[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50971-50979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20864]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0055; MO 92210-0-0008]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition To List the Leona's Little Blue Butterfly as Endangered or 
Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on a petition to list the Leona's little blue butterfly, 
Philotiella leona, as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and to designate critical 
habitat. Based on our review, we find that the petition presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing the Leona's little blue butterfly may be warranted. Therefore, 
with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the 
status of the species to determine if listing the Leona's little blue 
butterfly is warranted. To ensure that this status review is 
comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and 
other information regarding this species. Based on the status review, 
we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address 
whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in the Act.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request 
that we receive information on or before October 17, 2011. The deadline 
for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 
this date. After October 17, 2011, you must submit information directly 
to the Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we might not be 
able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the 
above requested date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. [FWS-R8-ES-
2011-0055], which is the docket number for this action. Then, in the 
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type 
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You 
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-deliver to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2011-0055; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information we 
receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we 
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Request for 
Information section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Sada, Field Supervisor, Klamath 
Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, by telephone (541-885-8481), or by 
facsimile (541-885-7837). If you use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are 
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). 
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we request information on the 
Leona's little blue butterfly from governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other 
interested parties. We seek information on:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.

[[Page 50972]]

    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    If, after the status review, we determine that listing the Leona's 
little blue butterfly is warranted, we will propose critical habitat 
(see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the 
Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we 
propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and 
information on:
    (1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range 
currently occupied by the species;
    (2) Where these features are currently found;
    (3) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection;
    (4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species''; and
    (5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for 
designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such 
habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action 
under consideration without providing supporting information, although 
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any 
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your information concerning this status review by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the 
Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this personal identifying information from 
public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do 
so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on 
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on 
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted 
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To 
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the 
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day 
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition 
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial 
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to 
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently 
summarize in our 12-month finding.

Petition History

    On May 12, 2010, we received a petition dated May 12, 2010, from 
the Xerces Society, Dr. David McCorkle of Western Oregon University, 
and Oregon Wild, requesting that the Leona's little blue butterfly be 
listed as endangered and that critical habitat be designated under the 
Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the 
requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required 
by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a September 10, 2010, letter to the 
petitioners, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in 
the petition and determined that issuing an emergency regulation 
temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was 
not warranted. We also stated that we were required to complete a 
significant number of listing and critical habitat actions in Fiscal 
Year 2010 pursuant to court orders, judicially approved settlement 
agreements, and other statutory deadlines, but that we had secured 
funding for Fiscal Year 2011 and anticipated publishing a finding in 
the Federal Register in July 2011. This finding addresses the petition.

Species Information

    The Leona's little blue butterfly is a member of the Polyommatini 
Tribe (a taxonomic group under family) (Pyle 2002, p. 222) of the 
Lycaenidae family (Mattoni 1977, p. 223; Hammond and McCorkle 1999, 
p.1), and is the largest species in the Philotiella genus (Hammond and 
McCorkle 1999, p. 82). The Leona's little blue butterfly was discovered 
in 1995; the historical range of the species is unknown. The current 
known distribution of the Leona's little blue butterfly occurs within a 
6-square-mile (15.5-square-kilometer) area of the Antelope Desert, east 
of Crater Lake National Park in southern Oregon (Hammond and McCorkle 
1999, p. 77; Ross 2008, p. 1). The majority of this habitat occurs on 
the Mazama Tree Farm property, which is privately owned by Cascade 
Timberlands, LLC. A small percentage of land on which the Leona's 
little blue butterfly occurs is in the Fremont-Winema National Forests, 
United States Forest Service (USFS). There have been no rigorous 
presence/absence surveys conducted, and it is unknown if additional 
populations of the Leona's little blue butterfly exist in similar 
habitat elsewhere in northeastern California and eastern Oregon 
(Hammond and McCorkle 1999, p. 80; Ross 2008, p.1). In addition, there 
is no information on population trends of the Leona's little blue 
butterfly; however, the current population, based on a 2008 flight 
season count extrapolation, is estimated at 1,000 to 2,000 individuals 
(Ross 2010, p. 7).
    The Leona's little blue butterfly is found in volcanic ash and 
pumice fields and meadows (Hammond and McCorkle 1999, p. 77; Pyle 2002, 
p. 236; Ross 2008, p. 1) consisting of a nonforested bitterbrush/
needlegrass-sedge community (Volland 1985, p. 29; Johnson 2010, p. 2). 
Johnson (2010, p. 4) states that the plant community in the known, 
occupied habitat overlays a ``quaternary alluvial fan with very deep 
alluvium derived from pumice and other volcanic rock.'' The Leona's 
little blue butterfly utilizes several species of plants as nectar 
sources, including

[[Page 50973]]

Eriogonum spergulinum (spurry buckwheat), Eriogonum umbellatum var. 
polyanthum (sulphur buckwheat), and an Epilobium species (Hammond and 
McCorkle 1999, p. 82; Ross 2008, pp. 1, 5, and 20; Johnson 2010, p. 5), 
but the butterfly is known to have only one larval hostplant, Eriogonum 
spergulinum (Hammond and McCorkle 1999, p. 80; Ross 2008, p. 1; Johnson 
2010, p. 1). The Leona's little blue butterfly undergoes complete 
metamorphosis, developing through the egg, larva, and pupa stages in 
one summer, and then emerges from its chrysalis as an adult the 
following year (Ross 2010, p. 4). Adults of this species emerge for 
approximately 2 to 3 weeks in mid-June through mid-July (Ross 2008, p. 
1; Ross 2010, p. 4).
    We accept the characterization of the Leona's little blue butterfly 
at the species level based on the differences in size and wing 
coloration between it and the closely related Philotiella speciosa 
species (small-dotted blue butterfly), as well as the divergence of 
male and female genitalia between these two species (Hammond and 
McCorkle 1999, pp. 79-80). Additionally, the species is recognized as 
valid by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) and is 
described in NatureServe.

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a 
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be 
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual 
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no 
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If 
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may 
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat 
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the 
risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant 
listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the 
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The 
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the 
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of 
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall 
contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be 
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species 
may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether the information 
regarding threats to the Leona's little blue butterfly, as presented in 
the petition and other information available in our files, is 
substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition asserts that the Leona's little blue butterfly is 
threatened by loss of habitat due to intensified management for timber 
production, lodgepole pine tree encroachment, and fire (Xerces Society 
for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, pp. 10-11). The petition recognizes 
the need for active management of the Leona's little blue butterfly 
habitat; however, it states that the impacts of intensified timber 
production management on the Mazama Tree Farm may be destructive to the 
Leona's little blue butterfly habitat (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 11). In particular, the petition states concerns 
about the impacts of additional roads, traffic, and heavy equipment 
operations to the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat (Xerces Society 
for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 11). The petition states that 
fire suppression over the last 50 years has led to a loss of meadow and 
other open canopy habitat (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 
2010, p. 10). Specifically, the petition states that young lodgepole 
pine trees have encroached into open patches of habitat resulting in a 
loss of breeding and foraging habitat for the Leona's little blue 
butterfly on the Mazama Tree Farm property (Xerces Society for 
Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 10). This encroachment increases the 
fuel loads of the forest which could also result in a catastrophic fire 
across the landscape (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 
2010, p. 10). The petition claims that such a fire could have 
deleterious impacts to the survival of the only population of the 
Leona's little blue butterfly (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 10).
    The petition also states that grazing, cinder mining, and the 
potential development of a biomass energy facility may have deleterious 
impacts on the only population of the Leona's little blue butterfly. 
The first land management practice discussed in the petition is 
livestock grazing (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, 
p. 15). The petition cites the Winema National Forest Land and Resource 
Management Plan, hereafter the USFS Plan, and the Klamath Tribes' 
Management of the Klamath Reservation Forest Plan, stating that both 
plans allow for livestock grazing on the Leona's little blue butterfly 
habitat (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). 
While the petition notes the lack of knowledge of the impact of 
livestock grazing on the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat, it 
concludes that livestock grazing is incompatible with the management of 
the Leona's little blue butterfly population because adult food sources 
may be eaten by the cattle and the cattle may disturb the soil, 
allowing weeds to invade (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 
2010, pp. 15-16). The petition also asserts that cattle have the 
ability to destroy native vegetation (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 15).
    The second land management practice that the petition cites is 
cinder mining (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 
15). The petition asserts that numerous cinder mining pits, managed by 
the Oregon Department of Transportation, exist within the vicinity of 
the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat, some of which occur within 
the Fremont-Winema National Forests (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 15). The petition claims that cinder mining pits 
are periodically expanded, resulting in the potential for exploration 
to occur within a 40 acre (ac) (16.2 hectare (ha)) area adjacent to any 
existing pits (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 
15). The petition declares that the exploration, drilling, and 
expansion processes have the ability to destroy the Leona's little blue 
butterfly habitat (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, 
p. 15).

[[Page 50974]]

    Finally, the petition states that a biomass energy facility may be 
developed by The Klamath Tribes within the Leona's little blue 
butterfly habitat if the Mazama Tree Farm property is transferred to 
The Klamath Tribes. The petition claims that such a facility could 
negatively impact the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat (Xerces 
Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 15).
    The petition discusses the use of three herbicides--chlorosulfuron, 
glysophate, and triclopyr--and their direct and indirect impacts to the 
Leona's little blue butterfly habitat (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 14). The petition claims that these herbicides 
have the ability to impact the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat by 
reducing nectar resources and host plants (Xerces Society for 
Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 14).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Smallidge and Leopold (1997, p. 268) discuss the use of timber 
production as a means to maintain habitat for butterflies that require 
open clearings within woodlands. The occupied habitat of the Leona's 
little blue butterfly was once logged, and the evidence of logging 
still persists. Timber extraction and production creates roads and 
additional disturbances that foster the development of early 
successional plants (Smallidge and Leopold 1997, p. 268). To evaluate 
this claim for the Leona's little blue butterfly, aerial photos were 
reviewed that showed a large number of roads, cleared Right-of-Ways 
(ROWs), and large openings within the occupied habitat. In addition, 
the densest stands of Eriogonum spergulinum, the sole host plant for 
the Leona's little blue butterfly, occur in disturbed areas around old 
burned slash piles, edges of unimproved roads, and periodically 
disturbed areas associated with the gas and electric powerline ROWs 
(Ross 2010, p. 5). In a study on Fender's blue butterflies (Icaricia 
icarioides fenderi), Severns (2008, pp. 56-57) observed that roads were 
not a barrier to butterflies, as long as they were narrow and without 
vegetation barriers, and contained infrequent or slow-moving traffic. 
However, it is unknown how intensive timber production would impact the 
habitat of the Leona's little blue butterfly. At this point, we have no 
information to indicate that the current landowner, Cascade 
Timberlands, LLC, intends to resume timber extraction in the future. In 
addition, while there is information that indicates The Klamath Tribes' 
proposed management for the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat is 
timber extraction (Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 23-24), the Klamath Forest 
Plan will not be implemented until the U.S. Congress authorizes funding 
for The Klamath Tribes' purchase of the Mazama Tree Farm property from 
Cascade Timberlands, LLC. Therefore, we do not have substantial 
information within our files to indicate the petitioned action may be 
warranted due to loss of habitat from timber production and management. 
However, we will further evaluate information about these activities' 
potential impact to the species in our status review.
    The Klamath Forest Plan states that historically, the lodgepole 
pine/bitterbrush habitat type that existed was comprised of lodgepole 
forests in different age mosaics and low densities, with a definite 
bitterbrush component (Johnson et al. 2008, p. 21). However, an on-the-
ground assessment of the butterfly habitat in 2009 by Sarina Jepsen of 
the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation indicates that 
encroachment of lodgepole pine trees is occurring (Xerces Society for 
Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 10). Neither the petition nor the 
information in our files indicates the rate at which lodgepole pine 
trees are encroaching into the openings and meadows that encompass the 
Leona's little blue butterfly habitat. However, we have determined that 
the information provided in the petition and in our files concerning 
loss of open habitat associated with the encroachment of lodgepole pine 
trees does present substantial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.
    A review of the information provided by the petition and within our 
files indicates that The Klamath Tribe intends to use controlled burns 
to manage habitat similar to the Leona's little blue butterfly's 
habitat (Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 23-24). The Klamath Forest Plan's 
management of the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat is contingent 
on the future authorization of funding by the U.S. Congress to support 
The Klamath Tribes' purchase of the Mazama Tree Farm property from 
Cascade Timberlands, LLC. Until this purchase occurs, there is no 
information to indicate that Cascade Timberlands, LLC, the current 
landowner, plans to use fire to manage the Leona's little blue 
butterfly habitat. In addition, controlled burns appear to have both 
negative and positive effects on invertebrates (Smallidge and Leopold 
1997, p. 271; Huntzinger 2003, p. 9; Black et al. 2009, p. 2; Vogel et 
al. 2010, p. 672). Huntzinger (2003, p. 8) observed that butterfly 
species richness and diversity was greater in burned rather than 
unburned sites. However, Black et al. (2009, pp. 2, 11) observed a 
decline in Mardon skipper butterfly (Polites mardon) abundance at some 
sites in 2009 following a controlled burn in 2008. In addition, areas 
that burned within these study sites experienced population reductions 
within the 2009 flight period, compared to unburned areas, which 
increased in population numbers (Black et al. 2009, pp. 5-10). Vogel et 
al. (2010, p. 663) observed that habitat specialist butterflies 
required a long recovery period, approximately 50 to 70 months post-
burn, to return to their pre-fire abundance and richness. Vogel et al. 
(2010, p. 673) suggests that the only potential for fire-sensitive 
species recovery is for recolonization from nearby unburned areas. On 
the other hand, Smallidge and Leopold (1997, p. 271) suggest controlled 
burns as a means of vegetation management in butterfly habitat, though 
they caution that controlled burning is most beneficial when the 
historical natural regime included fire and a comprehensive monitoring 
plan exists that is associated with the controlled burn (Huntzinger 
2003, p. 9). The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) has kept extensive 
records on lightning strikes and their associated fires in this area 
since 1960. Approximately 10 fires, all under 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) in size, 
have occurred in occupied Leona's little blue butterfly habitat since 
1960 (Johnson 2010, p. 7). Each fire was suppressed by ODF (Johnson 
2010, p. 7).
    Even though fires are often suppressed, controlled burns or 
lightning strike fires can escape their perimeters and burn across the 
landscape. The petition cites an article that recognizes the high 
potential for fire danger on the Mazama Tree Farm due to a high density 
of lodgepole pine (Milstein 2008). It is uncertain whether the portion 
of the 90,000-ac (36,422-ha) Mazama Tree Farm (Milstein 2008) that 
contains the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat is at high risk of a 
catastrophic fire. However, a catastrophic fire could be devastating to 
the habitat. Therefore, we have determined that the information 
provided in the petition and in our files presents substantial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due 
to the potential effects of fire on the Leona's little blue butterfly 
habitat.
    A review of the literature provided by the petition and within our 
files indicates that managed grazing can be considered a useful tool 
for maintaining butterfly habitat. Sites in southern Britain that were 
previously managed by

[[Page 50975]]

grazing, but were no longer grazed, had several species of butterflies 
that declined in abundance (Warren 1993, p. 45). However, caution must 
be used in the decision to implement grazing as a management tool, 
because overgrazing can have negative consequences on species diversity 
and abundance. For example, a grazing study in Britain showed that as 
the intensity of grazing increased, the invertebrate species richness 
decreased (Gibson et al. 1992, p. 171). Different herbivores have 
various effects upon the vegetation and the habitat that they graze 
(Warren 1993, p. 46; Smallidge and Leopold 1997, p. 270); therefore, 
the appropriate herbivores must be used for specific vegetation 
objectives, and the intensity of herbivore grazing must be monitored to 
avoid overgrazing (Warren 1993, p. 46; Smallidge and Leopold 1997, p. 
270).
    The USFS Plan allows for grazing within designated allotments on 
USFS land (USFS 1990, p. 2-6). However, there is no information within 
the USFS Plan or within our files, that indicates whether these 
allotments include the Leona's little blue butterfly or its habitat. 
The USFS Plan does state that allotments will be managed to improve the 
condition of the range, and that the demand will be met only when it 
does not conflict with other uses such as wildlife and recreational 
needs (USFS 1990, p. 4-12). While the Klamath Forest Plan will allow 
for grazing on mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) winter range, the 
Klamath Forest Plan's application to the Leona's little blue butterfly 
is contingent on the future authorization of funding by the U.S. 
Congress to support The Klamath Tribes' purchase of the Mazama Tree 
Farm property from Cascade Timberlands, LLC. There is no information 
within the petition or within our files that indicates that the current 
owner, Cascade Timberlands, LLC, or the USFS plan will allow grazing in 
the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat. Therefore, there is not 
substantial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be 
warranted due to habitat loss from grazing. However, we will further 
evaluate information about this activity's potential impact to the 
species in our status review.
    A review of the information in our files and provided by the 
petition regarding cinder mines indicates that proposed activities 
associated with the exploration for cinder mines could be detrimental 
to the habitat of the Leona's little blue butterfly (Cruz 2006, Web 
site). However, the two proposed cinder mine expansion projects 
discussed by the petition, Lookout Butte and Jackson Creek, have both 
been canceled (USFS 2010, p. 1). File maps describe these projects as a 
minimum of 7 straight-line miles (mi) (11.3 kilometers (km)) from the 
known, occupied habitat for the Leona's little blue butterfly (ESRI 
2010). The USFS Plan states that ``salable mineral material sources 
located within state or interstate transportation and utility corridors 
normally should not be developed'' (USFS Plan 1990, p. 4-57). However, 
the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat currently includes both 
transportation corridors and utility corridors in the form of ROWs for 
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Bonneville Power 
Administration (BPA) (Johnson 2010, p. 10). It is unknown whether the 
Leona's little blue butterfly habitat on the USFS parcels will be 
developed into cinder mines. While the petition provided us with 
information regarding proposed projects and their potential impacts to 
the Leona's little blue butterfly and its habitat, the petition did not 
provide information, nor do we have information in our files, regarding 
the status, proximity, or future considerations of other potential 
cinder mines in or near Leona's little blue butterfly habitat. 
Therefore, we do not have substantial information to indicate that the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to loss of habitat from cinder 
mining activities in the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat. 
However, we will further evaluate information about this activity's 
potential impact to the species in our status review.
    Milstein (2008) states that The Klamath Tribes intend to develop a 
``green energy park centered around a biomass energy facility.'' The 
Klamath Forest Plan indicates that a 10-megawatt (MW) biomass facility 
would require a minimum of 7 ac (2.8 ha) for proper siting and 40 
truckloads per day of material for fuel (Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 92-
93). The petition did not provide any information, nor do we have any 
information in our files, about the proposed location of this facility 
on the 90,000 ac (36,422-ha) Mazama Tree Farm property, and whether or 
not it might occur in the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat. It is 
important to note that this proposed project cannot proceed until The 
Klamath Tribes receive funding from the U.S. Congress to purchase the 
property from Cascade Timberlands, LLC. Therefore, there is not 
substantial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be 
warranted due to loss of habitat from the biomass facility 
construction. However, we will further evaluate information about this 
activity's potential impact to the species in our status review.
    While the petition provides references that support the negative 
effects of herbicides on invertebrates, a review of their references 
and the information within our files did not provide any evidence that 
these chemicals are being applied to the Leona's little blue butterfly 
habitat. Therefore, we have determined that the information provided in 
the petition and in our files concerning the effects of herbicides on 
the Leona's little blue butterfly does not present substantial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due 
to loss of habitat associated with herbicides. However, we will further 
evaluate information about this activity's potential impact to the 
species in our status review.
    In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, 
as well as other information in our files, presents substantial 
scientific and commercial information that the petitioned action may be 
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification or 
curtailment of habitat or range relating to the encroachment of 
lodgepole pine trees into the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat and 
catastrophic fire events. We will further evaluate all information 
relating to activities addressed under this factor in our status review 
of the species.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes.

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that insect collection is an essential 
component to scientific study (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 16). The petition claims that, in a study to 
validate the Leona's little blue butterfly as a species, it was 
necessary to collect 100 individuals (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 16). The petition also states that the only known 
population of the Leona's little blue butterfly has a population 
estimate of 1,000 to 2,000 individuals (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 16). Therefore, the petition considers the 
Leona's little blue butterfly to be ``vulnerable to over-collection'' 
(Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Hammond and McCorkle (1999, p. 77) list the number of individual 
Leona's little blue butterflies collected and distributed to various 
institutions and

[[Page 50976]]

individuals as totaling 130 butterflies. We recognize that butterfly 
specialists in the past have been avid collectors of butterflies 
(Sullivan 1993; Yamaguchi 1993, pp. 1-86). However, neither the 
petition, nor the information within our files, indicates that there is 
continued or ongoing collection of the Leona's little blue butterfly 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. We 
also do not have information indicating that documented collections 
have had an adverse effect on the Leona's little blue butterfly. 
Therefore, we find that the petition and the information within our 
files does not present substantial information to indicate that the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. However, 
we will further investigate the potential threat of overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes in our 
status review for this species.

C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that the Leona's little blue butterfly is 
vulnerable to extinction by the threats of disease and predation due to 
the fact that it is ``only a single population * * * in a highly 
restricted area'' (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, 
p. 16). The petition states that, with normal population fluctuations, 
even small amounts of habitat loss or degradation can result in a small 
population's extirpation (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 
2010, p. 16). The petition lists the Asian lady beetle (Harmonia 
axyridis) as a possible predator of the Leona's little blue butterfly 
(Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    While the petition cites several sources pertaining to minimum 
population sizes and the practice of population conservation of 
invertebrate species in order to avoid extinction, it does not provide 
any specific information regarding the impacts of predators or disease 
on the Leona's little blue butterfly. In addition, while the petition 
lists the Asian lady beetle as a potential predator, it does not 
provide any references regarding this species or other potential 
predators or diseases of Lepidopteron species. We also do not have any 
information regarding the effects of disease or predation on the 
Leona's little blue butterfly within our files. We have reviewed the 
petition and the information in our files and find that there is not 
substantial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be 
warranted due to disease or predation. However, we will further 
investigate the potential threat of disease or predation in our status 
review for this species.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that there are no specific existing regulatory 
mechanisms that currently protect the ``unique requirements of the 
Leona's little blue butterfly'' (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 17). The petition states that the Service and 
USFS do not offer protective status to the Leona's little blue 
butterfly or address the species within a conservation plan or a 
National Forest Plan (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 
2010, p. 17). The petition also asserts that both agencies are and have 
been aware of the species and have funded surveys in the past to better 
understand the distribution of the species (Xerces Society for 
Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17). Regarding State mechanisms, the 
petition notes that invertebrate species do not qualify for listing 
under the Oregon Endangered Species statute, and that the Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife did not consider this species in its 
latest evaluation. Therefore, no State law offers any targeted 
protection to the Leona's little blue butterfly (Xerces Society for 
Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17). In addition, the petition 
states that the Oregon Board of Forestry does not provide any 
regulations that protect the Leona's little blue butterfly on private 
lands (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17). The 
petition notes that although The Klamath Tribes will own and manage the 
bulk of the known occupied habitat once a land acquisition under the 
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is complete, no protection is 
extended to the Leona's little blue butterfly in the Klamath Forest 
Plan (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition states that there are no specific existing regulatory 
mechanisms that currently protect the Leona's little blue butterfly or 
its habitat. As noted in the petition, the Oregon State Endangered 
Species statute does not recognize invertebrates as eligible for 
listing and, therefore, protection. We cannot find that the Oregon 
State Endangered Species statute is inadequate in offering protection 
that is beyond the scope of that regulation as written. Currently, 
there are no existing regulatory mechanisms for the Leona's little blue 
butterfly or its habitat. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information available within our files does not present substantial 
information that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. However, we will further 
investigate the potential threat of the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms in our status review for this species.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that due to its ``exceptionally limited range 
and small population size, the Leona's little blue butterfly is 
uniquely susceptible to extinction from stochastic events'' (Xerces 
Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17). In particular, the 
petition discusses the impacts of genetic inbreeding, droughts, and 
catastrophic fires on a small, geographically limited population 
(Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17). Such 
events, with no outside populations for re-colonization, could occur 
and lead to a loss of genetic variability or extermination of the 
species (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17).
    In addition, the petition states that six of the threats which 
could result in habitat loss or curtailment, including fire, timber 
production management, herbicides, cinder mining, the construction of a 
biomass facility, and livestock grazing, also have the ability to cause 
direct mortality of individuals. It also states that the application of 
insecticides could result in the death of individuals at all stages of 
their development. The petition claims that fire suppression and the 
subsequent conifer encroachment that is occurring in the Leona's little 
blue butterfly habitat is increasing the fuel loads of the forest and 
could result in a catastrophic fire across the landscape (Xerces 
Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 10). It states that such 
a fire could result in the extinction of the Leona's little blue 
butterfly (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 10). 
Furthermore, while the petition recognizes the need for active 
management of the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat, it states that 
the

[[Page 50977]]

impacts of intensified timber production on the Mazama Tree Farm may 
have a negative impact on the Leona's little blue butterfly, especially 
if activities, such as trampling by personnel, piling of log slash, and 
burning of log piles, are completed without consideration of the 
Leona's little blue butterfly distribution and biology (Xerces Society 
for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 11).
    Additionally, the petition discusses the use of three herbicides--
chlorosulfuron, glysophate, and triclopyr--and their direct and 
indirect impacts to the Leona's little blue butterfly (Xerces Society 
for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 14). The petition claims that 
chlorosulfuron, glysophate, and triclopyr are the most commonly used 
herbicides in timber management and restoration projects and that these 
chemicals are known to delay the development of butterflies that feed 
on herbicide-treated plants (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 14). Also, the petition declares that the 
activities and heavy equipment associated with the exploration, 
drilling, and expansion processes associated with cinder mining have 
the ability to result in direct mortality of the Leona's little blue 
butterfly (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 15).
    The petition also states that a biomass energy facility may be 
developed by The Klamath Tribes within the Leona's little blue 
butterfly habitat if the Mazama Tree Farm property is transferred to 
The Klamath Tribes. The petition claims that the construction of such a 
facility could result in direct mortality of individuals, ultimately 
driving the species to extinction (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 15). In addition, the petition cites the USFS 
Plan and The Klamath Tribes' management plan, stating that both plans 
allow for livestock grazing on the Leona's little blue butterfly 
habitat (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). 
While the petition notes the lack of knowledge of the impact of 
livestock grazing on the Leona's little blue butterfly, it concludes 
that livestock grazing is incompatible with the management of the 
Leona's little blue butterfly population because grazing can result in 
trampling of eggs, larvae, pupae, and adults (Xerces Society for 
Invertebrate Conservation 2010, pp. 15-16).
    Finally, the petition lists three pesticides--diflubenzuron, 
carbaryl, and malathion--as being commonly used in Klamath County, 
Oregon, and states that they are toxic to the Leona's little blue 
butterfly at various life stages (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, pp. 11-12). The petition states that diflubenzuron 
(also known as dimlin) is commonly used on the Klamath Marsh National 
Wildlife Refuge (KMNWR) to control native grasshopper outbreaks and is 
highly toxic in small doses to Lepidoptera caterpillars (Xerces Society 
for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 12). The petition cites 
diflubenzuron's ability to affect butterflies at their larval stage by 
arresting the chitin synthesis process (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 12). The petition also asserts that carbaryl and 
malathion both attack the nervous systems of individuals and are highly 
toxic to terrestrial invertebrates at all life stages (Xerces Society 
for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, pp. 12-13). The petition asserts 
that these chemicals have the ability to affect the Leona's little blue 
butterfly by direct application as well as by pesticide drift (Xerces 
Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 13). The petition claims 
that small doses of pesticide are capable of reaching a distance of 6.2 
mi (10 km) via pesticide drift during ground or aerial applications 
completed by the Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) (Xerces Society for 
Invertebrate Conservation 2010, pp. 11, 14).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Having a small population size in and of itself will not ordinarily 
lead to population extinction (Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. 127). 
Observations of small populations of checkerspot butterflies (Euphydras 
editha) suggest that the populations can persist for numerous 
generations (Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. 127). In addition, after a 
population of checkerspot butterflies went through a genetic 
bottleneck, it continued to persist, suggesting that such effects may 
not be limiting factors for butterflies (Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. 
127). Checkerspot butterflies have demonstrated the ability to increase 
their dispersal distance in dry years as well as in years with 
population explosions (Erhlich and Murphy 1987, p. 127). However, 
Ehrlich and Murphy (1987, p. 127) state that small populations are 
particularly susceptible to extinction due to stochastic events. While 
the information in our files suggests that butterflies are adaptable 
and capable of persisting in small populations, we agree that a small, 
geographically limited population is more vulnerable to extinction due 
to stochastic events, such as the potential threat of catastrophic fire 
in the case of Leona's little blue butterfly. Therefore, we have 
determined that the information provided in the petition and in our 
files presents substantial information that the petitioned action may 
be warranted due to stochastic events such as the potential threat of 
catastrophic fire.
    A review of the information provided by the petition and within our 
files indicates that The Klamath Tribe intends to use controlled burns 
to manage habitat similar to the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat 
(Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 23-24). The Klamath Forest Plan's management 
of Leona's little blue butterfly habitat is contingent on the future 
authorization of funding by the U.S. Congress to support The Klamath 
Tribes' purchase of the Mazama Tree Farm property from Cascade 
Timberlands, LLC. There is no information to indicate that Cascade 
Timberlands, LLC, the current landowner, plans to use fire to manage 
Leona's little blue butterfly habitat.
    Even though fires are often suppressed, controlled burns or 
lightning strike fires can escape their perimeters and burn across the 
landscape. The petition cites an article that recognizes the high 
potential for fire danger on the Mazama Tree Farm due to a high density 
of lodgepole pine (Milstein 2008). It is uncertain whether the portion 
of the 90,000-ac (36,422-ha) Mazama Tree Farm (Milstein 2008) that 
contains the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat is at high risk of a 
catastrophic fire. However, a catastrophic fire could cause the direct 
loss of individuals and have a devastating effect on the butterfly 
population. Therefore, we have determined that the information provided 
in the petition and in our files concerning the effects of fire on the 
Leona's little blue butterfly presents substantial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the 
direct loss of individuals to fire.
    It is unknown how intensive timber production impacts the Leona's 
little blue butterfly. We recognize that the potential impacts of 
intensive timber production (piling of slash piles, burning piles, and 
trampling) could be detrimental to individuals if the Leona's little 
blue butterfly is not taken into consideration prior to project 
initiation. However, we have no information to indicate that the 
current landowner, Cascade Timberlands, LLC, intends to resume timber 
extraction into the future. In addition, while there is information 
that indicates The Klamath Tribes' proposed management for the Leona's 
little blue butterfly habitat is timber extraction (Johnson et al. 
2008, pp. 23-

[[Page 50978]]

24), the Klamath Forest Plan will not be implemented until the U.S. 
Congress authorizes funding for The Klamath Tribes' purchase of the 
Mazama Tree Farm property from Cascade Timberlands, LLC. Therefore, we 
do not have substantial information within our files to indicate the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to direct mortality from timber 
production. However, we will further evaluate information about this 
activity's potential impact to the species in our status review.
    While the petition provides references that support the negative 
effects of herbicides on invertebrates, a review of the references 
provided by the petition and the information within our files does not 
provide evidence that these chemicals are being applied to the habitat 
of the Leona's little blue butterfly. Therefore, we have determined 
that the information provided in the petition and in our files 
concerning the effects of herbicides on the Leona's little blue 
butterfly does not present substantial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to direct mortality of 
individuals. However, we will further evaluate information about this 
activity's potential impact to the species in our status review.
    A review of the information in our files and provided by the 
petition regarding cinder mines indicates that proposed activities 
associated with the exploration for cinder mines could be detrimental 
to the Leona's little blue butterfly (Cruz 2006, Web site). However, 
while the petition provided information regarding proposed projects and 
their potential impacts to the Leona's little blue butterflies and 
their habitats, it did not provide information, nor do we have 
information in our files, regarding the status, proximity, or future 
considerations of other potential cinder mines in or near the Leona's 
little blue butterfly habitat. Therefore, there is not substantial 
information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted due 
to the direct loss of individuals from cinder mining activities. 
However, we will further evaluate information about this activity's 
potential impact to the species in our status review.
    The Klamath Forest Plan indicates that a 10-megawatt (MW) biomass 
facility would require a minimum of 7 ac (2.8 ha) for proper siting and 
40 truckloads per day of material for fuel (Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 
92-93). The petition did not provide any information, nor do we have 
any information in our files, about the proposed location of this 
facility on the 90,000-ac (36,422-ha) Mazama Tree Farm property, and 
whether or not it might occur in the Leona's little blue butterfly 
habitat, and thus have the potential to directly impact individuals. It 
is important to note that this proposed project cannot proceed until 
The Klamath Tribes' receive funding from the U.S. Congress to purchase 
the property from Cascade Timberlands, LLC. Therefore, there is not 
substantial information to indicate the petitioned action may be 
warranted due to direct mortality of individuals from the biomass 
facility construction and subsequent operations. However, we will 
further evaluate information about this activity's potential impact to 
the species in our status review.
    The USFS Plan allows for grazing within designated allotments on 
USFS land (USFS 1990, pp. 2-6). However, there is no information within 
the USFS Plan, or within our files, that indicates whether these 
allotments include the Leona's little blue butterfly or its habitat. 
The USFS Plan does state that allotments will be managed to improve the 
condition of the range, and that the demand for grazing will be met 
only when it does not conflict with other uses, such as wildlife and 
recreational needs (USFS 1990, pp. 4-12). While the Klamath Forest Plan 
will allow for grazing on mule deer winter range, the Klamath Forest 
Plan's application to the Leona's little blue butterfly habitat is 
contingent on the future authorization of funding by the U.S. Congress 
to support The Klamath Tribes' purchase of the Mazama Tree Farm 
property from Cascade Timberlands, LLC. There is no information within 
the petition or within our files that indicates that the current owner, 
Cascade Timberlands, LLC, or the USFS plan to allow grazing in the 
Leona's little blue butterfly habitat. Therefore, there is not 
substantial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be 
warranted due to direct mortality associated with grazing. However, we 
will further evaluate information about this activity's potential 
impact to the species in our status review.
    A review of the information provided by the petition and within our 
files indicates that, when used to control pest species, insecticides 
such as diflubenzuron, carbaryl, and malathion can have a detrimental 
effect on nontarget vertebrate and invertebrate species (Alston and 
Teppedino 2000, p. III.4-1; Sample et al. 1993, p. 622; Cox 1993, pp. 
31-34). A review of the Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (KMNWR-CCP) revealed that, since 2004, 
the KMNWR no longer uses pesticides to remove clear-winged grasshoppers 
(Camnula pellucida (Scudder)) unless the population exceeds the 
economic thresholds of 14 to 24 individuals per square yard (USFWS 
2010, p. 68). Since 2004, the KMNWR has used pesticides to remove 
grasshoppers in the years 2005 and 2007 (USFWS 2010, p. 68). In 
addition, the KMNWR no longer uses malathion or carbaryl for the 
removal of pest species like clear-winged grasshoppers, but instead 
uses diflubenzuron (USFWS 2010, p. 68). To minimize exposure impacts, 
the KMNWR applies the chemical to the ground from an all-terrain 
vehicle utilizing a method known as Reduced Area Agent Treatment 
Strategy (RAATS) (USFWS 2010, p. 68). This method not only reduces the 
amount of chemicals used, but it also reduces the area that is impacted 
both by direct application and pesticide drift. A review of a map of 
the KMNWR-CCP (2010, p. 69) depicting the general locations of clear-
winged grasshopper outbreaks in 2007, shows a straight-line distance to 
the nearest known Leona's little blue butterfly location to be over 7 
mi (11.3 km). Disregarding the RAATS application method and its 
associated minimization methods, the distance of 7 mi (11.3 km) is 
still beyond the petition's assumed worst case scenario pesticide drift 
distance of 6.2 mi (10 km) (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation 2010, p. 14). Based on the information provided in the 
petition and our files, there is not substantial information to 
indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted due to direct 
mortality of individuals from direct application of pesticides on KMNWR 
or pesticide drift from KMNWR. However, we will further evaluate 
information about this activity's potential impact to the species in 
our status review.
    Private landowners near the KMNWR, and in cooperation with APHIS, 
use malathion, diflubenzuron, and carbaryl for grasshopper control 
(APHIS 2009, pp. 1, 12). This action occurs primarily on rangelands in 
Klamath County, Oregon, and is focused on grassland and shrublands 
while excluding forest (APHIS 2009, pp. 15-16). A review of our files 
regarding APHIS' grasshopper and Mormon cricket (Anabrus simplex) 
suppression program shows several conservation measures designed to 
minimize the impact of pesticides on listed species and sensitive 
areas. Regardless of the mode of application, the Environmental 
Monitoring Plan states that APHIS is required to use buffers around 
areas with listed species and sensitive areas such as residential 
communities, organic crops, and surface

[[Page 50979]]

water bodies (APHIS 2010, p. 1). A review of aerial photos within our 
files shows that the nearest known Leona's little blue butterfly 
locations are separated from rangeland by both forests and residential 
communities. Aerial application is of greatest concern for pesticide 
drift (Ghassemi et al. 1982, p. 510). APHIS has strict requirements 
when conducting aerial applications, including a requirement that they 
must not spray when winds exceed 10 miles per hour (mph) and that 
application will not occur when it is raining, or foggy, when foliage 
is wet, when there is air turbulence, when a temperature inversion 
exists in the project area, or when the temperature exceeds 80 
Fahrenheit degrees (26.7 [deg]C) (Mauer 2010, p. 3). In addition, all 
boundaries and buffers will be clearly marked, all airplanes will be 
equipped with global positioning systems to guide the pilots, and free 
flying is not allowed (Mauer 2010, p. 3). APHIS will also conduct 
monitoring to ensure that they are in compliance with the protective 
measures, including dye cards to monitor the extent and concentration 
of pesticide drift (Mauer 2010, p. 3 and APHIS 2010 Environmental 
Monitoring Plan, p. 3). In order to minimize the risk to nontarget 
terrestrial invertebrate species, APHIS uses only diflubenzuron spray 
or carbaryl bait whenever possible (APHIS 2009, p. 33). These chemicals 
are only toxic to invertebrates when they are in their immature stages 
(APHIS 2009, p. 12). In addition, diflubenzuron is normally only 
applied prior to the third week of June, as its efficacy decreases by 
the first week of July as a result of grasshopper development (APHIS 
2009, p. 12). The Leona's little blue butterfly emerges from its 
chrysalis as an adult in mid-June through mid-July, and its immature 
stages occur 2 to 6 weeks after the adults emerge (mid-July to August) 
(Ross 2008, pp. 1, 4, 8). In addition, a monitoring study of carbaryl 
bait application indicated that the maximum particle drift was 150 feet 
(46 meters) in crosswinds of 13 mph (APHIS 2010, p. 7). Therefore, the 
immature stage of Leona's little blue butterfly is not at risk from 
APHIS' current diflubenzuron application program, because of the timing 
of its development and APHIS' pesticide application methods.
    While information suggests that APHIS' pesticide application 
methods may not harm the Leona's little blue butterfly, we recognize 
that APHIS' low-impact method is a voluntary program (APHIS 2009, p. 
1). A review of the petition and our files does not indicate to what 
extent private landowners near the known Leona's little blue butterfly 
locations and habitat are utilizing APHIS' methods. As a result, the 
impacts of private-rangeland pesticide application to the Leona's 
little blue butterfly are unknown. Therefore, there is not substantial 
information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted due 
to direct mortality by the application of pesticides by the KMNWR, 
APHIS, and private landowners in Klamath County, Oregon. However, we 
will further evaluate information about this activity's potential 
impact to the species in our status review.
    In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, 
as well as other information in our files, presents substantial 
scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted due to other natural and manmade factors 
relating to limited range and small population size and vulnerability 
to stochastic events. We will further evaluate information relating to 
events and activities addressed under this factor in our status review 
of the species.

Finding

    On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing the Leona's little blue 
butterfly throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding is 
based on information provided under Factors A (present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or 
range) and E (other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' 
continued existence). Specifically, we find that the following may pose 
threats to the Leona's little blue butterfly throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, such that the petitioned action may 
be warranted: The encroachment of lodgepole pine trees into the Leona's 
little blue butterfly habitat and the loss of habitat and individuals 
from catastrophic fire and stochastic events. We determine that the 
information provided under Factors B (overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific or educational purposes), C (disease or 
predation), and D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms) is 
not substantial. However, we will further evaluate all information 
related to these factors in our status review of the species.
    Because we have found that the petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing the Leona's little blue butterfly 
may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine 
whether listing the Leona's little blue butterfly under the Act is 
warranted.
    The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding 
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard 
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned 
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status 
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether 
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough 
status review of the species, which is conducted following a 
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a 
warranted finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Klamath Falls Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 4, 2011.
David Cottingham,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-20864 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P