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, 59623-59634 [2011-24528]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
no evidence that such exception would
cause possible harmful interference to
an authorized satellite system, said
transmission path may be authorized on
waiver basis where the maximum value
of the equivalent isotropically radiated
power (EIRP) does not exceed:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) 12.7 to 13.25 GHz. No directional
transmitting antenna utilized by a fixed
station operating in this band with EIRP
greater than 45 dBW may be aimed
within 1.5 degrees of the geostationarysatellite orbit, taking into account
atmospheric refraction.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Amend § 101.147 by revising
paragraph (i) introductory text, adding
paragraph (i)(9), revising paragraph (o)
introductory text, and adding paragraph
(o)(8) to read as follows:
§ 101.147
Frequency assignments.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) 5,925 to 6,425 MHz. 60 MHz
authorized bandwidth.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) 60 MHz bandwidth channels:
Transmit
(receive)
(MHz)
Receive
(transmit)
(MHz)
5964.97
6024.27
6083.57
6142.87
6217.01
6276.31
6335.61
6394.91
*
*
*
*
*
(o) 10,700 to 11,700 MHz. 80 MHz
authorized bandwidth.
(8) 80 MHz bandwidth channels:
Transmit
(receive)
(MHz)
10745
10825
10905
10985
11065
11145
*
Receive
(transmit)
(MHz)
11235
11315
11395
11475
11555
11635
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–23000 Filed 9–26–11; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 205, 208, 212, 213, 214,
215, 216, and 252
RIN 0750–AH11
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Only One
Offer (DFARS Case 2011–D013)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
DoD is proposing to amend
the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS)
to address acquisitions using
competitive procedures in which only
one offer is received. With some
exceptions, the contracting officer must
resolicit for an additional period of at
least 30 days, if the solicitation allowed
fewer than 30 days for receipt of
proposals and only one offer is received.
If a period of at least 30 days was
allowed for receipt of proposals, the
contracting officer must determine
prices to be fair and reasonable through
price or cost analysis or enter
negotiations with the offeror.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule that published on July 25,
2011, at 76 FR 44293 is reopened.
Interested parties should submit written
comments to the address shown below
on or before October 7, 2011, to be
considered in the formation of the final
rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by DFARS Case 2011–D013,
using any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov.
Submit comments via the Federal
eRulemaking portal by inserting
‘‘DFARS Case 2011–D013’’ under the
heading ‘‘Enter keyword or ID’’ and
selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the link
‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds
with ‘‘DFARS Case 2011–D013.’’ Follow
the instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit
a Comment’’ screen. Please include your
name, company name (if any), and
‘‘DFARS Case 2011–D013’’ on your
attached document.
• E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include
DFARS Case 2011–D013 in the subject
line of the message.
• Fax: 703–602–0350.
• Mail: Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy
Williams, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS),
Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–3060.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59623
Comments received generally will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal and/or business confidential
information provided. To confirm
receipt of your comment(s), please
check https://www.regulations.gov
approximately two to three days after
submission to verify posting (except
allow 30 days for posting of comments
submitted by mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Amy Williams, 703–602–0328.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register on July 25, 2011, at 76
FR 44293, with a request for comments
on or before September 23, 2011. The
comment period is being reopened
through October 7, 2011, to provide an
additional time for interested parties to
review the proposed DFARS changes.
Therefore, accordingly, the comment
period for the proposed rule that
published on July 25, 2011, at 76 FR
44293 is reopened.
Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
[FR Doc. 2011–24783 Filed 9–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59624
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 https://
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 12month 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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
59625
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
Distribution and Status
nocturnal, do not feed as they have
nonfunctional mouth parts, have only
Based on occurrence records from
one brood per year, and are relatively
limited reports and survey efforts, the
short-lived (Powell and Opler 2009, p.
known distribution of the Tamaulipan
236). These moths fly from September to
agapema is from Cameron and Hidalgo
November, during which time they
Counties in the Lower Rio Grande
breed and lay eggs on Condalia hookeri
Valley of south Texas to approximately
(brasil) (Peigler and Kendall 1993, p. 5;
150 miles (241 kilometers) south into
northern Tamaulipas, Mexico (Tuskes et Tuskes et al. 1996, p. 171). Eggs hatch
in December and January, and larvae
al. 1996, p. 170). In Tamaulipas,
feed on C. hookeri (Peigler and Kendall
Mexico, the Tamaulipan agapema was
observed near Soto la Marina, about 150 1993, p. 12). In a review of the genus
Agapema, Peigler and Kendall (1993, p.
miles (mi) (241 kilometers (km)) south
of the United States border (Tuskes et al. 5) cited Collins and Weast’s 1961 book
Wild Silk Moths of the United States,
1996, p. 170). Unfortunately, there are
Saturniinae, to report that cocoons of
no records of the species occurring in
the Tamaulipan agapema have been
the intervening 150 mi (241 km)
observed in masses on Pithecellobium
between Soto la Marina and its closest
known record of occurrence in Cameron ebano (ebony) trees in the Rio Grande
Valley of south Texas. Peigler and
County, Texas.
We have no historic or current
Kendall (1993, pp. 5, 12) also state that
population estimates for this species.
the larvae move from the C. hookeri
According to Tuskes et al. (1996, p.
shrubs to P. ebano to make their
170), this species was once fairly
cocoons on the trunks. However, the
common, but ‘‘has not been reported
larvae make their cocoons on C. hookeri
north of Mexico since the 1960s.’’
as well as P. ebano. Wolfe (2010, pers.
Tuskes et al. (1996, p. 170) did not
comm.) noted that when he visited a site
define the term ‘‘fairly common,’’ so we west of Soto la Marina, Mexico, about
do not know what this means in a
150 mi (241 km) south of the United
numerical or geographical context of
States border, that there were ‘‘hundreds
population estimates. Tuskes et al.
of cocoons matted along the trunks’’ of
(1996, p. 170) also reported that
the host plant C. hookeri. It seems that
attempts at searching for adults in areas Tamaulipan agapema are associated
that contain suitable habitat have been
with C. hookeri and P. ebano during the
unsuccessful, but they did not give
early stages of their life cycle.
Moths and butterflies are typically
dates or the amount of survey effort that
associated with host plants, and are
was involved. Wolfe (2010, pers.
comm.) noted that when he visited a site often specifically linked to one or more
plant species in order to complete their
west of Soto la Marina (in Mexico) in
life cycle. As noted above, the known
1994 that there were ‘‘hundreds of
cocoons matted along the trunks’’ of the host plants of Tamualipan agapema are
Condalia hookeri (brasil) and
host plant Condalia hookeri (brasil).
Yet, when this site was visited again
Pithecellobium ebano (ebony) trees
several years later, no cocoons were
(Peigler and Kendall 1993, p. 12). Both
found (Wolfe 2010, pers. comm.). The
of these plants are part of the
information available does not allow us
Tamaulipan thornscrub vegetative
to assess whether the species is actually community. They are associated with
extirpated in the United States. We do
the deep alluvial soils of the southern
not know if the limited survey efforts
Rio Grande River, and are found in the
were thorough enough, conducted at the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas and
right time or in the right areas, or with
Tamaulipas, Mexico (NatureServe 2003,
enough frequency to actually document pp. 1–2). Both plants are prevalent in
the species’ occurrence. Failure to
residential settings, because they are
detect species when they are present is
deliberately planted or started by bird
not uncommon in field surveys (Gu and droppings (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.).
Because the host plants are prevalent
Swihart 2004, p. 199). Failure to detect
in residential settings, it may be
a species’ presence in an occupied
possible for the Tamaulipan agapema to
habitat patch is a common sampling
live in an urban environment. Peigler
problem when the population size is
and Kendall (1993, p. 4) noted that
small, individuals are difficult to
sample, or sampling effort is limited (Gu adults of this species were often
collected at night near artificial light
and Swihart 2004, p. 195). In the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
59626
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 preexisting 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59627
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° C
(0.09° F), but by the last decade of the
century the difference across scenarios
is 1.6° C (0.9° F); as noted by Cox and
Stephenson (2007, p. 208) total
uncertainty in projected decadal mean
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59628
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 ° C
(1.19° F) in the near term to 1.8° C (3.24°
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59629
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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
59630
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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).
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
under the Act. Potential factors that may
affect the habitat or range of the S.
blanchardi are discussed in this section,
including: (1) Agricultural development,
(2) urban development, and (3) climate
change.
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.
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, it has only
about 5 percent of the native vegetation
remaining 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 is reasonable to
assume that habitat loss for the
Sphingicampa blanchardi has occurred
because the native plant species are no
longer available. However, 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.
While there may have been historical
impacts to the Sphingicampa
blanchardi from agricultural
development, 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. The information
available does not allow us to assess the
extent to which the S. blanchardi
occurred throughout the Tamaulipan
thornscrub, or if the loss of habitat has
caused a decline in population
numbers. Also, we have no information
to indicate that additional conversion of
native habitat to agricultural croplands
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
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 preexisting 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
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59631
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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
59632
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Tamaulipan agapema is not threatened
by destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range now
or likely to become so.
threatened by pesticide use now or
likely to beome 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.
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.
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.
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
Small Population Size
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 (https://
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59633
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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
59634
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
species, we will act to provide
immediate protection.
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.
The primary author of this notice is a
staff member of the Southwest Regional
Office.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Austin and Corpus Christi
Ecological Services Field Offices (see
ADDRESSES).
Author
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
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 110908575–1573–01]
RIN 0648–BB27
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2012
Specifications and Management
Measures and Secretarial
Amendment 1
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
This proposed action would
establish the 2012 harvest specifications
and management measures for certain
groundfish species taken in the U.S.
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and
California consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and
the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (PCGFMP). This
action includes regulations to
implement Secretarial Amendment 1 to
the PCGFMP. Secretarial Amendment 1
contains the rebuilding plans for
overfished species and new reference
points for assessed flatfish species.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than 5 p.m., local time on
November 8, 2011.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Agencies
[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 https://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
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 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.
Potential factors that may affect the habitat or range of the S.
blanchardi are discussed in this section, including: (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, it has only about 5 percent
of the native vegetation remaining 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 is reasonable to assume that habitat loss
for the Sphingicampa blanchardi has occurred because the native plant
species are no longer available. However, 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.
While there may have been historical impacts to the Sphingicampa
blanchardi from agricultural development, 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. The information available does not
allow us to assess the extent to which the S. blanchardi occurred
throughout the Tamaulipan thornscrub, or if the loss of habitat has
caused a decline in population numbers. Also, we have no information to
indicate that additional conversion of native habitat to agricultural
croplands
[[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 c