37404 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR preamble and at http:// analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical www.regulations.gov. habitat designation and related factors Fish and Wildlife Service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (IEc 2014). The analysis, dated May 20, Michael J. Senn, Field Supervisor, U.S. 2014, was made available for public 50 CFR Part 17 Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern review from July 15, 2014, through [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0105; Fish and Wildlife Office, 4701 September 15, 2014 (79 FR 41225). The 4500030114] North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV DEA addressed probable economic impacts of critical habitat designation RIN 1018–AZ91 89130–7147; telephone 702–515–5230; facsimile 702–515–5231. If you use a for the blue . Following the close of the comment Endangered and Threatened Wildlife telecommunications device for the deaf period, we reviewed and evaluated all (TDD), call the Federal Information and Plants; Designation of Critical information submitted during the Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. Habitat for Mount Charleston Blue comment period that may pertain to our Butterfly ( () shasta SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: consideration of the probable charlestonensis) Executive Summary incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. We AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Why we need to publish a rule. This summarize and respond to the Interior. is a final rule to designate critical ACTION: Final rule. comments in this final determination. habitat for the endangered Mount Peer review and public comment. We Charleston blue butterfly (Icaricia SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and sought comments from independent Wildlife Service (Service), designate (Plebejus) shasta charlestonensis). specialists to ensure that our critical habitat for the Mount Charleston Under the Endangered Species Act, any designation is based on scientifically blue butterfly (Icaricia (Plebejus) shasta species that is determined to be an sound data and analyses. We obtained charlestonensis) under the Endangered endangered or threatened species opinions from four knowledgeable Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). requires critical habitat to be designated, individuals with scientific expertise to In total, approximately 5,214 acres to the maximum extent prudent and review our technical assumptions and (2,110 hectares) in the Spring determinable. Designations and analysis, and to help us determine Mountains of Clark County, Nevada, fall revisions of critical habitat can only be whether or not we had used the best within the boundaries of the critical completed by issuing a rule. available information. These peer We listed the Mount Charleston blue habitat designation. The effect of this reviewers provided additional butterfly as an endangered species on rule is to extend the Act’s protections to information, clarifications, and September 19, 2013 (78 FR 57750). On the butterfly’s critical habitat. suggestions to improve this final rule. July 15, 2014, we published in the Information we received from peer DATES: This rule is effective July 30, Federal Register a proposed critical 2015. review is incorporated into this final habitat designation for the Mount designation. We also considered all ADDRESSES: This final rule is available Charleston blue butterfly (79 FR 41225). comments and information we received on the Internet at http:// Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered from the public during the comment www.regulations.gov and http:// Species Act states that the Secretary of period. www.fws.gov/Nevada. Comments and the Interior shall designate critical materials we received, as well as some habitat on the basis of the best available Previous Federal Actions supporting documentation we used in scientific data after taking into All previous Federal actions are preparing this final rule, are available consideration the economic impact, described in the final rule listing the for public inspection at http:// national security impact, and any other Mount Charleston blue butterfly as an www.regulations.gov. All of the relevant impact of specifying any endangered species (78 FR 57750; comments, materials, and particular area as critical habitat. September 19, 2013). documentation that we considered in The critical habitat areas we are this rulemaking are available by designating in this rule constitute our Summary of Comments and appointment, during normal business current best assessment of the areas that Recommendations hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, meet the definition of critical habitat for We requested written comments from Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. In the public on the proposed designation Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, this rule, we are designating of critical habitat for the Mount Las Vegas, NV 89130–7147; telephone approximately 5,214 acres (2,110 Charleston blue butterfly during one 702–515–5230; facsimile 702–515–5231. hectares) in the of comment period. The comment period The coordinates or plot points or both Clark County, Nevada, as critical habitat associated with the publication of the from which the maps are generated are for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. proposed critical habitat rule (79 FR included in the administrative record This rule consists of a final rule 41225) opened on July 15, 2014, and for this critical habitat designation and designating critical habitat for the closed on September 15, 2014. We also are available at http:// Mount Charleston blue butterfly. The requested comments on the associated www.regulations.gov at Docket No. Mount Charleston blue butterfly is listed draft economic analysis during the same FWS–R8–ES–2013–0105 and at the as an endangered species under the comment period. We did not receive Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Act. any requests for a public hearing. We Office at http://www.fws.gov/Nevada We have prepared an economic also contacted appropriate Federal, (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). analysis of the designation of critical State, and local agencies; scientific Any additional tools or supporting habitat. In order to consider economic organizations; and other interested information that we developed for this impacts, we prepared an incremental parties and invited them to comment on critical habitat designation will also be effects memorandum (IEM) and the proposed rule and draft economic available at the Fish and Wildlife screening analysis, which together with analysis during the comment period. Service Web site and Field Office set out our narrative and interpretation of During the comment period, we above, and may also be included in the effects we consider our draft economic received comment letters directly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37405

addressing the proposed critical habitat (2) Comment: One peer reviewer did which is consistent with documented designation. Overall, we received 706 not agree with our depicting Astragalus use of multiple host plants by other comment letters addressing the platytropis and Oxytropis oreophila var. butterfly subspecies (Emmel proposed critical habitat designation or oreophila to Astragalus calycosus var. and Shields 1980, Table I). However, the draft economic analysis. All calycosus as functionally equivalent numerous observations and a longer substantive information provided larval host plants for the Mount history of knowledge of A. c. var. during the comment period has either Charleston blue butterfly. The reviewer calycosus as a host plant do not negate been incorporated directly into this final commented that numerous observations the biological importance and determination or is addressed below. have been made of oviposition by the functional equivalence of A. platytropis Comments we received were grouped Mount Charleston blue butterfly in and O. o. var. oreophila as host plants into general issues specifically relating association with A. c. var. calycosus, important to the conservation of the to the proposed critical habitat and A. c. var. calycosus is present at all Mount Charleston blue butterfly. designation for the Mount Charleston locations where Mount Charleston blue The evidence that was used to infer blue butterfly and are addressed in the have been detected, that Astragalus platytropis and following summary and incorporated suggesting this plant species is a Oxytropis oreophila var. oreophila are into the final rule as appropriate. required feature of habitat. The reviewer host plants for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is consistent with much of Peer Review also commented that little reliable evidence exists that A. platytropis and the science, which may In accordance with our peer review O. o. var. oreophila function as include observations of adult policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR commonly used host plants, and that associations (for example, female 34270), we solicited expert opinions the Service’s assumption appeared to be concentration areas, pre-oviposition from four knowledgeable individuals based on an observation of one behavior by females on plants (Shields with scientific expertise that included oviposition event by one female of one et al. 1969, pp. 28–29; Scott 1992, p. 2; familiarity with butterfly biology and egg on each of A. platytropis and O. o. Austin and Leary 2008, p. 1)); ecology, conservation biology, and var. oreophila. Lastly, the peer reviewer oviposition by females; and larval natural resource management. We commented on the difficulty of feeding and subsequent survival received responses from all four of the identifying butterfly eggs to species and (Shields et al. 1969, pp. 28–29; Scott peer reviewers. questioned whether the observers had 1992, p. 2; Austin and Leary 2008, p. 1). We reviewed all comments we the expertise to do so. We recognize that observation of a received from the peer reviewers for female butterfly ovipositing on a plant substantive issues and new information Our Response: We agree that the plant is not equivalent to actual observations regarding critical habitat for the Mount species Astragalus calycosus var. of feeding on a particular plant species Charleston blue butterfly. Two peer calycosus functions as an important and survival of butterfly larvae. There reviewers agreed with our analyses in biological feature and is the most are instances in Lepidoptera literature the proposed rule. A third peer common host plant present throughout where adult female butterflies were reviewer, while not disagreeing with the the range of the Mount Charleston blue documented ovipositing on plants, and designation of critical habitat itself, butterfly; thus, we have included it as hatched larvae fed on the plants but did disagreed with some analyses or a primary constituent element. A. c. var. not subsequently survive (Shields et al. application of information. The fourth calycosus is more abundant through a 1969, p. 29; Chew and Robbins 1984, p. peer reviewer did not state a position. broader elevation range and occurs in 68; Austin and Leary 2008, p. 1). Some We received no peer review responses more plant communities than genera, and even large proportions of on the DEA. Peer reviewer comments Astragalus platytropis and Oxytropis some subfamilies, are known to oviposit are addressed in the following summary oreophila var. oreophila, in the Spring haphazardly; however, the Shasta blue and incorporated into the final rule as Mountains as well as within the range butterfly and its higher taxonomic appropriate. of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly classification groups have not been (Nachlinger and Reese 1996, Table 6; identified as species that oviposit Peer Reviewer Comments Niles and Leary 2007, pp. 36 and 38; haphazardly (Scott 1992, p. 2). The (1) Comment: One peer reviewer Andrew et al. 2013, p. 5). A. c. var. Mount Charleston blue butterfly is a commented that our references in the calycosus is the only host plant member of the family , proposed rule to Astragalus lentiginosus documented in lower elevation Lee subfamily , for which var. kernensis from Andrew et al. (2013) Canyon locations (NewFields 2008, pp. host plants are more easily determined were a misidentification of the plant 1–198 plus Appendices; Andrew et al. than for other lycaenid species, based Oxytropis oreophila var. oreophila. 2013, p. 5), where greater survey efforts on obvious behavior by females and Our Response: We agree. We to observe the butterfly have occurred, frequent, unequivocal association of erroneously sent peer reviewers a draft because of ease of access which has females with host plants (Austin and copy of the proposed critical habitat resulted in more frequent and consistent Leary 2008, p. 58). designation that referenced Astragalus observations of the butterfly (Boyd 2006, The evidence to support the lentiginosus var. kernensis from Andrew p. 1; DataSmiths 2007, pp. 1–9; Boyd conclusion that Astragalus calycosus et al. (2013). However, based on a and Murphy 2008, p. 2–3). Therefore, var. calycosus, Astragalus platytropis, or correction to this plant identification prior to 2012, the emphasis and life- Oxytropis oreophila var. oreophila (Andrew et al. 2013, Errata Sheet; history knowledge of Mount Charleston function as host plants is based on Thompson et al. 2014), the proposed blue butterfly host plants in the Spring observations and reports of: (1) critical habitat designation that Mountains of Nevada has focused on A. Oviposition by Mount Charleston blue published in the Federal Register (79 c. var. calycosus. Subsequent butterflies on A. c. var. calycosus, A. FR 41225; July 15, 2014) contained the observations reported by Andrew et al. platytropis, and O. o. var. oreophila correct plant identification of Oxytropis (2013, pp. 1–93) and Thompson et al. (Austin and Leary 2008, p. 86; oreophila var. oreophila. This correction (2014, pp. 97–158) have demonstrated Thompson et al. 2014, pp. 122–125); (2) is also reflected in this final critical that additional host plants for the pre-oviposition behavior by Mount habitat designation. Mount Charleston blue butterfly exist, Charleston blue butterflies associated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37406 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

with all host plant species (Austin and eggs were observed have different (2008, p. 13) observations of Mount Leary 2008, p. 86; Thompson et al. reported host plants (for example, Charleston blue butterflies using the 2014, pp. 122–125); (3) observations of Southwestern azure butterfly (Celastrina plant species, and the flowers of these Mount Charleston blue butterfly eggs on echo cinerea) in Austin and Leary 2008, plant species having the appropriate all three host plant species (Thompson pp. 63–64), or deposit their eggs morphological characteristics for nectar et al. 2014, pp. 122–125); (4) other primarily on locations of the plant (for use. Therefore, we are not including Shasta blue butterfly apparently having example, Reakirt’s blue butterfly plant species as potential nectar sources close associations and ovipositing on A. (Echinargus isola) on or near parts of for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly c. var. calycosus and A. platytropis flowers (Scott 1992, pp. 102–103; without reported observations of use. outside of the Spring Mountains (Emmel Austin and Leary 2008, pp. 90–91)) (4) Comment: One peer reviewer and Shields 1980, Table I) or other substantially different than those commented that the primary constituent Oxytropis spp. (Austin and Leary 2008, reported for the Mount Charleston blue elements were not determined based on p. 85); and (5) close association or butterfly (for example, leaves, petioles, scientifically sound data and analyses, oviposition on more than one host plant and stems (Emmel and Shields 1980, and are not defensible, because the species by other subspecies of Shasta pp. 132–138; Thompson et al. 2014, pp. reports the Service relied on to develop blue butterflies (Emmel and Shields 129–130 and Appendix F)); and (5) the primary constituent elements were 1980, Table I; Scott 1992, p. 100; Austin reviews by field experts and subject either qualitative or did not provide and Leary 2008, pp. 85–86) (note that matter experts did not provide specific range values with means and variances some observations reported in Austin information to disprove the for several of the elements. and Leary 2008 and Scott 1992 are the observations. Thus, the eggs that were Our Response: We used the best same as those originally reported by observed were most likely Mount scientific and commercial data available Emmel and Shields 1980). The Service Charleston blue butterfly eggs, and not to determine the primary constituent does not have information or reported eggs of other butterfly species. elements essential to the conservation of observations of feeding and subsequent Based on the preceding discussion, the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. We survival or death of any Shasta blue the Service determines that Astragalus focused on available data from areas butterfly subspecies on A. c. var. calycosus var. calycosus, Astragalus occupied by the Mount Charleston blue calycosus, A. platytropis, or O. o. var. platytropis, and Oxytropis oreophila butterfly at the time of listing, and any oreophila. Such observations would var. oreophila are functionally new information available or provided provide additional evidence to confirm equivalent host plants for the Mount by peer reviewers and commenters since or refute these plant species as larval Charleston blue butterfly, and, thus, are the proposed critical habitat designation hosts for the Shasta blue butterfly. retained as primary biological features. was published (79 FR 41225; July 15, (3) Comment: One peer reviewer did 2014). We used minimum quantity In regard to evidence of egg not agree that the Mount Charleston values or quality descriptions for several observations of Mount Charleston blue blue butterfly has been documented primary constituent elements from areas butterflies, we agree with the peer using for nectar Antennaria rosea (rosy occupied by Mount Charleston blue reviewer and Scott (1986, p. 121) that pussy toes), Cryptantha spp., Ericameria butterflies, because they represent our identifying butterfly eggs is difficult, nauseosa (rubber rabbitbrush), Erigeron current understanding of the minimum and reported observations should be flagellaris (trailing daisy), Gutierrezia habitat or features necessary to support critically evaluated. However, it is sarothrae (broom snake weed), the life-history processes of the possible to identify eggs of various Monardella odoratissima (horsemint), subspecies. We believe using this butterfly species to subfamily, genus, or Petradoria pumila var. pumila (rock- approach identifies the physical and even species (Scott 1986, p. 121). In goldenrod), and Potentilla concinna var. biological features that are essential to addition, the context of how the egg is concinna (Alpine cinquefoil). the conservation and recovery of the deposited on the plant and the context Our Response: We reexamined the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. of where it is found should be references we cited for observations of (5) Comment: One peer reviewer considered. We believe observations of nectaring Mount Charleston blue suggested horses in the Spring Mount Charleston blue butterfly eggs as butterflies on various plant species, and Mountains are feral, rather than wild, reported by Thompson et al. (2014, pp. we have determined the references and should be referred to as such. 122–131, Appendix F) are credible suggest the Mount Charleston blue Our Response: We agree, because because: (1) Eggs deposited by Mount butterfly has been observed to nectar on horses are not native to the Spring Charleston blue butterflies were directly all of the above species. Thompson et al. Mountains, let alone North America, observed, recorded, and photographed, 2014 (pp. 117) report observations of and escaped from domestication which allowed for further comparison Mount Charleston blue butterflies (Matthew 1926, p. 149); we have between and review by field observers; nectaring on Gutierrezia sarothrae. Boyd replaced ‘‘wild’’ with ‘‘feral’’ in this (2) eggs depicted (Thompson et al. 2014, and Murphy (2008, p. 9) clearly state the final rule. pp. 129–130 and Appendix F) are Mount Charleston blue butterfly has (6) Comment: One peer reviewer deposited in a manner consistent with been observed to nectar on Hymenoxys commented that citations were minimal reports for other Shasta blue butterflies spp. and Erigeron spp., and they go on within the Primary Constituent (Emmel and Shields 1980, pp. 132–138); to state that 10 plant species (p. 13 and Elements for Mount Charleston Blue (3) the South Loop locations of egg Figure 2a on p. 16) ‘‘were considered as Butterfly section. observations occurred in areas where likely ‘higher quality’ [potential] Our Response: We provide citations and at times when the Mount resources—reflecting observations of for information used to identify the Charleston blue butterfly was the use by the Mount Charleston blue in primary constituent elements (PCEs) in predominant Lycaenid butterfly present previous years.’’ We recognize Boyd and the section immediately preceding (at least 95 percent of all Lycaenid Murphy (2008) do not provide Primary Constituent Elements for Mount butterflies observed) (Andrew et al. documentation of these 10 species being Charleston Blue Butterfly, in the 2014, Table 2); (4) the other butterfly used by nectaring Mount Charleston discussion of Physical or Biological species reported at the South Loop blue butterflies; rather, we infer it is Features. The PCEs are a concise list of location or in close proximity to where likely, based on Boyd and Murphy’s the elements, and the pertinent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37407

information and sources that led us to butterfly occurrence, which we stated is reviewed journals, scientific status identify them are explained in detail ‘‘on relatively flat ridgetops [and] gently surveys and studies completed by and cited in the discussion of physical sloping hills.’’ One peer reviewer qualified individuals, experts’ opinions or biological features. referenced additional explanations or personal knowledge, and other (7) Comment: One peer reviewer provided by Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. sources, to designate critical habitat for commented that the Pinyon (2011) work 19). The other peer reviewer provided the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. In that we referenced was ‘‘qualitative terrain slope data for plot points within accordance with our peer review policy, work and could not be repeated, and areas where Mount Charleston blue published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR was therefore not highly defensible.’’ butterfly adults have been observed. 34270), we solicited peer review from Our Response: We respectfully Our Response: We incorporated the knowledgeable individuals with disagree and maintain that reference provided by the peer reviewer scientific expertise that included consideration of the information in in the Physical or Biological Features familiarity with the species, the Pinyon (2011) is consistent with our section of this final rule. The terrain geographic region in which the species policy to use the best scientific and slope data from the second peer occurs, and conservation biology commercial data available to determine reviewer do not affect the general principles. Additionally, we requested critical habitat. Our use of the description of areas where Mount comments or information from other information is described in Criteria Charleston blue butterflies occur; thus, concerned governmental agencies, the Used To Identify Critical Habitat. We we did not include them in this final scientific community, industry, and any agree that some work performed and rule. However, we anticipate using the other interested parties concerning the described by Pinyon 2011 is qualitative. information during the recovery proposed rule. All comments and For example, Pinyon (2011, p. 11) planning process for the subspecies. information we received on the assigned areas of Mount Charleston blue (10) Comment: We received one peer proposed rule and the draft economic butterfly habitat to either good, review comment suggesting our analysis analysis, along with the best scientific moderate, poor, or none based on the of potential climate change impacts data available, were evaluated and taken ‘‘presence of larval host plants, nectar would be helped by considering into consideration to inform the critical plants, ground cover, and canopy mechanisms by which the Mount habitat designation in this final rule. density (visual estimate),’’ which may Charleston blue butterfly or its resources (12) Comment: We received two peer not be repeatable, to the extent that may be affected directly or indirectly by review comments and public comments boundaries would coincide precisely, as changes in temperature and extreme on locations of potential removal of with other investigators. While the precipitation. critical habitat within Unit precise boundaries could vary, the Our Response: Because site- and 2. One peer reviewer stated that areas general areas where Pinyon (2011, species-specific information regarding within Unit 2, ‘‘should not be Figure 8 and 9) identified and impacts to the Mount Charleston blue considered for removal until the current delineated moderate and high-quality butterfly and its resources from climate distribution, abundance, and condition habitat are in close proximity, or change is unavailable, we updated our of larval hosts, nectar sources, and other correlate closely, to concentrations of discussion to include a description of environmental characteristics consistent Mount Charleston blue butterfly general mechanisms that may be with occupancy have been assessed.’’ In locations and other investigator habitat impacted by increasing temperatures addition, the peer reviewer stated that delineations (Weiss et al. 1997, Map 3.1; and patterns of extreme drought and areas diminished by recreation or other SWCA 2008, Figure 1; Andrew et al. precipitation (see the ‘‘Habitats That are treatments may be able to recover with 2013, Figure 17, 20, and 22; Thompson Protected from Disturbance or are ‘‘special management considerations et al. 2014, pp. 97–158). Thus, Representative of the Historical, and protection.’’ Similarly, one public information from Pinyon (2011) is Geographical, and Ecological comment stated that the areas should repeatable to some extent and defensible Distributions of the Subspecies’’ section, not be removed from critical habitat, in the manner we applied it to below). Also see our response to and should be restored and managed for determine critical habitat. (Also see our Comment 14. occupancy by the Mount Charleston response to Comment 9, below.) blue butterfly. One peer reviewer Comments From Peer Reviewers and the (8) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that additional habitat Public commented that unobserved nectar outside the Mount Charleston blue sources cannot be assumed to be present (11) Comment: We received peer butterfly’s current range in lower at locations the Mount Charleston blue review and public comments stating elevations should be designated. butterfly has been observed, particularly that the Service did not use, or Our Response: As described in the given the uncertainty of the distances misapplied, the best scientific and proposed rule, we considered that the Mount Charleston blue butterfly commercial data available. Commenters campgrounds and day-use areas that can move. suggested that information from Andrew have high levels of public visitation and Our Response: We respectfully et al. (2013) and Thompson et al. (2014) associated recreational disturbance for disagree, because the Mount Charleston was inaccurate or unreliable because of removal from critical habitat, because blue butterfly is typically observed the inexperience of the researchers and these activities have resulted in moving short distances in the same area the errors that were made by them. degraded habitat, or the level of where its nectar (food for adults) and Our Response: We respectfully recreational activity limits or precludes larval hosts occur; thus, unobserved disagree with these comments. In the presence of the Mount Charleston (that is, unreported) nectar plants can be accordance with section 4 of the blue butterfly and its primary assumed to be present with a high Endangered Species Act of 1973, as constituent elements. In this rule, we degree of certainty at locations where amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), refer to these as ‘‘removal areas.’’ The the butterfly has been observed. (See we are required to designate critical Act and our regulations require us to also our response to Comment 3.) habitat on the basis of the best scientific base our decisions on the best available (9) Comment: We received suggested and commercial data available. We used information. In our proposed rule, we changes from two peer reviewers on the information from many different stated that we may remove from general description of Mount Charleston sources, including articles in peer- designation locations referred to as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37408 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Dolomite Campground, Foxtail Girl consulted with the Service on actions Mount Charleston blue butterfly from Scout Camp, Foxtail Group Picnic Area, they intend to implement, authorize, or State of Nevada agencies. One peer Foxtail Snow Play Area, Lee Canyon fund that might affect the Mount reviewer worked for the State of Guard Station, Lee Meadows (extirpated Charleston blue butterfly, including the Nevada, Department of Agriculture, and Mount Charleston blue butterfly Old Mill Wildland Urban Interface concurred that the proposed critical location), McWilliams Campground, Hazardous Fuels Reduction (Old Mill habitat designation was supported by and Old Mill Picnic Area and Youth WUI) Project. When this final the data and conclusions. Camp, because they have extremely designation of critical habitat becomes Public Comments high levels of public visitation and effective (see DATES, above), the Forest associated recreational disturbance. We Service has been notified that further (15) Comment: One public comment did not receive specific information consultation may be needed if ongoing suggested that critical habitat is not from peer reviewers or commenters that or future projects affect designated determinable because of uncertainties of changed our understanding of the critical habitat. Section 7 requires Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat, current habitat conditions and Federal agencies to ensure that any location, and life history. Similarly, recreational use that occurs at Lee action authorized, funded, or carried out other commenters thought that critical Meadows. Furthermore, Lee Meadows is by the agency is not likely to jeopardize habitat should not be designated until not considered to be occupied habitat, the continued existence of listed additional survey work is performed, because of habitat loss or degradation species, or adversely modify or destroy because more information is needed on from past and ongoing recreation their critical habitat, which may be the distribution of butterfly and its host disturbance, and observations of the accomplished by avoiding, minimizing, and nectar resources, and because once Mount Charleston blue butterfly have or mitigating take and adverse effects to critical habitat is designated, it is not been documented there since 1965 critical habitat. Nondiscretionary difficult to change. One commenter (see 78 FR 57750, September 19, 2013; measures associated with such formal stated that a thorough assessment of the Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 6; and consultations can be developed designated wilderness area was needed Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 51–52 for more accordingly during future consultations; to map the extent of habitat. details). While the Service would however, a Federal action agency (for Our Response: We believe sufficient support efforts to restore and protect example, Forest Service) has the information exists (1) to perform the portions of the Lee Meadows area for discretion and authority to implement required analyses of the impacts of the the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, conservation recommendations received critical habitat designation; and (2) to this management decision is outside the from the public on any given project. identify critical habitat based on the scope of the Service’s authority. Based (14) Comment: We received one peer biological needs of the Mount on the above, we have determined the review and one public comment on Charleston blue butterfly. Based on our criteria we established for removal areas climate change. The peer reviewer review, we have determined there is apply to Lee Meadows, and we have provided additional references, and sufficient information available to removed Lee Meadows from this critical recommended we describe the identify critical habitat in accordance habitat designation. functional effects of climate change on with sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the (13) Comment: We received one peer the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. Act. Extensive, but not comprehensive, review and one public comment that The public comment provided surveys for butterflies, and specifically suggested fuel treatment, recreation additional general references and the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and development, and infrastructure requested that additional areas be its habitat, have occurred across the projects were not included or identified included in the critical habitat subspecies’ range and throughout the as threats. In addition, the peer reviewer designation to provide for adaptations to Mount Charleston Wilderness. As is stated that butterfly habitat was being climate change. generally the case with natural history, adversely affected by ongoing or Our Response: We agree that climate existing studies of the Mount Charleston planned projects, including the Old Mill change will likely affect the Mount butterfly have not been able to evaluate Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Charleston blue butterfly and its critical or address all possible variables Fuels Reduction Project; McWilliams, habitat. However, site-specific associated with the subspecies. We Old Mill, Dolomite Recreation Sites information on climate change and its recognize that future research will likely Reconstruction Project; and Foxtail effects on the Mount Charleston blue enhance our current understanding of Group Picnic Area Reconstruction butterfly and its habitat are not available the subspecies’ biology, and additional Project. The public commented that at this time. We received additional survey work could provide a better their recommendations for the Old Mill information on climate change; understanding of the distribution of the Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous however, this information did not Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its Fuels Reduction Project were not being provide enough specificity on areas that habitat. Nonetheless, the Act requires us implemented. likely will be impacted by climate to base our decisions on the best Our Response: We identified threats change. Thus, we are not identifying available scientific and commercial from the implementation of recreational additional areas to include in the information at the time of designation, development projects and fuels critical habitat designation based on this which is often not complete, and the reduction projects described by the information. scientific information about a species commenter in the proposed rule for generally continues to grow and designation of critical habitat (79 FR Comments From States improve with time. Based on this, we 41234, 41237, and 41238; July 15, 2014). Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the utilized the best available information to Additional information on threats to the Secretary shall submit to the State determine areas of critical habitat for the species was considered in the final rule agency a written justification for [her] Mount Charleston blue butterfly. We determining the status of the subspecies failure to adopt regulations consistent will review and consider new as endangered (78 FR 57750; September with the agency’s comments or information as it becomes available. 19, 2013). Since the listing of the Mount petition.’’ We did not receive official (16) Comment: We received one Charleston blue butterfly, the U.S. comments or positions on the proposed comment that the Service selects peer Forest Service (Forest Service) has designation of critical habitat for the reviewers that agree with our decision,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37409

but we do not select peer reviewers that with managed recreation when such Our Response: In accordance with will disagree. recreational activities are properly sited, section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary Our Response: Requests for peer and operation and maintenance of the may exclude any area from critical reviewers were based on their infrastructure needed to support these habitat if she determines that the availability and capacity as independent activities is appropriately managed. For benefits of such exclusion outweigh the specialists with subject matter expertise. example, the Mount Charleston blue benefits of inclusion. The Service did In selecting peer reviewers, we followed butterfly historically occurred and not consider areas for exclusion under our joint policy on peer review currently exists on active ski runs section 4(b)(2) where future recreational published in the Federal Register on within the LVSSR. In addition, only part development is planned, because to our July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), the of the proposed LVSSR expansion area knowledge, the recreational guidelines for Federal agencies as occurs within the critical habitat development plans in place now do not described in the Office of Management designation; future development and identify benefits provided to the Mount and Budget (OMB) ‘‘Final Information expansion of the LVSSR outside of these Charleston blue butterfly. While it is Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’’ areas would likely be unaffected by this possible that some benefits (see our released December 16, 2004, and the final rule. response to Comment 17, above) for the Service’s ‘‘Information Quality (18) Comment: One commenter Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its Guidelines and Peer Review,’’ revised asserts that the screening analysis does habitat may occur as a result of future June 2012. The peer review plan and not adequately address the potential development, specificity on future peer review comments have been posted economic effects of critical habitat development plans or expected on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ designation and any resulting conservation benefits has not been cno/science/peerreview.html. prohibitions or limitations to the future provided. Therefore, areas of (17) Comment: Multiple commenters LVSSR expansion or development of recreational development or expansion expressed concern that the proposed recreational activities. in the LVSSR Master Development Plan critical habitat designation would Our Response: In compliance with are not excluded from critical habitat prohibit or limit the expansion and section 7 of the Act, the Forest Service designation. development of additional recreational (20) Comment: We received many has consulted with the Service on opportunities within areas proposed as comments from the public that the projects affecting the Mount Charleston critical habitat. In particular, designation of critical habitat for Mount blue butterfly since the subspecies was commenters identified existing plans for Charleston blue butterfly should not listed (78 FR 57750; September 19, development that would add hiking, include the LVSSR Special Use Permit 2013). During section 7 consultation, the mountain biking, and ski trails, some of Area (SUPA), because other greater Forest Service has proposed which occur within the authorized threats are affecting the butterfly than minimization measures designed to special use permit area (SUPA) held by would occur from expansion of the ski avoid or minimize impacts to the Mount the Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort area and associated recreational (LVSSR). Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat, opportunities. Our Response: The act of designating such as pre-development site planning, Our Response: We do not consider critical habitat does not summarily effective oversight during threats to a species or subspecies when preclude any activities on the lands that implementation and development, and determining areas to designate as have been designated. Critical habitat proper management of operations and critical habitat. Threats to the Mount receives protection under section 7 of maintenance activities. We anticipate Charleston blue butterfly were the Act through the requirement that that activities occurring within considered and analyzed during the Federal agencies ensure, in consultation designated critical habitat also would determination of its status as with the Service, that any action they have the potential to affect the endangered (78 FR 57750; September authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely subspecies and would require 19, 2013). We determined critical to result in the destruction or adverse consultation regardless of the presence habitat for the Mount Charleston blue modification of critical habitat. of designated critical habitat. That is, butterfly based on the definition in the Furthermore, designation of critical the designation of critical habitat is not Act as follows: The specific areas within habitat does not (1) affect land anticipated to generate additional the geographical area occupied by the ownership; (2) establish any closures or minimization or conservation measures [subspecies] at the time it [was] listed restrictions on use of or access to areas for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly . . . on which are found those physical designated as critical habitat; or (3) beyond those already generated by the or biological features essential to the establish specific land management listing. As such, the screening analysis conservation of the species and which standards or prescriptions. However, limits the future incremental costs of may require special management Federal agencies are prohibited from designating critical habitat associated considerations or protections (16 U.S.C. carrying out, funding, or authorizing with the LVSSR to the administrative 1532(5)(A)). actions that would destroy or adversely costs of analyzing and avoiding adverse We recognize concerns exist regarding modify critical habitat. modification of critical habitat during future development plans for the LVSSR The Service is committed to working section 7 consultations. (Also see our SUPA. Areas of the LVSSR SUPA have with the Forest Service and LVSSR to response to Comment 17, above, for provided habitat for the Mount implement conservation efforts that further discussion.) Charleston blue butterfly for decades, as protect the Mount Charleston blue (19) Comment: Some commenters described in the final listing of the butterfly, while also allowing for state that areas of recreational subspecies (78 FR 57750; September 19, reasonable expansion and development development or expansion in the LVSSR 2013). The Service is committed to of the LVSSR compatible with the Master Development Plan should be working with the Forest Service and Mount Charleston blue butterfly, excluded from the designation because LVSSR to allow for reasonable including skiing and snowboarding in of the associated economic benefits, and expansion and development of the winter and mountain biking and because commenters believe the recreational opportunities, including hiking in the summer. The Mount development plan will benefit the skiing and snowboarding in the winter Charleston blue butterfly can coexist butterfly and its habitat. and mountain biking and hiking in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37410 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

summer, within the SUPA that are critical habitat, the economic impacts of quarter-quarter sections to encompass compatible with the Mount Charleston a critical habitat designation in areas of primary constituent elements blue butterfly and its habitat. occupied areas are generally limited to was arbitrary and capricious, or (21) Comment: One commenter the costs of consultations on actions illogical. Public comments suggested asserts the screening analysis is flawed with a Federal nexus, and are primarily that of the 702 acres (ac) (284 hectares because it contradicts existing case law borne by the Federal action agencies. As (ha)) authorized in the LVSSR SUPA by using ‘‘the functional equivalence described in our final economic that occur within proposed critical approach when considering the analysis, in some cases private habitat, only 3.6 ac (1.5 ha) are known economic impact of [critical habitat] individuals may incur some costs as to be occupied by the Mount Charleston designation on the LVSSR property [= third-party applicants in an action with blue butterfly, and essentially are SUPA] by concluding that any economic a Federal nexus. Beyond this, while surrounded by a barrier of forest. One impact occurred as a result of the listing small business entities may possibly public comment stated the Mount of the species.’’ experience some economic impacts as a Charleston blue butterfly has never been Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the result of a listing of a species as observed far from its habitat by leading Act requires the consideration of endangered or threatened under the Act, experts, and suggested that designating potential economic impacts associated small businesses do not generally areas between patches of habitat was with the designation of critical habitat. experience substantial economic overly broad and resulted in proposed However, as we have explained impacts as a direct result of the designation of areas of unoccupied elsewhere (see our response to designation of critical habitat. habitat not essential to the conservation Comment 17, above), the regulatory (22) Comment: We received several of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, effect of critical habitat under the Act comments that the Las Vegas Ski and and that such areas should not be directly impacts only Federal agencies, Snowboard Resort Area should be designated as critical habitat. as a result of the requirement that those excluded from critical habitat in Our Response: We used quarter- agencies avoid ‘‘adverse modification’’ accordance with the Ski Area quarter sections (generally 40 ac (16 ha)) of critical habitat. Specifically, section Recreational Opportunity Enhancement to delineate the boundaries of critical 7(a)(2) of the Act states that, ‘‘Each Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112–46), or the habitat units because, as stated in the Federal agency shall, in consultation designation of critical habitat should proposed designation, they provide a with and with the assistance of the give credence to the Act ‘‘. . . which readily available systematic method to Secretary, insure that any action aims to bolster summer tourism and stir identify areas that encompass the authorized, funded, or carried out by year-round economic activity in physical and biological features such agency . . . is not likely to mountain towns.’’ essential to the conservation of the jeopardize the continued existence of Our Response: The Ski Area Mount Charleston blue butterfly, and any endangered species or threatened Recreational Opportunity Enhancement they provide boundaries that are easy to species or result in the destruction or Act of 2011 (SAROEA), which amends describe and interpret for the general adverse modification of habitat of such the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act public and land management agencies. species which is determined by the of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b), does not The selection of any given quarter- Secretary . . . to be critical . . .’’ This supersede the requirements of the quarter section was systematically then, is the regulatory impact of a Endangered Species Act. Section 3 of selected based on our understanding of critical habitat designation, and serves SAROEA provides the Secretary of the best scientific and commercial data as the foundation of our economic Agriculture authority to authorize a ski available on the occurrence of the analysis. We define it as an area permittee to provide other physical and biological features ‘‘incremental impact,’’ because it is an recreational opportunities determined to essential to the conservation of the economic impact that is incurred above be appropriate. The SAROEA requires Mount Charleston blue butterfly. We and beyond the baseline impacts that that authorizations by the Secretary of recognize that there are areas within the stem from the listing of the species (for Agriculture be in accordance with critical habitat unit boundaries that do example, costs associated with avoiding ‘‘applicable land and resource not possess the primary constituent take under section 9 of the Act, management plan[s]’’ and ‘‘applicable elements, such as buildings, pavement, mentioned by the commenter); thus it laws (including regulations).’’ and other structures, and these areas are ‘‘incrementally’’ adds to those baseline Furthermore, section 4 of SAROEA excluded by text in the final critical costs. However, in most cases, and states, ‘‘Nothing in the amendments habitat rule (see section Criteria Used especially where the habitat in question made by this Act establishes a legal To Identify Critical Habitat). In the is already occupied by the listed preference for the holder of a ski area quarter-quarter sections that are species, as is the case for the Mount permit to provide activities and included, suitable habitat is distributed Charleston blue butterfly, if there is a associated facilities authorized by across the area. Federal nexus, the action agency already section 3(c) of the National Forest Ski Reported acres of habitat in previous consults with the Service to ensure its Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. Federal Register documents do not actions will not jeopardize the 497b(c)) (as amended by section 3).’’ reflect the best available science continued existence of the species. There is no legal direction or currently available. In the 90-day and Therefore, the additional costs of requirement that stems from the 12-month findings (72 FR 29935–29936, consultation to further ensure the action SAROEA for the Service to modify May 30, 2007; 76 FR 12670, March 8, will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. As described in our 2011), we reported some of the first critical habitat are usually relatively response to Comment 17, above, we patches of habitat for the Mount minimal. Because the Act provides for expect that properly planned, designed, Charleston blue butterfly to be 3.7 ac the consideration of economic impacts managed, and implemented recreation (1.5 ha), and two areas of 2.4 ac (0.97 associated only with the designation of may occur in close proximity to Mount ha) and 1.3 ac (0.53 ha) at the LVSSR. critical habitat, and because the Charleston blue butterfly habitat. As a result of additional survey work in regulatory effect of critical habitat is the (23) Comment: We received many 2012, we identified the area of known requirement that Federal agencies avoid public comments that the critical habitat occupied habitat at LVSSR as 25.7 ac destruction or adverse modification of area was too large, and the use of the (10.4 ha) in the final rule listing the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37411

Mount Charleston blue butterfly as (25) Comment: We received many with the exception of the removal areas endangered (78 FR 57754; September public comments that the Service (see our response to Comment 12), we 19, 2013). Additional habitat has been should assemble a recovery team and have determined that the three occupied mapped (Forest Service 2013, Figure 2) have a collaborative and inclusive critical habitat units identified in this within the LVSSR SUPA, and more may recovery planning process. rule contain the physical and biological be present in areas that have not been Our Response: We agree that we features essential to the conservation of adequately surveyed. There are small should have a collaborative and the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, areas with primary constituent elements inclusive recovery planning process, and no unoccupied areas are necessary distributed across the entire area of the and will work to fulfill our statutory for designation. LVSSR SUPA within Unit 2, which mandate under section 4 of the Act, (28) Comment: We received public overlaps with approximately 60 percent which requires us to develop and comments that there was no evidence of the LVSSR SUPA. The ability of the implement a recovery plan for the the Mount Charleston blue butterfly was Mount Charleston blue butterfly to Mount Charleston blue butterfly now unique, and, therefore, it should not be move among or between close patches that the species is listed and critical listed as endangered. In addition, we of habitat within each critical habitat habitat is designated. received comments that requested us to unit is necessary and essential for the (26) Comment: We received several list the Mount Charleston blue butterfly conservation and recovery of the public comments suggesting that LVSSR under the Act. subspecies. Movements between SUPA should be excluded from critical Our Response: We evaluated and patches of habitat to restore a habitat because more Mount Charleston described the of the Mount functioning metapopulation blue butterflies were observed in Unit 1 Charleston blue butterfly during the (hypothesized to have failed because of than Unit 2, better habitat was present listing process of the subspecies, and it reduced landscape permeability, as in Unit 1 than in Unit 2, and the was determined to be a valid taxonomic described in Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. Carpenter 1 Fire will likely improve entity for considering listing under the 25) are necessary for recovery of the habitat in Unit 1. Act. The listing process required us to Our Response: Exclusions to critical Mount Charleston blue butterfly. publish a proposed rule in the Federal habitat are considered in accordance Register (77 FR 59518; September 27, We recognize that habitat is dynamic, with section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see our 2012) and solicit public comments on the extent of habitat may shift, surveys response to Comment 19), which does the rule (see Previous Federal Actions have not occurred in every area, and not allow consideration or comparison section for more details). Information butterflies move between patches of of population numbers between critical we received during the 60-day comment habitat. Therefore, we adjusted some of habitat units. We agree that Unit 1 likely period for the proposed rule informed the methodology we used to identify has better habitat, has higher densities the final rule determining endangered critical habitat in this final rule. We of Mount Charleston blue butterflies, species status for the subspecies (78 FR used a 1,000-meter (3,300-foot) distance and is more likely to improve in some 57750; September 19, 2013). Listing of to approximate potential Mount areas as a result of the Carpenter 1 Fire. the Mount Charleston blue butterfly as Charleston blue butterfly movements The critical habitat for the Mount endangered was effective October 21, within critical habitat units. We believe Charleston blue butterfly in Unit 2 at 2013. the use of quarter-quarter sections LVSSR is essential to the conservation (29) Comment: One commenter stated provides an effective boundary and and recovery of the subspecies, because that the proposed rule to designate scale that encompasses likely butterfly of the subspecies’ restricted range, critical habitat relies too much on the movements within and between habitat overall low numbers, and occupancy of use of linguistically uncertain or vague patches, and is easily recognizable by few locations, which we described in wording (for example, ‘‘presumed to,’’ land management agencies and the the final listing rule (78 FR 57750; ‘‘suspected of,’’ ‘‘likely to be,’’ and general public. Therefore, this September 19, 2013). Additionally, the ‘‘anticipated to’’) to support its methodology resulted in the three population of Mount Charleston blue conclusions. separate occupied critical habitat units butterflies in Unit 2 and at LVSSR is one Our Response: The language in the essential to the conservation and of three known occupied locations. proposed and final rules reflects the recovery of the Mount Charleston blue While other presumed occupied uncertainty that exists in natural history butterfly that are identified in this final locations exist outside of designated studies, and we have attempted to be rule. critical habitat, the location within transparent and explicitly characterize (24) Comment: We received LVSSR is important because it is known that uncertainty where applicable. comments that feral horses were occupied habitat with primary Under the Act, we base our decision on affecting the Mount Charleston blue constituent elements essential to the the best available scientific and butterfly and its habitat, and they conservation and recovery of the commercial information, even if that should be removed. subspecies. Also see our responses to information includes some level of Our Response: Threats to the Mount Comments 18 and 21, above. uncertainty. Charleston blue butterfly were evaluated (27) Comment: We received many (30) Comment: We received one in the final rule for listing the public comments that critical habitat public comment proposing an subspecies as endangered (78 FR 57750; should include historical, but additional removal area from Unit 2 September 19, 2013). Management of unoccupied, areas. within the LVSSR SUPA because of feral horses is outside the scope of the Our Response: We reviewed all areas intensive levels of recreational Service’s authority, and comments on where the Mount Charleston blue activities. this matter should be directed to the butterfly has been documented, as Our Response: We reviewed and appropriate land manager. The Service described in the final listing rule (78 FR evaluated information on the additional will continue to advocate for 57750; September 19, 2013). For species proposed removal area within the appropriate management levels of feral listed under the Act, we may designate LVSSR SUPA. Some of the proposed horses to avoid or minimize potential critical habitat in unoccupied areas removal area contains concentrations of conflicts with the Mount Charleston when these areas are essential for the buildings, roads, ski lift structures, and blue butterfly. conservation of a species. However, recreation facilities (developed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37412 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

infrastructure) that receive high levels of Mount Charleston blue butterfly has not Charleston blue butterfly, because it was public recreation and facilities been observed since 1995. The Forest larger, ranked among the most vagile management. These areas lack physical Service indicated that because they species of Lycaenidae, and had a hill- or biological features necessary for the presume occupancy in suitable habitat, topping mating behavior that suggests Mount Charleston blue butterfly, and they initiate section 7 consultations and higher flight heights than the Mount because of the high concentrations of the benefits of designating critical Charleston blue butterfly. disturbance from public use and habitat are negligible. Our Response: We have reviewed management, are not likely to be Our Response: The Mount Charleston information on Lepidoptera movements suitable in the future. Therefore, we do blue butterfly was last observed in the emphasizing information on sedentary not include in this critical habitat North Loop Unit 3 in 1995 by Weiss et lycaenid butterflies, and revised the designation a portion of the area al. (1997), who determined its presence criteria for connectivity to provide an mentioned by this commenter because and occupancy within this unit. Surveys approximation based on a range of its omission from the designation is have been insufficient to determine that documented distances (300–1500 m) consistent with the rationale for the the Mount Charleston blue butterfly has (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical removal areas we named in the July 15, been extirpated from Unit 3. The last Habitat section). 2014, proposed rule (see our response to surveys for the Mount Charleston blue In general, we reexamined the criteria Comment 12). butterfly in Unit 3 occurred in 2006 (3 used to identify critical habitat as they visits) and 2012 (2 visits) (Boyd 2006, p. relate to dispersal for butterflies and the Comments From Federal Agencies 1; Kingsley 2007, p. 6; Andrew et al. 2,440-m (8,000-ft) buffer distance (31) Comment: The Forest Service 2013, p. 28), and some of these surveys applied for connectivity and corridors. commented that the benefits of occurred early in the season (mid-June We originally used dispersal distances designating critical habitat were and early July) making the likelihood of reported for the Mission blue butterfly negligible because they must consult detecting adults to be low. Furthermore, (Plebejus icarioides missionensis), with the Service as a result of the listed Thompson et al. (2014, p. 156) indicate because of its close taxonomic relation status of the Mount Charleston blue that, based on their experience to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly butterfly in areas that contain habitat for performing extensive surveys for the and the availability of measured the butterfly, whether it is occupied or Mount Charleston blue butterfly, it may dispersal distances for the Mission blue not. The Forest Service stated they persist at a location (for example, butterfly. The commenter is correct that assume that areas with suitable habitat LVSSR and Bonanza), but be nearly the Boisduval’s blue butterfly is are occupied by the Mount Charleston undetectable with typical survey effort. reported as ‘‘the largest blue’’ butterfly blue butterfly and have developed For example, Boyd and Murphy (2008, in North America. Scott (1986, p. 409) protocols and designed criteria, in p. 3) hypothesized that the failure to and Arnold et al. (1983, pp. 47–48) coordination with the Service, which observe the Mount Charleston blue describe the Mission blue butterfly (P. i. will ‘‘provide all the benefits listed in butterfly for 3 consecutive years and missionensis) to ‘‘. . . rank among the the Service’s proposal to designate after intensive surveys in 2008, was most vagile species of Lycaeninae’’ critical habitat.’’ ‘‘strong evidence’’ of its extirpation in because of long movements outside the Our Response: Under section Lee Canyon. However Thompson et al. study site (Scott 1975; Shreeve 1981). 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Service is observed an adult female at the same However, we are unaware of required to designate critical habitat for location surveyed at LVSSR on July 23, information to support the comment species or subspecies listed as 2010. Thus, the Mount Charleston blue that the Boisduval’s blue or Mission endangered or threatened, if prudent butterfly could be present at a location blue butterfly is a hill-topping species or and determinable. The Service is not and remain undetected in areas with subspecies (Scott 1968, Table 2; Arnold relieved of this statutory obligation suitable habitat even with intensive et al. 1983, p. 32) or of information when a Federal agency is already surveys as exemplified by the preceding relating hill-topping or flight height to complying with section 7 obligations to surveys during a 5-year time period. dispersal distance. consult if an action may affect a listed Therefore, it is appropriate to consider Based on reports and descriptions of species or subspecies. While we critical habitat in Unit 3 occupied. its movements, we agree that the appreciate the Forest Service’s previous We appreciate the work that the vagility of the Mount Charleston blue and ongoing efforts to develop effective Forest Service has done to conserve the butterfly is likely similar to other related conservation and management strategies Mount Charleston blue butterfly, and we Lycaenidae, and its mobility can be to protect the Mount Charleston blue will continue to work with them to characterized as sedentary or low (10– butterfly and its habitat, section 4 of the implement conservation efforts that 100 m (33–330 ft)) (Cushman and Act requires the Service to identify areas protect the Mount Charleston blue Murphy 1993, p. 40; Weiss et al. 1997, that provide the physical or biological butterfly while also consulting on Table 2; Fleishman et al. 1997, Table 2; features essential to the conservation of projects that may affect the Mount Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 3, 9; the subspecies and designate these areas Charleston blue butterfly in the future. Thompson et al. 2013, pp. 118–121). as critical habitat. We will continue to (33) Comment: The Forest Service However, studies of a butterfly’s work with the Forest Service to suggested that the 2,440-meter (m) mobility and short-distant movements implement conservation efforts that (8,000-foot (ft)) buffer proposed by the observed in mark-release-recapture do protect the Mount Charleston blue Service as needed for movement not accurately detect the longest butterfly and its habitat while also corridors was greater than the ‘‘known movements of individuals, and thus are consulting on projects that may affect limits’’ of the Mount Charleston blue likely not reliable estimates of a species’ the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. butterfly; therefore, the Forest Service dispersal distances (Wilson and Thomas (32) Comment: The Forest Service recommended a 200-m (660-ft) buffer. 2002, pp. 259 and 264; Stevens et al. commented that they were concerned The Forest Service suggested that 2010, p. 625). In addition, the maximum with the methods the Service used to movements by Mission blue butterflies distances obtained from mark-release- define occupancy, particularly the (which are Boisduval’s blue butterflies) recapture studies underestimate how far inclusion of Unit 3 (North Loop, were not appropriate to use as a butterflies may disperse. These studies Mummy Springs location), where the ‘‘surrogate’’ for movement by the Mount also underestimate the number of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37413

individuals which will move long and other structures, because such lands proposed designation by 347 ac (140 distances, because individuals that lack the physical or biological features ha). The final area of critical habitat leave a habitat patch or study area and for Mount Charleston blue butterfly. designated for the Mount Charleston do not reach another patch often go However, the Mount Charleston blue blue butterfly is approximately 2,228 ac undetected (Cushman and Murphy butterfly and its habitat have been (902 ha) in Unit 1, 2,573 ac (1,041 ha) 1993, p. 40; Wilson and Thomas 2002, documented in close proximity to trails in Unit 2, and 413 ac (167 ha) in Unit p. 261). and administrative roads (Weiss et al. 3, which amounts to a total of 5,214 ac Limited estimates of Mount 1997, p. 10 and Map 3.1; Boyd and (2,110 ha). Charleston blue butterfly movements are Murphy 2008, pp. 4–7; Thompson Changes From the Background Section available. Distances between patches of 2014b) near some of the areas that the of the Proposed Rule habitat for Mount Charleston blue Forest Service requested we remove butterfly locations delineated by from critical habitat designation in Unit Species Information Andrew et al. 2013 and Thompson et al. 2. In addition, the Mount Charleston Taxonomy and Species Description 2014 in Unit 2 (measured in Geographic blue butterfly and its habitat have been Information System (GIS)) range documented within the area near radio The Mount Charleston blue butterfly between 300 m and 700 m (990 ft and repeaters in Unit 1 (Andrew et al. 2013, is a subspecies of the wider ranging 2300 ft), suggesting the butterfly is Figure 17). Therefore, the areas the Shasta blue butterfly (Icaricia shasta), capable of movements greater than the Forest Service requested for removal are which is a member of the family commenter’s recommended 200 m (660 designated as critical habitat in this Lycaenidae. Pelham (2014) recognized ft). Aside from characterizations of the rule. six subspecies of Shasta blue butterflies. Mount Charleston blue butterfly’s Discussion of previous taxonomic within-patch movements, we are Summary of Changes From Proposed treatments and subspecies description unaware of data describing its Rule may be found in the final rule to list the maximum dispersal distance. Therefore, Based on information we received Mount Charleston blue butterfly and any approximation of dispersal for the during the comment period, we made proposed rule to designate critical Mount Charleston blue butterfly must be the following changes to the proposed habitat (78 FR 57751 and 79 FR 41227). inferred from other sources or species rule: We listed the Mount Charleston blue for which we do have available (1) We have updated the genus from butterfly as Plebejus shasta movement data. We recognize that there Plebejus to Icaricia for the Mount charlestonensis as endangered effective are numerous interacting factors, both Charleston blue butterfly to reflect more on October 21, 2013 (see 78 FR 57750; intrinsic (for example, genetics, size, current scientific studies and use. The September 19, 2013). We cited Pelham health, life history) and extrinsic (for Service will now use Icaricia shasta (2008, p. 265) as justification for using example, habitat quality and charlestonensis for the Mount the name Plebejus shasta configuration, weather, population Charleston blue butterfly. This includes charlestonensis. Opler and Warren density), that may affect dispersal amending the scientific name we set (2003, p. 30) used the name Plebejus estimates of butterfly species. As such, forth in the List of Endangered and shasta in their list of scientific names of we have revised the criteria for Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h). butterflies, but did not list subspecies. connectivity to reflect the range of (2) In response to the comments we Based on more recent published documented distances, as described received from peer and public scientific data and in keeping with above. reviewers, we have updated the regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(b) to use the (34) Comment: The Forest Service following sections to incorporate most recently accepted scientific name, requested that areas be removed from literature and information provided or we will use the name Icaricia shasta critical habitat designation that are to clarify language based on suggestions charlestonensis for the Mount within a 25-m (83-ft) buffer surrounding made: Species Information, Physical or Charleston blue butterfly throughout existing waterlines and administrative Biological Features, and Primary this document. We are recognizing and roads associated with previously Constituent Elements for the Mount accepting here the change in the removed recreation facilities, in Unit 2. Charleston Blue Butterfly (see updated scientific name for the Mount The Forest Service stated the areas sections in this final rule). Charleston blue butterfly. Icaricia has receive periodic maintenance, lack (3) We have modified critical habitat previously been treated as a genus primary constituent elements, and are boundaries to account for the areas closely related to Plebejus (Nabokov ‘‘within the bounds of justification used initially proposed for removal, public 1945, pp. 1–61) or as a subgenus of for excluding [sic] the initial recreation comments on these proposed removals, Plebejus (Tilden 1973, p. 13). areas.’’ In addition, the Forest Service and our subsequent review of the data Data-driven studies undertaken just requested that an area be removed from on the proposed removals. In addition prior to and just after our listing of the the proposed critical habitat designation to the initial proposed removal areas, butterfly (Vila et al. 2011 and Talavera in Unit 1, where radio repeaters with we have removed an area within the et al. 2013, pp. 166–192 (first published required annual maintenance occur. The LVSSR SUPA to be consistent with the online September 2012)) support and Forest Service states that the area was criteria, in that the areas are highly confirm recognition of Icaricia as a surveyed for habitat and only the host disturbed and receive high genus distinct from Plebejus for a group plant Astragalus platytropis was concentrations of public recreation or of species that includes the Mount present, and they stated that the nearest recreation management. We have Charleston blue butterfly. The studies documented citing of a Mount modified the description of the areas are based on analyses of mitochondrial Charleston blue butterfly was 200 m removed from critical habitat. We have and nuclear DNA of a broad array of (660 ft) away. made changes to maps, units, and the New World species. This recognition Our Response: When determining text of this final rule. We have removed and delineation of Icaricia is accepted critical habitat boundaries within this 267 ac (108 ha) from proposed Unit 2 and followed by Grishin (2012, pp. 117– final rule, we made every effort to avoid and 80 ac (32 ha) from proposed Unit 120), who provides descriptions of including developed areas, such as 1. In total, the final critical habitat morphological features to distinguish lands covered by buildings, pavement, designation has decreased from the the Mount Charleston blue butterfly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37414 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

from 4 of the other 13 blue butterflies (described under Physical or Biological be able to delay maturation during that occur in the Spring Mountains of Features, below (Weiss et al. 1994, p. 3; drought or the shortened growing Nevada. Pelham’s online Catalogue of Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10; Boyd 2005, p. seasons that follow winters with heavy butterflies of the United States and 1; DataSmiths 2007, p. 21; Boyd and snowfall and late snowmelt by Canada, revised June 22, 2014, lists the Murphy 2008, p. 9; Andrew et al. 2013, remaining as eggs through one or more Mount Charleston blue butterfly as a pp. 4–12; Thompson et al. 2014, pp. 97– years, or returning to diapause as larvae, subspecies of Icaricia shasta. The format 158)). The typical flight and breeding perhaps even more than once.’’ Experts of Pelham’s Catalogue does not include period for the butterfly is early July to have hypothesized and demonstrated reference to supportive data (e.g., Vila et mid-August, with a peak in late July, that, in some species of Lepidoptera, a al. 2011 or Talavera et al. 2013). The although the subspecies has been prolonged diapause period may be Integrated Taxonomic Information observed as early as mid-June and as possible in response to unfavorable System (ITIS) database (ITIS 2015) late as mid-September (Austin 1980, p. environmental conditions (Scott 1986, follows Pelham’s Catalogue, but as yet 22; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. 17; pp. 26–30; Murphy 2006, p. 1; has not been updated to the 2014 Thompson et al. 2014, pp. 105–116). DataSmiths 2007, p. 6; Boyd and revised version and likewise does not Like all butterfly species, both the Murphy 2008, p. 22), and this has been cite supportive data. phenology (timing) and number of hypothesized for the Mount Charleston We are recognizing the change in the Mount Charleston blue butterfly blue butterfly as well (Thompson et al. scientific name of the Mount Charleston individuals that emerge and fly to 2014, p.157). Little has been confirmed blue butterfly to Icaricia shasta reproduce during a particular year regarding the length of time or life stage charlestonensis, based on data appear to be reliant on the combination in which the Mount Charleston blue presented by Vila et al. (2011) and of many environmental factors that may butterfly diapauses. Talavera et al. (2013) and accepted by constitute a successful (‘‘favorable’’) or Most butterfly populations exist as Grishin (2012) and Pelham (2014). unsuccessful (‘‘poor’’) year for the regional metapopulations (Murphy et al. Updating the nomenclature, which is subspecies. Specific information 1990, p. 44). Boyd and Murphy (2008, reflective of its current taxonomic regarding diapause of the Mount p. 23) suggest this is true of the Mount status, does not impact the ’s Charleston blue butterfly is lacking, and Charleston blue butterfly. Small habitat description, distribution, or listing while geographic and subspecific patches tend to support smaller status. variation in life histories can vary, we butterfly populations that are frequently presume information on the diapause of extirpated by events that are part of Habitat and Biology other Shasta blue butterflies is similar to normal variation (Murphy et al. 1990, p. Weiss et al. (1997, pp. 10–11) describe that of the Mount Charleston blue 44). According to Boyd and Austin the natural habitat for the Mount butterfly. The Shasta blue butterfly is (1999, p. 17), smaller colonies of the Charleston blue butterfly as relatively generally thought to diapause at the Mount Charleston blue butterfly may be flat ridgelines above 2,500 m (8,200 ft), base of its larval host plant or in the ephemeral in the long term, with the but isolated individuals have been surrounding substrate (Emmel and larger colonies of the subspecies more observed as low as 2,000 m (6,600 ft). Shields 1980, p. 132) as an egg the first likely than smaller populations to Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 19) indicate winter and as a larva near maturity the persist in ‘‘poor’’ years, when that areas occupied by the subspecies second winter (Ferris and Brown 1981, environmental conditions do not feature exposed soil and rock substrates, pp. 203–204; Scott 1986, p. 411); support the emergence, flight, and with limited or no canopy cover or however, Emmel and Shields (1980, p. reproduction of individuals. The ability shading. 132) suggested that diapause was passed of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly Other than observations by surveyors, as partly grown larvae, because freshly to move between habitat patches has not little information is available regarding hatched eggshells were found near been studied; however, field most aspects of the subspecies’ biology newly laid eggs (indicating that the eggs observations indicate the subspecies has and the key determinants for the do not overwinter). More recent low vagility (capacity or tendency of a interactions among the Mount observations of late summer hatched species to move about or disperse in a Charleston blue butterfly’s life history and overwintering unhatched eggs of given environment), on the order of 10 and environmental conditions. the Mount Charleston blue butterfly to 100 m (33 to 330 ft) (Weiss et al. Observations indicate that above- or eggs laid in the Spring Mountains may 1995, p. 9), and nearly sedentary below-average precipitation, coupled indicate that it has an environmentally behavior (DataSmiths 2007, p. 21; Boyd with above- or below-average cued and mixed diapause life cycle; and Murphy 2008, pp. 3 and 9). temperatures, influence the phenology however, further observations Furthermore, movement of lycaenid of this subspecies (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. supporting egg viability are needed to butterflies, in general, is limited and on 2–3 and 32; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. confirm this (Thompson et al. 2014, p. the order of hundreds of meters 8), and are likely responsible directly or 131). (Cushman and Murphy 1993, p. 40); indirectly for the fluctuation in Prolonged or multiple years of however, there are small portions of a population numbers from year to year, diapause has been documented for population that can make substantially because they affect host and nectar several butterfly families, including long movements (Arnold 1983, pp. 47– plants (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. 2–3 and Lycaenidae (Pratt and Emmel 2010, p. 48). 31–32). More research is needed to 108). For example, the pupae of the Based on this information, the understand the functional relationship variable checkerspot butterfly likelihood of dispersal more than between the Mount Charleston blue (Euphydryas chalcedona, which is in hundreds of meters (yards) is low for the butterfly and its habitat and weather. the Nymphalid family) are known to Mount Charleston blue butterfly, but it Like most butterfly species, the Mount persist in diapause up to 5 to 7 years may occur. It is hypothesized that the Charleston blue butterfly is dependent (Scott 1986, p. 28). The number of years Mount Charleston blue butterfly could on available and accessible nectar plant the Mount Charleston blue butterfly can diapause for multiple years (more than species for the adult butterfly flight remain in diapause is unknown. Boyd 2) as larvae and pupae until vegetation period, when breeding and egg-laying and Murphy (2008, p. 21) suggest the conditions are favorable to support occurs, and for larval development Mount Charleston blue butterfly ‘‘may emergence, flight, and reproduction

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37415

(Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 12, 21). or enhancement measures by non- Information Standards Under the This could account in part for periodic Federal landowners. Where a landowner Endangered Species Act (published in high numbers (as was documented by requests Federal agency funding or the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 Weiss et al. in 1995) of butterflies authorization for an action that may FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act observed at more sites in years with affect a listed species or critical habitat, (section 515 of the Treasury and General favorable conditions than in years with the consultation requirements of section Government Appropriations Act for unfavorable conditions. Additional 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. future research regarding diapause in the event of a destruction or adverse 5658)), and our associated Information patterns of the Mount Charleston blue modification finding, the obligation of Quality Guidelines provide criteria, butterfly is needed to further our the Federal action agency and the establish procedures, and provide understanding of this subspecies. landowner is not to restore or recover guidance to ensure that our decisions the species, but to implement are based on the best scientific data Critical Habitat reasonable and prudent alternatives to available. They require our biologists, to Background avoid destruction or adverse the extent consistent with the Act and modification of critical habitat. with the use of the best scientific data Critical habitat is defined in section 3 Under the first prong of the Act’s available, to use primary and original of the Act as: definition of critical habitat, areas sources of information as the basis for (1) The specific areas within the within the geographical area occupied recommendations to designate critical geographical area occupied by the by the species at the time it was listed habitat. species, at the time it is listed in are included in a critical habitat When we are determining which areas accordance with the Act, on which are designation if they contain physical or should be designated as critical habitat, found those physical or biological biological features (1) which are our primary source of information is features essential to the conservation of the generally the information developed (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require during the listing process for the species, and special management considerations or species. Additional information sources (b) Which may require special protection. For these areas, critical may include the recovery plan for the management considerations or habitat designations identify, to the species, articles in peer-reviewed protection; and extent known using the best scientific journals, conservation plans developed (2) Specific areas outside the and commercial data available, those by States and counties, scientific status geographical area occupied by the physical or biological features that are surveys and studies, biological species at the time it is listed, upon a essential to the conservation of the assessments, other unpublished determination that such areas are species (such as space, food, cover, and materials, or experts’ opinions or essential for the conservation of the protected habitat). In identifying those personal knowledge. species. physical or biological features within an Habitat is dynamic, and species may Conservation, as defined under area, we focus on the principal move from one area to another over section 3 of the Act, means to use and biological or physical constituent time. We recognize that critical habitat the use of all methods and procedures elements (primary constituent elements designated at a particular point in time that are necessary to bring an such as roost sites, nesting grounds, may not include all of the habitat areas endangered or threatened species to the seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, that we may later determine are point at which the measures provided soil type) that are essential to the necessary for the recovery of the pursuant to the Act are no longer conservation of the species. Primary species. For these reasons, a critical necessary. Such methods and constituent elements are those specific habitat designation does not signal that procedures include, but are not limited elements of the physical or biological habitat outside the designated area is to, all activities associated with features that provide for a species’ life- unimportant or may not be needed for scientific resources management such as history processes and are essential to recovery of the species. Areas that are research, census, law enforcement, the conservation of the species. important to the conservation of the habitat acquisition and maintenance, Under the second prong of the Act’s species, both inside and outside the propagation, live trapping, and definition of critical habitat, we can critical habitat designation, will transplantation, and, in the designate critical habitat in areas continue to be subject to: (1) extraordinary case where population outside the geographical area occupied Conservation actions implemented pressures within a given ecosystem by the species at the time it is listed, under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) cannot be otherwise relieved, may upon a determination that such areas regulatory protections afforded by the include regulated taking. are essential for the conservation of the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act Critical habitat receives protection species. For example, an area currently for Federal agencies to insure their under section 7 of the Act through the occupied by the species but that was not actions are not likely to jeopardize the requirement that Federal agencies occupied at the time of listing may be continued existence of any endangered ensure, in consultation with the Service, essential to the conservation of the or threatened species, and (3) section 9 that any action they authorize, fund, or species and may be included in the of the Act’s prohibitions on taking any carry out is not likely to result in the critical habitat designation. We individual of the species, including destruction or adverse modification of designate critical habitat in areas taking caused by actions that affect critical habitat. The designation of outside the geographical area occupied habitat. Federally funded or permitted critical habitat does not affect land by a species only when a designation projects affecting listed species outside ownership or establish a refuge, limited to its range would be inadequate their designated critical habitat areas wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other to ensure the conservation of the may still result in jeopardy findings in conservation area. Such designation species. some cases. These protections and does not allow the government or public Section 4 of the Act requires that we conservation tools will continue to to access private lands. Such designate critical habitat on the basis of contribute to recovery of this species. designation does not require the best scientific and commercial data Similarly, critical habitat designations implementation of restoration, recovery, available. Further, our Policy on made on the basis of the best available

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37416 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

information at the time of designation Pinyon 2011, p. 17; Andrew et al. 2013, stages (egg, larva, pupa, adult) result will not control the direction and pp. 20–61; Thompson et al. 2014, pp. from observations by surveyors, and substance of future recovery plans, 97–158). Dominant plant communities research to determine the requirements habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or between these elevation bounds are and environmental conditions essential other species conservation planning variable (Forest Service 1998, pp. 11– to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. efforts if new information available at 12), but locations that support the In general, resources that are thought to the time of these planning efforts calls Mount Charleston blue butterfly are fulfill these requirements occur in open for a different outcome. characterized by open areas bordered, areas with exposed soil and rock near, or surrounded by forests substrates with short, widely spaced Physical or Biological Features composed of ponderosa pine (Pinus forbs and grasses. These areas allow In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) ponderosa), Great Basin bristlecone pine light to reach the ground in order for and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations (Pinus longaeva), and white fir (Abies adult nectar and larval host plants to at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which concolor) (Andrew et al. 2013, p. 5). grow. areas within the geographical area These open forest conditions are often Adult Mount Charleston blue occupied by the species at the time of created by disturbances such as fire and butterflies have been documented listing to designate as critical habitat, avalanches (Weiss et al. 1995, p. 5; feeding on nectar from a number of we consider the physical or biological DataSmiths 2007, p. 21; Boyd and different flowering plants, but most features essential to the conservation of Murphy 2008, pp. 23–24; Thompson et frequently the species reported are the species and which may require al. 2014, pp. 97–158), but the open- Erigeron clokeyi (Clokey’s fleabane), special management considerations or forest or non-forest conditions also exist Eriogonum umbellatum var. versicolor protection. These include, but are not as a function of occurring in higher (sulphur-flower buckwheat), limited to: subalpine elevations (i.e., above Hymenoxys cooperi (Cooper (1) Space for individual and treeline) (for example, Nachlinger and rubberweed), and Hymenoxys lemmonii population growth and for normal Reese 1996, Appendix I–64–72). (Lemmon bitterweed) (Weiss et al. 1997, behavior; The Mount Charleston blue butterfly p. 11; Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 13, (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or is described to occur on relatively flat 16; Pinyon 2011, p. 17; Andrew 2013, other nutritional or physiological ridgetops, gently sloping hills, or pp. 8; Thompson et al. 2014, pp. 117– requirements; meadows, where tree cover is absent to 118). Densities of nectar plants generally (3) Cover or shelter; less than 50 percent (Austin 1980, p. 22; occur at more than 2 per square meter (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or Weiss et al. 1995, pp. 5–6; Weiss et al. (m2) (0.2 per square foot (ft2)) for smaller rearing (or development) of offspring; 1997, pp. 10, 32–34; Boyd and Austin plants such as E. clokeyi and more than and 1999, p. 17; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 0.1 per m2 (0.01 per ft2) for larger and (5) Habitats that are protected from 19; Andrews et al. 2013, p. 3; Thompson taller plants such as Hymenoxys sp. and disturbance or are representative of the et al. 2014, p. 138). Boyd and Murphy E. umbellatum (Thompson et al. 2014, historical, geographical, and ecological (2008, p. 19) go on to suggest general p. 138). Nectar plants typically occur distributions of a species. descriptions of Mount Charleston blue within 10 m (33 ft) of larval host plants We derive the specific physical or butterfly habitat may have resulted and, in combination, provide nectar biological features essential for the because of the areas where ‘‘collectors during the adult flight period between Mount Charleston blue butterfly from and observers disproportionately target mid-July and early August (Thompson studies of this subspecies’ habitat, . . . [to increase] opportunities to et al. 2014, p. 138). Other species that ecology, and life history as described encounter’’ the Mount Charleston blue adult Mount Charleston blue butterflies below. Additional information can be butterfly. However, until observations have been documented using as nectar found in the final listing rule published are made in areas that would alter our plants include Antennaria rosea (rosy in the Federal Register on September understanding of where Mount pussy toes), Cryptantha species 19, 2013 (78 FR 57750). We have Charleston blue butterflies generally (cryptantha; the species C. angustifolia determined that the Mount Charleston occur, we assume these locations and originally reported is likely a blue butterfly requires the following characteristics are likely correlated with misidentification because this species physical or biological features: the ecological requirements of the occurs in much lower elevation desert Space for Individual and Population Mount Charleston blue butterfly’s larval habitat (Niles and Leary 2007, p. 26)), Growth and for Normal Behavior host plants (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 22) and Ericameria nauseosa (rubber adult nectar plants (described below). rabbitbrush), Erigeron flagellaris The Mount Charleston blue butterfly Therefore, based on the information (trailing daisy), Gutierrezia sarothrae is known to occur only in the high above, we identify flat or gently sloping (broom snake weed), Monardella elevations of the Spring Mountains, areas between 2,500 m (8,200 ft) and odoratissima (horsemint), Petradoria located approximately 40 kilometers 3,500 m (11,500 ft) elevation in the pumila var. pumila (rock-goldenrod), (km) (25 miles (mi)) west of Las Vegas Spring Mountains as a physical or and Potentilla concinna var. concinna in Clark County, Nevada (Austin 1980, biological feature essential to the Mount (Alpine cinquefoil) (Boyd and Murphy p. 20; Scott 1986, p. 410). Historically, Charleston blue butterfly for space for 2008, pp. 13, 16; Thompson et al. 2014, the Mount Charleston blue butterfly was individual and population growth and pp. 117–118). detected at elevations as low as 1,830 m for normal behavior. Based on surveyors’ observations, (6,000 ft) in the Spring Mountains several species appear to be important (Austin 1980, p. 22; Austin 1981, p. 66; Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or food plants for the larval life stage of the Weiss et al. 1995, p. 5). Currently, the Other Nutritional or Physiological Mount Charleston blue butterfly. Mount Charleston blue butterfly is Requirements Therefore, we consider those plants on presumed or known to occupy habitat The best scientific information which surveyors have documented occurring between 2,500 m (8,200 ft) available regarding food, water, air, Mount Charleston blue butterfly eggs to elevation and 3,500 m elevation (11,500 light, minerals, and other nutritional or be larval host or food plants (hereafter, ft) (Austin 1980, p. 22; Weiss et al. 1997, physiological requirements of the referred to as larval host plants). Based p. 10; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. 17; Mount Charleston blue butterfly’s life on this, Astragalus calycosus var.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37417

calycosus, Oxytropis oreophila var. Therefore, based on the information butterfly is early July to mid-August oreophila, and Astragalus platytropis above, we identify open habitat that with a peak in late July, although the are all considered larval host plants for permits light to reach the ground, nectar subspecies has been observed as early as the Mount Charleston blue butterfly plants for adults and host plants for mid-June and as late as mid-September (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10; Austin and larvae, and exposed soil and rock (Austin 1980, p. 22; Boyd and Austin Leary 2008, p. 86; Andrew et al. 2013, substrates with short, widely spaced 1999, p. 17; Thompson et al. 2014, pp. pp. 7–8; Thompson et al. pp. 121–131) forbs and grasses to be physical or 104–116). Breeding opportunities for (see ‘‘Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, biological features for this subspecies individual Mount Charleston blue or Rearing (or Development) of that provide food, water, air, light, butterflies are presumably short in Offspring,’’ below, for more details). minerals, or other nutritional or duration during its adult life stage, Note that in the final listing rule for the physiological requirements. which may range from 2 to 12 days, as has been reported for other closely Mount Charleston blue butterfly (78 FR Cover or Shelter 57750; September 19, 2013), we related species (Arnold 1983, Plebejinae reported Astragalus lentiginosus var. The study and delineation of habitat in Table 44). Therefore, the Mount kernensis (Kern plateau milkvetch) as a for many butterflies has often been Charleston blue butterfly may generally larval host plant (Andrew et al. 2013, p. associated with larval host plants, be constrained to areas where adult 3); however, this host plant was breeding resources, and nectar sources nectar resources are in close proximity subsequently determined to be for adults (Dennis 2004, p. 37). Similar to plants on which to breed and lay Oxytropis oreophila var. oreophila to other butterfly species (Dennis 2004, eggs. Researchers have documented (mountain oxytrope) (Thompson et al. p. 37), there is little to no information Mount Charleston blue butterfly 2014, pp. 97–158), and has been available about the structural elements breeding behavior in close spatial described as such in this final rule. required by the Mount Charleston blue association with larval host and adult Future surveys and research may butterfly for cover or shelter. However, nectar plants (Thompson et al. 2014, pp. document the importance of other plant we infer that, because of their low 121–125). species as food resources for Mount vagility, cover or shelter used by any life The presence of Mount Charleston Charleston blue butterfly larvae. stage of the Mount Charleston blue blue butterfly adult nectar plants, such Densities of host plants are generally butterfly will be in close association or as Erigeron clokeyi, appears to be greater than two per m2 (0.2 per ft2) proximity to larval or adult food strongly associated with its larval host (Weiss 1997, p. 34; Andrew et al. 2013, resources in its habitat. plants (Andrew et al. 2013, p. 9). Female For larvae, diapause is generally p. 9; Thompson et al. 2014, p. 138). Mount Charleston blue butterflies have thought to occur at the base of the larval been observed ovipositing a single egg In addition, the Mount Charleston host plant or in the surrounding per host plant, which appears to weakly blue butterfly requires open canopy substrate (Emmel and Shields 1980, p. adhere to the host plant surface; this has cover (open forest). Specifically, the 132). Mount Charleston blue butterfly been observed most typically within Mount Charleston blue butterfly larvae feed after diapause. Like other basal leaves (Thompson et al. 2014, p. requires areas where tree cover is absent butterflies, after larvae become large 129). Ovipositing by butterflies on or low. This may be due to ecological enough, they pupate (Scott 1986, p. 24). plants is not absolute evidence of larval requirements of the larval host plants or Pupation most likely occurs in the feeding or survival (Austin and Leary adult nectar plants or due to the flight ground litter near a main stem of the 2008, p. 1), but may provide a stronger behavior of the Mount Charleston blue larval host plant (Emmel and Shields inference in combination with close butterfly. As with most butterflies, the 1980, p. 132). After pupation, adults adult associations and repeated Mount Charleston blue butterfly feed and mate in the same areas where observations. Presuming the Mount typically flies during sunny conditions, larvae diapause and pupation occurs. In Charleston blue butterfly’s diapause which are particularly important for this addition, no specific areas for overnight behavior is similar to other Shasta blue subspecies given the cooler air roosting by adult Mount Charleston blue butterflies, the Mount Charleston blue temperatures at high elevations in the butterflies have been reported. However, butterfly diapauses as an egg or as a Spring Mountains of Nevada (Weiss et adults have been observed using areas larva at the base of its egg and larval al. 1997, p. 31). in moderately dense forest stands host plants or in the surrounding The areas where the Mount immediately adjacent to low-cover areas substrate (Emmel and Shields 1980, p. Charleston blue butterfly occurs often with larval host and nectar plants 132; Ferris and Brown 1981, pp. 203– have shallow exposed soil and rock (Thompson et al. 2014, p. 120). 204; Scott 1986, p. 411). substrates with short, widely spaced Therefore, based on the information In 1987, researchers documented two forbs and grasses (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. above, we identify areas with larval host occasions when Mount Charleston blue 10, 27, and 31; Boyd 2005, p. 1; Service plants and adult nectar plants, and areas butterflies oviposited on Astragalus 2006a, p. 1; Kingsley 2007, pp. 9–10; immediately adjacent to these plants, to calycosus var. calycosus (= var. mancus) Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 19; Pinyon be a physical or biological feature for (Austin and Leary 2008, p. 86). Based on 2011, pp. 17, 21; Andrew et al. 2013, pp. this subspecies that provides cover or this reported documentation and 9–13; Thompson et al. 2014, pp. 137– shelter. subsequent observations of adult Mount 143). These vegetative characteristics Charleston blue butterflies associations may be important because they would Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or with the plant, Astragalus calycosus var. not impede the Mount Charleston blue Rearing (or Development) of Offspring calycosus was the only known larval butterfly’s low flight behavior (Weiss et The adult Mount Charleston blue host plant for the Mount Charleston al. 1997, p. 31) (reported to be 15 butterfly has specific site requirements blue butterfly (Austin and Leary 2008, centimeters (cm) (5.9 inches (in)) or less for its flight period when breeding and p. 86). In 2011 and 2012, researchers (Thompson et al. 2014, p. 118)). Some reproduction occur, and these from the University of Nevada Las Vegas taller grass or forb plants may be present requirements may be correlated to its observed female Mount Charleston blue when their density is less than five per limited vagility and short adult life butterflies landing on and ovipositing m2 (Thompson et al. 2014, pp. 138– stage. The typical flight and breeding on Oxytropis oreophila var. oreophila 139). period for the Mount Charleston blue (mountain oxytrope) and Astragalus

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37418 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

platytropis (broadkeeled milkvetch), replacement of dominant overstory In contrast, at lower elevation which presumably also function as vegetation (Barrett et al. 2010, p. 15). locations where the Mount Charleston larval host plants (Andrew et al. 2013, Fire regime condition is ‘‘. . . blue butterfly is known or presumed to pp. 4–12; Thompson et al. 2014, pp. landscape-level measure of ecological occur (Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard 122–134). Andrew et al. (2013, p. 5) also departure between the pre-settlement Resort (LVSSR), Foxtail, Youth Camp, documented Mount Charleston blue and current distributions of vegetation Gary Abbott, Lower LVSSR Parking, Lee butterfly eggs on all three plant species. succession classes and fire regimes for Meadows, Bristlecone Trail, and lower Other subspecies of Shasta blue a given area’’ (Provencher 2008, p. 3 Bonanza Trail), disturbance from fire is butterflies have been reported to use citing Hann and Bunnell 2001). Fire likely to occur less than every 35 years more than one plant during larval regimes groups can be broadly with more than 75 percent being high- development, including Astragalus categorized for Mount Charleston blue severity fires, or is likely to occur more platytropis (Austin and Leary 2008, pp. butterfly locations based on elevation. than every 35 years at mixed-severity 85–86). Because the subspecies has been Higher elevation locations, generally and low-severity (fire regime group 2 documented ovipositing on these three above 2,740 m (9,000 ft) elevation, occur and 3 in Provencher 2008, Appendix II; plant species and other subspecies of in fire regime groups 4 and 5 see example BPS above). At these lower Shasta blue butterflies are known to use (Provencher 2008, Appendix II; e.g., elevation habitats, fire regime multiple larval host plants, we consider BPS Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field conditions have departed further from Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus, and Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine historic conditions (Provencher 2008, Oxytropis oreophila var. oreophila, and Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland). Table 4, 5 and Appendix II). Lack of fire Astragalus platytropis to be the host Lower elevation locations, generally due to fire exclusion or reduction in plants used during Mount Charleston below 2,740 m (9,000 ft), occur in fire natural fire cycles, as has been blue butterfly larval development. regime groups 2 and 3 (Provencher demonstrated in the Spring Mountains Therefore, based on the information 2008, Appendix II; e.g., BPS Inter- (Entrix 2008, p. 113) and other above, we identify areas with larval host Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer proximate mountain ranges (Amell plants, especially Astragalus calycosus Forest and Woodland, and Rocky 2006, pp. 2–3), has likely resulted in var. calycosus, Oxytropis oreophila var. Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed long-term successional changes, oreophila, or Astragalus platytropis, and Conifer Forest and Woodland). including increased forest area and adult nectar plants, especially Erigeron In higher elevation locations where forest structure (higher canopy cover, clokeyi, Eriogonum umbellatum var. more young trees, and more trees versicolor, Hymenoxys cooperi, and the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is known or presumed to occur (South intolerant of fire) (Nachlinger and Reese Hymenoxys lemmonii, during the flight 1996, p. 37; Amell 2006, pp. 6–9; Boyd period of the Mount Charleston blue Loop Trail, Mummy Springs (North Loop Trail), upper Bonanza Trail, and and Murphy 2008, pp. 22–28; Denton et butterfly to be a physical or biological al. 2008, p. 21; Abella et al. 2012, pp. feature for this subspecies that provides ), disturbance from fire is relatively infrequent, with variable 128, 130) at these lower elevation sites for breeding, reproduction, or locations. Without fire in some of these rearing (or development) of offspring. severity (fire regime groups 4 and 5 in Provencher 2008, Appendix II; see locations, herbs and small forbs may be Habitats That Are Protected From example BPS above), occurring every 35 nearly absent as the vegetation moves Disturbance or Are Representative of the to 200 years at a high severity, or towards later successional classes with Historical, Geographical, and Ecological occurring more frequently than every increasing tree overstory cover Distributions of the Subspecies 200 years with a variable but generally (Provencher 2008, Appendix II). Habitat for the Mount Charleston blue high severity (Barrett et al. 2010, p. 15). Therefore, habitat at the lower elevation butterfly that is protected from Other disturbances likely to occur at the Mount Charleston blue butterfly disturbance or representative of the high-elevation Mount Charleston blue locations is more dissimilar from what historical, geographical, and ecological butterfly locations are from wind and would be expected based on historic fire distributions of the subspecies occurs in other weather phenomena (Provencher regimes (Provencher 2008, Table 4, 5 locations with limited canopy cover that 2008, Appendix II). At these high- and Appendix II). Thus, in order for comprise the appropriate species of elevation habitats, fire regime Mount Charleston blue butterfly larval host and adult nectar plants. conditions are relatively similar to individuals and populations to be Although some of these open locations historic conditions (Provencher 2008, maintained at lower elevation locations, occur due to wind and other Table 4, 5 and Appendix II), so active habitat management will likely be environmental stresses that inhibit tree vegetation succession should be within necessary. and shrub growth, fire is one of the most the normal range of variation. The Carpenter 1 Fire in July 2013 prevalent disturbances across the Vegetation succession at some high- burned into habitat of the Mount landscape of the Mount Charleston blue elevation areas that currently lack trees Charleston blue butterfly along the butterfly. To better understand the fire may cause these areas to become more ridgelines between Griffith Peak and frequency and severity as it relates to forested, but other areas that are scoured South Loop spanning a distance of historic and current conditions at by wind or exposed to other severe approximately 3 miles (5 km). Within Mount Charleston blue butterfly environmental stresses may remain non- this area, low-, moderate-, or high- locations, we characterized locations forested (for example, South Loop Trail; quality patches of Mount Charleston using biophysical setting (BPS) with Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 20–27) blue butterfly habitat intermixed with associated fire regime groups and fire (Provencher and Anderson 2011, pp. 1– non-habitat have been documented regime condition developed by 116; NVWAP 2012, p. 177). Thus, we (Pinyon 2011, Figure 8 and 9). The Provencher (2008, pp. 1–25 and expect higher elevation locations will be majority of Mount Charleston blue Appendix II; Barrett et al. 2010, p. 15). able to continue to provide open areas butterfly moderate- or high-quality Fire regime groups are classified by fire with the appropriate vegetation habitat through this area was classified frequency, which is the average number necessary to support individuals and as having a very low or low soil-burn of years between fires, and fire severity, populations of Mount Charleston blue severity (Kallstrom 2013, p. 4). The which represents the percent butterflies. characteristics of Mount Charleston blue

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37419

butterfly habitat in this area of widely predicted to continue into the next responses to increasing temperatures in spaced grass and forbs, exposed soil and century (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). field and lab settings are variable, so rocks, and low tree canopy cover result Garfin et al. (2013, p. 3) indicate that specific predictions of how climate in lower fuel loading and continuity, average daily temperatures have been change will impact the various which likely contributed to its low burn higher and drought has been more microhabitats needed for the Mount severities. severe from 2001 to 2010, when Charleston blue butterfly’s life stages are The effects of the Carpenter 1 Fire on compared to average decadal unknown. However, based on predicted Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat occurrences from 1901 to 2010; increases in temperatures and patterns ranged from low or no apparent effects however, ‘‘multiple drought events in of extreme precipitation and drought for to nearly complete elimination of plant the preceding 2,000 years . . . exceeded alpine areas of the Southwest, we cover (Herrmann 2014, p. 18). Based on the most severe and sustained droughts believe that climate change will impact a description of monitoring in 2014, the from 1901 to 2010’’ (Garfin et al. 2013, some biological aspects of the Mount negative effects of the fire on the Mount p. 3). In the past 60 years, the frequency Charleston blue butterfly and its high- Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat of storms with extreme precipitation has elevation habitat. A negative response to appear to be inversely related to the increased in Nevada by 29 percent such climate change patterns may quality of habitat, where patches of (Madsen and Figdor 2007, p. 37). These exacerbate threats already facing the high-quality habitat with low tree trends are anticipated to continue and subspecies as a result of its small canopy cover were likely less affected include warmer summer and fall population size and threats to its (Herrmann 2014, pp. 3–21). Overall, temperatures; more frequent and intense habitat. host and nectar plants were diminished winter precipitation; decreased late- Based on the information above, we in cover and abundance within the burn season snowpack; and hotter, more identify habitat where natural perimeter but are still present and severe, and more frequent droughts disturbance, such as fire that creates and recovering with new growth (Herrmann (Garfin et al. p. 6). maintains openings in the canopy (fire 2014, pp. 17–19). Habitat within the Changes in local southern Nevada regime groups 2, 3, 4, and 5), to be a burn perimeter will likely improve climatic patterns cannot be definitively physical or biological feature for this based upon habitat conditions in a tied to global climate change; however, subspecies that provides habitats that nearby historic burn area (Herrmann they are consistent with IPCC-predicted are representative of the historical, 2014, pp. 17–19). Surveys in 2014 have patterns of extreme precipitation, geographical, and ecological confirmed that the Mount Charleston warmer than average temperatures, and distributions of the subspecies. blue butterfly survived and is present drought (Redmond 2007, p. 1), and Primary Constituent Elements for the within and adjacent areas outside the Garfin et al. (2013, p. 448) concurred Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly fire perimeter (Herrmann 2014, p. 3). with the 2009 National Climate Recreational activities, trail-associated Assessment (Karl et al. 2009, p. 131) Under the Act and its implementing erosion, and the introduction of weeds that ‘‘increasing temperatures and regulations, we are required to identify or invasive grasses are likely the greatest shifting precipitation patterns will drive the physical or biological features threats that could occur within areas of declines in high-elevation ecosystems essential to the conservation of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat [of the Southwest] such as alpine forests Mount Charleston blue butterfly in areas burned by the Carpenter 1 Fire. Other and tundra.’’ In general, we expect these occupied at the time of listing, focusing potential threats to the Mount same trends to occur in the Spring on the features’ primary constituent Charleston blue butterfly habitat Mountains, but effects on the Mount elements. Primary constituent elements associated with the fire may include Charleston blue butterfly or its habitat are those specific elements of the trampling or grazing of new larval host from climate change will vary across the physical or biological features that or nectar plants by feral horses (Equus subspecies’ range because of provide for a species’ life-history ferus) and elk (Cervus elaphus). topographic heterogeneity (Luoto and processes and are essential to the However, use of this Mount Charleston Heikkinen 2008, p. 487). conservation of the species. blue butterfly habitat in these Analyses of climate change impacts to Based on our current knowledge of watersheds by feral horses and elk is other invertebrate species suggest the physical or biological features and currently very low. different aspects of a species’ biology habitat characteristics required to We are unaware of site- or species- may be affected, including physiological sustain the species’ life-history specific analyses of climate change for and morphological responses (Roy and processes, we determine that the the Spring Mountains in Nevada or Sparks 2000; Altermatt 2012); shifts in primary constituent elements specific to impacts to the Mount Charleston blue spatial patterns and availability of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly are: butterfly; therefore, we rely on general refugia (Beaumont and Hughes 2002; (i) Primary Constituent Element 1: predictions of climate change for alpine Peterson et al. 2004; Heikkinen et al. Areas of dynamic habitat between 2,500 areas in the Southwest and predictions 2010; Mattila et al. 2011; Oliver et al. m (8,200 ft) and 3,500 m (11,500 ft) of climate change impacts to other 2012); shifts in temporal patterns (for elevation with openings or where invertebrate species to assess potential example, flight periods) (Aldridge et al. disturbance provides openings in the impacts of climate change to the Mount 2011; Altermatt 2012); and shifts in host canopy that have no more than 50 Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat. and nectar plant phenology and percent tree cover (allowing sunlight to The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate availability. Because the magnitude and reach the ground); widely spaced, low Change (IPCC) has high confidence in duration of different aspects of climate (less than 15 cm (0.5 ft) in height) forbs predictions that extreme weather events, change are expected to be seasonally and grasses; and exposed soil and rock warmer temperatures, and regional variable (Garfin et al. 2013, pp. 5–6), substrates. When taller grass and forb drought are very likely to increase in the impacts to microhabitats and, therefore, plants greater than or equal to 15 cm northern hemisphere as a result of different butterfly life stages also are (0.5 ft) in height are present, the density climate change (IPCC 2007, pp. 15–16). expected to be variable (Kingsolver et al. is less than five per m2 (50 per ft2). Climate models show the southwestern 2011; Radchuk et al. 2013). Results from (ii) Primary Constituent Element 2: United States has transitioned into a Kingsolver et al. 2011 and Radchuk et The presence of one or more species of more arid climate of drought that is al. 2013 indicate species and life-stage host plants required by larvae of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37420 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Mount Charleston blue butterfly for habitat resulting from trampling of host Conservation Agreement, and the feeding and growth. Known larval host and nectar plants as well as the direct Service is a cooperator in this process. plants are Astragalus calycosus var. mortality of Mount Charleston blue However, as the Conservation calycosus, Oxytropis oreophila var. butterfly where it is present (Boyd and Agreement is currently under revision, oreophila, and Astragalus platytropis. Murphy 2008, pp. 7 and 27; Andrew et and completion has not occurred prior Densities of host plants must be greater al. 2013, pp. 37–66; Thompson et al. to publication of this final rule, it is than two per m2 (0.2 per ft2). 2014, pp. 150–152). unclear what level of protection or (iii) Primary Constituent Element 3: Threats to the Mount Charleston blue conservation benefit the final SNMRA The presence of one or more species of butterfly and its habitat and Conservation Agreement will provide nectar plants required by adult Mount recommendations for ameliorating them for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. Charleston blue butterflies for have been described for each location reproduction, feeding, and growth. and the subspecies in general (Boyd and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Common nectar plants include Erigeron Murphy 2008, pp. 1–41; Andrew et al. Habitat clokeyi, Hymenoxys lemmonii, 2013 pp. 1–93; Thompson et al. 2014, As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Hymenoxys cooperi, and Eriogonum pp. 97–158, 267–288). Management Act, we use the best scientific data umbellatum var. versicolor. Densities of activities that could facilitate available to designate critical habitat. nectar plants must occur at more than ameliorating these threats include (but We review available information two per m2 (0.2 per ft2) for smaller are not limited to): (1) Reestablishment pertaining to the habitat requirements of plants, such as E. clokeyi, and more than and maintenance of habitat and the species. In accordance with the Act 0.1 per m2 (0.01 per ft2) for larger and landscape connectivity within and and its implementing regulation at 50 taller plants, such as Hymenoxys sp. and between populations; (2) habitat CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether E. umbellatum. Nectar plants typically restoration and control of invasive designating additional areas—outside of occur within 10 m (33 ft) of larval host nonnative species; (3) monitoring of the geographical area currently plants and, in combination, provide ongoing habitat loss and nonnative occupied—are necessary to ensure the nectar during the adult flight period plant invasion; (4) management of conservation of the species. We are between mid-July and early August. recreational activities to protect and designating critical habitat in areas Additional nectar sources that could be prevent disturbance of Mount within the geographical area occupied present in combination with the Charleston blue butterflies to reduce by the subspecies at the time of listing common nectar plants include loss or deterioration of habitat; (5) in October 2013 because such areas Antennaria rosea, Cryptantha sp., maintenance of the Forest Service contain the physical or biological Ericameria nauseosa ssp., Erigeron closure order prohibiting collection of features that are essential to the flagellaris, Guitierrezia sarothrae, the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and conservation of the subspecies. We are Monardella odoratissima, Petradoria other blue butterfly species without a not designating areas outside the pumila var. pumila, and Potentilla permit, in order to minimize the geographical area occupied by the concinna var. concinna. detrimental effects of collecting rare subspecies at the time of listing because species; (6) removal or exclusion of feral they would provide limited benefit and Special Management Considerations or horses in Mount Charleston blue are not needed to conserve the species. Protection butterfly habitat; and (7) providing When determining the possible When designating critical habitat, we educational and outreach opportunities distribution of areas that meet the assess whether the specific areas within to inform the public regarding potential definition of critical habitat for the the geographical area occupied by the adverse impacts to the species or Mount Charleston blue butterfly, we subspecies at the time of listing contain sensitive habitat from disturbance considered all known suitable habitat features which are essential to the caused by recreational activities in the patches remaining within the conservation of the subspecies and summer or winter. These management subspecies’ historical range from which may require special management activities will protect the physical and Willow Creek, south to Griffith Peak considerations or protection. Special biological features by avoiding or within the SMNRA. For the Mount management considerations or minimizing activities that negatively Charleston blue butterfly, we included protection may be necessary to affect the Mount Charleston blue locations of known populations and eliminate or reduce the magnitude of butterfly and its habitat while suitable habitat immediately adjacent to, threats that affect the subspecies. promoting activities that are beneficial or areas between, known populations Threats to the Mount Charleston blue to them. Additionally, management of that provide connectivity between these butterfly and its features identified in critical habitat lands will help maintain locations. the final listing rule for the Mount or enhance the necessary environmental This section provides the details of Charleston blue butterfly (78 FR 57750; components, foster recovery, and the process we used to delineate the September 19, 2013) include: (1) Loss sustain populations currently in critical habitat for the Mount Charleston and degradation of habitat due to decline. blue butterfly. The areas designated as changes in natural fire regimes and All of the areas designated as critical critical habitat in this final rule are areas succession; (2) implementation of habitat occur within the Spring where the Mount Charleston blue recreational development projects and Mountains National Recreation Area, butterfly occur and that contain the fuels reduction projects; (3) increases of and are covered by the 1998 Spring physical and biological features nonnative plants; (4) collection; (5) Mountains National Recreation Area essential to the conservation of the small population size and few (SMNRA) Conservation Agreement. To species. These areas have been occurrences; and (6) exacerbation of date, the Conservation Agreement has identified through incidental other threats from the impacts of climate not always been effective in protecting observations and systematic surveys or change, which is anticipated to increase existing habitat for the Mount studies occurring over a period of drought and extreme precipitation Charleston blue butterfly or yielding several years. This information comes events. In addition to these threats, feral significant conservation benefits for the from multiple sources, such as reports, horses present an additional threat by species. The Forest Service is currently journal articles, and Forest Service causing the loss and degradation of in the process of revising the SMNRA project information. Based on this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37421

information, we are designating critical important for butterfly dispersal. In systematic method to identify areas that habitat in specific areas within the contrast to distances moved within a encompass the physical and biological geographical area currently occupied by single patch of habitat, which has been features essential to the conservation of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly that estimated to be between 10 to 100 m (33 the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and contain the physical and biological to 330 ft), dispersal can be defined as they provide boundaries that are easy to features essential to the conservation of movement between patches of habitat describe and interpret for the general the species. (Bowler and Benton 2005, p. 207). public and land management agencies. We delineated the final critical habitat Studies suggest that closely related Critical habitat boundaries were derived boundaries using the following steps: butterfly taxa have more similar from the outer boundary of the polygons (1) We compiled and mapped Mount mobility than distantly related butterfly selected from the PLSS quarter-quarter Charleston blue butterfly observation taxa (Burke et al. 2011, p. 2284). We sections in the previous steps. locations (points) and polygons of determined the approximate maximum (7) We removed locations from the habitat that included larval host and dispersal distance of the Mount critical habitat designation based on nectar plants, or only larval host plants Charleston blue butterfly to be 1,000 m information received through the notice- delineated in previous studies or (3,281 ft) based on documented and-comment process on the proposed surveys from Austin (1980), Weiss et al. movement distances observed during rule. Some of these locations overlap (1997), Service (2006b), DataSmiths mark-and-recapture studies of lycaenid slightly with Mount Charleston blue (2007), Newfields (2008), SWCA (2008), butterflies described to be sedentary. Of butterfly habitat previously mapped by Carsey et al. (2011), Holthuijzen et al. the studies using mark-and-recapture DataSmiths 2007. These locations are at (2011), Pinyon (2011), Andrew et al. studies that we examined, we found that the fringe of previously mapped habitat (2013), Herrmann (2014), and the furthest distances ranged between and most of these areas lack one or more Thompson et al. (2014). The location 300 and 1,500 m (987 and 4,920 ft) of the physical or biological features or information from the data sources used (Bink 1992 as referenced in Sekar 2012, are heavily impacted by public provided enough information to identify Table 2; Saarinen 1993 as cited in recreation and facilities management. specific geographic areas by Komonen et al. 2008, p. 132; Peterson We removed a 25-m (82-ft) perimeter corroborating narratively described 1996, p. 1990; Lewis et al. 1997, pp. distance around established boundaries locations and mapped locations. These 283, 288–289; Peterson 1997, p. 175; or developed infrastructure that is surveys are the best available data on Fischer et al. 1999, pp. 43 and 46; consistent with the conclusions of a the current distribution, habitat, and Baguette et al. 2000, p. 103; Bourn and study on the Karner blue butterfly features that provide the basis for Warren 2000, p. 9; Franze´n and Ranius (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), which identifying areas of critical habitat for 2004, p. 130; Krauss et al. 2004, p. 358; indicated that habitat within short the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. Binzenho¨fer et al. 2008, p. 267; distances of recreational features may be (2) Observed locations of Mount Chuluunbaatar et al. 2009, p. 60; Barua insufficient to offset recreational Charleston blue butterflies described et al. 2011, p. 44; Hovestadt et al. 2011, impacts on butterfly behavior (Bennett above were used to create larger p. 1073; COSEWIC 2012, p. 30). et al. 2010, p. 27; Bennett et al. 2013, polygons of suitable habitat by buffering Therefore, we approximated pp. 1794–1795). This distance also is observed locations by 100 m (330 ft). connectivity corridors by buffering consistent with observations that These polygons assumed that suitable polygons of suitable habitat by 500 m impacts associated with the habitat was present up to 100 m (330 ft) (2,461 ft), which allowed us to campgrounds, day-use areas, and roads around an observed location, because it determine if polygons of suitable habitat tend to be concentrated within a 25-m is estimated that individual Mount were within the approximate 1,000 m (82-ft) buffer (Cole 1993, p. 111; Cole Charleston blue butterflies can utilize (3,281 ft) dispersal distance of each 2004, p. 55; Monz et al.2010, p. 556; areas between 10 to 100 m (33 to 330 ft; other. Areas that did not contain Swick 2013). Weiss et al. 1995, Table 1) from surveyed habitat or were rated as ‘‘poor’’ Specifically, we removed locations observed locations. quality or ‘‘inadequate’’ habitat by referred to as Dolomite Campground, (3) Polygons of suitable habitat were investigators were not considered. Foxtail Girl Scout Camp, Foxtail Group identified from previously delineated Quarter-quarter sections (see below for Picnic Area, Foxtail Snow Play Area, habitat (described above) and were description of quarter-quarter section) Lee Canyon Guard Station, Lee considered suitable if the habitat that were bounded on all sides by other Meadows (extirpated Mount Charleston polygon contained: (a) Observed quarter-quarter sections meeting the blue butterfly location), McWilliams locations of Mount Charleston blue above criteria were included to avoid Campground, Old Mill Picnic Area, butterflies; (b) larval host and nectar creating ‘‘doughnut holes’’ within Youth Camp, and LVSSR base facilities plants; (c) delineated habitat that was corridors. and lift terminals. These locations are rated by the investigator (Pinyon 2011, (5) Observed locations, suitable within the established boundaries or pp. 1–39) as either ‘‘moderate’’ or habitat, and connectivity corridors, as developed infrastructure (for example, ‘‘good’’ quality; or (d) larval host plants. described above, are all considered to be buildings, roads, parking areas, fire pits, It was assumed that nectar plants would within the present geographic range of base ski lift terminals, etc.) for the also be present in areas where larval the subspecies. above-listed campgrounds, day-use host plants were detected and butterflies (6) Critical habitat boundaries were areas, and ski area facilities, which have were observed because both larval host delineated using a data layer of the extremely high levels of public and nectar plants must be in close Public Land Survey System (PLSS), visitation and associated recreational proximity for Mount Charleston blue which includes quarter-quarter sections disturbance. High levels of recreational butterflies to be present (Boyd and (16 ha (40 ac)). Quarter-quarter sections disturbance in these areas have either Murphy 2008, pp. 1–31; Thompson et are designated as critical habitat if they severely degraded available habitat, al. 2014, p. 138). contain observed locations, suitable including host and nectar plants, or the (4) We evaluated connectivity habitat, or connectivity corridors. intense level of recreational activity corridors of butterfly populations Quarter-quarter sections were used to severely limits or precludes the use of between or adjacent to areas of suitable delineate critical habitat boundaries these areas by the Mount Charleston habitat because these areas are likely because they provide a readily available blue butterfly. Additionally, small

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37422 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘doughnut holes’’ and slivers of land requirement of no adverse modification, designation in the preamble of this encircled by the buffered areas are not unless the specific action would affect document. The coordinates or plot included the final designation, because the physical or biological features in the points or both on which the map is these fragments do not meet the adjacent critical habitat. based are available to the public on definition of critical habitat for this We are designating as critical habitat http://www.regulations.gov at Docket subspecies. lands that we have determined are No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0105, on our When determining critical habitat occupied at the time of listing and Internet site http://www.fws.gov/ boundaries, we made every effort to contain the physical or biological nevada/nv_species/mcb_butterfly.html, avoid including developed areas such as features to support life-history processes and at the field office responsible for the lands covered by buildings, pavement, that we have determined are essential to designation (see FOR FURTHER and other structures because such lands the conservation of Mount Charleston INFORMATION CONTACT above). lack physical or biological features blue butterfly. Three units are necessary for Mount Charleston blue designated, based on the physical or Final Critical Habitat Designation butterfly. The scale of the maps we biological features being present to prepared under the parameters for support the Mount Charleston blue We are designating three units as publication within the Code of Federal butterfly’s life-history processes. All critical habitat for the Mount Charleston Regulations may not reflect the units contain all of the identified blue butterfly. The critical habitat areas exclusion of such developed lands. Any physical or biological features and described below constitute our best such lands inadvertently left inside support multiple life-history processes. assessment at this time of areas that critical habitat boundaries shown on the The critical habitat designation is meet the definition of critical habitat. maps of this final rule have been defined by the map, as modified by any Those three units are: (1) South Loop, excluded by text in the rule and are not accompanying regulatory text, presented (2) Lee Canyon, and (3) North Loop. All designated as critical habitat. Therefore, at the end of this document in the three units are occupied. The a Federal action involving these lands Regulation Promulgation section. We approximate area of each critical habitat would not trigger section 7 consultation include more detailed information on unit and the land ownerships are listed with respect to critical habitat and the the boundaries of the critical habitat in Table 1.

TABLE 1—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE MOUNT CHARLESTON BLUE BUTTERFLY [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]

Size of unit in acres Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type (hectares)

1. South Loop ...... Federal ...... 2,228.0 (901.6) State ...... 0 Local ...... 0 Private ...... 0 2. Lee Canyon ...... Federal ...... 2,569.3 (1,039.7) State ...... 0 Local ...... 2.2 (0.9) Private ...... 1.2 (0.5) 3. North Loop ...... Federal ...... 412.9 (167.1) State ...... 0 Local ...... 0 Private ...... 0

Total ...... Federal ...... 5,210.2 (2,108.5) State ...... 0 Local ...... 2.2 (0.9) Private ...... 1.2 (0.5) Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

We present brief descriptions of all The unit is within the geographic area change, such as increased drought and units, and reasons why they meet the occupied by the Mount Charleston blue extreme precipitation events. Therefore, definition of critical habitat for the butterfly at the time of listing. It the physical or biological features Mount Charleston blue butterfly, below. contains the physical or biological essential to the conservation of the features essential to the conservation of species in this unit may require special Unit 1: South Loop the subspecies, including: Elevations management considerations or Unit 1 consists of approximately between 2,500 m (8,200 ft) and 3,500 m protection to minimize impacts 2,228 ac (902 ha) and is located in Clark (11,500 ft); no tree cover or no more resulting from this threat (see Special County, Nevada. This unit extends than 50 percent tree cover; widely Management Considerations or south and southeast from near the spaced, low (less than 15 cm (0.5 ft) in Protection, above). summit of Charleston Peak along high- height) forbs and grasses, with exposed A portion of this unit was burned in elevation ridges to Griffith Peak. The soil and rock substrates; the presence of July 2013, as part of the Carpenter 1 unit likely represents the largest one or more species of larval host Fire, which burned into habitat of the population of Mount Charleston blue plants; and the presence of one or more Mount Charleston blue butterfly along butterflies and is the southernmost area species of nectar plants. the ridgelines between Griffith Peak and identified as critical habitat for the Habitat in the unit is threatened by South Loop, spanning a distance of subspecies. the impacts associated with climate approximately 3 mi (5 km). Within this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37423

area, there are low-, moderate-, or high- The unit is within the geographic area soil and rock substrates; the presence of quality patches of Mount Charleston occupied by the Mount Charleston blue one or more species of larval host blue butterfly habitat intermixed with butterfly at the time of listing. It plants; and the presence of one or more non-habitat. The majority of Mount contains the physical or biological species of nectar plants. Charleston blue butterfly habitat of features essential to the conservation of Habitat in the unit is threatened by moderate or high quality in this area the subspecies including: Elevations the impacts associated with climate was classified as having a very low between 2,500 m (8,200 ft) and 3,500 m change, such as increased drought and burn-severity or low soil burn-severity (11,500 ft); no tree cover or no more extreme precipitation events. Therefore, (Kallstrom 2013, p. 4). Areas with the than 50 percent tree cover; widely the features essential to the conservation highest observed concentrations of spaced, low (less than 15 cm (0.5 ft) in of the species in this unit require special Mount Charleston blue butterflies height) forbs and grasses, with exposed management considerations or within moderate- and high-quality soil and rock substrates; the presence of protection to minimize impacts habitat were outside the fire perimeter. one or more species of larval host resulting from this threat (see Special Areas of lower quality habitat appear to plants; and the presence of one or more Management Considerations or have had higher tree canopy cover and species of nectar plants. Protection, above). generally experienced low to moderate Habitat in the unit is threatened by: This unit is completely within the soil burn-severity. Loss and degradation of habitat due to boundaries of the U.S. Department of Although the burn in this unit may changes in natural fire regimes and Agriculture, Humboldt–Toiyabe have had short-term impacts to larval succession; implementation of National Forest, Spring Mountains host or nectar plants, it is likely that the recreational development projects and National Recreation Area. burn may have long-term benefits to fuels reduction projects; increases of Approximately 92 percent of the unit is Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat nonnative plants; and the exacerbation within the Mount Charleston by reducing canopy cover, thereby of other threats from the impacts of Wilderness. This unit is within the area providing additional areas for larval climate change, which is anticipated to addressed by the Spring Mountains host and nectar plants to grow, and increase drought and extreme National Recreation Area Conservation releasing nutrients (Brown and Smith precipitation events. Therefore, the Agreement. 2000, p. 26) into the soil, improving features essential to the conservation of overall plant health and vigor, the species in this unit require special Effects of Critical Habitat Designation depending upon successional management considerations or Section 7 Consultation conditions such as soil types and protection to minimize impacts moisture, and seed sources (Kallstrom resulting from these threats (see Special Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 2013, p. 4). Therefore, we are Management Considerations or Federal agencies, including the Service, designating as critical habitat areas that Protection, above). to ensure that any action they fund, contained the physical or biological This unit is completely within the authorize, or carry out is not likely to features essential to the conservation of administrative boundaries of the U.S. jeopardize the continued existence of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly Department of Agriculture, Humboldt– any endangered species or threatened prior to the Carpenter 1 Fire, but may Toiyabe National Forest, Spring species or result in the destruction or have been burned by the fire, because Mountains National Recreation Area, adverse modification of designated we expect that these areas continue to with less than 1 percent owned by critical habitat of such species. In contain the physical or biological private landowners or Clark County. addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act features essential to conservation of the Approximately 33 percent of the west requires Federal agencies to confer with subspecies. side of the unit is within the Mount the Service on any agency action which This unit is completely within the Charleston Wilderness. This unit is is likely to jeopardize the continued boundaries of the U.S. Department of within the area addressed by the Spring existence of any species proposed to be Agriculture, Humboldt–Toiyabe Mountains National Recreation Area listed under the Act or result in the National Forest, Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement. destruction or adverse modification of National Recreation Area. The entire proposed critical habitat. unit is within the Mount Charleston Unit 3: North Loop Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Wilderness, and southwestern portions Unit 3 consists of approximately 413 Courts of Appeals have invalidated our of the unit overlap with the Carpenter ac (167 ha) and is located in Clark regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or Canyon Research Natural Area. This County, Nevada. This unit extends adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) unit is within the area addressed by the northeast from an area between Mummy (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Spring Mountains National Recreation Spring and Fletcher Peak along high- Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d Area Conservation Agreement. elevation ridges down to an area above 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. the State Highway 158. The unit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 Unit 2: Lee Canyon represents the easternmost area F.3d 434, 434 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we Unit 2 consists of approximately identified as critical habitat for the do not rely on this regulatory definition 2,569 ac (1,040 ha) of Federal land, 2.2 subspecies. when analyzing whether an action is ac (0.9 ha) of local land, and 1.2 ac (0.5 The unit is within the geographic area likely to destroy or adversely modify ha) of private land, and is located in occupied by the Mount Charleston blue critical habitat. Under the provisions of Clark County, Nevada. This unit extends butterfly at the time of listing. It the Act, we determine destruction or south and southeast from McFarland contains the physical or biological adverse modification on the basis of Peak and along the Bonanza Trail features essential to the conservation of whether, with implementation of the through Lee Canyon to slopes below the the subspecies including: Elevations proposed Federal action, the affected north side of the North Loop Trail and between 2,500 m (8,200 ft) and 3,500 m critical habitat would continue to serve the west side of Mummy Mountain. (11,500 ft); no tree cover or no more its intended conservation role for the This unit represents the northernmost than 50 percent tree cover; widely species. area identified as critical habitat for the spaced, low (less than 15 cm (0.5 ft) in If a Federal action may affect a listed subspecies. height) forbs and grasses with exposed species or its critical habitat, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37424 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

responsible Federal agency (action Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require the growth and reproduction of these agency) must enter into consultation Federal agencies to reinitiate butterflies and their host or nectar with us. Examples of actions that are consultation on previously reviewed plants, and movement of adults between subject to the section 7 consultation actions in instances where we have habitat patches. Such alterations may process are actions on State, tribal, listed a new species or subsequently directly or cumulatively cause adverse local, or private lands that require a designated critical habitat that may be effects to Mount Charleston blue Federal permit (such as a permit from affected and the Federal agency has butterflies and their life cycles. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under retained discretionary involvement or section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 control over the action (or the agency’s Exemptions U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the discretionary involvement or control is Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act Service under section 10 of the Act) or authorized by law). Consequently, Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 that involve some other Federal action Federal agencies sometimes may need to U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: (such as funding from the Federal request reinitiation of consultation with ‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as Highway Administration, Federal us on actions for which formal critical habitat any lands or other Aviation Administration, or the Federal consultation has been completed, if geographic areas owned or controlled by Emergency Management Agency). those actions with discretionary the Department of Defense, or Federal actions not affecting listed involvement or control may affect designated for its use, that are subject to species or critical habitat, and actions subsequently listed species or an integrated natural resources on State, tribal, local, or private lands designated critical habitat. management plan [INRMP] prepared that are not federally funded or Application of the ‘‘Adverse under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 authorized, do not require section 7 Modification’’ Standard U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines consultation. As a result of section 7 consultation, The key factor related to the adverse in writing that such plan provides a we document compliance with the modification determination is whether, benefit to the species for which critical requirements of section 7(a)(2) through with implementation of the proposed habitat is proposed for designation.’’ our issuance of: Federal action, the affected critical There are no Department of Defense (1) A concurrence letter for Federal habitat would continue to serve its lands with a completed INRMP within actions that may affect, but are not intended conservation role for the the critical habitat designation. likely to adversely affect, listed species species. Activities that may destroy or Consideration of Impacts Under Section or critical habitat; or adversely modify critical habitat are 4(b)(2) of the Act (2) A biological opinion for Federal those that alter the physical or actions that may affect and are likely to biological features to an extent that Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that adversely affect, listed species or critical appreciably reduces the conservation the Secretary shall designate and make habitat. value of critical habitat for the Mount revisions to critical habitat on the basis When we issue a biological opinion Charleston blue butterfly. As discussed of the best available scientific data after concluding that a project is likely to above, the role of critical habitat is to taking into consideration the economic jeopardize the continued existence of a support life-history needs of the species impact, national security impact, and listed species and/or destroy or and provide for the conservation of the any other relevant impact of specifying adversely modify critical habitat, we species. any particular area as critical habitat. provide reasonable and prudent Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us The Secretary may exclude an area from alternatives to the project, if any are to briefly evaluate and describe, in any critical habitat if she determines that the identifiable, that would avoid the proposed or final regulation that benefits of such exclusion outweigh the likelihood of jeopardy and/or designates critical habitat, activities benefits of specifying such area as part destruction or adverse modification of involving a Federal action that may of the critical habitat, unless she critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable destroy or adversely modify such determines, based on the best scientific and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR habitat, or that may be affected by such data available, that the failure to 402.02) as alternative actions identified designation. designate such area as critical habitat during consultation that: Activities that may affect critical will result in the extinction of the (1) Can be implemented in a manner habitat, when carried out, funded, or species. In making that determination, consistent with the intended purpose of authorized by a Federal agency, should the statute on its face, as well as the the action, result in consultation for the Mount legislative history are clear that the (2) Can be implemented consistent Charleston blue butterfly. These Secretary has broad discretion regarding with the scope of the Federal agency’s activities include, but are not limited to, which factor(s) to use and how much legal authority and jurisdiction, actions that would cause the quality, weight to give to any factor. We have (3) Are economically and quantity, functionality, accessibility, or not excluded any areas from critical technologically feasible, and fragmentation of habitat or features to habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. (4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, change unfavorably for Mount Consideration of Economic Impacts avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the Charleston blue butterfly. Such continued existence of the listed species activities could include, but are not Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we and/or avoid the likelihood of limited to: Ground or soil disturbance, consider the economic impacts of destroying or adversely modifying either mechanically or manually; specifying any particular area as critical critical habitat. clearing or grading; erosion control; habitat. In order to consider economic Reasonable and prudent alternatives silviculture; fuels management; fire impacts, we prepared an incremental can vary from slight project suppression; development; snow effects memorandum (IEM) and modifications to extensive redesign or management; recreation; feral horse or screening analysis which together with relocation of the project. Costs burro management; and herbicide or our narrative and interpretation of associated with implementing a pesticide use. These activities could effects we consider our draft economic reasonable and prudent alternative are alter: Invasion rates of invasive or analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical similarly variable. nonnative species, habitat necessary for habitat designation and related factors

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37425

(IEc 2014). The analysis, dated May 20, 7 of the Act on activities they fund, and resources by both the Federal action 2014, was made available for public permit, or implement that may affect the agency and the Service, it is believed review from July 15, 2014, through species. Consultations to avoid the that, in most circumstances, these costs September 15, 2014 (79 FR 41225; IEc destruction or adverse modification of would predominantly be administrative 2014). The DEA addressed probable critical habitat will be incorporated into in nature and would not be significant. economic impacts of critical habitat the existing consultation process. The Forest Service has administrative designation for the Mount Charleston Therefore, disproportionate impacts to oversight of 99.9 percent of the critical blue butterfly. Following the close of the any geographic area or sector are not habitat area and, as the primary Federal comment period, we reviewed and likely as a result of this critical habitat action agency in section 7 consultations, evaluated all information submitted designation. would incur incremental costs during the comment period that In our IEM, we attempted to clarify associated with the critical habitat pertained to our consideration of the the distinction between the effects that designation. In some cases third parties probable incremental economic impacts can result from the species being listed may be involved in areas such as Unit of this critical habitat designation. and those attributable to the critical 2 in Lee Canyon, particularly where the Additional information relevant to the habitat designation (i.e., the difference Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort probable incremental economic impacts between the jeopardy and adverse special-use-permit area overlaps. of critical habitat designation for the the modification standards) for the Mount However, consultation is expected to Mount Charleston blue butterfly is Charleston blue butterfly. Because the occur even in the absence of critical summarized below and available in the designation of critical habitat for Mount habitat, and incremental costs would be screening analysis for the the Mount Charleston blue butterfly was proposed limited to administrative costs resulting Charleston blue butterfly (IEc 2014), shortly after the listing, it has been our from the potential for adverse available at http://www.regulations.gov. experience that it is more difficult to modification. It is unlikely that there discern which conservation efforts are will be any incremental costs associated Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and attributable to the species being listed with the 0.1 percent of non-Federal 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess and those that can result solely from the land, for which we do not foresee any the costs and benefits of available designation of critical habitat. However, Federal nexus and thus is outside of the regulatory alternatives in quantitative the following specific circumstances in context of section 7 of the Act. (to the extent feasible) and qualitative this case helped to inform our The probable incremental economic terms. Consistent with the E.O. evaluation: (1) The essential physical impacts of the Mount Charleston blue regulatory analysis requirements, our and biological features identified for butterfly critical habitat designation are effects analysis under the Act may take critical habitat are the same features expected to be limited to additional into consideration impacts to both essential for the life requisites of the administrative effort, as well as minor directly and indirectly impacted species, and (2) any actions that would costs of conservation efforts resulting entities, where practicable and result in sufficient harm or harassment from a small number of future section 7 reasonable. We assess to the extent to constitute jeopardy to the Mount consultations. This is due to two factors: practicable, the probable impacts, if Charleston blue butterfly would also (1) All the critical habitat units are sufficient data are available, to both likely adversely affect the essential considered to be occupied by the directly and indirectly impacted physical and biological features of species, and incremental economic entities. As part of our screening critical habitat. The IEM outlines our impacts of critical habitat designation, analysis, we considered the types of rationale concerning this limited other than administrative costs, are economic activities that are likely to distinction between baseline unlikely; and (2) the majority of critical occur within the areas likely affected by conservation efforts and incremental habitat is in designated Wilderness the critical habitat designation. In our impacts of the designation of critical Areas where actions are currently evaluation of the probable incremental habitat for this species. This evaluation limited and few actions are anticipated economic impacts that may result from of the incremental effects has been used that will result in section 7 consultation the designation of critical habitat for the as the basis to evaluate the probable or associated project modifications. Mount Charleston blue butterfly, first incremental economic impacts of this Section 7 consultations for critical we identified, in the IEM dated designation of critical habitat. habitat are estimated to range between February 10, 2014, probable incremental The critical habitat designation for the $410 and $9,100 per consultation. No economic impacts associated with the Mount Charleston blue butterfly totals more than 12 consultations are following categories of activities: (1) approximately 5,214 acres (2,110 anticipated to occur in a year. Based Federal lands management (Forest hectares) in three units, all of which upon these estimates, the maximum Service); (2) fire management; (3) forest were occupied at the time of listing and estimated incremental cost is estimated management; (4) recreation; (5) contain the physical and biological to be no greater than $109,200 in a given conservation/restoration; and (6) features essential to the conservation of year. Thus, the annual administrative development. We considered each the species. In these areas, any actions burden is unlikely to reach $100 industry or category individually. that may affect the species or its habitat million. Therefore, future probable Additionally, we considered whether would also affect designated critical incremental economic impacts are not their activities have any Federal habitat, and it is unlikely that any likely to exceed $100 million in any involvement. Critical habitat additional conservation efforts would be single year, and disproportionate designation will not affect activities that recommended to address the adverse impacts to any geographic area or sector do not have any Federal involvement; modification standard over and above are not likely as a result of this critical designation of critical habitat affects those recommended as necessary to habitat designation. only activities conducted, funded, avoid jeopardizing the continued permitted, or authorized by Federal existence of the Mount Charleston blue Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts agencies. In areas where the Mount butterfly. Therefore, only administrative Our economic analysis did not Charleston blue butterfly is present, costs are expected in all of the critical identify any disproportionate costs that Federal agencies already are required to habitat designation. While this are likely to result from the designation. consult with the Service under section additional analysis will require time Consequently, the Secretary is not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37426 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

exercising her discretion to exclude any designation based on other relevant 50,000 residents; and small businesses areas from this designation of critical impacts. (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses habitat for the Mount Charleston blue include manufacturing and mining Required Determinations butterfly based on economic impacts. concerns with fewer than 500 A copy of the IEM and screening Regulatory Planning and Review employees, wholesale trade entities analysis with supporting documents (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) with fewer than 100 employees, retail may be obtained by contacting the Executive Order 12866 provides that and service businesses with less than $5 Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife the Office of Information and Regulatory million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less Office (see ADDRESSES) or by Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant than $27.5 million in annual business, downloading from the Internet at http:// rules. The Office of Information and special trade contractors doing less than www.regulations.gov. Regulatory Affairs has determined that $11.5 million in annual business, and this rule is not significant. Exclusions Based on National Security agricultural businesses with annual Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the Impacts or Homeland Security Impacts sales less than $750,000. To determine principles of E.O. 12866 while calling if potential economic impacts to these Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we for improvements in the nation’s small entities are significant, we consider whether there are lands owned regulatory system to promote considered the types of activities that or managed by the Department of predictability, to reduce uncertainty, might trigger regulatory impacts under Defense where a national security and to use the best, most innovative, this designation as well as types of impact might exist. In preparing this and least burdensome tools for project modifications that may result. In final rule, we have determined that no achieving regulatory ends. The general, the term ‘‘significant economic lands within the designation of critical executive order directs agencies to habitat for Mount Charleston blue impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical consider regulatory approaches that small business firm’s business butterfly are owned or managed by the reduce burdens and maintain flexibility Department of Defense or Department of operations. and freedom of choice for the public The Service’s current understanding Homeland Security, and, therefore, we where these approaches are relevant, anticipate no impact on national of the requirements under the RFA, as feasible, and consistent with regulatory amended, and following recent court security or homeland security. objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes Consequently, the Secretary is not decisions, is that Federal agencies are further that regulations must be based only required to evaluate the potential exercising her discretion to exclude any on the best available science and that incremental impacts of rulemaking on areas from this final designation based the rulemaking process must allow for those entities directly regulated by the on impacts on national security or public participation and an open rulemaking itself, and therefore, not homeland security. exchange of ideas. We have developed required to evaluate the potential Exclusions Based on Other Relevant this rule in a manner consistent with impacts to indirectly regulated entities. Impacts these requirements. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 realized is section 7 of the Act, which also consider any other relevant impacts et seq.) requires Federal agencies, in resulting from the designation of critical Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act consultation with the Service, to ensure habitat. We consider a number of (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended that any action authorized, funded, or factors, including whether the by the Small Business Regulatory carried by the agency is not likely to landowners have developed any HCPs Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 destroy or adversely modify critical or other management plans for the area, (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only or whether there are conservation whenever an agency is required to Federal action agencies are directly partnerships that would be encouraged publish a notice of rulemaking for any subject to the specific regulatory by designation of, or exclusion from, proposed or final rule, it must prepare requirement (avoiding destruction and critical habitat. In addition, we look at and make available for public comment adverse modification) imposed by any tribal issues and consider the a regulatory flexibility analysis that critical habitat designation. government-to-government relationship describes the effects of the rule on small Consequently, it is our position that of the United States with tribal entities. entities (i.e., small businesses, small only Federal action agencies will be We also consider any social impacts that organizations, and small government directly regulated by this designation. might occur because of the designation. jurisdictions). However, no regulatory There is no requirement under RFA to In preparing this final rule, we have flexibility analysis is required if the evaluate the potential impacts to entities determined that the Clark County HCP head of the agency certifies the rule will not directly regulated. Moreover, is the only permitted HCP or other not have a significant economic impact Federal agencies are not small entities. approved management plan for the on a substantial number of small Therefore, because no small entities are Mount Charleston blue butterfly, and entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA directly regulated by this rulemaking, the final designation does not include to require Federal agencies to provide a the Service certifies that, if any tribal lands or tribal trust resources. certification statement of the factual promulgated, the final critical habitat We did not receive comments on the basis for certifying that the rule will not designation will not have a significant designation of critical habitat for the have a significant economic impact on economic impact on a substantial Mount Charleston blue butterfly as it a substantial number of small entities. number of small entities. relates to the Clark County HCP. We According to the Small Business During the development of this final anticipate no impact on tribal lands, Administration, small entities include rule, we reviewed and evaluated all partnerships, or HCPs from this critical small organizations such as information submitted during the habitat designation. Accordingly, the independent nonprofit organizations; comment period that may pertain to our Secretary is not exercising his discretion small governmental jurisdictions, consideration of the probable to exclude any areas from this final including school boards and city and incremental economic impacts of this town governments that serve fewer than critical habitat designation. Based on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37427

this information, we affirm our Government’s responsibility to provide designation of critical habitat affects certification that this final critical funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal only Federal actions. Critical habitat habitat designation will not have a governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust designation does not affect landowner significant economic impact on a accordingly. At the time of enactment, actions that do not require Federal substantial number of small entities, these entitlement programs were: funding or permits, nor does it preclude and a regulatory flexibility analysis is Medicaid; Aid to Families with development of habitat conservation not required. Dependent Children work programs; programs or issuance of incidental take Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social permits to permit actions that do require Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— Services Block Grants; Vocational Federal funding or permits to go Executive Order 13211 Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, forward. Due to current public Executive Order 13211 (Actions Adoption Assistance, and Independent knowledge of the protections for the Concerning Regulations That Living; Family Support Welfare subspecies and the prohibition against Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Services; and Child Support take of the subspecies both within and Distribution, or Use) requires agencies Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector outside of the critical habitat areas, we to prepare Statements of Energy Effects mandate’’ includes a regulation that do not anticipate that property values when undertaking certain actions. OMB ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty will be affected by the critical habitat has provided guidance for upon the private sector, except (i) a designation. Based on the best available implementing this Executive Order that condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a information, the takings implications outlines nine outcomes that may duty arising from participation in a assessment concludes that this constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ voluntary Federal program.’’ designation of critical habitat for the when compared to not taking the The designation of critical habitat Mount Charleston blue butterfly does regulatory action under consideration. does not impose a legally binding duty not pose significant takings The economic analysis finds that none on non-Federal Government entities or implications. of these criteria is relevant to this private parties. Under the Act, the only analysis. Thus, based on information in regulatory effect is that Federal agencies Federalism—Executive Order 13132 the economic analysis, energy-related must ensure that their actions do not In accordance with E.O. 13132 impacts associated with Mount destroy or adversely modify critical (Federalism), this rule does not have Charleston blue butterfly conservation habitat under section 7. While non- significant Federalism effects. A activities within critical habitat are not Federal entities that receive Federal federalism summary impact statement is expected. As such, the designation of funding, assistance, or permits, or that not required. In keeping with critical habitat is not expected to otherwise require approval or Department of the Interior and significantly affect energy supplies, authorization from a Federal agency for Department of Commerce policy, we distribution, or use. Therefore, this an action, may be indirectly impacted requested information from, and action is not a significant energy action, by the designation of critical habitat, the coordinated development of this critical and no Statement of Energy Effects is legally binding duty to avoid habitat designation with, appropriate required. destruction or adverse modification of State resource agencies in Nevada. We did not receive official comments or Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 critical habitat rests squarely on the positions on the proposed designation U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are of critical habitat for the Mount In accordance with the Unfunded indirectly impacted because they Charleston blue butterfly from State of Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et receive Federal assistance or participate Nevada agencies. From a federalism seq.), we make the following findings: in a voluntary Federal aid program, the perspective, the designation of critical (1) This rule will not produce a Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would habitat directly affects only the Federal mandate. In general, a Federal not apply, nor would critical habitat responsibilities of Federal agencies. The mandate is a provision in legislation, shift the costs of the large entitlement Act imposes no other duties with statute, or regulation that would impose programs listed above onto State respect to critical habitat, either for an enforceable duty upon State, local, or governments. States and local governments, or for tribal governments, or the private sector, (2) We do not believe that this rule anyone else. As a result, the rule does and includes both ‘‘Federal will significantly or uniquely affect not have substantial direct effects either intergovernmental mandates’’ and small governments because because on the States, or on the relationship ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ minimal critical habitat is within the between the national government and These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. jurisdiction of small governments. the States, or on the distribution of 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental Consequently, we do not believe that powers and responsibilities among the mandate’’ includes a regulation that the critical habitat designation would various levels of government. The ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty significantly or uniquely affect small designation may have some benefit to upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ government entities. As such, a Small these governments because the areas with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a Government Agency Plan is not that contain the features essential to the condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also required. conservation of the species are more excludes ‘‘a duty arising from clearly defined, and the physical and participation in a voluntary Federal Takings—Executive Order 12630 biological features of the habitat program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates In accordance with Executive Order necessary to the conservation of the to a then-existing Federal program 12630 (‘‘Government Actions and species are specifically identified. This under which $500,000,000 or more is Interference with Constitutionally information does not alter where and provided annually to State, local, and Protected Private Property Rights’’), we what federally sponsored activities may tribal governments under entitlement have analyzed the potential takings occur. However, it may assist these local authority,’’ if the provision would implications of designating critical governments in long-range planning ‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of habitat for the Mount Charleston blue (because these local governments no assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or butterfly in a takings implications longer have to wait for case-by-case otherwise decrease, the Federal assessment. As discussed above, the section 7 consultations to occur).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37428 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Where State and local governments National Environmental Policy Act (42 by the Mount Charleston blue butterfly require approval or authorization from a U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) that are essential for the conservation of Federal agency for actions that may It is our position that, outside the the species. Therefore, we are not affect critical habitat, consultation jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals designating critical habitat for the under section 7(a)(2) will be required. for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to Mount Charleston blue butterfly on While non-Federal entities that receive prepare environmental analyses tribal lands. Federal funding, assistance, or permits, pursuant to the National Environmental References Cited or that otherwise require approval or Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et authorization from a Federal agency for seq.) in connection with designating A complete list of all references cited an action, may be indirectly impacted critical habitat under the Act. We is available on the Internet at http:// by the designation of critical habitat, the published a notice outlining our reasons www.regulations.gov and upon request legally binding duty to avoid for this determination in the Federal from the Southern Nevada Fish and destruction or adverse modification of Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER critical habitat rests squarely on the 49244). This position was upheld by the INFORMATION CONTACT). Federal agency. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Authors Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 12988 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied The primary authors of this In accordance with Executive Order 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). rulemaking are the staff members of the Pacific Southwest Regional Office and 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office Government-to-Government the Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife of the Solicitor has determined that the Relationship With Tribes rule does not unduly burden the judicial Office. In accordance with the President’s system and that it meets the applicable List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 standards set forth in sections 3(a) and memorandum of April 29, 1994 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating (Government-to-Government Relations Endangered and threatened species, critical habitat in accordance with the with Native American Tribal Exports, Imports, Reporting and provisions of the Act. To assist the Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive recordkeeping requirements, public in understanding the habitat Order 13175 (Consultation and Transportation. Coordination With Indian Tribal needs of the species, the rule identifies Regulation Promulgation the elements of physical or biological Governments), and the Department of features essential to the conservation of the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we Accordingly, we amend part 17, the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. readily acknowledge our responsibility subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the The designated areas of critical habitat to communicate meaningfully with Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth are presented on maps, and the rule recognized Federal Tribes on a below: provides several options for the government-to-government basis. In interested public to obtain more accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 PART 17—[AMENDED] detailed location information, if desired. of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust ■ Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 1. The authority citation for part 17 Responsibilities, and the Endangered continues to read as follows: U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Species Act), we readily acknowledge This rule does not contain any new our responsibilities to work directly Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise collections of information that require with tribes in developing programs for noted. approval by OMB under the Paperwork healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 tribal lands are not subject to the same ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the et seq.). This rule will not impose controls as Federal public lands, to entry for ‘‘Butterfly, Mount Charleston recordkeeping or reporting requirements remain sensitive to Indian culture, and blue’’ under in the List of on State or local governments, to make information available to tribes. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to individuals, businesses, or We determined that there are no tribal read as follows: organizations. An agency may not lands occupied by the Mount Charleston conduct or sponsor, and a person is not blue butterfly at the time of listing that § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. required to respond to, a collection of contain the physical or biological information unless it displays a features essential to conservation of the * * * * * currently valid OMB control number. species, and no tribal lands unoccupied (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

******* INSECTS

******* Butterfly, Mount Icaricia (Plebejus) U.S.A. (Clark Coun- Entire ...... E 820 17.95(i) NA Charleston blue. shasta ty, NV; Spring charlestonensis. Mountains).

*******

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37429

■ 3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (i) by (ii) The presence of one or more (3) Critical habitat does not include adding an entry for ‘‘Mount Charleston species of host plants required by larvae manmade structures (such as buildings, Blue Butterfly (Icaricia (Plebejus) shasta of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly aqueducts, runways, roads, and other charlestonensis),’’ in the same order that for feeding and growth. Known larval paved areas) and the land on which they the species appears in the table at host plants are Astragalus calycosus var. are located existing within the legal § 17.11(h), to read as follows: calycosus, Oxytropis oreophila var. boundaries on July 30, 2015. § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. oreophila, and Astragalus platytropis. (4) Critical habitat map units. Data Densities of host plants must be greater layers defining map units were created * * * * * 2 2 (i) Insects. than two per m (0.2 per ft ). on a base of Bureau of Land * * * * * (iii) The presence of one or more Management Public Land Survey Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly species of nectar plants required by System quarter-quarter sections. Critical (Icaricia (Plebejus) shasta adult Mount Charleston blue butterflies habitat units were then mapped using charlestonensis) for reproduction, feeding, and growth. Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) (1) Critical habitat units are depicted Common nectar plants include Erigeron Zone 11 North, North American Datum for Clark County, Nevada, on the map clokeyi, Hymenoxys lemmonii, (NAD) 1983 coordinates. The map in below. Hymenoxys cooperi, and Eriogonum this entry, as modified by any (2) Within these areas, the primary umbellatum var. versicolor. Densities of accompanying regulatory text, constituent elements of the physical or nectar plants must occur at more than establishes the boundaries of the critical biological features essential to the two per m2 (0.2 per ft2) for smaller habitat designation. The coordinates or conservation of the Mount Charleston plants, such as E. clokeyi, and more than plot points or both on which the map blue butterfly consist of three 0.1 per m2 (0.01 per ft2) for larger and is based are available to the public at the components: taller plants, such as Hymenoxys sp. and Service’s Internet site at http:// (i) Areas of dynamic habitat between www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/mcb_ 2,500 meters (m) (8,200 feet (ft)) and E. umbellatum. Nectar plants typically occur within 10 m (33 ft) of larval host butterfly.html, at http:// 3,500 m (11,500 ft) elevation with www.regulations.gov at Docket No. openings or where disturbance provides plants and, in combination, provide nectar during the adult flight period FWS–R8–ES–2013–0105, and at the openings in the canopy that have no field office responsible for this more than 50 percent tree cover between mid-July and early August. designation. You may obtain field office (allowing sunlight to reach the ground); Additional nectar sources that could be location information by contacting one widely spaced, low (less than 15 present in combination with the of the Service regional offices, the centimeters (cm) (0.5 ft) in height) forbs common nectar plants include addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR and grasses; and exposed soil and rock Antennaria rosea, Cryptantha sp., substrates. When taller grass and forb Ericameria nauseosa ssp., Erigeron 2.2. plants greater than or equal to 15 cm flagellaris, Guitierrezia sarothrae, (5) Map of critical habitat units for the (0.5 ft) in height are present, the density Monardella odoratissima, Petradoria Mount Charleston blue butterfly is less than five per square meter (m2) pumila var. pumila, and Potentilla follows: (50 per square foot (ft2)). concinna var. concinna. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 37430 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * * Dated: June 15, 2015. Michael Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 2015–15947 Filed 6–29–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Jun 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES ER30JN15.000