[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58688-58701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24780]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2015-0145;4500030113]
RIN 1018-BA98


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus), a 
rattlesnake species found in 10 States and 1 Canadian Province, as a 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (Act). If we 
finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections 
to this species. We have also determined that the designation of 
critical habitat for the eastern massasauga rattlesnake is not prudent.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
November 30, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R3-ES-2015-0145, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the 
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment 
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2015-0145, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louise Clemency, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chicago Ecological Services Field 
Office, 1250 S. Grove Ave., Suite 103, Barrington, IL 60010-5010; by 
telephone 847-381-2253. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish 
a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our 
proposal within 1 year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to 
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species 
as an endangered or threatened species and designations and revisions 
of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule. We have 
determined that designating critical habitat is not prudent for the 
eastern massasauga rattlesnake.
    This rule proposes the listing of the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake as a threatened species. The eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
is a candidate species for which we have on file sufficient information 
on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a 
listing proposal, but for which development of a listing rule has been 
precluded by other higher priority listing activities. This rule 
reassesses all available information regarding status of and threats to 
the eastern massasauga rattlesnake.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. Although there are several factors that are 
affecting the species' status, the loss of habitat was historically, 
and continues to be, the primary threat, either through development or 
through

[[Page 58689]]

changes in habitat structure due to vegetative succession.
    We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer 
reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. Because we will consider 
all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our 
final determination may differ from this proposal.
    A Species Status Assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the eastern massasauga rattlesnake. The SSA team was composed of U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service biologists, in consultation with other 
species experts. The SSA represents a compilation of the best 
scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the 
species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors 
(both negative and beneficial) affecting the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake. The SSA underwent independent peer review by 21 scientists 
with expertise in eastern massasauga rattlesnake biology, habitat 
management, and stressors (factors negatively affecting the species) to 
the species. The SSA and other materials relating to this proposal can 
be found on the Midwest Region Web site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number FWS-
R3-ES-2015-0145.

Information Requested

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, 
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any 
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly 
seek comments concerning:
    (1) The eastern massasauga rattlesnake's biology, range, and 
population trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species or its 
habitat.
    (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, 
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, 
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
or other natural or manmade factors.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations 
that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Whether designating critical habitat is prudent for this 
species and, if so, the reasons why any habitat should or should not be 
determined to be critical habitat for the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake as provided by section 4 of the Act, including physical or 
biological features within areas occupied or specific areas outside of 
the geographic area occupied that are essential for the conservation of 
the species.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request 
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES 
section.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Chicago Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (see DATES, above). Such requests must be sent to the address 
shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule 
public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce 
the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to 
obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local 
newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of appropriate and independent specialists regarding this 
proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing 
determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake biology, habitat management, climate change, and other 
stressors to the species. We previously conducted peer review on the 
SSA, which informs our determination as discussed below. We invite 
comment from the peer reviewers during this public comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

    We identified the eastern massasauga rattlesnake as a Category 2 
species in the December 30, 1982, Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for 
Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (47 FR 58454). Category 2 
candidates were defined as species for which we had information that 
proposed listing was possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on 
biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a 
proposed rule at the time. The species remained so designated in 
subsequent candidate notices of review (CNORs) for animal species (50 
FR 37958, September 18, 1985; 54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, 
November 21, 1991; 59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994). In the February 28, 
1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of Category 2 
species as candidates; therefore, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
was no longer a candidate species.
    Subsequently, in 1999, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake was added 
to the

[[Page 58690]]

candidate list (64 FR 57534; October 25, 1999) through the Service's 
internal candidate review process. Candidates are those fish, wildlife, 
and plants for which we have on file sufficient information on 
biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a 
listing proposal, but for which development of a listing regulation is 
precluded by other higher priority listing activities. The eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake was included in all of our subsequent CNORs (66 
FR 54808, October 30, 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, 
May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 
2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 
FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 
66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, 
November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014). On May 11, 2004, we 
were petitioned to list the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, although no 
new information was provided in the petition. Because we had already 
found the species warranted listing through our internal candidate 
assessment process and it was already a candidate species, no further 
action was taken on the petition. The eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
has a listing priority number of 8, which reflects a species with 
threats that are imminent and of moderate to low magnitude.

Background

    A thorough background and review of the ecology, life history, and 
taxonomy of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake can be found in the 
Species Status Assessment for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake 
(Szymanski et al. 2015, entire) available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FWS-R3-ES-2015-0145. The eastern massasauga rattlesnake is a pitviper 
with a small (0.6 to 1 meter (2 to 3 feet)) but heavy body, heart-
shaped head, and vertical pupils. As a pitviper, eastern massasaugas 
have an extrasensory ``pit'' located on each side of the head between 
the eyes and the nares (nostrils). Adult eastern massasaugas have gray 
or light brown coloration with large brown to black blotches encircled 
in lighter edges (these blotches are smaller on their sides). Tipped by 
gray-yellow keratinized (containing the fibrous protein called keratin) 
rattles, eastern massasauga tails have several dark brown rings. 
Younger snakes are distinguished from adults only by paler versions of 
the same markings and bright yellow tails that grow darker with age. 
This species can be distinguished from the closely related western 
massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus tergeminus) by the number of ventral 
(belly) scales, the ventral coloration and pattern, the number of and 
shape of dorsal blotches, and markings and patterns on the nape of the 
neck and head (Gloyd 1940, pp. 36, 38-40, 42-44, 46-49, 52-55; Evans 
and Gloyd 1948, pp. 3-6).
    First described by Rafinesque in 1818, the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake is known by several locally used common names: Eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake, eastern massasauga prairie rattlesnake, spotted 
rattler, and swamp rattler (Glody 1940, p. 44; Minton 1972, p. 315). 
The eastern massasauga rattlesnake was previously recognized by the 
Service as a subspecies (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) of a wider-
ranging species (Conant and Collins 1998, pp. 231-232) (Sistrurus 
catenatus), but in 2011, was categorized as a distinct species based on 
published scientific information on the phylogenetic relationships of 
massasaugas (Kubatko et al. 2011, p. 13; Gibbs et al. 2011, pp. 433-
439). The historical range documented for eastern massasauga 
rattlesnakes included western New York, western Pennsylvania, the lower 
peninsula and on Bois Blanc Island in Michigan, the northern two-thirds 
of Ohio and Indiana, the northern three-quarters of Illinois, the 
southern half of Wisconsin, extreme southeast Minnesota, east-central 
Missouri, the eastern third of Iowa, and far southwestern Ontario, 
Canada. Currently, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake's range still 
reflects this distribution, although the range is now more restricted 
than at the time the eastern massasauga rattlesnake was first 
identified as a candidate species in 1999, because populations in 
central and western Missouri have since been reclassified as western 
massasauga rattlesnakes (Kubatko et al. 2011, p. 404; Gibbs et al. 
2011, pp. 433-439).
    Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes hibernate in the winter and are 
active in spring, summer, and fall. The type of habitat used during the 
active season generally consists of higher, drier habitats, open canopy 
wetlands, and adjacent upland areas (Sage 2005, p. 32; Lipps 2008, p. 
1). Active season habitat use varies regionally (Reinert and Kodrich 
1982, p. 169; Johnson et al 2000, p. 3), and individual snakes can be 
found in a wide variety of habitats, including old fields (Reinert and 
Kodrich 1982, p. 163; Mauger and Wilson 1999, p. 111), bogs, fens 
(Kingsbury et al 2003, p. 2; Marshall et al. 2006, p. 142), shrub 
swamps, wet meadows, marshes (Wright 1941, p. 660; Sage 2005, p. 32), 
moist grasslands, wet prairies (Siegel 1986, p. 334), sedge meadows, 
peatlands (Johnson and Leopold 1998, p. 84), forest edge, scrub shrub 
forest (DeGregorio et al. 2011, p. 378), floodplain forests (Moore and 
Gillingham 2006, p. 745), and coniferous forests (Harvey and 
Weatherhead 2006, p. 207). During the active season, snakes 
thermoregulate (regulate body temperature) through basking in order to 
perform physiological functions like shedding, digestion, movement, and 
gestation (process of carrying young in the uterus). Basking sites are 
generally open, sunny areas in higher and drier habitats than those 
used for hibernation.
    While there is regional variation, in general, after using higher, 
drier habitats during the active season, the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake moves to lower, wet areas for overwintering or hibernation 
(Reinert and Kodrich 1982, pp. 164, 169; Johnson et al. 2000, p. 3; 
Harvey and Weatherhead 2006, p. 214; Mauger and Wilson 1999, p. 117). 
Hibernation sites provide insulated and moist subterranean spaces below 
the frost line where individuals can avoid freezing and dehydration 
(Sage 2005, p. 56). These hibernation sites can occur in wetland, 
wetland edges, wet prairie, closed canopy forests with mossy substrates 
(DeGregorio 2008, p. 20), wet grassland, and sedge meadow (Mauger and 
Wilson 1999, p. 116).
    The availability of retreat sites is important to the snake at all 
times of the year. Retreat sites are generally used by the snake to 
hide from potential predators, but are also important to gain shelter 
from extreme temperatures, because these sites are more thermally 
stable than surface habitat (Shoemaker 2007, pp. 9-10). Retreat sites 
can be hibernacula, rock crevices, hummocks, live or dead tree root 
systems, mammal holes, crayfish burrows, shrubs, boards, burn piles 
before burning, or any structure that a snake can crawl into or under.
    Adult eastern massasauga rattlesnakes forage by ambushing prey, 
which are primarily small mammals (voles (Microtus spp.), deer mice 
(Peromyscus spp.), and short-tailed shrew (Blarina spp.)), that vary 
according to whatever prey species is most readily available within the 
habitat. Juvenile eastern massasaugas also prey on small mammals, but 
feed occasionally on other species of snakes (e.g., brown snakes, 
Storeria dekayi). Neonates, born near the end of summer with a short 
active season before hibernation, feed mainly on snakes, perhaps due to 
the size of their mouth openings

[[Page 58691]]

(VanDeWalle and VanDeWalle 2008, p. 358; Shepard et al. 2004, p. 365).
    Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes (both males and females) reach 
sexual maturity at roughly 2 years of age and are ovoviviparous (the 
females give birth to broods of live young) ranging from 3 to 20 in 
number, with an average brood size of 9 but varying throughout the 
range (Anton 2000, p. 248; Bielma 1973, p. 46; Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 
404; Jellen 2005, p. 47). Both annual and biennial reproductive cycles 
have been reported (Reinert 1981, pp. 383-384; Johnson 1995, p. 109). 
Those individuals that do reproduce annually most likely mate in the 
spring and bear young in the late summer or autumn. Conversely, 
biennially reproductive females probably mate in the autumn and either 
store sperm until the following spring (Johnson 1992, p. 52) or suspend 
embryo development over winter and bear young the next summer (Prior 
1991). Mating is most prevalent in the summer or early autumn and 
occasionally in spring (Aldridge and Duvall 2002, p. 6; Aldridge et al. 
2008, p. 405; Jellen 2005, p. 41; Johnson 1995, p. 109; Johnson 2000, 
p. 189; Reinert 1981, pp. 383-384; Swanson 1933, p. 37). Male eastern 
massasaugas tend to occur in higher ratios than receptive females, 
because the most common female condition (biennial reproduction) 
essentially results in two female reproductive populations, whereas 
males can breed every year. Because of the higher ratio of males, males 
intensely compete for mates and face prolonged periods of mate 
searching, longer daily movements, and defensive female polygyny 
(having multiple mates) during the mating season (Jellen 2005, p. 9; 
Johnson 2000, p. 189).

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any factors 
affecting its continued existence. We completed a comprehensive 
assessment of the biological status of the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake, and prepared the SSA report, which provides a thorough 
description of the species' overall viability. We define viability as 
the ability of the species to maintain multiple, self-sustaining 
populations across the full gradient of genetic and ecological 
diversity of the species. We used the conservation biology principles 
of resiliency, representation, and redundancy in our analysis. Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand stochasticity; 
redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic 
events; and representation is the ability of the species to adapt over 
time to long-term changes in the environment. In general, the more 
redundant, representative, and resilient a species is, the more likely 
it is to sustain populations over time, even under changing 
environmental conditions. Using these principles, we considered the 
eastern massasauga rattlesnake's needs at the individual, population, 
and species scales. We also identified the beneficial and risk factors 
influencing the species' viability. We considered the degree to which 
the species' ecological needs are met both currently and as can be 
reliably forecasted into the future, and assessed the consequences of 
any unmet needs as they relate to species viability. In this section, 
we summarize the conclusions of the SSA, which can be accessed at 
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2015-0145.
    For survival and reproduction at the individual level, the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake requires appropriate habitat, which varies 
depending on the season and its life stage (see Background section, 
above). During the winter (generally October through March), they 
occupy hibernacula, such as crayfish burrows. Intact hydrology at 
eastern massasauga rattlesnake sites is important in maintaining 
conditions, such as crayfish burrows with high enough water levels to 
support the survival of hibernating eastern massasauga rattlesnakes. 
During their active season (after they emerge from hibernacula), they 
require low canopy cover and sunny areas (intermixed with shaded areas) 
for thermoregulation (basking and retreat sites), abundant prey 
(foraging sites), and the ability to escape predators (retreat sites). 
Habitat structure, including early successional stage and low canopy 
cover, appears to be more important for eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
habitat than plant community composition or soil type. Maintaining such 
habitat structure may require periodic management of most habitat types 
occupied by the eastern massasauga rattlesnake.
    At the population level, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
requires sufficient population size, population growth, survivorship 
(the number of individuals that survive over time), recruitment (adding 
individuals to the population through birth or immigration), population 
structure (the number and age classes of both sexes), and size. 
Populations also require a sufficient quantity of high-quality 
microhabitats with intact hydrology and ecological processes that 
maintain suitable habitat, and connectivity among these microhabitats. 
In the SSA, a self-sustaining population of eastern massasauga 
rattlesnakes is defined as one that is demographically, genetically, 
and physiologically robust (a population with 50 or more adult females 
and a stable or increasing growth rate), with a high level of 
persistence (a probability of persistence greater than 0.9) given its 
habitat conditions and the risk or beneficial factors operating on it.
    We relied on a population-specific model developed by Faust et al. 
(2011, entire) (hereafter referred to as the Faust model) to assess the 
health of populations across the eastern massasauga rattlesnake's 
range. Faust and colleagues developed a generic, baseline model for a 
hypothetical, healthy (growing) eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
population. Using this baseline model and site-specific information, 
including population size estimate, risk factors operating at the site, 
and potential future management changes that might address those 
factors, the Faust model forecasted the future condition of 57 eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake populations over three different time spans (10, 
25, and 50 years) (for more details on the Faust model, see pp. 4-6 in 
the SSA report). We extrapolated the Faust model results and 
supplemental information gathered since 2011 to forecast the future 
conditions of the other (non-modeled; n=331) eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake populations.
    At the species level, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake requires 
multiple (redundant), self-sustaining (resilient) populations 
distributed across areas of genetic and ecological diversity 
(representative). Using the literature on distribution of genetic 
diversity across the range of this species, we identified three 
geographic ``analysis units'' corresponding to ``clumped'' genetic 
variation patterns across the eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
populations (Figure 1). A reasonable conclusion from the composite of 
genetic studies that exist (Gibbs et al. 1997, entire; Andre 2003, 
entire; Chiucchi and Gibbs 2010, entire; Ray et al. 2013, entire) is 
that there are broad-scaled genetic differences across the range of the 
eastern massasauga rattlesnake, and within these broad units, there is 
genetic diversity among populations comprising the broad units. Thus, 
we assume these genetic variation patterns represent areas of unique 
adaptive diversity. We subsequently use these analysis units (eastern, 
central, and

[[Page 58692]]

western) to structure our analysis of viability.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30SE15.005

Species' Current Condition

    As a result of the risk factors acting on eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake populations, the resiliency of the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake across its range and within each of the three analysis 
units has declined from its historically known condition. Rangewide, 
there are 581 known historical eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
populations, of which 267 are known to still be extant, 163 are likely 
extirpated or known extirpated, and 121 are of unknown status. For the 
purposes of our assessment, we considered all populations with extant 
or unknown status as currently extant (referred to as presumed extant, 
n=388). Of those 388 populations presumed extant, 40 percent are likely 
quasi-extirpated (i.e., have 25 or fewer adult females).
    The number of presumed extant populations has declined from the 
number that was known historically rangewide by 33 percent (and 31 
percent of the presumed extant populations have unknown status). Of 
those populations presumed extant, 156 (40 percent) are presumed to be 
quasi-extirpated while 99 (26 percent) are presumed to be 
demographically, genetically, and physiologically robust (Table 1). Of 
these presumed demographically, genetically, and physiologically robust 
populations, 29 (7 percent) are presumed to have conditions suitable 
for maintaining populations over time (risk factors affecting the 
species at those populations are nonexistent or of low impact) and, 
thus, are self-sustaining. The greatest declines in resiliency occurred 
in the western analysis unit, where only 21 populations are presumed 
extant, and of these, only 1 is presumed to be self-sustaining. 
Although to a lesser degree, loss of resiliency has occurred in the 
central and eastern analysis units, where 22 and 6 populations, 
respectively, are presumed to be self-sustaining.

         Table 1--The Number of Populations by Status Rangewide
        [DGP = demographically, genetically, and physiologically]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Percentage of
                                             Number of       presumed
                 Status                     populations       extant
                                             rangewide      populations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presumed Extant.........................             388  ..............
Quasi-extirpated........................             156              40
DGP robust (self-sustaining)............         99 (29)          26 (7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The degree of representation, as measured by spatial extent of 
occurrence, across the range of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, has 
declined as noted by the northeasterly contraction in the range and by 
the loss of area occupied within the analysis units (see pp. 52-55 in 
the SSA report). Overall, there has been more than a 46 percent 
reduction of extent of occurrence rangewide (Table 2). This loss has 
not been uniform, with the western analysis unit encompassing most of 
this decline (69 percent reduction in extent of occurrence in the 
western analysis unit). However, losses of 43 percent and 32 percent of 
the extent of occurrence in the central analysis unit and eastern 
analysis unit, respectively, are notable as well. The results are not a 
true measure of area occupied by the species, but rather a coarse 
evaluation to make relative comparison among years. The reasons for 
this are twofold: (1) The calculations are done at the county, rather 
than the population, level; and (2) if at least one population was 
projected to be extant, the entire county was included in the analysis, 
even if other populations in the county were projected to be 
extirpated. Assuming that loss of range equates to loss of adaptive 
diversity, the degree of representation of the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake has declined since historical conditions.

 Table 2--The Percent Reduction in Extent of Occurrence From Historical
                             to Present Day
[WAU = western analysis unit, CAU = central analysis unit, EAU = eastern
                             analysis unit]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Analysis unit                      Percent reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAU..................................................                 69
CAU..................................................                 43
EAU..................................................                 32
Rangewide............................................                 46
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 58693]]

    The redundancy of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake has also 
declined since historical conditions. Potential catastrophic events 
relevant to eastern massasauga rattlesnake populations include disease, 
flooding, and drought. We were unable to find sufficient information on 
the likelihood of disease outbreaks, the factors that affect disease 
spread, and the magnitude of impact on eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
populations to assess the risk from a catastrophic disease outbreak. 
Similarly, we were unable to assess flooding as a catastrophic risk, 
but we did consider the impacts of flooding and disease as general 
factors affecting the species in our assessment. We assess the 
vulnerability of unit-wide extirpation due to varying drought 
intensities below. Extreme fluctuations in the water table may 
negatively affect body condition for the following active season, cause 
early emergence, or cause direct mortality (Harvey and Weatherhead 
2006, p. 71; Smith 2009, pp. vii, 33, 38-39). Changes in water levels 
under certain circumstances can cause mortality to individuals, 
particularly during hibernation (Johnson et al. 2000, p. 26; Kingsbury 
2002, p. 38) when the snakes are underwater. The water in the 
hibernacula protects the eastern massasauga rattlesnake from 
dehydration and freezing, and, therefore, dropping the levels in the 
winter leaves the snakes vulnerable to both (Kingsbury 2002, p. 38; 
Moore and Gillingham 2006, p. 750; Smith 2009, p. 5). Because 
individual eastern massasauga rattlesnakes often return to the same 
hibernacula year after year, dropping water levels in hibernacula could 
potentially decimate an entire population if the majority of 
individuals in that population hibernate in the same area.
    The Drought Monitor (a weekly map of drought conditions that is 
produced jointly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National 
Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln) 
classifies general drought areas by intensity, with D1 being the least 
intense drought and D4 being the most intense drought. For the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake, the risk of unit-wide extirpation due to a 
catastrophic drought varies by analysis unit and by the level of 
drought considered. Experts believe drought intensities of magnitude D2 
or higher are likely to make the species more vulnerable to overwinter 
mortality and cause catastrophic impacts to eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake populations. In the central and eastern analysis units, the 
annual frequency rate for a D3 or D4 drought is zero, so there is 
little to no risk of unit-wide extirpation regardless of how broadly 
dispersed the species is within the unit. In the eastern analysis unit, 
the annual frequency rate for a D2 drought is also zero. Portions of 
the central analysis unit are at risk of a D2-level catastrophic 
drought; populations in the southern portion of the central analysis 
unit and scattered portions in the north are at risk from such a 
drought. In the western analysis unit, the risk of unit-wide 
extirpation based on the frequency of a D3 drought is low, but the risk 
of losing clusters of populations within the western analysis unit is 
notable; 5 of the 8 population clusters are vulnerable to a 
catastrophic drought. The probability of unit-wide extirpation in the 
western analysis unit is notably higher with D2 frequency rates; 7 of 
the 8 clusters of populations are at risk of D2-level catastrophic 
drought. Thus, the probability of losing most populations within the 
western analysis unit due to a catastrophic drought is high.

Assessment of Threats and Conservation Measures

    The most prominent risk factors affecting the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake include habitat loss and fragmentation, especially through 
development and vegetative succession, road mortality, hydrologic 
alternation resulting in drought or flooding, persecution, collection, 
and mortality of individuals as a result of post-emergent (after 
hibernation) prescribed fire and mowing. Habitat loss includes direct 
habitat destruction of native land types (e.g., grassland, swamp, fen, 
bog, wet prairie, sedge meadow, marshland, peatland, floodplain forest, 
coniferous forest) due to conversion to agricultural land, development, 
and infrastructure associated with development (roads, bridges). 
Because eastern massasauga rattlesnake habitat varies seasonally and 
also varies over its range, the destruction of even a portion of a 
population's habitat (e.g., hibernacula or gestational sites) causes a 
negative effect to individual snakes, thus reducing the numbers of 
individuals in a population and, in turn, reducing the viability of 
that population. Habitat is also lost due to fragmentation, succession, 
exotic species invasion, dam construction, fire suppression, water 
level manipulation, and other incompatible habitat modifications 
(Jellen 2005, p. 33). These non-development-related habitat losses 
continue even in publicly held areas protected from development.
    Vegetative succession is a major contributor to habitat loss 
(Johnson and Breisch 1993, pp. 50-53; Reinert and Buskar 1992, pp. 56-
58). The open vegetative structure, typical of eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake habitat, provides the desirable thermoregulatory areas, 
increases prey densities by enhancing the growth of sedges and grasses, 
and provides retreat sites. Degradation of eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake habitat typically happens through woody vegetation 
encroachment or the introduction of nonnative plant species. These 
events alter the structure of the habitat and make it unsuitable for 
the eastern massasauga rattlesnake by reducing and eventually 
eliminating thermoregulatory and retreat areas. Fire suppression has 
led to the widespread loss of open canopy habitats through succession 
(Kingsbury 2002, p. 37). Alteration in habitat structure and quality 
can also affect eastern massasauga rattlesnakes by reducing the forage 
for the species' prey base (Kingsbury 2002, p. 37).
    An effective tool for controlling vegetative succession is the use 
of prescribed fire, which kills or temporarily sets back the growth of 
woody vegetation, retards the growth of undesirable species, and 
stimulates the response of prairie species (Johnson et al. 2000, p. 
25). Mowing and herbicide application are two additional strategies, 
often used in conjunction with prescribed burning, to control woody 
vegetation and invasive species encroachment. However, direct mortality 
of snakes can result from exposure to fire or mowers, if these 
activities occur when the snakes are out of their hibernacula (post-
emergent fire) (Cross 2009, pp. 18, 19, 24; Cross et al. 2015, p. 355; 
Dreslik 2005, p. 180; Dreslik et al. 2011, p. 22; Durbian 2006, p. 
333).
    Roads, bridges, and other structures constructed in eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake habitat fragment the snakes' habitat and impact 
the species both through direct mortality as snakes are killed trying 
to cross these structures (Shepard et al. 2008b, p. 6), as well as 
indirectly through the loss of access to habitat components necessary 
for the survival of the snakes.
    Because of the fear and negative perception of snakes, many people 
have a low interest in snakes or their conservation and consequently 
large numbers of snakes are deliberately killed (Whitaker and Shine 
2000, p. 121; Alves et al. 2014, p. 2). Human-snake encounters 
frequently result in the death of the snake (Whitaker and Shine 2000, 
pp. 125-126). Given the species' site fidelity and ease of capture once 
located, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake is particularly susceptible 
to

[[Page 58694]]

collection. Poaching and unauthorized collection of the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake for the pet trade is a factor contributing to 
declines that has significant impact on this species (e.g., Jellen 
2005, p. 11; Baily et al. 2011, p. 171).
    Assessing the occurrence of the above-mentioned risk factors, we 
found that 97 percent of the presumed extant eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake populations have at least one risk factor (with some degree 
of impact on the species) currently affecting the site. Unmanaged 
vegetative succession is the most commonly occurring risk factor, with 
75 percent of sites being impacted by succession. Vegetative succession 
makes eastern massasauga rattlesnake habitat unsuitable by reducing or 
eliminating thermoregulatory and retreat areas. Post-emergent fire is 
the second most common risk factor (69 percent of sites), and 
fragmentation is the third most common factor (67 percent of sites). 
Some form of habitat loss or modification is occurring at 52 percent of 
the sites; 17 percent of these sites are at risk of total habitat loss 
(all habitat at the site being destroyed or becoming unusable by the 
species). Among the other risk factors considered, water fluctuation, 
collection or persecution, and road mortality occur at 38 percent, 35 
percent, and 15 percent of the sites, respectively.
    We also considered the magnitude of impact of the various risk 
factors. The Faust model indicates that the risk factors most likely to 
push a population to quasi-extirpation within 25 years (high magnitude 
risk factors) are late-stage vegetative succession, high habitat 
fragmentation, moderate habitat fragmentation, total habitat loss, and 
moderate habitat loss or modification. Our analysis shows that 84 
percent of eastern massasauga rattlesnake populations are impacted by 
at least one high magnitude risk factor, and 63 percent are affected by 
multiple high magnitude risk factors. These risk factors are chronic 
and are expected to continue with a similar magnitude of impact into 
the future, unless ameliorated by increased implementation of 
conservation actions. Furthermore, these multiple factors are not 
acting independently, but are acting together, which can result in 
cumulative effects that lower the overall viability of the species.
    In addition to the above risk factors, other factors may be 
affecting individuals. Disease (whether new or currently existing at 
low levels but increasing in prevalence) is another emerging and 
potentially catastrophic stressor to eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
populations. For example, snake fungal disease (SFD) is an emerging 
disease found in populations of wild snakes in the eastern and 
midwestern United States, and the eastern massasauga rattlesnake is one 
of the species that has recently been diagnosed with SFD (Sleeman 2013, 
p. 1; Allender et al. 2011, p. 2383). However, we do not have 
sufficient information on the emergence and future spread of SFD or 
other diseases to reliably model this stressor for forecasting future 
conditions for the rattlesnake. Our quantitative modeling analysis also 
does not consider two other prominent risk factors, road mortality and 
persecution, due to a lack of specific information on the magnitude of 
impacts from these factors. Additionally, this species is vulnerable to 
the effects of climate change through increasing intensity of winter 
droughts and increasing risk of summer floods, particularly in the 
southwest part of its range (Pomara et al., undated; Pomara et al. 
2014, pp. 95-97). Thus, while we acknowledge and considered that 
disease, road mortality, persecution/collection, and climate changes 
are factors that affect the species, and which may increase or 
exacerbate existing threats in the future, our viability assessment 
does not include a quantitative analysis of these stressors.
    Of the 267 sites with extant eastern massasauga populations, 64 
percent (171) occur on land (public and private) that is considered 
protected from development; development may result in loss or 
fragmentation of habitat. Signed candidate conservation agreements with 
assurances (CCAAs) with the Service exist for two of these populations. 
These CCAAs include actions to mediate the stressors acting upon the 
populations and provide management prescriptions to perpetuate eastern 
massasauga rattlesnakes on these sites. For example, at an additional 
22 sites, habitat restoration or management, or both, is occurring. 
Information is not available for these sites to know if habitat 
management has mediated the current risk factors acting upon the 
populations; the Faust model, however, included these activities in the 
projections of trends, and, thus, our future condition analyses 
considered these activities and assumed that ongoing restoration would 
continue into the future. Lastly, another 18 populations have 
conservation plans in place. Although these plans are intended to 
manage for the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, sufficient site-specific 
information is not available to assess whether these restoration or 
management activities are currently ameliorating the stressors acting 
upon the population. Thus, we were unable to include the potential 
beneficial impacts into our quantitative analyses.

Species' Projected Future Condition

    To assess the future resiliency, representation, and redundancy of 
the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, we used the Faust model results to 
predict the number of self-sustaining populations likely to persist 
over the next 10, 25, and 50 years, and extrapolated those proportions 
to the remaining presumed extant populations to forecast the number of 
self-sustaining populations likely to persist at the future time 
scales. We then predicted the change in representation and redundancy.
    The projected future resiliency (the number of self-sustaining 
populations) varies across the eastern massasauga rattlesnake's range. 
In the western analysis unit, 83 percent of the modeled populations are 
projected to have a declining trajectory and 94 percent of the 
populations a low probability of persistence (i.e., the probability of 
remaining above the quasi-extirpated threshold of 25 adult females; 
p(P)<0.90) by year 25, and, thus, the number of forecasted populations 
likely to be extant declines over time. By year 50, 17 of the 21 
presumed extant populations are projected to be extirpated (i.e., no 
individuals remain; n=15) or quasi-extirpated (n=2), with only 1 
population projected to be self-sustaining. The resiliency of the 
western analysis unit is forecasted to decline over time. The situation 
is similar in the central and eastern analysis units, but to a lesser 
degree. In the central analysis unit, 70 percent of the modeled 
populations are projected to have a declining trajectory and 78 percent 
a low probability of persistence, and thus, by year 50, 196 of the 294 
presumed extant populations are projected to be extirpated (n=174) or 
quasi-extirpated (n=22), and 54 populations to be self-sustaining. In 
the eastern analysis unit, 83 percent of the modeled populations are 
projected to have a declining trajectory and 92 percent of the 
populations are projected to have a low probability of persistence, 
and, thus, by year 50, 61 of the 73 presumed extant populations are 
projected to be extirpated (n=55) or quasi-extirpated (n=6), and 6 to 
be self-sustaining. Rangewide, 61 (16 percent) of the 388 populations 
that are currently presumed to be extant will be self-sustaining by 
year 50.
    We calculated the future extent of occurrence (representation) for 
the 57 modeled populations (Faust model) and

[[Page 58695]]

for the populations forecasted to persist at years 10, 25, and 50 by 
using the counties occupied by populations to evaluate the proportions 
of the range falling within each analysis unit and the change in 
spatial distribution within each analysis unit. Our results indicate 
that eastern massasauga rattlesnake populations are likely to persist 
in all three analysis units; however, the distribution of the range is 
predicted to contract northeasterly, and the geographic area occupied 
will decline within each analysis unit over time. The results project a 
65 percent reduction of the area occupied by the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake rangewide by year 50, with the western analysis unit 
comprising most of the decline (83 percent reduction within the unit). 
These projected declines in extent of occurrence across the species' 
range and within the analysis units suggest that loss of adaptive 
diversity is likely to occur.
    We assessed the ability of eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
populations to withstand catastrophic events (redundancy) by predicting 
the number of self-sustaining populations in each analysis unit and the 
spatial dispersion of those populations relative to future drought 
risk.
    The future redundancy (the number and spatial dispersion of self-
sustaining populations) across the eastern massasauga rattlesnake's 
range varies. In the western analysis unit, the risk of analysis-unit-
wide extirpations from either a D2 or D3 catastrophic drought is high, 
given the low number of populations forecasted to be extant. Coupling 
this with a likely concurrent decline in population clusters (reduced 
spatial dispersion), the risk of analysis-unit-wide extirpation is 
likely even higher. Thus, the level of redundancy in the western 
analysis unit is projected to decline into the future.
    Conversely, in the eastern analysis unit, there is little to no 
risk of a D2- or D3-level drought, and consequently the probability of 
unit-wide extirpation due to a catastrophic drought is very low. Thus, 
redundancy, from a catastrophic drought perspective, is not expected to 
decline over time in the eastern analysis unit.
    Similarly, in the central analysis unit, there is little to no risk 
of a D3 catastrophic drought. The southern and northern portions of the 
central analysis unit, however, are at risk of a D2-level catastrophic 
drought. Losses of populations in these areas may lead to portions of 
the central analysis unit being extirpated and will also increase the 
probability of analysis-unit-wide extirpation. However, the risk of 
analysis-unit-wide extirpation will likely remain low given the 
presumed persistence of multiple populations scattered throughout low 
drought risk areas. Thus, from a drought perspective, the level of 
redundancy is not likely to be noticeably reduced in the central 
analysis unit (see Figure 4.3 (p. 60) in the SSA report for a detailed 
map). A caveat to this conclusion, however, is that the forecasted 
decline in extent of occurrence suggests our data are too coarse to 
tease out whether the forecasted decline in populations will lead to 
substantial losses in spatial distribution, and, thus, the risk of 
analysis-unit-wide extirpation might be higher than predicted. 
Therefore, the future trend in the level of redundancy in the central 
analysis unit is less clear than for either the western analysis unit 
or the eastern analysis unit.
    Given the loss of populations to date, portions of the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake's range are in imminent risk of extirpation in 
the near term. Specifically, our analysis suggests there is a high risk 
of extirpation of the western analysis unit and southern portions of 
the central and eastern analysis units within 10 to 25 years. Although 
self-sustaining populations are expected to persist, loss of 
populations within the central and eastern analysis units are expected 
to continue as well, and, thus, those populations are at risk of 
extirpation in the future. These losses have led to reductions in 
resiliency and redundancy across the range and may lead to 
irreplaceable loss of adaptive diversity across the range of the 
eastern massasauga rattlesnake, thereby leaving the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake less able to adapt to a changing environment into the 
future. Thus, the viability of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake has 
and is projected to continue to decline over the next 50 years.
    The reader is directed to the SSA for a more detailed discussion of 
our evaluation of the biological status of the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake and the influences that may affect its continued existence. 
Our conclusions are based upon the best available scientific and 
commercial data.

Determination

Standard for Review

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based 
on (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. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of 
the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
    Until recently, the Service has presented its evaluation of 
information under the five listing factors in an outline format, 
discussing all of the information relevant to any given factor and 
providing a factor-specific conclusion before moving to the next 
factor. However, the Act does not require findings under each of the 
factors, only an overall determination as to status (e.g., threatened, 
endangered, not warranted). Ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency 
and efficacy of the Service's implementation of the Act have led us to 
present this information in a different format that we believe leads to 
greater clarity in our understanding of the science, its uncertainties, 
and the application of our statutory framework to that science. 
Therefore, while the presentation of information in this rule differs 
from past practice, it differs in format only. We have evaluated the 
same body of information that we would have evaluated under the five 
listing factors outline format, we are applying the same information 
standard, and we are applying the same statutory framework in reaching 
our conclusions.

Determination

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the 
eastern massasauga rattlesnake and how those threats are affecting the 
species now and into the future. The species faces an array of threats 
that have and will likely continue (often increasingly) to contribute 
to declines at all levels (individual, population, and species). The 
loss of habitat was historically, and continues to be, the threat with 
greatest impact to the species (Factor A), either through development 
or through changes in habitat structure due to vegetative succession. 
Disease, new or increasingly prevalent, is another emerging and 
potentially catastrophic threat to eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
populations (Factor C). As population sizes decrease, localized 
impacts, such as collection and persecution of individuals, also 
increases the risk of extinction (Factor B). These risk factors are 
chronic and are expected to

[[Page 58696]]

continue with a similar magnitude of impact into the future. 
Additionally, this species is vulnerable to the effects of climate 
change through increasing intensity of winter droughts and increasing 
risk of summer floods (Factor E), particularly in the southwest part of 
its range (Pomera et al., undated; Pomera et al. 2014, pp. 95-97). Some 
conservation actions (e.g., management of invasive species and woody 
plant encroachment, timing prescribed fires to avoid the active season) 
are currently in place, which provide protection and enhancement to 
some eastern massasauga rattlesnake populations. However, our analysis 
projects that eastern massasauga rattlesnake populations will continue 
to decline even if current conservation measures are continued into the 
future. As a result of these factors, the numbers and health of eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake populations are anticipated to decline across 
the species' range, and particularly in the southwestern portions of 
the range, which have already experienced large losses relative to 
historical conditions. Further, the reductions in eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake population numbers, distribution, and health forecast in 
the SSA report represent the best case scenario for the species, and 
future outcomes may be worse than predicted. Because of the type of 
information available to us, the analysis assumes that threat magnitude 
and pervasiveness remains constant into the future, while it is more 
likely that the magnitude of threats will increase into the future 
throughout the range of the species, or that novel threats may arise. 
In addition, some currently identified threats are not included in the 
quantitative analysis (e.g., disease, road mortality, persecution/
collection, and climate changes), because we lack specific, 
quantitative information on how these factors may affect the species in 
the future. These factors and their potential effects on the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake were discussed and considered as part of the 
determination.
    The species' viability is also affected by losses of populations 
from historical portions of its range, which may have represented 
unique genetic and ecological diversity. The species is extirpated from 
Minnesota and Missouri, and many populations have been lost in the 
western part of the species' range. Rangewide, the extent of occurrence 
is predicted to decline by 65 percent by year 50. Actual losses in 
extent of occurrence will likely be greater than estimated because of 
the methodology used in our analysis, as discussed above.
    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species that is ``likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' A key statutory difference 
between an endangered species and a threatened species is the timing of 
when a species may be in danger of extinction, either now (endangered 
species) or in the foreseeable future (threatened species). Based on 
the biology of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and the degree of 
uncertainty of future predictions, we find that the ``foreseeable 
future'' for the species is best defined as 50 years. Forecasting to 50 
years, the current threats are still reliably foreseeable at the end of 
that time span based on models, available information on threats 
impacting the species, and other analyses; however, we cannot 
reasonably predict future conditions for the species beyond 50 years. 
Our uncertainty in forecasting the status of the species beyond 50 
years is also increased by our methodology of extrapolating from a 
subset of modeled populations to all extant or potentially extant 
populations.
    We find that the eastern massasauga rattlesnake is likely to become 
endangered throughout its entire range within the foreseeable future 
based on the severity and pervasiveness of threats currently impacting 
the species. We find that the eastern massasauga rattlesnake is likely 
to be on the brink of extinction within the foreseeable future due to 
the projected loss of populations rangewide (loss of resiliency and 
redundancy) and the projected loss of its distribution within large 
portions of its range. This loss in distribution could represent a loss 
of genetic and ecological adaptive diversity, as well as a loss of 
populations from parts of the range that may provide future refugia in 
a changing climate. Furthermore, many remaining populations are 
currently experiencing high magnitude threats. Although these high 
magnitude threats are not currently pervasive rangewide, they are 
likely to become pervasive in the foreseeable future as they expand and 
impact additional populations throughout the species' range. Therefore, 
on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data, we 
propose listing the eastern massasauga rattlesnake as a threatened 
species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    We find that an endangered species status is not appropriate for 
the eastern massasauga rattlesnake. In assessing whether the species is 
in danger of extinction, we used the plain language understanding of 
this phrase as meaning ``presently in danger of extinction.'' We 
considered whether extinction is a plausible condition as the result of 
the established, present condition of the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake. Based on the species' present condition, we find that the 
species is not currently on the brink of extinction. The timeframe for 
conditions that render the species on the brink of extinction is beyond 
the present. While the magnitude of threats affecting populations is 
high, threats are not acting at all sites at a sufficient magnitude to 
result in the species presently being on the brink of extinction. 
Additionally, some robust populations still exist, and we anticipate 
they will remain self-sustaining.
    The SSA results represent the best-case scenario for this species. 
For example, the analysis treated populations of unknown status as if 
they were all extant, likely resulting in an overestimate of species' 
viability. Thus, we considered whether treating the populations with an 
``unknown'' status as currently extant in the analysis had an effect on 
the status determination. We examined whether the number of self-
sustaining populations would change significantly over time if we 
instead assumed that all populations with an ``unknown'' status were 
extirpated. The results are a more severe projected decline in eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake's status than our analysis projects when we 
assign the unknown status populations to the ``extant'' category, but 
not to the extent that we would determine the species to be currently 
in danger of extinction.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is an endangered or threatened species throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined 
that eastern massasauga rattlesnake is threatened throughout all of its 
range, no portion of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of 
the definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' 
See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant 
Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of 
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 
2014).

[[Page 58697]]

Critical Habitat

Prudency Determination

Background
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as: (i) 
The specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) Essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Conservation is defined in section 3(3) of the Act as the use of 
all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered 
or threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no 
longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time the 
species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following 
circumstances exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other 
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected 
to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such 
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. 
We have determined that both circumstances apply to the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake. This determination involves a weighing of the 
expected increase in threats associated with a critical habitat 
designation against the benefits gained by a critical habitat 
designation. An explanation of this ``balancing'' evaluation follows.
Increased Threat to the Taxon by Designating Critical Habitat
    Poaching and unauthorized collection (Factor B) of the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake for the pet trade is a factor contributing to 
declines, and remains a threat with significant impact to this species, 
commanding high black market value. For example, an investigation into 
reptile trafficking reports documented 35 eastern massasauga 
rattlesnakes (representing nearly one entire wild source population) 
collected in Canada and smuggled into the United States, most destined 
for the pet trade (Thomas 2010, unpaginated). Snakes in general are 
known to be feared and persecuted by people, and venomous species even 
more so (Ohman and Mineka 2003, p. 7; Whitaker and Shine 2000, p. 121). 
As a venomous snake, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake is no 
exception, with examples of roundups or bounties for them persisting 
through the mid-1900s (Bushey 1985, p. 10; Vogt 1981; Wheeling, IL, 
Historical Society Web site accessed 2015), and more recent examples of 
persecution in Pennsylvania (Jellen 2005, p. 11) and Michigan (Baily et 
al. 2011, p. 171). The process of designating critical habitat would 
increase human threats to the eastern massasauga rattlesnake by 
increasing the vulnerability of this species to unauthorized collection 
and trade through public disclosure of its locations. Designation of 
critical habitat requires the publication of maps and a specific 
narrative description of critical habitat in the Federal Register. The 
degree of detail in those maps and boundary descriptions is far greater 
than the general location descriptions provided in this proposal to 
list the species as a threatened species. Furthermore, a critical 
habitat designation normally results in the news media publishing 
articles in local newspapers and special interest Web sites, usually 
with maps of the critical habitat. We have determined that the 
publication of maps and descriptions outlining the locations of this 
species would further facilitate unauthorized collection and trade, as 
collectors would know the exact locations where eastern massasauga 
rattlesnakes occur. While eastern massasauga rattlesnakes are cryptic 
in coloration, they can still be collected in high numbers during 
certain parts of their active seasons (e.g., spring egress from 
hibernation or summer gestation). Also, individuals of this species are 
often slow moving and have small home ranges. Therefore, publishing 
specific location information would provide a high level of assurance 
that any person going to a specific location would be able to 
successfully locate and collect specimens, given the species' site 
fidelity and ease of capture once located. Due to the threat of 
unauthorized collection and trade, a number of biologists working for 
State and local conservation agencies that manage populations of 
eastern massasauga rattlesnakes have expressed to the Service serious 
concerns with publishing maps and boundary descriptions of occupied 
habitat areas that could be associated with critical habitat 
designation (Redmer 2015, pers. comm.). In addition, when providing us 
with data on the current status of populations across the range of the 
species, one State agency redacted site-specific information, while 
others who provided the information expressed strong concerns that we 
should not disclose sensitive locality information. We, therefore, find 
that designating critical habitat could negate the efforts of State and 
local conservation agencies to restrict access to location information 
that could significantly affect future efforts to control the threat of 
unauthorized collection and trade of eastern massasauga rattlesnakes.
Benefits to the Species From Critical Habitat Designation
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the 
statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse 
modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the 
proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain 
functional (or retain those physical and biological features that 
relate to the ability of the area to periodically support the species) 
to serve its intended conservation role for the species. Critical 
habitat only provides protections where there is a Federal nexus, that 
is, those actions that come under the purview of section 7 of the Act. 
Critical habitat designation has no application to actions that do not 
have a Federal nexus. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act mandates that Federal 
agencies, in consultation with the Service, evaluate the effects of 
their proposed actions on any designated critical habitat. Similar to 
the Act's requirement that a Federal agency action not jeopardize the 
continued existence of listed species, Federal agencies have the 
responsibility not to implement actions that would destroy or adversely 
modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat designation alone, 
however, does not require that a Federal action agency implement 
specific steps toward species recovery. Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes 
primarily occur on non-Federal lands. The eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake does occur on land managed by the Service (Wisconsin), 
National Park Service (Indiana), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Illinois 
and Wisconsin), and U.S. Forest Service (Michigan). We anticipate that 
some actions on non-Federal lands will have a Federal nexus (for 
example, requirement for a permit to discharge dredge and fill material 
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) for an action that may adversely 
affect

[[Page 58698]]

the eastern massasauga rattlesnake. There is also the potential that 
some proposed actions by the Federal agencies listed above may 
adversely affect the eastern massasauga rattlesnake. In those 
circumstances where it has been determined that a Federal action 
(including actions involving non-Federal lands) may affect the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake, the action would be reviewed under section 
7(a)(2) of the Act. We anticipate that the following Federal actions 
are some of the actions that could adversely affect the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake: certain direct or indirect (e.g., funded 
through Federal grants) habitat management activities such as post-
emergent mowing or prescribed fire, regional flood control activities, 
or discharging fill material (or associated activities) into 
jurisdictional waters of the United States. Under section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act, project impacts would be analyzed and the Service would 
determine if the Federal action would jeopardize the continued 
existence of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake. The designation of 
critical habitat would ensure that a Federal action would not result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of the designated critical 
habitat. Consultation with respect to critical habitat would provide 
additional protection to a species only if the agency action would 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical 
habitat but would not jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. If we list the species but do not designate critical habitat, 
areas that support the eastern massasauga rattlesnake would continue to 
be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of 
the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 
7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as appropriate. If we list the species, 
Federal actions affecting the eastern massasauga rattlesnake even in 
the absence of designated critical habitat areas would still benefit 
from consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act and could 
still result in jeopardy findings.
    Another potential benefit to the eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
from designating critical habitat is that such a designation serves to 
educate landowners, State and local governments, and the public 
regarding the potential conservation value of an area. Generally, 
providing this information helps focus and promote conservation efforts 
by other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation 
value for the affected species. However, simply publicizing the 
proposed listing of the species also serves to notify and educate 
landowners, State and local governments, and the public regarding 
important conservation values. Furthermore, we have worked with State 
conservation agencies and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums 
(Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake Species Survival Plan) to develop 
outreach and education materials that target a diverse audience, 
including public and private landowners, organizations, and the media. 
The eastern massasauga rattlesnake outreach actions implemented to date 
include producing and distributing brochures and informational Web 
sites, working with media outlets (newspaper and television) on eastern 
massasauga stories, and giving presentations to conservation agencies 
or the public. In addition, the Service provides a staff advisor to the 
Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake Species Survival Plan, which provides a 
unique opportunity to help frame messaging about this species to many 
thousands of visitors to North American zoos. Due to the extensive 
outreach and conservation efforts already underway that benefit the 
eastern massasauga rattlesnake, we find that the designation of 
critical habitat would provide limited additional outreach value.
Increased Threat to the Species Outweighs the Benefits of Critical 
Habitat Designation
    Upon reviewing the available information, we have determined that 
the designation of critical habitat would increase the threat to 
eastern massasauga rattlesnakes from persecution, unauthorized 
collection, and trade. We find that the risk of increasing this threat 
to a significant degree by publishing location information in a 
critical habitat designation outweighs the benefits of designating 
critical habitat. A limited number of U.S. species listed under the Act 
have commercial value in trade. The eastern massasauga rattlesnake is 
one of them. Due to the market demand and willingness of individuals to 
collect eastern massasauga rattlesnakes without authorization, and the 
willingness of others to kill them out of fear or wanton dislike, we 
have determined that any action that publicly discloses the location of 
eastern massasauga rattlesnakes (such as critical habitat) puts the 
species in further peril. Many populations of the eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake are small, and the life history of the species makes it 
vulnerable to additive loss of individuals (for example, loss of 
reproductive adults in numbers that would exceed those caused by 
predation and other non-catastrophic natural factors), requiring a 
focused and comprehensive approach to reducing threats. Several 
measures are currently being implemented to address the threat of 
persecution and unauthorized collection and trade of eastern massasauga 
rattlesnakes, and additional measures will be implemented if the 
species is listed under the Act. One of the basic measures to protect 
eastern massasauga rattlesnakes from unauthorized collection and trade 
is restricting access to information pertaining to the location of the 
species' populations. Publishing maps and narrative descriptions of 
eastern massasauga rattlesnake critical habitat would significantly 
affect our ability to reduce the threat of persecution, as well as 
unauthorized collection and trade. Therefore, based on our 
determination that critical habitat designation would increase the 
degree of threat to the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, and, at best, 
provide nominal benefits for this taxon, we find that the increased 
threat to the eastern massasauga rattlesnake from the designation of 
critical habitat significantly outweighs any benefit of designation.
Summary of Prudency Determination
    We have determined that the designation of critical habitat would 
increase persecution, unauthorized collection, and trade threats to the 
eastern massasauga rattlesnake. The eastern massasauga rattlesnake is 
highly valued in the pet trade, and that value is likely to increase as 
the species becomes rarer, and as a venomous species, it also is the 
target of persecution. Critical habitat designation may provide some 
benefits to the conservation of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, for 
example, by identifying areas important for conservation. We have 
determined, however, that the benefits of designating critical habitat 
for the eastern massasauga rattlesnake are minimal. We have concluded 
that, even if some benefit from designation may exist, the increased 
threat to the species from unauthorized collection and persecution 
outweighs any benefit to the species. A determination to not designate 
critical habitat also supports the measures taken by the States to 
control and restrict information on the locations of the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake and to no longer make location and survey 
information readily available to the public. We have, therefore, 
determined in accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) that it is not 
prudent to designate critical habitat for

[[Page 58699]]

the eastern massasauga rattlesnake. However, we seek public comment on 
our determination that designation of critical habitat is not prudent 
(see ADDRESSES, above, for instructions on how to submit comments).

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and 
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, 
below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop 
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
concurrently or shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a 
draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the 
immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the 
process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan 
may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new 
substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also 
identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready 
for downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery 
progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to 
coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of 
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species 
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and 
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When 
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final 
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Chicago Ecological Services Field Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation) and management, 
research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and 
education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished 
solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or 
solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species 
requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal 
lands. If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and 
Wisconsin would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management 
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the eastern massasauga rattlesnake is only proposed for 
listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are 
interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species. 
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this 
species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have 
for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the 
Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the Service (Upper 
Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Wisconsin), U.S. Forest 
Service (Huron-Manistee National Forest, Michigan), National Park 
Service (Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana), or military lands 
administered by branches of the Department of Defense (Fort Grayling, 
Michigan); flood control projects (Lake Carlyle, Illinois) and issuance 
of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; construction and maintenance of roads or 
highways by the Federal Highway Administration; construction and 
maintenance of pipelines or rights-of-way for transmission of 
electricity, and other energy related projects permitted or 
administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue 
regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of threatened species. The Act and its implementing 
regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions 
that apply to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) 
of the Act, as applied to threatened wildlife and codified at 50 CFR 
17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to take (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) 
threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In 
addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, 
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of 
commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to

[[Page 58700]]

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife 
that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of 
the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land 
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to 
threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: 
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for 
educational purposes, and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory 
exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 
of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information, 
the following actions are unlikely to result in a violation of section 
9, if these activities are carried out in accordance with existing 
regulations and permit requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Pre-emergent fire: Prescribed burns to control vegetation 
occurring prior to eastern massasauga rattlesnake emergence from 
hibernacula (typically in late March to early April); and
    (2) Pre-emergent mowing: Mowing of vegetation prior to eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake emergence from hibernacula.
    Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this 
list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Development of land or the conversion of native land to 
agricultural land, including the construction of any related 
infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, railroads, pipelines, utilities) 
in occupied eastern massasauga rattlesnake habitat;
    (2) Certain dam construction: In an area where the dam alters the 
habitat from native land types (e.g., grassland, swamp, fen, bog, wet 
prairie, sedge meadow, marshland, peatland, floodplain forest, 
coniferous forest) causing changes in hydrology at hibernacula or where 
the dam causes fragmentation that separates snakes from hibernacula or 
gestational sites;
    (3) Post-emergent prescribed fire: Prescribed burns to control 
vegetation that are conducted after snakes have emerged from their 
hibernacula and are thus exposed to the fire;
    (4) Post-emergent mowing: Mowing of vegetation after snakes have 
emerged from hibernacula can cause direct mortality by contact with 
blades or being run over by tires on mower;
    (5) Certain pesticide use;
    (6) Water level manipulation: Flooding or hydrologic drawdown 
affecting eastern massasauga rattlesnake individuals or habitat, 
particularly hibernacula;
    (7) Certain research activities: Collection and handling of eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake individuals for research that may result in 
displacement or death of the individuals; and
    (8) Poaching or collecting individuals.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Chicago 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Chicago Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Chicago Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), add an entry for ``Rattlesnake, eastern 
massasauga'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 
alphabetical order under REPTILES to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 58701]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
             REPTILES              ....................  ...................  ...................  ..............  ...........  ...........  ...........
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Rattlesnake, eastern massasauga..  Sistrurus catenatus.  U.S.A. (IL, IN, IA,  Entire.............  T               ...........           NA           NA
                                                          MI, MN, MO, NY,
                                                          OH, PA, WI);
                                                          Canada (Ontario).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: September 11, 2015.
 James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-24780 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P