[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57750-57775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22702]
[[Page 57749]]
Vol. 78
Thursday,
No. 182
September 19, 2013
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Species Status for Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 57750]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0069; MO 92210-0-0008 B2]
RIN 1018-AY52
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Species Status for Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly (Plebejus shasta
charlestonensis), a butterfly subspecies from the Spring Mountains,
Clark County, Nevada. The effect of this regulation will be to add this
subspecies to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on
information gathered from peer reviewers and the public during the
comment period, we have determined that it is prudent to designate
critical habitat for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. Therefore, we
will publish in a separate Federal Register notice, our proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly.
DATES: This rule is effective October 21, 2013.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/nevada. Comments and
materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the
preparation of this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and documentation
that we considered in this rulemaking are available, by appointment,
during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada
Ecological Services Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno,
NV 89502-7147; (775) 861-6300 [phone]; (775) 861-6301 [facsimile].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor,
Nevada Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES). If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
This document consists of a final rule to list the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly (Plebejus shasta charlestonensis) (formerly in genus
Icaricia) as an endangered species.
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant
protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a
rule. 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 1 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. We will propose to designate critical habitat for the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly under the Act in a separate Federal
Register notice.
This rule will finalize the endangered status for the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly. Based on information gathered from peer
reviewers and the public during the comment period, we have determined
that it is prudent to designate critical habitat for the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly. Therefore, in a separate Federal Register
notice, we will propose to designate critical habitat for the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly. We are not finalizing the threatened status
for 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 Euphilotes
ancilla purpura) based on similarity of appearance to the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly under section 4(e) of the Act.
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 Mount Charleston blue
butterfly is endangered due to four of these five factors (A, B, D, and
E), as discussed below. Threats facing the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly increase the risk of extinction of the subspecies, given its
few occurrences in a small area. The loss and degradation of habitat
due to changes in natural fire regimes and succession, the
implementation of recreational development projects and fuels reduction
projects, and the increases in nonnative plants (see Factor A
discussion) will increase the inherent risk of extinction of the
remaining few occurrences of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
Unpermitted and unlawful collection is a threat to the subspecies due
to the small number of discrete populations, overall small
metapopulation size, close proximity to roads and trails, and
restricted range (Factor B). 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 Mount
Charleston blue butterfly is currently in danger of extinction because
only small populations are known to occupy only 3 of the 17 historical
locations, it may become extirpated in the near future at 7 other
locations presumed to be occupied, and the threats are ongoing and
persistent at all known and presumed-occupied locations.
We have determined that listing 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 is no longer advisable and unnecessary because the threat of
inadvertent collection and misidentification of the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly will be reduced by a closure order issued by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (Forest Service). The
application processes for Service and Forest Service collection permits
associated with the closure order require thorough review of applicant
qualifications by agency personnel, and we believe only highly
qualified individuals capable of distinguishing between small, blue
butterfly species that occur in the Spring Mountains will be issued
permits. As a result, we do not anticipate that individuals with
permits will misidentify the butterfly species, and therefore, we do
not believe inadvertent collection of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly by authorized individuals will occur. In addition, any
collection without permits would be in violation of the closure order
and subject to law enforcement action so any purposeful, unlawful
collection should also be reduced.
[[Page 57751]]
Peer reviewers commented that designating critical habitat would
not increase the threat to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly from
collection because those individuals interested in collecting Mount
Charleston blue butterflies would be able to obtain occurrence
locations from other sources, such as the Internet. Based on these
comments, we have determined that designation of critical habitat for
the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is prudent. Therefore, elsewhere in
a separate Federal Register notice, we will propose to designate
critical habitat for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to ensure that our
designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on our listing
proposal. We also considered all comments and information we received
during the comment period. We received five peer review responses.
These peer reviewers generally concurred with listing the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly. We also received 10 comments from the
general public, including one from a Federal agency. All responses
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to
improve this final listing determination.
Background
Previous Federal Actions
On September 27, 2012, we published a proposed rule (77 FR 59518)
to list the Mount Charleston blue butterfly as endangered, and the
lupine blue butterfly, Reakirt's blue butterfly, Spring Mountains
icarioides blue butterfly, and two Spring Mountains dark blue
butterflies as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly. Please refer to that proposed rule for a
synopsis of previous Federal actions concerning the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly. A 60-day comment period following publication of the
proposed rule closed on November 26, 2012.
Species Information
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the listing of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly as an
endangered species in this final rule.
Taxonomy and Subspecies Description
The Mount Charleston blue butterfly is a distinct subspecies of the
wider ranging Shasta blue butterfly (Plebejus shasta), which is a
member of the Lycaenidae family. Currently, seven subspecies of Shasta
blue butterflies are recognized: P. s. shasta, P. s. calchas, P. s.
pallidissima, P. s. minnehaha, P. s. charlestonensis, P. s.
pitkinensis, and P. s. platazul (Pelham 2008, pp. 25-26, 379-380). The
Mount Charleston blue butterfly is known only to occur in 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 Mount
Charleston blue butterfly as a unique taxon was in 1928 by Garth (p.
93), who recognized it as distinct from the species Shasta blue
butterfly (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 Mount Charleston blue
butterfly with the wider ranging Minnehaha blue subspecies. Finally,
Austin asserted that Ferris had not included specimens from the Sierra
Nevada Mountains of extreme western Nevada in his study, and in light
of the geographic isolation and distinctiveness of the Shasta blue
butterfly 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 a
subspecies, 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 Mount Charleston blue
butterfly as a valid subspecies based on Austin (1980) (Retrieved May
1, 2013, from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System online
database, http://www.itis.gov). The ITIS is hosted by the U.S.
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.
As a subspecies, the Mount 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). The Mount Charleston
blue butterfly is sexually dimorphic; males and females occur in two
distinct forms. The upper side of males is dark to dull iridescent
blue, and females are brown with some blue basally (Opler 1999, p.
251). The subspecies has a row of submarginal black spots on the dorsal
side of the hind wing and a discal black spot on the dorsal side of the
forewing and hind wing, which when viewed up close distinguishes it
from other small, blue butterflies occurring in the Spring Mountains
(Austin 1980, pp. 20, 23; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. 44). The underside
of the wings is gray, with a pattern of black spots, brown blotches,
and pale wing veins, giving it a mottled appearance (Opler 1999, p.
251). The underside of the hind wing has an inconspicuous band of
submarginal metallic spots (Opler 1999, p. 251). Based on morphology,
the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is most closely related to the
Great Basin populations of the Minnehaha blue butterfly (Austin 1980,
p. 23), and it can be distinguished from other Shasta blue butterfly
subspecies by the presence of a clearer, sharper, and blacker post-
median spot row on the underside of the hind wing (Austin 1980, p. 23;
Scott 1986, p. 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, pp. 75-85), the
geographic range of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is in the upper
elevations of the Spring Mountains, centered on lands managed by the
Forest Service in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area (SMNRA)
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 Mount Charleston Wilderness
and in the Upper Lee Canyon area, while a few are in Upper Kyle Canyon.
Table 1 lists the various locations of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly that constitute the subspecies' current and historical range.
Estimates of population size for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly
are not available. Although surveys have varied in methodology, effort,
frequency, time of year conducted, and sites visited, the occurrence
data summarized in Table 1 represent the best scientific information on
the distribution of Mount Charleston blue butterfly and how that
distribution has changed over time.
[[Page 57752]]
Table 1--Locations Where the Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly Has Been Detected Since 1928, and the Status of the
Butterfly at Those Locations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent
First/last time survey year(s) (y
Location name detected = detected, n = Status Primary references
not detected)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. South Loop Trail, Upper Kyle 1928/2012......... 2007 (y), 2008 Known occupied; Weiss et al. 1997;
Canyon Weiss et al. 1997. (n), 2010 (y), adults Boyd 2006;
2011 (y), 2012 consistently Kingsley 2007;
(y). observed. SWCA 2008; Pinyon
2011; Andrew et
al. 2013;
Thompson et al.
2013.
2. Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard 1963/2012......... 2007 (n), 2008 Known occupied; Weiss et al. 1994;
Resort (LVSSR), Upper Lee (n), 2010 (y), adults Weiss et al.
Canyon. 2011 (n), 2012 consistently 1997; Boyd and
(y). observed. Austin 2002; Boyd
2006; Newfields
2006; Datasmiths
2007; Boyd and
Murphy 2008;
Andrew et al.
2013; Thompson et
al. 2013.
3. Foxtail, Upper Lee Canyon.... 1995/1998......... 2006 (n), 2007 Presumed occupied; Boyd and Austin
(n), 2008 (n), adults observed 1999; Boyd 2006;
2012 (n). less than 20 Datasmiths 2007;
years ago. Boyd and Murphy
2008; Andrew et
al. 2013;
Thompson et al.
2013.
4. Youth Camp, Upper Lee Canyon. 1995/1995......... 2006 (n), 2007 Presumed occupied; Weiss et al. 1997;
(n), 2008 (n), adults observed Boyd 2006;
2012 (n). less than 20 Datasmiths 2007;
years ago. Boyd and Murphy
2008; Andrew et
al. 2013.
5. Gary Abbott, Upper Lee Canyon 1995/1995......... 2006 (n), 2007 Presumed occupied; Weiss et al. 1997;
(n), 2008 (n), adults observed Boyd 2006;
2012 (n). less than 20 Datasmiths 2007;
years ago. Boyd and Murphy
2008; Andrew et
al. 2013;
Thompson et al.
2013.
6. Lower LVSSR Parking, Upper 1995/2002......... 2007 (n), 2008 Presumed occupied; Weiss et al. 1997;
Lee Canyon. (n), 2012 (n). adults observed Boyd 2006;
less than 20 Datasmiths 2007;
years ago. Boyd and Murphy
2008; Andrew et
al. 2013;
Thompson et al.
2013.
7. Mummy Spring, Upper Kyle 1995/1995......... 2006 (n), 2012 (n) Presumed occupied; Weiss et al. 1997;
Canyon. adults observed Boyd 2006; Andrew
less than 20 et al. 2013;
years ago. Thompson et al.
2013.
8. Lee Meadows, Upper Lee Canyon 1965/1965......... 2006 (n), 2007 Presumed Weiss et al. 1997;
(n), 2008 (n), extirpated. Boyd 2006;
2012 \2\ (n). Datasmiths 2007;
Boyd and Murphy
2008; Andrew et
al. 2013;
Thompson et al.
2013.
9. Bristlecone Trail............ 1990/1995......... 2007 (n), 2011 Presumed occupied; Weiss et al. 1995;
(n), 2012 (n). adults Weiss et al.
intermittently 1997; Kingsley
observed. 2007; Thompson et
al. 2013 Andrew
et al. 2013.
10. Bonanza Trail............... 1995/2012......... 2006 (n), 2007 Known occupied; Weiss et al. 1997;
(n), 2011 (y), adults Boyd 2006;
2012 (y). consistently Kingsley 2007;
observed. Andrew et al.
2013; Thompson et
al. 2013.
11. Upper Lee Canyon holotype... 1963/1976......... 2006 (n), 2007 Presumed Weiss et al. 1997;
(n), 2012 \1\ (n). extirpated. Boyd 2006;
Datasmiths 2007;
Andrew et al.
2013.
12. Cathedral Rock, Kyle Canyon. 1972/1972......... 2007 (n), 2012 \1\ Presumed Weiss et al. 1997;
(n). extirpated. Datasmiths 2007;
Andrew et al.
2013.
13. Upper Kyle Canyon Ski Area.. 1965/1972......... 1995 (n), 2012 \1\ Presumed Weiss et al. 1997;
(n). extirpated. Andrew et al.
2013.
14. Old Town, Kyle Canyon....... 1970s/1970s....... 1995 (n), 2012 \1\ Presumed The Urban
(n). extirpated. Wildlands Group,
Inc. 2005.
15. Deer Creek, Kyle Canyon..... 1950/1950......... Unknown, 2012 \1\ Presumed Howe 1975; Andrew
(n). extirpated. et al. 2013.
16. Willow Creek................ 1928/1928......... 2010 (n),2012 \2\. Presumed Weiss et al. 1997;
extirpated. Thompson et al.
2010; Andrew et
al. 2013.
17. Griffith Peak............... 1995/1995......... 2006 (n), 2012 (n) Presumed occupied; Weiss et al. 1997;
adults observed Boyd 2006; Andrew
less than 20 et al. 2013.
years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Site was visited in 2012, but was not surveyed due to absence of larval host plants and lack of habitat
suitability for Mount Charleston blue butterfly (Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 29-35, 56-57).
[[Page 57753]]
\2\ Site does not have habitat to support Mount Charleston blue butterfly, but it was surveyed in 2012 because
blue butterflies from the surrounding area could possibly be observed (Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 51-52, 60).
We presume that the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is extirpated
from a location when it has not been recorded at that location through
formal and informal surveys or incidental observation for more than 20
years. We selected a 20-year time period because it would likely allow
for local extirpation and recolonization events to occur should the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly function in a metapopulation dynamic,
and a 20-year time period would be enough time for succession or other
vegetation shifts to render the habitat unsuitable (see discussion in
``Habitat'' and ``Biology'' sections, below). Using this criterion, the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly is considered to be ``presumed
extirpated'' from 7 of 17 locations (Locations 8 and 11 through 16 in
Table 1) (Service 2006a, pp. 8-9). In the September 27, 2012, proposed
rule (77 FR 59518), we identified Lee Meadows to be presumed occupied.
After reviewing the available data, we determined the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly has not been observed in Lee Meadows since 1965 (Weiss
et al. 1997, p. 10); therefore, this site should be considered presumed
extirpated. We also consider these sites to be historic because they no
longer have larval host plants or nectar plants to support the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly (Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 29-31, 34-35, 51-52,
56-57, 60). Of the remaining 10 locations, 7 locations are ``presumed
occupied'' by the subspecies (Locations 3 through 7, 9, and 17 in Table
1), and the other 3 are ``known occupied'' (Locations 1, 2, and 10 in
Table 1) (Service 2006a, pp. 7-8). In the proposed rule (77 FR 59518),
we identified the Bonanza Trail location (Location 10) as presumed
occupied. Detections of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly at Bonanza
Trail were confirmed during 2011 and 2012 surveys (Andrew et al. 2013,
pp. 58-59). Based on this new information, we now consider the Bonanza
Trail area to be a known occupied location by the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly. We note that the probability of detection of Mount
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 (Locations 3 through 7, 9, and 17 in
Table 1) is defined as a location within the known range of the
subspecies where adults have been observed within the last 20 years and
nectar plants are present to support Mount Charleston blue butterflies,
and where there is potential for diapausing (a period of suspended
growth or development similar to hibernation) larvae to be present
because larval host plants are present (see ``Biology'' section, below,
for details on Mount Charleston blue butterfly diapause). At some of
these presumed occupied locations (Locations 4, 5, 7, 9, and 17 in
Table 1), the Mount 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 and 6 have
had the most recent observations (observed in 1998 and 2002,
respectively) (Table 1). In the proposed rule (77 FR 59518), we did not
identify Griffith Peak as a location for the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly, but after reviewing the available data, we determined Mount
Charleston blue butterfly had been observed in 1995 at Griffith peak
(Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10 and Map 3.1); therefore, this location should
be considered presumed occupied. In July 2013, the Carpenter 1 Fire
burned into habitat of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly along the
ridgelines between Griffith Peak and South Loop spanning a distance of
approximately 3 miles (5 km). Within this area there are low, moderate,
or high quality patches of Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat
intermixed with non-habitat. The full extent of impacts to the habitat
and Mount Charleston blue butterflies occurring at the Griffith Peak
location are unknown, but the vegetation at this site may be unsuitable
to support Mount Charleston blue butterflies until the appropriate
plants reestablish.
We consider the remaining three Mount Charleston blue butterfly
locations or occurrences to be ``known occupied'' (Locations 1, 2, and
10 in Table 1). Known occupied locations have had successive
observations during multiple years of surveys and have the nectar and
larval host plants to support Mount Charleston blue butterflies. The
South Loop Trail, Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort (LVSSR), and
Bonanza Trail are considered to be known occupied locations.
The South Loop Trail location is in Upper Kyle Canyon within the
Mount Charleston Wilderness. The South Loop Trail location (Location 1
in Table 1) is considered known occupied because: (1) The butterfly was
observed on the site in 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012 (Service
2007, pp. 1-2; Kingsley 2007, p. 5; Pinyon 2011, pp. 17-19; Andrew et
al. 2013, pp. 20-26); and (2) the site supports at least one of the
larval host plant species, Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus
(Torrey's milkvetch) (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 31; Kingsley 2007, pp. 5
and 10; Thompson et al. 2012, pp. 75-85), and known nectar plants,
including Hymenoxys lemmonii (Lemmon's bitterweed) and Erigeron clokeyi
(Clokey fleabane) (SWCA 2008, pp. 2 and 5; Pinyon 2011, p. 11). This
area has been mapped using a global positioning system unit and field-
verified. The total area of habitat mapped by Pinyon in 2011 (Pinyon
2011, Figure 8; Service 2013, pp. 1-6) at South Loop Trail location is
190.8 acres (ac) (77.2 hectares (ha)). The area was delineated into
polygons and classified as poor, moderate, and good habitat (Pinyon
2011, p. 11). Most observations in 2010 and 2011 occurred in two good
habitat areas totaling 60.1 ac (24.3 ha) (Pinyon 2011). In July 2013,
the Carpenter 1 Fire burned into habitat of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly along the ridgelines between Griffith Peak and South Loop
spanning a distance of approximately 3 miles (5 km). The majority of
Mount Charleston blue butterfly moderate- or high-quality habitat in
the South Loop Trail location was classified as having a low or very
low soil burn severity (Kallstrom 2013, p. 4). Adult butterflies may
have been able to escape the fire, but the full extent of impacts to
egg, larval, pupal, or adult life stages from exposure to lethal levels
of smoke, gases, and convection or radiant heat from the fire will be
unknown until surveys are performed on the ground. The areas in the
South Loop Trail location with the highest density of Mount Charleston
blue butterflies may have been unaffected by heat and smoke because it
was outside the fire perimeter in an area slightly lower in elevation,
below a topographic crest. Thus, Mount Charleston blue butterflies in
these areas may have received topographic protection as smoke and
convective heat moved above the area and may have been protected if
they were in the soil or among the rocks; however, butterflies may have
been exposed to lethal radiant heat. Damage to larval host and adult
nectar plants in unburned, very low, or low soil burn severity areas
has not been determined. The South Loop Trail area is considered the
most important remaining population area for the
[[Page 57754]]
Mount Charleston blue butterfly (Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 21).
We consider the LVSSR location in Upper Lee Canyon (Location 2 in
Table 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 et al. 2010, p. 5) and 2012 (Andrew et al.
2013, p. 41); and (2) the site supports at least one of the known
larval host plant species, Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus (Weiss
et al. 1997, p. 31), and known nectar plants, including Hymenoxys
lemmonii and Erigeron clokeyi (Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 37-47). These
areas are LVSSR 1 (17.4 ac (7.0 ha)) and LVSSR 2 (8.3
ac (3.3 ha)) (Service 2006a, p. 1; Andrew et. al. 2013, pp. 79; Service
2013, pp. 1-6), which have been mapped using a global positioning
system unit and field-verified.
We consider the Bonanza Trail location in Upper Lee Canyon
(Location 10 in Table 1) to be ``known occupied'' because: (1) The
butterfly has been recorded here in several years in the last 2 decades
with the first record from 1995 (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10) and
subsequent records in 2011 and 2012 (Andrew et al. 2013, 57-59); and
(2) the site supports the larval host plant species, Astragalus
calycosus var. calycosus (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 31; Andrew et al. 2013,
p. 57-59), and known nectar plants, including Erigeron clokeyi,
Hymenoxys lemmonii and Eriogonum umbellatum var. subaridum (sulphur-
flower buckwheat) (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 11; Andrew et al. 2013, p. 57-
59). The total area of habitat at the Bonanza Trail area that has been
mapped is 50.7 ac (20.5 ha) (Andrew et al. 2013, p. 87 and 89; Service
2013, pp. 1-6).
Currently, the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is known to
persistently occupy less than 267.1 ac (108.1 ha) of habitat, and its
known current distribution has decreased to a narrower range than it
historically occupied.
Status and Trends
Surveys over the years have varied in methodology, effort,
frequency, time of year conducted, and sites visited; therefore, we
cannot statistically determine population size, dynamics, or trends for
the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. While there is no population size
estimate for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, the best available
information indicates a declining trend for this subspecies, as
discussed below. Prior to 1980, the population status of the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly was characterized as usually rare but common
in some years (Austin and Austin 1980, p. 30). A species can be
considered rare when its spatial distribution is limited or when it
occurs in low densities but is potentially widely distributed
(MacKenzie et al. 2005). Based on this definition, we consider the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly to be rare, because it occurs in a
narrow range of the Spring Mountains in apparently low densities (Boyd
and Austin 1999, p. 2).
The number of locations where the Mount Charleston blue butterfly
has been observed during surveys has decreased in the last 20 years,
and the number of Mount Charleston blue butterfly observations at one
historically important site (i.e., LVSSR) has also declined. Count
statistics are products of the detection probability and the number of
individuals present in a survey location (MacKenzie et al. 2005, p.
1101). While detection probabilities ``may vary with environmental
variables, such as weather conditions; different observers; or local
habitats'' (MacKenzie and Kendall 2002, p. 2388), the decrease in
observations in recent years is most likely attributable to decreases
in distribution and numbers of Mount Charleston blue butterflies. Year-
to-year fluctuations in population numbers can also occur due to
variations in precipitation and temperature, which affect both the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its larval host plant (Weiss et al.
1997, pp. 2-3 and 31-32). However, the failure to detect Mount
Charleston blue butterflies at many of the known historical locations
during the past 20 years, especially in light of increased survey
efforts since 2006, indicates a reduction in the butterfly's
distribution and a likely decrease in total population size.
Furthermore, four additional locations may be presumed to be extirpated
in the near future, if surveys continue to fail to detect Mount
Charleston blue butterflies. These include Youth Camp, Gary Abbott,
Mummy Spring, and Griffith Peak (Table 1). Mount Charleston blue
butterflies were last observed at these sites in 1995 (Weiss et al.
1997), which was considered a good year (Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 22)
for Mount Charleston blue butterflies. Each of these four sites was
surveyed in 2012, and no Mount Charleston blue butterflies were
detected (Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 32-37, 47-49, and 52-55). At Griffith
Peak, larval host and nectar plants are present, and tree and shrub
densities are minimal so that the site is nearly free of canopy cover
(Andrew et al. 2013, p. 35-37). While larval host and nectar plants
were present at Youth Camp, Gary Abbott, and Mummy Spring, vegetation
at these sites is threatened by increased understory and overstory
(Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 32-35, 47-49, 52-55). Larval host and nectar
plants are lacking at Lee Meadows (Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 51-52).
Therefore, these sites, with the exception of Griffith Peak, are or may
soon be considered unsuitable for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
Surveys conducted in 1995 represent one of the years with the
highest number of Mount Charleston blue butterflies recorded at LVSSR.
Two areas of LVSSR were each surveyed twice, and 121 Mount Charleston
blue butterflies were counted and their presence detected at several
other locations (i.e., Foxtail, Gary Abbott, Mummy Spring, Bristlecone
Trail, Bonanza Trail, South Loop, Griffith Peak) (Weiss 1996, p. 4;
Weiss et al. 1997, Table 2 and Map 3.1). One LVSSR area was surveyed
once in 2002, with an equally high number of Mount Charleston blue
butterflies as recorded in 1995 (Dewberry et al. 2002, p. 8). Such high
numbers at LVSSR have not been recorded since 2002 (Boyd 2006, p. 1;
Datasmiths 2007, p. 18; Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 38-47; Thompson et al.
2012, pp. 76, 77).
In 2006, Boyd (2006, pp. 1-2) surveyed for Mount Charleston blue
butterflies 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. One individual butterfly was observed at LVSSR
adjacent to a pond that holds water for snowmaking (Newfields 2006, pp.
10, 13, and C5), but in a later report, the accuracy of this
observation was questioned and considered erroneous (Newfields 2008, p.
27). 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).
While LVSSR had relatively high counts of Mount Charleston blue
butterflies in the mid-1990s and early 2000s (121 in 1995 (Weiss 1996,
p. 4); 67 in 2002 (Dewberry et al. 2002, p. 8)), recent surveys have
not yielded such high counts, suggesting a decline of Mount Charleston
blue butterflies in this area. In 2010, the Mount 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,
[[Page 57755]]
but no other adults were detected at LVSSR during surveys of two areas
conducted on August 2, 9, and 18, 2010 (Thompson et al. 2010, pp. 4-5).
Mount Charleston blue butterflies were not observed at LVSSR in 2011,
and three adults were observed at one of two surveyed areas in 2012
(female on June 27, one female on July 3, and one male on July 11)
(Andrew et al. 2013, p. 41).
Until 2010, only incidental observations of the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly had been recorded at the South Loop Trail area, so it is
unknown if there have been changes in occupancy here. However, surveys
in recent years indicate that the South Loop Trail area is an important
area for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. In 2007, two Mount
Charleston blue butterflies were sighted on two 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 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, and during the few informal attempts made to
observe the subspecies by Forest Service biologists, no Mount
Charleston blue butterflies were observed (Service 2009). A total of 63
Mount Charleston blue butterflies were counted in this area in 2010,
with the highest count of 17 occurring on July 28 (Pinyon 2011, p. 17).
In 2011, a total of 55 Mount Charleston blue butterflies were
documented at the South Loop Trail area, with the highest count of 25
occurring on August 11 (Thompson et al. 2012, pp. 77, 80). In 2012, 94
Mount Charleston blue butterflies were counted during all surveys, with
a high count of 34 recorded on July 9 (Andrew et al. 2013, p. 22).
Based on the available survey information, multiple Mount
Charleston blue butterfly locations are currently considered
extirpated, and several more locations may be considered extirpated if
sightings are not made in upcoming surveys. Currently, three sites are
known to be occupied, with LVSSR having much lower counts in recent
years than prior to 2003. At the majority of the presumed occupied
locations, the Mount Charleston blue butterfly has not been observed
since the mid- to late-1990s. These trends likely reflect a decrease in
the distribution and population size of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly and may be confirmed with repeated surveys of the same sites
with similar effort, surveyors, and methodology.
Habitat
Weiss et al. (1997, pp. 10-11) describe the natural habitat for the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly as relatively flat ridgelines above
2,500 meters (m) (8,200 feet (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 Mount Charleston blue
butterfly is dependent on plants both during larval development (larval
host plants) and the adult butterfly flight period (nectar plants). The
Mount Charleston blue butterfly requires areas that support Astragalus
calycosus var. calycosus, which until recently was thought to be 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, Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus and Erigeron
clokeyi; however, butterflies have also been observed using Hymenoxys
lemmonii and Aster sp. as nectar plants (Boyd 2005, p. 1; Boyd and
Murphy 2008, p. 9).
The best available habitat information relates mostly to the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly's larval host plant, with little information
available characterizing the butterfly's interactions with its known
nectar plants or other elements of its habitat. The Mount Charleston
blue butterfly has most frequently been documented using Astragalus
calycosus var. calycosus as its larval host plant (Weiss et al. 1997,
p. 10). In 2011 and 2012, researchers from the University of Nevada Las
Vegas observed female Mount Charleston blue butterflies landing on and
exhibiting pre-oviposition behavior on Astragalus calycosus var.
calycosus, Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis, and Astragalus
platytropis (Andrew et al. 2012, p. 3). Andrew et al. (2013, p. 5) also
documented Mount Charleston blue butterfly eggs on all three of these
plant species and state that, unless it can be demonstrated that larvae
are unable to develop and survive on the latter two species, these
field observations indicate that the Mount Charleston blue butterfly
utilizes a minimum of three larval host plants.
Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus, Astragalus lentiginosus var.
kernensis, and Astragalus platytropis are small, low-growing, perennial
herbs that have been observed growing in open areas between 1,520 to
3,290 m (5,000 to 10,800 ft) (Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 3-4) in
subalpine, bristlecone, and mixed-conifer vegetation communities of the
Spring Mountains (Provencher 2008, Appendix II). Within the alpine and
subalpine range of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, Weiss et al.
(1997, p. 10) observed the highest densities of Astragalus calycosus
var. calycosus in exposed areas and within canopy openings and lower
densities in forested areas. Because the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly's use of Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis and
Astragalus platytropis as larval host plants is recent, little focus
and documentation of these species in the Spring Mountains have been
made. During 2012 surveys, Thompson et al. (2013b, presentation)
qualitatively observed that Astragalus platytropis is fairly rare in
the Spring Mountains and co-occurs with Astragalus lentiginosus, while
Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus and Astragalus lentiginosus var.
kernensis are more abundant.
More information regarding the occurrence of Astragalus calycosus
var. calycosus in the Spring Mountains exists than for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. kernensis and Astragalus lentiginosus. In 1995,
Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus plant densities at Mount Charleston
blue butterfly sites were on the order of 1 to 5 plants per square
meter (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10). Weiss et al. (1997, p. 31) stated
that plant densities in favorable habitat for the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly could exceed more than 10 plants per square meter of
Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus. Thompson et al. (2012, p. 84)
documented an average of 41 Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus plants
per square meter at the South Loop Trail location where the majority of
recent Mount Charleston blue butterflies has been documented. 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 understory and overstory. Overstory
canopy within patches naturally becomes higher over time through
succession, increasing shade and gradually becoming less favorable to
the butterfly. Therefore, we conclude that open areas with visible
mineral soil and relatively little grass cover and high densities of
larval host plants support the highest densities of butterflies (Boyd
2005, p. 1; Service 2006b, p. 1). During 1995, an especially high-
population year (a total of 121 butterflies were counted during surveys
of two areas at LVSSR on two separate dates (Weiss
[[Page 57756]]
1996, p. 4)), Mount Charleston blue butterflies were observed in small
habitat patches and with open understory and overstory where Astragalus
calycosus 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
larval host plant may also be important to the subspecies, as these
areas may be intermittently occupied or may be important for dispersal.
Lack of fire and management practices have likely limited the
formation of new habitat for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, as
discussed below. The Forest Service began suppressing fires on the
Spring Mountains in 1910 (Entrix 2008, p. 113). Throughout the Spring
Mountains, the less-open areas, and higher density of trees and shrubs
that are currently present, are likely due to a lack of fire, which has
been documented in a proximate mountain range (Amell 2006, pp. 2-3).
Other successional changes that have been documented include increased
forest area and forest structure (higher canopy cover, more young
trees, and expansion of species less tolerant 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. 2012, pp. 128, 130). All
of these changes result in an increase in vegetative cover that is
generally less suitable for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. Boyd
and Murphy (2008, pp. 23, 25) hypothesized that the loss of
presettlement vegetation structure over time has caused the Mount
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 Mount 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 Mount 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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly
habitat or prevent larval host plants from reestablishing in disturbed
areas.
An increase in forest canopy growth and encroachment, and lack of
host or nectar plants, seems to be a limiting factor for the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly. Both host and nectar plants for the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly are present at the locations we consider
presumed occupied (Table 1), whereas the vegetation at the presumed
extirpated locations no longer includes host or nectar plants
sufficient to support the subspecies (Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 5-65).
While host and nectar plants are relatively abundant at the presumed
occupied locations of Foxtail, Youth Camp, Gary Abbott, and LVSSR,
these locations are threatened by forest canopy growth and encroachment
(Andrew et al. 2012, p. 45 Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 47-54). Lee Meadows,
Cathedral Rock, Upper Lee Canyon holotype, Upper Kyle Canyon Ski Area,
Old Town, Deer Creek, and Willow Creek are presumed extirpated (Table
1) and have limited or entirely lack Mount Charleston blue butterfly
host or nectar plants (Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 29-60). While vegetation
conditions in the past at these sites are not well-documented, we
presume that they contained host and nectar plants for the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly because individuals of the subspecies were
observed at these locations. The vegetation at the majority of these
sites is not likely to be suitable for the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly without substantial changes (Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 29-60),
and therefore, restoration of these sites may be cost-prohibitive.
Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus has been successfully germinated
during lab experiments (Thompson et al. 2013a, pp. 244-265); however,
we currently do not have information on whether or not germinated
plants can successfully be transplanted to restoration sites.
Therefore, we do not consider substantial restoration of sites to be a
feasible option. The vegetation at Upper Lee Canyon holotype does have
diffuse Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus present (Andrew et al.
2013, p. 56-57) and could be suitable for restoration with nectar plant
species. Overall, the number of locations with suitable vegetation to
support Mount Charleston blue butterflies is limited and appears to be
declining due to a lack of disturbance to set back succession.
Biology
Specific information regarding diapause of the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly is lacking, and while geographic and subspecific
variation in life histories can vary, we present information on the
diapause of the closely related Shasta blue butterfly, as it may be
similar to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. The Shasta blue
butterfly is generally thought to diapause at the base of its larval
host plant or in the surrounding substrate (Emmel and Shields 1978, p.
132). The Shasta blue butterfly diapauses as an egg the first winter
and as a larvae near maturity the second winter (Ferris and Brown 1981,
pp. 203-204; Scott 1986, p. 411); however, Emmel and Shields (1978, p.
132) suggested that diapause was passed as partly grown larvae, because
freshly hatched eggshells were found near newly laid eggs (indicating
that the eggs do not overwinter). Prolonged or multiple years of
diapause has been documented for several butterfly families, including
Lycaenidae (Pratt and Emmel 2010, p. 108). For example, the pupae of
the variable checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas chalcedona, which is in
the Nymphalid family) are known to persist in diapause up to 5 to 7
years (Scott 1986, p. 28). The number of years the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly can remain in diapause is unknown. Boyd and Murphy
(2008, p. 21) suggest the Mount Charleston blue butterfly may be able
to delay maturation during drought or the shortened growing seasons
that follow winters with heavy snowfall and late snowmelt by remaining
as eggs. Experts have hypothesized and demonstrated that, in some
species of Lepidoptera, a prolonged diapause period may be possible in
response to unfavorable environmental conditions (Scott 1986, pp. 26-
30; Murphy 2006, p. 1; Datasmiths 2007, p. 6; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p.
22), and this has been hypothesized for the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly as well (Thompson et al. 2013b, presentation). Little has
been confirmed regarding the length of time or life stage in which the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly diapauses.
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 2006,
p. 9). As with most butterflies, the Mount 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 Mount
Charleston blue butterfly given its low-to-the-ground flight pattern.
Like all butterfly species, both the phenology (timing) and number
of Mount Charleston blue butterfly individuals that emerge and fly to
[[Page 57757]]
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 Mount 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, 53) suggest
this is true of the Mount 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 Mount 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 Mount 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 m (33 to 330 ft) (Weiss et al.
1995, p. 9), and nearly sedentary behavior (Datasmiths 2007, p. 21;
Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 3, 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 low for the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly. Thompson et al. (2013b, presentation) have hypothesized
that the Mount Charleston blue butterfly could diapause for multiple
years (more than 2) as larvae and pupae until vegetation conditions are
favorable to support emergence, flight, and reproduction. This could
account for periodic high numbers of butterflies observed at more
sites, as was documented by Weiss et al. in 1995, than years with
unfavorable conditions. This would also suggest that Mount Charleston
blue butterfly locations function as fairly isolated metapopulations
and are not dependent on recolonization to persist. Additional future
research regarding diapause patterns of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly is needed to further our understanding of this subspecies.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on September 27, 2012 (77 FR 59518),
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by November 26, 2012. We also contacted appropriate Federal
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the
Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Business Press on October
13, 2012. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
During the comment period for the proposed rule, we received 15
comment letters directly addressing the proposed listing of Mount
Charleston blue butterfly with endangered status and the lupine blue
butterfly, Reakirt's blue butterfly, Spring Mountains icarioides blue
butterfly, and the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies with
threatened status due to similarity of appearance to the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly, with a section 4(d) special rule, under
section 4(e) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We received 5
individual peer review responses and 10 comment letters from the
public, including one Federal agency. With general regard to listing
the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, 10 comment letters were in support
of the listing, with 4 fully supporting the basis for the listing, and
6 supporting only certain aspects related to the listing. Five comment
letters did not support listing the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
With regard to listing the five butterflies due to the similarity of
appearance, 3 letters were in support, 10 letters were in opposition,
and 2 letters were neutral. All substantive information provided during
the comment period has either been incorporated directly into this
final determination or is addressed below.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from five knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
butterflies of the Spring Mountains, including the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly, and their habitat, biological needs, and threats. We
received responses from all five of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly as endangered and the lupine blue,
Reakirt's blue, Spring Mountains icarioides blue, and the two Spring
Mountains dark blue butterflies as threatened due to similarity of
appearance to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. Generally, the
reviewers agreed with the need for listing the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly, but disagreed with certain aspects of the threats
assessment. Two of the peer reviewers were in opposition to the
proposed listing of the five other butterflies due to similarity of
appearance; one peer reviewer was in support; and two peer reviewers
were neutral on this topic. All reviewers offered additional
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule.
We also received 10 comments from the general public, including one
from a Federal agency. Peer reviewer and public comments are addressed
in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as
appropriate.
Peer Reviewer and Public Comments
Comments Related to the Background Section
(1) Comment: Two peer reviewers and five commenters stated that the
methodology, effort, surveyor abilities, and time of year of the
butterfly surveys have been variable over the years, and, therefore,
the results from these surveys cannot be used to determine population
trends and abundance of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
Our Response: We agree that the survey methodology, effort,
surveyor ability, and time of year when surveys were conducted have
been variable over the years and do not allow us to quantitatively
estimate changes in the population size of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly. We agree that improving the consistency of these surveys
would increase our understanding of the dynamics and population trends
of the subspecies. Because of these shortcomings in the data
collection, we place more importance on the occupancy status and
vegetation suitability at Mount Charleston blue
[[Page 57758]]
butterfly locations, both of which have decreased, in determining its
overall status than the number of butterflies that were observed. We
maintain that because several historical Mount Charleston blue
butterfly locations are no longer suitable and no new locations have
been identified, it is likely the Mount Charleston blue butterfly
population has decreased.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the South Loop Trail
area is the only location that should be considered occupied by the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly, but that other areas may be important
for recovery of the subspecies.
Our Response: We agree that other areas will be important for the
recovery of the subspecies, but we disagree that the South Loop Trail
area is the only location that should be considered occupied by the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly. The Mount Charleston blue butterfly
has been repeatedly observed in three areas in recent years, including
the South Loop Trail, Bonanza Trail, and the LVSSR (see
``Distribution'' and ``Status and Trends'' sections, above, for more
details). Additionally, Mount Charleston blue butterflies have been
observed over the last several decades at both the Bonanza Trail and
LVSSR areas. These repeated detections over multiple years indicate the
sites are occupied by the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
Comments Related to Factor A
(3) Comment: We received many comments regarding threats to the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly from peer reviewers and commenters. Two
peer reviewers stated that general loss of habitat is the greatest
threat to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. One peer reviewer
suggested that listing the Mount Charleston blue butterfly would not
alleviate the most significant threats to the butterfly. Other threats
to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat that were
identified by peer reviewers and commenters included fire management or
the lack of fire; the presence and spread of nonnative plants;
development, including roads, recreation projects, the LVSSR, and
commercial and residential buildings; and wild horses. One peer
reviewer was concerned that, given the current forest conditions,
small, ``controlled'' fires could result in much larger fires and lead
to more widespread effects than fire suppression and fuels management.
Our Response: We agree that the threats to the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly and its habitat identified by the peer reviewers and
commenters have contributed to the decline of the subspecies and its
distribution. We agree that much larger fires could increase the spread
of invasive species and that fuel and fire management strategies must
be considered carefully prior to implementation.
(4) Comment: One commenter suggested that too little information is
available to determine what the actual threats to the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly are and that more research is needed.
Our Response: We agree that more research on the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly would provide further insight into how particular
threats affect the subspecies and its habitat. Although many of the
threats are interrelated and confounding, the threats presented in this
rule, as demonstrated by the best available scientific and commercial
data available, have contributed to the decreasing distribution and
likely population decline of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that personnel coordination
between the Service and the Forest Service seems to be inadequate and
could be improved by engaging an independent, impartial group [to
mediate future discussions].
Our Response: Overall, the Service and Forest Service coordinate
closely, and this coordination has improved in recent years. While
there have been lapses in coordination (see Factor A discussion,
below), these incidents have been exceptions. We appreciate the
suggestion, and although we do not anticipate it being necessary, we
will consider seeking an independent, impartial group if future
coordination should require this.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that future Forest Service
projects could be modified in order to avoid negatively affecting the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly. This reviewer also stated that
interagency consultation could improve the implementation of fire
suppression efforts by the Forest Service.
Our Response: With the listing of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly as endangered, the Forest Service will be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act to ensure that
activities it authorizes, funds, or carries out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies. Additionally, we
will continue to coordinate with the Forest Service on future projects,
including fuels and fire management projects, as is provided under the
current SMNRA conservation agreement.
(7) Comment: One commenter wanted to know why the 1998 conservation
agreement and 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Forest
Service and the Service have not been fully implemented and adhered to,
and, further, how listing the butterflies will rectify future
coordination between the Forest Service and the Service.
Our Response: More than half of the past projects that impacted
Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat were reviewed by the Service
and Forest Service under a process that was developed and agreed to in
the SMNRA conservation agreement; however, the review process on
several projects was never initiated. Listing the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly as an endangered species requires the Forest Service to
consult on all projects that they authorize, fund, or carry out that
may affect the subspecies.
Comments Related to Factor B
(8) Comment: Three peer reviewers and several commenters did not
agree that the evidence in the proposed rule indicated that collection,
commercial or noncommercial, has or will be a threat to the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly or its long-term survival.
Our Response: We provided a thorough and detailed description of
the best available scientific and commercial information available
regarding the threat posed by collection in the proposed rule. In
addition, we believe that it is necessary to fully discuss the many
activities that go beyond collection for scientific research. Because
the evidence of collection of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is
limited, we compare to other listed or imperiled butterflies, including
those on protected lands, to evaluate the impact of illegal and illicit
activities, and the establishment of markets for specimens, on those
species and subspecies. We have determined that poaching is a potential
and significant threat that could occur at any time. We recognize that
listing may inadvertently increase the threat of collection and trade
(i.e., raise value, create demand). However, we acknowledge that most
individuals who are interested in butterflies would follow guidelines
and procedures to ensure responsible collecting of sensitive species.
(9) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that, given where the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly tends to occur, it is unlikely that it would
be collected by individuals with little experience who do not know what
they are catching, and that inexperienced individuals typically are not
effective at capturing butterflies and would be unable to collect so
intensively that a population-level effect was plausible.
[[Page 57759]]
Our Response: Mount Charleston blue butterflies do occur in easily
accessible locations, including areas at the LVSSR and Bonanza Trail.
Staff of the LVSSR have anecdotally relayed to the Service that they
have seen people apparently collecting butterflies on the ski slopes
and have been asked on which ski runs the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly occurs. We acknowledge that a less experienced butterfly
collector may have more difficulty capturing a Mount Charleston blue
butterfly than an experienced person, but these less experienced
individuals may also more easily mistake the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly for another butterfly species. We maintain that because the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly occurs in low numbers and so little is
known about its population dynamics, collection at low levels could
pose a threat to the subspecies.
(10) Comment: One peer reviewer thought Table 2 in the proposed
rule, which summarized the numbers of Mount Charleston blue butterfly
specimens collected by area, year, and sex, did not support the
argument that collection has negatively impacted the subspecies,
because the commenter thought it underrepresented the number of Mount
Charleston blue butterflies that have been collected.
Our Response: We acknowledge the information presented in the
proposed rule's Table 2 may under-represent the total number of Mount
Charleston blue butterflies that have been collected; not all
collectors document all collected butterflies in records that are
available to the Service. We presented the best scientific and
commercial information on collection that was available to the Service.
We maintain that unregulated collection has contributed to the decline
of multiple butterfly species (see Factor B discussion, below, for more
details), and could contribute to the decline of the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly when coupled with habitat loss and other threats.
(11) Comment: One peer reviewer and one commenter stated that there
needs to be better publicity regarding the need for permits to collect
butterflies in the Spring Mountains, and many people who may be
collecting may be unaware of the permit requirement.
Our Response: We agree that the outreach regarding the Forest
Service's requirement for a permit to collect butterflies in the Lee
Canyon, Kyle Canyon, Willow Creek, and Cold Creek areas of SMNRA has
generally been lacking. This requirement is stated in the Forest
Service's Humboldt-Toiyabe General Management Plan, which is not widely
available to the general public. Beyond this, we are unaware of
additional outreach the Forest Service made. We agree this lack of
outreach likely led to unknowing, unpermitted collection of
butterflies, including the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. We
anticipate the outreach for the new Forest Service closure order will
be much wider and more available. Per Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
regulations at 36 CFR 261.51, the Forest Service is required to: (1)
Post a copy of the closure order in the offices of the Forest
Supervisor and District Ranger who have jurisdiction of the lands
affected by the order, and (2) display each prohibition imposed by an
order in such locations and manner as to reasonably bring the
prohibition to the attention of the public. In addition to fulfilling
these requirements, the Forest Service intends to post information on
the closure order on its Web site (http://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/htnf/alerts-notices), at kiosks and trailheads in the Spring Mountains, and
on the Internet at Lepidopterist message boards, such as http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/DesertLeps/ and http://pet.groups.yahoo.com/group/SoWestLep/.
Comments Related to Factor E
(12) Comment: Two peer reviewers identified a need to provide more
site-specific evidence of how climate change is affecting Mount
Charleston blue butterfly habitat.
Our Response: We agree that site-specific information about climate
change and its effects on Mount Charleston blue butterfly should be
included if it is available. However, site-specific information on
climate change and its effects on the Mount Charleston blue butterfly
and its habitat is not available at this time. Any information that is
available that would improve our analyses of the effects of climate
change on the Mount Charleston blue butterfly may be sent to the Nevada
Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES, above).
(13) Comment: One commenter suggested that climate change or global
warming will extirpate the Mount Charleston blue butterfly in the
Spring Mountains (this would imply extinction).
Our Response: We agree that the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is
at greater risk of extinction because of climate change, but there is
no information to suggest that extinction is imminent only because of
climate change. Threats related to climate change are discussed under
Factor E, below.
Comments Related to Listing Because of Similarity of Appearance Under
Section 4(e) of the Act and the Associated Section 4(d) Special Rule
(14) Comment: Four peer reviewers and eight commenters opposed
listing the five other butterflies due to similarity of appearance, as
proposed, for a variety of reasons. The proposed action was generally
opposed because it was thought that the species can be readily
discerned by differences in coloration and markings, size, and flight
pattern, and because they are not fully sympatric, or overlapping in
their ranges (they occur in distinct habitats, they occur in close
association with different plant species, and they occur at different
mean elevations). In general, those in opposition to the similarity of
appearance proposed listings believed that people with even moderate
experience with butterflies would be able to distinguish between the
species.
Those in opposition also generally believed that listing similar
butterflies would be overly restrictive and prohibitive, impede
research, and discourage scientific support that could inform future
management decisions or listing actions. One comment letter included
photographs of the five butterflies proposed for listing with detailed
descriptions of characteristics that may be used to distinguish the
five butterflies from each other. Others provided textual descriptions
of the diagnostic characteristics of the butterflies.
Our Response: We carefully considered all of the comments we
received, reviewed the information and data provided by reviewers and
commenters, and evaluated recent research and data we have acquired
since the proposed rule was published. We used data on the historical
range of the five species proposed for listing under similarity of
appearance, and reported this information in our proposed rule (77 FR
59518; September 27, 2012). Since then, we have evaluated more current
range information on these five species, and we find that the current
known ranges of some of the species previously proposed for listing
under similarity of appearance do not overlap or do not significantly
overlap with the range of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, so it
would not be advisable to list these species under section 4(e) of the
Act. In addition, since the closure order closes most of the known
range of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly to all butterfly
collection, it is closed to the collection of all five of these species
as well. Therefore, listing the additional
[[Page 57760]]
similarity of appearance species is no longer necessary because
collection of these species will not take place in the range of the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly without a permit. Permitted individuals
will have the qualifications that enable them to differentiate between
the species.
Further, as one peer reviewer stated, whether the taxa are similar
in appearance is highly subjective. We agree with this statement. We
agree that individuals who are more experienced with butterflies would
be able to differentiate between the butterfly species. As described in
the proposed rule, there are morphological differences between the
species, but the distinguishing characteristics may not be obvious to
all individuals who are collecting butterflies; thus, the similarity
between the species is relative to the experience level and abilities
of the observer.
We believe that the threat of the mistaken capture and collection
of Mount Charleston blue butterfly has been reduced by a closure order
and administrative permitting process recently issued by the Forest
Service. This closure order (Order Number 04-17-13-20) closes all areas
within the Spring Mountain National Recreation Area to the collection,
possession, storage, or transport of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly and four other sensitive butterfly species (Morand's
checkerspot [Euphydryas anicia morandi], Spring Mountains acastus
checkerspot [Chlosyne acastus robusta], and the two subspecies of
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies [Euphilotes ancilla cryptica and
Euphilotes ancilla purpura]). The closure order provides additional
protections by closing most of the known range of the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly to the collection of all butterfly species, except under
a specific permit. Permits to collect non-listed butterflies in these
areas may be issued by the Forest Service through the administrative
permit process. This process requires applicants to provide information
regarding their qualifications and experience with butterflies and
intended uses of the permit, including the specific purpose of
collection; a list of which species will be collected; the number of
each sex and life stage for each species that will be collected; a list
of locations where collection would occur; the time period in which
collection would occur; and how the information and knowledge gained
from the collection will be disseminated (Ramirez, 2013). The entire
SMNRA is closed to possession, storing or transport of these five
species, because they are USFS sensitive species. It provides
additional protection to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly by
prohibiting possession and storage of Mount Charleston blue butterfly
throughout the SMNRA, allowing Forest Service law enforcement officers
to enforce this prohibition within the SMNRA. The second part of the
closure order closes the vast majority of the habitat where the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly occurs to the possession, storing and
transport of all butterfly species in any life stage. This effectively
eliminates the risk of unintentional collection of the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly in two ways: (1) the Forest Service cannot issue a
permit for collection of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly without
the Service's concurrence (which we will not do unless we know the
researcher and the work is authorized by the Service), and (2) anyone
wanting to collect any butterfly species in this area (including any of
the species proposed for listing under similarity of appearance) would
need to demonstrate their credentials, including the ability to clearly
distinguish blue butterfly species, to the Forest Service, before they
would issue a permit. In summary, these requirements should effectively
eliminate the unintentional collection of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly, because only those individuals with the demonstrated ability
to identify and distinguish butterfly species (including two of the
butterfly species similar in appearance originally proposed to be
listed) would be eligible for a permit to collect butterflies within
most of the of the known range of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
The Forest Service permit does not allow the collection of any
species listed under the Act, including the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly being added to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species
by this rule. Permits to collect the Mount Charleston blue butterfly,
as well as any other endangered or threatened species, requires a
section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the Service; the section
10(a)(1)(A) permit process ensures that those that are interested in
conducting research, which may include collection for scientific
purposes, are qualified to work with this butterfly subspecies and have
research objectives that will enhance the survival of the subspecies.
Individuals who are issued a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit to research the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly may then apply for a collection permit
from the Forest Service if such research activities will be conducted
on Forest Service lands. Because the application processes for a
Service-issued section 10(a)(1)(A) permit and a Forest Service
collection permit require thorough review of applicant qualifications
by agency personnel, we believe only highly qualified individuals
capable of distinguishing between small, blue butterfly species that
occur in the Spring Mountains will be issued permits. As a result, we
do not anticipate that individuals with permits will misidentify the
butterfly species, and therefore, no inadvertent collection by
authorized individuals will occur. Any collection without permits would
be in violation of the closure order and subject to law enforcement
action. In addition, any purposeful collection of a listed species,
such as Mt Charleston blue butterfly, without a section 10 permit
authorizing this activity, would be a violation of the Act. Therefore,
the threat from incidental, accidental, or purposeful, unlawful
collection of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly will be reduced (see
Factor B discussion, below, for more details).
The main goal of proposing other butterfly species for listing
under similarity of appearance was to afford regulatory protection to
the Mount Charleston blue butterfly in potential situations of
misidentification of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly as one of the
other five species, in order to prevent the subspecies from going
extinct. We recognize and acknowledge that amateurs and professionals
interested in butterflies have made significant contributions to our
knowledge of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and other butterfly
species that occur in the Spring Mountains. We do not want to
discourage research or scientific support for the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly or other butterfly species that occur in the Spring
Mountains. As described above, listing does not prohibit conducting
research on the Mount Charleston blue butterfly; the section
10(a)(1)(A) permit process ensures that those that are interested in
conducting research are qualified to work with this butterfly
subspecies and have research objectives that will enhance the survival
of the subspecies.
(15) Comment: One commenter stated that these subspecies occur in
disjunct areas away from the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, and one
peer reviewer and one commenter suggested that the only two taxa that
realistically might be difficult to distinguish from the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly are the two subspecies of Euphilotes ancilla.
Our Response: We considered this comment, and we reviewed
historical and recent sightings of the two Spring
[[Page 57761]]
Mountains dark blue butterfly subspecies (Euphilotes ancilla cryptica
and Euphilotes ancilla purpura) and the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly. Historical data indicate that these subspecies co-occurred
at the South Loop Trail and Willow Creek areas. In 2011, researchers
documented both the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and the Spring
Mountains dark blue butterfly (Euphilotes ancilla purpura) at the
Bonanza Trail area, and noted that plants with which each subspecies is
closely associated were present (Thompson et al. 2012, p. 3 and 4).
Therefore, we believe the two Euphilotes ancilla subspecies do overlap
with the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and are not disjunct.
We agree the Mount Charleston blue butterfly may be difficult to
distinguish from the two subspecies of Euphilotes ancilla by some
individuals (see Response to Comment 14 for more details). We believe
the closure order issued by the Forest Service (described above) and
the requirement for a scientific collection permit from the Forest
Service for collection of the two subspecies of Euphilotes ancilla and
a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit from the Service for collection of any
listed butterflies for research on the Mount Charleston blue butterfly
reduces the threat from incidental or accidental collection of the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly when other butterflies are being
targeted (see Factor B discussion, below, and Response to Comment 14,
above, for more details).
(16) Comment: Three peer reviewers commented that the area which we
identified in the proposed listing under section 4(e) of the Act
protecting five species of butterflies similar in appearance to the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly was too large.
Our Response: We selected the SMNRA boundary in the proposed
listing under section 4(e) of the Act because it is easily identified
on major roads accessing the area and, therefore, would be easily
recognized by the general public and law enforcement. However, we are
not listing under section 4(e) of the Act 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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly (see Factor B
discussion for more details); therefore, this comment no longer applies
to our rulemaking.
(17) Comment: One commenter stated that the listing of the five
additional butterfly species on the basis of the similarity of
appearance should only prohibit their collection, and not extend to
otherwise lawful activities.
Our Response: We agree that, had we finalized the proposed listing
of five butterfly species based on their similarity of appearance to
the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, the rule should have only
prohibited their collection and not extended to otherwise lawful
activities. However, based on comments and further evaluation, we are
not listing 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 Mount Charleston
blue butterfly under section 4(e) of the Act (see Factor B discussion,
below, for more details).
(18) Comment: One commenter suggested that there are many unknowns
regarding blue butterflies in the Plebejus lupini and Plebejus acmon
complex, and it is debatable whether the lupine blue butterfly
(Plebejus lupini texanus) actually occurs in the Spring Mountains, or
if the butterfly that is identified as this subspecies is actually the
Acmon blue butterfly (Plebejus acmon).
Our Response: We agree that further taxonomic work may be needed
for the Plebejus lupini and Plebejus acmon complex. We used the most
currently available scientific literature to identify taxonomic
entities in the Spring Mountains. Recent observations of the subject
butterflies occurring in the Spring Mountains have been identified as
Plebejus lupini texanus (Andrew et al. 2013, pp. 41 and 61). Until new
taxonomic information becomes available to suggest otherwise, we rely
on the best available scientific and commercial information, which
states that the subspecies described as occurring in the Spring
Mountains is Plebejus lupini texanus.
Comments Related to Critical Habitat Prudency Determination
(19) Comment: Four peer reviewers and one commenter expressed
concern over the Service's determination that critical habitat is not
prudent, disagreed with this decision, or otherwise suggested we
reconsider the basis for this determination. One peer reviewer and one
commenter supported, or agreed to some extent with, the basis of our
determination. Comments in opposition to our not prudent determination
were largely based on the potential benefits of designating critical
habitat, and skepticism that increased risk and harm from collection to
the Mount Charleston blue butterfly would occur with designation,
because ample detail could be obtained from other sources for potential
poachers to locate remaining populations.
Our Response: We have considered the peer review and public
comments. Based on these comments, and further consideration of the
best scientific information available, we have determined that it is
prudent to designate critical habitat for the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly. Therefore, elsewhere in a separate Federal Register notice,
we will propose to designate critical habitat for the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly.
Comments From the State
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' We
received comments from the State from one peer reviewer. These comments
were included under Peer Reviewer and Public Comments.
Federal Agency Comments
(20) Comment: The Forest Service noted that the baseline population
that was chosen to determine the status of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly was the highest recorded in at least 20 years, and,
therefore, the distribution and occupied habitat was likely greater
than average, and may have included ecological sinks. They suggested a
more typical year should have been used as the baseline average
population and that the 20-year timeframe we used to determine
occupancy status is too long.
Our Response: We agree that the Mount Charleston blue butterfly was
recorded in high numbers at two areas of LVSSR in 1995, but note that
an equally high number were counted at one of these areas (the second
area was not visited) in 2002. We considered data from these and
subsequent years to assess the occupancy of Mount Charleston blue
butterfly locations. We did not choose the data from 1995 as a baseline
for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly; rather, we selected a 20-year
timeframe to assess the Mount Charleston blue butterfly's status, based
on the butterfly's biology and ecological factors of its habitat as
stated in the ``Distribution'' section, above. At this time, not enough
information is known about the diapause period or the population
dynamics of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly to determine how
metapopulations of this subspecies may or may not be connected. We can
make inferences using information from other closely related species,
but until further research is conducted on the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly, there
[[Page 57762]]
is a great deal that is unknown. We do know that the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly has not been detected at several sites since 1995. We
attribute this, in large part, to a lack of habitat, resulting from
human disturbances and vegetation succession (see discussions under
Factors A, B, D, and E, below) that have occurred in the last 20 years.
Some of these vegetation shifts may have occurred in short time periods
(e.g., 2 years for a LVSSR ski run to shift from low-growing species to
shrub cover), but the vegetation at sites where trees are encroaching
(e.g., Gary Abbott) are shifting over longer time periods. Thus, we
used a 20-year timeframe to determine site occupancy status because it
takes into account: (1) The variable time periods in which vegetation
shifts can occur at Mount Charleston blue butterfly locations, and (2)
population dynamics that may affect the presence of the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly at a particular location.
(21) Comment: The Forest Service stated that it has complied with
the regulations required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Act. The commenter stated that
the Forest Service has taken conservation of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly into consideration and consulted with the Service on the
implementation of plans and projects, including the LVSSR Master Plan.
The commenter went on to state that many unknowns exist regarding the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly; therefore, the Forest Service's land
management practices are not responsible for potential declines,
especially because the Forest Service has incorporated the Service's
minimization measures.
Our Response: We are confident the Forest Service has complied with
NEPA and the Act. Overall, the Forest Service has closely coordinated
with the Service, and this coordination has improved in recent years.
While there have been lapses in coordination (see Factor A discussion,
below), these incidents have been exceptions. We agree that many
unknowns exist regarding the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its
ecology, but we conclude (see information under the discussions of
Factors A and C, below) that some of the Forest Service's land
management practices may have contributed to the loss of Mount
Charleston blue butterfly habitat.
(22) Comment: The Forest Service stated that no fuel reduction
funds are currently in place, but should fuel reduction activities be
planned in the future, they can be done in a manner that minimizes
impacts to and actually benefits the Mount Charleston blue butterfly
and its habitat.
Our Response: We agree and look forward to working with the Forest
Service to further the conservation of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly.
(23) Comment: The Forest Service stated that ``if climate change
predictions hold true in southern Nevada, low-elevation sites are
likely to become less suitable for occupation by the butterfly.''
Our Response: We do not agree that it can be stated at this time
with a reasonable degree of certainty that there will be a
unidirectional shift or decrease in the importance of sites in lower
elevations. There is currently inadequate site-specific information
from climate change models, combined with topographic variability at
each site, to predict the relative importance of various sites. We
agree that there may be some correlation with elevation, but we are
unaware of any analysis identifying the magnitude of shifts in climate
as they relate to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
After consideration of the comments we received during the public
comment period (see above), we made several changes to the final
listing rule. Many small, nonsubstantive changes and corrections not
affecting the determination (for example, updating the Background
section in response to comments and minor clarifications) were made
throughout the document. All substantial changes relate to the proposed
similarity of appearance listings under section 4(e) of the Act and the
prudency of designating critical habitat.
Based on comments and further evaluation, we are not listing 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 Mount Charleston
blue butterfly under section 4(e) of the Act. The protection that would
have been provided to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly through these
listings (see discussion in response to Comment 14, above) is no longer
advisable, as similar or greater protection will be provided by the
closure order issued by the Forest Service. Specifically, the
application processes for Service and Forest Service collection permits
associated with the closure order require thorough review of applicant
qualifications by agency personnel, and we believe only highly
qualified individuals capable of distinguishing between small, blue
butterfly species that occur in the Spring Mountains will be issued
permits. As a result, we do not anticipate that individuals with
authorized collection permits will misidentify the butterfly species,
and therefore, inadvertent collection should be greatly reduced. In
addition, persons found collecting any butterfly species without
permits within most of the the Mount Charleston blue butterfly's known
range, or found to be possessing, storing, or transporting the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly anywhere within the Spring Mountains National
Recreation Area, would be in violation of the closure order and subject
to law enforcement action.
Comparing the potential protections from our proposal of listing
the remaining two similar butterfly species whose ranges overlap that
of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly under section 4(e) of the Act
(similarity of appearance) to the protections that will be afforded by
the Forest Service's closure order, the closure order provides equal or
greater protections. As stated in the proposed rule (77 FR 59518;
September 27, 2012), the special 4(d) rule would have established
``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.'' Further, ``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,'' and ``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 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, the
special 4(d) rule would
[[Page 57763]]
have exempted ``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.''
The Forest Service closure order and permitting requirement goes
farther by prohibiting not only intentional or inadvertent capture, but
even the attempt to collect any butterfly species within most of the
known range of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, without a specific
permit. The closure order establishes broader take and possession
prohibitions against the five butterfly species specifically listed in
the closure order, which includes the Mount Charleston blue butterfly,
and establishes a permitting requirement for any collection of these
species within the entire Spring Mountains Natural Resource Area.
Additionally, collection of all butterflies within most of the known
range of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is prohibited unless a
special permit is obtained from the Regional Forester. This will likely
have the desirable effect of reducing collection even more than would
our proposed 4(d) rule.
Based on the more recent information that some of the species
proposed for listing under similarity of appearance do not in fact
overlap the range of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, and the
greater protections that will be afforded by the Forest Service closure
order, we are not listing the lupine blue butterfly, Reakirt's blue
butterfly, Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, or the two
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies, based on similarity of
appearance to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly under section 4(e) of
the Act (see Factor B discussion, below, for more details).
In the proposed rule, we did not include Griffith Peak as a Mount
Charleston blue butterfly location. After reviewing the available data,
we determined that Griffith Peak should be considered a presumed
occupied location for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly because the
most recent observation was in 1995, and the appropriate larval host
plants and nectar plants are present to support Mount Charleston blue
butterflies. As defined earlier, we presume a location to be occupied
if adults have been observed within the last 20 years and nectar plants
are present to support Mount Charleston blue butterflies.
In the proposed rule we considered Lee Meadows to be a presumed
occupied location for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. After
reviewing the available data, we determined that Lee Meadows is a
presumed extirpated location for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly
because no detections of Mount Charleston blue butterflies have
occurred there since 1965 (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10). As discussed
earlier, we presume that the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is
extirpated from a location when it has not been recorded at that
location through formal and informal surveys or incidental observation
for more than 20 years.
In addition, based on information gathered from peer reviewers and
the public during the comment period, we have determined that it is
prudent to designate critical habitat for the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly. Therefore, elsewhere in a separate Federal Register notice,
we will propose to designate critical habitat for the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424)
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 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 Mount
Charleston blue butterfly's habitat, including fire suppression, fuels
reduction, succession, introduction of nonnative species, recreation,
and development. We also examine current conservation agreements and
plans, and the extent to which they address the threats to the
butterfly.
Fire Suppression, Succession, and Nonnative Species
Butterflies have extremely specialized habitat requirements (Thomas
1984, p. 337). Cushman and Murphy (1993, p. 4) determined 28 at-risk
lycaenid butterfly species, including the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly, to be dependent on one or two closely related larval host
plants. Many of these larval 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 Mount Charleston blue
butterfly may, in part, depend on disturbances that open up the
subalpine canopy and create conditions more favorable to the larval
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).
A lack of disturbances, such as fire or mechanical alteration, may
prevent open understory and overstory canopy conditions needed for
Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus to grow, thereby decreasing the
amount of potential Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat. Datasmiths
(2007, p. 21) suggests that Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat
consisting of 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 13 in Table 1), but, since the ski run
was abandoned, no butterflies have been collected there since 1965;
presumably, the lack of disturbance at this site diminished the habitat
quality for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. Boyd and Austin (2002,
p. 13) observed 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 lack of disturbance. Weiss et al. (1995, p. 5)
concluded that most of Lee Meadows did not support any larval host
plants in the mid-1990s and would not support a Mount Charleston blue
butterfly population over the long term; in 2012, Andrew et al. (2013,
p. 51-52) assessed the site similarly.
Although no published fire histories for the Spring Mountains are
known (Abella et al. 2012, p. 128), the Forest Service's policy
regarding fire exclusion in the early and mid-1900s is well-
[[Page 57764]]
documented (Interagency Federal Wildland Fire Policy Review Working
Group 2001, p. 1) and presumably affected fire management practices in
the Spring Mountains. The current dominance of certain tree species
indicate a recent lack of fire due to fire exclusion or reduction in
natural fire cycles in the Spring Mountains (Abella et al. 2012, pp.
129-130), which 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. 2012, pp. 128, 130).
Frequent low-severity fires, as historically occurred in Pinus
ponderosa (ponderosa pine)-dominated forests, would have maintained an
open forest structure characterized by uneven-aged stands of fire-
resistant Pinus ponderosa trees in Lee and Kyle Canyons (Amell 2006, p.
5). Because of changes to historic fire regimes, there has been an
increase in area covered by forest canopy and an increase in stem
densities with more smaller trees intolerant of fire within the lower-
elevation Mount 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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly (Amell 2006, p. 3). There are no
empirical estimates of fire intervals or frequencies in the Spring
Mountains, but extensive research in the Southwest indicates that
return intervals prior to the fire exclusion policy were generally less
than 10 years in Pinus ponderosa forests (Abella et al. 2012, p. 130),
and return intervals in the proximate San Bernardino Mountains have
been reported to be 4 to 20, or 2 to 39, years, prior to fire exclusion
in the 20th century (Minnich et al. 1995, p. 903; 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 2008, pp. 73-78). These
successional changes have been hypothesized to have contributed to the
decline of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly because of reduced
densities of larval and nectar plants, decreased solar insolation, and
inhibited butterfly movements that subsequently determine colonization
or recolonization processes (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 26; Boyd and Murphy
2008, pp. 22-28).
Changes in forest structure and understory plant communities result
in habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation for the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly across a broad spatial scale. Boyd and Murphy
(2008, p. 23) note that important habitat characteristics required by
Mount 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. Comparatively, the current, more densely
forested landscape reduces the connectivity of existing or potential
Mount Charleston blue butterfly locations. These more densely forested
landscapes decrease the likelihood that the butterfly will expand to
unoccupied locations. Although the butterfly's population dynamics are
unknown, if the Mount Charleston blue butterfly functions in a
metapopulation dynamic, vegetation shifts to a denser forest structure
could impact key metapopulation processes by reducing the probability
of recolonization following local population extirpations in remaining
patches of Mount Charleston blue butterfly 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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly
is no longer present at the Old Town site in Kyle Canyon (Location 14
in Table 1) and at the Mount Charleston blue butterfly holotype (the
type specimen used in the original description of a species or
subspecies) site in Upper Lee Canyon (Location 11 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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly's habitat.
As mentioned previously (see ``Habitat'' section, above), 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 Mount 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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat or prevent
larval host plants from reestablishing in disturbed areas. Weiss et al.
(1995, pp. 5-6) recognized that a positive management action for the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly would be to establish more Astragalus
on additional ski runs at LVSSR, especially in areas of thin soils
where grasses and Melilotus (sweetclover) are difficult to establish.
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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat) where erosion
problems persist.
The best available information indicates that, in at least five of
the seven locations where the Mount Charleston blue butterfly has been
extirpated, habitat is no longer present due to vegetation changes
attributed to changes in the natural fire regime, vegetation
succession, the introduction of nonnative species, or a combination of
these.
Recreation, Development, and Other Projects
As discussed in the ``Distribution'' section, above, the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly is a narrow endemic subspecies that is
currently known to occupy three locations and presumed to occupy seven
others. One of the three areas where Mount Charleston blue butterflies
have been detected in recent years is the LVSSR. Several ground-
disturbing projects occurred within Mount Charleston blue butterfly
habitat at LVSSR between 2000 and 2011 (see 76 FR 12667, March 8, 2011,
pp. 12672, 12673). These projects were of small spatial scale (ground
disturbance was less than about 10 ac each) but are known to have
impacted habitat and possibly impacted individual Mount Charleston blue
butterflies (eggs, larvae, pupae, or adults). In addition to these
recreation development projects at LVSSR, a small area of habitat and
possibly individual Mount Charleston blue butterflies were impacted by
a
[[Page 57765]]
water system replacement project in Upper Lee Canyon in 2003, and a
small area of 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 and whether the impacts were negative or
positive to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly's habitat as a result
of these projects because Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat was
not mapped, nor were some project areas surveyed, prior to
implementation.
Four ongoing and future projects also may impact Mount 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, pp. 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
2011, pp. I-3-I-4). Widening existing ski trails and increasing
snowmaking reservoir capacity (Ecosign 2011, p. IV-5, Figure 21a) would
impact the Mount Charleston blue butterfly at a known occupied and at a
presumed occupied location (Locations 2 and 5 in Table 1). Summer
activities would impact the Mount 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 larval 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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat
during development of the plan. Impacts to Mount Charleston blue
butterfly habitat from the LVSSR master development plan will be
addressed further during its NEPA process (discussed further under
Factor D, below) (Forest Service 2011, p. 3).
(2) In the proposed rule, we reported that the Old Mill, Dolomite,
and McWilliams Reconstruction Projects to improve camping and picnic
areas in Upper Lee Canyon were being planned and evaluated under NEPA.
The Service coordinated with and provided recommendations to the Forest
Service to prevent impacts to Mount Charleston blue butterflies and
their habitat (Service 2012a, p. 2). In January 2013, the Forest
Service issued a decision notice and finding of no significant impact
for the project, which incorporated design criteria to avoid impacts to
Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat and individuals (Forest Service
2013a, p. 1). Design criteria included early coordination between work
crews and specialists familiar with the Mount Charleston blue butterfly
and its habitat, temporary fencing around potential habitat areas, weed
prevention, restoration of disturbed areas, and avoidance of potential
habitat areas during construction boundary and trail layout (Forest
Service 2013a, p. 17-19). The Forest Service began implementing this
project in November 2012, and the project is expected to be completed
in May 2015 (Forest Service 2013b). These projects are ongoing with the
design criteria being implemented to minimize the likelihood of
impacts. Until the work is completed, we will not be able to tell
whether the design criteria that were implemented will be effective at
avoiding or minimizing impacts to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
(3) In the proposed rule, we reported that the Foxtail Group Picnic
Area Reconstruction Project in Upper Lee Canyon was being planned and
evaluated under NEPA. The Service coordinated with and provided
recommendations to the Forest Service to prevent impacts to Mount
Charleston blue butterflies or their habitat (Service 2012b, p. 2). In
December 2012, the Forest Service issued a decision notice and finding
of no significant impact for the project, which incorporated design
criteria to avoid impacts to Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat
and individuals (Forest Service 2012, p. 1). Design criteria included
early coordination between work crews and specialists familiar with the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat, temporary fencing
around potential habitat areas, weed prevention, restoration of
disturbed areas, and avoidance of potential habitat areas during
construction boundary and trail layout (Forest Service 2012, pp. 12-
15). The Forest Service began implementing this project in November
2012, and the project is expected to be completed in May 2015 (Forest
Service 2013b). These projects are ongoing with the design criteria
being implemented to minimize the likelihood of impacts. Until the work
is completed, we will not be able to tell whether the design criteria
that were implemented will be effective at avoiding or minimizing
impacts to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
(4) The Ski Lift 2 Replacement Project is being planned and
evaluated under NEPA. The proposed action includes removing and
replacing chair lift number 2 and moving the base terminal down slope
to the elevation of the base lodge deck. In order to accomplish this,
chair lift number 1 will have to be moved to the south to accommodate
both loading terminals. Construction activities would include removing
and replacing all terminals, lift towers, tower footings, lift lines,
metal rope, chairs, communication equipment, and backup power
generation. This proposed action is consistent with the LVSSR master
development plan accepted by the Forest Service in 2011. We met with
the Forest Service and provided recommendations regarding potential
direct and indirect impacts of these activities to the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly and its potential habitat within or in close proximity
to the project area. The recommendations provided by the Service will
assist with the development of the proposed action in order to avoid or
minimize adverse effects to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its
potential habitat. The Forest Service expects to issue a decision
notice on this project in August 2013, and begin implementation
immediately after that time (Forest Service 2013b).
Fuels Reduction Projects
In December 2007, the Forest Service approved the SMNRA Hazardous
Fuels Reduction Project (Forest Service 2007a, pp. 1-127). This project
resulted in tree removals and vegetation thinning in three presumed
occupied Mount Charleston blue butterfly locations in Upper Lee Canyon,
including Foxtail Ridge and Lee Canyon Youth Camp, and impacted
approximately 32 ac (13 ha) of presumed occupied habitat that has been
mapped in Upper Lee Canyon (Locations 3 and 4 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 impacts to the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat, including crushing or
removal of larval 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 complete for its initial
[[Page 57766]]
implementation (Forest Service 2011, p. 2).
Although Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 26) recommended increased forest
thinning to improve habitat quality for the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly, the primary goal of this project was to reduce wildfire risk
to life and property in the SMNRA wildland urban interface (Forest
Service 2007a, p. 6), not to improve Mount Charleston blue butterfly
habitat. Mount Charleston blue butterflies require larval host plants
and nectar plants that are flowering concurrent with the butterfly's
flight period and that occur in areas without forest canopy cover,
which can reduce solar exposure during critical larval feeding periods
(Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 23; Fleishman 2012, peer review comment).
Although the fuel reduction project incorporated measures to minimize
impacts to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat, shaded
fuel breaks created for this project may not result in open areas to
create or significantly improve Mount Charleston blue butterfly
habitat.
Although this project may result in increased understory herbaceous
plant productivity and diversity, there are short-term risks to the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly's habitat associated with project
implementation. In recommending increased forest thinning to improve
Mount 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 Mount
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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly larvae and
pupae, as well as larval host plants and nectar plants. Soil and
vegetation disturbance during project implementation would increase the
probability of colonization and establishment of weeds and disturbance-
adapted species, such as Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbitbrush); these plants
would compete with Mount 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 Mount Charleston blue
butterfly (Forest Service 1998a, 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), and was renewed in 2008
(Forest Service 2008). 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 may have directly benefited the
Mount 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 Mount 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 species that are listed, candidate
species, and species that are proposed for listing, 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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat were reviewed by
the Service and Forest Service under this review process, but the
review process on several projects was never initiated. Some efforts
under this memorandum of agreement have been successful in reducing or
avoiding project impacts to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, while
other efforts have not. Recent examples of projects that have been
planned to reduce or avoid impacts to the Mount 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
2007b, pp. 1-7; Forest Service 2007c, pp. 1-14; Service 2007, p. 1-2).
However, the projects are currently under implementation so
effectiveness of the avoidance and minimization measures cannot be
evaluated at this time. A new conservation agreement is currently being
developed for the SMNRA.
The loss or modification of known occupied and presumed occupied
Mount 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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat (see
discussion of lower parking lot expansion and new snowmaking lines
projects in the 12-month status finding ``Recreation, Development
Projects,'' (76 FR 12673)).
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 Mount
Charleston blue butterfly (Forest Service 2010). 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 2010). The Forest
Service and the Service are currently in the process of cooperatively
developing the conservation agreement.
The Mount Charleston blue butterfly is a covered subspecies under
the 2000 Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP). The Clark County MSHCP identifies two goals for the Mount
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 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 2005, pp. 1-24) to
provide
[[Page 57767]]
mitigation for approximately 11 ac (4.45 ha) of impacts to presumed-
occupied Mount Charleston blue 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, Astragalus
calycosus var. calycosus is being brought into horticultural
propagation. Several methods have been used to propagate Astragalus
calycosus var. calycosus, including germination from seed and salvaging
plants to grow in pots (Thiell 2011, pp. 4-6). Overall survival of
plants to the time of planting with either method was low, although
many variables may have factored into this success rate (Thiell 2011,
pp. 4-6, 14-15). Thus, additional methods to propagate Astragalus
calycosus var. calycosus and other larval host plants and nectar plants
will need to be tested in order to establish successful methodology for
restoration of Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat.
Summary of Factor A
The Mount Charleston blue butterfly is currently known to occur in
three locations: the South Loop Trail area in upper Kyle Canyon, LVSSR
in Upper Lee Canyon, and Bonanza Trail. In addition, the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly is presumed to occupy seven locations:
Foxtail, Youth Camp, Gary Abbott, Lower LVSSR Parking, Bristlecone
Trail, Mummy Spring, and Griffith Peak. Habitat loss and modification,
as a result of changes in fire regimes 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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat in Upper Lee
Canyon. In addition, proposed future activities under a draft master
development plan at LVSSR may impact the Mount 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 the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
The continued loss or modification of presumed occupied habitat would
further impair the long-term population viability of the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly in Upper Lee Canyon by removing diapausing
larvae and, potentially, pupae (if present), and by reducing the
ability of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly to disperse during
favorable years. The successional advance of trees, shrubs, and
grasses, along with the spread of nonnative species, are continuing
threats to the subspecies in Upper Lee Canyon. While host and nectar
plants are relatively abundant at the presumed-occupied locations of
Foxtail, Youth Camp, Gary Abbott, and the known occupied location of
LVSSR, these locations are threatened by forest canopy growth and
encroachment (Andrew et al. 2013, p. 47-54). The Mount Charleston blue
butterfly is presumed extirpated from seven historical locations (Lee
Meadows, Cathedral Rock, Upper Lee Canyon holotype, Upper Kyle Canyon
Ski Area, Old Town, Deer Creek, and Willow Creek), 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 MSHCP) or in
development that are intended to conserve the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly and its habitat. Future voluntary conservation actions could
be implemented in accordance with the terms of these agreements and
plans, but are largely dependent on the level of funding available to
the Forest Service for such work. If all of these projects were able to
be implemented, the threat to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and
its habitat could be reduced. 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 Mount 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 of suitable habitat 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 Mount 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 [USDOJ] 1993, pp. 1-3; United States v. Skalski et al., Case
No. CR9320137, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California [U.S. Attorney's Office] 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. 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 may be vulnerable to harm from
collection
[[Page 57768]]
(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,
notably when populations are already severely reduced by other factors,
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 (Gochfeld and
Burger 1997, pp. 208-209), impacting larval 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 coupled with habitat loss (57 FR 21564,
May 20, 1992; 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 3875; January 25, 2000). In some cases,
private collectors have more extensive collections of particular
butterfly species than museums (Alexander 1996, p. 2). 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 3875; January 25, 2000). In
areas of the southwestern United States surrounding the range of the
Mount 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 icarioides ssp.)
have been confiscated from commercial traders who illegally collected
them (U.S. Attorney's Office 1993, pp. 4, 8, 16; Alexander 1996, pp. 1-
6). Since the publication of the 12-month finding (76 FR 12667) on
March 8, 2011, we have discovered additional information that indicates
butterfly collecting occurs at some level in the Spring Mountains
(Service 2012c, pp. 1-4), and the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and
other small, blue butterflies that co-occur with the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly have been collected (Service 2012c, pp. 1-4; Andrew et
al. 2013, pp. 22, 28, 41, 49, 55, 61). Therefore, while we do not know
to what extent the Mount Charleston blue butterfly is specifically
targeted for collection, we do know the inadvertent or unpermitted
collection of Mount Charleston blue butterflies has occurred in the
past and is anticipated to continue in the future to some degree.
When Austin first described the Mount Charleston blue butterfly in
1980 (Austin 1980, p. 22), he indicated that collectors regularly
visited areas close to the known collection sites of the Mount
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 Mount Charleston blue butterflies have been collected for personal
use (Service 2012c, p. 2).
Table 2--Numbers of Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly Specimens Collected by Area, Year, and Sex
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection area/year Male Female Unknown Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mount 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 2012c, p. 2
* = Collections by Frank Morand as reported in Garth 1928, p. 93. Not included in totals.
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 small (fewer than 250 adults), closed,
sedentary populations of those butterfly species that fly often, fly
fairly weakly, and are in areas of readily accessible terrain are most
likely to be at risk from overcollection.
Butterfly collecting (except those with protected status) for
noncommercial (recreational and personal) purposes does not require a
special use
[[Page 57769]]
authorization (Forest Service 1998b, p. 1; Joslin 1998, p. 74).
However, the Forest Service's 1996 General Management Plan identified
Lee Canyon, Cold Creek, Willow Creek, and upper Kyle Canyon in the
SMNRA as areas where permits are required for any butterfly collecting
(Forest Service 1998, pp. 28, E9). On Forest Service-administered
lands, a special use permit has been required for commercial activities
(36 CFR 251.50), which, although not identified specifically, would
presumably include the commercial collection of butterflies. There are
no records indicating any butterfly collection permits have been issued
under the Forest Service's general management plan (GMP) provision
(although at least one application has been submitted), or that any
special use permits have been issued for commercial collecting of Mount
Charleston blue butterflies under 36 CFR 251.50 in the Spring Mountains
(S. Hinman 2011, personal communication). However, outreach and public
notification regarding this requirement was not wide, and many
individuals probably were not aware that a permit was required,
resulting in unauthorized collection in the past.
Collection targeting other butterfly species that are similar in
appearance to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly may have resulted in
incidental collection of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly or
mistaken identification of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly for
another similar species. Based on this, we proposed to list five
additional butterfly species (lupine blue, Reakirt's blue butterfly,
Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, and two Spring Mountains
dark blue butterflies) under section 4(e) of the Act (77 FR 59518,
September 27, 2012). Since our proposed rule, we have evaluated more
recent range data for the five species, and find that not all of those
species actually overlap the known range of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly. Although the butterflies species that we proposed for
listing are similar in appearance to the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly, we believe the protection from misidentification and
incidental collection that their listing would have provided is now
unnecessary because the Forest Service has issued a closure order
prohibiting collection, possession and transportation of all butterfly
species without a special permit within the majority of the occupied
range of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly that will significantly
reduce or eliminate the threat of incidental collection of the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly. This closure order has two prohibitions, the
first prohibits the collection of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly
and four other sensitive butterfly species (Morand's checkerspot
[Euphydryas anicia morandi], Spring Mountains acastus checkerspot
[Chlosyne acastus robusta], and the two subspecies of Spring Mountains
dark blue butterflies) in all areas within the Spring Mountain National
Recreation Area. A second prohibition of the order closes the majority
of theknown range of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly to the
collection of all butterfly species, including those species for which
the Mount Charleston blue butterfly could be mistaken. Permits to
collect non-listed butterflies in these areas may be issued by the
Forest Service through the collection permit process. This process
requires applicants to provide information regarding their
qualifications and experience with butterflies and intended uses of the
permit, including the specific purpose of collection; a list of which
species will be collected; the number of each sex and life stage for
each species that will be collected; a list of locations where
collection would occur; the time period in which collection would
occur; and how information and knowledge gained from the collection
will be disseminated.
The Forest Service permit does not allow the collection of any
species listed under the Act, including the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly being added to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species
by this rule. Collection of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, as
well as any other endangered or threatened species, requires a section
10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the Service; the section 10(a)(1)(A)
permit process ensures that those that are interested in conducting
research, which may include collection for scientific purposes, are
qualified to work with this butterfly subspecies and have research
objectives that will enhance the survival of the subspecies.
Individuals who are issued a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit to research the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly may then apply for a scientific
collection permit from the Forest Service if such research activities
will be conducted on Forest Service lands. Because the application
processes for a Service-issued section 10(a)(1)(A) permit and a Forest
Service scientific collection permit require thorough review of
applicant qualifications by agency personnel, we believe only highly
qualified individuals capable of distinguishing between small, blue
butterfly species that occur in the Spring Mountains will be issued
permits. Therefore, the threat from incidental or accidental collection
of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly will be reduced. As a result, we
do not anticipate that individuals with permits will misidentify the
butterfly species, and therefore, inadvertent collection by authorized
individuals should be greatly reduced. In addition, any collection
without permits would be in violation of the closure order and subject
to law enforcement action so purposeful, unlawful collection should
also be reduced.
This closure order is expected to provide more protection from the
threat of collection to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly than the
listing of the five additional butterflies based on similarity of
appearance would have provided, for several reasons. First, the
recently issued Forest Service closure order provides an enforcement
mechanism for law enforcement officers through the Code of Federal
Regulations (36 CFR 261.51), which the GMP provision did not provide.
Law enforcement officers will be able to ticket or cite individuals who
are out of compliance with the closure order.
Secondly, individuals interested in collecting nonlisted
butterflies in the SMNRA will have to apply for a collection permit and
provide thorough justification and description of their research and
need for collection as described above. Based on the current number of
known butterfly researchers in the Spring Mountains, the Forest Service
is unlikely to issue many collection permits for any butterfly species
in Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat. Those who are issued
permits will have provided information demonstrating their
qualifications and ability to research and identify butterfly species
of the Spring Mountains; therefore, only individuals who are highly
qualified and competent with butterflies and their identification will
be issued collection permits. Further, qualified and competent
collectors will be able to identify the Mount Charleston blue butterfly
and know that its collection is prohibited under the Act. Therefore,
the threat from incidental or accidental collection of the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly while collecting other butterfly species will
be reduced.
Thirdly, Forest Service law enforcement will be able to more
readily and easily enforce a closure order than our law enforcement
would be able to enforce potential violations based on similarity of
appearance listings under the Act. The areas identified in the closure
area receive the highest amount of recreation in the SMNRA, so these
[[Page 57770]]
areas often receive the greatest presence of Forest Service law
enforcement. This will provide substantially more law enforcement
presence to deter possible unlawful collection than if the species
similar in appearance were listed without the closure order. Law
enforcement personnel will not need to be able to distinguish between
different butterfly species during potential enforcement actions,
because anyone collecting or attempting to collect butterflies within
the closure area must be permitted, or that person will be in violation
of the closure order, and law enforcement may take appropriate
enforcement action. Because individuals applying for a Forest Service
collection permit must demonstrate adequate qualifications and
expertise in butterfly identification, we believe individuals that are
permitted will be qualified and able to distinguish the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly from other species and will be in compliance
with his or her permit. Should someone be stopped with blue butterflies
outside of the closure order area, law enforcement will still be able
to seize the blue butterflies, with probable cause, and have them
identified by an expert to ensure that they are not listed species. If
they are a listed species, the individual would need to prove lawful
possession or be subject to law enforcement action, including potential
criminal or civil prosecution for violations of the Act. Based on these
reasons, the Forest Service closure order is expected to be more
effective in protecting the Mount Charleston blue butterfly from the
threat of collection than the listing of species due to their
similarity of appearance to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly. For
more information on the Forest Service closure order, please visit
http://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/htnf/alerts-notices.
In summary, the threat to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly from
collection is expected to be reduced by the Forest Service's closure
order on collection, and we are confident that most individuals will
follow the Forest Service's and our permitting regulations. However, it
is possible that unlawful collection of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly could occur. Due to the small number of discrete populations,
overall small metapopulation size, close proximity to roads and trails,
and restricted range, we have determined that unpermitted and unlawful
collection is a threat to the subspecies and may continue to be in the
future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any information specific to the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly regarding impacts from either disease or
predation. Research on these topics and their impacts on the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly is lacking. Researchers have observed
potential predator species (for example, spiders (class Arachnida),
ambush bugs (Phymata spp.), and flycatchers (Empidonax spp.)) at Mount
Charleston blue butterfly locations (Thompson et al. 2013b,
presentation), but we are not aware of any documented predation events
and cannot confirm if any of these species do predate Mount Charleston
blue butterflies. The extent to which parasitoids regulate butterfly
populations is not adequately understood (Gilbert and Singer 1975, p.
367), and we do not have information specific to this regarding the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly. As a result, the best available
scientific and commercial information does not indicate that disease or
predation are a threat to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
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 subspecies
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 Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
Mount Charleston blue butterflies have been detected in only three
general areas in recent years--the South Loop Trail area, LVSSR, and
the Bonanza Trail area, all of which occur 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 Mount 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 Mount 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 under Factor A, above.
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, section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act states in part that ``except
as specifically provided for in this Act, . . . there shall be no
temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or
motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical
transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.''
Although the Wilderness Act is not specifically intended to protect at-
risk species, such as the Mount Charleston blue butterfly, the
Wilderness Act provides ancillary protection to this subspecies by the
prohibitions restricting development in habitat in the South Loop Trail
and Bonanza Trail areas. Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat at
LVSSR and elsewhere in Lee Canyon and Kyle Canyon is located outside of
the Mount 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
[[Page 57771]]
the public in the decision-making 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 Mount 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, including those listed
under the Factor A discussion, 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, endangered and
threatened 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 Mount 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 GMP (Forest Service 1996). In June
2006, the Forest Service added the Mount 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 under the
Factor A discussion, 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 Mount
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 2012c, pp. 1-4).
Until recently, the effectiveness of the Forest Service's GMP
provision requiring a permit in order to collect butterflies was
inadequate because it was not well publicized and did not provide a
mechanism for law enforcement personnel to enforce it (77 FR 59518,
September 27, 2012). However, as described in detail under Factor B,
above, the Forest Service has recently issued a closure order
prohibiting the collection of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and
four other sensitive butterfly species throughout the SMNRA and
prohibiting the collection of all butterfly species in the area where
the majority of known occupied and presumed occupied locations of the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly occur. The Code of Federal Regulations
(36 CFR 261.51) requires the Forest Service to provide information on
the closure area in multiple locations, and the Forest Service has
notified the public on its Web site, at kiosks and trailheads in the
SMNRA, and on butterfly discussion boards. Any violation of the
prohibitions in the closure order issued pursuant to 36 CFR 261.50(a)
and (b) is subject to law enforcement action and punishable as a
misdemeanor offense [Title 16 U.S.C. 551, 18 U.S.C. 3571(b)(6), Title
18 U.S.C. 3581(b)(7)]. Based on this, we believe the Forest Service's
closure order will be effective in protecting the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly from most butterfly collection.
Summary of Factor D
While not the intent of the Wilderness Act, the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly receives ancillary protection from the Wilderness Act
from its prohibitions on development. We consider the recent issuance
of a butterfly collection closure order by the Forest Service to reduce
the threat of collection to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
Other existing regulatory mechanisms have not provided effective
protection to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat.
Forest Service 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, and Forest Service guidance has not been
effective in reducing other threats to the Mount 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
2012c, pp. 1-4).
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Our analyses under the 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 2007a, 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 2007a, 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 2007b, 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.
[[Page 57772]]
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 2007b, 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 2007c, p. 8, Table SPM.2). The IPCC reports that
temperature increases and rising air and ocean temperature is
unquestionable (IPCC 2007b, p. 4). The average annual temperature is
projected to increase 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.4 degrees Fahrenheit) from
the 1961-1990 baseline average to the 2050s (average of 16 general
circulation models performed with three emission scenarios) (TNC 2011,
Web site). 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 Mount Charleston blue
butterfly.
The Mount 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 within 267.1
ac (108.1 ha) of habitat at only 3 known occupied locations, and based
on numbers of observations made at these locations in a single season,
the populations are likely small. Small 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 Mount 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 Mount 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, 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 larval 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 Mount 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).
High-elevation species like the Mount Charleston blue butterfly may
be 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). Effects on the
Mount Charleston blue butterfly or its habitat from climate change will
vary across its range because of topographic heterogeneity (Luoto and
Heikkinen 2008, p. 487). The 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 2007c, 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 Mount
Charleston blue butterfly and its high-elevation habitat through
predicted increases in extreme precipitation and drought. Based on the
above evidence, we believe that the Mount 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, and 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 presumed
small population and restricted range, the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly is vulnerable to random environmental events; in particular,
the Mount 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 2007c, pp. 15-16). While
we may not have detailed, site-specific information on climate change
and its effects on the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat
at this time (see responses to Comments 12 and 13, above), altered
climate patterns throughout the entire range of the Mount Charleston
blue butterfly could increase the potential for extreme precipitation
events and drought, and may exacerbate the threats the subspecies
already faces given its presumed 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 Mount
Charleston blue butterfly such that these factors are a threat to the
subspecies' continued existence.
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information
[[Page 57773]]
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly. The Mount 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, above). The best available information
for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly shows that the range and
population have been in decline over the last 20 years, and that the
population is now likely extremely small (see ``Status and Trends''
section, above).
Threats facing the Mount 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 changes in natural fire regimes and
succession; the implementation of recreational development projects and
fuels reduction projects; and the increases in nonnative plants (see
Factor A discussion) will increase the inherent risk of extinction of
the remaining few occurrences of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly.
In addition, the threat to the Mount Charleston blue butterfly from
collection (see Factor B discussion) is expected to be reduced by the
Forest Service's closure order on collection. However, due to the small
number of discrete populations, overall small metapopulation size,
close proximity to roads and trails, and restricted range, we have
determined that unpermitted and unlawful collection is a threat to the
subspecies and may continue to be in the future. Regarding the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (see Factor D discussion),
we consider the recent issuance of a butterfly collection closure order
by the Forest Service to reduce the threat of collection to the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly. However, other existing regulatory
mechanisms have not provided effective protection to the Mount
Charleston blue butterfly and its habitat. 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
discussion). The Mount Charleston blue butterfly is currently in danger
of extinction because only small populations are known to occupy only 3
of the 17 historical locations, it may become extirpated in the near
future at 7 other locations presumed to be occupied, 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 determine that Mount 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 three known
occupied locations and seven presumed-occupied locations nearing
extirpation. The Mount Charleston blue butterfly thus meets the
definition of an endangered species rather than threatened species
because: (1) It has been extirpated from seven locations, (2) it is
limited to only three small populations and possibly 7 other
populations at presumed-occupied areas, (3) the known-occupied and
presumed-occupied populations are facing severe and imminent threats,
and (4) threats are ongoing and expected to continue into the future.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we are listing the Mount 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 an endangered or threatened species throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Mount Charleston blue
butterfly 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 determination applies to the subspecies
throughout its entire range, and we did not further evaluate a
significant portion of the subspecies' range.
Protections and Conservation Measures Available Upon Listing
Conservation measures provided to species listed as 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 and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
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 (comprised of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernment 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 our Nevada Ecological Services Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, 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
[[Page 57774]]
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.
Once this rule is effective (see DATES section, above), 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 will
be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that
promote the protection or recovery of the Mount Charleston blue
butterfly. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened 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 subspecies' 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;
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and State
conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered wildlife, and at 17.32 for threatened wildlife.
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.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
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 an endangered or
threatened species 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)).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the
Nevada Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Nevada Ecological Services Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Butterfly, Mount
Charleston blue'', in alphabetical order under INSECTS, to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 57775]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate population
------------------------------------------------------ Historic range where endangered or Status When Critical Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened listed habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
INSECTS
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, Mount Charleston blue Plebejus shasta Spring Mountains, Entire.................. E.......... 820 NA........... NA
charlestonensis. Clark County, NV,
U.S.A.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: September 10, 2013.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-22702 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P