[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15921-15938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05012]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0029; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BF69


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Bog Buck Moth

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as 
amended, for the bog buck moth (Hemileuca maia menyanthevora) (=H. 
iroquois), a moth that occurs in Oswego County, New York, and Ontario, 
Canada. This rule adds the bog buck moth to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and applies the protections of the Act to this 
species. We have determined that designation of critical habitat for 
the bog buck moth is not prudent at this time.

DATES: This rule is effective April 14, 2023.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we received, as well as 
supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available 
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-
R5-ES-2021-0029.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Drew, Acting Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York Field Office, 3817 Luker Road, 
Cortland, NY 13045; telephone 607-753-9334. Individuals in the United 
States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech 
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list 
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the 
bog buck moth meets the definition of an endangered species; therefore, 
we are listing it as such. We have determined that designating critical 
habitat is not prudent at this time. Listing a species as an endangered 
or threatened species can be completed only by issuing a rule through 
the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 
seq.).
    What this document does. This final rule adds the bog buck moth 
(Hemileuca maia menyanthevora) (=H. iroquois) to the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any 
of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the bog buck 
moth is endangered due to a combination of factors. Bog buck moth 
populations undergo boom and bust cycles and are highly vulnerable to 
threats during the bust phase (Factor E). All populations are isolated 
from one another (Factor E). All extant populations are experiencing 
some degree of habitat alteration from invasive plant species and 
habitat succession (Factor A). Flooding may drown various life stages 
of the bog buck moth or reduce suitable habitat either by directly 
making it unavailable (under water) or reducing survival and growth of 
bog buckbean, an important food source for the bog buck moth larvae 
(Factor A). Flooding has increased at one New York population over the 
past several years due to increased winter and spring precipitation 
from climate change and high Great Lakes water levels (Factor E). Water 
level management has altered or has the potential to alter several bog 
buck moth sites (Factor A). Additionally, the sedentary nature of the 
bog buck moth means that colonization of neighboring fens does not 
occur naturally, further limiting the species' ability to respond to 
stochastic changes (Factor E).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that 
designating critical habitat for the bog buck moth is not prudent 
because the moth co-occurs with another species that is highly 
collected and designating critical habitat for the moth would increase 
the risk of collection for the other species. In addition, the methods 
used to collect the co-occurring species can be expected to cause harm 
to the bog buck moth from disturbance and trampling of individuals 
(eggs, larvae, pupae) and to vegetation necessary as a host plant and 
for sheltering of all life stages. This disturbance can also be 
expected to damage vegetation necessary for any potential 
reintroductions of moths at the currently unoccupied site.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the October 14, 2021, proposed listing rule (86 FR 
57104) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions 
concerning the bog buck moth.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the bog buck moth. The SSA team, composed of Service biologists and a 
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 
biologist, conducted the SSA in consultation with other species 
experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific 
and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, 
including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both 
negative and beneficial) affecting the species.

[[Page 15922]]

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of six 
appropriate specialists regarding the SSA report. We received four 
responses. The peer reviews can be found at https://regulations.gov. In 
preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these 
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the foundation 
for the proposed rule and this final rule.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We reviewed the public comments we received during the comment 
period on the proposed rule (86 FR 57104; October 14, 2021) and 
relevant information that became available since the proposed rule 
published. Based on that review, we do not make any substantive changes 
to the proposed rule in this final rule; we make only minor 
clarifications and elaborate on our rationale for concluding that the 
designation of critical habitat is not prudent at this time for the bog 
buck moth.

I. Final Listing Determination

Background

    The bog buck moth is a large diurnal moth native to fens 
(groundwater-fed wetlands) in Oswego County, New York (NY), and 
Ontario, Canada. A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and 
ecology of the bog buck moth is presented in the SSA report (Service 
2021, pp. 6-25), which is available at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0029.

Taxonomy

    The bog buck moth is a silk moth (family = Saturniidae) in the buck 
moth genus (Hemileuca). The bog buck moth was first identified as a 
variant of the maia species group within Hemileuca in 1977 by John 
Cryan and Robert Dirig from four sites (two populations) along the 
southeast shore of Lake Ontario in Oswego County, NY, but was not 
formally named at that time (Legge et al. 1996, p. 86; Pryor 1998, p. 
126; Cryan and Dirig 2020, p. 3). Four additional sites (two 
populations) were discovered in 1977 in eastern Ontario (Committee on 
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC] 2009, p. 7). 
Multiple common names have been used since then (e.g., bogbean 
buckmoth, Cryan's buckmoth, fen buck moth).
    For many years, the bog buck moth's taxonomic status has been 
confusing and uncertain. The bog buck moth was classified as part of 
the Hemileuca maia complex, which is a broadly distributed group of 
closely related taxa including H. maia, H. lucina, H. nevadensis, among 
others (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 111). Tuskes et al. (1996, pp. 120-121) 
further refined the description of populations of buck moths in the 
Great Lakes region, including the bog buck moth, as the H. maia complex 
of Great Lakes Region populations. Kruse (1998, p. 109) included H. 
maia and H. nevadensis as part of the Great Lakes complex; however, 
using genomewide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), Dupuis et al. 
(2018, p. 6) and Dupuis et al. (2020, p. 3) show that H. nevadensis is 
restricted to the west. The Annotated Taxonomic Checklist of the 
Lepidoptera of North America (Pohl et al. 2016, p. 735) included the 
Great Lakes populations of buck moths as part of H. maia (based on 
Tuskes et al. 1996), pending species-level taxonomic classification.
    Recently, Dupuis et al. (2018, pp. 5-7) and Dupuis et al. (2020, 
pp. 2-3) used SNPs and found unambiguous results supporting the 
conclusion that both Ontario and Oswego County, NY, populations are 
part of the bog buck moth lineage that is divergent from Hemileuca 
lucina, H. peigleri, H. slosseri, and all other H. maia. They also 
found clear differentiation between the group formed by the Ontario and 
Oswego County, NY, populations and the group formed by the Wisconsin 
and Michigan populations (Dupuis et al. 2020, p. 3).
    In 2020, Pavulaan (2020, entire) was first to formally describe the 
bog buck moth as Hemileuca maia menyanthevora and stated that it may 
actually represent a full species. Pavulaan (2020, pp. 8-14) considered 
host plant use and morphology for the designation and included the 
Oswego County (NY), Marquette and Ozaukee County (Wisconsin), and 
Ontario fens as part of the range. All specimens that Pavulaan used for 
describing morphology were from one location in Oswego County, NY, and 
he relied on host plant use discussed in Kruse (1998, entire) for 
inclusion of the two Wisconsin sites (Pavulaan pers. comm., 2020). 
Subsequently, Cryan and Dirig (2020, pp. 26-31) named the bog buck moth 
as H. iroquois and included only the Oswego County, NY, and Ontario 
populations in the designation. After reviewing the genetic information 
presented in Dupuis et al. 2020 (entire), we concluded that the 
Wisconsin sites are genetically distinct from the New York and Ontario 
sites. Official scientific naming follows the rule of publication 
priority under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; 
therefore, the official name of the bog buck moth is H. maia 
menyanthevora with the junior synonym of H. iroquois. We conclude that 
the bog buck moth is a valid taxon for consideration for listing under 
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
    Based upon the strong evidence provided by Dupuis et al. (2018, 
entire; 2020, entire), we consider the current range of Hemileuca maia 
menyanthevora as Oswego County, NY, and Ontario, Canada. The historical 
range also included Jefferson County, NY (see below). We find this 
genetic evidence documented by Dupuis et al. markedly more persuasive 
than the host plant information that Pavulaan (2020, entire; pers. 
comm., 2020) relied upon when he included the Wisconsin sites in his 
designation without specimens from those sites. The Oswego County, NY, 
and Ontario range is consistent with the range described when the 
Service originally considered the bog buck moth (Hemileuca sp.) as a 
Category 2 candidate in 1991 (56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991). It is 
also consistent with the range described by NatureServe (2020, pp. 1-
4), COSEWIC (2009, pp. 5, 7), and Cryan and Dirig (2020, entire).

Physical Description, Life History, and Range

    Bog buck moth adults have black bodies and black/gray translucent 
wings with wide, white wing bands and an eyespot (COSEWIC 2009, p. 5; 
NatureServe 2015, p. 4). Bog buck moths have forewing lengths of 22 to 
36 millimeters (mm) (0.9 to 1.4 inches (in)) (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 
121; Pavulaan 2020, p. 9). Males and females are generally similar in 
appearance with a few morphological differences. Similar to all 
saturniids, males have highly branched, feather-like antennae with 
receptors that respond to female pheromones (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 
14), and females have simple antennae. Males also have a red-tipped 
abdomen while females do not; males are also slightly smaller than 
females (COSEWIC 2009, p. 5). In addition, both male and female adults 
are larger than other Hemileuca maia and have similar highly 
translucent wings as H. lucina. White wing bands are much larger than 
other H. maia (Cryan and Dirig 2020, p. 26; Pavulaan 2020, p. 9).
    Late instar larvae are dark with reddish orange branched urticating 
(stinging) spines dorsally, and a reddish-brown head capsule and 
prolegs (COSEWIC 2009, p. 6). Initially egg rings are light green 
(Cryan and Dirig 2020, p. 26) and fade to light brown or tan (Sime 
2020, pers. comm.). Mature larvae are

[[Page 15923]]

usually predominantly black with small white dots and lack yellow 
markings compared to other Hemileuca maia (COSEWIC 2009, p. 6; 
NatureServe 2015, p. 4; Cryan and Dirig 2020, p. 26).
    The bog buck moth is restricted to open, calcareous, low shrub fens 
containing large amounts of Menyanthes trifoliata (COSEWIC 2009, p. 10) 
(referred to herein as bog buckbean, but also known as bogbean or 
buckbean). Fens are classified along a gradient that ranges from rich 
fens to poor fens based on their water chemistry and plant community 
structure. Rich fens receive more mineral-rich groundwater than poor 
fens, which results in higher conductivity, pH, and calcium and 
magnesium ion concentrations (Vitt and Chee 1990, p. 97). The sites in 
New York are considered medium fens (New York Natural Heritage Program 
[NYNHP] 2020a, p. 3). Medium fens are fed by waters that are moderately 
mineralized, with pH values generally ranging from 4.5 to 6.5 (Olivero 
2001, p. 15). Medium fens often occur as a narrow transition zone 
between a stream or lake and either a swamp or an upland community 
(Olivero 2001, p. 15). The dominant species in medium fens are usually 
woolly-fruit sedge (Carex lasiocarpa) and sweetgale (Myrica gale), with 
a variety of characteristic shrubs and herbs generally less than 5 
meters (m) (16.4 feet (ft)) in height (NYNHP 2020b, pp. 5-11). Bog 
rosemary (Andromeda glaucophylla), leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne 
calyculata), cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon), spatulate-leaved sundew 
(Drosera intermedia), three-way sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum var. 
arundinaceum), and green arrow arum (Peltandra virginica) are 
characteristic only of medium fens, compared to any of the other 
calcareous fens found in New York (Olivero 2001, p. 14).
    In Ontario, the bog buck moth is found in calcareous fens with bog 
buckbean. The fens are either low shrub dominated by sweetgale, bog 
birch (Betula pumila), bog willow (Salix pedicellaris) and other 
willows, but with patches of open fen dominated by sedges and water 
horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), or primarily open fens dominated by 
sedges such as woolly-fruit sedge, smooth sawgrass (Cladium 
mariscoides), and American common reed (Phragmites australis ssp. 
americanus) surrounded by conifer swamp (COSEWIC 2009, p. 10).
    The life cycle of a bog buck moth is similar to other Hemileuca 
species and generally completed within 1 year (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 
103). Nonfeeding adults emerge in the fall. Males and females differ in 
flight patterns, with males flying large, circular paths and females 
making short, low, direct frequent flights (Pryor 1998, p. 133). Adult 
males fly for longer periods as well, covering the open area of the fen 
for approximately 10 minutes compared to females flying short distances 
lasting a matter of seconds (Pryor 1998, p. 133). After mating, female 
buck moths lay one large cluster of eggs on sturdy stems of a variety 
of plant species. The eggs overwinter until the following spring when 
they hatch into larvae. While early instar larvae rely primarily on the 
host plant bog buckbean (Stanton 2000, p. 2), eggs are never laid on 
these plants as they die back each year rendering them unavailable for 
overwintering. Pupation occurs by mid-July, and the pupal stage lasts 
about 2 months. While not documented in bog buck moth, in other 
Hemileuca species (including H. maia maia), individual pupae may remain 
dormant until the following fall or possibly the fall after that (Cryan 
and Dirig 1977, p. 10; Tuskes et al. 1996, pp. 103, 114).
    All populations are located within the beds of former glacial Lake 
Iroquois (Cryan and Dirig 2020, p. 27) and Champlain Sea (COSEWIC 2009, 
p. 9). The present distribution may be relict populations as a result 
of a postglacial expansion by Hemileuca from western North America, and 
subsequent isolation in fens and bogs as forests gradually reclaimed 
postglacial wetland habitats (Pryor 1998, p. 138). Glacial retreat left 
suitable habitat in disjointed patches (Gradish and Tonge 2011, p. 6). 
Based on genetic findings, bog buck moth populations may have been more 
historically widespread along the wetlands around Lake Ontario (Dupuis 
et al. 2020, p. 4).
    While we do not have a full understanding of the historical 
distribution of the bog buck moth, there are records from three 
populations in New York and two in Ontario, Canada. Currently, there 
are four populations known. In Canada, the White Lake population 
comprises two sites or subpopulations (White Lake North and White Lake 
South). The Richmond Fen population comprises two sites or 
subpopulations (Richmond Fen North and Richmond Fen South). In the 
United States, the Lakeside population occurs along the eastern shore 
of Lake Ontario in Oswego County, NY, and comprises five sites or 
subpopulations (referred to as Lakeside 1 to Lakeside 5). To the 
southwest, the Oswego Inland Site population occurs in Oswego County, 
NY, and is a single site with two fen openings with metapopulation 
dynamics operating at a smaller scale. The fifth historically known 
population located in Jefferson County, NY, was identified based on 
specimens collected in the 1950s, but the site is no longer suitable 
for the bog buck moth. There are no other known populations of bog buck 
moth in New York State (Service 2021, pp. 27, 63-64). The bog buck moth 
is sedentary (nonmigratory) and therefore present within suitable 
habitat year-round with small movements of 0.5 kilometers (km) (0.3 
miles (mi)) within suitable habitat described as ``common'' 
(NatureServe 2015, p. 5). While bog buck moth populations were 
previously described as individuals separated by areas of unsuitable 
habitat greater than 2 km (1.24 mi) or areas of suitable habitat 
greater than 10 km (6.2 mi) with some infrequent dispersal events at 
slightly longer distances between unsuitable patches (NatureServe 2015, 
p. 5), movements are now described as ``should be capable of flying 
several to many kilometers, but seldom leaves habitat'' NatureServe 
(2020, p. 5). In New York, some movement likely occurs between sites 
that are close together. Isolation of populations is likely increased 
by the short-lived adult stage (not much time for adults to fly far) 
(COSEWIC 2009, p. 15). Adult females that do make short flights are 
laden with hundreds of eggs.
    Bog buck moth dispersal events have not been historically observed. 
However, adult bog buck moths have the potential to disperse with 
strong winds or powered flight if surrounding vegetation does not 
impede them (Pryor 1998, p. 138). More recently, three males were 
captured in unsuitable habitat located between the Lakeside 1 and 
Lakeside 2 sites in New York (Stanton 2004, p. 7), supporting the 
theory that some movement outside of suitable habitat can occur but 
well within the 2-km (1.24-mi) distance discussed above. We conclude 
that most movements are likely to be limited to the highly localized 
fen habitat but that infrequent male dispersal events of a few 
kilometers are possible. In addition, although we would expect most 
wind events to primarily disperse males due to their longer localized 
flights, even less frequent, but possibly longer, wind dispersal events 
of either sex may occur.
    It is unlikely that other bog buck moth populations exist besides 
the ones mentioned above. Fairly extensive but unsuccessful searches 
for bog buck moths have been conducted at other potentially suitable 
wetland habitats in Ontario, and no new sites have been found (COSEWIC 
2009, pp. 9-10). Given the degree of interest by naturalists in these 
natural areas and the diurnal habits of this large distinctive species, 
the probability of undiscovered Ontario

[[Page 15924]]

bog buck moth populations is low (COSEWIC 2009, p. 10).
    The story is similar in New York State. Researchers sought out 
additional populations during years of exploring the bed of former 
glacial Lake Iroquois and its tributaries and outlets, and while they 
found some fens with bog buckbean, they found no additional sites with 
bog buck moths (Cryan and Dirig 2020, pp. 4-5). In addition, 
researchers have visited fens in New York for many years and likely 
would have observed the highly conspicuous larvae on bog buckbean or 
adult male moths, which are readily visible due to their lengthy, 
localized flight pattern, had they been present.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations 
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the 
same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species 
listed as threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the 
Service's general protective regulations automatically applying to 
threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies 
to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
    The regulations that are in effect and therefore applicable to this 
final rule are 50 CFR part 424, as amended by (a) revisions that we 
issued jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2019 
regarding both the listing, delisting, and reclassification of 
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019); and 
(b) revisions that we issued in 2019 eliminating for species listed as 
threatened species are September 26, 2019, the Service's general 
protective regulations that had automatically applied to threatened 
species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies to 
endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, 
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected 
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all the 
threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative 
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that 
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing 
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines 
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' 
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative 
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in 
the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the 
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the 
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable 
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means 
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the 
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to 
depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable 
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable 
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and 
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and 
to the species' responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be listed as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis 
that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further 
application of standards within the Act and its implementing 
regulations and policies.
    To assess bog buck moth viability, we used the three conservation 
biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the 
ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic 
stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,

[[Page 15925]]

warm or cold years), redundancy is the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, drought, large pollution 
events), and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to 
both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological 
environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, 
species viability will increase with increases in resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these 
principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for 
survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species 
levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the 
species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
levels, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket FWS-R5-ES-
2021-0029 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    For this final rule, we reviewed the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not 
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also 
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the 
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the 
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and 
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis 
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then 
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be 
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. 
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the 
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Individual, Subpopulation, and Species Needs

    The primary requirements for individual bog buck moths include 
suitable conditions that support fen ecosystems; perennial plants with 
bare sections of sturdy, small stems above substrate near bog buckbean 
to provide shelter for eggs; the presence of bog buckbean and other 
plants to provide shelter and food for larvae; and appropriate flying 
weather of warm fall days with periods of no rain and low winds during 
the adult life stage.
    Bog buck moths require medium fens (Olivero 2001, p. 15) with a 
variety of shrubs and herbs, including the bog buckbean, that are 
generally less than 5 m (16.4 ft) in height (NYNHP 2020b, pp. 5-11). 
Bog buck moths also depend on shifting mosaics of early successional 
fen habitat created by regular disturbance (such as periodic flooding) 
(Cryan and Dirig 2020, p. 28). Without disturbances, as with other 
early successional habitats, vegetation succession will occur; however, 
in fens with intact hydrology, this succession occurs very slowly.
    The bog buck moth is univoltine (single adult flight period). The 
flight period lasts 4 weeks, generally from mid-September to October 
(Pryor 1998, p. 134; Stanton 2000, p. 15; Schmidt 2020, pers. comm.). 
Adults are diurnal (fly during the day), avoiding cooler fall night 
temperatures (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 12; Pryor 1998, p. 133). Bog buck 
moths fly when temperatures are generally above 68 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F) (20 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) and when winds are less than 24 
kilometers per hour (kmph) (15 miles per hour (mph)) (Stanton 1998, pp. 
19-20, 29).
    Female bog buck moths mate once and deposit eggs (Pryor 1998, p. 
129; Stanton 1998, p. 8) around bare sections of rigid, vertical plant 
stems (Stanton 2000, p. 11). Unlike other Hemileuca species (Tuskes et 
al. 1996, p. 103), bog buck moths do not lay eggs on their primary 
larval host plants (Legge et al. 1996, p. 88; Stanton 2000, pp. 2, 11). 
Eggs overwinter and hatch into larvae in the spring.
    Bog buck moth larvae require bog buckbean and other host plant 
species. During the early instars, bog buckbean is the primary food 
source for the larvae; however, later instars will feed on a larger 
variety of host plants. Overall, bog buckbean is essential, but other 
foodplants may be important, particularly in later larval stages. 
Please refer to the SSA report for a list of documented larval host 
plants and oviposition plants (Service 2021, pp. 13-14).
    Healthy or highly resilient populations are those that are able to 
respond to and recover from stochastic events (e.g., flooding, storms) 
and normal year-to-year environmental variation (e.g., temperature, 
rainfall). Simply said, healthy populations are those able to sustain 
themselves through good and bad years. For the SSA, we defined 
viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. The bog buck moth needs multiple healthy populations 
(resiliency). The more populations, and the wider the distribution of 
those populations (redundancy), the less likely that the species as a 
whole will be negatively impacted if an area of the species' range is 
negatively affected by a catastrophic event, and the more likely that 
natural gene flow and ecological processes will be maintained (Wolf et 
al. 2015, pp. 205-206). Species that are well distributed across their 
historical range are less susceptible to the risk of extinction as a 
result of a catastrophic event than species confined to smaller areas 
of their historical range.
    Furthermore, diverse and widespread populations of bog buck moth 
may contribute to the adaptive diversity (representation) of the 
species if redundant populations are adapting to different conditions. 
In considering what may be important to capture in terms of 
representation for the bog buck moth, we identified two primary means 
of defining bog buck moth diversity: genetic differences and potential 
adaptation to variation in climatic conditions across latitudinal 
gradients.
    Gene flow is influenced by the degree of connectivity and landscape 
permeability (Lankau et al. 2011, p. 320). Gene flow may be somewhat 
limited among bog buck moth populations due to their rare and patchy 
distributions and sedentary (nonmigratory) behavior. The Oswego Inland 
Site population is genetically distinct from the nearest of the 
Lakeside populations (which is about 30 km (18.6 mi) away), although 
there is or was likely some limited migration between them (Buckner et 
al. 2014, pp. 510-512). In addition, while an unambiguously close 
relationship was found between the bog buck moth specimens from

[[Page 15926]]

Ontario and the populations in Oswego County, NY, both of these 
populations formed distinct sister clusters (Dupuis et al. 2020, pp. 2-
3). Maintaining populations in both Canada and New York is important to 
conserve this genetic diversity.
    The bog buck moth has a fairly narrow distribution; however, Lake 
Ontario influences local climatic conditions, and, at more northern 
latitudes, the Canadian populations experience colder winters. In 
Ottawa, Canada, average monthly temperatures range from 5.4 to 21.6 
[deg]F (-14.8 to -5.8 [deg]C) in January to 60 to 79.7 [deg]F (15.5 to 
26.5 [deg]C) in July, and average yearly snowfall is 88 in (2.23 m). In 
Oswego, NY (directly on Lake Ontario), temperatures range from 18 to 30 
[deg]F (-7.8 to -1.1 [deg]C) in January to 63 to 79 [deg]F (17.2 to 
26.1 [deg]C) in July, and average yearly snowfall is 141 in (3.58 m). 
Adult males have been documented to fly 3 to 5 days earlier at the 
Oswego Inland Site compared to Lakeside 2, potentially due to the 
climate-tempering effects of Lake Ontario on the Lakeside 2 site 
(Stanton 1998, p. 26). Maintaining populations across historical 
latitudinal and climatic gradients increases the likelihood that the 
species will retain the potential for adaptation over time. Local 
adaptation to temperature, precipitation, host plants, and community 
interactions has been identified for butterflies and is anticipated for 
the bog buck moth (Aardema et al. 2011, pp. 295-297).

Risk Factors for the Bog Buck Moth

    The primary factors currently influencing bog buck moth population 
health are inherent factors (e.g., narrow habitat niche) and several 
external factors resulting in loss or alteration of habitat or directly 
influencing demographic rates. As discussed above, bog buck moths are 
found in medium fens. Medium fens are listed as imperiled or vulnerable 
in New York (NYNHP 2020b, p. 2). Threats to medium fens include 
hydrological change, habitat alteration in the adjacent landscape, 
development, and recreational overuse (NYNHP 2020b, p. 3). Fens are 
especially sensitive to relatively small changes in hydrology (van 
Diggelen et al. 2006, p. 159). Additionally, several medium fens where 
bog buck moths occur in New York are negatively impacted by invasive 
species, such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), common reed 
(Phragmites australis), and buckthorn (Rhamnus spp.) (NYNHP 2020b, p. 
3). In Canada, the most significant threat to the bog buck moth is 
habitat degradation either due to alteration of the water regime within 
the species' habitat or the invasion of habitat by nonnative plant 
species (COSEWIC 2009, p. 18; Environment Canada 2015, p. 7). Several 
sources of habitat alteration identified at bog buck moth sites are 
discussed below. We do not fully understand the cause of declines at 
bog buck moth sites, and so it is likely that additional factors (e.g., 
predation, disease, pesticides) are important. For a comprehensive 
discussion of the primary factors as well as these other likely 
stressors, please refer to chapter 3 of the SSA report (Service 2021, 
pp. 26-50).

Change in Water Levels

    Water level changes can directly kill individuals (e.g., flooding 
of pupae) or result in changes in habitat suitability and availability. 
Flooding can result in reductions in suitable oviposition sites, larval 
food sources and shelter, or pupation sites. Below, we discuss water 
management as it pertains to the Canadian and U.S. populations.
Water Level Management--Canadian Populations
    Both White Lake subpopulations are influenced by manipulation of 
the White Lake outlet dam in the town of White Lake (Schmidt 2020, 
pers. comm.), and large fluctuations may cause mortality (COSEWIC 2009, 
p. 18). Alteration of the water regime can be mitigated or avoided 
through appropriate water management policies, actions, and land 
stewardship techniques; however, there were no clear prescriptive 
actions provided (Environment Canada 2015, p. 7). The Strategy for the 
Bogbean Buckmoth in Ontario (Ontario Recovery Strategy) includes 
recovery actions to understand the specific hydrology of Richmond Fen 
wetlands and the White Lake wetlands and to work with stakeholders to 
mitigate impacts from land use change, particularly water level 
manipulation at White Lake (Gradish and Tonge 2011, pp. 12-13). We have 
no information to indicate these actions have been initiated to date, 
and Ontario's 5-year review of the bog buck moth (OMNRF 2017, pp. 11-
17) does not mention anything about these specific actions. However, 
through regulation, Ontario formally designated ``habitat'' for the bog 
buck moth in 2014 (Environment Canada 2015, p. 9). Environment Canada 
then adopted the description of bog buck moth ``habitat'' as ``critical 
habitat'' in the Federal recovery strategy (Environment Canada 2015, p. 
10). The designation includes a list of activities that alter the fen's 
water regime as those likely to destroy critical habitat for the buck 
moth (Environment Canada 2015, p. 17). We will discuss more information 
about Ontario and Canadian laws and regulations in Conservation 
Measures, below.
Water Level Management--U.S. Populations
    Water level management resulted in the extirpation of a Jefferson 
County, NY, population in the 1970s (Bonanno and White 2011, p. 9) by 
flooding the fen habitat and creating a freshwater marsh. The site is 
currently being maintained by the New York State Office of Parks, 
Recreation and Historic Preservation as a marsh for flood control, 
septic system management, and New York State-listed endangered black 
tern (Chlidonias niger) habitat (Bonanno 2020, pers. comm.). However, 
it is no longer suitable habitat for the bog buck moth. The Lakeside 
population is currently influenced by water levels associated with 
management of Lake Ontario through regulation of the Moses-Saunders 
hydroelectric dam and precipitation events. The St. Lawrence River is 
located at the northeast end of Lake Ontario and is the natural outlet 
for the Great Lakes. Approximately 160 km (100 mi) downstream from Lake 
Ontario are the structures used to control the flow from Lake Ontario, 
most of which is used by the Moses-Saunders powerhouses (IJC 2014, p. 
4). The International Joint Commission (IJC) and its International Lake 
Ontario-St. Lawrence River Board (Board) oversee management of these 
flows.
    The Lake Ontario water level changes in response to the difference 
between the supply it receives and its outflow. The supply is 
uncontrolled, and the use of the Moses-Saunders Power Dam to change 
outflow provides some control over Lake Ontario water levels, but there 
are limits to the amount of water that can be released (IJC 2014, p. 
5). Most of the episodic changes in Great Lakes water levels over the 
past century are attributable to corresponding changes in annual 
precipitation (Gronewold and Stow 2014, p. 1084). Prior to the 
construction of the dams on the St. Lawrence River, recorded lake 
levels of Lake Ontario from 1860 to 1960 show a pattern of variation 
with highs and lows captured within each decade or so (Wilcox et al. 
2008, p. 302). The historical range of monthly average water levels was 
more than 1.8 m (6 ft) between low and high levels, and the IJC 
recommended regulating within a narrow 1.2-m (4-ft) target from April 
to November (IJC 2014, p. 8). This has resulted in compressing the 
range of Lake Ontario water levels to 0.7 m (2.3 ft) from 1.5 m (5 ft) 
(Wilcox et al. 2008,

[[Page 15927]]

p. 302). The IJC (2014, p. 43) found that regulation of Lake Ontario 
has restricted the natural fluctuation of its water levels, both in 
terms of reducing its extremes and year-to-year variability.
    The existing shoreline vegetation of the Great Lakes depends on 
regular fluctuation in water levels (Keddy and Reznicek 1986, p. 35). 
Fluctuating water levels increase the area of shoreline vegetation and 
the diversity of vegetation types and plant species (Keddy and Reznicek 
1986, p. 35). High lake levels periodically eliminate dense-canopy 
emergent plants, and low lake levels allow less competitive understory 
species to grow (Keddy and Reznicek 1986, entire; Wilcox et al. 2008, 
p. 301).
    Stabilization of Lake Ontario water levels after the construction 
of the Moses-Saunders Power Dam may have subsequently increased cattail 
(Typha spp.) dominance (Rippke et al. 2010, p. 814). Specifically, lack 
of low lake levels shifted the competitive advantage to the taller 
cattails, resulting in loss of large expanses of sedge/grass meadows 
(Wilcox et al. 2008, p. 316). The IJC (2014, p. 43) found that the 
compressed lake level range has allowed trees and shrubs to grow closer 
to the water, and cattails and other emergent plants that tolerate 
persistent flooding to expand their range up the shoreline, reducing 
the sedge meadow plants that occurred in between. Increased cattails 
have been documented at Lakeside bog buck moth subpopulations including 
Lakeside 3 and Lakeside 4 (Bonanno 2020, pers. comm.; Sime 2019, p. 
38). These changes in vegetation from Carex spp., sweet-gale, herbs, 
and shrubs to cattail marsh result in overall habitat loss through 
permanent reductions in the amount of suitable oviposition sites, 
larval food sources, and pupal habitat.
    In addition to the changes in vegetation discussed above, water 
levels can directly impact survival of bog buck moth in various life 
stages. The Lakeside population includes sites that have been described 
as physically ``protected wetlands'' located behind sandbars and 
connected to Lake Ontario by intermittent or indirect surface water 
openings or ground water (Vaccaro et al. 2009, p. 1038). Water levels 
in these sites are greatly influenced by precipitation and highly 
variable depending on their unique connection to Lake Ontario (Vaccaro 
et al. 2009, p. 1045). Barrier beaches along Lake Ontario restrict flow 
out of the wetlands, causing water levels to rise sharply in response 
to local precipitation events in the ``protected wetlands'' (Vaccaro et 
al. 2009, p. 1045). These sharp rises can result in flooding events. 
Although flood events may be related to water level management, they 
are more strongly connected to precipitation events (Gronewold and Stow 
2014, p. 1084) and are further discussed below under Climate Change.
    In addition to the larger scale water level management of Lake 
Ontario, more localized water level management may influence bog buck 
moth sites. Water levels may be influenced by impoundments (human or 
beaver) or roads that restrict flow into or out of the fens. 
Restriction of flow into fens results in drying of sites and increases 
in shrubs. Taller shrubs shade out bog buckbean, reducing optimal 
larval host plants.
    One example of localized water level influences is the impact of a 
road at the Lakeside 1 and Lakeside 2 sites. Historically connected, 
these two sites became separated due in part to the construction of a 
road in the mid-1950s and impoundment in an adjacent management area 
(Bonanno 2006, p. 8). Fen habitat contracted from 6 to 2 ha (15 to 5 
ac) at the Lakeside 1 site and 32.4 to 24.7 ha (80 to 61 ac) at the 
Lakeside 2 site from 1998 to 2001 (Olivero 2001, p. 10). This was 
corroborated with personal observations by Bonanno (2014, p. 6), who 
found that vegetation in the Lakeside 1 site was succeeding to a black 
spruce-tamarack bog forest with deep sphagnum, taller shrubs, and 
scarce bog buckbean. At the Lakeside 2 site, succession is documented 
to the point where significant habitat restoration is required (Bonanno 
2014, p. 5; 2015, p. 7; 2016, p. 8).
    Water levels on Lake Ontario have no direct effect on the Oswego 
Inland Site population, and we are unaware of any smaller scale water 
level management at this site; however, temperature, precipitation, and 
evaporation potential will impact hydrology (Stanton 2004, p. 11) (see 
Climate Change, below).

Change in Vegetation

    Both invasive species and succession can reduce the number of 
suitable oviposition plants and/or larval host plants that are 
available for the bog buck moth. Invasive species and later 
successional plants directly compete for space and nutrients or shade 
out bog buckbean. Changes in the quality or quantity of bog buckbean 
are a potential cause of documented declines in bog buck moths in New 
York (Stanton 2004, p. 11).
    We evaluated the relative threats posed by invasive understory 
species and determined that Typha spp., common reed, and glossy 
buckthorn (Frangula alnus) are currently the primary species that could 
affect population-level dynamics of the bog buck moth. Common reed is 
abundant across the northern hemisphere, including most of the United 
States and the southern portions of Canada (Galatowitsch et al. 1999, 
pp. 739-741). Native fen plants like Myrica gale are reduced with the 
presence of common reed (Richburg et al. 2001, p. 253).
    Glossy buckthorn is a shrub of Eurasian origin that is aggressive 
in bogs and fens. Drier portions or less frequently inundated sections 
of wetlands with available hummock surfaces are more readily invaded 
(Berg et al. 2016, p. 1370). Glossy buckthorn displaces or shades out 
native fen plant species (Fiedler and Landis 2012, pp. 41, 44, 51). Bog 
buckbean typically does not grow well in shade (Hewett 1964, p. 730), 
although it can be found in shaded areas of some fens (Helquist 2020, 
pers. comm.). Glossy buckthorn transpiration in mid-summer has been 
shown to lower the water table (Godwin 1943, p. 81), resulting in 
faster decomposition rates and reduction of hummocks in sites (Fiedler 
and Landis 2012, pp. 41, 44, 51). Sites with glossy buckthorn also have 
lower soil pH, although it is unclear whether buckthorn invaded these 
areas more frequently or created this change (Fiedler and Landis 2012, 
p. 51).
    As stated above, in Canada, the primary threat to bog buck moth 
populations includes habitat degradation from cattails, common reed, 
and glossy buckthorn (COSEWIC 2009, p. 18; Gradish and Tonge 2011, pp. 
6-7; Environment Canada 2015, p. 7). These plants occur in or adjacent 
to all Ontario sites and pose an ongoing and future threat of habitat 
reduction. While invasive plant species have been found within or near 
all four sites where the bog buck moth is known to occur in Ontario, 
the risk posed by these species can be assessed regularly through 
targeted monitoring, and, to the extent feasible, invasive plant 
control can be employed as appropriate and necessary to help mitigate 
this threat (Environment Canada 2015, p. 7). Invasive vegetation 
control would likely require long-term management.
    These species are also documented at the New York sites. For 
example, glossy buckthorn makes up a substantial portion of the shrubby 
component at Lakeside 5 and is present at the Oswego Inland Site 
(Bonanno 2006, p. 7; 2013, p. 2). Cattail had been expanding at the 
Oswego Inland Site, and Bonanno (2013, p. 2) noted the only obvious 
change in potential drivers of vegetation was the large expansion of a 
subdivision along the lakeshore. Narrow-leaved cattail (Typha 
angustifolia) encroachment at the Oswego Inland Site

[[Page 15928]]

has been managed sporadically prior to 2016, and annually from 2016 to 
2020 (Helquist 2020, pers. comm.). Other invasive species management 
projects have also been undertaken at the Oswego Inland Site and 
Lakeside 5; however, invasive plants remain at these sites. In 
addition, several clones of both the introduced and the native 
Phragmites spp. occur near bog buck moth habitat at Lakeside 3 (Bonanno 
2004, p. 9).
    There may be multiple sources of vegetation succession, including 
natural succession from early successional to late successional plant 
species, as well as human-induced or accelerated succession from 
sources such as increased nutrient input (enrichment) and altered 
wetland hydrology (discussed above under Change in Water Levels). Here, 
we provide some additional details about nutrient input.
    Fens are characterized by a very low supply of nitrogen and 
phosphorous (Bedford and Godwin 2003, p. 614), and many fens in New 
York are degraded by altered hydrology or by nitrate moving in ground 
water, by phosphate adsorbed to sediment in runoff, or by altered water 
chemistry caused by development within fen watersheds (Drexler and 
Bedford 2002, p. 278; Bedford and Godwin 2003, p. 617). Nutrient 
loading of a fen in New York (not a bog buck moth site) resulted in 
reductions in species richness of both vascular plants and bryophytes 
and increases in monotypic stands of bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis 
canadensis), lake sedge (Carex lacustris), hairy willow herb (Epilobium 
hirsutum), and broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), especially in an 
area adjacent to a farm field (Drexler and Bedford 2002, pp. 276-278). 
Dense cover reduces fen biodiversity through direct space competition, 
or by reducing seedling growth from decreased available light and 
increased litter layer (Jensen and Meyer 2001, pp. 173-179).
    Increased nutrient inputs have been documented at both the Lakeside 
and Oswego Inland Site populations (Service 2021, p. 36). The Lakeside 
3 and 4 sites are adjacent to a recreational vehicle (RV) campground 
that may contribute to nutrient enrichment encouraging growth of the 
invasive common reed. The Lakeside 2 site is subject to surface water 
inputs from the adjacent pond, the Lakeside 1 site is surrounded by 
seasonal camps and an RV campground, and the Lakeside 5 site is abutted 
by a very large RV campground. The Oswego Inland Site has seen recent 
residential development along the lake shoreline.

Parasitoids

    Parasitoids are small insects whose immature stages develop within 
or attached to their host insects. Unlike parasites, which typically 
feed upon hosts without killing them, parasitoids eventually kill their 
hosts. Most saturniids are attacked during the larval stage, and late 
instar larvae often suffer heavy losses (Tuskes et al. 1996, pp. 25-
27). For the bog buck moth, parasitism of egg masses has been 
documented; while larval parasitoids have not been directly observed, 
they are also believed to be the cause of mortality (COSEWIC 2009, p. 
17).
    Nearly all of the bog buck moth egg masses found at the Lakeside 1 
site since 1996 were parasitized by the native wasp Anastatus furnissi 
(Burks) (Stanton 2000, p. 4), and it is plausible that the wasp was the 
primary mortality factor at other Lakeside subpopulations (Stanton 
2000, p. 13). Wasp parasitism of egg masses has also been documented at 
the Oswego Inland Site (Sime 2019, p. 15). The parasitism rates do not 
appear to be density-dependent, as parasitism levels have been 
consistent at the Lakeside and Oswego Inland Site populations at 25 to 
30 percent of egg clusters affected per year since 2009, while bog buck 
moth populations have undergone dramatic fluctuations in that time 
period (Sime 2019, p. 15).
    Larval parasitoids are common in Hemileuca species (Tuskes et al. 
1996, p. 103). Parasitoids can include native and nonnative species, 
such as the native ichneumonid wasp Hyposoter fugitivus (Say) and 
tachinid fly Leschenaultia fulvipes (Bigot), and the introduced 
tachinid fly Compsilura concinnata (Meigen) for the control of gypsy 
moths (Lymantria dispar). Although C. concinnata is likely present at 
the Canadian sites, no evidence of parasitism of bog buck moth has been 
reported (Wood 2020, pers. comm., as cited in COSEWIC 2009, p. 14). 
Parasitism is assumed to be occurring at the Canadian populations 
(COSEWIC 2009, p. 17). Similarly, while not documented at the bog buck 
moth sites in the United States, we find the New York populations are 
likely to be susceptible to larval parasitism from the tachinid fly and 
other parasitoids and observed boom/bust cycles may be related to such 
parasitism. A 2016 report identified a crash of adult bog buck moths at 
the Oswego Inland Site after abundant larvae of all sizes were observed 
in May and June. The report suggested further investigation into larval 
or pupal parasitoids as a possible cause (Bonanno 2016, p. 5).
    If bog buck moths are not killed by predators (e.g., small mammals 
and other invertebrates) or parasitoids, larval behavior may still be 
affected by the presence of predators or parasitoids. Early instar 
larvae tend to stay together and defend themselves, while late instar 
larvae disperse, leading to increased subdivision of clusters (Cornell 
et al. 1987, p. 387). At sites with higher predator or parasitoid 
densities, bog buck moth larvae likely experience slower growth rates, 
prolonged development, and reduced body mass (Stamp and Bowers 1990, p. 
1037) because they would be forced to forage closer to the center of 
plants where it is cooler and where older, lower quality leaves are 
present.

Climate Change

    While there are many possible effects to bog buck moths from 
climate change into the future, here we focus on the effects to bog 
buck moths from observed changes in precipitation and temperature to 
date.
    Lake Ontario water levels naturally fluctuate within and among 
years; however, record high water levels have recently occurred, 
resulting in impacts to bog buck moth sites. Between 1951 and 2017, the 
total precipitation with the Great Lakes Basin increased by 
approximately 14 percent with heavy precipitation events increasing by 
35 percent (Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program 
2019, entire). After 15 years of below-average water levels on Lake 
Superior and Lake Michigan-Huron, water levels of the upper Great Lakes 
started rising in 2013 and have been well above average for several 
years (Board 2020, p. 7). With all of the Great Lakes water levels 
above or near record-highs, the increase represented an unprecedented 
volume of water in the Great Lakes system funneled into Lake Ontario 
and out the St. Lawrence River (Board 2020, p. 7), resulting in the 
Lakeside population fens being vulnerable to flooding for an extended 
period of time. Flooding that negatively impacts bog buck moths can be 
described as longer duration flooding, as long-term flooding of bog 
buck moth fens submerges vegetation and makes the site unsuitable for 
most life stages and may directly kill individuals. In contrast, 
periodic flooding that is shorter in duration helps maintain habitat 
suitability. Furthermore, bog buck moth eggs can tolerate short-term 
submersion but are not viable after long-term flooding events (Service 
2021, p. 34).
    Two high-water events across the entire Great Lakes basin caused by 
above-normal precipitation (January to

[[Page 15929]]

May 2017, and November 2018 through May 2019) compounded the already 
high-water levels in the Great Lakes basin (Board 2020, pp. 6-9). These 
events resulted in long-term submersion of bog buck moth eggs and 
subsequent crashes in adult flights at Lakeside 5. In addition to 
changes in water levels, climate change has also brought about changes 
in temperature. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (2011, p. 1) 
reported the average temperature in Ontario has gone up by as much as 
2.5 [deg]F (1.4 [deg]C) since 1948. Similarly, between 1951 and 2017, 
the average annual temperature in the Great Lakes Region has increased 
by 2.3 [deg]F (1.3 [deg]C) (GLISA 2019, entire). We have no detailed 
studies to assess whether observed declines in bog buck moth counts of 
the U.S. populations are related to these increased annual 
temperatures. However, seasonal changes in temperature can influence 
the form of precipitation and snowpack in winter and shifts in 
phenology. For example, the timing of fall flights may be shifting to 
later in September. Bog buck moth monitoring windows have been 
September 12 to 26 at the Oswego Inland Site and September 18 to 
October 1 at the Lakeside sites since surveys began, and in recent 
years there has been little or no activity near the beginning of the 
survey window (Bonanno 2019, pp. 1-2).
    Throughout the Great Lakes Basin, average winter minimum and 
maximum temperatures increased from 1960 to 2009 by 3.24 and 1.98 
[deg]F (1.8 and 1.1 [deg]C), respectively (Suriano et al. 2019, pp. 6-
8). Increased winter temperatures are associated with decreases in 
Great Lakes ice cover and increases in winter precipitation occurring 
as rain. Increased temperatures may also reduce snowpack, impacting bog 
buck moth food sources. During the first half of the 20th century, the 
Great Lakes basin experienced an increase in snowfall; however, 
snowfall has declined through the latter half of the 20th and early 
21st centuries (Baijnath-Rodino et al. 2018, p. 3947). Similarly, snow 
depth in the Great Lakes Basin reduced approximately 25 percent from 
1960 to 2009 (Suriano et al. 2019, p. 4). Trends during this timeframe 
are variable by subbasin, and there were no significant trends for the 
Lake Ontario subbasin (Suriano et al. 2019, p. 5). At a finer scale (1 
degree latitude by 1 degree longitude grids), there were also no 
significant changes observed for snow depth or snowfall for the grid 
along Lake Ontario that includes the bog buck moth sites, but there was 
a significant increase of the number of ablation events (i.e., snow 
mass loss from melt, sublimation, or evaporation) (Suriano et al. 2019, 
pp. 6-7). These events are associated with rapid snow melt and often 
lead to localized flooding.
    Snowpack reductions lead to longer periods of frost, earlier 
disappearance of standing water, deeper frost levels, and reduced bog 
buckbean biomass (Benoy et al. 2007, pp. 505-508). Reduced bog buckbean 
will negatively affect bog buck moth larval growth and survival.
    Reduced snowpack can also impact bog buck moths directly; however, 
limited research is available on the impacts to bog buck moth 
associated with the presence, depth, and duration of winter snow. The 
presence of a consistent seasonal snowpack can prevent freeze-thaw 
cycles. While bog buck moths overwinter in the egg stage, which is less 
vulnerable to freezing than other life stages, they may also 
periodically overwinter in the pupal stage, which would be vulnerable 
to these cycles. Their egg-clustering habit may decrease the amount of 
egg surface exposed to ambient conditions and reduce the possibility of 
desiccation (Stamp 1980, p. 369). However, eggs that are not covered by 
snowpack are exposed to increased risk of predation.
    Increased temperatures in winter and early spring may lead to 
earlier egg hatch. As temperatures have increased, many insects have 
been emerging earlier (temperature-induced emergence) (Patterson et al. 
2020, p. 2), resulting in phenological mismatch with host plants. For 
example, Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) larvae have 
been known to hatch earlier than the host plant, wild blue lupine 
(Lupinus perennis), after unseasonably warm late-winter temperatures 
(Patterson et al. 2020, p. 6). Similar to the Karner blue butterfly, 
bog buck moth early instar larvae rely on specific host plants and are 
at greater risk of impacts from phenological mismatch than species with 
wide host plant usage. Earlier spring hatch followed by subsequent 
spring freezes also increases the risk of mortality of early instar 
larvae.
    Overall, interacting changes in temperature and precipitation are 
highly influential in terms of flooding or drying out bog buck moth 
sites. There may be additional compounding effects from changes in 
temperature associated with shifts in phenology or reduced snowpack, 
but we lack sufficient information on those potential relationships.

Conservation Measures

New York Populations
    The bog buck moth was listed as endangered by the State of New York 
in 1999 and is protected by New York's Environmental Conservation Law 
(Consolidated Laws of New York, chapter--Environmental Conservation, 
article 11, title 5, section 11-0535) and the New York Code of Rules 
and Regulations (NYCRR) in title 6, subchapter J, part 182. An 
incidental take permit is required for any proposed project that may 
result in a take of bog buck moths, including, but not limited to, 
actions that may kill or harm individual animals or result in the 
adverse modification, degradation, or destruction of habitat occupied 
by the bog buck moth. Additionally, the bog buck moth is a Species of 
Greatest Conservation Need in the NYSDEC's Comprehensive Wildlife 
Conservation Strategy (NYSDEC 2005, appendix 5, pp. 14-17; NYSDEC 2015, 
not numbered). NYSDEC has a draft recovery plan for the bog buck moth 
(Bonanno and White 2011, entire) that has not been finalized.
    All known populations are in conservation ownership (i.e., State or 
private lands managed for conservation) and are protected from direct 
negative impacts to their habitat (e.g., wetland fill associated with 
roads or development). Habitat management has been conducted at a few 
of these sites, but invasive plants and/or vegetation succession have 
reduced the amount of available habitat at most sites and remain an 
ongoing threat. The State of New York provides protection for wetlands 
greater than 12.4 acres in size or of unusual local importance (NYSDEC 
1997, p. 5). Regulated activities within the wetland or adjacent buffer 
require permits from the NYSDEC. In addition, in accordance with 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to regulate discharge of 
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including 
wetlands of any size. In New York, placing fill into bogs and fens is 
not authorized under the Nationwide Permit Program.
Canadian Populations
    The bog buck moth was recommended for listing as endangered by 
COSEWIC in 2009 (COSEWIC 2009, entire), listed as endangered under the 
Ontario Endangered Species Act in 2010, and listed as endangered on 
Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2012. These listings 
provided the bog buck moth protection from

[[Page 15930]]

being killed, harmed, harassed, captured, or taken in Canada.
    The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (Ministry) 
published a recovery strategy for the bog buck moth on December 7, 2011 
(Gradish and Tonge 2011, entire). Major actions identified in the plan 
include improving monitoring standards for the bog buck moth, assessing 
the risk posed by invasive species, and evaluating the hydrology of the 
species' habitat. In 2017, the Ministry published a 5-year review of 
progress towards the protection and recovery of the bog buck moth 
(Ministry 2017, pp. 11-17). Initial progress has been made towards 
assessing the risk posed to the bog buck moth by invasive species and, 
where appropriate, implementing invasive species control within and 
adjacent to occupied fen ecosystems.
    Bog buck moth habitat has generally been afforded protection from 
authorized damage or destruction in Canada since the species was listed 
in Ontario in 2010. Bog buck moth habitat is further protected through 
Ontario habitat regulation and Federal critical habitat protection. 
Section 41(1)(c) of SARA requires that recovery strategies include an 
identification of the species' ``critical habitat,'' to the extent 
possible, as well as examples of activities that are likely to result 
in its destruction (Environment Canada 2015, p. 9). Environment Canada 
(2015, p. 10) adopted the description of the bog buck moth ``habitat'' 
under section 24.1.1.1 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 as ``critical 
habitat'' in the Federal recovery strategy. The area defined under 
Ontario's habitat regulation contains the biophysical attributes 
required by the bog buck moth to carry out its life processes. To meet 
specific requirements of SARA, the biophysical attributes of critical 
habitat were further detailed in the Federal strategy (Environment 
Canada 2015, p. 11). However, under SARA, specific requirements and 
processes are set out regarding the finalization of protection of 
critical habitat and whether the prohibition against destruction of 
critical habitat is extended to any non-Federal land. Protection of 
critical habitat under SARA was to be assessed following publication of 
the final bog buck moth Federal recovery strategy (Environment Canada 
2015, p. 10). There is no indication that this assessment has occurred 
to date.

Current Condition

    Similar to other Hemileuca species, bog buck moth populations (and 
subpopulations) experience boom and bust cycles. Table 1 and figure 1, 
below, summarize male peak flight counts at four U.S. subpopulations. 
Three of the subpopulations have crashed and not recovered.

Table 1--Bog Buck Moth Fall Flight Information for the Oswego Inland Site and Three Lakeside Subpopulations, NY,
                                                 22-Year Record
   [Data are site mean of 5-minute counts on the peak date. Zero means a search was made, no moths seen. Empty
cells indicate no data were collected at that site that year. Cells with counts higher than 100 are highlighted.
               Data from Bonanno (2018, p. 4; 2019, p. 4) and Bonanno and Rosenbaum (2020, p. 2).]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Lakeside
                      Date                         Oswego inland -----------------------------------------------
                                                       site         Lakeside 5      Lakeside 3      Lakeside 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................................           171.3  ..............  ..............           242.4
1999............................................            49.6  ..............            10.6           109.4
2000............................................             7.1  ..............            14.8            26.8
2001............................................            16.4  ..............            18.6             4.8
2002............................................            37.1  ..............             3.3             2.2
2003............................................              46  ..............            22.5             6.3
2004............................................           153.2            64.6            21.2            20.2
2005............................................            87.3            51.1  ..............            14.4
2006............................................            81.9           126.8  ..............            26.3
2007............................................            93.7            65.9           212.0            50.0
2008............................................              63            23.0             5.8            14.2
2009............................................              70            48.7             0.7            14.3
2010............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............            10.0
2011............................................            20.2           141.1             0.1             9.4
2012............................................            18.9            46.0             3.0             1.0
2013............................................            21.4             1.0             0.3               0
2014............................................           126.5             3.8               0               0
2015............................................            98.7             6.7  ..............               0
2016............................................             5.0            27.7               0               0
2017............................................             0.7            53.3  ..............  ..............
2018............................................               0            30.7          \1\ >0               0
2019............................................               0            44.4               0  ..............
2020............................................               0  ..............  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (2 total moths).


[[Page 15931]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15MR23.002

    In Canada, the status of many of the populations is unknown due to 
a lack of surveys. Of the four sites found in Canada, only two were 
recently surveyed. The subpopulation at Richmond Fen South was visited 
in 2019, when an estimated minimum of 1,500 early instar larvae were 
found in a small portion of core habitat. Another site visit to the 
same location in early July 2020 documented the presence of hundreds of 
mid-instar larvae. At White Lake North, more than 100 adult moths were 
observed in mid-September 2020. Prior to 2020, larval surveys were 
conducted, and larvae were last observed in 2016, with no surveys in 
2017, and larvae were absent in 2018 and 2019. The status of the two 
other subpopulations in Canada (Richmond Fen North and White Lake 
South) is unknown because no surveys have been conducted at those 
sites.
    It is unlikely that there are other bog buck moth populations 
besides the ones mentioned above. Fairly extensive but unsuccessful 
searches for bog buck moths have been conducted at other potentially 
suitable wetland habitat in Ontario, and no new sites have been found 
(COSEWIC 2009, pp. 9-10). COSEWIC (2009, p. 10) found that, given the 
degree of interest by naturalists in these natural areas and the 
diurnal habits of this large distinctive species, the probability of 
undiscovered Ontario buck moth populations is low.
    The circumstances are similar in New York. Cryan and Dirig (2020, 
pp. 4-5) described several years of exploring the bed of former glacial 
Lake Iroquois and its tributaries and outlets, and while they found 
some fens with bog buckbean, they found no additional sites with bog 
buck moth. In addition, researchers had visited New York fens for many 
years and likely would have observed the highly conspicuous larvae on 
the bog buckbean or flying adult males had they been present. Bonanno 
and White (2011, p. 10) describe multiple visitations to possible 
habitat by NYNHP and researchers familiar with the bog buck moth 
without locating any individuals.
    We evaluated the bog buck moth's current condition by assessing 
whether there were multiple, sufficiently resilient populations spread 
across its geographical extent to maintain its ecological and genetic 
diversity and withstand catastrophic events (see table 2, below). 
Information to date suggests that bog buck moths are genetically 
structured across their range, and we determined that the breadth of 
adaptive diversity can be captured by two representative units, 
Canadian and United States.

[[Page 15932]]



      Table 2--Ecological Requirements for Species-Level Viability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              3Rs                   Requisites             Metric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resiliency (able to withstand   Healthy            Populations with:
 stochastic events).             populations.       Both sexes
                                                    present.
                                                    Sufficient
                                                    survival of all life
                                                    stages.
                                                    Sufficient
                                                    number of bog buck
                                                    moths to survive
                                                    bust portion of boom
                                                    and bust cycles.
                                                    Stable to
                                                    increasing trend
                                                    over last 10 years
                                                    (10 generations).
                                                    Multiple
                                                    occupied suitable
                                                    habitat patches
                                                    within
                                                    metapopulation.
                                                    Sufficient
                                                    habitat size.
                                                    Sufficient
                                                    habitat quality.
                                                    Intact
                                                    hydrology and
                                                    ecological
                                                    processes.
Representation (to maintain     Maintain adaptive  Healthy populations
 evolutionary capacity).         diversity.         distributed across
                                                    areas of unique
                                                    adaptive diversity
                                                    (e.g., across
                                                    latitudinal
                                                    gradients) with
                                                    sufficient
                                                    connectivity for
                                                    periodic genetic
                                                    exchange.
Redundancy (to withstand        Sufficient         Sufficient
 catastrophic events).           distribution of    distribution to
                                 healthy            guard against
                                 populations.       catastrophic events
                                                    significantly
                                                    compromising the
                                                    species' adaptive
                                                    diversity.
                                Sufficient number  Adequate number of
                                 of healthy         healthy populations
                                 populations.       to buffer against
                                                    catastrophic losses
                                                    of adaptive
                                                    diversity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We lacked specific demographic rates for most locations for most 
years; therefore, we used alternative metrics for assessing population 
resiliency (number of bog buck moth adult males observed, presence of 
bog buck moth at multiple subpopulations) and the condition of the 
supporting habitat (habitat quality) (see table 3, below).

                         Table 3--Metrics for Scoring Bog Buck Moth Population Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Condition                   Sufficient number           Connectivity           Suitable habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unknown..............................  Unknown................  Unknown................  Unknown.
Extirpated...........................  Not applicable.........  Not applicable.........  Habitat is completely
                                                                                          unsuitable due to
                                                                                          alteration or loss.
Presumed Extirpated..................  No moths or any other    Not applicable.........  Habitat present and can
                                        life stage were                                   be suitable or
                                        observed during                                   unsuitable given
                                        multiple subsequent                               ``sufficient N''
                                        surveys.                                          results.
Poor.................................  Negative trend over      No subpopulations or if  Insufficient suitable
                                        last 10 years.           subpopulations are       habitat for any of the
                                                                 present each             life stages:
                                                                 subpopulation did not    Insufficient
                                                                 have at least one >0     bog buckbean (<4%
                                                                 count within the last    areal coverage).
                                                                 5 years.                 Relatively
                                                                                          limited oviposition
                                                                                          sites.
                                                                                          Lack of
                                                                                          suitable pupation
                                                                                          sites.
Good.................................  Neutral or positive      Multiple subpopulations  Sufficient suitable
                                        trend over last 10       and >0 count for each    habitat for all life
                                        years.                   subpopulation within     stages:
                                                                 the last 5 years.        Sufficient bog
                                                                                          buckbean (>4% areal
                                                                                          coverage).
                                                                                          Relatively
                                                                                          abundant oviposition
                                                                                          sites.
                                                                                          Suitable
                                                                                          pupation sites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, we are aware of five bog buck moth populations, 
two in Canada and three in New York. We are unaware of any changes to 
the distribution in Canada; however, we have information from only two 
of the four subpopulations. In New York, the Jefferson County site was 
converted to a marsh, having been impounded decades ago by beavers, 
then maintained by management for park flooding control, septic 
management, and black tern habitat (Bonanno 2020, pers. comm.). Of the 
Lakeside subpopulations, only the Lakeside 5 site remains extant. 
Lastly, the Oswego Inland Site population was recently presumed to be 
extirpated.
    Using our ranking methods mentioned above, we find that for all the 
bog buck moth populations in the U.S. Representative Unit, one 
population has been extirpated since the 1970s, one is now presumed 
extirpated, and one is in poor condition (see table 4, below). The 
Lakeside population has experienced multiple sources of habitat loss 
and degradation, and remaining bog buck moths have faced high flood 
years. While these may or may not be the true cause of declines and 
site-level extirpations, they likely contributed to them. The cause of 
decline and the bog buck moth's inability to rebound at the Oswego 
Inland Site is unclear, as flooding has not been a concern at this site 
and seemingly suitable habitat remains. Similar declines at sites with 
apparently suitable habitat have been documented for another endangered 
fen species, the Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek), suggesting 
that other factors (e.g., contaminants, climate change, disease, and 
low levels of genetic diversity) may be driving the current 
distribution and losses (Pogue et al. 2019, pp. 383-386).
    In the Canadian Representative Unit, both populations are in 
unknown/likely good condition. This assessment has a high degree of 
uncertainty given that it is based on current knowledge from half of 
the associated Canadian Representative Unit subpopulations

[[Page 15933]]

(one out of the two subpopulations for each population). Most recently, 
Richmond Fen South had hundreds of mid-instar larvae in early July 
2020, with ample suitable habitat. Richmond Fen North has not had any 
recent moth or larval surveys, but observations during a site visit in 
2015 suggested that the habitat remains in good condition. At White 
Lake North, more than 100 bog buck moth adults were observed in 
September 2020. Prior to that, surveys were based on larvae, with 
larvae last observed in 2016 and none seen in 2018 or 2019. There is no 
information on White Lake South. Although both populations have been 
described as unknown/likely good, invasive species such as cattails, 
common reed, and glossy buckthorn have been identified in the habitat 
and are likely to have a negative effect and reduce the resiliency of 
these populations (COSEWIC 2009, p. 18; Gradish and Tonge 2011, pp. 6-
7; Environment Canada 2015, p. 7).
    Overall, three subpopulations (White Lake North, Richmond Fen 
South, and Lakeside 5) associated with three separate populations are 
known to have remaining bog buck moths. While some genetic diversity 
remains through the current existence of at least one subpopulation 
within each of the representative units, there is no redundancy of 
healthy populations in the U.S. Representative Unit, and there is 
uncertainty about the status of the Canadian Representative Unit.

                              Table 4--Summary of Bog Buck Moth's Current Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                3Rs                        Requisites                   Metric               Current condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resiliency (able to withstand        Healthy populations...  Populations with:            Poor.
 stochastic events).                                          Both sexes          Of the five
                                                              present..                    historically known
                                                              Sufficient           populations:
                                                              survival of all life         one is
                                                              stages..                     extirpated;
                                                              Sufficient number    one is
                                                              of bog buck moths to         presumed extirpated;
                                                              survive bust portion of      one is in
                                                              boom and bust cycles..       poor condition; and
                                                              Stable to            two are in
                                                              increasing trend over last   unknown/likely good
                                                              10 years (10 generations)..  condition.
                                                              Multiple occupied
                                                              suitable habitat patches
                                                              within metapopulation..
                                                              Sufficient habitat
                                                              size..
                                                              Sufficient habitat
                                                              quality..
                                                              Intact hydrology
                                                              and ecological processes..
Representation (able to maintain     Maintain adaptive       Healthy populations          Poor.
 evolutionary capacity).              diversity.              distributed across areas    There are two
                                                              of unique adaptive           potentially healthy
                                                              diversity (e.g., across      populations in the
                                                              latitudinal gradients)       Canadian
                                                              with sufficient              Representative Unit
                                                              connectivity for periodic    and none in the U.S.
                                                              genetic exchange.            Representative Unit.
Redundancy (able to withstand        Sufficient              Sufficient distribution to   Poor.
 catastrophic events).                distribution of         guard against catastrophic  See above.
                                      healthy populations.    events significantly
                                                              compromising species
                                                              adaptive diversity.
                                     Sufficient number of    Adequate number of healthy   Poor.
                                      healthy populations.    populations to buffer       See above.
                                                              against catastrophic
                                                              losses of adaptive
                                                              diversity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Future Condition

    As part of the SSA, we developed two future condition scenarios to 
capture the range of uncertainties regarding future threats and the 
projected responses by the bog buck moth. Our scenarios assumed 
increased winter and spring precipitation, increased annual 
temperatures, and either continuation or increases in invasive plant 
species and succession. Because we have determined that the current 
condition of the bog buck moth is consistent with an endangered species 
(see Determination of Bog Buck Moth's Status, below), we are not 
presenting the results of the future scenarios in this rule; however, 
under both scenarios, the future condition is projected to worsen. 
Please refer to the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 67-83) for the full 
analysis of future scenarios.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on October 14, 2021 (86 FR 57104), 
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by December 13, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal 
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A 
newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published for 
multiple days in the Syracuse Post Standard (New York). We did not 
receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information 
regarding the listing of bog buck moth that was provided during peer 
reviews and the comment period has been incorporated directly into this 
final rule, as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed under Peer Review, above, we received responses from 4 
peer reviewers and 11 partners, including Federal and State partners, 
Canadian partners, and scientists with expertise in fen ecology and bog 
buck moth biology. We reviewed all comments we received from the peer 
reviewers and partners for substantive issues and new information 
regarding the information contained in the SSA report. The peer 
reviewers and partners generally concurred with our methods and 
conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, and 
suggestions to improve the final SSA report.

Public Comments

    Comment: Multiple commenters did not agree with our determination 
that a designation of critical habitat for the bog buck moth was not 
prudent, providing various reasons why they believed that we should 
designate critical habitat for the species. These reasons included the 
utility of critical habitat in addressing the threats to the species of 
limited range and local water regulation.

[[Page 15934]]

Commenters further suggested that critical habitat could be designated 
with limited detail and at a sufficiently high scale to minimize harm 
from precise identification of location.
    Response: Based on these comments, we elaborate on our reasoning to 
better explain the decision for a not-prudent determination for the 
designation of critical habitat for the bog buck moth in this final 
rule. The bog buck moth currently occurs in Canada and New York State. 
However, critical habitat can only be designated in the United States 
(50 CFR 424.12(g)). Thus, our critical habitat assessment only 
considered the two New York populations. Since the publication of the 
proposed rule (86 FR 57104; October 14, 2021), the collection threats 
affecting the co-occurring species have not abated. The publication of 
detailed maps of the bog buck moth occurrences would facilitate 
unauthorized collection and trade of the co-occurring species. Because 
the bog buck moth is found in wetlands, if we designated critical 
habitat, we would not be able to avoid identifying the individual fens 
where the species occurs. In other words, it is not possible for us to 
meet the Act's requirements for designating critical habitat at a scale 
that would not reveal the location of occupied wetlands. Moreover, any 
increase in human activities, including collection, within the habitat 
for the two remaining New York populations can be expected to cause 
harm to the bog buck moth from disturbance and trampling of individuals 
(eggs, larvae, pupae) and to vegetation necessary as a host plant and 
for sheltering of all life stages.
    Designation of critical habitat is just one of many tools available 
for bog buck moth conservation. Other tools include the listing 
decision itself, habitat management and restoration by the Service and 
our partners (e.g., Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, 
and the NYSDEC), research, and possibly captive management. As of the 
effective date of this rule (see DATES, above), any Federal actions 
that impact any of the subpopulations of the occupied Lakeside 
population will undergo section 7 consultation regardless of critical 
habitat designation. The Lakeside population is made up of sites 
currently under State or nongovernmental organization protection and 
management. The Oswego Inland Site population (presumed extirpated) is 
protected by a nongovernmental organization, and we do not anticipate 
frequent Federal actions in adjacent uplands that would result in a 
nexus for consultation, even if the site were to be designated as 
critical habitat. Moreover, we would anticipate that any activities 
with Federal involvement (e.g., restoring habitat for future possible 
reintroduction of the bog buck moth) would benefit the site rather than 
result in adverse effects to the habitat. Lastly, State and Federal 
wetlands protections are in place for all of the sites, and no section 
404 Clean Water Act permits are authorized in bogs and fens in New York 
(refer to Conservation Measures, above, for further analysis). 
Accordingly, our reasoning for a not-prudent finding in our proposed 
rule continues to be applicable to this final rule.
    One commenter mentioned the limited distribution and concentration 
of bog buck moth habitat and the potential effects of water level 
regulation on Lake Ontario on the species. While we recognize the 
restricted range of the species, limited range alone is not sufficient 
for designating critical habitat where we have determined that such 
designation is not prudent on other grounds. We agree that flooding of 
sites can impact bog buck moths. However, periodic flooding is 
important to reset vegetation succession at these sites. Past 
management of Lake Ontario has prevented these periodic flushing 
events. In recent years, the major drivers of water level in these 
sites include heavy precipitation events causing flooding or alteration 
of fens resulting in drying and vegetation succession. See Change in 
Water Levels, above, for more information. As discussed above, any 
Federal actions that may affect the Lakeside population will be subject 
to consultation under section 7 of the Act due to the presence of the 
species.

Determination of Bog Buck Moth's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered species 
or threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we have determined that the bog buck moth is at risk of 
extinction now throughout its range due to a combination of factors. 
Bog buck moth populations undergo boom and bust cycles and are highly 
vulnerable to stochastic events or threats during the bust phase 
(Factor E). All populations are isolated from one another and cannot 
repopulate extirpated sites (Factor E). We find that past and ongoing 
stressors, including habitat alteration due to water level management 
on Lakeside sites, vegetative succession and invasive plant species 
(Factor A), and death of individuals due to flooding (Factor E), have 
caused and are highly likely to continue to cause a decline in the 
species' viability through reduction of resilience, redundancy, and 
representation to such a degree that the species is particularly 
vulnerable to extinction presently and is highly likely to become more 
vulnerable to extinction. We do not fully understand the cause of 
declines at bog buck moth sites, and so it is likely that additional 
factors are important, such as inherent factors (e.g., narrow habitat 
niche) (Factor E), parasitoids (Factor E), predation (Factor C), 
disease (Factor C), and pesticides (Factor E).
    Of the three historical U.S. populations, two have been extirpated 
or are presumed extirpated. The Jefferson County population was 
extirpated due to habitat conversion in the 1970s. The reason for the 
extirpation of the Oswego Inland Site population is unclear, as the 
habitat still appears suitable. For the remaining U.S. population, the 
Lakeside population, the overall condition is poor with four of the 
five sites (Lakeside 1-4) presumed extirpated. Lakeside 5 is the last 
site with a confirmed moth population as of 2019. However, even this 
site is considered to be in poor condition with severe habitat 
degradation.
    The Canadian populations comprise two potentially healthy 
populations. However, there is high uncertainty about their status. 
Unlike the New York populations, no standardized transect counts are 
available to assess long-term trends. In addition, we have information

[[Page 15935]]

on just two of the four subpopulations associated with these 
populations. While there are bog buck moths known at two of these 
subpopulations and suitable habitat remains, invasive plant species are 
present at these sites and active management is not underway.
    All of the extant bog buck moth populations are currently facing a 
multitude of threats including water level changes, succession, and 
invasive species. Additionally, other factors, including parasitoids, 
predation, disease, and pesticides, as well as the species' limited 
dispersal range and small numbers, likely play a role in its decline. 
As studies in the New York population have shown, attempts at managing 
and controlling the spread of invasive plants or woody plants from 
succession in fens have proven to be extremely labor intensive and have 
limited effect. We find that the magnitude and imminence of threats 
facing the bog buck moth place the species in danger of extinction now, 
and therefore we find that threatened status is not appropriate. Thus, 
after assessing the best available information, we determine that the 
bog buck moth is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. We have determined that the bog buck moth is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range, and accordingly did not 
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because 
the bog buck moth warrants listing as endangered throughout all of its 
range, our determination does not conflict with the decision in Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) 
(Everson), which vacated the provision of the Final Policy on 
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in 
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and 
``Threatened Species'' (Final Policy) (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014) 
providing that if the Services determine that a species is threatened 
throughout all of its range, the Services will not analyze whether the 
species is endangered in a significant portion of its range.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the bog buck moth meets the Act's definition 
of an endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the bog buck moth 
as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) 
of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements 
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. 
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies, 
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities 
are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed 
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery 
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline, and making 
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of 
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental 
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop 
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery 
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website 
(https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our New York 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their ranges 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.
    Once this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of New York will be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the bog buck moth. Section 8(a) of the 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) authorizes the provision of limited financial 
assistance for the development and management of programs that the 
Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the 
conservation of endangered or threatened species in foreign countries. 
Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) also 
authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation programs for listed 
species found outside the United States, and to provide assistance for 
such programs, in the form of personnel and the training of personnel. 
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species 
recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the bog buck moth. Additionally, we invite you to 
submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes 
available and any information you may have for recovery

[[Page 15936]]

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 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)(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 any endangered or threatened 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 us.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of 
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high 
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, 
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate 
or foreign commerce any species listed as an endangered species. It is 
also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any 
such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 
to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation 
agencies.
    Federal agency actions that may require conference or consultation 
or both (as described above) include management and any other 
landscape-altering activities on lands near bog buck moth 
subpopulations.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to 
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: 
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful 
activities. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the 
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a final listing 
on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the listed 
species. Based on the best available information, the following actions 
are unlikely to result in a violation of section 9, if these activities 
are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and permit 
requirements; this list is not comprehensive: Normal recreational 
hunting, fishing, or boating activities that are carried out in 
accordance with all existing hunting, fishing, and boating regulations 
and that follow reasonable practices and standards.
    Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they 
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not 
comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the bog buck moth, including 
import or export across State lines and international boundaries, 
except for properly documented antique specimens of the taxon at least 
100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
    (2) Unauthorized modification, removal, or destruction of the 
wetland vegetation, soils, or hydrology in which the bog buck moth is 
known to occur;
    (3) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill material into any 
wetlands in which the bog buck moth is known to occur; and
    (4) Unauthorized release of biological control agents that attack 
any life stage of the bog buck moth, including parasitoids, herbicides, 
pesticides, or other chemicals, in habitats in which the bog buck moth 
is known to occur.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the New York 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
     The specific areas within the geographical area occupied 
by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on 
which are found those physical or biological features
    [cir] Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    [cir] Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
     Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by 
the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands, and designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult 
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 
Service were to

[[Page 15937]]

conclude that the proposed activity would likely result in destruction 
or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the Federal action 
agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the proposed 
activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they must 
implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the 
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species. On August 27, 2019, we revised our regulations at 50 CFR part 
424 to further clarify when designation of critical habitat may not be 
prudent (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019) (the 2019 Revisions). The 2019 
Revisions (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary may, but is 
not required to, determine that a designation would not be prudent in 
the following circumstances:
     The species is threatened by taking or other human 
activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to 
increase the degree of such threat to the species;
     The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
     Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide 
no more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
     No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
     The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of 
critical habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data 
available.
    In the proposed listing rule (86 FR 57104; October 14, 2021), we 
preliminarily determined that designation of critical habitat for bog 
buck moth would not be prudent (see 86 FR 57121). We invited public 
comment and requested information on the threats of taking or other 
human activity on bog buck moth and its habitat, and on the extent to 
which critical habitat designation might increase those threats. During 
the comment period, we received comments that identified the need to 
provide additional rationale for the not-prudent determination. After 
review and consideration of the comments we received, we restate our 
determination that the designation of critical habitat for the bog buck 
moth is not prudent, in accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1). Our 
rationale for this determination is that within the New York 
populations, the bog buck moth co-occurs with another federally listed 
species that was listed, in part, due to collection pressure, which has 
not abated and has been documented recently in New York. Additionally, 
at the time the other species was listed, collection pressure resulted 
in a determination that designating critical habitat was not prudent. 
Designating critical habitat for the bog buck moth would undermine the 
not-prudent determination that was previously made for the other co-
occurring listed species. Designation of critical habitat requires the 
publication of a narrative description of specific critical habitat 
areas and maps in the Federal Register and in the Code of Federal 
Regulations. Any critical habitat maps developed for the species would 
have to be sufficiently detailed to show the specific habitat where the 
bog buck moth is found and the vicinity in which the fen is found. This 
degree of specificity would be such that someone specifically looking 
for the area would be able to find the particular fen using widely 
available mapping software and imagery. We find that the publication of 
maps and descriptions outlining the locations of bog buck moth would 
provide heretofore unavailable precise location information for the co-
occurring species and likely lead to additional unauthorized collection 
and, therefore, an increase in the illegal trade of the co-occurring 
species. Moreover, we find that providing information that increases 
the collection risk of the co-occurring species would result in 
degradation of habitat for both the co-occurring species and the bog 
buck moth. There have been past cases of illegal collection in New York 
State of the co-occurring species that contributed to habitat 
degradation (e.g., trampling of vegetation). If pursuit and collection 
of the co-occurring species occurs in bog buck moth habitat, that 
activity can be expected to cause harm to the bog buck moth from 
disturbance and trampling of individuals (eggs, larvae, pupae) and to 
vegetation necessary as a host plant and for sheltering of all life 
stages.
    Accordingly, we have determined that the designation of critical 
habitat for the bog buck moth would provide a heretofore unavailable 
link to the precise locations of a co-occurring listed species and 
would result in increased collection risk to the co-occurring species; 
therefore, the designation of critical habitat for the bog buck moth 
would reasonably be expected to increase the degree of threats from 
human activity to the co-occurring species and to the bog buck moth and 
its habitat. Therefore, we find that the designation of critical 
habitat is not prudent for the bog buck moth, in accordance with 50 CFR 
424.12(a)(1)(i) and (v).

Required Determinations

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes.

[[Page 15938]]

There are no known Tribal lands with bog buck moth populations.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the New York Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the 
Service's Species Assessment Team and the New York Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11, in paragraph (h), by adding an entry for ``Moth, 
bog buck'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 
alphabetical order under Insects to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
             Insects
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Moth, bog buck..................  Hemileuca maia      Wherever found....  E              88 FR [Insert Federal
                                   menyanthevora                                          Register page where
                                   (=H. iroquois).                                        the document begins],
                                                                                          March 15, 2023.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-05012 Filed 3-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P