Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 67/Friday, April 6, 2012/Rules And

20948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Executive Summary clarifications, and suggestions to This document consists of: (1) A final improve this final listing determination. Fish and Wildlife Service rule to list the Miami blue butterfly Acronyms Used in This Document (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) as 50 CFR Part 17 We use many acronyms throughout endangered; and (2) a special rule this final rule. To assist the reader, we pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act to list [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0043; provide a list of these acronyms here for the cassius blue butterfly (Leptotes easy reference: 4500030113] cassius theonus), ceraunus blue butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus AME = Allyn Museum of Entomology RIN 1018–AX83 antibubastus), and nickerbean blue BHSP = Bahia Honda State Park BNP = Biscayne National Park butterfly (Cyclargus ammon) as Endangered and Threatened Wildlife CCSP = U.S. Climate Change Science threatened due to similarity of and Plants; Listing of the Miami Blue Program appearance to the Miami blue in Butterfly as Endangered Throughout CITES = Convention on International Trade portions of their ranges. in Endangered Species Its Range; Listing of the Cassius Blue, Why we need to publish a rule. Under DJSP = Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Ceraunus Blue, and Nickerbean Blue the Act, a species or subspecies may Botanical State Park Butterflies as Threatened Due to warrant protection through listing if it is ENP = Everglades National Park Similarity of Appearance to the Miami endangered or threatened throughout all FCCMC = Florida Coordinating Council on Blue Butterfly in Coastal South and Mosquito Control or a significant portion of its range. On Central Florida FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental August 10, 2011, we published Protection AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, emergency and proposed rules to list the FKMCD = Florida Keys Mosquito Control Interior. Miami blue butterfly as endangered. In District FLMNH = Florida Museum of Natural ACTION: Final rule. those documents we explained that the subspecies currently exists in a fraction History SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife of its historical range and faces FPS = Florida Park Service numerous threats, and therefore FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are listing the Miami Conservation Commission blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi qualifies for listing. This rule finalizes GWHNWR = Great White Heron National bethunebakeri), as endangered under the protection proposed for the Wildlife Refuge the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as subspecies, following careful INRMP = Integrated Natural Resource amended (Act). We have determined consideration of all comments received Management Plan that designation of critical habitat for during the public comment period. One IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate the Miami blue butterfly is not prudent of the principal threats to the subspecies Change at this time. We also are listing the is collection for commercial purposes. IRC = Institute for Regional Conservation For this reason, we are also prohibiting KWNWR = Key West National Wildlife cassius blue butterfly (Leptotes cassius Refuge theonus), ceraunus blue butterfly the collection of the cassius, ceraunus, MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus), and and nickerbean blue butterflies, three NABA = North American Butterfly nickerbean blue butterfly (Cyclargus species which are very similar in Association ammon) as threatened due to similarity appearance to the Miami blue butterfly, NAS = Naval Air Station Key West of appearance to the Miami blue in within the historical range of the Miami NCSU = North Carolina State University coastal south and central Florida, and blue. NEP = nonessential experimental establishing a special rule under section The basis for our action. Under the populations 4(d) of the Act for these three species. Act, a species may be determined to be NKDR = National Key Deer Refuge endangered or threatened based on any TNC = The Nature Conservancy DATES: This final rule becomes effective UF = University of Florida on April 6, 2012. of five factors: (1) Destruction, UN = United Nations modification, or curtailment of its ADDRESSES: This final rule is available USDJ = U.S. Department of Justice habitat or range; (2) Overutilization; (3) USGS = U.S. Geological Survey on the Internet at http:// Disease or predation; (4) Inadequate www.regulations.gov and http:// existing regulations; or (5) Other natural Previous Federal Actions www.fws.gov/verobeach/. Comments or manmade factors. The Miami blue is Federal actions for the Miami blue and materials received, as well as endangered due to four of these five butterfly prior to August 10, 2011, are supporting documentation used in the factors. Section 4(e) of the Act also outlined in our emergency rule (76 FR preparation of this rule, will be allows for the extension of protections 49542), which was published on that available for inspection, by to similar species under certain date. Publication of the proposed rule appointment, during normal business circumstances. (76 FR 49408), concurrently published hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Peer reviewers support our methods. on that date, opened a 60-day comment Service, South Florida Ecological We solicited opinions from period, which closed on October 11, Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero knowledgeable individuals with 2011. The emergency rule provides Beach, Florida 32960–3559; telephone scientific expertise to review the protection for the Miami blue, ceraunus 772–562–3909; facsimile 772–562–4288. technical assumptions, analyses, blue, nickerbean blue, and cassius blue FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: adherence to regulations, and whether butterflies for a 240-day period, ending Larry Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S. or not we had used the best available on April 6, 2012. Because of this time Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida information in our proposed listing rule constraint, and the threat of collection Ecological Services Office (see for the subspecies. We received 8 peer of these species if the emergency rule ADDRESSES above). If you use a review responses, and 2 collaborative expires before the proposed rule is telecommunications device for the deaf responses from State agencies. These finalized (see Factor B, Overutilization (TDD), call the Federal Information peer reviewers generally concurred with for commercial, recreational, scientific, Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. the basis for listing the Miami blue, and or educational purposes), this rule does SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: provided additional information, not have the standard 30-day period

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20949

before becoming effective. It becomes can be distinguished from the ceraunus Polyommatinae (Swainson). The species effective upon the expiration of the blue and cassius blue by its very broad Hemiargus thomasi was originally emergency rule, April 6, 2012. white ventral submarginal band, the described by Clench (1941, pp. 407– dorsal turquoise color of both sexes, and 408), and the subspecies Hemiargus Public Comments the orange-capped marginal eyespot on thomasi bethunebakeri was first We received comments from the the hind wings (Opler and Krizek 1984, described by Comstock and Huntington public on the proposed listing action, p. 112). The nickerbean blue is also (1943, p. 97). Although some authors including the proposed listing of three similar to the Miami blue in general continue to use Hemiargus, Nabokov similar butterflies due to similarity of appearance but is considerably smaller; (1945, p. 14) instituted Cyclargus for appearance and our determination that it has three black spots across the basal some species, which has been supported designation of critical habitat is not hindwing, while the Miami blue has by more recent research (Johnson and prudent. In this rule, we respond to four (Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 15). The Balint 1995, pp. 1–3, 8–11, 13; Calhoun these issues in a single comment larvae and pupae of the nickerbean blue et al. 2002, p. 13; K. Johnson, Florida section. closely resemble the Miami blue State Collection of Arthropods, in litt. Background (Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 15). 2002). There are differences in the In a comparison of Miami blue internal genitalic structures of the The Miami blue is a small, brightly butterfly specimens within the Florida genera Hemiargus and Cyclargus colored butterfly approximately 0.8 to Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) (Johnson and Balint 1995, pp. 2–3, 11; 1.1 inches (1.9 to 2.9 centimeters [cm]) collection, Saarinen (2009, pp. 42–43) K. Johnson, in litt. 2002). Kurt Johnson in length (Pyle 1981, p. 488), with a found a significant difference in (in litt. 2002), who has published most forewing length of 0.3 to 0.5 inches (8.0 forewing length between males and of the existing literature since 1950 on to 12.5 millimeters) (Minno and Emmel females, with males having shorter the blue butterflies of the tribe 1993, p. 134). Wings of males are blue forewings than females. However, no above (dorsally), with a narrow black Polyommatini, reaffirmed that thomasi significant differences were found belongs in the genus Cyclargus outer border and white fringes; females between forewing length in comparing are bright blue dorsally, with black (Nabokov 1945, p. 14), not Hemiargus. wet and dry seasons, decade of Accordingly, Cyclargus thomasi borders and an orange/red and black collection, seven different regions, or eyespot near the anal angle of the bethunebakeri (Pelham 2008, p. 21) and between eastern mainland and Keys its taxonomic standing is accepted hindwing (Comstock and Huntington specimens (Saarinen 2009, pp. 42–43). 1943, p. 98; Minno and Emmel 1993, p. (Integrated Taxonomic Information No seasonal size differences were found System 2011, p. 1). 134). The underside is grayish, with between the mainland populations and darker markings outlined with white those in the Keys (Saarinen 2009, p. 43). In 2003, questions about the and bands of white wedges near the In a comparison of body size in a taxonomic identity of Miami blues from outer margin. The ventral hindwing has recent Miami blue population, females BHSP were raised by a few individuals. two pairs of eyespots, one of which is were significantly larger than males, and To address these questions, the Service capped with red; basal and costal spots individuals sampled in the wet season sent two pairs (male and female) of on the hindwing are black and were also significantly larger than in the adult specimens to three independent conspicuous (Minno and Emmel 1993, dry season (Saarinen 2009, p. 43). In a taxonomists and reviewers (Dr. p. 134). The winter (dry season) form is comparison of recent Bahia Honda State Jacqueline Miller, Associate Curator, much lighter blue than the summer (wet Park (BHSP) individuals with Allyn Museum of Entomology (AME), season) form and has narrow black specimens from historical collections FLMNH; Dr. Paul Opler, Colorado State borders (Opler and Krizek 1984, p. 112). (FLMNH data), BHSP individuals were University; and John Calhoun, Museum Seasonal wing pattern variation may be significantly larger than historical of Entomology, Florida State Collection caused by changes in humidity, specimens, females from BHSP were of Arthropods) for verification. To avoid temperature, or length of day (Pyle significantly larger than historical harm to the wild population, scientists 1981, p. 489). Miami blue larvae are female specimens, and BHSP adults examined moribund adults from a bright green with a black head capsule, measured in wet seasons were larger captive colony generated from and pupae vary in color from black to than those sampled in wet seasons in individuals taken from BHSP. Each brown (Minno and Emmel 1993, pp. museum collections (Saarinen 2009, p. reviewer independently confirmed 134–135). 43). Saarinen (2009, p. 47) suggested through various means (e.g., comparison The Miami blue is similar in that perhaps larger adults were selected with confirmed specimens, dissection appearance to three other sympatric for over time with larger adults being and examination of genitalia) that the (occupying the same or overlapping more capable of dispersing and finding identities of the adult specimens geographic areas, without interbreeding) food and mates. Limited food resources examined were Cyclargus thomasi butterfly species that occur roughly in during larval development or abrupt bethunebakeri (J. Miller, in litt. 2003; P. the same habitats: cassius blue (Leptotes termination of availability of food in the Opler, in litt. 2003; J. Calhoun, in litt. cassius theonus), ceraunus blue last larval instar can lead to early 2003a). We received an additional (Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus), and pupation and a smaller adult size (T.C. confirmation from Lee Miller, Curator nickerbean blue (Cyclargus ammon). Emmel, pers. comm., as cited in (AME, FLMNH), stating that the The Miami blue is slightly larger than Saarinen 2009, p. 47). It is possible that identities of the adult specimens the ceraunus blue (Minno and Emmel differences in host plant (e.g., nutrition) examined were Cyclargus thomasi 1993, p. 134), and the ceraunus blue has and age of specimens (e.g., freshness) bethunebakeri (L. Miller, in litt. 2003). a different ventral pattern and flies close may also be factors when comparing Taxonomic verification by genitalic to the ground in open areas (Minno and body size between recent specimens and dissection of the Miami blue at Key Emmel 1994, p. 647). The cassius blue those from historical collections. West National Wildlife Refuge often occurs with the Miami blue, but (KWNWR) has not occurred, but has dark bars rather than spots on the Taxonomy preliminary molecular evidence has undersides of the wings (Minno and The Miami blue belongs to the family confirmed that they are the same taxon Emmel 1994, p. 647). The Miami blue Lycaenidae (Leach), subfamily (E.V. Saarinen, unpub. data, as cited in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Saarinen 2009, p. 18; E. Saarinen, in litt. On blackbead plants, females lay eggs reported numerous adults at BHSP and 2011). on flower buds and emerging leaves KWNWR, respectively, during winter (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 851; Trager and months. Life History Daniels 2011, p. 35). Oviposition on, or Information on adult lifespan is Like all butterflies, the Miami blue larval consumption of, mature limited. Based on field studies, adult undergoes complete metamorphosis, blackbead leaves was not observed Miami blues have been found to live 9 with four life stages (egg, caterpillar or (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 851). Thus, days, but most adults are thought to live larva, pupa or chrysalis, and adult). The Cannon et al. (2010, p. 851) suggested only a few days (J. Daniels, UF, pers. generation time is approximately 30–40 that abundance may be limited by the comm. 2003a, 2003b). In general, adults days (Carroll and Loye 2006, p. 19; availability of young blackbead leaves may survive less than a week in the Saarinen 2009, pp. 22, 76) and similar and buds for egg-laying, even if wild; there are approximately 8–10 for both males and females (Trager and abundant suitable nectar sources (see generations per year (Saarinen et al. Daniels 2011, p. 35). Although a single Habitat) are available year-round. 2009a, p. 31). Generations are not Miami blue female can lay 300 eggs, On balloonvine, females lay single completely discrete due to the variance high mortality may occur in the eggs near fruit (capsules) (Carroll and in development time of all life stages immature larval stages prior to Loye 2006, p. 18). Newly hatched larvae (Saarinen et al. 2009a, p. 31). Adult adulthood (T. Emmel, University of chew distinctive holes through the outer longevity is not well understood. Some Florida [UF], pers. comm. 2002). Trager walls of the capsules to access seeds lycaenids have the ability to survive and Daniels (2011, p. 40) indicated that (Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 134). After longer than mark-recapture studies larger, longer-lived females demonstrate consuming seeds within the natal indicate (Johnson et al. 2011, p. 8). For a higher fecundity. Reported host plants capsule, larvae must crawl to a sequence example, the Palos Verdes blue are blackbead (Pithecellobium spp.), of two or three balloons before growing (Glaucopsyche lygdamus nickerbean (Caesalpinia spp.), large enough to pupate. Attending ants palosverdesensis), thought to live 10 balloonvine (Cardiospermum spp.), and follow through the same holes (see days or less in the field, has been presumably Acacia spp. (Kimball 1965, Interspecific relationships below). documented to have a life span of up to p. 49; Lenczewski 1980, p. 47; Pyle Miami blues were also observed to 38 days in the laboratory (T. Longcore, 1981, p. 489; Opler and Krizek 1984, p. commonly pupate within mature University of California, in litt. 2011; 113; Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 134; capsules (sometimes with ants in Johnson et al. 2011, p. 8). Additional Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18; Cannon et al. attendance within the capsule) (Carroll field studies are needed to better 2010, p. 851). In addition, Rutkowski and Loye 2006, p. 20). ascertain adult Miami blue longevity in The Miami blue has been described as (1971, p. 137) observed a female laying the wild. having multiple, overlapping broods Range size and dispersal—At this one egg just above the lateral bud on year-round (Pyle 1981, p. 489). Adults time, it is unclear how far adult Miami snowberry (Chiococca alba). Eggs are can be found every month of the year blues can disperse and the mechanisms laid singly near the base of young pods (Opler and Krizek 1984, pp. 112–113; for dispersal (i.e., active [flight] or or just above the lateral buds of Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 135; 1994, passive [wind-assisted]). Initial mark- balloonvine and the flowers of p. 647; Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 9; recapture studies of the butterfly leguminous trees (Opler and Krizek Saarinen 2009, p. 22). Opler and Krizek indicate they are nonmigratory and 1984, p. 113; Minno and Emmel 1993, (1984, pp. 112–113) indicated one long appear to be sedentary (Emmel and p. 134); flower buds and young tender winter generation from December to Daniels 2004, p. 6). Based on mark- leaves of legumes are preferred laying April, during which time the adults are recapture work conducted in 2002– sites (Minno and Minno 2009, p. 78; M. probably in reproductive diapause (a 2003, recaptured adults (N=39) moved Minno, pers. comm. 2010). period in which growth, development, an average of 6.53 +/¥11.68 feet (2.0 On nickerbean plants (Caesalpinia and physiological activity is suspended +/¥3.6 meters), four individuals moved spp.), females lay eggs on developing or diminished); a succession of shorter between 25 and 50 feet (7.6 and 15.2 shoots, foliage, and flower buds generations was thought to occur from meters), and only three individuals (Saarinen 2009, p. 22; Trager and May through November, the exact moved more than 50 feet (15.2 meters) Daniels 2011, p. 35). Oviposition occurs number of which is unknown. Glassberg over a few days (Emmel and Daniels throughout the day with females often et al. (2000, p. 79) described the Miami 2004, pp. 6, 32–38). Few individuals seeking terminal growth close to the blue as having occurred all year, with were found to move between the lower ground (<3.3 feet [<1 meter]) or in three or more broods. Researchers have and upper walkway locations of the locations sheltered from the wind noted a marked decrease of adults from south end colony sites at BHSP (Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 13). Eggs December to early February at BHSP, (approximately 100 feet [30.5 meters]); are generally laid singly, but may be indicative of a short diapause (Emmel no movement between any of the clustered on developing leaves, shoot and Daniels 2003, p. 3; 2004, p. 9). smaller individual, isolated colony sites tips, and flower buds (Saarinen 2009, p. Saarinen also noted that the life cycle at was recorded (Emmel and Daniels 2004, 22). After several days of development, BHSP slowed in winter months and p. 6). However, Saarinen (2009, pp. 73, larvae chew out of eggs and develop suspected a slight diapause (E.V. 78–79) found that genetic exchange through four instar stages, with total Saarinen and J.C. Daniels, unpub. data, between colonies occurred at BHSP and larval development time lasting 3 to 4 as cited in Saarinen 2009, p. 22). noted that small habitat patches may be weeks, depending upon temperature Conversely, Minno (pers. comm. 2010) crucial in providing links between and humidity (Saarinen 2009, p. 22). noted that there have been records of subpopulations in an area. Fourth instar larvae pupate in sheltered adults in December and January and Interspecific relationships—As in or inconspicuous areas, often suggested that this tropical butterfly many lycaenids worldwide (Pierce et al. underneath leaf whorls or bracts may not have a winter diapause, but 2002, p. 734), Miami blue larvae (Saarinen 2009, p. 22). Adult butterflies rather, emergence may be delayed by associate with ants (Emmel 1991, p. 13; eclose (emerge) after 5 to 8 days, cold temperatures in some years. Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 135; Carroll depending on temperature and Salvato and Salvato (2007, p. 163) and and Loye 2006, pp. 19–20; Trager and humidity (Saarinen 2009, p. 22). Cannon et al. (2010, pp. 849–850) also Daniels 2011, p. 35) in at least four

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20951

genera of ants in three subfamilies of associated with wild and recently west coast (J. Calhoun, pers. comm. Formicidae (Saarinen and Daniels 2006, released Miami blue larvae. In a 2003b). The Miami blue is also reported p. 71; Saarinen 2009, pp. 131, 133). comparison of Miami blue larvae raised to use peacock flower (Caesalpinia Miami blues using nickerbean at BHSP with and without ants, no effect of ant pulcherrima) (Matteson 1930, pp. 13– and Everglades National Park (ENP) presence was found on any 14; Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18), a widely (reintroduced individuals) were measurements of larval performance cultivated exotic that occurs in variously tended by Camponotus (e.g., age at pupation, pupal mass, disturbed uplands and gardens (Gann et floridanus, C. planatus, Crematogaster length of pupation, total time as an al. 2001–2012, p. 1). Rutkowski (1971, ashmeadi, Forelius pruinosus, and immature) (Trager and Daniels 2009, p. p. 137) and Opler and Krizek (1984, p. Tapinoma melanocephalum (Saarinen 480). Miami blue larval development 113) reported the use of snowberry. and Daniels 2006, p. 71; Saarinen 2009, was found to be similar to that of other Brewer (1982, p. 22) reported the use of pp. 131, 138). C. floridanus was the conspecific lycaenid species not tended cat’s paw blackbead (Pithecellobium primary ant symbiont, commonly found by ants (Trager and Daniels 2009, p. unguis-cati) on Sanibel Island in Lee tending larvae; other ant species were 480). Although the relationships are not County. encountered less often (Saarinen and completely understood, it appears that Prior to the 1970s, documented host Daniels 2006, p. 70; Saarinen 2009, pp. Miami blue larvae may receive some plants for the butterfly were nickerbean 131–132). Liquid (honeydew) exuded benefits from tending ants (e.g., and blackbead (J. Calhoun, pers. comm. from the butterfly’s dorsal nectary organ potential defense from predators) 2003b). Balloonvine (Cardiospermum (honey gland) was actively imbibed by without much, if any, costs incurred. spp.) was not reported as a host plant all species of ants (Saarinen and Daniels Habitat until the 1970s, when these plants 2006, p. 70; Saarinen 2009, p. 132). seemed to have become common in The Miami blue is a coastal butterfly Late Miami blue instars were always extreme southern Florida (J. Calhoun, reported to occur in openings and found in association with ants, but early pers. comm. 2003b). Subsequently, around the edges of hardwood instars, prepupae, and pupae were balloonvine (Cardiospermum hammocks (forest habitats characterized frequently found without ants present halicacabum), an exotic species in by broad-leaved evergreens), and in (Saarinen and Daniels 2006, p. 70). Florida, was the most frequently other communities adjacent to the coast Forelius pruinosus and Tapinoma reported host plant for Miami blue (e.g., that are prone to frequent natural melanocephalum were observed to Lenczewski 1980, p. 47; Opler and disturbances (e.g., coastal berm derive honeydew from Miami blues they Krizek 1984, p. 113; Minno and Emmel tended, but were not observed to hammocks, dunes, and scrub) (Opler 1993, p. 134; 1994, p. 647; Calhoun et actively protect them from any predator and Krizek 1984, p. 112; Minno and al. 2002, p. 18). However, Carroll and (Saarinen and Daniels 2006, p. 71; Emmel 1994, p. 647; Emmel and Daniels Loye (2006, pp. 13–15) corrected ‘‘the Saarinen 2009, p. 133). However, the 2004, p. 12). It also has been reported common view that a principal host presence of ants in the vicinity of larvae to use tropical pinelands (Minno and plant, balloonvine, is an exotic weed.’’ may potentially deter predators Emmel 1993, p. 134) and open sunny They found that published reports of (Saarinen and Daniels 2006, pp. 71, 73; areas along trails (Pyle 1981, p. 489). In Miami blue larvae on balloonvine all Saarinen 2009, p. 133; Trager and the Keys, it was most abundant near identified the host as C. halicacabum Daniels 2009, p. 480). Two additional disturbed hammocks where weedy and stated that the butterfly was instead ants, Paratrechina longicornis and P. flowers provided nectar (Minno and bourbonica, have been identified as Emmel 1994, p. 647). It also occurred in dependent upon a declining native, C. potential associates of the Miami blue pine rocklands (fire-dependent slash corindum (Carroll and Loye 2006, pp. (Saarinen and Daniels 2006, pp. 70–71; pine community with palms and a 14, 23). Bradley (pers. comm. 2002) also Saarinen 2009, pp. 131, 138). P. grassy understory) on Big Pine Key confirmed that C. halicacabum does not longicornis was found near Miami blue (Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 134; occur in the Keys, noting that the native larvae and appeared to tend them Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18) and balloonvine (C. corindum) is relatively during brief encounters; P. bourbonica elsewhere in Monroe and Miami-Dade common and widespread in the Keys tended another lycaenid, martial scrub- Counties. In Miami-Dade County, it and has been commonly mistaken as C. hairstreak (Strymon martialis) at BHSP occurred locally inland, sometimes in halicacabum in the Keys and other sites (Saarinen and Daniels 2006, p. 70). abundance (M. Minno, pers. comm. in south Florida. Cannon et al. (2007, p. 16) also observed 2010). Within KWNWR, all occupied Calhoun (pers. comm. 2003b) two ant species attending Miami blues areas had coastal strands and dunes suggested that the Miami blue may on KWNWR. Based on photographs, the fronted by beaches (Cannon et al. 2007, simply utilize whatever acceptable hosts ants appeared to be Camponotus p. 13; Cannon et al. 2010, p. 851). are available under suitable conditions. inaequalis and P. longicornis. C. Larval host plants include blackbead, According to Calhoun (pers. comm. planatus was observed on blackbead. nickerbean, balloonvine, and 2003b), a review of the historical range In the 1980s, Miami blue larvae that presumably Acacia spp. (Dyar 1900, pp. of the butterfly and its host plants fed on balloonvine in the upper Keys 448–449, Kimball 1965, p. 49; suggests balloonvine was a more recent were also tended by ants (Camponotus Lenczewski 1980, p. 47; Pyle 1981, p. larval host plant and temporarily floridanus and C. planatus) (Carroll and 489; Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18). Gray surpassed nickerbean as the primary Loye 2006, pp. 19–20). Carroll and Loye nickerbean (Caesalpinia bonduc) is host plant. As native coastal habitats (2006, p. 20) found that Camponotus widespread and common in coastal were destroyed, balloonvine readily spp. raised with Miami blue larvae lived south Florida. Following disturbances, invaded disturbed environments, and longer than ants raised with larvae of it can dominate large areas (K. Bradley, the Miami blue used what was most other lycaenid species or without any The Institute for Regional Conservation commonly available. Minno (pers. food source, demonstrating that larval [IRC], pers. comm. 2002). Gray comm. 2010) suggested that the Miami secretions benefit ants. nickerbean has been recorded as far blue used balloonvine on Key Largo and More recently, Trager and Daniels north as Volusia County on the east Plantation Key extensively in the 1970s (2009, p. 479) most commonly found coast, matching the historical range of through the 1990s, noting that Camponotus floridanus and C. planatus the Miami blue, and Levy County on the nickerbean, blackbead, and perhaps

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

other hosts were also probably used, but 2004, p. 13). This may help explain the (1984, p. 112) showed its historical not documented. absence of the Miami blue from areas in range as being approximately from The Miami blue metapopulation which host plants are abundant and Tampa Bay and Cape Canaveral (series of small populations that have nectar sources are limited (J. Calhoun, southward along the coasts and through some level of interaction) at KWNWR pers. comm. 2003b). Emmel and Daniels the Keys. It has also been collected in was found to rely upon Florida Keys (2004, p. 13) argued that it is potentially the Dry Tortugas (Forbes 1941, pp. 147– blackbead as the singular host plant critical that sufficient available adult 148; Kimball 1965, p. 49; Glassberg and (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 1; Cannon et al. nectar sources be directly adjacent to Salvato 2000, p. 2). Lenczewski (1980, 2010, pp. 851–852). Blackbead was also host patches and also important that a p. 47) noted that it was reported as an important nectar plant when in range of potential nectar sources be extremely common in the Miami area in flower. High counts of Miami blues at available in the event one plant species the 1930s and 1940s. Calhoun et al. KWNWR were generally associated with goes out of flower or is adversely (2002, p. 17) placed the historical limits the emergence of flowers and new impacted by environmental factors. of the subspecies’ northern distribution leaves on blackbead (Cannon et al. 2007, Cannon et al. (2010, p. 851) suggested at Hillsborough and Volusia Counties, pp. 14–15; Cannon et al. 2010, pp. 851– that the growth stage of blackbead, extending southward along the coasts to 852). All sites that supported Miami coupled with abundant nectar from the Marquesas Keys (west of Key West). blues contained blackbead (Cannon et herbaceous plants, likely influenced The Miami blue was most common on al. 2007, p. 6; Cannon et al. 2010, p. Miami blue abundance; the highest the southern mainland and the Keys, 851). Limited abundance of blackbead counts occurred when blackbead was especially Key Largo and Big Pine Key within select areas of KWNWR was flowering profusely and producing new (Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 17) and other thought to limit abundance of the Miami leaves. larger keys with hardwood hammock blue (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 10; Cannon (Monroe County) (M. Minno, pers. et al. 2010, p. 850). At BHSP, the Miami Historical Distribution comm. 2010). The subspecies was blue was closely associated with gray The Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus recorded on at least 10 islands of the nickerbean, but also used blackbead (M. thomasi bethunebakeri) is endemic to Keys (Adams Key, Big Pine Key, Elliott Minno, pers. comm. 2010). In KWNWR, Florida with additional subspecies Key, Geiger Key, Key Largo, gray nickerbean was rare, with only a occurring in the Caribbean (Smith et al. Lignumvitae Key, Old Rhodes Key, few small plants on Boca Grande Key 1994, p. 129; Hernandez 2004, p. 100; Plantation Key, Stock Island, Sugarloaf and the Marquesas Keys (Cannon et al. Saarinen 2009, pp. 18–19, 28). Field Key) (Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 134). 2010, p. 851). guides and other sources differ as to On the Gulf coast, it was reportedly Adult Miami blues have been whether C. thomasi bethunebakeri more localized and tended to occur on reported to feed on a wide variety of occurs in the Bahamas. Clench (1963, p. more southerly barrier islands (J. nectar sources, including Spanish 250), who collected butterflies in the Calhoun, pers. comm. 2003b). needles (Bidens alba), Leavenworth’s West Indies, indicated that the According to Calhoun et al. (2002, p. tickseed (Coreopsis leavenworthi), subspecies occurred only in Florida. 17), the Miami blue occupied areas on scorpionstail (Heliotropium Riley (1975, p. 110) and Calhoun et al. the barrier islands of Sanibel, Marco, angiospermum), turkey tangle fogfruit or (2002, p. 13) indicated that the Miami and Chokoloskee, along the west coast capeweed (Lippia nodiflora), buttonsage blue of Florida rarely occurs as a stray into the 1980s (based upon Brewer (Lantana involucrata), snow squarestem in the Bahamas. Minno and Emmel 1982, p. 22; Minno and Emmel 1994, (Melanthera nivea [M. aspera]), (1993, p. 134; 1994, p. 647) and Calhoun pp. 647–648). Lenczewski (1980, p. 47) blackbead, Brazilian pepper (Schinus (1997, p. 46) considered the Miami blue reported that the Miami blue terebinthifolius), false buttonweed to occur only in Florida (endemic to historically occurred at Chokoloskee, (Spermacoce spp.), and seaside Florida, with other subspecies found in Royal Palm (Miami-Dade County), and heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) the Bahamas and Greater Antilles). Flamingo (Monroe County) within ENP, (Pyle 1981, p. 489; Opler and Krizek Smith et al. (1994, p. 129) indicated that but that the subspecies has not been 1984, p. 113; Minno and Emmel 1993, the Miami blue occurs in southern observed in ENP since 1972. p. 135; Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 12). Florida, but noted it has been recorded Based upon examination of specimens Emmel and Daniels (2004, p. 12) from the Bimini Islands in the Bahamas. from museum collections (N = 689), reported that the Miami blue uses a However, in a recent comprehensive Saarinen (2009, pp. 42, 55–57) found a variety of flowering plant species in the study of museum specimens, Saarinen large, primarily coastal, geographic Boraginaceae, Asteraceae, Fabaceae, (2009, p. 28) found no specimens in distribution for the butterfly. Most Polygonaceae, and Verbenaceae families current museum holdings to verify this. specimens from an 11-county area from for nectar. Cannon et al. (2010, p. 851) Overall, the majority of historical 1900 to 1990 were collected in Miami- found the butterfly uses nine plant records pertaining to this subspecies’ Dade and Monroe Counties (Saarinen species as nectar sources within distribution are dominated by Florida 2009, pp. 42, 58). Records from Miami- KWNWR, including: blackbead, snow occurrences, with any peripheral Dade County (N = 212) were most squarestem, coastal searocket (Cakile occurrences in the Bahamas possibly numerous in the 1930s and 1940s; lanceolata), black torch (Erithalis being ephemeral in nature. records from Monroe County (N = 387) fruticosa), yellow joyweed Although information on distribution (including all of the Florida Keys) were (Alternanthera flavescens), bay cedar is somewhat limited, it is clear that the most numerous in the 1970s (Saarinen (Suriana maritime), sea lavender historical range of the Miami blue has 2009, pp. 42, 58). Saarinen (2009, p. 47) (Argusia gnaphalodes), seaside been significantly reduced. The type was not able to quantify issues of heliotrope, and sea purslane (Sesuvium series (i.e., the original set of specimens collector bias and noted that collecting portulacastrum). on which the description of the species restrictions, inaccessibility of certain Nectar sources must be near potential is based) contains specimens ranging islands, and targeted interest in certain host plants since the butterflies are from Key West up the east coast to areas may have been factors influencing presumably sedentary and may not Volusia County (Comstock and the relative abundance (and travel between patches of host and Huntington 1943, p. 98; J. Calhoun, distribution) of specimens collected. For nectar sources (Emmel and Daniels pers. comm., 2003b). Opler and Krizek example, it is unclear whether Key

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20953

Largo represented a ‘‘central hotspot,’’ a there was an additional sighting by In 2003, the Service contracted the spot simply heavily visited by Richard Gillmore of a single Miami blue North American Butterfly Association lepidopterists, or both (Saarinen 2009, in the hammocks in North Key Largo (NABA) to perform systematic surveys p. 47). Still, it is clear that specimens (Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 17; J. Calhoun, in south Florida and the Keys to identify were common in museum collections pers. comm. 2003b). all sites at which 21 targeted butterflies, from the early 1900s to the 1980s, including the Miami blue, could be suggesting that the butterfly was Current Distribution found. Despite considerable survey abundant, at least in local patches, Numerous searches for the Miami effort (i.e., 187 surveys performed), the during this time period (Saarinen 2009, blue have occurred in the past decade Miami blue was not located at any p. 46). This is consistent with the work by various parties. The Miami blue was location except BHSP (NABA 2005, pp. of Carroll and Loye (2006, pp. 15–18), not observed on 105 survey dates at 11 1–7). In addition, the Miami blue was who, in a compilation of location data locations on the southern Florida not present within the J.N. Ding Darling for specimens (N = 209), found that mainland from 1990 to 2002 (Edwards National Wildlife Refuge or on Sanibel- most collections were from the Upper and Glassberg 2002, p. 4). In the Keys, Captiva Conservation Foundation Keys; those from peripheral sites were surveys during the same time period properties (both on Sanibel Island), generally less recent and only single also produced no sightings of the Miami during annual surveys conducted from specimens. Examination of museum blue at 29 locations for 224 survey dates 1998 to 2009 (M. Salvato, pers. comm. records further verified the Miami blue’s (Edwards and Glassberg 2002, p. 4). In 2011a). Monthly or quarterly surveys of wide distribution in southern Florida 2002, the Service initiated a status Big Pine Key, conducted from 1997 to through time (Carroll and Loye 2006, survey, contracting researchers at the 2010, failed to locate Miami blues (M. pp. 15–18; Saarinen 2009, p. 46). UF, to search areas within the Salvato, pers. comm. 2011b). Minno and By the 1990s, very few Miami blue subspecies’ historical range, Minno (2009, pp. 77, 123–193) failed to populations were known to persist, and concentrating on the extreme south locate the subspecies during butterfly the butterfly had not been seen on the Florida mainland and throughout the surveys throughout the Keys conducted western Florida coast since 1990, where Keys. Despite surveys at 45 sites during from August 2006 to July 2009. it was last recorded on Sanibel Island 2002–2003, adults or immature stages Although two fourth-instar larvae (Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 17). One of the were found only at a single site near were documented on West Summerland few verifiable reports (prior to BHSP on West Summerland Key Key in November 2003, on unprotected rediscovery in 1999) was on Big Pine (Emmel and Daniels 2004, pp. 3–6; 21– land approximately 2.2 mi (3.6 km) west Key in March 1992 (Glassberg et al. 25) (approximately 1.9 mi [3 km]) west of BHSP (Emmel and Daniels 2004, pp. 2000, p. 79; Glassberg and Salvato 2000, of BHSP). The Miami blue was not 3, 24, 26), none have been seen there p. 1; Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 17). found on the mainland, including since. According to Daniels (pers. Following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Fakahatchee Strand, Charles Deering comm. 2003c), an adult (or adults) was likely blown to this key from BHSP by there were a few unsupported reports Estate, ENP, Marco Island, or from Key Largo and Big Pine Key and strong winds or was at least partially Chokoloskee (Emmel and Daniels 2004, the southeastern Florida mainland from assisted by the wind. pp. 5–6, 25). It was also absent from the approximately 1993 to 1998 (Glassberg In November 2006, Miami blues were following locations in the Keys: Elliott, and Salvato 2000, p. 3; Calhoun et al. discovered on islands within KWNWR Old Rhodes, Totten, and Adams Key in 2002, p. 17). In 1996, four adult Miami (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 2). This Biscayne National Park (BNP) and Key blues were observed in the area of discovery was significant because it was Largo and Plantation Key in the Upper Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock a new, geographically separate Keys; Lignumvitae, Lower Matecumbe, Botanical State Park (DJSP) by Linda population, and doubled the known Indian, and Long Keys in the Middle and Byrum Cooper (L. Cooper, listowner number of metapopulations remaining Keys; and Little Duck, Missouri, Ohio, of LEPSrUS Web site, pers. comm. 2002; (to 2). During the period from 1999 to Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 17). However, a No Name, Big Pine, Ramrod, Little 2009, the Miami blue was consistently habitat restoration project apparently Torch, Wahoo, Cudjoe, Sugarloaf, and found at BHSP (Ruffin and Glassberg eradicated that population (L. Cooper, Stock Island in the Lower Keys (Emmel 2000, p. 29; Edwards and Glassberg pers. comm. as cited in Calhoun et al. and Daniels 2004, pp. 3–5; 21–24). 2002, p. 9; Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 2002, p. 17). Based upon an additional 4; Daniels 2009, p. 3). However, this The Miami blue was presumed to be independent survey in 2002, the Miami population may now be extirpated. extirpated until its rediscovery in 1999 blue was also not found at 18 historical Thus, islands of KWNWR appear to by Jane Ruffin, who observed locations where it had previously been support the only known extant approximately 50 individuals at a site in observed or collected in Monroe, population. the lower Keys (Bahia Honda) (Ruffin Broward, Miami-Dade, and Collier Overall, the Miami blue has and Glassberg 2000, p. 3; Calhoun et al. Counties into the 1980s (D. Fine, unpub. undergone a substantial reduction in its 2002, p. 17). Additional individuals data, pers. comm. 2002). These were: historical range, with an estimated >99 were located at a site within 0.5 mile Cactus Hammock (Big Pine Key), percent decline in area occupied (mi) (0.8 kilometers (km)) of where County Road (Big Pine Key), Grassy (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Ruffin had discovered the population Key, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Commission [FWC] 2010, p. 11). In (Glassberg and Salvato 2000, p. 3). Park (Key Largo), Windley Key, Crawl 2009, metapopulations existed at two Glassberg and Salvato (2000, p. 1) stated Key, Stock Island, Plantation Key, and main locations: BHSP and KWNWR, that more than 15 highly competent Lower Matecumbe Key in Monroe roughly 50 mi (80 km) apart. The butterfly enthusiasts had failed to find County; Hugh Taylor Birch State Park metapopulation at BHSP is now any populations of the Miami blue from and Coral Springs (2 locations) in possibly extirpated with the last adult 1992 until 1999, despite more than Broward County; Redlands, Frog City, documented in July 2010 (A. Edwards, 1,000 hours of search effort in all sites Card Sound Road, and an unidentified Florida Atlantic University, pers. comm. known to harbor former colonies and road in Miami-Dade County; and Marco 2011). It is feasible that additional other potential sites throughout south Island and Fakahatchee Strand State occurrences exist in the Keys, but these Florida and the Keys. In May 2001, Preserve in Collier County. may be ephemeral and low in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20954 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

population number (Saarinen 2009, p. amount of upland habitat of occupied unsuccessful. Numerous factors may 143). In 2010, the Service funded an sites (within KWNWR) was roughly 59 have been involved (e.g., predation, additional study with UF to search ac (23.8 ha) (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 848). parasitism, insufficient host plant or remote areas for possible presence; this Miami blues were not found on Woman larval sources). Due to limited resources study has not identified any new Key, approximately 10.1 mi (16.2 km) and other constraints, standard populations. The subspecies was not west of Key West, or Man Key, protocols were not employed to help located in limited surveys conducted in approximately 6.8 mi (10.9 km) west of identify factors that may have the Cape Sable area of ENP in March Key West; these sites had abundant influenced reintroduction success. 2011 (P. Halupa, pers. obs. 2011; M. nectar plants, but few host plants Research with surrogate species may be Minno, pers. comm. 2011a) nor (Cannon et al. 2007, pp. 5, 12; 2010, pp. helpful to better establish protocols and December 2011 (J. Daniels, pers. comm. 848–850). In addition, the Miami blue refine techniques for the Miami blue 2011). was not found on six islands in the prior to future propagation and Great White Heron National Wildlife Bahia Honda State Park reintroduction efforts. Refuge (GWHNWR); these sites BHSP is a small island at the east end contained limited amounts of, or were Population Estimates and Status of the lower Keys, approximately 7.0 mi lacking, either host plants or nectar Bahia Honda State Park (11.3 km) west of Vaca Key (Marathon) plants (Cannon et al. 2007, pp. 5, 12; Metapopulation and 2.0 mi (3.2 km) east of Big Pine Key. 2010, pp. 847, 850–851). Prior to its apparent extirpation, the The amount of suitable habitat (habitat In a separate study, Daniels also metapopulation at BHSP was monitored supporting larval host plants and found four of the sites previously regularly from 2002 to 2009 (Emmel and adjacent adult nectar sources) within occupied within KWNWR to support Daniels 2009, p. 4). Pollard transects BHSP is approximately 1.5 acres (ac) the Miami blue variously from 2008 to (0.6 hectares [ha]). Of the suitable 2010 (Emmel and Daniels 2008, pp. 7– (fixed-route transects walked weekly habitat available at BHSP, 10; 2009, pp. 9–13; Daniels 2008, pp. 1– under favorable weather conditions) at approximately 85 percent (1.3 ac [0.5 6; Daniels 2010, pp. 3–5; J. Daniels, the south-end colony site (largest) ha]) was occupied by the Miami blue pers. comm. 2010a). Survey effort, yielded annual peak counts of (Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 12). The however, was limited. Some previously approximately 175, 84, 112, and 132, metapopulation comprised 13 distinct occupied islands were not searched, and from 2002 to 2005 (prior to hurricanes), colonies, with the core comprising 3 or no new occupied areas were identified. and 82, 81, 120, and 38, from 2006 to 4 colonies, located at the southwestern Followup presence and absence 2009 (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). end (Emmel and Daniels 2004, pp. 6, surveys by KWNWR in 2009 showed From October 2002 to September 2003, 27). This area contained the largest that the Miami blue was present on two abundance estimates using mark- contiguous patch of host plants, sites in the Marquesas, but not on Boca release-recapture (Schnabel method) although the size was estimated to be Grande (P. Cannon, pers. comm. 2010a). ranged from a low of 19.7 in February 0.8 ac (0.32 ha) (Emmel and Daniels In 2010, similar surveys indicated that 2003 to a high of 114.5 in June 2003 2004, p. 12). The second largest colony the Miami blue was present on Boca (Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 9). occurred at the opposite (northeast) end Grande and one site in the Marquesas; Counts ranged from 6 to 100 adults of BHSP and was based solely on the it was still not located on Woman Key during surveys by the NABA, conducted presence of two to three small, isolated (P. Cannon, pers. comm. 2010b; T. from February 2004 to January 2005 patches of nickerbean directly adjacent Wilmers, pers. comm. 2010a). In March (NABA 2005, unpub. data). Monthly to an existing nature trail and parking and April 2011, Miami blues were still (2003 to 2006) or bimonthly (2007) area (Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 6). present on five of seven sites where monitoring by Salvato (pers. comm. The remaining colonies were isolated, previously found in KWNWR (T. 2011c) at the south-end colony with most occurring in close proximity Wilmers pers. comm. 2011a; Haddad produced annual average counts of 129, to the main park road (Emmel and and Wilson 2011, p. 2). 58, 46, 6, and 8, respectively, from 2003 Daniels 2004, pp. 13, 27). Isolated to 2007. Salvato (pers. comm. 2011c) Reintroductions colonies used very small patches of observed 21, 10, and 0 Miami blues nickerbean (e.g., one was estimated to Although Miami blue butterflies were from 2008 to 2010, respectively, based be 10 by 10 feet [3 by 3 meters]) (Emmel successfully reared in captivity, on limited surveys. and Daniels 2003, p. 3), often adjacent reintroductions have been unsuccessful. Due to the differences in to paved roads (Emmel and Daniels Since 2004, approximately 7,140 methodologies and other factors, the 2004, pp. 6, 12, 27). individuals have been released (J. above estimates cannot be compared. Daniels, pers. comm. as cited in FWC Although abundance of select butterflies Key West National Wildlife Refuge 2010, p. 8). Initially, larvae were may change frequently, their overall Efforts to define the limits of the released in the vicinity of Flamingo at geographic distribution from year-to- KWNWR metapopulation were multiple locations within ENP (J. year is often more consistent. Given that conducted from November 2006 to July Daniels, pers. comm. 2012). Between the Miami blue has overlapping 2007 (Cannon et al. 2007, pp. 10–11; August 2007 and November 2008, generations and, at times, capacity for 2010, p. 849). Miami blues were found reintroduction events were carried out explosive growth, it may be useful to at seven sites on five islands in the at BNP and DJSP 12 times resulting in report population status in terms of Marquesas Keys, approximately 18 to 23 the release of 3,553 individuals (276 occupied habitat, as has been done for mi (29 to 37 km) west of Key West, and adults/3,277 larvae) (Emmel and Daniels other butterflies (Longcore et al. 2010, on Boca Grande Key, approximately 12 2009, p. 4). Monitoring efforts have been pp. 335–346; T. Longcore, in litt. 2011). mi (19 km) west of Key West (Cannon limited; 19 days were spent monitoring In general, early (dry) season numbers et al. 2007, pp. 1–24; 2010, pp. 847– reintroduction sites (Emmel and Daniels were low in most years and were 848). The eight sites occupied by Miami 2009, p. 4). To date, no evidence of attributed to a persistent south Florida blues ranged from approximately 0.25 to colony establishment has been found drought (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). 37.10 ac (0.1–15.0 ha) (Cannon et al. (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). It is not Abundance trends indicated that there 2007, p. 6; 2010, p. 848). The combined clear why reintroductions were was a marked decrease in the number of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20955

individuals during the winter months iguanas (see Summary of Factors Periodic surveys at KWNWR in 2008 (November to February) (Emmel and Affecting the Species). In 2010, few and 2009 suggested relatively lower Daniels 2004, p. 9; 2009, p. 4). Higher Miami blues were observed at BHSP. On levels of abundance, based upon limited abundances during the summer wet January 23, 2010, a photograph was effort (Emmel and Daniels 2008, pp. 7– season may relate to production of a taken of a pair of Miami blues mating 10; 2009, pp. 9–13) and using different large quantity of new terminal growth (Olle 2010, p. 5). On February 12, 2010, methodologies. In February 2008, on the larval host plants (nickerbean) a photograph was taken of a single adult researchers recorded 3 adults on Boca and availability of nectar sources from (C. DeWitt, pers. comm. 2011). In March Grande and a total of 32 adults at two spring rainfall (Emmel and Daniels 2010, Daniels found one larva, but no islands within the Marquesas; lack of 2004, pp. 9–11). adults (D. Cook, FWC, pers. comm. rainfall resulted in very limited adult Four hurricanes affected habitat at 2010a). In July 2010, a single adult was nectar sources and limited new growth BHSP in 2005, resulting in reduced observed and photographed (A. of larval host plants (Emmel and Daniels abundance of Miami blue following Edwards, pers. comm. 2011). No Miami 2008, pp. 7–8). In April 2008, one adult subsequent storms that continued blue adults have been located during was recorded on Boca Grande; one adult throughout 2006 (Salvato and Salvato quarterly surveys conducted in 2010 by was also recorded at another island 2007, p. 160). Although no quantitative Salvato (pers. comm. 2010b, 2011c). No (Emmel and Daniels 2008, p. 8). In June measurements were taken, a significant Miami blue butterflies of any life stage 2008, no adults were located on Boca portion of the nickerbean in the survey were subsequently seen despite frequent Grande, and a total of 27 were recorded area (> 35 percent of the area of searches (D. Cook, pers. comm. 2010a; from two other islands (Emmel and available habitat) was damaged by the P. Cannon, pers. comm. 2010c, 2010d, Daniels 2008, p. 9). In August 2008, no storms; roughly 60–80 percent of the 2010e, 2010f; M. Salvato, pers. comm. adults were found at Boca Grande, and vegetation on the southern side of the 2011c, 2011d; Jim Duquesnel, BHSP, five adults were recorded at another island was visually estimated to have pers. comm. 2011a, 2011b). island (Emmel and Daniels 2008, p. 10). been heavily damaged, including large In March 2009, no adults were recorded Key West National Wildlife Refuge stands of host and nectar plants (Salvato on Boca Grande; habitat conditions were Metapopulation(s) and Salvato 2007, p. 156). Despite a deemed very poor, with limited new decline in abundance after the The metapopulation at KWNWR host growth and available nectar hurricanes, the Miami blue had yielded counts of several hundred, at resources (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. appeared to rebound toward pre-storm various times, in 2006–2007. Checklist 12). In April 2009, researchers found a abundance by the summer months of total of 22 adults from 2 islands within 2007 (Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. 160). counting, a method where suitable habitat is initially screened to determine the Marquesas (Emmel and Daniels However, peaks remained below those 2009, p. 13). found prior to the 2005 hurricane the presence of target species, was used season (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). during surveys conducted between Based upon limited data and Although it is unclear when iguanas November 2006 and July 2007 to observations, the Miami blue persisted became established at BHSP, effects of document the distribution and on various islands within the KWNWR herbivory on the host plant were abundance of Miami blues (Cannon et in 2010. From April through July 2010, apparent by late 2008 or early 2009 al. 2007, p. 5; 2010, p. 848). Within the the Miami blue was observed on 5 of 10 (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4; Daniels seven sites occupied in the Marquesas dates at one location within the 2009, p. 5; P. Cannon, pers. comm. Keys, the highest counts ranged from 8 Marquesas, although in limited numbers 2009; A. Edwards, pers. comm. 2009; P. to 521, depending upon site and during brief surveys (T. Wilmers, pers. Hughes, pers. comm. 2009; M. Salvato, sampling date (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 7; comm. 2010b). On July 28, 2010, pers. comm. 2010a). Defoliation was 2010, p. 848). The highest count on researchers recorded 19 adults from 3 mostly limited to the south-end colony Boca Grande was 441 in February 2007 islands within the Marquesas, in limited site (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 7; 2010, p. 848). surveys; another 25 adults were Cooperative eradication efforts to Highest counts occurred when recorded on Boca Grande in less than address this problem began in 2009 and blackbead flowered profusely and 1 hour of survey work (J. Daniels, pers. continue today; however, iguanas produced new leaves (Cannon et al. comm. 2010a). On September 30, 2010, continue to impact terminal nickerbean 2010, p. 851). In March and April, dozens of Miami blues were observed growth (see Summary of Factors blackbead was observed to yield little on Boca Grande; this may have Affecting the Species) (Emmel and new growth and no flowering, and represented an actual population size in Daniels 2009, p. 4; Daniels 2009, p. 5; oviposition by Miami blues was not the hundreds (N. Haddad, North E. Kiefer, BHSP, pers. comm. 2011a). observed (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 8). Carolina State University [NCSU]), pers. From 2006 through 2009, adult or Partial searches on two islands in May comm. 2010). On November 24, 2010, immature Miami blues were found at and June revealed few Miami blues; researchers positively identified 48 several colony sites; however, one little new leaf growth and no flowering Miami blue adults on Boca Grande in colony became relatively unproductive of blackbead was observed at these less than 3 hours of surveys, noting that in 2005 (pre-hurricane) (Emmel and locations after February 2007 (Cannon et assessment was difficult due to the Daniels 2009, p. 4). No Miami blues al. 2010, p. 850). Seasonality observed many hundreds or possibly thousands have been found at any roadway on KWNWR was different than that of cassius blues, which were also nickerbean patches within BHSP since described for the BHSP metapopulation present (P. Cannon, pers. comm. 2010b; 2005, prior to the advent of profound (above). Hurricane Wilma (October T. Wilmers, pers. comm. 2010a). In iguana herbivory and damages from 2005) heavily damaged or killed March and April 2011, researchers hurricanes (Emmel and Daniels 2009, blackbead stands at most sites, but it observed Miami blue adults at five sites p. 4). also likely enhanced foraging habitat, if within KWNWR in numbers similar to The metapopulation has diminished only temporarily, on select islands those reported above (Haddad and in recent years likely due to the within the KWNWR (Cannon et al. Wilson 2011, p. 2). In July 2011, fewer combined effects of small population 2007, p. 10; 2010, p. 851) (see Summary adults were observed (P. Hughes, pers. size, drought, cold temperatures, and of Factors Affecting the Species). comm. 2011a). In September 2011,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Refuge staff observed 14 adults on Boca are separated by a distance of more than which occurred at BHSP (Saarinen Grande (P. Hughes, pers. comm. 2011b). 43 mi (70 km). Given the Miami blue’s 2009, p. 49). Due to small sample sizes In December 2011, 88 adults were found dispersal capabilities (E.V. Saarinen and from Boca Grande, only samples from in roughly 4 hours (P. Cannon, pers. J.C. Daniels, unpub. data as cited in the Marquesas Keys were used for comm. 2012). In January 2012, Refuge Saarinen 2009, p. 22), it is unlikely that genetic analysis of KWNWR, and results staff observed 20 adults on Boca Grande they interacted. Saarinen’s work showed were limited (Saarinen 2009, pp. 66, and 14 adults at one site in the no gene flow and a clear distinction 72). Overall, this metapopulation was Marquesas during brief surveys under between the BHSP and KWNWR found to have higher genetic diversity windy conditions (A. Morkill, pers. metapopulations (Saarinen 2009, pp. 36, (mean observed heterozygosity of 51 comm. 2012). 74, 89) (see Summary of Factors percent versus 39.5 percent) than the At this time, both the size of the Affecting the Species). BHSP population (Saarinen 2009, p. 49). metapopulation at KWNWR and its Studies addressing molecular Allelic richness (3.790 in February dynamics are unclear. However, diversity at BHSP showed the effective 2008) was also higher in KWNWR available data (given above) suggest number of alleles remained relatively (Saarinen 2009, pp. 71, 75). wide fluctuations of adults within and constant over time, at both a monthly Accordingly, KWNWR is a particularly between years and sites. The frequency (generational) and annual scale important source of variation to be of dispersal between islands is also not (Saarinen 2009, pp. 71, 84). Allelic considered for future conservation known (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 852). Due (gene) richness was also stable over time efforts for this taxon (Saarinen 2009, pp. to the distance between the Marquesas in BHSP, with values ranging from 71, 75), especially now if this is the only and Boca Grande (i.e., about 7 mi [11 2.988 to 3.121, when averaged across extant metapopulation(s) remaining. km]) and the species’ apparent limited the 12 microsatellite loci from The KWNWR metapopulation showed dispersal capabilities, it is possible that September 2005 to October 2006. These signs of a bottleneck and may support two (or more) distinct metapopulations values were lower than those in the hypothesis that it is a newly exist within KWNWR (J. Daniels, pers. KWNWR [3.790] (Saarinen 2009, p. 71). founded population (Saarinen 2009, pp. comm. 2010b). In September 2010, the However, data showed that the BHSP 76, 141). Further work is needed to Service initiated a new study with metapopulation retained an adequate better understand the metapopulation researchers from NCSU to conduct a amount of genetic diversity to maintain dynamics and genetic implications in comprehensive examination of potential the population in 2005 and 2006, this population. habitat within KWNWR and GWHNWR, despite perceived changes in overall quantify current distribution and habitat population size (Saarinen 2009, p. 77). Summary of Comments and use, and develop a monitoring protocol No significant evidence of a recent Recommendations to estimate detectability, abundance, genetic bottleneck was found in the In the proposed rule published on and occupancy parameters. BHSP generations analyzed; however, August 10, 2011 (76 FR 49408), we there may have been a previous requested that all interested parties Gene Flow and Genetic Diversity Within bottleneck that was undetectable with submit written comments on the Contemporary Populations the methods used (Saarinen 2009, pp. proposal by October 11, 2011. We also Saarinen (2009, pp. 15, 29–33, 40, 44) 72, 85, 141). contacted appropriate Federal and State and Saarinen et al. (2009b, pp. 242–244) To explore the level of gene flow and agencies, scientific experts and examined 12 polymorphic microsatellite connectivity between discrete habitat organizations, and other interested loci (noncoding regions of patches at BHSP, Saarinen (2009, pp. parties and invited them to comment on chromosomes) to assess molecular 64–65) conducted analyses at several the proposal. Newspaper notices diversity and gene flow of wild and spatial scales, analyzing BHSP as a inviting general public comment were captive-reared Miami blue butterflies. In single population (with no subdivision), published in The Miami Herald, addition, one of these microsatellite loci as individual colonies occupying Orlando Sentinel, Tampa Tribune, The was successfully amplified from a discrete habitat patches (as several Daytona Beach News-Journal, and the subset of the museum specimens. groups acting in a metapopulation Key West Citizen on Sunday, August 21, Although results from historical structure), and as a division of clumped 2011. We did not receive any requests specimens should be interpreted with colonies versus other, more spatially for a public hearing. caution (due both to small sample size distant colonies. Analyses of During the comment period for the and the single microsatellite locus), microsatellite frequencies were also proposed rule, we received 37 comment Saarinen (2009, pp. 15, 50–51) reported used to assess gene flow between habitat letters (from 35 entities) directly some loss of diversity in the patches (Saarinen 2009, p. 72). While addressing the proposed listing of the contemporary populations, though less some subpopulations were well linked, Miami blue butterfly with endangered than had been expected. Even with others showed more division (Saarinen status and the proposed listing of the small sample sizes, historical 2009, p. 73). High levels of gene flow cassius blue, ceraunus blue, and populations were significantly more (and relatively little differentiation) nickerbean blue butterflies as threatened diverse (with generally higher effective were apparent even between distant under similarity of appearance. With numbers of alleles and observed levels habitat patches on BHSP, and the regard to listing the Miami blue of heterozygosity) than BHSP; KWNWR smaller patches appeared to be butterfly as endangered, 25 comments population values were between important links in maintaining were in support, 2 were in opposition, historical values and BHSP values connectivity (Saarinen 2009, pp. 78, and 10 were neutral. With regard to (Saarinen 2009, pp. 44–46). 141). Overall, gene flow between habitat listing the other 3 butterflies under Both historical and contemporary patches on BHSP was considered similarity of appearance, 4 comments populations showed evidence of a crucial to maintaining genetic diversity were in support, and 16 comments were metapopulation structure with and imperative for the Miami blue’s in opposition. Of those comments in interacting subcolonies (E.V. Saarinen long-term persistence at this location opposition, six suggested alternatives and J.C. Daniels, unpub. data as cited in (Saarinen 2009, p. 141). that were more limited in scope (e.g., Saarinen 2009, p. 49). However, the The metapopulation structure on applying similarity of appearance metapopulations at BHSP and KWNWR KWNWR is more extensive than that provisions to the Miami blue’s current

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20957

or historical range). All substantive independent taxonomists or reviewers, references (Hoekwater 1997, Kleiner information provided during the and other accepted taxonomic sources 1995, O’Neill 2007) showing that comment period has either been (see Taxonomy). We note that several individuals poach rare and imperiled incorporated directly into this final Web sites (e.g., Butterflies of America, taxa for profit, even to the point of determination or addressed below. Catalog of the Butterflies of the United driving a species to extinction in order States and Canada, and the Integrated to increase the value of individual Peer Review Taxonomic Information System), widely specimens (Laufer 2009). We want to In accordance with our peer review regarded as definitive sources, also stress that our reasons for not policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR continue to place the Miami blue as designating critical habitat go beyond 34270), we solicited expert opinion Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri. We the potential increased threat of from 14 individuals with specialties that determined that this is the most collection, but also involve potential include scientific expertise with appropriate nomenclature because it is associated increased risks to sensitive butterflies, particularly lycaenids, and more widely accepted by the scientific and important habitats (see also general expertise with ecology and community. Therefore, we have used Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts conservation. We received independent the genus Cyclargus in this final rule. From Humans, below). Designation of responses from eight of the peer (2) Comment: Two peer reviewers and unoccupied habitat could also alienate reviewers. We also received two five commenters expressed concern over any affected private landowners and collaborative responses from State the Service’s determination that critical stakeholders, thus limiting governmental agencies, which had been habitat is not prudent, disagreed with reintroduction and recovery options (see solicited as part of this process. We this decision, or otherwise suggested also Response to Comment #24 below). address these under Comments from the that we reconsider this determination. We agree that designation of critical State. Two commenters supported our habitat can provide some benefits to We reviewed all comments received determination. Comments in opposition listed species (e.g., a tool to restore and from peer reviewers for substantive and to our not prudent determination were manage habitat on Federal lands, greater new information regarding the listing of largely based on the potential benefits of awareness and education by the public, the Miami blue butterfly as endangered designating critical habitat and increased cooperation by other agencies and the cassius blue, ceraunus blue, and skepticism that increased risk and harm to improve habitat). With the Miami nickerbean blue butterflies as threatened to the Miami blue would occur with blue, substantial efforts at education and under similarity of appearance. The designation, as ample detail is already active conservation efforts from Federal, peer reviewers concurred with the available for poachers to locate State, and local agencies are already conclusion to list the Miami blue remaining populations. underway, so potential added benefits butterfly as endangered and provided Our Response: We determined that from designation would likely be additional information, clarifications, designating critical habitat for the minimal. and suggestions to improve the final Miami blue is not prudent. We (3) Comment: One peer reviewer rule. In general, the majority of peer recognize that designation of critical stated that the status of the Miami blue reviewers opposed Federal listing of the habitat can provide benefits to listed is grave and that extinction is a distinct three other butterflies due to similarity species (see Benefits to the Subspecies possibility. Another peer reviewer of appearance; however, one reviewer From Critical Habitat Designation, stated that the Miami blue has an agreed with the original proposal, and below, as well as discussion later in this extremely high likelihood of becoming three suggested applying the similarity response); however, for the Miami blue, extinct unless active conservation of appearance listing only to select areas increased threats (see Increased Threat measures are applied immediately. where the butterflies may co-occur with to the Subspecies by Designating Critical One commenter indicated that the the Miami blue. Habitat, below) outweigh the benefits Miami blue is one of the rarest (see Increased Threat to the Subspecies butterflies in the United States and in Peer Reviewer Comments Outweighs the Benefits of Critical the world. The commenter specifically (1) Comment: One peer reviewer Habitat Designation, below). stated that it may be the single rarest indicated that the Miami blue butterfly We do not dispute the arguments of butterfly species, and is rarer than at should remain in the genus Hemiargus, the two peer reviewers and some least 14 species that are listed under the as originally described, citing Comstock commenters who suggested that Act. He indicated that understanding and Huntington (1943), Nabokov (1945), industrious or unethical collectors have spatial and population structure and and Vila et al. (2011) as relevant enough information to be able to locate dispersal are keys to recovery, as are taxonomic papers. The reviewer noted the remaining populations. We restoration and reintroduction. Another that only limited phylogenetic analyses acknowledge that general location commenter, certified by the have been conducted to determine if the information is provided within the rule, International Union for the genus Hemiargus should be split into a and more specific location information Conservation of Nature to evaluate variety of additional genera, such as can be found through other sources. extinction risk, stated that the Miami Cyclargus. In his view, the Miami blue However, we maintain that designation blue meets all five criteria for listing is well characterized and easily of critical habitat would more widely under the Act. Another commenter recognized, but should continue to be publicize the potential locations of the urged immediate action to address treated as Hemiargus thomasi butterfly and its essential habitat to threats and the development of a bethunebakeri and listed as such, rather poachers, collectors, vandals, and ‘‘functional’’ recovery plan, with the than Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri. mischievous individuals, thereby assistance of experts. Another Our Response: We acknowledge that exacerbating the already significant commenter encouraged the Service to some sources continue to place the threats of collection, vandalism, take all possible steps to recover the Miami blue in the genus Hemiargus. disturbance, fire, and other harm from subspecies, stressing the importance of However, our basis for using Cyclargus humans. future reintroductions in the best is founded on published and One commenter, who agreed with our possible habitats. unpublished literature, separate decision that designating critical habitat Our Response: We agree. The threats confirmation of specimens from is not prudent, provided additional to the Miami blue pose a significant risk

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

to the subspecies and were the basis of butterflies. Another commenter noted plants for the Miami blue (see—Life our emergency determination, which that listing would call additional History and Habitat under Background, immediately put forth conservation attention from commercial traders to the above). This is consistent with recent measures (see Available Conservation Miami blue and related species. host plant use in contemporary Miami Measures, below). We are actively Our Response: We provided a blue populations. The last Miami blues working with stakeholders and partners thorough and detailed description of the observed on northern Key Largo in 1996 to implement additional conservation threat posed by collection in the fed on balloonvine; those at BHSP fed actions now to prevent extinction. We proposed rule. In addition, we believe on nickerbean and blackbead; and those fully intend to actively engage others that it is necessary to fully discuss the within KWNWR rely primarily on and implement actions that will help many activities that go beyond blackbead. We note that balloonvine ensure survival and long-term recovery. collection, and include other illegal and was not reported as a host plant until We will work closely with scientific illicit activities. Because we do not have the 1970s, and that host plant use experts, land managers, stakeholders, evidence of collection of the Miami appears to have changed through time and others to ensure that any future blue, we outline illegal and illicit depending upon availability (see captive propagation and reintroduction activities involving other listed or Habitat for complete discussion). efforts do not harm the wild population, imperiled butterflies on various Balloonvine was likely only one of and occur in optimal habitat to increase protected lands and the established several legumes used by historical the likelihood of persistence. markets for specimens. We have Miami blue populations. (4) Comment: One peer reviewer determined that poaching is a potential We agree that not all available host stated that the largest threat to the and significant threat that could occur at plants at a given location may be Miami blue is the small size of the any time, but poaching is only a subset appropriate for larval use and that single remaining metapopulation. He of the activities that threaten the Miami actual available suitable host plant mass contended that, if the subspecies is to blue. The generic term ‘‘collection’’ is may be far less than the total present. survive, the priority needs to be on more easily understood by the public This is consistent with findings from improving the quality of existing and better encompasses the breadth of available research. For example, when habitats, enlarging breeding areas, and activities related to this threat. the Miami blue occurred at BHSP, only creating new breeding habitats, if We recognize that listing may a small portion of available habitat on possible. One commenter estimated inadvertently increase the threat of the island appeared occupied, and numbers at the peak of the Miami blue’s collection and trade (i.e., raise value, higher abundances were found when flight period in the hundreds, stating create demand). However, we have there was a large quantity of new that conservation biologists agree that determined, based upon the best terminal growth of nickerbean and numbers should be many thousands to available scientific information, that the when more nectar sources were counteract the negative effects of subspecies meets the criteria for Federal available (Emmel and Daniels 2004, inbreeding, genetic drift, and protection. Accordingly, it is our pp. 9–12). environmental catastrophes. This obligation to take protective action (7) Comment: One peer reviewer commenter also stated the small area through Federal listing to help safeguard recommended several clarifications currently occupied is ‘‘frighteningly the subspecies. regarding the description of the Miami small’’ and that additional and more (6) Comment: Two peer reviewers blue (wing-chord length) and aspects of widespread sites are needed to provide indicated that a better understanding of its life history (four instars, not five). insurance against the extinction of a host plants will be essential for effective Our Response: We have replaced the localized population. This reviewer and Miami blue conservation. One noted term ‘‘wing-chord length’’ with the more other commenters believed that that there is considerable ambiguity as frequently used measure of ‘‘forewing.’’ reestablishment at other locations is a to the breadth of host plant use and The term fifth-instar was a priority because of the substantial risk plant-herbivore interactions. Another typographical error and has been of extinction due to stochastic events peer reviewer noted the general corrected with fourth-instar. We also and other threats. preference of the Palos Verdes blue made other suggested minor Our Response: We agree that several butterfly for fresh growth on host plants clarifications. These changes are set of the most important threats to the (citing Johnson et al. 2011). This forth in the Background section of this Miami blue are currently small reviewer suggested that not all available final rule. population size, few populations, and host plant mass at a given location may (8) Comment: Two peer reviewers restricted range. We concur that the be appropriate for use (larval and female questioned the maximum adult life span actions specified are needed and egg-laying) and that the actual available of the Miami blue and how this was acknowledge that other actions to suitable host plant may be far less than determined and suggested that adults reduce threats are also needed for the total mass at any given site. One likely live more than 9 days. These survival and recovery (see commenter suggested that no natural reviewers suggested that older Determination of Status, below). populations of the Miami blue are individuals may be more likely to (5) Comment: One peer reviewer known to feed on balloonvine, despite disperse and that finding them once suggested that poaching is a more its availability. Another commenter dispersed may be difficult. One accurate term than collection. This noted that the Miami blue was reviewer cited research showing that reviewer viewed poaching as a potential originally associated with balloonvine, older females may be prone to longer threat to the Miami blue and indicated but subsequently adapted to using gray movements (Bergman and Landin 2002, that to spend ‘‘two full pages discussing nickerbean due to efforts to control p. 361). hypothetical threats sounds biased’’ in balloonvine. Our Response: We agree that the his view. One commenter stated that the Our Response: We agree that further maximum 9-day life span as discussed Miami blue has no protection from studies into historical and current in the emergency rule is unclear and poachers and suggested that listing may Miami blue host plant preferences are may be an underestimate of natural invite poachers to offshore islands. She essential to best conserve and recover adult life span. We have clarified the indicated that she has been contacted by the subspecies. Available scientific text in this final rule accordingly. someone interested in acquiring rare literature documents a variety of host Additional field studies are needed to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20959

better ascertain adult Miami blue could enter diapause as third instars Camponotus spp., may be extremely longevity in the wild and to determine rather than as adults, in response to important in the reintroduction and dispersal capabilities. photoperiod, temperature, or changes in long-term survival of the Miami blue at (9) Comment: Three peer reviewers host plants. specific locations and that successful and one commenter questioned the Our Response: We acknowledge that establishment may be dependent upon degree to which the Miami blue is there is some uncertainty regarding presence of these ants. Another peer sedentary, suggesting that it may be less diapause (see Life History). We believe reviewer cited a new paper by Trager sedentary than described. One reviewer that the Miami blue’s life history and Daniels (2011) on mating and egg suggested that the subspecies may be requires further study in order to better production in the Miami blue, noting sedentary at certain stages of its life, but determine if any life stages undergo a that incorporating that study into the that the Miami blue’s historical range dormant period. background does not change the (i.e., central Florida to the Keys and Dry (11) Comment: One peer reviewer outcome or conclusions of the proposed Tortugas) is evidence that it disperses expressed his opposition of mark- and emergency rules. Two commenters over wide areas of water over long recapture methods for lycaenids, also noted interactions (mutualistic, periods of time. Another suggested that particularly small blues, such as the predatory) between the Miami blue and it only takes a wayward gravid female Miami blue butterfly. ants and suggested further investigation. to colonize a new habitat. Another Our Response: We acknowledge that Our Response: We agree that ant suggested that a butterfly surviving in a not enough information is known about associations may be an important metapopulation due to habitat structure the influence of mark-recapture on component of the Miami blue’s life such as the Miami blue must have butterflies and that it can be harmful, history and that further studies of ant stronger dispersal capabilities than depending upon the species, techniques and Miami blue larval interactions are described in the rule, at least in a small employed, skill of handlers, and other needed. Studies focusing on remaining fraction of the population. factors. There have been several studies populations would be useful. However, One commenter stated that, although of various mark-recapture techniques it may also be helpful to examine ant- the butterfly appears to be sedentary with conflicting results regarding the larval interactions using surrogate now, it once occurred widely in the impact on butterflies. Recently, Haddad species at historical Miami blue Keys and coastal areas of central and et al. (2008, p. 938) reviewed several locations (e.g., BHSP or Key Largo) or in southern Florida and that it is capable types of monitoring techniques and the laboratory. We have included of dispersing and colonizing new areas, suggested that mark-recapture is not information from the Trager and Daniels including islands. appropriate for small and/or imperiled (2011) paper in the Background (see Life Commenters suggested that keys to butterflies. Researchers are not History, above) and agree that this paper designing a recovery strategy include a employing mark-recapture techniques does not alter the conclusions of our clear focus on basic life history, on the Miami blue at this time. proposed and emergency rules. It also population dynamics, and an improved (12) Comment: One peer reviewer does not alter the conclusions of this understanding of dispersal. One indicated that disturbance factors may final rule. commenter indicated that a well- be beneficial to the host plants and that (14) Comment: One peer reviewer informed recovery plan would include a conservationists have a tendency to cautioned against comparisons of strategy for multiple interconnected remove disturbances from protected Pollard transect counts with mark- populations that buffer the subspecies lands, which can work against species recapture abundance estimates, noting when some localized populations are dependent upon early successional that these two different methods of lost and that more information is plants (citing Longcore and Osborne estimating population size can be needed about dispersal capacity. 2010 and Longcore et al. 2010). One compared with similar methods but not Our Response: We agree that the commenter indicated that trampling of necessarily with each other. This Miami blue may be less sedentary than host plants has occurred within reviewer suggested that, because the described and have made clarifications KWNWR. Miami blue has overlapping generations to the text. At this time, it is unclear Our Response: We agree that periodic and presumably the capacity for how far the butterfly can disperse and natural disturbances may benefit the explosive growth, it might be more the mechanisms for dispersal (i.e., habitat, thereby increasing the vigor or productive to report population status active [flight] or passive [wind- distribution of important host plants. in terms of area occupied (citing assisted]). We acknowledge that However, human-related disturbances Longcore et al. 2010). wayward individuals and gravid (e.g., vandalism, trampling, camping, Our Response: We agree. We females can colonize new areas. Clearly, fire pits) can present significant risk to understand that there are a variety of additional study is needed to better the Miami blue (especially larval stages) techniques to measure abundance and understand the Miami blue’s dispersal and important stands of host plants (see monitor butterfly populations and have capabilities and mechanisms. We agree Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts clarified discussion of available data that improved understanding of basic from Humans). Given the butterfly’s (see Population Estimates and Status, life history and population dynamics, overall vulnerability to extinction, we above). Researchers are currently including dispersal, will be key acknowledge that it will be important to refining methods and techniques to components to an effective recovery minimize human-related and other most effectively gauge population size strategy. An effective recovery strategy controllable threats, especially in areas within KWNWR, including seasonality, will likely provide for multiple, of known occupied habitat. Reducing as part of an ongoing study the Service interconnected populations that enable threats will help safeguard the funded in 2010. Gauging overall status genetic exchange and facilitate subspecies and its habitat. in terms of occupied habitat, as has been recolonization in the event of local (13) Comment: One peer reviewer done for other butterflies, may be more extirpations. stressed the importance of ant meaningful (Longcore et al. 2010, pp. (10) Comment: One peer reviewer associations among lycaenids and 335–346; T. Longcore, in litt. 2011). indicated that diapause can be difficult provided various examples and (15) Comment: One peer reviewer to detect. He suggested that the Miami citations. This reviewer stated that he noted that Clench only made one blue, like other closely related species, believed that carpenter ants, collecting trip to the West Indies (the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Bahamas before 1941) (see Clench future discoveries, and also harm the With regard to concerns regarding 1941). relationships between the Service and research, studies can be conducted on Our Response: We have clarified the hobbyist collectors, researchers, and the similarity of appearance butterflies text in this final rule accordingly. naturalists. The same commenter in the vast majority of their ranges (i.e., (16) Comment: One peer reviewer was suggested that careful monitoring and outside of Florida, outside of the concerned about a proposed project to patrolling of occupied and historical affected counties in Florida). For develop a zip-line course at Crane Point suitable sites may be a more effective research in south and central Florida, in the City of Marathon and suggested protective measure than enforcing a ban many scientific activities involving the that the Service work closely with the on collection and commercial similar butterflies will only need prior City to minimize potentially adverse transactions involving these taxa at a written authorization (e.g., a letter) from impacts of such a development to the state or national level. the Service. See Special Rule Under recovery of the Miami blue. Another commenter noted that the Section 4(d) of the Act below for more Our Response: We were not aware of action was not necessary because those information. this particular project, but we are seeking to collect the Miami blue or We agree that increased patrols and coordinating with agencies and partners similar species on protected monitoring may be helpful in deterring regarding various development projects conservation lands would theoretically collection of the Miami blue. However, within Monroe County to avoid and already possess the necessary permits. due to limited resources, this may not minimize impacts to the Miami blue Some commenters suggested that listing be feasible. and other federally listed species. We due to similarity of appearance was We disagree with views that listing will work closely with the City of inconsistent with other butterfly listings the other butterflies due to similarity of Marathon and others on this potential that have similar species that more appearance is unnecessary because project as well. closely resemble each other and do not those seeking to collect the Miami blue Comments Relating to Similarity of have similarity of appearance or similar species on conservation lands Appearance Butterflies provisions. would already possess the necessary Our Response: We carefully permits. We are aware of cases where (17) Comment: Six peer reviewers and considered all of the comments received federally listed species have been ten commenters opposed listing the and agree that prohibiting collection, collected from conservation lands other butterflies due to similarity of possession, and trade of these similar illegally or without permits (see appearance, as proposed, for a variety of butterflies throughout their national and Collection, below) and acknowledge that reasons. The proposed action was international ranges could result in listing may increase demand for generally opposed because it was unnecessary restrictions and regulatory specimens. We have determined that the thought to be overly restrictive or not burdens. After careful review of the needed because the similar butterflies needs of the Miami blue and the similarity of appearance provisions will are common and can be readily potential impacts of the special 4(d) rule help deter potential collection of Miami differentiated from the Miami blue as originally proposed, we have blues (purposeful or inadvertent) in all based upon clear morphological reconsidered this aspect of the proposed areas within its historical range, differences. rule and have made significant changes including those areas that are not Some reviewers and commenters regarding its application. Consequently, conserved or those in private supported the listing of the similar in this final rule, only collection of ownership. butterflies as proposed. Other reviewers, these similar butterflies within the Finally, we acknowledge that commenters, and FWC suggested current and historical range of the similarity of appearance has not been alternatives for application of the Miami blue butterfly will be prohibited. previously applied to arthropods similarity of appearance provision of the See Summary of Changes from Proposed (including insects, such as butterflies) Act. These alternatives consisted of Rule, below, for more detail. prior to this listing, but it is a tool limiting application to only areas where We maintain that the Miami blue, due available to us under the Act. Similarity the butterflies are sympatric with the to its small population size and few of appearance protections can be Miami blue (potential or occupied populations, faces a significant threat effective in situations where collection habitat), only within critical habitat (if from collection, and that prohibiting is a primary threat and population sizes designated), only within specified collection of similar butterflies within are extremely low, as in the case of the counties, or only within counties within the historical range of the Miami blue is Miami blue butterfly. We have the Miami blue’s historical range. in the best interest of the subspecies. We determined that a special rule listing the Those in opposition generally have determined that limiting additional three butterflies is necessary believed that listing similar butterflies application of the special 4(d) rule to in this instance to protect the subspecies would impede research and discourage only the act of collecting and only from collection throughout its current cooperation or scientific support for within the historical range of the Miami and historical range. future listing actions. Several blue is sufficient to protect the (18) Comment: One peer reviewer commenters indicated that it would subspecies from threats faced due to indicated that, if listing creates demand negatively and needlessly impact collection pressure on the three similar for collectors, then listing of the other collectors, hobbyists, and those who butterflies. The proposed restrictions on similarity of appearance butterflies will collect insects for educational purposes. trade and commerce have been increase the likelihood of intentional or One commenter stated that there should removed, thus eliminating unnecessary unintentional collection of the Miami not be any restrictions on the sale, restrictions and reducing regulatory blue. Another reviewer and a purchase, or gifts of legally obtained burdens for most potentially affected commenter suggested that listing would cassius, ceraunus, or nickerbean blue parties (i.e., elsewhere in Florida, other increase their values to collectors. Other butterflies. One commenter warned that countries). We value relationships and reviewers and commenters believed that the ‘‘unnecessary ban on collection and are committed to working cooperatively the issue of illegal collection of the commerce’’ of the three ‘‘similar’’ with stakeholders to relieve unnecessary Miami blue is unlikely to be deterred by species could ultimately harm the burdens while safeguarding the listing the three additional co-occurring, butterflies by impeding research and subspecies. common butterflies.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20961

Our Response: Although we agree that and all other relevant sources during recovery. One commenter stated that listing may create demand for some recovery planning and implementation there is unquestionably habitat on the collectors, we find that prohibiting efforts. We will be soliciting input from Keys and in south Florida that is critical collection of the similarity of the State and other stakeholders, who to the butterfly’s recovery. Another appearance butterflies within the Miami are integral in the conservation of the commenter stated that critical habitat blue’s historical range will help reduce subspecies, during recovery planning. designations are required to ensure the threat of collection for the Miami (21) Comment: The Florida successful reintroductions of Miami blue. Through this action, the public Department of Environmental Protection blue populations elsewhere in its and all stakeholders will be aware that (FDEP) found the proposed rule to be historical range. These commenters the collection of the Miami blue and comprehensive and suggested no indicated that such designation is other similar blue butterflies in coastal changes. The FDEP noted the thorough imperative for achieving recovery goals south and central Florida is prohibited evaluation of research by Zhong et al. for the Miami blue and recommended and illegal. (2010), which demonstrated that a that high-quality target areas for (19) Comment: One peer reviewer single treatment within normal reintroduction be listed as critical questioned if the other similarity of mosquito control operations can kill habitat. One commenter suggested that appearance butterflies would remain substantial Miami blue larvae in designating critical habitat has the listed should the Miami blue butterfly targeted residential areas and, to a lesser benefit of doubling the likelihood that become extinct. extent, in adjacent nontarget areas. The an endangered species will recover. Our Response: If the Miami blue FDEP suggested this research may Our Response: We acknowledge that becomes extinct, the similarity of indicate that normal mosquito control there are benefits to designating critical appearance butterflies will remain listed operations may have played a role in the habitat, as the commenters suggest (see until the Miami blue becomes delisted, historical decline of the Miami blue and Benefits to the Subspecies From Critical or we deem that the similarity of other Keys insect fauna. The FDEP Habitat Designation, below). For the appearance protections are no longer recommended that research be Miami blue, we have determined that necessary. In either of these scenarios, continued to better understand the increased harm to the subspecies and its the Service would need to have impacts of mosquito control and exotic habitat outweighs the benefits that adequate scientific data suggesting these fire ants. critical habitat may provide (see actions are warranted, and then proceed Our Response: We agree that Increased Threat to the Subspecies by with the normal rulemaking process additional research will be helpful in Designating Critical Habitat and (i.e., publish proposed and final rules in developing a more thorough Increased Threat to the Subspecies the Federal Register). understanding of impacts from Outweighs the Benefits of Critical Habitat Designation, below). Comments From the State mosquito control, fire ants, and other threats. We are interested in working We disagree that designation of Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the with others to better understand and critical habitat is required or needed for Secretary shall submit to the State address threats. successful reintroductions of the Miami agency a written justification for his blue, or that it is imperative for failure to adopt regulations consistent Federal Agency Comments achieving recovery. Landowner with the agency’s comments or (22) Comment: The Naval Air Station permission is needed to reintroduce petition.’’ Comments received from the Key West (NAS) expressed its endangered species, even if unoccupied State are addressed below. commitment to work proactively with critical habitat is present. Some private (20) Comment: The FWC stated that it the Service to address potential issues property owners in the Keys have did not have any additional data or should the Miami blue be listed as reportedly threatened to clear vegetation other information that would lead to endangered. The commenter was from undeveloped parcels to avoid different conclusions regarding the concerned that, if critical habitat was restrictions regarding the butterfly (M. Miami blue’s threats, life history, or designated, this would have significant Minno, in litt. 2011b; N. Pakhomoff- other ecological attributes. The FWC impacts on the Navy’s ability to conduct Spencer, consultant, pers. comm. 2011). supported our decision not to designate mission-essential activities. Designation of critical habitat would critical habitat. With regard to listing Our Response: We appreciate the also preclude the use of nonessential the other three blues as threatened due Navy’s assistance in the conservation of experimental populations (NEPs) under to similarity of appearance, the FWC section 10(j) of the Act, a tool that could the Miami blue and acknowledge their supported the listing of the other blues, be useful to help reintroduce the concerns. We have worked but suggested that it need only apply to subspecies in select areas within its cooperatively with the Navy regarding the counties within the Miami blue’s historical range in the future. Section their Integrated Natural Resource historical range. The FWC also 10(j)(2) of the Act prohibits the use of Management Plan (INRMP) for NAS and encouraged the use of their management NEPs where critical habitat is realize it affords many provisions for plan as a basis for the Federal recovery designated (the two are mutually successful ecosystem management and plan and other management and exclusive). Overall, we believe that protections for listed species. We will recovery actions. successful reintroductions and recovery coordinate with NAS to incorporate Our Response: We agree with the will be dependent upon improved conservation actions for the Miami blue FWC’s recommendation to apply captive propagation and reintroduction into their INRMP. similarity of appearance protection only techniques, removal of controllable in the counties within the Miami blue’s Public Comments threats, and cooperation of landowners, historical range and have modified this stakeholders, and partners. Comments Relating to Critical Habitat final rule accordingly in response to Finally, with regard to the these and other comments received. See (23) Comment: Several commenters recommendation to include targeted Summary of Changes from Proposed encouraged the designation of critical high-quality reintroduction sites as Rule, below. habitat, emphasizing the need and critical habitat, there is currently no We intend to draw upon the State’s importance of such designation, accepted, established list of high-quality management plan for the Miami blue especially for reintroduction and reintroduction sites, as implied.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Preliminary assessments to determine guarantee that invasive species would Although we acknowledge that most the best potential reintroduction sites be removed, as one commenter suitable habitat for the Miami blue is on are outdated. Since originally assessed, purports. Critical habitat only provides State, Federal, or other conservation additional populations of the Miami protections where there is a Federal land, we do not agree with the blue (using a different host plant) have nexus (i.e., actions that come under the commenter’s view that increased threat been found, we have a better purview of section 7 of the Act) (see to the butterfly from designation would understanding of threats, and the Benefits to the Subspecies from Critical be minimal. In fact, we find that the captive colony no longer exists. We Habitat Designation, below). Mosquito increased threat may be substantial in expect to reevaluate potential control activities are not normally that it could exacerbate the already reintroduction sites to determine those considered Federal projects, and would serious threats of collection, vandalism, most suitable with the help of our therefore not typically be subject to disturbance, fire, and other harm from partners and prior to future captive section 7 review. Furthermore, a humans (see Increased Threat to the propagation, reintroduction, and landowner is not obligated to conduct Subspecies by Designating Critical monitoring efforts. conservation actions, such as the Habitat, below). (24) Comment: Two commenters removal of invasive plants, when (26) Comment: Two commenters suggested that it is not feasible to critical habitat is designated. suggested that since high-quality target eliminate all threats throughout the We disagree with the view that there areas for reintroduction are all located Miami blue’s historical range, but that are few regulatory mechanisms that will on Federal, State, or conservation lands, designating critical habitat will have the mitigate activities contributing to there would not be significant economic benefit of identifying focused habitat destruction within the consequence to designating critical management zones for persistence. One subspecies’ historical range. Sections 7, habitat. commenter suggested that critical 9, and 10 of the Act (see Available Our Response: We agree that the habitat should provide additional Conservation Measures, below) can majority of suitable and potential benefits in that spraying for mosquitoes provide useful regulatory mechanisms habitat for the Miami blue occurs on would be prohibited, host plants would that will help conserve the Miami blue Federal, State, or conservation lands. be completely protected, and invasive in its current and historical range. In Our determination is that critical habitat species would be removed. He argued addition, listing facilitates proactive designation for the Miami blue is not that without designating critical habitat programs and partnerships that can help prudent. Therefore, an economic there are few regulatory mechanisms protect and restore habitats and analysis was not required by the Act that will mitigate illicit activities implement recovery actions (e.g., and was not conducted. contributing to habitat destruction at section 4 and 6 of the Act; see Available Comments Related to Taxonomy and potential reintroduction sites within the Conservation Measures, below). In Current Distribution historical range. short, some commenters may have Another commenter acknowledged overestimated the potential benefits of (27) Comment: The National the value of designating critical habitat critical habitat designation and Environmental and Planning Agency of for conservation and management underestimated the regulatory Jamaica provided comments prepared purposes and suggested that the limited protections that the Act confers simply by the Scientific Authority of Jamaica amount of remaining vital habitat be when a species is listed as endangered. regarding the relative abundance and identified for the Miami blue. He Finally, we agree that additional distribution of the cassius blue butterfly suggested that site assessments studies to identify specific habitat in that country. It indicated that it did conducted during the unsuccessful requirements are needed. Such studies not have data to support the suspected reintroduction efforts could help would be helpful to both understanding decline in Jamaica and had insufficient identify this habitat. This commenter the Miami blue’s specific physical and evidence to concur with the proposal. indicated that designating all biological habitat needs and for The agency suggested a population and undeveloped coastal areas as critical increasing the likelihood of successful distribution study was needed to habitat is too sweeping and ignores the reintroductions in the future. These determine conservation status in potential for more specific actions will likely be undertaken with Jamaica. environmental requirements, which researchers and others during recovery Our Response: We appreciate the may help explain the failure of the planning and implementation. comments provided. However, the reintroduction efforts. Additional (25) Comment: One commenter stated proposed rule did not suggest listing the studies to identify habitat requirements that the conditions given under 50 CFR cassius blue butterfly on the basis of were recommended. 424.12(a)(1) for a not prudent imperilment. Rather, it proposed Our Response: We agree that it is not determination would apply to most threatened status for the cassius blue possible to eliminate all threats endangered species, especially insects solely due to its similarity in throughout the Miami blue’s historical that maintain small populations. The appearance to the Miami blue, and to range and acknowledge that designating commenter contended that the provide greater protection for the Miami critical habitat could help focus increased threat to the Miami blue from blue. In response to comments received management actions. However, we designating critical habitat would be during the public comment period, the determined that designation of critical minimal because most suitable habitat similarity of appearance aspect of the habitat is not prudent for the Miami exists within protected State and final rule has been modified. The blue for the reasons stated below (see Federal lands. Service no longer sees a need to list the Critical Habitat and Prudency Our Response: We disagree that a ‘‘not cassius blue, ceraunus blue, or Determination and explanatory sections prudent’’ determination would apply to nickerbean blue butterflies as threatened that follow). most endangered species. However, we throughout their ranges. Rather, we With regard to threats, it is not acknowledge that it may often apply to believe that prohibiting collection of realistic to assume that critical habitat endangered insects and plants that are these similar butterflies only in the designation would remove threats such highly sought after by collectors, historical range of the Miami blue in as mosquito-control pesticides, hobbyists, and enthusiasts (e.g., Florida is sufficient for minimizing the completely protect host plants, or butterflies, tiger beetles, orchids, cacti). threat of collection of the Miami blue.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20963

Therefore, the cassius blue will not be (1995). This commenter recommended Cuba) would be helpful. Additional listed under the similarity of appearance that the taxonomic status be clarified. research could help determine if other provision of the Act in Jamaica (see Another commenter indicated the Caribbean taxa are also imperiled. Summary of Changes from Proposed differences between photographs she It is unlikely that Cyclargus thomasi Rule, below.). had taken from BHSP with those she has only recently established in the (28) Comment: Five commenters had discovered within KWNWR. She lower Keys, as one commenter expressed concern regarding taxonomy suggested the possibility that the suggested. There were few historical and current distribution. Another KWNWR colonies may more closely surveys for butterflies at BHSP or commenter stated that the question of resemble those of Cuba and elsewhere, KWNWR; therefore, it is unknown how taxonomic status has been settled since rather than those from mainland long the Miami blue occurred at these multiple, independent researchers have Florida. She noted that the range of the locations prior to their discoveries. By verified the unique standing of the butterfly does not seem well contrast, many of the other islands in Miami blue by genitalic dissection (See documented in recent years, and that the lower Keys have been continually also Comment #29 and Response the full range outside of the known monitored for butterflies for several below). locations should be determined. decades. If the Miami blue had recently One commenter, who had previously Our Response: We understand the colonized the lower Keys, it seems identified captive-reared BHSP commenters’ questions and uncertainty likely that it would have attempted to specimens as Cyclargus thomasi regarding taxonomy and distribution. establish at numerous locations along bethunebakeri, noted limitations in We disagree with the comment that the the chain of islands, thereby being contemporary specimens and available subspecies is not well defined or observed and reported prior to literature about Cyclargus taxa. This described. The best scientific and ultimately colonizing BHSP and commercial information and evidence commenter indicated that there are KWNWR. indicates that Cyclargus thomasi The concern that captive Miami blue morphological and genetic differences bethunebakeri is a distinct, well- larvae may not have readily accepted between historical and contemporary described and examined taxon (see balloonvine as the basis of historical populations of C. thomasi in Florida Taxonomy, above) and that its and contemporary populations being [noting Saarinen (2009)] and suspected distribution is limited (see Historical different entities seems unfounded. that these disparities may indicate the Distribution and Current Distribution). Captive individuals and artificial presence of a Cuban entity now in the Some concerns over the taxonomy conditions may produce responses that lower Keys. However, he acknowledged and current distribution are based on are different than those occurring in the that he was unaware of any detailed discussion of a similar looking blue wild. Available scientific literature morphological or genetic investigations butterfly recently documented in Cuba. documents a variety of host plants for of the Cuban entity. Considering Historically, the nickerbean blue, the Miami blue (see Life History and Florida’s proximity to other West Indian Cyclargus ammon, was reported from Habitat under Background—and populations, he suggested that it is Cuba. However, Hernandez (2004, p. response to Comment #6, above). possible that multiple genetic entities of 100) indicated that an undetermined Balloonvine was likely only one of C. thomasi have occurred (or do occur) subspecies of Cyclargus thomasi is now several legumes used by historical in Florida, and the presence of a more also known to occur on the island. Miami blue populations. genetically diverse metapopulation Craves (2004, p. 43) indicated that she Based on the best scientific within the KWNWR may be the result observed C. thomasi commonly at two information, including recent genetic of more recent immigrations from Cuba. locations in Cuba: Cayo Paredon and work, we find that Cyclargus thomasi Further, this commenter noted an Santiago de Cuba. Based on examination bethunebakeri is a distinct and unique unconfirmed report that captive-bred of photographs, she suggested that these entity, that it is limited in distribution Miami blue larvae did not readily accept appeared to be C. t. bethunebakeri. (i.e., Florida, possibly Bahamas), that it balloonvine, reinforcing his notion that However, no specimens were collected is imperiled, and that listing is historical and contemporary and, to our knowledge, there have been warranted. We lack any substantial populations are not the same entity. no additional studies of the Cuban C. information or evidence that the Cuban Another commenter stated that the thomasi. Craves (2004, p. 43) suggested entity is the same taxon and have no Service does not have the necessary the possibility that C. t. bethunebakeri information on that entity’s abundance information to determine if Cyclargus recolonized Florida from Cuba. or status. thomasi bethunebakeri is globally We acknowledge the concerns raised (29) Comment: In support of our endangered or not since C. thomasi has by some commenters regarding determination, one commenter, who recently been reported from Cuba and taxonomy, but we do not have any had conducted her dissertation on the appears to be secure there. He indicated scientific evidence to suggest that taxon, unequivocally stated that the that it has not been determined if the Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri also Florida subspecies, Cyclargus thomasi entity in Cuba is different from the now occurs in Cuba or that it recently bethunebakeri, is unique and imperiled. subspecies in Florida and that it is immigrated from Cuba to Florida. Other In addition to the work by multiple, possible that these are the same subspecies of C. thomasi occur in the independent scientists who have subspecies. He also noted that C. Caribbean (Smith et al. 1994, p. 129), verified the unique standing of the thomasi bethunebakeri has been and it is possible that the unidentified Miami blue through dissection, this reported from the Bimini Islands in the C. thomasi in Cuba is one of these commenter cited her own additional western Bahamas. In his view, the entity subspecies, another subspecies that has genetic analyses, which compared in Cuba may be the same subspecies and not yet been described, or possibly C. t. genetic sequence data of a it may be secure; therefore, the Florida bethunebakeri. Additional work to mitochondrial gene useful in taxon is not endangered, and should not better understand the full range of the elucidating species distinctions, and her be listed at this time. Miami blue outside of the known finding of sequence differences between Another commenter noted that the locations would be helpful. Surveys of multiple specimens of C. thomasi from Cyclargus thomasi complex was not remote areas in Florida are ongoing; Florida, Cuba, and the Bahamas. The well defined, citing Johnson and Balint additional surveys in the Bahamas (and sequence data and genitalic dissections

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

make it possible to separate the to the Miami blue and its host plants ultimately be recovered (see Available bethunebakeri from others in the C. posed by iguanas at KWNWR and Conservation Measures, below). thomasi complex. This commenter elsewhere. Efforts to better understand (33) Comment: One commenter stated definitively stated that C. thomasi this threat and control or contain that the most likely threats to the Miami bethunebakeri is unique and imperiled. iguanas in select areas of Miami blue blue are exotic predatory ants and the She noted that other Caribbean taxa are habitat are continuing. The State and fragmentation and loss of critical also unique and recommended research other partners have been actively breeding areas. to determine if these are also imperiled. working to reduce the presence and Our Response: We acknowledge that Sequencing of specimens at additional impact of iguanas at BHSP. Efforts by the Miami blue faces numerous threats mitochondrial and nuclear markers FWC and the FDEP appear to have (see Summary of Factors Affecting the would be helpful in more fully helped control impacts to host plants at Species). Habitat loss and fragmentation understanding the relationship between BHSP. and predation are two of many threats Floridian and other Caribbean taxa of Iguanas are well-established affecting the butterfly. Cyclargus thomasi. throughout the islands of KWNWR. Forys et al. (2001, p. 256) found high Our Response: We agree. Based on the While efforts have been made to assess mortality among immature giant best scientific information, including this potential threat at the Refuge, we swallowtails (Papilio cresphontes) from recent genetics work, we find that acknowledge the difficulties with red imported fire ant (Solenopsis Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri is a controlling iguanas and likelihood that invicta) predation in experimental trials distinct and unique entity, that it is broad eradication efforts will be and suggested other butterflies in limited in distribution (i.e., Florida, unsuccessful. In the short term, southern Florida might also be influenced. Similarly, Cannon (2006, possibly Bahamas), that it is imperiled, extensive iguana eradication or p. 7) reported high mortality of giant and that listing is warranted. We agree containment efforts may need to be and Bahamian (Papilio andraemon) with the commenter’s suggestion for focused in select occupied areas, future swallowtail eggs from an exotic species additional research to help determine if reintroduction sites, or other areas with of twig ant on Big Pine Key. Salvato and other Caribbean taxa are also imperiled. greatest habitat potential, where damage Salvato (2010, p. 95) extensively to host plant is evident. Given the Comments Related to Threats monitored the immature stages of the current distribution of iguanas in the (30) Comment: One commenter Federal candidate Florida leafwing Keys, any island has the potential to be provided considerable new information (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) and quickly colonized or recolonized by on exotic green iguanas within reported mortality from a number of iguanas, despite substantial control and KWNWR, potential impacts on the exotic and native predators, including containment efforts. Miami blue, and prospects for ants. eradication. This commenter identified (31) Comment: Two commenters We are not aware of any studies that studies to determine if green iguanas are indicated that the role of fire in pine have been conducted to specifically eating blackbead in KWNWR as an rockland habitats does not need to be examine the role of exotic ants on the immediate research need. He also noted discussed, because the Miami blue is a natural history of the Miami blue. that, worldwide, there are no known coastal butterfly that does not currently Therefore, while we agree that exotic cases in which an exotic reptile, once occur in fire-maintained habitats. ants, as well as other invasive species, established in an area, has been Our Response: Historically, the Miami have likely played a role in the decline eradicated (citing G.H. Rodda, pers. blue was documented from a variety of of the Miami blue, to date, no field comm. 2011). habitat types, including pine rocklands studies have identified exotic ants as Our Response: We have incorporated (Calhoun et al. 2000, pp. 17–18) (see specific predators of this subspecies. new information pertaining to green Habitat). We believe discussion of pine (34) Comment: Other commenters iguanas within KWNWR into the text of rocklands and the need to maintain this acknowledged that the Miami blue this final rule (see Summary of Factors habitat with natural or prescribed fires requires an active plan for Affecting the Species, Factor E). We is applicable, and have kept it in the reintroduction and that novel agree that determining iguana food final rule. reintroduction schemes will be an sources, both at KWNWR and within (32) Comment: One commenter important part of its recovery. habitat formerly occupied by Miami indicated that mismanagement has been Our Response: We agree that captive blues, is a crucial first step in an ongoing problem and that the Miami propagation and reintroduction may be preventing further harm to the Miami blue is thriving at remote locations important components of the blue from this exotic species. Because because humans have not burned, subspecies’ survival and recovery, and Miami blues have historically fed on a sprayed, cleared, or developed habitat. that innovative methods may be needed. variety of legumes, studies are needed to She believed that Federal listing will do Actions need to be carefully planned, determine iguana seasonal dietary nothing to save the Miami blue. implemented, and monitored. Any preferences in south Florida and the Our Response: We acknowledge that future efforts should only be initiated Keys. We are working with the U.S. the Miami blue faces numerous threats after it has been determined that such Geological Survey (USGS), the State, (see Summary of Factors Affecting the actions will not harm the wild researchers, and others to analyze gut Species) and that its persistence on a population, rigorous standards are met, contents of iguanas removed from Refuge may be, in part, due to the and commitments are in place to current and historical locations. absence of some threats. Protections increase the likelihood of success and Preliminary gut content analyses under the Act (through sections 7, 9, maximize knowledge gained. Research conducted by FDEP and researchers and 10) and the recognition that with surrogate species may be helpful to have confirmed ingestion of at least one immediately became available to the better establish protocols and refine host plant (nickerbean) in the lower subspecies with Federal emergency techniques for the Miami blue prior to Keys (Jim Duquesnel, pers. comm. listing (and will continue with propagation and reintroduction efforts. 2012). permanent listing) will increase the (35) Comment: One commenter stated We agree that there is an urgent need likelihood that extinction can be that listing will hamper conservation to better understand the extent of threat prevented, and the subspecies can efforts and research because of legal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20965

restrictions. He claimed that some applicability to the Miami blue second commenter stated that no harm private property owners in the Keys situation. It is our understanding that was demonstrated in Hennessey and have already threatened to clear Atala hairstreaks were reintroduced to Habeck (1989), Hennessey and Habeck vegetation from undeveloped properties numerous areas, including locations (1991), and Hennessey et al. (1992) to avoid any restrictions. He cited where they had not historically when mosquito control chemicals inconsistent funding for research and occurred. Any reintroduction efforts for drifted 750 meters into protected no- restoration, lack of cooperation between the Miami blue would focus on the most spray zones. Federal and State agencies in recent suitable habitat within its historical Another commenter cited two studies times, and hindrances from permitting range, with the cooperation of (Davis and Peterson 2008, Breidenbach requirements and reporting efforts. This landowners. and Szalay 2010) that demonstrated few commenter suggested that the successful There have been several successful deleterious effects on insect reintroductions of the Atala hairstreak reintroductions for endangered blue communities following mosquito (Eumaeus atala) be studied as an butterflies elsewhere in the United control chemical application. example of cooperative efforts, which States, such as the Karner (Plebejus Our Response: With regard to the first were only possible because that samuelis) or Mission blue (Plebejus comment relating to pesticide drift, the butterfly was not listed. icarioides missionensis). We are hopeful results of the aforementioned field study Our Response: We disagree with the that researchers and other conservation (all three references detail activities commenter’s view that listing will partners will draw on guidance from associated with just one field study) did impede conservation efforts and these and other successful not provide conclusive findings research due to legal restrictions. reintroductions prior to undertaking regarding the effects of mosquito control Federal listing will increase the future captive propagation and spraying on the two butterfly species likelihood that extinction can be reintroduction efforts for the Miami examined (Florida leafwing and prevented and that the Miami blue may blue. State and Federal funding has Bartram’s hairstreak [Strymon acis ultimately be recovered (see Available been provided in support of previous bartrami]). A greater number of adult Conservation Measures, below). captive propagation efforts for the Florida leafwing butterflies was Funding under section 4 and section 6 Miami blue. Due to the subspecies’ observed in untreated areas during one of the Act may help implement actions precarious status, it is imperative to year of the study, but this difference was that may be difficult to undertake identify the potential causes of failure not observed in the second year of the otherwise. The need for a section 10 from previous efforts before future study (Hennessey and Habeck 1991, permit under the Act to conduct efforts are undertaken. p. 14). Additionally, the study revealed research on a species is dependent upon (36) Comment: One commenter that one of the reference locations the nature of the activity and the contended that mosquito control received adulticide deposition through likelihood for incidental take. Some activities have had minimal impact on aerial drift, thus compromising the research activities may require a permit; the Miami blue butterfly. A second utility of the location to be used as a others may not. However, the reporting commenter stated that the record clearly reference site and making it difficult to requirements of a section 10 permit demonstrates that mosquito control discern any pesticide effects (Hennessey provide additional benefit by ensuring adulticides (insecticides targeting adult and Habeck 1991, pp. 29–30). the Service receives the most recent and mosquitos) have not been a primary With regard to deleterious effects of best available scientific information. cause (or even a substantial contributory pesticides, we agree with the other With the Miami blue population at secondary cause) to mortality in the commenter’s assertion that the two critically low numbers, section 10 Miami blue and ‘‘its sibling species.’’ A studies cited did not show dramatic permits also allow us to control the third commenter stated that mosquito effects on insect communities following amount of take allowed for research, spraying is not an issue because the mosquito control activities. There were which might otherwise threaten the remaining Miami blue colonies in the exceptions in both studies where insect subspecies through overutilization. KWNWR are not sprayed. numbers declined following treatment We agree with the commenter’s view Our Response: No comprehensive events (Davis and Peterson 2008, pp. that funding can be inconsistent. In studies have been completed that 274–276; Breidenbach and Szalay 2010, general, Federal funding is limited. examine the impact of current or pp. 594–595). It also did not appear that However, Federal listing increases historical mosquito control activities on any butterfly families were included in potential funding opportunities and Miami blue butterflies in the wild. the study, thus making it difficult to funding sources. Although there is no evidence of draw any conclusions about mosquito We disagree with the commenter’s mosquito control impacts on wild control effects on butterflies. assertion that State and Federal agencies Miami blue populations, potential (38) Comment: Two commenters have not worked cooperatively in recent impacts over the subspecies’ historical stated that current mosquito control times. Agencies regularly coordinate on range have never been examined. Recent application methods are improved when Miami blue butterfly issues, needs, and research has shown that exposure to compared to methods used in the actions. For example, State agencies mosquito control chemicals in sufficient Hennessey and Habeck (1991) study that have provided vessel transportation for quantities can impact various butterfly documented drift of mosquito control researchers and staff conducting species, including captive-bred Miami chemicals. One of the commenters federally funded surveys in remote blue (Zhong et al. 2010 pp. 1967–1968; specifically stated that mosquito spray areas. Federal agencies have supported Hoang et al. 2011 pp. 1000–1002). Based optimization utilizing smaller and more previous captive propagation efforts and on these findings, the Service uniform insecticide aerosol droplets has more recently assisted in the formation determined that mosquito control been shown to mitigate exposure to of a State management plan. pesticides can be a threat to the Miami nontarget organisms. Two studies are While we agree that Atala hairstreak blue. cited (Zhong et al. 2003, 2004) in releases throughout Florida demonstrate (37) Comment: One commenter stated support of this assertion. This same how volunteer organizations can that Hennessey and Habeck (1991) commenter also stated that the small galvanize to work locally towards found no adverse effect on insect droplets degrade rapidly and leave little conservation, we question its populations due to pesticide drift. A or no residue at ground level.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Our Response: We acknowledge that theory, based upon unpublished field subspecies and to not unnecessarily mosquito control spraying technology observations, that mosquito control restrict mosquito control operations. has advanced in recent years. Despite spraying may benefit butterfly species Mapping potential suitable habitat these advances, recent research (Pierce by decreasing parasitoids. would be more inclusive and likely 2009, pp. 2–15; Zhong et al. 2010, pp. Our Response: The theory presented provide broader conservation benefits 1966–1967; Pierce 2011, pp. 6–11; T. in this comment appears to be based than mapping populations since Bargar, USGS, pers. comm. 2011) has solely on an individual’s qualitative populations can fluctuate seasonally (or still documented quantifiable residues observations. No quantitative methods even more frequently) based upon of mosquito control chemicals on filter or data are given or cited. Concrete habitat quality, availability, and other pads and foliage in nontarget areas. evidence in support of such a theory factors. (39) Comment: Two commenters would need to be provided for further (43) Comment: One commenter addressed the results of Zhong et al. consideration. believed that the Service should not (2010), a paper that assessed exposure (41) Comment: One commenter stated regulate the sale, purchase, or gifts of and acute toxicity of late instar Miami that risk-based assessments to address specimens of the Miami blue legally blue larvae to aerially applied mosquito the probability of injury, based on actual obtained before the rule was enacted. control adulticides in the field. One field exposure, rather than hazard-based With regard to the exception for commenter noted that he has heard and assessments that simply indicate the properly documented antique read multiple comments regarding the potential to cause injury and do not take specimens, he noted that the butterfly mortality level of Miami blue into account environmentally relevant was not even described until 1941 and caterpillars within a mosquito control exposure scenarios, should be used that there are not likely to be many spray zone from the Zhong et al. (2010) when examining pesticide impacts to specimens at least 100 years old; if such study, cited in the emergency rule. This threatened and endangered species. specimens exist, these are probably the same commenter noted that Miami blue They maintain these assessments should property of major museums, not private caterpillar mortality in the ‘‘drift zone’’ be made in terms of long-term collectors. did not differ statistically from control population-level effects, rather than Our Response: We disagree. We have organisms that were 11 mi (18 km) from localized effects upon individual determined that prohibiting the sale and mosquito control chemical application. organisms. This would allow for purchase of Miami blue specimens The second commenter noted that larval ‘‘inadvertent take’’ provisions of the Act obtained before this rule is enacted (but mortality was insignificant in the ‘‘drift to be used. not specimens documented to be over zone’’, despite the fact that naled Our Response: The Service agrees that 100 years old) will help deter collection (organophosphate insecticide) residues risk-based assessments that take into and help safeguard the subspecies. This were detected at least once in each of account actual field exposure scenarios prohibition of sale or offering for sale those locations. This commenter stated are an effective way to evaluate risk to automatically applies to all pre-Act that these results may indicate that threatened and endangered species. For specimens of species listed as other variables need to be studied. example, in a recent study, field endangered under the Act. Some Vitality of the larvae, uneven deposition values for naled on the authorized activities, with proper distribution of naled residue, and the National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR), Big permits and documentation, would still effects of distance from the spray line on Pine Key, were incorporated into a be allowed (e.g., exchange of museum butterfly mortality under various wind probabilistic risk assessment that specimens among permitted conditions and spray drift offsets are all predicted significant risk to common institutions). We agree that it is not suggested as additional studies. butterflies (Bargar 2012, pp. 1–7). Such likely that many exempted specimens of Our Response: The naled residues risk assessments would examine direct at least 100 years are in existence. that were observed in the drift zone effects on individual organisms, but were lower in concentration than the would also be interpreted at the Summary of Changes From Proposed residues in the spray zone (Zhong et al. population level. This could be used to Rule 2010, p. 1966); therefore, it is not estimate take and incidental take under After consideration of the comments surprising that caterpillar mortality in the Act. received during the public comment the drift zone was significantly lower (42) Comment: One commenter stated period (see above), we made changes to than in the spray zone. The mortality his support for recommendations made the final listing rule. Many small, trend observed in mosquitoes placed in by the Imperiled Species Subcommittee nonsubstantive changes and corrections, the spray, drift, and control zones also of the Florida Coordinating Council on not affecting the determination (e.g., followed a clear dose-response similar Mosquito Control, which include updating the Background section in to that of the butterfly caterpillars requiring buffers for known Miami blue response to comments, minor (Zhong et al. 2010, p. 1969). The vitality populations, allowing for incidental clarifications) were made throughout of the larvae used in the study is take in areas receiving mosquito control, the document. All substantial changes confirmed by the fact that no larval and supporting additional research into relate to similarity of appearance under mortality was observed in the control nontarget impacts from mosquito section 4(e) of the Act and applicable zone (Zhong et al. 2010, p. 1969). The control. The commenter also indicated prohibitions and exceptions under Service agrees with the second that it is important to definitively map section 4(d) of the Act. commenter’s suggestion that naled populations of Miami blues to ensure These include the following: residue distribution and the effects of that mosquito control activities are not (1) We reduced prohibitions for the distance from the spray line on butterfly unnecessarily curtailed. similarity of appearance butterflies to mortality under various wind Our Response: The Service supports include collection only. We have conditions and spray drift offsets should the aforementioned recommendations of removed prohibitions regarding be studied further. the Imperiled Species Subcommittee possession and trade for the similarity (40) Comment: One commenter and was instrumental in the of appearance butterflies. provided quotes from a lepidopterist development of the recommendations. It (2) We limited the collection with experience studying butterflies in is helpful to identify important Miami prohibition for the similarity of Florida. The lepidopterist presented a blue habitat to help reduce threats to the appearance butterflies to only portions

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20967

of their ranges. Collection of the Human Population Growth and the entire coastline heading northward similarity of appearance butterflies is Development to West Palm Beach.’’ prohibited only within the historical Saarinen (2009, pp. 42, 46) examined range of the Miami blue. The geographic range of this butterfly museum collections in the context of once extended from the Dry Tortugas Solecki’s development eras and found (3) We modified the special rule north along the Florida coasts to about that Miami blue records for Miami-Dade under section 4(d) for the similarity of St. Petersburg and Daytona. It was most County were highest in the 1930s and appearance butterflies to specify that common on the southern mainland and 1940s, prior to massive land use prohibitions apply only to the act of the Keys, and more localized on the changes and urbanization. Records from collecting them in coastal south and Gulf coast. Examination of museum Monroe County (including the Keys) central Florida within the historical collections indicated that specimens were most numerous in the 1970s range of the Miami blue butterfly. were common from the early 1900s to (Saarinen 2009, p. 46). Calhoun (pers. (4) We modified our similarity of the 1980s; the butterfly was widely comm. 2003b) suggested the butterfly appearance determination to reflect the distributed, existing in a variety of reached peak abundance when changes outlined above (see locations in southern Florida for balloonvine invaded clearings Determination of Status). decades (Saarinen 2009, p. 46). associated with the construction boom (5) We modified our discussion However, through time, much of this of the 1970s and 1980s in the northern regarding the effects of the rule to reflect subspecies’ native habitat has been lost, Keys and southern mainland and the changes outlined above (see Effects degraded, or fragmented, especially on became available as a suitable host of the Rule). the mainland, largely from development plant. If so, this may have represented and urban growth (Lenczewski 1980, p. a change in primary host plant at a time See Similarity of Appearance, Special 47; Minno and Emmel 1994, pp. 647– when the subspecies was beginning to Rule Under Section 4(d) of the Act, 648; Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18; Carroll decline due to continued development Determination of Status, and Effects of and Loye 2006, p. 25). and destruction of coastal habitat. the Rule below. On the east coast of Florida, the entire Saarinen (2009, p. 46) could not Summary of Factors Affecting the coastline in Palm Beach, Broward, and correlate decreases in natural land areas Species Miami-Dade Counties (as far south as with changes in the numbers collected Miami Beach) is densely urban, with (or abundance), due to several Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), only small remnants of native coastal confounding factors (e.g., increased and its implementing regulations at 50 vegetation conserved in fragmented pesticide use, exotic species). Calhoun CFR part 424, set forth the procedures natural areas. Most of the Gulf Coast et al. (2002, p. 13) also attributed the for adding species to the Federal Lists barrier islands that previously butterfly’s decline to loss of habitat due of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife supported the Miami blue, including to coastal development, but and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Marco and Chokoloskee Islands, have acknowledged that other factors such as Act, we may determine a species to be experienced intense development succession, tropical storms, and endangered or threatened due to one or pressure and undergone subsequent mosquito control also likely exacerbated more of the following five factors: (A) habitat loss (Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18). the decline (see Factor E). The present or threatened destruction, In an independent survey of historical Habitat loss and human population growth in coastal areas on the mainland modification, or curtailment of its sites where the Miami blue had and the Keys is continuing. The human habitat or range; (B) overutilization for previously been observed or collected, population in south Florida has commercial, recreational, scientific, or half were found to be developed or no increased from less than 20,000 people educational purposes; (C) disease or longer supporting host plants in 2002 in 1920 to more than 4.6 million by predation; (D) the inadequacy of (D. Fine, unpub. data, pers. comm. 1990 (Solecki 2001, p. 345). Monroe existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 2002). County and Miami-Dade County, two other natural or manmade factors Significant land use changes have areas where the Miami blue was affecting its continued existence. Listing occurred through time in south Florida. historically abundant, increased from actions may be warranted based on any Considering political and economic less than 30,000 and 500,000 people in of the above threat factors, singly or in structure and changes, Solecki (2001, 1950, respectively, to more than 73,000 combination. Each of these factors is pp. 339–356) divided Florida’s land-use and 2.5 million in 2009 (http:// discussed below. history into three broad eras: frontier era quickfacts.census.gov). All available A. The Present or Threatened (1870–1930), development era (1931– vacant land in the Keys is projected to Destruction, Modification, or 1970), and globalization era (1971– be consumed by human population Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range present). Within the development era, increases (i.e., developed) by 2060, Solecki (2001, p. 350) noted that: including lands not accessible by The Miami blue has experienced ‘‘Tremendous change took place from automobile (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. substantial destruction, modification, the early 1950s to the early and mid- 14). Scenarios developed by and curtailment of its habitat and range 1970s. Between 1953 and 1973, nearly Massachusetts Institute of Technology (see Background, above), with an 5,800 km2 (2,300 mi2) (28,997 ha/year or (MIT) urban studies and planning estimated >99 percent decline in area 11,735 ac/year) of natural areas were department staff (Vargas-Moreno and occupied (FWC 2010, p. 11). Although lost to agricultural and urban land uses Flaxman 2010, pp. 1–8) included both many factors likely contributed to its (Solecki and Walker, 2001).’’ During this trend and doubling population decline, some of which may have time, ‘‘an almost continuous strip of estimates combined with climate change operated synergistically, habitat loss, urban development became present factors (see below) and show significant degradation, and fragmentation are along the Atlantic coast’’ and ‘‘urban impacts on remaining conservation undoubtedly major forces that land uses became well established in lands, including the refuges, within the contribute to its imperilment (Calhoun the extreme southeastern part of the Keys. While the rate of development in et al. 2002, pp. 13–19; Saarinen 2009, region, particularly around the cities of portions of south Florida has slowed in p. 36). Miami and Fort Lauderdale, and along recent years, habitat loss and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

degradation, especially in desirable 2002; J. Calhoun, pers. comm. 2003b; M. comm. 2002). Nickerbean is reported to coastal areas, continues and is expected Salvato, pers. comm. 2003). In 2001, occur in all of the State parks in the to increase. following the return of balloonvine, a Keys. It is not removed, but where it is Although extensive loss and single adult was observed (J. Calhoun, a safety hazard for visitors, such as fragmentation of habitat has occurred, pers. comm. 2003b). Calhoun noted that when overgrowing into trails, it is significant areas of suitable larval host the silver-banded hairstreak trimmed (Janice Duquesnel, pers. comm. plants still remain on private and public (Chlorostrymon simaethis), which also 2003). Removal of host plants in or near lands. Results from surveys (2002–2003) feeds on balloonvine, had also returned occupied habitat remains a concern, within south Florida and the Keys to the site. The silver-banded hairstreak given the subspecies’ small population showed that numerous areas still has rebounded substantially on northern size, isolated occurrences, and limited contained host plants (Emmel and Key Largo within disturbed areas of dispersal capabilities (see Factor E). Daniels 2004, pp. 3–6). Results from DJSP; if any extant Miami blues remain Lack of prescribed fire on public similar surveys in 2007–2009 suggested on the island, reestablishment in this lands may have adversely affected the that 14 of 16 sites on the mainland and area is possible. Miami blue through time, but impacts 20 of 22 in the Keys contained suitable Removal of nickerbean as part of trail are unclear. In addition to being found habitat (Emmel and Daniels 2009, pp. 6– maintenance and impacts to a tree within coastal areas and hardwood 8). Other researchers noted that larval resulting from placement of a facility hammocks, the Miami blue was also host plants are common in the Keys may have impacted the south colony at reported within tropical pinelands, a (Carroll and Loye 2006, p. 24; Minno BHSP in 2002 (J. Daniels, pers. comm. fire-dependent habitat (Minno and and Minno 2009, p. 9). A search of IRC’s 2002; P. Halupa, pers. obs. 2002). The Emmel 1993, p. 134; Calhoun et al. database suggests that 79 conservation tree was an apparent assembly area for 2002, p. 18). Calhoun et al. (2002, p. 18) areas in south Florida contain display by butterflies during courtship reported that, until the early 1990s, the Caesalpinia spp., 39 areas contain (J. Daniels, pers. comm. 2002). Damage Miami blue most commonly occurred Cardiospermum spp., and 77 contain to host plant and nectar sources from within pine rocklands on Big Pine Key. Pithecellobium spp. trimming and mowing during the dry In the absence of fire, pine rockland (www.regionalconservation.org/ircs/ season and herbivory by iguanas (see often progresses to hardwood hammock. database/search). With significant areas Factor E) impacted habitat conditions at Lack of fire may have resulted in habitat of host plants still remaining in portions BHSP in 2010 (D. Olle, NABA, pers. loss; however, the extent to which this of the butterfly’s range, there is potential comm. 2010). More recently, the FDEP condition occurred is unclear and for additional populations of the Miami has worked to improve habitat difficult to assess. Since the Miami blue blue to exist. conditions at BHSP through plantings, is presumably sedentary, changes in Acute habitat fragmentation appears modification of its mowing practices, vegetation due to this and other land to have severely diminished the Miami removal of iguanas, protection of management practices may have blue’s ability to repopulate formerly sensitive areas, and other actions (R. exacerbated the effects of fragmentation. inhabited sites or to successfully locate Zambrano, FWC, pers. comm. 2010; D. As part of its listing process, the FWC host plants in new areas (Calhoun et al. Cook, pers. comm. 2010a, 2010b; Janice has completed a biological status review 2002, p. 18). Although larval host plants Duquesnel, Florida Park Service [FPS], and management plan for the subspecies remain locally common, the pers. comm. 2010a, 2010b; Jim (FWC 2003, pp. 1–26). This disappearance of core populations and Duquesnel, pers. comm. 2010, 2011b; E. management plan was recently revised extent of habitat fragmentation may now Kiefer, pers. comm. 2011a). (FWC 2010, pp. ii–39). Although the prevent the subspecies from colonizing Maintenance, including pruning of management plan is a fundamental step new areas (J. Calhoun, pers. comm. host vegetation along trails and in outlining conservation needs, it may 2003b). The Miami blue appears roadsides, use of herbicides, and be insufficient for achieving sedentary and is not known to travel far impacts from other projects could lead conservation goals and long-term from pockets of larval host plants and to direct mortality in occupied habitats persistence. Recommended adult nectar sources (J. Calhoun, pers. (Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 14). conservation strategies and actions comm. 2003b; Emmel and Daniels 2004, Habitat previously supporting immature within the plan are voluntary and pp. 6, 13). The presence of adult nectar stages of the butterfly on West dependent upon adequate funding, sources proximal to larval host plants is Summerland Key is subject to periodic staffing, and the cooperation and critical to the Miami blue and may help mowing for road maintenance by the participation of multiple agencies and explain its absence from areas that Florida Department of Transportation (J. private entities, which may or may not contain high larval host plant Daniels, pers. comm. 2003c); the be available or able to assist. abundance but few nectar sources (J. butterfly no longer occurs at this Conservation strategies include Calhoun, pers. comm. 2003b; Emmel location (Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 3; suggested actions to maintain, protect, and Daniels 2004, p. 13). 2009, p. 8). Since Miami blues appear and monitor known metapopulations; sedentary with limited dispersal Land Management Practices establish new metapopulations; and capabilities, alteration of even small conduct additional research to support Land management practices that habitat patches may be deleterious. conservation (FWC 2010, pp. 17–26). remove larval host plants and nectar Removal of host plants from In summary, a variety of land sources can be a threat to the Miami conservation lands does not appear to management practices on public lands blue. Some actions on public be occurring on any large scale at this (e.g., removal of host plants, mowing of conservation lands may have negatively time. IRC has conducted extensive plant nectar sources, and lack of prescribed affected occupied habitat, but the extent inventories on conservation lands fires) may have adversely affected the of this impact is not known. For within south Florida and is not aware of Miami blue and its habitat historically example, the Miami blue had been any attempts to eradicate balloonvine and continues to do so currently. sighted in DJSP in 1996, but following and noted that gray nickerbean has only removal of balloonvine as part of rarely been controlled (i.e., purposefully Climate Change and Sea Level Rise routine land management, no adults removed or pruned, followed with Our analyses under the Act include were observed (L. Cooper, pers. comm. herbicide treatment) (K. Bradley, pers. consideration of ongoing and projected

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20969

changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ variability. Partial loss of the Greenland literature. In the Keys, models projected and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the and Antarctic ice sheets could result in that sea level rise will first result in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate many feet (several meters) of sea level conversion of habitat and eventually the Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the rise, major changes in coastlines, and complete inundation of habitat. In the mean (average) and variability of inundation of low-lying areas (IPCC best case scenario, a rise of 7 inches (18 different types of weather conditions 2008, pp. 28–29). Low-lying islands and cm) would result in the inundation of over time, with 30 years being a typical river deltas will incur the largest 1,840 ac (745 ha) (34 percent) of Big period for such measurements, although impacts (IPCC 2008, pp. 28–29). Pine Key and the loss of 11 percent of shorter or longer periods also may be According to CCSP (2008, p. 5–31), the island’s upland habitat (TNC 2010, used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term much of low-lying, coastal south Florida p. 1). In the worst case scenario, a rise ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change ‘‘will be underwater or inundated with of 4.6 feet (140 cm) would result in the in the mean or variability of one or more salt water in the coming century.’’ This inundation of about 5,950 ac (2,409 ha) measures of climate (e.g., temperature or means that most occupied, suitable, and (96 percent) and the loss of all upland precipitation) that persists for an potential habitat for Miami blue will habitat (TNC 2010, p. 1). If modeling is extended period, typically decades or likely be either submerged or affected by accurate, under the worst case scenario, longer, whether the change is due to increased flooding. even upland habitat on Big Pine Key natural variability, human activity, or The 2007 IPCC report found a 90 will become submerged, thereby making both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types percent probability of an additional 7 to the butterfly’s potential recolonization of changes in climate can have direct or 23 inches (18–58 cm) and possibly as or survival at this and other low-lying indirect effects on species. These effects high as many feet (several meters) of sea locations in the Keys very unlikely. may be positive, neutral, or negative and level rise by 2100 in the Keys. This Similarly, using a spatially explicit they may change over time, depending would cause major changes to coastlines model for the Keys, Ross et al. (2009, p. on the species and other relevant and inundation of low-lying areas like 473) found that mangrove habitats will considerations, such as the effects of the Keys (IPCC 2008, pp. 28–29). The expand steadily at the expense of interactions of climate with other IPCC (2008, pp. 3, 103) concluded that upland and traditional habitats as sea variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) climate change is likely to increase the level rises. Most of the upland and (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our occurrence of saltwater intrusion as sea transitional habitat in the central analyses, we use our expert judgment to level rises. Since the 1930s, increased portion of Sugarloaf Key is projected to weigh relevant information, including salinity of coastal waters contributed to be lost with a 0.2-meter rise (0.7-foot the decline of cabbage palm forests in uncertainty, in our consideration of rise) in sea level; a 0.5-meter rise (1.6- southwest Florida (Williams et al. 1999, various aspects of climate change. foot rise) in sea level can result in a 95 Climatic changes, including sea level pp. 2056–2059), expansion of percent loss of upland habitat by 2100 rise, are major threats to south Florida, mangroves into adjacent marshes in the (Ross et al. 2009, p. 473). Furthermore, including the Miami blue and its Everglades (Ross et al. 2000, pp. 9, 12– Ross et al. (2009, pp. 471–478) habitat. In general, the IPCC reported 13), and loss of pine rockland in the suggested that interactions between sea that the warming of the world’s climate Keys (Ross et al. 1994, pp. 144, 151– level rise and pulse disturbances (e.g., system is unequivocal based on 155). storm surges or fire [see Factor E]) can documented increases in global average Hydrology has a strong influence on cause vegetation to change sooner than air and ocean temperatures, plant distribution in these and other unprecedented melting of snow and ice, coastal areas (IPCC 2008, p. 57). Such projected based on sea level alone. and rising average sea level (IPCC 2007, communities typically grade from salt to Scientific evidence that has emerged p. 2; 2008, p. 15). On a global scale, sea brackish to freshwater species. In the since the publication of the IPCC Report level rise results from the thermal Keys, elevational differences between (2007) indicates an acceleration in expansion of warming ocean water, such communities are very slight (Ross global climate change. Important aspects water input to oceans from the melting et al. 1994, p. 146), and horizontal of climate change seem to have been of ice sheets, glaciers, and ice caps, and distances are also small. Human underestimated previously, and the the addition of water from terrestrial developments will also likely be resulting impacts are being felt sooner. systems (United Nations (UN) 2009, p. significant factors influencing whether For example, early signs of change ° 26). Sea level rise is the largest climate- natural communities can move and suggest that the 1 C of global warming driven challenge to low-lying coastal persist (IPCC 2008, p. 57; CCSP 2008, p. the world has experienced to date may areas and refuges in the subtropical 7–6). For the Miami blue, this means have already triggered the first tipping ecoregion of southern Florida (U.S. that much of the butterfly’s habitat in point of the Earth’s climate system—the Climate Change Science Program [CCSP] the Keys, as well as habitat in other disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice. 2008, pp. 5–31, 5–32). The long-term parts of its historical range, will likely This process could lead to rapid and record at Key West shows that sea level change as vegetation changes. Any abrupt climate change, rather than the rose on average 0.088 inches (0.224 cm) deleterious changes to important host gradual changes that were forecasted. annually between 1913 and 2006 plants and nectar sources could further Other processes to be affected by (National Oceanographic and diminish the likelihood of the projected warming include Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] subspecies’ survival and recovery. temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal 2008, p. 1). This equates to The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (2010, timing, and distribution), and storms approximately 8.76 inches (22.3 cm) in pp. 1–4) used Light Detection and (frequency and intensity) (see Factor E). 100 years (NOAA 2008, p. 1). Ranging (LIDAR) remote sensing The MIT scenarios combine various In a technical paper following its 2007 technology to derive digital elevation levels of sea level rise, temperature report, the IPCC (2008, p. 28) models and project future shorelines change, and precipitation differences emphasized it is very likely that the and distribution of habitat types for Big with population, policy assumptions, average rate of sea level rise during the Pine Key based on sea level rise and conservation funding changes. All 21st century will exceed that from 1961 projections by 2100, ranging from the of the scenarios, from small climate to 2003, although it was projected to best case to worst case scenarios change shifts to major changes, will have substantial geographical described by current scientific have significant effects on the Keys.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Several recent scientific publications modification of the subspecies’ habitat overcollection. The Blackburn’s sphinx have also addressed problems that the is a significant threat to the subspecies moth (Manduca blackburni) was listed IPCC’s approach had in accounting for throughout all of its range. as endangered on February 1, 2000 (65 the observed level of sea level rise in the FR 4770), partially due to overcollection B. Overutilization for Commercial, late 20th and early 21st centuries, and by private and commercial collectors. Recreational, Scientific, or Educational yielded new projections which reflect The Schaus swallowtail (Heraclides the possibility of rapid contributions Purposes [Papilio] aristodemus ponceanus), the from ice sheet dynamics beyond surface Collection only other federally listed butterfly in melting (see summaries by Church et al. Rare butterflies and moths are highly Florida, was reclassified from 2010, Rahmstorf 2010, and Nicholls et prized by collectors, and an threatened to endangered in 1984 due to al. 2011). The ranges of recent international trade exists in specimens its continued decline (49 FR 34501). At projections of global sea level rise for both live and decorative markets, as the time of its original listing, some (Pfeffer et al., 2008, p. 1340, Vermeer & well as the specialist trade that supplies believed that collection represented a Rahmstorf 2009, p. 21530, Grinsted et hobbyists, collectors, and researchers threat. As the Schaus decreased in al., 2010, pp. 469–470, Jevrejeva et al., (Collins and Morris 1985, pp. 155–179; distribution and abundance, collection 2010, L07703, p. 4, (GCCUS) 2009, p. Morris et al. 1991, pp. 332–334; was estimated to be a greater threat than 25) all indicate substantially higher Williams 1996, pp. 30–37). The at the time of listing (49 FR 34501). Collection was cited as a threat to the levels than the projection by the IPCC in specialist trade differs from both the live Miami blue in both the original and 2007, suggesting that the impact of sea and decorative market in that it subsequent petitions for emergency level rise on south Florida could be concentrates on rare and threatened listing. The State’s management plan for even greater than indicated above. species (U.S. Department of Justice These recent studies also show a much the Miami blue acknowledges that [USDJ] 1993, pp. 1–3; United States v. larger difference (approximately 3 to 4 butterfly collecting may stress small, Skalski et al., Case No. CR9320137, U.S. ft (0.9 to 1.2 m)) from the low to the high localized populations and lead to the District Court for the Northern District ends of the ranges, which indicates the loss of individuals and genetic of California [USDC] 1993, pp. 1–86). In magnitude of global mean sea level rise variability, but also indicates that there general, the rarer the species, the more at the end of this century is still quite is no evidence or information on current valuable it is; prices can exceed $25,000 uncertain. or past collection pressure on the Miami Rising sea level is an acute threat to for exceedingly rare specimens. For blue (FWC 2010, p. 13). Butterflies in all sites known to currently support the example, during a 4-year investigation, small populations are vulnerable to Miami blue (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 852), special agents of the Service’s Office of harm from collection (Gall 1984, p. 133). and it appears that habitat is now being Law Enforcement executed warrants A population may be reduced to below lost (T. Wilmers, pers. comm. 2012a). and seized more than 30,000 sustainable numbers (Allee effect) by Most occupied sites are <1 meter (1.09 endangered and protected butterflies removal of females, reducing the yd) above sea level, and none are >2 and beetles, with a total wholesale probability that new colonies will be meter (2.18 yd) above sea level (Cannon commercial market value of about founded. Collectors can pose threats to et al. 2010, p. 852). Prominent beach $90,000 in the United States (USDJ butterflies because they may be unable erosion and narrowing of dunes and 1995, pp. 1–4). In another case, special to recognize when they are depleting coastal strands have been documented agents found at least 13 species colonies below the thresholds of within Boca Grande and at least one protected under the Act, and another survival or recovery (Collins and Morris island within the Marquesas (Cannon et 130 species illegally taken from lands 1985, pp. 162–165). There is ample al. 2010, p. 852). Considerable administered by the Department of the evidence of collectors impacting other blackbead on one island has eroded into Interior and other State lands (USDC imperiled and endangered butterflies the sea (T. Wilmers, pers. comm. 2012a). 1993, pp. 1–86; Service 1995, pp. 1–2). (Gochfeld and Burger 1997, pp. 208– Law enforcement agents routinely see 209), host plants (Cech and Tudor 2005, Summary of Factor A butterfly species protected under the p. 55), and even contributing to We have identified a number of Convention on International Trade in extirpations (Duffey 1968, p. 94). For threats to the habitat of the Miami blue Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and example, the federally endangered which have operated in the past, are Flora (CITES) during port inspections in Mitchell’s satyr (Neonympha mitchellii impacting the subspecies now, and will Florida, often without import mitchellii) is believed to have been continue to impact the subspecies in the declarations or the required CITES extirpated from New Jersey due to future. The decline of butterflies in permits (E. McKissick, Service Law overcollecting (57 FR 21567; Gochfeld south Florida is primarily the result of Enforcement, pers. comm. 2011). and Burger 1997, p. 209). the long-lasting effects of habitat loss, Several listings of butterflies as Although we do not have evidence of degradation, and modification from endangered or threatened species under collection of the Miami blue, we do human population growth and the Act have been based, at least have evidence of illegal collection of associated development and agriculture. partially, on intense collection pressure. other butterflies from Federal lands in Environmental effects resulting from Notably, the Saint Francis’ satyr south Florida, including the endangered climatic change, including sea level rise, (Neonympha mitchellii francisci) was Schaus swallowtail. In 1993, three are expected to become severe in the emergency-listed as endangered on defendants were indicted for conspiracy future and result in additional habitat April 18, 1994 (59 FR 18324). The Saint to violate the wildlife laws of the United losses. Although efforts have been made Francis’ satyr was demonstrated to have States, including the Act, the Lacey Act, to restore habitat in some areas, the been significantly impacted by and 18 U.S.C. 371 (USDC 1993, p. 1). long-term effects of large-scale and collectors in just a 3-year period (59 FR Violations involved numerous listed, wide-ranging habitat modification, 18324). The Callippe and Behren’s imperiled, and common species from destruction, and curtailment will last silverspot butterflies (Speyeria callippe many locales; defendants later pled into the future. Therefore, based on our callippe and Speyeria zerene behrensii) guilty to the felonies (Service 1995, p. analysis of the best available were listed as endangered on December 1). As part of the evidence cited in the information, present and future loss and 5, 1997 (62 FR 64306), partially due to case, defendants exchanged butterflies

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20971

taken from County and Federal lands in demand for Florida stuff,’’ that he knew to impacts from collection. At this time, Florida and acknowledged that it was ‘‘exactly where all the rare stuff is removal of any individuals may have best to trade ‘‘under the table’’ to avoid found,’’ that he ‘‘can readily get devastating consequences to the permits and ‘‘extra red tape’’ because material,’’ and that in most cases he survival of the subspecies. Although the some were on the endangered species would ‘‘have to poach the material from Miami blue is no longer believed to be list (USDC 1993, p. 9). Acknowledging protected parks’’ (USDC 1993, p. 44). present at BHSP, its return is possible. the difficulties in obtaining Schaus More recently, one commenter stated At BHSP, the butterfly, like other swallowtail, defendants indicated that that she has been contacted by someone wildlife and plant species within the they would traffic amongst each other to interested in acquiring rare butterflies Florida park system, is protected from exchange a Schaus for other extremely (see Comment #5 and Response above). unauthorized collection (Chapter 62 D– rare butterflies (USDC 1993, p. 10). In addition, Salvato (pers. comm. 2011e) 2.013(5)) (see Factor D). However, These defendants engaged in interstate has also been contacted by several because BHSP is so heavily used, commerce, exchanging a male Schaus in individuals requesting specimens of two continual monitoring for illegal 1984 in the course of a commercial Federal candidates, the Florida leafwing collections is a challenge. Daniels (pers. activity (USDC 1993, p. 11). One and Bartram’s hairstreak, or seeking comm. 2002) believed that additional defendant also trafficked with a information regarding locations where patrols would be helpful because collector in Florida, dealing the they may be collected in the field. In unauthorized collection of specimens is federally listed San Bruno elfin butterfly addition, interest in the collection of the possible, even though collection is (Callophrys mossii bayensis) (USDC Florida leafwing was posted by two prohibited. In addition, any colonies 1993, p. 67). parties on at least one Web site in 2010 that might be found or become Illegal collection of butterflies on along with advice on where and how to established outside of BHSP or other State, Federal, and other lands in bait trap, despite the fact that this protected sites would also not be Florida appears ongoing, prevalent, and butterfly mainly occurs on Federal lands patrolled and would be at risk of damaging. As part of the within ENP. Thus, there is established collection. aforementioned case, one defendant, and ongoing collection pressure for rare Although the Miami blue’s status as a who admitted getting caught collecting butterflies, including two other highly State-threatened species provides some within ENP and Loxahatchee National imperiled candidate species in south protection, this protection does not Wildlife Refuge, stated that he ‘‘got Florida. include provisions for other species of away with it each time, simply claiming We are also aware of multiple Web blues that are similar in appearance. ignorance of the laws * * *.’’ (USDC sites that offer or had offered specimens Therefore, it is quite possible that 1993, p. 13). Another defendant detailed of south Florida butterflies for sale that collectors authorized to collect similar his poaching in Florida and acquisition are candidates for listing under the Act species may inadvertently (or of federally endangered butterflies, (M. Minno, pers. comm. 2009; C. purposefully) collect the Miami blue acknowledging that he had ‘‘fared very Nagano, pers. comm. 2011; D. Olle, pers. butterfly thinking it was, or planning to well, going specifically after rare stuff’’ comm. 2011). Until recently, one Web claim they thought it was, the cassius (USDC 1993, pp. 28–29). The same site offered male and female Florida blue, nickerbean blue, or ceraunus blue, defendant offered to traffic atala leafwing specimens for Ö110.00 and which can also occur in the same hairstreaks (Eumaeus atala), noting that Ö60.00 (euros), respectively general geographical area and habitat he did not do very well and had only (approximately $144 and $78). It is type. Federal listing of other similar taken about ‘‘600 bugs in 9 days’’ and unclear from where the specimens butterflies can partially reduce this that this number seemed poor for originated or when these were collected, threat (see Similarity of Appearance Florida (USDC 1993, p. 46). He further but this butterfly is now mainly below) and provide added protective stated that collecting had become restricted to ENP. The same Web site measures for the Miami blue above difficult in Florida due to restrictions offered specimens of Bartram’s those afforded by the State. and extreme loss of habitat, admitting hairstreak for Ö10.00 ($13). Although In summary, due to the few that he needed to poach rare butterflies the specifics on its collection are not metapopulations, small population size, from protected parks (USDC 1993, p. clear, this butterfly now mainly occurs restricted range, and remoteness of 45). Methods to poach wildlife and on protected Federal, State, and County occupied habitat, we have determined means to evade wildlife regulations, lands. The same Web site offers that collection is a significant threat to laws, and law enforcement were given specimens of other butterflies similar in the subspecies and could potentially as part of the evidence (USDC 1993, pp. appearance to the Miami blue; the occur at any time. Even limited 32–33). In a separate incident in 2008, cassius blue is available for Ö4.00–10.00 collection from the small population in an individual was observed attempting ($5–$13). Additionally, other subspecies KWNWR (or other populations, if to take butterflies from Service lands in of Cyclargus thomasi that occur in discovered) could have deleterious the Keys (D. Pharo, pers. comm. 2008). foreign countries are also for sale. It is effects on reproductive and genetic When confronted by a FWC officer, he clear that a market currently exists for viability and thus could contribute to its lied about his activities; a live both imperiled species and those similar extinction. swallowtail butterfly (unidentified) was in appearance to the Miami blue. Scientific Research and Conservation found in an envelope on his person, a The potential for unauthorized or Efforts collapsible butterfly net was found in a illegal collection of the Miami blue nearby area, and a cooler containing (eggs, larvae, pupae, or adults) exists, Some techniques (e.g., capture, other live butterfly species was in his despite its State-threatened status and handling) used to understand or car (D. Pharo, pers. comm. 2008). the protections provided on Federal monitor the Miami blue have the Additionally, we are aware of and (and State) land. Illegal collection could potential to cause harm to individuals have documented evidence of interest in occur without detection at remote or habitat. Visual surveys, transect the collection of other imperiled islands of KWNWR because these areas counts, and netting for identification butterflies in south Florida. In the are difficult to patrol. The localized purposes have been performed during aforementioned indictment, one distribution and small population size scientific research and conservation defendant noted that there was a ‘‘huge render this butterfly highly vulnerable efforts with the potential to disturb or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

injure individuals or damage habitat. chances for reestablishment in the and recovery, but such actions need to Mark-recapture, a common method used future. be carefully planned, implemented, and to determine population size, has been Declines in the captive colony in 2005 monitored. Any future efforts should used by some researchers to monitor and 2006 were attributed to a only be initiated after it has been Miami blue populations. This method baculovirus; consequently, this captive determined that such actions will not has received some criticism. While colony was terminated after 30 harm the wild population, rigorous mark-recapture may be preferable to generations and another was started standards are met, and commitments are other sampling estimates (e.g., count- with new stock from BHSP (Saarinen in place to increase the likelihood of based transects) in obtaining 2009, p. 92). Baculovirus infections are success and maximize knowledge demographic data when used in a capable of devastating both laboratory gained. proper design on appropriate species, and wild butterfly populations Based on our analysis of the best such techniques may also result in (Saarinen 2009, pp. 99, 119). Irrevocable available information, there is no deleterious impacts to captured consequences may occur if a pathogen evidence to suggest that its vulnerability butterflies (Mallet et al. 1987, pp. 377– is transferred from laboratory-reared to to collection and risks associated with 386; Murphy 1988, pp. 236–239; wild populations. Genetic diversity scientific or conservation efforts will Haddad et al. 2008, pp. 929–940). within the captive colony was lost over change in the future. time (between generations) (Saarinen Although effects may vary depending C. Disease or Predation upon taxon, technique, or other factors, 2009, p. 100). At one point, the captive some studies suggest that marking may colony was not infused with new The effects of disease or predation are damage or kill butterflies or alter their genetic material for approximately 1 not well known. Because the Miami behaviors (Mallet et al. 1987, pp. 377– year due to low numbers within the blue is known from only a few locations 386; Murphy 1988, pp. 236–239). wild population. As a result, decreases and population size appears low, Murphy (1988, p. 236) and Mattoni et al. in genetic diversity, allelic richness, and disease and predation could pose a (2001, p. 198) indicated that studies on number of individuals produced threat to its survival. various lycaenids have demonstrated occurred during this time (Saarinen Disease 2009, p. 100). While captive propagation mortality and altered behavior as a A baculovirus was confirmed within result of marking. Conversely, other and reintroduction efforts offer enormous conservation potential, there the captive colony, and infection caused studies have found that marking did not the death of Miami blue larvae in harm individual butterflies or can be associated risks and ramifications to both wild and captive- captivity (see Factor B above) (Saarinen populations (Gall 1984, pp. 139–154; 2009, p. 120). Pathogens have affected Orive and Baughman 1989, p. 246; reared individuals and populations. The use of captive-reared Miami blues other insect captive-breeding programs, Haddad et al. 2008, p. 938). No studies in pesticide-use and life-history studies however, this was the first time a have been conducted to determine the can be questioned and has been baculovirus was found to affect a potential effects of marking on the criticized by some (FWC 2010, p. 10). captive colony of an endangered Miami blue. Although data are lacking, All experiments were conducted with Lepidopteran (Saarinen 2009, p. 120). A researchers permitted to use such captive-reared individuals; no wild baculovirus or other disease or techniques have been confident in their individuals were used. Individuals used pathogens have the potential to destroy abilities to employ the techniques safely in experiments were not intended for wild populations (Saarinen 2009, p. 99). with minimal effect on individuals release back into the wild or were reared Nice et al. (2009, p. 3137) identified handled. Researchers currently studying specifically for this purpose. widespread infection from the the population within KWNWR have Researchers involved with the captive endosymbiotic bacterial Wolbachia opted not to use mark-release-recapture colony and others conducting scientific within western populations of the techniques due to the potential for studies or other conservation efforts endangered Karner blue (Lycaeides damage to this small, fragile butterfly were authorized by appropriate agencies samuelis) and indicated the bacteria (Haddad and Wilson 2011, p. 3). to conduct such work. may also pose a significant threat Captive propagation and towards other endangered arthropods. reintroduction activities may present Summary of Factor B Plant pathogens could also negatively risks if wild populations are impacted Collection interest of imperiled impact host plant survival, host growth, or if the species is introduced to new or butterflies is high, and there are ample or the production of terminal host inappropriate areas outside of its examples of collection pressure growth available to developing larvae historical range (65 FR 56916–56922, contributing to extirpations. Although (Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 14). At this September 20, 2000). Although we do not have information indicating time, there is no information to suggest butterflies were successfully reared in that Miami blues are being collected, we that disease or pathogens are affecting captivity at the UF with the support of consider collection to be a significant Miami blue butterflies or host plants in State and Federal agencies, efforts to threat to the subspecies due to the few the wild. reintroduce the Miami blue to portions remaining metapopulations, small of its historical range did not result in population size, restricted range, and Predation the establishment of any new remoteness of occupied habitat, and Predation of adults or immature stages populations (Emmel and Daniels 2009, because collection could potentially was not observed during monitoring at pp. 4–5; FWC 2010, p. 8). While some occur at any time. Even limited BHSP, despite the presence of potential monitoring occurred following releases, collection from the remaining predators (Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. it is not clear why captive-reared metapopulation could have deleterious 12; Trager 2009, p. 152). Several species individuals did not persist in the wild. effects on reproductive and genetic of social wasps, specifically paper Perhaps experiments using surrogate viability of the subspecies and could wasps (Polistes) and yellow jackets species (e.g., other lycaenids) and more contribute to its extinction. (Vespula), are known to depredate structured and intense monitoring Captive propagation and Lepidoptera on nickerbean and following releases can help elucidate reintroduction may be important surrounding vegetation at BHSP and possible causes for failure and improve components of the subspecies’ survival other sites with suitable habitat, but

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20973

predation on Miami blue larvae was not 343; Wilmers 2011, pp. 20–21; T. larvae by ants in the field and, based observed (Trager 2009, p. 152). Carroll Wilmers, pers. comm. 2012a). In one upon observations, doubted that many and Loye (2006, p. 18) encountered a study in Key Largo, fire ants were found ant species regularly depredate larvae parasitic wasp, Lisseurytomella flava, within half of the study transects and in (Trager and Daniels 2009, pp. 479–481; during their studies of the balloonvine close proximity to the edge of hardwood Trager 2009, p. 149). insects on northern Key Largo during hammock habitat (Forys et al. 2001, p. Summary of Factor C the late 1980s. No wasp parasitism 257). Forys et al. (2001, p. 257) found towards Miami blue larvae was noted all immature swallowtail life stages to Studies suggest that various stressors (Carroll and Loye 2006, p. 24). However, be vulnerable to predation by imported (e.g., baculovirus, fire ants) have the this wasp, along with the Miami blue, fire ants and recognized the potential potential to negatively impact the was absent from continued balloonvine impact of this predatory insect on the Miami blue, but there is no information sampling in 2003, suggesting the wasp federally endangered Schaus on their impacts to wild populations. may have used the butterfly as host. swallowtail and other butterflies in The Miami blue may have some Cannon et al. (2007, p. 16) observed south Florida. Thus, immature life mechanisms to potentially deter wasps (unidentified) eating Miami blue stages of the Miami blue may be predators and parasitoids, but these are larvae at KWNWR; wasps and vulnerable to predation by fire ants not well understood. The role of dragonflies were also observed to chase within its current known locations or if predation and parasitism needs to be adults in flight. Adult Miami blues were the butterfly still persists, elsewhere in more closely examined. Disease and found entrapped in the webs of silver its historical range. predation have the potential to impact orb spiders (Argiope argentata) (Cannon In a greenhouse situation, Trager the Miami blue’s continued survival, et al. 2007, p. 16). Trager (2009, pp. 149, (2009, p. 151) observed fire ants given its few remaining populations, 153–154) indicated that the Miami blue removing Miami blue eggs in an indoor low abundance, and restricted range. is likely depredated under natural flight cage, but noted that the ants did However, we do not have information to conditions, but only predation by an not attack larvae on the same plant. In suggest that disease and predation are adult brown anole lizard (Anolis sagrei) his studies, a captive colony of fire ants threats to the Miami blue at this time. was observed during field studies. was found to consume captive-reared D. The Inadequacy of Existing Iguanas likely consume eggs and pupae Miami blue pupae in food trays; Regulatory Mechanisms when opportunistically feeding on host however, the ants did not remove newly plants (P. Hughes, pers. comm. 2009; laid eggs from the host plant and even Despite the fact that they contain Daniels 2009, p. 5; FWC 2010, p. 13), exhibited weak tending behavior toward several protections for the Miami blue, especially since the butterfly uses the larvae (Trager 2009, pp. 151–152). At Federal, State, and local laws have not same terminal growth of host plants that this time, it is unclear to what extent been sufficient to prevent past and iguanas typically eat (see Factor E). native and exotic predatory insects may ongoing impacts to the Miami blue and Predators and parasitoids have been be impacting wild Miami blue its habitat within its current and suggested as potential contributors to populations. historical range. the butterfly’s decline (M. Minno, pers. Some ant species may also protect In response to a petition from the comm. 2010), but this has not been Miami blue larvae against parasitoids NABA in 2002, the FWC emergency- observed or confirmed in the field and predators; however, this has not yet listed the Miami blue butterfly in 2002, (Trager 2009, p. 149; Minno and Minno been observed in the wild (Trager and temporarily protecting the butterfly. On 2009, p. 78; FWC 2010, pp. 13, 24). Daniels 2009, 479; Trager 2009, p. 101). November 19, 2003, the FWC declared The extent to which native or exotic In laboratory studies, Camponotus the Miami blue butterfly endangered ants and other predators and parasitoids floridanus ants have been shown to (68A–27.003), making its protection may pose a threat to the Miami blue is display strong defensive behaviors (e.g., permanent. On November 8, 2010, the not clear, but deserves further attention. rapidly circling larvae, recruiting nearby FWC adopted a revised listing For example, invasive fire ants workers, and lunging at forceps) when classification system, moving from a (Solenopsis invicta) were first confirmed disturbed (Trager and Daniels 2009, p. multi-tiered to single-category system. in counties within the historical range 480; Trager 2009, p. 102). The large size As a consequence of this change, the of the Miami blue as early as 1958 of this ant species and nearly constant Miami blue butterfly (along with other (Hillsborough); presence was confirmed tending may serve as a visual deterrent species) became State-threatened; its in additional counties in the late 1960s to potential attackers; however, original protective measures remained (Brevard and Volusia) and 1970s researchers acknowledged that they in place (68A–27.003, amended). This (Broward, Collier, Miami-Dade, Lee, have no definitive evidence that C. designation prohibits any person from Monroe) (Callcott and Collins 1996, p. floridanus are more effective defenders taking, harming, harassing, possessing, 249); infestation has since expanded. In of Miami blue larvae than small-bodied selling, or transporting any Miami blue addition to the possible direct effects of ant species (Trager and Daniels 2009, p. or parts thereof or eggs, larvae or pupae, predation, fire ants can also disrupt 480; Trager 2009, p. 97). except as authorized by permit from the arthropod communities and displace Researchers have suggested that some executive director, with permits issued native ants. In one study, Porter and ant species may depredate Miami blue based upon whether issuance would Savignano (1990, pp. 2095–2106) found larvae or may opportunistically tend further management plan goals and that S. invicta reduced species richness larvae without providing protection objectives. Although these provisions by 70 percent and abundance of native against predators or other benefits prohibit take of individuals, there is a ants by 90 percent. (Saarinen and Daniels 2006, p. 73; general lack of law enforcement Both the red imported fire ant and the Saarinen 2009, pp. 134, 138). However, presence in many areas. In addition, little fire ant (Wasmannia Trager and Daniels (2009, pp. 478–481) existing regulations prohibit take, but do auropunctata), another invasive exotic recorded a universal tending response not provide substantive protection of ant, currently occur at BHSP (Saarinen among ants consistent with a Miami blue habitat or protection of and Daniels 2006, p. 71). Fire ants have mutualistic interaction through both potentially suitable habitat. Therefore, also been found on all beaches within field observations and laboratory trials. while the Miami blue butterfly is KWNWR (Wilmers et al. 1996, pp. 341– They did not observe any depredation of afforded some protection by its presence

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

on Federal (and State) lands, losses of unauthorized collection in Chapter 2009, nickerbean showed signs of suitable and potential habitat outside of 62D–2.013(5) of the Florida Statutes. limited growth due to chronic herbivory these areas are expected to continue (see Exceptions are made for collecting (P. Hughes, pers. comm. 2009). Factor A). permits, which are issued, ‘‘for In addition to damage, iguanas likely The Miami blue’s presence on Federal scientific or educational purposes.’’ consume eggs and pupae when (and State) lands offers some insulation Still, protection of resources at BHSP is opportunistically feeding (P. Hughes, against collection, but protection is a challenge due to the park’s popularity pers. comm. 2009; Daniels 2009, p. 5; somewhat limited (see Factor B). and high use (See Factor E). Although FWC 2010, p. 13), especially since the Permits are necessary for authorized in 2010, the FDEP hired a temporary, butterfly uses the same terminal growth collection, but law enforcement full-time biologist to work on Miami of host plants to lay eggs. For many presence on Federal and State land is blue conservation issues at BHSP, years, host plant abundance within often inadequate. In addition, many including patrol of sensitive habitats, BHSP appeared capable of sustaining areas are difficult to patrol and the this position has since been reduced to both iguanas and Miami blues. State’s protection of the Miami blue part-time. Depressed numbers of Miami blues in does not extend to butterflies that are Permits are required from the FWC for 2008, however, were likely the result of similar in appearance (see Similarity of scientific research on and collection of both a severe drought and impacts to the Appearance below). Because there are the Miami blue. For work on Federal nickerbean from iguanas feeding on the only slight morphological differences lands (i.e., KWNWR, ENP, and BNP), terminal nickerbean growth (FWC 2010, between the Miami blue and other permits are required from the Service or p. 6). During the winter of 2010, butterfly species in the same areas, the the NPS. For work on State lands, prolonged and unseasonably cold Miami blue remains at risk to illegal permits are required from FDEP. Permits temperatures in the lower Keys resulted collection, despite the regulatory are also required for work on County- in a considerable decline in available mechanisms already in place (see owned lands. nickerbean at BHSP (Olle 2010, p. 14). Factor B). The suppressed Miami blue population As a Federal candidate subspecies, Summary of Factor D at this site during this time may not the Miami blue was afforded some Despite existing regulatory have been able to survive this protection through sections 7 and 10 of mechanisms, the Miami blue continues temporary, but severe, reduction in the Act and associated policies and to decline due to the effects of a wide nickerbean, likely caused by the guidelines, but protection was limited. array of threats (see Factors A, B, and E). combined influences of iguanas and Federal action agencies are to consider Based on our analysis of the best environmental factors (e.g., drought and the potential effects to the butterfly and available information, we find that cold). its habitat during the consultation existing regulatory measures, due to a Iguana tracks have been found on process. Applicants and action agencies variety of constraints, do not work as islands occupied by the Miami blue in are encouraged to consider candidate designed, and, therefore, the existing KWNWR (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 16; T. species when seeking incidental take for regulatory mechanisms are inadequate Wilmers, pers. comm. 2011c) as well as other listed species and when to address threats to the subspecies on three islands in GWHNWR (T. developing habitat conservation plans. throughout all of its range. We have no Wilmers, pers. comm. 2011b). Three On Federal lands, such as KWNWR, information to indicate that the large, gravid female iguanas were candidate species are treated as aforementioned regulations, which trapped and removed from the ‘‘proposed threatened.’’ currently do not offer adequate Marquesas in February 2011 (T. Although the Miami blue occurs on protection to the Miami blue, will be Wilmers, pers. comm. 2011d). To date, Federal (and possibly State) land that the presence of iguanas (burrows or revised such that they would be offers protection, these areas are vast tracks) has been documented on each of adequate to provide protection for the and often heavily used. Signage the islands known to harbor Miami subspecies in the future. prohibiting collection is sometimes blues (T. Wilmers, in litt. 2011e). lacking or may not be advisable as it E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Cannon et al. (2007, p. 16) stated that could draw attention to the presence of Affecting Its Continued Existence the exotic herbivore has the potential to the subspecies; patrolling and Impacts From Iguanas impact host and nectar plants. Iguana monitoring of activities can be limited populations in south Florida, after long and dependent upon the availability of The exotic green iguana (Iguana periods of slow growth, have been staffing and resources. Within KWNWR, iguana) appears to be a severe threat to shown to irrupt (increase suddenly or the Marquesas Keys are open to the the Miami blue (75 FR 69258; Daniels rapidly in numbers) (Meshaka et al. public; portions of the beach on Boca 2009, p. 5; FWC 2010, pp. 6, 13; Olle 2004, pp. 157–158; Meshaka 2011, p. Grande are closed (T. Wilmers, pers. 2010, pp. 4, 14). Iguanas are prevalent 52). Given the absence of predators comm. 2011b). In general, occupied within the Keys, and sightings within within KWNWR, the iguana population islands are remote and difficult to occupied and potential Miami blue may grow unchecked until limited by patrol, and trespassing and habitat are common (P. Cannon, pers. food sources or other natural factors unauthorized uses (e.g., fire and fire comm. 2009, 2010d, 2010e). Effects of (e.g., hurricanes). A further concern is pits) still occur (see Factor E). Therefore, iguana herbivory to the host plant that severe damage to vegetation, as the potential for illegal collection and (nickerbean) at BHSP were evident by occurred during Hurricane Wilma damage to sensitive habitats still exists late 2008 and early 2009 (Emmel and (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 851), may (see Factors B and E). Daniels 2009, p. 4; Daniels 2009, p. 5; concentrate Miami blues and iguanas in Prior to its apparent extirpation, the P. Hughes, pers. comm. 2009; P. remnant stands of blackbead, thereby metapopulation at BHSP was afforded Cannon, pers. comm. 2009; A. Edwards, magnifying the iguana’s impact on the some protection by its presence on State pers. comm. 2009). In January 2009, butterfly and its habitat (T. Wilmers, in lands. All property and resources Cannon (pers. comm. 2009) reported litt. 2011e). owned by FDEP are generally protected that iguanas had stripped all new Resource agencies are working to from harm in Chapter 62D–2.013(2), and nickerbean growth, causing substantial better understand and combat the threat animals are specifically protected from losses since November 2008. In April of green iguanas in areas occupied (and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20975

recently occupied) by the Miami blue. examining balloonvine and its within occupied habitat on Boca Grande At BHSP, cooperative efforts resulted in associated insect community, Loye in December 2011 (P. Cannon, pers. the trapping and removal of 200 iguanas (pers. comm. 2003a) found a difference comm. 2012). The large amount of dead between November 2009 and October in insect diversity between sites along vegetation intermingled with host plants 2011 (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4; roads and those without road access. on Boca Grande and the Marquesas Keys FWC 2010, p. 17; E. Kiefer, pers. comm. Acknowledging other possible makes the threat of fire (natural or 2011a, 2011b; E. Cowan, FPS, pers. contributing factors (e.g., mosquito human-induced), a significant threat to comm. 2011). Removal efforts have control, car emissions), Loye (pers. the Miami blue (Cannon et al. 2007, p. significantly decreased the number of comm. 2003a) indicated that collectors 13; 2010, p. 852; P. Cannon, pers. iguanas within BHSP; these and maintenance crews damaged comm. 2012; T. Wilmers, pers. comm. management actions will need to be an balloons near roads, stating that 2012b). Immature stages (eggs, larvae), ongoing effort due to the prevalence of ‘‘humans damaged every balloon that which are sedentary, would be iguanas in the surrounding areas (R. could be easily found at our study sites’’ particularly vulnerable. Glassberg and Zambrano, pers. comm. 2009; E. Cowan, (J. Loye, pers. comm. 2003b). It is not Olle (2010, p. 1) asserted that ‘‘the pers. comm. 2011). Efforts are also clear what, if any, impact this had on proximity of the islands within underway to assess and address this the butterfly at or since that time. KWNWR, to both Key West and the Dry threat at KWNWR, but it is unclear if However, damage to host plants (whole Tortugas, invite human mischief, and iguanas regularly consume blackbead at or parts) could contribute to mortality of largely go unpoliced.’’ These areas the Refuge (T. Wilmers, pers. comm. eggs or larvae. within KWNWR are remote and 2011a, 2011c, 2011d, 2011f). Despite BHSP is heavily used by the public accessible mainly by boat, making them cooperative efforts, the threat from for recreational purposes, and although difficult to patrol and monitor. iguanas is expected to continue due to the butterfly has not been seen at this Other patches of potential and their widespread distribution and the location since early 2010, suitable suitable habitat are susceptible to difficulties in control. habitat is located along trails and other purposeful impacts from humans. Some high-use areas (e.g., campgrounds). private property owners in the Keys Competition Former colonies may have experienced have reportedly threatened to clear Host resource competition from other disturbance from Park visitors. vegetation from undeveloped properties butterfly species could deleteriously Trampling of host plants and well-worn to avoid any restrictions regarding the impact metapopulation productivity of footpaths were evident, at least butterfly (M. Minno, in litt. 2011b; N. the Miami blue. The introduction of or periodically from 2002 to 2010, and Pakhomoff-Spencer, consultant, pers. future island colonization by potential during times when other stressors (e.g., comm. 2011). Lepidopteran competitors may impact cold, drought, iguanas) occurred (P. In summary, inadvertent and the Miami blue metapopulation. The Halupa, pers. obs. 2002; D. Olle, pers. purposeful impacts from humans may nickerbean blue, cassius blue, and comm. 2010; M. Salvato, pers. comm. have affected the Miami blue and its Martial’s scrub hairstreak are known to 2010a; R. Zambrano, pers. comm. 2010). habitat. Due to the location of occupied use various species of nickerbean host To protect larval host plants and adult and suitable habitat, the popularity of plants throughout their range (Glassberg nectar sources, the FPS erected fencing these areas with humans, and the et al. 2000, pp. 74–80; Calhoun et al. and signage around the majority of the projected human growth, especially in 2002, p. 15). The nickerbean blue and south colony site at BHSP. Although coastal areas, such impacts from Martial’s scrub hairstreak have been this is expected to minimize damage to recreation and other uses are expected documented using gray nickerbean as a the largest habitat patch, other small to continue. host plant at BHSP (Daniels et al. 2005, habitat patches (as small as 15.0 by 15.0 Other Natural and Unnatural Changes p. 174; P. Cannon, pers. comm. 2010g). feet [4.6 by 4.6 meters]) elsewhere on to Habitat Such host use may represent direct the island are still vulnerable to competition for host resources (Emmel intentional or accidental damage. Natural changes to vegetation from and Daniels 2004, p. 14). However, Fencing small colony sites or patches of environmental factors, succession, or Calhoun et al. (2002, p. 18) believed it available habitat is impractical and other causes may now be a threat to the was unlikely that competition played a would make exact locations of colonies Miami blue because of its severely significant role in the decline of the more evident, possibly increasing the reduced range, few populations, and Miami blue based on the abundance of risk of illegal collection or harm should limited dispersal capabilities. Suitable host plant sources available to lycaenids the Miami blue return to the island. and occupied habitat in KWNWR and throughout the Lower Keys. There is no KWNWR lacks human developments, other coastal areas is dynamic and evidence to suggest that host resource but local disturbances result from illicit fluctuating, influenced by a variety of competition is a threat to the Miami camping, fire pits, smugglers, vandals, environmental factors (e.g., storm surge, blue at this time or is likely to become and immigrant landings. These wind, precipitation). In 2010, so in the future. disturbances are generally infrequent for substantial changes in habitat most islands within KWNWR with the conditions on Boca Grande occurred Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts exception of Boca Grande, which with the proliferation of Galactia striata, From Humans contains the largest amounts of beach. a native climbing vine (T. Wilmers, Inadvertent damage from humans can Recreational visitation is high on Boca pers. comm. 2010a; P. Cannon, pers. affect the Miami blue and its habitat in Grande, particularly during weekends comm. 2010b, 2010h, 2010i, 2010j). The its current and former range. For (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 852). Trampling vine has enveloped a substantial example, the seed pods of balloonvine of dune vegetation has been a long-term amount of blackbead, occurring on ‘‘pop’’ when squeezed and can be problem on Boca Grande, and fire pits about 40 percent of the blackbead targeted by humans. Damage to have been found many times over the growing on the seaward side at the dune balloonvine has been documented along past two decades on both Boca Grande interface (T. Wilmers, pers. comm. roads in the Keys (J. Loye, University of and the Marquesas Keys (Cannon et al. 2010a). Wilmers (pers. comm. 2010a) California-Davis, pers. comm. 2003a, 2010, p. 852). Most recently, a fire pit indicated that the extensive growth was 2003b). During a study in the mid-1980s was found adjacent to host plants likely fueled by the markedly higher

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20976 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

precipitation during September and The potential for mosquito control pattern. It is important to note that October 2010 (3.47 and 2.22 inches chemicals to drift into nontarget areas vulnerability to chemical exposure may [8.81 and 5.64 cm], respectively, above and persist for varying periods of time vary widely between species, and normal in Key West). Under favorable has been well documented. Hennessey current application regimes do not conditions, the vine first grows in the and Habeck (1989, pp. 1–22; 1991, pp. appear to affect some species as strongly dune, then sprawls landward laterally, 1–68) and Hennessey et al. (1992, pp. as others (Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18; eventually ascending and blanketing 715–721) illustrated the presence of Breidenbaugh and De Szalay 2010, pp. blackbead (T. Wilmers, pers. comm. mosquito spray residues long after 594–595; Rand and Hoang 2010, pp. 14– 2010a). While climbing vines can application in habitat of the Schaus 17, 20; Hoang et al. 2011, pp. 997– proliferate before eventually dying back, swallowtail and other imperiled species 1005). Wilmers (pers. comm. 2010a) stated that in both the upper (Crocodile Lake NWR, Dose-dependent decreases in brain the intense proliferation in 2010 was North Key Largo) and lower Keys cholinesterase activity in great southern unprecedented in his 25 years of work (NKDR). Residues of aerially applied white butterflies (Ascia monuste) in the area. Left unchecked, this naled were found 6 hours after exposed to naled have been measured in proliferation has the potential to impact application in a pineland area that was the laboratory (T. Bargar, pers. comm. host plants and affect the butterfly’s 820 yards (750 meters) from the target 2011). An inhibition of cholinesterase, ability to persist on some islands. area; residues of fenthion (an adulticide which is the primary mode of action of no longer used in the Keys) applied via naled, prevents an important Invasive and Exotic Vegetation truck were found up to 55 yards (50 neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, from Displacement of native plants meters) downwind in a hammock area being metabolized, causing uncontrolled including host plants by invasive exotic 15 minutes after application in adjacent nerve impulses that may result in erratic species, a common problem throughout target areas (Hennessey et al. 1992, pp. behavior and, if severe enough, south Florida, also possibly contributed 715–721). mortality. From these data, it was to habitat loss of the Miami blue. In More recently, Pierce (2009, pp. 1–17) determined that significant mortality coastal areas where undeveloped land monitored naled and permethrin was associated with cholinesterase remains, the Miami blue’s larval food deposition following application in and activity depression of at least 27 percent plants are likely to be displaced by around NKDR from 2007 to 2009. (T. Bargar, pers. comm. 2011). In a invasive exotic plants, such as Brazilian Permethrin, applied by truck, was found subsequent field study on NKDR, adult pepper, Australian pine (Casuarina to drift considerable distances from great southern white and Gulf fritillary equesitifolia), Asian nakedwood target areas with residues that persisted (Agraulis vanillae) butterflies were (Colubrina asiatica), cat-claw vine for weeks. Naled, applied by plane, was placed in field enclosures at both target (Macfadyena ungius-cati), wedelia also found to drift into nontarget areas and nontarget areas during aerial naled (Spahneticola trilobata), largeleaf but was much less persistent, exhibiting application. The critical level of lantana (Lantana camara), Portia tree a half-life of approximately 6 hours. To cholinesterase inhibition (27 percent) (Thespesia populnea), wild indigo expand this work, Pierce (2011, pp. 6– was exceeded in the majority of (Indigofera spicata), beach naupaka 11) conducted an additional deposition butterflies from the target areas, as well (Scaevola taccada), and several species study in 2010 focusing on permethrin as in a large proportion of butterflies of invasive grasses. Although we do not drift from truck spraying and again from the nontarget areas (T. Bargar, pers. have direct evidence of exotic species documented measurable amounts of comm. 2011). During the same field displacing host plants or nectar sources, permethrin in nontarget areas. In 2009, experiment, great southern white and we recognize this as a potential threat, Tim Bargar (pers. comm. 2011) Gulf fritillary larvae were also exposed due to the magnitude of this problem in conducted two field trials on NKDR that in the field during aerial naled south Florida. detected significant naled residues at application and exhibited mortality at Pesticides locations within nontarget areas on the both target and nontarget sites (T. Refuge that were up to 440 yards (402 Bargar, pers. comm. 2011). Efforts to control salt marsh meters) from the edge of zones targeted In a laboratory study, Rand and Hoang mosquitoes, Aedes taeniorhynchus, for aerial applications. (2010, pp. 1–33) and Hoang et al. (2011, among others, have increased as human In addition to mosquito control pp. 997–1005) examined the effects of activity and population have increased chemicals entering nontarget areas, the exposure to naled, permethrin, and in south Florida. To control mosquito toxic effects of mosquito control dichlorvos (a breakdown product of populations, second-generation chemicals to nontarget organisms have naled) on both adults and larvae of five organophosphate (naled) and pyrethroid also been documented. Lethal effects on Florida native butterfly species (permethrin) adulticides are applied by nontarget Lepidoptera have been (common buckeye (Junonia coenia), mosquito control districts throughout attributed to fenthion and naled in both painted lady (Vanessa cardui), zebra south Florida. In a rare case in upper south Florida and the Keys (Emmel longwing (Heliconius charitonius), atala Key Largo, another organophosphate 1991, pp. 12–13; Eliazar and Emmel hairstreak (Eumaeus atala), and white (malathion) was applied in 2011 when 1991, pp. 18–19; Eliazar 1992, pp. 29– peacock (Anartia jatrophae). The results the number of permethrin applications 30). In the lower Keys, Salvato (2001, of this study indicated that, in general, reached its annual limit. All three of pp. 8–14) suggested that declines in larvae were slightly more sensitive to these compounds have been populations of the Florida leafwing each chemical than adults, but the characterized as being highly toxic to (now a Federal candidate) were also differences were not significant. nontarget insects by the U.S. partly attributable to mosquito control Permethrin was generally the most toxic Environmental Protection Agency (2002, chemical applications. Salvato (2001, p. chemical to both larvae and adults, p. 32; 2006a, p. 58; 2006b, p. 44). The 14; 2002, pp. 56–57) found populations although the sensitivity between species use of such pesticides (applied using of the Florida leafwing (on Big Pine Key varied. both aerial and ground-based methods) within NKDR) to increase during drier The laboratory toxicity data generated to control mosquitoes presents a years when adulticide applications over by this study were used to calculate potential risk to nontarget species, the pinelands decreased, although hazard quotients (concentrations in the including the Miami blue butterfly. Bartram’s hairstreak did not follow this environment/concentrations causing an

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20977

adverse effect) to assess the risk that zone, 3 stations considered to be roadside spraying for mosquito control concentrations of naled and permethrin susceptible to drift (2 stations directly began in late spring, but larvae of the found in the field pose to butterflies. A adjacent to the spray zone and 1 station silver-banded hairstreak (also on hazard quotient that exceeds one 12 mi (19.3 km) southwest of the spray balloonvine), who do not leave entrance indicates that the environmental zone), and 3 field reference stations (25 holes in seed pods, apparently survived concentration is greater than the mi (40.2 km) southwest of the spray subsequent spraying (Emmel 1991, p. concentration known to cause an zone). Survival of butterfly larvae in the 13). However, Minno (pers. comm. adverse effect (mortality in this case), target zone was 73.9 percent, which was 2010) argued that larvae using thus indicating significant risk to the significantly lower than both the drift balloonvine pods would be protected organism. Environmental exposures for zone (90.6 percent) and the reference from the effects of pesticides because naled and permethrin were taken from zone (100 percent), indicating that the pods have internal partitions and Zhong et al. (2010, pp. 1961–1972) and direct exposure to naled poses exposure would be limited due to the Pierce (2009, pp. 1–17), respectively, significant risk to Miami blue larvae. In size of the entrance hole. and represent the highest concentrations addition to observing elevated No mosquito control pesticides are of each chemical that were quantified concentrations of naled at test stations used within KWNWR. At BHSP, the during field studies in the Keys. When in the target zone, 9 of 18 samples in the only application of adulticides using the lowest median lethal drift zone also exhibited detectable (permethrin) is occasional truck-based concentrations from the laboratory concentrations, once again exhibiting spraying in the ranger residence areas study, the hazard quotients for the potential for mosquito control (E. Kiefer, pers. comm. 2011a). Mosquito permethrin were greater than one for chemicals to drift into nontarget areas. control practices currently pose no risk each adult butterfly, indicating a Based on these studies, it can be to the Miami blue within KWNWR. significant risk of toxicity to each concluded that mosquito control However, mosquito control activities, species. In the case of naled, significant activities that involve the use of both including the use of larvicides and risk to the zebra longwing was predicted aerial and ground-based spraying adulticides, are being implemented based on its hazard quotient exceeding methods have the potential to deliver within suitable and potential habitat for one. pesticides in quantities sufficient to the Miami blue elsewhere in its range In a recent study, Bargar (2012, cause adverse effects to nontarget (Carroll and Loye 2006, pp. 14–15). The pp. 1–7) conducted a probabilistic risk species in both target and nontarget findings of Zhong et al. (2010, pp. 1961– assessment for adult butterflies using areas. It should be noted that many of 1972) and Pierce (2009, pp. 1–17) along published acute toxicity data in the studies referenced above dealt with with other studies suggest that aerial or combination with deposition values for single application scenarios and truck-based applications of mosquito naled that were quantified at eight examined effects on only one to two control chemicals may pose a threat to locations within NKDR. The published butterfly life stages. Under a realistic the Miami blue, if the butterfly exists in toxicity data were used in conjunction scenario, the potential exists for other, unknown locations. Additionally, with morphometric data (total surface exposure to all life stages to occur over mosquito control practices potentially area and weight) for 22 butterfly species multiple applications in a season. In the may limit expansion of undocumented and the NKDR naled deposition values case of a persistent compound like populations or colonization of new to estimate the probability that field permethrin where residues remain on areas. If the Miami blue colonizes new exposure to naled will exceed butterfly vegetation for weeks, the potential exists areas or if additional populations are effect estimates (quantity of naled per for nontarget species to be exposed to discovered or reintroduced, adjustments unit body weight associated with multiple pesticides within a season in mosquito control (and other) mortality in adult butterflies). From the (e.g., permethrin on vegetation coupled practices may be needed to help field deposition measurements, the with aerial exposure to naled). safeguard the subspecies. probability that the effect estimate for 50 Aspects of the Miami blue’s natural Efforts are already underway by percent of the examined butterfly history may increase its potential to be multiple agencies and partners to seek species will be exceeded ranged from 70 exposed to and affected by mosquito ways to avoid and minimize impacts to (lowest butterfly surface area to weight control pesticides and other chemicals. the Miami blue and other imperiled ratio) to 95 percent (highest surface area For example, host plants and nectar nontarget species. For example, in an to weight ratio) based on filter paper sources are commonly found at effort to reduce the need for aerial deposition results and 33 to 87 percent disturbed sites and often occur along adulticide spraying, the FKMCD is based on yarn sampler results. As the roads in developed areas, where increasing larviciding activities, which surface area to weight ratio increases, chemicals are applied. Ants associated are believed to have less of an ecological the probability that a greater quantity of with the Miami blue (see Interspecific impact on wilderness islands near naled per unit body weight will be relationships) may be affected in NKDR and GWHNWR (FKMCD 2009, delivered increases. These results unknown ways. Host plant and nectar pp. 3–4). This effort has led to a suggest that significant impacts on source availability may also be reduction in area receiving adulticide butterfly survival may result from aerial indirectly affected through impacts on treatment on Big Pine Key, No Name naled application. pollinators. Carroll and Loye (2006, pp. Key, and Torch Key (FKMCD 2009, p. From 2006 to 2008, Zhong et al. 19, 24) and others (Emmel 1991, p. 13; 17). Another example is the Florida (2010, pp. 1961–1972) investigated the Glassberg and Salvato 2000, p. 7; Coordinating Council on Mosquito impact of single aerial applications of Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18) suggested Control (FCCMC), including the naled on Miami blue larvae in the field. that the Miami blue butterfly may be Imperiled Species Subcommittee, which The study was conducted in North Key more susceptible to pesticides than was initially formed to resolve the Largo in cooperation with the Florida perhaps other lycaenids (e.g., the silver- conflict between mosquito control Keys Mosquito Control District banded hairstreak) because Miami blue spraying and the reintroduction of (FKMCD) and used experimentally larvae leave entrance holes open in seed Miami blues to their historical range placed Miami blue larvae that were pods to allow access for attending ants. (FWC 2010, p. 9). reared in captivity. The study involved Ants and larvae of the Miami blue on The FWC’s management plan for the 15 test stations: 9 stations in the target balloonvine were found to die when Miami blue also recommended the use

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20978 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

of no-spray zones for all pesticides and Schweitzer, TNC, pers. comm. 2003). lower than other nonmigratory butterfly use of buffers at or around Miami blue Schweitzer (pers. comm. 2003) has also species studies utilizing microsatellite populations and other conservation suggested that butterfly populations of markers (Saarinen 2009, pp. 50, 74–75). measures (FWC 2010, pp. ii–41). less than 200 adults per generation Unfortunately, the BHSP population However, there are no specific binding would have difficulty surviving over the may now be lost. The extant KWNWR or mandatory restrictions to prohibit long term. In comparison, in a review of population is more genetically diverse such practices or encourage other 27 recovery plans for listed insect (mean observed heterozygosity of 51 beneficial measures. The FWC plan species, Schultz and Hammond (2003, percent vs. 39.5 percent for BHSP) suggested that an aerial no-spray buffer p. 1377) found that 25 plans broadly (Saarinen 2009, p. 75). zone of 820 yards (750 meters) be specified metapopulation features in The Miami blue appears to have been established around Miami blue terms of requiring that recovery include impacted by relative isolation. No gene populations, where possible, and that multiple population areas (the average flow has occurred between buffer zones for truck-based number of sites required was 8.2). The contemporary populations (Saarinen et applications of adulticides also be three plans that quantified minimum al. 2009a, p. 36). Saarinen (2009, p. 79) established (FWC 2010, p. 17). The population sizes as part of their suggested that the separation was FCCMC also recommended that the recovery criteria for butterflies ranged recent. While historical populations appropriate width of buffer zones be from 200 adults per site (Oregon may have once linked the two determined by future research. The silverspot [Speyeria zerene hippolyta]) contemporary populations, the recent Service is supporting research to to 100,000 adults (Bay checkerspot absence of populations between characterize drift from truck-based [Euphydryas editha bayensis]) (Schulz KWNWR and BHSP appears to have spraying methods. The data from this and Hammond 2003, pp. 1374–1375). broken the gene flow (Saarinen 2009, p. study will aid in better determining Schultz and Hammond (2003, pp. 79). Based upon modeling with a appropriate buffer distances around 1372–1385) used population viability different butterfly species, Fleishman et sensitive areas. analyses to develop quantitative al. (2002, pp. 706–716) argued that In summary, although substantial recovery criteria for insects whose factors such as habitat quality may progress has been made in reducing population sizes can be estimated and influence metapopulation dynamics, impacts, the potential effects of applied this framework in the context of driving extinction and colonization mosquito control applications and drift the Fender’s blue (Icaricia icarioides processes, especially in systems that residues remain a threat to the Miami fenderi), a butterfly listed as endangered experience substantial natural and blue. We will continue to work with the in 2000 due to its small population size anthropogenic environmental variability mosquito control districts and other and limited remaining habitat. They (see Environmental Stochasticity partners and stakeholders to reduce found the Fender’s blue to be at high below). threats wherever possible. risk of extinction at most of its sites According to Saarinen et al. (2009a, p. throughout its range despite that fact 36), the severely reduced size of the Effects of Small Population Size and that the average population at 12 sites existing populations suggests that Isolation examined ranged from 5 to 738 (Schulz genetic factors, along with The Miami blue is vulnerable to and Hammond 2003, pp. 1377, 1379). Of environmental stochasticity, may extinction due to its severely reduced the three sites with populations greater already be affecting the persistence of range, small population size, than a few hundred butterflies, only one the Miami blue. However, they also metapopulation structure, few of these had a reasonably high suggested that, in terms of extinction remaining populations, and relative probability of surviving the next 100 risk, a greater short-term problem for the isolation. In general, isolation, whether years (Schulz and Hammond 2003, p. two contemporary natural populations caused by geographic distance, 1379). Although the conservation needs (BHSP and KWNWR) may be the lack of ecological factors, or reproductive and biology of the Miami blue and gene flow rather than the current strategy, will likely prevent the influx of Fender’s blue are undoubtedly different, effective population size (Saarinen et al. new genetic material and can result in the two lycaenids share characteristics: 2009a, p. 36). If only one or two low diversity, which may impact Both have limited dispersal, and most metapopulations remain, it is absolutely viability and fecundity (Chesser 1983, remaining habitat patches are critical that remaining genetic diversity pp. 66–77). Extinction risk can increase completely isolated. and gene flow are retained. significantly with decreasing Losses in diversity within historical Conservation decisions to augment or heterozygosity as was reported for the and current populations of the Miami reintroduce populations should not be Glanville fritillary (Saccheri et al. 1998, blue butterfly have already occurred. made without careful consideration of pp. 491–494). Distance between Historical populations were genetically habitat availability, genetic adaptability, metapopulations and colonies within more diverse than two contemporary the potential for the introduction of those metapopulations and the small populations (BHSP and KWNWR) maladapted genotypes, and other factors size of highly sporadic populations can (Saarinen 2009, p. 48). Yet together, (Frankham 2008, pp. 325–333; Saarinen make recolonization unlikely if between the two contemporary et al. 2009a, p. 36). populations are extirpated. populations, the Miami blue had Fragmentation of habitat and aspects of retained a significant amount of genetic Aspects of Its Natural History a butterfly’s natural history (e.g., limited diversity from its historical values Aspects of the Miami blue’s natural dispersal, reliance on host plants) can (Saarinen 2009, p. 51). Despite likely history may increase the likelihood of contribute to and exacerbate threats. fluctuations in population size, the extinction. Cushman and Murphy (1993, Estimated abundance of the Miami BHSP population had retained an p. 40) argued that dispersal is essential blue is not known, but may number in adequate amount of genetic diversity to for the persistence of isolated the hundreds, and at times, possibly maintain the population (Saarinen 2009, populations. Input of individuals from higher. Although highly dependent on p. 77). Overall, patterns of genetic neighboring areas can bolster dwindling individual species considered, a diversity in the BHSP population (mean numbers and provide an influx of population of 1,000 has been suggested overall observed heterozygosity of 39.5 genetic diversity, increasing fitness and as marginally viable for an insect (D. percent) were similar to or slightly population viability. The tendency for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20979

lycaenids to be comparatively sedentary January 2010 and December 2010 result in disturbances that favor host should result in less frequent through January 2011 may have also plants and other habitat components. recolonization, less influx of impacted the remaining According to the Florida Climate individuals, and reduced gene flow metapopulations in the Keys. Center, Florida is by far the most between populations (Cushman and Unseasonably cold temperatures during vulnerable State in the United States to Murphy 1993, p. 40). In short, taxa with winter 2010 (in combination with hurricanes and tropical storms (http:// limited dispersal abilities may be far impacts from iguanas) resulted in a coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/ more susceptible to local extinction substantial loss of nickerbean and nectar tropicalweather.shtml). Based on data events than taxa with well-developed sources at BHSP. This reduction, albeit gathered from 1856 to 2008, Klotzbach dispersal abilities (Cushman and temporary, may have severely impacted and Gray (2009, p. 28) calculated the Murphy 1993, p. 40). an already depressed Miami blue climatological and current-year Lycaenids with a strong dependence population on the island. Similarly, probabilities for each State being on ants may be more sensitive to extended dry conditions and drought environmental changes and, thus, more can affect the availability of host plants impacted by a hurricane and major prone to endangerment and extinction and nectar sources and affect butterfly hurricane. Of the coastal States than species not tended by ants (and populations (Emmel and Daniels 2004, analyzed, Florida had the highest non-lycaenids in general) (Cushman and pp. 13–14, 17). Depressed numbers of climatological probabilities, with a 51 Murphy 1993, pp. 37, 41). This the Miami blue at BHSP in 2008 were percent probability of a hurricane and a hypothesis is based on the probability attributed to severe drought (Emmel and 21 percent probability of a major that the combination of both the right Daniels 2009, p. 4). hurricane over a 52-year time span. food plant and the presence of a The Keys are regularly threatened by Florida had a 45 percent current-year particular ant species may occur tropical storms and hurricanes. No area probability of a hurricane and an 18 relatively infrequently in the landscape. of the Keys is more than 20 feet (6.1 percent current-year probability of a Selection may favor reduced dispersal meters) above sea level (and many areas major hurricane (Klotzbach and Gray by ant-associated lycaenids due to the are only a few feet (meters) in 2009, p. 28). Given the Miami blue’s low difficulty associated with locating elevation). These tropical systems have population size and few isolated patches that contain the appropriate affected the Miami blue and its habitat. occurrences, the subspecies is at combination of food plants and ants Calhoun et al. (2002, p. 18) indicated substantial risk from hurricanes, storm (Cushman and Murphy 1993, pp. 39– that Hurricane Andrew in 1992 may surges, or other extreme weather. 40). Although significant research on have negatively impacted the majority Depending on the location and intensity the relationship between Miami blue of Miami blue populations in southern of a hurricane or other severe weather larvae and ants has been conducted, this Florida. In 2005, four hurricanes event, it is possible that the Miami blue association is still not completely (Katrina, Dennis, Rita, and Wilma) could become extirpated or extinct. understood. Lycaenid traits (sedentary, affected habitat at BHSP, resulting in Because it appears to have limited host-specific, symbiotic with ants) that reduced abundance of Miami blues dispersal capabilities, natural result in isolated populations of variable following the storms that continued recolonization of potentially suitable sizes may serve to limit genetic throughout 2006 (Salvato and Salvato sites is anticipated to be unlikely or exchange (Cushman and Murphy 1993, 2007, p. 160) and beyond (Emmel and exceedingly slow at best. pp. 37, 39–40). The Miami blue Daniels 2009, p. 4). A significant portion Other processes to be affected by of the nickerbean and large stands of possesses several of these traits, all of climate change include temperatures, which may increase susceptibility and nectar plants at BHSP were temporarily rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and contribute to imperilment. damaged by the storms, including distribution), and storms (frequency and roughly 50 percent of the vegetation on Environmental Stochasticity intensity). Temperatures are projected to the southern side of the island (Salvato rise from 2 °C to 5 °C (3.6 °F to 9 °F) The climate of the Keys is driven by and Salvato 2007, p. 157). Although the a combination of local, regional, and host plant quickly recovered following for North America by the end of this global events, regimes, and oscillations. the storms (Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. century (IPCC 2007, pp. 7–9, 13). Based There are three main ‘‘seasons’’: (1) The 160), the Miami blue never fully upon modeling, Atlantic hurricane and wet season, which is hot, rainy, and recolonized several parts of the island tropical storm frequencies are expected humid from June through October, (2) (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). to decrease (Knutson et al. 2008, pp. 1– the official hurricane season that Similarly, Hurricane Wilma heavily 21). By 2100, there should be a 10–30 extends one month beyond the wet damaged blackbead across many islands percent decrease in hurricane frequency season (June 1 through November 30) within KWNWR (Cannon et al. 2010, p. with a 5–10 percent wind increase. This with peak season being August and 850). Although the hurricane severely is due to more hurricane energy September, and (3) the dry season, damaged or killed much of the Miami available for intense hurricanes. which is drier and cooler from blue host plant on KWNWR, it is also However, hurricane frequency is November through May. In the dry believed to have enhanced or created expected to drop due to more wind season, periodic surges of cool and dry many new habitats across the islands by shear impeding initial hurricane continental air masses influence the clearing older vegetation and opening development. In addition to climate weather with short-duration rain events patches for growth of host plant and change, weather variables are extremely followed by long periods of dry weather. nectar sources (Cannon et al. 2010, p. influenced by other natural cycles, such Environmental factors have likely 852). Cannon et al. (2010, p. 852) as El Nin˜ o Southern Oscillation with a impacted the Miami blue and its habitat suggested that the proximity and frequency of every 4–7 years, solar cycle within its historical range. A hard freeze circular arrangement of these islands (every 11 years), and the Atlantic Multi- in the late 1980s likely contributed to may provide some safeguard during decadal Oscillation. All of these cycles the Miami blue’s decline (L. Koehn, mild or moderate storms. Given enough influence changes in Floridian weather. pers. comm. 2002), presumably due to resiliency in extant populations, certain The exact magnitude, direction, and loss of larval host plants in south storm regimes may benefit populations distribution of all of these changes at the Florida. Prolonged cold temperatures in over some timeframe if these events regional level are difficult to project.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20980 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Summary of Factor E survival, given its vulnerability (see indicate that the Miami blue butterfly is Factor E). on the brink of extinction. Based on our analysis of the best The subspecies is currently also By listing the Miami blue butterfly as available information we have identified threatened by a wide array of natural an endangered subspecies, the a wide array of natural and manmade and manmade factors (see Factor E). In protections (through sections 7, 9, and factors affecting the continued existence addition to the effects of small 10 of the Act) and recognition that of the Miami blue butterfly. Effects of population size, isolation, and loss of immediately became available to the small population size, isolation, and genetic diversity, aspects of the Miami subspecies upon emergency listing will loss of genetic diversity are likely blue’s natural history and continue and increase the likelihood significant threats. Aspects of the Miami environmental stochasticity may that it can be saved from extinction and blue’s natural history and contribute to its imperilment. Other ultimately be recovered. In addition, environmental stochasticity may also natural (e.g., impacts from iguanas, recovery funds may become available, contribute to its imperilment. Other changes to habitat) and anthropogenic which could facilitate recovery actions natural (e.g., impacts from iguanas, factors (e.g., pesticides, impacts from (e.g., funding for additional surveys, changes to habitat, invasive and exotic humans) are also threats of varying management needs, research, captive vegetation) and anthropogenic factors magnitude. Finally, existing regulatory propagation and reintroduction, (e.g., pesticides, habitat alteration, mechanisms (see Factor D), due to a monitoring) (see Available Conservation impacts from humans) are also variety of constraints, do not work as Measures, below). identifiable threats. Collectively, these designed and do not provide adequate The Service acknowledges that it threats have operated in the past, are protection for the subspecies. Overall, cannot fully address some of the natural impacting the subspecies now, and will impacts from increasing threats, threats facing the subspecies (e.g., continue to impact the Miami blue in operating singly or in combination, are hurricanes, tropical storms) or even the future. likely to result in the extinction of the some of the other significant, long-term subspecies. threats (e.g., climatic changes, sea-level Determination of Status Section 3 of the Endangered Species rise). However, through listing, we We have carefully assessed the best Act defines an endangered species as provide protection to the known scientific and commercial information ‘‘* * * any species which is in danger population(s) and any new population available regarding the past, present, of extinction throughout all or a of the subspecies that may be and future threats to the Miami blue significant portion of its range’’ and a discovered (see section 9 of Available butterfly. The only confirmed threatened species as ‘‘* * * any Conservation Measures, below). With metapopulation of Miami blue is species which is likely to become an listing, we can also influence Federal currently restricted to a few, small endangered species within the actions that may potentially impact the insular areas in the extreme southern foreseeable future throughout all or a subspecies (see section 7 below); this is portion of its historical range. The significant portion of its range.’’ Based especially valuable if it is found at butterfly’s range, which once extended on the immediate and ongoing additional locations. With this action, from the Keys north along the Florida significant threats to the Miami blue we are also better able to deter illicit coasts to about St. Petersburg and butterfly throughout its entire occupied collection and trade. Through this action, the Miami blue Daytona, is now substantially reduced, range and the fact that the subspecies is will continue receiving protection from with an estimated >99 percent decline restricted to only one or possibly two collection, possession, and trade in area occupied. Many factors likely populations, we have determined that (through sections 9 and 10 of the Act). contributed to the Miami blue’s decline, the subspecies is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Since threats The three butterflies that are similar in and numerous major threats, acting extend throughout the entire range, it is appearance to the Miami blue will individually or synergistically, continue unnecessary to determine if the Miami receive protection from collection in today (see Summary of Factors Affecting blue butterfly is in danger of extinction portions of their ranges (i.e., portions the Species). throughout a significant portion of its that overlap with the Miami blue’s Habitat loss, degradation, and range. Therefore, on the basis of the best historical range). At present, the three modification from human population available scientific and commercial similar butterflies are not protected by growth and associated development and information, we have determined that the State of Florida. Extending the agriculture have impacted the Miami the Miami blue butterfly meets the prohibitions of collection to the three blue, curtailing its range (see Factor A). definition of an endangered species similar butterflies in portions of their Environmental effects from climatic under the Act. Consequently, we are ranges provides greater protection to the change, especially sea level rise, are listing the Miami blue butterfly as an Miami blue. Listing will partially expected to become severe in the future, endangered species throughout its entire alleviate some of the imminent threats resulting in additional habitat losses range. that now pose a significant risk to the (see Factor A). Due to the few The survival of the Miami blue now survival of the subspecies. metapopulations, small population size, depends on protecting the species’ restricted range, and remoteness of occupied and suitable habitat from Critical Habitat and Prudency occupied habitat, collection is a further degradation and fragmentation, Determination significant threat to the subspecies and removing and reducing controllable Critical habitat is defined in section could potentially occur at any time (see threats, increasing the current 3(5)(A) of the Act as (i) the specific areas Factor B). Even limited collection from population in size, reducing the threats within the geographic area occupied by the remaining metapopulation could of illegal collection, retaining the a species, at the time it is listed in have deleterious effects on reproductive remaining genetic diversity; and accordance with the Act, on which are and genetic viability of the subspecies establishing populations at additional found those physical or biological and could contribute to its extinction. locations. The survey and monitoring features (I) essential to the conservation Similarly, disease and predation (see efforts and scientific studies conducted of the species and (II) that may require Factor C) also have the potential to to date, when combined with other special management considerations or impact the Miami blue’s continued available historical information, protection; and (ii) specific areas

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20981

outside the geographic area occupied by different regulatory requirements. Thus, also formed a workgroup, in part to raise a species at the time it is listed, upon critical habitat designations may awareness for imperiled butterflies in a determination that such areas are provide greater benefits to the recovery south Florida. Staff at BHSP have essential for the conservation of the of a species than would listing alone. recruited volunteers to help search for species. Conservation is defined in All areas known to support the Miami the subspecies within the Park and section 3(3) of the Act as the use of all blue butterfly since 1996 are or have surrounding areas, and they have methods and procedures that are been on Federal or State lands; these organized speakers to inform the general necessary to bring any endangered or areas are currently being managed for public about the butterfly. In addition, threatened species to the point at which the subspecies. Management efforts are designation of critical habitat could listing under the Act is no longer consistent with, and geared toward, inform State agencies and local necessary. Miami blue conservation, and such governments about areas that could be Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as efforts are expected to continue in the conserved under State laws or local amended, and implementing regulations future. Because the butterfly exists only ordinances. However, since awareness (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the as one or possibly two small and education involving the Miami blue maximum extent prudent and metapopulations, any future activity is already well underway, designation of determinable, we designate critical involving a Federal action that would critical habitat would likely provide habitat at the time we determine that a destroy or adversely modify occupied only minimal incremental educational species is endangered or threatened. critical habitat may also likely benefits. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) jeopardize the subspecies’ continued state that the designation of critical existence (see Jeopardy Standard, Increased Threat to the Subspecies by habitat is not prudent when one or both below). Consultation with respect to Designating Critical Habitat of the following situations exist: (1) The critical habitat would provide Designation of critical habitat requires species is threatened by taking or other additional protection to a species only the publication of maps and a narrative human activity, and identification of if the agency action would result in the description of specific critical habitat critical habitat can be expected to destruction or adverse modification of areas in the Federal Register. The increase the degree of threat to the the critical habitat but would not degree of detail in those maps and species, or (2) such designation of jeopardize the continued existence of boundary descriptions is greater than critical habitat would not be beneficial the species. In the absence of a critical the general location descriptions to the species. We have determined that habitat designation, areas that support provided in this rule listing the species both circumstances apply to the Miami the Miami blue butterfly will continue as endangered. At present, maps blue butterfly. This determination to be subject to conservation actions depicting the locations of extant involves a weighing of the expected implemented under section 7(a)(1) of populations and habitat most likely to increase in threats associated with a the Act and to the regulatory protections support the Miami blue do not exist. We critical habitat designation against the afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy are concerned that designation of benefits gained by a critical habitat standard, as appropriate. Federal actions critical habitat would more widely designation. An explanation of this affecting the Miami blue butterfly, even announce the exact location of the ‘‘balancing’’ evaluation follows. in the absence of designated critical butterflies (and highly suitable habitat) habitat areas, will still benefit from to poachers, collectors, and vandals and Benefits to the Subspecies From Critical consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) further facilitate unauthorized Habitat Designation of the Act and may still result in collection and trade. Due to its extreme The principal benefit of including an jeopardy findings. Therefore, rarity (a low number of individuals, area in a critical habitat designation is designation of specific areas as critical combined with small areas inhabited by the requirement for Federal agencies to habitat that are currently occupied or the remaining metapopulation), this ensure actions they fund, authorize, or recently occupied would not likely butterfly is highly vulnerable to carry out are not likely to result in the provide a measurable incremental collection. Vandalism, disturbance, and destruction or adverse modification of benefit to the subspecies. other harm from humans are also any designated critical habitat, the Another potential benefit to the serious threats to the butterfly and its regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of Miami blue butterfly from designating habitat (see Factors B and E above). At the Act under which consultation is critical habitat is that it could serve to this time, removal of any individuals or completed. Federal agencies must also educate landowners, State and local damage to habitat may have devastating consult with us on actions that may government agencies, Refuge or Park consequences for the survival of the affect a listed species and refrain from visitors, and the general public subspecies. We estimate that these undertaking actions that are likely to regarding the potential conservation threats would be exacerbated by the jeopardize the continued existence of value of the area. Through the processes publication of maps and descriptions such species. The analysis of effects of of listing the butterfly under the State of outlining the specific locations of this a proposed project on critical habitat is Florida’s endangered species statute in critically imperiled butterfly in the separate and different from that of the 2002, the recognition of the Miami blue Federal Register and local newspapers. effects of a proposed project on the as a Federal candidate subspecies in Maps and descriptions of critical species itself. The jeopardy analysis 2005, and our proposed and emergency habitat, such as those that would appear evaluates the action’s impact to survival rules for the subspecies in August 2011, in the Federal Register if critical habitat and recovery of the species, while the much of this educational component is were designated, are not now available destruction or adverse modification already in effect. Agencies, to the general public. analysis evaluates the action’s effects to organizations, and stakeholders are Although we do not have specific the designated habitat’s contribution to actively engaged in efforts to raise evidence of taking for this subspecies, conservation. Therefore, the difference awareness for the butterfly and its illegal collection of imperiled butterflies in outcomes of these two analyses conservation needs. For example, the from State, Federal, and other lands in represents the regulatory benefit of NABA has a Miami blue chapter, which Florida appears ongoing, prevalent, and critical habitat. This will, in some helps promote awareness for the damaging (see Factor B analysis above). instances, lead to different results and subspecies. The FWC and partners have In addition, we are aware that a market

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20982 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

exists for trade in rare, imperiled, and detailed critical habitat information and information in a critical habitat listed butterflies, including those in maps would likely increase exposure of designation greatly outweighs the south Florida (see Factor B analysis sensitive habitats and increase the minimal regulatory and educational above). likelihood and severity of threats to both benefits of designating critical habitat. Additionally, we are aware of a the subspecies and its habitat. In conclusion, we find that the market for butterflies that look similar to Identification and publication of designation of critical habitat is not the Miami blue, including all three of critical habitat may lead to increased prudent, in accordance with 50 CFR the subspecies we are listing due to attention to the subspecies, or increased 424.12(a)(1), because the Miami blue similarity of appearance (see above), as attempts to illegally collect it, which butterfly is threatened by collection and well as other Cyclargus thomasi could also lead to an increase in habitat destruction, and designation can subspecies that occur in foreign enforcement problems. Although take reasonably be expected to increase the countries. It is clear that a demand prohibitions exist, effective enforcement degree of these threats to the subspecies currently exists for both imperiled is difficult. As discussed in Factors B, and its habitat. butterflies and those similar in D, and E and elsewhere above, the threat Available Conservation Measures appearance to the Miami blue. Due to its of collection and inadvertent impacts few metapopulations, small population from humans exists; areas are already Conservation measures provided to size, restricted range, and remoteness of difficult to patrol. Areas within the species listed as endangered or occupied habitat, we find that collection KWNWR are remote and accessible threatened under the Act include is a significant threat to the Miami blue mainly by boat, making them difficult recognition, recovery actions, butterfly and could occur at any time. for law enforcement personnel to patrol requirements for Federal protection, and Even limited collection from the and monitor. Designation of critical prohibitions against certain practices. remaining population (or other habitat would facilitate further use and Recognition through listing results in populations, if discovered) could have misuse of sensitive habitats and public awareness and conservation by deleterious effects on reproductive and resources, creating additional difficulty Federal, State, Tribal, and local genetic viability and thus could for law enforcement personnel in an agencies, private organizations, and contribute to its extinction. already challenging environment. individuals. The Act encourages Identification of critical habitat would Overall, we find that designation of cooperation with the States and requires increase the severity of this threat by critical habitat will increase the that recovery actions be carried out for depicting the exact locations where the likelihood and severity of the threats of all listed species. The protection subspecies may be found and more illegal collection of the subspecies and required by Federal agencies and the widely publicizing detailed information destruction of sensitive habitat. With prohibitions against certain activities and maps, exposing the fragile increased attention and activities, we are discussed, in part, below. population to greater risks. also anticipate that designation will The primary purpose of the Act is the Identification and publication of contribute to, and exacerbate conservation of endangered and critical habitat may also increase the enforcement issues and problems. threatened species and the ecosystems likelihood of inadvertent or purposeful upon which they depend. The ultimate Increased Threat to the Subspecies habitat destruction. Damage to host goal of such conservation efforts is the Outweighs the Benefits of Critical plants from humans has been recovery of these listed species, so that Habitat Designation documented in the past (see Factor E they no longer need the protective above). Recreation within occupied Upon reviewing the available measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of areas has resulted in trampling of information, we have determined that the Act requires the Service to develop vegetation and negative impacts to the the designation of critical habitat would and implement recovery plans for the subspecies and its habitat (see Factor E subject the subspecies to increased conservation of endangered and above). High visitation and illicit uses threats, while conferring little threatened species. The recovery (e.g., fire pits, camping, vandalism) additional incremental benefit beyond planning process involves the within occupied and suitable habitat that provided by listing. With identification of actions that are have resulted in local disturbances, and designation, minor regulatory (e.g., necessary to halt or reverse the species’ the risk of fire (natural or human- consulting on adverse modifications) decline by addressing the threats to its induced) is now a significant threat (see and educational benefits may be survival and recovery. The goal of this Factor E above). In addition, some realized. However, these benefits process is to restore listed species to a private property owners in the Keys (beyond listing) will be more than offset point where they are secure, self- have reportedly threatened to clear by the increased threats to the sustaining, and functioning components vegetation from undeveloped properties subspecies and its habitat that could be of their ecosystems. to avoid any restrictions regarding the associated with critical habitat Recovery planning includes the butterfly (M. Minno, in litt. 2011b; N. designation. development of a recovery outline Pakhomoff-Spencer, consultant, pers. Critical habitat involves the shortly after a species is listed, comm. 2011). We recognize that identification and publication of preparation of a draft and final recovery landowner cooperation is key to the detailed descriptions and maps. plan, and revisions to the plan as Miami blue’s survival and recovery; Publication of such maps and significant new information becomes however, this may be reduced with information, otherwise not now available. The recovery outline guides critical habitat designation. We estimate available, exposes the Miami blue to an the immediate implementation of urgent that identification and advertisement of increased threat of collection. It also recovery actions and describes the critical habitat may exacerbate these increases the potential for inadvertent or process to be used to develop a recovery threats, thus making sensitive areas purposeful disturbance and vandalism plan. The recovery plan identifies site- more vulnerable to purposeful harmful to important and sensitive habitats and specific management actions that will impacts from humans. Immature stages contributes to enforcement issues. achieve recovery of the species, (eggs, larvae), which are sedentary, are Overall, we find that the risk of measurable criteria that determine when particularly vulnerable. Overall, increasing significant threats to the a species may be downlisted or delisted, identification and publication of subspecies by publishing location and methods for monitoring recovery

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20983

progress. Recovery plans also establish the continued existence of a species person subject to the jurisdiction of the a framework for agencies to coordinate proposed for listing or result in United States to take (includes harass, their recovery efforts and provide destruction or adverse modification of harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, estimates of the cost of implementing proposed critical habitat. If a species is trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt recovery tasks. Recovery teams listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of any of these), import or export, deliver, (composed of species experts, Federal the Act requires Federal agencies to receive, carry, transport, or ship in and State agencies, nongovernmental ensure that activities they authorize, interstate or foreign commerce in the organizations, and stakeholders) are fund, or carry out are not likely to course of commercial activity, or sell or often established to develop recovery jeopardize the continued existence of offer for sale in interstate or foreign plans. When completed, the draft such a species or to destroy or adversely commerce any listed species. It also is recovery plan, and the final recovery modify its critical habitat. If a Federal illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, plan will be available on our Web site action may affect a listed species or its transport, or ship any such wildlife that (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or critical habitat, the responsible Federal has been taken illegally. Further, it is from our South Florida Ecological agency must enter into formal illegal for any person to attempt to Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER consultation with us. commit, to solicit another person to INFORMATION CONTACT). Federal agency actions that may commit, or to cause to be committed, Implementation of recovery actions require conference or consultation as any of these acts. Certain exceptions generally requires the participation of a described in the preceding paragraph apply to our agents and State road range of partners, including other include the issuance of Federal funding, conservation agencies. Federal agencies, States, Tribes, permits, or authorizations for We may issue permits to carry out nongovernmental organizations, construction, clearing, development, otherwise prohibited activities businesses, and private landowners. road maintenance, pesticide involving endangered wildlife under Examples of recovery actions include registration, pesticide use (on Federal certain circumstances. We codified the habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of land or with Federal funding), regulations governing permits for native vegetation), research, captive agricultural assistance programs, endangered species at 50 CFR 17.22. propagation and reintroduction, and Federal loan and insurance programs, Such permits are available for scientific outreach and education. The recovery of Federal habitat restoration programs, purposes, to enhance the propagation or many listed species cannot be and scientific and special uses. survival of the species, or for incidental accomplished solely on Federal lands Activities will trigger consultation take in the course of otherwise lawful because their range may occur primarily under section 7 of the Act if they may activities. or solely on non-Federal lands. affect the Miami blue butterfly. It is our policy, published in the Achieving recovery of these species Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR Jeopardy Standard requires cooperative conservation efforts 34272), to identify, to the maximum on private, State, and Tribal lands. Prior to and following listing, the extent practicable at the time a species Through this listing, funding for Service applies an analytical framework is listed, those activities that would or recovery actions will be available from for jeopardy analyses that relies heavily would not constitute a violation of a variety of sources, including Federal on the importance of core area section 9 of the Act and associated budgets, State programs, and cost share populations to the survival and recovery regulations at 50 CFR 17.21. The intent grants for non-Federal landowners, the of the species. The section 7(a)(2) of this policy is to increase public academic community, and analysis is focused not only on these awareness of the effect of this final nongovernmental organizations. populations but also on the habitat listing on proposed and ongoing Additionally, under section 6 of the Act, conditions necessary to support them. activities within a species’ range. We we would be able to grant funds to the The jeopardy analysis usually estimate, based on the best available State of Florida for management actions expresses the survival and recovery information, that the following actions promoting the conservation of the needs of the species in a qualitative will not result in a violation of the Miami blue. Information on our grant fashion without making distinctions provisions of section 9 of the Act, programs that are available to aid between what is necessary for survival provided these actions are carried out in species recovery can be found at: and what is necessary for recovery. accordance with existing regulations http://www.fws.gov/grants. Generally, if a proposed Federal action and permit requirements, if applicable: Please let us know if you are is incompatible with the viability of the (1) Possession, delivery, or movement, interested in participating in recovery affected core area populations(s), including interstate transport and efforts for the Miami blue. Additionally, inclusive of associated habitat import into or export from the United we invite you to submit any new conditions, a jeopardy finding is States, involving no commercial information on the subspecies, its considered to be warranted, because of activity, of dead specimens of this taxon habitat, or threats whenever it becomes the relationship of each core area that were collected or legally acquired available and any information you may population to the survival and recovery prior to the effective date of the have for recovery planning purposes. of the species as a whole. emergency rule (August 10, 2011). Section 7(a) of the Act requires (2) Actions that may affect the Miami Federal agencies to evaluate their Section 9 Take blue that are authorized, funded, or actions with respect to any species that The Act and implementing carried out by Federal agencies when is proposed or listed as endangered or regulations set forth a series of general such activities are conducted in threatened and with respect to its prohibitions and exceptions that apply accordance with an incidental take critical habitat, if any is being to all endangered and threatened statement issued by us under section 7 designated. Regulations implementing wildlife. These prohibitions are of the Act. this interagency cooperation provision applicable to the Miami blue butterfly (3) Actions that may affect the Miami of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part immediately with listing. The blue that are not authorized, funded, or 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, carried out by a Federal agency, when agencies to confer informally with us on codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered the action is conducted in accordance any action that is likely to jeopardize wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any with an incidental take permit issued by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20984 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

us under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. trampling, herbicide spraying, or other species; and (c) such treatment of an Applicants design a Habitat destruction or modification of occupied unlisted species will substantially Conservation Plan (HCP) and apply for or potentially occupied habitat or facilitate the enforcement and further an incidental take permit. These HCPs pesticide application in known the policy of this Act.’’ Listing a species are developed for species listed under occupied habitat) in ways that kills or as endangered or threatened under the section 4 of the Act and are designed to injures eggs, larvae, or adult Miami blue similarity of appearance provisions of minimize and mitigate impacts to the butterflies by significantly impairing the the Act extends the take prohibitions of species to the maximum extent subspecies’ essential breeding, foraging, section 9 of the Act to cover the species. practicable. sheltering, or other essential life A designation of endangered or (4) Actions that may affect the Miami functions. threatened due to similarity of blue that are conducted in accordance (5) Use of pesticides/herbicides that appearance under section 4(e) of the with the conditions of a section are in violation of label restrictions Act, however, does not extend other 10(a)(1)(A) permit for scientific research resulting in take of Miami blue butterfly protections of the Act, such as or to enhance the propagation or or beneficial ants associated with the consultation requirements for Federal survival of the subspecies. subspecies in areas occupied by the agencies under section 7 and the (5) Captive propagation activities butterfly. recovery planning provisions under involving the Miami blue that are (6) Unauthorized release of biological section 4(f), that apply to species that conducted in accordance with the control agents that attack any life stage are listed as endangered or threatened conditions of a section 10(a)(1)(A) of this taxon or beneficial ants under section 4(a). All applicable permit, our ‘‘Policy Regarding associated with the Miami blue. prohibitions and exceptions for species Controlled Propagation of Species (7) Removal or destruction of native listed under section 4(e) of the Act due Listed Under the Endangered Species food plants being utilized by Miami to similarity of appearance to a Act,’’ and in cooperation with the State blue butterfly, including Caesalpinia threatened or endangered species will of Florida. spp., Cardiospermum spp., and be set forth in a special rule under (6) Low-impact, infrequent, dispersed Pithecellobium spp., within areas used section 4(d) of the Act. human activities on foot (e.g., bird by this taxon that results in harm to this There are only slight morphological watching, butterfly watching, butterfly. differences between the Miami blue and sightseeing, backpacking, photography, (8) Release of exotic species into the cassius blue, ceraunus blue, and camping, hiking) in areas occupied by occupied Miami blue butterfly habitat nickerbean blue, making it difficult to the Miami blue or where its host and that may displace the Miami blue or its differentiate between the species, nectar plants are present. native host plants. especially due to their small size (see (7) Activities on private lands that do We will review other activities not Background above). Aside from not result in take of the Miami blue identified above on a case-by-case basis technical experts, most people would butterfly, such as normal landscape to determine whether they may be likely have difficulty distinguishing these activities around a personal residence, to result in a violation of section 9 of the similar butterflies (as adults, eggs, or construction that avoids butterfly Act. We do not consider these lists to be larvae), especially without field guides habitat, and pesticide/herbicide exhaustive, and we provide them as or when adults are in flight. This poses application consistent with label information to the public. a problem for Federal and State law restrictions, if applied in areas where You should direct questions regarding enforcement agents trying to stem illegal the subspecies is absent. whether specific activities may collection and trade in the Miami blue. We estimate that the following constitute a future violation of section 9 It is quite possible that collectors activities would be likely to result in a of the Act to the Field Supervisor of the authorized to collect similar species violation of section 9 of the Act; Service’s South Florida Ecological may inadvertently (or purposefully) however, possible violations are not Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER collect the Miami blue butterfly limited to these actions alone: INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for thinking it was the cassius blue, (1) Unauthorized possession, copies of regulations regarding listed ceraunus blue, or nickerbean blue, collecting, trapping, capturing, killing, species and inquiries about prohibitions which also occur in the same harassing, sale, delivery, or movement, and permits should be addressed to the geographical area and habitat type. The including interstate and foreign U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, listing of these similar blue butterflies as commerce, or harming or attempting Ecological Services Division, threatened due to similarity of any of these actions, of Miami blue Endangered Species Permits, 1875 appearance reduces the likelihood that butterflies at any life stage without a Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345 amateur butterfly enthusiasts and permit (research activities where Miami (Phone 404–679–7313; Fax 404–679– private and commercial collectors will blue butterflies are handled, captured 7081). purposefully or accidentally misrepresent the Miami blue as one of (e.g., netted, trapped), marked, or Similarity of Appearance collected will require a permit under these other species. section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act). Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the The listing will also facilitate Federal (2) Incidental take of Miami blue treatment of a species, subspecies, or and State law enforcement agents’ butterfly without a permit pursuant to population segment as endangered or efforts to curtail illegal possession, section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the Act. threatened if: ‘‘(a) such species so collection, and trade in the Miami blue. (3) Sale or purchase of specimens of closely resembles in appearance, at the At this time, the three similar butterflies this taxon, except for properly point in question, a species which has are not protected by the State of Florida. documented antique specimens of this been listed pursuant to such section that Extending the prohibitions of collection taxon at least 100 years old, as defined enforcement personnel would have to the three similar butterflies through by section 10(h)(1) of the Act. substantial difficulty in attempting to this listing of these species due to (4) Unauthorized destruction or differentiate between the listed and similarity of appearance under section alteration of Miami blue butterfly unlisted species; (b) the effect of this 4(e) of the Act and providing applicable habitat (including unauthorized grading, substantial difficulty is an additional prohibitions and exceptions under leveling, plowing, mowing, burning, threat to an endangered or threatened section 4(d) of the Act will provide

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20985

greater protection to the Miami blue. For Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm coupled with this special 4(d) rule, will these reasons, we are listing the cassius Beach, and Volusia. help minimize enforcement problems blue butterfly (Leptotes cassius Capture of cassius blue, ceraunus and enhance conservation of the Miami theonus), ceraunus blue butterfly blue, or nickerbean blue butterflies, or blue. (Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus), and their immature stages, is not prohibited The provision to allow incidental take nickerbean blue butterfly (Cyclargus if it is accidental or incidental to of these three similar butterflies will not ammon) as threatened due to similarity otherwise legal collection activities, pose a threat to the Miami blue because: of appearance to the Miami blue, in such as research, provided the animal is (1) Activities such as yard care and portions of their ranges, pursuant to released immediately upon discovery at vegetation control in developed or section 4(e) of the Act. Therefore, the the point of capture. Scientific activities commercial areas that are likely to result cassius blue, ceraunus blue, and involving collection or propagation of in take of the cassius blue, ceraunus nickerbean blue butterflies are listed as these similarity of appearance blue, and nickerbean blue are not likely threatened species under the Act due to butterflies are not prohibited, provided to affect the Miami blue (which occur similarity of appearance only within the there is prior written authorization from only on conservation lands), and (2) the historical range of the Miami blue the Service. All otherwise legal primary threat that activities concerning butterfly in Florida. This includes the activities involving cassius blue, the cassius blue, ceraunus blue, and coastal counties south of Interstate 4 ceraunus blue, or nickerbean blue nickerbean blue butterflies pose to the (I–4) and extending to the boundaries of butterflies that are conducted in Miami blue comes from collection. accordance with applicable State, the State at the endpoints of I–4 at Administrative Procedure Act Tampa and Daytona Beach. Federal, Tribal, and local laws and We are limiting the listing of these regulations are not considered to be take As explained previously in Previous similar butterflies to only a portion of under this regulation. For further Federal Actions above, we believe that their ranges because we find this is explanation see ‘‘Effects of the Rule’’ it is necessary to establish immediate sufficient to protect the Miami blue immediately below. protections under the Act for these (from collection) while being responsive butterfly species. The August 10, 2011, Effects of the Rule to comments received (see Comments emergency rule (76 FR 49542) that Relating to Similarity of Appearance Listing the cassius blue, ceraunus implemented protections for 240 days Butterflies, especially Comment #17 and blue, and nickerbean blue butterflies as expires April 6, 2012. Therefore, under Response above). threatened under the ‘‘similarity of the exemption provided in the appearance’’ provisions of the Act, and Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Special Rule Under Section 4(d) of the the promulgation of a special rule under 553(d)(3)), we have determined that Act section 4(d) of the Act, extend take ‘‘good cause’’ exists to make these Whenever a species is listed as a prohibitions to these species and their regulations effective as stated above (see threatened species under the Act, the immature stages in portions of their DATES). Secretary may specify regulations that ranges. Capture of these species, Required Determinations he deems necessary and advisable to including their immature stages, is not provide for the conservation of that prohibited if it is accidental or Clarity of Rule species under the authorization of incidental to otherwise legal collection We are required by Executive Orders section 4(d) of the Act. These rules, activities, such as research, provided the 12866 and 12988 and by the commonly referred to as ‘‘special rules,’’ animal is released immediately upon Presidential Memorandum of June 1, are found in part 17 of title 50 of the discovery, at the point of capture. 1998, to write all rules in plain Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in However, this final rule establishes language. This means that each rule we §§ 17.40–17.48. This special rule for prohibitions on the collection of these publish must: (a) Be logically organized; § 17.47 prohibits take of any cassius species throughout coastal south and (b) Use the active voice to address blue butterfly (Leptotes cassius central Florida within the historical readers directly; (c) Use clear language theonus), ceraunus blue butterfly range of the Miami blue butterfly. rather than jargon; (d) Be divided into (Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus), or All otherwise legal activities that may short sections and sentences; and (e) nickerbean blue butterfly (Cyclargus involve incidental take (take that results Use lists and tables wherever possible. ammon) or their immature stages only from, but is not the purpose of, carrying If you feel that we have not met these throughout coastal south and central out an otherwise lawful activity) of requirements, send us comments by one Florida in order to protect the Miami these similar butterflies, and which are of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES blue butterfly from collection, conducted in accordance with section. To better help us revise the possession, and trade. In this context, applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and rule, your comments should be as any activity where cassius blue, local laws and regulations, will not be specific as possible. For example, you ceraunus blue, or nickerbean blue considered take under this regulation. should tell us page numbers and the butterflies or their immature stages are For example, this special 4(d) rule names of the sections or paragraphs that attempted to be, or are intended to be, exempts legal application of pesticides, are unclearly written, which sections or collected, in counties that overlap with yard care, vehicle use, vegetation sentences are too long, the sections the Miami blue’s historical range in management, exotic plant removal, where you feel lists or tables would be Florida, are prohibited. Collection of the burning, and any other legally useful, etc. similar butterflies is prohibited south of undertaken actions that result in the I–4 and extending to the boundaries of accidental take of cassius blue, ceraunus Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. the State of Florida at the endpoints of blue, or nickerbean blue butterflies. 3501, et seq.) I–4 at Tampa and Daytona Beach. These actions will not be considered as This final rule does not contain any Specifically, such activities are violations of section 9 of the Act. We new collections of information that prohibited in the following counties: find that listing the cassius blue, require approval by the Office of Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, De ceraunus blue, and nickerbean blue Management and Budget (OMB) under Soto, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee, butterflies under the similarity of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota, St. Lucie, appearance provision of the Act, will not impose new recordkeeping or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 20986 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

reporting requirements on State or local References Cited Regulation Promulgation governments, individuals, businesses, or Accordingly, we amend part 17, organizations. We may not conduct or A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is available on the subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the sponsor, and you are not required to Internet at http://www.regulations.gov Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: respond to, a collection of information or upon request from the Field unless it displays a currently valid OMB PART 17—[AMENDED] Supervisor, South Florida Ecological control number. Services Office (see FOR FURTHER ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 National Environmental Policy Act (42 INFORMATION CONTACT). continues to read as follows: U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Authors Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. We have determined that we do not 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– The primary authors of this rule are 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. need to prepare an environmental staff members of the South Florida ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding new assessment, as defined under the Ecological Services Office (see FOR entries for the following, in alphabetical authority of the National Environmental FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Policy Act of 1969, in connection with order under Insects, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife: regulations adopted under section 4(a) List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 of the Act. We published a notice Endangered and threatened species, § 17.11 Endangered and threatened outlining our reasons for this Exports, Imports, Reporting and wildlife. determination in the Federal Register recordkeeping requirements, * * * * * on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Transportation. (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate population Historic range where Status When listed Critical Common name Scientific name endangered or habitat threatened

******* INSECTS

******* Butterfly, cassius blue Leptotes cassius U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas, NA T (S/A) (coastal south 801 NA theonus. Greater Antilles, and central FL). Cayman Islands. Butterfly, ceraunus Hemiargus ceraunus U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas NA T (S/A) (coastal south 801 NA blue. antibubastus. and central FL).

******* Butterfly, Miami blue .. Cyclargus thomasi U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas NA E ...... 801 NA bethunebakeri.

******* Butterfly, nickerbean Cyclargus ammon ...... U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas, NA T (S/A) (coastal south 801 NA blue. Cuba. and central FL).

*******

■ 3. In subpart D, add § 17.47 to read as (2) Any violation of State law will Beach. Specifically, such activities are follows: also be a violation of the Act. prohibited in the following counties: (3) Incidental take, that is, take that Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, De § 17.47 Special rules—insects. results from, but is not the purpose of, Soto, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee, (a) Cassius blue butterfly (Leptotes carrying out an otherwise lawful Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota, St. Lucie, cassius theonus), Ceraunus blue activity, will not apply to the cassius Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, Beach, and Volusia. antibubastus), and Nickerbean blue and nickerbean blue butterfly. (b) [Reserved]. butterfly (Cyclargus ammon). (4) Collection of the cassius blue Dated: March 27, 2012. (1) The provisions of § 17.31(c) apply butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and Rowan W. Gould, to these species (cassius blue butterfly, nickerbean blue butterfly is prohibited ceraunus blue butterfly, nickerbean blue in coastal counties south of Interstate 4 Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. butterfly), regardless of whether in the and extending to the boundaries of the wild or in captivity, and also apply to State of Florida at the endpoints of [FR Doc. 2012–8088 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] the progeny of any such butterfly. Interstate 4 at Tampa and Daytona BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:00 Apr 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06APR3.SGM 06APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3