51958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. chapter 1. 804. Fish and Wildlife Service PART 204—ADMINISTRATIVE IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act MATTERS 50 CFR Part 17 DoD does not expect this proposed 2. Section 204.7003(a)(3) is amended [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0012; rule to have a significant economic 4500030113] impact on a substantial number of small by revising paragraphs (iii) and (vi) to entities within the meaning of the read as follows: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 204.7003 Basic PII number. et seq., because it applies to a narrowly Petition To List the Bay Skipper as limited population of contract actions. (a) * * * Endangered or Threatened However, an initial regulatory flexibility (3) * * * analysis has been performed and is AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, summarized as follows: (iii) Contracts of all types except Interior. This proposed rule would affect how indefinite-delivery contracts, sales ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition DoD contracting officers assign contracts, and short form research finding. Procurement Instrument Identification contracts. Do not use this code for Numbers (PIINs) to procurement contracts or agreements with provisions SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and actions. The proposed rule does not for orders or calls—C Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list impact small entities as it only impacts * * * * * the internal operating procedures of the the Bay skipper (Euphyes bayensis) as Government by specifying how the (vi) Calls against blanket purchase an endangered or threatened species assigned PIIN is constructed for certain agreements and orders under contracts under the Endangered Species Act of procurement actions. This change (including Federal Supply Schedules, 1973, as amended, and to designate would limit the use of ‘‘F’’ in the 9th Governmentwide acquisition contracts, critical habitat. After review of the best position to those calls or orders issued and multi-agency contracts) and basic available scientific and commercial under non-DoD issued contracts, basic ordering agreements issued by information, we find that listing the Bay ordering agreements, or blanket departments or agencies outside DoD. skipper is not warranted at this time. purchase agreements. As a result of the Do not use the F designation on DoD- However, we ask the public to submit to proposed rule, new awards under the issued purchase orders, contracts, us any new information that becomes AbilityOne program and the Federal agreements, or orders placed under available concerning the threats to the Prison Industries program would no DoD-issued contracts or agreements—F Bay skipper or its habitat at any time. DATES: The finding announced in this longer reflect an ‘‘F’’ in the PIIN. * * * * * The rule does not duplicate, overlap, document was made on August 28, or conflict with any other Federal rules. 3. Section 204.7004(d)(2) is amended 2012. by revising paragraph (ii) to read as There are no significant alternatives to ADDRESSES: This finding is available on follows: accomplish the stated objectives of this the Internet at http:// rule. DoD invites comments from small 204.7004 Supplementary PII numbers. www.regulations.gov at Docket Number business concerns and other interested FWS–R4–ES–2011–0012. Supporting * * * * * parties on the expected impact of this documentation we used in preparing rule on small entities. (d) * * * this finding is available for public DoD will also consider comments (2) * * * inspection, by appointment, during from small entities concerning the normal business hours at the U.S. Fish (ii) If an office is placing calls against existing regulations in subparts affected and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Field blanket purchase agreements or orders by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, under non-DoD issued contracts 610. Interested parties must submit such Jackson, MS 39213. Please submit any comments separately and should cite 5 (including Federal Supply Schedules, new information, materials, comments, U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2012–D040) in Governmentwide acquisition contracts, or questions concerning this finding to the correspondence. and multi-agency contracts), or basic the above address. ordering agreements, the office shall IV. Paperwork Reduction Act FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: identify the instrument with a 13 Stephen Ricks, Mississippi Field Office The rule does not contain any position supplementary PII number information collection requirements that (see ADDRESSES); by telephone 601–321– using an F in the 9th position. Do not 1122, or by facsimile 601–965–4340 If require the approval of the Office of use the same supplementary PII number Management and Budget under the you use a telecommunications device with an F in the 9th position on more Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. for the deaf (TDD), please call the than one order. Modifications to these chapter 35). Federal Information Relay Service calls or orders shall be numbered in (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 204 accordance with paragraph (c) of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Government procurement. section. Background Manuel Quinones, * * * * * [FR Doc. 2012–21052 Filed 8–27–12; 8:45 am] Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations BILLING CODE 5001–06–P U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for System. any petition to revise the Federal Lists Therefore, 48 CFR part 204 is of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife proposed to be amended as follows: and Plants that contains substantial 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR scientific or commercial information part 204 continues to read as follows: that listing the species may be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM 28AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 51959

warranted, we make a finding within 12 that time. Funding became available that the larvae produced during the months of the date of receipt of the during fiscal year 2011, and on July 12, spring flight period may aestivate petition. In this finding, we will 2011, we published a 90-day finding (76 (become dormant) in the summer. The determine that the petitioned action is: FR 40868) that the petition presented species may overwinter (hibernate) in (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) substantial scientific or commercial the larval form. Aestivating and warranted, but the immediate proposal information indicating that listing this hibernating larvae are probably in the of a regulation implementing the species may be warranted, and third or fourth instar (period between petitioned action is precluded by other requested scientific and commercial molts) (Vaughan and Shepherd 2005, p. pending proposals to determine whether data and other information regarding 2). species are threatened or endangered, this species. This notice constitutes the Bay skippers have been observed only and expeditious progress is being made 12-month finding on the January 4, in association with estuarine herbaceous to add or remove qualified species from 2010, petition to list the Bay skipper as marsh, including brackish and the Federal Lists of Endangered and an endangered species. freshwater marshes. The larval food Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We plant is unknown, but Cladium sp. Species Information must publish these 12-month findings (sawgrass), Phragmites sp. (reeds), and in the Federal Register. The Bay skipper, a small butterfly, Schoenopletus sp. (bulrush) are was described as Euphyes bayensis by potential larval host plants (NatureServe Previous Federal Actions Shuey (1989) from Bay St. Louis, 2009 as cited in WildEarth Guardians The Bay skipper was identified as a Hancock County, Mississippi. Shuey and Xerces Society for Invertebrate candidate for protection under the Act (1993) reported on the phylogeny (the Conservation, p. 7; Salvato 2011, p. 14). in the November 21, 1991, Federal history of the evolution of a species) Adults have been observed feeding on a Register (56 FR 58804). It was assigned within the Euphyes genus, finding that variety of nectar-producing plants a Category 2 status designation, which E. bayensis is a species in the Euphyes adjacent to wetlands, including was given to those species for which dion complex. During our status review, Solidago sp. (goldenrod), Verbena there was some evidence of we received comments from Texas Parks brasiliensis (Brazilian vervain), and vulnerability, but for which additional and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Lippia sp. (frog fruit) (Marks 2011a, pp. biological information was needed to questioning the taxonomic validity of 92–94; Marks 2011b). support a proposed rule to list as an the Bay skipper, particularly the lack of Until recently, the Bay skipper was endangered or threatened species. quantitative morphological studies of considered to occur in only two Assigning categories to candidate Texas populations (TPWD 2011). While locations: Bay St. Louis, Hancock species was discontinued in 1996 we agree that additional studies would County, Mississippi, and the Anahuac (Notice of Candidate Review; February be useful, the species has been National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (part of 28, 1996; 61 FR 7596), and only species appropriately described, and all the Texas Chenier Plains NWR for which the Service has sufficient subsequent peer-reviewed taxonomic Complex), Chambers and Jefferson information on biological vulnerability treatments and collection accounts Counties, Texas. The lack of records and threats to support issuance of a consider the taxon as valid (e.g., Gatrelle suggested that the species had a very proposed rule are now regarded as 2000, p. 4; Pelham 2008, p. 93; Marks limited range and was very rare candidate species. Due to a lack of 2011a, pp. 92–94). (Vaughan and Shepherd 2005, p. 2; information on the Bay skipper, it was The Bay skipper has a wingspan of 1.5 NatureServe 2009, 2011). The Bay St. no longer considered as a candidate to 1.75 inches (in) (3.7 to 4.4 Louis locality was severely damaged by species as of 1996. centimeters (cm)). Males are black with Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and it was On January 4, 2010, we received a a large orange patch on the top of the unknown if the species continued to petition dated December 29, 2009, from wings, and have a prominent black survive in that locality. The Anahuac WildEarth Guardians and Xerces stigma (defined mark) on the forewing. NWR and surrounding areas were Society for Invertebrate Conservation The females are dark brown with yellow inundated by Hurricane Ike in 2008, and requesting that the Bay skipper be listed spots on their forewing and a yellow no Bay skippers had since been reported as an endangered or threatened species streak on their hindwing. The ventral at that location (NatureServe 2011, and critical habitat be designated under (bottom) sides of both front and hind WildEarth Guardians and Xerces the Act. The petition clearly identified wings of the females are a shade of Society for Invertebrate Conservation itself as such and included the requisite brown that is paler than the dorsal 2009, p. 9). identification information for the (upper) side, and have pale yellow spots As part of the status review following petitioners, as required by 50 CFR on the forewing, with two yellow the 90-day finding, we contacted 424.14(a). In a January 25, 2010, letter streaks from the base to the margin lepidopterists along the Gulf Coast for to the petitioners, we acknowledged (Shuey 1989, p. 165; Vaughan and additional records, photographs, receipt of the petition, and stated that Shepherd 2005, pp. 1–2; Butterflies and specimens, and other information on the due to prior workload and limited Moths of North America (BMNA) 2009, distribution and abundance of the Bay funding, we would not be able to p. 1). The Bay skipper is similar in skipper. We also conducted a 1-week address the petition at that time, but appearance to the Dion skipper survey for the Bay skipper at the two would complete the action when (Euphyes dion), but is distinguished by known localities, and other potentially workload and funding allowed. On May a brighter shade of orange and narrower suitable habitat along the Gulf Coast 6, 2010, we received a 60-day notice of black borders on the dorsal (top) side of between Galveston Bay, Texas, and intent (NOI) to sue under the provisions the wings (Shuey 1989, p. 166). Sandestin, Florida (Salvato 2011 pp. 1– of the Act from petitioners for our The life history and habitat 28). No Bay skippers were found on the alleged failure to make a finding within requirements of the Bay skipper are Anahuac NWR, or at the type locality in 90 days of receipt of the petition. In a poorly known. Bay skippers appear to Bay St. Louis. However, we were able to June 11, 2010, letter to the petitioners, have two major flight periods (late identify seven additional localities we acknowledged receipt of the NOI spring and fall), and the potential to where Bay skippers have been recently and stated that a publication date for the produce two generations per year. The sighted, two in Texas and five in 90-day finding could not be predicted at gap between the flight periods suggests Cameron Parish, Louisiana. These new

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM 28AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 51960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

localities were documented by (E) Other natural or manmade factors historical occurrence locations, as well publication (Gatrelle 2000, p. 4; Marks affecting its continued existence. as multiple points in between, during a 2011a, pp. 92–94; Marks 2011b; Salvato In making this finding, information week of the September 2011 flight 2011, p. 15), photographs, pinned pertaining to the Bay skipper in relation period (Salvato 2011, pp. 1–28). This specimens, and observation of the to the five factors provided in section limited survey failed to locate the species during the 2011 survey (Salvato 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In species at either of the previously 2011 pp. 1–14). Recent sightings at an considering what factors might occupied locations of Bay St. Louis, additional three locations in Cameron constitute threats, we must look beyond Mississippi, or Anahuac NWR, Texas. Parish, Louisiana, were unconfirmed the mere exposure of the species to the However, only a few hours were spent (Salvato 2011, pp. 1–3). All of the new factor to determine whether the species searching each of the historical confirmed sites are within or adjacent to responds to the factor in a way that locations, thus neither the continued wildlife refuges (Texas Point NWR, causes actual impacts to the species. If presence nor the extirpation of the Sabine NWR, Cameron Prairie NWR, there is exposure to a factor, but no species from these two sites could be Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge), a State response, or only a positive response, confirmed, as habitat at both locations park (Sea Rim State Park), or a nature that factor is not a threat. If there is appeared to be suitable to sustain the center (Baytown Nature Center) (Salvato exposure and the species responds species (Salvato 2011, pp. 5–6, 11). As 2011, pp. 1–14). negatively, the factor may be a threat discussed above, the survey did confirm Our survey and our review of the best and we then attempt to determine how seven extant site locations of the Bay available scientific and commercial significant a threat it is. If the threat is skipper in Chambers and Jefferson information demonstrates that efforts to significant, it may drive or contribute to Counties, Texas, and in Cameron Parish, document the Bay skipper have been the risk of extinction of the species such Louisiana (Gatrelle 2000, p. 4; Wauer limited and localized, and the Bay that the species warrants listing as 2006; Marks 2011a, pp. 92–94; Salvato skipper is more widely distributed than threatened or endangered as those terms 2011, pp. 1–14). previously believed (Salvato 2011, pp. are defined by the Act. This does not Although all of the site locations are 1–14; Marks 2011a, pp. 92–94). It is necessarily require empirical proof of a known to have experienced one or more likely that additional populations occur threat. The combination of exposure and severe storm events by recent hurricanes along the Gulf Coast, as extensive and some corroborating evidence of how the (i.e., Hurricane Katrina 2005, Hurricane apparently suitable estuarine marsh species is likely impacted could suffice. Rita 2005, Hurricane Gustav 2008, habitats with appropriate nectar and The mere identification of factors that Hurricane Ike 2008), the Bay skipper potential host plants were observed at could impact a species negatively is not continues to persist at the 7 newly numerous sites on both public and sufficient to compel a finding that confirmed locations. The Bay skipper is private lands (Salvato 2011, pp. 1–14). listing is appropriate; we require endemic to, and adapted to, estuarine Within the currently known range of the evidence that these factors are operative marsh habitats. Such habitats in the Bay skipper (East Texas to Mississippi), threats that act on the species to the northern Gulf of Mexico are frequently there are 10 national wildlife refuges, point that the species meets the subject to tropical storms and seven State wildlife refuges, two State definition of a threatened or endangered hurricanes, and the area has parks, one State wetland conservation species under the Act. experienced an increase in storm area, and one national park that contain, In making our 12-month finding on activity (Goldenberg et al. 2001, p. 474– protect, and manage for estuarine marsh the petition, we considered and 475). Some researchers believe the habitats known to be occupied, or evaluated the best available scientific increase in tropical storm and hurricane potentially occupied, by the species. and commercial information. intensity, duration, and frequency can Extensive areas of privately owned A. The Present or Threatened be attributed to warming of the Gulf of Mexico’s water temperatures (Karl et al. estuarine marsh habitats are also Destruction, Modification, or 2009, pp. 5–6). present, and such habitats are not Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or Researchers studying butterfly conducive to development, farming, or Range other land use practices potentially community response to hurricane and detrimental to Bay skipper habitat. Until recently, the Bay skipper was tropical storm events have documented recognized as occurring in only two local species declines and extirpations; Summary of Information Pertaining to localized areas: Bay St. Louis, however, this research has also found the Five Factors Mississippi, and the Anahuac NWR, that those butterfly species most closely Section 4 of the Act and its Texas (e.g., Vaughan and Shepherd associated with the local vegetation implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 2005, pp. 1–2; NatureServe 2011). survived and rapidly recovered from set forth the procedures for adding a Habitat for the Bay St. Louis, periodic storm impacts (Salvato and species to, or removing a species from, Mississippi, population of the Bay Salvato 2007, p. 160). Others recovered the Federal Lists of Endangered and skipper was severely damaged by more gradually. For example, although Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the the endangered Miami blue butterfly section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may Anahuac NWR, Texas, population was (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) be determined to be an endangered or inundated by Hurricane Ike in 2008. declined on Bahia Honda following threatened species based on any of the There was concern that one or both of impacts from hurricanes Dennis, following five factors: these populations of the Bay skipper Katrina, and Wilma during 2005, the (A) The present or threatened might have been extirpated due to population returned to pre-storm destruction, modification, or habitat loss or modification by the abundance within 2 years following the curtailment of its habitat or range; hurricane activity (WildEarth Guardians storms (Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. (B) Overutilization for commercial, and Xerces Society for Invertebrate 160). recreational, scientific, or educational Conservation 2009, p. 9), and there was Estuarine plant species that are purposes; additional concern that the species considered to be utilized by Bay skipper (C) Disease or predation; could be extinct. larvae include sawgrass, reeds, and (D) The inadequacy of existing Given these concerns, we conducted a bulrush (Salvato 2011, pp. 1–14). Adult regulatory mechanisms; or 1-week survey that included the Bay skippers have been observed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM 28AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 51961

feeding on native and exotic flowering curtailment of range cannot be progress, or are proposed (CPRA 2012, plants such as goldenrod, Brazilian quantified due to the lack of information pp. 22–25). Projects that protect, vervain, and frog fruit, as well as a on historical range and specific habitat. enhance, or restore estuarine herbaceous variety of other annual and perennial Rates of wetland loss in Louisiana have marshes include water and sediment nectar-producing plants adjacent to been decreasing since 1978 (Couvillion diversions, marsh nourishment, marsh wetlands (Marks 2011a, pp. 92–94). All et al. 2011, p. 12), and the estuarine creation, shoreline protection, and of these plants are common or abundant herbaceous marsh habitat continues to hydrologic restoration (CPRA 2012, pp. throughout the range of the Bay skipper. be a dominant feature of the coastal 115–139). These plants are rapid colonizers under landscape. In addition, multiple projects The National Wildlife Refuge System appropriate conditions, with seed have been completed, are underway, or Improvement Act of 1997 and the Fish dispersal occurring via water, wind, or are under evaluation in Louisiana to and Wildlife Service Manual (601 FW 3, animal transport. All of these plants will further reduce losses and restore 602 FW 3) require maintaining rapidly recover from severe storm wetlands (see Other Conservation biological integrity and diversity, impacts, as well as colonize new Efforts, below). comprehensive conservation planning habitats as conditions become There is no available information for each refuge, and set standards to appropriate. The discovery of seven new supporting concerns that land ensure that all uses of refuges are site locations for the Bay skipper, all of management actions (e.g., livestock compatible with their purposes and the which have been recently impacted by grazing, rice farming, land management Refuge System’s wildlife conservation hurricane activity, indicates that this involving conventional farm machinery, mission. The comprehensive butterfly species, and the plants that it prescribed fires, herbicide use, water conservation plan (plan) addresses utilizes, are adapted to surviving severe control) (WildEarth Guardians and conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant storm events. Xerxes Society 2009, pp. 10–11) are resources and their related habitats, There are concerns that Bay skipper negatively affecting the Bay skipper. while providing opportunities for habitats could be negatively affected by Estuarine marsh habitats where the Bay compatible wildlife-dependent sea level rise (WildEarth Guardians and skipper have been identified are low- recreation uses. An overriding Xerces Society for Invertebrate elevation herbaceous wetlands not consideration reflected in these plans is Conservation 2009, p. 9), and that suitable or utilized directly for grazing that fish and wildlife conservation has impacts from storm events could be or farming, and are generally not subject first priority in refuge management, and compounded by projected sea level rise to impacts by conventional farm that public use be allowed and (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 5–6). Since 2003, machinery. Marshes may be periodically encouraged as long as it is compatible global mean sea level rise has been burned; however, fire is a natural with, or does not detract from, the estimated at approximately 2.5 mm component of the estuarine ecosystem, Refuge System mission and refuge (0.10 in)/year (McMullen and Jabbour and managed fires are localized, purpose(s). 2009, p. 26). Estimates of mean sea level seasonal, and beneficial to Bay skipper The Texas Chenier Plains National trends (including subsidence) along the estuarine marsh habitats. Due to their Wildlife Refuge Complex, which Gulf of Mexico within the range low elevations and lack of agricultural includes Anahuac and Texas Point currently or potentially occupied by Bay potential, estuarine ecosystems are National Wildlife Refuges, and the skipper vary from 2.1 mm (0.0827 in)/ generally not subject to herbicide or Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife year at Pensacola, Florida, to 9.6 mm pesticide use. As noted in the Refuge Complex, which includes (0.378 in)/year at Eugene Island, Background, above, there are multiple Cameron and Sabine National Wildlife Louisiana, and 6.84 mm (0.2693 in)/year State or Federal refuges and protected Refuges, encompass most of the known, at Galveston, Texas (National areas that are managed for estuarine and much of the potential, habitat for Oceanographic and Atmospheric biodiversity. Herbicide and pesticide Bay skipper in Texas and Louisiana (see Administration 2012; see also Mitchum use in such areas is either restricted or Background, above). Both Refuge 2011 pp. 8–9). As noted above, during closely managed. For example, on the complexes have developed plans that our status review, we obtained Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge, prohibit, or closely control, land use information on potential larval host and herbicides are used only to combat management actions which may be nectar plant species utilized by the Bay exotic plant species (Cooper, pers. harmful to maritime habitats and skipper, all of which are widely comm. 2010). While highway right-of- wildlife species, including the Bay distributed, adapted to estuarine ways may be periodically subject to skipper (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service habitats, and capable of rapidly herbicide control measures, this would 2006, 2007, 2008). Currently, the Bay colonizing new habitats as conditions seasonally affect only a small proportion skipper is not specifically named in the become appropriate. Additionally, the of the nectaring plants available to plans for each refuge; however, flight capability of the Bay skipper and butterflies in any given area. protection is provided to the species its life cycle (e.g., at least two broods per indirectly through management of Other Conservation Efforts year) provide an ability for the species potentially harmful land uses, and the to accommodate local habitat changes. Following the severe impacts of plans can, and will be, amended to During our survey, five of the seven Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the incorporate new information on newly recognized butterfly locations Coastal Protection and Restoration locations and habitat management for were found in Louisiana estuarine Authority (CPRA) was established by Bay skipper (Hunter, pers. comm. 2012). marshes. Coastal Louisiana contains the the Louisiana legislature to work with The Bay skipper is also found on the largest estuarine herbaceous marsh in other State agencies, Federal agencies, Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge, managed by the United States; however, it is also private industries, and other the Louisiana Department of Wildlife experiencing the highest rate of wetland nongovernmental entities. One of their and Fisheries, and Sea Rim State Park, loss in the country (Couvillion et al. primary goals is to conserve and restore managed by Texas Parks and Wildlife 2011, p. 1). While it is likely that some Louisiana coastal wetlands and their Department. Management activities on Bay skipper habitats have been role in hurricane protection. Since 2005, State Parks and Refuges are guided by detrimentally affected by coastal marsh over 200 restoration and protection State Wildlife Action Plans (Louisiana erosion in Louisiana, potential projects have been constructed, are in Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM 28AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 51962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

2005, Texas Parks and Wildlife theinsectcollector.com/acatalog/ in the State, and is currently working to Department 2005), which provide a specimens_real.htm). However, the update the NatureServe list to reflect framework to recognize, manage, and primary reason that little is known that it has been found in the State (Bass conserve imperiled State wildlife. The about the Bay skipper, as discussed pers. comm. 2012). Bay skipper is recognized as a species above, is a lack of scientific or As noted under ‘‘Other Conservation of management concern in the Texas educational collecting in the area it Efforts,’’ above, the Louisiana CPRA has Wildlife Action Plan (Texas Parks and inhabits. While we found some been established to work with other Wildlife Department 2005, p. 59), and information regarding targeted scientific State and Federal agencies and will be considered for inclusion in the collecting activity to better document nongovernmental entities to protect and upcoming revision of the Louisiana the distribution of the Bay skipper restore Louisiana coastal wetlands, Wildlife Action Plan list (Bass, pers. (Salvato 2011, pp. 1–14; Marks 2011a, which include Bay skipper herbaceous comm. 2012). State Wildlife Action pp. 92–94; Marks 2011b), our status marsh habitats. In addition, Bay skipper Plans also alert private and corporate review did not indicate that any populations occurring on National landowners of the status, habitats, and commercial or recreational trade in the Wildlife Refuges are protected by the general locations of wildlife species of species is occurring. Therefore, our National Wildlife Refuge System concern, and help ensure consideration review of the best available scientific Improvement Act of 1997 and its of the potential presence of the species and commercial information does not implementing regulations, which and its habitat requirements during indicate that overutilization of the Bay require maintaining biological integrity Federal and State permit review skipper for commercial, recreational, and diversity on refuge lands. Bay processes. scientific, or educational purposes is a skipper populations occurring in private threat to the species now or in the Summary of Factor A estuarine wetland habitats are generally future. protected under section 404 of the Clean In summary, we find that while Bay C. Disease or Predation Water Act, which established a project skippers are periodically and locally review and permitting process to avoid affected by hurricanes and tropical Studies suggest that various diseases or minimize wetland impacts, and storms, the species and their habitats are and parasites (e.g., baculovirus, which requires mitigation of adapted to such events. We find no Ophryocystis sp.) have the potential to unavoidable impacts. evidence that the Bay skipper and the negatively impact butterflies (Altizer Therefore, based on our analysis of maritime plant communities upon and Oberhauser 1999, p. 76; Hesketh et the best available scientific and which it depends will be unable to shift al. 2010), and butterflies have many commercial information, there is their distributions to accommodate natural predators including frogs, currently no evidence that the current rates of sea level rise. Their lizards, birds, carnivorous insects, and inadequacy of existing regulatory flight capability, and the production of spiders. However, the best available mechanisms is a threat to the Bay two generations per year of the Bay information does not indicate that skipper now or in the future. skipper, should enable the species to disease or pathogens are specifically rapidly colonize areas impacted by affecting Bay skippers, nor does it E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors severe storm events, as well as adjust to provide any evidence regarding the Affecting the Species’ Continued maritime habitat shifts that may occur effect of natural predation on Bay Existence from sea level rise. We also find little skipper populations. The recently Climate Change Effects evidence that land management actions confirmed additional populations and a are now having, or have in the past, had wider range for the Bay skipper reduce Our analyses under the Act include a wide negative effect on the species. any potential vulnerability the species consideration of ongoing and projected Additionally, the magnitude of all of may have to extirpation by disease or changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ these potential threats to the species has predation in the future. Based on our and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the also been reduced by the discovery and analysis of the best available Intergovernmental Panel on Climate recognition of the Bay skipper’s wider information, we have determined that Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the distribution, and ongoing efforts to neither disease nor predation are mean and variability of different types protect and enhance estuarine marsh significant threats to the Bay skipper of weather conditions over time, with 30 habitats. Therefore, our review of the now or in the future. years being a typical period for such best available scientific and commercial measurements, although shorter or D. The Inadequacy of Existing information does not provide evidence longer periods also may be used (IPCC Regulatory Mechanisms that the present or threatened 2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’ destruction, modification, or The Bay skipper is classified as an S1 thus refers to a change in the mean or curtailment of habitat and range species in both Texas and Mississippi variability of one or more measures of represents an ongoing and significant (NatureServe 2011). The S1 designation, climate (e.g., temperature or threat to the Bay skipper now or in the based upon the number of occurrences precipitation) that persists for an future. within a State, is considered ‘‘critically extended period, typically decades or imperiled—State level’’ under the longer, whether the change is due to B. Overutilization for Commercial, NatureServe construct. However, no natural variability, human activity, or Recreational, Scientific, or Educational formal or regulatory consideration is both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types Purposes provided to the species or its habitat in of changes in climate can have direct or Rare butterflies and moths can be Texas or Mississippi as a result of this indirect effects on species. These effects highly prized by collectors, and an classification. The Bay skipper has only may be positive, neutral, or negative and international trade exists for some recently been discovered in Louisiana they may change over time, depending species for both live and decorative (Marks 2011a, pp. 92–94; Salvato 2011, on the species and other relevant markets, as well as the specialist trade pp. 1–15), but receives no formal considerations, such as the effects of that supplies hobbyists, collectors, and protections in that State. The Louisiana interactions of climate with other researchers (e.g., Collins and Morris Natural Heritage Program has been variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) 1985, pp. 155–179; http://www. informed of the discovery of the species (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM 28AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 51963

analyses, we use our expert judgment to capable of recovering from storm likely to be impacted by pesticide or weigh relevant information, including damage, even when storms occur other chemical use. uncertainty, in our consideration of closely spaced in time, such as Summary of Factor E various aspects of climate change. Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Salvato and Salvato (2007) noted that The discovery of additional Rising Sea Levels butterflies that were quick to recover populations and a wider range for the As noted under Factor A (above), after severe storms were those species Bay skipper reduces the species’ annual rates of sea level rise along the associated with the local vegetation. The potential vulnerability to stochastic Gulf of Mexico within the range Bay skipper is endemic to estuarine events. In summary, our review of the currently or potentially occupied by Bay marsh habitats and associated with best available scientific and commercial skipper vary from 2.1 mm (0.0827 in)/ vegetation that is quick to colonize new information found no evidence that year at Pensacola, Florida, to 9.6 mm areas under appropriate conditions, so other natural or manmade factors, such (0.378 in)/year at Eugene Island, the Bay skipper is likely capable of as rising sea level due to climate change, Louisiana, and 6.84 mm (0.2693 in)/year recovering quickly from severe storms. biological vulnerability from restricted at Galveston, Texas (National The species also has the advantage of range or small population size, or Oceanographic and Atmospheric producing two generations per year, pesticide use are threats to the Bay Administration 2012), and the estuarine allowing for faster recolonization of skipper either now or in the future. plant communities that support the Bay damaged areas. Our review of the best Finding skipper are composed of species that available scientific and commercial As required by the Act, in assessing have the ability to rapidly colonize new information does not indicate that whether the Bay skipper is an areas under appropriate conditions and, increased frequency and intensity of therefore, can shift their distributions to endangered or threatened species storms is a significant threat to the throughout all of its range, we accommodate currently predicted rates species. of sea level rise. Additionally, the flight considered the five factors. We capability of the Bay skipper and its Biological Vulnerability examined the best scientific and ability to produce two generations per commercial information available Species with small population sizes year enable the species to adjust to and regarding the past, present, and future and restricted ranges are more exploit estuarine habitat shifts that may threats faced by the Bay skipper. We vulnerable to random natural or human- occur from gradual sea level rise. Also reviewed the petition, information noted under Factor A (above), is the induced events (e.g., storms, droughts, available in our files, other available resilience of estuarine-adapted butterfly spills, etc.). There were concerns that published and unpublished species to major storm events subjecting the Bay skipper may have been information, and we consulted with their habitats to inundation. This is extirpated after the habitat for the Bay recognized butterfly experts and other supported by the discovery of new St. Louis, Mississippi, population of Bay Federal and State agencies. We also populations of Bay skipper (Salvato skipper was severely damaged by conducted a brief survey for the species 2011, pp. 1–15) in areas that have Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the (Salvato 2011, pp. 1–28). recently been subjected to one or more habitat for the Anahuac NWR, Texas, Information acquired during our severe tropical storms (see Background, population was inundated by Hurricane review of the Bay skipper indicated that above). Rising temperatures associated Ike in 2008 (WildEarth Guardians and there has been an increase in the known with climate change and rising sea Xerces Society for Invertebrate range of the species, and an expansion levels may also present new host and Conservation 2009, p. 9). However, the of the number of known site nectaring plant opportunities for Bay discovery of additional populations, occurrences for the species. Our limited skipper (e.g., Pateman et al. 2012, pp. inhabiting locations which were not survey of potential habitats between the 1028–1030). Our review of the best previously known to be occupied, with Florida panhandle and Galveston, available information does not indicate limited survey effort at the end of the Texas, found abundant and apparently that sea level rise is a significant threat September 2011 flight season, indicates suitable habitat, and confirmed seven to the species. that the range and total population size new site records in 7 days (Salvato of the Bay skipper is poorly known and 2011, pp. 1–28). In addition, there is a Increased Intensity and Frequency of may neither be restricted, nor small (see large extent of coastal estuarine habitats Storms Background). Additionally, apart from along Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi Climate change can cause more localized stochastic events, our review that have not been surveyed for the frequent and severe storms, including of the best available scientific and presence of the Bay skipper. Existing hurricanes. This can have a number of commercial information did not provide programs have been developed and detrimental effects on butterfly evidence of any specific threats to the implemented to conserve and restore populations, including habitat loss, known populations (see Factors A, B, C, the extensive estuarine wetland network destruction of preferred food and host and D, above), nor did it indicate that occupied by the Bay skipper. plants, flooding, and extirpation of the Bay skipper is biologically Our review of the best available affected populations. There is concern vulnerable due to restricted range and scientific and commercial information that hurricanes may have extirpated Bay small population size. revealed that the Bay skipper is poorly skipper populations from Bay St. Louis, Pesticide Use known and additional research is Mississippi, and Anahuac NWR, Texas, needed to define range and abundance. due to habitat damage and inundation. Butterflies and their larvae are However, during our status review, we However, seven new populations of Bay vulnerable to pesticides; however, the did not document any significant threats skipper were discovered, all of them in estuarine marsh habitats where the to the species or its habitat throughout locations that have experienced one or species occurs are not subject to its currently known range, or within a more recent hurricane storm events. activities requiring pesticide use (see significant portion of that range; instead, This indicates that while severe storms Factor A, above), and there is no with minimal effort we increased the have the potential to negatively affect available evidence to indicate that the number of known populations (from 2 Bay skipper populations, the species is Bay skipper is being impacted or is to 7), and extended the range of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM 28AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 51964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

species into the largest estuarine portions an infinite number of ways. uniform manner throughout its range. herbaceous marsh in the United States. However, there is no purpose to However, we found the stressors are not We found no evidence that the species analyzing portions of the range that are of sufficient intensity or severity or has experienced curtailment of range or not reasonably likely to be both (1) geographically concentrated to warrant habitat or is affected by disease or significant and (2) endangered or evaluating whether a portion of the predation, commercial or recreational threatened. To identify only those range is significant under the Act. harvest, the inadequacy of existing portions that warrant further Accordingly, our assessment applies to regulations, or any other natural or consideration, we determine whether the Bay skipper throughout its entire manmade factor. We documented only there is substantial information range. localized impacts from severe tropical indicating that: (1) The portions may be We do not find that the Bay skipper storms and hurricanes; however, the significant, and (2) the species may be is in danger of extinction now, nor is it species’ potential vulnerability to local in danger of extinction there or likely to likely to become endangered within the extirpations that might result from become so within the foreseeable future. foreseeable future throughout all or a severe storms or any other stochastic In practice, a key part of this analysis is significant portion of its range. event is offset by the discovery of whether the threats are geographically Therefore, listing the Bay skipper as an additional populations and a wider concentrated in some way. If the threats endangered or threatened species under range for the Bay skipper. to the species are essentially uniform the Act is not warranted at this time. Based on our review of the best throughout its range, no portion is likely available scientific and commercial to warrant further consideration. We request that you submit any new information pertaining to the five Moreover, if any concentration of information concerning the status of, or factors, we find that the threats are not threats applies only to portions of the threats to, the Bay skipper to the of sufficient severity or intensity to species’ range that are not significant, Mississippi Ecological Service’s Fish indicate that the Bay skipper is in such portions will not warrant further and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES danger of extinction (endangered), or consideration. section) whenever it becomes available. likely to become endangered within the If we identify portions that warrant New information will help us monitor foreseeable future (threatened), further consideration, we then the Bay skipper and encourage its throughout all or a significant portion of determine whether the species is conservation. If an emergency situation its range. Therefore, we find that listing endangered or threatened in these develops for the Bay skipper or any the Bay skipper as an endangered or portions of its range. Depending on the other species, we will act to provide threatened species is not warranted biology of the species, its range, and the immediate protection. throughout all of its range at this time. threats it faces, the Service may address References Cited either the significance question or the Significant Portion of the Range status question first. Thus, if the Service A complete list of references cited is Having determined that the Bay considers significance first and available on the Internet at http:// skipper does not meet the definition of determines that a portion of the range is www.regulations.gov at Docket No. an endangered or threatened species not significant, the Service need not FWS–R4–ES–2011–0012 and upon throughout its entire range, we must determine whether the species is an request from the Mississippi Ecological next consider whether there are any endangered or threatened species. Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER significant portions of the range where Likewise, if the Service considers status INFORMATION CONTACT). the Bay skipper is in danger of first and determines that the species is Author extinction or is likely to become not an endangered or threatened species endangered in the foreseeable future. A in a portion of its range, the Service The primary author of this notice is portion of a species’ range is significant need not determine if that portion is the staff of the Mississippi Ecological if it is part of the current range of the significant. However, if the Service Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER species and it contributes substantially determines that both a portion of the INFORMATION CONTACT). to the representation, resiliency, or range of a species is significant and the redundancy of the species. The species is an endangered or threatened Authority contribution must be at a level such that species, the Service will specify that The authority for this action is the its loss would result in a decrease in the portion of the range as an endangered or Endangered Species Act of 1973, as ability to conserve the species. threatened species under section 4(c)(1) amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). In determining whether a species is of the Act. an endangered or threatened species in The Bay skipper is highly restricted to Dated: August 9, 2012. a significant portion of its range, we first estuarine habitats, and threats to Rowan W. Gould, identify any portions of the range of the estuarine habitats are limited and Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife species that warrant further localized throughout its range. This Service. consideration. The range of a species species’ small range suggests that [FR Doc. 2012–20820 Filed 8–27–12; 8:45 am] can theoretically be divided into stressors are likely to affect it in a BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM 28AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS