[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59517-59540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23747]
[[Page 59517]]
Vol. 77
Thursday,
No. 188
September 27, 2012
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Listing of the
Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly as Endangered and Proposed Listing of
Five Blue Butterflies as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 59518]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R8-ES-2012-0069; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AY52
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Listing
of the Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly as Endangered and Proposed
Listing of Five Blue Butterflies as Threatened Due to Similarity of
Appearance
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly (Plebejus shasta charlestonensis) as an
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). We also propose to list the lupine blue butterfly (Plebejus
lupini texanus), Reakirt's blue butterfly (Echinargus isola), Spring
Mountains icarioides blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides austinorum),
and the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla
cryptica and E. a. purpura) as threatened due to similarity of
appearance to the Mount Charleston blue, with a special rule pursuant
to section 4(d) of the Act. We solicit additional data, information,
and comments that may assist us in making a final decision on this
proposed action. In addition, we propose to make nonsubstantive,
administrative changes to a previously published listing and special
rule regarding five other butterflies to correct some inadvertent
errors and to make these two special rules more consistent.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 26, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES
section by November 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2012-0069, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2012-0069, Division of Policy and
Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340
Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, Nevada 89502, by telephone 775-861-
6300 or by facsimile 775-861-6301. Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
This document consists of: (1) A proposed rule to list the Mount
(Mt.) Charleston blue butterfly (Plebejus shasta charlestonensis)
(formerly in genus Icaricia) as an endangered species and a proposed
rule to list the lupine blue butterfly (Plebejus lupini texanus),
Reakirt's blue butterfly (Echinargus isola), Spring Mountains
icarioides blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides austinorum), and the two
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and
E. a. purpura) as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly; (2) a prudency determination regarding
critical habitat designation for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly; and
(3) nonsubstantive, administrative corrections to a previously
published listing of the Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi
bethunebakeri) and special rule regarding the cassius blue butterfly
(Leptotes cassius theonus), ceraunus blue butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus
antibubastus), and nickerbean blue butterfly (Cyclargus ammon).
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act
(Act), a species may warrant protection through listing if it is an
endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. If a species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, we are required to promptly publish a proposal in the Federal
Register and make a determination on our proposal within one year.
Critical habitat shall be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, for any species determined to be an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species and designations and revisions of critical habitat
can only be completed by issuing a rule.
This rule proposes endangered status for the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly and proposes threatened status for the lupine blue butterfly,
Reakirt's blue butterfly, Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly,
and two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies based on similarity of
appearance to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. This rule also finds
that designation of critical habitat for the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly is not prudent at this time.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (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. We have determined that the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly is threatened by:
Habitat loss and degradation due to fire suppression and
succession, implementation of recreation development projects and fuels
reduction projects, and nonnative plant species (Factor A);
Collection (Factor B);
Inadequate regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and
Drought and extreme precipitation events, which are
predicted to increase as a result of climate change (Factor E).
We have additionally determined that five species of blue
butterflies warrant listing based on similarity of appearance to the
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly:
Lupine blue butterfly;
Reakirt's blue butterfly;
Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly; and
Two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies.
Further, we have determined that it is not prudent to designate
critical habitat for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly because the
benefits are clearly outweighed by the expected increase in threats
associated with a critical habitat designation:
Publication of maps and descriptions of specific critical
habitat
[[Page 59519]]
areas will pinpoint populations more precisely than does the rule;
Publishing the exact locations of the butterfly's habitat
will further facilitate unauthorized collection and trade. Its rarity
makes the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly extremely attractive to
collectors; and
Purposeful or inadvertent activities have already damaged
some habitat. Many locations are difficult for law enforcement
personnel to regularly access and patrol.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
analysis of the best available science and application of that science
and to provide any additional scientific information to improve this
proposed rule. Because we will consider all comments and information
received during the comment period, our final determinations may differ
from this proposal.
This document consists of: (1) A proposed rule to list the Mount
(Mt.) Charleston blue butterfly (Plebejus shasta charlestonensis)
(formerly in genus Icaricia) as an endangered species and a proposed
rule to list the lupine blue butterfly (Plebejus lupini texanus),
Reakirt's blue butterfly (Echinargus isola), Spring Mountains
icarioides blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides austinorum), and the two
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and
E. a. purpura) as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly; and (2) a prudency determination regarding
critical habitat designation for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(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.
(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.
(3) Biological, commercial and noncommercial trade or collection,
or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this
species and regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its
habitat.
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threats outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not
prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
and its habitat;
(b) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range
currently occupied by the species;
(c) Where these features are currently found;
(d) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(e) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why; and
(f) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by the species or potential habitat and their possible
impacts to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly.
(9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly or its habitat.
(10) Threats to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly from collection
of or commercial trade involving the lupine blue butterfly (Plebejus
lupini texanus), Reakirt's blue butterfly (Echinargus isola), Spring
Mountains icarioides blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides austinorum),
and the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla
cryptica and E. a. purpura), due to the Mt. Charleston blue's
similarity in appearance to these species.
(11) Effects of and necessity of establishing the proposed 4(d)
special rule to establish prohibitions on collection of, or commercial
trade involving, the lupine blue butterfly, Reakirt's blue butterfly,
Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and two Spring Mountains
dark blue butterflies.
(12) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
(13) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concerns and comments.
(14) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat and how the consequences of such reactions, if
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
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.
Please note that 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, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the
[[Page 59520]]
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described 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 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.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
In 1991 and 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
included the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly in a compilation of taxa for
review and potential addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991; 59 FR 58982,
November 15, 1994). The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly was formerly
referred to as the Spring Mountains blue (butterfly) (56 FR 58804,
November 21, 1991; 59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994), but this common
name is no longer used to avoid confusion with other butterflies having
similar common names. In both years, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
was assigned to ``Category 2,'' meaning that a proposal to list was
potentially appropriate, but adequate data on biological threats or
vulnerabilities were not currently available. The trend for Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly was described as ``declining'' in 1991 and
1994 (56 FR 58804; 59 FR 58982). These notices stressed that Category 2
species were not proposed for listing by the notice, nor were there any
plans to list those Category 2 species unless supporting information
became available.
In the February 28, 1996, Candidate Notice of Review (61 FR 7595),
we adopted a single category of candidate defined as ``Those species
for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to
list but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded.'' In previous
Candidate Notices of Review, species and subspecies matching this 1996
definition were known as Category 1 candidates for listing. Thus, the
Service no longer considered Category 2 species and subspecies as
candidates and did not include them in the 1996 or any subsequent
Candidate Notices of Review. The decision to stop considering Category
2 species and subspecies as candidates was designed to reduce confusion
about the status of these species and subspecies and to clarify that we
no longer regarded these species and subspecies as candidates for
listing.
On October 20, 2005, we received a petition dated October 20, 2005,
from The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc., requesting that we emergency list
the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly as an endangered or threatened
species. In a letter to the petitioner dated April 20, 2006, we stated
that our initial review did not indicate that an emergency situation
existed, but that if conditions changed, an emergency rule could be
developed. On May 30, 2007, we published a 90-day petition finding (72
FR 29933) in which we concluded that the petition provided substantial
information indicating that listing of the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly may be warranted, and we initiated a status review. On April
26, 2010, CBD amended its complaint in Center for Biological Diversity
v. Salazar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Case No.: 1:10-cv-230-PLF
(D.D.C.), adding an allegation that the Service failed to issue its 12-
month petition finding on the Mount Charleston blue butterfly within
the mandatory statutory timeframe. On March 8, 2011, we published a 12-
month finding (76 FR 12667) in which we concluded that listing the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly was warranted, but precluded by higher
priority listing actions. On October 26, 2011, we listed the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly as a new candidate in the Candidate Notice of
Review (76 FR 66370).
Endangered Species Status for Mt. Charleston Blue Butterfly
Background
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the listing of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly as an
endangered species in this section of the proposed rule.
Taxonomy and Subspecies Description
The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is a distinct subspecies of the
wider ranging Shasta blue butterfly (Plebejus shasta), which is a
member of the Lycaenidae family. Pelham (2008, pp. 25-26) recognized
seven subspecies of Shasta blue: P. s. shasta, P. s. calchas, P. s.
pallidissima, P. s. minnehaha, P. s. charlestonensis, P. s.
pitkinensis, and P. s. platazul in ``A catalogue of the butterflies of
the United States and Canada with a complete bibliography of the
descriptive and systematic literature'' published in volume 40 of the
Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera (2008, pp. 379-380). The Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly is known only from the high elevations of the
Spring Mountains, located approximately 25 miles (mi) (40 kilometers
(km)) west of Las Vegas in Clark County, Nevada (Austin 1980, p. 20;
Scott 1986, p. 410). The first mention of the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly as a unique taxon was in 1928 by Garth (p. 93), who
recognized it as distinct from the species Shasta blue (Austin 1980, p.
20). Howe (in 1975, Plate 59) described specimens from the Spring
Mountains as the P. s. shasta form comstocki. However, in 1976, Ferris
(p. 14) placed the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly with the wider ranging
Minnehaha blue subspecies. Finally, Austin asserted that Ferris had not
included populations from the Sierra Nevada in his study, and in light
of the geographic isolation and distinctiveness of the Shasta blue
population in the Spring Mountains and the presence of at least three
other well-defined races (subspecies) of butterflies endemic to the
area, it was appropriate to name this population as the subspecies Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly (P. s. charlestonensis) (Austin 1980, p. 20).
Our use of the genus name Plebejus, rather than the synonym
Icaricia, reflects recent treatments of butterfly taxonomy (Opler and
Warren 2003, p. 30; Pelham 2008, p. 265). The Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS) recognizes the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
as a valid subspecies based on Austin (1980) (Retrieved April 2, 2012,
from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System on-line database,
http://www.itis.gov). The ITIS is hosted by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Center for Biological Informatics (CBI) and is
the result of a partnership of Federal agencies formed to satisfy their
mutual needs for scientifically credible taxonomic information.
[[Page 59521]]
As a subspecies, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is similar to
other Shasta blue butterflies, with a wingspan of 0.75 to 1 inch (in)
(19 to 26 millimeters (mm)) (Opler 1999, p. 251). Males and females of
Mt. Charleston blue are dimorphic (occurring in two distinct forms).
The upperside of males is dark to dull iridescent blue, and females are
brown with a blue overlay. The species has a discal black spot on the
forewing and a row of submarginal black spots on the hindwing. The
underside is gray, with a pattern of black spots, brown blotches, and
pale wing veins to give it a mottled appearance. The underside of the
hindwing has an inconspicuous band of submarginal metallic spots (Opler
1999, p. 251). Based on morphology, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
is most closely related to the Great Basin populations of Minnehaha
blue butterfly (Austin 1980, p. 23), and it can be distinguished from
other Shasta blue butterfly subspecies by the presence of sharper and
blacker postmedian spots on the underside of the hindwing (Scott 1986,
p. 410).
The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is similar in appearance to five
other sympatric (occupying the same or overlapping geographic areas
without interbreeding) butterflies that occur roughly in the same
habitats: lupine blue butterfly (Plebejus lupini texanus), Reakirt's
blue butterfly (Echinargus isola), Spring Mountains icarioides blue
butterfly (Plebejus icarioides austinorum), and the two Spring
Mountains dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and E. a.
purpura). The lupine blue butterfly (also commonly referred to as the
Acmon blue, Texas blue, or Southwestern blue butterfly) is the most
similar to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (Boyd and Austin 1999, p.
44). The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is distinguished from the lupine
blue butterfly by a less broad and distinct orange band on the hindwing
(Boyd and Austin, p. 44), and the postmedian spots on the underside of
the hindwing are brown rather than black (Scott 1986, p. 410). The
Reakirt's blue butterfly is similar in size or slightly smaller than
the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and is identified by black underside
hindwing spots at the hind corner and large round black underside
forewing spots (Scott 1986, p. 413; Opler 1999, pp. 230, 251). The
Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly is larger than the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly and usually lacks the upperside forewing dash
(Scott 1986, p. 409). In addition the underside hindwing postmedian
spots of the Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly are typically
ringed with white (Scott 1986, p. 409). The two Spring Mountains dark
blue butterflies and the Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly
lack the metallic marginal spots on the underside hindwing that is
present on the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (Scott 1986, p. 403; Brock
and Kaufmann 2003, pp. 134, 136, 140). The two Spring Mountains dark
blue butterflies have a more prominent orange band on the hindwing and
do not have black dashes in the middle of the upperside forewing and
hindwing as the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly does (Brock and Kaufmann
2003, pp. 136, 140; Scott 1986, pp. 403, 410).
Distribution
Based on current and historical occurrences or locations (Austin
1980, pp. 20-24; Weiss et al. 1997, Map 3.1; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p.
4, Pinyon 2011, Figure 9-11; Thompson et al. 2012, p. 99), the
geographic range of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is in the upper
elevations of the Spring Mountains, centered on lands managed by the
U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) in the Spring Mountains National
Recreation Area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest within Upper
Kyle and Lee Canyons, Clark County, Nevada. The majority of the
occurrences or locations are along the upper ridges in the Mt.
Charleston Wilderness and in Upper Lee Canyon area, while a few are in
Upper Kyle Canyon. Table 1 lists the various locations of the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly that constitute the subspecies' current and
historical range. Estimates of population size for Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly are not available, so the occurrence data summarized in Table
1 represent the best scientific information on distribution of Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly and how that distribution has changed over
time.
Table 1--Locations or Occurrences of the Mt. Charleston Blue Butterfly Since 1928, and the Status of the
Butterfly at the Locations
[Survey efforts are variable through time]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent survey
Location name First/last year(s) (even if not Status Primary
time observed observed) references
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. South Loop Trail, Upper Kyle 1928/2011 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011.. Known occupied; Weiss et al.
Canyon. adults 1997; Kingsley
consistently 2007; Boyd 2006;
observed. Datasmiths 2007;
SWCA 2008;
Pinyon 2011;
Thompson et al.
2012.
2. Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard 1963/2010 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011.. Known occupied; Weiss et al.
Resort (LVSSR), Upper Lee adults 1994; Weiss et
Canyon. consistently al. 1997; Boyd
observed. and Austin 2002;
Boyd 2006;
Newfields 2006;
Datasmiths 2007;
Boyd and Murphy
2008;Thompson et
al. 2012.
3. Foxtail, Upper Lee Canyon... 1995/1998 2006, 2007, 2008........ Presumed occupied; Boyd and Austin
adults 1999; Boyd 2006;
intermittently Datasmiths 2007;
observed. Boyd and Murphy
2008.
4. Youth Camp, Upper Lee Canyon 1995/1995 2006, 2007, 2008........ Presumed occupied; Weiss et al.
adults 1997; Boyd 2006;
intermittently Datasmiths 2007;
observed. Boyd and Murphy
2008.
5. Gary Abbott, Upper Lee 1995/1995 2006, 2007, 2008........ Presumed occupied; Weiss et al.
Canyon. adults 1997; Boyd 2006;
intermittently Datasmiths 2007;
observed. Boyd and Murphy
2008.
6. Lower LVSSR Parking, Upper 1995/2002 2007, 2008.............. Presumed occupied; Weiss et al.
Lee Canyon. adults 1997; Boyd 2006;
intermittently Datasmiths 2007;
observed. Boyd and Murphy
2008.
[[Page 59522]]
7. Mummy Spring, Upper Kyle 1995/1995 2006.................... Presumed occupied; Weiss et al.
Canyon. adults 1997; Boyd 2006.
intermittently
observed.
8. Lee Meadows, Upper Lee 1965/1995 2006, 2007, 2008........ Presumed occupied; Weiss et al.
Canyon. adults 1997; Boyd 2006;
intermittently Datasmiths 2007;
observed. Boyd and Murphy
2008.
9. Bristlecone Trail........... 1990/2011 2007, 2011.............. Presumed occupied. Weiss et al.
1995; Weiss et
al. 1997;
Kingsley 2007;
Thompson et al.
2012.
10. Bonanza Trail.............. 1995/1995 2006, 2007.............. Presumed occupied. Weiss et al.
1997; Boyd 2006;
Kingsley 2007.
11. Upper Lee Canyon holotype.. 1963/1976 2006, 2007.............. Presumed Weiss et al.
extirpated. 1997; Boyd 2006;
Datasmiths 2007.
12. Cathedral Rock, Kyle Canyon 1972/1972 2007.................... Presumed Weiss et al.
extirpated. 1997; Datasmiths
2007.
13. Upper Kyle Canyon Ski Area. 1965/1972 1995.................... Presumed Weiss et al.
extirpated. 1997.
14. Old Town, Kyle Canyon...... 1970s 1995.................... Presumed The Urban
extirpated. Wildlands Group,
Inc. 2005.
15. Deer Creek, Kyle Canyon.... 1950 unknown................. Presumed Howe 1975.
extirpated.
16. Willow Creek............... 1928 unknown................. Presumed Weiss et al.
extirpated. 1997; Thompson
and Garrett
2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We presume that the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is extirpated
from a location when it has not been recorded at that location through
formal surveys or informal observation for more than 20 years. We
selected a 20-year time period because it would likely allow for local
extirpation and recolonization events (metapopulation dynamics) to
occur and would be enough time for succession or other vegetation
shifts to render the habitat unsuitable (see discussion in Biology and
Habitat sections below). Using this criterion, the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly is considered to be ``presumed extirpated'' from 6 of the 16
known locations (Locations 11-16 in Table 1) (Service 2006b, pp. 8-9).
Of the remaining 10 locations, 8 locations or occurrences are
``presumed occupied'' by the subspecies (Locations 3-10 in Table 1) and
the first 2 locations are ``known occupied'' (Locations 1-2 in Table 1)
(Service 2006b, pp. 7-8). We note that the probability of detection of
Mt. Charleston blue butterflies at a particular location in a given
year is affected by factors other than the butterfly's abundance, such
as survey effort and weather, both of which are highly variable from
year to year.
The presumed occupied category is defined as a location within the
current known range of the subspecies where adults have been
intermittently observed and there is a potential for diapausing (a
period of suspended growth or development similar to hibernation)
larvae to be present. The butterfly likely exhibits metapopulation
dynamics at these locations. In this situation, the subspecies is
subject to local extirpation, with new individuals emigrating from
nearby ``known occupied'' habitat, typically during years when
environmental conditions are more favorable to emergence from diapause
and the successful reproduction of individuals (see discussion in
``Habitat'' section below). At some of these presumed occupied
locations (Locations 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 in Table 1), the Mt. Charleston
blue butterfly has not been recorded through formal surveys or informal
observation since 1995 by Weiss et al. (1997, pp. 1-87). Of the
presumed occupied locations, 3, 6, and 9 have had the most recent
observations (observed in 1998, 2002, and 2011, respectively) (Table
1). Currently, we consider the occurrence at Mummy Spring as presumed
occupied because it has been intermittently observed; however, this
location is not near known occupied habitat and may be extirpated.
We consider the remaining two Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
locations or occurrences to be ``known occupied'' (Locations 1 and 2 in
Table 1). Known occupied locations have had successive observations
during multiple years of surveys and occur in high-quality habitat. The
South Loop Trail location in Upper Kyle Canyon (Location 1 in Table 1)
is considered known occupied because: (1) The butterfly was observed on
the site in 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, and 2011 (Service 2007, pp. 1-2;
Kingsley 2007, p. 5; Pinyon 2011, pp. 17-19; Thompson et al. 2012, p.
99); (2) the high quality of the habitat is in accordance with host
plant densities of 10 plants per square meter as described in Weiss et
al. (1997, p. 31) (Kingsley 2007, pp. 5 and 10; Thompson et al. 2012,
p. 99); and (3) in combination with the observations and high-quality
habitat, the habitat is in an area of relatively large size (SWCA 2008,
pp. 2 and 5; Pinyon 2011, p. Figure 8). The South Loop Trail area is
the most important remaining population area for the Mt. Charleston
blue butterfly (Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 21). The South Loop Trail runs
along the ridgeline between Griffith Peak and Charleston Peak and is
located within the Mt. Charleston Wilderness. This area was mapped
using a global positioning system unit and included the larval host
plant, Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus (Torrey's milkvetch), as
well as occurrences of two known nectar plants, Hymenoxys lemmonii
(Lemmon's bitterweed) and Erigeron clokeyi (Clokey fleabane) (SWCA
2008, pp. 2 and 5; Pinyon 2011, p. 11). The total area of the South
Loop Trail location is 60 acres (ac) (24 hectares (ha)).
We consider the Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort location (LVSSR)
in Upper Lee Canyon (Location 2 in Table
[[Page 59523]]
1) to be ``known occupied'' because: (1) The butterfly was first
recorded at LVSSR in 1963 (Austin 1980, p. 22) and has been
consistently observed at LVSSR every year between 1995 and 2006 (with
the exception of 1997 when no surveys were performed (Service 2007, pp.
1-2)) and in 2010 (Thompson and Garrett 2010, p. 5); and (2) the ski
runs contain two areas of high-quality butterfly habitat in accordance
with host plant densities of 10 plants per square meter as described in
Weiss et al. (1997, p. 31). These areas are LVSSR 1 (2.4 ac
(0.97 ha)) and LVSSR 2 (1.3 ac (0.53 ha)), which have been
mapped using a global positioning system unit and field-verified. Thus,
across its current range, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is known to
persistently occupy less than 64 ac (26 ha) of known occupied habitat.
Status and Trends
While there are no estimates of the size of the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly population, the best available information indicates a
declining trend for this subspecies, as discussed below. Prior to 1980,
descriptions of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly status and trends
were characterized as usually rare (Austin and Austin 1980, p. 30). The
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is known to be rare because few have been
observed since the 1920's, even though there have been many collections
and studies of butterflies in the Spring Mountains, particularly since
the 1950's (Boyd and Austin 1999, p. 2).
It is important to note that year-to-year fluctuations in
population numbers do occur (most likely due to variations in
precipitation and temperature that affect both the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly and its larval host plant (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. 2-3 and 31-
32)). However, the failure to detect Mt. Charleston blue butterflies at
many of the known historical locations during the past 20 years,
especially in light of increased survey efforts in recent years (since
2006), indicates a reduction in the butterfly's distribution and likely
decrease in total population size. In addition, five additional
locations may be presumed extirpated in 2015, if surveys continue to
fail to detect Mt. Charleston blue butterflies (these include Youth
Camp, Gary Abbott, Lee Meadows, Bonanza Trail, and Mummy Spring, Table
1). Mt. Charleston blue butterflies were last observed at these sites
in 1995, which was the last year reported as a good year (Boyd and
Murphy 2008, p. 22) for Mt. Charleston blue butterflies, as indicated
by the numbers observed at LVSSR (121 counted during 2 surveys each of
2 areas), and presence detected at 7 other locations (Weiss 1996, p. 4;
Weiss et al. 1997, Table 2).
Survey information indicates that the numbers of recently observed
Mt. Charleston blue butterflies are extremely low because butterflies
have become increasingly difficult to detect. Zonneveld et al. (2003)
determined that observable population size is interdependent with
survey days and detection probability. Thus, the decreasing
observations of Mt. Charleston blue butterflies after repeated visits
in any year, after multiple years of surveying, indicates a declining
and smaller population. In 2006, surveys within presumed occupied
habitat at LVSSR located one individual butterfly adjacent to a pond
that holds water for snowmaking (Newfields 2006, pp. 10, 13, and C5).
In a later report, the accuracy of this observation was questioned and
considered inaccurate (Newfields 2008, p. 27).
In 2006, Boyd (2006, pp. 1-2) conducted focused surveys for the
subspecies at nearly all previously known locations and within
potential habitat along Griffith Peak, North Loop Trail, Bristlecone
Trail, and South Bonanza Trail but did not observe the butterfly at any
of these locations. In 2007, surveys were again conducted in previously
known locations in Upper Lee Canyon and LVSSR, but no butterflies were
recorded (Datasmiths 2007, p. 1; Newfields 2008, pp. 21-24). In 2007,
two Mt. Charleston blue butterflies were sighted on different dates at
the same location on the South Loop Trail in Upper Kyle Canyon
(Kingsley 2007, p. 5). In 2008, butterflies were not observed during
focused surveys of Upper Lee Canyon and the South Loop Trail (Boyd and
Murphy 2008, pp. 1-3; Boyd 2008, p. 1; SWCA 2008, p. 6), although it is
possible that adult butterflies may have been missed on the South Loop
Trail because the surveys were performed very late in the season. No
formal surveys were conducted in 2009; however, no individuals were
observed during the few informal attempts made to observe the species
(Service 2009).
In 2010, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly was observed during
surveys at LVSSR and the South Loop Trail area. One adult was observed
in Lee Canyon at LVSSR on July 23, 2010, but no other adults were
detected at LVSSR during surveys conducted on August 2, 9, and 18, 2010
(Thompson and Garrett 2010, pp. 4-5). The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
was not observed at LVSSR in 2011 (Thompson et al. 2012, p. 99). Adults
were most recently observed in 2010 and 2011 at the South Loop Trail
area. According to reports from surveys conducted in July and August of
2011 at the South Loop Trail area (Thompson et al. 2012, p. 99; Pinyon
2011, pp. 17-19), the highest total number of adults counted among the
days this area was surveyed was 17 on July 28, 2010, and 13 on August
12, 2011 (Pinyon 2011, p. 17). Final reports have not been completed by
Thompson et al. for the 2011 surveys and the results here are
considered preliminary. Based on the available survey information, the
low number of sightings in recent years is likely the result of
declining population size.
Habitat
Weiss et al. (1997, pp. 10-11) describe the natural habitat for the
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly as relatively flat ridgelines above 2,500
m (8,200 ft), but isolated individuals have been observed as low as
2,000 m (6,600 ft). Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 19) indicate that areas
occupied by the subspecies featured exposed soil and rock substrates
with limited or no canopy cover or shading and flat to mild slopes.
Like most butterfly species, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is
dependent on plants both during larval development (larval host plants)
and the adult butterfly flight period (nectar plants). The Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly requires areas that support Astragalus
calycosus var. calycosus, the only known larval host plant for the
subspecies (Weiss et al. 1994, p. 3; Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10;
Datasmiths 2007, p. 21), as well as primary nectar plants. A. c. var.
calycosus and Erigeron clokeyi are the primary nectar plants for the
subspecies; however, butterflies have also been observed nectaring on
Hymenoxys lemmonii and Aster sp. (Weiss et al. 1994, p. 3; Boyd 2005,
p. 1; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 9).
The best available habitat information relates mostly to the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly's larval host plant, with little to no
information available characterizing the butterfly's interactions with
its known nectar plants or other elements of its habitat; thus, the
habitat information discussed in this document centers on Astragalus
calycosus var. calycosus. Studies are currently underway to better
understand the habitat requirements and preferences of the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 99). Astragalus
c.var. calycosus is a small, low-growing, perennial herb that has been
observed growing in open areas between 5,000 to 10,800 ft (1,520 to
3,290 m) in subalpine, bristlecone, and mixed-conifer vegetation
communities of the Spring Mountains (Nachlinger
[[Page 59524]]
and Leary 2007, p. 36). Within the alpine and subalpine range of the
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, Weiss et al. (1997, p. 10) observed the
highest densities of A. c. var. calycosus in exposed areas and within
canopy openings and lower densities in forested areas.
Weiss et al. (1997, p. 31) describe favorable habitat for the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly as having high densities (more than 10 plants
per square meter) of Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus. Weiss et al.
(1995, p. 5) and Datasmiths (2007, p. 21) indicate that, in some areas,
butterfly habitat may be dependent on old or infrequent disturbances
that create open areas. Vegetation cover within disturbed patches
naturally becomes higher over time through succession, gradually
becoming less favorable to the butterfly. Therefore, we conclude that
open areas with relatively little grass cover and visible mineral soil
and high densities of host plants support the highest densities of
butterflies (Boyd 2005, p. 1; Service 2006a, p. 1). During 1995, an
especially high-population year (a total of 121 butterflies were
counted during surveys of 2 areas at LVSSR on 2 separate dates, where
each survey for each area takes approximately 22 minutes to complete
for a single observer (Weiss 1996, p. 4)), Mt. Charleston blue
butterflies were observed in small habitat patches and in open forested
areas where A. c. var. calycosus was present in low densities, on the
order of 1 to 5 plants per square meter (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10;
Newfields 2006, pp. 10 and C5). Therefore, areas with lower densities
of the host plant may also be important to the subspecies, as these
areas may be intermittently occupied or may be important for dispersal.
Fire suppression and other management practices have likely limited
the formation of new habitat for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, as
discussed below. The Forest Service began suppressing fires on the
Spring Mountains in 1910 (Entrix 2007, p. 111). Throughout the Spring
Mountains, fire suppression has resulted in higher densities of trees
and shrubs (Amell 2006, pp. 2-3) and a transition to a closed-canopy
forest with shade-tolerant understory species (Entrix 2007, p. 112)
that is generally less suitable for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly.
Boyd and Murphy (2008, pp. 23 and 25) hypothesized that the loss of
presettlement vegetation structure over time has caused the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly's metapopulation dynamics to collapse in
Upper Lee Canyon. Similar losses of suitable butterfly habitat in
woodlands and their negative effect on butterfly populations have been
documented (Thomas 1984, pp. 337-338). The disturbed landscape at LVSSR
provides important habitat for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (Weiss
et al. 1995, p. 5; Weiss et al. 1997, p. 26). Periodic maintenance
(removal of trees and shrubs) of the ski runs has effectively arrested
forest succession on the ski slopes and serves to maintain conditions
favorable to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, and to its host and
nectar plants. However, the ski runs are not specifically managed to
benefit habitat for this subspecies, and operational activities
regularly modify Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat or prevent host
plants from reestablishing in disturbed areas.
Biology
The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly has been described as biennial
where it diapauses as an egg the first winter and as a larvae near
maturity the second winter (Ferris and Brown, pp. 203-204; Scott 1986,
p. 411); however, Emmel and Shields (1978, p. 132) suggested that
diapause was passed as partly grown larva because freshly hatched
eggshells were found near newly laid eggs (indicating that the eggs do
not overwinter). The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is generally thought
to diapause at the base of its larval host plant, Astragalus calycosus
var. calycosus, or in the surrounding substrate (Emmel and Shields
1978, p. 132). The pupae of some butterfly species are known to persist
in diapause up to 5 to 7 years (Scott 1986, p. 28). The number of years
the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly can remain in diapause is unknown.
Experts have speculated that the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly may only
be able to diapause for two seasons (Murphy 2006, p. 1; Boyd and Murphy
2008, p. 21). However, in response to unfavorable environmental
conditions, it is hypothesized that a prolonged diapause period may be
possible (Scott 1986, pp. 26-30; Murphy 2006, p. 1; Datasmiths 2007, p.
6; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 22).
The typical flight and breeding period for the butterfly is early
July to mid-August with a peak in late July, although the subspecies
has been observed as early as mid-June and as late as mid-September
(Austin 1980, p. 22; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. 17; Forest Service 2006a,
p. 9). As with most butterflies, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
typically flies during sunny conditions, which are particularly
important for this subspecies given the cooler air temperatures at high
elevations (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 31). Excessive winds also deter
flight of most butterflies, although Weiss et al. (1997, p. 31)
speculate that this may not be a significant factor for the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly given its low-to-the-ground flight pattern.
Like all butterfly species, both the phenology (timing) and number
of Mt. Charleston blue butterfly individuals that emerge and fly to
reproduce during a particular year are reliant on the combination of
many environmental factors that may constitute a successful
(``favorable'') or unsuccessful (``poor'') year for the subspecies.
Other than observations by surveyors, little information is known
regarding these aspects of the subspecies' biology, since the key
determinants for the interactions among the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly's flight and breeding period, larval host plant, and
environmental conditions have not been specifically studied.
Observations indicate that above- or below-average precipitation,
coupled with above- or below-average temperatures, influence the
phenology of this subspecies (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. 2-3 and 32; Boyd
and Austin 1999, p. 8) and are likely responsible for the fluctuation
in population numbers from year to year (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. 2-3 and
31-32).
Most butterfly populations exist as regional metapopulations
(Murphy et al. 1990, p. 44). Boyd and Austin (1999, pp. 17 and 53)
indicate this is true of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. Small
habitat patches tend to support smaller butterfly populations that are
frequently extirpated by events that are part of normal variation
(Murphy et al. 1990, p. 44). According to Boyd and Austin (1999, p.
17), smaller colonies of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly may be
ephemeral in the long term, with the larger colonies of the subspecies
more likely than smaller populations to persist in ``poor'' years, when
environmental conditions do not support the emergence, flight, and
reproduction of individuals. The ability of the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly to move between habitat patches has not been studied;
however, field observations indicate the subspecies has low vagility
(capacity or tendency of a species to move about or disperse in a given
environment), on the order of 10 to 100 meters (m) (33 to 330 feet
(ft)) (Weiss et al. 1995, p. 9), and nearly sedentary behavior
(Datasmiths 2007, p. 21; Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 3 and 9).
Furthermore, dispersal of lycaenid butterflies, in general, is limited
and on the order of hundreds of meters (Cushman and Murphy 1993, p.
40). Based on this information, the likelihood of long-distance
dispersal is
[[Page 59525]]
low for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, and its susceptibility to
being affected by habitat fragmentation caused by forest succession is
high (discussed further in Factor A).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
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
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following five factors: (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; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Below, we evaluate several factors that negatively impact the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly's habitat, including fire suppression, fuels
reduction, succession, introduction of nonnative species, recreation,
and development. We also examine available conservation measures in the
form of conservation agreements and plans, which may offset some of
these threats.
Fire Suppression, Succession, and Nonnative Species
Butterflies have extremely specialized habitat requirements (Thomas
1984, p. 337). Changes in vegetation structure and composition as a
result of natural processes are a serious threat to butterfly
populations because these changes can disrupt specific habitat
requirements (Thomas 1984, pp. 337-341; Thomas et al. 2001, pp. 1791-
1796). Cushman and Murphy (1993, p. 4) determined 28 at-risk lycaenid
butterfly species, including the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, to be
dependent on one or two closely related host plants. Many of these host
plants are dependent on early successional environments. Butterflies
that specialize on such plants must track an ephemeral resource base
that itself depends on unpredictable and perhaps infrequent ecosystem
disturbances. For such butterfly species, local extinction events are
both frequent and inevitable (Cushman and Murphy 1993, p. 4). The Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly may, in part, depend on disturbances that
open up the subalpine canopy and create conditions more favorable to
its host plant, Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus, and nectar
resources (Weiss et al. 1995, p. 5; Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 22-28)
(see Habitat section, above).
Datasmiths (2007, p. 21) also suggest suitable habitat patches of
Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus are often, but not exclusively,
associated with older or infrequent disturbance. Weiss et al. (1995, p.
5) note that a colony once existed on the Upper Kyle Canyon Ski Area
(Location 11 in Table 1), but since the ski run was abandoned no
butterflies have been collected there since 1965. Boyd and Austin
(2002, p. 13) observe that the butterfly was common at Lee Meadows
(Location 8 in Table 1) in the 1960s, but became uncommon at the site
because of succession and a potential lack of disturbance. Using an
analysis of host plant density, Weiss et al. (1995 p. 5) concluded that
Lee Meadows does not have enough host plants to support a population
over the long term (minimally 5-10 host plants per square meter).
Disturbances such as fire promote open understory conditions for A. c.
var. calycosus to grow and reduce fragmentation of Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly habitat.
Fire suppression in the Spring Mountains has resulted in long-term
successional changes, including increased forest area and forest
structure (higher canopy cover, more young trees, and more trees
intolerant of fire) (Nachlinger and Reese 1996, p. 37; Amell 2006, pp.
6-9; Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 22-28; Denton et al. 2008, p. 21; Abella
et al. 2011, pp. 10, 12). Frequent low-severity fires would have
maintained an open forest structure characterized by uneven-aged stands
of fire-resistant Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine) trees (Amell 2006,
p. 5) in lower elevations. The lower-elevation habitats of the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly are the most affected by fire suppression, as
indicated by Provencher's 2008 Fire Regime Condition Class analysis of
the Spring Mountains (p. 18); there has been an increase in area
covered by forest canopy and an increase in stem densities with more
trees intolerant of fire within the lower-elevation Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly habitat.
Large-diameter Pinus ponderosa trees with multiple fire scars in
Upper Lee and Kyle Canyons indicate that low-severity fires
historically burned through mixed-conifer forests within the range of
the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (Amell 2006, p. 3). There are no
empirical estimates of fire intervals or frequencies in the Spring
Mountains but it is presumed to be similar to Pinus ponderosa forests
in other regions where it has been reported to be 4 to 20 or 2 to 39
years (Barbour and Minnich 2000 as cited in Amell 2006, p. 3; Denton et
al. 2008, p. 23). Open mixed-conifer forests in the Spring Mountains
were likely characterized by more abundant and diverse understory plant
communities compared to current conditions (Entrix 2007, pp. 73-78).
These successional changes have been hypothesized to have contributed
to the decline of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly because of reduced
densities of larval and nectar plants, decreased solar radiation, and
inhibited butterfly movements that subsequently determine colonization
or recolonization processes (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 26; Boyd and Murphy
2008, pp. 22-28).
Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 23) note that important habitat
characteristics required by Mt. Charleston blue butterfly-- Astragalus
calycosus var. calycosus and preferred nectar plants occurring together
in open sites not shaded by tree canopies--would have occurred more
frequently across a more open forested landscape, compared to the
current denser forested landscape. Not only would the changes in forest
structure and understory plant communities result in habitat loss,
degradation, and fragmentation for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
across a broad spatial scale, a habitat matrix dominated by denser
forest also may be impacting key metapopulation processes by reducing
probability of recolonization following local population extirpations
in remaining patches of suitable habitat (Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 25).
The introduction of forbs, shrubs, and nonnative grasses can be a
threat to the butterfly's habitat because these species can compete
with, and decrease, the quality and abundance of larval host plant and
adult nectar sources. This has been observed for many butterfly species
including the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) (62
FR 2313; January 16, 1997) and Fender's blue butterfly (Plebejus (=
Icaricia) icarioides fenderi) (65 FR 3875; January 25, 2000).
Succession, coupled with the introduction of nonnative species, is also
believed to be the reason the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is no
longer present at the old town site in Kyle Canyon (Location 12 in
Table 1) and at the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
[[Page 59526]]
holotype (the type specimen used in the original description of a
species or subspecies) site in Upper Lee Canyon (Location 9 in Table 1)
(Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. 17).
Introduction of nonnative species within its habitat negatively
impacts the quality of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly's habitat. As
mentioned previously (see Habitat section), periodic maintenance
(removal of trees and shrubs) of the ski runs has effectively arrested
succession on the ski slopes and maintains conditions that can be
favorable to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. However, the ski runs
are not specifically managed to benefit habitat for this subspecies and
its habitat requirements, and operational activities (including seeding
of nonnative species) regularly modify Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
habitat or prevent host plants from reestablishing in disturbed areas.
According to Weiss et al. (1995, pp. 5-6), the planting of annual
grasses and Melilotus (sweetclover) for erosion control at LVSSR is a
threat to Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat. Titus and Landau
(2003, p. 1) observed that vegetation on highly and moderately
disturbed areas of the LVSSR ski runs are floristically very different
from natural openings in the adjacent forested areas that support this
subspecies. Seeding nonnative species for erosion control was
discontinued in 2005; however, because of erosion problems during 2006
and 2007, and the lack of native seed, LVSSR resumed using a nonnative
seed mix, particularly in the lower portions of the ski runs (not
adjacent to Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat) where erosion
problems persist.
The best available information indicates that, in at least four of
the six locations where the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly historically
occurred, suitable habitat is no longer present due to vegetation
changes attributable to succession, the introduction of nonnative
species, or a combination of the two.
Recreation, Development, and Other Projects
As discussed in the Distribution section above, the Mt. Charleston
blue butterfly is a narrow endemic subspecies that is currently known
to occupy two locations and presumed to occupy eight others. One of the
two areas where Mt. Charleston blue butterflies have been detected in
recent years is the LVSSR. Several ground-disturbing projects occurred
within Mt. Charleston blue butterfly suitable habitat at LVSSR between
2000 and 2011 (see 76 FR 12667, pp. 12672, 12673). These projects were
small spatial scale (ground disturbance was less than about 10 acres
each) but are known to have impacted suitable habitat and possibly
impacted individual Mt. Charleston blue butterflies (eggs, larvae,
pupae, or adults). In addition to these recreation development projects
at LVSSR, a small area of suitable habitat and possibly individual Mt.
Charleston blue butterflies were impacted by a water system replacement
project in Upper Lee Canyon in 2003, and a small area of suitable
habitat (less than 1 acre) was impacted by a stream restoration project
at Lee Meadows in 2011. It is difficult to know the full extent of
impacts to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly's habitat as a result of
these projects because Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat was not
mapped nor were some project areas surveyed prior to implementation.
Three future projects also may impact Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
habitat in Upper Lee Canyon. These projects are summarized below:
(1) A March 2011 Master Development Plan for LVSSR proposes to
improve, upgrade, and expand the existing facilities to provide year-
round recreational activities. The plan proposes to increase snow
trails, beginner terrain, and snowmaking reservoir capacity and
coverage, widen existing ski trails, replace and add lifts, and develop
``gladed'' areas for sliding that would remove deadfall timber to
reduce fire hazards (Ecosign 2011, I-3--I-4, IV-5--IV-7). The plan
proposes to add summer activities including lift-accessed sightseeing
and hiking, nature interpretive hikes, evening stargazing, mountain
biking, conference retreats and seminars, weddings, family reunions,
mountain music concerts, festivals, climbing walls, bungee trampoline,
beach and grass volleyball, a car rally, and other activities (Ecosign
2008, pp. I-3--I-4). Widening existing ski trails and increasing
snowmaking reservoir capacity (Ecosign 2011, p. IV-5, Figure 21a) would
impact the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly at a known occupied and at a
presumed occupied location (Location 2 and 5 in Table 1). Summer
activities would impact the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and its known
occupied and presumed occupied habitat by attracting visitors in higher
numbers during the time of year when larvae and host plants are
especially vulnerable to trampling (Location 2 in Table 1). The LVSSR
Master Development Plan, which has been accepted by the Forest Service,
considered Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat during development of
the plan. Impacts to Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat from the
LVSSR Master Development Plan will be addressed further during the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process (discussed further in
Factor D) (Forest Service 2011a, p. 3).
(2) The Old Mill/Dolomite/McWilliams Reconstruction Projects to
improve camping and picnic areas in Upper Lee Canyon are currently
being planned and evaluated under NEPA (discussed further in Factor D)
(Forest Service 2011c pp. 1-4). Project details are limited because
planning is currently underway; however, the Service has met with the
Forest Service and provided recommendations to consider for analysis of
potential direct and indirect impacts of these projects to the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly and its potential habitat within or in close
proximity to the project area (Datasmiths 2007, Figure 1; Forest
Service 2011c, Project Map; Forest Service 2011f, pp. 1-5; Service
2011, p. 1). The recommendations provided by the Service will assist
with the development of a proposed action that will avoid or minimize
adverse effects to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and its potential
habitat.
(3) The Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction Project is
currently being planned and evaluated under NEPA (discussed further in
Factor D) (Forest Service 2011g, pp. 1-4). Project details are limited
because planning is currently underway; however, the Service has met
with the Forest Service and provided recommendations for minimizing
potential direct and indirect impacts of these projects to the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat (Datasmiths 2007, Figure 1;
Forest Service 2011f, pp. 1-5; Forest Service 2011g, Project Map;
Service 2011, p. 1).
Fuel Reduction Projects
In December 2007, the Forest Service approved the Spring Mountains
National Recreation Area Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project (Forest
Service 2007a, pp. 1-127). This project resulted in tree removals and
vegetation thinning in three presumed occupied Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly locations in Upper Lee Canyon, including Foxtail Ridge, Lee
Canyon Youth Camp, and Lee Meadows, and impacted approximately 32 ac
(13 ha) of presumed occupied habitat that has been mapped in Upper Lee
Canyon (Locations 3, 4 and 8 in Table 1) (Forest Service 2007a,
Appendix A-Map 2; Datasmiths 2007, p. 26). Manual and mechanical
clearing of shrubs and trees will be repeated on a 5- to 10-year
rotating basis and will result in direct
[[Page 59527]]
impacts to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat, including
crushing or removal of host plants and diapausing larvae (if present).
Implementation of this project began in the spring of 2008 throughout
the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, including Lee Canyon,
and the project is nearly completed for its initial implementation
(Forest Service 2011a, p. 2).
Although Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 26) recommended increased forest
thinning to improve habitat quality for the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly, the primary goal of this project was to reduce wildfire risk
to life and property in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area
wildland urban interface (Forest Service 2007a, p. 6), not to improve
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat. Mt. Charleston blue butterflies
require larval host plants in exposed areas not shaded by forest canopy
cover because canopy cover reduces solar exposure during critical
larval feeding periods (Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 23). Although the fuel
reduction project incorporated measures to minimize impacts to the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat, shaded fuel breaks created
for this project may not be open enough to create or significantly
improve Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat. Also, shaded fuel breaks
for this project are concentrated along access roads, property
boundaries, campgrounds, picnic areas, administrative sites, and
communications sites, and are not of sufficient spatial scale to
improve habitat that does not occur within close proximity to these
landscape features and reduce the threat identified above resulting
from fire suppression and succession.
Although this project may result in increased understory herbaceous
plant productivity and diversity, there are short-term risks to the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly's habitat associated with project
implementation. In recommending increased forest thinning to improve
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat, Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 26)
cautioned that thinning treatments would need to be implemented
carefully to minimize short-term disturbance impacts to the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat. Individual butterflies
(larvae, pupae, and adults), and larval host plants and nectar plants,
may be crushed during project implementation. In areas where thinned
trees are chipped (mastication), layers of wood chips may become too
deep and impact survival of Mt. Charleston blue butterfly larvae and
pupae, as well as larval host plants and nectar plants. Soil and
vegetation disturbance during project implementation also would result
in increases in weeds and disturbance-adapted species, such as
Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbitbrush), and these plants would compete with
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly larval host and nectar plants.
Conservation Agreement and Plans That May Offset Habitat Threats
A conservation agreement was developed in 1998 to facilitate
voluntary cooperation among the Forest Service, the Service, and the
State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources in
providing long-term protection for the rare and sensitive flora and
fauna of the Spring Mountains, including the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly (Forest Service 1998, pp. 1-50). The Conservation Agreement
was in effect for a period of 10 years after it was signed on April 13,
1998 (Forest Service et al. 1998, pp. 44, 49), was renewed in 2008
(Forest Service 2008), and coordination between the Forest Service and
Service has continued. Many of the conservation actions described in
the conservation agreement have been implemented; however, several
important conservation actions that would have directly benefited the
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly have not been implemented. Regardless,
many of the conservation actions in the conservation agreement (for
example, inventory and monitoring) would not directly reduce threats to
the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly or its habitat.
In 2004, the Service and Forest Service signed a memorandum of
agreement that provides a process for review of activities that involve
species covered under the 1998 Conservation Agreement (Forest Service
and Service 2004, pp. 1-9). Formal coordination through this memorandum
of agreement was established to: (1) Jointly develop projects that
avoid or minimize impacts to listed, candidate, and proposed species,
and species under the 1998 conservation agreement; and (2) to ensure
consistency with commitments and direction provided for in recovery
planning efforts and in conservation agreement efforts. More than half
of the past projects that impacted Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
habitat were reviewed by the Service and Forest Service under this
review process, but several were not. Some efforts under this
memorandum of agreement have been successful in reducing or avoiding
project impacts to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, while other
efforts have not. Examples of projects that have reduced or avoided
impacts to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly include the Lee Meadows
Restoration Project (discussed above in Recreation, Development, and
Other Projects under Factor A) and the Bristlecone Trail Habitat
Improvement Project (Forest Service 2007c, pp. 1-7; Forest Service
2007d, pp. 1-14; Service 2007, p. 1-2). A new conservation agreement is
currently being developed for the Spring Mountains National Recreation
Area (SMNRA).
The loss or modification of known occupied and presumed occupied
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat in Upper Lee Canyon, as discussed
above, has occurred in the past. However, more recently, the Forest
Service has suspended decisions on certain projects that would
potentially impact Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat (see
discussion of lower parking lot expansion and new snowmaking lines
projects under Recreation, Development, and Other Projects, above).
In addition, the Forest Service has reaffirmed its commitment to
collaborate with the Service in order to avoid implementation of
projects or actions that would impact the viability of the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly (Forest Service 2010c). This commitment
includes: (1) Developing a mutually agreeable process to review future
proposed projects to ensure that implementation of these actions will
not lead to loss of population viability; (2) reviewing proposed
projects that may pose a threat to the continued viability of the
subspecies; and (3) jointly developing a conservation agreement
(strategy) that identifies actions that will be taken to ensure the
conservation of the subspecies (Forest Service 2010c). The Forest
Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service are currently in the process
of developing the conservation agreement.
The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is a covered species under the
2000 Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
The Clark County MSHCP identifies two goals for the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly: (a) ``Maintain stable or increasing population numbers and
host and larval plant species''; and (b) ``No net unmitigated loss of
larval host plant or nectar plant species habitat'' (RECON 2000a, Table
2.5, pp. 2-154; RECON 2000b, pp. B158-B161). The Forest Service is one
of several signatories to the Implementing Agreement for the Clark
County MSHCP, because many of the activities from the 1998 Conservation
Agreement were incorporated into the MSHCP. Primarily, activities
undertaken by the Forest Service focused on conducting
[[Page 59528]]
surveying and monitoring for butterflies. Although some surveying and
monitoring occurred through contracts by the Forest Service, Clark
County, and the Service, a butterfly monitoring plan was not fully
implemented.
Recently, the Forest Service has been implementing the LVSSR
Adaptive Vegetation Management Plan (Forest Service 2005b, pp. 1-24) to
provide mitigation for approximately 11 ac (4.45 ha) of impacts to
presumed occupied butterfly habitat (and other sensitive wildlife and
plant species habitat) resulting from projects that the Forest Service
implemented in 2005 and 2006. Under the plan, LVSSR will revegetate
impacted areas using native plant species, including Astragalus
calycosus var. calycosus. However, this program is experimental and has
experienced difficulties due to the challenges of native seed
availability and propagation. Under the plan, A. c. var. calycosus is
being brought into horticultural propagation. These efforts are not
likely to provide replacement habitat to the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly for another 5 years (2016-2018), because of the short alpine
growing season.
Summary of Factor A
The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is currently known to occur in
two locations: the South Loop Trail area in upper Kyle Canyon and LVSSR
in Upper Lee Canyon. In addition, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is
presumed to occupy eight locations: Foxtail, Youth Camp, Gary Abbott,
Lower LVSSR Parking, Lee Meadows, Bristlecone Trail, Bonanza Trail, and
Mummy Spring. Habitat loss and modification, as a result of fire
suppression and long-term successional changes in forest structure,
implementation of recreational development projects and fuels reduction
projects, and nonnative species, are continuing threats to the
butterfly's habitat in Upper Lee Canyon. Recreational area
reconstruction projects currently planned also may negatively impact
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat in Upper Lee Canyon. In addition,
proposed future activities under a draft Master Development Plan at
LVSSR may impact the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat in
Upper Lee Canyon.
Because of its likely small population size, projects that impact
even relatively small areas of occupied habitat could threaten the
long-term population viability of Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. The
continued loss or modification of presumed occupied habitat would
further impair the long-term population viability of the Mt. Charleston
blue butterfly in Upper Lee Canyon by removing diapausing larvae (if
present) and by reducing the ability of the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly to disperse during favorable years. The successional advance
of trees, shrubs, and grasses, and the spread of nonnative species are
continuing threats to the subspecies in Upper Lee Canyon. The Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly is presumed extirpated from at least three of
the six historical locations (Upper Lee Canyon holotype, Upper Kyle
Canton Ski Area, and Old Town), likely due to successional changes and
the introduction of nonnative plants. Nonnative forbs and grasses are a
threat to the subspecies and its habitat at LVSSR.
There are agreements and plans in place (including the 2008 Spring
Mountains Conservation Agreement and the 2000 Clark County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan) that are intended to conserve the
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat. Future voluntary
conservation actions could be implemented in accordance with the terms
of these agreements and plans but will be largely dependent on the
level of funding available to the Forest Service for such work.
Conservation actions (for example, mechanical thinning of timber stands
and prescribed burns to create openings in the forest canopy suitable
for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its host and nectar plants)
could reduce to some degree the ongoing adverse effects to the
butterfly of vegetative succession promoted by alteration of the
natural fire regime in the Spring Mountains. The Forest Service's
commitment to collaboratively review proposed projects to minimize
impacts to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly may reduce the threat
posed by activities under the Forest Service's control, although we are
unable to determine the potential effectiveness of this new strategy at
this time. Therefore, based on the current distribution and recent,
existing, and likely future trends in habitat loss, we find that the
present and future destruction, modification, and curtailment of its
habitat or range is a threat to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Rare butterflies and moths are highly prized by collectors, and an
international trade exists in specimens for both live and decorative
markets, as well as the specialist trade that supplies hobbyists,
collectors, and researchers (Collins and Morris 1985, pp. 155-179;
Morris et al. 1991, pp. 332-334; Williams 1996, pp. 30-37). The
specialist trade differs from both the live and decorative market in
that it concentrates on rare and threatened species (U.S. Department of
Justice [USDJ] 1993, pp. 1-3; United States v. Skalski et al., Case No.
CR9320137, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
[USDC] 1993, pp. 1-86). In general, the rarer the species, the more
valuable it is; prices can exceed $25,000 for exceedingly rare
specimens. For example, during a 4-year investigation, special agents
of the Service's Office of Law Enforcement executed warrants and seized
over 30,000 endangered and protected butterflies and beetles, with a
total wholesale commercial market value of about $90,000 in the United
States (USDJ 1995, pp. 1-4). In another case, special agents found at
least 13 species protected under the Act, and another 130 species
illegally taken from lands administered by the Department of the
Interior and other State lands (USDC 1993, pp. 1-86; Service 1995, pp.
1-2).
Several listings of butterflies as endangered or threatened species
under the Act have been based, at least partially, on intense
collection pressure. Notably, the Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha
mitchellii francisci) was emergency-listed as an endangered species on
April 18, 1994 (59 FR 18324). The Saint Francis' satyr was demonstrated
to have been significantly impacted by collectors in just a 3-year
period (59 FR 18324). The Callippe and Behren's silverspot butterflies
(Speyeria callippe callippe and Speyeria zerene behrensii) were listed
as endangered species on December 5, 1997 (62 FR 64306), partially due
to overcollection. The Blackburn's sphinx moth (Manduca blackburni) was
listed as an endangered species on February 1, 2000 (65 FR 4770),
partially due to overcollection by private and commercial collectors.
Most recently, the Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi
bethunebakeri) was emergency-listed as an endangered species (76 FR
49542; August 10, 2011), with collection being one of the primary
threats.
Butterflies in small populations are vulnerable to harm from
collection (Gall 1984, p. 133). A population may be reduced to below
sustainable numbers by removal of females, reducing the probability
that new colonies will be founded. Collectors can pose threats to
butterflies because they may be unable to recognize when they are
depleting colonies below the thresholds of survival or recovery
(Collins and Morris 1985, pp. 162-165). There is ample evidence of
collectors impacting other imperiled and endangered butterflies
[[Page 59529]]
(Gochfeld and Burger 1997, pp. 208-209), host plants (Cech and Tudor
2005, p. 55), and even contributing to extirpations (Duffey 1968, p.
94). For example, the federally endangered Mitchell's satyr (Neonympha
mitchellii mitchellii) is believed to have been extirpated from New
Jersey due to overcollection (57 FR 21567; Gochfeld and Burger 1997, p.
209).
Rare butterflies can be highly prized by insect collectors, and
collection is a known threat to some butterfly species, such as the
Fender's blue butterfly (65 FR 3882; January 25, 2000). In particular,
small colonies and populations are at the highest risk. Overcollection
or repeated handling and marking of females in years of low abundance
can seriously damage populations through loss of reproductive
individuals and genetic variability (65 FR 3882; January 25, 2000).
Since the publication of the 12-month finding (76 FR 12667) in 2011, we
have discovered information that indicates butterfly collecting is a
threat for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and that collectors seek
diminutive butterflies. In areas of the southwestern United States
surrounding the range of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, other
diminutive lycaenid butterflies such as Western-tailed blue butterfly
(Everes amyntula), Pygmy blue butterfly (Brephidium exilis), Ceraunus
blue butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus), and Boisduval's blue butterfly
(Plebejus icariodes ssp.) have been confiscated from commercial traders
who illegally collected them (U.S. Attorney's Office 1994, pp. 4, 8,
16; Alexander 1996, pp. 1-6). Furthermore, we have information that
diminutive butterfly collecting is occurring within the Spring
Mountains (Service 2012, pp. 1-4). Because diminutive butterflies are
sought, the inadvertent collection of Mt. Charleston blue butterflies
has likely occurred and is expected to continue.
When Austin first described the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly in
1980 (Austin 1980, p. 22), he indicated that collectors regularly
visited areas close to the known collection sites of the Mt. Charleston
blue butterfly. Records indicate collection has occurred in several
locations within the Spring Mountains, with Lee Canyon being among the
most popular areas for butterfly collecting (Table 2; Austin 1980, p.
22; Service 2012, p. 2). Butterfly collectors may sometimes remove the
only individual of a subspecies observed during collecting trips, even
if it is known to be a unique specimen (Service 2012, p. 3). In many
instances, a collector may not know he has a particularly rare or
scarce species until after collection and subsequent identification
takes place. The best available information indicates that Mt.
Charleston blue butterflies have been collected for personal use
(Service 2012, p. 2).
Table 2--Numbers of Mt. Charleston Blue Butterfly Specimens Collected by Area, Year, and Sex
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection area Year Male Female Unknown Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mt. Charleston.................. 1928 .............. .............. *~700 *~700
Willow Creek.................... 1928 15 19 .............. 34
Lee Canyon...................... 1963 8 6 8 22
1976 1 .............. .............. 1
2002 1 .............. .............. 1
Kyle Canyon..................... 1965 3 .............. .............. 3
Cathedral Rock.................. 1972 .............. .............. 1 1
Deer Creek Rd................... 1950 2 .............. .............. 2
South Loop...................... 2007 .............. .............. 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. 30 25 10 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References: Garth 1928, p. 93; Howe 1975, Plate 59; Austin 1980, p. 22; Austin and Austin 1980, p. 30; Kingsley
2007, p. 4; Service 2012, p. 2
* = Collections by Frank Morand as reported in Garth 1928, p. 93. Not included in totals.
In some cases, private collectors often have more extensive
collections of particular butterfly species than museums (Alexander
1996, p. 2). Butterfly collecting (except those with protected status)
for noncommercial (recreational and personal) purposes does not require
a special use authorization (Forest Service 1998b, p. 1; Joslin 1998,
p. 74). However, within the SMNRA, Lee Canyon, Cold Creek, Willow
Creek, and upper Kyle Canyon have been identified since 1996 as areas
where permits are required for any butterfly collecting (Forest Service
1998, pp. 28, E9). However, no permits have been issued for collecting
in these areas.
On Forest Service-administered lands, a special use permit is
required for the commercial collection of butterflies (36 CFR 251.50),
which would include collections for research, museums, universities, or
professional societies (Forest Service 2003, pp. 2-3). There are no
records indicating that special use permits have been issued for
commercial collecting of Mt. Charleston blue butterflies in the Spring
Mountains (S. Hinman 2011, pers. comm.); however, as discussed above,
unauthorized commercial collecting has occurred in the past.
For most butterfly species, collecting is generally thought to have
less of an impact on butterfly populations compared to other threats.
Weiss et al. (1997, p. 29) indicated that, in general, responsible
collecting posed little harm to populations. However, when a butterfly
population is very small, any collection of butterflies results in the
direct mortality of individuals and may greatly affect the population's
viability and ability to recover. Populations already stressed by other
factors may be severely threatened by intensive collecting (Thomas
1984, p. 345; Miller 1994, pp. 76, 83; New et al. 1995, p. 62). Thomas
1984 (p. 345) suggested that closed, sedentary populations of less than
250 adults are most likely to be at risk from overcollection.
In summary, due to the small number of discrete populations,
overall small metapopulation size, close proximity to roads and trails,
restricted range, and evidence of ongoing collection, we have
determined that collection is a threat to the subspecies now and will
continue to be in the future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any information regarding impacts from either
disease or predation on the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. Therefore,
we do not find that disease or predation is a threat to the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly or likely to become a threat.
[[Page 59530]]
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any,
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * *.'' In
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of
the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four
factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give
strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to
management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An
example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State
statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist,
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified
threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or
remove threats to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly.
The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly occurs primarily on Federal land
under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service; therefore, the discussion
below focuses on Federal laws. There is no available information
regarding local land use laws and ordinances that have been issued by
Clark County or other local government entities for the protection of
the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. Nevada Revised Statutes sections 503
and 527 offer protective measures to wildlife and plants, but do not
include invertebrate species such as the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly.
Therefore, no regulatory protection is offered under Nevada State law.
Please note that actions adopted by local groups, States, or Federal
entities that are discretionary, including conservation strategies and
guidance, are not regulatory mechanisms and were discussed above in the
Conservation Agreement and Plans That May Offset Habitat Threats
section in Factor A, above.
Mt. Charleston blue butterflies have been detected in only two
general areas in recent years--the South Loop Trail area, where adult
butterflies were recently detected during the summer of 2010 and 2011,
and at LVSSR in 2010. The Forest Service manages lands designated as
wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). With
respect to these areas, the Wilderness Act states the following: (1)
New or temporary roads cannot be built; (2) there can be no use of
motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats; (3) there can be no
landing of aircraft; (4) there can be no other form of mechanical
transport; and (5) no structure or installation may be built. As such,
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat in the South Loop Trail area is
protected from direct loss or degradation by the prohibitions of the
Wilderness Act. Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat at LVSSR and
elsewhere in Lee Canyon and Kyle Canyon is located outside of the Mt.
Charleston Wilderness, and thus is not subject to protections afforded
by the Wilderness Act.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), requires Federal agencies, such as the Forest
Service, to describe proposed agency actions, consider alternatives,
identify and disclose potential environmental impacts of each
alternative, and involve the public in the decisionmaking process.
Federal agencies are not required to select the NEPA alternative having
the least significant environmental impacts. A Federal agency may
select an action that will adversely affect sensitive species provided
that these effects are identified in a NEPA document. The NEPA itself
is a disclosure law, and does not require subsequent minimization or
mitigation of actions taken by Federal agencies. Although Federal
agencies may include conservation measures for the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly as a result of the NEPA process, such measures are not
required by the statute. The Forest Service is required to analyze its
projects, listed under Factor A, above, in accordance with the NEPA.
The SMNRA is one of 10 districts of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forest and was established by Public Law 103-63, dated August 4, 1993
(the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Act, 16 U.S. C. 460hhh
et seq.). The Federal lands of the SMNRA are managed by the Forest
Service in Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada, for the following purposes:
(1) To preserve the scenic, scientific, historic, cultural,
natural, wilderness, watershed, riparian, wildlife, threatened and
endangered species, and other values contributing to public enjoyment
and biological diversity in the Spring Mountains of Nevada;
(2) To ensure appropriate conservation and management of natural
and recreational resources in the Spring Mountains; and
(3) To provide for the development of public recreational
opportunities in the Spring Mountains for the enjoyment of present and
future generations. Habitat of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is
predominantly in the SMNRA and one of several resources considered by
the Forest Service under the guidance of its land management plans.
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), provides the principal guidance for the
management of activities on lands under Forest Service jurisdiction
through associated land and resource management plans for each forest
unit. Under NFMA and other Federal laws, the Forest Service has
authority to regulate recreation, vehicle travel and other human
disturbance, livestock grazing, fire management, energy development,
and mining on lands within its jurisdiction. Current guidance for the
management of Forest Service lands in the SMNRA is under the Toiyabe
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Spring
Mountains National Recreation Area General Management Plan (Forest
Service 1996). In June 2006, the Forest Service added the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly, and three other endemic butterflies, to the
Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List, in accordance with Forest
Service Manual 2670. The Forest Service's objective in managing
sensitive species is to prevent listing of species under the Act,
maintain viable populations of native species, and develop and
implement management objectives for populations and habitat of
sensitive species. Projects listed in Factor A, above, have been guided
by these Forest Service plans, policies, and guidance. These plans,
policies, and guidance notwithstanding, removal or degradation of known
occupied and presumed occupied butterfly habitat has occurred as a
result of projects approved by the Forest Service in Upper Lee Canyon.
Additionally, this guidance has not been effective in reducing other
threats to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (for example, invasion of
nonnative plant species and commercial and personal collection
activities) (Weiss et al. 1995, pp. 5-6, Titus and Landau 2003, p. 1;
Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 6; Service 2012, pp. 1-4).
[[Page 59531]]
Since the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is designated a sensitive
species, Standard 0.28 of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the
Spring Mountains requires a collecting permit issued by the Regional
Forester (except for traditional use by American Indians) (Forest
Service 1996, p. 18). Furthermore, Standard 11.6 indicates that
collecting, regardless of species, in specific areas, including Cold
Creek, Lee Canyon, upper Kyle Canyon, and Willow Creek, also requires a
permit (Forest Service 1996, p. 31). These items, identified as
``standards,'' are constraints or mitigation measures that must be
followed as directed by the General Management Plan (Forest Service
1996, p. 2). Collection permits are not required for activities
contracted by, or performed under, agreement with the Forest Service.
Additional information obtained since publication of the 12-month
finding indicates that collecting has occurred before and after the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly was designated a sensitive species (see
Factor B); however, no permits have been issued to date (Service 2012,
p. 1-4; Shawnee Hinman, pers. comm. March 22, 2012).
Summary of Factor D
Although Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat at the South Loop
Trail area is to be afforded protection by prohibitions of the
Wilderness Act from many types of habitat-disturbing actions, in fact,
habitat-disturbance activities (such as those associated with
recreation) have occurred in other locations and may continue to occur.
Projects conducted under the current management plans have disturbed
habitat, and may occur again in the future.
The current existing regulatory mechanism designed to regulate the
collection of Mt. Charleston blue butterflies is not effectively
addressing or ameliorating the threat of collection to the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly, because of inadequate enforcement.
Specifically, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is designated a
sensitive species by the Forest Service, and, since 2006, a permit has
been required for the noncommercial collection of this subspecies. This
requirement provides limited protection, however, because collections
of this and other species of butterflies have taken place without
permits being issued. As discussed above, we have evidence of
nonpermitted collection. Therefore, existing law, regulation, and
policy have not prevented the collection of Mt. Charleston blue
butterflies (see Factor B, Table 2).
In addition, Mt. Charleston blue butterflies occur in extremely
small populations that are limited in distribution and are vulnerable
to collections, projects, or actions that impact populations or even
relatively small areas of occupied or suitable habitat. Therefore, we
conclude that there is an inadequacy in the existing regulatory
mechanisms designed to protect the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly from
threats discussed in this finding (Factor A and B above).
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability
of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being
a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer
periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or
indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or
negative and they may change over time, depending on the species and
other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of
climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007,
pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information available for us to use.
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections
when they are available and have been developed through appropriate
scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher
resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for
analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a
discussion of downscaling). IPCC models are at a landscape scale and
project that precipitation will decrease in the southwestern United
States (IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). The IPCC reports that
temperature increases and rising air and ocean temperature is
unquestionable (IPCC 2007a, p. 4). Site-specific models project
temperatures in Nevada are likely to increase as much as 2.8 degrees
Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) by the 2050s (TNC 2011, p. 1).
Precipitation variability in the Mojave Desert region is linked
spatially and temporally with events in the tropical and northern
Pacific Oceans (El Ni[ntilde]o and La Ni[ntilde]a) (USGS 2004, pp. 2-
3). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various
aspects of climate change as it affects the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly.
The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly population has declined since the
last high-population year in 1995 (a total of 121 butterflies were
counted during surveys of 2 areas at LVSSR on 2 separate dates (Weiss
1996, p. 4)). This subspecies has a limited distribution, and
population numbers are likely small. Small butterfly populations have a
higher risk of extinction due to random environmental events (Shaffer
1981, p. 131; Shaffer 1987, pp. 69-75; Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 24-
28). Weather extremes can cause severe butterfly population reductions
or extinctions (Murphy et al. 1990, p. 43; Weiss et al. 1987, pp. 164-
167; Thomas et al. 1996, pp. 964-969). Given the limited distribution
and likely low population numbers of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly,
late-season snowstorms, severe summer monsoon thunderstorms, and
drought have the potential to adversely impact the subspecies.
Late-season snowstorms have caused alpine butterfly extirpations
(Ehrlich et al. 1972, pp. 101-105), and false spring conditions
followed by normal winter snowstorms have caused adult and pre-diapause
larvae mortality (Parmesan 2005, pp. 56-60). In addition, high rainfall
years have been associated with butterfly population declines (Dobkin
et al. 1987, pp. 161-176). Extended periods of rainy weather can also
slow larval development and reduce overwintering survival (Weiss et al.
1993, pp. 261-270). Weiss et al. (1997, p. 32) suggested that heavy
summer monsoon thunderstorms adversely impacted Mt. Charleston blue
butterflies during the 1996 flight season. During the 2006 and 2007
flight season, severe summer thunderstorms may have affected the flight
season at LVSSR and the South Loop Trail (Newfields 2006,
[[Page 59532]]
pp. 11 and 14; Kingsley 2007, p. 8). Additionally, drought has been
shown to lower butterfly populations (Ehrlich et al. 1980, pp. 101-105;
Thomas 1984, p. 344). Drought can cause butterfly host plants to mature
early and reduce larval food availability (Ehrlich et al. 1980, pp.
101-105; Weiss 1987, p. 165). This has likely affected the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly. Murphy (2006, p. 3) and Boyd (2006, p. 1)
both assert a series of drought years, followed by a season of above-
average snowfall and then more drought, could be a reason for the lack
of butterfly sightings in 2006. Continuing drought could be responsible
for the lack of sightings in 2007 and 2008 (Datasmiths 2007, p. 1; Boyd
2008, p. 2). Based on this evidence, we believe that the Mt. Charleston
blue butterfly has likely been affected by unfavorable climatic changes
in precipitation and temperature that are both ongoing and projected to
continue into the future.
High-elevation species like the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly may
be particularly susceptible to some level of habitat loss due to global
climate change exacerbating threats already impacting the subspecies
(Peters and Darling 1985, p. 714; Hill et al. 2002, p. 2170). The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has high confidence in
predictions that extreme weather events, warmer temperatures, and
regional drought are very likely to increase in the northern hemisphere
as a result of climate change (IPCC 2007, pp. 15-16). Climate models
show the southwestern United States has transitioned into a more arid
climate of drought that is predicted to continue into the next century
(Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). In the past 60 years, the frequency of
storms with extreme precipitation has increased in Nevada by 29 percent
(Madsen and Figdor 2007, p. 37). Changes in local southern Nevada
climatic patterns cannot be definitively tied to global climate change;
however, they are consistent with IPCC-predicted patterns of extreme
precipitation, warmer than average temperatures, and drought (Redmond
2007, p. 1). Therefore, we think it likely that climate change will
impact the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly and its high-elevation habitat
through predicted increases in extreme precipitation and drought.
Alternating extreme precipitation and drought may exacerbate threats
already facing the subspecies as a result of its small population size
and threats to its habitat.
Summary of Factor E
Small butterfly populations have a higher risk of extinction due to
random environmental events (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Gilpin and Soule
1986, pp. 24-28; Shaffer 1987, pp. 69-75). Because of its small
population and restricted range, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is
vulnerable to random environmental events; in particular, the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly is threatened by extreme precipitation events
and drought. In the past 60 years, the frequency of storms with extreme
precipitation has increased in Nevada by 29 percent (Madsen and Figdor
2007, p. 37), and it is predicted that altered regional patterns of
temperature and precipitation as a result of global climate change will
continue (IPCC 2007, pp. 15-16). Throughout the entire range of the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly, altered climate patterns could increase the
potential for extreme precipitation events and drought, and may
exacerbate the threats the subspecies already faces given its small
population size and the threats to the alpine environment where it
occurs. Based on this information, we find that other natural or
manmade factors are affecting the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly such
that these factors are a threat to the subspecies' continued existence.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
is sensitive to environmental variability with the butterfly population
rising and falling in response to environmental conditions (see Status
and Trends section). The best available information suggests the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly population has been in decline since 1995,
the last year the subspecies was observed in high numbers, and that the
population is now likely extremely small (see Status and Trends
section). To some extent, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, like most
butterflies, has evolved to survive periods of unfavorable
environmental conditions as diapausing larvae or pupae (Scott 1986, pp.
26-30). The pupae of some butterfly species are known to persist in
diapause up to 5 to 7 years (Scott 1986, p. 28). The number of years
the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly can remain in diapause is unknown. It
has been speculated that the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly may only be
able to diapause for two seasons in a row (Murphy 2006, p. 1; Boyd and
Murphy 2008, p. 21); however, a longer diapause period may be possible
(Murphy 2006, p. 1; Datasmiths 2007, p. 6; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p.
22). The best available information suggests environmental conditions
from 2006 to 2009 have not been favorable to the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly (see Status and Trends section).
Surveys are planned for 2012 to further determine the status and
provide more knowledge about the ecology of the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly. Threats facing the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, discussed
above under listing Factors A, B, D, and E, increase the risk of
extinction of the subspecies, given its few occurrences in a small
area. The loss and degradation of habitat due to fire suppression and
succession; the implementation of recreational development projects and
fuels reduction projects; and the increases in nonnative plants (see
Factor A), along with the persistent, ongoing threat of collection of
the subspecies for commercial and noncommercial purposes (see Factor B)
and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to prevent these
impacts (see Factor D), will increase the inherent risk of extinction
of the remaining few occurrences of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly.
These threats are likely to be exacerbated by the impact of climate
change, which is anticipated to increase drought and extreme
precipitation events (see Factor E). The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
is currently in danger of extinction because only small populations are
known to occupy 2 of 18 historical locations, its status at 8 other
locations where it is presumed to be occupied may be nearing
extirpation, and the threats are ongoing and persistent at all known
and presumed occupied locations.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire
range, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats
described above and its limited distribution of two known occupied
locations and eight presumed occupied locations nearing extirpation.
The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly thus meets the definition of an
endangered species rather than threatened species because (1) It has
been extirpated from six locations and eight others are imminently near
extirpation; (2) it is limited to only two small populations; and (3)
these small populations are facing severe and imminent threats.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
[[Page 59533]]
available scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly as endangered in accordance with sections
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is a threatened or endangered species throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly proposed for listing in this rule is highly restricted in its
range and the threats occur throughout its range. Therefore, we
assessed the status of the subspecies throughout its entire range. The
threats to the survival of the subspecies occur throughout the
subspecies' range and are not restricted to any particular significant
portion of that range. Accordingly, our assessment and proposed
determination applies to the subspecies throughout its entire range,
and we did not further evaluate a significant portion of the
subspecies' range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery
actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against
certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public
awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal
agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed,
in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that are designed to achieve recovery of
the species, objective, measurable criteria that determine when a
species may be downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring
recovery progress. Additionally, recovery plans contain estimated time
and costs to carry out measures that are needed to achieve the goal and
intermediate steps toward that goal. Recovery plans also establish a
framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide
estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams
(comprising species experts, Federal and State agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established
to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web
site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from the Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Nevada would be eligible
for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection and recovery of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is only proposed for
listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this
species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have
for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the Forest Service.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species.
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened
[[Page 59534]]
wildlife species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered species, and at
17.32 for threatened species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a
permit must be issued for the following purposes: for scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and
for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of the species at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Introduction of nonnative species or the unauthorized release
of biological control agents that compete with or attack any life stage
of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, such as the introduction of
nonnative ant, wasp, fly, beetle, or other insect species to the State
of Nevada; or
(3) Unauthorized modification of known occupied or presumed
occupied habitats of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly that support
larval host and nectar plants.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Nevada Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for
copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and general
inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 2800
Cottage Way, Suite W-2606, Sacramento, California, 95825-1846
(telephone 916-414-6464; facsimile 916-414-6486).
Critical Habitat and Prudency Determination for the Mt. Charleston Blue
Butterfly
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time we
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected
to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
We have determined that both circumstances apply to the Mt Charleston
blue butterfly. This determination involves a weighing of the expected
increase in threats associated with a critical habitat designation
against the benefits gained by a critical habitat designation. An
explanation of this ``balancing'' evaluation follows.
Increased Threat to the Subspecies by Designating Critical Habitat
Designation of critical habitat requires the publication of maps
and a narrative description of specific critical habitat areas in the
Federal Register. The degree of detail in those maps and boundary
descriptions is greater than the general location descriptions provided
in this proposal to list the species as endangered. We are concerned
that designation of critical habitat would more widely announce the
exact location of the butterflies to poachers, collectors, and vandals
and further facilitate unauthorized collection and trade. Due to its
extreme rarity (a low number of individuals, combined with small areas
inhabited by the remaining metapopulation), this butterfly is highly
vulnerable to collection. Disturbance and other harm from humans are
also serious threats to the butterfly and its habitat (see Factor B
above). At this time, removal of any individuals or damage to habitat
would have devastating consequences for the survival of the subspecies.
These threats would be exacerbated by the publication of maps and
descriptions in the Federal Register and local newspapers outlining the
specific locations of this critically imperiled butterfly. Maps and
descriptions of critical habitat, such as those that would appear in
the Federal Register if critical habitat were designated, are not now
available to the general public. Please note that while we have listed
area and trail names of historically occupied, presumed occupied, and
currently occupied locations, these lists do not indicate specific
locations, and the actual currently known occupied locations are a
portion of the much larger-scale areas listed in the tables in this
document.
We have specific evidence of taking for this subspecies, and the
noncommercial collection of butterflies from the Spring Mountains in
Nevada is ongoing (Service 2012, pp. 1-5). As a subspecies endemic to
the Spring Mountains, the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is sought by
collectors who may not be aware of specific locations where it is found
(Service 2012, pp. 1-5). While we are not aware of a specific market
for butterflies from the Spring Mountains, there have been collections
documented (collected, collected and sold, and collected with intent to
sell) in nearby surrounding areas such as the Death Valley National
Park, Grand Canyon National Park, and Kaibab National Forest (U.S.
Attorney's Office, 1993, pp. 2-3). A great deal of effort is made by
collectors to conceal collection activities that may be legal or
illegal, so as not to draw attention to the collectors (U.S. Attorney's
Office, 1993, pp. 1-86). Some collections in nearby areas have been for
commercial purposes (U.S. Attorney's Office, 1993, pp. 1-86).
[[Page 59535]]
Additionally, we are aware of a market for butterflies that look
similar to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, including one of the
species proposed for listing due to similarity of appearance. It is
clear that a demand currently exists for both imperiled butterflies and
those similar in appearance to the Mt. Charleston blue. Due to the
small number of discrete populations, overall small metapopulation
size, accessibility of some occupied habitats, and restricted range, we
find that collection is a threat to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
and could occur at any time. Even limited collection from the remaining
metapopulation would have deleterious effects on the reproductive and
genetic viability of the subspecies and thus could contribute to its
extinction. Identification of critical habitat would increase the
severity of this threat by depicting the exact locations where the
subspecies may occur and more widely publicizing this information,
exposing the fragile population and its habitat to greater risks.
Identification and publication of critical habitat maps would also
likely increase enforcement problems. Although take prohibitions exist,
effective enforcement is difficult. As discussed in Factors B, D, and
elsewhere above, the threat of collection exists, and areas are already
difficult to patrol. Areas within the Mt. Charleston Wilderness are
remote and accessible mainly by a steep and long ascent, making the
areas difficult for law enforcement personnel to patrol and monitor.
Designation of critical habitat could facilitate further use and misuse
of sensitive habitats and resources, and create additional difficulty
for law enforcement personnel in an already challenging environment.
Overall, we find that designation of critical habitat will increase the
likelihood and severity of the threats of unauthorized collection of
the subspecies and destruction of sensitive habitat, as well as
exacerbate enforcement issues.
Benefits to the Subspecies From Critical Habitat Designation
It is true that designation of critical habitat for the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly within the Spring Mountains would have some
beneficial effects. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies, including the Service, to ensure that actions they fund,
authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of that species' critical habitat.
Critical habitat only provides protections where there is a Federal
nexus; that is, those actions that come under the purview of section 7
of the Act. Critical habitat designation has no application to actions
that do not have a Federal nexus. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act mandates
that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, evaluate the
effects of their proposed actions on any designated critical habitat.
Similar to the Act's requirement that a Federal agency action not
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, Federal agencies
have the responsibility not to implement actions that would destroy or
adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat
designation alone, however, does not require that a Federal action
agency implement specific steps toward species recovery.
All areas known to support the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly since
1995 are or have been on Federal lands; these areas are currently being
managed for multiple uses. Management efforts are reviewed by the
Forest Service and the Service to consider Mt. Charleston blue
butterfly conservation needs. Because the butterfly exists only as two
occupied and eight presumed occupied, small metapopulations, any future
activity involving a Federal action that would destroy or adversely
modify occupied critical habitat would also likely jeopardize the
subspecies' continued existence. Consultation with respect to critical
habitat would provide additional protection to a species only if the
agency action would result in the destruction or adverse modification
of the critical habitat but would not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species. In the absence of a critical habitat
designation, areas that support the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly will
continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded
by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as appropriate. Federal
actions affecting the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, even in the
absence of designated critical habitat areas, will still benefit from
consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act and may still
result in jeopardy findings. Another potential benefit to the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly from designating critical habitat is that it
could serve to educate landowners, State and local government agencies,
and the general public regarding the potential conservation value of
the area. In addition, designation of critical habitat could inform
State agencies and local governments about areas that could be
conserved under State laws or local ordinances. However, since
awareness and education involving the Mt. Charleston blue is already
well underway, designation of critical habitat would likely provide
only minimal incremental benefits. Therefore, designation of specific
areas as critical habitat that are currently occupied or recently
occupied is unlikely to provide measurable benefit to the subspecies.
Increased Threat to the Subspecies Outweighs the Benefits of Critical
Habitat Designation
Upon reviewing the available information, we have determined that
the designation of critical habitat would increase the threat to the
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly from unauthorized collection. At the same
time, we have determined that a designation of critical habitat is
likely to confer little measurable benefit to the subspecies beyond
that provided by listing. Results of consultations on Federal actions
affecting the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, should it be listed under
the Act, would likely be no different with critical habitat than
without its designation. Overall, we find that the risk of increasing
significant threats to the subspecies by publishing location
information in a critical habitat designation greatly outweighs the
benefits of designating critical habitat.
In conclusion, we find that the designation of critical habitat is
not prudent, in accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1), because the Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly is threatened by collection, and designation
can reasonably be expected to increase the degree of these threats to
the subspecies and its habitat. Critical habitat designation could
provide some benefit to the subspecies, but these benefits are
significantly outweighed by the increased risk of collection pressure
and enforcement problems that could result from depicting, through
publicly available maps and descriptions, exactly where this extremely
rare butterfly and its habitat occurs.
Similarity of Appearance
Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the treatment of a species,
subspecies, or population segment as an endangered or threatened
species if: ``(a) Such species so closely resembles in appearance, at
the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such
section that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in
attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species;
(b) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat
to an endangered or threatened
[[Page 59536]]
species; and (c) such treatment of an unlisted species will
substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this
Act.'' Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under
the similarity of appearance provisions of the Act extends the take
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act to cover the species. A
designation of an endangered or threatened species due to similarity of
appearance under section 4(e) of the Act, however, does not extend
other protections of the Act, such as consultation requirements for
Federal agencies under section 7 and the recovery planning provisions
under section 4(f), that apply to species that are listed as an
endangered or threatened species under section 4(a). All applicable
prohibitions and exceptions for species listed under section 4(e) of
the Act due to similarity of appearance to a threatened or endangered
species will be set forth in a special rule under section 4(d) of the
Act.
There are only slight morphological differences between the Mt.
Charleston blue and the lupine blue, Reakirt's blue, Spring Mountains
icarioides blue, and the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies,
making it difficult to differentiate between the species, especially
due to their small size. This poses a problem for Federal and State law
enforcement agents trying to stem unauthorized collection of the Mt.
Charleston blue. It is quite possible that collectors authorized to
collect similar species may inadvertently (or purposefully) collect the
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, thinking it to be the lupine blue,
Reakirt's blue, Spring Mountains icarioides blue, or one of the two
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies, which also occur in the same
geographical area and habitat type and have overlapping flight periods.
The listing of these similar blue butterflies as threatened species due
to similarity of appearance eliminates the ability of amateur butterfly
enthusiasts and private and commercial collectors to purposefully or
accidentally misrepresent the Mt. Charleston blue as one of these other
species.
The listing will facilitate Federal and State law enforcement
agents' efforts to curtail unauthorized possession, collection, and
trade in the Mt. Charleston blue. At this time, the five similar
butterflies are not protected by the State. Extending the prohibition
of collection to the five similar butterflies through this listing of
these species due to similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of the
Act and providing applicable prohibitions and exceptions in a special
rule under section 4(d) of the Act will provide greater protection to
the Mt. Charleston blue. For these reasons, we are proposing to list
the lupine blue butterfly (Plebejus lupini texanus), Reakirt's blue
butterfly (Echinargus isola), Spring Mountains icarioides blue
butterfly (Plebejus icarioides austinorum), and the two Spring
Mountains dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and E. a.
purpura) as threatened species due to similarity of appearance to the
Mt. Charleston blue, pursuant to section 4(e) of the Act on private and
public lands within the District Boundary for the Spring Mountains
National Recreation Area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and
north of Nevada State Highway 160 (commonly referred to as the Spring
Mountains and Mt. Charleston) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Map of the area where the proposed special rule for the
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly applies to the five similarity of
appearance butterflies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE12.007
[[Page 59537]]
Special Rule Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Whenever a species is listed as a threatened species under the Act,
the Secretary may specify regulations that he deems necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of that species under the
authorization of section 4(d) of the Act. These rules, commonly
referred to as ``special rules,'' are found in part 17 of title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in sections 17.40-17.48. This
special rule to be promulgated under the designation 50 CFR 17.47, will
establish prohibitions on collection of the lupine blue butterfly
(Plebejus lupini texanus), Reakirt's blue butterfly (Echinargus isola),
Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides
austinorum), and two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes
ancilla cryptica and E. a. purpura), or their immature stages, where
their ranges overlap with the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, in order
to protect the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly from collection,
possession, and trade. In this context, collection is defined as any
activity where lupine blue butterfly, Reakirt's blue butterfly, Spring
Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and the two Spring Mountains dark
blue butterflies or their immature stages are, or are attempted to be,
collected.
Capture of the lupine blue butterfly, Reakirt's blue butterfly,
Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and the two Spring
Mountains dark blue butterflies, or their immature stages, is not
prohibited if it is accidental, such as during research, provided the
animal is released immediately upon discovery at the point of capture.
Scientific activities involving collection or propagation of these
similarity-of-appearance butterflies are not prohibited provided there
is prior written authorization from the Service. All otherwise legal
activities involving the lupine blue butterfly, Reakirt's blue
butterfly, Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and the two
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies that are conducted in accordance
with applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and local laws and regulations
are not considered to be take under this proposed rule.
Effects of These Rules
Listing the lupine blue butterfly, Reakirt's blue butterfly, Spring
Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and the two Spring Mountains dark
blue butterflies as threatened species under the ``similarity of
appearance'' provisions of the Act, and the promulgation of a special
rule under section 4(d) of the Act, extend take prohibitions to these
species and their immature stages. Capture of these species, including
their immature stages, is not prohibited if it is accidental, such as
during research, provided the animal is released immediately upon
discovery, at the point of capture.
There are over 100 species and subspecies of butterflies within the
10 genera, occurring domestically and internationally, that could be
confused with the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, or the 4 similarity of
appearance butterflies. We are aware that legal trade in some of these
other blue butterflies exists. To avoid confusion and delays in legal
trade, we strongly recommend maintaining the appropriate documentation
and declarations with legal specimens at all times, especially when
importing them into the United States. Legal trade of other species
that may be confused with the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly or the five
similarity of appearance butterflies should also comply with the
import/export transfer regulations under 50 CFR 14, where applicable.
All otherwise legal activities that may involve what we would
normally define as incidental take (take that results from, but is not
the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity) of these
similar butterflies, and which are conducted in accordance with
applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and local laws and regulations, will
not be considered take under this regulation. For example, this special
4(d) rule exempts legal application of pesticides, grounds maintenance,
recreational facilities maintenance, vehicle use, vegetation
management, exotic plant removal, and burning. These actions will not
be considered as violations of section 9 of the Act if they result in
incidental take of any of the similarity of appearance butterflies. We
think that not applying take prohibitions for those otherwise legal
activities to these five similar butterflies (lupine blue butterfly,
Reakirt's blue butterfly, Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly,
and the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies) will not pose a
threat to the Mt. Charleston blue because: (1) Activities such as
grounds maintenance and vegetation control in developed or commercial
areas are not likely to affect the Mt. Charleston blue, and (2) the
primary threat to the Mt. Charleston blue comes from collection and
commercial trade. Listing the lupine blue butterfly, Reakirt's blue
butterfly, Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and the two
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies under the similarity of
appearance provision of the Act, coupled with this special 4(d) rule,
will help minimize enforcement problems related to collection, and
enhance conservation of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing decision is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers to
comment during this public comment period on our specific proposed
listing, prudency determination, and similarity of appearance proposal.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the
ADDRESSES section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal,
if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Persons needing reasonable accommodation to attend and participate
in a public hearing should contact the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office
at 775-861-6300, as soon as possible. To allow sufficient time to
process requests, please call no later than 1 week before the hearing
date. Information regarding this proposed rule is available in
alternative formats upon request.
Nonsubstantive Administrative Action
Included in this proposed rule is text to correct errors in a
previously issued rule. When we published the final rule to list the
Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) as endangered
and to list three additional butterflies as threatened by similarity of
appearance (77 FR 20948; April 6, 2012), the last column in the table
at 50 CFR 17.11(h) was inadvertently omitted
[[Page 59538]]
from the published rule. This column indicates where the public may
locate a special rule pertaining to the three species that were listed
as threatened by similarity of appearance (cassius blue butterfly,
ceraunus blue butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly) in title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, we are providing that
information in this proposed rule. We are also proposing a revision to
paragraph (a) of that special rule, which is found in 50 CFR 17.47, to
make the format of that special rule consistent with this proposed
special rule, which will be located immediately following, at 50 CFR
17.47(b). These changes are administrative and nonsubstantive.
Required Determinations
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v.
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042
(1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. We determined that there are no tribal
lands occupied by the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly at the time of
listing. Therefore, this rulemaking, if finalized, will not affect
tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, by:
a. Revising the entries for ``Butterfly, cassius blue'',
``Butterfly, ceraunus blue'', ``Butterfly, Miami blue'', and Butterfly,
nickerbean blue''; and
b. Adding new entries for ``Butterfly, lupine blue'', ``Butterfly,
Mt. Charleston blue'', ``Butterfly, Reakirt's blue'', ``Butterfly,
Spring Mountains dark blue'', ``Butterfly, Spring Mountains dark
blue'', and ``Butterfly, Spring Mountains icarioides blue'', in
alphabetical order under Insects, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 59539]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Insects
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, cassius blue.......... Leptotes cassius U.S.A. (FL), NA................. T (S/A) 801 NA 17.47(a)
theonus. Bahamas, Greater
Antilles, Cayman
Islands.
Butterfly, ceraunus blue......... Hemiargus ceraunus U.S.A. (FL), NA................. T(S/A) 801 NA 17.47(a)
antibubastus. Bahamas.
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, lupine blue........... Plebejus lupini U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, NA................. T (S/A) ........... NA 17.47(b)
texanus. NE, NM, NV, TX,
UT), Mexico.
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, Miami blue............ Cyclargus thomasi U.S.A. (FL), NA................. E 801 NA NA
bethunebakeri. Bahamas.
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, Mt. Charleston blue... Plebejus shasta U.S.A. (NV), Spring NA................. E ........... NA NA
charlestonensis. Mountains.
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, nickerbean blue....... Cyclargus ammon..... U.S.A. (FL), NA................. T(S/A) 801 NA 17.47(a)
Bahamas, Cuba.
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, Reakirt's blue........ Echinargus isola.... U.S.A. (AR, AZ, CA, NA................. T(S/A) ........... NA 17.47(b)
CO, IA, IL, IN,
KS, LA, MI, MN,
MO, MS, ND, NE,
NM, NV, OH, OK,
SD, TN, TX, UT,
WA, WI, WY),
Mexico.
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, Spring Mountains dark Euphilotes ancilla U.S.A. (NV), Spring NA................. T(S/A) ........... NA 17.47(b)
blue. cryptica. Mountains.
Butterfly, Spring Mountains dark Euphilotes ancilla U.S.A. (NV), Spring NA................. T(S/A) ........... NA 17.47(b)
blue. purpura. Mountains.
Butterfly, Spring Mountains Plebejus icarioides U.S.A. (NV), Spring NA................. T(S/A) ........... NA 17.47(b)
icarioides blue. austinorum. Mountains.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.47 by revising the introductory text or paragraph
(a) and paragraph (a)(4) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.47 Special rules-insects.
(a) Cassius blue butterfly (Leptotes cassius theonus), Ceraunus
blue butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus), and Nickerbean blue
butterfly (Cyclargus ammon). The provisions of this special rule apply
to these species only when found in coastal counties of Florida south
of Interstate 4 and extending to the boundaries of the State at the
endpoints of Interstate 4 at Tampa and Daytona Beach. Specifically,
regulated activities are prohibited in the following counties: Brevard,
Broward, Charlotte, Collier, De Soto, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee,
Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota, St. Lucie, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe,
Palm Beach, and Volusia.
* * * * *
(4) Collection of the cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue
butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly is prohibited in the areas set
forth in paragraph (a).
(b) Lupine blue butterfly (Plebejus lupini texanus), Reakirt's blue
butterfly (Echinargus isola), Spring Mountains icarioides blue
butterfly (Plebejus icarioides austinorum), and two Spring Mountains
dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and E. a. purpura).
The provisions of this special rule apply to these species only when
found on private and public lands within the District Boundary for the
Spring Mountains National Recreation Area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest and north of Nevada State Highway 160 (commonly
referred to as the Spring Mountains and Mt. Charleston).
[[Page 59540]]
(1) The provisions of Sec. 17.31(c) apply to these species (lupine
blue butterfly, Reakirt's blue butterfly, Spring Mountains icarioides
blue butterfly, and two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies),
regardless of whether in the wild or in captivity, and also apply to
the progeny of any such butterfly.
(2) Any violation of State law will also be a violation of the Act.
(3) Incidental take, that is, take that results from, but is not
the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity, will not
apply to the lupine blue butterfly, Reakirt's blue butterfly, Spring
Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and two Spring Mountains dark blue
butterflies.
(4) Collection of the lupine blue butterfly, Reakirt's blue
butterfly, two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies, and Spring
Mountains icarioides blue butterfly is prohibited in the Spring
Mountains of Nevada.
(5) A map showing the area covered by this special rule follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE12.008
Dated: September 11, 2012.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-23747 Filed 9-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P