Vol. 76 Tuesday, No. 192 October 4, 2011

Part III

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 10 Subspecies of Great Basin Butterflies as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below), skipper (Hesperia uncas reeseorum), the deadline for submitting an Carson Valley wood nymph (Cercyonis Fish and Wildlife Service electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. pegala carsonensis), Steptoe Valley Eastern Standard Time on this date. crescentspot (Phyciodes cocyta 50 CFR Part 17 After December 5, 2011, you must arenacolor), Mattoni’s blue butterfly [FWS–R8–ES–2010–0097; 92210–1111– submit information directly to the Field (Euphilotes pallescens mattonii), and 0000–B2] Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION White River Valley skipper (Hesperia CONTACT section below). Please note that uncas grandiose). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife we might not be able to address or Based on our review, we find that the and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a incorporate information that we receive petition presents substantial scientific Petition To List 10 Subspecies of Great after the above requested date. or commercial information indicating Basin Butterflies as Threatened or ADDRESSES: You may submit that listing 4 of the 10 subspecies as Endangered With Critical Habitat information by one of the following threatened or endangered may be warranted, and we find that the petition AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, methods: • does not present substantial scientific or Interior. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the commercial information indicating that ACTION: Notice of petition finding and instructions for submitting comments to listing the remaining 6 of the 10 initiation of status review. Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0097. subspecies as threatened or endangered SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Check the box that reads ‘‘Open for may be warranted. Wildlife Service (Service), announce a Comment/Submission,’’ and then click Request for Information 90-day finding on a petition to list 10 the Search button. You should then see subspecies of Great Basin butterflies in an icon that reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ When we make a finding that a Nevada and California as threatened or Please ensure that you have found the petition presents substantial endangered under the Endangered correct rulemaking before submitting information indicating that listing a Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), your comment. species may be warranted, we are and designate critical habitat. Based on • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public required to promptly review the status our review, we find that the petition Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. of the species (status review). For the presents substantial scientific or FWS–R8–ES–2010–0097; Division of status review to be complete and based commercial information indicating that Policy and Directives Management; U.S. on the best available scientific and listing the following 4 of the 10 Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. commercial information, we request subspecies as threatened or endangered Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; information on the four subspecies of may be warranted: Baking Powder Flat Arlington, VA 22203. butterflies from governmental agencies, blue butterfly, bleached sandhill We will post all information we Native American Tribes, the scientific skipper, Steptoe Valley crescentspot, receive on http://www.regulations.gov. community, industry, and any other and White River Valley skipper. This generally means that we will post interested parties. We seek information Therefore, with the publication of this any personal information you provide on: notice, we are initiating a review of the us (see the Request for Information (1) The species’ biology, range, and status of these four subspecies to section below for more details). population trends, including: (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, determine if listing these subspecies is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill breeding, and sheltering; warranted. To ensure that this status A. Ralston, Acting State Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. (b) Genetics and taxonomy; review is comprehensive, we are (c) Historical and current range Fish and Wildlife Service, 1340 requesting scientific and commercial including distribution patterns; Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, NV data and other information regarding (d) Historical and current population 89502, by telephone (775–861–6300), or these four subspecies. Based on the levels, and current and projected trends; by facsimile (775–861–6301). If you use status review, we will issue a 12-month and finding on these four subspecies, which a telecommunications device for the (e) Past and ongoing conservation will address whether the petitioned deaf (TDD), please call the Federal measures for the species, its habitat or action is warranted under the Act. Information Relay Service (FIRS) at both. We find that the petition does not 800–877–8339. (2) The factors that are the basis for present substantial scientific or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We making a listing determination for a commercial information indicating that announce a 90-day finding on a petition species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 listing the remaining 6 of the 10 to list 10 subspecies of Great Basin U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: subspecies as threatened or endangered butterflies in Nevada and California as (a) The present or threatened may be warranted: Carson Valley threatened or endangered under the Act destruction, modification, or silverspot, Carson Valley wood nymph, and designate critical habitat. The curtailment of its habitat or range; Mattoni’s blue butterfly, Mono Basin petitioners had requested that we list (b) Overutilization for commercial, skipper, and the two Railroad Valley following 10 subspecies of Great Basin recreational, scientific, or educational skipper subspecies. However, we ask butterflies in Nevada and California as purposes; the public to submit to us any new threatened or endangered under the Act (c) Disease or predation; information that becomes available and designate critical habitat: Baking (d) The inadequacy of existing concerning the status of, or threats to, Powder Flat blue butterfly (Euphilotes regulatory mechanisms; or these four subspecies or their habitat at bernardino minuta), Mono Basin (e) Other natural or manmade factors any time. skipper (Hesperia uncas giulianii), affecting its continued existence. DATES: To allow us adequate time to bleached sandhill skipper (Polites If, after the status review, we conduct this review, we request that we sabuleti sinemaculata), Railroad Valley determine that listing any of the six receive information on or before skipper (Hesperia uncas fulvapalla), subspecies is warranted, we will December 5, 2011. Please note that if Carson Valley silverspot (Speyeria propose critical habitat (see definition you are using the Federal eRulemaking nokomis carsonensis), Railroad Valley in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), under

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61533

section 4 of the Act, to the maximum available for you to review at http:// and critical habitat actions in Fiscal extent prudent and determinable at the www.regulations.gov, or you may make Year 2010 pursuant to court orders, time we propose to list the species. an appointment during normal business judicially approved settlement Therefore, within the geographical range hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agreements, and other statutory currently occupied by the six Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife deadlines, we were able to secure subspecies, we request data and Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION funding in Fiscal Year 2010 to begin information on: CONTACT). work on the initial finding to determine (1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or Background whether the petition provides biological features essential to the substantial information indicating that conservation of the species’’; Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the action may be warranted. This (2) Where these features are currently that we make a finding on whether a finding addresses the petition. found; and petition to list, delist, or reclassify a (3) Whether any of these features may species presents substantial scientific or Previous Federal Actions require special management commercial information indicating that considerations or protection. the petitioned action may be warranted. On May 22, 1984, we added Mattoni’s In addition, we request data and We are to base this finding on blue butterfly as Euphilotes information on ‘‘specific areas outside information provided in the petition, (=Shijimiaeoides) rita mattonii to our the geographical area occupied by the supporting information submitted with list of candidate species as a Category 2 species’’ that are ‘‘essential to the the petition, and information otherwise candidate species (49 FR 21664). This conservation of the species.’’ Please available in our files. To the maximum subspecies is currently known as provide specific comments and extent practicable, we are to make this Euphilotes pallescens mattonii. This information as to what, if any, critical finding within 90 days of our receipt of subspecies was again included in our habitat you think we should propose for the petition and publish our notice of Category 2 candidate list for November designation if any of the six subspecies the finding promptly in the Federal 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), at which time are proposed for listing, and why such Register. we added the remaining nine petitioned habitat meets the requirements of Our standard for substantial scientific subspecies as Category 2 candidate section 4 of the Act. or commercial information within the species. A Category 2 candidate species Please include sufficient information Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with was a species for which we had with your submission (such as scientific regard to a 90-day petition finding is information indicating that a proposal to journal articles or other publications) to ‘‘that amount of information that would list it as threatened or endangered under allow us to verify any scientific or lead a reasonable person to believe that the Act may be appropriate, but for commercial information you include. the measure proposed in the petition which additional information on Submissions merely stating support may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). biological vulnerability and threat was for or opposition to the action under If we find that substantial scientific or needed to support the preparation of a consideration without providing commercial information was presented, proposed rule. These nine subspecies supporting information, although noted, we are required to promptly review the included the Carson Valley wood will not be considered in making a status of the species, which is nymph (Cercyonis pegala ssp.), now determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the subsequently summarized in our 12- known as Cercyonis pegala carsonensis. Act directs that determinations as to month finding. The Baking Powder Flat blue butterfly whether any species is an endangered or was added as Euphilotes battoides ssp., Petition History threatened species must be made now known as Euphilotes bernardino ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific On January 29, 2010, we received a minuta. The two Railroad Valley and commercial data available.’’ petition dated January 25, 2010, from skippers, the White River Valley You may submit your information WildEarth Guardians, requesting that 10 skipper, and the Mono Basin skipper concerning this status review by one of subspecies of Great Basin butterflies in were added as Hesperia uncas ssp. and the methods listed in the ADDRESSES Nevada and California be listed as are now known as Hesperia uncas section. If you submit information via threatened or endangered and critical fulvapalla, Hesperia uncas reeseorum, http://www.regulations.gov, your entire habitat be designated under the Act. The Hesperia uncas grandiosa, and Hesperia submission—including any personal petition clearly identified itself as such uncas giulianii, respectively. The identifying information—will be posted and included the requisite identification Steptoe Valley crescentspot was added on the Web site. If you submit a information for the petitioner, as as Phyciodes pascoensis ssp. and is now hardcopy that includes personal required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a known as Phyciodes cocyta arenacolor. identifying information, you may March 26, 2010, letter to the petitioner, The bleached sandhill skipper was request at the top of your document that WildEarth Guardians, we responded added under a different common name, we withhold this personal identifying that we had reviewed the information Denio sandhill skipper (Polites sabuleti information from public review. presented in the petition and sinemaculata). The Carson Valley However, we cannot guarantee that we determined that issuing an emergency silverspot was added as Speyeria will be able to do so. We will post all regulation temporarily listing the 10 nokomis ssp. and is now known as hardcopy submissions on http:// subspecies as per section 4(b)(7) of the Speyeria nokomis carsonensis. All of www.regulations.gov. Act was not warranted although this these subspecies were maintained as Information and supporting was not requested in the petition. We Category 2 candidates in our November documentation that we received and also stated that while we are required to 15, 1994 list (59 FR 58982). Please see used in preparing this finding is complete a significant number of listing Table 1.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—PETITIONED GREAT BASIN BUTTERFLIES, WITH THEIR PREVIOUS AND CURRENT COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES

Previous common name Current common name Previous scientific name Current scientific name

Mattoni’s blue butterfly ...... Mattoni’s blue butterfly ...... Euphilotes (=Shijimiaeoides) rita Euphilotes pallescens mattonii. mattonii. Carson Valley wood nymph ...... Carson Valley wood nymph ...... Cercyonis pegala ssp...... Cercyonis pegala carsonensis. Baking Powder Flat blue butterfly .. Baking Powder Flat blue butterfly Euphilotes battoides ssp...... Euphilotes bernardino minuta. Railroad Valley skipper ...... Railroad Valley skipper ...... Hesperia uncas ssp...... Hesperia uncas fulvapalla. Railroad Valley skipper ...... Railroad Valley skipper ...... Hesperia uncas ssp...... Hesperia uncas reeseorum. Railroad Valley skipper/White White River Valley skipper ...... Hesperia uncas ssp...... Hesperia uncas grandiosa. River Valley skipper. Railroad Valley skipper/Mono Mono Basin skipper ...... Hesperia uncas ssp...... Hesperia uncas giulianii. Basin skipper. Steptoe Valley crescentspot ...... Steptoe Valley crescentspot ...... Phyciodes pascoensis ssp...... Phyciodes cocyta arenacolor. Denio sandhill skipper ...... Bleached sandhill skipper ...... Polites sabuleti sinemaculata ...... Polites sabuleti sinemaculata. Carson Valley silverspot ...... Carson Valley silverspot ...... Speyeria nokomis ssp...... Speyeria nokomis carsonensis.

In the February 28, 1996, Candidate the mere exposure of the species to the 10 subspecies are: Hesperiidae (5), Notice of Review (CNOR) (61 FR 7595), factor to determine whether the species Nymphalidae (3), and Lycaenidae (2). In we adopted a single category of responds to the factor in a way that specific subspecies sections below, we candidate species defined as follows: causes actual impacts to the species. If have included a short summary of ‘‘Those species for which the Service there is exposure to a factor, but no available population and life-history has on file sufficient information on response, or only a positive response, information for each subspecies, as biological vulnerability and threat(s) to that factor is not a threat. If there is provided in the petition, its references, support issuance of a proposed rule to exposure and the species responds and our files. list but issuance of the proposed rule is negatively, the factor may be a threat The petition provides information precluded.’’ In previous CNORs, species and we then attempt to determine how regarding the 10 subspecies’ rankings meeting this definition were known as significant a threat it is. If the threat is according to NatureServe (WildEarth Category 1 candidates for listing. Thus, significant, it may drive or contribute to Guardians 2010, pp. 3–4). The the Service no longer considered the risk of extinction of the species such petitioned butterflies are considered at Category 2 species as candidates, that the species may warrant listing as the subspecies taxonomic level and all including the 10 petitioned butterfly threatened or endangered as those terms are ranked as critically impaired or subspecies, and did not include them in are defined by the Act. This does not impaired at the global, national, or State the 1996 list or any subsequent CNORs. necessarily require empirical proof of a level (WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. 3– The decision to stop considering threat. The combination of exposure and 4). While the petition states that the Category 2 species as candidates was some corroborating evidence of how the ‘‘definitions of ‘critically impaired’ and designed to reduce confusion about the species is likely impacted could suffice. ‘impaired’ are at least equivalent to status of these species and to clarify that The mere identification of factors that definitions of ‘endangered’ or we no longer regarded these species as could impact a species negatively may ‘threatened’ under the [Act],’’ this is not candidates for listing. not be sufficient to compel a finding an appropriate comparison. According that listing may be warranted. The to its own Web site, NatureServe’s Evaluation of Information for This information shall contain evidence assessment of any species ‘‘does not Finding sufficient to suggest that these factors constitute a recommendation by Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) may be operative threats that act on the NatureServe for listing [that species]’’ and its implementing regulations at 50 species to the point that the species may under the Act (NatureServe 2010). In CFR 424 set forth the procedures for meet the definition of threatened or addition, NatureServe’s assessment adding a species to, or removing a endangered under the Act. procedures include ‘‘different criteria, species from, the Federal Lists of In making this 90-day finding, we evidence requirements, purposes and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife evaluated whether information taxonomic coverage [from those of] and Plants. A species may be regarding threats to the 10 butterfly government lists of endangered and determined to be an endangered or subspecies as presented in the petition threatened species, and therefore these threatened species due to one or more and other information available in our two types of lists should not be of the five factors described in section files, is substantial, thereby indicating expected to coincide’’ (NatureServe 4(a)(1) of the Act: that the petitioned action may be 2010). We found the information related (a) The present or threatened warranted. Our evaluation of this to the 10 Great Basin butterflies destruction, modification, or information is presented below. provided by NatureServe to be limited in its usefulness for determining that curtailment of its habitat or range; Summary of Common Information on there is substantial information (b) Overutilization for commercial, Species recreational, scientific, or educational indicating that these species may be purposes; The 10 butterfly subspecies included warranted for listing under the Act. (c) Disease or predation; in the petition and evaluated in this Summary of Common Threats (d) The inadequacy of existing finding are invertebrates endemic to the regulatory mechanisms; or Great Basin region of Nevada and The petition identifies several threats (e) Other natural or manmade factors California. All of the petitioned as common to many of the petitioned affecting its continued existence. butterflies are from the phylum butterfly subspecies using general In considering what factors might Arthropoda, class Insecta, order information applicable to most butterfly constitute threats, we must look beyond Lepidoptera. Taxonomic families for the species: Water development (diversions

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61535

and groundwater pumping), livestock would pump 180,800 acre-feet per year yield as ‘‘the amount of usable water grazing, agriculture, pesticides (afy) (223,000,000 cubic-meters per year from a ground-water aquifer that can be (herbicides and insecticides), (m3/year)) of groundwater from economically withdrawn and consumed inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and southern, central, and eastern Nevada to each year for an indefinite period of climate change (WildEarth Guardians the Las Vegas Valley (Deacon et al. time. It cannot exceed the natural 2010, pp. 6–10). In addition, the petition 2007, p. 692). Other communities are recharge to that aquifer and ultimately claims that all of the subspecies may be pursuing rights to an additional 870,487 is limited to maximum amount of biologically vulnerable due to limited afy (1,073,750,000 m3/year) of discharge that can be utilized for distribution and small population size groundwater (Deacon et al. 2007, p. beneficial use.’’ The NSE estimates or numbers of populations (WildEarth 693). In Nevada, this groundwater perennial yield for 256 basins and sub- Guardians 2010, pp. 6, 10–11). The pumping proposal could lower water basins (areas) in Nevada, and may common threats presented in the tables in some valleys from a few feet to ‘‘designate’’ a groundwater basin, petition are often associated with several hundred feet (Schaefer and meaning the basin ‘‘is being depleted or habitats or general areas that could be Harrill 1995, p. 1; Myers 2006, p. 75). is in need of additional administration, suitable for butterfly species, but the Models have predicted groundwater and in the interest of public welfare, petition frequently does not associate declines of about 1 to 1,600 feet (ft) (0.3 [the NSE may] declare preferred uses the threats to actual locations known to to 488 meters (m)) throughout 78 basins (such as municipal, domestic) in such be occupied by the petitioned from Utah to California (Deacon et al. basins.’’ Some of the hydrographic areas subspecies. The threats are generally 2007, p. 692). Pumping is expected to in which the petitioned butterflies occur described in the petition, but with little reduce flow of regional springs 2 to 14 are ‘‘designated’’ by the NSE and or no information on existing or percent in the first 100 years, with permitted groundwater rights approach probable impacts to the individual continued declines over the next 100 or exceed the estimated average annual petitioned subspecies. We have little to years (Deacon et al. 2007, p. 692). recharge. Such commitments of water no information available in our files to Groundwater withdrawal can result in resources beyond perennial yield may identify potential common threats and direct and indirect effects to the water result in detrimental impacts to habitats connect them to existing or probable table and is likely to impact the for some of the petitioned subspecies in impacts to the 10 petitioned subspecies. discharge amount from seeps and the designated basins. When In this section, we summarize these springs (Sanford 2006, p. 400). groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer common threats to the petitioned The petition indicates riparian recharge, it may result in surface water subspecies as presented in the petition. communities and associated springs, level decline, spring drying and Our conclusion for each subspecies as seeps, and small streams comprise a degradation, or the loss of aquatic it relates to each of the five factors is small area of the Great Basin and habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396– based on this summary, in addition to Mojave Desert regions, but provide 397). any specific threat information provided habitat for 70 percent of the butterfly Determining whether groundwater in the petition or available in our files. species in these regions (Brussard and development is a threat to springs, Our conclusion regarding whether there Austin 1993 cited in Brussard et al. streams or wetlands or not depends is substantial scientific or commercial 1998, p. 508). upon: (1) The basins in which The petition cites a few instances information available to indicate that withdrawals are occurring or proposed where habitat loss or degradation due to the petitioned action is warranted or not exceed perennial yield or have a water development has occurred at is indicated in specific subspecies hydrologic connection to springs and historical locations of the petitioned sections below. groundwater flow systems; (2) springs, subspecies, or where it is occurring at streams or wetlands are upgradient and Factor A. The Present or Threatened locations currently known to be outside of the zone of influence of the Destruction, Modification, or occupied. However, the petition more carbonate aquifer (i.e., they occur in the Curtailment of its Habitat or Range typically associates water development alluvial aquifer or mountain block Water Development with habitat types or general areas that aquifer instead); or (3) springs, streams may be used by the petitioned or wetlands are too far away from The petition (WildEarth Guardians subspecies. proposed pumping projects to be 2010, p. 6) suggests that the historical Our files include information impacted (Welch et al. 2007, pp. 71–79). range for some of the petitioned regarding groundwater development as Specific information on water butterflies has been reduced due to loss it relates to perennial yield versus development impacts pertaining to a and mismanagement of riparian and committed water resources within some particular petitioned subspecies is aquatic habitats, including springs and hydrographic basins where petitioned included in specific subspecies sections seeps, in northern Nevada (Sada et al. butterflies occur or may occur. This file below as appropriate. 1992, p. 76; Noss et al. 1995, p. 76; information is from the Nevada Division Brussard et al. 1998, pp. 531–532; Sada of Water Resources’ (NDWR) database Agriculture et al. 2001, pp. 11–16; Sada 2008, pp. (http://water.nv.gov/), which we The petition provides a general 49–50), and California (Dahl 1990 cited accessed and reviewed on January 12, discussion of butterfly use of by Noss et al. 1995, p. 74). 2010, saving hard copies of groundwater agricultural areas. It claims that The petition claims that water information for various basins in agricultural practices are eliminating development, such as the large Nevada. Where we discuss perennial suitable habitat, resulting in losses of groundwater pumping project proposed yield and committed water resources butterfly species. Fleishman et al. (1999, by the Southern Nevada Water and effects of groundwater development pp. 214–215) is referenced as stating Authority (SNWA) in Nevada and within this finding, we are referring to that artificial riparian areas such as western Utah, threatens to lower information we have reviewed from the irrigated croplands support fewer aquifers and will likely reduce or NDWR database. butterfly species than native habitats; eliminate springs and wetlands and The Nevada State Engineer (NSE) that most butterfly species found in their associated habitats (Deacon et al. approves and permits groundwater agricultural sites are widespread 2007, p. 689). Proposals by SNWA rights in Nevada and defines perennial generalists often found in disturbed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61536 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

sites; that less common species, as well impacts to a particular petitioned Climate Change as those restricted in native larval host subspecies is included in specific The petition claims that climate plants, are less likely to or do not occur subspecies sections below as change in the Great Basin is a threat to in agricultural sites, and though appropriate. the petitioned subspecies. The average agriculture can provide habitat for some Livestock Grazing temperature in the Great Basin has butterfly species, these modified increased 0.6 to 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit habitats cannot replace the natural The petition states that livestock (0.3 to 0.6 degrees Celsius) during the undisturbed riparian ecosystems. last 100 years (Chambers 2008a, p. 29) The petition claims that agriculture is grazing in general impacts riparian and is expected to increase by 3.6 to 9 a threat to some of the petitioned areas, wetlands, seeps, and springs by degrees Fahrenheit (2 to 5 degrees subspecies, but it does not present removing native vegetation, and by Celsius) over the next century (Cubashi specific information to support the reducing cover, biomass, and the et al. 2001 cited by Chambers 2008a, p. claim that this potential threat is productivity of herbaceous and woody 29). impacting the petitioned subspecies, species. It also claims that trampling by livestock destroys vegetation and The petition indicates that climate their host plants, or nectar sources, or is change is expected to affect the timing likely to in the future. The petition does compacts the soil, increasing erosion and flow of streams, springs, and seeps not present information regarding which and runoff, and that grazing spreads in the Great Basin (Chambers 2008b, p. types of agricultural practices may be nonnative plant species (Fleishner 1994, 20) which support the moist meadows threats, nor is information presented pp. 631–635; Belsky et al. 1999, pp. 8– upon which some petitioned butterflies concerning past, present, or projected 11; Sada et al. 2001, p. 15). depend (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. acreage or intensity of these operations Inappropriate livestock grazing can also 9). Earlier spring snowmelt appears to in or near occupied or suitable trample butterfly larvae and host or be affecting the date of blooming for locations. The petition also does not nectar plants, degrade habitats, and some plants in the Great Basin report loss of populations or reduction assist in the spread of nonnative plant (Chambers 2008a, p. 29). Potential in numbers of these butterfly subspecies species that can dominate or replace related directly to agricultural practices. changes in the bloom date of meadow native plant communities and thereby plants used by butterflies due to climate We have little to no information in our impact larval host and adult nectar files related to agricultural practices change could affect their use (WildEarth species (WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. Guardians 2010, p. 9). The petition impacting the petitioned subspecies. 22–23). The petition indicates that light Specific information on agriculture indicates that drought in the Great Basin or moderate grazing can assist in could negatively affect riparian habitats, pertaining to a particular subspecies is maintaining butterfly habitats included in specific subspecies sections moist meadows, and similar habitats, (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 23), but below as appropriate. especially those already stressed by heavy grazing is considered other factors (Major 1963 cited by West Pesticide Use incompatible with the conservation of 1983, p. 344). As climate changes, The petition claims that pesticide use some butterflies (Sanford 2006, p. 401; droughts may become more common in is a threat to the petitioned butterfly Selby 2007, pp. 3, 29, 33, 35). the Great Basin (Chambers et al. 2008, subspecies (WildEarth Guardians 2010, The petition indicates that the threat p. 3) and American Southwest (Seager et p. 7). Use of pesticides (including drift) from livestock grazing is occurring over al. 2007, pp. 1181–1183), modifying can impact butterfly habitat by killing widespread general habitat areas where future precipitation (WildEarth butterfly nectaring and host plant the petitioned subspecies could be Guardians 2010, p. 8). Increased carbon species (Selby 2007, pp. 3, 30). This occurring, with a few site-specific dioxide (CO2) may favor invasion of threat can be serious for those species instances. The petition provides little to annual grasses such as the nonnative that specialize in one host plant species no specific supporting information to Bromus tectorum (cheat grass) (Smith et al. 2000, pp. 79, 81). Increased (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 7). Use of indicate this potential threat may be temperatures and CO levels have insecticides on pastureland or croplands impacting the petitioned subspecies or 2 adjacent to butterfly habitat can be a various effects on plant growth and is likely to in the future. The petition direct threat to butterfly survival (Selby chemistry, which may affect insect provides little to no information related 2007, p. 30). abundance and persistence (Stiling to the level of grazing utilization that The petition does not present any 2003, pp. 486–488). Increasing specific supporting information that this has or may be occurring at occupied or temperatures can also affect insect potential threat may be impacting the suitable locations, or that it may development and reproduction (Sehnal subspecies or is likely to in the future. increase in intensity in the future. The et al. 2003, pp. 1117–1118). The petition does not present specific petition does not present information According to Loarie et al. (2009, p. information concerning past, present, or that indicates the degree, if any, that 1052), as referenced in the petition, projected intensity of pesticide use in or invasive plants are spreading in the species and ecosystems will need to near occupied or suitable locations. The petitioned subspecies’ occupied habitats shift northward an average of 0.3 mile petition does not present specific as a result of grazing activities. The (mi) (0.42 kilometer (km)) per year to information as to whether this potential petition does not report loss of avoid the effects of increasing threat has, is, or is likely to affect the populations or reduction in numbers of temperatures associated with climate subspecies, their host plants, or nectar these petitioned subspecies due to change. Loarie et al. (2009, p. 1053) also sources. The petition also does not livestock grazing. We have little to no states that distances may be greater for report loss of populations or reductions information available in our files related species in deserts and xeric (dry habitat) in numbers of these subspecies to to livestock grazing impacting the shrublands, where climate change is pesticide use. We have no information petitioned subspecies. Specific predicted to have greater effect than in in our files related to pesticide use information related to livestock grazing some other ecosystems. The petition impacting any of the petitioned and impacts to a particular subspecies is states that it is unlikely that small, subspecies or their habitats. Specific included in specific subspecies sections isolated populations of butterflies in the information regarding pesticide use and below as appropriate. Great Basin, dependent on reduced

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61537

habitats, will be able to shift to other to the loss of butterfly populations or a managed land was updated under habitats in the face of climate change significant reduction in numbers of BLM’s 6840 Manual, ‘‘Special Status (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 9). Many individuals for any of the petitioned Species Management’’ (BLM 2008a). species in the Great Basin have butterflies. This manual provides agency policy and specialized habitat requirements and We do not have information in our guidance for the conservation of special limited mobility, which influence their files to suggest overutilization as a status plants and animals and the ability to adapt to anthropogenic threat to any of the petitioned ecosystems on which they depend, but environmental change (Fleishman 2008, subspecies. This discussion provides it is not a regulatory document. The p. 61). Species and habitats already the basis for our determinations in objectives for BLM special status species stressed by other factors may be less specific subspecies sections below. are ‘‘to conserve and/or recover ESA- able to cope with climate change Factor C. Disease or Predation listed species and the ecosystems on (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 10). The which they depend so that ESA petition did not provide climate change The petition indicates that disease is protections are no longer needed for or drought information specific to not known to be a threat to any of the these species and to initiate proactive Nevada or California, or the general petitioned butterflies (WildEarth conservation measures that reduce or areas known to be occupied by any of Guardians 2010, p. 8). A general eliminate threats to Bureau sensitive the 10 petitioned butterflies, or on the statement is made in the petition that species to minimize the likelihood of specific detrimental effects of climate larvae and adult butterflies are subject and need for listing of these species change or drought to each subspecies. to predation from a variety of wildlife; under the ESA’’ (BLM 2008a, p. 3). Based on information in our files, however, it is not known whether Inclusion as a BLM sensitive species recent projections of climate change in predation is a threat to any of the does provide consideration of the Great Basin over the next century petitioned subspecies (WildEarth conservation measures for the include: Increased temperatures, with Guardians 2010, p. 8). subspecies under the National an increased frequency of extremely hot We do not have information in our Environmental Policy Act. days in summer; more variable weather files suggesting disease or predation as Based on information presented in the patterns and more severe storms; more a threat to the petitioned butterfly petition and available in our files, winter precipitation in the form of rain, subspecies. This discussion provides Nevada does not have the ability to with potentially little change or the basis for our determinations in protect invertebrates under its current decreases in summer precipitation; and specific subspecies sections below. State law. The Nevada Department of earlier, more rapid snowmelt (United Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Wildlife is limited in its ability to States Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Mechanisms protect insects under its current 1998, pp. 1–4; Chambers and Pellant regulations (Nevada Revised Statutes 2008, pp. 29–33). The petition considers the inadequacy (NRS)). Nevada State law protects It is difficult to predict local climate of existing regulatory mechanisms to be species that the Wildlife Commission change impacts, due to substantial a threat for all 10 petitioned subspecies determines to be imperiled (NRS uncertainty in trends of hydrological (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 40). The 503.585 cited in WildEarth Guardians variables, limitations in spatial and petition claims that no Federal or State 2010, p. 8). While some invertebrates temporal coverage of monitoring programs exist to manage sensitive such as mollusks and crustaceans may networks, and differences in the spatial invertebrate species in Nevada or the be protected because they can be scales of global climate models and Great Basin, but it does not address classified under wildlife (NRS 501.110 hydrological models (Bates et al. 2008, existing regulatory mechanisms in cited in WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. p. 3). Thus, while the information in the California (WildEarth Guardians 2010, 8), butterflies are not covered under this petition and our files indicates that p. 8). Information provided in the statute (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. climate change has the potential to petition’s referenced material suggests 8). No butterfly species are currently affect vegetation and habitats used by that the general habitats that could be protected by State law in Nevada butterflies in the Great Basin in the long used by the petitioned subspecies may (Nevada Administrative Code 503.020– term, there is much uncertainty occur on lands under various 503.080). The California Department of regarding which habitat attributes could combinations of private, State, tribal, Fish and Game is unable to protect be affected, and the timing, magnitude, and Federal management. The petition insects under its current regulations (P. and rate of their change as it relates to presents little to no specific information Bontadelli, in litt., 1990). the 10 petitioned butterflies. Specific to support the claim that potential The petition presents little to no information pertaining to climate threats are associated with inadequate specific information supporting the change and a particular petitioned existing regulatory mechanisms, nor claim that threats are associated with subspecies is included in specific does the petition connect inadequate inadequate existing regulatory subspecies sections below as existing regulatory mechanisms by mechanisms. Additionally, the petition appropriate. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or provides little to no specific supporting other Federal agencies to impacts to or information to associate losses of Factor B. Overutilization for losses of populations or declining butterfly populations or declining Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or population trends of the petitioned population trends to inadequate existing Educational Purposes subspecies. regulatory mechanisms by State wildlife The petition states that individuals of All of the petitioned butterfly agencies or other State agencies. all of the petitioned butterfly subspecies subspecies, with the exception of the We have little to no information have been collected by scientists and Carson Valley wood nymph and available in our files to suggest that amateur collectors over the years, but it Railroad Valley skipper (Hesperia uncas inadequacy of existing regulatory is not known whether collection is a reeseorum), are included under the mechanisms may be threatening the threat to any of the subspecies as a referenced 2007 BLM list of sensitive petitioned subspecies. For most of these whole (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 8). species (BLM 2007a, pp. J6–J7, J37). In subspecies, we have no information in The petition does not provide 2008, BLM policy and guidance for our files related to this potential threat; information that overutilization has led species of concern occurring on BLM- however, for a few there is some

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61538 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

information in our files to suggest a chance events, other threats, the known colony occurs at Scossa Ranch, potential threat due to the inadequacy of potential for such chance events to Douglas County, Nevada (Austin et al. existing regulatory mechanisms. occur in occupied habitats, and 2000, p. 2). The subspecies has been Specific information pertaining to the connecting these threats to a restricted documented from the Carson Range inadequacy of existing regulatory geographic range of a subspecies, we do North, Washoe County; Snow Valley, mechanisms and a particular subspecies not consider chance events, restricted Carson City County; and Mineral Valley, is included in specific subspecies geographic range, or rarity by Pine Nut Creek, and Sugar Loaf, Douglas sections below as appropriate. themselves to be threats to a subspecies. County (NNHP 2006, pp. 21–22, 36–37). In addition, butterfly populations are Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade The petition indicates there are 13 highly dynamic and from year to year, Factors Affecting its Continued Nevada occurrences in the NNHP butterfly distributions can be highly Existence (NNHP 2009, p. 8) database, but location variable (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 2), and information is not indicated. However, The petition states that all of the desert species seem prone to dramatic review of the complete Nevada petitioned butterflies may be susceptible fluctuations in number (Scott 1986, p. database, which we have in our files, to the effects of biological vulnerability, 109). includes additional locations at Davis which may increase the likelihood of We have little to no additional Creek Park, Kingsbury Grade, extinction (WildEarth Guardians 2010, information related to the overall Thompson Canyon, Dangberg Reservoir pp. 6, 10). Characteristic butterfly abundance, distribution, number and near Gardnerville, Daggett Pass, Veceey population fluctuations and short size of populations, or population Canyon area, Haines Canyon, Thomas generation times, combined with small trends for any of the 10 subspecies in Creek, and Kings Canyon (NNHPD populations, can influence genetic our files. We do not have additional 2008). The petition notes that this diversity and long-term persistence information in our files related to subspecies may currently occur at 37 (Britten et al. 2003, pp. 229, 233). The biological vulnerability as a threat to sites (M. Sanford, pers. comm., cited in petition further asserts that many of the any of the petitioned butterfly WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 18), but butterflies included in the petition subspecies. Specific information location information was not provided. occur as single populations or a few pertaining to biological vulnerability The petition states that the subspecies is disparate ones, and that the number of and a particular subspecies is included reduced from historical abundance (M. populations may be more important in specific subspecies sections below as Sanford pers. comm., cited in WildEarth than population size when assessing the appropriate. Guardians 2010, p. 17). status of a butterfly (Sanford 2006, p. 401). Some of the petitioned butterflies Species for Which Substantial Factor A: Information Was Not Presented occur in isolated populations in patchy Information Provided in the Petition environments (WildEarth Guardians In this section, the butterfly 2010, p. 11), and the lack of dispersal subspecies are listed in alphabetical The petition asserts that water corridors or resistance to barriers to order by their common name. development; land development; dispersal may inhibit gene flow between agriculture; livestock grazing; nonnative Carson Valley silverspot (Speyeria populations and increase the likelihood plant species invasion, such as by nokomis carsonensis) of extinction (Wilcox and Murphy 1985, Lepidium latifolium (tall whitetop); and pp. 882–883). Overall, the petition We accept the characterization of the pesticide use may impact this provides little information related to the Carson Valley silverspot as a valid subspecies (WildEarth Guardians 2010, distribution, numbers of populations, subspecies based on its description by p. 19). The petition indicates that these size of populations, or population Austin (1998c, pp. 573–574). The types of activities can eliminate, trends for the 10 petitioned butterfly Carson Valley silverspot’s larval host degrade, and fragment butterfly habitat subspecies. However, the petition and plant is the violet, Viola nephrophylla (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 19). The its references indicate that most of the (Austin et al. 2000, p. 2; Austin and petition adds that heavy livestock 10 subspecies are known to have more Leary 2008, p. 97), and the primary grazing on public and private land in than one population. The petition nectar sources are Cirsium sp. (Austin et the Sierra Nevada, Pine Nut Mountains, provides little to no specific information al. 2000, p. 2). A single brood flies and Sweetwater Mountains has that indicates that biological during mid-July to mid-October (Austin degraded habitat for the Carson Valley vulnerability may be a threat to any of 1998c, p. 574; Austin et al. 2000, p. 2). silverspot (WildEarth Guardians 2010, the petitioned subspecies. The Carson Valley silverspot occurs p. 20). The annual grazing removes General biological information in our in wet meadows along the east side of vegetation from seep- and spring-fed files indicates that the combination of the Carson Range from southern Washoe meadows, and water diversions for few populations, small ranges, and County, Nevada, south to northern grazing have dried up meadows, restricted habitats can make a species Alpine County, California. It occurs eliminating silverspot habitat susceptible to extinction or extirpation along the Carson River drainage in (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 20). The from portions of its range due to random Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine petition mentions that climate change events such as fire, drought, disease, or County, California. It also occurs in the may result in the drying out of moist other occurrences (Shaffer 1987, pp. 71– Pine Nut Mountains of Douglas County, habitats in the Carson Valley (WildEarth 74; Meffe and Carroll 1994, pp. 190– Nevada, and the Sweetwater Mountains Guardians 2010, p. 20). 197). Limited distribution and small (Austin 1998c, p. 574; Austin et al. According to the petition, most of the population numbers or sizes are 2000, p. 2; The Nature Conservancy Carson Valley silverspot populations considered in determining whether the 2009, p. 1), Pine Grove Hills, and Smith occur in habitats associated with the petition provides substantial Valley of Lyon County, Nevada (Austin Carson River and its tributaries in information regarding a natural or and Leary 2008, p. 97). Populations ‘‘Carson Valley’’ (WildEarth Guardians anthropogenic threat, or a combination have been found along the Walker River 2010, p. 18). The petition indicates that of threats, that may be affecting a drainage in Mono County, California the NNHP has ranked the Carson River particular subspecies. However, in the (Austin et al. 2000, p. 2; The Nature among the 26 highest priority wetland absence of information identifying Conservancy 2009, p. 1). The largest areas in the State (NNHP 2007, p. 8).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61539

Many other associated areas, including development, agriculture, livestock Evaluation of Information Provided in tributaries, riparian areas, wet meadows, grazing, pesticide use, and climate the Petition and Our Files marshes, ponds, and ephemeral pools in change as potential threats. The petition does not provide Carson Valley, Nevada, are also listed While the petition reports losses of information that overutilization, (NNHP 2007, pp. 12–14). According to Carson Valley silverspot populations disease, or predation has negatively NNHP (2007, p. 36) and The Nature from their historical abundance (M. impacted the subspecies. We have no Conservancy (2008, p. 31), numerous Sanford, pers. comm., cited in information in our files related to areas associated with these sites and WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 17), overutilization, disease, or predation for others along the Middle Carson River which could suggest a negative response this subspecies. According to Austin et have been degraded or converted to to these potential threats, details al. (2000, p. 2), Scossa Ranch remains other lands uses. Moderate to high the largest known colony for this stressors impacting these areas in regarding these losses and the reason(s) for them are not provided. The petition subspecies. As indicated earlier, there Carson Valley include water are also multiple populations of this development and diversions, does not present specific information related to population numbers, size, or subspecies occurring elsewhere in groundwater pumping, Nevada and California. We do not know hydrogeomorphic modification, land trends for the Carson Valley silverspot if or to what extent these other development, agriculture, livestock over any period of time. The petition populations have been impacted by grazing, recreation, fire suppression, does not provide additional information collection efforts. The available wetland leveling, and nonnative species related to the reported population information does not indicate collection invasions. The petition implies these declines, regarding their locations, efforts are negatively impacting the activities are negatively impacting the number of populations, or magnitude of Carson Valley silverspot. Also see the Carson Valley silverspot. them. We do not have this information in our files. As a result, it is not possible ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section Evaluation of Information Provided in to put these reported declines into for information pertaining to the Petition and Our Files context to determine whether overutilization, disease, and predation The petition does not provide populations of the Carson Valley as potential threats. Based on our evaluation of the specific, supporting information to silverspot may be experiencing declines information provided in the petition indicate that the Carson Valley or not or their possible severity. These and in our files, we have determined silverspot may be impacted from water declines might be attributed to the that the petition does not present development, land development, normal natural fluctuations of butterfly substantial information to indicate that agriculture, livestock grazing, nonnative populations. Butterfly populations are listing the Carson Valley silverspot may plant species invasion, pesticide use, or highly dynamic and numbers and be warranted due to Factor B climate change at occupied locations in distribution can be highly variable year (overutilization for commercial, Nevada or California. The petition does to year (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 2). not provide additional information or recreational, scientific, or educational discussion regarding possible impacts to Based on our evaluation of the purposes) or Factor C (disease or the Carson Valley silverspot from information provided in the petition predation). recreation, fire suppression, and and in our files, we have determined Factor D: wetland leveling. The petition does not that the petition does not present provide specific, supporting information substantial information to indicate that Information Provided in the Petition regarding past, present, or future listing the Carson Valley silverspot may The petition asserts that inadequate conditions of these threats or their be warranted due to the present or existing regulatory mechanisms are a scope, immediacy, or intensity at threatened destruction, modification, or threat to this subspecies (WildEarth occupied or suitable habitats in Nevada curtailment of its habitat or range. Guardians 2010, pp. 8, 40). This or California. The petition emphasizes Factors B and C: butterfly is listed as a BLM sensitive habitat impacts along the Middle Carson species (BLM 2007a, p. J6). This River in Nevada; however, there are a Information Provided in the Petition designation can offer it some number of populations located in conservation consideration. The petition several counties in both Nevada and The petition states that it is unknown also indicates that some populations of California. Little to no information whether overutilization, disease, or the Carson Valley silverspot, as well as regarding habitat impacts to these predation are threats to this subspecies potential habitat, occur on properties additional populations is indicated. We (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 8). Based covered by conservation easements have information in our files that on information referenced in the (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 19). indicate habitat disturbances such as petition, numerous individuals (432 These easements may be protected from water table changes may adversely males, 224 females) of this subspecies land development, but they are not impact larval food availability (Austin et have been collected by several collectors protected from other activities such as al. 2000, p. 2), but details are not between 1964 and 1989 at Scossa groundwater pumping, invasive species, provided. Grazing has been associated Ranch, Douglas County, Nevada (Austin livestock grazing, and agricultural use with population declines (M. Sanford, 1998c, p. 574). Based on these total (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 19). pers. comm., cited in WildEarth numbers over the 25-year time period, Guardians 2010, p. 19), but details are an average of 17 males and 9 females Evaluation of Information in the Petition not provided. We do not have any were collected per year. Ranges of and Our Files further specific, supporting information individuals collected during a single The petition does not provide specific in our files regarding potential threats or day in a particular year were 1 to 39 for information to support the assertion that resulting negative impacts to Carson males and 1 to 54 for females. In some existing regulatory mechanisms are Valley silverspot populations in Nevada years, multiple collections occurred, inadequate to protect the subspecies or California. Also see the ‘‘Summary of and in some years collections occurred from potential threats because it does Common Threats’’ section for on consecutive days (Austin 1998c, p. not provide substantial information to information pertaining to water 574). support their assertion that threats are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61540 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

occurring under the other factors. The manmade factors affecting the specifically to this subspecies include petition does not connect inadequate subspecies’ continued existence. land development, overgrazing, and existing regulatory mechanisms to lowering of the water table (NatureServe Carson Valley Wood Nymph (Cercyonis losses of Carson Valley silverspot 2009c, p. 2). pegala carsonensis) populations or declining population The petition indicates that the NNHP trends. We do not have information in We accept the characterization of the (2007, pp. 8, 12–14) has ranked the our files related to the inadequacy of Carson Valley wood nymph as a valid Carson River in Nevada among the 26 existing regulatory mechanisms for this subspecies, based on its description by highest priority wetland areas in the subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary of Austin (1992, pp. 10–11). The larval State, and many associated areas— Common Threats’’ section for host plant is a grass or sedge species including tributaries, riparian areas, wet information pertaining to the (Austin et al. 2000, p. 1). Adults nectar meadows, marshes, ponds, and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms as on a variety of white and yellow flowers ephemeral pools in Carson Valley, a potential threat. from the families Apiaceae (carrot) and Nevada—are also included. According Based on our evaluation of the the Asteraceae (sunflower) (Austin to NNHP (2007, p. 36) and The Nature information provided in the petition 1992, p. 11). The single brood flies from Conservancy (2008, p. 31), numerous and in our files, we have determined early July to early September (Austin areas associated with these habitats and that the petition does not present 1992, p. 11). others along the Middle Carson River substantial information to indicate that The Carson Valley wood nymph have been degraded or converted to listing the Carson Valley silverspot may occurs in marshes of the western Great other land uses, and moderate to high be warranted due to the inadequacy of Basin along the base of the Carson stressors impacting these areas include existing regulatory mechanisms. Range, especially in Carson Valley from water development and diversions, Factor E: Carson City, Nevada, south to east- groundwater pumping, central Alpine County, California, and hydrogeomorphic modification, land Information Provided in the Petition the Gardnerville area of Douglas County, development, agriculture, livestock The petition indicates that this Nevada, with a few northern specimens grazing, recreation, fire suppression, subspecies may be vulnerable to from the Reno area, Washoe County, wetland leveling, and nonnative species reduced population numbers (WildEarth Nevada (Austin 1992, p. 11). Austin et invasion. Guardians 2010, p. 40) due to the al. (2000, p. 1) mention unidentified Evaluation of Information in the Petition observed subspecies’ reduction in localities in Lyon County, Nevada. The and Our Files numbers from historical abundance (M. petition indicates there are 14 Nevada Sanford pers. comm., cited in WildEarth occurrences recorded in the NNHP The petition does not provide Guardians 2010, p. 17). database, but occurrence locations are specific, supporting information to not identified (NNHP 2009, p. 6). indicate the Carson Valley wood nymph Evaluation of Information in the Petition However, review of the complete may be impacted from water and Our Files Nevada database, which we have in our development, land development, The petition did not present, nor do files, shows additional locations near agriculture, livestock grazing, invasive we have, specific information in our Minden, Daggett Pass, Centerville, plants, or pesticide use at occupied files related to population numbers, Genoa, and along the Carson River, with locations in Nevada or California. The size, or trends for the Carson Valley Cradlebaugh Bridge being a named petition does not provide additional silverspot. The petition does not location (NNHPD 2008). The largest information or discussion regarding provide additional information related colony occurs at Scossa Ranch, Douglas possible impacts to the Carson Valley to the reported population declines, County (Austin et al. 2000, p. 1). wood nymph from recreation, fire regarding the location, number of According to the petition, populations suppression, and wetland leveling. The populations, magnitude of declines, or appear to be declining between 10 to 30 petition does not provide specific, reasons for them. The petition does not percent in the short term with possible supporting information regarding past, provide information on chance events or extirpation of populations in Washoe present, or future conditions of these other threats to the subspecies and County (NatureServe 2009c, p. 2). threats or their scope, immediacy, or connect them to small population Surveys conducted between 2001 and intensity at occupied or suitable habitats numbers or size, or the potential for 2006 showed that some populations of in Nevada or California. The petition such threats to occur in occupied the Carson Valley wood nymph have emphasizes habitat impacts along the habitats in the future. Since this been extirpated (M. Sanford, pers. Middle Carson River in Nevada; subspecies is distributed over a number comm., cited in WildEarth Guardians however, there are additional Carson of populations in two States, its 2010, p. 22). Valley wood nymph populations extinction vulnerability due to Factor A: located in several counties in both stochastic events may be reduced. In the Nevada and California. No information absence of specific information and Information Provided in the Petition is included to indicate habitat impacts connection, we do not consider small The petition asserts in general that to these additional populations. We population numbers alone to be a threat water development; land development; have information in our files (Austin et to this subspecies. Also see the agriculture; livestock grazing; invasion al. 2000, p. 1) indicating, in general, that ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section by nonnative plant species, such as land development, overgrazing, and for information pertaining to small Lepidium latifolium; and pesticide use lowering of the water table could reduce population size as a potential threat. may adversely affect Carson Valley or destroy habitat of the Carson Valley Based on evaluation of the wood nymph habitat (WildEarth wood nymph, but further details are not information provided in the petition Guardians 2010, pp. 22–23, 40). The provided. We do not have any further and our files, we have determined that petition indicates that these types of specific, supporting information in our the petition does not present substantial actions can eliminate, degrade, and files regarding other potential impacts information to indicate that listing the fragment butterfly habitat (WildEarth or resulting adverse impacts to Carson Carson Valley silverspot may be Guardians 2010, p. 23). Threats Valley wood nymph populations in warranted due to other natural or mentioned by other sources pertaining Nevada or California. Also see the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61541

‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section males and 17 females were collected per 2010, p. 22); however, upon review, it for information pertaining to water year. Ranges of individuals collected is not included in the referenced development, agriculture, livestock during a single day in a particular year document (BLM 2007a). grazing, and pesticide use as potential were 1 to 108 for males and 1 to 80 for Evaluation of Information in the Petition threats. females. In some years, multiple and Our Files While the petition reports a loss of collections occurred, and in some years Carson Valley wood nymph populations collections occurred on consecutive The petition does not provide specific with some possible extirpations (M. days (Austin 1992, p. 11). information to support the assertion that Sanford, pers. comm., cited in existing regulatory mechanisms are WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 22), Evaluation of Information in the Petition inadequate to protect the subspecies which could suggest a negative response and Our Files from potential threats because it does to these potential threats, details The petition does not provide not provide substantial information to regarding these losses and the reasons information that overutilization, support their assertion that threats are for them are not provided. The petition disease, or predation has negatively occurring under the other factors. The does not present specific information impacted the subspecies. We do not petition does not connect inadequate related to population numbers, size, or have information in our files related to existing regulatory mechanisms to trends for the Carson Valley wood overutilization, disease, or predation for losses of Carson Valley wood nymph nymph over any period of time, this subspecies. According to Austin et populations or declining population including the 2001 to 2006 period. The al. (2000, p. 1), Scossa Ranch remains trends. We do not have information in petition does not provide additional the largest known colony for this our files related to the inadequacy of information related to the reported subspecies. As indicated earlier, there existing regulatory mechanisms for this population declines, regarding their are also multiple populations of this subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary of locations, number of populations, or the subspecies occurring elsewhere in Common Threats’’ section for magnitude of them. The context for the Nevada and California. We do not know information pertaining to the reported 10 to 30 percent decline if or to what extent these other inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms as between 2001 and 2006 is not clear as populations have been impacted by a potential threat. we do not know how many populations collection efforts. The available Based on our evaluation of the this range should apply or whether it is information does not indicate that information provided in the petition over the entire 5-year period or a collection efforts are negatively and in our files, we have determined portion of it. The identification of the impacting the Carson Valley wood that the petition does not present possibly extirpated populations, their nymph. Also see the ‘‘Summary of substantial information to indicate that locations in Nevada or California, or the Common Threats’’ section for listing the Carson Valley wood nymph number of them are not provided. We information pertaining to may be warranted due to the inadequacy do not have this information in our files. overutilization, disease, and predation of existing regulatory mechanisms. As a result, it is not possible to put these as potential threats. Factor E: reported declines or extirpations into Based on our evaluation of the Information Provided in the Petition context to determine whether information provided in the petition The petition indicates that this populations of the Carson Valley wood and our files, we have determined that subspecies may be vulnerable to small nymph may be experiencing declines or the petition does not present substantial populations (WildEarth Guardians 2010, not or their possible severity. These information to indicate that listing of pp. 21, 40) due to the possible decline declines might be attributed to the the Carson Valley wood nymph may be and extirpations of Carson Valley wood normal natural fluctuations of butterfly warranted due to Factor B nymph populations (M. Sanford, pers. populations. Butterfly populations are (overutilization for commercial, comm., cited in WildEarth Guardians highly dynamic and numbers and recreational, scientific, or educational 2010, p. 22). distribution can be highly variable year purposes) or Factor C (disease or to year (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 2). predation). Evaluation of Information in the Petition Based on our evaluation of the and Our Files information provided in the petition Factor D: The petition does not present and in our files, we have determined Information Provided in the Petition that the petition does not present additional information about the substantial information to indicate that The petition asserts that existing surveys conducted between 2001 and listing the Carson Valley wood nymph regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 2006, such as the locations, numbers, or may be warranted due to the present or to protect this subspecies (WildEarth causes of these presumed extirpations. threatened destruction, modification, or Guardians 2010, pp. 8, 40). The petition We do not have information in our files curtailment of its habitat or range. also indicates that most of the known or related to population numbers, sizes, or Factors B and C: potential populations of the Carson trends. The petition does not provide Valley wood nymph do not occur on information on chance events or other Information Provided in the Petition properties covered by conservation threats to the subspecies, nor does it The petition states that it is unknown easements (WildEarth Guardians 2010, connect these factors to small if overutilization, disease, or predation p. 23). While land under a conservation population numbers or size, or the are threats to this subspecies. Austin easement may be protected from land potential for such chance events to (1992, p. 11) reports numerous development, the area may not occur in occupied habitats in the future. individuals (475 males, 428 females) of necessarily be protected from other In the absence of this information and this subspecies were collected by activities such as groundwater pumping, connection, we do not consider small several individuals between 1964 and invasive species, livestock grazing, and population numbers alone to be a threat 1989 at Scossa Ranch, Douglas County, agricultural use (WildEarth Guardians to this subspecies. Since the information Nevada, as referenced in the petition. 2010, p. 22). The petition states that the indicates this subspecies is distributed Based on these total numbers over the Carson Valley wood nymph is a BLM over more than one population in two 25-year time period, an average of 19 sensitive species (WildEarth Guardians States, its vulnerability to extinction

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61542 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

due to stochastic events may be Evaluation of Information Provided in disease, or predation has negatively reduced. Also see the ‘‘Summary of the Petition and in Our Files impacted the subspecies. We have no Common Threats’’ section for The petition provides no specific information in our files related to information pertaining to small supporting information to indicate that overutilization, disease, or predation for population size as a potential theat. Mattoni’s blue butterfly is or may this subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section for Based on our evaluation of the become impacted from land use, information pertaining to information provided in the petition livestock grazing or trampling, or overutilization, disease, and predation and our files, we have determined that dispersal problems at any of its occupied sites in Elko County. The as potential threats. the petition does not present substantial Based on our evaluation of the information to indicate that listing the petition does not provide specific supporting information how climate information provided in the petition Carson Valley wood nymph may be and in our files, we have determined warranted due to other natural or change is or may impact this subspecies or its habitat. The petition does not that the petition does not present manmade factors affecting the substantial information to indicate that subspecies’ continued existence. provide supporting information regarding past, present, or future listing the Mattoni’s blue butterfly may Mattoni’s Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes conditions of these threats or their be warranted due to Factor B pallescens mattonii) scope, immediacy, or intensity at (overutilization for commercial, occupied or suitable habitats. The recreational, scientific, or educational We accept the characterization of petition does not report loss of purposes) or Factor C (disease, or Mattoni’s blue butterfly as a valid populations or reduction in numbers of predation). subspecies based on its initial this butterfly subspecies which could Factor D: description by Shields (1975, p. 20) and suggest a negative response to threats Information Provided in the Petition its subsequent reclassification as such as those claimed. Although we indicated by Austin (1998a, p. 633). have a letter from a contractor The petition asserts that inadequate This subspecies’ host plant, Eriogonum indicating that any habitat disturbance existing regulatory mechanisms are a microthecum var. laxiflorum (slender could theoretically adversely affect this threat to the subspecies (WildEarth buckwheat), flowers between June and subspecies (Austin et al. 2000, p. 3), we Guardians 2010, pp. 8, 40). Mattoni’s October (Shields 1975, pp. 20–21). do not have specific information in our blue butterfly is listed as a sensitive Adults fly during July (Shields 1975, files to support the assertion that land species by BLM (BLM 2007a, p. J–7) p. 20; Austin and Leary 2008, p. 76). use, livestock grazing or trampling, or which may offer some conservation Female Euphilotes lay their eggs on climate change is impacting Mattoni’s consideration. young flowers of Erigonum sp., and the blue butterfly populations. Evaluation of Evaluation of Information Provided in larvae feed on pollen and later the available information indicates that the Petition and in Our Files developing seeds (Pratt 1994, p. 388). there is not sufficient evidence to The petition does not provide Mattoni’s blue butterfly is known suggest that these potential threats are information to support the assertion that from the west fork of Beaver Creek occurring in occupied areas to the extent that they may be affecting this existing regulatory mechanisms are (Shields 1975, p. 20), west of Charleston inadequate to protect the subspecies Reservoir (Austin 1998a, p. 633; Nevada subspecies’ status such that it may warrant listing under the Act. Also see from potential threats because it does Natural Heritage Program Database not provide substantial information to (NNHPD) 2008), west of Pequop Summit the ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section for information pertaining to support their assertion that threats are (Austin and Leary 2008, p. 76; NNHPD occurring under the other factors. The 2008), and the Pilot-Thousand Springs, livestock grazing and climate change as potential threats. petition does not connect inadequate Long-Ruby Valleys, and Bruneau River Based on our evaluation of the existing regulatory mechanisms to watersheds in Elko County, Nevada information provided in the petition losses of Mattoni’s blue butterfly (NNHPD 2008; NatureServe 2009a, p. 2). and in our files, we have determined populations or declining population Shields (1975, p. 21) stated that since that the petition does not present trends. We do not have information in the host plant was common between substantial information to indicate that our files related to the inadequacy of 5,000 and 10,500 ft (1,524 to 3,200 m) listing Mattoni’s blue butterfly may be existing regulatory mechanisms for this in elevation in the western United warranted due to the present or subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary of States, Mattoni’s blue butterfly may be threatened destruction, modification, or Common Threats’’ section for more widespread than was known at curtailment of its habitat or range. information pertaining to the that time. Austin et al. (2000, p. 3) Factors B and C: inadequacy of existing regulatory indicate that this subspecies is mechanisms as a potential threat. ‘‘apparently rare where it is found Information Provided in the Petition Based on our evaluation of the * * *.’’ The petition states that it is not information provided in the petition and in our files, we have determined Factor A: known whether overutilization, disease, or predation are threats to this that the petition does not present Information Provided in the Petition subspecies (WildEarth Guardians 2010, substantial information to indicate that p. 8). Information referenced in the listing Mattoni’s blue butterfly may be The petition asserts that land use, petition indicates that one female and warranted due to the inadequacy of livestock grazing and trampling, and one male are known to have been existing regulatory mechanisms. climate change may affect this collected in 1969 (Austin 1998a, p. 633). Factor E: subspecies’ habitat (WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. 25, 40). The Evaluation of Information Provided in Information Provided in the Petition petition also states that land use and the Petition and in Our Files The petition indicates that this other factors could hinder dispersal The petition does not provide subspecies may be vulnerable due to (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 25). information that overutilization, limited range (WildEarth Guardians

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61543

2010, pp. 10–11, 40). The petition County, California (McGuire 1998, p. which could suggest a negative response asserts that Mattoni’s blue butterfly may 462). Habitat at the type locality for the to threats such as those claimed. be restricted to its habitat in Elko Mono Basin skipper is described as Evaluation of the available information County, Nevada (WildEarth Guardians gently rolling hills with sandy soil does not establish that these potential 2010, p. 25). If the subspecies is between 6,800 and 7,500 ft (2,072 and threats are occurring in occupied areas dependent on its specific host plant, it 2,286 m) in elevation (McGuire 1998, p. and may be impacting this subspecies. may not be able to disperse far enough 462). The vegetation consists of Pinus Also see the ‘‘Summary of Common to other locations where the host plant monophylla (singleleaf pin˜ on) Threats’’ section for information can be found (Shields and Reveal 1988, woodlands and Great Basin sagescrub pertaining to livestock grazing and p. 80). The petition also indicates with Artemisia tridentata (big climate change as potential threats. Austin et al. (2000, p. 3) said that this sagebrush), Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Based on our evaluation of the subspecies is ‘‘apparently rare where it (yellow rabbitbrush), Eriogonum information provided in the petition is found * * *.’’ umbellatum ssp. (sulphurflower and in our files, we have determined buckwheat), Lupinus argenteus (silvery Evaluation of Information in the Petition that the petition does not present lupine), and Stipa sp., including Stipa and Our Files substantial information to indicate that pinetorum (pinewoods needlegrass). At listing the Mono Basin butterfly may be The petition does not present, nor do least one population was described as warranted due to the present or we have information in our files, related using ‘‘open, sparse sage flats’’ (McGuire threatened destruction, modification, or to population numbers, size, or trends 1998, p. 462). Individuals were seen curtailment of its habitat or range. for Mattoni’s blue butterfly. The petition within this area at Granite and Glass Factors B and C: does not provide information on chance Mountains; near Bodie; and near Laws events or other threats to the subspecies (McGuire 1998, p. 462). McGuire (1998, Information Provided in the Petition and connect them to a possibly p. 462) indicates this subspecies may restricted range or small numbers for the The petition states that it is not occur elsewhere in similar Adobe Hills known whether overutilization, disease, subspecies or the potential for such habitat. The Adobe Hills extend into or predation are threats to this chance events to occur in occupied western Mineral County, Nevada, where subspecies (WildEarth Guardians 2010, habitats in the future. In the absence of a similar skipper phenotype was p. 8). Information referenced in the specific information identifying threats discovered (Austin and McGuire 1998, petition indicates that 17 males and 3 to the subspecies and connecting them p. 780; McGuire 1998, pp. 462–463). females are known to have been to a restricted geographic range or small Factor A: numbers of the subspecies, or the collected between 1978 and 1986 potential for such events to occur in Information Provided in the Petition (McGuire 1998, p. 462). occupied habitats, we do not consider a The petition asserts that livestock Evaluation of Information Provided in restricted geographic range or rarity by grazing and its associated effects and the Petition and in Our Files themselves to be threats to this climate change are threats to the The petition does not provide subspecies. Many naturally rare species subspecies (WildEarth Guardians 2010, have persisted for long periods within pp. 28, 40). The petition also claims that information that overutilization, small geographic areas. The fact that a unnatural fires that result from invasive disease, or predation has negatively species is rare does not necessarily plants spread by grazing eliminate shrub impacted the subspecies. While the indicate that it may meet the definition steppe habitat (WildEarth Guardians petition’s referenced material provides of threatened or endangered under the 2010, p. 28). some information about known numbers Act. Also see the ‘‘Summary of Common of collections, the petition does not Evaluation of Information Provided in Threats section’’ for information provide any information about the the Petition and in Our Files pertaining to limited distribution and population sizes or trends during this small population size as potential The petition does not provide specific time period. Given the low number of threats. supporting information that livestock individuals collected over an 8-year Therefore, based on our evaluation of grazing is impacting the Mono Basin time span, the length of time since these the information provided in the petition skipper in the Adobe Hills. The petition collections were made, and the lack of and in our files, we have determined does not provide any information that information about the relative impact to that the petition does not present would indicate past, current, or future the population, the petition does not substantial information to indicate that livestock grazing practices have, are, or provide substantial information to listing Mattoni’s blue butterfly may be may negatively impact the Mono Basin indicate that collection may be a threat warranted due to other natural or skipper or its habitat. We do not have to the subspecies. We have no manmade factors affecting the additional information in our files information in our files related to subspecies’ continued existence. related to livestock grazing in the Adobe overutilization, disease, or predation for Hills. The petition does not present, nor this subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary Mono Basin Skipper (Hesperia uncas do we have in our files, any specific, of Common Threats’’ section for giulianii) supporting information that indicates information pertaining to We accept the characterization of the invasive plants are spreading in the overutilization, disease, and predation Mono Basin skipper as a valid Adobe Hills and that unnatural fire is as potential threats. subspecies based on its description by resulting from invasive plants or that Based on our evaluation of the McGuire (1998, pp. 461–462). The Mono unnatural fire is eliminating shrub- information provided in the petition Basin skipper flies from May to mid-July steppe habitat. The petition does not and in our files, we have determined (Austin and McGuire 1998, p. 780; present, nor do we have in our files, that the petition does not present Davenport et al. 2007, p. 8). Females lay specific supporting information related substantial information to indicate that their eggs on Stipa sp. (needlegrass) to impacts due to climate change for the listing the Mono Basin skipper may be (McGuire 1998, p. 463). Mono Basin skipper. The petition does warranted due to Factor B The type locality for the Mono Basin not report loss of populations or (overutilization for commercial, skipper is the Adobe Hills area in Mono reduction in numbers of this subspecies recreational, scientific, or educational

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61544 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

purposes) or Factor C (disease or the future. In the absence of specific Information Provided in the Petition predation). information identifying such threats to The petition asserts that water Factor D: the subspecies and connecting them to a restricted geographic range or small development, agriculture, livestock Information Provided in the Petition population numbers of the subspecies, grazing, energy production, and climate or the potential for such events to occur change may impact this subspecies The petition asserts that inadequate (WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. 30–31, existing regulatory mechanisms are a in occupied habitats, we do not consider 40). The petition provides information threat to this subspecies (WildEarth restricted geographic range or small indicating that both Duckwater and Guardians 2010, pp. 8, 40). The BLM population numbers by themselves to be Lockes Springs are considered ‘‘highest lists the Mono Basin skipper as a threats to this subspecies. In addition, conservation priority’’ areas, while sensitive species in Nevada (where it is this subspecies, as indicated above, is Currant Springs is considered a not known to occur) but not in distributed over more than one companion site (NNHP 2006, pp. 10– California (where it is known to occur) population thereby reducing its 11). The NNHP includes Railroad Valley (BLM 2007a, p. J–37). This designation, extinction vulnerability due to springs and marshes in general as one where it is applied, can offer some stochastic (random) events. Also see the of the State’s 26 highest priority wetland conservation consideration. ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section for information pertaining to limited areas (NHHP 2007, p. 8), and they are Evaluation of Information Provided in distribution and small population size considered 80 percent degraded and 20 the Petition and in Our Files as potential threats. percent converted to other uses (NNHP 2007, p. 41). Moderate to high The petition does not provide specific Therefore, based on our evaluation of information to support the assertion that stressors—activities, events, or other the information provided in the petition stimuli that cause stress to a species or existing regulatory mechanisms are and in our files, we have determined inadequate to protect the subspecies environment—impacting these general that the petition does not present wetland areas in Railroad Valley from potential threats because it does substantial information to indicate that not provide substantial information to include water diversion and listing the Mono Basin skipper may be development, groundwater pumping, support their assertion that threats are warranted due to other natural or occurring under the other factors. The hydrogeomorphic modification, manmade factors affecting the agriculture, livestock grazing, petition does not associate inadequate subspecies’ continued existence. existing regulatory mechanisms to recreation, nonnative species invasion, losses of Mono Basin skipper Railroad Valley Skipper (Hesperia and energy development (NNHP 2007, populations or declining population uncas fulvapalla) p. 41). The petition implies that these trends. We do not have information in stressors impacting the general wetland our files related to the inadequacy of Because two of the petitioned areas are negatively impacting the existing regulatory mechanisms for this subspecies share the same common Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary of name, Railroad Valley skipper, we also fulvapalla). Common Threats’’ section for include their scientific name throughout The petition claims that SNWA’s information pertaining to the the analyses for clarity. proposal to pump groundwater in inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms as We accept the characterization of the central Nevada is likely to affect spring a potential threat. Railroad Valley skipper (Hesperia uncas discharges in Railroad Valley, including Based on our evaluation of the fulvapalla) as a valid subspecies based discharges for Duckwater and Lockes information provided in the petition on its description by Austin and Springs (Deacon et al. 2007, p. 693). and in our files, we have determined McGuire (1998, p. 777). A single brood Current pumping plus water rights that the petition does not present flies from mid June to mid July (Austin sought for future pumping represent 265 substantial information to indicate that and McGuire 1998, p. 777). Adults have percent of the estimated groundwater listing the Mono Basin skipper may be been documented nectaring on thistles perennial yield for Railroad Valley warranted due to the inadequacy of (Cirsium sp.) (Austin and McGuire 1998, (Deacon et al. 2007, p. 691). The petition existing regulatory mechanisms. p. 777). references information related to groundwater pumping simulations for Factor E: The Railroad Valley skipper’s (H. u. SNWA’s proposed project, and pumping fulvapalla) type locality is Lockes Information Provided in the Petition could lower water levels in northern Ponds, a grassy alkaline meadow near and southern Railroad Valley (Schaeffer The petition asserts that the Mono Lockes in Railroad Valley, Nye County, and Harrill 1995, p. 29). The simulated Basin skipper may be vulnerable due to Nevada (Austin and McGuire 1998, p. drawdowns for Duckwater, occurring in limited range and small population 777). The Nevada Natural Heritage the central part of northern Railroad numbers (WildEarth Guardians 2010, Program (NNHP) (2006, p. 38; NNHPD Valley, are a few tenths of a foot in pp. 10–11, 40). 2008) indicates the subspecies has been upper and lower cell layers (Schaeffer documented near three spring sites Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Harrill 1995, p. 29) and are not (Currant, Duckwater, and Lockes) in and Our Files demonstrated until simulated pumping Railroad Valley, Nye County. Austin The petition does not present, nor do occurs during phase four, decades later and McGuire (1998, p. 777) indicate this we have information in our files related (Schaeffer and Harrill 1995, pp. 31–32). subspecies is also known from other to, population numbers, size, or trends The simulated drawdowns in the alkaline meadows in Railroad Valley for the Mono Basin skipper. The southern part of Railroad Valley are and the Calleo area, Juab County, Utah. petition does not provide information more substantial, reaching about 100 ft However, according to the petition, on chance events or other threats to the (30.5 m) in upper and lower cell layers subsequent literature does not report subspecies and connect them to a (Schaeffer and Harrill 1995, p. 29). this subspecies from Utah (WildEarth possibly restricted range for this Because pumping wells are to be placed Guardians 2010, p. 29). subspecies or the potential for such primarily in the southern part of threats to occur in occupied habitats in Factor A: Railroad Valley, pumping will have a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61545

greater impact in the south than in the of Lockes Ranch such that potential past habitat. Also see the ‘‘Summary of north (Schaeffer and Harrill 1995, p. 29). threats to the subspecies have been Common Threats’’ section for In addition, most of Nevada’s oil reduced. In 2008, the four springs (Big, information pertaining to water production comes from several small oil North, Hay Corral, and Reynolds) on development, agriculture, livestock fields in Railroad Valley (WildEarth Lockes Ranch underwent restoration, grazing, and climate change as potential Guardians 2010, p. 30), and this type of including re-creation of a sinuous threats. development may also affect spring channel, improvements to other existing Based on our evaluation of the aquifers in Railroad Valley (Deacon channels, elimination of an irrigation information provided in the petition Williams and Williams 1989, p. 466). ditch, and removal of nonnative and in our files, we have determined Evaluation of Information Provided in vegetation from the spring systems that the petition does not present the Petition and in Our Files (Poore 2008b, pp. 1–10). The land substantial information to indicate that acquisition and the restoration activities listing the Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. Although we have one letter from a have reduced impacts from livestock fulvapalla) may be warranted due to the contractor indicating that lowering the grazing and recreation, and eliminated present or threatened destruction, water table and overgrazing could impacts from spring diversion at these modification, or curtailment of its theoretically threaten the subspecies sites. While these restoration activities habitat or range. (Austin et al. 2000, p. 3), our evaluation at both Duckwater and Lockes Ranch are Factors B and C: of all available information indicates directed at improving habitat conditions that these threats are unlikely to impact for the Railroad Valley springfish, they Information Provided in the Petition the subspecies. Based on information in may also have provided habitat benefits The petition states that it is not our files, the Railroad Valley skipper (H. to the Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. known whether overutilization, disease, u. fulapalla) occurs in the Railroad fulvapalla) (if it occurs in the immediate or predation are threats to this Valley Northern hydrographic area vicinity); this suggests that potential (#173B) (NDWR 2010). The perennial subspecies (WildEarth Guardians 2010, threats to the skipper from water p. 8). Information referenced in the yield of the Railroad Valley Northern diversions, livestock grazing, and hydrographic area is 75,000 afy petition indicates that 105 males and 75 invasive species have been significantly females were collected between 1984 (92,510,000 m3/year), and there are reduced for the long-term. 24,943 afy (30,770,000 m3/year) and 1990 (Austin and McGuire 1998, The information presented in the p. 777). committed; thus, the permitted petition for this subspecies does not groundwater rights do not approach or provide supporting information that Evaluation of Information Provided in exceed the estimated average annual groundwater development has or may the Petition and in Our Files recharge in this hydrographic area. affect habitat for the Railroad Valley Furthermore, Service files provide The petition does not provide skipper (H. u. fulvapalla). Information information that overutilization, information about native habitat in our files demonstrates that the restoration efforts conducted at both disease, or predation has negatively assertion that water development may impacted this subspecies. While the Duckwater Springs and Lockes Springs. impact the butterfly is likely unfounded, In 2006 and 2008, restoration efforts petition’s referenced material provides because the subspecies occurs in some information about known numbers were conducted at Big Warm Spring and northern Railroad Valley where Little Warm Spring on the Duckwater of collections, the petition does not groundwater does not appear to be provide any information about the Indian Reservation to reduce impacts overcommitted. Information in our files population sizes or trends during this from water diversion (Poore 2008a, indicates that SNWA’s proposed project time period. Given the low number of pp. 1–4). Big Warm Spring and Little may result in only minor, if any, water individuals collected over a 6-year time Warm Spring are offered some table lowering in the area that the span, the length of time since these protections through long-term Partners subspecies occurs, and that recent collections were made, and the lack of for Fish and Wildlife Program grant conservation efforts have significantly information about the relative impact to agreements, funding through section 6 reduced threats. of the Act, and a Safe Harbor Agreement The petition does not provide specific the population, the petition does not (Fish and Wildlife Service and supporting information that the Railroad provide substantial information to Duckwater Shoshone Tribe 2007, pp. 1– Valley skipper (H. u. fulvapalla) may be indicate that collection may be a threat 25; Fish and Wildlife Service 2009, pp. impacted by agriculture, livestock to the subspecies. We have no 1–36). These agreements should prevent grazing, energy production, or climate information in our files related to future threats from spring development, change at occupied locations. The overutilization, disease, or predation for water pollution, recreation, and petition does not provide specific this subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary overgrazing. In 2005, Lockes Ranch supporting information regarding past, of Common Threats’’ section for (where the Lockes Springs occur) was present, or future conditions of these information pertaining to purchased by the State of Nevada threats or their scope, immediacy, or overutilization, disease, and predation through a Recovery Lands Acquisition intensity at occupied or suitable habitat. as potential threats. grant for protection of the Railroad The petition does not report loss of Based on our evaluation of the Valley springfish (Crenichthys nevadae), populations or reduction in numbers of information provided in the petition a federally listed threatened fish with this subspecies to these potential and in our files, we have determined designated critical habitat. While there threats, which could suggest a negative that the petition does not present is no formal protection for butterflies in response to a threat such as those substantial information to indicate that the State of Nevada, this purchase and claimed. We do not have in our files listing the Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. associated conservation measures for specific information to support the fulvapalla) may be warranted due to the springfish provides some protection concern of potential threats from Factor B (overutilization for to riparian habitat, spring systems, and agriculture, grazing, energy commercial, recreational, scientific, or associated wildlife. The State actively development, or climate change to educational purposes) or Factor C manages recreation and grazing or has impacts to Railroad Valley skipper (disease or predation). eliminated these activities from portions (H. u. fulvapalla) populations or its Factor D:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61546 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Information Provided in the Petition numbers, or trends for the Railroad extensive alkaline flat in the river’s The petition asserts that inadequate Valley skipper (H. u. fulvapalla). The floodplain (Austin and McGuire 1998, existing regulatory mechanisms are a petition does not provide information p. 776). threat to this subspecies (WildEarth on chance events or other threats to the Factor A: subspecies and connect them to Guardians 2010, p. 40). The BLM lists Information Provided in the Petition the Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. potential small population size or The petition asserts that water fulvapalla) as a sensitive species (BLM restricted range or the potential for such development, agriculture, livestock 2007a, p. J–37). This designation can chance events to occur in occupied grazing, and climate change may impact offer it some conservation habitats in the future. In the absence of this subspecies (WildEarth Guardians consideration. specific information identifying such threats to the subspecies and connecting 2010, pp. 33–34, 40). The petition Evaluation of Information Provided in them to small populations or restricted provides information indicating that the the Petition and in Our Files range of the subspecies, or the potential NNHP ranks the Mason Valley/Walker The petition does not provide for such events to occur in occupied River riparian zone among the 26 information to support the assertion that habitats, we do not consider small highest priority wetlands in Nevada existing regulatory mechanisms are population numbers or restricted range (NNHP 2007, p. 25). In this category, inadequate to protect the subspecies by themselves to be threats to this 100 percent of the wetland areas have from potential threats because it does subspecies. In addition, this subspecies been converted to other land uses or not provide substantial information to is distributed over more than one degraded (NNHP 2007, p. 38). Moderate support their assertion that threats are population thereby reducing its to high stressors impacting wetlands in occurring under the other factors. The extinction vulnerability due to the Mason Valley/Walker River riparian zone include water diversion/ petition does not associate inadequate stochastic events. Also see the development, groundwater pumping, existing regulatory mechanisms to ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section hydrogeomorphic modifications, land losses of Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. for information pertaining to limited development, agriculture, livestock fulvapalla) populations or declining distribution and small population size as potential threats. grazing, mining, and nonnative species population trends. We do not have Therefore, based on our evaluation of invasion (NNHP 2007, p. 38). In the information in our files related to the the information provided in the petition lower Reese River Valley, 80 percent of inadequacy of existing regulatory and in our files, we have determined the ‘‘priority wetland areas’’ have been mechanisms for this subspecies. Also that the petition does not present converted to other land uses or see the ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ substantial information to indicate that degraded (NNHP 2007, p. 41). Moderate section for information pertaining to the listing the Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. to high stressors impacting the wetlands inadequacy of existing regulatory fulvapalla) may be warranted due to in the lower Reese River Valley include mechanisms as a potential threat. other natural or manmade factors water diversion/development, Based on our evaluation of the affecting the subspecies’ continued groundwater pumping, land information provided in the petition existence. development, agriculture, livestock and in our files, we have determined grazing, and nonnative species invasion Railroad Valley Skipper (Hesperia that the petition does not present (NNHP 2007, p. 41). The petition uncas reeseorum) substantial information to indicate that implies that these activities which occur listing the Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. Because two of the subspecies share generally in wetland areas in Mason fulvapalla) may be warranted due to the the same common name, Railroad Valley/Walker River and lower Reese inadequacy of existing regulatory Valley skipper, we also include their River Valley are impacting the Railroad mechanisms. scientific name throughout the analyses Valley skipper (H. u. reeseorum). Factor E: for clarity. We accept the characterization of the Evaluation of Information Provided in Information Provided in the Petition Railroad Valley skipper (Hesperia uncas the Petition and Our Files The petition indicates the subspecies reeseorum) as a valid subspecies based The petition does not provide, nor do may be vulnerable due to small on its description by Austin and we have in our files, specific locations population numbers (WildEarth McGuire (1998, p. 776). This subspecies where this subspecies has been Guardians 2010, pp. 10–11, 40). Austin flies as a single brood during mid June observed other than the type locality. (1985, pp. 125–126) indicates Hesperia to early August (Austin and McGuire The petition does not provide specific, uncas spp. appear to be restricted to the 1998, p. 776). Adults have been supporting information to indicate that valleys where they occur. The petition documented using thistle (Cirsium spp.) the Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. suggests that isolated populations of the for nectar (Austin and McGuire 1998, reeseorum) may be impacted by water Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. p. 776). The larval host plant is development, agriculture, livestock fulvapalla) are probably unable to Sporobolus airoides (alkali sacaton) grazing, or climate change. The petition disperse to suitable habitat or (Austin and Leary 2008, p. 11). does not provide supporting interconnect with other populations The Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. information regarding past, present, or especially where habitat fragmentation reeseorum) is known from the Reese future condition of these threats or their has occurred due to various factors such River and Mason Valleys in central scope, immediacy, or intensity at as land use, water development, and (Lander County) and western Nevada occupied or suitable habitat. The climate change (WildEarth Guardians (Lyon County), respectively, where it petition does not report loss of 2010, p. 30). occurs in alkaline, Distichlis spicata populations or reduction in numbers of (saltgrass) flats (Austin and McGuire this subspecies which could suggest a Evaluation of Information Provided in 1998, p. 776). The type locality is negative response to threats such as the Petition and in Our Files located along Nevada State Route 722 those claimed. We do not have The petition does not present, nor do (previously State Route 2) information in our files related to we have specific information in our approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) east- potential threats from water files, related to population sizes, northeast of the Reese River in an development, agriculture, livestock

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61547

grazing, or climate change to Railroad Factor D: other threats to the subspecies and Valley skipper (H. u. reeseorum) connect them to small population Information Provided in the Petition populations or its habitat. Also see the numbers or restricted range or the ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section The petition asserts that inadequate potential for such chance events to for information pertaining to water existing regulatory mechanisms are a occur in occupied habitats in the future. development, agriculture, livestock threat to this subspecies (WildEarth In the absence of specific information grazing, and climate change as potential Guardians 2010, pp. 8, 40). The BLM identifying such threats to the threats. does not list this subspecies as a subspecies and connecting them to Based on our evaluation of the sensitive species (BLM 2007a). small population numbers or restricted information provided in the petition Evaluation of Information Provided in range of the subspecies, or the potential and our files, we have determined that the Petition and in Our Files for such events to occur in occupied the petition does not present substantial habitats, we do not consider small information to indicate that listing the The petition does not provide population numbers or restricted range Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. information to support the assertion that by themselves to be threats to this reeseorum) may be warranted due to the existing regulatory mechanisms are subspecies. In addition, this subspecies present or threatened destruction, inadequate to protect the subspecies is distributed over more than one modification, or curtailment of its from potential threats because it does population, thereby reducing its habitat or range. not provide substantial information to extinction vulnerability due to Factors B and C: support their assertion that threats are stochastic events. Also see the occurring under the other factors. The ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section Information Provided in the Petition petition does not associate inadequate for information pertaining to limited The petition states that it is not existing regulatory mechanisms to distribution and small population size known whether overutilization, disease, losses of Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. as potential threats. or predation are threats to this reeseorum) populations or declining Therefore, based on our evaluation of subspecies (WildEarth Guardians 2010, population trends. We do not have the information provided in the petition p. 8). Based on information referenced information in our files related to the and our files, we have determined that in the petition, 138 male and 82 female inadequacy of existing regulatory the petition does not present substantial specimens were collected between 1969 mechanisms for this subspecies. Also information to indicate that listing the and 1984 (Austin and McGuire 1998, see the ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. p. 776). section for information pertaining to the reeseorum) may be warranted due to inadequacy of existing regulatory other natural or manmade factors Evaluation of Information Provided in mechanisms as a potential threat. the Petition and Our Files affecting the subspecies’ continued Based on our evaluation of the existence. The petition does not provide information provided in the petition information that overutilization, and our files, we have determined that Species for Which Substantial disease, or predation has negatively the petition does not present substantial Information Was Presented impacted the subspecies. While the information to indicate that listing the In this section, the butterfly petition’s referenced material provides Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. subspecies are listed in alphabetical some information about known numbers reeseorum) may be warranted due to the order by their common names. of collections, the petition does not inadequacy of existing regulatory provide any information about the mechanisms. Baking Powder Flat Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes bernardino minuta) population sizes or trends during this Factor E: time period. Given the low number of We accept the characterization of the individuals collected over a 15-year Information Provided in the Petition Baking Powder Flat blue butterfly as a time span, the length of time since these The petition indicates that this valid subspecies based on its collections were made, and the lack of subspecies may be vulnerable due to description by Austin (1998b, p. 549). information about the relative impact to small population numbers (WildEarth The Baking Powder Flat blue butterfly is the population, the petition does not Guardians 2010, pp. 10–11, 40). Austin exclusively associated with Eriogonum provide substantial information to (1985, pp. 125–126) indicates Hesperia shockleyi (Shockley’s buckwheat), on indicate that collection may be a threat uncas spp. appear to be restricted to the which both larvae and adults are found to the subspecies. We have no valleys where they occur. The petition (Austin 1993, p. 5; Austin and Leary information in our files related to suggests that isolated populations of this 2008, pp. 68–69). Larvae of this overutilization, disease, or predation for subspecies of the Railroad Valley subspecies are tended by ants (Formica this subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary skipper (H. u. reeseorum) are probably obtusopilosa) (Shields 1973 cited by of Common Threats’’ section for unable to disperse to suitable habitat or Austin 1993, p. 5). Pupae are likely information pertaining to interconnect with other populations formed in and protected by litter that is overutilization, disease, and predation especially where land use, water in and beneath the host plant (Austin as potential threats. development, or climate change 1993, p. 5). Adults fly between mid and Based on our evaluation of the fragment habitat (WildEarth Guardians late June (Austin 1993, p. 6; 1998a, information provided in the petition 2010, pp. 33). p. 550), and there is one brood (Austin and our files, we have determined that 1993, p. 6). the petition does not present substantial Evaluation of Information Provided in The Baking Powder Flat blue butterfly information to indicate that listing the the Petition and in Our Files is only known from Baking Powder Flat Railroad Valley skipper (H. u. The petition does not present, nor do in Spring Valley, in Lincoln and White reeseorum) may be warranted due to we have specific information in our files Pine Counties, Nevada, a flat valley Factor B (overutilization for related to population numbers, size, or bottom with scattered sand dunes commercial, recreational, scientific, or trends for the Railroad Valley skipper (Austin 1998b, p. 550; Austin and Leary educational purposes) or Factor C (H. u. reeseorum). The petition did not 2008, pp. 68–69). Baking Powder Flat (disease or predation). provide information on chance events or contains the largest known contiguous

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61548 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

habitat for the Baking Powder Flat blue proposed project may directly impact (98,680,000 m3/year), and there are butterfly (BLM 2009, p. 20). In 1993, the Baking Powder Flat area, including 86,085 afy (106,200,000 m3/year) Austin (1993, p. 5) reported two the Baking Powder Flat Area of Critical committed (NDWR 2010). However, colonies in southern Spring Valley, and Environmental Concern (ACEC), due to because the host plant grows in dry also suggested that other areas could monitoring and facility installation and areas and not within the Baking Powder support the host plant (Austin 1993, construction activities (BLM 2009, pp. Flat wetland complex, it is unlikely that p. 6). Eriogonum shockleyi grows on 20–21). The ACEC was established in current overcommitted groundwater relatively hard and bare areas between 2008 (72 FR 67748, p. 67749; 73 FR rights or SNWA’s proposed water the sand dunes (Austin 1998b, p. 550). 55867) to protect the Baking Powder development project are or will Searches of nearby areas in southern Flat blue butterfly (BLM 2009, p. 20). indirectly impact the host plant, and Spring Valley did not reveal additional According to the petition, additional thus the Baking Powder Flat blue colonies of the subspecies or its host threats to this subspecies and its habitat butterfly, through possible lowering of plant (Austin 1993, p. 5; 1998b, p. 550); include fire in the surrounding the water table. however, Austin and Leary (2008, pp. sagebrush habitat and subsequent We have information in our files 68–69) list what appear to be seven nonnative plant species invasion (B. (Austin et al. 2000, p. 3; Austin 1993, discrete locations where this subspecies Boyd, pers. comm. cited by WildEarth p. 7) that indicates that soil compaction (adults and larvae) has been seen 2010, p. 14) and climate change. The or direct destruction of host plants from between 1969 and 2002. The NNHPD petition also mentions disturbance to activities such as livestock trampling (2008) indicates that this subspecies this subspecies’ host plant from and vehicles may impact the Baking occurs in the Baking Powder Flat area trampling, and soil compaction from Powder Flat blue butterfly, though no near Blind Spring. During a general livestock grazing (B. Boyd, pers. comm. further specific, supporting information terrestrial invertebrate survey conducted cited in WildEarth 2010, p. 13, is provided. in 2006 at 76 sites in eastern Nevada, NatureServe 2009b, p. 2). According to For the other threats mentioned (fire including 37 sites in Spring Valley (2 of the petition, three grazing allotments and climate change), the petition and which could be in or near known appear to overlap with the Baking information in our files do not present locations for this subspecies), the Powder Flat ACEC (BLM 2007b, Map specific supporting information Baking Powder Flat blue butterfly was 2.4 16–1). Areas of the ACEC can be regarding past, present, or future not encountered (Ecological Sciences, ‘‘heavily impacted’’ by livestock grazing conditions of these potential threats or Inc. 2007, pp. 80–82). (BLM 2009, p. 21). In addition to their scope, immediacy, or intensity at livestock grazing, plant collecting and occupied or suitable habitats. The Factor A: limited off-road vehicle use are also petition does not report loss of Information Provided in the Petition authorized within the ACEC (BLM populations or reduction in numbers of 2007b, p. 2.4–101). this subspecies which could suggest a The petition asserts that water negative response to these threats. Also development, fire, nonnative plant Evaluation of Information Provided in see ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ invasion, livestock grazing, and climate the Petition and Our Files section for information pertaining to change may impact this subspecies While several activities as listed water development, livestock grazing, (WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. 13–14, above (water diversion and and climate change as potential threats. 40). The petition indicates that the development, groundwater pumping, Based on our evaluation of the NNHP has ranked the Baking Powder livestock grazing, agriculture, mining, information provided in the petition Flat playa/ephemeral pool/spring pool and nonnative species invasion) may be and in our files, we have determined complex among the 26 highest priority impacting a portion (30 percent) of the that the petition does not present wetland areas in the State (NNHP 2007, Baking Powder Flat wetland complex, substantial information to indicate that p. 8). The moderate- to-high stressors the petition does not provide supporting listing the Baking Powder Flat blue impacting the complex include water information that these activities are butterfly may be warranted due to the diversion and development, occurring in occupied Baking Powder present or threatened destruction, groundwater pumping, livestock Flat blue butterfly habitat and are modification, or curtailment of its grazing, agriculture, mining, and negatively impacting it, especially since habitat or range from water nonnative species invasion (NNHP the subspecies’ host plant does not development, fire, nonnative species 2007, p. 42). It is estimated that about occur in wetland areas. Adults and invasion, or climate change. 30 percent of the wetland area has been larvae utilize Eriogonum shockleyi to However, due to potential adverse degraded or converted to other land meet life-history requirements. This impacts from livestock grazing and uses (NHHP 2007, p. 42). The petition plant grows on relatively hard and bare disturbance to the host plant from implies that these stressors impacting areas between the sand dunes in Baking trampling and soil compaction from the wetland complex are negatively Powder Flat (Austin 1998b, p. 550) and livestock grazing and vehicles, we have impacting the Baking Powder Flat blue mostly on gravelly, clayey, or sandy determined that information in the butterfly. soils, or on rocky outcrops and ledges, petition and our files does present The petition raises concerns about in association with Sarcobatus substantial information to indicate that SNWA’s proposal to pump and transfer (greasewood), Atriplex (shadscale), and the Baking Powder Flat blue butterfly approximately 91,200 afy (112,500,000 Artemisia (sagebrush) (Kartesz 1987, may warrant listing due to the present m3/year) of groundwater from Spring p. 282). It has been described by BLM or threatened destruction, modification, Valley (Meyers 2006, p. 6) to Las Vegas, as common in Baking Powder Flat (BLM or curtailment of its habitat or range Nevada. This proposed project could 2009, p. 20). We have information in our from livestock grazing and vehicle use. lower the water table in Spring Valley files that indicates the permitted Injury to or loss of the host plant, by 200 ft (61 m) in 100 years, and 300 groundwater rights in the Spring Valley Eriogonum shockleyi, populations ft (91 m) in 1,000 years (Meyers 2006, hydrographic area (#184) exceed the would negatively impact larvae and p. 75), and Charlet (2006, p. 19) estimated average annual recharge; the adults as both life stages utilize this predicted that desertification of Baking perennial yield of the Spring Valley plant for food and shelter. During our Powder Flat would result. The SNWA’s hydrographic area is 80,000 afy status review for this subspecies, we

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61549

will further investigate these potential 67748, p. 67749; 73 FR 55867 entire). information on chance events or other threats. Livestock grazing, plant collecting, and threats to the subspecies and connect Factors B and C: limited off-road vehicle use are them to a restricted range or small authorized within the Baking Powder population number or the potential for Information Provided in the Petition Flat ACEC (BLM 2007b, p. 2.4–101). such threats to occur in occupied The petition states that it is not According to BLM (2009, p. 20), an habitats in the future. Since this known whether overutilization, disease, ACEC is defined as an area ‘‘within the subspecies is distributed over more than or predation are threats to this public lands where special management one population, its extinction subspecies (WildEarth Guardians 2010, attention is required (when such areas vulnerability due to stochastic events p. 8). According to Austin (1998b, are developed or used or where no may be reduced. In the absence of this p. 550) as referenced in the petition, 61 development is required) to protect and information and connection, we do not males and 41 females of this subspecies prevent irreparable damage to important consider restricted geographic range or were collected between 1978 and 1980. historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish small population numbers by and wildlife resources, or other natural themselves to be threats to this Evaluation of Information Provided in systems or processes, or to protect life subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary of the Petition and Our Files and safety from natural hazards.’’ The Common Threats’’ section for The petition does not provide Baking Powder Flat ACEC is managed as information pertaining to limited information that overutilization, an ‘‘avoidance area [* * *] [G]ranting distribution and small population size disease, or predation has negatively rights-of-way (surface, subsurface, as potential threats. impacted the subspecies. While the aerial) within the area will be avoided, Therefore, based on the information petition’s referenced material provides but rights-of-way may be granted if there provided in the petition and our files, some information about known numbers is minimal conflict with identified we have determined that the petition of collections, the petition does not resource values and impacts can be does not present substantial information provide any information about the mitigated.’’ to indicate that listing the Baking population sizes or trends during this Evaluation of Information Provided in Powder Flat blue butterfly may be time period. Given the relatively low the Petition and Our Files warranted due to other natural or number of individuals collected over a manmade factors affecting the According to information in our files, 2-year period, the length of time since subspecies’ continued existence. the Baking Powder Flat ACEC does not the collections were made, and the lack However, during our status review of appear to cover the entire area where of information about the relative impact this subspecies, we will further Baking Powder Flat blue butterflies have to the population, the petition does not investigate whether biological been known to occur (BLM 2008b, p. C– provide substantial information to vulnerability is a threat to this 14). Also see the ‘‘Summary of Common indicate that collection may be a threat subspecies. Threats’’ section for information to this subspecies. We have no pertaining to the inadequacy of existing Bleached sandhill skipper (Polites information in our files related to regulatory mechanisms as a potential sabuleti sinemaculata) overutilization, disease, or predation for threat. this subspecies. Also see ‘‘Summary of We have determined that livestock We accept the characterization of the Common Threats’’ section for grazing and vehicle use may be threats bleached sandhill skipper as a valid information pertaining to to the Baking Powder Flat blue butterfly, subspecies based on its description by overutilization, disease, and predation as discussed in Factor A. Thus, we have Austin (1987, pp. 7–8). Distichlis as potential threats. determined that the information in the spicata may serve as the larval host Based on our evaluation of the petition and our files presents plant (Austin 1987, p. 8). Adults have information provided in the petition substantial information indicating that been seen nectaring on white and and our files, we have determined that existing regulatory mechanisms may be yellow composites (Asteraceae) (Austin the petition does not present substantial inadequate as they relate to livestock 1987, p. 8). Adults are known to fly information to indicate that listing the grazing and vehicle use, in general on during late August to mid September, Baking Powder Flat blue butterfly may BLM lands, and also in relation to the and it is unknown if earlier broods be warranted due to Factor B ACEC. During our status review for this occur (Austin 1987, p. 8; Austin et al. (overutilization for commercial, subspecies, we will further investigate 2000, p. 4). recreational, scientific, or educational these and other potential threats and The bleached sandhill skipper is purposes) or Factor C (disease or whether existing regulatory mechanisms known from one location (Baltazor Hot predation). However, during our status may be inadequate. Spring) near Denio Junction, Humboldt review for this subspecies, we will Factor E: County, Nevada (Austin 1987, p. 8; further investigate these potential Austin et al. 2000, p. 4; NNHPD 2008; threats. Information Provided in the Petition B. Boyd, pers. comm. cited in WildEarth Factor D: The petition indicates that the Baking Guardians 2010, p. 15). The area is a salt Powder Flat Blue butterfly may be flat near a hot spring and is densely Information Provided in the Petition vulnerable due to limited range and covered with Distichlis spicata (Austin The petition asserts that inadequate small population numbers (WildEarth 1987, p. 8). Thousands of bleached existing regulatory mechanisms are a Guardians 2010, pp. 10–11, 40). sandhill skippers have been seen in the threat to this subspecies (WildEarth past (A. Warren, pers. comm. cited in Guardians 2010, pp. 8, 40). The petition Evaluation of Information in the Petition WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 15), but states that this subspecies is a BLM and Our Files the population appears to have declined sensitive species (BLM 2007a, p. J6), The petition does not present, nor do 2 to 3 years ago (B. Boyd, pers. comm. which can afford it some conservation we have in our files, information related cited in WildEarth Guardians 2010, consideration. In addition, BLM has to population numbers, size, or trends p. 15). We have no information in the designated a portion of the Baking for the Baking Powder Flat blue petition or our files about this Powder Flat area as an ACEC (72 FR butterfly. The petition does not provide subspecies population dynamics to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

know if this level of population decline expected to impact groundwater in commercial, recreational, scientific, or is unusual. Humboldt County, located in northwest educational purposes) or Factor C Factor A: Nevada, where this species occurs. Also (disease or predation). However, during see the ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ our status review for this subspecies, we Information Provided in the Petition section for information pertaining to will further investigate these potential The petition provides information water development and livestock threats. indicating that the Baltazor Meadow- grazing as potential threats. Factor D: Continental Lake wetland area has been Based on our evaluation of the identified as a priority wetland in information provided in the petition Information Provided in the Petition Nevada, and where 20 percent of this and in our files, we have determined The petition asserts that existing wetland area has been degraded or that the petition does present regulatory mechanisms are inadequate converted to other land uses (NHHP substantial information to indicate that (WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. 8, 40). 2007, p. 36). The moderate-to-high listing the bleached sandhill skipper The petition states that the BLM lists the may be warranted due to the present or stressors in this area include water bleached sandhill skipper as a sensitive threatened destruction, modification, or diversion/development, groundwater species in Nevada (BLM 2007a, p. J–37), curtailment of its habitat or range pumping, livestock grazing, and energy a status that can offer it some development (NHHP 2007, p. 36). The resulting from water development (other conservation consideration. petition implies these activities are than SNWA’s proposed project) due to adversely impacting the bleached a reported possible decline in numbers Evaluation of Information Provided in sandhill skipper. of the bleached sandhill skipper known the Petition and in Our Files from a single location. During our status Evaluation of Information Provided in The petition does not provide specific review for this subspecies, we will the Petition and Our Files supporting information connecting the further investigate this and other The petition suggests that threats potential threats indicated under Factor potential threats. A, or the extent of these threats, to (water development, livestock grazing, Factors B and C: and energy development) to the Baltazor adverse effects to the known population Meadow-Continental Lake wetland area Information Provided in the Petition of the bleached sandhill skipper, except to indicate a recent reduction in the could impact the bleached sandhill The petition states that it is not number of individuals of this skipper; however, no additional known whether overutilization, disease, subspecies, which could suggest a information is provided. The petition or predation are threats to this negative response to potential threats. does not provide specific supporting subspecies (WildEarth Guardians 2010, information regarding past, present, or p. 8). According to Austin (1987, p. 8), The details of this decline and the future conditions of these threats or referenced in the petition, 27 males and cause(s) of it were not described. We do their scope, immediacy, or intensity at 14 females were collected between 1984 not have information available in our occupied or suitable habitat. The and 1985. files related to the inadequacy of petition does not indicate the acreage of existing regulatory mechanisms for this this occupied location. We do not we Evaluation of Information Provided in subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary of have information in our files indicating the Petition and Our Files Common Threats’’ section for whether this location is large or small. The petition does not provide information pertaining to the The petition does indicate a recent information that overutilization, inadequacy of existing regulatory reduction in numbers of the bleached disease, or predation has negatively mechanisms as a potential threat. sandhill skipper, which could suggest a impacted the subspecies. While the Based on our evaluation of the negative response to these threats, but petition’s referenced material provides information provided in the petition details regarding this decline and the some information about known numbers suggesting that a reduction in the reason(s) for it are not provided. The of collections, the petition does not number of individuals of bleached petition does not present information provide any information about the sandhill skipper may have occurred at related to population numbers, size, or population sizes or trends during this the single known population, possibly trends for the bleached sandhill skipper. time period. Given the low number of due to water development we have The petition does not elaborate on when individuals collected, the length of time determined that the petition does the apparent population decline since the collections were made, and the present substantial information to occurred, its magnitude, or reasons for lack of information about the relative indicate that listing the bleached it. It is unknown whether this decline impact to the population, the petition sandhill skipper may be warranted due can be attributed to the normal natural does not provide substantial to the inadequacy of existing regulatory fluctuations of butterfly populations. information to indicate that collection mechanisms. During our status review Butterfly populations are highly may be a threat to the subspecies. We for this subspecies, we will further dynamic and numbers and distribution have no information in our files related investigate these and other potential can be highly variable year to year to overutilization, disease, or predation threats and whether existing regulatory (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 2). However, we for this subspecies. Also see the mechanisms may be inadequate. are concerned with this potential ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section Factor E: decline in the only known population for information pertaining to Information Provided in the Petition for this subspecies. Our files also overutilization, disease, and predation include a statement that the bleached as potential threats. The petition indicates that this sandhill skipper could be impacted by Based on our evaluation of the subspecies is known from only one area; water table changes (Austin et al. 2000, information provided in the petition, we although thousands had been seen in p. 4), but there is no specific supporting have determined that the petition does the past, a decline appears to have information related to this potential not present substantial information to occurred 2 to 3 years ago (A. Warren, threat or resulting negative impacts to indicate that listing the bleached pers. comm. and B. Boyd pers. comm., this subspecies. The SNWA’s proposed sandhill skipper may be warranted due cited in WildEarth Guardians 2010, water development project is not to Factor B (overutilization for p. 15). Therefore, the petition asserts

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61551

this subspecies may be vulnerable due The Steptoe Valley crescentspot occupied or suitable habitats. However, to limited distribution and small occurs at Warm Springs in Steptoe there is some information provided in population numbers (WildEarth Valley, White Pine County, Nevada the petition and in our files to suggest Guardians 2010, pp. 10–11, 40). (Austin 1998c, p. 577; Austin and Leary that water development may impact this 2008, p. 102). Austin (1993, pp. 8–9) subspecies due to overcommitment of Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and in Our Files found this subspecies in the moist flats groundwater in Steptoe Valley and this adjacent to the Duck Creek drainage in overcommitment’s potential for adverse The petition does not present detailed Steptoe Valley from Warm Springs to impacts to aquatic habitat. Since the information, nor do we have northwest of McGill. Specific locations Steptoe Valley crescentspot is information in our files, related to include along Duck Creek and near associated with moist flats near wetland population numbers, size, or trends for Bassett Lake (Austin 1993, p. 9; NNHPD areas, potential adverse impacts to the bleached sandhill skipper. The 2008). Occurrences have been reported aquatic habitat could result in adverse petition does not elaborate on when the at Monte Neva Hot Springs and near impacts to the butterfly’s habitat (e.g., apparent population decline occurred, McGill, White Pine County, Nevada drying of moist habitat and reduction in its magnitude, or reasons for it. The (NNHP 2006, p. 42). The NNHP (2009, larval or nectar plant abundance). petition does not indicate the size of p. 7) database indicates three Nevada Information in our files indicates that this site. A small area may be at higher occurrences, but the locations are not the Steptoe Valley hydrographic area risk of extinction than a large site. The identified. (#179) has been classified as a petition does not provide information Factor A: ‘‘Designated Groundwater Basin’’ by the on chance events or other threats to the NSE and that permitted groundwater subspecies and connect them to a Information Provided in the Petition rights exceed the estimated average restricted range or small population annual recharge; the perennial yield of size, or the potential for such chance The petition asserts that water development and climate change may Steptoe Valley is 70,000 afy (86,340,000 events to occur in occupied habitats in 3 impact the Steptoe Valley crescentspot m /year); however, approximately the future. In the absence of this 97,000 afy (119,600,000 m3/year) is information and connection, we do not (WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. 36, 40). Information provided in the petition committed for use (NDWR 2010). When consider restricted geographic range or groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer small population numbers by indicates that the NNHP considers Monte Neva Hot Springs of ‘‘highest recharge, the result may be surface themselves to be threats to this water-level decline, spring drying, and subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary of conservation priority’’ (NNHP 2006, degradation or loss of aquatic habitat Common Threats’’ section for p. 11). The McGill site is considered a (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396–397). Our information pertaining to limited companion site associated with other files also include information indicating distribution and small population size higher priority conservation sites that habitat alterations, particularly as potential threats. However, due to the (NNHP 2006, p. 11). In 2007, the NNHP water table changes and overgrazing single known occupied location and included Steptoe Valley, with a number (Austin et al. 2000, p. 2), may impact reported decline in numbers, any other of wetland areas found within the the Steptoe Valley crescentspot; potential threat to the subspecies in Valley, in the list of the 26 highest however, this information is not addition to the possible threat due to priority wetlands in the State (NNHP specific. Austin (1993, pp. 9–10) water development could exacerbate 2007, p. 42). The moderate-to-high indicates that potential threats to the this situation. stressors impacting this valley’s wetland Therefore, based on the information areas include water diversion/ subspecies appear to be habitat provided in the petition and in our files, development, groundwater pumping, disturbance and destruction, such as we have determined that the petition agriculture, grazing, nonnative species overgrazing, trampling and clearing of does present substantial information to invasion, and energy development vegetation, water diversion, and indicate that listing the bleached (NNHP 2007, p. 42). The petition agricultural pollution; however, no sandhill skipper may be warranted due implies these activities may impact the specific supporting information is to other natural or manmade factors Steptoe Valley crescentspot. provided. We do not have specific affecting the subspecies’ continued Deacon (2009, p. 6), as referenced in supporting information in our files existence due to the reported decline of the petition, states that SNWA’s regarding the other potential impacts or its single known population. During our proposed groundwater development any resulting adverse impacts to Steptoe status review, we will further project could lower the water table by Valley crescentspot populations. Also investigate this potential threat. 700 ft (213.4 m) in several valleys, see the ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ including Steptoe Valley, adversely section for information pertaining to Steptoe Valley Crescentspot (Phyciodes impacting spring-fed habitats water development, agriculture, cocyta arenacolor) (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 36). livestock grazing, and climate change as We accept the characterization of the potential threats. Steptoe Valley crescentspot as a valid Evaluation of Information Provided in Therefore, based on our evaluation of subspecies based on its description by the Petition and Our Files the information in the petition and our Austin (1998c, p. 577) and recent The petition does not provide specific files, we have determined that the updated nomenclature (NatureServe supporting information to indicate that petition does present substantial 2009d, p. 1; A. Warren, pers. comm. the Steptoe Valley crescentspot is information to indicate that listing the cited in WildEarth Guardians 2010, impacted from livestock grazing, Steptoe Valley crescentspot may be p. 34). Adults are known to fly as one trampling and clearing of vegetation, warranted due to the present or brood (Austin 1993, p. 9) during early agricultural pollution, or climate threatened destruction, modification, or July to mid-August (Austin 1993, p. 9; change. The petition does not provide curtailment of its habitat or range Austin 1998c, p. 577). Aster ascendens specific supporting information resulting from water development. (long-leaved aster) has been regarding past, present, or future During our status review of this documented as a larval host plant conditions of these threats, or their subspecies, we will further investigate (Austin and Leary 2008, p. 102). scope, immediacy, or intensity at these and other potential threats.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61552 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Factors B and C: Evaluation of Information Provided in will further investigate whether the Petition and in Our Files biological vulnerability is a threat to the Information Provided in the Petition We have determined that water Steptoe Valley crescentspot. The petition states that it is not development may be a threat to the White River Valley Skipper (Hesperia known whether overutilization, disease, Steptoe Valley crescentspot by uncas grandiosa) or predation is a threat to this adversely impacting its habitat, as We accept the characterization of the subspecies (WildEarth Guardians 2010, discussed in Factor A. Thus, we have White River Valley skipper as a valid p. 8). Austin (1998c, p. 577) indicates 39 determined that the petition does subspecies based on its description by males and 10 females were collected present substantial information to Austin and McGuire (1998, p. 778). The between 1981 and 1989, as referenced in indicate that listing the Steptoe Valley White River Valley skipper flies during the petition. crescentspot may be warranted due to June, July, and August (Austin and the inadequacy of existing regulatory McGuire 1998, p. 778; Austin et al. Evaluation of Information Provided in mechanisms pertaining to groundwater the Petition and Our Files 2000, p. 4). The apparent larval host permitting and the possible plant is Juncus mexicanus (Mexican The petition does not provide overcommitment of groundwater rush) (Austin and Leary 2008, p. 11). information that overutilization, resources in Steptoe Valley. Also see the The White River Valley skipper’s type disease, or predation has negatively ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section locality is a narrow marshy area in the impacted the subspecies. While the for information pertaining to the White River channel located 1 mi (1.6 petition’s referenced material provides inadequacy of existing regulatory km) north of the Nye County boundary some information about known numbers mechanisms as a potential threat. in White Pine County, Nevada (Austin of collections, the petition does not During our status review for this and McGuire 1998, p. 778; NNHPD provide any information about the subspecies, we will further investigate 2008). Other areas where the subspecies population sizes or trends during this this and other potential threats and is known include alkaline Distichlis time period. Given the low number of whether existing regulatory mechanisms spicata flats in the White River Valley individuals collected over a 8-year time may be inadequate. from Sunnyside (Nye County) and from span, the length of time since these Factor E: Big Smokey Valley (northern Nye County) (Austin and McGuire 1998, collections were made, and the lack of Information Provided in the Petition information about the relative impact to p. 778). In 1998, Austin and McGuire the population, the petition does not The petition mentions limited range (1998, pp. 778–779) tentatively included and small population numbers as provide substantial information to populations from Spring Valley (White threats to this subspecies (WildEarth indicate that collection may be a threat Pine County) and Lake Valley (Lincoln Guardians 2010, pp. 10–11, 40). to the subspecies. We have no County), Nevada, in this subspecies. The NNHP database (2009, p. 7) information in our files related to Evaluation of Information Provided in indicates one occurrence in Nevada, but overutilization, disease, or predation for the Petition and in Our Files its location is not identified. The this subspecies. Also see the ‘‘Summary The petition does not present, nor do subspecies has been observed at Ruppes of Common Threats’’ section for we have specific information in our files Place/Boghole, White River Valley, information pertaining to related to, population numbers, sizes, or White Pine and Nye Counties (NNHP overutilization, disease, and predation trends for the Steptoe Valley 2006, p. 47). During a general terrestrial as potential threats. crescentspot. The petition does not invertebrate survey conducted in 2006 Based on our evaluation of the provide information on chance events or at 76 locations in eastern Nevada, a information provided in the petition other threats to the subspecies and single male was encountered east of and our files, we have determined that connect them to a possibly restricted Cleve Creek in Spring Valley (Ecological the petition does not present substantial range or small population numbers or Sciences, Inc. 2007, p. 28). This location information to indicate that listing the the potential for such threats to occur in is near other areas where the subspecies Steptoe Valley crescentspot may be occupied habitats in the future. Since has been previously documented, and is warranted due to Factor B this subspecies is distributed over more not considered to be a significant range (overutilization for commercial, than one population, its extinction extension (Ecological Sciences, Inc. recreational, scientific, or educational vulnerability due to stochastic events 2007, p. 28). purposes) or Factor C (disease or may be reduced. In the absence of this Factor A: predation). However, during our status information and connection, we do not Information Provided in the Petition review of this subspecies, we will consider small population numbers or further investigate whether these limited range by themselves to be The petition asserts that water potential threats are impacting the threats to this subspecies. Also see the development, land development, Steptoe Valley crescentspot. ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section rechannelization of the White River, for information pertaining to limited overgrazing, and climate change may Factor D: distribution and small population size impact this subspecies (WildEarth Information Provided in the Petition as potential threats. Guardians 2010, pp. 38–40). The Based on the evaluation of the petition provides information that The petition asserts that existing information provided in the petition Ruppes Place/Boghole is considered of regulatory mechanisms are inadequate and our files, we have determined that ‘‘highest conservation priority’’ by the to protect this subspecies (WildEarth the petition does not present substantial NNHP (2006, p. 12). The NNHP also Guardians 2010, pp. 8, 40). The petition information to indicate that listing the identified sites in the upper and lower states that the BLM lists the Steptoe Steptoe Valley crescentspot may be White River Valley, including Ruppes Valley crescentspot as a sensitive warranted due to other natural or Place/Boghole, as ‘‘priority wetland species (BLM 2007a, p. J–7). This manmade factors affecting the species’ areas’’ (NNHP 2007, p. 26). Fifty percent designation can offer it some continued existence. However, during of the springs and brooks in the upper conservation consideration. our status review of this subspecies, we White River (which includes Ruppes

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61553

Place/Boghole) have been eliminated, Valley hydrographic area (#180) (SNWA over a 5-year time span, the length of converted to other land uses, or 2008, p. 1–1) (NDWR 2010). There is time since these collections were made, degraded (NNHP 2007, p. 44). Fifty evidence for a hydrologic connection and the lack of information about the percent of the springs and brooks in the suggesting that groundwater may flow relative impact to the population, the lower White River (which includes between Cave Valley and White River petition does not provide substantial Sunnyside) have been converted to Valley (NDWR 2008, pp. 16–17). When information to indicate that collection other land uses or degraded (NNHP groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer may be a threat to the subspecies. We 2007, p. 44). recharge, it may result in surface water- have no information in our files related The petition also provides level decline, spring drying, and to overutilization, disease, or predation information that several wetland areas degradation or loss of aquatic habitat for this subspecies. Also see the in Big Smoky Valley are considered (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396–397). We ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section high-priority wetlands by the NNHP have additional information in our files for information pertaining to (2007, p. 25). Wetlands, springs, and that indicates water diversions along the overutilization, disease, and predation brooks in Big Smoky Valley have been White River and other habitat as potential threats. eliminated, converted to other land disturbances may impact the White uses, or degraded by 60 percent (NNHP Based on our evaluation of the River Valley skipper (Austin et al. 2000, information provided in the petition 2007, p. 35). The moderate-to-high p. 4), though no specifics are provided. stressors impacting wetland areas in the and our files, we have determined that The petition does not provide, nor do the petition does not present substantial White River and Big Smoky Valleys we have in our files, specific, include water diversion/development, information to indicate that listing the supporting information to indicate that White River Valley skipper may be groundwater pumping, the White River Valley skipper is hydrogeomorphic modification, land warranted due to Factor B impacted from land development, (overutilization for commercial, development, agriculture, livestock rechannelization, livestock grazing, or grazing, mining, nonnative species, and recreational, scientific, or educational climate change in the White River and purposes) or Factor C (disease or energy development (NNHP 2007, Big Smokey Valleys. Also see the pp. 35, 44). The petition implies that predation). However, during our status ’’Summary of Common Threats’’ section review of this subspecies, we will these activities are negatively impacting for information pertaining to water the White River Valley skipper in the further investigate these potential development, agriculture, livestock threats. White River and Big Smokey Valleys. grazing, and climate change as potential Threats mentioned by other sources threats. Factor D: specifically in relation to this Based on our evaluation of the subspecies include overgrazing, information provided in the petition Information Provided in the Petition rechannelization of the White River, and and in our files, we have determined water table drawdown (NatureServe The petition asserts that existing that the petition does present regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 2009e, p. 2). substantial information to indicate that The proposed SNWA groundwater to protect this subspecies (WildEarth listing of the White River Valley skipper development project is predicted to Guardians 2010, pp. 8, 40). The BLM may be warranted due to the present or reduce flow to springs in southern lists this subspecies as a sensitive threatened destruction, modification, or White River Valley by 50 percent in 15 species (BLM 2007a, p. J–37) which can curtailment of its habitat or range years (Deacon 2007, p. 1), as referenced offer it some conservation resulting from water development in the petition. This reduction could consideration. which may negatively impact its larval impact Juncus mexicanus, the apparent Evaluation of Information Provided in host plant for the White River Valley host plant. During our status review for the Petition and in Our Files skipper, and which grows in moist this subspecies, we will further habitats (Austin and Leary 2008, p. 11; investigate these and other potential threats. We have determined that water WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 39). development may be a threat to the Factors B and C: Evaluation of Information Provided in White River Valley skipper by adversely the Petition and Our Files Information Provided in the Petition impacting its habitat as discussed in Factor A. Thus, we have determined Information provided in the petition The petition states that it is not that the petition and our files do present and available in our files suggests that known whether overutilization, disease, substantial information to indicate that overcommitment of groundwater could or predation is a threat to this listing the White River Valley skipper result in adverse impacts to aquatic subspecies. According to Austin and may be warranted due to the inadequacy habitats and thus impact the White McGuire (1998, p. 778), 20 males and 14 of existing regulatory mechanisms as River Valley skipper, especially its females were collected between 1984 they pertain to groundwater permitting apparent larval host plant, Juncus and 1989, as referenced in the petition. and the possible overcommitment of mexicanus, a plant usually found in groundwater resources in White River wetlands (Reed 1988, pp. 8, 10). We Evaluation of Information Provided in Valley. Also see the ‘‘Summary of have information in our files that the the Petition and Available in Our Files Common Threats’’ section for perennial yield of the White River The petition does not provide information pertaining to the hydrographic area (#207) is 37,000 afy information that overutilization, inadequacy of existing regulatory (45,640,000 m3/year), and there are disease, or predation has negatively mechanisms as a potential threat. 31,699 afy (39,100,000 m3/year) impacted the subspecies. While the During our status review for this committed (NDWR 2010); thus, petition’s referenced material provides subspecies, we will further investigate permitted groundwater rights are information about known numbers of this and other potential threats to approaching but do not exceed the collections, it does not provide any determine whether existing regulatory estimated average annual recharge. information about the population sizes mechanisms may be inadequate. However, SNWA is proposing to or trends during this time period. Given withdraw groundwater from the Cave the low number of individuals collected Factor E:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 61554 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Information Provided in the Petition have determined that for 6 of the 10 River Valley skipper may warrant listing The petition indicates this subspecies subspecies (Carson Valley silverspot, due to threats under Factors B, C, and may be vulnerable to small population Carson Valley wood nymph, Mattoni’s E currently, or in the future. numbers (WildEarth Guardians 2010, blue butterfly, Mono Basin skipper, and Because we found that the petition p. 40). Austin (1985, pp. 125–126) two Railroad Valley skippers—H. u. presents substantial information indicates Hesperia uncas spp. appear to fulvapalla and H. u. reeseorum) the indicating that listing 4 of the 10 Great be restricted to the valleys where they petition does not present substantial Basin butterflies may be warranted, we occur. The petition suggests that scientific or commercial information are initiating a status review to isolated populations of the White River indicating that listing throughout their determine whether listing these 4 Valley skipper are probably unable to entire range may be warranted. subspecies under the Act is warranted. disperse or interconnect with other On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we The ‘‘substantial information’’ populations (WildEarth Guardians 2010, standard for a 90-day finding differs p. 38). have determined that for 4 of the 10 Great Basin butterflies (Baking Powder from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and Evaluation of Information Provided in Flat blue butterfly, bleached sandhill commercial data’’ standard that applies the Petition and in Our Files skipper, Steptoe Valley crescentspot, to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- The petition does not present, nor do and White River Valley skipper) the day finding does not constitute a status we have specific information in our petition presents substantial scientific review under the Act. In a 12-month files, related to population sizes, or commercial information indicating finding, we will determine whether a numbers, or trends for the White River that listing throughout their entire range petitioned action is warranted after we Valley skipper. The petition does not may be warranted. have completed a thorough status provide information on chance events or The petition presents substantial review of the species, which is other threats to the subspecies and information indicating that the Baking conducted following a substantial 90- connect them to small population Powder Flat blue butterfly may warrant numbers or restricted range or the listing due to threats under Factors A day finding. Because the Act’s standards potential for such threats to occur in and D. The petition does not present for 90-day and 12-month findings are occupied habitats in the future. Since substantial information indicating that different, as described above, a this subspecies is distributed over more the Baking Powder Flat blue butterfly substantial 90-day finding does not than one population, its extinction may warrant listing due to current or mean that the 12-month finding will vulnerability due to stochastic events future threats under Factors B, C, and E. result in a warranted finding. may be reduced. In the absence of this The petition presents substantial References Cited information and connection, we do not information indicating that the bleached consider small population numbers or sandhill skipper may warrant listing A complete list of references cited is restricted range by themselves to be due to threats under Factors A, D, and available on the Internet at http:// threats to this subspecies. Also see the E. The petition does not present www.regulations.gov and upon request ‘‘Summary of Common Threats’’ section substantial information indicating that from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife for information pertaining to limited the bleached sandhill skipper may Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION distribution and small population size warrant listing due to threats under CONTACT). Factors B and C currently, or in the as potential threats. Authors Based on evaluation of the future. information provided in the petition The petition presents substantial The primary authors of this notice are and our files, we have determined that information indicating that the Steptoe the staff members of the Nevada and the petition does not present substantial Valley crescentspot may warrant listing Ventura Fish and Wildlife Offices (see information to indicate that listing the due to threats under Factors A and D. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). White River Valley skipper may be The petition does not present warranted due to other natural or substantial information indicating that Authority manmade factors affecting the species’ the Steptoe Valley crescentspot may The authority for this action is the continued existence. However, during warrant listing due to threats under Endangered Species Act of 1973, as our status review for this subspecies, we Factors B, C, and E currently, or in the amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). will further investigate whether future. Dated: September 20, 2011. biological vulnerability is a threat to this The petition presents substantial subspecies. information indicating that the White Gregory E. Siekaniec, River Valley skipper warrant listing due Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Finding to threats under Factors A and D. The Service. On the basis of our determination petition does not present substantial [FR Doc. 2011–25324 Filed 10–3–11; 8:45 am] under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we information indicating that the White BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM 04OCP3 emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2