Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47003

§ 1618.5 Duties of the Corporation. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and preferred file format is Microsoft Word. (a) Whenever the Corporation learns Wildlife Service (Service), announce a If you attach multiple documents (such that there is reason to believe that a 90-day finding on petitions to list the as form letters), our preferred format is recipient or a recipient’s employee may Spring Mountains dark blue a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. have committed a violation, the ( ancilla purpura and (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail Corporation shall investigate the matter Euphilotes ancilla cryptica) and or hand-delivery to: Public Comments promptly and attempt to resolve it Morand’s checkerspot Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2012– through informal consultation with the (Euphydryas anicia morandi) as 0041; Division of Policy and Directives recipient. Such actions may be limited endangered or threatened under the Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife to determining if the recipient is Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS sufficiently investigating and resolving amended (Act), and to designate critical 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. the matter itself. habitat. Based on our review, we find We will post all information we (b) Whenever there is substantial that the petition requesting listing of the receive on http://www.regulations.gov. reason to believe that a recipient has Morand’s checkerspot butterfly does not This generally means that we will post persistently or intentionally violated the present substantial information any personal information you provide LSC requirements, or, after notice, has indicating that listing that species may us (see the Request for Information failed to take appropriate remedial or be warranted. In addition, based on our section below for more details). disciplinary action to ensure review, we find that the petition FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: compliance by its employees with the requesting listing of the two Spring Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor, U.S. LSC requirements, and attempts at Mountains dark blue butterflies presents Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish informal resolution have been substantial scientific or commercial and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial unsuccessful, the Corporation may information indicating that listing these Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, Nevada 89502, proceed to suspend or terminate species may be warranted. Therefore, by telephone 775–861–6300 or by financial support of the recipient, or with the publication of this notice, we facsimile 775–861–6301. Persons who impose a lesser reduction in funding, will initiate status reviews of the two use a telecommunications device for the pursuant to the procedures set forth in Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies deaf (TDD) may call the Federal parts 1623 and 1606, or may take other to determine whether listing is Information Relay Service (FIRS) at action to enforce compliance with the warranted. To ensure that these status 800–877–8339. LSC requirements. reviews are comprehensive, we are This finding is available on the (c) Whenever the Corporation requesting scientific and commercial Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at determines that a recipient has data and other information regarding Docket Number FWS–R8–ES–2012– committed a violation, that corrective these two subspecies. Based on these 0041. Supporting documentation we actions by the recipient are required to status reviews, we will issue a 12-month used in preparing this finding is remedy the violation and/or prevent finding on the petition, which will available for public inspection, by recurrence of the violation, and that address whether the petitioned action is appointment, during normal business imposition of special grant conditions warranted, as provided in section hours, at the Nevada Fish and Wildlife are needed prior to the next grant 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. Office (see above for address). renewal or competition for the service DATES: To allow us adequate time to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: area, the Corporation may immediately conduct this review, we request that we Request for Information impose Special Grant Conditions on the receive information on or before October recipient to require completion of those 9, 2012. The deadline for submitting an When we make a finding that a corrective actions. electronic comment using the Federal petition presents substantial information indicating that listing a eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES Victor M. Fortuno, species may be warranted, we are section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Vice President & General Counsel. required to promptly initiate review of Time on this date. After October 9, the status of the species (status review). [FR Doc. 2012–19073 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] 2012, you must submit information For the status review to be complete and BILLING CODE 7050–01–P directly to the Division of Policy and based on the best available scientific Directives Management (see ADDRESSES and commercial information, we request section below). Please note that we information on the two Spring DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR might not be able to address or Mountains dark blue butterflies from incorporate information that we receive governmental agencies, Native Fish and Wildlife Service after the above requested date. American tribes, the scientific ADDRESSES: 50 CFR Part 17 You may submit community, industry, and any other information by one of the following interested parties. We seek information [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2012–0041; methods: 4500030113] on: (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal (1) The species’ biology, range, and eRulemaking Portal: http:// population trends, including: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife www.regulations.gov. In the search box, and Plants; 90-Day Finding on (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, enter FWS–R8–ES–2012–0041, which is breeding, and sheltering; Petitions To List the Two Spring the docket number for this action. You Mountains Dark Blue Butterflies and (b) Genetics and ; may submit a comment by clicking on (c) Historical and current range Morand’s Checkerspot Butterfly as ‘‘Send a Comment or Submission.’’ If including distribution patterns; Endangered or Threatened your submission will fit in the provided (d) Historical and current population AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, comment box, please use this feature of levels, and current and projected trends; Interior. http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most and compatible with our information (e) Past and ongoing conservation ACTION: Notice of petition finding and collection procedures. If you attach your measures for the species, its habitat, or initiation of status review. submission as a separate document, our both.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47004 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(2) The factors that are the basis for made via a hardcopy that includes petitioner, we responded that we making a listing determination for a personal identifying information, you reviewed the information presented in species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 may request at the top of your document the petition and determined that issuing U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: that we withhold this personal an emergency regulation temporarily (a) The present or threatened identifying information from public listing the species under section 4(b)(7) destruction, modification, or review. However, we cannot guarantee of the Act was not warranted. We also curtailment of its habitat or range; that we will be able to do so. We will stated that we are currently required to (b) Overutilization for commercial, post all hardcopy submissions on http:// complete a significant number of listing recreational, scientific, or educational www.regulations.gov. and critical habitat actions by the end of purposes; Information and supporting Fiscal Year 2016 pursuant to court (c) Disease or predation; documentation that we received and orders, judicially approved settlement (d) The inadequacy of existing used in preparing this finding is agreements, and other statutory regulatory mechanisms; or available for you to review at deadlines, and that we might conduct a (e) Other natural or manmade factors http://www.regulations.gov, or by review of the petition prior to that time affecting its continued existence. appointment, during normal business should budget and workload permit. If, after the status review, we hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife This finding addresses the petition. determine that listing either or both of Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Morand’s Checkerspot Butterfly Petition the two Spring Mountains dark blue Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION butterflies is warranted, we will propose CONTACT). On November 1, 2011, we received a critical habitat (see definition in section petition dated October 28, 2011, from 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the Background Bruce M. Boyd, requesting that Act, to the maximum extent prudent Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires Morand’s checkerspot butterfly and determinable at the time we that we make a finding on whether a (Euphydryas anicia morandi) be listed propose to list the species. Therefore, petition to list, delist, or reclassify a as endangered or threatened. The we also request data and information species presents substantial scientific or petition clearly identified itself as such on: commercial information indicating that and included the requisite identification (1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or the petitioned action may be warranted. information for the petitioner, required biological features essential to the We are to base this finding on at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a November 16, conservation of the species,’’ within the information provided in the petition, 2011, letter to the petitioner, we geographical range currently occupied supporting information submitted with responded that we reviewed the by the species; the petition, and information otherwise information presented in the petition (2) Where these features are currently available in our files. To the maximum and determined that issuing an found; extent practicable, we are to make this emergency regulation temporarily (3) Whether any of these features may finding within 90 days of our receipt of listing the species under section 4(b)(7) require special management the petition and publish our notice of of the Act was not warranted. We also considerations or protection; the finding promptly in the Federal stated that we are currently required to (4) Specific areas outside the Register. complete a significant number of listing geographical area occupied by the Our standard for substantial scientific and critical habitat actions in Fiscal species that are ‘‘essential for the or commercial information within the Year 2016 pursuant to court orders, conservation of the species’’; and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with judicially approved settlement (5) What, if any, critical habitat you regard to a 90-day petition finding is agreements, and other statutory think we should propose for designation ‘‘that amount of information that would deadlines, and that we would conduct if the species is proposed for listing, and lead a reasonable person to believe that a review of the petition once we secured why such habitat meets the the measure proposed in the petition funds for this action. This finding requirements of section 4 of the Act. may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). addresses the petition. Please include sufficient information If we find that substantial scientific or with your submission (such as scientific Previous Federal Action(s) commercial information was presented, journal articles or other publications) to we are required to promptly initiate a Two Spring Mountains Dark Blue allow us to verify any scientific or species status review, which we Butterflies Petition commercial information you include. Submissions merely stating support subsequently summarize in our 12- On November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), for or opposition to the action under month finding. we added Euphilotes enoptes ssp. (dark consideration without providing Petition History blue butterfly) to our list of candidate supporting information, although noted, species as a Category 2 candidate will not be considered in making a Two Spring Mountains Dark Blue species. Euphilotes enoptes ssp. is determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Butterflies Petition currently recognized as E. ancilla. A Act directs that determinations as to On October 6, 2011, we received a Category 2 candidate species was a whether any species is an endangered or petition dated September 30, 2011, from species for which we had information threatened species must be made Wild Earth Guardians, requesting that indicating that a proposal to list it as ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific the two Spring Mountains dark blue threatened or endangered under the Act and commercial data available.’’ butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla purpura may be appropriate, but for which You may submit your information and Euphilotes ancilla cryptica) be additional information on biological concerning this status review by one of listed as endangered or threatened, and vulnerability and threat was needed to the methods listed in the ADDRESSES that critical habitat be designated under support the preparation of a proposed section. If you submit information via the Act. The petition clearly identified rule. Euphilotes enoptes ssp. (dark blue http://www.regulations.gov, your entire itself as such and included the requisite butterfly) (=E. ancilla ssp.) was again submission—including any personal identification information for the included in our Category 2 candidate identifying information—will be posted petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). list on November 15, 1994 (59 FR on the Web site. If your submission is In a December 20, 2011, letter to the 58982).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47005

In the February 28, 1996, Candidate ranked by Natureserve (Natureserve, emergence); however they look identical Notice of Review (CNOR) (61 FR 7595), 2012). In addition, Natureserve (Austin et al. 2008, p. 156). Euphilotes we adopted a single category of considers Morand’s checkerspot ancilla purpura is known only from the candidate species defined as follows: butterfly at the subspecies taxonomic east slope of the Spring Mountains ‘‘Those species for which the Service level and ranks it as imperiled at the between Willow Creek and West Mud has on file sufficient information on subspecies, national, and State levels Spring and lower Macks Canyon near biological vulnerability and threat(s) to (Natureserve, 2012). According to the the northern end of the Spring support issuance of a proposed rule to NatureServe Web site, assessment of any Mountains in Clark County at an list but issuance of the proposed rule is species ‘‘does not constitute a elevation range of 1,775–1,950 meters precluded.’’ In previous CNORs, species recommendation by NatureServe for (m) (2,543–6,398 feet (ft)) (Austin et al. meeting this definition were known as listing [that species]’’ under the Act 2008, p. 158). Euphilotes ancilla Category 1 candidates for listing. Thus, (NatureServe 2012). In addition, cryptica is known from several sites on the Service no longer considered NatureServe’s assessment procedures both slopes of the Spring Mountains in Category 2 species as candidates, include ‘‘different criteria, evidence Nye and Clark Counties, Nevada, from including Euphilotes enoptes ssp. (dark requirements, purposes and taxonomic Big Timber Spring to Potosi Mountain at blue butterfly) (=E. ancilla ssp.), and did coverage [from those of] government an elevation range of 1,800–3,000 m not include it in the 1996 list or any lists of endangered and threatened (5,906–9,843 ft) (Austin et al. 2008, p. subsequent CNORs. The decision to stop species, and therefore these two types of 158). The distributions of E. a. purpura considering Category 2 species as lists should not be expected to and E. a. cryptica overlap in Clark candidates was designed to reduce coincide’’ (NatureServe 2012). County (Austin et al. 2008, p. 151). confusion about the status of these Two Spring Mountains Dark Blue Morand’s Checkerspot Butterfly species and to clarify that we no longer Butterflies regarded these species as candidates for Gunder (1928) first described listing. The taxonomy of the two Spring Morand’s checkerspot butterfly as a Mountains dark blue butterflies was subspecies. Based upon the information Morand’s Checkerspot Butterfly Petition recently changed, and this change has in the petition and in our files discussed On January 6, 1989, we added been accepted by local experts. Prior to above, we accept the characterization of Morand’s checkerspot butterfly 2008, both subspecies were grouped Morand’s checkerspot butterfly as a (Euphydryas anicia morandi) to our list together as Euphilotes ancilla purpura, subspecies. of candidate species as a Category 2 whereas after 2008, E. a. purpura was Morand’s checkerspot butterfly is candidate species (54 FR 554–579). split into E. a. purpura and E. a. endemic to the Spring Mountains in Morand’s checkerspot butterfly was cryptica. Austin et al. (2008) notes the southern Nevada and occurs in Clark again included in our Category 2 differences in phenology and host County. It is locally common in the candidate list on November 21, 1991 (56 plants between the two Spring meadows on the ridge to Mt. Charleston FR 58804), and in our Category 2 Mountains dark blue butterflies (E. a. and above the ski area in Lee Canyon, candidate list on November 15, 1994 (59 purpura and E. a. cryptica) and and it generally occurs above 2,012 m FR 58982). Morand’s checkerspot describes them as two subspecies (6,601 ft) in elevation (Austin and butterfly was not included in the 1996 centered around these biological Austin 1980, p. 44). The flight period for list or any subsequent CNORs. differences. Based upon the information Morand’s checkerspot butterfly is from in the petition and in our files discussed late June to July (Austin and Austin Species Information above, we accept the characterization of 1980, p. 44). The larval host plants for The three butterfly subspecies the two Spring Mountains dark blue Morand’s checkerspot butterfly are included in the two petitions and butterflies as subspecies. Castilleja linariifolia (narrow leaved evaluated in this finding are The two Spring Mountains dark blue paint brush), Castilleja applegatei ssp. invertebrates endemic to the Spring butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla purpura martini (=C. martinii var. clokeyi, wavy Mountains in Nevada. All three of the and E. a. cryptica) are endemic to the leaved paint brush), Penstemon eatonii petitioned butterflies are from the Spring Mountains in southern Nevada; (scarlet bugler, firecracker penstemon), phylum Arthropoda, class Insecta, order E. a. purpura only occurs in Clark P. leiophyllus var. keckii (Charleston . The two dark blue County, whereas E. a. cryptica occurs in beardtongue), and P. rostriflorus (scarlet butterflies are members of the family both Clark and Nye Counties (Austin et penstemon, beaked beard-tongue) . The Morand’s checkerspot al. 2008, p. 151). Austin et al. (2008) (Weiss et al. 1995, p. 4; Niles and Leary butterfly is a member of the family describe the two dark blue butterflies as 2007, p. 55–56; Austin and Leary 2008, Nymphalidae. In specific sections separate subspecies based on differences p. 106–107). Morand’s checkerspot below, we have included a short in phenology and host plants. For butterfly appears in three distinct summary of available population and example, E. a. purpura uses phenotypes (the observable properties of life-history information for each umbellatum var. juniporinum (juniper an organism) on the Spring Mountains subspecies, as provided in the petitions, buckwheat) as its larval host plant and (Weiss et al. 1995, p. 4). their references, and our files. has a flight season from early May to The two Spring Mountains dark blue early July (Austin et al. 2008, p. 156). Evaluation of Information for This butterflies petition provides information On the other hand, E. a. cryptica uses Finding regarding the subspecies ranking for var. subaridum Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) Euphilotes ancilla purpura according to (sulphur-flower buckwheat) as its larval and its implementing regulations at 50 NatureServe (WildEarth Guardians host plant and has a flight season from CFR part 424 set forth the procedures 2011, p. 4). Euphilotes ancilla purpura mid-July to mid-August (Austin et al. for adding a species to, or removing a is considered at the subspecies 2008, p. 156). The two subspecies also species from, the Federal Lists of taxonomic level and is ranked imperiled differ in the length of their flight Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at the subspecies and national levels, seasons, their frequencies of visitations and Plants. A species may be and imperiled/critically imperiled at the to mud, and the length of different life determined to be an endangered or State level, whereas E. a. cryptica is not stages (pupation, diapause, and threatened species due to one or more

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

of the five factors described in section and equestrian use (WildEarth Austin et al. (2008, p. 153) regarding 4(a)(1) of the Act: Guardians 2011, p. 10; Austin et al. ungulate grazing and its effect on (A) The present or threatened 2008, p. 158). Specifically, cheatgrass Eriogonum umbellatum subaridum and destruction, modification, or (Bromus tectorum) and red brome (B. Euphilotes (WildEarth Guardians 2011, curtailment of its habitat or range; rubens) are described as being present p. 17). Austin et al. (2008, p. 153) states (B) Overutilization for commercial, in the Spring Mountains National that ungulate grazing was heavy in recreational, scientific, or educational Recreation Area (SMNRA) and are 2002, ‘‘severely reducing the number of purposes; known to alter natural fire regimes and flowers available to any Euphilotes (C) Disease or predation; convert landscapes to annual grasslands present.’’ However, the information in (D) The inadequacy of existing (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 10). In the petition and in our files does not regulatory mechanisms; or addition, the petition states that a fire provide specific supporting information (E) Other natural or manmade factors fuels reduction project was approved by that ungulate grazing may be affecting affecting its continued existence. the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest the two Spring Mountains dark blue In considering what factors might in 2007 with targeted sites in Euphilotes butterflies now or in the future. The constitute threats, we must look beyond ancilla purpura and E. a. cryptica petition does not present specific the mere exposure of the species to the locations (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. information concerning past, present, or factor to determine whether the species 10). The fuels reduction project plan projected intensity of ungulate grazing responds to the factor in a way that analyzed the potential impacts to E. a. in or near occupied or suitable causes actual impacts to the species. If purpura, concluding that it may impact locations. The petition does not present there is exposure to a factor, but no E. a. purpura, but impacts to E. a. specific information as to whether this response, or only a positive response, cryptica were not separately analyzed potential threat has affected, is affecting, that factor is not a threat. If there is (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 10). or is likely to affect either of the two exposure and the species responds The petition also notes that ungulates subspecies, their host plants, or their negatively, the factor may be a threat may affect the two Spring Mountains nectar sources, other than saying that and we then attempt to determine how dark blue butterflies (WildEarth ungulate grazing did occur in 2002 at significant a threat it is. If the threat is Guardians 2011, p. 17). Specifically, the one site. We have no information in our significant, it may drive or contribute to petition states that Eriogonum spp. are files related to ungulate grazing and its the risk of extinction of the species such palatable to native ungulates and impacts to either of the two Spring that the species may warrant listing as domestic livestock, and Austin et al. Mountains dark blue butterflies or their threatened or endangered as those terms (2008, p. 153) found that ungulates habitats. are defined by the Act. This does not heavily grazed Eriogonum umbellatum Information in our files confirms that necessarily require empirical proof of a subaridum and severely reduced the the 2007 Spring Mountains Hazardous threat. The combination of exposure and number of flowers available to Fuels Reduction Project analyzed the some corroborating evidence of how the Euphilotes (WildEarth Guardians 2011, potential impacts to Euphilotes ancilla species is likely impacted could suffice. p. 17). purpura, concluding that the project The mere identification of factors that ‘‘may impact individuals, but is not Evaluation of Information Provided in could impact a species negatively may likely to cause a trend to Federal listing the Petition and Available in Service not be sufficient to compel a finding or loss of viability of the subspecies’’ Files that listing may be warranted. The (USDA 2007, p. 18). In addition, the information shall contain evidence The petition does not present any project states that ‘‘long-term benefits to sufficient to suggest that these factors specific supporting information that larval host and nectaring plant may be operative threats that act on the wildfire exacerbated by invasive weeds populations may occur’’ (USDA 2007, p. species to the point that the species may may be impacting the two Spring 18). These projects have been meet the definition of threatened or Mountains dark blue butterflies or is implemented, but no post- endangered under the Act. likely to in the future. The petition does implementation assessment of impacts In making this 90-day finding, we not present specific information to these butterfly species has occurred. evaluated whether information concerning past, present, or projected Information in our files references a regarding threats to the two Spring intensity of wildfire in or near areas 2010 Blue Tree Trails Project to be Mountains dark blue butterflies and the occupied by the two Spring Mountains conducted in Lee Canyon with the goal Morand’s checkerspot butterfly, as dark blue butterflies. The petition does of ‘‘diversifying the trail experience on presented in the petition and other not present specific information as to the National Recreation Area by information available in our files, is whether this potential threat has designating additional multiple-use substantial, thereby indicating that the affected, is affecting, or is likely to affect trails to meet visitor needs for trails petitioned actions may be warranted. the subspecies, their host plants, or outside of Wilderness, at lower Our evaluation of this information is nectar sources. The petition also does elevations for a year-round experience presented below. not report loss of populations or that are easier to navigate, and located reductions in numbers of either of the to avoid adverse impacts to natural Two Spring Mountains Dark Blue subspecies as a result of wildfire resources’’ (USDA 2010, p. 1). The trails Butterflies Petition exacerbated by invasive weeds. We have system is intended for nonmotorized A. The Present or Threatened information in our files related to recreation opportunities for equestrians, Destruction, Modification, or vegetation and fire history in the Spring mountain bike users, and hikers, and Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Mountains (Hall 2006; Craig 2010); includes improving 45 miles (mi) (72 however, we have no information in our kilometers (km)), rerouting 17 mi (27 Information Provided in the Petition files about the impacts of wildfire upon km), and closing 8.5 mi (14 km) of trails, The petition states that both either of the two Spring Mountains dark resulting in a trail system of subspecies of dark blue butterfly are at blue butterflies or their habitats. approximately 53.5 mi (86 km) in risk from wildfire exacerbated by The petition states that ungulates may length, constructed to meet United invasive weeds, habitat degradation affect the two Spring Mountains dark States Forest Service pack and saddle from recreation, off-road vehicle use, blue butterflies, and the petition cites trail standards (USDA 2010, p. 1). The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47007

Blue Tree Trails Project aimed to butterflies has taken place by scientists Evaluation of Information Provided in minimize the loss of individual and amateur collectors for many years the Petition and Available in Service sensitive plants and covered butterfly (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 16). In Files host plants, and minimize the loss of addition, the petitioner claims to have habitat (USDA 2010, Appendix C). The The petition does not present any encountered an individual who illegally specific supporting information to Blue Tree Trails Project analyzed the captured a protected butterfly species in potential impacts to the species covered suggest that disease or predation are the Spring Mountains range (WildEarth threats that may be impacting the two in the Spring Mountains Conservation Guardians 2011, p. 16). Agreement and Clark County Multiple Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies Species Habitat Conservation Plan; Evaluation of Information Provided in or are likely to impact either of the Euphilotes enoptes ssp. (Spring the Petition and Available in Service subspecies in the future. Disease and Mountains dark blue butterfly) was Files predation are listed in the petition, but listed as a covered species in the 1998 the petition does not associate either of Conservation Agreement. The Blue Tree The petition states that collection of these threats to actual locations in the Trails Project analysis determined that butterflies in the Spring Mountains has Spring Mountains known to be the project ‘‘may impact individuals, taken place for a long time and that occupied by either of the two Spring but is not likely to cause a trend to illegal capture of Spring Mountains Mountains dark blue butterflies. The federal listing or loss of viability’’ butterflies has occurred. However, the threats are generally listed in the (USDA 2010, p. 4). petition does not provide information petition, but there is no information on Information in our files describes a that overutilization for commercial, existing or probable impacts to either of 2011 Archery Range Restoration Project recreational, scientific, or educational the subspecies associated with these that is designed to ‘‘correct and prevent purposes has negatively impacted either potential threats in the petition or in our files. In summary, we find that the soil compaction and erosion problems, of the two Spring Mountains dark blue information provided in the petition, as restore and protect natural resource butterflies. In addition, we have no well as other information in our files, habitat, and eliminate unauthorized use information in our files related to does not present substantial scientific or of NFS lands’’ (USDA 2011, p. 5). This overutilization for these two subspecies. project analyzed the impacts to the commercial information indicating that In summary, we find that the the petitioned action may be warranted Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly information provided in the petition, as (Euphilotes ancilla purpura and E. a. due to disease or predation. However, well as other information in our files, we will further evaluate all factors, cryptica), and the analysis showed that does not present substantial scientific or the project may impact individuals, but including disease or predation, in our commercial information indicating that 12-month status review and finding for is not likely to cause a trend to Federal the petitioned action may be warranted listing or loss of viability of the two these subspecies. due to overutilization for commercial, subspecies (USDA 2011, p. 3). recreational, scientific, or educational D. The Inadequacy of Existing Information in our files reveals that Regulatory Mechanisms three projects have taken place in areas purposes. However, we will further that have the potential to impact the two evaluate all factors, including Information Provided in the Petition overutilization for commercial, Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies, The petition does not provide any recreational, scientific, or educational however, there is no information in the information to suggest that an purposes, in our 12-month status review petition or in our files regarding post- inadequacy of existing regulatory and finding for these subspecies. project conditions to indicate that any of mechanisms may be a threat to the two these projects may have negatively C. Disease or Predation Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies. impacted habitat for either of the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies Information Provided in the Petition Evaluation of Information Provided in such that the petitioned action may be the Petition and Available in Service warranted. The petition notes that parasitism of Files Euphilotes larvae is expected, although In summary, we find that the The petition does not provide information provided in the petition, as there has been no evidence of parasitism of larvae in samples collected from the information that an inadequacy of well as other information in our files, existing regulatory mechanisms has Spring Mountains (WildEarth Guardians does not present substantial scientific or negatively impacted the two Spring 2011, p. 16). The petition states that commercial information indicating that Mountains dark blue butterflies. In parasitism of butterfly larvae by tachnid the petitioned action may be warranted addition, we have no information in our due to a fuels reduction project, wildfire flies (Diptera) and braconid wasps files related to the inadequacy of exacerbated by invasive weeds or (Hymenoptera) has been recorded at existing regulatory mechanisms for ungulate grazing, or recreational rates of 60 percent in California and these two subspecies. In summary, we activities. However, we will further Washington (WildEarth Guardians 2011, find that the information provided in evaluate all factors, including the p. 16). The petition also notes that, the petition, as well as other present or threatened destruction, generally, larvae and adult butterflies information in our files, does not modification, or curtailment of their are preyed upon by many vertebrate and present substantial scientific or habitat or ranges, in our 12-month status invertebrate wildlife (for example, birds, commercial information indicating that review and finding for these subspecies. herptofauna, and other ), but it is the petitioned action may be warranted B. Overutilization for Commercial, not known whether predation is a threat due to an inadequacy of existing Recreational, Scientific, or Educational to the two Spring Mountains dark blue regulatory mechanisms. However, we Purposes butterflies (WildEarth Guardians 2011, will further evaluate all factors, p. 16). The petition states that disease is including the inadequacy of existing Information Provided in the Petition not known to be a threat to the two regulatory mechanisms in our 12-month The petition states that collection of Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies status review and finding for these the two Spring Mountains dark blue (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 16). subspecies.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors due to their limited distribution and and size of populations, population Affecting Its Continued Existence apparently small and/or small number trends, and threats by subspecies. For of populations (WildEarth Guardians Information Provided in the Petition some data years, we are able to 2011, p. 18). The petition cites Brook et distinguish which subspecies was The petition discusses drought and its al. (2008, p. 455) as evidence that observed during the surveys based on potential effects on the two Spring population size matters and small the sample date (each subspecies has a Mountains dark blue butterflies. First, populations are more likely to go extinct different flight season so we were able the petition states that drought may as a result of chance events (WildEarth to determine which subspecies was become even more common in the Great Guardians 2011, p. 18). In addition, the observed based on the date it was Basin as climate change alters future petition notes that characteristic flying). In addition, survey methods precipitation (WildEarth Guardians butterfly population fluctuations and were not identical between years and 2011, p. 16). Specifically, the petition short generation times, combined with sampling efforts for all sites. references Austin et al. (2008) who small populations, can influence genetic states that exposed larval host plants diversity and long-term persistence Information in our files reveals 9 (Eriogonum umbellatum) may dry out (Britten et al. 2003, pp. 229, 233). The observations of Euphilotes ancilla before blooming or seed production, and petition further asserts that Euphilotes purpura in 1995, and 13 observations of drought may kill host plants, especially ancilla purpura and E. a. cryptica E. a. cryptica in 1996 (Weiss et al. 1995, at lower elevations or in marginal apparently occur as small populations p. 21; Weiss et al. 1997, Map 2.1) (Table settings (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. that may be more vulnerable to 1). In 1998, there was 1 observation of 17). Secondly, the petition states that extirpation (WildEarth Guardians 2011, E. a. purpura and 28–60 individuals of drought may contribute to increased p. 18). E. a. cryptica (Boyd and Austin 1999, atmospheric CO2 by reducing the Tables 1–12). In 1999, records indicate Evaluation of Information Provided in amount of CO2 that is annually taken up observations of seven individuals which the Petition and Available in Service by terrestrial vegetation; this situation likely included both E. a. purpura and Files may favor invasive annual grasses, E. a. cryptica (Dewberry et al. 2002, p. including cheatgrass (WildEarth The petition states that very few Appendix 1). In 2000, researchers Guardians 2011, p. 17). Third, the butterflies (approximately 20 observed 9–13 E. a. cryptica, and E. a. petition states that climate change could individuals) were observed during six purpura was observed but no numbers affect bloom phenology in butterfly host trips to one location, representing were given (Boyd and Austin 2001, p. plants which could disrupt the perhaps 5 percent of the annual peak 7). No E. a. purpura or E. a. cryptica butterfly’s use of the plants (WildEarth numbers at that location (likely were detected in 2002 (Dewberry et al. Guardians 2011, p. 17). Fourth, the Euphilotes ancilla purpura) compared 2002, p. Appendix 1), and only a single petition states that butterflies in the with the same location 10 years before E. a. purpura was seen in 2007 Great Basin that exist in small, isolated (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 6). (Datasmiths 2007, p. 17). Two studies populations will not likely be able to However, the petition does not state the have recently been conducted on dark shift to other habitats to adapt to climate year in which these surveys took place. blue butterflies in the Spring change (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. Overall, the petition provides little Mountains. The first study observed a 18). information related to the distribution, The petition states that hundreds of numbers of populations, size of single E. a. purpura in 2010, and 12 E. larval host plants were found dead, populations, or population trends for a. purpura in 2011, although additional likely a result of drought and exposure, the two Spring Mountains dark blue survey areas were included in 2011 at a site that is considered a source for butterflies. The petition provides little (Pinyon 2010, p. 2; Pinyon 2011, p. 22). Euphilotes ancilla purpura, although no to no specific information that indicates The second study observed 11 E. a. year was associated with this that biological vulnerability may be a cryptica and no E. a. purpura in 2010 information in the petition (WildEarth threat to the two Spring Mountains dark (Thompson et al. 2010, pp. 1–7). Service Guardians 2011, p. 6). In addition, the blue butterflies. files contain a record of a phone petition claims that very few butterflies Information in the literature and in conversation with species experts where (approximately 20 individuals) were our files on numbers of individuals they indicated that ‘‘decent’’ numbers of observed over six trips to this same site, reported during various years has most the early-flying population of dark blue representing perhaps 5 percent of likely grouped all individuals of E. a. butterflies (now considered E. a. annual peak numbers from the same purpura and E. a. cryptica together in purpura) were detected in 2006, location 10 years before (WildEarth some years because the subspecies was whereas the late-flying population of the Guardians 2011, p. 6). not split into two subspecies until 2008 dark blue butterfly (now considered E. The petition also discusses the (Austin et al. 2008). It is therefore a. cryptica) was present only at Cold biological vulnerability of the two difficult to separate out the discussions Creek in very low numbers (Service Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies of the distribution, abundance, number 2006, p. 2).

TABLE 1—OBSERVATIONS OF THE TWO SPRING MOUNTAINS DARK BLUE BUTTERFLIES BETWEEN 1995 AND 2011 FROM SERVICE FILES

Either E. Euphilotes Euphilotes a. purpura or Year ancilla ancilla E. a. purpura cryptica cryptica

1995 ...... 9 ...... 1996 ...... 13 ...... 1998 ...... 1 28–60 ...... 1999 ...... 7 2000 ...... observed 9–13 ......

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47009

TABLE 1—OBSERVATIONS OF THE TWO SPRING MOUNTAINS DARK BLUE BUTTERFLIES BETWEEN 1995 AND 2011 FROM SERVICE FILES—Continued

Either E. Euphilotes Euphilotes a. purpura or Year ancilla ancilla E. a. purpura cryptica cryptica

2002 ...... 0 0 ...... 2007 ...... 1 ...... 2010 ...... 1 11 ...... 2011 ...... 12 ......

The information in our files presents uncertainty regarding which habitat cryptica, we cannot determine with butterfly observations from a number of attributes could be affected, and the certainty to which subspecies much of years, but these observations represent timing, magnitude, and rate of changes the data and information in the petition varying survey efforts and various relevant to the two Spring Mountain refers. As a result, we cannot separate survey methodologies (Table 1). dark blue butterflies. Therefore, the the effects and trend data between these Therefore, it is not possible to compare information in the petition and our files two subspecies, and, therefore, without the observation numbers in our files to does not provide substantial more information, we are assuming that the petitioner’s claim that the information that the petitioned action any potential impacts and declining population numbers have declined over may be warranted because neither the trends regarding either of these two time. While we lack specific survey petition nor our files provides specific subspecies actually applies to both information about population numbers information regarding how climate subspecies. We will further evaluate all or population declines for the two change is likely to impact the two factors, including other natural or Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies manmade factors affecting its continued at this time, the information that is in the future. Overall, the petition and existence, in our 12-month status review available may represent a cause for the information in our files presents and finding for these subspecies. concern about the population size and general information about potential Finding potential declining trend of these impacts to the two Spring Mountains butterflies because they are endemic to dark blue butterflies from climate Based on our review of the the Spring Mountains, exist in small, change, and we will assess those information in the petition and readily isolated populations, are biologically impacts further in the status review. available in our files, we find that the vulnerable, and have limited General biological information in our petition presents substantial scientific distributions. Therefore, given the above files indicates that the combination of or commercial information indicating concerns and the information in the few populations, small ranges, and that listing the two Spring Mountains petition indicating a potential decline in restricted habitats can make a species dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla population numbers, we find that there susceptible to extinction or extirpation purpura and E. a. cryptica) throughout is substantial information that the from portions of its range due to random their ranges may be warranted. This petitioned action may be warranted. events such as fire, drought, disease, or finding is based on information Based on the information in our files, other occurrences (Shaffer 1987, pp. 71– provided under factor E (see above). We recent projections of climate change in 74; Meffe and Carroll 1994, pp. 190– determine that the information provided the Great Basin over the next century 197). We have limited information under factors A, B, C, and D is not include: (1) Increased temperatures, related to the overall abundance, substantial. with an increased frequency of distribution, number and size of Because we have found that the extremely hot days in summer; (2) more populations, or population trends for petition presents substantial variable weather patterns and more the two Spring Mountains dark blue information indicating that listing the severe storms; (3) more winter butterflies in our files. We do not have two Spring Mountains dark blue precipitation in the form of rain, with additional information in our files butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla purpura potentially little change or decreases in related to biological vulnerability as a and E. a. cryptica) may be warranted, summer precipitation; and (4) earlier, threat to either of the two subspecies. we will initiate status reviews to more rapid snowmelt (United States In summary, we find that the determine whether listing the two Environmental Protection Agency 1998, information provided in the petition, as Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies pp. 1–4; Chambers and Pellant 2008, pp. well as other information in our files, (Euphilotes ancilla purpura and E. a. 29–33). It is difficult to predict local presents substantial scientific or cryptica) under the Act is warranted. climate change impacts, due to commercial information indicating that The ‘‘substantial information’’ substantial uncertainty in trends of the petitioned action may be warranted standard for a 90-day finding, under hydrological variables, limitations in due to other natural or manmade factors section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR spatial and temporal coverage of affecting its continued existence, 424.14(b) of our regulations, differs from monitoring networks, and differences in especially given the low numbers of the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and the spatial scales of global climate individuals observed of both subspecies commercial data’’ standard that applies models and hydrological models (Bates and the petitioner’s claim that the to a status review to determine whether et al. 2008, p. 3). Thus, while the butterfly’s (believed to be Euphilotes a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- information in the petition and our files ancilla purpura) peak numbers are at 5 day finding does not constitute a status indicates that climate change has the percent of the numbers from 10 years review under the Act. In a 12-month potential to affect vegetation and before. Because of the recent (2008) finding, we will determine whether a habitats used by butterflies in the Great taxonomic change that split E. a. petitioned action is warranted after we Basin in the long term, there is much purpura into E. a. purpura and E. a. have completed a thorough status

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

review of the species, which is impacts to the subspecies associated commercial information indicating that conducted following a substantial 90- with these potential threats in the the petitioned action may be warranted day finding. Because the Act’s standards petition or in our files. In addition, the due to overutilization for commercial, for 90-day and 12-month findings are petition discusses concern with the recreational, scientific, or educational different, as described above, a survey methods used, the qualifications purposes. substantial 90-day finding does not of the surveyors, and the decipherability C. Disease or Predation mean that the 12-month finding will of data. Our files contain information result in a warranted finding. indicating that qualified biologists have Information Provided in the Petition Morand’s Checkerspot Butterfly used accepted methodologies to conduct The petition does not provide any Petition surveys (USDA 2007, pp. 1–7; information to suggest that disease or Thompson et al. 2010, pp. 72–73). predation may be a threat to the A. The Present or Threatened Information in our files indicates that Morand’s checkerspot butterfly. Destruction, Modification, or the 2007 Spring Mountains Hazardous Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Fuels Reduction Project analyzed the Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Information Provided in the Petition potential impacts to the Morand’s checkerspot butterfly, concluding that Files The petition states that Morand’s the project ‘‘may impact individuals, The petition does not provide checkerspot butterfly is recognized as a but is not likely to cause a trend to information that disease or predation priority species by the United States Federal listing or loss of viability of the has negatively impacted the Morand’s Forest Service (USFS), and it is subspecies’’ (USDA 2007, p. 18). Even checkerspot butterfly. In addition, we recognized as a species of concern in the though the petition states that a have no information in our files related Conservation Agreement for the SMNRA Morand’s checkerspot butterfly site was to disease or predation for this and in the Clark County Multiple drastically modified, the petition does subspecies. In summary, we find that Species Habitat Conservation Plan not provide specific information on the the information provided in the (Boyd 2011, p. 1). The petition also location of the site or evidence to show petition, as well as other information in notes that the Nevada Natural Heritage that the butterfly was affected by this our files, does not present substantial Program is tracking the species (Boyd project. There is no information in the scientific or commercial information 2011, p. 1). petition or in our files to show that indicating that the petitioned action The petition lists several threats to the Morand’s checkerspot butterfly numbers may be warranted due to disease or Morand’s checkerspot butterfly declined after the fuel reduction project predation. including the proliferation of invasive or that butterflies were impacted as a plants (weeds), an elevated risk of D. The Inadequacy of Existing result of this project. wildland fires associated with invasive Regulatory Mechanisms In summary, we find that the plants, and the loss of larval and adult information provided in the petition, as Information Provided in the Petition resources caused by feral horses (Boyd well as other information in our files, 2011, p. 2). In addition, the petition The petition does not provide any does not present substantial scientific or discusses concern with the survey information to suggest that an commercial information indicating that methods used, the qualifications of the inadequacy of existing regulatory the petitioned action may be warranted surveyors, and the use of data. mechanisms may be a threat to the due to the present or threatened The petition states that a fuels Morand’s checkerspot butterfly. destruction, modification, or reduction project took place from 2007 curtailment of its habitat or range. Evaluation of Information Provided in to 2010 and drastically modified a site the Petition and Available in Service where Morand’s checkerspot butterflies B. Overutilization for Commercial, Files occurred (Boyd 2011, p. 4). In addition, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational The petition does not provide the petition claims that hundreds of Purposes information that an inadequacy of thousands of larval host plants and Information Provided in the Petition existing regulatory mechanisms has nectar plants were destroyed as a result negatively impacted the Morand’s of this fuels reduction project, and the The petition does not provide any checkerspot butterfly. In addition, we butterfly was impacted by worker information to suggest that have no information in our files related trampling, vehicle crushing, moving overutilization for commercial, to the inadequacy of existing regulatory equipment, and the disposal of cut recreational, scientific, or educational mechanisms for this subspecies. In waste (Boyd 2011, p. 4). purposes may be a threat to the Morand’s checkerspot butterfly. summary, we find that the information Evaluation of Information Provided in provided in the petition, as well as other the Petition and Available in Service Evaluation of Information Provided in information in our files, does not Files the Petition and Available in Service present substantial scientific or The petition does not present any Files commercial information indicating that specific supporting information that The petition does not provide the petitioned action may be warranted invasive plants, wildland fires, and feral information that overutilization for due to an inadequacy of existing horses are threats that may be impacting commercial, recreational, scientific, or regulatory mechanisms. Morand’s checkerspot butterfly or are educational purposes has negatively E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors likely to impact the subspecies in the impacted the Morand’s checkerspot Affecting Its Continued Existence future. These threats are listed in the butterfly. In addition, we have no petition, but the petition does not information in our files related to Information Provided in the Petition associate any of these threats to actual overutilization for this subspecies. In The petition claims that general locations known to be occupied by the summary, we find that the information declines in the numbers of all covered subspecies. The threats are generally provided in the petition, as well as other butterfly species (covered means that listed in the petition, but there is no information in our files, does not the species is included in the information on existing or probable present substantial scientific or Conservation Agreement for the SMNRA

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47011

and in the Clark County Multiple checkerspot butterflies since 2003, as Author Species Habitat Conservation Plan) in claimed by the petition. The primary authors of this notice are the Spring Mountains were evident in Drought is listed as a threat in the the staff members of the Nevada Fish 2005 and that decreases in the numbers petition, but the petition does not and Wildlife Office and the Pacific of Morand’s checkerspot butterfly at provide any specific information that Southwest Regional Office. some locations were identified by 2003 drought has negatively impacted the Authority (Boyd 2011, p. 2). Specifically, the Morand’s checkerspot butterfly, or is petition states that at one location, 104 likely to impact the subspecies in the The authority for this action is the individuals were recorded on a single future. In addition, we have no Endangered Species Act of 1973, as survey day in 2001, whereas 65 were information in our files related to amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). recorded in 2002, and 19 were recorded drought as it relates to the effects of Dated: July 27, 2012. in 2003. The petition states that they climate change for this subspecies. In Rowan W. Gould, believe the highest number recorded in summary, we find that the information Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 was 11, but the petition states that this number is not verified (Boyd 2011, provided in the petition, as well as other [FR Doc. 2012–19332 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] p. 2). At another location in 2002, many information in our files, does not BILLING CODE 4310–55–P hundreds were seen on each of two present substantial scientific or visits, whereas none were found in 2007 commercial information indicating that DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR during a single day survey. In addition, the petitioned action may be warranted due to other natural or manmade factors no pre-diapause larvae were found and Fish and Wildlife Service no earlier post-diapause larval feeding affecting its continued existence. on the host plants was seen during that Finding 50 CFR Part 17 same survey day (Boyd 2011, p. 2). At a third location in 2002, the petition Based on our review of the [Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2011– states that 46 Morand’s checkerspot information in the petition and readily 0003;FXES111309F2130D2–123– FF09E22000] butterflies were seen during a protocol available in our files, we find that the survey and an additional 200–300 petition does not present substantial RIN 1018–AY42 individuals were seen outside of the scientific or commercial information to transect area, whereas the petition indicate that listing the Morand’s Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the Straight- claims that only 1–3 individuals were checkerspot butterfly under the Act as Horned Markhor With Special Rule recorded on a given day in 2010 in the endangered or threatened may be same two areas (Boyd 2011, p. 2). warranted at this time. We base this AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, The petition lists drought as a threat conclusion on finding no specific Interior. to the Morand’s checkerspot butterfly information on threats to the subspecies. ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month (Boyd 2011, p. 4). Additionally, we have more recent finding. Evaluation of Information Provided in information in our files that does not support the petitioner’s claim that SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and the Petition and Available in Service Wildlife Service (Service), propose to Files Morand’s checkerspot butterfly has experienced a decrease in its numbers reclassify the straight-horned markhor The petition claims that declines of since 2003. The information does not (Capra falconeri jerdoni) from Morand’s checkerspot butterfly have suggest that threats are acting on the endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as occurred since 2003 as evidenced by Morand’s checkerspot butterfly such amended. This proposed action is based declines in survey numbers at three that the species may be endangered or on a review of the best available unspecified locations (Boyd 2011, p. 2). become endangered now or in the scientific and commercial data which Information in our files leads us to foreseeable future. We make this finding believe that two of these unspecified indicates that the endangered under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and designation no longer correctly reflects locations are Griffith Peak and Lee 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations. Canyon based on similarity of results the status of the straight-horned Although we will not review the reported in Dewberry et al. (2002, markhor. This proposal constitutes our status of the species at this time, we Appendix 1). Information in our files 12-month finding on the petition to encourage interested parties to continue reveals that Morand’s checkerspot reclassify this subspecies, serves as our butterfly surveys found 129 in 2010, and to gather data that will assist with the 5-year review, and fulfills our 1,040 in 2011 (Pinyon 2011, p. 22). In conservation of the Morand’s obligations under a settlement addition, Pinyon (2011, p. 23) states that checkerspot butterfly. If you wish to agreement. We are also proposing a Morand’s checkerspot butterflies were provide information regarding the special rule concurrently. The effects of observed throughout the survey period Morand’s checkerspot butterfly, you these regulations are to correctly reflect in all three areas surveyed in 2010 and may submit your information or the status of the subspecies and 2011. The most observed in a single day materials to the Field Supervisor/Listing encourage conservation of additional in 2010 was 76, and the most observed Coordinator, Nevada Fish and Wildlife populations of the straight-horned in a single day in 2011 was 343 (Pinyon Office (see ADDRESSES), at any time. markhor. 2011, p. 23). Given that butterfly References Cited DATES: We will consider comments and populations are highly dynamic, and information received or postmarked on butterfly distributions can be highly A complete list of references cited is or before October 9, 2012. variable from year to year (Weiss et al. available on the Internet at http:// ADDRESSES: You may submit 1997, p. 2), the widely varying www.regulations.gov and upon request information by one of the following information in the petition and in our from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife methods: files does not provide evidence to show Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal a declining trend in Morand’s CONTACT). eRulemaking Portal: http://

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1