[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49422-49440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19632]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2013-0089; 4500030113]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition to List the Rattlesnake-Master Borer Moth (Papaipema 
eryngii) as an Endangered or Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the rattlesnake-master borer 
moth (Papaipema eryngii) as an endangered or a threatened species under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of 
the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that 
listing the rattlesnake-master borer moth is warranted. Currently, 
however, listing the rattlesnake-master borer moth is precluded by 
higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition 
finding, we will add the rattlesnake-master borer moth to our candidate 
species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the rattlesnake-
master borer moth as our priorities allow. In any interim period, we 
will address the status of the candidate taxon through our annual 
Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR).

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 14, 
2013.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R3-ES-2013-0089. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1511 47th Ave, Moline, IL 61265. Please 
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions 
concerning this finding to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard C. Nelson, Field Supervisor, 
Rock Island Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 309-757-5800; 
or by facsimile at 309-757-5807. If you use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing a species may be warranted, we make 
a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In 
this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not 
warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal 
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by 
other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or 
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove 
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.

Previous Federal Actions

    On June 25, 2007, we received a formal petition dated June 18, 
2007, from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians), requesting that 
the rattlesnake-master borer moth be listed as either endangered or 
threatened under the Act with critical habitat.
    The petitioner incorporated into the petition all analyses, 
references, and documentation provided by NatureServe in its online 
database at http://www.natureserve.org/. The petition clearly 
identified itself as a petition and included the appropriate 
identification information, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). We sent a 
letter to the petitioner dated July 11, 2007, acknowledging receipt of 
the petition and stating that the petition was under review by staff in 
our Southwest Regional Office. On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians 
filed a complaint indicating that the Service failed to

[[Page 49423]]

comply with its mandatory duty to make a preliminary 90-day finding on 
the June 18, 2007, petition to list 475 southwest species. We 
subsequently published an initial 90-day finding for 270 of the 475 
petitioned species on January 6, 2009, concluding that the petition did 
not present substantial information that listing of those species may 
be warranted (74 FR 419). On March 13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth 
Guardians filed a stipulated settlement agreement, agreeing that the 
Service would submit to the Federal Register a finding as to whether 
WildEarth Guardians' petition presents substantial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the 
remaining southwestern species by December 9, 2009. On December 16, 
2009, we published a 90-day finding that the petition presented 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing may be warranted for 67 species, including the rattlesnake-
master borer moth (74 FR 66866).
    This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the WildEarth 
Guardians' petition to list the rattlesnake-master borer moth as an 
endangered or threatened species.

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description
    The rattlesnake-master borer moth is a member of the family 
Noctuidae (owlet moths) and was first described in 1917 from 
individuals collected near Chicago, Illinois (Bird 1917, pp. 125-128). 
The genus Papaipema contains 53 species, all of which are found in 
North America and are root or stem boring (Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 
349; Panzer 1998, p. 48). Rattlesnake-master borer moth is the accepted 
common name for Papaipema eryngii.
    The adult rattlesnake-master borer moth measures 3.5-4.8 
centimeters (cm) (1.4-1.9 inches) (Bird 1917, p. 125). It has a smooth 
head with simple antennae and a tufted body (Forbes 1954, p. 191, Bird 
1917, p. 125). The forewing is rich purple brown to red brown becoming 
lighter and showing yellow powderings near the inner margin, a 
yellowish white dot at the base, and a powdery yellow patch at the apex 
(Bird 1917, p. 125). The middle of the forewing contains several 
distinct white and yellow spots (Bird 1917, p. 125). The hind wing is 
duller than the forewing and is described by Bird (1917, p. 125) as 
smoky fawn overlaid with dark purplish powderings becoming darker at 
the margin. Male rattlesnake-master borer moths have distinctively 
identifiable genitalia, which allow distinction from other Papaipema 
moths of similar appearance (Forbes 1954, p. 193; Bird 1917, p. 126). 
Rattlesnake-master borer moth larvae develop in five instars, all of 
which have a yellowish head and are deep purplish brown with 
longitudinal white lines that are broken over the first four abdominal 
segments (Hessel 1954, p. 62; Bird 1917, p. 127).

Life History

    Rattlesnake-master borer moths are univoltine (having a single 
flight per year) with adults emerging from mid-September to mid-
October, and flying through mid- to late October or when the weather 
becomes too cold (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.; Hessel 1954, p. 59; 
Forbes 1954, p. 198; Bird 1917, p. 128). Their nocturnal habits make 
them hard to observe, thus adults feeding habits are unknown. Based on 
their short adult flight span, their underdeveloped mouth parts, and 
the large amount of stored fat, researchers postulate that they likely 
do not need much for nectar sources and likely use dew or oozing sap 
for imbibing moisture (Wiker 2013, pers. comm.). Adults will drink from 
sugar water when held in captivity (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.). Based 
on their coloring, researchers believe the moths likely spend their 
days attached to plants or on the bottom of leaves, where their 
presence is camouflaged (Wiker 2013, pers. comm.).
    In mid-October, females drop their eggs in the vicinity of the food 
plant, Eryngium yuccifolium (rattlesnake-master), where the eggs 
overwinter in the duff; young larvae emerge between mid-May and early 
June (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.; LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 4; Bird 
1917, p. 126). Rattlesnake-master borer moths are monophagous (have 
only one food source), with larvae feeding exclusively on rattlesnake-
master (Panzer 2003, p. 18; Hessel 1954, p. 59; Forbes 1954, p. 198; 
Bird 1917, p. 124). When larvae first emerge, they feed on the leaves 
of the host plant and the second instars burrow into the stem (or root) 
and on into the root where they remain until they pupate in mid- to 
late August (Derkovitz, pers. comm. 2013; LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 4; 
Bird 1917, p. 127). During the time that the larvae are actively boring 
into the host plant, researchers have detected cannibalistic behavior 
with some caterpillars moving into already occupied bore holes, killing 
the occupant and pushing them back out (LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 4). 
Rattlesnake-master borer moths diapause in the chamber they create in 
the host plant and pupation appears to take place either inside the 
chamber or in the soil and lasts 2-3 weeks (Derkovitz 2013, pers. 
comm.; LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 4; Bird 1917, p. 127). The boring 
activities of the rattlesnake-master borer moth generally result in the 
plant not producing a flower and can be fatal to the host plant (Wiker 
2013, pers. comm.; LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 4).
    Although there are no specific data on their home range, 
rattlesnake-master borer moths are not thought to disperse widely and 
have been described as ``relatively sedentary'' (LaGesse et al. 2009, 
p. 4; Panzer 2003, p. 18). Panzer (2003, p. 19) found that female 
rattlesnake-master borer moths dispersed up to 120 meters (m) (394 feet 
(ft)) from where they were released and some traversed a 25-m (82-ft) 
gap that was devoid of host plants. LaGesse et al. (2009, p. 4) 
indicate that rattlesnake-master borer moths will disperse up to 2 
miles (3-6 kilometers (km)) if the number of host plants is limiting.

Habitat

    Rattlesnake-master borer moths are obligate residents of 
undisturbed prairie and woodland openings that contain their only food 
plant, rattlesnake-master (Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 351; LaGesse et 
al. 2009, p. 4; Panzer 2002, p. 1298; Molano-Florez 2001, p. 1; Panzer 
et al. 1995, p. 115; Mohlenbrock 1986, p. 34; Hessel 1954, p. 59; 
Forbes 1954, p. 198; Bird 1917, p. 124). Although common in remnant 
prairies, rattlesnake-master occurs in low densities; it is a 
conservative species and has been found to have relative frequencies in 
restored and relict prairies of less than 1 percent (Danderson and 
Molano-Flores 2010, p. 235; Molano-Flores 2001, p. 1). The range of 
rattlesnake-master covers much of the eastern United States and spans 
from Minnesota south to Texas, east to Florida and back north to 
Connecticut (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Plants Web site 
2013, http://plants.usda.gov/java/; Danderson and Molano-Flores 2010, 
p. 235). Although the plant has an expansive range, the loss of its 
tallgrass prairie habitat within that area is estimated to be between 
82-99 percent (Samson and Knopf 1994, p. 418). Most high-quality 
prairies that remain are small and scattered across the landscape 
(Robertson et al. 1997, p. 63). In 1997, Robertson et al. (1997, p. 63) 
cited the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, which found that of the 253 
grade A and B (high-quality) prairies identified, 83 percent were 
smaller than 10 acres (4 hectares) and 30 percent were smaller than 1 
acre (0.4 hectares). Most prairie destruction occurred between 1840 and 
1900 (Robertson et al. 1997, p. 63).

[[Page 49424]]

Distribution and Status

    All but one of the currently known rattlesnake-master borer moth 
sites have been identified since 1994. Little historical data exists 
for this species from before 1994. Some, but not all, of the sites have 
had some subsequent survey work to monitor individual populations.
    Surveys for rattlesnake-master borer moths are conducted for both 
the adult and larval stage. Surveying for adult moths can be limiting, 
due to their sedentary nature, relatively short flight time, and the 
potential difficulties of surveying at night when the moths are active 
(LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.; Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 19; LaGesse et 
al. 2009, p. 7; Metzler et al. 2005, p. 59). The usual survey method 
for Papaipema moths is with blacklight traps, although some researchers 
have found that rattlesnake-master borer moth may not be attracted to 
blacklights (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.; LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 4). It 
is difficult to determine population size based on capture of adults, 
due to their irregular attraction to blacklights and the difficulty of 
designing a study that would factor in how many adults may be flying at 
a given time and how far they may range (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.; 
Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 19; LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 7).
    Larval surveys are conducted by searching the host plant for signs 
of boring (LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 7). Rattlesnake-master show signs of 
stress that indicate the occupancy of the root by rattlesnake-master 
borer larvae, which usually leave a pile of frass (excrement) below the 
bore hole (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.; Hall 2012, pers. comm.). One 
benefit of larval surveys is that these surveys can be conducted for a 
longer time because evidence of larval infestation remains even after 
emergence (Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 13). Researchers will often 
collect rattlesnake-master borer moth larvae and rear them to adulthood 
to confirm identification, as other similar species have been found in 
rattlesnake-master (such as the silphium borer moth (Papaipema 
silphii)) (Wiker 2013, pers. comm.). Much of the available census data 
for rattlesnake-master borer moths does not indicate the size or 
stability of the populations, but indicate only the continued presence 
or absence of the species in a specific area.
    The rattlesnake-master borer moth is currently known to occur in 
five States: Illinois, Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, and 
Oklahoma. Given that its food plant ranges across 26 States (USDA 
Plants Web site 2013, http://plants.usda.gov/java/), it is likely the 
rattlesnake-master borer moth's historical range was larger than at 
present; however, not much data supports its presence in other Midwest 
States. There are no historical records and no known records of 
rattlesnake-master borer moth in Indiana, although surveys have been 
conducted at several sites where the host plant occurs (Okajima 2012, 
pers. comm.). In Missouri, experts have examined numerous Papaipema 
specimens without finding any collections of rattlesnake-master borer 
moth (McKenzie 2012, pers. comm.). Experts indicate that, given the 
abundance of the host plant in Missouri, the species possibly occurs in 
Missouri and has not been detected (McKenzie 2012, pers. comm.). There 
are also no historical or known records for Iowa (Howell 2013, pers. 
comm.). Below we present specific occurrence information across the 5 
States where the species is currently known to occur.

Illinois

    The State of Illinois has the most rattlesnake-master borer moth 
sites. At this time, 10 known sites contain rattlesnake-master borer 
moths in 8 Illinois counties (Will, Cook, Grundy, Livingston, Kankakee, 
Marion, Effingham, and Fayette). Nine of the known sites are thought to 
have extant populations and one is unknown. When Bird (1917, p. 124) 
first described the species, specimens were collected from the Chicago 
area, and five of the sites with extant populations are still found 
close to the city of Chicago (Will, Cook, Grundy, Livingston, and 
Kankakee Counties). There are two known sites in Will County--one of 
these sites is owned by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources 
(IDNR) and is extant, and the other is in railroad siding in private 
and State ownership and its population status is unknown. The 
population of rattlesnake-master borer moths within the IDNR site is 
thought to be stable (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.). Surveys of both 
adults and larvae have been conducted on this site, with the most 
recent larval survey in 2012 (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.). This Will 
County site is protected and managed with prescribed burning to control 
woody species (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.). Although researchers have 
not found a decline of the moths within this site, poachers have 
removed individuals in the past and the location of the population is 
kept undisclosed for this reason (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.). Based 
on this information, we consider the status of the species to be extant 
on this site.
    Larval surveys were conducted at the second Will County site (the 
railroad siding site), with presence last confirmed in 1997 (Illinois 
Natural Heritage Database 2012). This site was described by researchers 
as being very small and with few host plants when it was surveyed in 
1997 (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.). The population of rattlesnake-
master borer moths on this site is under private ownership of the 
railroad, however, it is contiguous with an Illinois State Nature 
Preserve (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.). During a larval survey in 2008, 
researchers found no signs of rattlesnake-master borer moths and 
suggested they may be extirpated from the site (Illinois Natural 
Heritage Database 2012). Based on this information, we consider the 
status of the species on this site to be unknown.
    The presence of rattlesnake-master borer moths was confirmed on 
three other railroad siding prairies, one each in Livingston, Kankakee, 
and Grundy Counties (Illinois Natural Heritage Database 2012). The 
information on the Kankakee railroad siding is limited, although the 
species was confirmed on the site in 1997 (Illinois Natural Heritage 
Database 2012). Not much is known about the Livingston County site 
since the presence of the moth was detected here in 2001, as there have 
been no other known surveys of the site (Illinois Natural Heritage 
Database 2012). Larvae were first detected on the Grundy County 
railroad siding in 1997, and presence of the species at the site was 
most recently confirmed in 2012 (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.). Like the 
railroad siding prairie in Will County, these three sites are in 
private ownership and the unmanaged-populations are considered extant 
at these sites.
    A second site owned by the Illinois DNR is located in Grundy 
County. The rattlesnake-master borer moth was first found in this site 
in 1990, with subsequent surveys in 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, and 2003 
(Illinois Natural Heritage Database 2012). Although an extensive survey 
of the population has not been done on this site, it is protected and 
managed, with the last prescribed burn occurring in 2011 (Derkovitz 
2013, pers. comm.). Poaching of rattlesnake-master borer moths has 
occurred on this site, and so the location of the population is kept 
undisclosed (Illinois Natural Heritage Database 2012). The rattlesnake-
master borer moth population on this Grundy County site is considered 
to be extant.
    One other known population of rattlesnake-master borer moth close 
to Chicago occurs in Cook County, with rattlesnake-master borer moths

[[Page 49425]]

introduced to the site in 1998 (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.; Illinois 
Natural Heritage Database 2012). This site is owned and managed by 
Northeastern Illinois University and larval surveys have been conducted 
each year since it was introduced to the site (Derkovitz 2013, pers. 
comm.). Area managers have found that the rattlesnake-master borer 
moths within this area are scattered into several small populations 
that have stayed approximately the same size since 1998 (Derkovitz 
2013, pers. comm.). This site is considered to have an extant 
population.
    In 2008, populations of rattlesnake-master borer moths were found 
for the first time in Marion and Effingham Counties in southern 
Illinois (LaGesse and Wiker 2008, pp. 7-8). The presence of the moth 
was confirmed at three sites through larval surveys; two sites within 
IDNR prairie areas in Marion County, and one within scenic right-of-way 
sections of a privately owned railroad siding that spans through Marion 
and Effingham Counties (LaGesse and Wiker 2008, pp. 7-8). The railroad 
prairie is a large, linear prairie that covers approximately 64 
hectares (158 acres) (Dietrich et al. 1996, p. 2). Of the two IDNR 
owned properties, one is a 65-hectare (160-acre) relict prairie area 
and the other is a 16 hectare (40-acre) prairie restoration, which 
contains the only known rattlesnake-master borer moth population that 
is not in a relict habitat area (LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 5). The number 
of bored rattlesnake-master plants was estimated to be between 200-250 
on one IDNR site and the other contained between 250-300 bored plants 
(LaGesse and Wiker 2008, pp. 7-8). The railroad site contained between 
5 and 10 bored plants (containing evidence of larval boring) and 15-20 
bored plants (LaGesse and Wiker 2008, pp. 7-8).
    In 2009, researchers returned to each of these sites to map and 
estimate the populations and establish monitoring protocols (LaGesse et 
al. 2009, p. 3). Survey methods included marking and outlining the 
perimeter of each rattlesnake-master subpopulation, flagging all plants 
that had signs of being bored by rattlesnake-master borer moths, and 
mapping the locations (LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 5). Individual plants 
that had evidence of rattlesnake-master borer moth damage were counted 
within each subpopulation, except for one subpopulation that was too 
large for such a count (LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 5). A sampling method 
was established to estimate the population within this large population 
of rattlesnake-master (LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 5). Researchers surveyed 
67 subpopulations of rattlesnake-master across the 3 sites discovered 
in 2008 and found that 33 were inhabited by rattlesnake-master borer 
moths (LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 5). Although some populations were 
probably undetected, they estimated the overall population of 
rattlesnake-master borer moths to be approximately 4,600 (LaGesse et 
al. 2009, p. 6).
    Management is conducted on all three of these sites in order to 
conserve and sustain the prairie communities. Prescribed fire is used 
on all of the sites, and the 65-hectare (160-acre) IDNR area also 
includes grazing to stimulate structural openings for prairie birds 
(LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 5). Researchers found that the grazing 
practices likely did not impact the rattlesnake-master borer moth 
population (see Factor A and E discussion in this finding). All three 
of the sites in southern Illinois are considered to contain extant 
populations.
    In 2009, an application of herbicide affected populations of 
rattlesnake-master in the railroad siding prairie (LaGesse and Walk 
2010, unpaginated). Consequently, in 2010 researchers surveyed the 
railroad prairie areas using the same techniques from 2009 in order to 
estimate and map the population of rattlesnake-master and rattlesnake-
master borer moths and compare them to the findings from 2009 (LaGesse 
and Walk 2010, unpaginated). LaGesse and Walk (2010, unpaginated) found 
that 2 rattlesnake-master populations were completely destroyed and 19 
declined between 2009 and 2010. Researchers found that both the overall 
population of rattlesnake-master and the density of the plants declined 
(LaGesse and Walk 2010, unpaginated).
    Fourteen populations of rattlesnake-master borer moths with a total 
of 112 caterpillars were detected in 2010 (LaGesse and Walk 2010, 
unpaginated). One-third of the nine populations of rattlesnake-master 
borer moths surveyed in 2009 declined; however, nine new populations 
were identified during the 2010 survey (LaGesse and Walk 2010, 
unpaginated). Due to an expanded survey area, researchers also 
identified an additional 24 populations of rattlesnake-master during 
the 2010 survey in Marion, Fayette, and Effingham Counties (LaGesse and 
Walk 2010, unpaginated). Within these new stands of rattlesnake-master, 
they found 7 new populations of rattlesnake-master borer moths with a 
total of 41 caterpillars. The five populations of rattlesnake-master 
borer moth identified within Fayette County in 2010 were the first 
recorded occurrence of the moth for this county (LaGesse and Walk 2010, 
unpaginated). Although evidence of boring was found in rattlesnake-
master in Fayette County in 2009, the areas were subsequently flooded 
due to heavy rain events (LaGesse and Walk 2010, unpaginated).

Kentucky

    The rattlesnake-master borer moth is known from two sites in 
Kentucky, one each in Christian and Hardin Counties. The Christian 
County site is known from a single occurrence prior to 1999, but 
researchers have not found any sign of boring in rattlesnake-master in 
recent years (Laudermilk 2012, pers. comm.). The succession to woody 
plants has changed the composition of the plant community on site and 
experts believe that rattlesnake-master borer moth has been extirpated 
from the site (Laudermilk 2012, pers. comm.). The Hardin County site is 
thought to be extant based on larval counts dating back to 2003, with 
researchers finding between 100 and 500 feeding larvae during each 
survey year (Laudermilk 2012, pers. comm.). A comprehensive survey in 
2008 indicated the largest number of feeding larvae found at that site 
was approximately 500. The site has a wide distribution of rattlesnake-
master, although the moth has shown a clumped distribution (Laudermilk 
2012, pers. comm.). This site is secure and its population considered 
extant, although its location is undisclosed due to concern of 
collection of the species.

Arkansas

    The rattlesnake-master borer moth was first discovered on two sites 
in Arkansas in 1997, one each in Pulaski and Jefferson Counties (Weaver 
and Boos 1998, p. 8; Weaver and Boos 1997, p. 8). The Jefferson County 
site is located on the Pine Bluff Arsenal, where populations of the 
species were found in dry mesic savanna remnants (Zollner 2013, pers. 
comm.; Weaver and Boos 1998, p. 8). Researchers found the rattlesnake-
master borer moths in small subpopulations of 3-12 individuals 
scattered throughout the patches of rattlesnake-master within the 
savanna remnants (Weaver and Boos 1998, p. 9). Surveys were also 
conducted within a railroad prairie on the Arsenal containing many 
rattlesnake-master plants, but the moth was not found there; it has not 
been found since the 1997 survey and researchers suggested that the 
fire regime in this area may be suppressing the colonization of this 
area by the moth (Zollner 2013, pers. comm.; Weaver and Boos 1998, pp. 
16-17). Since the 1997 survey, one of the areas containing rattlesnake-
master borer moths has been developed and an incinerator built on the 
area (Zollner

[[Page 49426]]

2013, pers. comm.). The other savanna remnants remain and have been 
surveyed for evidence of rattlesnake-master borer moth larva every year 
since it was discovered (Zollner 2013, pers. comm.). These annual 
surveys indicate that the population has stayed stable with generally 
the same number of larvae found, but always fewer than 20 individuals 
(Zollner 2013, pers. comm.). This area is managed yearly with 
rotational prescribed burning, usually before April 15 (Zollner 2013, 
pers. comm.). The Pine Bluff Arsenal site is considered extant.
    The Pulaski County site is located within a mesic prairie area on 
the Little Rock Air Force Base (Weaver and Boos 1997, p. 8). The 1997 
survey is the only survey conducted within this site (Popham 2013, 
pers. comm.; Zollner 2013, pers. comm.). Because of its proximity to 
the airfield and implementation of Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard rules, 
the prairie is mowed annually, which is the same management regime 
conducted onsite when rattlesnake-master was found in 1997 (Popham 
2013, pers. comm.). Rattlesnake-master is known to occur in other areas 
of the Air Force Base; however, this prairie remnant is the only area 
where the moth has been detected (Popham 2013, pers. comm.) The status 
of the population and the prairie area on the Air Force Base is 
unknown.

Oklahoma

    One known location of rattlesnake-master borer moth is in Oklahoma, 
in Osage County (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.). During surveys conducted 
between 2000 and 2005, three populations were found within The Nature 
Conservancy's Tallgrass Nature Preserve, approximately 2-4 miles (3-6 
km) apart (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.). The first population to be 
studied on the Preserve had approximately 200 individuals. Later, the 
two other populations were found, both with approximately 50 
individuals (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.). The prairie community on the 
entire site is managed with grazing bison and a randomized prescribed 
fire regime designed to mimic the natural forces found on site prior to 
settlement (Hamilton 2013, pers. comm.). Although no surveys have been 
conducted on site since 2005, the management of the area is unchanged, 
so this site is considered extant.

North Carolina

    Rattlesnake-master borer moth is known from a pine barrens, which 
is owned and managed by the State, in Pender County, North Carolina 
(Hall 2013, pers. comm.; Hall 2012, pers. comm.; Schweitzer et al. 
2011, p. 351). The moth was first identified from a single adult on 
this site in 1994 (Hall 2012, pers. comm.; Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 
351). A prescribed burn was conducted on the site soon after the 1994 
collection, and a subsequent survey resulted in location of one larva 
during the summer of 1995 (Hall 2012, pers. comm.; Schweitzer et al. 
2011, p. 351). A 2002 survey of approximately 80-100 rattlesnake-master 
plants for larval feeding damage resulted in only one hole, indicating 
possible occupancy, however, no frass was found outside of the hole, 
which is a more reliable sign of larvae inhabitance (Hall 2012, pers. 
comm.). No surveys have occurred in the area since 2002 to verify the 
status of the population, so the status of the population on this site 
is considered unknown.
    In summary, the rattlesnake-master borer moth currently occurs in 
five States: Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and North 
Carolina. Within these states, 16 sites have confirmed populations of 
the moth since 1993 (Table 1). Of these sites, 12 are considered to be 
extant, 3 unknown, and 1 is considered to be extirpated. Given the 
range of the food plant and the relatively recent discovery of all of 
the known populations, the range of the moth is possibly greater within 
these five States and within other States where rattlesnake-master is 
found.

                        Table 1--Rattlesnake-Master Borer Moth Status at All Known Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Date of last
            State              Site description        County              Current status           observation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois....................  IDNR Site........  Will.............  Extant......................            2012
Illinois....................  railroad siding..  Will.............  Unknown.....................            1997
Illinois....................  railroad siding..  Livingston.......  Extant......................            2001
Illinois....................  railroad siding..  Grundy...........  Extant......................            2012
Illinois....................  IDNR.............  Grundy...........  Extant......................            2003
Illinois....................  railroad siding..  Kankakee.........  Extant......................            1997
Illinois....................  Northeastern       Cook.............  Extant......................            2012
                               Illinois
                               University.
Illinois....................  IDNR.............  Marion...........  Extant......................            2009
Illinois....................  IDNR.............  Marion...........  Extant......................            2009
Illinois....................  railroad siding..  Marion,            Extant......................            2010
                                                  Effingham,
                                                  Fayette.
Kentucky....................  .................  Christian........  Extirpated..................            1999
Kentucky....................  .................  Hardin...........  Extant......................            2008
Arkansas....................  Pine Bluff.......  Jefferson........  Extant......................            2012
Arkansas....................  Little Rock Air    Pulaski..........  Unknown.....................            1997
                               Force Base.
Oklahoma....................  The Nature         Osage............  Extant......................            2005
                               Conservancy.
North Carolina..............  Pine Barrens.....  Pender...........  Unknown.....................            2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened 
based on any of the following 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.
    In making this finding, information pertaining to the rattlesnake-
master borer moth in relation to the five factors provided in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In considering what

[[Page 49427]]

factors might constitute threats to a species, we must look beyond the 
exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate whether the 
species may respond to that factor in a way that causes actual impacts 
to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species 
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and, during the status 
review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The 
threat is significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of 
extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an 
endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined in the Act. 
However, the identification of factors that could impact a species 
negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the species 
warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to 
suggest that these factors are operative threats that act on the 
species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    Rattlesnake-master borer moths are monophagous, feeding exclusively 
on the prairie plant, rattlesnake-master (Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 
351; LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 4; Panzer 2002, p. 1298; Molano-Florez 
2001, p. 1; Panzer et al. 1995, p. 115; Mohlenbrock 1986, p. 34; Hessel 
1954, p. 59; Forbes 1954, p. 198; Bird 1917, p. 124). Although the 
overall range of rattlesnake-master is large (occurring in 26 States), 
the plant's relative densities in prairie are low, making up 1 percent 
of the prairie flora (Danderson and Molano-Flores 2010, p. 235; Molano-
Flores 2001, p. 1). Rattlesnake-master is not known to occur in 
disturbed areas, and the extensive loss of undisturbed prairie in the 
United States has resulted in the remaining remnants that could support 
rattlesnake-master generally to be small and isolated. The rattlesnake-
master borer moth's dependence on rattlesnake-master as its only larval 
food source makes the moth's potential habitat very narrow, which is 
likely limiting for this species. In their multiyear study, Panzer et 
al. (1995, p. 102) gauged the levels of remnant dependence (limited to 
natural area remnants) for 22 families and 6 genera of insects around 
the Chicago, Illinois, area and provided a list of remnant dependent 
species. They determined that rattlesnake-master borer moths are highly 
dependent on remnant patches of native prairie, not finding them in any 
disturbed areas (Panzer et al. 1995, p. 115). The disturbed area 
between the widely scattered remnant prairie patches that support the 
remaining rattlesnake-master borer moth populations will not support 
their food plant, rattlesnake-master, making these expansive areas 
uninhabitable to the moth.
    The conservation of good-quality prairie habitat is important for 
rattlesnake-master borer moth populations, especially those that are 
small and isolated, which would not be recolonized if they were 
extirpated. The loss of prairie habitat and the degradation and 
destruction of remnant habitat occurs in many ways, including but not 
limited to development, fire, flooding, invasive species encroachment, 
and succession, which are discussed in further detail below.

Conversion of Prairie for Agriculture

    Since Euro-American settlement, conversion of prairie for 
agriculture is the most significant factor in the decline of American 
grasslands, and, thus, that of the rattlesnake-master borer moth. 
According to Samson and Knoff (1994, p. 419), by 1994, tallgrass 
prairie had declined 99.9 percent from historical levels in Illinois, 
Iowa, and Indiana and 99.5 percent in Missouri. Warner (1994) studied 
the transition of land use in Illinois since 1800. He found that 
between 1820 and 1920, Illinois went from almost two-thirds of the 
State covered with prairie to less than 1 percent (Warner 1994, p. 
149). With the onset of intensive row-cropping after the 1950s, 
Illinois saw declines in diversified farming practices that included 
grazing of livestock on grasslands, leading to even further losses of 
grasslands (Warner 1994, p. 150). The loss of grasslands has been 
precipitous and has followed the settlement of the Midwest and the 
expansion and modernization of farming practices. The current threat of 
such conversion to extant populations is not well known and may now be 
secondary to other threats.

Nonagricultural Conversion of Prairie

    The conversion of remaining prairie remnants for nonagricultural 
purposes continues to be a threat for some of the rattlesnake-master 
borer moth sites. Both Arkansas sites are within military installations 
and are under pressure of potential changes in land-use based on base 
priorities. An incinerator was constructed on top of one site 
containing rattlesnake-master borer moth within the Pine Bluff Arsenal 
(Zollner 2013, pers. comm.). Air Force officials are considering 
allowing development in one area of the Little Rock Air Force Base that 
contains populations of rattlesnake-master (Popham 2013, pers. comm.). 
Although researchers did not find rattlesnake-master borer moths within 
this savanna area in 1997, removal of this area would decrease the 
opportunity of the moth to expand into other habitat.
    In Illinois, several of the populations are close to Chicago and 
are within urban areas; however, all of those that are not railroad 
sidings are managed to maintain the prairie habitat and are currently 
protected from development. A high-speed rail project planned from 
Chicago, Illinois, to St. Louis, Missouri, may impact rattlesnake-
master borer populations located within railroad sidings. According to 
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) (2012, pp. 5-34), all proposed alternatives would 
impact approximately 94 hectares (233 acres) of prairie remnants. The 
populations of rattlesnake-master borer moth occurring within the 
railroad sidings in Will, Livingston, and Grundy Counties are located 
along the same Union Pacific railroad track that has been identified in 
all of the build alternatives in the USDOT EIS (USDOT EIS 2012, 
Appendix A).
    Although not all of the project plans have been finalized, 
potential construction impacts to the railroad siding prairies included 
in the EIS include construction of a second rail in order to provide 
double tracking for the entire alignment and construction of a parallel 
maintenance road along the alignment, both of which could impact 
populations of rattlesnake-master borer moth (USDOT EIS 2012, pp. 3-
19). Surveys will be conducted in the coming years to identify all 
rattlesnake-master borer moth populations in these areas and 
potentially translocate individuals out of the construction zone 
(LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.). There are some indications that 
construction of the second track may impact the entire west side of the 
current alignment, effectively removing half of the prairie habitat in 
some places (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.).

Fire

    Rattlesnake-master borer moth populations existed historically in a 
vast ecosystem maintained in part by fire. Although prairie insects are 
adapted to fire in some ways, experts suggest that prescribed burns 
that are conducted frequently and cover entire insect populations can 
be detrimental (Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 42). The rattlesnake-master 
borer moth is restricted in population size and distribution and thus 
is sensitive to management activities that are

[[Page 49428]]

implemented across an entire site, such as fire (Panzer 2002, p. 1298). 
In his 2002 study, Panzer (2002, pp. 1296-1306) examined the recovery 
rate of fire-sensitive insects by assessing their post-fire response. 
Panzer (2002, p. 1306) identified four life history traits of duff-
dwelling insects such as rattlesnake-master borer moth that were good 
predictors of a negative response to fire: (1) Remnant dependence 
(occurring as small, isolated populations); (2) upland inhabitance (dry 
uplands burn more thoroughly than wetter habitats); (3) nonvagility 
(low recolonization rate); and (4) univoltine (slower recovery rates 
for species with only one generation per year). He said that species 
exhibiting one or more traits should be considered fire-sensitive and 
species with all four traits should be considered ``hypersensitive'' to 
fire (Panzer 2002, p. 1306). The rattlesnake-master borer moth exhibits 
all four of these traits and thus, according to Panzer (2002, p. 1306), 
is hypersensitive to fire.
    He indicated that univoltine, duff-inhabiting species like 
Papaipema moths should be considered especially susceptible to 
extirpation from fire (Panzer 2002, p. 1298). Adult rattlesnake-master 
borer moths are not known to disperse widely and are thought to be 
relatively sedentary making adults more vulnerable to fire (Panzer 
2003, p. 18; LaGesse et. al 2009, p. 4). They lay their eggs close to 
the host plant where they overwinter in the duff making the eggs and 
first instars susceptible to burns conducted from late fall to late 
spring before larvae have a chance to bore into the root of the plant 
(Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.; LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 4; Bird 1917, p. 
126). They are more resistant to the effect of fire during summer 
months after they have bored into the root and are below ground.
    Rattlesnake-master borer moths were one of the species included in 
Panzer's (2003, p. 18) study of the importance of in situ survival, 
recolonization, and habitat gaps in the post-fire recovery of fire-
sensitive prairie insects. Panzer studied the in situ survivorship of 
rattlesnake-master borer moths after burning 100 percent of the 
available habitat for some small populations that were at least 200 m 
(656 ft) from potential recolonization sources (2003, p. 18). Larval 
surveys were conducted to detect the presence of rattlesnake-master 
borer moths in order to eliminate the potential of detecting adults 
that may be recolonizing from other areas. Larvae were found in one out 
of two of the smallest populations burned that were between 4 m\2\ and 
less than 8 m\2\ (43 and 86 ft\2\) (Panzer 2003, p. 19). Panzer (2003, 
p. 19) found better survivorship on larger patches burned, with 
individuals surviving in all of the populations that were between 8 
m\2\ and less than 16 m\2\ (86 and 172 ft\2\), and between 16 m\2\ and 
less than 32 m\2\ (172 and 344 ft\2\) (two out of two for each). A 
prescribed burn conducted in 1994 affected the entire population of 
rattlesnake-master borer moth at the North Carolina site (Hall 2012, 
pers. comm., Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 351). The subsequent 1995 
survey resulted in location of one larva, and the only other survey of 
the site (conducted in 2002) resulted in the detection of one potential 
bore hole (Hall 2012, pers. comm.). The presence of individual 
rattlesnake-master borer moths in areas that are completely burned 
indicates that in situ survival likely does contribute to the recovery 
of a population after a burn (Panzer 2003, p. 20); however, it is 
unknown if they can sustain themselves with repeated burns without 
recolonization.
    The effects of fire on individual rattlesnake-master borer moth 
populations are difficult to ascertain as populations differ in size, 
density, and type of habitat they occupy. Also, some populations may be 
under stress from other threats making the effects of fire more 
detrimental (Panzer 1988, p. 87). The fire sensitivity of rattlesnake-
master borer moth indicates that fire is a threat in habitats burned 
too frequently or too broadly. In order to reap the benefits of fire to 
habitat quality, rattlesnake-master borer moths must either survive in 
numbers sufficient to rebuild populations after the fire or recolonize 
the area from a nearby unburned area (Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 251; 
Panzer 2003, p. 19; Panzer 1988, p. 88). In addition, the return 
interval of fires needs to be infrequent enough to allow for recovery 
of the populations between burns. Panzer indicates that burn programs 
that do not provide sanctuaries for fire-sensitive species, especially 
on small sites, will contribute to their loss across the landscape 
(Panzer 2003, p. 20). Prescribed burns that are designed to leave some 
patches of unburned habitat (by burning when it is wet or cool) may 
provide additional in situ survival, which may be important for fire-
sensitive species on small sites (Panzer 2003, p. 20).
    Complete fire suppression, however, can lead to the decline of 
prairie habitat, as well as savanna and pine barrens, as woody species 
become established (Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 40; Panzer and Schwartz 
2000, p. 363). The natural fire processes that once maintained prairie 
habitat have been altered by the modern landscape and without the 
addition of burning of these small patches of prairie habitat, they are 
subject to succession and the buildup of plant litter (Swengel 1998, p. 
77). Although found commonly in undisturbed remnant prairies, 
rattlesnake-master is a highly conservative species and has been found 
to have relative frequencies in restored and relict prairies of less 
than 1 percent (Danderson and Molano-Flores 2010, p. 235; Molano-Flores 
2001, p. 1). Given its dependence on its host plant, proper fire 
management relative to the needs of its host plant and to retain 
prairie habitat is very important for rattlesnake-master borer moths.
    Of the 16 known rattlesnake-master borer moth sites, 10 are or have 
been managed with fire. The prairie community on the entire Tallgrass 
Prairie Preserve in Oklahoma is managed with a randomized prescribed 
fire regime that includes grazing designed to mimic the natural forces 
found on site prior to settlement (Hamilton 2013, pers. comm.). In 
Illinois, six sites are protected (four in State ownership, one owned 
by Northeastern Illinois University, and one private but managed as a 
natural area) and managed with prescribed fire, and all have extant 
populations that are considered stable. These sites are comparatively 
large and range from 1,700 acres (688 hectares) to the smallest at 40 
acres (16 hectares), and all contain scattered populations of 
rattlesnake-master borer moths within the sites (Derkovitz 2013, pers. 
comm.; LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.).
    The savanna remnants within the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas 
where rattlesnake-master borer moth are found are also managed with 
fire (Zollner 2013, pers. comm.). This area is managed yearly with 
rotational prescribed burning usually before April 15 (Zollner 2013, 
pers. comm.). Annual surveys at the Pine Bluff Arsenal indicate that 
the population has stayed stable, with generally the same number of 
larvae found, but always fewer than 20 individuals (Zollner 2013, pers. 
comm.). The use of prescribed fire in the relatively large prairie 
remnants described above appears to be maintaining the prairie 
ecosystem at the sites without impacting the overall population of 
rattlesnake-master borer moths. The pine barrens site in North Carolina 
is comparably smaller and is all located within one burn unit (Hall 
2013, pers. comm.). The entire area was burned in 1994, which may have 
impacted the rattlesnake-master borer moth population as only one larva 
was found during the subsequent survey in 1995, and evidence of only 
one borer

[[Page 49429]]

hole was found in 2001 (Hall 2012, pers. comm.; Schweitzer et al. 2011, 
p. 351). Surveys were also conducted within a railroad prairie on the 
Pine Bluff Arsenal which contains many rattlesnake-master plants, but 
the moth has never been found there, either during the 1997 survey or 
subsequent surveys, and researchers suggested that the fire regime in 
this area may be suppressing the colonization of this area by the moth 
(Zollner 2013, pers. comm.; Weaver and Boos 1998, pp. 16-17).
    At this time, it does not appear that fire prescriptions for any of 
the rattlesnake-master borer moth sites are designed to avoid burning 
while any of the life stages (adult, egg, larva) are located within the 
prairie duff layer or are designed so that only portions of the 
rattlesnake-master borer moth populations or its host plant are burned 
at one time. Research has shown that even when entire sites are burned, 
rattlesnake-master borer moths can survive in situ; however, given 
their sensitivity to fire it is likely that populations rely on 
recolonization from unburned sanctuaries. It is possible that not all 
of the populations on the larger sites are being burned at once, given 
that populations of rattlesnake-master borer moth are not found in 
single populations, but are scattered within the sites. Fire is a 
current and ongoing rangewide threat of high severity. Where burns 
occur, the moths need a sufficient amount of contiguous or nearby 
habitat from which immigrants can reinhabit burned areas.

Grazing

    The productivity of prairie decreases as excess plant litter 
accumulates (Robertson et al. 1997, p. 57). Grazing and fire were two 
natural disturbance factors that historically maintained the prairie 
ecosystem by removing some of this biomass (Robertson et al. 1997, p. 
56). Approximately 60 million plains bison (Bison bison) once grazed 
throughout the Midwest prairie (Samson and Knopf 1994, p. 419). 
Wallowing by bison and trampling by bison and cattle creates open areas 
that can increase species richness and heterogeneity in prairie 
(Robertson et al. 1997, p. 58). Grazing is used as a management tool in 
two of the rattlesnake-master borer moth sites; the Tallgrass Prairie 
Preserve in Oklahoma and an IDNR owned property in Illinois.
    Both cattle and bison graze within the Tallgrass Prairie preserve, 
separated into two different units with different management regimes 
(Hamilton 2007, pp. 163-168). The 2,700 bison graze freely throughout 
the entire 23,500 acres (9,510 hectares) of the bison tract (Hamilton 
2013, pers. comm.). The prescribed fire regime within the bison unit is 
randomized, and managers of the Preserve have found that bison 
generally graze in newly burned areas during the growing season in 
order to take advantage of the increased forage quality of the new 
regrowth (Hamilton 2007, p. 168). Researchers have found that, before 
the introduction of the bison, the rattlesnake-master on the Preserve 
was located in small populations (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.) The 
rattlesnake-master has spread since the introduction of the bison, 
likely because the seeds of the plant have evolved small hooks that 
stick in the fur of the bison and are distributed as they range through 
the Preserve (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.; LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 3).
    The cattle unit is approximately 526 hectares (13,000 acres) and is 
managed with experimental treatments including ``patch burn'' 
treatments initiated under research by Oklahoma State University in 
2001 (Hamilton 2007, p. 168). It is not known whether there are 
populations of rattlesnake-master borer moth or its host plant in the 
cattle unit of the Preserve. Cattle are used as grazing management on 
one of the Illinois DNR properties in order to create structure for 
grassland birds (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.). Cattle are allowed into 
the property for approximately 60 days a year to ``flash graze'' the 
area (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.). In their 2008 survey of this area, 
LaGesse and Wiker (2008, p. 8) found that cattle had consumed most of 
the flowering rattlesnake-master, but found no negative impacts to the 
rattlesnake-master borer moths. The researchers note that when cattle 
were introduced on a neighboring tract after the rattlesnake-master 
flowers had hardened, they were not eaten (LaGesse and Wiker 2008, p. 
8). They suggest that introduction of cattle to a population of 
rattlesnake-master after the flowers have hardened may protect them 
from being grazed and avoid a decrease in seed production (LaGesse and 
Wiker 2008, p. 8). In both of these examples, bison and cattle herds 
are managed so that there is no overgrazing.

Lack of Management, Succession, Invasive Species

    While inappropriate or excessive burning are threats to 
rattlesnake-master borer populations, the species is also under threat 
where there is no management to maintain prairie habitats. Without 
periodic disturbance, prairies are subject to expansion of woody plant 
species (secondary succession), litter accumulation, or invasion by 
nonnative plant species (e.g., smooth brome) (McCabe 1981, p. 191; Dana 
1997, p. 5; Higgins et al. 2000, p. 21; Skadsen 2003, p. 52). Panzer 
and Schwartz (2000, p. 367) found a higher density of rattlesnake-
master borer moths within fire-managed populations than fire-excluded 
populations in Illinois. Several sites with rattlesnake-master borer 
moths are not managed--invasive species and woody encroachment are 
threats to populations at those sites (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.; 
Laudermilk 2012, pers. comm.). The railroad siding prairies in Will, 
Grundy, and Livingston Counties, Illinois, are all unmanaged and are 
under threat of invasion by woody plant species, like buckthorn 
(Rhamnus spp.) (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.). The succession to woody 
plants changed the composition of the plant community on one Kentucky 
site, resulting in the likely extirpation of rattlesnake-master borer 
moths (Laudermilk 2012, pers. comm.). Lack of management is considered 
to be a threat where the rattlesnake-master borer moth habitat is 
degraded or likely to become degraded due to secondary succession, 
invasive species, or both. This is likely the case at all six of the 
sites where there is not ongoing management of the prairie.

Flooding

    Flooding is a threat to at least two rattlesnake-master borer moth 
populations. Although evidence of boring was found in rattlesnake-
master in Fayette County, Illinois in 2009, the areas were subsequently 
flooded due to heavy rain events (LaGesse and Walk 2010, unpaginated). 
These populations were reconfirmed in 2010; however, researchers 
believe this area will likely continue to be affected by flooding in 
years of heavy rain (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.; LaGesse and Walk 2010, 
unpaginated). The two Illinois DNR sites in Will and Grundy Counties 
have been documented with standing water in wet springs, which may 
affect the rattlesnake-master borer moth populations, depending on the 
duration and extent of the flooding (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.).

Herbicide Application

    In 2009, an application of herbicide affected populations of 
rattlesnake-master in the railroad siding prairie in Marion, Effingham, 
and Fayette Counties (LaGesse and Walk 2010, unpaginated). LaGesse and 
Walk (2010, unpaginated) found that 2 rattlesnake-master populations 
were completely destroyed and 19 declined between 2009 and 2010. After 
comparing the data from 2009 and 2010, researchers found that both the 
overall population

[[Page 49430]]

of rattlesnake-master and the density of the plants decline (LaGesse 
and Walk 2010, unpaginated). The impact to the food plant also affected 
the rattlesnake-master borer moths. Fourteen populations of 
rattlesnake-master borer moths with a total of 112 caterpillars were 
detected in 2010 with one-third of the 9 populations of rattlesnake-
master borer moths surveyed declining from 2009 to 2010 (LaGesse and 
Walk 2010, unpaginated).

Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Range

    Seven of the 16 rattlesnake-master borer moth sites are currently 
owned and managed by State conservation agencies, a university, or 
management entity that protects them from development. All of these 
sites have some sort of management regime that is being implemented to 
maintain the prairie community that allows the subsistence of the 
species' food plant and protects the site from encroachment of woody 
habitat. Six of the seven sites are maintained with fire, and the 
seventh is maintained with fire and grazing. None of the management 
regimes are specifically designed to avoid direct impacts to the 
species, although the largest sites (five in Illinois and one in 
Oklahoma) have extant populations that appear to be stable.

Summary of Factor A

    We have identified a number of threats to the habitat of the 
rattlesnake-master borer moth that operated in the past, are impacting 
the species now, and will continue to impact the species in the future. 
The decline of the rattlesnake-master borer moth is the result of the 
long-lasting effects of habitat loss, fragmentation, degradation, and 
modification from agriculture, development, flooding, invasive species, 
and secondary succession. Although efforts have been made to 
effectively manage habitat in some areas, the long-term effects of 
large-scale and wide-ranging habitat modification, destruction, and 
curtailment will last into the future. Development of a high-speed rail 
project in Illinois will likely impact three known populations of 
rattlesnake-master in three counties, and development on the two 
military installations in Arkansas has destroyed one population of the 
species and may impact the other. Fire and grazing cause direct 
mortality of the moth or destroy food plants if the intensity, extent, 
or timing is not conducive to the species' biology. The application of 
herbicides affected several populations of rattlesnake-master and 
caused direct mortality to resident rattlesnake-master borer moths, 
causing a decline in some of the populations the following summer.
    Of the 16 sites considered to be occupied by the rattlesnake-master 
borer, all of the sites have at least one documented threat. Some sites 
have more than one threat, and concurrently acting threats may have 
more intense effects than any one threat acting independently. Almost 
all of the sites with extant populations of rattlesnake-master borer 
moth are isolated from one another, with populations in Kentucky, North 
Carolina, and Oklahoma occurring within a single site for each State, 
preventing recolonization from other populations. Of the sites that are 
currently protected from development and are under management to 
maintain the prairie ecosystem, all of them utilize management regimes 
(either burning or grazing or both) that could potentially impact 
individual rattlesnake-master borer moths and whole populations 
depending on the timing, extent, and frequency of the events. Two of 
these sites are also known to have standing water during large rain 
events in the spring which may impact rattlesnake-master borer moths.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Illegal collection of rattlesnake-master borer moths has been noted 
at two IDNR managed sites in Illinois close to Chicago (Derkovitz 2012, 
pers. comm.; Illinois Natural Heritage Database 2012). The locations of 
these populations are not publicized. Although there have been no known 
poaching events within the Kentucky sites, managers are concerned and 
indicate that this species is sought after by lepidopterists in that 
State and keep the location of that site undisclosed (Laudermilk 2012, 
pers. comm.). Adult rattlesnake-master borer moths have been noted as 
hard to collect (see life history section); however, the host plant is 
easy to identify, which could make locating the larvae easier and the 
species more susceptible to collection (Schwietzer 2011, p. 45).
    Some extant populations of rattlesnake-master borer moths are known 
to be very small and made up of very few individuals. Because the host 
plant is easily identifiable, it is conceivable that an entire 
population could be impacted by one collector if enough host plants are 
removed. Collection from the remaining small and isolated populations 
could have deleterious effects on this species' reproductive and 
genetic viability. Due to the species' small population size, limited 
range, and the potential ease of collection of larval individuals, 
recreational collecting of this species presents a threat now and in 
the future throughout its range.

Conservation Efforts To Reduce Overutilization for Commercial, 
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

    As discussed in Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms, the rattlesnake-master borer moths is listed as endangered 
on Illinois' State threatened and endangered species list, and 
Scientific Collectors Permits are required in order to collect the 
species throughout the State, providing protection for the populations 
within the 10 Illinois sites. However, two of these Illinois sites are 
known to have had illegal collections. Seven of the rattlesnake-master 
borer moth populations, in North Carolina, Illinois, and Oklahoma, are 
within protected areas, and permission is required to collect specimens 
within all of these sites. The species is not specifically protected 
through State laws in Kentucky, Arkansas, Oklahoma, or North Carolina, 
and we know of no proposals to add this requirement in the future, 
leaving the two sites in Kentucky, and the two sites in Arkansas 
unprotected.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    There are no known diseases that are specific to rattlesnake-master 
borer moths, however, there is some evidence of parasitism in the moth, 
and known parasitism of the host plant, rattlesnake-master. While 
parasitism has been found by researchers in rattlesnake-master borer 
moth larvae, the species of parasite is unknown (LaGesse 2013, pers. 
comm.). Eggs and larvae of parasitic species have been found using 
rattlesnake-master borer moth caterpillars as hosts, although at this 
time there is no conclusive evidence of potential effects to the 
species or populations as a whole.
    Second and third instar rattlesnake-master borer moths have also 
been known to cannibalize each other. During the time that the larvae 
are actively boring into the host plant, researchers have detected 
cannibalistic behavior with some caterpillars moving into already 
occupied bore holes, killing the occupant, and pushing them back out 
(LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 4).
    The caterpillars of another species of moth, Coeotechnites 
eryngiella, are known to bore into the seeds of rattlesnake-master, 
sometimes affecting up to 60-70 percent of rattlesnake-

[[Page 49431]]

master seeds (Danderson and Molano-Flores 2010, p. 235; LaGesse et al. 
2009, p. 3; Molano-Flores 2001, p. 5). Danderson and Molano-Flores 
(2010, p. 242) found that the herbivory of rattlesnake-master by C. 
eryngiella causes a change in physical appearance of the inflorescence 
and resulted in a decrease in flower visitation by pollinators.

Summary of Factor C

    Available information indicates disease is not a threat to the 
rattlesnake-master borer moth. There is evidence that parasitism and 
predation occur; however, the impacts to this species and its host 
plant rattlesnake-master are unclear. Researchers have found that the 
parasitism of rattlesnake-master by rattlesnake-master borer moths and 
C. eryngiella can affect individual plants and potentially whole 
populations. Some extant populations of rattlesnake-master borer moths 
are known to be very small, made up of very few individuals. It is 
possible that parasitism of the species by wasps and potentially the 
cannibalism by individuals competing for host plants may impact small 
populations of rattlesnake-master borer moths, especially those that 
are also under stress from other threats. Available information 
indicates that disease, parasitism, and predation are not threats that 
have substantial impacts to rattlesnake-master borer moth individuals 
or populations.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The rattlesnake-master borer moth is listed as endangered by two 
States in which it is found, Illinois and Kentucky. In Illinois, the 
moth is listed as endangered under the Illinois Endangered Species 
Protection Act, which ``prohibits the possession, taking, 
transportation, sale, offer for sale, or disposal of any listed animal 
or products of listed animals without a permit issued by the Department 
of Conservation'' (Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board 2011, 
p. 7). The Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board is responsible 
for determining which species are listed in the State and for advising 
the Illinois DNR on methods of protection and management of listed 
species (Illinois DNR Web site 2013, http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/espb/Pages/default.aspx). The Illinois DNR office of Realty and 
Environmental Planning administers the State's threatened and 
endangered species consultation program and works with agencies, 
developers, and other project proponents to assess the potential 
effects of projects and potentially mitigate them (Illinois DNR Web 
site 2013, http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/espb/Pages/default.aspx). For 
development or agency projects that are determined to affect listed 
species, an incidental take permit is required (Illinois DNR Web site 
2013, http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/ESPB/Pages/EndangeredSpeciesPermitsandIncidentalTake.aspx).
    Project proponents for the proposed High Speed Rail project from 
Chicago, Illinois, to St. Louis, Missouri, are currently working 
through the State's consultation process, including requesting an 
incidental take permit for potential effects to rattlesnake-master 
borer moths in the alignment (LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.). For 
researchers, a collection permit is required for the possession of 
specimens or products of Illinois that are listed as threatened or 
endangered, and additional permits are required for collection of any 
species within the State's parks, forests, and conservation areas, or 
Illinois Nature Preserves or registered Illinois Land and Water 
Reserves (IDNR Web site 2013, http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/ESPB/Pages/EndangeredSpeciesPermitsandIncidentalTake.aspx).
    The rattlesnake-master borer moth is also listed as endangered in 
Kentucky by the State's Nature Preserves Commission (Kentucky State 
Nature Preserves Commission 2013, p. 35). At this time Kentucky 
legislature has not enacted any statute that provides legal protection 
for species listed as threatened or endangered (Laudermilk 2013, pers. 
comm.).
    The rattlesnake-master borer moth is not protected in Arkansas as 
it has not been named to the State list of threatened or endangered 
species and is not named in the State's Wildlife Action Plan as a 
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Arkansas Game and Fish 
Commission Web site 2013, http://www.agfc.com/species/Pages/SpeciesEndangered.aspx; Anderson 2006, p. 2028). It is also not 
protected under State threatened and endangered species statutes in 
Oklahoma and North Carolina (Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 
Conservation Web site 2013, http://wildlifedepartment.com/wildlifemgmt/endangeredspecies.htm; North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 
2008, p. 8). However, the sites within these States are owned and 
managed by the State (in North Carolina) and The Nature Conservancy (in 
Oklahoma) and require a collection permit within these two sites (Hall 
2013, pers. comm.; Hamilton 2013, pers. comm.).
    The U.S. Forest Service has designated the rattlesnake-master borer 
moth as a sensitive species in Region 9, which includes the State of 
Illinois (U.S. Forest Service 2003, p. 4). At this time there are no 
known populations of the species within the Forest Service's lands, so 
the designation of sensitive species status for this species will have 
no benefit at this time. However, it may be beneficial if populations 
are identified on Forest Service lands in the future.
    To summarize, existing regulatory mechanisms, including State 
endangered species statutes, provide protection for 12 of the 16 sites 
containing rattlesnake-master borer moth populations. Illinois provides 
regulatory mechanisms to protect the species from potential impacts 
from actions such as development and collecting; however, illegal 
collections of the species have occurred at two sites. A permit is 
required for collection by site managers within the sites in North 
Carolina and Oklahoma, although no statutory mechanisms protect the 
populations in North Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, or Oklahoma, which 
leaves privately owned sites in Arkansas and Kentucky unprotected from 
collection.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

Habitat Fragmentation and Population Isolation

    Rattlesnake-master borer moths are habitat specialists, which has a 
strong negative effect on their distribution and abundance. The species 
is completely dependent on prairie habitat and, more specifically, on a 
single larval food plant species, rattlesnake-master. Habitat 
fragmentation has reduced the once extensive prairie habitat to a 
collection of isolated patches of varying quality. Most prairie 
remnants that remain have been or continue to be subjected to haying, 
grazing, dumping, fire suppression, or succession, all of which degrade 
prairie quality (Panzer 1988, p. 83).
    Prairie remnant-dependent species, such as rattlesnake-master borer 
moths, are more susceptible to extinction from stochastic events than 
other insects, due to their fluctuating population densities, poor 
dispersal abilities, and patchy distribution (Panzer 1988, p. 83). The 
potential for extirpation within patches is intensified by the addition 
of other threats such as development, fire, grazing, and succession. 
Rattlesnake-master borer moths are not known to disperse widely and 
have been

[[Page 49432]]

described as ``relatively sedentary'' (Panzer 2003, p. 18; LaGesse et 
al. 2009, p. 4). Researchers believe that the species will remain 
within a habitat patch unless the amount of rattlesnake-master becomes 
limiting and the moths are forced to seek out additional food plants 
(LaGesse 2013, pers. comm.). The moths also have relatively short 
flight times of approximately 2 weeks and may only fly during the 
pheromone ``calling'' times of the female, which may be only a couple 
of hours a night (Wiker 2013, pers. comm.). Rattlesnake-master borer 
moths within the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Oklahoma may have 
recolonized to habitat that was 2 miles (3.2 km) from their original 
patch of rattlesnake-master when the food plant became scarce (LaGesse 
2013, pers. comm.). Recolonization like this is likely not possible for 
many of the remaining populations of the species as they are isolated 
from one another, most are surrounded by agricultural fields or urban 
areas with no connecting habitat, and most are separated by distances 
greater than 2 miles (3.2 km). Species that are widely distributed in 
small populations are more susceptible to catastrophic events, and 
extirpations at individual sites will be permanent if there are no 
populations close enough that can recolonize the area.
    Railroad siding prairies may afford the species the most likely 
opportunity for migration between populations or into new patches of 
rattlesnake-master, as they contain the most contiguous habitat, 
sometimes spanning many miles. The large railroad prairie in Marion, 
Fayette, and Effingham Counties contains long stretches of connected 
habitat, with the entire prairie corridor stretching for 22 miles (35 
km) (LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 6). Although populations of the food plant 
are described as patchy within the prairie habitat, this linear area 
affords the species the opportunity to disperse without having to 
traverse urban or agricultural environments. The railroad siding 
prairies in Will, Grundy, and Livingston Counties occur along the same 
corridor, but the remnant prairie here is patchy and populations are 
described as being very small (Derkovitz 2013, pers. comm.; Illinois 
Natural Heritage Database, 2012). Although the railroad prairies may 
afford the species the most likely opportunity for migration between 
populations, these sites are not protected, are subject to development 
and other disturbance, and receive minimal or no management to maintain 
the prairie habitat. Also, small populations of rattlesnake-master 
borer moths may not be able to maintain large enough population sizes 
when they are under pressure from other threats to be able to produce 
enough adults to immigrate to new areas.
    Even with proper prairie management, extreme weather patterns or 
severe weather events have the potential to significantly impact 
rattlesnake-master borer moth populations, because they can occur 
across a large geographic area. These events include extremely harsh 
winters, late hard frosts following a spring thaw, severe storms, 
flooding, fire, or cool damp conditions. Habitats isolated as a result 
of fragmentation will not be recolonized naturally after local 
extirpations, as described above, and extirpation of individual 
populations from catastrophic events is more likely when they are 
isolated and widely spread.
    Isolated populations like those of the rattlesnake-master borer 
moth likely do not receive any immigration of individuals from other 
populations. Without sufficient gene flow, populations in small, 
fragmented habitats are unlikely to remain viable over the long term 
(Frankham et al. 2009, p. 309). There have been no genetic studies of 
the rattlesnake-master borer moth to date; however, populations within 
fragmented habitats, like the rattlesnake-master borer moth, are 
predicted to have lower genetic diversity than those that occur in 
contiguous habitat, due to restricted gene flow, genetic drift, and 
increased inbreeding (Frankham et al. 2009, pp. 334-335). Reduced 
fitness (reduced genetic diversity) results in a reduced ability to 
adapt to environmental change (Frankham et al. 2009, p. 523).
    Twelve of the known sites containing rattlesnake-master borer moth 
are considered isolated, as they are not connected by contiguous 
habitat to other prairie containing rattlesnake-master and are not 
likely to be recolonized by the low dispersing adult rattlesnake-master 
borer moths. The Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Oklahoma represents the 
largest area of contiguous prairie habitat in which the rattlesnake-
master borer moth exists, but there are no other known populations in 
Oklahoma. Due to the few numbers and small size of remaining 
populations, and their degree of isolation, habitat fragmentation and 
isolation is a threat that has significant impacts to the rattlesnake-
master borer moth across its range.

Climate Change

    Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration 
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and 
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability 
of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being 
a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer 
periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate 
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or 
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that 
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether 
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 
2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or 
indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or 
negative and they may change over time, depending on the species and 
other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of 
climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, 
pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh 
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of 
various aspects of climate change.
    As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we 
conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be 
affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it 
does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a 
species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the 
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from, 
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to 
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
    Global climate change, with projections of increased variability in 
weather patterns and greater frequency of severe weather events, as 
well as warmer average temperatures, would affect remnant prairie 
habitats and may be a significant threat to prairie species such as the 
rattlesnake-master borer moth (Royer and Marrone 1992b, p. 12, 1992a, 
pp. 22-23, Swengel et al. 2011, p. 336, Landis et al. 2012, p. 140). 
Rattlesnake-master borer moth habitat may experience the effects of 
gradual shifts in plant communities and an increase in catastrophic 
events (such as severe storms, flooding, and fire) due to climate 
change, which is exacerbated by habitat fragmentation. The isolation of 
rattlesnake-master borer moth populations makes them unlikely to 
recover from local catastrophes without artificial reintroduction or 
propagation,

[[Page 49433]]

because they are not close enough to other populations for 
recolonization to occur.
    Documentation of climate-related changes that have already occurred 
throughout the range of the rattlesnake-master borer moth (e.g., 
Johnson et al. 2005, pp. 863-871) and predictions of changes in annual 
temperature and precipitation in the Midwest region of the United 
States (Galatowitsch et al. 2009, p. 2017), and throughout North 
America (IPCC 2007, p. 9) indicate that increased severity and 
frequency of droughts, floods, fires, and other climate-related changes 
will continue in the future. Recent studies have linked climate change 
to observed or predicted changes in distribution or population size of 
insects, particularly Lepidoptera (Wilson and Maclean 2011, p. 262). 
Climate change is an emerging threat and has the potential to have 
severe impacts on the species; however, at this time our knowledge of 
how these impacts may play out is limited. All of the sites within the 
range of the species are in an area that could experience the effects 
of climate change.

Prairie Management Techniques

    Native prairie must be managed to prevent the indirect effects of 
invasive species and succession from affecting rattlesnake-master borer 
moth populations. If succession has progressed too far, established 
shrubs or trees must be removed in a way that avoids or minimizes 
damage to the native prairie. When succession is well advanced, 
managers must use intensive methods, including intensive fire 
management, to restore prairie plant communities. If not administered 
carefully prescriptive methods such as fire and grazing themselves can 
harm local populations of rattlesnake-master borer moths (for example, 
see Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range). Rattlesnake-master borer moths 
are susceptible to the effects of prairie management techniques much of 
the year because the eggs overwinter in the prairie duff, and early 
instars are located on the leaves and stems of the food plant and do 
not bore beneath the surface of the soil into the root ball until late 
June (LaGesse et al. 2009, p. 4). The above life history traits and the 
adults' low dispersal ability make them susceptible to mortality from 
prescribed fires, except when they have bored into the root of the host 
plant. Eggs and first instar caterpillars are also more susceptible to 
the effects of grazing cattle and bison before they bore into the root 
of the rattlesnake-master below the soil surface.
    If not appropriately managed with fire, grazing, or haying, 
rattlesnake-master borer moth habitat is degraded due to reduced 
diversity of native prairie plants and eventually succeeds to shrubby 
or forested habitats that are not suitable for rattlesnake-master. 
Rattlesnake-master borer moth has been extirpated from one site in 
Kentucky, likely due to the succession to woody plants, which changed 
the composition of the plant community on site making it no longer 
suitable for the moth (Laudermilk 2012, pers. comm.).
    Indiscriminate use of insecticides and herbicides to control 
invasive species and agricultural pests is also a threat to the 
species. In 2009, an application of herbicide affected populations or 
rattlesnake-master in the railroad siding prairie in Marion, Effingham, 
and Fayette Counties (LaGesse and Walk 2010, unpaginated). LaGesse and 
Walk (2010, unpaginated) found that 2 rattlesnake-master populations 
were completely destroyed and 19 declined between 2009 and 2010. The 
decline in the food plant impacted the rattlesnake-master borer moths 
populations, as three declined from 2009 to 2010 (LaGesse and Walk 
2010, unpaginated).
    In summary, efforts to manage invasive species and woody 
encroachment, such as fire, grazing, and herbicide use, is a threat to 
the rattlesnake-master borer moth. These management techniques, if not 
administered with the species in mind, can cause direct mortality and 
may impact whole populations. At least one management technique is 
being used or has been used on 10 of the 16 sites with known 
populations of rattlesnake-master borer moths, and is occurring in all 
5 States.

Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting Its Continued Existence

    The conservation activities discussed under Factor A Habitat 
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Range may address some 
factors discussed under Factor E. Of the sites that are protected and 
managed (four Illinois DNR sites, one Northeast Illinois University 
site, the North Carolina site, and the Oklahoma Tallgrass Prairie 
Preserve site) all have some sort of management that is being 
implemented in order to maintain the prairie community in which the 
rattlesnake-master borer moth lives. However, those plans are not 
specifically designed to avoid direct impacts to the moth. We are 
unaware of any conservation efforts that would directly address the 
impacts from climate change to rattlesnake-master borer moths.

Summary of Factor E

    Rattlesnake-master borer moths are significantly affected by 
habitat fragmentation and population isolation. Most of the remaining 
populations of the species are small and isolated, making them 
vulnerable to stochastic events and increasing the potential for 
extirpation from catastrophic events as natural recolonization from 
other populations is not possible. These small, isolated populations 
are likely to become unviable over time due to lower genetic diversity 
reducing their ability to adapt to environmental change (Frankham et 
al. 2009, pp. 309-335). Environmental effects resulting from climatic 
change, including increased flooding and drought, are expected to 
become severe in the future and result in additional habitat losses. 
Although necessary for maintaining diverse prairie habitat and avoiding 
succession and invasive species, some prairie management techniques, 
such as fire and grazing, may cause mortality and impact rattlesnake-
master borer moth populations if not administered carefully. 
Collectively, these threats have operated in the past, are impacting 
the species now, and will continue to impact the species in the future 
across its range.

Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E.

    Many of the threats described in this finding may cumulatively or 
synergistically impact rattlesnake-master borer moth beyond the scope 
of each individual threat. For example, the use of prescribed fire may 
impact only some individual rattlesnake-master borer moths or small 
populations. However, populations that are small and potentially 
unviable, that are already under threat from succession or invasive 
species, coupled with an extensive drought, may collectively result in 
the extirpation of individual populations, and potentially the 
continued loss or fragmentation of habitat across all of the species' 
range. In turn, climate change may exacerbate those effects, further 
diminishing habitat and increasing the isolation of already declining 
and isolated populations, making them more susceptible to genetic drift 
or catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, and drought. Almost all 
of the 16 known rattlesnake-master borer moth populations are subject 
to two or more threats outlined in Factors A through E. One site is 
isolated and surrounded by urban landscape, has been subjected to 
illegal collecting, is managed with

[[Page 49434]]

prescribed burning, and is known to have standing water during high 
rain events. Numerous threats are likely acting cumulatively and 
rangewide on the species.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether the rattlesnake-master borer moth is a threatened or endangered 
species throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific 
and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the rattlesnake-master borer moth. We reviewed 
the petition, information available in our files, and other available 
published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized 
rattlesnake-master borer moth experts and other Federal, State, and 
tribal agencies.
    This status review identified threats to the rattlesnake-master 
borer moth attributable to Factors A, B, and E. The primary threat to 
the species is from habitat destruction and modification resulting in 
small, isolated populations that are subject to a greater risk of 
extirpation with little chance of recolonization (Factors A and E). The 
species has been found to be fire-sensitive and potentially affected by 
grazing activities, if they are conducted when life stages of the 
species are vulnerable, which is much of the year. Rattlesnake-master 
borer moths are dependent on one food plant, rattlesnake-master, which 
is a conservative prairie species and not generally found in disturbed 
habitats. Rattlesnake-master borer moths are currently not protected 
from collection or ``take'' in four of the five States in which it is 
found. Furthermore, poaching has been documented at two sites owned by 
the Illinois DNR, where it is listed as a State endangered species. Due 
to the historical habitat loss, current populations are small and 
isolated and thus are not resilient to ongoing threats.
    On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we find that the petitioned action to list the rattlesnake-
master borer moth as threatened or endangered is warranted. We will 
make a determination on the status of the species as an endangered or 
threatened species when we do a proposed listing determination. 
However, as explained in more detail below, an immediate proposal of a 
regulation implementing this action is precluded by higher priority 
listing actions, and progress is being made to add or remove qualified 
species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants.
    We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing 
and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of extinction now 
such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the 
species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. We determined 
that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species is 
not warranted for this species at this time, because 5 of the 16 known 
populations have some sort of protections or management in place. 
However, if at any time we determine that issuing an emergency 
regulation temporarily listing the rattlesnake-master borer moth is 
warranted, we will initiate this action at that time.

Listing Priority Number

    The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), 
to establish a rational system for using available resources for the 
highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of Endangered 
or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species listed as 
endangered or threatened species. These guidelines, titled ``Endangered 
and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines'' 
address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, and the level of 
taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending order to 
monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and subspecies 
(or equivalently, distinct population segments of vertebrates). We 
assigned the rattlesnake-master borer moth a Listing Priority Number 
(LPN) of 8 based on our finding that the species faces threats that are 
moderate to low in magnitude and are imminent. These threats include 
the destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat and range, 
overutilization for recreational or scientific purposes, habitat 
fragmentation and population isolation, and the direct mortality from 
some prairie management techniques. This is the highest priority that 
can be provided to a species under our guidance. Our rationale for 
assigning the rattlesnake-master borer moth an LPN of 8 is outlined 
below.
    Under the Service's LPN Guidance, the magnitude of threat is the 
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The 
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat 
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority.
    Some threats that the rattlesnake-master moth faces are high in 
magnitude, such as habitat conversion and fragmentation, and population 
isolation. These threats with the highest magnitude occur in many of 
the populations throughout the species' range, but although they are 
likely to affect each population at some time, they are not likely to 
affect all of the populations at any one time. Rattlesnake-master borer 
moths are habitat specialists, feeding solely on rattlesnake-master. 
Although rattlesnake-master is found in 26 States, the amount of 
tallgrass prairie in the United States has declined by approximately 
82-99 percent (Samson and Knopf 1994, p. 418), and rattlesnake-master 
is generally not found in disturbed prairie. Much of the remaining 
potential habitat that has not been converted for agricultural purposes 
or developed in other ways is made up of small remnant prairies that 
are widely scattered. These populations are isolated, making each one 
individually more likely to be extirpated if subjected to stochastic 
and catastrophic events. The small, isolated populations are also under 
threat of becoming unviable, as they receive limited or no immigration 
of individuals from other populations. Without sufficient gene flow, 
these populations will lose genetic diversity.
    Other threats, such as agricultural and nonagricultural 
development, mortality from implementation of some prairie management 
tools, flooding, succession, and climate change are moderate to low 
threats because they affect only some populations throughout the range. 
The life history of rattlesnake-master borer moths makes them highly 
sensitive to fire. Although a useful tool in maintaining prairie 
habitat and fighting succession, prescribed burning has the potential 
to cause mortality of individuals through most of the year and can 
affect entire populations. Ten of the 16 sites with rattlesnake-master 
borer moths use fire as a management tool. Research has shown that even 
when entire sites are burned, rattlesnake-master borer moths can 
survive in situ. However, given their sensitivity to fire, populations 
likely rely on recolonization from unburned areas. It is possible that 
not all of the populations on the larger sites are being burned at 
once, because populations of rattlesnake-master borer moth are 
scattered within the sites. The population within the North Carolina 
site may have been impacted by this management tool as surveys 
conducted after the 1994 fire that affected the entire site showed 
evidence of only one individual larva (Hall 2012, pers. comm.). 
Conversely, complete fire

[[Page 49435]]

suppression can also be a threat to rattlesnake-master borer moths as 
prairie habitat declines and woody or invasive species become 
established (Schweitzer et al. 2011, p. 40; Panzer and Schwartz 2000, 
p. 363). The rattlesnake-master is a conservative plant species and not 
found in disturbed prairies (Danderson and Molano-Flores 2010, p. 235; 
Molano-Flores 2001, p. 1). The population of rattlesnake-master borer 
moth on one Kentucky site is thought to have been extirpated due to 
succession of the prairie to woody species (Laudermilk 2012, pers. 
comm.)
    Although conversion of prairie to agricultural purposes has been 
precipitous, we have no indication that it is currently a threat of 
high magnitude. Flooding and the application of herbicide are 
additional threats to the species, although their incidence has been 
localized and so are not considered of high magnitude. Climate change 
is an emerging threat, although it is not currently known to be 
affecting any of the populations of rattlesnake-master borer moths.
    Regulatory mechanisms provide protection for 12 of the 16 known 
sites that contain rattlesnake-master borer moths. Seven of these sites 
are owned and managed by State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, 
and a university, and all rattlesnake-master borer moths in Illinois 
are protected from collection through the State's threatened and 
endangered species statute. Although regulatory mechanisms are in 
place, several sites are currently under threat by development, and 
known illegal collections of the moth have occurred within two of the 
protected sites in Illinois. Although some threats to the rattlesnake 
master borer moth are high in magnitude, we consider most threats to 
the species to be of moderate to low magnitude.
    Under our LPN Guidance, the second criterion we consider in 
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This 
criterion is intended to ensure that the species that face actual, 
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats 
are only possible or species that are intrinsically vulnerable but are 
not known to be presently facing such threats. Every known population 
of rattlesnake-master borer moth has at least one imminent threat, and 
some have several working in tandem. These actual, identifiable threats 
are covered in detail under the discussion of Factors A, B, and E of 
this finding and currently include conversion of habitat for 
nonagricultural use, fire, flooding, succession, overutilization, and 
habitat fragmentation and population isolation. One Arkansas population 
of the species was impacted by construction of an incinerator on the 
Pine Bluff Arsenal, and three known populations in Illinois are under 
threat from the development of a high-speed rail project. Fire is used 
as a management tool on 10 of the known populations, is not prescribed 
in a way to avoid direct mortality to the species, and is thought to 
have adversely impacted the North Carolina population when it was 
burned entirely (Hall 2012, pers. comm.).
    For those sites with no management, succession is an ongoing 
threat. For example, experts believe that specific rattlesnake-master 
borer moths populations have been extirpated due to the change in 
habitat from the succession to woody species (Laudermilk 2012, pers. 
comm.). Illegal collection is known from two Illinois DNR sites, and 
these two populations and one in Kentucky are kept undisclosed for fear 
of additional collection. Twelve of the known sites containing 
rattlesnake-master borer moth are considered isolated, as they are not 
connected by contiguous habitat to other prairie containing 
rattlesnake-master and are not likely to be recolonized by the poorly 
dispersing adult rattlesnake-master borer moths. Thus, the continuing 
effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation are a threat to the 
rattlesnake-master borer moth across its range. Although not all of the 
threats are found within each site that contains populations of 
rattlesnake-master borer moth, the collective threats are impacting all 
of the known sites, and we believe the impacts will continue to impact 
the remaining populations.
    The third criterion in our LPN guidance is intended to devote 
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated 
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. The rattlesnake-master borer moth 
is a valid taxon at the species level, and, therefore, receives a 
higher priority than subspecies or Distinct Population Segments (DPSs), 
but a lower priority than species in a monotypic genus. The 
rattlesnake-master borer moth faces high magnitude, imminent threats, 
and is a valid taxon at the species level. Thus, in accordance with our 
LPN guidance, we have assigned the rattlesnake-master borer moth an LPN 
of 8.
    We will continue to monitor the threats to the rattlesnake-master 
borer moth and the species' status on an annual basis and, should the 
magnitude or the imminence of the threats change, we will revisit our 
assessment of the LPN.
    Work on a proposed listing determination for the rattlesnake-master 
borer moth is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with 
absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and 
final listing determinations for those species that were proposed for 
listing with funds from Fiscal Year 2013. This work includes all the 
actions listed in the tables below under expeditious progress.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    To make a finding that a particular action is warranted-but-
precluded, the Service must make two findings: (1) That the immediate 
proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by 
pending listing proposals, and (2) that expeditious progress is being 
made to add qualified species to either of the lists and to remove 
species from the lists. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii).

Preclusion

    A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have 
sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there 
are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of 
those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), 
multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work 
on a listing proposal regulation or whether promulgation of such a 
proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions--(1) The 
amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2) 
the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing, and (3) the 
Service's workload and prioritization of the proposed listing in 
relation to other actions.

Available Resources

    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for 
each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on 
funds that may be expended for the Listing Program. This spending cap 
was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds 
needed for other functions under the ESA (for example, recovery 
functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other 
Service programs(see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, 
July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available to 
support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and 
final listing rules; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add 
species to the Lists or to change the

[[Page 49436]]

status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual 
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded 
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA; 
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules 
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, 
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating 
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and 
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat).
    We cannot spend more for the Listing Program than the amount of 
funds within the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act 
(see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since FY 2002, the 
Service's budget has included a critical habitat subcap to ensure that 
some funds are available for completing Listing Program actions other 
than critical habitat designations (``The critical habitat designation 
subcap will ensure that some funding is available to address other 
listing activities'' (House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st 
Session. June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the 
Service had to use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to 
address court-mandated designations of critical habitat, and 
consequently none of the critical habitat subcap funds were available 
for other listing activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able 
to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed 
listing determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other 
FYs, while we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap 
funds to fund proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this 
money to fund the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing 
determinations so that the proposed listing determination and proposed 
critical habitat designation could be combined into one rule, thereby 
being more efficient in our work. In FY 2013, based on the Service's 
workload, we were able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds 
to fund proposed listing determinations.
    For FY 2012 Congress also put in place two additional subcaps 
within the listing cap: One for listing actions for foreign species and 
one for petition findings. As with the critical habitat subcap, if the 
Service does not need to use all of the funds within the subcap, we are 
able to use the remaining funds for completing proposed or final 
listing determinations. In FY 2013, based on the Service's workload, we 
were able to use some of the funds within the foreign species subcap 
and the petitions subcap to fund proposed listing determinations.
    We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to 
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first 
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. 
Through the listing cap, the three subcaps, and the amount of funds 
needed to complete court-mandated actions within those subcaps, 
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money 
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds 
in the listing cap--other than those within the subcaps needed to 
comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements 
requiring critical habitat actions for already-listed species, listing 
actions for foreign species, and petition findings--set the framework 
within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious 
progress.
    For FY 2013, on March 26, 2013, Congress passed a Full Year 
Continuing Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 113-6) which provides funding 
through the end of the FY 2013. In particular, it included a spending 
cap of $20,997,000 for the listing program. In addition, no more than 
$1,498,000 could be used for listing actions for foreign species and no 
more than $1,498,000 could be used to make 90-day or 12-month findings 
on petitions. The Service thus had $13,453,000 available to work on 
proposed and final listing determinations for domestic species. In 
addition, if the Service had funding available within the critical 
habitat, foreign species, or petition subcaps after those workloads had 
been completed, it could use those funds to work on listing actions 
other than critical habitat designations or foreign species.
    Costs of Listing Actions. The work involved in preparing various 
listing documents can be extensive, and may include, but is not limited 
to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data 
available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; 
writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and 
evaluating public comments and peer review comments on proposed rules 
and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The number of 
listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is 
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more 
complex actions generally are more costly. The median cost for 
preparing and publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month 
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000; 
and for a final listing rule with critical habitat, $305,000.
    Prioritizing Listing Actions. The Service's Listing Program 
workload is broadly composed of four types of actions, which the 
Service prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and 
court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings 
or listing or critical habitat determinations be completed by a 
specific date; (2) section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical habitat 
actions with absolute statutory deadlines; (3) essential litigation-
related, administrative, and listing program-management functions; and 
(4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory 
deadlines. In FY 2010, the Service received many new petitions and a 
single petition to list 404 species, significantly increasing the 
number of actions within the second category of our workload--actions 
that have absolute statutory deadlines. As a result of the petitions to 
list hundreds of species, we currently have over 460 12-month petition 
findings yet to be initiated and completed.
    To prioritize within each of the four types of actions, we 
developed guidelines for assigning a listing priority number (LPN) for 
each candidate species (48 FR 43098, September 21, 1983). Under these 
guidelines, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on 
the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of 
threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species 
(in order of priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole 
member of a genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies or 
distinct population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, 
the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 
would have the highest listing priority). A species with a higher LPN 
would generally be precluded from listing by species with lower LPNs, 
unless work on a proposed rule for the species with the higher LPN can 
be combined with work on a proposed rule for other high-priority 
species. This is not the case for rattlesnake-master borer moth. Thus, 
in addition to being precluded by the lack of available resources, the 
rattlesnake-master borer moth with an LPN of 8 is also precluded by 
work on proposed listing determinations for those candidate species 
with a higher listing priority.
    Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species 
to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed species, 
they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing 
regulations.

[[Page 49437]]

However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed 
rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine this with 
work that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
    Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the 
Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required 
considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has 
allowed for the Listing Program. It is therefore important that we be 
as efficient as possible in our listing process. Therefore, as we 
implement our listing work plan and work on proposed rules for the 
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing 
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species 
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same 
threats as one of the highest-priority species. In addition, we take 
into consideration the availability of staff resources when we 
determine which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize 
the amount of time and resources required to complete each listing 
action.
    Listing Program Workload. Each FY we determine, based on the amount 
of funding Congress has made available within the Listing Program 
spending cap, specifically which actions we will have the resources to 
work on in that FY. We then prepare Allocation Tables that identify the 
actions that we are funding for that FY, and how much we estimate it 
will cost to complete each action; these Allocation Tables are part of 
our record for this notice and the listing program. Our Allocation 
Table for FY 2012, which incorporated the Service's approach to 
prioritizing its workload, was adopted as part of a settlement 
agreement in a case before the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No.10-
377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (``MDL Litigation''), Document 31-1 (D. 
DC May 10, 2011) (``MDL Settlement Agreement'')). The requirements of 
paragraphs 1 through 7 of that settlement agreement, combined with the 
work plan attached to the agreement as Exhibit B, reflected the 
Service's Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY 2012. In addition, 
paragraphs 2 through 7 of the agreement require the Service to take 
numerous other actions through FY 2017--in particular, complete either 
a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted finding for all 251 species 
designated as ``candidates'' in the 2010 candidate notice of review 
(``CNOR'') before the end of FY 2016, and complete final listing 
determinations within one year of proposing to list any of those 
species. Paragraph 10 of that settlement agreement sets forth the 
Service's conclusion that ``fulfilling the commitments set forth in 
this Agreement, along with other commitments required by court orders 
or court-approved settlement agreements already in existence at the 
signing of this Settlement Agreement (listed in Exhibit A), will 
require substantially all of the resources in the Listing Program.'' As 
part of the same lawsuit, the court also approved a separate settlement 
agreement with the other plaintiff in the case; that settlement 
agreement requires the Service to complete additional actions in 
specific fiscal years -- including 12-month petition findings for 11 
species, 90-day petition findings for 477 species, and proposed listing 
determinations or not-warranted findings for 39 species.
    These settlement agreements have led to a number of results that 
affect our preclusion analysis. First, the Service has been, and will 
continue to be, limited in the extent to which it can undertake 
additional actions within the Listing Program through FY 2017 beyond 
what is required by the MDL Settlement Agreements. Second, because the 
settlement is court-approved, two broad categories of actions now fall 
within the Service's highest priority (compliance with a court order): 
(1) the Service's entire prioritized workload for FY 2012, as reflected 
in its Allocation Table, and (2) completion, before the end of FY 2016, 
of proposed listings or not-warranted findings for most of the 
candidate species identified in this CNOR (in particular, for those 
candidate species that were included in the 2010 CNOR). Therefore, each 
year, one of the Service's highest priorities is to make steady 
progress towards completing by the end of 2017 proposed and final 
listing determinations for the 2010 candidate species--based on its LPN 
prioritization system, preparing multi-species actions when 
appropriate, and taking into consideration the availability of staff 
resources.
    The MDL settlement agreements required the Service conduct a status 
review and make a 12-month finding for the rattlesnake-master borer 
moth. As specified in the Act, the outcome of a 12-month finding could 
be warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded. The MDL 
settlement agreements did not require a proposed listing rule be issued 
if listing the rattlesnake-master borer moth was determined to be 
warranted. As we have determined above the listing of the rattlesnake-
master borer moth is warranted but precluded, we have assigned an LPN 
of 8 to the rattlesnake-master borer moth. Therefore, even if the 
Service has some additional funding after completing all of the work 
required by court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, we 
would first fund actions with absolute statutory deadlines for species 
that have lower LPNs. In light of all of these factors, funding a 
proposed listing rule for the rattlesnake-master borer moth is 
precluded by court-ordered and court-approved settlement agreements, 
listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines, and work on proposed 
listing determinations for those candidate species with a lower LPN.

Expeditious Progress

    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but 
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. As with our 
``precluded'' finding, the evaluation of whether progress in adding 
qualified species to the Lists has been expeditious is a function of 
the resources available for listing and the competing demands for those 
funds. (Although we do not discuss it in detail here, we are also 
making expeditious progress in removing species from the list under the 
Recovery program in light of the resource available for delisting, 
which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered 
Species Program. Thus far, during FY 2013, we completed delisting rules 
for two species.) As discussed below, given the limited resources 
available for listing, we find that we are making expeditious progress 
in FY 2013 in the Listing Program.
    We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's 
Listing Program in FY 2013. This work includes all three of the steps 
necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that 
warrant listing, (2) undertaking the evaluation of the best available 
scientific information about those species and the threats they face, 
and preparing proposed and final listing rules, and (3) adding species 
to the Lists by publishing proposed and final listing rules that 
include a summary of the data on which the rule is based and show the 
relationship of that data to the rule. After taking into consideration 
the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for 
those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we 
find that we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species 
to the Lists FY 2013.

[[Page 49438]]

    In addition to the work the Service has completed towards adding 
qualified species to the Lists, on May 10, 2011, the Service filed in 
the MDL Litigation a settlement agreement that incorporated the 
Service's work plan for FY 2012; the court approved that settlement 
agreement on September 9, 2011. Paragraph 10 of that settlement 
agreement provides, ``The Parties agree that the timetables for 
resolving the status of candidate species outlined in this Agreement 
constitute expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the 
lists of threatened and endangered species.'' The Service also filed a 
second settlement agreement that required even more work in FY 2012. 
The Service had already begun in FY 2011 to implement that work 
required by the work plan, and many of these initial actions in our 
work plan include work on proposed rules for candidate species with an 
LPN of 2 or 3. Therefore, both by entering into the first settlement 
agreement and by completing the listing actions required by both 
settlement agreements, the Service is making expeditious progress to 
add qualified species to the lists. As provided for in the settlement 
agreements and the work plan incorporated into the first agreement, the 
Service's progress in FY 2013 include completing and publishing the 
following determinations:

                                        FY 2013 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Publication date                 Title                   Actions                      FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/2/2012...................  Proposed Threatened      Proposed Listing         77 FR 60207-60235.
                               Status for Coral Pink    Threatened.
                               Sand Dunes Tiger
                               Beetle and Designation
                               of Critical Habitat.
10/2/2012...................  12-Month Petition        Notice of 12-month       77 FR 60179-60206.
                               Finding, Listing of      petition finding,
                               the Spring Pygmy         Warranted Proposed
                               Sunfish as Threatened,   Listing Threatened.
                               and Designation of
                               Critical Habitat.
10/3/2012...................  12-month Finding for     Notice of 12-month       77 FR 60509-60579.
                               the Lemmon Fleabane;     petition finding, Not
                               Endangered Status for    warranted Proposed
                               the Acu[ntilde]a         Listing Endangered.
                               Cactus and the
                               Fickeisen Plains
                               Cactus and Designation
                               of Critical Habitat.
10/4/2012...................  Proposed Endangered      Proposed Listing         77 FR 60749-60776.
                               Species Status for the   Endangered.
                               Florida Bonneted Bat.
10/4/2012...................  Determination of         Final Listing            77 FR 60777-60802.
                               Endangered Species       Endangered.
                               Status for
                               Coqu[iacute] Llanero
                               Throughout Its Range
                               and Designation of
                               Critical Habitat.
10/4/2012...................  Endangered Species       Proposed Listing         77 FR 60803-60882.
                               Status for the Fluted    Endangered.
                               Kidneyshell and
                               Slabside Pearlymussel
                               and Designation of
                               Critical Habitat.
10/9/2012...................  12-Month Finding on      Notice of 12-month       77 FR 61375-61377.
                               Petitions to List the    petition finding, Not
                               Mexican Gray Wolf as     warranted.
                               an Endangered
                               Subspecies or Distinct
                               Population Segment
                               with Critical Habitat.
10/10/2012..................  Determination of         Final Listing            77 FR 61663-61719.
                               Endangered Species       Endangered and
                               Status for the Alabama   Threatened.
                               Pearlshell, Round
                               Ebonyshell, Southern
                               Kidneyshell, and
                               Choctaw Bean, and
                               Threatened Species
                               Status for the Tapered
                               Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe,
                               Southern Sandshell,
                               and Fuzzy Pigtoe, and
                               Designation of
                               Critical Habitat.
10/11/2012..................  Endangered Species       Proposed Listing         77 FR 61835-61894.
                               Status for Cape Sable    Endangered.
                               Thoroughwort, Florida
                               Semaphore Cactus, and
                               Aboriginal Prickly-
                               apple, and Designation
                               of Critical Habitat
                               for Cape Sable
                               Thoroughwort.
10/11/2012..................  Listing Taylor's         Proposed Listing         77 FR 61937-62058.
                               Checkerspot Butterfly    Endangered and
                               and Streaked Horned      Threatened.
                               Lark and Designation
                               of Critical Habitat.
10/16/2012..................  Proposed Endangered      Proposed Listing         77 FR 63439-63536.
                               Status for the Neosho    Endangered and
                               Mucket, Threatened       Threatened.
                               Status for the
                               Rabbitsfoot, and
                               Designation of
                               Critical Habitat for
                               Both Species.
10/17/2012..................  Listing 15 Species on    Proposed Listing         77 FR 63927-64018.
                               Hawaii Island as         Endangered.
                               Endangered and
                               Designating Critical
                               Habitat for 3 Species.
11/14/2012..................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         77 FR 67784-67789.
                               Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                               Heller Cave Springtail   Substantial.
                               as Endangered or
                               Threatened.
11/28/2012..................  Status Review for a      Notice Status Review...  77 FR 70987-70988.
                               Petition to List the
                               Ashy Storm-petrel as
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
12/04/2012..................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         77 FR 71757-71758.
                               Petition To List         Petition Finding, Not
                               Phoenix dactylifera      substantial.
                               `Sphinx' (Sphinx Date
                               Palm).
12/04/2012..................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         77 FR 71759-71771.
                               Petition to List the     Petition Finding, Not
                               Prairie Gray Fox, the    substantial
                               Plains Spotted Skunk,    Substantial.
                               and a Distinct
                               Population Segment of
                               the Mearn's Eastern
                               Cottontail in East-
                               central Illinois and
                               Western Indiana as
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened Species.
12/11/2012..................  Listing the Lesser       Proposed Listing         77 FR 73827-73888.
                               Prairie-Chicken as a     Threatened.
                               Threatened Species.

[[Page 49439]]

 
12/11/2012..................  Listing Four Subspecies  Proposed Listing         77 FR 73769-73825.
                               of Mazama Pocket         Threatened.
                               Gopher and Designation
                               of Critical Habitat.
1/11/2013...................  Endangered Status for    Proposed Listing         78 FR 2486-2538.
                               Gunnison Sage-grouse.    Endangered.
1/25/2013...................  Endangered Status for    Proposed Listing         78 FR 5369-5385.
                               the Zuni Bluehead        Endangered.
                               Sucker.
2/4/2013....................  Threatened Status for    Proposed Listing         78 FR 7863-7890.
                               the Distinct             Threatened.
                               Population Segment of
                               the North American
                               Wolverine Occurring in
                               the Contiguous United
                               States.
3/19/2013...................  Status Review of the     Notice of Status Review  78 FR 16828-16829.
                               West Coast Distinct
                               Population Segment of
                               the Fisher as
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
3/28/2013...................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       78 FR 18936-18938.
                               Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                               Rosemont Talussnail as   warranted.
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
4/9/2013....................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         78 FR 21086-21097.
                               Petition to List Two     Petition Finding,
                               Populations of Black-    Substantial.
                               Backed Woodpecker as
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened.
4/23/2013...................  Threatened Status for    Final Listing            78 FR 23983-24005.
                               Eriogonum codium         Threatened.
                               (Umtanum Desert
                               Buckwheat) and
                               Physaria douglasii
                               subsp. tuplashensis
                               (White Bluffs
                               Bladderpod).
4/25/2013...................  Endangered Status for    Proposed Listing         78 FR 24471-24514.
                               the Sierra Nevada        Endangered and
                               Yellow-legged Frog and   Threatened.
                               the Northern Distinct
                               Population Segment of
                               the Mountain Yellow-
                               legged Frog, and
                               Threatened Status for
                               the Yosemite Toad.
5/24/2013...................  Proposed Threatened      Proposed Listing         78 FR 31498-31511.
                               Status for               Threatened.
                               Leavenworthia exigua
                               var. laciniata
                               (Kentucky Glade Cress).
5/28/2013...................  Determination of         Final Listing            78 FR 32013-32065.
                               Endangered Status for    Endangered.
                               38 Species on Molokai,
                               Lanai, and Maui.
6/20/2013...................  Listing Determination    Proposed Listing         78 FR 37363-37369.
                               for the New Mexico       Endangered.
                               Meadow Jumping Mouse.
7/9/2013....................  Determination of         Final Listing            78 FR 41227-41258.
                               Endangered Species       Endangered.
                               Status for Six West
                               Texas Aquatic
                               Invertebrates.
7/10/2013...................  Threatened Status for    Proposed Listing         78 FR 41499-41547.
                               the Northern Mexican     Threatened.
                               Gartersnake and Narrow-
                               headed Gartersnake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that 
we funded in previous fiscal years, and in FY 2013, but have not yet 
been completed to date. For these species, we have completed the first 
step, and have been working on the second step, necessary for adding 
species to the Lists. These actions are listed below. Actions in the 
top section of the table are being conducted under a deadline set by a 
court through a court order or settlement agreement. Actions in the 
lower section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory 
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act.

    Actions Funded in Previous FYs and FY 2013 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Species                               Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gierisch's mallow (Sphaeralcea     Final listing.
 gierischii).
4 Texas salamanders (salado,       Final listing.
 Georgetown, Jollyville plateau,
 and Austin blind).
Jemez Mountains salamander.......  Final listing.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden       Final listing.
 gladecress and Neches River rose-
 mallow).
Grotto sculpin...................  Final listing.
Mount Charleston blue butterfly..  Final listing.
Spring pygmy sunfish.............  Final listing.
Coral pink sand dunes tiger        Final listing.
 beetle.
3 Arizona plants (Echinomastus     Final listing.
 erectocentrus var. acunensis,
 Erigeron lemmonii, Pediocactus
 peeblesianus fickeiseniae).
2 Tennessee River mussels (fluted  Final listing.
 kidneyshell and slabside pearly
 mussel).
Florida bonneted bat.............  Final listing.
4 Puget trough species (4          Final listing.
 subspecies of pocket gopher
 (Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN =3).
3 Sierra amphibians (Yosemite      Final listing.
 toad, mountain yellow-legged
 frog--Sierra Nevada DPSs).
3 southern Florida plants          Final listing.
 (Florida semaphore cactus,
 aboriginal prickly-apple, Cape
 Sable thoroughwort).
2 Puget trough species (Taylor's   Final listing.
 checkerspot, streaked horned
 lark).
Lesser prairie chicken...........  Final listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse.............  Final listing.
15 Hawaiian big island species...  Final listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (neosho mucket  Final listing.
 and Rabbitsfoot).
Red knot (LPN = 3)...............  Proposed listing.

[[Page 49440]]

 
Dakota skipper (LPN = 8) and       Proposed listing.
 Poweshiek skipperling (LPN = 2).
Vandenberg monkeyflower..........  Proposed listing.
Yellow-billed cuckoo (western      Proposed listing.
 U.S. DPS).
2 Brazos River fish (smalleyed     Proposed listing.
 shiner and sharpnose shiner).
Georgia rockcress................  Proposed listing.
2 Sierra plants (webber ivesia,    Proposed listing.
 soldier meadows cinquefoil).
Oregon spotted frog..............  Proposed listing.
2 Florida butterflies (Bartram's   Proposed listing.
 hairstreak and Florida leafwing).
Greater sage-grouse, bi-State DPS  Proposed listing.
3 species Caribbean plants         Proposed listing.
 (Cordia rupicola, Gonocalyx
 concolor, Agave eggersiana).
Canada lynx--New Mexico..........  Proposed listing.
White River beardtongue..........  Proposed listing.
2 Florida pine rockland plants     Proposed listing.
 (Carter's small-flowered flax
 and Florida brickell-bush).
3 Southeast plants (whorled        Proposed listing.
 sunflower, gladecress, and
 Short's bladderpod).
Washington ground squirrel.......  Proposed listing.
2 San Diego plants (Orcutt's       Proposed listing.
 hazardia and Brand's Phacelia).
Xantus's murrelet................  Proposed listing.
Kittlitz's murrelet..............  Proposed listing.
Yellow-billed loon...............  Proposed listing.
Florida bristle fern.............  Proposed listing.
Ashy storm-petrel................  12-month petition finding/proposed
                                    listing.
Eastern small-footed bat and       12-month petition finding/proposed
 northern long-eared bat.           listing.
Rattlesnake-master borer moth....  12-month petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Archipelago wolf.......  90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress to add 
qualified species to the Lists is that we have endeavored to make our 
listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the 
requirements of the relevant law and regulations, and constraints 
relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways 
to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as by 
batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for 
implementing section 4 of the ESA, these efforts also contribute 
towards finding that we are making expeditious progress to add 
qualified species to the Lists.
    The rattlesnake-master borer moth will be added to the list of 
candidate species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will 
continue to monitor the status of this species as new information 
becomes available. This review will determine if a change in status is 
warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing 
procedures.
    We intend that any proposed listing action for the rattlesnake-
master borer moth will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will 
continue to accept additional information and comments from all 
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or 
any other interested party concerning this finding.
    The rattlesnake-master borer moth will be added to the list of 
candidate species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will 
continue to evaluate this species as new information becomes available. 
Continuing review will determine if a change in status is warranted, 
including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing procedures.
    We intend that any proposed listing determination for the 
rattlesnake-master borer moth will be as accurate as possible. 
Therefore, we will continue to accept additional information and 
comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific 
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this 
finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Rock Island, 
Illinois Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

    The primary author(s) of this notice are the staff members of the 
Rock Island, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office.

Authority

    The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 5, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-19632 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P