2011 Federal Register, 76 FR 59623; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59623-59634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2011-0078; MO 92210-0-0008 B2]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Tamaulipan Agapema, Sphingicampa blanchardi
(No Common Name), and Ursia furtiva (No Common Name) as Endangered or
Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list the Tamaulipan agapema (Agapema galbina),
Sphingicampa blanchardi (no common name), and Ursia furtiva (no common
name) as endangered or threatened and to designate critical habitat
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After
review of all available scientific and commercial information, we find
that

[[Page 59624]]

listing any of these three southwestern moth species is not warranted
at this time. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available concerning the threats to these
three species or their habitat at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 27,
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. [FWS-R2-ES-2011-0078].
Supporting documentation we used in preparing our finding for
Tamaulipan agapema and Sphingicampa blanchardi is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field
Office, c/o TAMU-CC, 6300 Ocean Drive, 5837, Corpus Christi,
TX 78412. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding for Tamaulipan agapema and S.
blanchardi to the Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office
address.
Supporting documentation we used in preparing our finding for Ursia
furtiva is available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin
Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin,
TX 78758. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding for U. furtiva to the Austin
Ecological Services Field Office address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
For information regarding Tamaulipan agapema and Sphingicampa
blanchardi, please contact Allan Strand, Field Supervisor, Corpus
Christi Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone
at 361-994-9005; or by facsimile at 361-994-8262.
For information regarding Ursia furtiva, please contact Adam
Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office
(see ADDRESSES), by telephone at 512-490-0057 extension 248; or by
facsimile at 512-490-0974.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition
to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information
that listing the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of receipt of the petition. In this finding, we will
determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted, (2)
warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending
proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened,
and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a
petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is,
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must
publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.

Previous Federal Actions

On June 25, 2007, we received a petition dated June 18, 2007, from
Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians), requesting that 475 species
in the southwestern United States, including the Tamaulipan agapema,
Sphingicampa blanchardi, and U. furtiva, be listed under the Act and
critical habitat be designated. We acknowledged the receipt of the
petition in a letter to the petitioner dated July 11, 2007. In that
letter we also stated that the petition was under review by staff in
our Southwest Regional Office.
We received a second petition, dated June 12, 2008, from WildEarth
Guardians on June 18, 2008, requesting emergency listing of 32 species
under the Act, including one of the three moths addressed above,
Tamaulipan agapema. We provided a response to this petition on July 22,
2008, indicating that we had reviewed the information presented in the
petition and the immediacy of possible threats. We determined that
issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species under
section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also noted that we
would continue to review these species through the petition process.
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint alleging
that the Service failed to comply with its mandatory duty to make a
preliminary 90-day finding on the June 18, 2007, petition to list 475
southwestern species. We subsequently published an initial 90-day
finding for 270 of the 475 petitioned species on January 6, 2009 (74 FR
419), concluding that the petition did not present substantial
information that listing of those 270 species may be warranted. This
initial 90-day finding did not include the Tamaulipan agapema,
Sphingicampa blanchardi, or Ursia furtiva. Subsequently, on March 13,
2009, the Service and WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated settlement
agreement, agreeing that the Service would submit to the Federal
Register a finding as to whether their petition presented substantial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for
the remaining southwestern species by December 9, 2009. On December 4,
2009, we made a second 90-day finding for the remaining species, which
included a determination that listing the Tamaulipan agapema, S.
blanchardi, and U. furtiva may be warranted, and initiated a status
review, which was published in the Federal Register on December 16,
2009 (74 FR 66866). This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on
both petitions to list the Tamaulipan agapema, S. blanchardi, and U.
furtiva as endangered or threatened.
Evaluation of the Status of Each of the Three Moth Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this finding, we discuss below information pertaining to
each species in relation to the five factors provided in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. In considering what factors might constitute
threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the
factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way
that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a
factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is
not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively,
the factor may be a threat

[[Page 59625]]

and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. If the
threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of
extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as
endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. This
does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of
factors that could negatively impact a species is not sufficient to
compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that
these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the definition of endangered or threatened
under the Act.
In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we considered and
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information. We
reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with
recognized moth experts and biologists.
For each of the three species, we provide a description of the
species and its life-history and habitat, an evaluation of listing
factors for that species, and our finding of whether the petitioned
action is warranted or not for that species.

Species Information for Tamaulipan Agapema

Taxonomy and Species Description
The Tamaulipan agapema (Agapema galbina), a member of the silk moth
family, Saturniidae, is one of seven currently recognized species in
the Agapema genus. Moths of this genus are typically black, gray,
brown, and white, and have eyespots on all four wings (Powell and Opler
2009, p. 240). Adult males' forewings are 0.9 to 1.1 inches (in) (25 to
30 millimeters (mm)) long, while females typically have 1.1 to 1.3 in
(30 to 34 mm) long forewings (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 171). In many
cases, it is difficult to distinguish between the species based on
morphological (body structure) differences (Tuskes et al. 1996, p.
171). However, the Tamaulipan agapema males have more white at the base
of their forewing (the front wings on four-winged insects), which gives
them a much lighter appearance than other species in the Agapema genus
(Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 171). Another distinguishable feature of
Tamualipan agapema is the males' antennae, which are shorter, slightly
narrower, and lighter in color (almost yellow) than those of other
Agapema species (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 171). Also, compared to other
species in the Agapema genus, minor differences in the male
reproductive organs have been reported, but Tuskes et al. (1996, p.
171) did not note what those differences are.
Distribution and Status
Based on occurrence records from limited reports and survey
efforts, the known distribution of the Tamaulipan agapema is from
Cameron and Hidalgo Counties in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of south
Texas to approximately 150 miles (241 kilometers) south into northern
Tamaulipas, Mexico (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 170). In Tamaulipas, Mexico,
the Tamaulipan agapema was observed near Soto la Marina, about 150
miles (mi) (241 kilometers (km)) south of the United States border
(Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 170). Unfortunately, there are no records of
the species occurring in the intervening 150 mi (241 km) between Soto
la Marina and its closest known record of occurrence in Cameron County,
Texas.
We have no historic or current population estimates for this
species. According to Tuskes et al. (1996, p. 170), this species was
once fairly common, but ``has not been reported north of Mexico since
the 1960s.'' Tuskes et al. (1996, p. 170) did not define the term
``fairly common,'' so we do not know what this means in a numerical or
geographical context of population estimates. Tuskes et al. (1996, p.
170) also reported that attempts at searching for adults in areas that
contain suitable habitat have been unsuccessful, but they did not give
dates or the amount of survey effort that was involved. Wolfe (2010,
pers. comm.) noted that when he visited a site west of Soto la Marina
(in Mexico) in 1994 that there were ``hundreds of cocoons matted along
the trunks'' of the host plant Condalia hookeri (brasil). Yet, when
this site was visited again several years later, no cocoons were found
(Wolfe 2010, pers. comm.). The information available does not allow us
to assess whether the species is actually extirpated in the United
States. We do not know if the limited survey efforts were thorough
enough, conducted at the right time or in the right areas, or with
enough frequency to actually document the species' occurrence. Failure
to detect species when they are present is not uncommon in field
surveys (Gu and Swihart 2004, p. 199). Failure to detect a species'
presence in an occupied habitat patch is a common sampling problem when
the population size is small, individuals are difficult to sample, or
sampling effort is limited (Gu and Swihart 2004, p. 195). In the
absence of information, we are unable to determine the species' current
distribution and historic or current population estimates.
Habitat and Biology
As adults, Tamaulipan agapema are nocturnal, do not feed as they
have nonfunctional mouth parts, have only one brood per year, and are
relatively short-lived (Powell and Opler 2009, p. 236). These moths fly
from September to November, during which time they breed and lay eggs
on Condalia hookeri (brasil) (Peigler and Kendall 1993, p. 5; Tuskes et
al. 1996, p. 171). Eggs hatch in December and January, and larvae feed
on C. hookeri (Peigler and Kendall 1993, p. 12). In a review of the
genus Agapema, Peigler and Kendall (1993, p. 5) cited Collins and
Weast's 1961 book Wild Silk Moths of the United States, Saturniinae, to
report that cocoons of the Tamaulipan agapema have been observed in
masses on Pithecellobium ebano (ebony) trees in the Rio Grande Valley
of south Texas. Peigler and Kendall (1993, pp. 5, 12) also state that
the larvae move from the C. hookeri shrubs to P. ebano to make their
cocoons on the trunks. However, the larvae make their cocoons on C.
hookeri as well as P. ebano. Wolfe (2010, pers. comm.) noted that when
he visited a site west of Soto la Marina, Mexico, about 150 mi (241 km)
south of the United States border, that there were ``hundreds of
cocoons matted along the trunks'' of the host plant C. hookeri. It
seems that Tamaulipan agapema are associated with C. hookeri and P.
ebano during the early stages of their life cycle.
Moths and butterflies are typically associated with host plants,
and are often specifically linked to one or more plant species in order
to complete their life cycle. As noted above, the known host plants of
Tamualipan agapema are Condalia hookeri (brasil) and Pithecellobium
ebano (ebony) trees (Peigler and Kendall 1993, p. 12). Both of these
plants are part of the Tamaulipan thornscrub vegetative community. They
are associated with the deep alluvial soils of the southern Rio Grande
River, and are found in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas and
Tamaulipas, Mexico (NatureServe 2003, pp. 1-2). Both plants are
prevalent in residential settings, because they are deliberately
planted or started by bird droppings (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.).
Because the host plants are prevalent in residential settings, it
may be possible for the Tamaulipan agapema to live in an urban
environment. Peigler and Kendall (1993, p. 4) noted that adults of this
species were often collected at night near artificial light

[[Page 59626]]

sources in the Brownsville area. However, we do not know if this
species was residing on host plants transplanted into the residential
area of Brownsville or if it was drawn to the artificial lights from a
nearby native Tamaulipan thornscrub habitat.

Five-Factor Evaluation for the Tamaulipan Agapema

In making this finding, information pertaining to the Tamaulipan
agapema in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act is discussed below.

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

We evaluate historic threats in respect to current and future
populations, because historic threats can be evidence of current or
future threats if those activities, or effects of those activities, are
still occurring in such a way that current or future populations are
being significantly affected. We use the best available scientific and
commercial information to make reasonable connections between the
historic impacts and current or future declines of the species in order
to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction now or in
the foreseeable future. The mere identification of factors that could
negatively impact a species is not sufficient to compel a finding that
listing is warranted. We require evidence that these factors are
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
Potential factors that may affect the habitat or range of the
Tamaulipan agapema are (1) Agricultural development, (2) urban
development, and (3) climate change.
Agricultural Development
The loss of Tamaulipan thornscrub habitat has occurred historically
within the Lower Rio Grande Valley of south Texas and northern
Tamaulipas, Mexico. With the conversion of Tamaulipan thornscrub to
agricultural field crops and urban areas, only about 5 percent of the
native vegetation remained in the Lower Rio Grande Valley by the 1980s
(Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie 1988, p. 1). Much of the habitat loss that has
occurred has been attributed to agricultural development (Tremblay et
al. 2005, p. 479). In the context of this finding, we consider
agricultural development to be the conversion of native habitat to
agricultural croplands. In Cameron County, Texas, Tremblay et al.
(2005, p. 481) noted that approximately 75 percent of native habitat
loss was due to agricultural development. Tremblay et al. (2005, p.
481) also noted that the extent of overall habitat loss had occurred by
1983. Subsequently, Jurado et al. (1999, p. 272) noted that over 90
percent of Tamaulipan thornscrub in northeastern Mexico has been
cleared for agriculture or to create grasslands for cattle, but they
did not give a date by when this loss had occurred. Where the
conversion of native Tamaulipan thornscrub habitat to agricultural
field crops has occurred, it has resulted in habitat loss for the
Tamaulipan agapema because its host plants, Condalia hookeri (brasil)
and Pithecellobium ebano (ebony), are no longer available. Tremblay et
al. (2005, p. 481) noted that the extent of overall habitat loss had
occurred by 1983 in Cameron County, Texas, and Jurado et al. (1999, p.
272) did not give a date by when habitat loss had occurred in
northeastern Mexico. Because we have no information to indicate that
additional conversion of native habitat to agricultural croplands has
occurred since the 1980s, we have no evidence that it will happen in
the foreseeable future.
While there may have been historical impacts to the Tamaulipan
agapema from agricultural development due to its host plants being
removed for crop fields, the magnitude of historic, current, or future
threats from this activity is difficult to determine, because we have
no historic or current population estimates with which to make a
comparison, other than anecdotal reports. The information available
does not allow us to assess the extent to which the Tamaulipan agapema
occurred throughout the Tamaulipan thornscrub, or if the loss of
habitat has caused a decline in population numbers. However, we have
information to indicate that its host plants, which are associated with
Tamaulipan thornscrub, have been lost to some extent. But, we have no
information to indicate that additional conversion of native habitat to
agricultural croplands has occurred since the 1980s, and we have no
evidence that it will happen in the foreseeable future. Tremblay et al.
(2005, p. 481) noted that the extent of overall habitat loss in Cameron
County, Texas, had occurred by 1983, and Jurado et al. (1999, p. 272)
did not give a date when overall habitat loss had occurred in
northeastern Mexico. In the absence of information, we are unable to
evaluate the historic loss of habitat with respect to current
population numbers. Historic threats can be evidence of current or
future threats if those activities, or effects of those activities, are
still occurring in such a way that current or future populations will
decline to the point of extinction. Because we lack sufficient
information related to habitat loss and Tamaulipan agapema population
numbers, we are not able to determine whether agricultural development
may be a threat to the species. Therefore, based on the best available
information, which does not indicate that habitat loss due to
agricultural development is occurring now or likely to occur in the
remaining areas of native habitat, we do not consider agricultural
development to be a current or future threat to the Tamaulipan agapema.
Urban Development
As previously noted, urban development was identified as a cause
for the loss of native Tamaulipan thornscrub in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley (Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie 1988, p. 1). The human population in
the Lower Rio Grande Valley of south Texas increased by 40 percent from
1990 to 2000, compared to an increase of 13 percent throughout the
United States during the same period (Murdock et al. 2002, p. 34).
Human population levels in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas are
projected to increase by between 130 and 181 percent from 2000 to 2040
(Murdock et al. 2002, pp. 40-43). As the human population grows, it is
reasonable to expect a concurrent increase in urban development. Many
areas where this species was once found in south Texas, such as the
Esperanza Ranch near Brownsville, Texas, have been converted to
residential subdivisions (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 170).
However, there is an absence of information that allows us to make
a reasonable connection between impacts of urban development and
current or future declines of Tamaulipa agapema. Pockets of habitat may
remain along roadways and on private land (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 170).
Also, the known host plants, Condalia hookeri (brasil) and
Pithecellobium ebano (ebony) trees, are prevalent in residential
settings, because they are intentionally planted or started by bird
droppings (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.). Peigler and Kendall (1993, p. 4)
noted that this species was often collected at night near artificial
light sources, so it may be able to live in urban areas. But, we do not
know whether or not the species may survive in urban areas. Because we
lack sufficient information regarding this species' biology, we are
unable to conclude whether residential areas can harbor adequate
habitat patches. In the

[[Page 59627]]

absence of information that allows us to assess the impacts of urban
development on current or future declines of Tamaulipan agapema, we
have no evidence linking urban development with Tamaulipan agapema's
population status.
Furthermore, most of the remaining woodland areas of the Lower Rio
Grande Valley within the United States are managed by the Service's
National Wildlife Refuge System and other resource agencies and
organizations (Tremblay et al. 2005, pp. 481-482). During the period
1979-2009, the South Texas Refuge Complex, which consists of Santa Ana,
Laguna Atascosa, and the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife
Refuges, has acquired over 106,000 ac (42,896 ha) of land via fee title
or conservation easements in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas to
create habitat corridors between pre-existing lands of Santa Ana and
Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuges (Service 2011, pp. 1-2). In
addition to acquiring land, the South Texas Refuge Complex has
replanted over 9,000 ac (3,642 ha) of agricultural land with over
2,750,000 native plant species, including the Tamaulipan agapema's host
plants, Condalia hookeri (brasil) and Pithecellobium ebano (ebony). In
Cameron and Hidalgo Counties alone, the South Texas Refuge Complex
currently manages 140,661ac (56,923 ha) of native habitat (Sternberg
2011, pers. comm., p. 1), which is protected from urban development.
In summary, urban development may have resulted in some historic
habitat loss for the Tamaulipan agapema, but there is no information
that allows us to make a reasonable connection between impacts of urban
development and current or future declines of the species. Urban
development is expected to occur over the next 30 years in the Lower
Rio Grande Valley of south Texas, but we have no information that it
will occur in the remaining woodland areas of the Lower Rio Grande
Valley within the United States or at a rate or magnitude that would
result in population-level impacts. Because most of the remaining
woodland areas of the Lower Rio Grande Valley within the United States
are managed by the Service's National Wildlife Refuge System and other
resource agencies and organizations (Tremblay et al. 2005, pp. 481-
482), we expect that current and future urban development will occur on
agricultural lands that have already been cleared of native vegetation.
Also, this species' host plants are prevalent in residential settings
and much of the remaining woodland areas managed by the Service's
National Wildlife Refuge System. Therefore, in the absence of
information that allows us to assess the impacts of urban development
on current or future declines of Tamaulipan agapema, we concluded that
urban development is not a threat to the Tamaulipan agapema now or in
the foreseeable future.
Climate Change
Consideration of the effects of climate change is a component of
our analyses of species under the Endangered Species Act. Here we
provide a brief overview of the general topic of climate change as a
way of providing a broad context for the more detailed consideration
that follows with respect to the Tamaulipan agapema.
Described in general terms, ``climate'' refers to average weather
conditions, as well as associated variability, over a long period of
time (e.g. decades, centuries, or thousands of years). Climate
variables most often described are temperature and precipitation, and
the typical period for calculating the mean of these properties is 20
or 30 years. The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the
state of the climate (whether due to natural variability, human
activity, or both) that can be identified by changes in the mean or
variability of its properties and that persists for an extended
period--typically decades or longer. (See Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), 2007a, pp. 30, 78, for technical definitions
that are the basis for our description of these terms.)
Analyses of observed trends in climate demonstrate that climate
change is occurring, as illustrated by examples such as an increase in
the global mean surface air temperature (SAT) (``global warming''),
substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of the world and
decreases in other regions, and increases in tropical cyclone activity
in some oceanic areas (IPCC 2007a, p. 30). Because relatively small but
sustained changes in temperature can have substantial direct and
indirect effects on natural processes and human populations,
temperature is one of the most widely used indicators of climate
change. Based on extensive analyses, the IPCC concluded that warming of
the global climate system over the past several decades is
``unequivocal'' (IPCC 2007a, p. 2). These changes in global climate are
affecting many natural systems (see IPCC 2007a, pp. 2-4, 30-33 for
global and regional examples, and Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States (GCCIUS) 2009, pp. 27, 79-88, for examples in the United
States).
Analyses of natural variability in climate conditions and the
effects of human activities led the IPCC to conclude that most of the
increase in global mean surface air temperature that has been observed
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase
in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations related to human activities,
particularly emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use (IPCC
2007a, p. 5 and Figure SPM.3). Extensive analyses point to continued
changes in climate and considerable efforts are occurring to make
projections of the magnitude, rate, and variability of future changes
and to understand the mechanisms underlying them, including the role of
greenhouse gases.
Projections by the IPCC in 2007 for climate change for the earth as
a whole and for broad regions were based on simulations from more than
20 Atmospheric-Ocean General Circulation Models used in conjunction
with various scenarios of different levels and timing of greenhouse gas
emissions (Randall et al. 2007, pp. 596-599; Meehl et al. 2007, pp.
753-796; Christensen et al. 2007, pp. 847--917). The emissions
scenarios were developed in the late 1990s and described in the Special
Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) published in 2000 (Carter et al.
2007, p. 160 and references therein). The scenarios span a broad range
of potential GHG emissions over the coming decades based on a wide
spectrum of economic, technological, and human demographic
possibilities for the planet; the SRES made no judgment as to which of
the scenarios are more likely to occur, and although they cover a very
broad range it is possible that emissions could be higher or lower than
the range covered by the scenarios.
The IPCC's projections of change in global mean warming (global
annual mean surface air temperature (SAT)) and how they differ over
time across emissions scenarios as compared to the observed SAT
from1980-1999, are described by Meehl et al. (2007, pp. 760-764).
Several key points emerge from their projections. First, the projected
changes in magnitude of warming are similar under all emissions
scenarios to about 2030 and to some degree even to about mid-Century
although more divergence is evident then, and the divergence continues
to increase over time, i.e., in the near-term the projections differ by
only 0.05[deg] C (0.09[deg] F), but by the last decade of the century
the difference across scenarios is 1.6[deg] C (0.9[deg] F); as noted by
Cox and Stephenson (2007, p. 208) total uncertainty in projected
decadal mean

[[Page 59628]]

temperature is lowest 30 to 50 years in the future. Second, the
magnitude of projected warming increases across each scenario including
the lowest emission scenario, under which projected average change in
SAT increases from 0.66 [deg] C (1.19[deg] F) in the near term to
1.8[deg] C (3.24[deg] F) for the last decade of the century. Third, the
pattern of projected increases is relatively consistent whether
considering the average across all models for a given scenario or the
projections from the individual models, including consideration of
one standard deviation around the mean projection for each
scenario (see Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 762-763, Figures 10.4 and 10.5,
and Table 10.5). Thus although differences in projections reflect some
uncertainty about the precise magnitude of warming, we conclude there
is little uncertainty that warming will continue through the end of
century, even under the lower emissions scenario. We note also that
more recent analyses using additional global models and comparing other
emissions scenarios have resulted in projections of global temperature
change that are similar to those reported in 2007 by the IPCC (Prinn et
al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
While projections from global climate model simulations are
informative, their resolution is coarse and it is helpful to have
higher-resolution projections that are more relevant to the spatial
scales used for various assessments involving climate change. Various
methods to ``downscale'' climate information have been developed to
generate projections that are more specific to regional or relatively
local areas (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61 for a summary description
of downscaling). In conducting status assessments of species, we use
downscaled projections when they are the best scientific information
available regarding future climate change.
However, we have no information for the local geographic area of
south Texas or northern Mexico. While it appears reasonable to assume
that climate change will occur within the range of the Tamaulipan
agapema, we lack sufficient information to know specifically how
climate change may affect the species or its habitat. We have not
identified, nor are we aware of, any data on an appropriate scale to
evaluate habitat or population trends for the species, or to make
predictions on future trends and whether the species will actually be
impacted. Therefore, we have no evidence to conclude that climate
change is a threat to the Tamaulipan agapema now or in the foreseeable
future.
Summary of Factor A
Based on the best available information, the Tamaulipan agapema's
current and historical population size and distribution are unknown.
Because we have no historic or current population estimates for the
Tamaulipan agapema, we are unable to correlate land use impacts with
current or future species' abundance. While the loss of Tamaulipan
thrornscrub habitat has occurred historically, there is an absence of
information that allows us to make a reasonable connection between the
impacts of habitat loss and current or future declines of the species.
We have no evidence that current or future urban development will
result in detrimental impacts to the Tamaulipan agapema or its habitat.
The information available does not allow us to assess the magnitude of
impacts from urban development on the species, nor the extent of the
occupied range. Also, we lack sufficient certainty to know specifically
how climate change affects the species now or in the foreseeable
future. Therefore, we conclude that the Tamaulipan agapema is not
threatened by the destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range now or likely to become so.

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

There is no information suggesting that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes pose a
threat to the species. Therefore, we find that the Tamaulipan agapema
is not threatened by overutilization now or likely to become so.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

The Tamaulipan agapema may be preyed upon by natural predators at
various life stages. In 1961 in a suburb of Brownsville, Texas, large
ants were observed preying upon Tamaulipan agapema cocoon masses in
Pithecellobium ebano (ebony) trees (Peigler and Kendall 1993, p. 5). At
that time, the impact of ants on populations of this moth was
undetermined (Peigler and Kendall 1993, p. 5). While predation by ants
may occur on Tamaulipan agapema cocoon masses, we have no information
that the loss of cocoon masses presents a threat to the species. In
fact, we have no information linking ant predation to Tamaulipan
agapema population estimates.
Parasitic flies, such as Euphorocera sp. and Lespesia sp., have
also been reported to prey on the Tamaulipan agapema (Peigler and
Kendall 1993, p. 18). However, there is no information on the extent or
level of impact that parasitic flies have had on the species.
In summary, although predation by ants and parasitic flies may be
occurring, we have no information to indicate that they are occurring
at levels that result in negative impacts to the species. Therefore, in
the absence of evidence that predation or disease may constitute
threats to the species, we conclude that the Tamaulipan agapema is not
threatened by disease or predation now or likely to become so.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

We are not aware of any existing regulatory mechanisms that protect
the Tamaulipan agapema or its habitat in the United States or Mexico.
However, because we have not identified any threat to the species under
the other four listing factors that would require regulatory
protection, we do not find that the absence of regulatory mechanisms
constitutes an independent threat to the species. Therefore, we find
that the Tamaulipan agapema is not threatened by the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms now or likely to become so.

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

Pesticide Use
We looked at pesticides as a potential factor that has an impact on
the Tamaulipan agapema, due to the extent of agricultural croplands
that occur within the range of the species. The Lower Rio Grande Valley
of Texas is a major agriculture production area, with over 75 percent
of its geographic area devoted to cropland (White et al. 1983, p. 331;
Wainwright et al. 2001, p. 101). As in many agricultural areas,
pesticides are commonly used on croplands, and have been found at
relatively high levels in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (White et al.
1983, p. 325; Wainwright et al. 2001, p. 109). However, pesticides have
not been linked to population declines of the Tamaulipan agapema. We
have no information to indicate that the Tamaulipan agapema use
croplands and are thus exposed to pesticides. Because we have no link
between pesticide use and population abundance, we have no evidence
that the Tamaulipan agapema is threatened by pesticide use now or
likely to become so.
Small Population Size
Historical habitat loss due to agricultural development may have
reduced the Tamaulipan agapema's

[[Page 59629]]

range to small, isolated patches of habitat. In many cases, small,
isolated populations are subject to increased risk of extinction from
stochastic (random) environmental, genetic, or demographic events
(Brewer 1994, p. 616). Environmental changes, such as drought or severe
storms, can have severe consequences if affected populations are small
and clumped together (Brewer 1994, p. 616). Loss of genetic diversity
can lead to inbreeding depression and an increased risk of extinction
(Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 338-343). Populations with small
effective size show reductions in population growth rates, loss of
genetic variability, and increases in extinction probabilities (Leberg
1990, p. 194; Jimenez et al. 1994, p. 272; Allendorf and Luikart 2007,
pp. 338-339). Because the information available does not allow us to
assess historic or current population estimates, nor the extent of the
species' current range, we are not able to determine if the species'
range has been reduced to small, isolated patches of habitat.
Additionally, there is no information to indicate that Tamaulipan
agapema population numbers or population dynamics are vulnerable to the
effects of small populations. We have no information to estimate
historic or current population sizes for this species. We have no
information on the number of individuals, population dynamics, or
evidence of genetic structuring and inbreeding for the Tamaulipan
agapema. Additionally, we do not currently have sufficient information
on environmental or any other factors to know whether they affect the
species to an extent that a threat exists. The information available
does not allow us to assess the magnitude or immediacy of these impacts
on the species. We have no information that allows us to make a
reasonable connection between the impacts of stochastic (random)
environmental, genetic, or demographic events and current or future
declines of the Tamaulipan agapema. We have no evidence that Tamaulipan
agapema is threatened by small population size now or likely to become
so.
Summary of Factor E
In summary, based on the best available information, we have no
evidence that natural or other manmade factors are likely to
significantly threaten the existence of the Tamaulipan agapema. We have
no information to indicate that the Tamaulipan agapema uses croplands
and is exposed to pesticides. Also, we have no information on historic
or current population sizes, so we are unable to determine if there may
be inherent vulnerabilities of small populations and restricted
geographic range. Therefore, we find that the Tamaulipan agapema is not
threatened by natural or other manmade factors now or likely to become
so.

Finding for the Tamaulipan Agapema

As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the Tamaulipan agapema is endangered or threatened throughout
all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by the Tamaulipan agapema. We reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, other available published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with recognized moth experts and State
agencies. We evaluated historic threats with respect to current and
future populations, and used the best available scientific and
commercial information to make reasonable connections between the
historic impacts and current or future declines of the species, in
order determine whether the species is in danger of extinction now or
in the foreseeable future. The mere identification of factors that
could negatively impact a species is not sufficient to compel a finding
that listing is appropriate. We require evidence that these factors are
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
Based on the best available information, there may have been
historical impacts to the Tamualipan agapema from agricultural
development, which is the conversion of native Tamaulipan thornscrub
habitat to cropland; but in the absence of information, we are unable
to determine the magnitude of historic, current, or future threats from
this activity. The small amount of information available is not
sufficient to assess the extent to which the Tamaulipan agapema's range
may have been reduced, or if the loss of habitat has caused a decline
in population numbers. Also, we have no information to indicate that
the conversion of native habitat is occurring now or in the foreseeable
future. Historic habitat loss can be evidence of current or future
threats if those activities, or effects of those activities, are still
occurring in such a way that current or future populations will decline
to the point of extinction. In the absence of information that allows
us to make a reasonable connection between historic habitat loss and
current or future declines of the species, we have determined that
Tamaulipan agapema is not in danger of extinction now or in the
foreseeable future due to agricultural development.
Urban development is expected to occur as human populations in
Texas continue to increase, but we have no information that it will
occur in the remaining woodland areas of the Lower Rio Grande Valley
within the United States. Also, we do not have the information needed
to assess whether climate change is a threat to this species. And, we
have no evidence that overutilization, predation, disease, inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms, pesticide use, and small population
size are threats to the species. In the absence of information that
allows us to make a reasonable connection between the impacts of these
activities and current or future declines of the Tamaulipan agapema, we
conclude that this species is not in danger of extinction now or in the
foreseeable future due to any of these factors.
Therefore, based on our review of the best available scientific and
commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the
potential threats are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that Tamaulipan agapema is in danger of
extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all of its range.

Significant Portion of the Range

Having determined that Tamaulipan agapema is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so throughout its range, we must next
consider whether there are any significant portions of the range where
it is in danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future.
In determining whether Tamaulipan agapema is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range, we first addressed
whether any portions of the range warrant further consideration. We
evaluated the current range of Tamaulipan agapema to determine if there
is any apparent geographic concentration of the primary stressors
potentially affecting the species, such as habitat loss, climate
change, predation, pesticide use, and small population size. However,
we found the stressors are not of sufficient imminence, intensity,
magnitude, or geographic concentration that would warrant evaluating
whether a portion of the range is significant under the Act. We do not
find that Tamaulipan agapema is in danger of extinction now, nor is it

[[Page 59630]]

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future, throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, listing
Tamualipan agapema as endangered or threatened under the Act is not
warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the Tamaulipan agapema to our Corpus Christi
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us monitor the species and
encourage its conservation. If an emergency situation develops for
Tamaulipan agapema, or any other species, we will act to provide
immediate protection.

Species Information for Sphingicampa blanchardi (No Common Name)

Taxonomy and Species Description
Sphingicampa blanchardi is another silk moth that occurs in the
family Saturniidae (Tuskes et al. 1996; p. 88). Three other
Sphingicampa species occur sympatrically (they occupy the same or
overlapping geographic areas, but do not interbreed) with S.
blanchardi. Sphingicampa blanchardi is distinguished from these related
species by its brown-to-light-yellow forewings with shades of pink
(Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 89). Sphingicampa blanchardi males have 0.9 to
1.1 in (24 to 28 mm) long forewings, and females have 1.2 to 1.4 in (31
to 36 mm) long forewings (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 89).
Distribution and Status
Sphingicampa blanchardi is known to occur in a few isolated
localities in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties, Texas (Ferguson 1971, pp.
49-50; E. Riley 2010, pers. comm., pp. 1-2; Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 88).
This moth is commonly found at the Audubon Palm Grove Sanctuary in
Cameron County, Texas, and is also known from a few other localities
along the United States and Mexico border in south Texas, such as the
Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge (Ferguson 1971, p. 50; E. Knudson
2010, pers. comm., p. 1). The range of the moth likely extends into
Mexico; however, despite survey efforts, no occurrences have been
documented in Mexico (Ferguson 1971, pp. 49-50). However, failure to
detect species when they are present is not uncommon in field surveys
(Gu and Swihart 2004, p. 199).
Although this moth has been reported to be commonly found at the
Audubon Palm Grove Sanctuary, Cameron County, Texas (Ferguson 1971, p.
50; E. Knudson 2010, pers. comm., p. 1), we have no historic or current
population estimates for this species. In the absence of information,
we are unable to determine the species' current distribution and
historic or current population estimates.
Habitat and Biology
Little is known regarding the habitat and biology of Sphingicampa
blanchardi, and the majority of this information can be found in the
book titled Wild Silk Moths of North America, by Tuskes et al. (1996,
pp. 88-90). Within this book, it is noted that adults are associated
with Pithecellobium ebano (ebony) woodland communities, and larvae
raised in captivity are known to feed on several legume trees (trees
that produce seed pods) associated with P. ebano woodlands, such as
Acacia farnesiana (huisache), Leucaena pulverulenta (tepeguiaje), and
Pithecellobium flexicaule (ebony) (Tuskes et al. 1996; p. 88). As noted
above for Tamaulipan agapema, moths are typically associated with host
plants, and are often specifically linked to one or more plant species
in order to complete their life cycle. However, we do not know if S.
blanchardi are like other moth species that are often specifically
linked to one or more plant species.

Five-Factor Evaluation for Sphingicampa blanchardi

In making this finding, information pertaining to the Sphingicampa
blanchardi in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act is discussed below.

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

[[Page 59631]]

has occurred since the 1980s, and we have no evidence that it will
happen in the foreseeable future. Tremblay et al. (2005, p. 481) noted
that the extent of overall habitat loss had occurred by 1983 in Cameron
County, Texas, and Jurado et al. (1999, p. 272) did not give a date by
when habitat loss had occurred in northeastern Mexico. In the absence
of information, we are unable to evaluate the historic loss of habitat
with respect to current population numbers. Historic threats can be
evidence of current or future threats if those activities, or effects
of those activities, are still occurring in such a way that current or
future populations will decline to the point of extinction. Because we
lack sufficient information related to habitat loss and S. blanchardi
population numbers, we are not able to determine whether habitat loss
due to agricultural development may be a threat to the species.
Therefore, based on the best available information, the loss of
Tamaulipan thornscrub due to agricultural development does not seem to
have caused a decline in S. blanchardi to the point of extinction.
Although we lack the information to determine historic or current
population estimates, this moth has been reported to be commonly found
at certain localities, such as the Audubon Palm Grove Sanctuary
(Ferguson 1971, p. 50; E. Knudson 2010, pers. comm., p. 1). Therefore,
we do not consider agricultural development to be a current or future
threat to S. blanchardi.
Urban Development
As previously noted for Tamualipan agapema above, urban development
was identified as a cause for the loss of Tamaulipan thornscrub in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley (Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie 1988, p. 1). The human
population in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of south Texas increased by
40 percent from 1990 to 2000, compared to an increase of 13 percent
throughout the United States during the same period (Murdock et al.
2002, p. 34). Human population levels in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of
Texas are projected to increase by between 130 and 181 percent from
2000 to 2040 (Murdock et al. 2002, pp. 40-43). As the human population
grows, it is reasonable to expect a concurrent increase in urban
development. As noted for the for Tamualipan agapema, many areas in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley of south Texas where similar species of moths
once were found have been converted to residential subdivisions (Tuskes
et al. 1996, p. 170). However, there is no information demonstrating a
reasonable connection between impacts of urban development and current
or future declines of Sphingicampa blanchardi. Pockets of habitat may
remain along roadways and on private land (Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 170).
But, we do not know whether or not the species may survive in these
pockets of habitat within urban areas. Because we lack sufficient
information regarding the species' biology, we are unable to conclude
whether urban areas can harbor adequate habitat patches. In the absence
of information that allows us to assess the impacts of urban
development on current or future declines of S. blanchardi, we have no
evidence linking urban development with the species' population status.
Furthermore, most of the remaining woodland areas of the Lower Rio
Grande Valley within the United States are managed by the Service's
National Wildlife Refuge System and other resource agencies and
organizations (Tremblay et al. 2005, pp. 481-482). The South Texas
Refuge Complex--which consists of Santa Ana, Laguna Atascosa, and the
Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuges--during the period
1979-2009, has acquired over 106,000 ac (42,896 ha) of land via fee
title or conservation easements in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas
to create habitat corridors between pre-existing lands of Santa Ana and
Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuges (Service 2011, pp. 1-2). In
addition to acquiring land, the South Texas Refuge Complex has
replanted over 9,000 ac (3,642 ha) of agricultural land with over
2,750,000 native Tamaulipan thornscrub plant species. In Cameron and
Hidalgo Counties alone, the South Texas Refuge Complex currently
manages 140,661 ac (56,923 ha) of native habitat (Sternberg 2011, pers.
comm., p. 1), which is protected from urban development.
In summary, urban development may have resulted in some historic
habitat loss for the Sphingicampa blanchardi, but there is no
information that allows us to make a reasonable connection between
impacts of urban development and current or future declines of the
species. Urban development is expected to occur over the next 30 years
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of south Texas, but we have no
information that it will occur in the remaining woodland areas or at a
rate or magnitude that would result in population level impacts.
Because most of the remaining woodland areas of the Lower Rio Grande
Valley within the United States are managed by the Service's National
Wildlife Refuge System and other resource agencies and organizations
(Tremblay et al. 2005, pp. 481-482), we expect that current and future
urban development will occur on agricultural lands that have already
been cleared of native vegetation. Therefore, in the absence of
information that allows us to assess the impacts of urban development
on current or future declines of S. blanchardi, we concluded that urban
development is not a threat to the S. blanchardi now or likely to
become so.
Climate Change
For a more detailed description of how we consider the effects of
climate change as a component of our analyses of species under the Act,
please see Factor A, Climate Change, above under the Tamaulipan
agapema. In regards to the Sphingicampa blanchardi, we have no
information for the local geographic area of south Texas or northern
Mexico. While it appears reasonable to assume that climate change will
occur within the range of the Sphingicampa blanchardi, we lack
sufficient information to know specifically how climate change may
affect the species. We have not identified, nor are we aware of, any
data on an appropriate scale to evaluate habitat or population trends
for the species, or to make predictions on future trends and whether
the species will actually be impacted. Therefore, we have no evidence
to conclude that climate change is a threat to the S. blanchardi now or
likely to become so.
Summary of Factor A
Based on the best available information, the Sphingicampa
blanchardi's current and historical population size and distribution
are unknown. Because we have no historic or current population
estimates for S. blanchardi, we are unable to correlate land use
impacts with current or future species abundance, and, therefore, are
unable to determine if those impacts would cause the species to decline
to the point of extinction. While the loss of native Tamaulipan
thornscrub has occurred historically, there is an absence of
information that allows us to make a reasonable connection between the
impacts of habitat loss and current or future declines of the species.
We have no evidence that current or future urban development will
result in detrimental impacts to S. blanchardi or its habitat. The
information available does not allow us to assess the magnitude of
impacts from urban development on the species, nor the extent of the
occupied range. Also, we lack sufficient certainty to know specifically
how climate change affects the species now or in the foreseeable
future. Therefore, we conclude that the

[[Page 59632]]

Tamaulipan agapema is not threatened by destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range now or likely to become so.

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

There is no information suggesting that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes poses a
threat to the species. Therefore, we find that the Sphingicampa
blanchardi is not threatened by overutilization now or likely ot become
so.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

We have no information to indicate that the Sphingicampa blanchardi
is subject to disease or predation. Therefore, we find that S.
blanchardi is not threatened by disease or predation now or likely to
become so.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

We are not aware of any existing regulatory mechanisms that protect
Sphingicampa blanchardi or its habitat in the United States or Mexico.
However, because we have not identified any threat to the species under
the other four listing factors requiring regulatory protection, we do
not find that the absence of regulatory mechanisms constitutes an
independent threat to the species. Therefore, we find that the S.
blanchardi is not threatened by the inadequacy of existing regulations
now or likely to become so.

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

Pesticide Use
We looked at pesticides as a potential factor that has an impact on
the Sphingicampa blanchardi due to the extent of agricultural croplands
that occur within the range of the species. The Lower Rio Grande Valley
of Texas is a major agriculture production area (White et al. 1983, p.
331; Wainwright et al. 2001, p. 101), and pesticides have been found at
relatively high levels in this area (White et al. 1983, p. 325;
Wainwright et al. 2001, p. 109). However, we are not aware of any S.
blanchardi mortalities that have resulted from the use of pesticides,
or any information linking pesticides to population declines of the S.
blanchardi. We have no information that S. blanchardi use croplands and
are thus exposed to pesticides. Because we have no link between
pesticide use and population abundance, we have no evidence that the S.
blanchardi is threatened by pesticide use now or likely to beome so.
Small Population Size
The historical loss of Tamaulipan thornscrub habitat due to
agricultural development may have reduced the Sphingicampa blanchardi's
range to small, isolated patches of habitat, but we have no information
on where or how many may occur. In many cases, small, isolated
populations are subject to increased risk of extinction from stochastic
(random) environmental, genetic, or demographic events (Brewer 1994, p.
616). Environmental changes, such as drought or severe storms, can have
severe consequences if affected populations are small and clumped
together (Brewer 1994, p. 616). Loss of genetic diversity can lead to
inbreeding depression and an increased risk of extinction (Allendorf
and Luikart 2007, pp. 338-343). Populations with small effective size
show reductions in population growth rates, loss of genetic
variability, and increases in extinction probabilities (Leberg 1990, p.
194; Jimenez et al. 1994, p. 272; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 338-
339). Because the information available does not allow us to assess
historic or current population estimates, nor the extent of the
species' current range, we are not able to determine the extent if the
species' range has been reduced to small, isolated patches of habitat.
Additionally, there is no information to indicate that Sphingicampa
blanchardi population numbers or population dynamics are vulnerable to
the effects of small populations. We have no information to estimate
historic or current population sizes for this species. We have no
information on the number of individuals, population dynamics, or
evidence of genetic structuring and inbreeding for the S. blanchardi.
Additionally, we do not currently have sufficient information on
environmental or any other factors to know whether they affect the
species to an extent that a threat exists. The information available
does not allow us to assess the magnitude or immediacy of these impacts
on the species. In summary, we have no information that allows us to
make a reasonable connection between the impacts of stochastic (random)
environmental, genetic, or demographic events and current or future
declines of the S. blanchardi. Therefore, we conclude that S.
blanchardi is not threatened by small population size now or likely to
become so.
Summary of Factor E
In summary, based on the best available information, we have no
evidence that natural or other manmade factors are likely to
significantly threaten the existence of the Sphingicampa blanchardi. We
have no information to indicate that the S. blanchardi uses croplands
and is exposed to pesticides. Also, we no information on historic or
current population sizes, so we are unable to determine if there may be
inherent vulnerabilities of small populations and restricted geographic
range. Therefore, we find that the S. blanchardi is not threatened as a
result of natural or other manmade factors now or likely to become so.

Finding for the Sphingicampa blanchardi

As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the Sphingicampa blanchardi is endangered or threatened
throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by the S. blanchardi. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, and other available published and
unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized moth experts
and State agencies. We evaluated historic threats in respect to current
and future populations, and used the best available scientific and
commercial information to make reasonable connections between the
historic impacts and current or future declines of the species in order
to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction now or in
the foreseeable future. The mere identification of factors that could
negatively impact a species is not sufficient to compel a finding that
listing is appropriate. We require evidence that these factors are
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
Based on the best available information, there may have been
historic habitat impacts to the Sphingicampa blanchardi from
agricultural development, but in the absence of information on historic
or current species range or abundance, we are unable to determine the
magnitude of historic, current, or future threats from this activity.
The small amount of information available is not sufficient to assess
the extent to which the S. blanchardi's range may have been reduced, or
if the loss of native

[[Page 59633]]

Tamaulipan thornscrub has caused a decline in population numbers. Also,
we have no evidence that the native Tamaulipan thornscrub is being
converted to agricultural crop fields now or in the foreseeable future.
In the absence of information that allows us to make a reasonable
connection between historic agricultural conversion of native
Tamaulipan thornscrub to crop fields and current or future declines of
the species, we have determined that S. blanchardi is not in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable future due to agricultural
development.
Urban development is expected to occur as human populations in
Texas continue to increase, but we have no information that it will
occur within the remaining woodland areas of the Lower Rio Grande
Valley. Also, we do not have the information needed to assess whether
climate change is a threat to this species. And, we have no evidence
that overutilization, predation, disease, inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, pesticide use, and small population size are
threats to the species. In the absence of information that allows us to
make a reasonable connection between the impacts of these activities
and current or future declines of the S. blanchardi, we conclude that
this species is not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable
future due to any of these factors.
Therefore, based on our review of the best available scientific and
commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the
potential threats are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that Sphingicampa blanchardi is in danger of
extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered, within the
foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all of its range.

Significant Portion of the Range

Having determined that Sphingicampa blanchardi is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so throughout its range, we must next
consider whether there are any significant portions of the range where
it is in danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future.
In determining whether Sphingicampa blanchardi is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range, we first addressed
whether any portions of the range warrant further consideration. We
evaluated the current range of S. blanchardi to determine if there is
any apparent geographic concentration of the primary stressors
potentially affecting the species, such as habitat loss, climate
change, pesticide use, and small population size. However, we found the
stressors are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, magnitude, or
geographic concentration that would warrant evaluating whether a
portion of the range is significant under the Act. We do not find that
S. blanchardi is in danger of extinction now, nor is it likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Therefore, listing S. blanchardi as
endangered or threatened under the Act is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the Sphingicampa blanchardi to our Corpus
Christi Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section)
whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor the
species and encourage its conservation. If an emergency situation
develops for S. blanchardi, or any other species, we will act to
provide immediate protection.

Species Information for Ursia furtiva (No Common Name)

Taxonomy and Species Description
The genus of moths, Ursia, was originally described in 1911 by
Barnes and McDunnough (1911, pp. 160-161) as belonging to the family
Notodontidae. The species Ursia furtiva (no common name) was not
described until 1971, and was based on a single male specimen collected
in the Big Bend National Park, Texas (Blanchard 1971, pp. 303-305).
Distribution
Even though there are anecdotal reports of Ursia furtiva occurring
in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, and Lufkin, Angelina County, Texas
(http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species/Ursia-furtiva), we are
aware of only one confirmed specimen, which was collected in the Big
Bend National Park, Texas (Blanchard 1971, pp. 303-305). Because
reports of the species' occurrence outside Big Bend National Park have
not been confirmed, we are not accepting those reports as records of
occurrence. Therefore, we acknowledge only the single documented
specimen from the Chisos Mountains of Big Bend National Park, Texas
(Blanchard 1971, pp. 303-305). Thus, the distribution of a species
cannot be described based on a single specimen. Therefore, we are not
able to determine the distribution of Ursia furtiva.
Habitat and Biology
We have no information about the habitat or biology of Ursia
furtiva. Because we lack any information on the species, we cannot
reach conclusions about the biology or the habitat needs of the
species.

Five-Factor Evaluation for Ursia furtiva

In making this finding, information pertaining to the Ursia furtiva
in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act
is discussed below.

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

The description of Ursia furtiva is based on a single male specimen
collected in the Big Bend National Park, Texas (Blanchard 1971, pp.
303-305). Because we have no information about the species, its
habitat, and current or historic distributions or population levels, we
conclude that the species is not threatened by the destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range now or likely to
become so.

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

We acknowledge that only the single documented specimen is from Big
Bend National Park, Texas (Blanchard 1971, pp. 303-305). Therefore, any
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational collection
activities would require a permit by the National Park Service (36 CFR
2.5). Because of this regulation and the lack of information suggesting
that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes poses a threat to the species, we find that the
Ursia furtiva is not threatened by overutilization now or likely to
become so.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

We have no information to indicate that the Ursia furtiva is
subject to disease or predation. We have not encountered any
information that indicates the contrary; however, in the absence of
evidence that this may constitute a threat to the species, we conclude
that the U. furtiva is not threatened by disease or predation now or
likely to become so.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

We have no information to indicate that the Ursia furtiva may be
affected by the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. As noted
above under Factor B and according to Title 32 Section 2.5 in the Code
of Federal

[[Page 59634]]

Regulations, any commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
collection activities, including the collection of Ursia furtiva, would
require a permit by the National Park Service. Also, we have not
identified any threat to the species under the other four listing
factors requiring regulatory protection. Consequently, we do not find
that the lack of regulatory mechanisms, other than the National Park
Service's permit requirement, constitutes an independent threat to the
species. We conclude that the U. furtiva is not threatened by the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms now or likely to become
so.

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

For a more detailed description of how we consider the effects of
climate change as a component of our analyses of species under the Act,
please see Factor A, Climate Change, above under the Tamaulipan
agapema. While it appears reasonable to assume that climate change will
occur within Big Bend National Park where the only specimen of Ursia
furtiva has been documented, we lack sufficient information to know
specifically how climate change will affect the species. In addition,
since we have no information of the habitat required by this species,
we cannot make any predictions about the effects of climate change on
the habitat. We have not identified, nor are we aware of, any data on
an appropriate scale to evaluate habitat or population trends for the
species, or to make predictions on future trends and whether the
species will actually be impacted. Therefore, based on the best
available information, we conclude that U. furtiva is not threatened by
climate change now or likely to become so.

Finding for the Ursia furtiva

As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the Ursia furtiva is endangered or threatened throughout all of
its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the
U. furtiva. We reviewed the petition, information available in our
files, and other available published and unpublished information, and
we consulted with recognized moth experts and State agencies.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we found no information to
indicate that there are threats to the species or its habitat, from any
of the five factors. This species is known from only one documented
specimen. Therefore, we lack data about Ursia furtiva's habitat,
current or historical distributions, and susceptibility to threats.
Based on the very Limited information about this species, we have
determined that U. furtiva is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become so.

Significant Portion of the Range

Having determined that Ursia furtiva is not in danger of extiontion
or likely to become so throughout its range, we must next consider
whether there are any significant portions of the range where the
species is in danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered in
the foreseeable future. Because the species is known from only one
documented specimen, we lack information about U. furtiva's habitat,
current or historical distributions, and susceptibility to threats.
There is nothing to suggest that threats are disproportionately acting
on any portion of the species' range such that the species is at risk
of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that
listing the U. furtiva as an endangered or threatened species is not
warranted throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Conclusion of 12-Month Finding

We find the Tamaulipan agapema, Sphingicampa blanchardi, and Ursia
furtiva are not in danger of extinction now, nor is any of these three
species likely to become so throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Therefore, listing any of these three species as endangered
or threatened under the Act is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the Taumalipan agapema or Sphingicampa
blanchardi to our Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes available. New information will help us
monitor the species and encourage its conservation. If an emergency
situation develops for either the Taumalipan agapema, S. blanchardi, or
any other species, we will act to provide immediate protection.
Also, we request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, Ursia furtiva to our Austin Ecological
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes available.
New information will help us monitor U. furtiva and encourage its
conservation. If an emergency situation develops for U. furtiva, or any
other species, we will act to provide immediate protection.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Austin and Corpus
Christi Ecological Services Field Offices (see ADDRESSES).

Author

The primary author of this notice is a staff member of the
Southwest Regional Office.

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

Dated: September 7, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-24528 Filed 9-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P