Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50971

4. Verification of Consumer Eligibility Federal Communications Commission. ADDRESSES: You may submit for Lifeline—Sampling Methodology Trent Harkrader, information by one of the following Division Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. methods: In the 2011 Lifeline and Link Up [FR Doc. 2011–20847 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am] (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal NPRM, the Commission proposed to eRulemaking Portal: http:// BILLING CODE 6712–01–P amend § 54.410 of its rules to establish www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword a uniform methodology for conducting box, enter Docket No. [FWS–R8–ES– verification sampling that would apply 2011–0055], which is the docket to all ETCs in all states. The NPRM also DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR number for this action. Then, in the asked commenters to consider two Search panel on the left side of the proposals for modifying the existing Fish and Wildlife Service screen, under the Document Type sampling methodology to more heading, click on the Proposed Rules effectively balance the need for an 50 CFR Part 17 link to locate this document. You may administratively feasible sampling submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Send methodology with the Commission’s [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0055; MO a Comment or Submission.’’ 92210–0–0008] (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail obligation to ensure that ineligible or hand-deliver to: Public Comments consumers do not receive Lifeline/Link Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2011– Up benefits. We invite additional and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 0055; Division of Policy and Directives comment on this issue. Petition To List the Leona’s Little Blue Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife a. With respect to the Commission’s as Endangered or Threatened Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS sample-and-census proposal, could the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. Commission implement it in a way that Interior. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We would be more easily administrable for will post all information we receive on ACTION: Notice of petition finding and http://www.regulations.gov. This ETCs, particularly ETCs with a small initiation of status review. number of Lifeline subscribers? generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us b. TCA proposes that, if the SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a (see the Request for Information section Commission adopts a sample-and- below for more details). census rule, carriers with a small 90-day finding on a petition to list the Leona’s little blue butterfly, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: number of Lifeline subscribers should Laurie Sada, Field Supervisor, Klamath be required to sample fewer consumers leona, as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, by than ETCs with a larger number of telephone (541–885–8481), or by Lifeline subscribers. We seek comment 1973, as amended (Act), and to designate critical habitat. Based on our facsimile (541–885–7837). If you use a on this proposal. Should the review, we find that the petition telecommunications device for the deaf Commission consider a smaller sample presents substantial scientific or (TDD), please call the Federal size for ETCs with a small number of commercial information indicating that Information Relay Service (FIRS) at Lifeline customers in a given state? listing the Leona’s little blue butterfly 800–877–8339. What number of respondents could may be warranted. Therefore, with the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ETCs with a smaller number of Lifeline publication of this notice, we are Request for Information customers feasibly sample in a given initiating a review of the status of the year, keeping in mind that reducing the species to determine if listing the When we make a finding that a required number of respondents could Leona’s little blue butterfly is petition presents substantial result in larger margins of error? warranted. To ensure that this status information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are c. Alternatively, should carriers with review is comprehensive, we are required to promptly review the status a small number of Lifeline subscribers requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding of the species (status review). For the be required to sample only a specified status review to be complete and based percentage of their customer base? What this species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the on the best available scientific and would be a reasonable percentage in commercial information, we request such cases? petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as information on the Leona’s little blue This matter shall be treated as a provided in the Act. butterfly from governmental agencies, ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in Native American Tribes, the scientific DATES: To allow us adequate time to community, industry, and any other accordance with the Commission’s ex conduct this review, we request that we interested parties. We seek information parte rules. Persons making oral ex receive information on or before October parte presentations are reminded that on: 17, 2011. The deadline for submitting an (1) The species’ biology, range, and memoranda summarizing the electronic comment using the Federal presentations must contain summaries population trends, including: eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, of the substance of the presentation and section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern not merely a listing of the subjects breeding, and sheltering; Time on this date. After October 17, (b) Genetics and ; discussed. More than a one or two 2011, you must submit information (c) Historical and current range, sentence description of the views and directly to the Klamath Falls Fish and including distribution patterns; arguments presented generally is Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER (d) Historical and current population required. Other rules pertaining to oral INFORMATION CONTACT section below). levels, and current and projected trends; and written ex parte presentations in Please note that we might not be able to and permit-but-disclose proceedings are set address or incorporate information that (e) Past and ongoing conservation forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s we receive after the above requested measures for the species, its habitat, or rules. date. both.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:31 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 50972 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(2) The factors that are the basis for personal identifying information, you species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act making a listing determination for a may request at the top of your document was not warranted. We also stated that species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 that we withhold this personal we were required to complete a U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: identifying information from public significant number of listing and critical (a) The present or threatened review. However, we cannot guarantee habitat actions in Fiscal Year 2010 destruction, modification, or that we will be able to do so. We will pursuant to court orders, judicially curtailment of its habitat or range; post all hardcopy submissions on approved settlement agreements, and (b) Overutilization for commercial, http://www.regulations.gov. other statutory deadlines, but that we recreational, scientific, or educational Information and supporting had secured funding for Fiscal Year purposes; documentation that we received and 2011 and anticipated publishing a (c) Disease or predation; used in preparing this finding is finding in the Federal Register in July (d) The inadequacy of existing available for you to review at http:// 2011. This finding addresses the regulatory mechanisms; or www.regulations.gov, or by petition. (e) Other natural or manmade factors appointment, during normal business affecting its continued existence. hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Species Information If, after the status review, we Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife The Leona’s little blue butterfly is a determine that listing the Leona’s little Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION member of the Tribe (a blue butterfly is warranted, we will CONTACT). taxonomic group under family) (Pyle propose critical habitat (see definition 2002, p. 222) of the family in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under Background (Mattoni 1977, p. 223; Hammond and section 4 of the Act, to the maximum Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires McCorkle 1999, p.1), and is the largest extent prudent and determinable at the that we make a finding on whether a species in the Philotiella genus time we propose to list the species. petition to list, delist, or reclassify a (Hammond and McCorkle 1999, p. 82). Therefore, we also request data and species presents substantial scientific or The Leona’s little blue butterfly was information on: commercial information indicating that discovered in 1995; the historical range (1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or the petitioned action may be warranted. of the species is unknown. The current biological features essential to the We are to base this finding on known distribution of the Leona’s little conservation of the species,’’ within the information provided in the petition, blue butterfly occurs within a 6-square- geographical range currently occupied supporting information submitted with mile (15.5-square-kilometer) area of the by the species; the petition, and information otherwise Antelope Desert, east of Crater Lake (2) Where these features are currently available in our files. To the maximum National Park in southern Oregon found; extent practicable, we are to make this (Hammond and McCorkle 1999, p. 77; (3) Whether any of these features may finding within 90 days of our receipt of Ross 2008, p. 1). The majority of this require special management the petition and publish our notice of habitat occurs on the Mazama Tree considerations or protection; the finding promptly in the Federal Farm property, which is privately (4) Specific areas outside the Register. owned by Cascade Timberlands, LLC. A geographical area occupied by the Our standard for substantial scientific small percentage of land on which the species that are ‘‘essential for the or commercial information within the Leona’s little blue butterfly occurs is in conservation of the species’’; and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with the Fremont-Winema National Forests, (5) What, if any, critical habitat you regard to a 90-day petition finding is United States Forest Service (USFS). think we should propose for designation ‘‘that amount of information that would There have been no rigorous presence/ if the species is proposed for listing, and lead a reasonable person to believe that absence surveys conducted, and it is why such habitat meets the the measure proposed in the petition unknown if additional populations of requirements of section 4 of the Act. may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). the Leona’s little blue butterfly exist in Please include sufficient information If we find that substantial scientific or similar habitat elsewhere in with your submission (such as scientific commercial information was presented, northeastern California and eastern journal articles or other publications) to we are required to promptly conduct a Oregon (Hammond and McCorkle 1999, allow us to verify any scientific or species status review, which we p. 80; Ross 2008, p.1). In addition, there commercial information you include. subsequently summarize in our is no information on population trends Submissions merely stating support 12-month finding. of the Leona’s little blue butterfly; for or opposition to the action under however, the current population, based consideration without providing Petition History on a 2008 flight season count supporting information, although noted, On May 12, 2010, we received a extrapolation, is estimated at 1,000 to will not be considered in making a petition dated May 12, 2010, from the 2,000 individuals (Ross 2010, p. 7). determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Xerces Society, Dr. David McCorkle of The Leona’s little blue butterfly is Act directs that determinations as to Western Oregon University, and Oregon found in volcanic ash and pumice fields whether any species is an endangered or Wild, requesting that the Leona’s little and meadows (Hammond and McCorkle threatened species must be made blue butterfly be listed as endangered 1999, p. 77; Pyle 2002, p. 236; Ross ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific and that critical habitat be designated 2008, p. 1) consisting of a nonforested and commercial data available.’’ under the Act. The petition clearly bitterbrush/needlegrass-sedge You may submit your information identified itself as such and included community (Volland 1985, p. 29; concerning this status review by one of the requisite identification information Johnson 2010, p. 2). Johnson (2010, p. the methods listed in the ADDRESSES for the petitioners, as required by 50 4) states that the plant community in the section. If you submit information via CFR 424.14(a). In a September 10, 2010, known, occupied habitat overlays a http://www.regulations.gov, your entire letter to the petitioners, we responded ‘‘quaternary alluvial fan with very deep submission—including any personal that we reviewed the information alluvium derived from pumice and identifying information—will be posted presented in the petition and other volcanic rock.’’ The Leona’s little on the Web site. If your submission is determined that issuing an emergency blue butterfly utilizes several species of made via a hardcopy that includes regulation temporarily listing the plants as nectar sources, including

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:31 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50973

Eriogonum spergulinum (spurry and we then attempt to determine how Conservation 2010, p. 10). This buckwheat), Eriogonum umbellatum significant a threat it is. If the threat is encroachment increases the fuel loads of var. polyanthum (sulphur buckwheat), significant, it may drive or contribute to the forest which could also result in a and an Epilobium species (Hammond the risk of extinction of the species such catastrophic fire across the landscape and McCorkle 1999, p. 82; Ross 2008, that the species may warrant listing as (Xerces Society for Invertebrate pp. 1, 5, and 20; Johnson 2010, p. 5), but endangered or threatened as those terms Conservation 2010, p. 10). The petition the butterfly is known to have only one are defined by the Act. This does not claims that such a fire could have larval hostplant, Eriogonum necessarily require empirical proof of a deleterious impacts to the survival of spergulinum (Hammond and McCorkle threat. The combination of exposure and the only population of the Leona’s little 1999, p. 80; Ross 2008, p. 1; Johnson some corroborating evidence of how the blue butterfly (Xerces Society for 2010, p. 1). The Leona’s little blue species is likely impacted could suffice. Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 10). butterfly undergoes complete The mere identification of factors that The petition also states that grazing, metamorphosis, developing through the could impact a species negatively may cinder mining, and the potential egg, larva, and pupa stages in one not be sufficient to compel a finding development of a biomass energy summer, and then emerges from its that listing may be warranted. The facility may have deleterious impacts on chrysalis as an adult the following year information shall contain evidence the only population of the Leona’s little (Ross 2010, p. 4). Adults of this species sufficient to suggest that these factors blue butterfly. The first land emerge for approximately 2 to 3 weeks may be operative threats that act on the management practice discussed in the in mid-June through mid-July (Ross species to the point that the species may petition is livestock grazing (Xerces 2008, p. 1; Ross 2010, p. 4). meet the definition of threatened or Society for Invertebrate Conservation We accept the characterization of the endangered under the Act. 2010, p. 15). The petition cites the Leona’s little blue butterfly at the In making this 90-day finding, we Winema National Forest Land and species level based on the differences in evaluated whether the information Resource Management Plan, hereafter size and wing coloration between it and regarding threats to the Leona’s little the USFS Plan, and the Klamath Tribes’ the closely related Philotiella speciosa blue butterfly, as presented in the Management of the Klamath Reservation species (small-dotted blue butterfly), as petition and other information available Forest Plan, stating that both plans well as the divergence of male and in our files, is substantial, thereby allow for livestock grazing on the female genitalia between these two indicating that the petitioned action Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat species (Hammond and McCorkle 1999, may be warranted. Our evaluation of (Xerces Society for Invertebrate pp. 79–80). Additionally, the species is this information is presented below. Conservation 2010, p. 16). While the recognized as valid by the Integrated petition notes the lack of knowledge of A. The Present or Threatened Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) the impact of livestock grazing on the Destruction, Modification, or and is described in NatureServe. Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat, it Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range concludes that livestock grazing is Evaluation of Information for This Information Provided in the Petition incompatible with the management of Finding the Leona’s little blue butterfly The petition asserts that the Leona’s Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) population because adult food sources little blue butterfly is threatened by loss and its implementing regulations at 50 may be eaten by the cattle and the cattle of habitat due to intensified CFR part 424 set forth the procedures may disturb the soil, allowing weeds to management for timber production, for adding a species to, or removing a invade (Xerces Society for Invertebrate lodgepole pine tree encroachment, and species from, the Federal Lists of Conservation 2010, pp. 15–16). The fire (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Endangered and Threatened Wildlife petition also asserts that cattle have the Conservation 2010, pp. 10–11). The and Plants. A species may be ability to destroy native vegetation petition recognizes the need for active determined to be an endangered or (Xerces Society for Invertebrate management of the Leona’s little blue threatened species due to one or more Conservation 2010, p. 15). butterfly habitat; however, it states that of the five factors described in section The second land management practice the impacts of intensified timber 4(a)(1) of the Act: that the petition cites is cinder mining (A) The present or threatened production management on the Mazama (Xerces Society for Invertebrate destruction, modification, or Tree Farm may be destructive to the Conservation 2010, p. 15). The petition curtailment of its habitat or range; Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat asserts that numerous cinder mining (B) Overutilization for commercial, (Xerces Society for Invertebrate pits, managed by the Oregon recreational, scientific, or educational Conservation 2010, p. 11). In particular, Department of Transportation, exist purposes; the petition states concerns about the within the vicinity of the Leona’s little (C) Disease or predation; impacts of additional roads, traffic, and blue butterfly habitat, some of which (D) The inadequacy of existing heavy equipment operations to the occur within the Fremont-Winema regulatory mechanisms; or Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat National Forests (Xerces Society for (E) Other natural or manmade factors (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 15). affecting its continued existence. Conservation 2010, p. 11). The petition The petition claims that cinder mining In considering what factors might states that fire suppression over the last pits are periodically expanded, resulting constitute threats, we must look beyond 50 years has led to a loss of meadow and in the potential for exploration to occur the mere exposure of the species to the other open canopy habitat (Xerces within a 40 acre (ac) (16.2 hectare (ha)) factor to determine whether the species Society for Invertebrate Conservation area adjacent to any existing pits (Xerces responds to the factor in a way that 2010, p. 10). Specifically, the petition Society for Invertebrate Conservation causes actual impacts to the species. If states that young lodgepole pine trees 2010, p. 15). The petition declares that there is exposure to a factor, but no have encroached into open patches of the exploration, drilling, and expansion response, or only a positive response, habitat resulting in a loss of breeding processes have the ability to destroy the that factor is not a threat. If there is and foraging habitat for the Leona’s little Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat exposure and the species responds blue butterfly on the Mazama Tree Farm (Xerces Society for Invertebrate negatively, the factor may be a threat property (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 15).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 50974 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Finally, the petition states that a proposed management for the Leona’s butterfly species richness and diversity biomass energy facility may be little blue butterfly habitat is timber was greater in burned rather than developed by The Klamath Tribes extraction (Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 23– unburned sites. However, Black et al. within the Leona’s little blue butterfly 24), the Klamath Forest Plan will not be (2009, pp. 2, 11) observed a decline in habitat if the Mazama Tree Farm implemented until the U.S. Congress Mardon skipper butterfly (Polites property is transferred to The Klamath authorizes funding for The Klamath mardon) abundance at some sites in Tribes. The petition claims that such a Tribes’ purchase of the Mazama Tree 2009 following a controlled burn in facility could negatively impact the Farm property from Cascade 2008. In addition, areas that burned Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat Timberlands, LLC. Therefore, we do not within these study sites experienced (Xerces Society for Invertebrate have substantial information within our population reductions within the 2009 Conservation 2010, p. 15). files to indicate the petitioned action flight period, compared to unburned The petition discusses the use of three may be warranted due to loss of habitat areas, which increased in population herbicides—chlorosulfuron, glysophate, from timber production and numbers (Black et al. 2009, pp. 5–10). and triclopyr—and their direct and management. However, we will further Vogel et al. (2010, p. 663) observed that indirect impacts to the Leona’s little evaluate information about these habitat specialist required a blue butterfly habitat (Xerces Society for activities’ potential impact to the long recovery period, approximately 50 Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 14). species in our status review. to 70 months post-burn, to return to The petition claims that these The Klamath Forest Plan states that their pre-fire abundance and richness. herbicides have the ability to impact the historically, the lodgepole pine/ Vogel et al. (2010, p. 673) suggests that Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat by bitterbrush habitat type that existed was the only potential for fire-sensitive reducing nectar resources and host comprised of lodgepole forests in species recovery is for recolonization plants (Xerces Society for Invertebrate different age mosaics and low densities, from nearby unburned areas. On the Conservation 2010, p. 14). with a definite bitterbrush component other hand, Smallidge and Leopold (Johnson et al. 2008, p. 21). However, an Evaluation of Information Provided in (1997, p. 271) suggest controlled burns on-the-ground assessment of the the Petition and Available in Service as a means of vegetation management in butterfly habitat in 2009 by Sarina Files butterfly habitat, though they caution Jepsen of the Xerces Society for that controlled burning is most Smallidge and Leopold (1997, p. 268) Invertebrate Conservation indicates that beneficial when the historical natural discuss the use of timber production as encroachment of lodgepole pine trees is regime included fire and a a means to maintain habitat for occurring (Xerces Society for comprehensive monitoring plan exists butterflies that require open clearings Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 10). that is associated with the controlled within woodlands. The occupied habitat Neither the petition nor the information burn (Huntzinger 2003, p. 9). The of the Leona’s little blue butterfly was in our files indicates the rate at which Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) once logged, and the evidence of logging lodgepole pine trees are encroaching has kept extensive records on lightning still persists. Timber extraction and into the openings and meadows that strikes and their associated fires in this production creates roads and additional encompass the Leona’s little blue area since 1960. Approximately 10 fires, disturbances that foster the butterfly habitat. However, we have all under 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) in size, have development of early successional determined that the information occurred in occupied Leona’s little blue plants (Smallidge and Leopold 1997, p. provided in the petition and in our files butterfly habitat since 1960 (Johnson 268). To evaluate this claim for the concerning loss of open habitat 2010, p. 7). Each fire was suppressed by Leona’s little blue butterfly, aerial associated with the encroachment of ODF (Johnson 2010, p. 7). photos were reviewed that showed a lodgepole pine trees does present Even though fires are often large number of roads, cleared Right-of- substantial information indicating that suppressed, controlled burns or Ways (ROWs), and large openings the petitioned action may be warranted. lightning strike fires can escape their within the occupied habitat. In addition, A review of the information provided perimeters and burn across the the densest stands of Eriogonum by the petition and within our files landscape. The petition cites an article spergulinum, the sole host plant for the indicates that The Klamath Tribe that recognizes the high potential for Leona’s little blue butterfly, occur in intends to use controlled burns to fire danger on the Mazama Tree Farm disturbed areas around old burned slash manage habitat similar to the Leona’s due to a high density of lodgepole pine piles, edges of unimproved roads, and little blue butterfly’s habitat (Johnson et (Milstein 2008). It is uncertain whether periodically disturbed areas associated al. 2008, pp. 23–24). The Klamath the portion of the 90,000-ac (36,422-ha) with the gas and electric powerline Forest Plan’s management of the Leona’s Mazama Tree Farm (Milstein 2008) that ROWs (Ross 2010, p. 5). In a study on little blue butterfly habitat is contingent contains the Leona’s little blue butterfly Fender’s blue butterflies (Icaricia on the future authorization of funding habitat is at high risk of a catastrophic icarioides fenderi), Severns (2008, pp. by the U.S. Congress to support The fire. However, a catastrophic fire could 56–57) observed that roads were not a Klamath Tribes’ purchase of the be devastating to the habitat. Therefore, barrier to butterflies, as long as they Mazama Tree Farm property from we have determined that the were narrow and without vegetation Cascade Timberlands, LLC. Until this information provided in the petition barriers, and contained infrequent or purchase occurs, there is no information and in our files presents substantial slow-moving traffic. However, it is to indicate that Cascade Timberlands, information indicating that the unknown how intensive timber LLC, the current landowner, plans to petitioned action may be warranted due production would impact the habitat of use fire to manage the Leona’s little blue to the potential effects of fire on the the Leona’s little blue butterfly. At this butterfly habitat. In addition, controlled Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat. point, we have no information to burns appear to have both negative and A review of the literature provided by indicate that the current landowner, positive effects on invertebrates the petition and within our files Cascade Timberlands, LLC, intends to (Smallidge and Leopold 1997, p. 271; indicates that managed grazing can be resume timber extraction in the future. Huntzinger 2003, p. 9; Black et al. 2009, considered a useful tool for maintaining In addition, while there is information p. 2; Vogel et al. 2010, p. 672). butterfly habitat. Sites in southern that indicates The Klamath Tribes’ Huntzinger (2003, p. 8) observed that Britain that were previously managed by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:31 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50975

grazing, but were no longer grazed, had the petition, Lookout Butte and Jackson about this activity’s potential impact to several species of butterflies that Creek, have both been canceled (USFS the species in our status review. declined in abundance (Warren 1993, p. 2010, p. 1). File maps describe these While the petition provides references 45). However, caution must be used in projects as a minimum of 7 straight-line that support the negative effects of the decision to implement grazing as a miles (mi) (11.3 kilometers (km)) from herbicides on invertebrates, a review of management tool, because overgrazing the known, occupied habitat for the their references and the information can have negative consequences on Leona’s little blue butterfly (ESRI 2010). within our files did not provide any species diversity and abundance. For The USFS Plan states that ‘‘salable evidence that these chemicals are being example, a grazing study in Britain mineral material sources located within applied to the Leona’s little blue showed that as the intensity of grazing state or interstate transportation and butterfly habitat. Therefore, we have increased, the invertebrate species utility corridors normally should not be determined that the information richness decreased (Gibson et al. 1992, developed’’ (USFS Plan 1990, p. 4–57). provided in the petition and in our files p. 171). Different herbivores have However, the Leona’s little blue concerning the effects of herbicides on various effects upon the vegetation and butterfly habitat currently includes both the Leona’s little blue butterfly does not the habitat that they graze (Warren 1993, transportation corridors and utility present substantial information p. 46; Smallidge and Leopold 1997, p. corridors in the form of ROWs for the indicating that the petitioned action 270); therefore, the appropriate Oregon Department of Transportation may be warranted due to loss of habitat herbivores must be used for specific (ODOT) and the Bonneville Power associated with herbicides. However, vegetation objectives, and the intensity Administration (BPA) (Johnson 2010, p. we will further evaluate information of herbivore grazing must be monitored 10). It is unknown whether the Leona’s about this activity’s potential impact to to avoid overgrazing (Warren 1993, p. little blue butterfly habitat on the USFS the species in our status review. 46; Smallidge and Leopold 1997, parcels will be developed into cinder In summary, we find that the p. 270). mines. While the petition provided us information provided in the petition, as The USFS Plan allows for grazing with information regarding proposed well as other information in our files, within designated allotments on USFS projects and their potential impacts to presents substantial scientific and land (USFS 1990, p. 2–6). However, the Leona’s little blue butterfly and its commercial information that the there is no information within the USFS habitat, the petition did not provide petitioned action may be warranted due Plan or within our files, that indicates information, nor do we have to the present or threatened destruction, whether these allotments include the information in our files, regarding the modification or curtailment of habitat or Leona’s little blue butterfly or its status, proximity, or future range relating to the encroachment of habitat. The USFS Plan does state that considerations of other potential cinder lodgepole pine trees into the Leona’s allotments will be managed to improve mines in or near Leona’s little blue little blue butterfly habitat and the condition of the range, and that the butterfly habitat. Therefore, we do not catastrophic fire events. We will further demand will be met only when it does have substantial information to indicate evaluate all information relating to not conflict with other uses such as that the petitioned action may be activities addressed under this factor in wildlife and recreational needs (USFS warranted due to loss of habitat from our status review of the species. 1990, p. 4–12). While the Klamath cinder mining activities in the Leona’s Forest Plan will allow for grazing on B. Overutilization for Commercial, little blue butterfly habitat. However, we Recreational, Scientific, or Educational mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) will further evaluate information about winter range, the Klamath Forest Plan’s Purposes. this activity’s potential impact to the application to the Leona’s little blue species in our status review. Information Provided in the Petition butterfly is contingent on the future authorization of funding by the U.S. Milstein (2008) states that The The petition states that Congress to support The Klamath Klamath Tribes intend to develop a collection is an essential component to Tribes’ purchase of the Mazama Tree ‘‘green energy park centered around a scientific study (Xerces Society for Farm property from Cascade biomass energy facility.’’ The Klamath Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). Timberlands, LLC. There is no Forest Plan indicates that a 10-megawatt The petition claims that, in a study to information within the petition or (MW) biomass facility would require a validate the Leona’s little blue butterfly within our files that indicates that the minimum of 7 ac (2.8 ha) for proper as a species, it was necessary to collect current owner, Cascade Timberlands, siting and 40 truckloads per day of 100 individuals (Xerces Society for LLC, or the USFS plan will allow material for fuel (Johnson et al. 2008, Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). grazing in the Leona’s little blue pp. 92–93). The petition did not provide The petition also states that the only butterfly habitat. Therefore, there is not any information, nor do we have any known population of the Leona’s little substantial information to indicate that information in our files, about the blue butterfly has a population estimate the petitioned action may be warranted proposed location of this facility on the of 1,000 to 2,000 individuals (Xerces due to habitat loss from grazing. 90,000 ac (36,422-ha) Mazama Tree Society for Invertebrate Conservation However, we will further evaluate Farm property, and whether or not it 2010, p. 16). Therefore, the petition information about this activity’s might occur in the Leona’s little blue considers the Leona’s little blue potential impact to the species in our butterfly habitat. It is important to note butterfly to be ‘‘vulnerable to over- status review. that this proposed project cannot collection’’ (Xerces Society for A review of the information in our proceed until The Klamath Tribes Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). files and provided by the petition receive funding from the U.S. Congress regarding cinder mines indicates that to purchase the property from Cascade Evaluation of Information Provided in proposed activities associated with the Timberlands, LLC. Therefore, there is the Petition and Available in Service exploration for cinder mines could be not substantial information to indicate Files detrimental to the habitat of the Leona’s that the petitioned action may be Hammond and McCorkle (1999, p. 77) little blue butterfly (Cruz 2006, Web warranted due to loss of habitat from the list the number of individual Leona’s site). However, the two proposed cinder biomass facility construction. However, little blue butterflies collected and mine expansion projects discussed by we will further evaluate information distributed to various institutions and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:31 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 50976 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules

individuals as totaling 130 butterflies. files. We have reviewed the petition and listing and, therefore, protection. We We recognize that butterfly specialists the information in our files and find that cannot find that the Oregon State in the past have been avid collectors of there is not substantial information to Endangered Species statute is butterflies (Sullivan 1993; Yamaguchi indicate that the petitioned action may inadequate in offering protection that is 1993, pp. 1–86). However, neither the be warranted due to disease or beyond the scope of that regulation as petition, nor the information within our predation. However, we will further written. Currently, there are no existing files, indicates that there is continued or investigate the potential threat of regulatory mechanisms for the Leona’s ongoing collection of the Leona’s little disease or predation in our status review little blue butterfly or its habitat. blue butterfly for commercial, for this species. Therefore, we find that the petition and recreational, scientific, or educational information available within our files D. The Inadequacy of Existing purposes. We also do not have does not present substantial information Regulatory Mechanisms information indicating that documented that the petitioned action may be collections have had an adverse effect Information Provided in the Petition warranted due to the inadequacy of on the Leona’s little blue butterfly. The petition states that there are no existing regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we find that the petition and specific existing regulatory mechanisms However, we will further investigate the the information within our files does that currently protect the ‘‘unique potential threat of the inadequacy of not present substantial information to requirements of the Leona’s little blue existing regulatory mechanisms in our indicate that the petitioned action may butterfly’’ (Xerces Society for status review for this species. be warranted due to overutilization for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17). E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors commercial, recreational, scientific, or The petition states that the Service and Affecting Its Continued Existence educational purposes. However, we will USFS do not offer protective status to further investigate the potential threat of the Leona’s little blue butterfly or Information Provided in the Petition overutilization for commercial, address the species within a The petition states that due to its recreational, scientific, or educational conservation plan or a National Forest ‘‘exceptionally limited range and small purposes in our status review for this Plan (Xerces Society for Invertebrate population size, the Leona’s little blue species. Conservation 2010, p. 17). The petition butterfly is uniquely susceptible to C. Disease or Predation also asserts that both agencies are and extinction from stochastic events’’ have been aware of the species and have (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Information Provided in the Petition funded surveys in the past to better Conservation 2010, p. 17). In particular, The petition states that the Leona’s understand the distribution of the the petition discusses the impacts of little blue butterfly is vulnerable to species (Xerces Society for Invertebrate genetic inbreeding, droughts, and extinction by the threats of disease and Conservation 2010, p. 17). Regarding catastrophic fires on a small, predation due to the fact that it is ‘‘only State mechanisms, the petition notes geographically limited population a single population * * * in a highly that invertebrate species do not qualify (Xerces Society for Invertebrate restricted area’’ (Xerces Society for for listing under the Oregon Endangered Conservation 2010, p. 17). Such events, Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). Species statute, and that the Oregon with no outside populations for re- The petition states that, with normal Department of Fish and Wildlife did not colonization, could occur and lead to a population fluctuations, even small consider this species in its latest loss of genetic variability or amounts of habitat loss or degradation evaluation. Therefore, no State law extermination of the species (Xerces can result in a small population’s offers any targeted protection to the Society for Invertebrate Conservation extirpation (Xerces Society for Leona’s little blue butterfly (Xerces 2010, p. 17). Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). Society for Invertebrate Conservation In addition, the petition states that six The petition lists the Asian lady beetle 2010, p. 17). In addition, the petition of the threats which could result in (Harmonia axyridis) as a possible states that the Oregon Board of Forestry habitat loss or curtailment, including predator of the Leona’s little blue does not provide any regulations that fire, timber production management, butterfly (Xerces Society for Invertebrate protect the Leona’s little blue butterfly herbicides, cinder mining, the Conservation 2010, p. 16). on private lands (Xerces Society for construction of a biomass facility, and Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17). livestock grazing, also have the ability to Evaluation of Information Provided in The petition notes that although The cause direct mortality of individuals. It the Petition and Available in Service Klamath Tribes will own and manage also states that the application of Files the bulk of the known occupied habitat insecticides could result in the death of While the petition cites several once a land acquisition under the individuals at all stages of their sources pertaining to minimum Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is development. The petition claims that population sizes and the practice of complete, no protection is extended to fire suppression and the subsequent population conservation of invertebrate the Leona’s little blue butterfly in the conifer encroachment that is occurring species in order to avoid extinction, it Klamath Forest Plan (Xerces Society for in the Leona’s little blue butterfly does not provide any specific Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17). habitat is increasing the fuel loads of the information regarding the impacts of forest and could result in a catastrophic predators or disease on the Leona’s little Evaluation of Information Provided in fire across the landscape (Xerces Society blue butterfly. In addition, while the the Petition and Available in Service for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. petition lists the Asian lady beetle as a Files 10). It states that such a fire could result potential predator, it does not provide The petition states that there are no in the extinction of the Leona’s little any references regarding this species or specific existing regulatory mechanisms blue butterfly (Xerces Society for other potential predators or diseases of that currently protect the Leona’s little Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 10). Lepidopteron species. We also do not blue butterfly or its habitat. As noted in Furthermore, while the petition have any information regarding the the petition, the Oregon State recognizes the need for active effects of disease or predation on the Endangered Species statute does not management of the Leona’s little blue Leona’s little blue butterfly within our recognize invertebrates as eligible for butterfly habitat, it states that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:31 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50977

impacts of intensified timber production petition states that diflubenzuron (also fire in the case of Leona’s little blue on the Mazama Tree Farm may have a known as dimlin) is commonly used on butterfly. Therefore, we have negative impact on the Leona’s little the Klamath Marsh National Wildlife determined that the information blue butterfly, especially if activities, Refuge (KMNWR) to control native provided in the petition and in our files such as trampling by personnel, piling grasshopper outbreaks and is highly presents substantial information that the of log slash, and burning of log piles, are toxic in small doses to petitioned action may be warranted due completed without consideration of the caterpillars (Xerces Society for to stochastic events such as the Leona’s little blue butterfly distribution Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 12). potential threat of catastrophic fire. and biology (Xerces Society for The petition cites diflubenzuron’s A review of the information provided Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 11). ability to affect butterflies at their larval by the petition and within our files Additionally, the petition discusses stage by arresting the chitin synthesis indicates that The Klamath Tribe the use of three herbicides— process (Xerces Society for Invertebrate intends to use controlled burns to chlorosulfuron, glysophate, and Conservation 2010, p. 12). The petition manage habitat similar to the Leona’s triclopyr—and their direct and indirect also asserts that carbaryl and malathion little blue butterfly habitat (Johnson et impacts to the Leona’s little blue both attack the nervous systems of al. 2008, pp. 23–24). The Klamath butterfly (Xerces Society for Invertebrate individuals and are highly toxic to Forest Plan’s management of Leona’s Conservation 2010, p. 14). The petition terrestrial invertebrates at all life stages little blue butterfly habitat is contingent claims that chlorosulfuron, glysophate, (Xerces Society for Invertebrate on the future authorization of funding and triclopyr are the most commonly Conservation 2010, pp. 12–13). The by the U.S. Congress to support The used herbicides in timber management petition asserts that these chemicals Klamath Tribes’ purchase of the and restoration projects and that these have the ability to affect the Leona’s Mazama Tree Farm property from chemicals are known to delay the little blue butterfly by direct application Cascade Timberlands, LLC. There is no development of butterflies that feed on as well as by pesticide drift (Xerces information to indicate that Cascade herbicide-treated plants (Xerces Society Society for Invertebrate Conservation Timberlands, LLC, the current for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 2010, p. 13). The petition claims that landowner, plans to use fire to manage 14). Also, the petition declares that the small doses of pesticide are capable of Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat. activities and heavy equipment reaching a distance of 6.2 mi (10 km) via Even though fires are often associated with the exploration, drilling, pesticide drift during ground or aerial suppressed, controlled burns or and expansion processes associated applications completed by the Service lightning strike fires can escape their with cinder mining have the ability to and the U.S. Department of perimeters and burn across the result in direct mortality of the Leona’s Agriculture’s and Plant Health landscape. The petition cites an article little blue butterfly (Xerces Society for Inspection Service (APHIS) (Xerces that recognizes the high potential for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 15). Society for Invertebrate Conservation fire danger on the Mazama Tree Farm The petition also states that a biomass 2010, pp. 11, 14). due to a high density of lodgepole pine energy facility may be developed by The (Milstein 2008). It is uncertain whether Klamath Tribes within the Leona’s little Evaluation of Information Provided in the portion of the 90,000-ac (36,422-ha) blue butterfly habitat if the Mazama the Petition and Available in Service Mazama Tree Farm (Milstein 2008) that Tree Farm property is transferred to The Files contains the Leona’s little blue butterfly Klamath Tribes. The petition claims that Having a small population size in and habitat is at high risk of a catastrophic the construction of such a facility could of itself will not ordinarily lead to fire. However, a catastrophic fire could result in direct mortality of individuals, population extinction (Ehrlich and cause the direct loss of individuals and ultimately driving the species to Murphy 1987, p. 127). Observations of have a devastating effect on the butterfly extinction (Xerces Society for small populations of checkerspot population. Therefore, we have Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 15). butterflies (Euphydras editha) suggest determined that the information In addition, the petition cites the USFS that the populations can persist for provided in the petition and in our files Plan and The Klamath Tribes’ numerous generations (Ehrlich and concerning the effects of fire on the management plan, stating that both Murphy 1987, p. 127). In addition, after Leona’s little blue butterfly presents plans allow for livestock grazing on the a population of checkerspot butterflies substantial information indicating that Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat went through a genetic bottleneck, it the petitioned action may be warranted (Xerces Society for Invertebrate continued to persist, suggesting that due to the direct loss of individuals to Conservation 2010, p. 16). While the such effects may not be limiting factors fire. petition notes the lack of knowledge of for butterflies (Ehrlich and Murphy It is unknown how intensive timber the impact of livestock grazing on the 1987, p. 127). Checkerspot butterflies production impacts the Leona’s little Leona’s little blue butterfly, it concludes have demonstrated the ability to blue butterfly. We recognize that the that livestock grazing is incompatible increase their dispersal distance in dry potential impacts of intensive timber with the management of the Leona’s years as well as in years with production (piling of slash piles, little blue butterfly population because population explosions (Erhlich and burning piles, and trampling) could be grazing can result in trampling of eggs, Murphy 1987, p. 127). However, Ehrlich detrimental to individuals if the Leona’s larvae, pupae, and adults (Xerces and Murphy (1987, p. 127) state that little blue butterfly is not taken into Society for Invertebrate Conservation small populations are particularly consideration prior to project initiation. 2010, pp. 15–16). susceptible to extinction due to However, we have no information to Finally, the petition lists three stochastic events. While the information indicate that the current landowner, pesticides—diflubenzuron, carbaryl, in our files suggests that butterflies are Cascade Timberlands, LLC, intends to and malathion—as being commonly adaptable and capable of persisting in resume timber extraction into the future. used in Klamath County, Oregon, and small populations, we agree that a In addition, while there is information states that they are toxic to the Leona’s small, geographically limited that indicates The Klamath Tribes’ little blue butterfly at various life stages population is more vulnerable to proposed management for the Leona’s (Xerces Society for Invertebrate extinction due to stochastic events, such little blue butterfly habitat is timber Conservation 2010, pp. 11–12). The as the potential threat of catastrophic extraction (Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 23–

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:31 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 50978 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules

24), the Klamath Forest Plan will not be Farm property, and whether or not it grasshoppers (Camnula pellucida implemented until the U.S. Congress might occur in the Leona’s little blue (Scudder)) unless the population authorizes funding for The Klamath butterfly habitat, and thus have the exceeds the economic thresholds of 14 Tribes’ purchase of the Mazama Tree potential to directly impact individuals. to 24 individuals per square yard Farm property from Cascade It is important to note that this proposed (USFWS 2010, p. 68). Since 2004, the Timberlands, LLC. Therefore, we do not project cannot proceed until The KMNWR has used pesticides to remove have substantial information within our Klamath Tribes’ receive funding from grasshoppers in the years 2005 and 2007 files to indicate the petitioned action the U.S. Congress to purchase the (USFWS 2010, p. 68). In addition, the may be warranted due to direct property from Cascade Timberlands, KMNWR no longer uses malathion or mortality from timber production. LLC. Therefore, there is not substantial carbaryl for the removal of pest species However, we will further evaluate information to indicate the petitioned like clear-winged grasshoppers, but information about this activity’s action may be warranted due to direct instead uses diflubenzuron (USFWS potential impact to the species in our mortality of individuals from the 2010, p. 68). To minimize exposure status review. biomass facility construction and impacts, the KMNWR applies the While the petition provides references subsequent operations. However, we chemical to the ground from an all- that support the negative effects of will further evaluate information about terrain vehicle utilizing a method herbicides on invertebrates, a review of this activity’s potential impact to the known as Reduced Area Agent the references provided by the petition species in our status review. Treatment Strategy (RAATS) (USFWS and the information within our files The USFS Plan allows for grazing 2010, p. 68). This method not only does not provide evidence that these within designated allotments on USFS reduces the amount of chemicals used, chemicals are being applied to the land (USFS 1990, pp. 2–6). However, but it also reduces the area that is habitat of the Leona’s little blue there is no information within the USFS impacted both by direct application and butterfly. Therefore, we have Plan, or within our files, that indicates pesticide drift. A review of a map of the determined that the information whether these allotments include the KMNWR–CCP (2010, p. 69) depicting provided in the petition and in our files Leona’s little blue butterfly or its the general locations of clear-winged concerning the effects of herbicides on habitat. The USFS Plan does state that grasshopper outbreaks in 2007, shows a the Leona’s little blue butterfly does not allotments will be managed to improve straight-line distance to the nearest present substantial information the condition of the range, and that the known Leona’s little blue butterfly indicating that the petitioned action demand for grazing will be met only location to be over 7 mi (11.3 km). may be warranted due to direct when it does not conflict with other Disregarding the RAATS application mortality of individuals. However, we uses, such as wildlife and recreational method and its associated minimization will further evaluate information about needs (USFS 1990, pp. 4–12). While the methods, the distance of 7 mi (11.3 km) this activity’s potential impact to the Klamath Forest Plan will allow for is still beyond the petition’s assumed species in our status review. grazing on mule deer winter range, the worst case scenario pesticide drift A review of the information in our Klamath Forest Plan’s application to the distance of 6.2 mi (10 km) (Xerces files and provided by the petition Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat is Society for Invertebrate Conservation regarding cinder mines indicates that contingent on the future authorization 2010, p. 14). Based on the information proposed activities associated with the of funding by the U.S. Congress to provided in the petition and our files, exploration for cinder mines could be support The Klamath Tribes’ purchase there is not substantial information to detrimental to the Leona’s little blue of the Mazama Tree Farm property from indicate that the petitioned action may butterfly (Cruz 2006, Web site). Cascade Timberlands, LLC. There is no be warranted due to direct mortality of However, while the petition provided information within the petition or individuals from direct application of information regarding proposed projects within our files that indicates that the pesticides on KMNWR or pesticide drift and their potential impacts to the current owner, Cascade Timberlands, from KMNWR. However, we will further Leona’s little blue butterflies and their LLC, or the USFS plan to allow grazing evaluate information about this habitats, it did not provide information, in the Leona’s little blue butterfly activity’s potential impact to the species nor do we have information in our files, habitat. Therefore, there is not in our status review. regarding the status, proximity, or future substantial information to indicate that considerations of other potential cinder the petitioned action may be warranted Private landowners near the KMNWR, mines in or near the Leona’s little blue due to direct mortality associated with and in cooperation with APHIS, use butterfly habitat. Therefore, there is not grazing. However, we will further malathion, diflubenzuron, and carbaryl substantial information to indicate that evaluate information about this for grasshopper control (APHIS 2009, the petitioned action may be warranted activity’s potential impact to the species pp. 1, 12). This action occurs primarily due to the direct loss of individuals in our status review. on rangelands in Klamath County, from cinder mining activities. However, A review of the information provided Oregon, and is focused on grassland and we will further evaluate information by the petition and within our files shrublands while excluding forest about this activity’s potential impact to indicates that, when used to control pest (APHIS 2009, pp. 15–16). A review of the species in our status review. species, insecticides such as our files regarding APHIS’ grasshopper The Klamath Forest Plan indicates diflubenzuron, carbaryl, and malathion and Mormon cricket (Anabrus simplex) that a 10-megawatt (MW) biomass can have a detrimental effect on suppression program shows several facility would require a minimum of 7 nontarget vertebrate and invertebrate conservation measures designed to ac (2.8 ha) for proper siting and 40 species (Alston and Teppedino 2000, p. minimize the impact of pesticides on truckloads per day of material for fuel III.4–1; Sample et al. 1993, p. 622; Cox listed species and sensitive areas. (Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 92–93). The 1993, pp. 31–34). A review of the Regardless of the mode of application, petition did not provide any Klamath Marsh National Wildlife the Environmental Monitoring Plan information, nor do we have any Refuge Comprehensive Conservation states that APHIS is required to use information in our files, about the Plan (KMNWR–CCP) revealed that, buffers around areas with listed species proposed location of this facility on the since 2004, the KMNWR no longer uses and sensitive areas such as residential 90,000-ac (36,422-ha) Mazama Tree pesticides to remove clear-winged communities, organic crops, and surface

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:31 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50979

water bodies (APHIS 2010, p. 1). A the known Leona’s little blue butterfly warranted, we are initiating a status review of aerial photos within our files locations and habitat are utilizing review to determine whether listing the shows that the nearest known Leona’s APHIS’ methods. As a result, the Leona’s little blue butterfly under the little blue butterfly locations are impacts of private-rangeland pesticide Act is warranted. separated from rangeland by both forests application to the Leona’s little blue The ‘‘substantial information’’ and residential communities. Aerial butterfly are unknown. Therefore, there standard for a 90-day finding differs application is of greatest concern for is not substantial information to from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and pesticide drift (Ghassemi et al. 1982, p. indicate that the petitioned action may commercial data’’ standard that applies 510). APHIS has strict requirements be warranted due to direct mortality by to a status review to determine whether when conducting aerial applications, the application of pesticides by the a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- including a requirement that they must KMNWR, APHIS, and private day finding does not constitute a status not spray when winds exceed 10 miles landowners in Klamath County, Oregon. review under the Act. In a 12-month per hour (mph) and that application will However, we will further evaluate finding, we will determine whether a not occur when it is raining, or foggy, information about this activity’s petitioned action is warranted after we when foliage is wet, when there is air potential impact to the species in our have completed a thorough status turbulence, when a temperature status review. review of the species, which is inversion exists in the project area, or In summary, we find that the conducted following a substantial 90- when the temperature exceeds 80 information provided in the petition, as day finding. Because the Act’s standards Fahrenheit degrees (26.7 °C) (Mauer well as other information in our files, for 90-day and 12-month findings are 2010, p. 3). In addition, all boundaries presents substantial scientific and different, as described above, a and buffers will be clearly marked, all commercial information indicating that substantial 90-day finding does not airplanes will be equipped with global the petitioned action may be warranted mean that the 12-month finding will positioning systems to guide the pilots, due to other natural and manmade result in a warranted finding. and free flying is not allowed (Mauer factors relating to limited range and References Cited 2010, p. 3). APHIS will also conduct small population size and vulnerability monitoring to ensure that they are in to stochastic events. We will further A complete list of references cited is compliance with the protective evaluate information relating to events available on the Internet at http:// measures, including dye cards to and activities addressed under this www.regulations.gov and upon request monitor the extent and concentration of factor in our status review of the from the Klamath Falls Fish and pesticide drift (Mauer 2010, p. 3 and species. Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER APHIS 2010 Environmental Monitoring Finding INFORMATION CONTACT). Plan, p. 3). In order to minimize the risk On the basis of our determination Author to nontarget terrestrial invertebrate under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we The primary authors of this notice are species, APHIS uses only diflubenzuron find that the petition presents spray or carbaryl bait whenever possible the staff members of the Klamath Falls substantial scientific or commercial Fish and Wildlife Office. (APHIS 2009, p. 33). These chemicals information indicating that listing the are only toxic to invertebrates when Leona’s little blue butterfly throughout Authority they are in their immature stages its entire range may be warranted. This The authority for this action is the (APHIS 2009, p. 12). In addition, finding is based on information diflubenzuron is normally only applied Endangered Species Act of 1973, as provided under Factors A (present or amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). prior to the third week of June, as its threatened destruction, modification, or efficacy decreases by the first week of curtailment of the species’ habitat or Dated: August 4, 2011. July as a result of grasshopper range) and E (other natural or manmade David Cottingham, development (APHIS 2009, p. 12). The factors affecting the species’ continued Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Leona’s little blue butterfly emerges existence). Specifically, we find that the Service. from its chrysalis as an adult in mid- following may pose threats to the [FR Doc. 2011–20864 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am] June through mid-July, and its immature Leona’s little blue butterfly throughout BILLING CODE 4310–55–P stages occur 2 to 6 weeks after the adults all or a significant portion of its range, emerge (mid-July to August) (Ross 2008, such that the petitioned action may be pp. 1, 4, 8). In addition, a monitoring warranted: The encroachment of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE study of carbaryl bait application lodgepole pine trees into the Leona’s indicated that the maximum particle little blue butterfly habitat and the loss National Oceanic and Atmospheric drift was 150 feet (46 meters) in of habitat and individuals from Administration crosswinds of 13 mph (APHIS 2010, p. catastrophic fire and stochastic events. 7). Therefore, the immature stage of We determine that the information 50 CFR Part 622 Leona’s little blue butterfly is not at risk provided under Factors B [Docket No. 110606316–1463–01] from APHIS’ current diflubenzuron (overutilization for commercial, RIN 0648–BB15 application program, because of the recreational, scientific or educational timing of its development and APHIS’ purposes), C (disease or predation), and pesticide application methods. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish While information suggests that mechanisms) is not substantial. Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; APHIS’ pesticide application methods However, we will further evaluate all Amendment 26 and Amendment 29 may not harm the Leona’s little blue information related to these factors in Supplement butterfly, we recognize that APHIS’ low- our status review of the species. impact method is a voluntary program Because we have found that the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries (APHIS 2009, p. 1). A review of the petition presents substantial Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and petition and our files does not indicate information indicating that listing the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to what extent private landowners near Leona’s little blue butterfly may be Commerce.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:31 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS