor
`
`derives professional and recreational benefits from the bee and its habitat. Mr.
`
`Taylor is concerned that continued failure to designate critical habitat for the bee
`
`will result in the bee’s extinction.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`16. NRDC’s members, including Mr. Bolt and Mr. Taylor, derive aesthetic,
`
`recreational, professional, economic, and personal benefits from the bee and its
`
`habitat. The Service’s failure to designate critical habitat decreases the bee’s
`
`chances of survival and recovery, thereby harming NRDC members’ interests in the
`
`bee. These injuries are caused by the Service’s violations of the ESA and the
`
`Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and are redressable through the relief
`
`requested by Plaintiffs.
`
`17. Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity (Center) is a non-profit
`
`organization dedicated to the preservation, protection, and restoration of
`
`biodiversity, native species, and ecosystems. The Center was founded in 1989 and is
`
`based in Tucson, Arizona, with offices throughout the country, including
`
`Washington, DC. The Center has more than 84,000 members, including many who
`
`reside in, explore, and enjoy the areas in which the bee and its current and historic
`
`habitat are found. The Center’s mission is to protect and conserve endangered
`
`species, including the bee, and their habitats.
`
`18. The Center brings this action on behalf of its members who derive
`
`aesthetic, recreational, emotional, spiritual, and scientific benefits from the bee and
`
`its continued existence in its native habitat.
`
`19. The Center’s members, including Bryan Newman and Andrew Wedel,
`
`visit rusty patched bumble bee habitat on an ongoing basis in the hopes of viewing
`
`and enjoying the bee and its native habitat.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`20. Mr. Newman, Mr. Wedel, and other Center members derive aesthetic,
`
`recreational, inspirational, emotional, and spiritual benefits from their visits to
`
`rusty patched bumble bee habitat in the hopes of viewing the bee. Mr. Newman, Mr.
`
`Wedel, and other Center members intend to continue their frequent visits to the
`
`bee’s habitat. For Mr. Newman, this includes occupied habitat along the shore of
`
`Como Lake in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he has frequently observed the bee. He
`
`plans to revisit these areas on an ongoing basis, including this coming spring,
`
`summer, and fall when the bee is active. Mr. Wedel frequently searches for the bee
`
`on his family’s prairie land in southwestern Wisconsin, where he and his family
`
`work to preserve and restore the bee’s habitat. Many of the areas that Mr. Newman,
`
`Mr. Wedel, and other Center members intend to continue using and enjoying
`
`include areas that may be suitable for designation as critical habitat and that could
`
`play an essential role in the bee’s survival and recovery if they were designated as
`
`such.
`
`21. The aesthetic, recreational, inspirational, emotional, spiritual, and
`
`scientific interests of Mr. Newman, Mr. Wedel, and other Center members have
`
`been and will continue to be adversely and irreparably affected if the Service’s
`
`ongoing violations of the ESA continue. These are actual, concrete injuries caused
`
`by the Service’s violations of the ESA. The relief sought will redress the Center’s
`
`members’ injuries.
`
`22. Plaintiff Friends of Minnesota Scientific and Natural Areas (FMSNA)
`
`is a Minnesota non-profit, tax-exempt corporation organized to advocate for the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`protection, management, and perpetuation of Minnesota’s Scientific and Natural
`
`Areas in an undisturbed natural state. These more than 160 scientific and natural
`
`areas represent a diverse set of natural habitats containing rare and sensitive plant
`
`and animal species. FMSNA vigorously defends against actions that threaten the
`
`ecological integrity of these areas, including those that threaten resident species
`
`that FMSNA members cherish.
`
`23. FMSNA brings this action on behalf of its members who derive
`
`aesthetic, artistic, recreational, spiritual, and other interests from the bee and its
`
`habitat. For example, Thomas E. Casey of Mound, Minnesota, a longstanding
`
`member of FMSNA and the Chair of FMSNA’s Board of Directors, has sought out,
`
`and continues to regularly seek out, the bee. Mr. Casey is an amateur photographer
`
`and has on two occasions photographed the bee in Lone Lake Park in Minnetonka,
`
`MN, and within the city of St. Paul, MN. He hikes nearly every day, visiting
`
`regional parks in the Twin City region, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
`
`Refuge, and other natural areas in Minnesota where the bee may be present or to
`
`which the bee may disperse. Mr. Casey brings his camera on every hike and always
`
`seeks out rare and interesting wildlife, including the bee.
`
`24. Mr. Casey’s aesthetic, recreational, and artistic interests in the bee
`
`have been and will continually be threatened by the Service’s failure to designate
`
`critical habitat for the bee. These injuries are caused by the Service’s violations of
`
`the ESA and APA, and are redressable through the relief requested by Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`25. Defendant U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is an agency of the United
`
`States government, within and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the
`
`Interior. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated authority to administer and
`
`implement the ESA to the Fish & Wildlife Service. The Service is legally responsible
`
`for the failure to designate critical habitat for the bee.
`
`26. Defendant Martha Williams is sued in her official capacity as Acting
`
`Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Through delegation of authority from
`
`the Secretary, Ms. Williams is legally responsible for the failure to designate critical
`
`habitat for the bee.
`
`27. Defendant U.S. Department of the Interior is an agency of the United
`
`States government charged with implementing and administering the ESA. The
`
`Secretary has delegated that authority to the Service, which is a government agency
`
`within the Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interior is legally
`
`responsible for the failure to designate critical habitat for the bee.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`28. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1540(c), (g) (ESA citizen suit provision), 5 U.S.C. § 704 (APA), and 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).
`
`29. This Court has the authority to issue the requested declaratory and
`
`injunctive relief pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g) (ESA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (APA), and
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`30. Plaintiffs provided all Defendants with written notice of Plaintiffs’
`
`intent to file this suit more than sixty days prior to the commencement of this
`
`action. See 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2). This written notice is attached as Exhibit A to
`
`this Complaint.
`
`31. Defendants have not remedied their violations of the law in response to
`
`Plaintiffs’ written notice.
`
`32. Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
`
`pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(3)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because a substantial
`
`part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.
`
`Specifically, the U.S. Department of the Interior and Fish & Wildlife Service are
`
`headquartered in Washington, DC. Further, Defendant Martha Williams—an
`
`official responsible for applying and interpreting the ESA, including as it applies to
`
`the challenged decision—is located here. Plaintiffs NRDC and the Center also have
`
`offices in Washington, D.C. Finally, Washington, DC is within the bee’s historic
`
`range.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
`
`The Endangered Species Act
`
`
`
`Background and purpose
`
`33. Congress enacted the ESA in 1973 in response to growing concern
`
`about the extinction of species. The ESA’s purpose is to “conserv[e] . . . endangered
`
`species” and provide “a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered
`
`species . . . depend may be conserved,” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b) (emphasis added). An
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`endangered species is “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or
`
`a significant portion of its range.” Id. § 1532(6).
`
`34. Almost since the ESA’s inception, courts have recognized Congress’s
`
`plain intent to give the benefit of the doubt to imperiled species. “Congress has
`
`spoken in the plainest of words, making it abundantly clear that the balance has
`
`been struck in favor of affording endangered species the highest of priorities,
`
`thereby adopting a policy which it described as ‘institutionalized caution.’” Tenn.
`
`Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194 (1978).
`
`
`
`Protection of critical habitat
`
`35.
`
`Safeguarding habitat is a central component of species conservation
`
`under the ESA. Upon listing a species as endangered, the Service must designate
`
`any habitat that is considered to be “critical habitat” for that species “to the
`
`maximum extent prudent and determinable.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3)(A). The Service
`
`must make that determination based on the “best scientific and commercial data
`
`available.” Id. § 1533(b)(2).
`
`36. Congress defined “critical habitat” to include both areas that are
`
`occupied by the species and those that are unoccupied. Occupied critical habitat is
`
`defined as “the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
`
`species . . . on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
`
`the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management
`
`considerations or protection.” Id. § 1532(5)(A)(i). Unoccupied critical habitat means
`
`“specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species . . . upon a
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of
`
`the species.” Id. § 1532(5)(A)(ii). Unoccupied critical habitat may include, for
`
`example, areas with abundant food sources and nesting sites that could
`
`accommodate new members of a species as its population recovers.
`
`37.
`
`If, at the time of listing, the Service finds that critical habitat is not yet
`
`determinable, the agency may extend the deadline for designating such habitat by
`
`one additional year. At the end of that year, the Service must “publish a final
`
`regulation, based on such data as may be available at that time, designating, to the
`
`maximum extent prudent, such habitat.” Id. § 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii).
`
`38. Once the Service designates an area as critical habitat, that area is
`
`subject to the interagency consultation requirements of section 7 of the ESA, id.
`
`§ 1536.
`
`39.
`
`Section 7 requires all federal agencies to consult with either the
`
`Service or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to “insure” that their actions
`
`are not likely to “jeopardize the continued existence” of listed species or “result in
`
`the destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat. Id. § 1536(a)(2). Agencies
`
`must consult with the Service regarding impacts to terrestrial and freshwater
`
`species and critical habitat, and with NMFS regarding impacts to marine species
`
`and critical habitat.
`
`40. With respect to critical habitat, a federal agency generally must
`
`formally consult with the Service or NMFS regarding any action that “may affect”
`
`such habitat. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). Formal consultation culminates in a biological
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`opinion written by the Service or NMFS, which describes whether the action at
`
`issue will destroy or adversely modify critical habitat and identifies any reasonable
`
`and prudent measures and alternatives necessary to avoid this result. Id.
`
`§ 402.14(h).
`
`41. Designation of critical habitat—and the consultations triggered by
`
`designation—provides mandatory, substantive protections for species’ habitat. In
`
`occupied critical habitat, protection against destruction or adverse modification of
`
`habitat is separate from, and additional to, protection against jeopardy to a species.
`
`See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (separately prohibiting actions that are likely to
`
`“jeopardize the continued existence” of species and those that “result in the
`
`destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat). In unoccupied critical
`
`habitat, protection against adverse modification of habitat is the most significant
`
`form of conservation that the Service provides under the ESA.
`
`
`
`The “not prudent” exception to designating critical habitat
`
`42.
`
` In requiring the Service to designate critical habitat to the “maximum
`
`extent prudent,” Congress created a limited exception for circumstances when
`
`designation would be not prudent. Id. § 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii).
`
`43. While the ESA does not define the term “prudent,” Congress plainly
`
`intended the “not prudent” exception to be narrow and applied only where
`
`designating critical habitat would not benefit a species. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 95-
`
`1625, at 16-17 (1978) (designation of critical habitat is not prudent where it “would
`
`not be in the best interests of the species”); id. at 17 (explaining that “[n]ot prudent”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 14 of 32
`
`
`
`determinations are reserved for “rare circumstances where the specification of
`
`critical habitat . . . would not be beneficial to the species”).
`
`44.
`
`“Prudent” is commonly defined as “careful and avoiding risks,”
`
`Prudent, Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/ (last visited
`
`Mar. 22, 2021); and “acting with or showing forethought; . . . circumspect, discreet,
`
`cautious; [and] far-sighted,” Prudent, Oxford English Dictionary,
`
`https://www.oed.com/ (last visited Mar. 22, 2021).
`
`45. For years, the Service abided by Congress’s intent and the ordinary
`
`meaning of “prudent” by defining the “not prudent” exception to apply in only two
`
`limited circumstances. First, designating critical habitat was not prudent where it
`
`would increase the threat of harm to a species. 50 C.F.R. § 424.12(a)(1)(i) (2018).
`
`This exemption might apply, for example, where a species is threatened by illegal
`
`hunting, and mapping the species’ habitat would increase that threat. Second,
`
`designating critical habitat was considered not prudent where doing so “would not
`
`be beneficial for the species.” Id. § 424.12(a)(1)(ii) (2018). Relevant factors included
`
`“whether the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a
`
`species’ habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether any areas meet
`
`the definition of ‘critical habitat.’” Id.
`
`46.
`
`In 2019, the Service amended its regulation implementing the “not
`
`prudent” exception. The amended regulation, currently in effect, provides five
`
`circumstances in which designation might not be prudent:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 15 of 32
`
`
`
`(i) 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;
`
`(ii) 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;
`
`(iii) 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;
`
`(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
`
`(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of
`critical habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific
`data available.
`
`50 C.F.R. § 424.12(a)(1).
`
`47. Despite specifying additional circumstances under which designation
`
`of critical habitat might be “not prudent,” the Service and NMFS explained that the
`
`amendment was “not intended to expand the circumstances in which the Services
`
`determine that designation of critical habitat is not prudent.” Final Regulations for
`
`Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 84 Fed. Reg. 45,020, 45,040 (Aug.
`
`27, 2019); see also id. at 45,041 (“[T]he Services anticipate that not prudent findings
`
`will remain rare and would be limited to situations in which designating critical
`
`habitat would not further the conservation of the species.”).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 16 of 32
`
`The Administrative Procedure Act
`
`
`
`48. The APA provides that courts “shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside
`
`agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an
`
`abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
`
`49. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if “the agency has relied on
`
`factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an
`
`important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs
`
`counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be
`
`ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle
`
`Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
`
`50. Moreover, under the APA, an agency must “explain the evidence which
`
`is available, and must offer a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the
`
`choice made.’” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 52 (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v.
`
`United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Life cycle and habitat needs of the rusty patched bumble bee
`51. The rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) is a unique and prolific
`
`pollinator named for the rusty reddish patch on its abdomen. It uses “buzz
`
`pollination,” meaning it vibrates its body to release pollen from flowers. This
`
`technique makes the species a more effective pollinator than honey bees for many
`
`native plants, as well as for crops like tomatoes, cranberries, and peppers.
`
`52. The bee’s life cycle shapes the species’ habitat needs. Like many
`
`species of bumble bee, all workers and male rusty patched bumble bees in a colony
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 17 of 32
`
`
`
`die each fall, leaving a single hibernating queen to carry the colony over to the
`
`following year. Queens typically hibernate underground in forested areas near floral
`
`resources.
`
`53. Rusty patched bumble bees are among the first bee species to emerge
`
`from hibernation each spring, and among the last to enter hibernation each fall. To
`
`survive, the bees collect pollen and nectar from nearby flowers; floral resources
`
`must, therefore, be available throughout the species’ lengthy active season.
`
`54. Because many plants flower for only a portion of the bee’s active
`
`season, the species relies on a broad diversity of flowering plants for sustenance.
`
`Floral diversity is especially crucial for the bee because it is a short-tongued species,
`
`meaning it can only forage from a subset of plant species with more easily accessible
`
`nectar.
`
`55.
`
`In addition, the formation of rusty patched bumble bee colonies is
`
`affected by the number of fertile males and whether the landscape is conducive to
`
`their dispersal. The bee typically disperses over one kilometer, but the landscape
`
`must be “permeable and free of hazards” for males to find and mate with unrelated
`
`females with reproductive capacity. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Rusty Patched
`
`Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) Species Status Assessment: Final Report, Version 1
`
`17 (2016) (Status Assessment), https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/120109.
`
`56. Consistent with the bee’s life cycle, the Service has identified a number
`
`of habitat features that the bee needs to survive. These include “areas that support
`
`sufficient food (nectar and pollen), undisturbed nesting habitat in proximity to floral
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 18 of 32
`
`
`
`resources, and overwintering habitat for hibernating queens,” as well as “a constant
`
`and diverse supply of blooming flowers to meet its nutritional needs.” 85 Fed. Reg.
`
`at 54,282.
`
`57.
`
`In its guidance documents, the Service has outlined the species’
`
`habitat needs with even greater specificity. It has identified various habitat
`
`categories (e.g., upland grassland and shrubland; palustrine wetlands, excluding
`
`ponds), specified the uses that the bee has for each habitat category (i.e., nesting,
`
`wintering, foraging), noted seasonal variations in the use of each habitat category
`
`(e.g., upland forest and woodland used for foraging in the spring but not summer or
`
`fall); and provided examples of discrete habitat types that fall within each habitat
`
`category (e.g., “native tallgrass prairie, including remnants and
`
`restored/reconstructed native prairie; savanna; [and] pine and oak barrens” are
`
`examples of upland grassland and shrubland). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Rusty
`
`Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis): Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2)
`
`Voluntary Implementation Guidance, Version 2.1 9 (2019) (Section 7 Guidance),
`
`https://bit.ly/3azKHIy. The Service has summarized the bee’s habitat needs in the
`
`following table in its Section 7 Guidance:
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 19 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 9 tbl.1.
`
`58. One crucial factor for any of this habitat to be usable is that it must
`
`not be contaminated by pesticides, which the Service identified as a key factor in
`
`the bee’s decline. Specifically, for habitat to be suitable, it must not be treated or
`
`otherwise contaminated with the insecticides that cause acute harm like death and
`
`subacute harms like disorientation, decreased appetite, and reduced ability to fight
`
`off disease and parasites. In addition, for sufficient forage to be present, the bee
`
`needs flowers, which may be limited or nonexistent in areas where herbicides have
`
`been applied.
`
`Habitat destruction and degradation threaten the bee’s survival and
`recovery
`59. The rusty patched bumble bee was once common throughout
`
`grasslands and prairies in much of the Midwest and Northeast United States,
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 20 of 32
`
`
`
`ranging northward into Canada. It was found in 29 states, the District of Columbia,
`
`and two Canadian provinces.
`
`60.
`
`Since the 1990s, the bee has disappeared from about 87 percent of its
`
`historical range; the number of documented populations has similarly declined by at
`
`least 88 percent. The colonies and populations (which typically are made up of tens
`
`to hundreds of colonies) that remain are subject to continued stress, and many are
`
`in poor health.
`
`61. The bee historically occupied flower-rich grassland and tall-grass
`
`prairies throughout its range. Since settlement of the continent by Europeans, an
`
`estimated 99.9 percent of grassland in the United States has disappeared.
`
`62. Much of this habitat loss has occurred as a result of agricultural
`
`intensification, fire suppression, and urbanization.
`
`63. Habitat loss is one of the “primary causes attributed to the decline” of
`
`the bee, 82 Fed. Reg. at 3186, and has “established negative effects on bumble bees”
`
`generally, 85 Fed. Reg. at 54,283.
`
`64. Habitat loss and degradation continues to threaten remaining
`
`populations of the bee. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Draft Recovery Plan for the
`
`Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) 1 (2019) (Draft Recovery Plan),
`
`https://bit.ly/3axYi4v.
`
`65.
`
`It is well-established that habitat loss reduces diversity and abundance
`
`of bee species. “Given that several kilos of food are needed to support a single nest,
`
`. . . the amount of habitat needed to support a population is likely quite large.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00770-ABJ Document 1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 21 of 32
`
`
`
`Status Assessment 17. This is particularly true for the rusty patched bumble bee, as
`
`its colonies are large compared to those of most bumble bee species. Id.
`
`66. The Service has explained that “even slight changes in resource
`
`availability could have significant cumulative effects on colony development and
`
`productivity,” Status Assessment 50. Indeed, “even slight improvements in resource
`
`availability could . . . improve the bees’ resilience to other stressors, such as
`
`pesticides and pathogens,” 85 Fed. Reg. at 54,284.
`
`67. Restoring and maintaining large population sizes is crucial because
`
`“smaller populations are inherently more vulnerable to extirpation.” Status
`
`Assessment 17.
`
`68. And quantity of habitat alone is not the only important factor for the
`
`bee’s survival and