Vol. 77 Thursday, No. 188 September 27, 2012

Part IV

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Listing of the Mount Charleston Blue as Endangered and Proposed Listing of Five Blue as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:28 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59518 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail our proposal within one year. Critical or hand-delivery to: Public Comments habitat shall be designated, to the Fish and Wildlife Service Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2012– maximum extent prudent and 0069, Division of Policy and Directives determinable, for any 50 CFR Part 17 Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife determined to be an endangered or [FWS–R8–ES–2012–0069; 4500030114] Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS threatened species under the Act. 2042–PDM, Arlington, VA 22203. Listing a species as an endangered or RIN 1018–AY52 We request that you send comments threatened species and designations and only by the methods described above. revisions of critical habitat can only be Endangered and Threatened Wildlife We will post all comments on http:// completed by issuing a rule. and Plants; Proposed Listing of the www.regulations.gov. This generally This rule proposes endangered status Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly as means that we will post any personal for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and Endangered and Proposed Listing of information you provide us (see the proposes threatened status for the Five Blue Butterflies as Threatened Public Comments section below for lupine blue butterfly, Reakirt’s blue Due to Similarity of Appearance more information). butterfly, Spring Mountains icarioides AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: blue butterfly, and two Spring Interior. Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor, U.S. Mountains dark blue butterflies based ACTION: Proposed rule. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish on similarity of appearance to the Mt. and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Charleston blue butterfly. This rule also SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, Nevada 89502, finds that designation of critical habitat Wildlife Service, propose to list the by telephone 775–861–6300 or by for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is Mount Charleston blue butterfly facsimile 775–861–6301. Persons who not prudent at this time. (Plebejus shasta charlestonensis) as an use a telecommunications device for the The basis for our action. Under the endangered species under the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Act, we can determine that a species is Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Information Relay Service (FIRS) at an endangered or threatened species amended (Act). We also propose to list 800–877–8339. based on any of five factors: (A) The the lupine blue butterfly (Plebejus SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: present or threatened destruction, lupini texanus), Reakirt’s blue butterfly modification, or curtailment of its (Echinargus isola), Spring Mountains Executive Summary habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for icarioides blue butterfly (Plebejus This document consists of: (1) A commercial, recreational, scientific, or icarioides austinorum), and the two proposed rule to list the Mount (Mt.) educational purposes; (C) Disease or Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies Charleston blue butterfly (Plebejus predation; (D) The inadequacy of ( ancilla cryptica and E. a. shasta charlestonensis) (formerly in existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) purpura) as threatened due to similarity ) as an endangered species Other natural or manmade factors of appearance to the Mount Charleston and a proposed rule to list the lupine affecting its continued existence. We blue, with a special rule pursuant to blue butterfly (Plebejus lupini texanus), have determined that the Mt. Charleston section 4(d) of the Act. We solicit Reakirt’s blue butterfly (Echinargus blue butterfly is threatened by: additional data, information, and isola), Spring Mountains icarioides blue • Habitat loss and degradation due to comments that may assist us in making butterfly (Plebejus icarioides fire suppression and succession, a final decision on this proposed action. austinorum), and the two Spring implementation of recreation In addition, we propose to make Mountains dark blue butterflies development projects and fuels nonsubstantive, administrative changes (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and E. a. reduction projects, and nonnative plant to a previously published listing and purpura) as threatened due to similarity species (Factor A); special rule regarding five other of appearance to the Mt. Charleston blue • Collection (Factor B); butterflies to correct some inadvertent butterfly; (2) a prudency determination • Inadequate regulatory mechanisms errors and to make these two special regarding critical habitat designation for (Factor D); and rules more consistent. the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly; and • Drought and extreme precipitation DATES: We will accept comments (3) nonsubstantive, administrative events, which are predicted to increase received or postmarked on or before corrections to a previously published as a result of climate change (Factor E). November 26, 2012. Comments listing of the butterfly We have additionally determined that submitted electronically using the ( thomasi bethunebakeri) and five species of blue butterflies warrant Federal eRulemaking Portal (see special rule regarding the cassius blue listing based on similarity of appearance ADDRESSES section, below) must be butterfly (Leptotes cassius theonus), to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly: received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on ceraunus blue butterfly (Hemiargus • Lupine blue butterfly; the closing date. We must receive ceraunus antibubastus), and nickerbean • Reakirt’s blue butterfly; requests for public hearings, in writing, blue butterfly (Cyclargus ammon). • Spring Mountains icarioides blue at the address shown in the ADDRESSES Why we need to publish a rule. Under butterfly; and section by November 13, 2012. the Endangered Species Act (Act), a • Two Spring Mountains dark blue ADDRESSES: You may submit comments species may warrant protection through butterflies. by one of the following methods: listing if it is an endangered or Further, we have determined that it is (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal threatened species throughout all or a not prudent to designate critical habitat eRulemaking Portal: http:// significant portion of its range. If a for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, species is determined to be an because the benefits are clearly enter Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2012– endangered or threatened species outweighed by the expected increase in 0069, which is the docket number for throughout all or a significant portion of threats associated with a critical habitat this rulemaking. You may submit a its range, we are required to promptly designation: comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment publish a proposal in the Federal • Publication of maps and Now!’’ Register and make a determination on descriptions of specific critical habitat

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59519

areas will pinpoint populations more (e) Past and ongoing conservation occupied by the species or potential precisely than does the rule; measures for the species, its habitat or habitat and their possible impacts to the • Publishing the exact locations of the both. Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. butterfly’s habitat will further facilitate (2) The factors that are the basis for (9) Information on the projected and unauthorized collection and trade. Its making a listing determination for a reasonably likely impacts of climate rarity makes the Mt. Charleston blue species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 change on the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly extremely attractive to U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: butterfly or its habitat. collectors; and (a) The present or threatened (10) Threats to the Mt. Charleston • Purposeful or inadvertent activities destruction, modification, or blue butterfly from collection of or have already damaged some habitat. curtailment of its habitat or range; commercial trade involving the lupine Many locations are difficult for law (b) Overutilization for commercial, blue butterfly (Plebejus lupini texanus), enforcement personnel to regularly recreational, scientific, or educational Reakirt’s blue butterfly (Echinargus access and patrol. purposes; isola), Spring Mountains icarioides blue We will seek peer review. We are (c) Disease or predation; butterfly (Plebejus icarioides seeking comments from knowledgeable (d) The inadequacy of existing austinorum), and the two Spring individuals with scientific expertise to regulatory mechanisms; or Mountains dark blue butterflies review our analysis of the best available (e) Other natural or manmade factors (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and E. a. science and application of that science affecting its continued existence. purpura), due to the Mt. Charleston and to provide any additional scientific (3) Biological, commercial and blue’s similarity in appearance to these information to improve this proposed noncommercial trade or collection, or species. rule. Because we will consider all other relevant data concerning any (11) Effects of and necessity of comments and information received threats (or lack thereof) to this species establishing the proposed 4(d) special during the comment period, our final and regulations that may be addressing rule to establish prohibitions on determinations may differ from this those threats. collection of, or commercial trade (4) Additional information concerning proposal. involving, the lupine blue butterfly, the historical and current status, range, This document consists of: (1) A Reakirt’s blue butterfly, Spring distribution, and population size of this proposed rule to list the Mount (Mt.) Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and species, including the locations of any Charleston blue butterfly (Plebejus two Spring Mountains dark blue additional populations of this species. shasta charlestonensis) (formerly in butterflies. genus Icaricia) as an endangered species (5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of the (12) Any foreseeable economic, and a proposed rule to list the lupine national security, or other relevant blue butterfly (Plebejus lupini texanus), species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its habitat. impacts that may result from Reakirt’s blue butterfly (Echinargus designating any area that may be isola), Spring Mountains icarioides blue (6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical included in the final designation. We butterfly (Plebejus icarioides are particularly interested in any austinorum), and the two Spring habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether impacts on small entities, and the Mountains dark blue butterflies benefits of including or excluding areas (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and E. a. there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can from the proposed designation that are purpura) as threatened due to similarity subject to these impacts. of appearance to the Mt. Charleston blue be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase (13) Whether our approach to butterfly; and (2) a prudency designating critical habitat could be determination regarding critical habitat in threats outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of improved or modified in any way to designation for the Mt. Charleston blue provide for greater public participation butterfly. critical habitat is not prudent. (7) Specific information on: and understanding, or to assist us in Information Requested (a) The amount and distribution of accommodating public concerns and We intend that any final action Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and its comments. resulting from this proposed rule will be habitat; (14) The likelihood of adverse social based on the best scientific and (b) What may constitute ‘‘physical or reactions to the designation of critical commercial data available and be as biological features essential to the habitat and how the consequences of accurate and as effective as possible. conservation of the species,’’ within the such reactions, if likely to occur, would Therefore, we request comments or geographical range currently occupied relate to the conservation and regulatory information from the public, other by the species; benefits of the proposed critical habitat concerned governmental agencies, (c) Where these features are currently designation. Native American tribes, the scientific found; Please include sufficient information community, industry, or any other (d) Whether any of these features may with your submission (such as scientific interested parties concerning this require special management journal articles or other publications) to proposed rule. We particularly seek considerations or protection; allow us to verify any scientific or comments concerning: (e) What areas, that were occupied at commercial information you include. (1) The species’ biology, range, and the time of listing (or are currently Please note that submissions merely population trends, including: occupied) and that contain features stating support for or opposition to the (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, essential to the conservation of the action under consideration without breeding, and sheltering; species, should be included in the providing supporting information, (b) Genetics and ; designation and why; and although noted, will not be considered (c) Historical and current range (f) What areas not occupied at the in making a determination, as section including distribution patterns; time of listing are essential for the 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that (d) Historical and current population conservation of the species and why. determinations as to whether any levels, and current and projected trends; (8) Land use designations and current species is a threatened or endangered and or planned activities in the areas species must be made ‘‘solely on the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59520 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

basis of the best scientific and In the February 28, 1996, Candidate listing of the Mt. Charleston blue commercial data available.’’ Notice of Review (61 FR 7595), we butterfly as an endangered species in You may submit your comments and adopted a single category of candidate this section of the proposed rule. defined as ‘‘Those species for which the materials concerning this proposed rule Taxonomy and Subspecies Description by one of the methods listed in the Service has on file sufficient ADDRESSES section. We request that you information on biological vulnerability The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is a send comments only by the methods and threat(s) to support issuance of a distinct subspecies of the wider ranging described in the ADDRESSES section. proposed rule to list but issuance of the Shasta blue butterfly (Plebejus shasta), If you submit information via http:// proposed rule is precluded.’’ In which is a member of the www.regulations.gov, your entire previous Candidate Notices of Review, family. Pelham (2008, pp. 25–26) submission—including any personal species and subspecies matching this recognized seven subspecies of Shasta identifying information—will be posted 1996 definition were known as Category blue: P. s. shasta, P. s. calchas, P. s. pallidissima, P. s. minnehaha, P. s. on the Web site. If your submission is 1 candidates for listing. Thus, the charlestonensis, P. s. pitkinensis, and P. made via a hardcopy that includes Service no longer considered Category 2 s. platazul in ‘‘A catalogue of the personal identifying information, you species and subspecies as candidates butterflies of the United States and may request at the top of your document and did not include them in the 1996 or Canada with a complete bibliography of that we withhold this information from any subsequent Candidate Notices of the descriptive and systematic public review. However, we cannot Review. The decision to stop literature’’ published in volume 40 of guarantee that we will be able to do so. considering Category 2 species and the Journal of Research on the We will post all hardcopy submissions subspecies as candidates was designed (2008, pp. 379–380). The on http://www.regulations.gov. Please to reduce confusion about the status of Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is known include sufficient information with your these species and subspecies and to clarify that we no longer regarded these only from the high elevations of the comments to allow us to verify any Spring Mountains, located scientific or commercial information species and subspecies as candidates for listing. approximately 25 miles (mi) (40 you include. kilometers (km)) west of Las Vegas in Comments and materials we receive, On October 20, 2005, we received a petition dated October 20, 2005, from Clark County, Nevada (Austin 1980, p. as well as supporting documentation we 20; Scott 1986, p. 410). The first used in preparing this proposed rule, The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc., requesting that we emergency list the mention of the Mt. Charleston blue will be available for public inspection butterfly as a unique taxon was in 1928 on http://www.regulations.gov, or by Mt. Charleston blue butterfly as an endangered or threatened species. In a by Garth (p. 93), who recognized it as appointment, during normal business distinct from the species Shasta blue hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife letter to the petitioner dated April 20, 2006, we stated that our initial review (Austin 1980, p. 20). Howe (in 1975, Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Plate 59) described specimens from the did not indicate that an emergency Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Spring Mountains as the P. s. shasta situation existed, but that if conditions CONTACT). form comstocki. However, in 1976, changed, an emergency rule could be Ferris (p. 14) placed the Mt. Charleston Previous Federal Actions developed. On May 30, 2007, we blue butterfly with the wider ranging published a 90-day petition finding (72 In 1991 and 1994, the U.S. Fish and Minnehaha blue subspecies. Finally, FR 29933) in which we concluded that Wildlife Service (Service) included the Austin asserted that Ferris had not the petition provided substantial Mt. Charleston blue butterfly in a included populations from the Sierra information indicating that listing of the compilation of taxa for review and Nevada in his study, and in light of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly may be potential addition to the Lists of geographic isolation and distinctiveness Endangered and Threatened Wildlife warranted, and we initiated a status of the Shasta blue population in the and Plants (56 FR 58804, November 21, review. On April 26, 2010, CBD Spring Mountains and the presence of at 1991; 59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994). amended its complaint in Center for least three other well-defined races The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly was Biological Diversity v. Salazar, U.S. Fish (subspecies) of butterflies endemic to formerly referred to as the Spring and Wildlife Service, Case No.: 1:10–cv– the area, it was appropriate to name this Mountains blue (butterfly) (56 FR 230–PLF (D.D.C.), adding an allegation population as the subspecies Mt. 58804, November 21, 1991; 59 FR that the Service failed to issue its 12- Charleston blue butterfly (P. s. 58982, November 15, 1994), but this month petition finding on the Mount charlestonensis) (Austin 1980, p. 20). common name is no longer used to Charleston blue butterfly within the Our use of the genus name Plebejus, avoid confusion with other butterflies mandatory statutory timeframe. On rather than the synonym Icaricia, having similar common names. In both March 8, 2011, we published a 12- reflects recent treatments of butterfly years, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly month finding (76 FR 12667) in which taxonomy (Opler and Warren 2003, p. was assigned to ‘‘Category 2,’’ meaning we concluded that listing the Mt. 30; Pelham 2008, p. 265). The Integrated that a proposal to list was potentially Charleston blue butterfly was Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) appropriate, but adequate data on warranted, but precluded by higher recognizes the Mt. Charleston blue biological threats or vulnerabilities were priority listing actions. On October 26, butterfly as a valid subspecies based on not currently available. The trend for 2011, we listed the Mt. Charleston blue Austin (1980) (Retrieved April 2, 2012, Mt. Charleston blue butterfly was butterfly as a new candidate in the from the Integrated Taxonomic described as ‘‘declining’’ in 1991 and Candidate Notice of Review (76 FR Information System on-line database, 1994 (56 FR 58804; 59 FR 58982). These 66370). http://www.itis.gov). The ITIS is hosted notices stressed that Category 2 species Endangered Species Status for Mt. by the United States Geological Survey were not proposed for listing by the Charleston Blue Butterfly (USGS) Center for Biological Informatics notice, nor were there any plans to list (CBI) and is the result of a partnership those Category 2 species unless Background of Federal agencies formed to satisfy supporting information became It is our intent to discuss below only their mutual needs for scientifically available. those topics directly relevant to the credible taxonomic information.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59521

As a subspecies, the Mt. Charleston Mountains dark blue butterflies butterflies have a more prominent blue butterfly is similar to other Shasta (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and E. a. orange band on the hindwing and do blue butterflies, with a wingspan of 0.75 purpura). The lupine blue butterfly (also not have black dashes in the middle of to 1 inch (in) (19 to 26 millimeters commonly referred to as the Acmon the upperside forewing and hindwing as (mm)) (Opler 1999, p. 251). Males and blue, Texas blue, or Southwestern blue the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly does females of Mt. Charleston blue are butterfly) is the most similar to the Mt. (Brock and Kaufmann 2003, pp. 136, dimorphic (occurring in two distinct Charleston blue butterfly (Boyd and 140; Scott 1986, pp. 403, 410). forms). The upperside of males is dark Austin 1999, p. 44). The Mt. Charleston Distribution to dull iridescent blue, and females are blue butterfly is distinguished from the brown with a blue overlay. The species lupine blue butterfly by a less broad and Based on current and historical has a discal black spot on the forewing distinct orange band on the hindwing occurrences or locations (Austin 1980, and a row of submarginal black spots on (Boyd and Austin, p. 44), and the pp. 20–24; Weiss et al. 1997, Map 3.1; the hindwing. The underside is gray, postmedian spots on the underside of Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 4, Pinyon with a pattern of black spots, brown the hindwing are brown rather than 2011, Figure 9–11; Thompson et al. blotches, and pale wing veins to give it black (Scott 1986, p. 410). The Reakirt’s 2012, p. 99), the geographic range of the a mottled appearance. The underside of blue butterfly is similar in size or Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is in the the hindwing has an inconspicuous slightly smaller than the Mt. Charleston upper elevations of the Spring band of submarginal metallic spots blue butterfly and is identified by black Mountains, centered on lands managed (Opler 1999, p. 251). Based on underside hindwing spots at the hind by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest morphology, the Mt. Charleston blue corner and large round black underside Service) in the Spring Mountains butterfly is most closely related to the forewing spots (Scott 1986, p. 413; National Recreation Area of the Great Basin populations of Minnehaha Opler 1999, pp. 230, 251). The Spring Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest blue butterfly (Austin 1980, p. 23), and Mountains icarioides blue butterfly is within Upper Kyle and Lee Canyons, it can be distinguished from other larger than the Mt. Charleston blue Clark County, Nevada. The majority of Shasta blue butterfly subspecies by the butterfly and usually lacks the the occurrences or locations are along presence of sharper and blacker upperside forewing dash (Scott 1986, p. the upper ridges in the Mt. Charleston postmedian spots on the underside of 409). In addition the underside Wilderness and in Upper Lee Canyon the hindwing (Scott 1986, p. 410). hindwing postmedian spots of the area, while a few are in Upper Kyle The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is Spring Mountains icarioides blue Canyon. Table 1 lists the various similar in appearance to five other butterfly are typically ringed with white locations of the Mt. Charleston blue sympatric (occupying the same or (Scott 1986, p. 409). The two Spring butterfly that constitute the subspecies’ overlapping geographic areas without Mountains dark blue butterflies and the current and historical range. Estimates interbreeding) butterflies that occur Spring Mountains icarioides blue of population size for Mt. Charleston roughly in the same habitats: lupine butterfly lack the metallic marginal blue butterfly are not available, so the blue butterfly (Plebejus lupini texanus), spots on the underside hindwing that is occurrence data summarized in Table 1 Reakirt’s blue butterfly (Echinargus present on the Mt. Charleston blue represent the best scientific information isola), Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly (Scott 1986, p. 403; Brock and on distribution of Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides Kaufmann 2003, pp. 134, 136, 140). The butterfly and how that distribution has austinorum), and the two Spring two Spring Mountains dark blue changed over time.

TABLE 1—LOCATIONS OR OCCURRENCES OF THE MT. CHARLESTON BLUE BUTTERFLY SINCE 1928, AND THE STATUS OF THE BUTTERFLY AT THE LOCATIONS [Survey efforts are variable through time]

Most recent First/last time survey year(s) Location name observed (even if not Status Primary references observed)

1. South Loop Trail, Upper Kyle 1928/2011 2007, 2008, Known occupied; adults con- Weiss et al. 1997; Kingsley 2007; Canyon. 2010, 2011. sistently observed. Boyd 2006; Datasmiths 2007; SWCA 2008; Pinyon 2011; Thomp- son et al. 2012. 2. Las Vegas Ski and 1963/2010 2007, 2008, Known occupied; adults con- Weiss et al. 1994; Weiss et al. 1997; Snowboard Resort (LVSSR), 2010, 2011. sistently observed. Boyd and Austin 2002; Boyd 2006; Upper Lee Canyon. Newfields 2006; Datasmiths 2007; Boyd and Murphy 2008;Thompson et al. 2012. 3. Foxtail, Upper Lee Canyon ... 1995/1998 2006, 2007, 2008 Presumed occupied; adults Boyd and Austin 1999; Boyd 2006; intermittently observed. Datasmiths 2007; Boyd and Murphy 2008. 4. Youth Camp, Upper Lee 1995/1995 2006, 2007, 2008 Presumed occupied; adults Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; Canyon. intermittently observed. Datasmiths 2007; Boyd and Murphy 2008. 5. Gary Abbott, Upper Lee Can- 1995/1995 2006, 2007, 2008 Presumed occupied; adults Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; yon. intermittently observed. Datasmiths 2007; Boyd and Murphy 2008. 6. Lower LVSSR Parking, 1995/2002 2007, 2008...... Presumed occupied; adults Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; Upper Lee Canyon. intermittently observed. Datasmiths 2007; Boyd and Murphy 2008.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59522 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—LOCATIONS OR OCCURRENCES OF THE MT. CHARLESTON BLUE BUTTERFLY SINCE 1928, AND THE STATUS OF THE BUTTERFLY AT THE LOCATIONS—Continued [Survey efforts are variable through time]

Most recent First/last time survey year(s) Location name observed (even if not Status Primary references observed)

7. Mummy Spring, Upper Kyle 1995/1995 2006 ...... Presumed occupied; adults Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006. Canyon. intermittently observed. 8. Lee Meadows, Upper Lee 1965/1995 2006, 2007, 2008 Presumed occupied; adults Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; Canyon. intermittently observed. Datasmiths 2007; Boyd and Murphy 2008. 9. Bristlecone Trail ...... 1990/2011 2007, 2011 ...... Presumed occupied ...... Weiss et al. 1995; Weiss et al. 1997; Kingsley 2007; Thompson et al. 2012. 10. Bonanza Trail ...... 1995/1995 2006, 2007 ...... Presumed occupied ...... Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; Kings- ley 2007. 11. Upper Lee Canyon holotype 1963/1976 2006, 2007 ...... Presumed extirpated ...... Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; Datasmiths 2007. 12. Cathedral Rock, Kyle Can- 1972/1972 2007 ...... Presumed extirpated...... Weiss et al. 1997; Datasmiths 2007. yon. 13. Upper Kyle Canyon Ski 1965/1972 1995 ...... Presumed extirpated...... Weiss et al. 1997. Area. 14. Old Town, Kyle Canyon ...... 1970s 1995 ...... Presumed extirpated ...... The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005. 15. Deer Creek, Kyle Canyon ... 1950 unknown ...... Presumed extirpated ...... Howe 1975. 16. Willow Creek ...... 1928 unknown ...... Presumed extirpated ...... Weiss et al. 1997; Thompson and Garrett 2010.

We presume that the Mt. Charleston hibernation) larvae to be present. The because: (1) The butterfly was observed blue butterfly is extirpated from a butterfly likely exhibits metapopulation on the site in 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, location when it has not been recorded dynamics at these locations. In this and 2011 (Service 2007, pp. 1–2; at that location through formal surveys situation, the subspecies is subject to Kingsley 2007, p. 5; Pinyon 2011, pp. or informal observation for more than 20 local extirpation, with new individuals 17–19; Thompson et al. 2012, p. 99); (2) years. We selected a 20-year time period emigrating from nearby ‘‘known the high quality of the habitat is in because it would likely allow for local occupied’’ habitat, typically during accordance with host plant densities of extirpation and recolonization events years when environmental conditions 10 plants per square meter as described (metapopulation dynamics) to occur and are more favorable to emergence from in Weiss et al. (1997, p. 31) (Kingsley would be enough time for succession or diapause and the successful 2007, pp. 5 and 10; Thompson et al. other vegetation shifts to render the reproduction of individuals (see 2012, p. 99); and (3) in combination habitat unsuitable (see discussion in discussion in ‘‘Habitat’’ section below). with the observations and high-quality Biology and Habitat sections below). At some of these presumed occupied habitat, the habitat is in an area of Using this criterion, the Mt. Charleston locations (Locations 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 in relatively large size (SWCA 2008, pp. 2 blue butterfly is considered to be Table 1), the Mt. Charleston blue and 5; Pinyon 2011, p. Figure 8). The ‘‘presumed extirpated’’ from 6 of the 16 butterfly has not been recorded through South Loop Trail area is the most known locations (Locations 11–16 in formal surveys or informal observation important remaining population area for Table 1) (Service 2006b, pp. 8–9). Of the since 1995 by Weiss et al. (1997, pp. 1– the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (Boyd remaining 10 locations, 8 locations or 87). Of the presumed occupied and Murphy 2008, p. 21). The South occurrences are ‘‘presumed occupied’’ locations, 3, 6, and 9 have had the most Loop Trail runs along the ridgeline by the subspecies (Locations 3–10 in recent observations (observed in 1998, between Griffith Peak and Charleston Table 1) and the first 2 locations are 2002, and 2011, respectively) (Table 1). Peak and is located within the Mt. ‘‘known occupied’’ (Locations 1–2 in Currently, we consider the occurrence at Charleston Wilderness. This area was Table 1) (Service 2006b, pp. 7–8). We Mummy Spring as presumed occupied mapped using a global positioning note that the probability of detection of because it has been intermittently system unit and included the larval host Mt. Charleston blue butterflies at a observed; however, this location is not plant, Astragalus calycosus var. particular location in a given year is near known occupied habitat and may calycosus (Torrey’s milkvetch), as well affected by factors other than the be extirpated. as occurrences of two known nectar butterfly’s abundance, such as survey We consider the remaining two Mt. plants, Hymenoxys lemmonii effort and weather, both of which are Charleston blue butterfly locations or (Lemmon’s bitterweed) and Erigeron highly variable from year to year. occurrences to be ‘‘known occupied’’ clokeyi (Clokey fleabane) (SWCA 2008, The presumed occupied category is (Locations 1 and 2 in Table 1). Known pp. 2 and 5; Pinyon 2011, p. 11). The defined as a location within the current occupied locations have had successive total area of the South Loop Trail known range of the subspecies where observations during multiple years of location is 60 acres (ac) (24 hectares adults have been intermittently surveys and occur in high-quality (ha)). observed and there is a potential for habitat. The South Loop Trail location We consider the Las Vegas Ski and diapausing (a period of suspended in Upper Kyle Canyon (Location 1 in Snowboard Resort location (LVSSR) in growth or development similar to Table 1) is considered known occupied Upper Lee Canyon (Location 2 in Table

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59523

1) to be ‘‘known occupied’’ because: (1) locations (Weiss 1996, p. 4; Weiss et al. area. According to reports from surveys The butterfly was first recorded at 1997, Table 2). conducted in July and August of 2011 LVSSR in 1963 (Austin 1980, p. 22) and Survey information indicates that the at the South Loop Trail area (Thompson has been consistently observed at numbers of recently observed Mt. et al. 2012, p. 99; Pinyon 2011, pp. 17– LVSSR every year between 1995 and Charleston blue butterflies are extremely 19), the highest total number of adults 2006 (with the exception of 1997 when low because butterflies have become counted among the days this area was no surveys were performed (Service increasingly difficult to detect. surveyed was 17 on July 28, 2010, and 2007, pp. 1–2)) and in 2010 (Thompson Zonneveld et al. (2003) determined that 13 on August 12, 2011 (Pinyon 2011, p. and Garrett 2010, p. 5); and (2) the ski observable population size is 17). Final reports have not been runs contain two areas of high-quality interdependent with survey days and completed by Thompson et al. for the butterfly habitat in accordance with host detection probability. Thus, the 2011 surveys and the results here are plant densities of 10 plants per square decreasing observations of Mt. considered preliminary. Based on the meter as described in Weiss et al. (1997, Charleston blue butterflies after available survey information, the low p. 31). These areas are LVSSR #1 (2.4 ac repeated visits in any year, after number of sightings in recent years is (0.97 ha)) and LVSSR #2 (1.3 ac (0.53 multiple years of surveying, indicates a likely the result of declining population ha)), which have been mapped using a declining and smaller population. In size. global positioning system unit and field- 2006, surveys within presumed Habitat verified. Thus, across its current range, occupied habitat at LVSSR located one the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is individual butterfly adjacent to a pond Weiss et al. (1997, pp. 10–11) describe known to persistently occupy less than that holds water for snowmaking the natural habitat for the Mt. 64 ac (26 ha) of known occupied habitat. (Newfields 2006, pp. 10, 13, and C5). In Charleston blue butterfly as relatively a later report, the accuracy of this flat ridgelines above 2,500 m (8,200 ft), Status and Trends observation was questioned and but isolated individuals have been While there are no estimates of the considered inaccurate (Newfields 2008, observed as low as 2,000 m (6,600 ft). size of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly p. 27). Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 19) indicate population, the best available In 2006, Boyd (2006, pp. 1–2) that areas occupied by the subspecies information indicates a declining trend conducted focused surveys for the featured exposed soil and rock for this subspecies, as discussed below. subspecies at nearly all previously substrates with limited or no canopy Prior to 1980, descriptions of the Mt. known locations and within potential cover or shading and flat to mild slopes. Charleston blue butterfly status and habitat along Griffith Peak, North Loop Like most butterfly species, the Mt. trends were characterized as usually Trail, Bristlecone Trail, and South Charleston blue butterfly is dependent rare (Austin and Austin 1980, p. 30). Bonanza Trail but did not observe the on plants both during larval The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is butterfly at any of these locations. In development (larval host plants) and the known to be rare because few have been 2007, surveys were again conducted in adult butterfly flight period (nectar observed since the 1920’s, even though previously known locations in Upper plants). The Mt. Charleston blue there have been many collections and Lee Canyon and LVSSR, but no butterfly requires areas that support studies of butterflies in the Spring butterflies were recorded (Datasmiths Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus, the Mountains, particularly since the 1950’s 2007, p. 1; Newfields 2008, pp. 21–24). only known larval host plant for the (Boyd and Austin 1999, p. 2). In 2007, two Mt. Charleston blue subspecies (Weiss et al. 1994, p. 3; It is important to note that year-to- butterflies were sighted on different Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10; Datasmiths year fluctuations in population numbers dates at the same location on the South 2007, p. 21), as well as primary nectar do occur (most likely due to variations Loop Trail in Upper Kyle Canyon plants. A. c. var. calycosus and Erigeron in precipitation and temperature that (Kingsley 2007, p. 5). In 2008, butterflies clokeyi are the primary nectar plants for affect both the Mt. Charleston blue were not observed during focused the subspecies; however, butterflies butterfly and its larval host plant (Weiss surveys of Upper Lee Canyon and the have also been observed nectaring on et al. 1997, pp. 2–3 and 31–32)). South Loop Trail (Boyd and Murphy Hymenoxys lemmonii and Aster sp. However, the failure to detect Mt. 2008, pp. 1–3; Boyd 2008, p. 1; SWCA (Weiss et al. 1994, p. 3; Boyd 2005, p. Charleston blue butterflies at many of 2008, p. 6), although it is possible that 1; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 9). the known historical locations during adult butterflies may have been missed The best available habitat information the past 20 years, especially in light of on the South Loop Trail because the relates mostly to the Mt. Charleston blue increased survey efforts in recent years surveys were performed very late in the butterfly’s larval host plant, with little (since 2006), indicates a reduction in season. No formal surveys were to no information available the butterfly’s distribution and likely conducted in 2009; however, no characterizing the butterfly’s decrease in total population size. In individuals were observed during the interactions with its known nectar addition, five additional locations may few informal attempts made to observe plants or other elements of its habitat; be presumed extirpated in 2015, if the species (Service 2009). thus, the habitat information discussed surveys continue to fail to detect Mt. In 2010, the Mt. Charleston blue in this document centers on Astragalus Charleston blue butterflies (these butterfly was observed during surveys at calycosus var. calycosus. Studies are include Youth Camp, Gary Abbott, Lee LVSSR and the South Loop Trail area. currently underway to better understand Meadows, Bonanza Trail, and Mummy One adult was observed in Lee Canyon the habitat requirements and Spring, Table 1). Mt. Charleston blue at LVSSR on July 23, 2010, but no other preferences of the Mt. Charleston blue butterflies were last observed at these adults were detected at LVSSR during butterfly (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 99). sites in 1995, which was the last year surveys conducted on August 2, 9, and Astragalus c.var. calycosus is a small, reported as a good year (Boyd and 18, 2010 (Thompson and Garrett 2010, low-growing, perennial herb that has Murphy 2008, p. 22) for Mt. Charleston pp. 4–5). The Mt. Charleston blue been observed growing in open areas blue butterflies, as indicated by the butterfly was not observed at LVSSR in between 5,000 to 10,800 ft (1,520 to numbers observed at LVSSR (121 2011 (Thompson et al. 2012, p. 99). 3,290 m) in subalpine, bristlecone, and counted during 2 surveys each of 2 Adults were most recently observed in mixed-conifer vegetation communities areas), and presence detected at 7 other 2010 and 2011 at the South Loop Trail of the Spring Mountains (Nachlinger

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59524 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

and Leary 2007, p. 36). Within the woodlands and their negative effect on Excessive winds also deter flight of most alpine and subalpine range of the Mt. butterfly populations have been butterflies, although Weiss et al. (1997, Charleston blue butterfly, Weiss et al. documented (Thomas 1984, pp. 337– p. 31) speculate that this may not be a (1997, p. 10) observed the highest 338). The disturbed landscape at LVSSR significant factor for the Mt. Charleston densities of A. c. var. calycosus in provides important habitat for the Mt. blue butterfly given its low-to-the- exposed areas and within canopy Charleston blue butterfly (Weiss et al. ground flight pattern. openings and lower densities in forested 1995, p. 5; Weiss et al. 1997, p. 26). Like all butterfly species, both the areas. Periodic maintenance (removal of trees phenology (timing) and number of Mt. Weiss et al. (1997, p. 31) describe and shrubs) of the ski runs has Charleston blue butterfly individuals favorable habitat for the Mt. Charleston effectively arrested forest succession on that emerge and fly to reproduce during blue butterfly as having high densities the ski slopes and serves to maintain a particular year are reliant on the (more than 10 plants per square meter) conditions favorable to the Mt. combination of many environmental of Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus. Charleston blue butterfly, and to its host factors that may constitute a successful Weiss et al. (1995, p. 5) and Datasmiths and nectar plants. However, the ski runs (‘‘favorable’’) or unsuccessful (‘‘poor’’) (2007, p. 21) indicate that, in some are not specifically managed to benefit year for the subspecies. Other than areas, butterfly habitat may be habitat for this subspecies, and observations by surveyors, little dependent on old or infrequent operational activities regularly modify information is known regarding these disturbances that create open areas. Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat or aspects of the subspecies’ biology, since Vegetation cover within disturbed prevent host plants from reestablishing the key determinants for the interactions patches naturally becomes higher over in disturbed areas. among the Mt. Charleston blue time through succession, gradually butterfly’s flight and breeding period, becoming less favorable to the butterfly. Biology larval host plant, and environmental Therefore, we conclude that open areas The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly has conditions have not been specifically with relatively little grass cover and been described as biennial where it studied. Observations indicate that visible mineral soil and high densities diapauses as an egg the first winter and above- or below-average precipitation, of host plants support the highest as a larvae near maturity the second coupled with above- or below-average densities of butterflies (Boyd 2005, p. 1; winter (Ferris and Brown, pp. 203–204; temperatures, influence the phenology Service 2006a, p. 1). During 1995, an Scott 1986, p. 411); however, Emmel of this subspecies (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. especially high-population year (a total and Shields (1978, p. 132) suggested 2–3 and 32; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. of 121 butterflies were counted during that diapause was passed as partly 8) and are likely responsible for the surveys of 2 areas at LVSSR on 2 grown larva because freshly hatched fluctuation in population numbers from separate dates, where each survey for eggshells were found near newly laid year to year (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. 2– each area takes approximately 22 eggs (indicating that the eggs do not 3 and 31–32). minutes to complete for a single overwinter). The Mt. Charleston blue Most butterfly populations exist as observer (Weiss 1996, p. 4)), Mt. butterfly is generally thought to regional metapopulations (Murphy et al. Charleston blue butterflies were diapause at the base of its larval host 1990, p. 44). Boyd and Austin (1999, pp. observed in small habitat patches and in plant, Astragalus calycosus var. 17 and 53) indicate this is true of the Mt. open forested areas where A. c. var. calycosus, or in the surrounding Charleston blue butterfly. Small habitat calycosus was present in low densities, substrate (Emmel and Shields 1978, p. patches tend to support smaller on the order of 1 to 5 plants per square 132). The pupae of some butterfly butterfly populations that are frequently meter (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10; species are known to persist in diapause extirpated by events that are part of Newfields 2006, pp. 10 and C5). up to 5 to 7 years (Scott 1986, p. 28). normal variation (Murphy et al. 1990, p. Therefore, areas with lower densities of The number of years the Mt. Charleston 44). According to Boyd and Austin the host plant may also be important to blue butterfly can remain in diapause is (1999, p. 17), smaller colonies of the Mt. the subspecies, as these areas may be unknown. Experts have speculated that Charleston blue butterfly may be intermittently occupied or may be the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly may ephemeral in the long term, with the important for dispersal. only be able to diapause for two seasons larger colonies of the subspecies more Fire suppression and other (Murphy 2006, p. 1; Boyd and Murphy likely than smaller populations to management practices have likely 2008, p. 21). However, in response to persist in ‘‘poor’’ years, when limited the formation of new habitat for unfavorable environmental conditions, environmental conditions do not the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, as it is hypothesized that a prolonged support the emergence, flight, and discussed below. The Forest Service diapause period may be possible (Scott reproduction of individuals. The ability began suppressing fires on the Spring 1986, pp. 26–30; Murphy 2006, p. 1; of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly to Mountains in 1910 (Entrix 2007, p. 111). Datasmiths 2007, p. 6; Boyd and move between habitat patches has not Throughout the Spring Mountains, fire Murphy 2008, p. 22). been studied; however, field suppression has resulted in higher The typical flight and breeding period observations indicate the subspecies has densities of trees and shrubs (Amell for the butterfly is early July to mid- low vagility (capacity or tendency of a 2006, pp. 2–3) and a transition to a August with a peak in late July, species to move about or disperse in a closed-canopy forest with shade-tolerant although the subspecies has been given environment), on the order of 10 understory species (Entrix 2007, p. 112) observed as early as mid-June and as to 100 meters (m) (33 to 330 feet (ft)) that is generally less suitable for the Mt. late as mid-September (Austin 1980, p. (Weiss et al. 1995, p. 9), and nearly Charleston blue butterfly. Boyd and 22; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. 17; Forest sedentary behavior (Datasmiths 2007, p. Murphy (2008, pp. 23 and 25) Service 2006a, p. 9). As with most 21; Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 3 and hypothesized that the loss of butterflies, the Mt. Charleston blue 9). Furthermore, dispersal of lycaenid presettlement vegetation structure over butterfly typically flies during sunny butterflies, in general, is limited and on time has caused the Mt. Charleston blue conditions, which are particularly the order of hundreds of meters butterfly’s metapopulation dynamics to important for this subspecies given the (Cushman and Murphy 1993, p. 40). collapse in Upper Lee Canyon. Similar cooler air temperatures at high Based on this information, the losses of suitable butterfly habitat in elevations (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 31). likelihood of long-distance dispersal is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59525

low for the Mt. Charleston blue are both frequent and inevitable through mixed-conifer forests within the butterfly, and its susceptibility to being (Cushman and Murphy 1993, p. 4). The range of the Mt. Charleston blue affected by habitat fragmentation caused Mt. Charleston blue butterfly may, in butterfly (Amell 2006, p. 3). There are by forest succession is high (discussed part, depend on disturbances that open no empirical estimates of fire intervals further in Factor A). up the subalpine canopy and create or frequencies in the Spring Mountains conditions more favorable to its host but it is presumed to be similar to Pinus Summary of Factors Affecting the plant, Astragalus calycosus var. ponderosa forests in other regions Species calycosus, and nectar resources (Weiss where it has been reported to be 4 to 20 Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), et al. 1995, p. 5; Boyd and Murphy or 2 to 39 years (Barbour and Minnich and its implementing regulations at 50 2008, pp. 22–28) (see Habitat section, 2000 as cited in Amell 2006, p. 3; CFR part 424, set forth the procedures above). Denton et al. 2008, p. 23). Open mixed- for adding species to the Federal Lists Datasmiths (2007, p. 21) also suggest conifer forests in the Spring Mountains of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife suitable habitat patches of Astragalus were likely characterized by more and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the calycosus var. calycosus are often, but abundant and diverse understory plant Act, we may list a species based on any not exclusively, associated with older or communities compared to current of the following five factors: (A) The infrequent disturbance. Weiss et al. conditions (Entrix 2007, pp. 73–78). present or threatened destruction, (1995, p. 5) note that a colony once These successional changes have been modification, or curtailment of its existed on the Upper Kyle Canyon Ski hypothesized to have contributed to the habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Area (Location 11 in Table 1), but since decline of the Mt. Charleston blue commercial, recreational, scientific, or the ski run was abandoned no butterfly because of reduced densities of educational purposes; (C) disease or butterflies have been collected there larval and nectar plants, decreased solar predation; (D) the inadequacy of since 1965. Boyd and Austin (2002, p. radiation, and inhibited butterfly existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) 13) observe that the butterfly was movements that subsequently determine other natural or manmade factors common at Lee Meadows (Location 8 in colonization or recolonization processes affecting its continued existence. Listing Table 1) in the 1960s, but became (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 26; Boyd and actions may be warranted based on any uncommon at the site because of Murphy 2008, pp. 22–28). of the above threat factors, singly or in succession and a potential lack of Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 23) note combination. Each of these factors is disturbance. Using an analysis of host that important habitat characteristics discussed below. plant density, Weiss et al. (1995 p. 5) required by Mt. Charleston blue Factor A. The Present or Threatened concluded that Lee Meadows does not butterfly— Astragalus calycosus var. have enough host plants to support a calycosus and preferred nectar plants Destruction, Modification, or population over the long term occurring together in open sites not Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range (minimally 5–10 host plants per square shaded by tree canopies—would have Below, we evaluate several factors meter). Disturbances such as fire occurred more frequently across a more that negatively impact the Mt. promote open understory conditions for open forested landscape, compared to Charleston blue butterfly’s habitat, A. c. var. calycosus to grow and reduce the current denser forested landscape. including fire suppression, fuels fragmentation of Mt. Charleston blue Not only would the changes in forest reduction, succession, introduction of butterfly habitat. structure and understory plant nonnative species, recreation, and Fire suppression in the Spring communities result in habitat loss, development. We also examine Mountains has resulted in long-term degradation, and fragmentation for the available conservation measures in the successional changes, including Mt. Charleston blue butterfly across a form of conservation agreements and increased forest area and forest structure broad spatial scale, a habitat matrix plans, which may offset some of these (higher canopy cover, more young trees, dominated by denser forest also may be threats. and more trees intolerant of fire) impacting key metapopulation (Nachlinger and Reese 1996, p. 37; Fire Suppression, Succession, and processes by reducing probability of Amell 2006, pp. 6–9; Boyd and Murphy Nonnative Species recolonization following local 2008, pp. 22–28; Denton et al. 2008, p. population extirpations in remaining Butterflies have extremely specialized 21; Abella et al. 2011, pp. 10, 12). patches of suitable habitat (Boyd and habitat requirements (Thomas 1984, p. Frequent low-severity fires would have Murphy 2008, p. 25). 337). Changes in vegetation structure maintained an open forest structure The introduction of forbs, shrubs, and and composition as a result of natural characterized by uneven-aged stands of nonnative grasses can be a threat to the processes are a serious threat to fire-resistant Pinus ponderosa butterfly’s habitat because these species butterfly populations because these (ponderosa pine) trees (Amell 2006, p. can compete with, and decrease, the changes can disrupt specific habitat 5) in lower elevations. The lower- quality and abundance of larval host requirements (Thomas 1984, pp. 337– elevation habitats of the Mt. Charleston plant and adult nectar sources. This has 341; Thomas et al. 2001, pp. 1791– blue butterfly are the most affected by been observed for many butterfly 1796). Cushman and Murphy (1993, p. fire suppression, as indicated by species including the Quino 4) determined 28 at-risk lycaenid Provencher’s 2008 Fire Regime checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas butterfly species, including the Mt. Condition Class analysis of the Spring editha quino) (62 FR 2313; January 16, Charleston blue butterfly, to be Mountains (p. 18); there has been an 1997) and Fender’s blue butterfly dependent on one or two closely related increase in area covered by forest (Plebejus (= Icaricia) icarioides fenderi) host plants. Many of these host plants canopy and an increase in stem (65 FR 3875; January 25, 2000). are dependent on early successional densities with more trees intolerant of Succession, coupled with the environments. Butterflies that specialize fire within the lower-elevation Mt. introduction of nonnative species, is on such plants must track an ephemeral Charleston blue butterfly habitat. also believed to be the reason the Mt. resource base that itself depends on Large-diameter Pinus ponderosa trees Charleston blue butterfly is no longer unpredictable and perhaps infrequent with multiple fire scars in Upper Lee present at the old town site in Kyle ecosystem disturbances. For such and Kyle Canyons indicate that low- Canyon (Location 12 in Table 1) and at butterfly species, local extinction events severity fires historically burned the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59526 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

holotype (the type specimen used in the 2011 (see 76 FR 12667, pp. 12672, Impacts to Mt. Charleston blue butterfly original description of a species or 12673). These projects were small habitat from the LVSSR Master subspecies) site in Upper Lee Canyon spatial scale (ground disturbance was Development Plan will be addressed (Location 9 in Table 1) (Urban less than about 10 acres each) but are further during the National Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3; Boyd known to have impacted suitable habitat Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Austin 1999, p. 17). and possibly impacted individual Mt. process (discussed further in Factor D) Introduction of nonnative species Charleston blue butterflies (eggs, larvae, (Forest Service 2011a, p. 3). within its habitat negatively impacts the pupae, or adults). In addition to these (2) The Old Mill/Dolomite/ quality of the Mt. Charleston blue recreation development projects at McWilliams Reconstruction Projects to butterfly’s habitat. As mentioned LVSSR, a small area of suitable habitat improve camping and picnic areas in previously (see Habitat section), and possibly individual Mt. Charleston Upper Lee Canyon are currently being periodic maintenance (removal of trees blue butterflies were impacted by a planned and evaluated under NEPA and shrubs) of the ski runs has water system replacement project in (discussed further in Factor D) (Forest effectively arrested succession on the Upper Lee Canyon in 2003, and a small Service 2011c pp. 1–4). Project details ski slopes and maintains conditions that area of suitable habitat (less than 1 acre) are limited because planning is can be favorable to the Mt. Charleston was impacted by a stream restoration currently underway; however, the blue butterfly. However, the ski runs are project at Lee Meadows in 2011. It is Service has met with the Forest Service not specifically managed to benefit difficult to know the full extent of and provided recommendations to habitat for this subspecies and its impacts to the Mt. Charleston blue consider for analysis of potential direct habitat requirements, and operational butterfly’s habitat as a result of these and indirect impacts of these projects to activities (including seeding of projects because Mt. Charleston blue the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and its nonnative species) regularly modify Mt. butterfly habitat was not mapped nor potential habitat within or in close Charleston blue butterfly habitat or were some project areas surveyed prior proximity to the project area prevent host plants from reestablishing to implementation. (Datasmiths 2007, Figure 1; Forest in disturbed areas. According to Weiss Three future projects also may impact Service 2011c, Project Map; Forest et al. (1995, pp. 5–6), the planting of Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat in Service 2011f, pp. 1–5; Service 2011, p. annual grasses and Melilotus Upper Lee Canyon. These projects are 1). The recommendations provided by (sweetclover) for erosion control at summarized below: the Service will assist with the LVSSR is a threat to Mt. Charleston blue (1) A March 2011 Master development of a proposed action that butterfly habitat. Titus and Landau Development Plan for LVSSR proposes will avoid or minimize adverse effects (2003, p. 1) observed that vegetation on to improve, upgrade, and expand the to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and highly and moderately disturbed areas existing facilities to provide year-round its potential habitat. of the LVSSR ski runs are floristically recreational activities. The plan (3) The Foxtail Group Picnic Area very different from natural openings in proposes to increase snow trails, Reconstruction Project is currently the adjacent forested areas that support beginner terrain, and snowmaking being planned and evaluated under this subspecies. Seeding nonnative reservoir capacity and coverage, widen NEPA (discussed further in Factor D) species for erosion control was existing ski trails, replace and add lifts, (Forest Service 2011g, pp. 1–4). Project discontinued in 2005; however, because and develop ‘‘gladed’’ areas for sliding details are limited because planning is of erosion problems during 2006 and that would remove deadfall timber to currently underway; however, the 2007, and the lack of native seed, reduce fire hazards (Ecosign 2011, I–3— Service has met with the Forest Service LVSSR resumed using a nonnative seed I–4, IV–5—IV–7). The plan proposes to and provided recommendations for mix, particularly in the lower portions add summer activities including lift- minimizing potential direct and indirect of the ski runs (not adjacent to Mt. accessed sightseeing and hiking, nature impacts of these projects to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat) where interpretive hikes, evening stargazing, Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat erosion problems persist. mountain biking, conference retreats (Datasmiths 2007, Figure 1; Forest The best available information and seminars, weddings, family Service 2011f, pp. 1–5; Forest Service indicates that, in at least four of the six reunions, mountain music concerts, 2011g, Project Map; Service 2011, p. 1). locations where the Mt. Charleston blue festivals, climbing walls, bungee Fuel Reduction Projects butterfly historically occurred, suitable trampoline, beach and grass volleyball, habitat is no longer present due to a car rally, and other activities (Ecosign In December 2007, the Forest Service vegetation changes attributable to 2008, pp. I–3—I–4). Widening existing approved the Spring Mountains succession, the introduction of ski trails and increasing snowmaking National Recreation Area Hazardous nonnative species, or a combination of reservoir capacity (Ecosign 2011, p. IV– Fuels Reduction Project (Forest Service the two. 5, Figure 21a) would impact the Mt. 2007a, pp. 1–127). This project resulted Charleston blue butterfly at a known in tree removals and vegetation thinning Recreation, Development, and Other occupied and at a presumed occupied in three presumed occupied Mt. Projects location (Location 2 and 5 in Table 1). Charleston blue butterfly locations in As discussed in the Distribution Summer activities would impact the Mt. Upper Lee Canyon, including Foxtail section above, the Mt. Charleston blue Charleston blue butterfly and its known Ridge, Lee Canyon Youth Camp, and butterfly is a narrow endemic occupied and presumed occupied Lee Meadows, and impacted subspecies that is currently known to habitat by attracting visitors in higher approximately 32 ac (13 ha) of occupy two locations and presumed to numbers during the time of year when presumed occupied habitat that has occupy eight others. One of the two larvae and host plants are especially been mapped in Upper Lee Canyon areas where Mt. Charleston blue vulnerable to trampling (Location 2 in (Locations 3, 4 and 8 in Table 1) (Forest butterflies have been detected in recent Table 1). The LVSSR Master Service 2007a, Appendix A-Map 2; years is the LVSSR. Several ground- Development Plan, which has been Datasmiths 2007, p. 26). Manual and disturbing projects occurred within Mt. accepted by the Forest Service, mechanical clearing of shrubs and trees Charleston blue butterfly suitable considered Mt. Charleston blue butterfly will be repeated on a 5- to 10-year habitat at LVSSR between 2000 and habitat during development of the plan. rotating basis and will result in direct

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59527

impacts to the Mt. Charleston blue and vegetation disturbance during Lee Meadows Restoration Project butterfly and its habitat, including project implementation also would (discussed above in Recreation, crushing or removal of host plants and result in increases in weeds and Development, and Other Projects under diapausing larvae (if present). disturbance-adapted species, such as Factor A) and the Bristlecone Trail Implementation of this project began in Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbitbrush), and Habitat Improvement Project (Forest the spring of 2008 throughout the these plants would compete with Mt. Service 2007c, pp. 1–7; Forest Service Spring Mountains National Recreation Charleston blue butterfly larval host and 2007d, pp. 1–14; Service 2007, p. 1–2). Area, including Lee Canyon, and the nectar plants. A new conservation agreement is project is nearly completed for its initial currently being developed for the Spring Conservation Agreement and Plans That implementation (Forest Service 2011a, Mountains National Recreation Area May Offset Habitat Threats p. 2). (SMNRA). Although Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. A conservation agreement was The loss or modification of known 26) recommended increased forest developed in 1998 to facilitate voluntary occupied and presumed occupied Mt. thinning to improve habitat quality for cooperation among the Forest Service, Charleston blue butterfly habitat in the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, the the Service, and the State of Nevada Upper Lee Canyon, as discussed above, primary goal of this project was to Department of Conservation and Natural has occurred in the past. However, more reduce wildfire risk to life and property Resources in providing long-term recently, the Forest Service has in the Spring Mountains National protection for the rare and sensitive suspended decisions on certain projects Recreation Area wildland urban flora and fauna of the Spring Mountains, that would potentially impact Mt. interface (Forest Service 2007a, p. 6), including the Mt. Charleston blue Charleston blue butterfly habitat (see not to improve Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (Forest Service 1998, pp. 1– discussion of lower parking lot butterfly habitat. Mt. Charleston blue 50). The Conservation Agreement was in expansion and new snowmaking lines butterflies require larval host plants in effect for a period of 10 years after it was projects under Recreation, exposed areas not shaded by forest signed on April 13, 1998 (Forest Service Development, and Other Projects, canopy cover because canopy cover et al. 1998, pp. 44, 49), was renewed in above). reduces solar exposure during critical 2008 (Forest Service 2008), and In addition, the Forest Service has larval feeding periods (Boyd and coordination between the Forest Service reaffirmed its commitment to Murphy 2008, p. 23). Although the fuel and Service has continued. Many of the collaborate with the Service in order to reduction project incorporated measures conservation actions described in the avoid implementation of projects or to minimize impacts to the Mt. conservation agreement have been actions that would impact the viability Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat, implemented; however, several of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly shaded fuel breaks created for this important conservation actions that (Forest Service 2010c). This project may not be open enough to would have directly benefited the Mt. commitment includes: (1) Developing a create or significantly improve Mt. Charleston blue butterfly have not been mutually agreeable process to review Charleston blue butterfly habitat. Also, implemented. Regardless, many of the future proposed projects to ensure that shaded fuel breaks for this project are conservation actions in the conservation implementation of these actions will not concentrated along access roads, agreement (for example, inventory and lead to loss of population viability; (2) property boundaries, campgrounds, monitoring) would not directly reduce reviewing proposed projects that may picnic areas, administrative sites, and threats to the Mt. Charleston blue pose a threat to the continued viability communications sites, and are not of butterfly or its habitat. of the subspecies; and (3) jointly sufficient spatial scale to improve In 2004, the Service and Forest developing a conservation agreement habitat that does not occur within close Service signed a memorandum of (strategy) that identifies actions that will proximity to these landscape features agreement that provides a process for be taken to ensure the conservation of and reduce the threat identified above review of activities that involve species the subspecies (Forest Service 2010c). resulting from fire suppression and covered under the 1998 Conservation The Forest Service and the Fish and succession. Agreement (Forest Service and Service Wildlife Service are currently in the Although this project may result in 2004, pp. 1–9). Formal coordination process of developing the conservation increased understory herbaceous plant through this memorandum of agreement agreement. productivity and diversity, there are was established to: (1) Jointly develop The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is a short-term risks to the Mt. Charleston projects that avoid or minimize impacts covered species under the 2000 Clark blue butterfly’s habitat associated with to listed, candidate, and proposed County Multiple Species Habitat project implementation. In species, and species under the 1998 Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Clark recommending increased forest thinning conservation agreement; and (2) to County MSHCP identifies two goals for to improve Mt. Charleston blue butterfly ensure consistency with commitments the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly: (a) habitat, Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 26) and direction provided for in recovery ‘‘Maintain stable or increasing cautioned that thinning treatments planning efforts and in conservation population numbers and host and larval would need to be implemented carefully agreement efforts. More than half of the plant species’’; and (b) ‘‘No net to minimize short-term disturbance past projects that impacted Mt. unmitigated loss of larval host plant or impacts to the Mt. Charleston blue Charleston blue butterfly habitat were nectar plant species habitat’’ (RECON butterfly and its habitat. Individual reviewed by the Service and Forest 2000a, Table 2.5, pp. 2–154; RECON butterflies (larvae, pupae, and adults), Service under this review process, but 2000b, pp. B158–B161). The Forest and larval host plants and nectar plants, several were not. Some efforts under Service is one of several signatories to may be crushed during project this memorandum of agreement have the Implementing Agreement for the implementation. In areas where thinned been successful in reducing or avoiding Clark County MSHCP, because many of trees are chipped (mastication), layers of project impacts to the Mt. Charleston the activities from the 1998 wood chips may become too deep and blue butterfly, while other efforts have Conservation Agreement were impact survival of Mt. Charleston blue not. Examples of projects that have incorporated into the MSHCP. butterfly larvae and pupae, as well as reduced or avoided impacts to the Mt. Primarily, activities undertaken by the larval host plants and nectar plants. Soil Charleston blue butterfly include the Forest Service focused on conducting

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59528 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

surveying and monitoring for butterflies. Canyon by removing diapausing larvae Williams 1996, pp. 30–37). The Although some surveying and (if present) and by reducing the ability specialist trade differs from both the live monitoring occurred through contracts of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly to and decorative market in that it by the Forest Service, Clark County, and disperse during favorable years. The concentrates on rare and threatened the Service, a butterfly monitoring plan successional advance of trees, shrubs, species (U.S. Department of Justice was not fully implemented. and grasses, and the spread of nonnative [USDJ] 1993, pp. 1–3; United States v. Recently, the Forest Service has been species are continuing threats to the Skalski et al., Case No. CR9320137, U.S. implementing the LVSSR Adaptive subspecies in Upper Lee Canyon. The District Court for the Northern District Vegetation Management Plan (Forest Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is of California [USDC] 1993, pp. 1–86). In Service 2005b, pp. 1–24) to provide presumed extirpated from at least three general, the rarer the species, the more mitigation for approximately 11 ac (4.45 of the six historical locations (Upper Lee valuable it is; prices can exceed $25,000 ha) of impacts to presumed occupied Canyon holotype, Upper Kyle Canton for exceedingly rare specimens. For butterfly habitat (and other sensitive Ski Area, and Old Town), likely due to example, during a 4-year investigation, wildlife and plant species habitat) successional changes and the special agents of the Service’s Office of resulting from projects that the Forest introduction of nonnative plants. Law Enforcement executed warrants Service implemented in 2005 and 2006. Nonnative forbs and grasses are a threat and seized over 30,000 endangered and Under the plan, LVSSR will revegetate to the subspecies and its habitat at protected butterflies and beetles, with a impacted areas using native plant LVSSR. total wholesale commercial market species, including Astragalus calycosus There are agreements and plans in value of about $90,000 in the United var. calycosus. However, this program is place (including the 2008 Spring States (USDJ 1995, pp. 1–4). In another experimental and has experienced Mountains Conservation Agreement and case, special agents found at least 13 difficulties due to the challenges of the 2000 Clark County Multiple Species species protected under the Act, and native seed availability and propagation. Habitat Conservation Plan) that are another 130 species illegally taken from Under the plan, A. c. var. calycosus is intended to conserve the Mt. Charleston lands administered by the Department being brought into horticultural blue butterfly and its habitat. Future of the Interior and other State lands propagation. These efforts are not likely voluntary conservation actions could be (USDC 1993, pp. 1–86; Service 1995, pp. to provide replacement habitat to the implemented in accordance with the 1–2). Mt. Charleston blue butterfly for another terms of these agreements and plans but Several listings of butterflies as 5 years (2016–2018), because of the will be largely dependent on the level endangered or threatened species under short alpine growing season. of funding available to the Forest the Act have been based, at least Service for such work. Conservation partially, on intense collection pressure. Summary of Factor A actions (for example, mechanical Notably, the Saint Francis’ satyr The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is thinning of timber stands and (Neonympha mitchellii francisci) was currently known to occur in two prescribed burns to create openings in emergency-listed as an endangered locations: the South Loop Trail area in the forest canopy suitable for the Mount species on April 18, 1994 (59 FR 18324). upper Kyle Canyon and LVSSR in Charleston blue butterfly and its host The Saint Francis’ satyr was Upper Lee Canyon. In addition, the Mt. and nectar plants) could reduce to some demonstrated to have been significantly Charleston blue butterfly is presumed to degree the ongoing adverse effects to the impacted by collectors in just a 3-year occupy eight locations: Foxtail, Youth butterfly of vegetative succession period (59 FR 18324). The Callippe and Camp, Gary Abbott, Lower LVSSR promoted by alteration of the natural Behren’s silverspot butterflies (Speyeria Parking, Lee Meadows, Bristlecone fire regime in the Spring Mountains. callippe callippe and Speyeria zerene Trail, Bonanza Trail, and Mummy The Forest Service’s commitment to behrensii) were listed as endangered Spring. Habitat loss and modification, as collaboratively review proposed projects species on December 5, 1997 (62 FR a result of fire suppression and long- to minimize impacts to the Mt. 64306), partially due to overcollection. term successional changes in forest Charleston blue butterfly may reduce The Blackburn’s sphinx moth (Manduca structure, implementation of the threat posed by activities under the blackburni) was listed as an endangered recreational development projects and Forest Service’s control, although we are species on February 1, 2000 (65 FR fuels reduction projects, and nonnative unable to determine the potential 4770), partially due to overcollection by species, are continuing threats to the effectiveness of this new strategy at this private and commercial collectors. Most butterfly’s habitat in Upper Lee Canyon. time. Therefore, based on the current recently, the Miami blue butterfly Recreational area reconstruction distribution and recent, existing, and (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) was projects currently planned also may likely future trends in habitat loss, we emergency-listed as an endangered negatively impact Mt. Charleston blue find that the present and future species (76 FR 49542; August 10, 2011), butterfly habitat in Upper Lee Canyon. destruction, modification, and with collection being one of the primary In addition, proposed future activities curtailment of its habitat or range is a threats. under a draft Master Development Plan threat to the Mt. Charleston blue Butterflies in small populations are at LVSSR may impact the Mt. butterfly. vulnerable to harm from collection (Gall Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat 1984, p. 133). A population may be in Upper Lee Canyon. Factor B. Overutilization for reduced to below sustainable numbers Because of its likely small population Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or by removal of females, reducing the size, projects that impact even relatively Educational Purposes probability that new colonies will be small areas of occupied habitat could Rare butterflies and moths are highly founded. Collectors can pose threats to threaten the long-term population prized by collectors, and an butterflies because they may be unable viability of Mt. Charleston blue international trade exists in specimens to recognize when they are depleting butterfly. The continued loss or for both live and decorative markets, as colonies below the thresholds of modification of presumed occupied well as the specialist trade that supplies survival or recovery (Collins and Morris habitat would further impair the long- hobbyists, collectors, and researchers 1985, pp. 162–165). There is ample term population viability of the Mt. (Collins and Morris 1985, pp. 155–179; evidence of collectors impacting other Charleston blue butterfly in Upper Lee Morris et al. 1991, pp. 332–334; imperiled and endangered butterflies

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59529

(Gochfeld and Burger 1997, pp. 208– we have discovered information that When Austin first described the Mt. 209), host plants (Cech and Tudor 2005, indicates butterfly collecting is a threat Charleston blue butterfly in 1980 p. 55), and even contributing to for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and (Austin 1980, p. 22), he indicated that extirpations (Duffey 1968, p. 94). For that collectors seek diminutive collectors regularly visited areas close to example, the federally endangered butterflies. In areas of the southwestern the known collection sites of the Mt. Mitchell’s satyr (Neonympha mitchellii United States surrounding the range of Charleston blue butterfly. Records mitchellii) is believed to have been the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, other indicate collection has occurred in extirpated from New Jersey due to diminutive lycaenid butterflies such as several locations within the Spring overcollection (57 FR 21567; Gochfeld Western-tailed blue butterfly (Everes Mountains, with Lee Canyon being and Burger 1997, p. 209). amyntula), Pygmy blue butterfly among the most popular areas for Rare butterflies can be highly prized (Brephidium exilis), Ceraunus blue butterfly collecting (Table 2; Austin by collectors, and collection is a butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus), and 1980, p. 22; Service 2012, p. 2). known threat to some butterfly species, Boisduval’s blue butterfly (Plebejus Butterfly collectors may sometimes such as the Fender’s blue butterfly (65 icariodes ssp.) have been confiscated remove the only individual of a FR 3882; January 25, 2000). In from commercial traders who illegally subspecies observed during collecting particular, small colonies and collected them (U.S. Attorney’s Office trips, even if it is known to be a unique populations are at the highest risk. 1994, pp. 4, 8, 16; Alexander 1996, pp. specimen (Service 2012, p. 3). In many Overcollection or repeated handling and 1–6). Furthermore, we have information instances, a collector may not know he marking of females in years of low that diminutive butterfly collecting is has a particularly rare or scarce species abundance can seriously damage occurring within the Spring Mountains until after collection and subsequent populations through loss of (Service 2012, pp. 1–4). Because identification takes place. The best reproductive individuals and genetic diminutive butterflies are sought, the available information indicates that Mt. variability (65 FR 3882; January 25, inadvertent collection of Mt. Charleston Charleston blue butterflies have been 2000). Since the publication of the 12- blue butterflies has likely occurred and collected for personal use (Service 2012, month finding (76 FR 12667) in 2011, is expected to continue. p. 2).

TABLE 2—NUMBERS OF MT. CHARLESTON BLUE BUTTERFLY SPECIMENS COLLECTED BY AREA, YEAR, AND SEX

Collection area Year Male Female Unknown Total

Mt. Charleston ...... 1928 ...... *∼700 *∼700 Willow Creek ...... 1928 15 19 ...... 34 Lee Canyon ...... 1963 8 6 8 22 1976 1 ...... 1 2002 1 ...... 1 Kyle Canyon ...... 1965 3 ...... 3 Cathedral Rock ...... 1972 ...... 1 1 Deer Creek Rd ...... 1950 2 ...... 2 South Loop ...... 2007 ...... 1 1

Total ...... 30 25 10 65 References: Garth 1928, p. 93; Howe 1975, Plate 59; Austin 1980, p. 22; Austin and Austin 1980, p. 30; Kingsley 2007, p. 4; Service 2012, p. 2 * = Collections by Frank Morand as reported in Garth 1928, p. 93. Not included in totals.

In some cases, private collectors often no records indicating that special use Thomas 1984 (p. 345) suggested that have more extensive collections of permits have been issued for closed, sedentary populations of less particular butterfly species than commercial collecting of Mt. Charleston than 250 adults are most likely to be at museums (Alexander 1996, p. 2). blue butterflies in the Spring Mountains risk from overcollection. Butterfly collecting (except those with (S. Hinman 2011, pers. comm.); In summary, due to the small number protected status) for noncommercial however, as discussed above, of discrete populations, overall small (recreational and personal) purposes unauthorized commercial collecting has metapopulation size, close proximity to does not require a special use occurred in the past. roads and trails, restricted range, and authorization (Forest Service 1998b, p. For most butterfly species, collecting 1; Joslin 1998, p. 74). However, within is generally thought to have less of an evidence of ongoing collection, we have the SMNRA, Lee Canyon, Cold Creek, impact on butterfly populations determined that collection is a threat to Willow Creek, and upper Kyle Canyon compared to other threats. Weiss et al. the subspecies now and will continue to have been identified since 1996 as areas (1997, p. 29) indicated that, in general, be in the future. where permits are required for any responsible collecting posed little harm Factor C. Disease or Predation butterfly collecting (Forest Service 1998, to populations. However, when a pp. 28, E9). However, no permits have butterfly population is very small, any We are not aware of any information been issued for collecting in these areas. collection of butterflies results in the regarding impacts from either disease or On Forest Service-administered lands, direct mortality of individuals and may predation on the Mt. Charleston blue a special use permit is required for the greatly affect the population’s viability butterfly. Therefore, we do not find that commercial collection of butterflies (36 and ability to recover. Populations disease or predation is a threat to the CFR 251.50), which would include already stressed by other factors may be Mt. Charleston blue butterfly or likely to collections for research, museums, severely threatened by intensive become a threat. universities, or professional societies collecting (Thomas 1984, p. 345; Miller (Forest Service 2003, pp. 2–3). There are 1994, pp. 76, 83; New et al. 1995, p. 62).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59530 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Mt. Charleston blue butterflies have watershed, riparian, wildlife, threatened Regulatory Mechanisms been detected in only two general areas and endangered species, and other Under this factor, we examine in recent years—the South Loop Trail values contributing to public enjoyment whether existing regulatory mechanisms area, where adult butterflies were and biological diversity in the Spring are inadequate to address the threats to recently detected during the summer of Mountains of Nevada; the species discussed under the other 2010 and 2011, and at LVSSR in 2010. (2) To ensure appropriate factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act The Forest Service manages lands conservation and management of requires the Service to take into account designated as wilderness under the natural and recreational resources in the ‘‘those efforts, if any, being made by any Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131– Spring Mountains; and State or foreign nation, or any political 1136). With respect to these areas, the (3) To provide for the development of subdivision of a State or foreign nation, Wilderness Act states the following: (1) public recreational opportunities in the to protect such species * * *.’’ In New or temporary roads cannot be built; Spring Mountains for the enjoyment of (2) there can be no use of motor relation to Factor D under the Act, we present and future generations. Habitat vehicles, motorized equipment, or interpret this language to require the of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is motorboats; (3) there can be no landing Service to consider relevant Federal, predominantly in the SMNRA and one of aircraft; (4) there can be no other form State, and tribal laws, regulations, and of several resources considered by the of mechanical transport; and (5) no other such mechanisms that may Forest Service under the guidance of its structure or installation may be built. As minimize any of the threats we describe land management plans. such, Mt. Charleston blue butterfly in threat analyses under the other four The National Forest Management Act habitat in the South Loop Trail area is factors, or otherwise enhance (NFMA) of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. protected from direct loss or conservation of the species. We give 1600 et seq.), provides the principal degradation by the prohibitions of the guidance for the management of strongest weight to statutes and their Wilderness Act. Mt. Charleston blue implementing regulations and to activities on lands under Forest Service butterfly habitat at LVSSR and jurisdiction through associated land and management direction that stems from elsewhere in Lee Canyon and Kyle those laws and regulations. An example resource management plans for each Canyon is located outside of the Mt. forest unit. Under NFMA and other would be State governmental actions Charleston Wilderness, and thus is not Federal laws, the Forest Service has enforced under a State statute or subject to protections afforded by the authority to regulate recreation, vehicle constitution, or Federal action under Wilderness Act. statute. The National Environmental Policy travel and other human disturbance, Having evaluated the significance of Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 livestock grazing, fire management, the threat as mitigated by any such U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), requires Federal energy development, and mining on conservation efforts, we analyze under agencies, such as the Forest Service, to lands within its jurisdiction. Current Factor D the extent to which existing describe proposed agency actions, guidance for the management of Forest regulatory mechanisms are inadequate consider alternatives, identify and Service lands in the SMNRA is under to address the specific threats to the disclose potential environmental the Toiyabe National Forest Land and species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they impacts of each alternative, and involve Resource Management Plan and the exist, may reduce or eliminate the the public in the decisionmaking Spring Mountains National Recreation impacts from one or more identified process. Federal agencies are not Area General Management Plan (Forest threats. In this section, we review required to select the NEPA alternative Service 1996). In June 2006, the Forest existing State and Federal regulatory having the least significant Service added the Mt. Charleston blue mechanisms to determine whether they environmental impacts. A Federal butterfly, and three other endemic effectively reduce or remove threats to agency may select an action that will butterflies, to the Regional Forester’s the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. adversely affect sensitive species Sensitive Species List, in accordance The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly provided that these effects are identified with Forest Service Manual 2670. The occurs primarily on Federal land under in a NEPA document. The NEPA itself Forest Service’s objective in managing the jurisdiction of the Forest Service; is a disclosure law, and does not require sensitive species is to prevent listing of therefore, the discussion below focuses subsequent minimization or mitigation species under the Act, maintain viable on Federal laws. There is no available of actions taken by Federal agencies. populations of native species, and information regarding local land use Although Federal agencies may include develop and implement management laws and ordinances that have been conservation measures for the Mt. objectives for populations and habitat of issued by Clark County or other local Charleston blue butterfly as a result of sensitive species. Projects listed in government entities for the protection of the NEPA process, such measures are Factor A, above, have been guided by the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. not required by the statute. The Forest these Forest Service plans, policies, and Nevada Revised Statutes sections 503 Service is required to analyze its guidance. These plans, policies, and and 527 offer protective measures to projects, listed under Factor A, above, in guidance notwithstanding, removal or wildlife and plants, but do not include accordance with the NEPA. degradation of known occupied and invertebrate species such as the Mt. The SMNRA is one of 10 districts of presumed occupied butterfly habitat has Charleston blue butterfly. Therefore, no the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest occurred as a result of projects approved regulatory protection is offered under and was established by Public Law 103– by the Forest Service in Upper Lee Nevada State law. Please note that 63, dated August 4, 1993 (the Spring Canyon. Additionally, this guidance has actions adopted by local groups, States, Mountains National Recreation Area not been effective in reducing other or Federal entities that are discretionary, Act, 16 U.S. C. 460hhh et seq.). The threats to the Mt. Charleston blue including conservation strategies and Federal lands of the SMNRA are butterfly (for example, invasion of guidance, are not regulatory managed by the Forest Service in Clark nonnative plant species and commercial mechanisms and were discussed above and Nye Counties, Nevada, for the and personal collection activities) in the Conservation Agreement and following purposes: (Weiss et al. 1995, pp. 5–6, Titus and Plans That May Offset Habitat Threats (1) To preserve the scenic, scientific, Landau 2003, p. 1; Boyd and Murphy section in Factor A, above. historic, cultural, natural, wilderness, 2008, p. 6; Service 2012, pp. 1–4).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59531

Since the Mt. Charleston blue In addition, Mt. Charleston blue landscape scale and project that butterfly is designated a sensitive butterflies occur in extremely small precipitation will decrease in the species, Standard 0.28 of the Land and populations that are limited in southwestern United States (IPCC Resource Management Plan for the distribution and are vulnerable to 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). The IPCC Spring Mountains requires a collecting collections, projects, or actions that reports that temperature increases and permit issued by the Regional Forester impact populations or even relatively rising air and ocean temperature is (except for traditional use by American small areas of occupied or suitable unquestionable (IPCC 2007a, p. 4). Site- Indians) (Forest Service 1996, p. 18). habitat. Therefore, we conclude that specific models project temperatures in Furthermore, Standard 11.6 indicates there is an inadequacy in the existing Nevada are likely to increase as much as that collecting, regardless of species, in regulatory mechanisms designed to 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees specific areas, including Cold Creek, Lee protect the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly Fahrenheit) by the 2050s (TNC 2011, p. Canyon, upper Kyle Canyon, and from threats discussed in this finding 1). Precipitation variability in the Willow Creek, also requires a permit (Factor A and B above). Mojave Desert region is linked spatially (Forest Service 1996, p. 31). These and temporally with events in the Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade items, identified as ‘‘standards,’’ are tropical and northern Pacific Oceans (El Factors Affecting Its Continued constraints or mitigation measures that Nin˜ o and La Nin˜ a) (USGS 2004, pp. 2– Existence must be followed as directed by the 3). In our analyses, we use our expert General Management Plan (Forest Our analyses under the Endangered judgment to weigh relevant information, Service 1996, p. 2). Collection permits Species Act include consideration of including uncertainty, in our are not required for activities contracted ongoing and projected changes in consideration of various aspects of by, or performed under, agreement with climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and climate change as it affects the Mt. the Forest Service. Additional ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the Charleston blue butterfly. information obtained since publication Intergovernmental Panel on Climate The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly of the 12-month finding indicates that Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the population has declined since the last collecting has occurred before and after mean and variability of different types high-population year in 1995 (a total of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly was of weather conditions over time, with 30 121 butterflies were counted during designated a sensitive species (see years being a typical period for such surveys of 2 areas at LVSSR on 2 Factor B); however, no permits have measurements, although shorter or separate dates (Weiss 1996, p. 4)). This been issued to date (Service 2012, p. 1– longer periods also may be used (IPCC subspecies has a limited distribution, 4; Shawnee Hinman, pers. comm. March 2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’ and population numbers are likely 22, 2012). thus refers to a change in the mean or small. Small butterfly populations have variability of one or more measures of a higher risk of extinction due to Summary of Factor D climate (e.g., temperature or random environmental events (Shaffer Although Mt. Charleston blue precipitation) that persists for an 1981, p. 131; Shaffer 1987, pp. 69–75; butterfly habitat at the South Loop Trail extended period, typically decades or Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 24–28). area is to be afforded protection by longer, whether the change is due to Weather extremes can cause severe prohibitions of the Wilderness Act from natural variability, human activity, or butterfly population reductions or many types of habitat-disturbing both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types extinctions (Murphy et al. 1990, p. 43; actions, in fact, habitat-disturbance of changes in climate can have direct or Weiss et al. 1987, pp. 164–167; Thomas activities (such as those associated with indirect effects on species. These effects et al. 1996, pp. 964–969). Given the recreation) have occurred in other may be positive, neutral, or negative and limited distribution and likely low locations and may continue to occur. they may change over time, depending population numbers of the Mt. Projects conducted under the current on the species and other relevant Charleston blue butterfly, late-season management plans have disturbed considerations, such as the effects of snowstorms, severe summer monsoon habitat, and may occur again in the interactions of climate with other thunderstorms, and drought have the future. variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) potential to adversely impact the The current existing regulatory (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our subspecies. mechanism designed to regulate the analyses, we use our expert judgment to Late-season snowstorms have caused collection of Mt. Charleston blue weigh relevant information, including alpine butterfly extirpations (Ehrlich et butterflies is not effectively addressing uncertainty, in our consideration of al. 1972, pp. 101–105), and false spring or ameliorating the threat of collection various aspects of climate change. conditions followed by normal winter to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, Global climate projections are snowstorms have caused adult and pre- because of inadequate enforcement. informative, and, in some cases, the diapause larvae mortality (Parmesan Specifically, the Mt. Charleston blue only or the best scientific information 2005, pp. 56–60). In addition, high butterfly is designated a sensitive available for us to use. However, rainfall years have been associated with species by the Forest Service, and, since projected changes in climate and related butterfly population declines (Dobkin et 2006, a permit has been required for the impacts can vary substantially across al. 1987, pp. 161–176). Extended noncommercial collection of this and within different regions of the periods of rainy weather can also slow subspecies. This requirement provides world (e.g., IPCC 2007a, pp. 8–12). larval development and reduce limited protection, however, because Therefore, we use ‘‘downscaled’’ overwintering survival (Weiss et al. collections of this and other species of projections when they are available and 1993, pp. 261–270). Weiss et al. (1997, butterflies have taken place without have been developed through p. 32) suggested that heavy summer permits being issued. As discussed appropriate scientific procedures, monsoon thunderstorms adversely above, we have evidence of because such projections provide higher impacted Mt. Charleston blue butterflies nonpermitted collection. Therefore, resolution information that is more during the 1996 flight season. During existing law, regulation, and policy have relevant to spatial scales used for the 2006 and 2007 flight season, severe not prevented the collection of Mt. analyses of a given species (see Glick et summer thunderstorms may have Charleston blue butterflies (see Factor B, al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of affected the flight season at LVSSR and Table 2). downscaling). IPCC models are at a the South Loop Trail (Newfields 2006,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59532 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

pp. 11 and 14; Kingsley 2007, p. 8). environmental events (Shaffer 1981, p. best available information suggests Additionally, drought has been shown 131; Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 24–28; environmental conditions from 2006 to to lower butterfly populations (Ehrlich Shaffer 1987, pp. 69–75). Because of its 2009 have not been favorable to the Mt. et al. 1980, pp. 101–105; Thomas 1984, small population and restricted range, Charleston blue butterfly (see Status and p. 344). Drought can cause butterfly host the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is Trends section). plants to mature early and reduce larval vulnerable to random environmental Surveys are planned for 2012 to food availability (Ehrlich et al. 1980, pp. events; in particular, the Mt. Charleston further determine the status and provide 101–105; Weiss 1987, p. 165). This has blue butterfly is threatened by extreme more knowledge about the ecology of likely affected the Mt. Charleston blue precipitation events and drought. In the the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. butterfly. Murphy (2006, p. 3) and Boyd past 60 years, the frequency of storms Threats facing the Mt. Charleston blue (2006, p. 1) both assert a series of with extreme precipitation has butterfly, discussed above under listing drought years, followed by a season of increased in Nevada by 29 percent Factors A, B, D, and E, increase the risk above-average snowfall and then more (Madsen and Figdor 2007, p. 37), and it of extinction of the subspecies, given its drought, could be a reason for the lack is predicted that altered regional few occurrences in a small area. The of butterfly sightings in 2006. patterns of temperature and loss and degradation of habitat due to Continuing drought could be precipitation as a result of global fire suppression and succession; the responsible for the lack of sightings in climate change will continue (IPCC implementation of recreational 2007 and 2008 (Datasmiths 2007, p. 1; 2007, pp. 15–16). Throughout the entire development projects and fuels Boyd 2008, p. 2). Based on this range of the Mt. Charleston blue reduction projects; and the increases in evidence, we believe that the Mt. butterfly, altered climate patterns could nonnative plants (see Factor A), along Charleston blue butterfly has likely been increase the potential for extreme with the persistent, ongoing threat of affected by unfavorable climatic changes precipitation events and drought, and collection of the subspecies for in precipitation and temperature that may exacerbate the threats the commercial and noncommercial are both ongoing and projected to subspecies already faces given its small purposes (see Factor B) and the continue into the future. population size and the threats to the inadequacy of existing regulatory High-elevation species like the Mt. alpine environment where it occurs. mechanisms to prevent these impacts Charleston blue butterfly may be Based on this information, we find that (see Factor D), will increase the inherent particularly susceptible to some level of other natural or manmade factors are risk of extinction of the remaining few habitat loss due to global climate change affecting the Mt. Charleston blue occurrences of the Mt. Charleston blue exacerbating threats already impacting butterfly such that these factors are a butterfly. These threats are likely to be the subspecies (Peters and Darling 1985, threat to the subspecies’ continued exacerbated by the impact of climate p. 714; Hill et al. 2002, p. 2170). The existence. change, which is anticipated to increase Intergovernmental Panel on Climate drought and extreme precipitation Change (IPCC) has high confidence in Proposed Determination events (see Factor E). The Mt. predictions that extreme weather events, We have carefully assessed the best Charleston blue butterfly is currently in warmer temperatures, and regional scientific and commercial information danger of extinction because only small drought are very likely to increase in the available regarding the past, present, populations are known to occupy 2 of northern hemisphere as a result of and future threats to the Mt. Charleston 18 historical locations, its status at 8 climate change (IPCC 2007, pp. 15–16). blue butterfly. The Mt. Charleston blue other locations where it is presumed to Climate models show the southwestern butterfly is sensitive to environmental be occupied may be nearing extirpation, United States has transitioned into a variability with the butterfly population and the threats are ongoing and more arid climate of drought that is rising and falling in response to persistent at all known and presumed predicted to continue into the next environmental conditions (see Status occupied locations. century (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). In and Trends section). The best available The Act defines an endangered the past 60 years, the frequency of information suggests the Mt. Charleston species as any species that is ‘‘in danger storms with extreme precipitation has blue butterfly population has been in of extinction throughout all or a increased in Nevada by 29 percent decline since 1995, the last year the significant portion of its range’’ and a (Madsen and Figdor 2007, p. 37). subspecies was observed in high threatened species as any species ‘‘that Changes in local southern Nevada numbers, and that the population is is likely to become endangered climatic patterns cannot be definitively now likely extremely small (see Status throughout all or a significant portion of tied to global climate change; however, and Trends section). To some extent, the its range within the foreseeable future.’’ they are consistent with IPCC-predicted Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, like most We find that the Mt. Charleston blue patterns of extreme precipitation, butterflies, has evolved to survive butterfly is presently in danger of warmer than average temperatures, and periods of unfavorable environmental extinction throughout its entire range, drought (Redmond 2007, p. 1). conditions as diapausing larvae or based on the immediacy, severity, and Therefore, we think it likely that climate pupae (Scott 1986, pp. 26–30). The scope of the threats described above and change will impact the Mt. Charleston pupae of some butterfly species are its limited distribution of two known blue butterfly and its high-elevation known to persist in diapause up to 5 to occupied locations and eight presumed habitat through predicted increases in 7 years (Scott 1986, p. 28). The number occupied locations nearing extirpation. extreme precipitation and drought. of years the Mt. Charleston blue The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly thus Alternating extreme precipitation and butterfly can remain in diapause is meets the definition of an endangered drought may exacerbate threats already unknown. It has been speculated that species rather than threatened species facing the subspecies as a result of its the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly may because (1) It has been extirpated from small population size and threats to its only be able to diapause for two seasons six locations and eight others are habitat. in a row (Murphy 2006, p. 1; Boyd and imminently near extirpation; (2) it is Murphy 2008, p. 21); however, a longer limited to only two small populations; Summary of Factor E diapause period may be possible and (3) these small populations are Small butterfly populations have a (Murphy 2006, p. 1; Datasmiths 2007, p. facing severe and imminent threats. higher risk of extinction due to random 6; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 22). The Therefore, on the basis of the best

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59533

available scientific and commercial plan, and revisions to the plan as under the Act at this time, please let us information, we propose listing the Mt. significant new information becomes know if you are interested in Charleston blue butterfly as endangered available. The recovery outline guides participating in recovery efforts for this in accordance with sections 3(6) and the immediate implementation of urgent species. Additionally, we invite you to 4(a)(1) of the Act. recovery actions and describes the submit any new information on this Under the Act and our implementing process to be used to develop a recovery species whenever it becomes available regulations, a species may warrant plan. The recovery plan identifies site- and any information you may have for listing if it is a threatened or endangered specific management actions that are recovery planning purposes (see FOR species throughout all or a significant designed to achieve recovery of the FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). portion of its range. The Mt. Charleston species, objective, measurable criteria Section 7(a) of the Act requires blue butterfly proposed for listing in that determine when a species may be Federal agencies to evaluate their this rule is highly restricted in its range downlisted or delisted, and methods for actions with respect to any species that and the threats occur throughout its monitoring recovery progress. is proposed or listed as an endangered range. Therefore, we assessed the status Additionally, recovery plans contain or threatened species and with respect of the subspecies throughout its entire estimated time and costs to carry out to its critical habitat, if any is range. The threats to the survival of the measures that are needed to achieve the designated. Regulations implementing subspecies occur throughout the goal and intermediate steps toward that this interagency cooperation provision subspecies’ range and are not restricted goal. Recovery plans also establish a of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part to any particular significant portion of framework for agencies to coordinate 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires that range. Accordingly, our assessment their recovery efforts and provide Federal agencies to confer with the and proposed determination applies to estimates of the cost of implementing Service on any action that is likely to the subspecies throughout its entire recovery tasks. Recovery teams jeopardize the continued existence of a range, and we did not further evaluate (comprising species experts, Federal species proposed for listing or result in a significant portion of the subspecies’ and State agencies, nongovernmental destruction or adverse modification of range. organizations, and stakeholders) are proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of Available Conservation Measures often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery the Act requires Federal agencies to Conservation measures provided to outline, draft recovery plan, and the ensure that activities they authorize, species listed as an endangered or final recovery plan will be available on fund, or carry out are not likely to threatened species under the Act our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ jeopardize the continued existence of include recognition, recovery actions, endangered), or from the Nevada Fish the species or destroy or adversely requirements for Federal protection, and and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER modify its critical habitat. If a Federal prohibitions against certain practices. INFORMATION CONTACT). action may affect a listed species or its Recognition through listing results in Implementation of recovery actions critical habitat, the responsible Federal public awareness and conservation by generally requires the participation of a agency must enter into formal Federal, State, Tribal, and local broad range of partners, including other consultation with the Service. agencies, private organizations, and Federal agencies, States, Tribes, Federal agency actions within the individuals. The Act encourages nongovernmental organizations, species habitat that may require cooperation with the States and requires businesses, and private landowners. conference or consultation or both as that recovery actions be carried out for Examples of recovery actions include described in the preceding paragraph all listed species. The protection habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of include management and any other required by Federal agencies and the native vegetation), research, captive landscape altering activities on Federal prohibitions against certain activities propagation and reintroduction, and lands administered by the Forest are discussed, in part, below. outreach and education. The recovery of Service. The primary purpose of the Act is the many listed species cannot be The Act and its implementing conservation of endangered and accomplished solely on Federal lands regulations set forth a series of general threatened species and the ecosystems because their range may occur primarily prohibitions and exceptions that apply upon which they depend. The ultimate or solely on non-Federal lands. To to all endangered wildlife. The goal of such conservation efforts is the achieve recovery of these species prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, recovery of these listed species, so that requires cooperative conservation efforts codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered they no longer need the protective on private, State, and Tribal lands. wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of If this species is listed, funding for person subject to the jurisdiction of the the Act requires the Service to develop recovery actions will be available from United States to take (includes harass, and implement recovery plans for the a variety of sources, including Federal harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, conservation of endangered and budgets, State programs, and cost share trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt threatened species. The recovery grants for non-Federal landowners, the any of these), import, export, ship in planning process involves the academic community, and interstate commerce in the course of identification of actions that are nongovernmental organizations. In commercial activity, or sell or offer for necessary to halt or reverse the species’ addition, pursuant to section 6 of the sale in interstate or foreign commerce decline by addressing the threats to its Act, the State of Nevada would be any listed species. Under the Lacey Act survival and recovery. The goal of this eligible for Federal funds to implement (18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), process is to restore listed species to a management actions that promote the it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, point where they are secure, self- protection and recovery of the Mt. carry, transport, or ship any such sustaining, and functioning components Charleston blue butterfly. Information wildlife that has been taken illegally. of their ecosystems. on our grant programs that are available Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Recovery planning includes the to aid species recovery can be found at: Service and State conservation agencies. development of a recovery outline http://www.fws.gov/grants. We may issue permits to carry out shortly after a species is listed, Although the Mt. Charleston blue otherwise prohibited activities preparation of a draft and final recovery butterfly is only proposed for listing involving endangered and threatened

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59534 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

wildlife species under certain (1) The specific areas within the areas in the Federal Register. The circumstances. Regulations governing geographical area occupied by the degree of detail in those maps and permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for species, at the time it is listed in boundary descriptions is greater than endangered species, and at 17.32 for accordance with the Act, on which are the general location descriptions threatened species. With regard to found those physical or biological provided in this proposal to list the endangered wildlife, a permit must be features species as endangered. We are issued for the following purposes: for (a) Essential to the conservation of the concerned that designation of critical scientific purposes, to enhance the species and habitat would more widely announce propagation or survival of the species, (b) Which may require special the exact location of the butterflies to and for incidental take in connection management considerations or poachers, collectors, and vandals and with otherwise lawful activities. protection; and further facilitate unauthorized It is our policy, as published in the (2) Specific areas outside the collection and trade. Due to its extreme Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR geographical area occupied by the rarity (a low number of individuals, 34272), to identify to the maximum species at the time it is listed, upon a combined with small areas inhabited by extent practicable at the time a species determination that such areas are the remaining metapopulation), this is listed, those activities that would or essential for the conservation of the butterfly is highly vulnerable to would not constitute a violation of species. collection. Disturbance and other harm Conservation, as defined under section 9 of the Act. The intent of this from humans are also serious threats to section 3 of the Act, means to use and policy is to increase public awareness of the butterfly and its habitat (see Factor the use of all methods and procedures the effect of a proposed listing on B above). At this time, removal of any that are necessary to bring an proposed and ongoing activities within individuals or damage to habitat would endangered or threatened species to the have devastating consequences for the the range of species proposed for listing. point at which the measures provided survival of the subspecies. These threats The following activities could pursuant to the Act are no longer would be exacerbated by the publication potentially result in a violation of necessary. Such methods and of maps and descriptions in the Federal section 9 of the Act; this list is not procedures include, but are not limited Register and local newspapers outlining comprehensive: to, all activities associated with the specific locations of this critically (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, scientific resources management such as imperiled butterfly. Maps and possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, research, census, law enforcement, descriptions of critical habitat, such as or transporting of the species, including habitat acquisition and maintenance, those that would appear in the Federal import or export across State lines and propagation, live trapping, and Register if critical habitat were international boundaries, except for transplantation, and, in the designated, are not now available to the properly documented antique extraordinary case where population general public. Please note that while specimens of the species at least 100 pressures within a given ecosystem we have listed area and trail names of years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) cannot be otherwise relieved, may historically occupied, presumed of the Act; include regulated taking. (2) Introduction of nonnative species Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as occupied, and currently occupied or the unauthorized release of biological amended, and implementing regulations locations, these lists do not indicate control agents that compete with or (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the specific locations, and the actual attack any life stage of the Mt. maximum extent prudent and currently known occupied locations are Charleston blue butterfly, such as the determinable, we designate critical a portion of the much larger-scale areas introduction of nonnative ant, wasp, fly, habitat at the time we determine that a listed in the tables in this document. beetle, or other insect species to the species is an endangered or threatened We have specific evidence of taking State of Nevada; or species. Our regulations (50 CFR for this subspecies, and the (3) Unauthorized modification of 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation noncommercial collection of butterflies known occupied or presumed occupied of critical habitat is not prudent when from the Spring Mountains in Nevada is habitats of the Mt. Charleston blue one or both of the following situations ongoing (Service 2012, pp. 1–5). As a butterfly that support larval host and exist: (1) The species is threatened by subspecies endemic to the Spring nectar plants. taking or other human activity, and Mountains, the Mt. Charleston blue Questions regarding whether specific identification of critical habitat can be butterfly is sought by collectors who activities would constitute a violation of expected to increase the degree of threat may not be aware of specific locations section 9 of the Act should be directed to the species, or (2) such designation of where it is found (Service 2012, pp. 1– to the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office critical habitat would not be beneficial 5). While we are not aware of a specific (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). to the species. We have determined that market for butterflies from the Spring Requests for copies of the regulations both circumstances apply to the Mt Mountains, there have been collections concerning listed and general Charleston blue butterfly. This documented (collected, collected and inquiries regarding prohibitions and determination involves a weighing of sold, and collected with intent to sell) permits may be addressed to the U.S. the expected increase in threats in nearby surrounding areas such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered associated with a critical habitat Death Valley National Park, Grand Species Permits, 2800 Cottage Way, designation against the benefits gained Canyon National Park, and Kaibab Suite W–2606, Sacramento, California, by a critical habitat designation. An National Forest (U.S. Attorney’s Office, 95825–1846 (telephone 916–414–6464; explanation of this ‘‘balancing’’ 1993, pp. 2–3). A great deal of effort is facsimile 916–414–6486). evaluation follows. made by collectors to conceal collection activities that may be legal or illegal, so Critical Habitat and Prudency Increased Threat to the Subspecies by as not to draw attention to the collectors Determination for the Mt. Charleston Designating Critical Habitat (U.S. Attorney’s Office, 1993, pp. 1–86). Blue Butterfly Designation of critical habitat requires Some collections in nearby areas have Critical habitat is defined in section 3 the publication of maps and a narrative been for commercial purposes (U.S. of the Act as: description of specific critical habitat Attorney’s Office, 1993, pp. 1–86).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59535

Additionally, we are aware of a protections where there is a Federal conserved under State laws or local market for butterflies that look similar to nexus; that is, those actions that come ordinances. However, since awareness the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, under the purview of section 7 of the and education involving the Mt. including one of the species proposed Act. Critical habitat designation has no Charleston blue is already well for listing due to similarity of application to actions that do not have underway, designation of critical habitat appearance. It is clear that a demand a Federal nexus. Section 7(a)(2) of the would likely provide only minimal currently exists for both imperiled Act mandates that Federal agencies, in incremental benefits. Therefore, butterflies and those similar in consultation with the Service, evaluate designation of specific areas as critical appearance to the Mt. Charleston blue. the effects of their proposed actions on habitat that are currently occupied or Due to the small number of discrete any designated critical habitat. Similar recently occupied is unlikely to provide populations, overall small to the Act’s requirement that a Federal measurable benefit to the subspecies. metapopulation size, accessibility of agency action not jeopardize the Increased Threat to the Subspecies some occupied habitats, and restricted continued existence of listed species, Outweighs the Benefits of Critical range, we find that collection is a threat Federal agencies have the responsibility Habitat Designation to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and not to implement actions that would could occur at any time. Even limited destroy or adversely modify designated Upon reviewing the available collection from the remaining critical habitat. Critical habitat information, we have determined that metapopulation would have deleterious designation alone, however, does not the designation of critical habitat would effects on the reproductive and genetic require that a Federal action agency increase the threat to the Mt. Charleston viability of the subspecies and thus implement specific steps toward species blue butterfly from unauthorized could contribute to its extinction. recovery. collection. At the same time, we have determined that a designation of critical Identification of critical habitat would All areas known to support the Mt. increase the severity of this threat by habitat is likely to confer little Charleston blue butterfly since 1995 are measurable benefit to the subspecies depicting the exact locations where the or have been on Federal lands; these subspecies may occur and more widely beyond that provided by listing. Results areas are currently being managed for of consultations on Federal actions publicizing this information, exposing multiple uses. Management efforts are the fragile population and its habitat to affecting the Mt. Charleston blue reviewed by the Forest Service and the greater risks. butterfly, should it be listed under the Service to consider Mt. Charleston blue Identification and publication of Act, would likely be no different with critical habitat maps would also likely butterfly conservation needs. Because critical habitat than without its increase enforcement problems. the butterfly exists only as two occupied designation. Overall, we find that the Although take prohibitions exist, and eight presumed occupied, small risk of increasing significant threats to effective enforcement is difficult. As metapopulations, any future activity the subspecies by publishing location discussed in Factors B, D, and involving a Federal action that would information in a critical habitat elsewhere above, the threat of collection destroy or adversely modify occupied designation greatly outweighs the exists, and areas are already difficult to critical habitat would also likely benefits of designating critical habitat. patrol. Areas within the Mt. Charleston jeopardize the subspecies’ continued In conclusion, we find that the Wilderness are remote and accessible existence. Consultation with respect to designation of critical habitat is not mainly by a steep and long ascent, critical habitat would provide prudent, in accordance with 50 CFR making the areas difficult for law additional protection to a species only 424.12(a)(1), because the Mt. Charleston enforcement personnel to patrol and if the agency action would result in the blue butterfly is threatened by monitor. Designation of critical habitat destruction or adverse modification of collection, and designation can could facilitate further use and misuse the critical habitat but would not reasonably be expected to increase the of sensitive habitats and resources, and jeopardize the continued existence of degree of these threats to the subspecies create additional difficulty for law the species. In the absence of a critical and its habitat. Critical habitat enforcement personnel in an already habitat designation, areas that support designation could provide some benefit challenging environment. Overall, we the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly will to the subspecies, but these benefits are find that designation of critical habitat continue to be subject to conservation significantly outweighed by the will increase the likelihood and severity actions implemented under section increased risk of collection pressure and of the threats of unauthorized collection 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory enforcement problems that could result of the subspecies and destruction of protections afforded by the section from depicting, through publicly sensitive habitat, as well as exacerbate 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as available maps and descriptions, exactly enforcement issues. appropriate. Federal actions affecting where this extremely rare butterfly and the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, even its habitat occurs. Benefits to the Subspecies From Critical in the absence of designated critical Habitat Designation habitat areas, will still benefit from Similarity of Appearance It is true that designation of critical consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the habitat for the Mt. Charleston blue of the Act and may still result in treatment of a species, subspecies, or butterfly within the Spring Mountains jeopardy findings. Another potential population segment as an endangered or would have some beneficial effects. benefit to the Mt. Charleston blue threatened species if: ‘‘(a) Such species Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires butterfly from designating critical so closely resembles in appearance, at Federal agencies, including the Service, habitat is that it could serve to educate the point in question, a species which to ensure that actions they fund, landowners, State and local government has been listed pursuant to such section authorize, or carry out are not likely to agencies, and the general public that enforcement personnel would have jeopardize the continued existence of regarding the potential conservation substantial difficulty in attempting to any endangered or threatened species or value of the area. In addition, differentiate between the listed and result in the destruction or adverse designation of critical habitat could unlisted species; (b) the effect of this modification of that species’ critical inform State agencies and local substantial difficulty is an additional habitat. Critical habitat only provides governments about areas that could be threat to an endangered or threatened

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59536 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

species; and (c) such treatment of an differentiate between the species, through this listing of these species due unlisted species will substantially especially due to their small size. This to similarity of appearance under facilitate the enforcement and further poses a problem for Federal and State section 4(e) of the Act and providing the policy of this Act.’’ Listing a species law enforcement agents trying to stem applicable prohibitions and exceptions as an endangered or threatened species unauthorized collection of the Mt. in a special rule under section 4(d) of under the similarity of appearance Charleston blue. It is quite possible that the Act will provide greater protection provisions of the Act extends the take collectors authorized to collect similar to the Mt. Charleston blue. For these prohibitions of section 9 of the Act to species may inadvertently (or reasons, we are proposing to list the cover the species. A designation of an purposefully) collect the Mt. Charleston lupine blue butterfly (Plebejus lupini endangered or threatened species due to blue butterfly, thinking it to be the texanus), Reakirt’s blue butterfly similarity of appearance under section lupine blue, Reakirt’s blue, Spring (Echinargus isola), Spring Mountains 4(e) of the Act, however, does not Mountains icarioides blue, or one of the extend other protections of the Act, two Spring Mountains dark blue icarioides blue butterfly (Plebejus such as consultation requirements for butterflies, which also occur in the same icarioides austinorum), and the two Federal agencies under section 7 and geographical area and habitat type and Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies the recovery planning provisions under have overlapping flight periods. The (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and E. a. section 4(f), that apply to species that listing of these similar blue butterflies as purpura) as threatened species due to are listed as an endangered or threatened species due to similarity of similarity of appearance to the Mt. threatened species under section 4(a). appearance eliminates the ability of Charleston blue, pursuant to section 4(e) All applicable prohibitions and amateur butterfly enthusiasts and of the Act on private and public lands exceptions for species listed under private and commercial collectors to within the District Boundary for the section 4(e) of the Act due to similarity purposefully or accidentally Spring Mountains National Recreation of appearance to a threatened or misrepresent the Mt. Charleston blue as Area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National endangered species will be set forth in one of these other species. Forest and north of Nevada State a special rule under section 4(d) of the The listing will facilitate Federal and Highway 160 (commonly referred to as Act. State law enforcement agents’ efforts to the Spring Mountains and Mt. There are only slight morphological curtail unauthorized possession, Charleston) (see Figure 1). differences between the Mt. Charleston collection, and trade in the Mt. blue and the lupine blue, Reakirt’s blue, Charleston blue. At this time, the five Figure 1. Map of the area where the Spring Mountains icarioides blue, and similar butterflies are not protected by proposed special rule for the Mt. the two Spring Mountains dark blue the State. Extending the prohibition of Charleston blue butterfly applies to the butterflies, making it difficult to collection to the five similar butterflies five similarity of appearance butterflies.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27SE12.007 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59537

Special Rule Under Section 4(d) of the section 4(d) of the Act, extend take similarity of appearance provision of the Act prohibitions to these species and their Act, coupled with this special 4(d) rule, Whenever a species is listed as a immature stages. Capture of these will help minimize enforcement threatened species under the Act, the species, including their immature problems related to collection, and Secretary may specify regulations that stages, is not prohibited if it is enhance conservation of the Mt. he deems necessary and advisable to accidental, such as during research, Charleston blue butterfly. provided the is released provide for the conservation of that Peer Review immediately upon discovery, at the species under the authorization of In accordance with our joint policy on section 4(d) of the Act. These rules, point of capture. There are over 100 species and peer review published in the Federal commonly referred to as ‘‘special rules,’’ subspecies of butterflies within the 10 Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), are found in part 17 of title 50 of the genera, occurring domestically and we will seek the expert opinions of at Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in internationally, that could be confused least three appropriate and independent sections 17.40–17.48. This special rule with the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, specialists regarding this proposed rule. to be promulgated under the designation or the 4 similarity of appearance The purpose of peer review is to ensure 50 CFR 17.47, will establish butterflies. We are aware that legal trade that our listing decision is based on prohibitions on collection of the lupine in some of these other blue butterflies scientifically sound data, assumptions, blue butterfly (Plebejus lupini texanus), exists. To avoid confusion and delays in and analyses. We have invited these Reakirt’s blue butterfly (Echinargus legal trade, we strongly recommend peer reviewers to comment during this isola), Spring Mountains icarioides blue maintaining the appropriate public comment period on our specific butterfly (Plebejus icarioides documentation and declarations with proposed listing, prudency austinorum), and two Spring Mountains legal specimens at all times, especially determination, and similarity of dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla when importing them into the United appearance proposal. cryptica and E. a. purpura), or their States. Legal trade of other species that We will consider all comments and immature stages, where their ranges may be confused with the Mt. information received during this overlap with the Mt. Charleston blue Charleston blue butterfly or the five comment period on this proposed rule butterfly, in order to protect the Mt. similarity of appearance butterflies during our preparation of a final Charleston blue butterfly from should also comply with the import/ determination. Accordingly, the final collection, possession, and trade. In this export transfer regulations under 50 decision may differ from this proposal. context, collection is defined as any CFR 14, where applicable. activity where lupine blue butterfly, All otherwise legal activities that may Public Hearings Reakirt’s blue butterfly, Spring involve what we would normally define Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and as incidental take (take that results from, one or more public hearings on this the two Spring Mountains dark blue but is not the purpose of, carrying out proposal, if requested. Requests must be butterflies or their immature stages are, an otherwise lawful activity) of these received within 45 days after the date of or are attempted to be, collected. similar butterflies, and which are publication of this proposed rule in the Capture of the lupine blue butterfly, conducted in accordance with Federal Register. Such requests must be Reakirt’s blue butterfly, Spring applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and sent to the address shown in the Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and local laws and regulations, will not be ADDRESSES section. We will schedule the two Spring Mountains dark blue considered take under this regulation. public hearings on this proposal, if any butterflies, or their immature stages, is For example, this special 4(d) rule are requested, and announce the dates, not prohibited if it is accidental, such as exempts legal application of pesticides, times, and places of those hearings, as during research, provided the animal is grounds maintenance, recreational well as how to obtain reasonable released immediately upon discovery at facilities maintenance, vehicle use, accommodations, in the Federal the point of capture. Scientific activities vegetation management, exotic plant Register and local newspapers at least involving collection or propagation of removal, and burning. These actions 15 days before the hearing. these similarity-of-appearance will not be considered as violations of Persons needing reasonable butterflies are not prohibited provided section 9 of the Act if they result in accommodation to attend and there is prior written authorization from incidental take of any of the similarity participate in a public hearing should the Service. All otherwise legal of appearance butterflies. We think that contact the Nevada Fish and Wildlife activities involving the lupine blue not applying take prohibitions for those Office at 775–861–6300, as soon as butterfly, Reakirt’s blue butterfly, Spring otherwise legal activities to these five possible. To allow sufficient time to Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and similar butterflies (lupine blue butterfly, process requests, please call no later the two Spring Mountains dark blue Reakirt’s blue butterfly, Spring than 1 week before the hearing date. butterflies that are conducted in Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and Information regarding this proposed accordance with applicable State, the two Spring Mountains dark blue rule is available in alternative formats Federal, Tribal, and local laws and butterflies) will not pose a threat to the upon request. regulations are not considered to be take Mt. Charleston blue because: (1) under this proposed rule. Activities such as grounds maintenance Nonsubstantive Administrative Action and vegetation control in developed or Included in this proposed rule is text Effects of These Rules commercial areas are not likely to affect to correct errors in a previously issued Listing the lupine blue butterfly, the Mt. Charleston blue, and (2) the rule. When we published the final rule Reakirt’s blue butterfly, Spring primary threat to the Mt. Charleston to list the Miami blue butterfly Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and blue comes from collection and (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) as the two Spring Mountains dark blue commercial trade. Listing the lupine endangered and to list three additional butterflies as threatened species under blue butterfly, Reakirt’s blue butterfly, butterflies as threatened by similarity of the ‘‘similarity of appearance’’ Spring Mountains icarioides blue appearance (77 FR 20948; April 6, provisions of the Act, and the butterfly, and the two Spring Mountains 2012), the last column in the table at 50 promulgation of a special rule under dark blue butterflies under the CFR 17.11(h) was inadvertently omitted

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59538 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

from the published rule. This column on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This to make information available to tribes. indicates where the public may locate a position was upheld by the U.S. Court We determined that there are no tribal special rule pertaining to the three of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit lands occupied by the Mt. Charleston species that were listed as threatened by (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d blue butterfly at the time of listing. similarity of appearance (cassius blue 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 Therefore, this rulemaking, if finalized, butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and U.S. 1042 (1996)). will not affect tribal lands. nickerbean blue butterfly) in title 50 of Clarity of the Rule References Cited the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, we are providing that We are required by Executive Orders A complete list of references cited in information in this proposed rule. We 12866 and 12988 and by the this rulemaking is available on the are also proposing a revision to Presidential Memorandum of June 1, Internet at http://www.regulations.gov paragraph (a) of that special rule, which 1998, to write all rules in plain and upon request from the Nevada Fish is found in 50 CFR 17.47, to make the language. This means that each rule we and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER format of that special rule consistent publish must: INFORMATION CONTACT). with this proposed special rule, which (1) Be logically organized; Authors will be located immediately following, (2) Use the active voice to address at 50 CFR 17.47(b). These changes are readers directly; The primary authors of this package administrative and nonsubstantive. (3) Use clear language rather than are the staff members of the Nevada Fish jargon; and Wildlife Office. Required Determinations (4) Be divided into short sections and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 sentences; and List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 (5) Use lists and tables wherever U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Endangered and threatened species, possible. Exports, Imports, Reporting and This rule does not contain any new If you feel that we have not met these recordkeeping requirements, collections of information that require requirements, send us comments by one Transportation. approval by OMB under the Paperwork of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 section. To better help us revise the Proposed Regulation Promulgation et seq.). This rule will not impose rule, your comments should be as recordkeeping or reporting requirements specific as possible. For example, you Accordingly, we propose to amend on State or local governments, should tell us the numbers of the part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title individuals, businesses, or sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, organizations. An agency may not written, which sections or sentences are as set forth below: conduct or sponsor, and a person is not too long, the sections where you feel PART 17—[AMENDED] required to respond to, a collection of lists or tables would be useful, etc. information unless it displays a 1. The authority citation for part 17 currently valid OMB control number. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes continues to read as follows: National Environmental Policy Act (42 In accordance with the President’s Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– memorandum of April 29, 1994 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. We have determined that (Government-to-Government Relations environmental assessments and with Native American Tribal 2. Amend § 17.11(h), the List of environmental impact statements, as Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, defined under the authority of the Order 13175 (Consultation and by: National Environmental Policy Act Coordination With Indian Tribal a. Revising the entries for ‘‘Butterfly, (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not Governments), and the Department of cassius blue’’, ‘‘Butterfly, ceraunus be prepared in connection with listing the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we blue’’, ‘‘Butterfly, Miami blue’’, and a species as endangered or threatened readily acknowledge our responsibility Butterfly, nickerbean blue’’; and under the Endangered Species Act. We to communicate meaningfully with b. Adding new entries for ‘‘Butterfly, published a notice outlining our reasons recognized Federal Tribes on a lupine blue’’, ‘‘Butterfly, Mt. Charleston for this determination in the Federal government-to-government basis. In blue’’, ‘‘Butterfly, Reakirt’s blue’’, Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 ‘‘Butterfly, Spring Mountains dark 49244). of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal blue’’, ‘‘Butterfly, Spring Mountains It is our position that, outside the Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust dark blue’’, and ‘‘Butterfly, Spring jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals Responsibilities, and the Endangered Mountains icarioides blue’’, in for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to Species Act), we readily acknowledge alphabetical order under , to read prepare environmental analyses our responsibilities to work directly as follows: pursuant to NEPA in connection with with tribes in developing programs for designating critical habitat under the healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that § 17.11 Endangered and threatened Endangered Species Act. We published tribal lands are not subject to the same wildlife. a notice outlining our reasons for this controls as Federal public lands, to * * * * * determination in the Federal Register remain sensitive to Indian culture, and (h) * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:28 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59539

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

******* INSECTS

******* Butterfly, cassius Leptotes cassius U.S.A. (FL), Baha- NA ...... T (S/A) 801 NA 17.47(a) blue. theonus. mas, Greater An- tilles, Cayman Is- lands. Butterfly, ceraunus Hemiargus U.S.A. (FL), Baha- NA ...... T(S/A) 801 NA 17.47(a) blue. ceraunus mas. antibubastus.

******* Butterfly, lupine blue Plebejus lupini U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, NA ...... T (S/A) NA 17.47(b) texanus. NE, NM, NV, TX, UT), Mexico.

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

******* Butterfly, Mt. Plebejus shasta U.S.A. (NV), Spring NA ...... E NA NA Charleston blue. charlestonensis. Mountains.

******* Butterfly, nickerbean Cyclargus ammon .. U.S.A. (FL), Baha- NA ...... T(S/A) 801 NA 17.47(a) blue. mas, Cuba.

******* Butterfly, Reakirt’s Echinargus isola ..... U.S.A. (AR, AZ, CA, NA ...... T(S/A) NA 17.47(b) blue. CO, IA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, ND, NE, NM, NV, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY), Mexico.

******* Butterfly, Spring Euphilotes ancilla U.S.A. (NV), Spring NA ...... T(S/A) NA 17.47(b) Mountains dark cryptica. Mountains. blue. Butterfly, Spring Euphilotes ancilla U.S.A. (NV), Spring NA ...... T(S/A) NA 17.47(b) Mountains dark purpura. Mountains. blue. Butterfly, Spring Plebejus icarioides U.S.A. (NV), Spring NA ...... T(S/A) NA 17.47(b) Mountains austinorum. Mountains. icarioides blue.

*******

3. Amend § 17.47 by revising the of Interstate 4 at Tampa and Daytona icarioides blue butterfly (Plebejus introductory text or paragraph (a) and Beach. Specifically, regulated activities icarioides austinorum), and two Spring paragraph (a)(4) and adding paragraph are prohibited in the following counties: Mountains dark blue butterflies (b) to read as follows: Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, De (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and E. a. Soto, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee, purpura). The provisions of this special § 17.47 Special rules–insects. Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota, St. Lucie, rule apply to these species only when (a) Cassius blue butterfly (Leptotes Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm found on private and public lands cassius theonus), Ceraunus blue Beach, and Volusia. within the District Boundary for the butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus * * * * * Spring Mountains National Recreation antibubastus), and Nickerbean blue (4) Collection of the cassius blue Area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National butterfly (Cyclargus ammon). The butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and Forest and north of Nevada State provisions of this special rule apply to nickerbean blue butterfly is prohibited Highway 160 (commonly referred to as these species only when found in in the areas set forth in paragraph (a). the Spring Mountains and Mt. coastal counties of Florida south of (b) Lupine blue butterfly (Plebejus Charleston). Interstate 4 and extending to the lupini texanus), Reakirt’s blue butterfly boundaries of the State at the endpoints (Echinargus isola), Spring Mountains

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:28 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 59540 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(1) The provisions of § 17.31(c) apply (3) Incidental take, that is, take that Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies, to these species (lupine blue butterfly, results from, but is not the purpose of, and Spring Mountains icarioides blue Reakirt’s blue butterfly, Spring carrying out an otherwise lawful butterfly is prohibited in the Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and activity, will not apply to the lupine Mountains of Nevada. two Spring Mountains dark blue blue butterfly, Reakirt’s blue butterfly, (5) A map showing the area covered butterflies), regardless of whether in the Spring Mountains icarioides blue by this special rule follows: wild or in captivity, and also apply to butterfly, and two Spring Mountains the progeny of any such butterfly. dark blue butterflies. (2) Any violation of State law will (4) Collection of the lupine blue also be a violation of the Act. butterfly, Reakirt’s blue butterfly, two

Dated: September 11, 2012. Michael J. Bean, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 2012–23747 Filed 9–26–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27SEP3.SGM 27SEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27SE12.008