Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Bog Buck Moth
| Citation | 86 FR 57104 |
| Record Number | 2021-21856 |
| Published date | 14 October 2021 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service,Interior Department |
Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57104-57122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21856]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0029; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BF69
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Bog Buck Moth
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the bog buck moth (Hemileuca maia menyanthevora) (=H.iroquois), a
moth that occurs in Oswego County, New York (NY), and Ontario, Canada,
as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). 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 bog buck moth 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. We have determined that
designation of critical habitat for the bog buck moth is not prudent at
this time.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 13, 2021. 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 November 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number or RIN
for this rulemaking (presented above in the document headings). For
best results, do not copy and paste either number; instead, type the
docket number or RIN into the Search box using hyphens. 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.''
[[Page 57105]]
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2021-0029, 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 http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Stilwell, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York Field Office, 3817 Luker Road,
Cortland, NY 13045; telephone 607-753-9334. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that
a species warrants listing, we are required to promptly publish a
proposal in the Federal Register, unless doing so is precluded by
higher-priority actions and expeditious progress is being made to add
and remove qualified species to or from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Service will make a determination
on our proposal within 1 year. If there is substantial disagreement
regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the available data relevant
to the proposed listing, we may extend the final determination for not
more than six months. To the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
we must designate critical habitat for any species that we determine to
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species
as an endangered or threatened species and designation of critical
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We propose to list the bog buck moth 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 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 the bog buck moth is at
risk of extinction now throughout its range due to a combination of
factors. Bog buck moth populations undergo boom and bust cycles and are
highly vulnerable to threats during the bust phase (Factor E). All
populations are isolated from one another (Factor E). All extant
populations are experiencing some degree of habitat alteration from
invasive plant species and habitat succession (Factor A). Flooding may
drown various life stages of bog buck moths or reduce suitable habitat
either by directly making it unavailable (under water) or reducing
survival and growth of bog buckbean, an important food source for the
bog buck moth larvae (Factor A). Flooding has increased at one New York
population over the past several years due to increased winter and
spring precipitation from climate change and high Great Lakes water
levels (Factor E). Water level management has altered or has the
potential to alter several bog buck moth sites (Factor A).
Additionally, the sedentary nature of the bog buck moth means that
colonization of neighboring fens does not occur naturally, further
limiting the species' ability to respond to stochastic changes (Factor
E).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that
designating critical habitat for the bog buck moth is not prudent
because the moth co-occurs with another species that is highly
collected and designating critical habitat for the moth would increase
the risk of collection for the other species.
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 concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties regarding this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The bog buck moth's 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;
(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) Factors that may affect 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.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act, 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, will not be considered in
making a determination, as 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.''
[[Page 57106]]
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 http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and 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.
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 in local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the bog buck moth (Hemileuca sp.) as a Category 2
candidate species for listing in the November 21, 1991, Annual
Candidate Notice of Review (56 FR 58804). In the February 28, 1996,
Annual Candidate Notice of Review (61 FR 7596), we announced our
discontinuation of the designation of Category 2 species as candidates,
which removed the species from the candidate list. We finalized our
decision to discontinue the practice of maintaining a list of Category
2 species on December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64481).
At our discretion, we prioritized a status review for the species
according to the Service's July 27, 2016, Methodology for Prioritizing
Status Reviews and Accompanying 12-Month Findings on Petitions for
Listing Under the Endangered Species Act (81 FR 49248) and added the
species to the Endangered Species Program's National Listing Workplan
(Workplan) for Fiscal Year 2021. Based on this process, we are making a
determination on the bog buck moth's listing status in this proposed
rule.
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the bog buck moth. The SSA team, composed of Service biologists and a
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
biologist, conducted the SSA 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 of listing actions under the Act, we
sought the expert opinions of six appropriate specialists regarding the
SSA report. We received four responses. In addition, we sent the draft
SSA report for review to Canadian partners, State partners, and
scientists with expertise in fen ecology and bog buck moth biology,
taxonomy, and conservation and received 11 responses.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
The bog buck moth is a large diurnal moth native to fens
(groundwater-fed wetland) in Oswego County, NY, and Ontario, Canada. A
thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the bog
buck moth is presented in the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 6-25).
Taxonomy
The bog buck moth is a silk moth (family = Saturniidae) in the buck
moth genus (Hemileuca). The bog buck moth was first identified as a
variant of the maia species group within Hemileuca in 1977 by John
Cryan and Robert Dirig from four sites (two populations) along the
southeast shore of Lake Ontario in Oswego County, NY, but was not
formally named at that time (Legge et al. 1996, p. 86; Pryor 1998, p.
126; Cryan and Dirig 2020, p. 3). Four additional sites (two
populations) were discovered in 1977 in eastern Ontario (Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC] 2009, p. 7).
Multiple common names have been used since then (e.g., bogbean
buckmoth, Cryan's buckmoth, fen buck moth).
For many years, the bog buck moth's taxonomic status has been
confusing and uncertain. The bog buck moth was classified as part of
the Hemileuca maia complex, which is a broadly distributed group of
closely related taxa including H. maia, H. lucina, H. nevadensis, among
others (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 111). Tuskes et al. (1996, pp. 120-121)
further refined the description of populations of buck moths in the
Great Lakes region, including the bog buck moth, as the H. maia complex
of Great Lakes Region Populations. Kruse (1998, p. 109) included H.
maia and H. nevadensis as part of the Great Lakes complex; however,
using genomewide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), Dupuis et al.
(2018, p. 6) and Dupuis et al. (2020, p. 3) show that H. nevadensis is
restricted to the west. The Annotated Taxonomic Checklist of the
Lepidoptera of North America (Pohl et al. 2016, p. 735) included the
Great Lakes populations of buck moths as part of H. maia (based on
Tuskes et al. 1996), pending species-level taxonomic classification.
Recently, Dupuis et al. (2018, pp. 5-7) and Dupuis et al. (2020,
pp. 2-3) used SNPs and found unambiguous results supporting the
conclusion that both Ontario and Oswego County, NY, populations are
part of the bog buck moth lineage that is divergent from Hemileuca
lucina, H. peigleri, H. slosseri, and all other H. maia. They also
found clear differentiation between the group formed by the Ontario and
Oswego County, NY, populations and the group formed by Wisconsin and
Michigan populations (Dupuis et al. 2020, p. 3).
In 2020, Pavulaan (2020, entire) was first to formally describe the
bog buck moth as Hemileuca maia menyanthevora and stated that it may
actually represent a full species. Pavulaan (2020, pp. 8-14) considered
host plant use and morphology for the designation and included the
Oswego County, NY, Marquette and Ozaukee County, WI, and Ontario fens
as part of the range. All specimens that Pavulaan used for describing
morphology were
[[Page 57107]]
from one location in Oswego County, NY, and he relied on host plant use
discussed in Kruse (1998, entire) for inclusion of the two Wisconsin
sites (Pavulaan pers. comm., 2020). Subsequently, Cryan and Dirig
(2020, pp. 26-31) named the bog buck moth as H. iroquois and included
only the Oswego County, NY, and Ontario populations in the designation.
Official scientific naming follows the rule of publication priority
under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; therefore, the
official name of the bog buck moth is H. maia menyanthevora with the
junior synonym of H. iroquois. We conclude that the bog buck moth is a
valid taxon for consideration for listing under the Act.
Based upon the strong evidence provided by Dupuis et al. (2018,
entire and 2020, entire), we consider the current range of Hemileuca
maia menyanthevora as Oswego County, NY, and Ontario, Canada. The
historical range also included Jefferson County, NY (see below). We
find this genetic evidence documented by Dupuis et al. markedly more
persuasive than the host plant information that Pavulaan (2020, entire;
pers. comm., 2020) relied upon when he included the Wisconsin sites in
his designation without specimens from those sites. The Oswego County,
NY, and Ontario range is consistent with the range described when the
Service originally considered the bog buck moth (Hemileuca sp.) as a
Category 2 Candidate in 1991 (56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991). It is
also consistent with the range described by NatureServe (2020, pp. 1-
4), COSEWIC (2009, pp. 5, 7), and Cryan and Dirig (2020, entire).
Physical Description, Life History, and Range
Bog buck moth adults have black bodies and black/gray translucent
wings with wide, white wing bands and an eyespot (COSEWIC 2009, p. 5;
NatureServe 2015, p. 4). Bog buck moths have forewing lengths of 22 to
36 millimeters (mm) (0.9 to 1.4 inches [in]) (Tuskes et al. 1996, p.
121; Pavulaan 2020, p. 9). Males and females are generally similar in
appearance with the following exceptions. Similar to all saturniids,
males have highly branched, feather-like antennae with receptors that
respond to female pheromones (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 14), and females
have simple antennae. Males also have a red-tipped abdomen while
females do not; males are also slightly smaller than females (COSEWIC
2009, p. 5). In addition, both male and female adults are larger than
other Hemileuca maia and have similar highly translucent wings as H.
lucina. White wing bands are much larger than other H. maia (Cryan and
Dirig 2020, p. 26; Pavulaan 2020, p. 9).
Late instar larvae are dark with reddish orange branched urticating
(stinging) spines dorsally, and a reddish-brown head capsule and
prolegs (COSEWIC 2009, p. 6). Initially egg rings are light green
(Cryan and Dirig 2020, p. 26) and fade to light brown or tan (Sime,
pers. comm.). Mature larvae are usually predominantly black with small
white dots and lack yellow markings compared to other Hemileuca maia
(COSEWIC 2009, p. 6; NatureServe 2015, p. 4; Cryan and Dirig 2020, p.
26).
The bog buck moth is restricted to open, calcareous, low shrub fens
containing large amounts of Menyanthes trifoliata (COSEWIC 2009, p. 10)
(referred to herein as bog buckbean, but also known by bogbean or
buckbean). Fens are classified along a gradient that ranges from rich
fens to poor fens based on their water chemistry and plant community
structure. Rich fens receive more mineral-rich groundwater than poor
fens, which results in higher conductivity, pH, and calcium and
magnesium ion concentrations (Vitt and Chee 1990, p. 97). The sites in
New York are considered medium fens (New York Natural Heritage Program
[NYNHP] 2020a, p. 3). Medium fens are fed by waters that are moderately
mineralized with pH values generally ranging from 4.5 to 6.5 (Olivero
2001, p. 15). Medium fens often occur as a narrow transition zone
between a stream or lake and either a swamp or an upland community
(Olivero 2001, p. 15). The dominant species in medium fens are usually
woolly-fruit sedge (Carex lasiocarpa) and sweetgale (Myrica gale), with
a variety of characteristic shrubs and herbs generally less than 5
meters (m) (16.4 feet [ft]) in height (NYNHP 2020b, pp. 5-11). Bog
rosemary (Andromeda glaucophylla), leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne
calyculata), cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon), spatulate-leaved sundew
(Drosera intermedia), three-way sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum var.
arundinaceum), and green arrow arum (Peltandra virginica) are
characteristic only of medium fens, compared to any of the other
calcareous fens found in New York (Olivero 2001, p. 14).
In Ontario, the bog buck moth is found in calcareous fens with bog
buckbean. The fens are either low shrub dominated by sweetgale, bog
birch (Betula pumila), bog willow (Salix pedicellaris) and other
willows, but with patches of open fen dominated by sedges and water
horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile) or primarily open fens dominated by
sedges such as woolly-fruit sedge (Carex lasiocarpa), smooth sawgrass
(Cladium mariscoides), and American common reed (Phragmites australis
ssp. americanus) surrounded by conifer swamp (COSEWIC 2009, p. 10).
The life cycle of a bog buck moth is similar to other Hemileuca
species and generally completed within 1 year (Tuskes et al. 1996, p.
103). Nonfeeding adults emerge in the fall. Males and females differ in
flight patterns with males flying large, circular paths and females
making short, low, direct frequent flights (Pryor 1998, p. 133). Adult
males fly for longer periods as well, covering the open area of the fen
for approximately 10 minutes compared to females flying short distances
lasting a matter of seconds (Pryor 1998, p. 133). After mating, female
buck moths lay one large cluster of eggs on sturdy stems of a variety
of plant species. The eggs overwinter until the following spring when
they hatch into larvae. While early instar larvae rely primarily on the
host plant bog buckbean (Stanton 2000, p. 2), eggs are never laid on
these plants as they die back each year rendering them unavailable for
overwintering. Pupation occurs by mid-July, and the pupal stage lasts
about 2 months. While not documented in bog buck moth, in other
Hemileuca species (including H. maia maia), individual pupae may remain
dormant until the following fall or possibly the fall after that (Cryan
and Dirig 1977, p. 10; Tuskes et al. 1996, pp. 103, 114).
All populations are located within the beds of former glacial Lake
Iroquois (Cryan and Dirig 2020, p. 27) and Champlain Sea (COSEWIC 2009,
p. 9). The present distribution may be relict populations as a result
of a postglacial expansion by Hemileuca from western North America, and
subsequent isolation in fens and bogs as forests gradually reclaimed
postglacial wetland habitats (Pryor 1998, p. 138). Glacial retreat left
suitable habitat in disjointed patches (Gradish and Tonge 2011, p. 6).
Based on genetic findings, bog buck moth populations may have been more
historically widespread along the wetlands around Lake Ontario (Dupuis
et al. 2020, p. 4).
While we do not have a full understanding of the historical bog
buck moth distribution, there are records from three populations in New
York and two in Ontario, Canada. Currently, there are four populations
known. In Canada, the White Lake population comprises two sites or
subpopulations (White Lake North and White Lake South). The Richmond
Fen population comprises two sites or subpopulations (Richmond
[[Page 57108]]
Fen North and Richmond Fen South). In the United States, the Lakeside
population occurs along the eastern shore of Lake Ontario in Oswego
County, NY, and comprises five sites or subpopulations (referred to as
Lakeside 1 to Lakeside 5). To the southwest, the Oswego Inland Site
population occurs in Oswego County, NY, and is a single site with two
fen openings with metapopulation dynamics operating at a smaller scale.
The fifth historically known population located in Jefferson County, NY
was identified based on specimens collected in the 1950s but the site
is no longer suitable for the bog buck moth. The bog buck moth is
sedentary (nonmigratory) and therefore present within suitable habitat
year-round with small movements of 0.5 kilometers (km) (0.3 miles [mi])
within suitable habitat described as ``common'' (NatureServe 2015, p.
5). While bog buck moth populations were previously described as
individuals separated by areas of unsuitable habitat greater than 2 km
(1.24 mi) or areas of suitable habitat greater than 10 km (6.2 mi) with
some infrequent dispersal events at slightly longer distances between
unsuitable patches (NatureServe 2015, p. 5), movements are now
described as ``should be capable of flying several to many kilometers,
but seldom leaves habitat'' NatureServe (2020, p. 5). In NY, some
movement likely occurs between sites that are close together. Isolation
of populations is likely increased by the short-lived adult stage (not
much time for adults to fly far) (COSEWIC 2009, p. 15). In addition,
they seem to have no inclination or ability to fly long distances.
Adult females that do make short flights are laden with hundreds of
eggs.
Bog buck moth dispersal events were not observed by Pryor (1998, p.
138) but he suggested the potential for an adult bog buck moth to
disperse with strong winds or powered flight if surrounding vegetation
does not impede them. Three males were captured on sticky traps in
unsuitable habitat located between the Lakeside 1 and Lakeside 2 sites
in NY (Stanton 2004, p. 7) supporting some movement outside of suitable
habitat but well within the 2 km (1.24 mi) discussed above. We conclude
that most movements are likely to be limited to the highly localized
fen habitat but that infrequent male dispersal events of a few
kilometers are possible. In addition, though we would expect most wind
events to primarily disperse males due to their longer localized
flights, even less frequent, but possibly longer wind dispersal events
of either sex may occur.
It is unlikely that other bog buck moth populations exist besides
the ones mentioned above. Fairly extensive but unsuccessful searches
for bog buck moths have been conducted at other potentially suitable
wetland habitat in Ontario, and no new sites have been found (COSEWIC
2009, pp. 9-10). Given the degree of interest by naturalists in these
natural areas and the diurnal habits of this large distinctive species,
the probability of undiscovered Ontario bog buck moth populations is
low (COSEWIC 2009, p. 10).
The story is similar in NY. Researchers sought out additional
populations during years of exploring the bed of former glacial Lake
Iroquois and its tributaries and outlets, and while they found some
fens with bog buckbean, they found no additional sites with bog buck
moths (Cryan and Dirig 2020, pp. 4-5). In addition, researchers have
visited NY fens for many years and likely would have observed the
highly conspicuous larvae on bog buckbean or adult male moths, which
are readily visible due to their lengthy, localized flight pattern, had
they been present.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
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 is an ``endangered species'' or a ``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 expected response by the species,
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 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 now and in
the foreseeable future.
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. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a
[[Page 57109]]
particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the
best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the
timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species'
likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
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 a decision by
the Service 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. The following is a summary
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA
report can be found at Docket FWS-R5-ES-2021-0029 on http://www.regulations.gov.
To assess bog buck moth viability, we used the three conservation
biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency supports the
ability of populations to withstand environmental and demographic
stochasticity (e.g., wet or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy
supports the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events
(e.g., drought, large pollution events), and representation supports
the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term changes in
the environment (e.g., climate change). In general, the more resilient
and redundant a species is and the more representation it has, the more
likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under changing
environmental conditions. Using these principles, we identified the
species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
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. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
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 condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the 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.
Individual, Subpopulation, and Species Needs
The primary requirements for individual bog buck moths include the
following: Suitable conditions that support fen ecosystems, perennial
plants with bare sections of sturdy small stems above substrate near
bog buckbean to provide shelter for the eggs, the presence of bog
buckbean and other plants to provide shelter and food for the larvae,
and appropriate flying weather of warm fall days with periods of no
rain and low winds during the adult life stage.
Bog buck moths require medium fens (Olivero 2001, p. 15) with a
variety of shrubs and herbs, including the bog buckbean, that are
generally less than 5 m (16.4 ft) in height (NYNHP 2020b, pp. 5-11).
Bog buck moths also depend on shifting mosaics of early successional
fen habitat created by regular disturbance (such as periodic flooding)
(Cryan and Dirig 2020, p. 28). Without disturbances, as with other
early successional habitats, vegetation succession will occur; however,
in fens with intact hydrology, this succession occurs very slowly.
The bog buck moth is univoltine (single adult flight period). The
flight period lasts 4 weeks, generally from mid-September to October
(Pryor 1998, p. 134; Stanton 2000, p. 15; Schmidt, pers. comm., 2020).
Adults are diurnal (fly during the day) avoiding cooler fall night
temperatures (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 12; Pryor 1998, p. 133). Bog buck
moths fly when temperatures are generally above 68 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg] F) (20 degrees Celsius [[deg] C]) and when winds are less than
24 kilometers per hour (kmph) (15 miles per hour [mph]) (Stanton 1998,
pp. 19-20-20, 29).
Female bog buck moths mate once and deposit eggs (Pryor 1998, p.
129; Stanton 1998, p. 8) around bare sections of rigid, vertical plant
stems (Stanton 2000, p. 11). Unlike other Hemileuca species (Tuskes et
al. 1996, p. 103), bog buck moths do not lay eggs on their primary
larval host plants (Legge et al. 1996, p. 88; Stanton 2000, pp. 2, 11).
Eggs overwinter and hatch into larvae in the spring.
Bog buck moth larvae require bog buckbean and other host plant
species. During the early instars, bog buckbean is the primary food
source for the larvae; however, latter instars will feed on a larger
variety of host plants. Overall, bog buckbean is essential, but other
foodplants may be important, particularly in later larval stages.
Please refer to the SSA report for a list of documented larval host
plants and oviposition plants (Service 2021, pp. 13-14).
Healthy or resilient populations are those that are able to respond
to and recover from stochastic events (e.g., flooding, storms) and
normal year-to-year environmental variation (e.g., temperature,
rainfall). Simply said, healthy populations are those able to sustain
themselves through good and bad years. For the purpose of the SSA, we
defined viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations
in the wild over time. The bog buck moth needs multiple healthy
(resilient) populations. The more populations, and the wider the
distribution of those populations (redundancy), the less likely that
the species as a whole will be negatively impacted if an area of the
[[Page 57110]]
species' range is negatively affected by a catastrophic event, and the
more likely that natural gene flow and ecological processes will be
maintained (Wolf et al. 2015, pp. 205-206). Species that are well
distributed across their historical range are less susceptible to the
risk of extinction as a result of a catastrophic event than species
confined to smaller areas of their historical range.
Furthermore, diverse and widespread populations of bog buck moth
may contribute to the adaptive diversity (representation) of the
species if redundant populations are adapting to different conditions.
In considering what may be important to capture in terms of
representation for the bog buck moth, we identified two primary means
of defining bog buck moth diversity: genetic differences and potential
adaptation to variation in climatic conditions across latitudinal
gradients.
Gene flow is influenced by the degree of connectivity and landscape
permeability (Lankau et al. 2011, p. 320). Gene flow may be somewhat
limited among bog buck moth populations due to their rare and patchy
distributions and sedentary (nonmigratory) behavior. The Inland Oswego
Site population is genetically distinct from the nearest of the
Lakeside populations (about 30 km [18.6 mi] away), although there is or
was likely some limited migration between them (Buckner et al. 2014,
pp. 510-512). In addition, while an unambiguously close relationship
was found between the bog buck moth specimens from Ontario and the
populations in Oswego County, NY, both of these populations formed
distinct sister clusters (Dupuis et al. 2020, pp. 2-3). Maintaining
populations in both Canada and New York is important to conserve this
genetic diversity.
The bog buck moth has a fairly narrow distribution; however, Lake
Ontario influences local climatic conditions, and, at more northern
latitudes, the Canadian populations experience colder winters. In
Ottawa, Canada, average monthly temperatures range from 5.4 to 21.6
[deg]F (-14.8 to -5.8 [deg]C) in January to 60 to 79.7 [deg]F (15.5 to
26.5 [deg]C) in July, and average yearly snowfall is 88 in (2.23 m). In
Oswego, NY (directly on Lake Ontario), temperatures range from 18 to 30
[deg]F (-7.8 to -1.1 [deg]C) in January to 63 to 79 [deg]F (17.2 to
26.1 [deg]C) in July, an average yearly snowfall is 141 in (3.58 m).
Adult males have been documented to fly 3 to 5 days earlier at the
Oswego Inland Site compared to Lakeside 2 and potentially due to the
climate-tempering effects of Lake Ontario on the Lakeside 2 site
(Stanton 1998, p. 26). Maintaining populations across historical
latitudinal and climatic gradients increases the likelihood that the
species will retain the potential for adaptation over time. Local
adaptation to temperature, precipitation, host plants, and community
interactions have all been identified for butterflies and is
anticipated for the bog buck moth (Aardema et al. 2011, pp. 295-297).
Risk Factors for the Bog Buck Moth
The primary factors currently influencing bog buck moth population
health are inherent factors (e.g., narrow habitat niche) and several
external factors resulting in loss or alteration of habitat or directly
influencing demographic rates. As discussed above, bog buck moths are
found in medium fens. Medium fens are listed as imperiled or vulnerable
in New York (NYNHP 2020b, p. 2). Threats to medium fens include
hydrological change, habitat alteration in the adjacent landscape,
development, and recreational overuse (NYNHP 2020b, p. 3). Fens are
especially sensitive to relatively small changes in hydrology (van
Diggelen et al. 2006, p. 159). Additionally, several medium fens where
bog buck moths occur in New York are negatively impacted by invasive
species, such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), reed grass
(Phragmites australis), and buckthorn (Rhamnus spp.) (NYNHP 2020, p.
3). In Canada, the most significant threat to the buck moth is habitat
degradation either due to alteration of water regime within the
species' habitat or the invasion of habitat by nonnative plant species
(COSEWIC 2009, p. 18; Environment Canada 2015, p. 7). Several sources
of habitat alteration identified at bog buck moth sites are discussed
below. We do not fully understand the cause of declines at bog buck
moth sites, and so it is likely that additional factors (e.g.,
predation, disease, pesticides) are important. For comprehensive
discussion of the primary factors as well as these other likely
stressors, please refer to the SSA report Chapter 3--Factors
Influencing Viability (Service 2021, pp. 26-50).
Change in Water Levels
Water level changes can directly kill individuals (e.g., flooding
of pupae) or result in changes in habitat suitability and availability.
Flooding can result in reductions in suitable oviposition sites, larval
food sources and shelter, or pupation sites. Below we will discuss
water management as it pertains to the Canadian and U.S. populations.
Water Level Management--Canadian Populations
Both White Lake subpopulations are influenced by manipulation of
the White Lake outlet dam in the town of White Lake (Schmidt, pers.
comm., 2020), and large fluctuations may cause mortality (COSEWIC 2009,
p. 18). Alteration of the water regime can be mitigated or avoided
through appropriate water management policies, actions, and land
stewardship techniques; however, there were no clear prescriptive
actions provided (Environment Canada 2015, p. 7). The Strategy for the
Bogbean Buckmoth in Ontario (Ontario Recovery Strategy) includes
recovery actions to understand the specific hydrology of Richmond Fen
wetlands and the White Lake wetlands and to work with stakeholders to
mitigate impacts from land use change, particularly water level
manipulation at White Lake (Gradish and Tonge 2011, pp. 12-13). We have
no information to indicate these actions have been initiated to date,
and Ontario's 5-year review of the bog buck moth (OMNR 2017, pp. 11-17)
does not mention anything about these specific actions. However,
through regulation, Ontario formally designated ``habitat'' for the bog
buck moth in 2014 (Environment Canada 2015, p. 9). Environment Canada
then adopted the description of bog buck moth ``habitat'' as ``critical
habitat'' in the Federal recovery strategy (Environment Canada 2015, p.
10). The designation includes a list of activities that alter the fen's
water regime as those likely to destroy critical habitat for the buck
moth (Environment Canada 2015, p. 17). We will discuss more information
about Ontario and Canadian laws and regulations in Conservation
Measures, below.
Water Level Management--U.S. Populations
Water level management resulted in the extirpation of a Jefferson
County, NY, population in the 1970s (Bonanno and White 2011, p. 9) by
flooding the fen habitat and creating a freshwater marsh. The site is
currently being maintained by the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation as a marsh for flood control,
septic system management, and New York State-listed endangered black
tern (Chlidonias niger) habitat (Bonanno, pers. comm., 2020). However,
it is no longer suitable habitat for the bog bug moth.
The Lakeside population is currently influenced by water levels
associated with management of Lake Ontario through regulation of the
Moses-
[[Page 57111]]
Saunders hydroelectric dam and precipitation events. The St. Lawrence
River is located at the northeast end of Lake Ontario and is the
natural outlet for the Great Lakes. Approximately 160 km (100 mi)
downstream from Lake Ontario are the structures used to control the
flow from Lake Ontario, most of which is used by the Moses-Saunders
powerhouses (IJC 2014, p. 4). The International Joint Commission (IJC)
and its International Lake Ontario--St. Lawrence River Board (Board)
oversee management of these flows.
The Lake Ontario water level changes in response to the difference
between the supply it receives and its outflow. The supply is
uncontrolled, and the use of the Moses-Saunders Power Dam to change
outflow provides some control over Lake Ontario water levels, but there
are limits to the amount of water that can be released (IJC 2014, p.
5). Most of the episodic changes in Great Lakes water levels over the
past century are attributable to corresponding changes in annual
precipitation (Gronewold and Stow 2014, p. 1084). Prior to the
construction of the dams on the St. Lawrence River, recorded lake
levels of Lake Ontario from 1860 to 1960 show a pattern of variation
with highs and lows captured within each decade or so (Wilcox et al.
2008, p. 302). The historical range of monthly average water levels was
more than 1.8 m (6 ft) between low and high levels, and the IJC
recommended regulating within a narrow 1.2-m (4-ft) target from April
to November (IJC 2014, p. 8). This has resulted in compressing the
range of Lake Ontario water levels to 0.7 m (2.3 ft) from 1.5 m (5 ft)
(Wilcox et al. 2008, p. 302). The IJC (2014, p. 43) found that
regulation of Lake Ontario has restricted the natural fluctuation of
its water levels, both in terms of reducing its extremes and year-to-
year variability.
The existing shoreline vegetation of the Great Lakes depends on
regular fluctuation in water levels (Keddy and Reznicek 1986, p. 35).
Fluctuating water levels increase the area of shoreline vegetation and
the diversity of vegetation types and plant species (Keddy and Reznicek
1986, p. 35). High lake levels periodically eliminate dense-canopy
emergent plants, and low lake levels allow less competitive understory
species to grow (Keddy and Reznicek 1986, entire; Wilcox et al. 2008,
p. 301).
Stabilization of Lake Ontario water levels after the construction
of the Moses-Saunders Power Dam may have subsequently increased cattail
(Typha spp.) dominance (Rippke et al. 2010, p. 814). Specifically, lack
of low lake levels shifted the competitive advantage to the taller
cattails resulting in loss of large expanses of sedge/grass meadows
(Wilcox et al. 2008, p. 316). The IJC (2014, p. 43) found that the
compressed lake level range has allowed trees and shrubs to grow closer
to the water, and cattails and other emergent plants that tolerate
persistent flooding to expand their range up the shoreline, reducing
the sedge meadow plants that occurred in between. Increased cattails
have been documented at Lakeside bog buck moth subpopulations including
Lakeside 3 and Lakeside 4 (Bonanno, pers. comm., 2020; Sime 2019, p.
38). These changes in vegetation from Carex spp., sweet-gale, herbs,
and shrubs to cattail marsh result in overall habitat loss through
permanent reductions in the amount of suitable oviposition sites,
larval food sources, and pupal habitat.
In addition to changes in vegetation discussed above, water levels
can directly impact survival of bog buck moth in various life stages.
The Lakeside population includes sites that have been described as
physically ``protected wetlands'' located behind sandbars and connected
to Lake Ontario by intermittent or indirect surface water openings or
ground water (Vaccaro et al. 2009, p. 1038). Water levels in these
sites are greatly influenced by precipitation and highly variable
depending on their unique connection to Lake Ontario (Vaccaro et al.
2009, p. 1045). Barrier beaches along Lake Ontario restrict flow out of
the wetlands, causing water levels to rise sharply in response to local
precipitation events in the ``protected wetlands'' (Vaccaro et al.
2009, p. 1045). These sharp rises can result in flooding events. Though
flood events may be related to water level management, they are more
strongly connected to precipitation events (Gronewold and Stow 2014, p.
1084) and are further discussed below in the Climate Change section.
In addition to the larger scale water level management of Lake
Ontario, more localized water level management may influence bog buck
moth sites. Water levels may be influenced by impoundments (human or
beaver) or roads that restrict flow into or out of the fens.
Restriction of flow into fens results in drying of sites and increases
in shrubs. Taller shrubs shade out bog buckbean, reducing optimal
larval host plants.
One example of localized water level influences is the impact of a
road at the Lakeside 1 and Lakeside 2 sites. Historically connected,
these two sites became separated due in part to the construction of a
road in the mid-1950s and impoundment in an adjacent management area
(Bonanno 2006, p. 8). Fen habitat contracted from 6 to 2 ha (15 to 5
ac) at the Lakeside 1 site and 32.4 to 24.7 ha (80 to 61 ac) at the
Lakeside 2 site from 1998 to 2001 (Olivero 2001, p. 10). This was
corroborated with personal observations by Bonanno (2014, p. 6), who
found that vegetation in the Lakeside 1 site was succeeding to a black
spruce-tamarack bog forest with deep sphagnum, taller shrubs, and
scarce bog buckbean. At the Lakeside 2 site, succession is documented
to the point where significant habitat restoration is required (Bonanno
2014, p. 5; 2015, p. 7; 2016, p. 8).
Water levels on Lake Ontario have no direct effect on the Oswego
Inland Site population, and we are unaware of any smaller scale water
level management at this site; however, temperature, precipitation, and
evaporation potential will impact hydrology (Stanton 2004, p. 11) (see
Climate Change, below).
Change in Vegetation
Both invasive species and succession can reduce the amount of
available suitable oviposition plants and/or larval host plants.
Invasive species and later successional plants directly compete for
space and nutrients or shade out bog buckbean. Changes in the quality
or quantity of bog buckbean is a potential cause of documented declines
in bog buck moths in New York (Stanton 2004, p. 11).
We evaluated the relative threats posed by invasive understory
species and determined that Typha spp., common reed (Phragmites
australis), and glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus) are currently the
primary species that could affect population-level dynamics of the bog
buck moth. Common reed is abundant across the northern hemisphere
including most of the United States and the southern portions of Canada
(Galowitsch et al. 1999, pp. 739-741). Native fen plants like Myrica
gale are reduced with the presence of common reed (Richburg et al.
2001, p. 253).
Glossy buckthorn is a shrub of Eurasian origin that is aggressive
in bogs and fens. Drier portions or less frequently inundated sections
of wetlands with available hummock surfaces are more readily invaded
(Berg et al. 2016, p. 1370). Glossy buckthorn displaces or shades out
native fen plant species (Fiedler and Landis 2012, pp. 41, 44, 51). Bog
buckbean typically does not grow well in shade (Hewett 1964, p. 730);
although it can be found in shaded areas of some fens (Helquist, pers.
comm., 2020). Glossy buckthorn transpiration in mid-summer has been
shown to lower the water table (Godwin
[[Page 57112]]
1943, p. 81) resulting in faster decomposition rates and reduction of
hummocks in sites (Fiedler and Landis 2012, pp. 41, 44, 51). Sites with
glossy buckthorn also have lower soil pH, although it is unclear
whether buckthorn invaded these areas more frequently or created this
change (Fiedler and Landis 2012, p. 51).
As stated above, in Canada, the most significant threat to bog buck
moth populations includes habitat degradation from cattails, common
reed, and glossy buckthorn (COSEWIC 2009, p. 18; Gradish and Tonge
2011, pp. 6-7; Environment Canada 2015, p. 7). These plants occur in or
adjacent to all Ontario sites and pose an ongoing and future threat of
habitat reduction. While invasive plant species have been found within
or near all four sites where the buck moth is known to occur in
Ontario, the risk posed by these species can be assessed regularly
through targeted monitoring and, to the extent feasible, invasive plant
control can be employed as appropriate and necessary to help mitigate
this threat (Environment Canada 2015, p. 7). Invasive vegetation
control would likely require long-term management.
These species are also documented at the New York sites. For
example, glossy buckthorn makes up a substantial portion of the shrubby
component at Lakeside 5 and is present at the Oswego Inland Site
(Bonanno 2006, p. 7; 2013, p. 2). Cattail had been expanding at the
Oswego Inland Site, and Bonanno (2013, p. 2) noted the only obvious
change in potential drivers of vegetation was the large expansion of a
subdivision along the lakeshore. Narrow-leaved cattail (Typha
angustifolia) encroachment at the Oswego Inland Site has been managed
sporadically prior to 2016, and annually from 2016 to 2020 (Helquist,
pers. comm., 2020). Other invasive species management projects have
also been undertaken at the Oswego Inland Site and Lakeside 5; however,
invasive plants remain at these sites. In addition, several clones of
both the introduced and the native phragmites occur near bog buck moth
habitat at Lakeside 3 (Bonanno 2004, p. 9).
There may be multiple sources of vegetation succession, including
natural succession from early successional to late successional plant
species, as well as human-induced or accelerated succession from
sources such as increased nutrient input (enrichment) and altered
wetland hydrology (discussed above in Water Level Management). Here we
provide some additional details about nutrient input.
Fens are characterized by a very low supply of nitrogen and
phosporous (Bedford and Godwin 2003, p. 614), and many fens in New York
are degraded by altered hydrology or by nitrate moving in ground water,
by phosphate adsorbed to sediment in runoff, or by altered water
chemistry caused by development within fen watersheds (Drexler and
Bedford 2002, p. 278; Bedford and Godwin 2003, p. 617). Drexler and
Bedford (2002, pp. 276-278) observed that nutrient loading of a fen in
New York (not a bog buck moth site) resulted in reductions in species
richness of both vascular plants and bryophytes and increases in
monotypic stands of bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), lake
sedge (Carex lacustris), hair willow herb (Epilobium hirsutum), and
broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), especially in an area adjacent to
a farm field. Dense cover reduces fen biodiversity through direct space
competition, or by reducing seedling growth from decreased available
light and increased litter layer (Jensen and Meyer 2001, pp. 173-179).
Increased nutrient inputs have been documented at both the Lakeside
and Oswego Inland Site populations (Service 2021, p. 36). The Lakeside
3 and 4 sites are adjacent to a recreational vehicle (RV) campground
that may contribute to nutrient enrichment encouraging growth and size
of the common reed (Phragmites australis). The Lakeside 2 site is also
subject to surface water inputs from the adjacent pond, the Lakeside 1
site is surrounded by seasonal camps and an RV campground, and the
Lakeside 5 site is abutted by a very large RV campground. The Oswego
Inland Site has seen recent residential development along the lake
shoreline.
Parasitoids
Parasitoids are small insects whose immature stages develop within
or attached to their host insects. Parasitoids eventually kill their
hosts as compared to parasites that typically feed upon hosts without
killing them. Most saturniids are attacked during the larval stage, and
late instar larvae often suffer heavy losses (Tuskes et al. 1996, pp.
25-27). For the bog buck moth, parasitism of egg masses has been
documented; while larval parasitoids have not been directly observed,
they are also believed to be the cause of mortality (COSEWIC 2009, p.
17).
Nearly all of the bog buck moth egg masses found at the Lakeside 1
site since 1996 were parasitized by the native wasp Anastatus furnissi
(Burks) (Stanton 2000, p. 4) and it is plausible that the wasp was the
primary mortality factor at other Lakeside subpopulations (Stanton
2000, p. 13). Wasp parasitism of egg masses has also been documented at
the Oswego Inland Site (Sime 2019, p. 15). The parasitism rates do not
appear to be density-dependent as parasitism levels have been
consistent at the Lakeside and Oswego Inland sites at 25 to 30 percent
of egg clusters affected/year since 2009, while bog buck moth
populations have undergone dramatic fluctuations in that time period
(Sime 2019, p. 15).
Larval parasitoids are common in Hemileuca species (Tuskes et al.
1996, p. 103), Parasitoids can include native and nonnative species,
such as the native ichneumonid wasp Hyposter fugitivus (Say) and
tachinid fly Leschenaultia fulvipes (Bigot), and the introduced
tachinid fly Compsilura concinnata (Meigen) for the control of gypsy
moths (Lymantria dispar). Although C. concinnata is likely present at
the Canadian sites, no evidence of parasitism of bog buck moth has been
reported (Wood, pers. comm., 2020, as cited in COSEWIC 2009, p. 14).
Parasitism is assumed to be occurring at the Canadian populations
(COSEWIC 2009, p. 17). Similarly, while not documented at the bog buck
moth sites in the United States, we find the New York populations are
likely to be susceptible to larval parasitism from the tachinid fly and
other parasitoids, and observed boom/bust cycles may be related to such
parasitism. Bonanno (2016, p. 5) reported the 2016 crash of adult bog
buck moths at the Oswego Inland Site after abundant larvae of all sizes
were observed in May and June and suggested looking further into larval
or pupal parasitoids as a possible cause.
If bog buck moths are not killed by predators (e.g., small mammals
and other invertebrates) or parasitoids, larval behavior may still be
affected by the presence of predators or parasitoids. Early instar
larvae tend to stay together and defend themselves while late instar
larvae disperse, leading to increased subdivision of clusters (Cornell
et al. 1987, p. 387). At sites with higher predator or parasitoid
densities, buck moth larvae likely experience slower growth rates,
prolonged development, and reduced body mass (Stamp and Bowers 1990, p.
1037) because they would be forced to forage closer to the center of
plants where it is cooler and where older, lower quality leaves are
present.
Climate Change
While there are many possible effects to bog buck moths from
climate change into the future, here we focus on the effects to bog
buck moths from observed
[[Page 57113]]
changes in precipitation and temperature to date.
Lake Ontario water levels naturally fluctuate within and among
years; however, record high water levels have recently occurred,
resulting in impacts to bog buck moth sites. Between 1951 and 2017, the
total precipitation with the Great Lakes Basin increased by
approximately 14 percent with heavy precipitation events increasing by
35 percent (Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program
2019, entire). After 15 years of below-average water levels on Lake
Superior and Lake Michigan-Huron, water levels of the upper Great Lakes
started rising in 2013 and have been well above-average for several
years (Board 2020, p. 7). With all of the Great Lakes water levels
above or near record-highs, the increase represented an unprecedented
volume of water in the Great Lakes system funneled into Lake Ontario
and out the St. Lawrence River (Board 2020, p. 7) resulting in the
Lakeside population fens being vulnerable to flooding for an extended
period of time. Flooding that negatively impacts bog buck moths can be
described as longer duration flooding, as long-term flooding of bog
buck moth fens submerges vegetation and makes the site unsuitable for
most life stages and may directly kill individuals. In contrast,
periodic flooding that is shorter in duration helps maintain habitat
suitability. Furthermore, bog buck moth eggs can tolerate short-term
submersion but are not viable after long-term flooding events (Service
2021, p. 34).
Two high-water events across the entire Great Lakes basin caused by
above-normal precipitation (January to May 2017 and November 2018
through May 2019) compounded the already high-water levels in the Great
Lakes basin (Board 2020, pp. 6-9). These events resulted in long-term
submersion of bog buck moth eggs and subsequent crashes in adult
flights at Lakeside 5. In addition to changes in water levels, climate
change has also brought about changes in temperature. The Ontario
Ministry of the Environment (2011, p. 1) reported the average
temperature in Ontario has gone up by as much as 2.5 [deg]F (1.4
[deg]C) since 1948. Similarly, between 1951 and 2017, the average
annual temperature in the Great Lakes Region has increased by 2.3
[deg]F (1.3 [deg]C) (GLISA 2019, entire). We have no detailed studies
to assess whether observed declines in bog buck moth counts of the U.S.
populations are related to these increased annual temperatures.
However, seasonal changes in temperature can influence the form of
precipitation and snowpack in winter and shifts in phenology. For
example, the timing of fall flights may be shifting to later in
September. Bog buck moth monitoring windows have been September 12 to
26 at the Oswego Inland Site and September 18 to October 1 at the
Lakeside sites since surveys began, and in recent years there has been
little or no activity near the beginning of the survey window (Bonanno
2019, pp. 1-2).
Throughout the Great Lakes Basin, average winter minimum and
maximum temperatures increased from 1960 to 2009 by 3.24 and 1.98
[deg]F (1.8 and 1.1 [deg]C), respectively (Suriano et al. 2019, pp. 6-
8). Increased winter temperatures are associated with decreases in
Great Lakes ice cover and increases in winter precipitation occurring
as rain. Increased temperatures may also reduce snowpack, impacting bog
buck moth food sources. During the first half of the 20th century, the
Great Lakes basin experienced an increase in snowfall; however,
snowfall has declined through the latter half of the 20th and early
21st centuries (Baijnath-Rodino et al. 2018, p. 3947). Similarly,
Suriano et al. (2019, p. 4) found a reduction in snow depth in the
Great Lakes Basin of approximately 25 percent from 1960 to 2009. Trends
during this timeframe are variable by subbasin, and there were no
significant trends for the Lake Ontario subbasin (Suriano et al. 2019,
p. 5). At a finer scale (1 degree latitude by 1 degree longitude
grids), there were also no significant changes observed for snow depth
or snowfall for the grid along Lake Ontario that includes the bog buck
moth sites, but there was a significant increase of the number of
ablation events (i.e., snow mass loss from melt, sublimation, or
evaporation) (Suriano et al. 2019, pp. 6-7). These events are
associated with rapid snow melt and often lead to localized flooding.
Snowpack reductions lead to longer periods of frost, earlier
disappearance of standing water, deeper frost levels and reduced bog
buckbean biomass (Benoy et al. 2007, p. 505-508). Reduced bog buckbean
will negatively affect bog buck moth larval growth and survival.
Reduced snowpack can also impact bog buck moths directly; however,
limited research is available on the impacts to bog buck moth
associated with the presence, depth, and duration of winter snow. The
presence of a consistent seasonal snowpack can prevent freeze-thaw
cycles. While bog buck moths overwinter in the egg stage, which is less
vulnerable to freezing than other life stages, they may also
periodically overwinter in the pupal stage, which would be vulnerable
to these cycles. Their egg-clustering habit may decrease the amount of
egg surface exposed to ambient conditions and reduce the possibility of
desiccation (Stamp 1980, p. 369). However, eggs that are not covered by
snowpack are exposed to increased risk of predation.
Increased temperatures in winter and early spring may lead to
earlier egg hatch. As temperatures have increased, many insects have
been emerging earlier (temperature-induced emergence) (Patterson et al.
2020, p. 2), resulting in phenological mismatch with host plants. For
example, Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) larvae have
been known to hatch earlier than its host plant, wild blue lupine
(Lupinus perennis), after unseasonably warm late-winter temperatures
(Patterson et al. 2020, p. 6). Similar to the Karner blue butterfly,
bog buck moth early instar larvae rely on specific host plants and are
at greater risk of impacts from phenological mismatch than species with
wide host plant usage. Earlier spring hatch followed by subsequent
spring freezes also increases the risk of mortality of early instar
larvae.
Overall, interacting changes in temperature and precipitation are
highly influential in terms of flooding or drying out bog buck moth
sites. There may be additional compounding effects from changes in
temperature associated with shifts in phenology or reduced snowpack,
but we lack sufficient information on those potential relationships.
Conservation Measures
New York Populations
The bog buck moth was listed as endangered by the State of New York
in 1999 and is protected by Environmental Conservation Law section 11-
0535 and the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR Part 182).
An incidental take permit is required for any proposed project that may
result in a take of bog buck moths, including, but not limited to,
actions that may kill or harm individual animals or result in the
adverse modification, degradation, or destruction of habitat occupied
by the bog buck moth. Additionally, the bog buck moth is a Species of
Greatest Conservation Need in the NYSDEC's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy (NYSDEC 2005, Appendix 5, pp. 14-17; NYSDEC 2015,
not numbered). NYSDEC has a draft recovery plan for the bog buck moth
(Bonanno and White 2011, entire) that has not been finalized.
All known populations are in conservation ownership and are
[[Page 57114]]
protected from effects from human-induced habitat destruction or
alteration of the wetland itself (e.g., wetland fill associated with
roads or development). Habitat management has been conducted at a few
of these sites, but invasive plants and/or vegetation succession have
reduced the amount of available habitat at most sites and remain an
ongoing threat. The State of New York provides protection for wetlands
greater than 12.4 acres in size or of unusual local importance.
Regulated activities within the wetland or adjacent buffer require
permits from the NYSDEC. In addition, in accordance with section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the authority
to regulate discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States, including wetlands. In New York, placing fill into bogs
and fens is not authorized under the Nationwide Permit Program.
Canadian Populations
The bog buck moth was recommended for listing as endangered by
COSEWIC in 2009 (COSEWIC 2009, entire), listed as endangered under the
Ontario Endangered Species Act in 2010, and listed as endangered on
Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2012. These listings
provided the bog buck moth protection from being killed, harmed,
harassed, captured, or taken in Canada.
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (Ministry)
published a recovery strategy for the bog buck moth on December 7, 2011
(Gradish and Tonge 2011, entire). Major actions identified in the plan
include; improve monitoring standards to the bog buck moth, assess the
risk posed by invasive species, and evaluate the hydrology of the
species' habitat. In 2017, the Ministry published a 5-year review of
progress towards the protection and recovery of the bog buck moth
(Ministry 2017, pp. 11-17). Initial progress has been made towards
assessing the risk posed to the bog buck moth by invasive species and,
where appropriate, implementing invasive species control within and
adjacent to occupied fen ecosystems.
Bog buck moth habitat has generally been afforded protection from
authorized damage or destruction in Canada since the species was listed
in Ontario in 2010. Bog buck moth habitat is further protected through
Ontario habitat regulation and Federal critical habitat protection.
Section 41(1)(c) of SARA requires that recovery strategies include an
identification of the species' ``critical habitat,'' to the extent
possible, as well as examples of activities that are likely to result
in its destruction (Environment Canada 2015, p. 9). Environment Canada
(2015, p. 10) adopted the description of the buck moth ``habitat''
under section 24.1.1.1 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 as ``critical
habitat'' in the Federal recovery strategy. The area defined under
Ontario's habitat regulation contains the biophysical attributes
required by the buck moth to carry out its life processes. To meet
specific requirements of SARA, the biophysical attributes of critical
habitat were further detailed in the Federal strategy (Environment
Canada 2015, p. 11). However, under SARA, specific requirements and
processes are set out regarding the finalization of protection of
critical habitat and whether the prohibition against destruction of
critical habitat is extended to any non-Federal land. Protection of
critical habitat under SARA was to be assessed following publication of
the final bog buck moth Federal recovery strategy (Environment Canada
2015, p. 10). There is no indication that this assessment has occurred
to date.
Current Condition
Similar to other Hemileuca species, bog buck moth populations (and
subpopulations) experience boom and bust cycles. Table 1 and Figure 1
summarize male peak flight counts at four U.S. subpopulations. Three of
the subpopulations have crashed and not recovered.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 57115]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC21.000
[[Page 57116]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC21.001
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
In Canada, the status of many of the populations is unknown due to
a lack of surveys. Of the four sites found in Canada, only two were
recently surveyed. The subpopulation at Richmond Fen South was visited
in 2019 where an estimated minimum of 1,500 early instar larvae were
found in a small portion of core habitat. Another site visit to the
same location in early July 2020 documented the presence of hundreds of
mid-instar larvae. At White Lake North, more than 100 adult moths were
observed in mid-September 2020. Prior to 2020, larval surveys were
conducted, and larvae were last observed in 2016, with no surveys in
2017, and larvae were absent in 2018 and 2019. The status of the two
other subpopulations in Canada (Richmond Fen North and White Lake
South) is unknown because no surveys have been conducted at those
sites.
It is unlikely that there are other bog buck moth populations
besides the ones mentioned above. Fairly extensive but unsuccessful
searches for bog buck moths have been conducted at other potentially
suitable wetland habitat in Ontario, and no new sites have been found
(COSEWIC 2009, pp. 9-10). COSEWIC (2009, p. 10) found that given the
degree of interest by naturalists in these natural areas and the
diurnal habits of this large distinctive species, the probability of
undiscovered Ontario buck moth populations is low.
The circumstances are similar in New York. Cryan and Dirig (2020,
pp. 4-5) described several years of exploring the bed of former glacial
Lake Iroquois and its tributaries and outlets, and while they found
some fens with bog buckbean, they found no additional sites with bog
buck moth. In addition, researchers had visited New York fens for many
years and likely would have observed the highly conspicuous bog
buckbean larvae or flying adult males had they been present. Bonanno
and White (2011, p. 10) describe multiple visitations to possible
habitat by NYNHP and researchers familiar with the bog buck moth
without locating any individuals.
We evaluated the bog buck moth current condition by assessing
whether there were multiple resilient populations spread across its
geographical extent to maintain its ecological and genetic diversity
and withstand catastrophic events (table 2). Information to date
suggests that bog buck moths are genetically structured across their
range and we believe the breadth of adaptive diversity can be captured
by two representative units, Canadian and United States.
Table 2--Ecological Requirements for Species-Level Viability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3Rs Requisites Metric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resiliency (able to withstand Healthy Populations with:
stochastic events). populations. Both sexes
present.
Sufficient
survival of all life
stages.
Sufficient
number of bog buck
moths to survive
bust portion of boom
and bust cycles.
Stable to
increasing trend
over last 10 years
(10 generations).
[[Page 57117]]
Multiple
occupied suitable
habitat patches
within
metapopulation.
Sufficient
habitat size.
Sufficient
habitat quality.
Intact
hydrology and
ecological
processes.
Representation (to maintain Maintain adaptive Healthy populations
evolutionary capacity). diversity. distributed across
areas of unique
adaptive diversity
(e.g., across
latitudinal
gradients) with
sufficient
connectivity for
periodic genetic
exchange.
Redundancy (to withstand Sufficient Sufficient
catastrophic events). distribution of distribution to
healthy guard against
populations. catastrophic events
significantly
compromising species
adaptive diversity.
Sufficient number Adequate number of
of healthy healthy populations
populations. to buffer against
catastrophic losses
of adaptive
diversity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We lacked specific demographic rates for most locations for most
years; therefore, we used alternative metrics for assessing population
resiliency (number of bog buck moth adult males observed, presence of
bog buck moth at multiple subpopulations) and the condition of the
supporting habitat (habitat quality) (table 3).
Table 3--Metrics for Scoring Bog Buck Moth Population Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition Sufficient number Connectivity Suitable habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unknown.............................. Unknown................ Unknown................ Unknown.
Extirpated........................... Not applicable......... Not applicable......... Habitat is completely
unsuitable due to
alteration or loss.
Presumed Extirpated.................. No moths or any other Not applicable......... Habitat present and can
life stage were be suitable or
observed during unsuitable given
multiple subsequent ``sufficient N''
surveys. results.
Poor................................. Negative trend over No subpopulations or if Insufficient suitable
last 10 years. subpopulations are habitat for any of the
present each life stages:
subpopulation did not Insufficient
have at least one >0 bog buckbean ( Relatively
limited oviposition
sites.
Lack of
suitable pupation
sites.
Good................................. Neutral or positive Multiple subpopulations Sufficient suitable
trend over last 10 and >0 count for each habitat for all life
years. subpopulation within stages:
the last 5 years. Sufficient bog
buckbean (>4% areal
coverage).
Relatively
abundant oviposition
sites.
Suitable
pupation sites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, we are aware of five bog buck moth populations,
two in Canada and three in New York. We are unaware of any changes to
the distribution in Canada; however, we have information from only two
of the four subpopulations. In New York, the Jefferson County site was
converted to a marsh, having been impounded decades ago by beavers,
then maintained by management for park flooding control, septic
management, and black tern habitat (Bonanno, pers. obs.). Of the
Lakeside subpopulations, only the Lakeside 5 site remains extant.
Lastly, the Oswego Inland Site population was recently presumed to be
extirpated.
Using our ranking methods mentioned above, we find that for all the
bog buck moth populations in the U.S. Representative Unit, one
population has been extirpated since the 1970s, one is now presumed
extirpated, and one is in poor condition (table 4). The Lakeside
population has experienced multiple sources of habitat loss and
degradation and remaining buck moths have faced high flood years. While
these may or may not be the true cause of declines and site-level
extirpations, they likely contributed to them. The cause of decline and
the bog buck moth's inability to rebound at the Oswego Inland Site is
unclear as flooding has not been a concern at this site and seemingly
suitable habitat remains. Similar declines at sites with apparently
suitable habitat have been documented for another endangered fen
species, the Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek), suggesting that
other factors (e.g., contaminants, climate change, disease, and low
levels of genetic diversity) may be driving the current distribution
and losses (Pogue et al. 2019, pp. 383-386).
In the Canadian Representative Unit, both populations are in
unknown/likely good condition. This assessment has a high degree of
uncertainty given that it is based on current knowledge from half of
the associated Canadian Representative Unit subpopulations (one out of
the two subpopulations for each population). Most recently, Richmond
Fen South had hundreds of mid-instar larvae in early July 2020 with
ample suitable habitat. Richmond Fen North has not had any recent moth
or larval surveys, but observations during a site visit in 2015
suggested that the habitat remains in good condition. At White Lake
North, more than 100 bog buck moth adults were observed in September
2020. Prior to that, surveys were based on larvae, with larvae last
observed in 2016 and none seen in 2018 or 2019. There is no information
on White Lake South. Although both populations have been described as
unknown/likely good, invasive species such as cattails, common reed,
and glossy buckthorn have been identified in the habitat and are likely
to have a negative effect and reduce the resiliency
[[Page 57118]]
of these populations (COSEWIC 2009, p. 18; Gradish and Tonge 2011, pp.
6-7; Environment Canada 2015, p. 7).
Overall, three subpopulations (White Lake North, Richmond Fen
South, and Lakeside 5) associated with three separate populations are
known to have remaining bog buck moths. While some genetic diversity
remains through the current existence of at least one subpopulation
within each of the representative units, there is no redundancy of
healthy populations in the U.S. Representative Unit, and there is
uncertainty about the status of the Canadian Representative Unit.
Table 4--Summary of Bog Buck Moth Current Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3Rs Requisites Metric Current condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resiliency (able to withstand Healthy populations... Populations with:.......... Poor.
stochastic events). Both sexes present Of the 5 historically
Sufficient known populations:
survival of all life 1 extirpated.
stages. 1 presumed extirpated.
Sufficient number
of bog buck moths to
survive bust portion of
boom and bust cycles.
Stable to 1 poor.
increasing trend over last 2 unknown/likely good.
10 years (10 generations).
Multiple occupied
suitable habitat patches
within metapopulation.
Sufficient habitat
size
Sufficient habitat
quality.
Intact hydrology
and ecological processes.
Representation (to maintain Maintain adaptive Healthy populations Poor.
evolutionary capacity). diversity. distributed across areas There are two
of unique adaptive potentially healthy
diversity (e.g., across populations in the
latitudinal gradients) Canadian
with sufficient Representative Unit
connectivity for periodic and none in the U.S.
genetic exchange. Representative Unit.
Redundancy (to withstand Sufficient Sufficient distribution to Poor.
catastrophic events). distribution of guard against catastrophic See above.
healthy populations. events significantly
compromising species
adaptive diversity.
Sufficient number of Adequate number of healthy Poor.
healthy populations. populations to buffer See above.
against catastrophic
losses of adaptive
diversity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Condition
As part of the SSA, we developed two future condition scenarios to
capture the range of uncertainties regarding future threats and the
projected responses by the bog buck moth. Our scenarios assumed
increased winter and spring precipitation, increased annual
temperatures, and either continuation or increases in invasive plant
species and succession. Because we determined that the current
condition of the bog buck moth was consistent with an endangered
species (see Determination section, below), we are not presenting the
results of the future scenarios in this proposed rule; however, under
both scenarios the future condition is projected to worsen. Please
refer to the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 67-83) for the full analysis
of future scenarios.
Determination of Bog Buck Moth'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 endangered species or
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.
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 the bog buck moth is at risk of
extinction now throughout its range due to a combination of factors.
Bog buck moth populations undergo boom and bust cycles and are highly
vulnerable to stochastic events or threats during the bust phase
(Factor E). All populations are isolated from one another and cannot
repopulate extirpated sites (Factor E). We find that past and ongoing
stressors, including habitat alteration due to water level management,
vegetative succession and invasive plant species (Factor A), and death
of individuals due to flooding (Factor E) have caused and are highly
likely to continue to cause a decline in the species' viability through
reduction of resilience, redundancy, and representation to such a
degree that the species is particularly vulnerable to extinction
presently and is highly likely to become more vulnerable to extinction.
We do not fully understand the cause of declines at bog buck moth
sites, and so it is likely that additional factors are important such
as inherent factors (e.g., narrow habitat niche) (Factor E),
parasitoids (Factor E), predation (Factor C), disease (Factor C), and
pesticides (Factor E).
Of the three historical U.S. populations, two have been extirpated
or presumed extirpated. The Jefferson County population was extirpated
due to habitat conversion in the 1970s. The reason for the extirpation
of the Inland Oswego County Site population is unclear, as the habitat
still appears suitable. For the remaining U.S. population, the Lakeside
population, the overall condition is poor with four of the five sites
(Lakeside 1-4) presumed extirpated. Lakeside 5 is the last site with a
confirmed moth
[[Page 57119]]
population as of 2019. However, even this site is considered to be in
poor condition with severe habitat degradation.
The Canadian populations comprise two potentially healthy
populations. However, there is high uncertainty about their status.
Unlike the New York populations, no standardized transect counts are
available to assess long-term trends. In addition, we have information
on just two of the four subpopulations associated with these
populations. While there are bog buck moths known at two of these
subpopulations and suitable habitat remains, invasive plant species are
present at these sites and active management is not underway.
All of the extant bog buck moth populations are currently facing a
multitude of threats including water level changes, succession, and
invasive species. Additionally, other factors, including parasitoids,
predation, disease, and pesticides, as well as the species' limited
dispersal range and small numbers, likely play a role in its decline.
As studies in the New York population have shown, attempts at managing
and controlling the spread of invasive plants or woody plants from
succession in fens have proven to be extremely labor intensive and have
limited effect. We find that the magnitude and imminence of threats
facing the bog buck moth place the species in danger of extinction now,
and therefore we find that threatened status is not appropriate. Thus,
after assessing the best available information, we determine that the
bog buck moth 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
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We have determined that the bog buck moth is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range, and accordingly did not
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because
the bog buck moth warrants listing as endangered throughout all of its
range, our determination is consistent with the decision in Center for
Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020),
in which the court vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided the
Service does not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a
species' range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout
all of its range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the bog buck moth meets the definition of an
endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the bog buck moth 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, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. 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 recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline, and making
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
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. Recovery teams (composed of
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our New York 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 State of New York would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the bog buck moth. Section 8(a) of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) authorizes the provision of limited financial
assistance for the development and management of programs that the
Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the
conservation of endangered or threatened species in foreign countries.
Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) also
authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation programs for listed
species found outside the US, and to provide assistance for such
programs, in the form of personnel and the training of personnel.
Information on our grant programs that are available to
[[Page 57120]]
aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the bog buck moth 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(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any species listed as an endangered species. It is
also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply
to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation
agencies.
Federal agency actions that may require conference or consultation
or both as described in the preceding paragraph include management and
any other landscape-altering activities on lands near bog buck moth
subpopulations.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information,
the following actions are unlikely to result in a violation of section
9, if these activities are carried out in accordance with existing
regulations and permit requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
Normal recreational hunting, fishing, or boating activities that are
carried out in accordance with all existing hunting, fishing, and
boating regulations, and following reasonable practices and standards.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the bog buck moth, including
import or export across State lines and international boundaries,
except for properly documented antique specimens of the taxon at least
100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Unauthorized modification, removal, or destruction of the
wetland vegetation, soils, or hydrology in which the bog buck moth is
known to occur;
(3) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill material into any
wetlands in which the bog buck moth is known to occur; and
(4) Unauthorized release of biological control agents that attack
any life stage of the bog buck moth, including parasitoids, herbicides,
pesticides, or other chemicals in habitats in which the bog buck moth
is known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the New York
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
III. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals). Additionally, our regulations
at 50 CFR 424.02 define the word ``habitat'' as follows: ``For the
purposes of designating critical habitat only, habitat is the abiotic
and biotic setting that currently or periodically contains the
resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life
processes of a species.''
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,
[[Page 57121]]
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government
or public to access private lands, nor does designation require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would 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.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. 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.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary
may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be
prudent in the following circumstances:
(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.
We find that designating critical habitat for the bog buck moth is
not prudent based on the fifth category. Within the New York
populations, the bog buck moth co-occurs with another federally listed
species that was listed, in part, due to collection pressure, which has
not abated and has been documented recently in New York. Designation of
critical habitat requires the publication of maps and a narrative
description of specific critical habitat areas in the Federal Register.
The degree of detail necessary to properly designate critical habitat
for the bog buck moth is considerably greater than the general
descriptions of location provided in this proposal to list the bog buck
moth as an endangered species. We find that the publication of maps and
descriptions outlining the locations of bog buck moth would further
facilitate unauthorized collection and trade of the co-occurring
species, by providing heretofore unavailable precise location
information. As such, we have determined that the increased collection
risk to the co-occurring species outweighs the benefits that would be
afforded to the bog buck moth from the designation of critical habitat.
In conclusion, we find that the designation of critical habitat is
not prudent for the bog buck moth, in accordance with 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1), because the co-occurring listed species faces an ongoing
threat of unauthorized collection and trade, and critical habitat
designation can reasonably be expected to increase the degree of these
threats to this co-occurring species. Critical habitat is just one
conservation tool under the Act and is not required for recovery
planning and implementation efforts for the bog buck moth.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 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.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
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), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility
[[Page 57122]]
to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial 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. There are no known Tribal lands with bog buck moth
populations. However, we will coordinate with Tribes to determine their
interest in this proposed rule throughout the listing process as
appropriate.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
New York Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Service's Species Assessment Team and the New York Ecological
Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
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
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Moth, bog buck'' to
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order
under Insects to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Insects
* * * * * * *
Moth, bog buck.................. Hemileuca maia Wherever found.... E [Federal Register
menyanthevora) citation when
(=H. iroquois). published as a final
rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-21856 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
