Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12667

public comment period ends on April 8, Wildlife Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines Biological Diversity filed a complaint in 2011. Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130. Please United States District Court, Eastern submit any new information, materials, District of California, indicating that the Ynette R. Shelkin, comments, or questions concerning this Service failed to take required actions Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations finding to the above street address. System. on seven separate petitions for listed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT species found throughout the western [FR Doc. 2011–5218 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] : Jill Ralston, Deputy Field Supervisor, United States including the Mt. BILLING CODE 5001–08–P Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see Charleston blue. On April 26, 2010, CBD ADDRESSES); by telephone at (702) 515– amended its complaint in Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, U.S. Fish DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 5230; or by facsimile at (702) 515–5231. Persons who use a telecommunications and Wildlife Service, Case No.: 1:10–cv– Fish and Wildlife Service device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 230–PLF (D.D.C.), adding an allegation Federal Information Relay Service that the Service failed to issue its 12- 50 CFR Part 17 (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339. month petition finding on the Mount SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Charleston blue butterfly within the [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0028; MO mandatory statutory timeframe. This 92210–0–0008] Background notice constitutes the 12-month finding Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered on the October 20, 2005, petition to list and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) the Mt. Charleston blue as endangered Petition To List the Mt. Charleston Blue (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, or threatened. for any petition containing substantial Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened Species Information scientific or commercial information AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, indicating that listing the species may Taxonomy Interior. be warranted, we make a finding within ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 12 months of the date of the receipt of The Mt. Charleston blue is a finding. the petition. In this finding, we distinctive subspecies of the wider determine that the petitioned action is: ranging Shasta blue butterfly (Plebejus SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) shasta), which is a member of the Service (Service), announce a 12-month warranted, but the immediate proposal Lycaenidae family. Pelham (2008, pp. finding on a petition to list the Mt. of a regulation implementing the 25–26) recognized seven subspecies of Charleston blue butterfly (Plebejus petitioned action is precluded by other Shasta blue: P. s. shasta, P. s. calchas, shasta charlestonensis) (formerly in pending proposals to determine whether P. s. pallidissima, P. s. minnehaha, P. s. genus Icaricia) as endangered or species are endangered or threatened, charlestonensis, P. s. pitkinensis, and P. threatened under the Endangered and expeditious progress is being made s. platazul. The Mt. Charleston blue is Species Act of 1973, as amended. After to add or remove qualified species from known only from the high elevations of review of all available scientific and the Federal Lists of Endangered and the Spring Mountains, located commercial information, we find that Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section approximately 25 miles (mi) (40 listing the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we kilometers (km)) west of Las Vegas in is warranted. Currently, however, listing treat a petition for which the requested Clark County, Nevada (Austin 1980, p. of the Mt. Charleston blue is precluded action is found to be warranted but 20; Scott 1986, p. 410). The first by higher priority actions to amend the precluded as though resubmitted on the mention of the Mt. Charleston blue as a Lists of Endangered and Threatened date of such finding, that is, requiring a unique taxon was in 1928 by Garth, who Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication subsequent finding to be made within recognized it as distinct from the of this 12-month petition finding, we 12 months. We must publish these 12- species Shasta blue (Austin 1980, p. 20). will add the Mt. Charleston blue month findings in the Federal Register. Howe, in 1975 (as cited in Austin 1980, butterfly to our candidate species list. If p. 20), described specimens from the an emergency situation develops with Previous Federal Actions Spring Mountains as P. s. shasta form this subspecies that warrants an On October 20, 2005, we received a comstocki. However, in 1976, Ferris (as emergency listing, we will act petition dated October 20, 2005, from cited in Austin 1980, p. 20) placed the immediately to provide additional The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc., Mt. Charleston blue with the wider protection. We will develop a proposed requesting that we emergency list the ranging Minnehaha blue subspecies. rule to list this subspecies as our Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (Mt. Finally, Austin asserted that Ferris had priorities allow. We will make any Charleston blue) (Plebejus shasta not included populations from the determination on critical habitat during charlestonensis) (formerly in genus Sierra Nevada in his study, and that in development of the proposed listing Icaricia) as an endangered or threatened light of the geographic isolation and rule. species. In a letter dated April 20, 2006, distinctiveness of the Shasta blue DATES: The finding announced in the we responded to the petitioner that our population in the Spring Mountains and document was made on March 8, 2011. initial review did not indicate that an the presence of at least three other well- ADDRESSES: This finding is available on emergency situation existed, but that if defined races of butterflies endemic to the Internet at http:// conditions changed an emergency rule the area, it was appropriate to name this www.regulations.gov at Docket Number could be developed. On May 30, 2007, population as the individual subspecies FWS–R8–ES–2010–0028 and at http:// we published a 90-day petition finding Mt. Charleston blue (P. s. www.fws.gov/nevada. Supporting (72 FR 29933) in which we concluded charlestonensis) (Austin 1980, p. 20). documentation we used in preparing that the petition provided substantial Our use of the genus name Plebejus, this finding is available for public information indicating that listing of the rather than the synonym Icaricia, inspection, by appointment, during Mt. Charleston blue may be warranted, reflects recent treatments of butterfly normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and we initiated a status review. On taxonomy (Opler and Warren 2003, p. and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and February 17, 2010, the Center for 30; Pelham 2008, p. 265).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 12668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules

The wingspan of Shasta blue species Charleston blue individuals that emerge but isolated individuals have been is 0.75 to 1 inch (in) (19 to 26 and fly to reproduce during a particular observed as low as 2,000 m (6,600 ft). millimeters (mm)) (Opler 1999, p. 251). year are reliant on the combination of Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 19) indicate Males and females of Shasta blue are many environmental factors that may that areas occupied by the subspecies dimorphic. The upperside of males is constitute a successful (‘‘favorable’’) or feature exposed substrates with limited dark to dull iridescent blue, and females unsuccessful (‘‘poor’’) year for the or no canopy cover or shading, and are are brown with a blue overlay. The subspecies. Other than observations by on flats or mild slopes with moderate species has a discal black spot on the surveyors, little information is known aspects. Like most butterfly species, the forewing and a row of submarginal regarding these aspects of the Mt. Charleston blue is dependent on black spots on the hindwing. The subspecies’ biology, since the key plants both during larval development underside is gray, with a pattern of determinants for the interactions among (larval host plants) and the adult black spots, brown blotches, and pale the butterfly’s flight and breeding butterfly flight period (nectar plants). wing veins to give it a mottled period, larval host plant, and The Mt. Charleston blue requires areas appearance. The underside of the environmental conditions have not been that support Torrey’s milkvetch, the hindwing has an inconspicuous band of specifically studied. Observations only known larval host plant for the submarginal metallic spots (Opler 1999, indicate that above or below average subspecies (Weiss et al. 1994, p. 3; p. 251). Based on morphology, the Mt. precipitation, coupled with above or Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10; Datasmiths Charleston blue appears to be most below average temperatures, influence 2007, p. 21), as well as primary nectar closely related to the Great Basin the phenology of this subspecies (Weiss plants. Torrey’s milkvetch and Clokey populations of Minnehaha blue (Austin et al. 1997, pp. 2–3 and 32; Boyd and fleabane (Erigeron clokeyi) are the 1980, p. 23) and can be distinguished Austin 1999, p. 8) and are likely primary nectar plants for the subspecies; from other Shasta blue subspecies by responsible for the fluctuation in however, butterflies have also been the presence of sharper and blacker post population numbers from year to year observed nectaring on Lemmon’s medial spots on the underside of the (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. 2–3 and 31–32). bitterweed (Hymenoxys lemmonii) and hindwing (Scott 1986, p. 410). Most butterfly populations exist as Aster sp. (Weiss et al. 1994, p. 3; Boyd regional metapopulations (groups of 2005, p. 1; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. Biology spatially separated populations that may 9). The Mt. Charleston blue is generally function as single populations due to The best available habitat information thought to diapause (a period of occasional interbreeding) (Murphy et al. relates mostly to the Mt. Charleston suspended growth or development 1990, p. 44). Boyd and Austin (1999, pp. blue’s larval host plant, with little to no similar to hibernation) at the base of its 17 and 53) indicate this is true of the Mt. information available characterizing the larval host plant, Torrey’s milkvetch Charleston blue. Small habitat patches butterfly’s interactions with its known (Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus), or tend to support smaller butterfly nectar plants or other elements of its in the surrounding substrate. The pupae populations that are frequently habitat; thus, the habitat information of some butterfly species are known to extirpated by events that are part of discussed in this document centers on persist in diapause up to 5 to 7 years normal variation (Murphy et al. 1990, p. Torrey’s milkvetch. Studies are (Scott 1986, p. 28). The number of years 44). Boyd and Austin (1999, p. 17) currently underway to better understand the Mt. Charleston blue can remain in suggest smaller colonies of the Mt. the habitat requirements and diapause is unknown. Local experts Charleston blue may be ephemeral in preferences of the Mt. Charleston blue have speculated that the Mt. Charleston the long term, with the larger colonies (Thompson and Garrett 2010, p. 2; blue may only be able to diapause for of the subspecies more likely than Pinyon 2010a, p. 1). Torrey’s milkvetch one season. However, in response to smaller populations to persist in ‘‘poor’’ is a small, low-growing, perennial herb unfavorable environmental conditions, years, when environmental conditions that grows in open areas between 5,000 it is hypothesized that a prolonged do not support the emergence, flight, to 10,800 ft (1,520 to 3,290 m) in diapause period may be possible (Scott and reproduction of individuals. The subalpine, bristlecone, and mixed- 1986, pp. 26–30; Murphy 2006, p. 1; ability of the Mt. Charleston blue to conifer vegetation communities of the Datasmiths 2007, p. 6; Boyd and move between habitat patches has not Spring Mountains. Within the alpine Murphy 2008, p. 22). been studied; however, field and subalpine range of the Mt. The typical flight and breeding period observations suggest the subspecies has Charleston blue, Weiss et al. (1997, p. for the butterfly is early July to mid- low vagility (capacity or tendency of a 10) observed the highest densities of August with a peak in late July, species to move about or disperse in a Torrey’s milkvetch in exposed areas and although the subspecies has been given environment), on the order of 10 within canopy openings and lower observed as early as mid-June and as to 100 meters (m) (33 to 330 feet (ft)) densities in forested areas. late as mid-September (Austin 1980, p. (Weiss et al. 1995, p. 9), and nearly Weiss et al. (1997, p. 31) describe 22; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. 17; Forest sedentary behavior (Datasmiths 2007, p. favorable habitat for the Mt. Charleston Service 2006a, p. 9). As with most 21; Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 3 and blue as having high densities (more than butterflies, the Mt. Charleston blue 9). Furthermore, dispersal of lycaenid 10 plants per square meter) of Torrey’s typically flies during sunny conditions, butterflies, in general, is limited and on milkvetch. Weiss et al. (1995, p. 5) and which are particularly important for this the order of hundreds of meters Datasmiths (2007, p. 21) suggest that in subspecies given the cooler air (Cushman and Murphy 1993, p. 40). some areas butterfly habitat may be temperatures at high elevations (Weiss Based on this information, the dependent on old or infrequent et al. 1997, p. 31). Excessive winds also likelihood of long-distance dispersal is disturbances that create open areas. deter flight of most butterflies, although low for the Mt. Charleston blue. Vegetation cover within disturbed Weiss et al. (1997, p. 31) speculate this patches naturally becomes higher over may not be a significant factor for the Habitat time through natural succession, Mt. Charleston blue given its low-to-the- Weiss et al. (1997, pp. 10–11) describe gradually becoming less favorable to the ground flight pattern. the natural habitat for the Mt. butterfly. Therefore, we conclude that Like all butterfly species, both the Charleston blue butterfly as relatively open areas with relatively little grass phenology (timing) and number of Mt. flat ridgelines above 2,500 m (8,200 ft), cover and visible mineral soil and high

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12669

densities of host plants support the (Entrix 2007, p. 112) that is generally activities regularly modify Mt. highest densities of butterflies (Boyd less suitable for the Mt. Charleston blue. Charleston blue habitat or prevent host 2005, p. 1; Service 2006a, p. 1). During Boyd and Murphy (2008, pp. 23 and 25) plants from reestablishing in disturbed 1995, an especially high population hypothesized that the loss of areas. year, Mt. Charleston blue were observed presettlement vegetation structure over in small habitat patches and in open time has caused the Mt. Charleston Range and Current Distribution forested areas where Torrey’s milkvetch blue’s metapopulation dynamics to Based on current and historical was present in low densities, on the collapse in Upper Lee Canyon. Similar occurrences or locations documented in order of 1 to 5 plants per square meter losses of suitable butterfly habitat in (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10; Newfields woodlands and their negative effect on the petition or identified in the State of 2006, pp. 10 and C5). Therefore, areas butterfly populations have been Nevada Natural Heritage Program with lower densities of the host plant documented (Thomas 1984, pp. 337– database (The Urban Wildlands Group, may also be important to the subspecies, 338). Natural landscape processes have Inc. 2005, pp. 1–3; Service 2006b, pp. as these areas may be intermittently been modified in the Spring Mountains. 2–4), the geographic range of the Mt. occupied or may be important for Now, the disturbed landscape at the Las Charleston blue is primarily on the east dispersal. Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort side of the Spring Mountains, centered Fire suppression and other (LVSSR) provides important habitat for on lands managed by the USFS in the management practices have likely the Mt. Charleston blue (The Urban Spring Mountains National Recreation limited the formation of new habitat for Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 2). Area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National the Mt. Charleston blue. The U.S. Forest Periodic maintenance (removal of trees Forest within Upper Kyle and Lee Service (USFS) began suppressing fires and shrubs) of the ski runs has Canyons, Clark County, Nevada. The on the Spring Mountains in 1910 (Entrix effectively arrested forest succession on majority of the occurrences or locations 2007, p. 111). Throughout the Spring the ski slopes and serves to maintain are in the Upper Lee Canyon area, while Mountains, fire suppression has conditions favorable to the Mt. a few are in Upper Kyle Canyon. Table resulted in higher densities of trees and Charleston blue, and to its host and 1 lists the various locations of the Mt. shrubs (Amell 2006, pp. 2–3) and a nectar plants. However, the ski runs are Charleston blue that constitute the transition to a closed-canopy forest with not specifically managed to benefit subspecies’ current and historical range. shade-tolerant understory species habitat for this subspecies and operation

TABLE 1—LOCATIONS OR OCCURRENCES OF THE MT. CHARLESTON BLUE BUTTERFLY SINCE 1928 AND THE STATUS OF THE BUTTERFLY AT THE LOCATIONS

First/last Most recent Location name time survey Status Primary references observed year(s)

1. South Loop Trail, Upper Kyle 1995/2010 2007, 2008, Known occupied, adults con- NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Kingsley 2007; Canyon. 2010 sistently observed. Boyd 2006; Datasmiths 2007; SWCA 2008, Pinyon 2010a, Thompson and Garrett 2010. 2. LVSSR, Upper Lee Canyon 1963/2010 2007, 2008, Known occupied, adults con- NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1994; Weiss et al. 2010 sistently observed. 1997; Boyd and Austin 2002; Boyd 2006; Newfields 2006; Datasmiths 2007; Boyd and Murphy 2008, Thompson and Garrett 2010. 3. Foxtail Upper Lee Canyon ... 1995/1998 2006, 2007 Presumed occupied, adults NNHP 2007; Boyd and Austin 1999; Boyd intermittently observed. 2006; Datasmiths 2007. 4. Youth Camp, Upper Lee 1995/1995 2006, 2007 Presumed occupied, adults Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; Datasmiths Canyon. intermittently observed. 2007. 5. Gary Abbott, Upper Lee 1995/1995 2006, 2007 Presumed occupied, adults NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; Canyon. intermittently observed. Datasmiths 2007. 6. Lower LVSSR Parking, 1995/2002 2007, 2008 Presumed occupied, adults Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005; Weiss et al. Upper Lee Canyon. intermittently observed. 1997; Boyd 2006; Datasmiths 2007; Boyd and Murphy 2008. 7. Mummy Spring, Upper Kyle 1995/1995 2006 Presumed occupied, adults NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006. Canyon 1. intermittently observed. 8. Lee Meadows, Upper Lee 1965/1995 2006, 2007 Presumed occupied, adults NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; Canyon. intermittently observed. Datasmiths 2007. 9. Bonanza Trail ...... 1995/1995 2006, 2007 Presumed occupied ...... Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; Kingsley 2007. 10. Upper Lee Canyon holo- 1963/1976 2006, 2007 Presumed extirpated ...... NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; type 1. Datasmiths 2007. 11. Cathedral Rock, Kyle Can- 1972/1972 2007 Presumed extirpated ...... NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Datasmiths yon. 2007. 12. Upper Kyle Canyon Ski 1965/1972 1995 Presumed extirpated ...... NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997. Area 1. 13. Old Town, Kyle Canyon 2 ... 1970s 1995 Presumed extirpated ...... The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005. 14. Deer Creek, Kyle Canyon .. 1950 unknown Presumed extirpated ...... NNHP 2007. 15. Willow Creek ...... 1928 unknown Presumed extirpated ...... NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997, Thompson and Garrett 2010. 1 Location is not mentioned in the petition. 2 Location is not identified in the Nevada Natural Heritage Program database.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 12670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules

We presume that the Mt. Charleston large size (18.7 acres (ac) (7.6 hectares it appears the population has declined blue is extirpated from a location when (ha)) (SWCA 2008, pp. 2 and 5). The since the last high-population year in it has not been recorded at that location South Loop Trail area appears to be the 1995 (Murphy 2006, pp. 1–2). through formal surveys or informal most important remaining population Recent survey information indicates observation for more than 20 years. We area for the Mt. Charleston blue (Boyd the Mt. Charleston blue population selected a 20-year time period because and Murphy 2008, p. 21). The South appears to be extremely low. In 2006, it would likely allow for local Loop Trail runs along the ridgeline surveys within presumed occupied extirpation and recolonization events between Griffith Peak and Charleston habitat at LVSSR located one individual (metapopulation dynamics) to occur and Peak and is located within the Mt. butterfly adjacent to a pond that holds would be enough time for succession or Charleston Wilderness. This area was water for snowmaking (Newfields 2006, other vegetation shifts to render the field mapped using a global positioning pp. 10, 13, and C5). In a later report, the habitat unsuitable (see discussion in system unit and included the larval host accuracy of this observation was ‘‘Biology’’ and ‘‘Habitat’’ sections above). plant, Torrey’s milkvetch, as well as questioned and considered inaccurate Using this criterion, the Mt. Charleston occurrences of two known nectar plants, (Newfields 2008, p. 27). In 2006, Boyd blue is considered to be ‘‘presumed Lemmon’s bitterweed and Clokey (2006, pp. 1–2) conducted focused extirpated’’ from 6 of the 14 known fleabane (SWCA 2008, pp. 2 and 5). surveys for the subspecies at nearly all locations (Locations 9–14 in Table 1) Adjacent to this ‘‘known occupied’’ previously known locations and within (The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, habitat of 18.7 ac (7.6 ha) occurs potential habitat along Griffith Peak, pp. 1–3; Service 2006b, pp. 8–9). Of the approximately 40 ac (17 ha) of North Loop Trail, Bristlecone Trail, and remaining eight locations, six locations additional habitat containing Lemmon’s South Bonanza Trail but did not observe or occurrences are ‘‘presumed occupied’’ bitterweed and Clokey fleabane, as well the butterfly at any of these locations. In by the subspecies (Locations 3–8 in as a smaller patch of Torrey’s milkvetch 2007, surveys were again conducted in Table 1) (The Urban Wildlands Group, (1.6 ac) (0.65 ha) (SWCA 2008, pp. 2 and previously known locations in Upper Inc. 2005, pp. 1–3; Service 2006b, pp. 5). Lee Canyon and LVSSR, but no 7–8). We consider LVSSR in Upper Lee butterflies were recorded (Datasmiths This category is defined as a location Canyon (Location 2 in Table 1) to be 2007, p. 1; Newfields 2008, pp. 21–24). within the current known range of the ‘‘known occupied’’ because: (1) The In 2007, two Mt. Charleston blue subspecies where adults have been butterfly was first recorded at LVSSR in butterflies were sighted on different intermittently observed and there is a 1963 (Austin 1980, p. 22) and has been dates at the same location on the South potential for diapausing larvae to be consistently observed at LVSSR every Loop Trail in Upper Kyle Canyon present. The butterfly likely exhibits year between 1995 and 2006 (with the (Kingsley 2007, p. 5). In 2008, butterflies metapopulation dynamics at these exception of 1997 when no surveys were not observed during focused locations, where the subspecies is were performed, and in recent years surveys of Upper Lee Canyon and the subject to local extirpation, with new when the species was not observed) South Loop Trail (Boyd and Murphy individuals emigrating from nearby (Service 2007, pp. 1–2) and in 2010 2008, pp. 1–3; Boyd 2008, p. 1; SWCA ‘‘known occupied’’ habitat, typically (Thompson and Garrett 2010, p. 5); and 2008, p. 6), although it is possible adult during years when environmental (2) the ski runs contain two areas of butterflies may have been missed on conditions are more favorable to high-quality butterfly habitat in South Loop Trail because the surveys emergence from diapause and the accordance with host plant densities of were performed very late in the season. successful reproduction of individuals 10 plants per square meter as described No formal surveys were conducted in (see discussion in ‘‘Habitat’’ section in Weiss et al. (1997, p. 31). These areas 2009; however, no individuals were above). At some of these presumed are LVSSR #1(2.4 ac (0.97 ha)) and seen during the few informal attempts occupied locations (Locations 4, 5, 7, 8 LVSSR #2 (1.3 ac (0.53 ha)), which have made to observe the species. and 9 in Table 1), the Mt. Charleston been mapped using a global positioning Adults of the Mt. Charleston blue blue has not been recorded through system unit and field verified. Thus, were most recently observed in 2010 in formal surveys or informal observation across its current range, the Mt. the South Loop Trail area and LVSSR. since 1995 by Weiss et al. (1997, pp. Charleston blue is known to persistently From reports of several adult surveys in 1–87). Currently, we consider the occupy less than 22.4 ac (9.1 ha) of July and August at the South Loop area occurrence at Mummy Spring as habitat. (Thompson and Garrett 2010; Pinyon presumed occupied; however, this 2010a, pp. 1–2; Pinyon 2010b), the Status and Trends location is not near known occupied highest total counted among the days habitat and may be extirpated. The Mt. Charleston blue has been this area was surveyed was 17 on July We consider the remaining two Mt. characterized as particularly rare, but 28 (Pinyon 2010b). One adult was Charleston blue locations or occurrences common in some years (Boyd and observed in Lee Canyon at LVSSR on to be ‘‘known occupied’’ (Locations 1 Austin 1999, p. 17; The Urban July 23, 2010, but no other adults were and 2 in Table 1). The South Loop Trail Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 2). The detected at LVSSR on surveys location in Upper Kyle Canyon 1995 season was the last year the conducted August 2, 9, and 18, 2010 (Location 1 in Table 1) is considered butterfly was present in high numbers. (Thompson and Garrett 2010, pp. 4–5). known occupied because: (1) The Variations in precipitation and Final reports have not been completed butterfly was observed on the site in temperature that affect both the Mt. for these projects and the results are 1995, 2002, 2007, and 2010 (Service Charleston blue and its larval host plant considered preliminary. 2007, pp. 1–2; Kingsley 2007, p. 5; are likely responsible for the fluctuation The availability of known larval and Pinyon 2010, pp. 1–2; Thompson and in population numbers from year to year nectar plants does not appear to be Garrett 2010, p. 5); and (2) the high (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. 2–3 and 31–32). correlated to the recent low population quality of the habitat is in accordance The total population of the Mt. numbers of the butterfly as the host with host plant densities of 10 plants Charleston blue is unknown. We do not plants continue to persist at previously per square meter as described in Weiss have population estimates for the occupied locations and throughout the et al. (1997, p. 31; Kingsley 2007, pp. 5 butterfly or specific information Spring Mountains. The low number of and 10), and is in an area of relatively showing a change in numbers; however, butterflies observed during the 2006,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12671

2007, 2008, and 2010 seasons could be Factor A: The Present or Threatened in the Spring Mountains were likely partially attributed to extreme weather Destruction, Modification, or characterized by more abundant and (e.g., heavy precipitation events and Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or diverse understory plant communities drought). Prior to 2005, there were Range compared to current conditions (Entrix 2007, pp. 73–78). These successional numerous years of drought, followed by Fire Suppression, Succession, and a record snow in the winter of 2004– Nonnative Species changes have been hypothesized to have 2005. In 2006 and 2007, the area contributed to the decline of the Mt. Butterflies have extremely specialized experienced dry winters and springs Charleston blue because of reduced habitat requirements (Thomas 1984, p. densities of larval and nectar plants, and severe thunderstorms during the 337). Changes in vegetation structure summers and flight periods. Based on decreased solar radiation, and inhibited and composition as a result of natural butterfly movements that subsequently the available survey information, the processes are a serious threat to low number of sightings in recent years determine colonization or butterfly populations because these recolonization processes (Weiss et al. is likely the result of an already small changes can disrupt specific habitat 1997, p. 26; Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. population size, exacerbated by requirements (Thomas 1984, pp. 337– 22–28). Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 23) unfavorable weather conditions. 341; Thomas et al. 2001, pp. 1791– noted that important habitat Historical and recent survey information 1796). Cushman and Murphy (1993, p. characteristics required by Mt. for this subspecies is very limited or 4) determined 28 at-risk lycaenid Charleston blue—Torrey’s milkvetch unavailable in regard to population butterfly species, including the Mt. and preferred nectar plants occurring data. Thus, we focused our threats Charleston blue, to be dependent on one together in open sites not shaded by tree analysis on assessed threats at known or two closely related host plants. Many canopies—would have occurred more occupied and presumed occupied of these host plants are dependent on frequently across a more open, forested locations (summarized in Table 1). early successional environments. landscape compared to the current Butterflies that specialize on such plants Summary of Information Pertaining to denser forested landscape. Not only must track an ephemeral resource base would the changes in forest structure the Five Threat Factors that itself depends on unpredictable and and understory plant communities perhaps infrequent ecosystem result in habitat loss and degradation for Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) disturbances. For such butterfly species, and implementing regulations (50 CFR the Mt. Charleston blue across a broad local extinction events are both frequent spatial scale, a habitat matrix dominated part 424) set forth procedures for adding and inevitable (Cushman and Murphy by denser forest also may be impacting species to the Federal Lists of 1993, p. 4). The Mt. Charleston blue key metapopulation processes by Endangered and Threatened Wildlife may, in part, depend on disturbances reducing probability of recolonization and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the that open up the subalpine canopy and following local population extirpations Act, a species may be determined to be create conditions more favorable to its in remaining patches of suitable habitat endangered or threatened based on any host plant, Torrey’s milkvetch, and (Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 25). of the following five factors: nectar resources (Weiss et al. 1995, p. 5; Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 22–28) (see The introduction of forbs, shrubs, and (A) The present or threatened nonnative grasses can be a threat to destruction, modification, or Habitat section, above). Fire suppression in the Spring butterfly populations because these curtailment of its habitat or range; Mountains has resulted in long-term species can compete with, and decrease, (B) Overutilization for commercial, successional changes including the quality and abundance of larval host recreational, scientific, or educational increased forest area and forest structure plant and adult nectar sources. This has purposes; (higher canopy cover, more young trees, been observed for many butterfly (C) Disease or predation; and more trees intolerant of fire) species including the Quino (Nachlinger and Reese 1996, p. 37; checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas (D) The inadequacy of existing Amell 2006, pp. 6–9; Boyd and Murphy editha quino) (62 FR 2313; January 16, regulatory mechanisms; or 2008, pp. 22–28; Denton et al. 2008, p. 1997) and Fender’s blue butterfly (E) Other natural or manmade factors 21). Frequent low-severity fires would (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) (65 FR 3875; affecting its continued existence. have maintained an open forest January 25, 2000). Datasmiths (2007, p. 21) also suggest suitable habitat patches We summarize below information structure characterized by uneven-aged of Torrey’s milkvetch are often, but not regarding the status of and threats to stands of fire-resistant ponderosa pine exclusively, associated with older or this subspecies in relation to the five trees (Amell 2006, p. 5) in lower elevations. The lower-elevation habitats infrequent disturbance. Weiss et al. factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. In of the Mt. Charleston blue has likely (1995, p. 5) note that a colony once making our 12-month finding, we been the most affected by fire existed on the Upper Kyle Canyon Ski considered and evaluated all scientific suppression as indicated by Area (Location 11 in Table 1), but since and commercial information in our files, Provencher’s 2008 Fire Regime the ski run was abandoned no including information received in Condition Class analysis of the Spring butterflies have been collected there response to our request for information Mountains (p. 18) in which higher- since 1965. Boyd and Austin (2002, p. in the notice of 90-day petition finding elevation biophysical settings departed 13) observe that the butterfly was and initiation of status review (72 FR less from the natural range of variability common at Lee Meadows (Location 8 in 29933), and additional scientific than those at middle elevations. Table 1) in the 1960s, but became information from ongoing species Large-diameter ponderosa pine trees uncommon at the site because of surveys as they became available. In with multiple fire scars in upper Lee succession and a potential lack of response to the information request, we and Kyle Canyons indicate that low- disturbance. Using an analysis of host received two letters from private severity fires historically burned plant density, Weiss et al. (1995 p. 5) organizations that provided information through mixed-conifer forests within the concluded that Lee Meadows does not and comments on the Mt. Charleston range of the Mt. Charleston blue (Amell have enough host plants to support a blue. 2006, p. 3). Open mixed-conifer forests population over the long term.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 12672 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Succession, coupled with the from completed and pending projects most recent survey, Torrey’s milkvetch introduction of nonnative species, is are a threat to the subspecies at these still occurs on Foxtail Ridge (Datasmiths also believed to be the reason the Mt. locations, as cited in the petition and 2007, pp. 26–27), and it appears that the Charleston blue is no longer present at referenced in the 90-day petition Lee Canyon water system project area the old town site in Kyle Canyon finding. In addition to a fuels reduction has been recolonized by Torrey’s (Location 12 in Table 1) and at the project, we identified seven projects that milkvetch (Kingsley 2007, p. 17); holotype site in Upper Lee Canyon have removed or impacted butterfly however, the Mt. Charleston blue has (Location 9 in Table 1) (Urban habitat in Upper Lee Canyon, where the not been observed at this location since Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3; Boyd butterfly is known or presumed to be 1998. and Austin 1999, p. 17). present. We determined that an eighth (3) In 2004, the lower LVSSR parking Management of nonnative species impact identified in the petition and 90- lot was converted into a temporary within butterfly habitat is a threat to the day petition finding, an unsanctioned water storage basin (Forest Service butterfly. As mentioned previously (see trail that bisects habitat on the South 2004a, p. 1). This activity included Habitat section), periodic maintenance Loop Trail in Upper Kyle Canyon, is not excavation of the parking lot and the (removal of trees and shrubs) of the ski a threat to the butterfly (Kingsley 2007, construction of temporary berms to hold runs has effectively arrested succession p. 17). water. Surveys for butterfly host plants on the ski slopes and maintains In general, it is difficult to know the were not performed, but butterfly host conditions that can be favorable to the full extent of impacts to the Mt. plants were noted in the project area as Mt. Charleston blue. However, the ski Charleston blue as a result of these part of a rare plant survey (Hiatt 2004, runs are not specifically managed to projects because butterfly habitat was p. 4). Any larvae, pupae, and eggs, along benefit habitat for this subspecies, and not mapped for the majority of them nor with all vegetation and soil seed bank, operation activities (including seeding were some project areas surveyed prior would likely have been killed while the of nonnative species) regularly modify to implementation. The majority of basin was filled with water. butterfly habitat or prevent host plants impacts associated with these projects Approximately 2 ac (0.81 ha) of from reestablishing in disturbed areas. have not been mitigated, and some of presumed occupied butterfly habitat Weiss et al. (1995, pp. 5–6) suggest that the impacted areas have not recovered. were impacted as a result of the project the planting of annual grasses and Given the slow natural rate of recovery, (Location 6 in Table 1) (The Urban Melilotus for erosion control at LVSSR the pace of restoration efforts (see Factor Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3). The is a threat to Mt. Charleston blue D), and the potential for recurrent parking lot continues to be used for habitat. Titus and Landau (2003, p. 1) disturbance at many of these sites, we overflow parking. Recent resource observed that vegetation on highly and do not expect these impacted areas to surveys of the area for the proposed moderately disturbed areas of the provide butterfly habitat for many years expansion of the parking lot (see future LVSSR ski runs are floristically very to come, unless noted below. The projects discussion below) indicate host different from natural clearings in the following is a summary of the recreation plants have not returned to the parking adjacent forest that support the development projects that have removed area and remain along the perimeter butterfly. Seeding nonnative species for or impacted Mt. Charleston blue habitat (Datasmiths 2007, pp. 26–27). erosion control was discontinued in from 2000 to 2010. 2005; however, because of erosion (1) During 2000 or 2001, a series of (4) In 2004, the Entrance Walkway problems during 2006 and 2007, and the earthen berms were constructed at the Grade Improvement Project lack of native seed, LVSSR resumed top of a ski run at LVSSR. These berms permanently removed (by paving) 0.186 using a nonnative seed mix, particularly were created by scraping topsoil from ac (0.075 ha) of Mt. Charleston blue in the lower portions of the ski runs (not the ski run in an area known to support presumed occupied habitat near the adjacent to Mt. Charleston blue habitat) high densities of Torrey’s milkvetch. main LVSSR parking site for the where erosion problems persist. This activity caused loss and construction of a walkway (Forest Based on available information, it degradation of an unknown area of Service 2004b, pp. 21–22; Forest Service appears that in at least four of the six presumed occupied butterfly habitat at 2004c, pp. 1–3). locations where the butterfly LVSSR, Upper Lee Canyon (Location 2 (5) In 2004 and 2005, the LVSSR historically occurred, suitable habitat is in Table 1) (The Urban Wildlands Snowmaking Line Replacement Project no longer present due to vegetation Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3; Service 2006a, impacted approximately 7 ac (2.8 ha) of changes attributable to succession, the pp. 1–5). We assume, based on the level presumed occupied butterfly habitat on introduction of nonnative species, or a of soil disturbance, this activity would the ski runs (Forest Service 2006b, p. 1) combination of the two. have also killed any larvae, pupae, or and approximately 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) of eggs present. Based on the best available known occupied habitat at LVSSR, Recreation Development Projects information, Torrey’s milkvetch has not Upper Lee Canyon (Location 2 in Table As previously detailed in the ‘‘Range recolonized the area (Service 2006a, pp. 1) (The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. and Current Distribution’’ section of this 1–5). 2005, p. 3; Service 2006a, pp. 1–5; finding, the Mt. Charleston blue is a (2) In 2003, the Lee Canyon water Forest Service 2004c, pp. 1–3; Forest narrow endemic subspecies that is system was repaired and expanded, Service 2004d, p. 9; Forest Service currently known to occupy two which included construction of new 2006b, pp. 1–9). Given the type of locations and presumed to occupy six and replacement waterlines through disturbance, we presume any butterfly others. This distribution is on lands presumed occupied butterfly habitat on larvae, pupae, and eggs would have managed by the USFS (including Foxtail Ridge adjacent to the Lee been buried or crushed as a result of LVSSR, which is operated under a USFS Canyon Youth Camp and the lower trenching and equipment access. special use permit) in the Spring LVSSR parking lot (Location 3 in Table Revegetation of butterfly habitat Mountains National Recreation Area 1) (Forest Service 2003a, pp. 1–6). impacted from this construction was within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Resource surveys did not include required (Forest Service 2004c, pp. 1–2; Forest. We analyzed USFS’ recreation butterfly host plants, and the extent of 2004d, p. 9–10), but there are no records development projects from 2000 to 2007 impacts was not calculated (Forest available in our files that indicate it has to determine if habitat impacts resulting Service 2003b, pp. 21–22). Based on the been completed (see Factor D).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12673

(6) In 2005, the chairlift #1 at LVSSR permanent loss of 2.4 ac (0.97 ha) of for the loss of, butterfly habitat (Forest was replaced. All vegetation was previously disturbed butterfly habitat Service 2009b, p. 10). removed within equipment travel and 0.81 ac (0.33 ha) of undisturbed Fuels Reduction Projects corridors, laydown areas, and presumed occupied butterfly habitat construction areas in approximately (Location 6 in Table 1) (Forest Service In December 2007, the USFS 4.5 ac (1.8 ha) of presumed occupied 2007b, p. 12). Planning and approved the Spring Mountains butterfly habitat (Location 2 in Table 1) environmental documents are National Recreation Area Hazardous (Forest Service 2006b, p. 2). Given the completed for the project; however, Fuels Reduction Project (Forest Service level of disturbance, we presume any final authorization by the USFS has not 2007a, pp. 1–127). This project will butterfly larvae, pupae, and eggs would occurred and is currently on hold due result in tree removals and vegetation have been buried or crushed as a result to concerns about impacts to Mt. thinning in three presumed occupied of trenching and equipment access. Charleston blue (Forest Service 2009a, butterfly locations in Upper Lee Revegetation of butterfly habitat p. 1). Canyon, including Foxtail Ridge, Lee impacted from this construction was (2) The snowmaking system Canyon Youth Camp, and Lee Meadows, required (Forest Service 2005c, p. 2; improvements project (new and result in impacts to approximately Forest Service 2005d, pp. 12–14; Forest snowmaking lines) at LVSSR was 32 ac (13 ha) of presumed occupied Service 2005e, pp. 11–12), but there are proposed in June 2005 (Forest Service habitat that has been mapped in Upper no records available in our files that 2005a, pp. 1–2). As proposed, the Lee Canyon (Locations 3, 4 and 8 in indicate it has been completed (see snowmaking lines expansion project Table 1) (Forest Service 2007a, Factor D). would have permanently impacted at Appendix A–Map 2; Datasmiths 2007, (7) Expansion of the snowmaking that time approximately 8.9 ac (3.6 ha) p. 26). Manual and mechanical clearing pond at LVSSR was first proposed in of known occupied butterfly habitat of shrubs and trees will be repeated on June 2005 and would have permanently along the two primary ski runs where a 5- to 10-year rotating basis and will impacted 0.48 ac (0.18 ha) of presumed known occupied habitat has been result in direct impacts to the butterfly occupied butterfly habitat (Forest delineated for the Mt. Charleston blue and its habitat, including crushing or Service 2005a, pp. 1–25). The project (Location 2 in Table 1). The USFS removal of host plants and diapausing was revised to reduce impacts in stopped planning efforts for this project larvae (if present). Implementation of December 2007 (Forest Service 2007b, in 2007 based on the potential impacts this project began in the spring of 2008 pp. 1–31) and again in June 2009. Plans to the Mt. Charleston blue (Forest throughout the Spring Mountains for implementation included measures Service 2007b, pp. 2). National Recreation Area, including Lee to minimize the amount of area (3) A January 2008 draft Master Canyon. impacted and mitigate for the loss of Development Plan for LVSSR proposes Although Boyd and Murphy (2008, any butterfly habitat (Forest Service to improve, upgrade, and expand the p. 26) recommended increased forest 2009a, p. 18). Construction of the existing facilities to provide year-round thinning to improve habitat quality for snowmaking pond expansion was recreational activities. The plan the Mt. Charleston blue, this project was initiated and completed in 2010. The proposes to add winter activities such as designed to reduce wildfire risk to life construction footprint was adjacent to tubing, MiniZ, snowshoeing, Nordic and property in the Spring Mountains one patch of Torrey’s milkvetch, and skiing, climbing wall, and Euro-bungee, National Recreation Area wildland overlapped another patch (Forest by widening existing runs to create urban interface (Forest Service 2007a, Service 2010b, Figure 1). A total area of ‘‘gladed’’ areas that would provide larger p. 6), not to improve Mt. Charleston 0.055 ac (0.022 ha) of Torrey’s sliding areas (Ecosign 2008, pp. I–3–I– blue habitat. Mt. Charleston blues milkvetch habitat patches was impacted 4). The plan proposes to add summer require larval host plants in exposed by pond expansion construction (Forest activities and facilities, including areas not shaded by forest canopy cover Service 2010b, Table 1). mountain biking and bike park, alpine because canopy cover reduces solar Recommendations to mitigate for slides, concerts, hiking, mountain exposure during critical larval feeding impacted habitat have been prepared boards, ziptreks, and stargazing (Ecosign periods (Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 23). (Forest Service 2010b, pp. 1–5) but not 2008, pp. I–3–I–4). Summer activities Shaded fuel breaks created for this yet implemented. An additional patch would impact the butterfly and its project may not be open enough to of previously undocumented Torrey’s known occupied and presumed create or significantly improve Mt. milkvetch was observed within the occupied habitat (Location 2 in Table 1) Charleston blue habitat. Also, shaded construction zone in May 2010 (Forest by attracting visitors in higher numbers fuel breaks for this project are Service 2010a, p. 2), and is not included during the time of year when larvae and concentrated along access roads, as an area for which mitigation is to be host plants are especially vulnerable to property boundaries, campgrounds, performed (Forest Service 2010b, pp. 1– trampling. The Master Development picnic areas, administrative sites, and 5). Plan is in draft form and has not yet communications sites, and are not of Future projects are also a threat to the been approved by the USFS; therefore, sufficient spatial scale to reduce the Mt. Charleston blue and its habitat. Four no estimate of the potential area of threat identified above resulting from recently approved or future projects impact is available. fire suppression and succession. could impact Mt. Charleston blue (4) Currently the USFS is planning to Although this project may result in habitat in Upper Lee Canyon, and are restore eroded stream channels in Lee increased understory herbaceous plant summarized below. Meadows. Repairs to the channels are productivity and diversity, there are (1) Expansion of the lower parking lot expected to impact presumed occupied short-term risks to the butterfly at LVSSR was proposed in June 2005 butterfly habitat mapped at 1.2 ac (0.50 associated with project implementation. (Forest Service 2005a, pp. 1–25) and, ha) (Location 8 in Table 1) (Forest In recommending increased forest after revisions to reduce impacts to the Service 2009b, p. 10; Datasmiths 2007, thinning to improve Mt. Charleston blue subspecies’ habitat, was reproposed in p. 27). Project implementation began in habitat, Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 26) December 2007 (Forest Service 2007b, 2010 and is expected to be completed in cautioned that thinning treatments pp. 1–31). Expansion of the lower 2011, and includes measures to would need to be implemented carefully LVSSR parking lot would result in the minimize impacts to, and compensate to minimize short-term disturbance

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 12674 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules

impacts to the butterfly and its habitat. butterfly habitat in Upper Lee Canyon, and propagation. Under the plan, Individual butterflies (larvae, pupae, as discussed above, has occurred in the Torrey’s milkvetch is being brought into and adults), and larval host plants and past. However, more recently the USFS horticultural propagation, and, if nectar plants, may be crushed during has suspended decision on certain successful, plants will begin to be project implementation. In areas where projects that would potentially impact planted in 2011–2013. However, these thinned trees are chipped (mastication), Mt. Charleston blue habitat (see efforts are not likely to provide layers of wood chips may become too discussion of lower parking lot replacement habitat to the Mt. deep and impact survival of butterfly expansion and new snowmaking lines Charleston blue for another 5 years larvae and pupae, as well as larval host projects under Recreation Development (2016–2018), because of the short alpine plants and nectar plants. Soil and Projects, above). In addition, the USFS growing season. vegetation disturbance during project has recently reaffirmed its commitment Summary of Factor A implementation also could result in to collaborate with the Service in order increases in weeds and disturbance- to avoid implementation of projects or The Mt. Charleston blue is currently adapted species, such as actions that would impact the viability known to occur in two locations: The Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbitbrush), and of (Forest Service 2010c). This South Loop Trail area in upper Kyle these plants could compete with Mt. commitment includes: (1) Developing a Canyon and LVSSR in upper Lee Charleston blue larval host and nectar mutually agreeable process to review Canyon. Habitat loss and modification plants. future proposed projects to ensure that as a result of fire suppression and long- implementation of these actions will not term successional changes in forest Conservation Agreements and Plans lead to loss of viability of the species; structure, implementation of A conservation agreement was (2) reviewing proposed projects that recreational development projects and developed in 1998 to facilitate voluntary may pose a threat to the continued fuels reduction projects, and nonnative cooperation among the USFS, the viability of the species; and (3) jointly species are continuing threats to the Service, and the State of Nevada developing a conservation agreement butterfly in Upper Lee Canyon. Since Department of Conservation and Natural (strategy) that identifies actions that will 2000, seven projects have negatively Resources in providing long-term be taken to ensure the conservation of impacted presumed occupied habitat for protection for the rare and sensitive the species (Forest Service 2010c). the Mt. Charleston blue. Approved and flora and fauna of the Spring Mountains, The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is a future projects could negatively impact including the Mt. Charleston blue covered species in the 2000 Clark additional presumed occupied (Forest Service 1998, pp. 1–50). Many of County Multiple Species Habitat occurrences of the Mt. Charleston blue the conservation actions described in Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Clark in Lee Canyon (identified in Table 1). In the conservation agreement have been County MSHCP identifies two goals for addition, if proposed future activities implemented; however, several the Mt. Charleston blue: (a) ‘‘Maintain under a draft Master Development Plan important conservation actions that stable or increasing population numbers are approved, they could threaten the would have directly benefited the Mt. and host and larval plant species’’; and butterfly, as well as its known occupied Charleston blue have not been (b) ‘‘No net unmitigated loss of larval and presumed occupied habitat at implemented. Regardless, many of the host plant or nectar plant species LVSSR. conservation actions in the conservation habitat’’ (RECON 2000a, Table 2.5, Because of its small population size, agreement (e.g., inventory and pp. 2–154; RECON 2000b, pp. B158– projects that impact even relatively monitoring) would not directly reduce B161). The USFS is one of several small areas of occupied habitat could threats to the Mt. Charleston blue. In signatories to the Implementing threaten the long-term population 2004, the Service and USFS signed a Agreement for the Clark County viability of Mt. Charleston blue. The memorandum of agreement that MSHCP, because many of the activities continued loss or modification of provides a process for review of from the 1998 Conservation Agreement presumed occupied habitat could activities that involve species covered were incorporated into the MSHCP. further impair the long-term population under the 1998 Conservation Agreement Primarily, activities undertaken by viability of the Mt. Charleston blue in (Forest Service and Service 2004, pp. 1– USFS focused on conducting surveying upper Lee Canyon by removing 9). Formal coordination through this and monitoring for butterflies. Although diapausing larvae (if present) and by memorandum of agreement was some surveying and monitoring reducing the ability of the butterfly to established to (1) Jointly develop occurred through contracts by the USFS, disperse during favorable years. The projects that avoid or minimize impacts Clark County and the Service, a successional advance of trees, shrubs, to listed, candidate and proposed butterfly monitoring plan was not fully and grasses and the spread of nonnative species, and species under the 1998 implemented. species are continuing threats to the conservation agreement; and (2) to Recently, the USFS has been butterfly in upper Lee Canyon. The ensure consistency with commitments implementing the LVSSR Adaptive butterfly is presumed extirpated from at and direction provided for in recovery Vegetation Management Plan (Forest least three of the six historical locations, planning efforts and in conservation Service 2005b, pp. 1–24) to provide likely due to successional changes and agreement efforts. More than half of the mitigation for approximately 11 ac the introduction of nonnative plants. past projects that impacted Mt. (4.45 ha) of impacts to presumed Nonnative forbs and grasses are a threat Charleston blue habitat were reviewed occupied butterfly habitat (and other to the subspecies at LVSSR. by the Service and USFS under this sensitive wildlife and plant species Although there are agreements and review process, but several were not. habitat) resulting from projects it plans that are intended to conserve the Some efforts under this memorandum of implemented in 2005 and 2006. Under Mt. Charleston blue and its habitat, to agreement have been successful in the plan, LVSSR will revegetate date, some actions under these reducing or avoiding project impacts to impacted areas using native plant agreements and plans have not been the butterfly, while other efforts have species, including Torrey’s milkvetch. fully implemented. Future actions could not. However, this program is experimental be implemented in accordance with the The loss or modification of known and has experienced difficulties due to terms of various agreements and plans; occupied and presumed occupied the challenges of native seed availability however, this would be voluntary, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12675

other factors may preclude the USFS Local Laws and Ordinances conservation measures for the Mt. from doing so. Therefore, based on the We are not aware of any local land Charleston blue as a result of the NEPA current distribution and recent, existing, use laws or ordinances that have been process, such measures are not required and likely future trends in habitat loss, issued by Clark County or other local by the statute. The USFS is required to we find the Mt. Charleston blue is government entities for protection of the analyze its projects, listed under Factor A, above, in accordance with the NEPA. threatened by the present and future Mt. Charleston blue. destruction, modification, and The Spring Mountains National curtailment of its habitat and range. State Law Recreation Area is one of 10 districts of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Nevada Revised Statutes sections 503 Factor B: Overutilization for Public Law 103–63, dated August 4, and 527 offer protective measures to Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 1993 (the Spring Mountains National wildlife and plants, but do not include Educational Purposes Recreation Area Act, 16 U.S.C. 460hhh invertebrate species such as the Mt. et seq.), established the Spring Charleston blue. Therefore, no Rare butterflies can be highly prized Mountains National Recreation Area to regulatory protection is offered under by insect collectors, and collection is a include approximately 316,000 ac Nevada State law. known threat to some butterfly species, (128,000 ha) of Federal lands managed such as the Fender’s blue butterfly Federal Law by the USFS in Clark and Nye counties, (65 FR 3882; January 25, 2000). In Mt. Charleston blues have been Nevada, for the following purposes: particular, small colonies and (1) To preserve the scenic, scientific, detected in only two general areas in populations are at the highest risk. historic, cultural, natural, wilderness, recent years—the South Loop Trail area Overcollection or repeated handling and watershed, riparian, wildlife, threatened marking of females in years of low where adult butterflies were recently and endangered species, and other detected during the summer of 2010 and abundance can seriously damage values contributing to public enjoyment LVSSR. The South Loop Trail area is populations through loss of and biological diversity in the Spring located along the ridgeline between reproductive individuals and genetic Mountains of Nevada; Griffith Peak and Charleston Peak variability (65 FR 3882; January 25, (2) To ensure appropriate within the Mt. Charleston Wilderness. 2000). Given its diminutive size and conservation and management of The U.S. Forest Service manages lands natural and recreation resources in the similarity to closely related subspecies, designated as wilderness under the the Mt. Charleston blue is not likely to Spring Mountains; and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131– (3) To provide for the development of be of considerable aesthetic interest to 1136). Within these areas, the collectors or the general public. public recreation opportunities in the Wilderness Act states the following: (1) Spring Mountains for the enjoyment of We are not aware of any information New or temporary roads cannot be built; present and future generations. that indicates the butterflies are being (2) there can be no use of motor The National Forest Management Act sought by collectors or collected for vehicles, motorized equipment, or (NFMA) of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. other purposes. Therefore, we do not motorboats; (3) there can be no landing 1600 et seq.), provides the principal find that overutilization for commercial, of aircraft; (4) there can be no other form guidance for the management of recreational, scientific, or educational of mechanical transport; and (5) no activities on lands under USFS purposes threatens the Mt. Charleston structure or installation may be built. As jurisdiction, through associated land blue. such, Mt. Charleston blue habitat in the and resource management plans for South Loop Trail area is protected from each forest unit. Under NFMA and other Factor C: Disease or Predation direct loss or degradation by the Federal laws, the USFS has authority to We are not aware of any information prohibitions of the Wilderness Act. Mt. regulate recreation, vehicle travel and regarding any impacts from either Charleston blue habitat at LVSSR and other human disturbance, livestock disease or predation on the Mt. elsewhere in Lee Canyon and Kyle grazing, fire management, energy development, and mining on lands Charleston blue. Therefore, we do not Canyon is located outside of the Mt. Charleston Wilderness, and thus is not within its jurisdiction. Current guidance find that disease or predation threatens subject to protections afforded by the for the management of USFS lands in the Mt. Charleston blue. Wilderness Act. the Spring Mountains National Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing The National Environmental Policy Recreation Area is under the Toiyabe Regulatory Mechanisms Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 National Forest Land and Resource U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), requires Federal Management Plan and the Spring Existing regulatory mechanisms or agencies, such as the USFS, to describe Mountains National Recreation Area other agreements that could provide proposed agency actions, consider General Management Plan. In June 2006, some protection for the Mt. Charleston alternatives, identify and disclose the USFS added the Mt. Charleston blue include: (1) Local land use laws, potential environmental impacts of each blue, and three other endemic processes, and ordinances; (2) State alternative, and involve the public in butterflies, to the Regional Forester’s laws and regulations; and (3) Federal the decision making process. Federal Sensitive Species List in accordance laws and regulations. Actions adopted agencies are not required to select the with Forest Service Manual 2670. The by local groups, States, or Federal NEPA alternative having the least objectives of the USFS to manage entities that are discretionary, including significant environmental impacts. A sensitive species are to prevent listing of conservation strategies and guidance, Federal agency may select an action that species under the Act, maintain viable are not regulatory mechanisms; will adversely affect sensitive species populations of native species, and however, we will discuss and evaluate provided that these effects are identified develop and implement management them below. The Mt. Charleston blue in a NEPA document. The NEPA itself objectives for populations and habitat of primarily occurs on Federal land under is a disclosure law, and does not require sensitive species. All of the projects the jurisdiction of the USFS; therefore, subsequent minimization or mitigation listed in Factor A, above, have been the discussion below primarily focuses of actions taken by Federal agencies. guided by these USFS plans, policies, on Federal laws. Although Federal agencies may include and guidance. These plans, policies, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 12676 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules

guidance notwithstanding, removal or numbers of the Mt. Charleston blue, climatic patterns cannot be definitively degradation of known occupied and late-season snowstorms, severe summer tied to global climate change; however, presumed occupied butterfly habitat has monsoon thunderstorms, and drought they are consistent with IPCC-predicted occurred as a result of projects approved have the potential to adversely impact patterns of extreme precipitation, by the USFS in upper Lee Canyon. the subspecies. warmer than average temperatures, and Additionally, this guidance has not been Late-season snowstorms have caused drought (Redmond 2007, p. 1). effective in reducing other threats to the alpine butterfly extirpations (Ehrlich et Therefore, we think it likely that climate Mt. Charleston blue (e.g., nonnative al. 1972, pp. 101–105), and false spring change will impact the Mt. Charleston plant species). conditions followed by normal winter blue and its high-elevation habitat snowstorms have caused adult and pre- through predicted increases in extreme Summary of Factor D diapause larvae mortality (Parmesan precipitation and drought. Alternating Existing regulatory mechanisms are 2005, pp. 56–60). In addition, high extreme precipitation and drought may not sufficient to provide for rainfall years have been associated with exacerbate threats already facing the conservation of the Mt. Charleston blue. butterfly population declines (Dobkin et subspecies as a result of its small Nevada Revised Statutes sections 503 al. 1987, pp. 161–176). Extended population size and threats to its and 527 do offer protective measures to periods of rainy weather can also slow habitat. wildlife and plants, but do not larval development and reduce specifically include protections for overwintering survival (Weiss et al. Summary of Factor E invertebrate species, such as the Mt. 1993, pp. 261–270). Weiss et al. (1997, Small butterfly populations have a Charleston blue. Since applicable State p. 32) suggested that heavy summer higher risk of extinction due to random regulatory mechanisms that could monsoon thunderstorms adversely environmental events (Shaffer 1981, p. potentially protect the Mt. Charleston impacted Mt. Charleston blue butterflies 131; Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 24–28; blue are not inclusive of invertebrates, during the 1996 flight season. During Shaffer 1987, pp. 69–75). Because of its they are not effective in relieving the the 2006 and 2007 flight season, severe small population and restricted range, threats faced by the Mt. Charleston blue summer thunderstorms may have the Mt. Charleston blue is vulnerable to butterfly. Although Mt. Charleston blue affected the flight season at LVSSR and random environmental events; in habitat at the South Loop Trail area is the South Loop Trail (Newfields 2006, particular, the butterfly is threatened by protected by prohibitions of the pp. 11 and 14; Kingsley 2007, p. 8). extreme precipitation events and Wilderness Act from many types of Additionally, drought has been shown drought. In the past 60 years, the habitat-disturbing actions, habitat where to lower butterfly populations (Ehrlich frequency of storms with extreme Mt. Charleston blues have occurred in et al. 1980, pp. 101–105; Thomas 1984, precipitation has increased in Nevada the past within Lee Canyon and Kyle p. 344). Drought can cause butterfly host by 29 percent (Madsen and Figdor 2007, Canyon are outside of designated plants to mature early and reduce larval p. 37), and it is predicted that altered wilderness and thus not protected by food availability (Ehrlich et al. 1980, pp. regional patterns of temperature and prohibitions of the Wilderness Act. 101–105; Weiss 1987, p. 165). This has precipitation as a result of global Because of the Mt. Charleston blue’s likely affected the Mt. Charleston blue. climate change will continue (IPCC extremely small population size and Murphy (2006, p. 3) and Boyd (2006, p. 2007, pp. 15–16). Throughout the entire limited distribution, it is potentially 1) both assert a series of drought years, range of the Mt. Charleston blue, altered vulnerable to projects or actions that followed by a season of above-average climate patterns could increase the impact even relatively small areas of snowfall and then more drought, could potential for extreme precipitation occupied or suitable habitat. Because be a reason for the lack of butterfly events and drought, and may exacerbate existing law, regulation, and policy have sightings in 2006. Continuing drought the threats the subspecies already faces not prevented implementation of could be responsible for the lack of given its small population size and the projects or actions that have resulted in sightings in 2007 and 2008 (Datasmiths threats to the alpine environment where loss or degradation of butterfly habitat 2007, p. 1; Boyd 2008, p. 2). it occurs. Based on this information, we (see Factor A), we conclude that existing High-elevation species like the Mt. find that other natural or manmade regulatory mechanisms are inadequate Charleston blue may be particularly factors are affecting the Mt. Charleston to protect the Mt. Charleston blue from susceptible to some level of habitat loss blue such that these factors threaten the threats discussed in this finding. due to global climate change subspecies’ continued existence. exacerbating threats already facing the Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Summary of Threats Analysis subspecies (Peters and Darling 1985, p. Factors Affecting the Continued 714; Hill et al. 2002, p. 2170). The The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is Existence of the Species Intergovernmental Panel on Climate sensitive to environmental variability The Mt. Charleston blue population Change (IPCC) has high confidence in with the butterfly population rising and appears to have declined since the last predictions that extreme weather events, falling in response to environmental high-population year in 1995. This warmer temperatures, and regional conditions (see ‘‘Status and Trends’’ subspecies has a limited distribution, drought are very likely to increase in the section). The best available information and population numbers are small. northern hemisphere as a result of suggests the Mt. Charleston blue Small butterfly populations have a climate change (IPCC 2007, pp. 15–16). population appears to have been in higher risk of extinction due to random Climate models show the southwestern decline since 1995, the last year the environmental events (Shaffer 1981, p. United States has transitioned into a subspecies was observed in high 131; Shaffer 1987, pp. 69–75; Gilpin and more arid climate of drought that is numbers, and that the population is Soule 1986, pp. 24–28). Weather predicted to continue into the next now extremely small (see ‘‘Status and extremes can cause severe butterfly century (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). In Trends’’ section). To some extent the Mt. population reductions or extinctions the past 60 years, the frequency of Charleston blue, like most butterflies, (Murphy et al. 1990, p. 43; Weiss et al. storms with extreme precipitation has has evolved to survive unfavorable 1987, pp. 164–167; Thomas et al. 1996, increased in Nevada by 29 percent environmental conditions as diapausing pp. 964–969). Given the limited (Madsen and Figdor 2007, p. 37). larvae or pupae (Scott 1986, pp. 26–30). distribution and likely low population Changes in local southern Nevada The pupae of some butterfly species are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12677

known to persist in diapause up to 5 to of existing regulatory mechanisms section 4(b)(7) of the Act is appropriate. 7 years (Scott 1986, p. 28). The number (Factor D), and other natural and During this status review, we of years the Mt. Charleston blue can manmade factors (Factor E). We will considered whether emergency listing of remain in diapause is unknown. Local make a determination on the status of the subspecies was necessary, given the experts have speculated that the Mt. the species as endangered or threatened vulnerability of the Mt. Charleston blue Charleston blue may only be able to when we prepare a proposed listing to extinction due to its small population diapause for one season. However, in rule. However, as explained in more size and limited distribution. We have response to unfavorable environmental detail below, an immediate proposal of determined that, at this time, issuing an conditions, it is hypothesized that a a regulation implementing this action is emergency regulation temporarily prolonged diapause period may be precluded by higher priority listing putting the protections of the Act in possible (Murphy 2006, p. 1; Datasmiths actions, and progress is being made to place for the subspecies is not 2007, p. 6; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. add or remove qualified species from appropriate for the following reasons. 22). The best available information the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Nearly the entire range of the Mt. suggests environmental conditions from Wildlife and Plants. Charleston blue is located on public 2006 to 2009 have not been favorable to In making this finding, we recognize lands managed by the Humboldt- the butterfly (see ‘‘Status and Trends’’ that there have been declines in the Toiyabe National Forest, so habitats on section). distribution and abundance of the Mt. these lands are not subject to large-scale Surveys are planned for 2011 to Charleston blue as a result of natural development pressures that may occur further determine the status and provide and human-caused factors. Butterflies on private lands. The area where the more knowledge about the ecology of that occur in upper Lee Canyon are most persistent population of Mt. the Mt. Charleston blue. Threats facing threatened by fire suppression and Charleston blue currently occurs is the the Mt. Charleston blue, discussed succession, implementation of South Loop Trail area, which is located above under listing Factors A, D, and E, recreation development projects and within the Mt. Charleston Wilderness, will only increase risks to persistence of fuels reduction projects, and increases and thus receives protection afforded by the butterfly, given its low population in nonnative plant species. These the the Wilderness Act (see Factor D size. The loss and degradation of habitat threats, if left unchecked, could discussion). In addition, decisions on due to fire suppression and succession; continue to impair the long-term proposed projects that would have implementation of recreation population viability of the Mt. impacted Mt. Charleston blue habitat at development projects and fuels Charleston blue (Factor A). In addition, the LVSSR have been suspended or reduction projects; and increases in the existing voluntary agreements and modified recently (see Recreation nonnative plants (see Factor A), along plans (Factor A), and regulatory Development Projects under Factor A), with the lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are inadequate and the USFS has recently reaffirmed its mechanisms to prevent these impacts to sufficiently reduce the threats to the commitment to ensure that (see Factor D), will increase the inherent subspecies from habitat loss and implementation of projects and actions risk of extinction of the remaining small degradation and nonnative species to a on Forest Service lands will not cause population of Mt. Charleston blue. level that does not pose a significant a loss of viability of the Mt. Charleston These threats are likely to be threat to the subspecies. The amount of blue (see Conservation Agreements and exacerbated by the impact of climate known habitat persistently occupied at Plans under Factor A). However, if the change, which is anticipated to increase the South Loop Trail and LVSSR is current situation changes and we drought and extreme precipitation small (less than 23 ac (9 ha)). The become aware of projects or actions that events (see Factor E). threats to the viability of the Mt. pose an immediate threat to the Charleston blue because of its limited Finding continued existence of the Mt. distribution, extremely low population Charleston blue, we may act As required by the Act, we considered numbers, and degradation of its habitat immediately to provide the butterfly the five factors in assessing whether the will be exacerbated by threats from emergency protections under the Act. Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is extreme precipitation events and endangered or threatened throughout all drought that are predicted to become Listing Priority Number or a significant portion of its range. We more frequent under global climate The Service adopted guidelines on have carefully examined the best change (Factor E). Due to the threats September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098) to scientific and commercial information described above, we find that the Mt. establish a rational system for utilizing available regarding the past, present, Charleston blue butterfly is warranted available resources for the highest and future threats faced by the Mt. for listing throughout its range; priority species when adding species to Charleston blue. We reviewed the however, the promulgation of a listing the Lists of Endangered or Threatened petition, information available in our rule at this time is precluded by higher Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying files, other available published and priority listing actions. We will review species listed as threatened to unpublished information, information whether to list the Mt. Charleston blue endangered status. These guidelines, obtained from consultations with butterfly as endangered or threatened titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened recognized Mt. Charleston blue butterfly when we begin the process to propose Species Listing and Recovery Priority experts, and information submitted to listing of this subspecies, as our Guidelines’’ (LPN Guidance) address the us by the public following publication priorities allow. We will make any immediacy and magnitude of threats, of our notice of 90-day petition finding determination on critical habitat during and the level of taxonomic and initiation of status review (72 FR development of the proposed listing distinctiveness by assigning priority in 29933; May 30, 2007). On the basis of rule. descending order to monotypic genera the best scientific and commercial We have reviewed the available (genus with one species), full species, information available, we find that the information to determine if the existing and subspecies (or equivalently, distinct listing of the Mt. Charleston blue and foreseeable threats render the population segments of vertebrates). We butterfly is warranted, due to the threats species at risk of extinction now such assigned the Mt. Charleston blue associated with habitat destruction or that issuing an emergency regulation butterfly a Listing Priority Number modification (Factor A), the inadequacy temporarily listing the species under (LPN) of 3 based on our finding that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 12678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules

species faces threats that are of high taxonomy. The Mt. Charleston blue critical habitat). The work involved in magnitude and are imminent. Because butterfly is a valid taxon at the preparing various listing documents can the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is a subspecies level, and therefore receives be extensive and may include, but is not subspecies, the highest Listing Priority a lower priority than a full species or a limited to: Gathering and assessing the Number (LPN) we can assign it is an species in a monotypic genus. The Mt. best scientific and commercial data LPN of 3, which is the highest priority Charleston blue butterfly faces high- available and conducting analyses used that can be provided to a subspecies magnitude, imminent threats, and is a as the basis for our decisions; writing under our LPN Guidance. Our rationale valid taxon at the subspecies level. and publishing documents; and for assigning the Mt. Charleston blue Thus, in accordance with our LPN obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating butterfly an LPN of 3 is outlined below. guidance, we have assigned the Mt. public comments and peer review Under the Service’s LPN Guidance, Charleston blue butterfly an LPN of 3. comments on proposed rules and the magnitude of threat is the first We will continue to monitor the incorporating relevant information into criterion we look at when establishing a threats to the Mt. Charleston blue final rules. The number of listing listing priority. The guidance indicates butterfly, and the subspecies’ status on actions that we can undertake in a given that species with the highest magnitude an annual basis, and should the year also is influenced by the of threat are those species facing the magnitude or the imminence of the complexity of those listing actions; that greatest threats to their continued threats change, we will revisit our is, more complex actions generally are existence. These species receive the assessment of the LPN. more costly. The median cost for highest listing priority. Mt. Charleston Work on a proposed listing preparing and publishing a 90-day blue is highly vulnerable to threats determination for the Mt. Charleston finding is $39,276; for a 12-month because of its extremely small blue butterfly is precluded by work on finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule population size and limited higher priority listing actions with with critical habitat, $345,000; and for distribution. The magnitude of threats to absolute statutory, court-ordered, or a final listing rule with critical habitat, the Mt. Charleston blue is high due to court-approved deadlines and final the median cost is $305,000. a combination of existing threats. These listing determinations for those species We cannot spend more than is threats include habitat loss and that were proposed for listing with appropriated for the Listing Program degradation due to fire suppression and funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work without violating the Anti-Deficiency succession, implementation of fuels includes all the actions listed in the Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In reduction projects and habitat- tables below under expeditious addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal disturbing projects or actions, and progress. year since then, Congress has placed a spread of nonnative plants (Factor A). In Preclusion and Expeditious Progress statutory cap on funds which may be addition, because of its extremely expended for the Listing Program, equal limited range, drought and extreme Preclusion is a function of the listing to the amount expressly appropriated precipitation events, which are priority of a species in relation to the for that purpose in that fiscal year. This predicted to become more frequent resources that are available and the cost cap was designed to prevent funds under climate change, potentially and relative priority of competing appropriated for other functions under impact Mt. Charleston blue across its demands for those resources. Thus, in the Act (for example, recovery funds for entire range (Factor E). These threats act any given fiscal year (FY), multiple removing species from the Lists), or for synergistically and constitute a factors dictate whether it will be other Service programs, from being used significant risk to the continued possible to undertake work on a listing for Listing Program actions (see House existence of the Mt. Charleston blue. proposal regulation or whether Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st Given the decline in the population of promulgation of such a proposal is Session, July 1, 1997). the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly over precluded by higher-priority listing Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget the last 15 years, active and sustained actions. has included a critical habitat subcap to conservation of the butterfly and its The resources available for listing ensure that some funds are available for habitat is required. actions are determined through the other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The Under our LPN Guidance, the second annual Congressional appropriations critical habitat designation subcap will criterion we consider in assigning a process. The appropriation for the ensure that some funding is available to listing priority is the immediacy of Listing Program is available to support address other listing activities’’ (House threats. This criterion is intended to work involving the following listing Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st ensure that the species that face actual, actions: Proposed and final listing rules; Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and identifiable threats are given priority 90-day and 12-month findings on each year until FY 2006, the Service has over those for which threats are only petitions to add species to the Lists of had to use virtually the entire critical potential or species that are intrinsically Endangered and Threatened Wildlife habitat subcap to address court- vulnerable but are not known to be and Plants (Lists) or to change the status mandated designations of critical presently facing such threats. The of a species from threatened to habitat, and consequently none of the threats described above in this finding endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ critical habitat subcap funds have been are imminent because they are ongoing. petition findings on prior warranted- available for other listing activities. In The combination of ongoing threats but-precluded petition findings as some FYs since 2006, we have been able place the continued existence of the Mt. required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of to use some of the critical habitat Charleston blue at risk because of its the Act; critical habitat petition subcap funds to fund proposed listing high vulnerability due to extremely findings; proposed and final rules determinations for high-priority small population size and limited designating critical habitat; and candidate species. In other FYs, while distribution. litigation-related, administrative, and we were unable to use any of the critical The third criterion in our LPN program-management functions habitat subcap funds to fund proposed guidance is intended to ensure (including preparing and allocating listing determinations, we did use some resources are devoted to those species budgets, responding to Congressional of this money to fund the critical habitat representing highly distinctive or and public inquiries, and conducting portion of some proposed listing isolated gene pools as reflected by public outreach regarding listing and determinations so that the proposed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12679

listing determination and proposed the Service anticipates an appropriation Based on our September 21, 1983, critical habitat designation could be of $22,103,000 based on FY 2010 guidance for assigning an LPN for each combined into one rule, thereby being appropriations. Of that, the Service candidate species (48 FR 43098), we more efficient in our work. At this time, anticipates needing to dedicate have a significant number of species for FY 2011, we do not know if we will $11,632,000 for determinations of with an LPN of 2. Using this guidance, be able to use some of the critical critical habitat for already listed species. we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 habitat subcap funds to fund proposed Also $500,000 is appropriated for to 12, depending on the magnitude of listing determinations. foreign species listings under the Act. threats (high or moderate to low), We make our determinations of The Service thus has $9,971,000 immediacy of threats (imminent or preclusion on a nationwide basis to available to fund work in the following nonimminent), and taxonomic status of ensure that the species most in need of categories: Compliance with court the species (in order of priority: listing will be addressed first and also orders and court-approved settlement Monotypic genus (a species that is the because we allocate our listing budget agreements requiring that petition sole member of a genus); species; or part on a nationwide basis. Through the findings or listing determinations be of a species (subspecies, distinct listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, completed by a specific date; section 4 population segment, or significant and the amount of funds needed to (of the Act) listing actions with absolute portion of the range)). The lower the address court-mandated critical habitat statutory deadlines; essential litigation- listing priority number, the higher the designations, Congress and the courts related, administrative, and listing listing priority (that is, a species with an have in effect determined the amount of program-management functions; and LPN of 1 would have the highest listing money available for other listing high-priority listing actions for some of priority). activities nationwide. Therefore, the our candidate species. In FY 2010 the Because of the large number of high- funds in the listing cap, other than those Service received many new petitions priority species, we have further ranked needed to address court-mandated and a single petition to list 404 species. the candidate species with an LPN of 2 critical habitat for already listed species, The receipt of petitions for a large by using the following extinction-risk set the limits on our determinations of number of species is consuming the type criteria: International Union for the preclusion and expeditious progress. Service’s listing funding that is not Conservation of Nature and Natural Congress identified the availability of dedicated to meeting court-ordered Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, resources as the only basis for deferring commitments. Absent some ability to Heritage rank (provided by the initiation of a rulemaking that is balance effort among listing duties NatureServe), Heritage threat rank warranted. The Conference Report under existing funding levels, it is (provided by NatureServe), and species accompanying Public Law 97–304 unlikely that the Service will be able to currently with fewer than 50 (Endangered Species Act Amendments initiate any new listing determination individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. of 1982), which established the current for candidate species in FY 2011. Those species with the highest IUCN statutory deadlines and the warranted- In 2009, the responsibility for listing rank (critically endangered), the highest but-precluded finding, states that the foreign species under the Act was Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage amendments were ‘‘not intended to transferred from the Division of threat rank (substantial, imminent allow the Secretary to delay Scientific Authority, International threats), and currently with fewer than commencing the rulemaking process for Affairs Program, to the Endangered 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 any reason other than that the existence Species Program. Therefore, starting in populations, originally comprised a of pending or imminent proposals to list FY 2010, we used a portion of our group of approximately 40 candidate species subject to a greater degree of funding to work on the actions species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate threat would make allocation of described above for listing actions species have had the highest priority to resources to such a petition [that is, for related to foreign species. In FY 2011, receive funding to work on a proposed a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’ we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work listing determination. As we work on Although that statement appeared to on listing actions for foreign species proposed and final listing rules for those refer specifically to the ‘‘to the which reduces funding available for 40 candidates, we apply the ranking maximum extent practicable’’ limitation domestic listing actions, however, criteria to the next group of candidates on the 90-day deadline for making a currently only $500,000 has been with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the ‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that allocated. Although there are currently next set of highest priority candidate finding is made at the point when the no foreign species issues included in species. Finally, proposed rules for Service is deciding whether or not to our high-priority listing actions at this reclassification of threatened species to commence a status review that will time, many actions have statutory or endangered are lower priority, since as determine the degree of threats facing court-approved settlement deadlines, listed species, they are already afforded the species, and therefore the analysis thus increasing their priority. The the protection of the Act and underlying the statement is more budget allocations for each specific implementing regulations. However, for relevant to the use of the warranted-but- listing action are identified in the efficiency reasons, we may choose to precluded finding, which is made when Service’s FY 2011 Allocation Table (part work on a proposed rule to reclassify a the Service has already determined the of our record). species to endangered if we can degree of threats facing the species and For the above reasons, funding a combine this with work that is subject is deciding whether or not to commence proposed listing determination for the to a court-determined deadline. a rulemaking. Mt. Charleston blue is precluded by With our workload so much bigger In FY 2011, on December 22, 2010, court-ordered and court-approved than the amount of funds we have to Congress passed a continuing resolution settlement agreements, listing actions accomplish it, it is important that we be which provides funding at the FY 2010 with absolute statutory deadlines, and as efficient as possible in our listing enacted level through March 4, 2011. work on proposed listing process. Therefore, as we work on Until Congress appropriates funds for determinations for those candidate proposed rules for the highest priority FY 2011 at a different level, we will species with a higher listing priority species in the next several years, we are fund listing work based on the FY 2010 (i.e., candidate species with LPNs of preparing multi-species proposals when amount. Thus, at this time in FY 2011, 1–2. appropriate, and these may include

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 12680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules

species with lower priority if they progress is being made to add and Recovery program in light of the overlap geographically or have the same remove qualified species to and from resource available for delisting, which is threats as a species with an LPN of 2. the Lists of Endangered and Threatened funded by a separate line item in the In addition, we take into consideration Wildlife and Plants. As with our budget of the Endangered Species the availability of staff resources when ‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of Program. So far during FY 2011, we we determine which high-priority whether progress in adding qualified have completed one delisting rule.) species will receive funding to species to the Lists has been expeditious Given the limited resources available for minimize the amount of time and is a function of the resources available listing, we find that we are making resources required to complete each for listing and the competing demands expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the listing action. for those funds. (Although we do not Listing. This progress included As explained above, a determination discuss it in detail here, we are also preparing and publishing the following that listing is warranted but precluded making expeditious progress in determinations: must also demonstrate that expeditious removing species from the list under the

FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

10/6/2010 ...... Endangered Status for the Altamaha Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 61664–61690 Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat. 10/7/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to list the Sac- Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not war- 75 FR 62070–62095 ramento Splittail as Endangered or Threat- ranted. ened. 10/28/2010 ...... Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Proposed Listing Endangered (uplisting) ...... 75 FR 66481–66552 Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow. 11/2/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not sub- 75 FR 67341–67343 Springs Salamander as Endangered. stantial. 11/2/2010 ...... Determination of Endangered Status for the Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 67511–67550 Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail and Des- ignation of Critical Habitat. 11/2/2010 ...... Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as En- Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 67551–67583 dangered. 11/4/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Cirsium Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 67925–67944 wrightii (Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as Endan- but precluded. gered or Threatened. 12/14/2010 ...... Endangered Status for Dunes Sagebrush Liz- Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 77801–77817 ard. 12/14/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 78029–78061 North American Wolverine as Endangered but precluded. or Threatened. 12/14/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 78093–78146 Sonoran Population of the Desert Tortoise but precluded. as Endangered or Threatened. 12/15/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astrag- Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 78513–78556 alus microcymbus and Astragalus but precluded. schmolliae as Endangered or Threatened. 12/28/2010 ...... Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as En- Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 81793–81815 dangered Throughout Their Range. 1/4/2011 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Red Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not sub- 76 FR 304–311 Knot subspecies Calidris canutus roselaari stantial. as Endangered. 1/19/2011 ...... Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 76 FR 3392–3420 Spectaclecase Mussels. 2/10/2011 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pa- Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 76 FR 7634 cific Walrus as Endangered or Threatened. but precluded.

Our expeditious progress also statutory timelines, that is, timelines a lower priority if they overlap includes work on listing actions that we required under the Act. Actions in the geographically or have the same threats funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but bottom section of the table are high- as the species with the high priority. have not yet been completed to date. priority listing actions. These actions Including these species together in the These actions are listed below. Actions include work primarily on species with same proposed rule results in in the top section of the table are being an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above, considerable savings in time and conducted under a deadline set by a selection of these species is partially funding, as compared to preparing court. Actions in the middle section of based on available staff resources, and separate proposed rules for each of them the table are being conducted to meet when appropriate, include species with in the future.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12681

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

Flat-tailed horned lizard ...... Final listing determination. Mountain plover 4 ...... Final listing determination. Solanum conocarpum ...... 12-month petition finding. Thorne’s Hairstreak butterfly 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. Hermes copper butterfly 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. 4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow-billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet macaw) 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. 4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet, hyacinth 12-month petition finding. macaw) 5. 4 parrots species (crimson shining parrot, white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo, yellow-crested 12-month petition finding. cockatoo) 5. Utah prairie dog (uplisting) ...... 90-day petition finding.

Actions with Statutory Deadlines

Casey’s june beetle ...... Final listing determination. Southern rockhopper penguin—Campbell Plateau population ...... Final listing determination. 6 Birds from Eurasia ...... Final listing determination. 5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ...... Final listing determination. Queen Charlotte goshawk ...... Final listing determination. 5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and Final listing determination. laurel dace) 4. Ozark hellbender 4 ...... Final listing determination. Altamaha spinymussel 3 ...... Final listing determination. 3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute Final listing determination. Beardtongue), and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) 4. Salmon crested cockatoo ...... Final listing determination. 6 Birds from Peru and Bolivia ...... Final listing determination. Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 ...... Final listing determination. 2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 ...... Final listing determination. Mt Charleston blue 5 ...... Proposed listing determination. CA golden trout 4 ...... 12-month petition finding. Black-footed albatross ...... 12-month petition finding. Mount Charleston blue butterfly ...... 12-month petition finding. Mojave fringe-toed lizard 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Northern leopard frog ...... 12-month petition finding. Tehachapi slender salamander ...... 12-month petition finding. Coqui Llanero ...... 12-month petition finding/Proposed listing. Dusky tree vole ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly (Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp.3, Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 spe- 12-month petition finding. cies petition. 5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, 12-month petition finding. Trifolium friscanum) from 206 species petition. 5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) 12-month petition finding. pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition. Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. Gopher tortoise—eastern population ...... 12-month petition finding. Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 4 ...... 12-month petition finding. Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475 species petition) 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 species peti- 12-month petition finding. tion). 2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 12-month petition finding. species petition). 5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. 14 parrots (foreign species) ...... 12-month petition finding. Berry Cave salamander 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Striped Newt 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. Western gull-billed tern ...... 12-month petition finding. Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 4 ...... 12-month petition finding. HI yellow-faced bees ...... 12-month petition finding. Giant Palouse earthworm ...... 12-month petition finding. Whitebark pine ...... 12-month petition finding.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 12682 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Ashy storm-petrel 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. Honduran emerald ...... 12-month petition finding. Southeastern pop snowy plover and wintering pop. of piping plover 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. Eagle Lake trout 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. Smooth-billed ani 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. 32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. 42 snail species (Nevada and Utah) ...... 90-day petition finding. Peary caribou ...... 90-day petition finding. Plains bison ...... 90-day petition finding. Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ...... 90-day petition finding. Spring pygmy sunfish ...... 90-day petition finding. Bay skipper ...... 90-day petition finding. Unsilvered fritillary ...... 90-day petition finding. Texas kangaroo rat ...... 90-day petition finding. Spot-tailed earless lizard ...... 90-day petition finding. Eastern small-footed bat ...... 90-day petition finding. Northern long-eared bat ...... 90-day petition finding. Prairie chub ...... 90-day petition finding. 10 species of Great Basin butterfly ...... 90-day petition finding. 6 sand dune (scarab) beetles ...... 90-day petition finding. Golden-winged warbler 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Sand-verbena moth ...... 90-day petition finding. 404 Southeast species ...... 90-day petition finding. Franklin’s bumble bee 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. 2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly and Idaho snowfly) 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. American eel 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Gila monster (Utah population) 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Arapahoe snowfly 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Leona’s little blue 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Aztec gilia 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. White-tailed ptarmigan 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. San Bernardino flying squirrel 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. Bicknell’s thrush 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. Chimpanzee ...... 90-day petition finding. Sonoran talussnail 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. 2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum bartrami and Pectis imberbis) 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. I’iwi 5 ...... 90-day petition finding.

High-Priority Listing Actions

19 Oahu candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN Proposed listing. = 9). 19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with Proposed listing. LPN = 8). 2 Arizona springsnails 2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) ...... Proposed listing. Chupadera springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2)) ...... Proposed listing. 8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama Proposed listing. pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 4. Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 ...... Proposed listing. 2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) and Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Diamond darter (LPN = 2) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Miami blue (LPN = 3) 3 ...... Proposed listing. 4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), George- Proposed listing. town salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3. 5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom Proposed listing. springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2)) 3. 2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River rose-mal- Proposed listing. low (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) 3. FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) 3 ...... Proposed listing. 21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—5 plants and 3 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, Proposed listing. 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4, 2 with LPN = 8). 12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN = Proposed listing. 3), streaked horned lark (LPN = 3), Taylor’s checkerspot (LPN = 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8)) 3. 2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2)) 5 ...... Proposed listing. Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 ...... Proposed listing. 1 Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 2 Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12683

3 Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds. 4 Funded with FY 2010 funds. 5 Funded with FY 2011 funds.

We have endeavored to make our DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Docket number for this finding, which listing actions as efficient and timely as is FWS–R2–ES–2011–0011. Check the possible, given the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Service box that reads ‘‘Open for Comment/ relevant law and regulations, and Submission,’’ and then click the Search constraints relating to workload and 50 CFR Part 17 button. You should then see an icon that personnel. We are continually [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0011; MO reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ Please considering ways to streamline 92210–0–0008] ensure that you have found the correct processes or achieve economies of scale, rulemaking before submitting your Endangered and Threatened Wildlife comment. such as by batching related actions • together. Given our limited budget for and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public implementing section 4 of the Act, these Petition To List the Texas Kangaroo Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2– ES–2011–0011; Division of Policy and actions described above collectively Rat as Endangered or Threatened Directives Management; U.S. Fish and constitute expeditious progress. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly will Interior. Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. be added to the list of candidate species ACTION: Notice of petition finding and We will post all information received on upon publication of this 12-month initiation of status review. http://www.regulations.gov. This finding. We will continue to monitor the generally means that we will post any SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and status of this species as new information personal information you provide us Wildlife Service (Service), announce a becomes available. This review will (see the Request for Information section 90-day finding on a petition to list the determine if a change in status is below for more details). Texas kangaroo rat, Dipodomys elator, warranted, including the need to make as endangered or threatened and to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: prompt use of emergency listing designate critical habitat under the Thomas J. Cloud, Jr., Field Supervisor, procedures. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Arlington Ecological Services Field We intend that any proposed listing amended. Based on our review, we find Office, 711 Stadium Drive, Suite 252, action for the Mt. Charleston blue that the petition presents substantial Arlington, TX 76011; by telephone (817) butterfly will be as accurate as possible. scientific or commercial information 277–1100; or by facsimile (817) 277– Therefore, we will continue to accept indicating that listing the Texas 1129. If you use a telecommunications additional information and comments kangaroo rat may be warranted. device for the deaf (TDD), please call the from all concerned governmental Therefore, with the publication of this Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. agencies, the scientific community, notice, we are initiating a status review industry, or any other interested party to determine if listing the Texas SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: concerning this finding. kangaroo rat is warranted. To ensure the Request for Information status review is comprehensive, we are References Cited requesting scientific and commercial When we make a finding that a data and other information regarding petition presents substantial A complete list of all references cited this species. Based on the status review, information indicating that listing a is available on request from the Nevada we will issue a 12-month finding on the species may be warranted, we are Fish and Wildlife Office (see petition, which will address whether required to promptly review the status ADDRESSES). the petitioned action is warranted, as of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based Authors provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. on the best available scientific and DATES: To allow us adequate time to commercial information, we request The primary authors of this document conduct this review, we request that we information on the Texas kangaroo rat are the staff members of the U.S. Fish receive information on or before May 9, from governmental agencies, Native and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and 2011. Please note that if you are using American Tribes, the scientific Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see community, industry, and any other ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline Authority interested parties. We seek information for submitting an electronic comment is on: The authority for this action is section 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. (1) The species’ biology, range, and 4 of the Endangered Species Act of After May 9, 2011, you must submit population trends, including: 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et information directly to the Arlington (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, seq.). Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR breeding, and sheltering; FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section Dated: February 11, 2011. (b) Genetics and taxonomy; below). Please note that we might not be (c) Historical and current range, Rowan W. Gould, able to address or incorporate including distribution patterns; Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife information that we receive after the (d) Historical and current population Service. above requested date. levels, and current and projected trends; [FR Doc. 2011–4884 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: You may submit and BILLING CODE 4310–55–P information by one of the following (e) Past and ongoing conservation methods: measures for the species, its habitat, or • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// both. www.regulations.gov. In the box that (2) The factors that are the basis for reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the making a listing determination for a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS