Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12667 

public comment period ends on April 8, 

2011. 

Ynette R. Shelkin, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5218 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0028; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List the Mt. Charleston Blue 

Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce a 12-month 

finding on a petition to list the Mt. 

Charleston blue butterfly (Plebejus 

shasta charlestonensis) (formerly in 

genus Icaricia) as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. After 

review of all available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that 

listing the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly 

is warranted. Currently, however, listing 

of the Mt. Charleston blue is precluded 

by higher priority actions to amend the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication 

of this 12-month petition finding, we 

will add the Mt. Charleston blue 

butterfly to our candidate species list. If 

an emergency situation develops with 

this subspecies that warrants an 

emergency listing, we will act 

immediately to provide additional 

protection. We will develop a proposed 

rule to list this subspecies as our 

priorities allow. We will make any 

determination on critical habitat during 

development of the proposed listing 

rule. 

DATES: The finding announced in the 

document was made on March 8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R8–ES–2010–0028 and at http:// 

www.fws.gov/nevada. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines 

Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130. Please 

submit any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the above street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill 

Ralston, Deputy Field Supervisor, 

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES); by telephone at (702) 515– 

5230; or by facsimile at (702) 515–5231. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, 

for any petition containing substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing the species may 

be warranted, we make a finding within 

12 months of the date of the receipt of 

the petition. In this finding, we 

determine that the petitioned action is: 

(a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) 

warranted, but the immediate proposal 

of a regulation implementing the 

petitioned action is precluded by other 

pending proposals to determine whether 

species are endangered or threatened, 

and expeditious progress is being made 

to add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 12- 

month findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 20, 2005, we received a 

petition dated October 20, 2005, from 

The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc., 

requesting that we emergency list the 

Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (Mt. 

Charleston blue) (Plebejus shasta 

charlestonensis) (formerly in genus 

Icaricia) as an endangered or threatened 

species. In a letter dated April 20, 2006, 

we responded to the petitioner that our 

initial review did not indicate that an 

emergency situation existed, but that if 

conditions changed an emergency rule 

could be developed. On May 30, 2007, 

we published a 90-day petition finding 

(72 FR 29933) in which we concluded 

that the petition provided substantial 

information indicating that listing of the 

Mt. Charleston blue may be warranted, 

and we initiated a status review. On 

February 17, 2010, the Center for 

Biological Diversity filed a complaint in 

United States District Court, Eastern 

District of California, indicating that the 

Service failed to take required actions 

on seven separate petitions for listed 

species found throughout the western 

United States including the Mt. 

Charleston blue. On April 26, 2010, CBD 

amended its complaint in Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Salazar, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Case No.: 1:10–cv– 

230–PLF (D.D.C.), adding an allegation 

that the Service failed to issue its 12- 

month petition finding on the Mount 

Charleston blue butterfly within the 

mandatory statutory timeframe. This 

notice constitutes the 12-month finding 

on the October 20, 2005, petition to list 

the Mt. Charleston blue as endangered 

or threatened. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy 

The Mt. Charleston blue is a 

distinctive subspecies of the wider 

ranging Shasta blue butterfly (Plebejus 

shasta), which is a member of the 

Lycaenidae family. Pelham (2008, pp. 

25–26) recognized seven subspecies of 

Shasta blue: P. s. shasta, P. s. calchas, 

P. s. pallidissima, P. s. minnehaha, P. s. 

charlestonensis, P. s. pitkinensis, and P. 

s. platazul. The Mt. Charleston blue is 

known only from the high elevations of 

the Spring Mountains, located 

approximately 25 miles (mi) (40 

kilometers (km)) west of Las Vegas in 

Clark County, Nevada (Austin 1980, p. 

20; Scott 1986, p. 410). The first 

mention of the Mt. Charleston blue as a 

unique taxon was in 1928 by Garth, who 

recognized it as distinct from the 

species Shasta blue (Austin 1980, p. 20). 

Howe, in 1975 (as cited in Austin 1980, 

p. 20), described specimens from the 

Spring Mountains as P. s. shasta form 

comstocki. However, in 1976, Ferris (as 

cited in Austin 1980, p. 20) placed the 

Mt. Charleston blue with the wider 

ranging Minnehaha blue subspecies. 

Finally, Austin asserted that Ferris had 

not included populations from the 

Sierra Nevada in his study, and that in 

light of the geographic isolation and 

distinctiveness of the Shasta blue 

population in the Spring Mountains and 

the presence of at least three other welldefined races of butterflies endemic to 

the area, it was appropriate to name this 

population as the individual subspecies 

Mt. Charleston blue (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). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The wingspan of Shasta blue species 

is 0.75 to 1 inch (in) (19 to 26 

millimeters (mm)) (Opler 1999, p. 251). 

Males and females of Shasta blue are 

dimorphic. The upperside of males is 

dark to dull iridescent blue, and females 

are brown with a blue overlay. The 

species has a discal black spot on the 

forewing and a row of submarginal 

black spots on the hindwing. The 

underside is gray, with a pattern of 

black spots, brown blotches, and pale 

wing veins to give it a mottled 

appearance. The underside of the 

hindwing has an inconspicuous band of 

submarginal metallic spots (Opler 1999, 

p. 251). Based on morphology, the Mt. 

Charleston blue appears to be most 

closely related to the Great Basin 

populations of Minnehaha blue (Austin 

1980, p. 23) and can be distinguished 

from other Shasta blue subspecies by 

the presence of sharper and blacker post 

medial spots on the underside of the 

hindwing (Scott 1986, p. 410). 

Biology 

The Mt. Charleston blue is generally 

thought to diapause (a period of 

suspended growth or development 

similar to hibernation) at the base of its 

larval host plant, Torrey’s milkvetch 

(Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus), or 

in the surrounding substrate. The pupae 

of some butterfly species are known to 

persist in diapause up to 5 to 7 years 

(Scott 1986, p. 28). The number of years 

the Mt. Charleston blue can remain in 

diapause is unknown. Local experts 

have speculated that the Mt. Charleston 

blue may only be able to diapause for 

one season. However, in response to 

unfavorable environmental conditions, 

it is hypothesized that a prolonged 

diapause period may be possible (Scott 

1986, pp. 26–30; Murphy 2006, p. 1; 

Datasmiths 2007, p. 6; Boyd and 

Murphy 2008, p. 22). 

The typical flight and breeding period 

for the butterfly is early July to midAugust with a peak in late July, 

although the subspecies has been 

observed as early as mid-June and as 

late as mid-September (Austin 1980, p. 

22; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. 17; Forest 

Service 2006a, p. 9). As with most 

butterflies, the Mt. Charleston blue 

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 this 

may not be a significant factor for the 

Mt. Charleston blue given its low-to-theground flight pattern. 

Like all butterfly species, both the 

phenology (timing) and number of Mt. 

Charleston blue individuals that emerge 

and fly to reproduce during a particular 

year are reliant on the combination of 

many environmental factors that may 

constitute a successful (‘‘favorable’’) or 

unsuccessful (‘‘poor’’) year for the 

subspecies. Other than observations by 

surveyors, little information is known 

regarding these aspects of the 

subspecies’ biology, since the key 

determinants for the interactions among 

the 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 (groups of 

spatially separated populations that may 

function as single populations due to 

occasional interbreeding) (Murphy et al. 

1990, p. 44). Boyd and Austin (1999, pp. 

17 and 53) indicate this is true of the Mt. 

Charleston blue. 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). Boyd and Austin (1999, p. 17) 

suggest smaller colonies of the Mt. 

Charleston blue may be ephemeral in 

the long term, with the larger colonies 

of the subspecies more likely than 

smaller populations to persist in ‘‘poor’’ 

years, when environmental conditions 

do not support the emergence, flight, 

and reproduction of individuals. The 

ability of the Mt. Charleston blue to 

move between habitat patches has not 

been studied; however, field 

observations suggest the subspecies has 

low vagility (capacity or tendency of a 

species to move about or disperse in a 

given environment), on the order of 10 

to 100 meters (m) (33 to 330 feet (ft)) 

(Weiss et al. 1995, p. 9), and nearly 

sedentary behavior (Datasmiths 2007, p. 

21; Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 3 and 

9). Furthermore, dispersal of lycaenid 

butterflies, in general, is limited and on 

the order of hundreds of meters 

(Cushman and Murphy 1993, p. 40). 

Based on this information, the 

likelihood of long-distance dispersal is 

low for the Mt. Charleston blue. 

Habitat 

Weiss et al. (1997, pp. 10–11) describe 

the natural habitat for the Mt. 

Charleston blue butterfly as relatively 

flat ridgelines above 2,500 m (8,200 ft), 

but isolated individuals have been 

observed as low as 2,000 m (6,600 ft). 

Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 19) indicate 

that areas occupied by the subspecies 

feature exposed substrates with limited 

or no canopy cover or shading, and are 

on flats or mild slopes with moderate 

aspects. Like most butterfly species, the 

Mt. Charleston blue is dependent on 

plants both during larval development 

(larval host plants) and the adult 

butterfly flight period (nectar plants). 

The Mt. Charleston blue requires areas 

that support Torrey’s milkvetch, 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. Torrey’s milkvetch and Clokey 

fleabane (Erigeron clokeyi) are the 

primary nectar plants for the subspecies; 

however, butterflies have also been 

observed nectaring on Lemmon’s 

bitterweed (Hymenoxys lemmonii) and 

Aster sp. (Weiss et al. 1994, p. 3; Boyd 

2005, p. 1; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 

9). 

The best available habitat information 

relates mostly to the Mt. Charleston 

blue’s larval host plant, with little to no 

information available characterizing the 

butterfly’s interactions with its known 

nectar plants or other elements of its 

habitat; thus, the habitat information 

discussed in this document centers on 

Torrey’s milkvetch. Studies are 

currently underway to better understand 

the habitat requirements and 

preferences of the Mt. Charleston blue 

(Thompson and Garrett 2010, p. 2; 

Pinyon 2010a, p. 1). Torrey’s milkvetch 

is a small, low-growing, perennial herb 

that grows in open areas between 5,000 

to 10,800 ft (1,520 to 3,290 m) in 

subalpine, bristlecone, and mixedconifer vegetation communities of the 

Spring Mountains. Within the alpine 

and subalpine range of the Mt. 

Charleston blue, Weiss et al. (1997, p. 

10) observed the highest densities of 

Torrey’s milkvetch in exposed areas and 

within canopy openings and lower 

densities in forested areas. 

Weiss et al. (1997, p. 31) describe 

favorable habitat for the Mt. Charleston 

blue as having high densities (more than 

10 plants per square meter) of Torrey’s 

milkvetch. Weiss et al. (1995, p. 5) and 

Datasmiths (2007, p. 21) suggest that in 

some areas butterfly habitat may be 

dependent on old or infrequent 

disturbances that create open areas. 

Vegetation cover within disturbed 

patches naturally becomes higher over 

time through natural succession, 

gradually becoming less favorable to the 

butterfly. Therefore, we conclude that 

open areas with relatively little grass 

cover and visible mineral soil and high 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12669 

densities of host plants support the 

highest densities of butterflies (Boyd 

2005, p. 1; Service 2006a, p. 1). During 

1995, an especially high population 

year, Mt. Charleston blue were observed 

in small habitat patches and in open 

forested areas where Torrey’s milkvetch 

was present in low densities, on the 

order of 1 to 5 plants per square meter 

(Weiss et al. 1997, p. 10; Newfields 

2006, pp. 10 and C5). Therefore, areas 

with lower densities of the host plant 

may also be important to the subspecies, 

as these areas may be intermittently 

occupied or may be important for 

dispersal. 

Fire suppression and other 

management practices have likely 

limited the formation of new habitat for 

the Mt. Charleston blue. The U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) began suppressing fires 

on the Spring Mountains in 1910 (Entrix 

2007, p. 111). Throughout the Spring 

Mountains, fire suppression has 

resulted in higher densities of trees and 

shrubs (Amell 2006, pp. 2–3) and a 

transition to a closed-canopy forest with 

shade-tolerant understory species 

(Entrix 2007, p. 112) that is generally 

less suitable for the Mt. Charleston blue. 

Boyd and Murphy (2008, pp. 23 and 25) 

hypothesized that the loss of 

presettlement vegetation structure over 

time has caused the Mt. Charleston 

blue’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). Natural landscape processes have 

been modified in the Spring Mountains. 

Now, the disturbed landscape at the Las 

Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort 

(LVSSR) provides important habitat for 

the Mt. Charleston blue (The Urban 

Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 2). 

Periodic maintenance (removal of trees 

and shrubs) of the ski runs has 

effectively arrested forest succession on 

the ski slopes and serves to maintain 

conditions favorable to the Mt. 

Charleston blue, and to its host and 

nectar plants. However, the ski runs are 

not specifically managed to benefit 

habitat for this subspecies and operation 

activities regularly modify Mt. 

Charleston blue habitat or prevent host 

plants from reestablishing in disturbed 

areas. 

Range and Current Distribution 

Based on current and historical 

occurrences or locations documented in 

the petition or identified in the State of 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program 

database (The Urban Wildlands Group, 

Inc. 2005, pp. 1–3; Service 2006b, pp. 

2–4), the geographic range of the Mt. 

Charleston blue is primarily on the east 

side of the Spring Mountains, centered 

on lands managed by the USFS in the 

Spring Mountains National Recreation 

Area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest within Upper Kyle and Lee 

Canyons, Clark County, Nevada. The 

majority of the occurrences or locations 

are in the Upper Lee Canyon area, while 

a few are in Upper Kyle Canyon. Table 

1 lists the various locations of the Mt. 

Charleston blue that constitute the 

subspecies’ current and historical range. 

TABLE 1—LOCATIONS OR OCCURRENCES OF THE MT. CHARLESTON BLUE BUTTERFLY SINCE 1928 AND THE STATUS OF

THE BUTTERFLY AT THE LOCATIONS

Location name 

First/last 

time 

observed 

Most recent 

survey 

year(s) 

Status Primary references 

1. South Loop Trail, Upper Kyle 

Canyon.

1995/2010 2007, 2008, 

2010 

Known occupied, adults consistently observed.NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Kingsley 2007; 

Boyd 2006; Datasmiths 2007; SWCA 2008, 

Pinyon 2010a, Thompson and Garrett 2010. 

2. LVSSR, Upper Lee Canyon 1963/2010 2007, 2008, 

2010 

Known occupied, adults consistently observed.NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1994; Weiss et al. 

1997; Boyd and Austin 2002; Boyd 2006; 

Newfields 2006; Datasmiths 2007; Boyd and 

Murphy 2008, Thompson and Garrett 2010. 

3. Foxtail Upper Lee Canyon ... 1995/1998 2006, 2007 Presumed occupied, adults 

intermittently observed.

NNHP 2007; Boyd and Austin 1999; Boyd 

2006; Datasmiths 2007. 

4. Youth Camp, Upper Lee 

Canyon.

1995/1995 2006, 2007 Presumed occupied, adults 

intermittently observed.

Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; Datasmiths 

2007. 

5. Gary Abbott, Upper Lee 

Canyon.

1995/1995 2006, 2007 Presumed occupied, adults 

intermittently observed.

NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; 

Datasmiths 2007. 

6. Lower LVSSR Parking, 

Upper Lee Canyon.

1995/2002 2007, 2008 Presumed occupied, adults 

intermittently observed.

Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005; Weiss et al. 

1997; Boyd 2006; Datasmiths 2007; Boyd 

and Murphy 2008. 

7. Mummy Spring, Upper Kyle 

Canyon 1.

1995/1995 2006 Presumed occupied, adults 

intermittently observed.

NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006. 

8. Lee Meadows, Upper Lee 

Canyon.

1965/1995 2006, 2007 Presumed occupied, adults 

intermittently observed.

NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; 

Datasmiths 2007. 

9. Bonanza Trail ....................... 1995/1995 2006, 2007 Presumed occupied ................. Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; Kingsley 2007. 

10. Upper Lee Canyon holotype 1.1963/1976 2006, 2007 Presumed extirpated ................ NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd 2006; 

Datasmiths 2007. 

11. Cathedral Rock, Kyle Canyon.1972/1972 2007 Presumed extirpated ................ NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997; Datasmiths 

2007. 

12. Upper Kyle Canyon Ski 

Area 1.

1965/1972 1995 Presumed extirpated ................ NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997. 

13. Old Town, Kyle Canyon 2 ... 1970s 1995 Presumed extirpated ................ The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005. 

14. Deer Creek, Kyle Canyon .. 1950 unknown Presumed extirpated ................ NNHP 2007. 

15. Willow Creek ....................... 1928 unknown Presumed extirpated ................ NNHP 2007; Weiss et al. 1997, Thompson and 

Garrett 2010. 

1 Location is not mentioned in the petition. 

2 Location is not identified in the Nevada Natural Heritage Program database. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

We presume that the Mt. Charleston 

blue is extirpated from a location when 

it has not been recorded at that location 

through formal surveys or informal 

observation for more than 20 years. We 

selected a 20-year time period because 

it would likely allow for local 

extirpation and recolonization events 

(metapopulation dynamics) to occur and 

would be enough time for succession or 

other vegetation shifts to render the 

habitat unsuitable (see discussion in 

‘‘Biology’’ and ‘‘Habitat’’ sections above). 

Using this criterion, the Mt. Charleston 

blue is considered to be ‘‘presumed 

extirpated’’ from 6 of the 14 known 

locations (Locations 9–14 in Table 1) 

(The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, 

pp. 1–3; Service 2006b, pp. 8–9). Of the 

remaining eight locations, six locations 

or occurrences are ‘‘presumed occupied’’ 

by the subspecies (Locations 3–8 in 

Table 1) (The Urban Wildlands Group, 

Inc. 2005, pp. 1–3; Service 2006b, pp. 

7–8). 

This category is defined as a location 

within the current known range of the 

subspecies where adults have been 

intermittently observed and there is a 

potential for diapausing larvae to be 

present. The butterfly likely exhibits 

metapopulation dynamics at these 

locations, where the subspecies is 

subject to local extirpation, with new 

individuals emigrating from nearby 

‘‘known occupied’’ habitat, typically 

during years when environmental 

conditions are more favorable to 

emergence from diapause and the 

successful reproduction of individuals 

(see discussion in ‘‘Habitat’’ section 

above). At some of these presumed 

occupied locations (Locations 4, 5, 7, 8 

and 9 in Table 1), the Mt. Charleston 

blue has not been recorded through 

formal surveys or informal observation 

since 1995 by Weiss et al. (1997, pp. 

1–87). Currently, we consider the 

occurrence at Mummy Spring as 

presumed occupied; however, this 

location is not near known occupied 

habitat and may be extirpated. 

We consider the remaining two Mt. 

Charleston blue locations or occurrences 

to be ‘‘known occupied’’ (Locations 1 

and 2 in Table 1). The South Loop Trail 

location in Upper Kyle Canyon 

(Location 1 in Table 1) is considered 

known occupied because: (1) The 

butterfly was observed on the site in 

1995, 2002, 2007, and 2010 (Service 

2007, pp. 1–2; Kingsley 2007, p. 5; 

Pinyon 2010, pp. 1–2; Thompson and 

Garrett 2010, p. 5); and (2) the high 

quality of the habitat is in accordance 

with host plant densities of 10 plants 

per square meter as described in Weiss 

et al. (1997, p. 31; Kingsley 2007, pp. 5 

and 10), and is in an area of relatively 

large size (18.7 acres (ac) (7.6 hectares 

(ha)) (SWCA 2008, pp. 2 and 5). The 

South Loop Trail area appears to be the 

most important remaining population 

area for the Mt. Charleston blue (Boyd 

and Murphy 2008, p. 21). The South 

Loop Trail runs along the ridgeline 

between Griffith Peak and Charleston 

Peak and is located within the Mt. 

Charleston Wilderness. This area was 

field mapped using a global positioning 

system unit and included the larval host 

plant, Torrey’s milkvetch, as well as 

occurrences of two known nectar plants, 

Lemmon’s bitterweed and Clokey 

fleabane (SWCA 2008, pp. 2 and 5). 

Adjacent to this ‘‘known occupied’’ 

habitat of 18.7 ac (7.6 ha) occurs 

approximately 40 ac (17 ha) of 

additional habitat containing Lemmon’s 

bitterweed and Clokey fleabane, as well 

as a smaller patch of Torrey’s milkvetch 

(1.6 ac) (0.65 ha) (SWCA 2008, pp. 2 and 

5). 

We consider LVSSR 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, and in recent years 

when the species was not observed) 

(Service 2007, pp. 1–2) and in 2010 

(Thompson and Garrett 2010, p. 5); and 

(2) the ski runs contain two areas of 

high-quality butterfly habitat in 

accordance with host plant densities of 

10 plants per square meter as described 

in Weiss et al. (1997, p. 31). These areas 

are LVSSR #1(2.4 ac (0.97 ha)) and 

LVSSR #2 (1.3 ac (0.53 ha)), which have 

been mapped using a global positioning 

system unit and field verified. Thus, 

across its current range, the Mt. 

Charleston blue is known to persistently 

occupy less than 22.4 ac (9.1 ha) of 

habitat. 

Status and Trends 

The Mt. Charleston blue has been 

characterized as particularly rare, but 

common in some years (Boyd and 

Austin 1999, p. 17; The Urban 

Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 2). The 

1995 season was the last year the 

butterfly was present in high numbers. 

Variations in precipitation and 

temperature that affect both the Mt. 

Charleston blue and its larval host plant 

are likely responsible for the fluctuation 

in population numbers from year to year 

(Weiss et al. 1997, pp. 2–3 and 31–32). 

The total population of the Mt. 

Charleston blue is unknown. We do not 

have population estimates for the 

butterfly or specific information 

showing a change in numbers; however, 

it appears the population has declined 

since the last high-population year in 

1995 (Murphy 2006, pp. 1–2). 

Recent survey information indicates 

the Mt. Charleston blue population 

appears to be extremely low. In 2006, 

surveys within presumed occupied 

habitat at LVSSR located one individual 

butterfly adjacent to a pond that holds 

water for snowmaking (Newfields 2006, 

pp. 10, 13, and C5). In a later report, the 

accuracy of this observation was 

questioned and considered inaccurate 

(Newfields 2008, p. 27). In 2006, Boyd 

(2006, pp. 1–2) conducted focused 

surveys for the subspecies at nearly all 

previously known locations and within 

potential habitat along Griffith Peak, 

North Loop Trail, Bristlecone Trail, and 

South Bonanza Trail but did not observe 

the butterfly at any of these locations. In 

2007, surveys were again conducted in 

previously known locations in Upper 

Lee Canyon and LVSSR, but no 

butterflies were recorded (Datasmiths 

2007, p. 1; Newfields 2008, pp. 21–24). 

In 2007, two Mt. Charleston blue 

butterflies were sighted on different 

dates at the same location on the South 

Loop Trail in Upper Kyle Canyon 

(Kingsley 2007, p. 5). In 2008, butterflies 

were not observed during focused 

surveys of Upper Lee Canyon and the 

South Loop Trail (Boyd and Murphy 

2008, pp. 1–3; Boyd 2008, p. 1; SWCA 

2008, p. 6), although it is possible adult 

butterflies may have been missed on 

South Loop Trail because the surveys 

were performed very late in the season. 

No formal surveys were conducted in 

2009; however, no individuals were 

seen during the few informal attempts 

made to observe the species. 

Adults of the Mt. Charleston blue 

were most recently observed in 2010 in 

the South Loop Trail area and LVSSR. 

From reports of several adult surveys in 

July and August at the South Loop area 

(Thompson and Garrett 2010; Pinyon 

2010a, pp. 1–2; Pinyon 2010b), the 

highest total counted among the days 

this area was surveyed was 17 on July 

28 (Pinyon 2010b). One adult was 

observed in Lee Canyon at LVSSR on 

July 23, 2010, but no other adults were 

detected at LVSSR on surveys 

conducted August 2, 9, and 18, 2010 

(Thompson and Garrett 2010, pp. 4–5). 

Final reports have not been completed 

for these projects and the results are 

considered preliminary. 

The availability of known larval and 

nectar plants does not appear to be 

correlated to the recent low population 

numbers of the butterfly as the host 

plants continue to persist at previously 

occupied locations and throughout the 

Spring Mountains. The low number of 

butterflies observed during the 2006, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12671 

2007, 2008, and 2010 seasons could be 

partially attributed to extreme weather 

(e.g., heavy precipitation events and 

drought). Prior to 2005, there were 

numerous years of drought, followed by 

a record snow in the winter of 2004– 

2005. In 2006 and 2007, the area 

experienced dry winters and springs 

and severe thunderstorms during the 

summers and flight periods. Based on 

the available survey information, the 

low number of sightings in recent years 

is likely the result of an already small 

population size, exacerbated by 

unfavorable weather conditions. 

Historical and recent survey information 

for this subspecies is very limited or 

unavailable in regard to population 

data. Thus, we focused our threats 

analysis on assessed threats at known 

occupied and presumed occupied 

locations (summarized in Table 1). 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Threat Factors 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

part 424) set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, a species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened based on any 

of the following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

We summarize below information 

regarding the status of and threats to 

this subspecies in relation to the five 

factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. In 

making our 12-month finding, we 

considered and evaluated all scientific 

and commercial information in our files, 

including information received in 

response to our request for information 

in the notice of 90-day petition finding 

and initiation of status review (72 FR 

29933), and additional scientific 

information from ongoing species 

surveys as they became available. In 

response to the information request, we 

received two letters from private 

organizations that provided information 

and comments on the Mt. Charleston 

blue. 

Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Fire Suppression, Succession, and 

Nonnative Species 

Butterflies have extremely specialized 

habitat requirements (Thomas 1984, p. 

337). Changes in vegetation structure 

and composition as a result of natural 

processes are a serious threat to 

butterfly populations because these 

changes can disrupt specific habitat 

requirements (Thomas 1984, pp. 337– 

341; Thomas et al. 2001, pp. 1791– 

1796). Cushman and Murphy (1993, p. 

4) determined 28 at-risk lycaenid 

butterfly species, including the Mt. 

Charleston blue, to be dependent on one 

or two closely related host plants. Many 

of these host plants are dependent on 

early successional environments. 

Butterflies that specialize on such plants 

must track an ephemeral resource base 

that itself depends on unpredictable and 

perhaps infrequent ecosystem 

disturbances. For such butterfly species, 

local extinction events are both frequent 

and inevitable (Cushman and Murphy 

1993, p. 4). The Mt. Charleston blue 

may, in part, depend on disturbances 

that open up the subalpine canopy and 

create conditions more favorable to its 

host plant, Torrey’s milkvetch, and 

nectar resources (Weiss et al. 1995, p. 5; 

Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 22–28) (see 

Habitat section, above). 

Fire suppression in the Spring 

Mountains has resulted in long-term 

successional changes including 

increased forest area and forest structure 

(higher canopy cover, more young trees, 

and more trees intolerant of fire) 

(Nachlinger and Reese 1996, p. 37; 

Amell 2006, pp. 6–9; Boyd and Murphy 

2008, pp. 22–28; Denton et al. 2008, p. 

21). Frequent low-severity fires would 

have maintained an open forest 

structure characterized by uneven-aged 

stands of fire-resistant ponderosa pine 

trees (Amell 2006, p. 5) in lower 

elevations. The lower-elevation habitats 

of the Mt. Charleston blue has likely 

been the most affected by fire 

suppression as indicated by 

Provencher’s 2008 Fire Regime 

Condition Class analysis of the Spring 

Mountains (p. 18) in which higherelevation biophysical settings departed 

less from the natural range of variability 

than those at middle elevations. 

Large-diameter ponderosa pine trees 

with multiple fire scars in upper Lee 

and Kyle Canyons indicate that lowseverity fires historically burned 

through mixed-conifer forests within the 

range of the Mt. Charleston blue (Amell 

2006, p. 3). Open mixed-conifer forests 

in the Spring Mountains were likely 

characterized by more abundant and 

diverse understory plant communities 

compared to current conditions (Entrix 

2007, pp. 73–78). These successional 

changes have been hypothesized to have 

contributed to the decline of the Mt. 

Charleston blue because of reduced 

densities of larval and nectar plants, 

decreased solar radiation, and inhibited 

butterfly movements that subsequently 

determine colonization or 

recolonization processes (Weiss et al. 

1997, p. 26; Boyd and Murphy 2008, pp. 

22–28). Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 23) 

noted that important habitat 

characteristics required by Mt. 

Charleston blue—Torrey’s milkvetch 

and preferred nectar plants occurring 

together in open sites not shaded by tree 

canopies—would have occurred more 

frequently across a more open, forested 

landscape compared to the current 

denser forested landscape. Not only 

would the changes in forest structure 

and understory plant communities 

result in habitat loss and degradation for 

the Mt. Charleston blue across a broad 

spatial scale, a habitat matrix dominated 

by denser forest also may be impacting 

key metapopulation processes by 

reducing probability of recolonization 

following local population extirpations 

in remaining patches of suitable habitat 

(Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 25). 

The introduction of forbs, shrubs, and 

nonnative grasses can be a threat to 

butterfly populations 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 

(Icaricia icarioides fenderi) (65 FR 3875; 

January 25, 2000). Datasmiths (2007, p. 

21) also suggest suitable habitat patches 

of Torrey’s milkvetch are often, but not 

exclusively, associated with older or 

infrequent disturbance. Weiss et al. 

(1995, p. 5) note that a colony once 

existed on the Upper Kyle Canyon Ski 

Area (Location 11 in Table 1), but since 

the ski run was abandoned no 

butterflies have been collected there 

since 1965. Boyd and Austin (2002, p. 

13) observe that the butterfly was 

common at Lee Meadows (Location 8 in 

Table 1) in the 1960s, but became 

uncommon at the site because of 

succession and a potential lack of 

disturbance. Using an analysis of host 

plant density, Weiss et al. (1995 p. 5) 

concluded that Lee Meadows does not 

have enough host plants to support a 

population over the long term. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12672 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Succession, coupled with the 

introduction of nonnative species, is 

also believed to be the reason the Mt. 

Charleston blue is no longer present at 

the old town site in Kyle Canyon 

(Location 12 in Table 1) and at the 

holotype site in Upper Lee Canyon 

(Location 9 in Table 1) (Urban 

Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3; Boyd 

and Austin 1999, p. 17). 

Management of nonnative species 

within butterfly habitat is a threat to the 

butterfly. As mentioned previously (see 

Habitat section), periodic maintenance 

(removal of trees and shrubs) of the ski 

runs has effectively arrested succession 

on the ski slopes and maintains 

conditions that can be favorable to the 

Mt. Charleston blue. However, the ski 

runs are not specifically managed to 

benefit habitat for this subspecies, and 

operation activities (including seeding 

of nonnative species) regularly modify 

butterfly habitat or prevent host plants 

from reestablishing in disturbed areas. 

Weiss et al. (1995, pp. 5–6) suggest that 

the planting of annual grasses and 

Melilotus for erosion control at LVSSR 

is a threat to Mt. Charleston blue 

habitat. Titus and Landau (2003, p. 1) 

observed that vegetation on highly and 

moderately disturbed areas of the 

LVSSR ski runs are floristically very 

different from natural clearings in the 

adjacent forest that support the 

butterfly. Seeding nonnative species for 

erosion control was discontinued in 

2005; however, because of erosion 

problems during 2006 and 2007, and the 

lack of native seed, LVSSR resumed 

using a nonnative seed mix, particularly 

in the lower portions of the ski runs (not 

adjacent to Mt. Charleston blue habitat) 

where erosion problems persist. 

Based on available information, it 

appears that in at least four of the six 

locations where the butterfly 

historically occurred, suitable habitat is 

no longer present due to vegetation 

changes attributable to succession, the 

introduction of nonnative species, or a 

combination of the two. 

Recreation Development Projects 

As previously detailed in the ‘‘Range 

and Current Distribution’’ section of this 

finding, the Mt. Charleston blue is a 

narrow endemic subspecies that is 

currently known to occupy two 

locations and presumed to occupy six 

others. This distribution is on lands 

managed by the USFS (including 

LVSSR, which is operated under a USFS 

special use permit) in the Spring 

Mountains National Recreation Area 

within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest. We analyzed USFS’ recreation 

development projects from 2000 to 2007 

to determine if habitat impacts resulting 

from completed and pending projects 

are a threat to the subspecies at these 

locations, as cited in the petition and 

referenced in the 90-day petition 

finding. In addition to a fuels reduction 

project, we identified seven projects that 

have removed or impacted butterfly 

habitat in Upper Lee Canyon, where the 

butterfly is known or presumed to be 

present. We determined that an eighth 

impact identified in the petition and 90- 

day petition finding, an unsanctioned 

trail that bisects habitat on the South 

Loop Trail in Upper Kyle Canyon, is not 

a threat to the butterfly (Kingsley 2007, 

p. 17). 

In general, it is difficult to know the 

full extent of impacts to the Mt. 

Charleston blue as a result of these 

projects because butterfly habitat was 

not mapped for the majority of them nor 

were some project areas surveyed prior 

to implementation. The majority of 

impacts associated with these projects 

have not been mitigated, and some of 

the impacted areas have not recovered. 

Given the slow natural rate of recovery, 

the pace of restoration efforts (see Factor 

D), and the potential for recurrent 

disturbance at many of these sites, we 

do not expect these impacted areas to 

provide butterfly habitat for many years 

to come, unless noted below. The 

following is a summary of the recreation 

development projects that have removed 

or impacted Mt. Charleston blue habitat 

from 2000 to 2010. 

(1) During 2000 or 2001, a series of 

earthen berms were constructed at the 

top of a ski run at LVSSR. These berms 

were created by scraping topsoil from 

the ski run in an area known to support 

high densities of Torrey’s milkvetch. 

This activity caused loss and 

degradation of an unknown area of 

presumed occupied butterfly habitat at 

LVSSR, Upper Lee Canyon (Location 2 

in Table 1) (The Urban Wildlands 

Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3; Service 2006a, 

pp. 1–5). We assume, based on the level 

of soil disturbance, this activity would 

have also killed any larvae, pupae, or 

eggs present. Based on the best available 

information, Torrey’s milkvetch has not 

recolonized the area (Service 2006a, pp. 

1–5). 

(2) In 2003, the Lee Canyon water 

system was repaired and expanded, 

which included construction of new 

and replacement waterlines through 

presumed occupied butterfly habitat on 

Foxtail Ridge adjacent to the Lee 

Canyon Youth Camp and the lower 

LVSSR parking lot (Location 3 in Table 

1) (Forest Service 2003a, pp. 1–6). 

Resource surveys did not include 

butterfly host plants, and the extent of 

impacts was not calculated (Forest 

Service 2003b, pp. 21–22). Based on the 

most recent survey, Torrey’s milkvetch 

still occurs on Foxtail Ridge (Datasmiths 

2007, pp. 26–27), and it appears that the 

Lee Canyon water system project area 

has been recolonized by Torrey’s 

milkvetch (Kingsley 2007, p. 17); 

however, the Mt. Charleston blue has 

not been observed at this location since 

1998. 

(3) In 2004, the lower LVSSR parking 

lot was converted into a temporary 

water storage basin (Forest Service 

2004a, p. 1). This activity included 

excavation of the parking lot and the 

construction of temporary berms to hold 

water. Surveys for butterfly host plants 

were not performed, but butterfly host 

plants were noted in the project area as 

part of a rare plant survey (Hiatt 2004, 

p. 4). Any larvae, pupae, and eggs, along 

with all vegetation and soil seed bank, 

would likely have been killed while the 

basin was filled with water. 

Approximately 2 ac (0.81 ha) of 

presumed occupied butterfly habitat 

were impacted as a result of the project 

(Location 6 in Table 1) (The Urban 

Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3). The 

parking lot continues to be used for 

overflow parking. Recent resource 

surveys of the area for the proposed 

expansion of the parking lot (see future 

projects discussion below) indicate host 

plants have not returned to the parking 

area and remain along the perimeter 

(Datasmiths 2007, pp. 26–27). 

(4) In 2004, the Entrance Walkway 

Grade Improvement Project 

permanently removed (by paving) 0.186 

ac (0.075 ha) of Mt. Charleston blue 

presumed occupied habitat near the 

main LVSSR parking site for the 

construction of a walkway (Forest 

Service 2004b, pp. 21–22; Forest Service 

2004c, pp. 1–3). 

(5) In 2004 and 2005, the LVSSR 

Snowmaking Line Replacement Project 

impacted approximately 7 ac (2.8 ha) of 

presumed occupied butterfly habitat on 

the ski runs (Forest Service 2006b, p. 1) 

and approximately 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) of 

known occupied habitat at LVSSR, 

Upper Lee Canyon (Location 2 in Table 

1) (The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 

2005, p. 3; Service 2006a, pp. 1–5; 

Forest Service 2004c, pp. 1–3; Forest 

Service 2004d, p. 9; Forest Service 

2006b, pp. 1–9). Given the type of 

disturbance, we presume any butterfly 

larvae, pupae, and eggs would have 

been buried or crushed as a result of 

trenching and equipment access. 

Revegetation of butterfly habitat 

impacted from this construction was 

required (Forest Service 2004c, pp. 1–2; 

2004d, p. 9–10), but there are no records 

available in our files that indicate it has 

been completed (see Factor D). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12673 

(6) In 2005, the chairlift #1 at LVSSR 

was replaced. All vegetation was 

removed within equipment travel 

corridors, laydown areas, and 

construction areas in approximately 

4.5 ac (1.8 ha) of presumed occupied 

butterfly habitat (Location 2 in Table 1) 

(Forest Service 2006b, p. 2). Given the 

level of disturbance, we presume any 

butterfly larvae, pupae, and eggs would 

have been buried or crushed as a result 

of trenching and equipment access. 

Revegetation of butterfly habitat 

impacted from this construction was 

required (Forest Service 2005c, p. 2; 

Forest Service 2005d, pp. 12–14; Forest 

Service 2005e, pp. 11–12), but there are 

no records available in our files that 

indicate it has been completed (see 

Factor D). 

(7) Expansion of the snowmaking 

pond at LVSSR was first proposed in 

June 2005 and would have permanently 

impacted 0.48 ac (0.18 ha) of presumed 

occupied butterfly habitat (Forest 

Service 2005a, pp. 1–25). The project 

was revised to reduce impacts in 

December 2007 (Forest Service 2007b, 

pp. 1–31) and again in June 2009. Plans 

for implementation included measures 

to minimize the amount of area 

impacted and mitigate for the loss of 

any butterfly habitat (Forest Service 

2009a, p. 18). Construction of the 

snowmaking pond expansion was 

initiated and completed in 2010. The 

construction footprint was adjacent to 

one patch of Torrey’s milkvetch, and 

overlapped another patch (Forest 

Service 2010b, Figure 1). A total area of 

0.055 ac (0.022 ha) of Torrey’s 

milkvetch habitat patches was impacted 

by pond expansion construction (Forest 

Service 2010b, Table 1). 

Recommendations to mitigate for 

impacted habitat have been prepared 

(Forest Service 2010b, pp. 1–5) but not 

yet implemented. An additional patch 

of previously undocumented Torrey’s 

milkvetch was observed within the 

construction zone in May 2010 (Forest 

Service 2010a, p. 2), and is not included 

as an area for which mitigation is to be 

performed (Forest Service 2010b, pp. 1– 

5). 

Future projects are also a threat to the 

Mt. Charleston blue and its habitat. Four 

recently approved or future projects 

could impact Mt. Charleston blue 

habitat in Upper Lee Canyon, and are 

summarized below. 

(1) Expansion of the lower parking lot 

at LVSSR was proposed in June 2005 

(Forest Service 2005a, pp. 1–25) and, 

after revisions to reduce impacts to the 

subspecies’ habitat, was reproposed in 

December 2007 (Forest Service 2007b, 

pp. 1–31). Expansion of the lower 

LVSSR parking lot would result in the 

permanent loss of 2.4 ac (0.97 ha) of 

previously disturbed butterfly habitat 

and 0.81 ac (0.33 ha) of undisturbed 

presumed occupied butterfly habitat 

(Location 6 in Table 1) (Forest Service 

2007b, p. 12). Planning and 

environmental documents are 

completed for the project; however, 

final authorization by the USFS has not 

occurred and is currently on hold due 

to concerns about impacts to Mt. 

Charleston blue (Forest Service 2009a, 

p. 1). 

(2) The snowmaking system 

improvements project (new 

snowmaking lines) at LVSSR was 

proposed in June 2005 (Forest Service 

2005a, pp. 1–2). As proposed, the 

snowmaking lines expansion project 

would have permanently impacted at 

that time approximately 8.9 ac (3.6 ha) 

of known occupied butterfly habitat 

along the two primary ski runs where 

known occupied habitat has been 

delineated for the Mt. Charleston blue 

(Location 2 in Table 1). The USFS 

stopped planning efforts for this project 

in 2007 based on the potential impacts 

to the Mt. Charleston blue (Forest 

Service 2007b, pp. 2). 

(3) A January 2008 draft Master 

Development Plan for LVSSR proposes 

to improve, upgrade, and expand the 

existing facilities to provide year-round 

recreational activities. The plan 

proposes to add winter activities such as 

tubing, MiniZ, snowshoeing, Nordic 

skiing, climbing wall, and Euro-bungee, 

by widening existing runs to create 

‘‘gladed’’ areas that would provide larger 

sliding areas (Ecosign 2008, pp. I–3–I– 

4). The plan proposes to add summer 

activities and facilities, including 

mountain biking and bike park, alpine 

slides, concerts, hiking, mountain 

boards, ziptreks, and stargazing (Ecosign 

2008, pp. I–3–I–4). Summer activities 

would impact the butterfly and its 

known occupied and presumed 

occupied habitat (Location 2 in Table 1) 

by attracting visitors in higher numbers 

during the time of year when larvae and 

host plants are especially vulnerable to 

trampling. The Master Development 

Plan is in draft form and has not yet 

been approved by the USFS; therefore, 

no estimate of the potential area of 

impact is available. 

(4) Currently the USFS is planning to 

restore eroded stream channels in Lee 

Meadows. Repairs to the channels are 

expected to impact presumed occupied 

butterfly habitat mapped at 1.2 ac (0.50 

ha) (Location 8 in Table 1) (Forest 

Service 2009b, p. 10; Datasmiths 2007, 

p. 27). Project implementation began in 

2010 and is expected to be completed in 

2011, and includes measures to 

minimize impacts to, and compensate 

for the loss of, butterfly habitat (Forest 

Service 2009b, p. 10). 

Fuels Reduction Projects 

In December 2007, the USFS 

approved the Spring Mountains 

National Recreation Area Hazardous 

Fuels Reduction Project (Forest Service 

2007a, pp. 1–127). This project will 

result in tree removals and vegetation 

thinning in three presumed occupied 

butterfly locations in Upper Lee 

Canyon, including Foxtail Ridge, Lee 

Canyon Youth Camp, and Lee Meadows, 

and result in impacts to approximately 

32 ac (13 ha) of presumed occupied 

habitat that has been mapped in Upper 

Lee Canyon (Locations 3, 4 and 8 in 

Table 1) (Forest Service 2007a, 

Appendix A–Map 2; Datasmiths 2007, 

p. 26). Manual and mechanical clearing 

of shrubs and trees will be repeated on 

a 5- to 10-year rotating basis and will 

result in direct impacts to the butterfly 

and its habitat, including crushing or 

removal of host plants and diapausing 

larvae (if present). Implementation of 

this project began in the spring of 2008 

throughout the Spring Mountains 

National Recreation Area, including Lee 

Canyon. 

Although Boyd and Murphy (2008, 

p. 26) recommended increased forest 

thinning to improve habitat quality for 

the Mt. Charleston blue, this project was 

designed to reduce wildfire risk to life 

and property in the Spring Mountains 

National Recreation Area wildland 

urban interface (Forest Service 2007a, 

p. 6), not to improve Mt. Charleston 

blue habitat. Mt. Charleston blues 

require larval host plants in exposed 

areas not shaded by forest canopy cover 

because canopy cover reduces solar 

exposure during critical larval feeding 

periods (Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 23). 

Shaded fuel breaks created for this 

project may not be open enough to 

create or significantly improve Mt. 

Charleston blue habitat. Also, shaded 

fuel breaks for this project are 

concentrated along access roads, 

property boundaries, campgrounds, 

picnic areas, administrative sites, and 

communications sites, and are not of 

sufficient spatial scale to reduce the 

threat identified above resulting from 

fire suppression and succession. 

Although this project may result in 

increased understory herbaceous plant 

productivity and diversity, there are 

short-term risks to the butterfly 

associated with project implementation. 

In recommending increased forest 

thinning to improve Mt. Charleston blue 

habitat, Boyd and Murphy (2008, p. 26) 

cautioned that thinning treatments 

would need to be implemented carefully 

to minimize short-term disturbance 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12674 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

impacts to the 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 butterfly 

larvae and pupae, as well as larval host 

plants and nectar plants. Soil and 

vegetation disturbance during project 

implementation also could result in 

increases in weeds and disturbanceadapted species, such as 

Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbitbrush), and 

these plants could compete with Mt. 

Charleston blue larval host and nectar 

plants. 

Conservation Agreements and Plans 

A conservation agreement was 

developed in 1998 to facilitate voluntary 

cooperation among the USFS, the 

Service, and the State of Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources in providing long-term 

protection for the rare and sensitive 

flora and fauna of the Spring Mountains, 

including the Mt. Charleston blue 

(Forest Service 1998, pp. 1–50). Many of 

the conservation actions described in 

the conservation agreement have been 

implemented; however, several 

important conservation actions that 

would have directly benefited the Mt. 

Charleston blue have not been 

implemented. Regardless, many of the 

conservation actions in the conservation 

agreement (e.g., inventory and 

monitoring) would not directly reduce 

threats to the Mt. Charleston blue. In 

2004, the Service and USFS signed a 

memorandum of agreement that 

provides a process for review of 

activities that involve species covered 

under the 1998 Conservation Agreement 

(Forest Service and Service 2004, pp. 1– 

9). Formal coordination through this 

memorandum of agreement was 

established to (1) Jointly develop 

projects that avoid or minimize impacts 

to listed, candidate and proposed 

species, and species under the 1998 

conservation agreement; and (2) to 

ensure consistency with commitments 

and direction provided for in recovery 

planning efforts and in conservation 

agreement efforts. More than half of the 

past projects that impacted Mt. 

Charleston blue habitat were reviewed 

by the Service and USFS under this 

review process, but several were not. 

Some efforts under this memorandum of 

agreement have been successful in 

reducing or avoiding project impacts to 

the butterfly, while other efforts have 

not. 

The loss or modification of known 

occupied and presumed occupied 

butterfly habitat in Upper Lee Canyon, 

as discussed above, has occurred in the 

past. However, more recently the USFS 

has suspended decision on certain 

projects that would potentially impact 

Mt. Charleston blue habitat (see 

discussion of lower parking lot 

expansion and new snowmaking lines 

projects under Recreation Development 

Projects, above). In addition, the USFS 

has recently reaffirmed its commitment 

to collaborate with the Service in order 

to avoid implementation of projects or 

actions that would impact the viability 

of (Forest Service 2010c). This 

commitment includes: (1) Developing a 

mutually agreeable process to review 

future proposed projects to ensure that 

implementation of these actions will not 

lead to loss of viability of the species; 

(2) reviewing proposed projects that 

may pose a threat to the continued 

viability of the species; and (3) jointly 

developing a conservation agreement 

(strategy) that identifies actions that will 

be taken to ensure the conservation of 

the species (Forest Service 2010c). 

The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is a 

covered species in the 2000 Clark 

County Multiple Species Habitat 

Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Clark 

County MSHCP identifies two goals for 

the Mt. Charleston blue: (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 USFS 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 

USFS focused on conducting surveying 

and monitoring for butterflies. Although 

some surveying and monitoring 

occurred through contracts by the USFS, 

Clark County and the Service, a 

butterfly monitoring plan was not fully 

implemented. 

Recently, the USFS has been 

implementing the LVSSR Adaptive 

Vegetation Management Plan (Forest 

Service 2005b, pp. 1–24) to provide 

mitigation for approximately 11 ac 

(4.45 ha) of impacts to presumed 

occupied butterfly habitat (and other 

sensitive wildlife and plant species 

habitat) resulting from projects it 

implemented in 2005 and 2006. Under 

the plan, LVSSR will revegetate 

impacted areas using native plant 

species, including Torrey’s milkvetch. 

However, this program is experimental 

and has experienced difficulties due to 

the challenges of native seed availability 

and propagation. Under the plan, 

Torrey’s milkvetch is being brought into 

horticultural propagation, and, if 

successful, plants will begin to be 

planted in 2011–2013. However, these 

efforts are not likely to provide 

replacement habitat to the Mt. 

Charleston blue for another 5 years 

(2016–2018), because of the short alpine 

growing season. 

Summary of Factor A 

The Mt. Charleston blue is currently 

known to occur in two locations: The 

South Loop Trail area in upper Kyle 

Canyon and LVSSR in upper Lee 

Canyon. Habitat loss and modification 

as a result of fire suppression and longterm successional changes in forest 

structure, implementation of 

recreational development projects and 

fuels reduction projects, and nonnative 

species are continuing threats to the 

butterfly in Upper Lee Canyon. Since 

2000, seven projects have negatively 

impacted presumed occupied habitat for 

the Mt. Charleston blue. Approved and 

future projects could negatively impact 

additional presumed occupied 

occurrences of the Mt. Charleston blue 

in Lee Canyon (identified in Table 1). In 

addition, if proposed future activities 

under a draft Master Development Plan 

are approved, they could threaten the 

butterfly, as well as its known occupied 

and presumed occupied habitat at 

LVSSR. 

Because of its small population size, 

projects that impact even relatively 

small areas of occupied habitat could 

threaten the long-term population 

viability of Mt. Charleston blue. The 

continued loss or modification of 

presumed occupied habitat could 

further impair the long-term population 

viability of the Mt. Charleston blue in 

upper Lee Canyon by removing 

diapausing larvae (if present) and by 

reducing the ability of the butterfly to 

disperse during favorable years. The 

successional advance of trees, shrubs, 

and grasses and the spread of nonnative 

species are continuing threats to the 

butterfly in upper Lee Canyon. The 

butterfly is presumed extirpated from at 

least three of the six historical locations, 

likely due to successional changes and 

the introduction of nonnative plants. 

Nonnative forbs and grasses are a threat 

to the subspecies at LVSSR. 

Although there are agreements and 

plans that are intended to conserve the 

Mt. Charleston blue and its habitat, to 

date, some actions under these 

agreements and plans have not been 

fully implemented. Future actions could 

be implemented in accordance with the 

terms of various agreements and plans; 

however, this would be voluntary, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12675 

other factors may preclude the USFS 

from doing so. Therefore, based on the 

current distribution and recent, existing, 

and likely future trends in habitat loss, 

we find the Mt. Charleston blue is 

threatened by the present and future 

destruction, modification, and 

curtailment of its habitat and range. 

Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Rare butterflies can be highly prized 

by insect collectors, and collection is a 

known threat to some butterfly species, 

such as the Fender’s blue butterfly 

(65 FR 3882; January 25, 2000). In 

particular, small colonies and 

populations are at the highest risk. 

Overcollection or repeated handling and 

marking of females in years of low 

abundance can seriously damage 

populations through loss of 

reproductive individuals and genetic 

variability (65 FR 3882; January 25, 

2000). Given its diminutive size and 

similarity to closely related subspecies, 

the Mt. Charleston blue is not likely to 

be of considerable aesthetic interest to 

collectors or the general public. 

We are not aware of any information 

that indicates the butterflies are being 

sought by collectors or collected for 

other purposes. Therefore, we do not 

find that overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes threatens the Mt. Charleston 

blue. 

Factor C: Disease or Predation 

We are not aware of any information 

regarding any impacts from either 

disease or predation on the Mt. 

Charleston blue. Therefore, we do not 

find that disease or predation threatens 

the Mt. Charleston blue. 

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Existing regulatory mechanisms or 

other agreements that could provide 

some protection for the Mt. Charleston 

blue include: (1) Local land use laws, 

processes, and ordinances; (2) State 

laws and regulations; and (3) Federal 

laws and regulations. Actions adopted 

by local groups, States, or Federal 

entities that are discretionary, including 

conservation strategies and guidance, 

are not regulatory mechanisms; 

however, we will discuss and evaluate 

them below. The Mt. Charleston blue 

primarily occurs on Federal land under 

the jurisdiction of the USFS; therefore, 

the discussion below primarily focuses 

on Federal laws. 

Local Laws and Ordinances 

We are not aware of any local land 

use laws or ordinances that have been 

issued by Clark County or other local 

government entities for protection of the 

Mt. Charleston blue. 

State Law 

Nevada Revised Statutes sections 503 

and 527 offer protective measures to 

wildlife and plants, but do not include 

invertebrate species such as the Mt. 

Charleston blue. Therefore, no 

regulatory protection is offered under 

Nevada State law. 

Federal Law 

Mt. Charleston blues have been 

detected in only two general areas in 

recent years—the South Loop Trail area 

where adult butterflies were recently 

detected during the summer of 2010 and 

LVSSR. The South Loop Trail area is 

located along the ridgeline between 

Griffith Peak and Charleston Peak 

within the Mt. Charleston Wilderness. 

The U.S. Forest Service manages lands 

designated as wilderness under the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131– 

1136). Within these areas, the 

Wilderness Act states the following: (1) 

New or temporary roads cannot be built; 

(2) there can be no use of motor 

vehicles, motorized equipment, or 

motorboats; (3) there can be no landing 

of aircraft; (4) there can be no other form 

of mechanical transport; and (5) no 

structure or installation may be built. As 

such, Mt. Charleston blue habitat in the 

South Loop Trail area is protected from 

direct loss or degradation by the 

prohibitions of the Wilderness Act. Mt. 

Charleston blue habitat at LVSSR and 

elsewhere in Lee Canyon and Kyle 

Canyon is located outside of the Mt. 

Charleston Wilderness, and thus is not 

subject to protections afforded by the 

Wilderness Act. 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), requires Federal 

agencies, such as the USFS, to describe 

proposed agency actions, consider 

alternatives, identify and disclose 

potential environmental impacts of each 

alternative, and involve 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 Mt. 

Charleston blue as a result of the NEPA 

process, such measures are not required 

by the statute. The USFS is required to 

analyze its projects, listed under Factor 

A, above, in accordance with the NEPA. 

The Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area is one of 10 districts of 

the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 

Public Law 103–63, dated August 4, 

1993 (the Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Act, 16 U.S.C. 460hhh 

et seq.), established the Spring 

Mountains National Recreation Area to 

include approximately 316,000 ac 

(128,000 ha) of Federal lands managed 

by the USFS in Clark and Nye counties, 

Nevada, for the following purposes: 

(1) To preserve the scenic, scientific, 

historic, cultural, natural, wilderness, 

watershed, riparian, wildlife, threatened 

and endangered species, and other 

values contributing to public enjoyment 

and biological diversity in the Spring 

Mountains of Nevada; 

(2) To ensure appropriate 

conservation and management of 

natural and recreation resources in the 

Spring Mountains; and 

(3) To provide for the development of 

public recreation opportunities in the 

Spring Mountains for the enjoyment of 

present and future generations. 

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 USFS 

jurisdiction, through associated land 

and resource management plans for 

each forest unit. Under NFMA and other 

Federal laws, the USFS 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 USFS lands in 

the Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area is under the Toiyabe 

National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan and the Spring 

Mountains National Recreation Area 

General Management Plan. In June 2006, 

the USFS added the Mt. Charleston 

blue, and three other endemic 

butterflies, to the Regional Forester’s 

Sensitive Species List in accordance 

with Forest Service Manual 2670. The 

objectives of the USFS to manage 

sensitive species are 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. All of the projects 

listed in Factor A, above, have been 

guided by these USFS plans, policies, 

and guidance. These plans, policies, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12676 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

guidance notwithstanding, removal or 

degradation of known occupied and 

presumed occupied butterfly habitat has 

occurred as a result of projects approved 

by the USFS in upper Lee Canyon. 

Additionally, this guidance has not been 

effective in reducing other threats to the 

Mt. Charleston blue (e.g., nonnative 

plant species). 

Summary of Factor D 

Existing regulatory mechanisms are 

not sufficient to provide for 

conservation of the Mt. Charleston blue. 

Nevada Revised Statutes sections 503 

and 527 do offer protective measures to 

wildlife and plants, but do not 

specifically include protections for 

invertebrate species, such as the Mt. 

Charleston blue. Since applicable State 

regulatory mechanisms that could 

potentially protect the Mt. Charleston 

blue are not inclusive of invertebrates, 

they are not effective in relieving the 

threats faced by the Mt. Charleston blue 

butterfly. Although Mt. Charleston blue 

habitat at the South Loop Trail area is 

protected by prohibitions of the 

Wilderness Act from many types of 

habitat-disturbing actions, habitat where 

Mt. Charleston blues have occurred in 

the past within Lee Canyon and Kyle 

Canyon are outside of designated 

wilderness and thus not protected by 

prohibitions of the Wilderness Act. 

Because of the Mt. Charleston blue’s 

extremely small population size and 

limited distribution, it is potentially 

vulnerable to projects or actions that 

impact even relatively small areas of 

occupied or suitable habitat. Because 

existing law, regulation, and policy have 

not prevented implementation of 

projects or actions that have resulted in 

loss or degradation of butterfly habitat 

(see Factor A), we conclude that existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to protect the Mt. Charleston blue from 

threats discussed in this finding. 

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Continued 

Existence of the Species 

The Mt. Charleston blue population 

appears to have declined since the last 

high-population year in 1995. This 

subspecies has a limited distribution, 

and population numbers are small. 

Small butterfly populations have a 

higher risk of extinction due to random 

environmental events (Shaffer 1981, p. 

131; Shaffer 1987, pp. 69–75; Gilpin and 

Soule 1986, pp. 24–28). Weather 

extremes can cause severe butterfly 

population reductions or extinctions 

(Murphy et al. 1990, p. 43; Weiss et al. 

1987, pp. 164–167; Thomas et al. 1996, 

pp. 964–969). Given the limited 

distribution and likely low population 

numbers of the Mt. Charleston blue, 

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 prediapause larvae mortality (Parmesan 

2005, pp. 56–60). In addition, high 

rainfall years have been associated with 

butterfly population declines (Dobkin et 

al. 1987, pp. 161–176). Extended 

periods of rainy weather can also slow 

larval development and reduce 

overwintering survival (Weiss et al. 

1993, pp. 261–270). Weiss et al. (1997, 

p. 32) suggested that heavy summer 

monsoon thunderstorms adversely 

impacted Mt. Charleston blue butterflies 

during the 1996 flight season. During 

the 2006 and 2007 flight season, severe 

summer thunderstorms may have 

affected the flight season at LVSSR and 

the South Loop Trail (Newfields 2006, 

pp. 11 and 14; Kingsley 2007, p. 8). 

Additionally, drought has been shown 

to lower butterfly populations (Ehrlich 

et al. 1980, pp. 101–105; Thomas 1984, 

p. 344). Drought can cause butterfly host 

plants to mature early and reduce larval 

food availability (Ehrlich et al. 1980, pp. 

101–105; Weiss 1987, p. 165). This has 

likely affected the Mt. Charleston blue. 

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 Mt. 

Charleston blue may be particularly 

susceptible to some level of habitat loss 

due to global climate change 

exacerbating threats already facing the 

subspecies (Peters and Darling 1985, p. 

714; Hill et al. 2002, p. 2170). The 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) has high confidence in 

predictions that extreme weather events, 

warmer temperatures, and regional 

drought are very likely to increase in the 

northern hemisphere as a result of 

climate change (IPCC 2007, pp. 15–16). 

Climate models show the southwestern 

United States has transitioned into a 

more arid climate of drought that is 

predicted to continue into the next 

century (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). In 

the past 60 years, the frequency of 

storms with extreme precipitation has 

increased in Nevada by 29 percent 

(Madsen and Figdor 2007, p. 37). 

Changes in local southern Nevada 

climatic patterns cannot be definitively 

tied to global climate change; however, 

they are consistent with IPCC-predicted 

patterns of extreme precipitation, 

warmer than average temperatures, and 

drought (Redmond 2007, p. 1). 

Therefore, we think it likely that climate 

change will impact the Mt. Charleston 

blue and its high-elevation habitat 

through predicted increases in extreme 

precipitation and drought. Alternating 

extreme precipitation and drought may 

exacerbate threats already facing the 

subspecies as a result of its small 

population size and threats to its 

habitat. 

Summary of Factor E 

Small butterfly populations have a 

higher risk of extinction due to random 

environmental events (Shaffer 1981, p. 

131; Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 24–28; 

Shaffer 1987, pp. 69–75). Because of its 

small population and restricted range, 

the Mt. Charleston blue is vulnerable to 

random environmental events; in 

particular, the butterfly is threatened by 

extreme precipitation events and 

drought. In the past 60 years, the 

frequency of storms with extreme 

precipitation has increased in Nevada 

by 29 percent (Madsen and Figdor 2007, 

p. 37), and it is predicted that altered 

regional patterns of temperature and 

precipitation as a result of global 

climate change will continue (IPCC 

2007, pp. 15–16). Throughout the entire 

range of the Mt. Charleston blue, altered 

climate patterns could increase the 

potential for extreme precipitation 

events and drought, and may exacerbate 

the threats the subspecies already faces 

given its small population size and the 

threats to the alpine environment where 

it occurs. Based on this information, we 

find that other natural or manmade 

factors are affecting the Mt. Charleston 

blue such that these factors threaten the 

subspecies’ continued existence. 

Summary of Threats Analysis 

The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is 

sensitive to environmental variability 

with the butterfly population rising and 

falling in response to environmental 

conditions (see ‘‘Status and Trends’’ 

section). The best available information 

suggests the Mt. Charleston blue 

population appears to have been in 

decline since 1995, the last year the 

subspecies was observed in high 

numbers, and that the population is 

now extremely small (see ‘‘Status and 

Trends’’ section). To some extent the Mt. 

Charleston blue, like most butterflies, 

has evolved to survive unfavorable 

environmental conditions as diapausing 

larvae or pupae (Scott 1986, pp. 26–30). 

The pupae of some butterfly species are 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12677 

known to persist in diapause up to 5 to 

7 years (Scott 1986, p. 28). The number 

of years the Mt. Charleston blue can 

remain in diapause is unknown. Local 

experts have speculated that the Mt. 

Charleston blue may only be able to 

diapause for one season. However, in 

response to unfavorable environmental 

conditions, it is hypothesized that a 

prolonged diapause period may be 

possible (Murphy 2006, p. 1; Datasmiths 

2007, p. 6; Boyd and Murphy 2008, p. 

22). The best available information 

suggests environmental conditions from 

2006 to 2009 have not been favorable to 

the butterfly (see ‘‘Status and Trends’’ 

section). 

Surveys are planned for 2011 to 

further determine the status and provide 

more knowledge about the ecology of 

the Mt. Charleston blue. Threats facing 

the Mt. Charleston blue, discussed 

above under listing Factors A, D, and E, 

will only increase risks to persistence of 

the butterfly, given its low population 

size. The loss and degradation of habitat 

due to fire suppression and succession; 

implementation of recreation 

development projects and fuels 

reduction projects; and increases in 

nonnative plants (see Factor A), along 

with the lack of adequate regulatory 

mechanisms to prevent these impacts 

(see Factor D), will increase the inherent 

risk of extinction of the remaining small 

population of Mt. Charleston blue. 

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). 

Finding 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. We 

have carefully examined the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats faced by the Mt. 

Charleston blue. We reviewed the 

petition, information available in our 

files, other available published and 

unpublished information, information 

obtained from consultations with 

recognized Mt. Charleston blue butterfly 

experts, and information submitted to 

us by the public following publication 

of our notice of 90-day petition finding 

and initiation of status review (72 FR 

29933; May 30, 2007). On the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial 

information available, we find that the 

listing of the Mt. Charleston blue 

butterfly is warranted, due to the threats 

associated with habitat destruction or 

modification (Factor A), the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D), and other natural and 

manmade factors (Factor E). We will 

make a determination on the status of 

the species as endangered or threatened 

when we prepare a proposed listing 

rule. However, as explained in more 

detail below, an immediate proposal of 

a regulation implementing this action is 

precluded by higher priority listing 

actions, and progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. 

In making this finding, we recognize 

that there have been declines in the 

distribution and abundance of the Mt. 

Charleston blue as a result of natural 

and human-caused factors. Butterflies 

that occur in upper Lee Canyon are 

threatened by fire suppression and 

succession, implementation of 

recreation development projects and 

fuels reduction projects, and increases 

in nonnative plant species. These 

threats, if left unchecked, could 

continue to impair the long-term 

population viability of the Mt. 

Charleston blue (Factor A). In addition, 

the existing voluntary agreements and 

plans (Factor A), and regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) are inadequate 

to sufficiently reduce the threats to the 

subspecies from habitat loss and 

degradation and nonnative species to a 

level that does not pose a significant 

threat to the subspecies. The amount of 

known habitat persistently occupied at 

the South Loop Trail and LVSSR is 

small (less than 23 ac (9 ha)). The 

threats to the viability of the Mt. 

Charleston blue because of its limited 

distribution, extremely low population 

numbers, and degradation of its habitat 

will be exacerbated by threats from 

extreme precipitation events and 

drought that are predicted to become 

more frequent under global climate 

change (Factor E). Due to the threats 

described above, we find that the Mt. 

Charleston blue butterfly is warranted 

for listing throughout its range; 

however, the promulgation of a listing 

rule at this time is precluded by higher 

priority listing actions. We will review 

whether to list the Mt. Charleston blue 

butterfly as endangered or threatened 

when we begin the process to propose 

listing of this subspecies, as our 

priorities allow. We will make any 

determination on critical habitat during 

development of the proposed listing 

rule. 

We have reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats render the 

species at risk of extinction now such 

that issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species under 

section 4(b)(7) of the Act is appropriate. 

During this status review, we 

considered whether emergency listing of 

the subspecies was necessary, given the 

vulnerability of the Mt. Charleston blue 

to extinction due to its small population 

size and limited distribution. We have 

determined that, at this time, issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

putting the protections of the Act in 

place for the subspecies is not 

appropriate for the following reasons. 

Nearly the entire range of the Mt. 

Charleston blue is located on public 

lands managed by the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, so habitats on 

these lands are not subject to large-scale 

development pressures that may occur 

on private lands. The area where the 

most persistent population of Mt. 

Charleston blue currently occurs is the 

South Loop Trail area, which is located 

within the Mt. Charleston Wilderness, 

and thus receives protection afforded by 

the the Wilderness Act (see Factor D 

discussion). In addition, decisions on 

proposed projects that would have 

impacted Mt. Charleston blue habitat at 

the LVSSR have been suspended or 

modified recently (see Recreation 

Development Projects under Factor A), 

and the USFS has recently reaffirmed its 

commitment to ensure that 

implementation of projects and actions 

on Forest Service lands will not cause 

a loss of viability of the Mt. Charleston 

blue (see Conservation Agreements and 

Plans under Factor A). However, if the 

current situation changes and we 

become aware of projects or actions that 

pose an immediate threat to the 

continued existence of the Mt. 

Charleston blue, we may act 

immediately to provide the butterfly 

emergency protections under the Act. 

Listing Priority Number 

The Service adopted guidelines on 

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098) to 

establish a rational system for utilizing 

available resources for the highest 

priority species when adding species to 

the Lists of Endangered or Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying 

species listed as threatened to 

endangered status. These guidelines, 

titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened 

Species Listing and Recovery Priority 

Guidelines’’ (LPN Guidance) address the 

immediacy and magnitude of threats, 

and the level of taxonomic 

distinctiveness by assigning priority in 

descending order to monotypic genera 

(genus with one species), full species, 

and subspecies (or equivalently, distinct 

population segments of vertebrates). We 

assigned the Mt. Charleston blue 

butterfly a Listing Priority Number 

(LPN) of 3 based on our finding that the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

species faces threats that are of high 

magnitude and are imminent. Because 

the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is a 

subspecies, the highest Listing Priority 

Number (LPN) we can assign it is an 

LPN of 3, which is the highest priority 

that can be provided to a subspecies 

under our LPN Guidance. Our rationale 

for assigning the Mt. Charleston blue 

butterfly an LPN of 3 is outlined below. 

Under the Service’s LPN Guidance, 

the magnitude of threat is the first 

criterion we look at when establishing a 

listing priority. The guidance indicates 

that species with the highest magnitude 

of threat are those species facing the 

greatest threats to their continued 

existence. These species receive the 

highest listing priority. Mt. Charleston 

blue is highly vulnerable to threats 

because of its extremely small 

population size and limited 

distribution. The magnitude of threats to 

the Mt. Charleston blue is high due to 

a combination of existing threats. These 

threats include habitat loss and 

degradation due to fire suppression and 

succession, implementation of fuels 

reduction projects and habitatdisturbing projects or actions, and 

spread of nonnative plants (Factor A). In 

addition, because of its extremely 

limited range, drought and extreme 

precipitation events, which are 

predicted to become more frequent 

under climate change, potentially 

impact Mt. Charleston blue across its 

entire range (Factor E). These threats act 

synergistically and constitute a 

significant risk to the continued 

existence of the Mt. Charleston blue. 

Given the decline in the population of 

the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly over 

the last 15 years, active and sustained 

conservation of the butterfly and its 

habitat is required. 

Under our LPN Guidance, the second 

criterion we consider in assigning a 

listing priority is the immediacy of 

threats. This criterion is intended to 

ensure that the species that face actual, 

identifiable threats are given priority 

over those for which threats are only 

potential or species that are intrinsically 

vulnerable but are not known to be 

presently facing such threats. The 

threats described above in this finding 

are imminent because they are ongoing. 

The combination of ongoing threats 

place the continued existence of the Mt. 

Charleston blue at risk because of its 

high vulnerability due to extremely 

small population size and limited 

distribution. 

The third criterion in our LPN 

guidance is intended to ensure 

resources are devoted to those species 

representing highly distinctive or 

isolated gene pools as reflected by 

taxonomy. The Mt. Charleston blue 

butterfly is a valid taxon at the 

subspecies level, and therefore receives 

a lower priority than a full species or a 

species in a monotypic genus. The Mt. 

Charleston blue butterfly faces highmagnitude, imminent threats, and is a 

valid taxon at the subspecies level. 

Thus, in accordance with our LPN 

guidance, we have assigned the Mt. 

Charleston blue butterfly an LPN of 3. 

We will continue to monitor the 

threats to the Mt. Charleston blue 

butterfly, and the subspecies’ status on 

an annual basis, and should the 

magnitude or the imminence of the 

threats change, we will revisit our 

assessment of the LPN. 

Work on a proposed listing 

determination for the Mt. Charleston 

blue butterfly is precluded by work on 

higher priority listing actions with 

absolute statutory, court-ordered, or 

court-approved deadlines and final 

listing determinations for those species 

that were proposed for listing with 

funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work 

includes all the actions listed in the 

tables below under expeditious 

progress. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

Preclusion is a function of the listing 

priority of a species in relation to the 

resources that are available and the cost 

and relative priority of competing 

demands for those resources. Thus, in 

any given fiscal year (FY), multiple 

factors dictate whether it will be 

possible to undertake work on a listing 

proposal regulation or whether 

promulgation of such a proposal is 

precluded by higher-priority listing 

actions. 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Listing Program is available to support 

work involving the following listing 

actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 

90-day and 12-month findings on 

petitions to add species to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) or to change the status 

of a species from threatened to 

endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ 

petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as 

required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of 

the Act; critical habitat petition 

findings; proposed and final rules 

designating critical habitat; and 

litigation-related, administrative, and 

program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). The work involved in 

preparing various listing documents can 

be extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: Gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

final rules. The number of listing 

actions that we can undertake in a given 

year also is influenced by the 

complexity of those listing actions; that 

is, more complex actions generally are 

more costly. The median cost for 

preparing and publishing a 90-day 

finding is $39,276; for a 12-month 

finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule 

with critical habitat, $345,000; and for 

a final listing rule with critical habitat, 

the median cost is $305,000. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In 

addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds which may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 

cap was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the Act (for example, recovery funds for 

removing species from the Lists), or for 

other Service programs, from being used 

for Listing Program actions (see House 

Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session, July 1, 1997). 

Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget 

has included a critical habitat subcap to 

ensure that some funds are available for 

other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The 

critical habitat designation subcap will 

ensure that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st 

Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and 

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

some FYs since 2006, we have been able 

to use some of the critical habitat 

subcap funds to fund proposed listing 

determinations for high-priority 

candidate species. In other FYs, while 

we were unable to use any of the critical 

habitat subcap funds to fund proposed 

listing determinations, we did use some 

of this money to fund the critical habitat 

portion of some proposed listing 

determinations so that the proposed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12679 

listing determination and proposed 

critical habitat designation could be 

combined into one rule, thereby being 

more efficient in our work. At this time, 

for FY 2011, we do not know if we will 

be able to use some of the critical 

habitat subcap funds to fund proposed 

listing determinations. 

We make our determinations of 

preclusion on a nationwide basis to 

ensure that the species most in need of 

listing will be addressed first and also 

because we allocate our listing budget 

on a nationwide basis. Through the 

listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, 

and the amount of funds needed to 

address court-mandated critical habitat 

designations, Congress and the courts 

have in effect determined the amount of 

money available for other listing 

activities nationwide. Therefore, the 

funds in the listing cap, other than those 

needed to address court-mandated 

critical habitat for already listed species, 

set the limits on our determinations of 

preclusion and expeditious progress. 

Congress identified the availability of 

resources as the only basis for deferring 

the initiation of a rulemaking that is 

warranted. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97–304 

(Endangered Species Act Amendments 

of 1982), which established the current 

statutory deadlines and the warrantedbut-precluded finding, states that the 

amendments were ‘‘not intended to 

allow the Secretary to delay 

commencing the rulemaking process for 

any reason other than that the existence 

of pending or imminent proposals to list 

species subject to a greater degree of 

threat would make allocation of 

resources to such a petition [that is, for 

a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’ 

Although that statement appeared to 

refer specifically to the ‘‘to the 

maximum extent practicable’’ limitation 

on the 90-day deadline for making a 

‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that 

finding is made at the point when the 

Service is deciding whether or not to 

commence a status review that will 

determine the degree of threats facing 

the species, and therefore the analysis 

underlying the statement is more 

relevant to the use of the warranted-butprecluded finding, which is made when 

the Service has already determined the 

degree of threats facing the species and 

is deciding whether or not to commence 

a rulemaking. 

In FY 2011, on December 22, 2010, 

Congress passed a continuing resolution 

which provides funding at the FY 2010 

enacted level through March 4, 2011. 

Until Congress appropriates funds for 

FY 2011 at a different level, we will 

fund listing work based on the FY 2010 

amount. Thus, at this time in FY 2011, 

the Service anticipates an appropriation 

of $22,103,000 based on FY 2010 

appropriations. Of that, the Service 

anticipates needing to dedicate 

$11,632,000 for determinations of 

critical habitat for already listed species. 

Also $500,000 is appropriated for 

foreign species listings under the Act. 

The Service thus has $9,971,000 

available to fund work in the following 

categories: Compliance with court 

orders and court-approved settlement 

agreements requiring that petition 

findings or listing determinations be 

completed by a specific date; section 4 

(of the Act) listing actions with absolute 

statutory deadlines; essential litigationrelated, administrative, and listing 

program-management functions; and 

high-priority listing actions for some of 

our candidate species. In FY 2010 the 

Service received many new petitions 

and a single petition to list 404 species. 

The receipt of petitions for a large 

number of species is consuming the 

Service’s listing funding that is not 

dedicated to meeting court-ordered 

commitments. Absent some ability to 

balance effort among listing duties 

under existing funding levels, it is 

unlikely that the Service will be able to 

initiate any new listing determination 

for candidate species in FY 2011. 

In 2009, the responsibility for listing 

foreign species under the Act was 

transferred from the Division of 

Scientific Authority, International 

Affairs Program, to the Endangered 

Species Program. Therefore, starting in 

FY 2010, we used a portion of our 

funding to work on the actions 

described above for listing actions 

related to foreign species. In FY 2011, 

we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work 

on listing actions for foreign species 

which reduces funding available for 

domestic listing actions, however, 

currently only $500,000 has been 

allocated. Although there are currently 

no foreign species issues included in 

our high-priority listing actions at this 

time, many actions have statutory or 

court-approved settlement deadlines, 

thus increasing their priority. The 

budget allocations for each specific 

listing action are identified in the 

Service’s FY 2011 Allocation Table (part 

of our record). 

For the above reasons, funding a 

proposed listing determination for the 

Mt. Charleston blue is precluded by 

court-ordered and court-approved 

settlement agreements, listing actions 

with absolute statutory deadlines, and 

work on proposed listing 

determinations for those candidate 

species with a higher listing priority 

(i.e., candidate species with LPNs of 

1–2. 

Based on our September 21, 1983, 

guidance for assigning an LPN for each 

candidate species (48 FR 43098), we 

have a significant number of species 

with an LPN of 2. Using this guidance, 

we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 

to 12, depending on the magnitude of 

threats (high or moderate to low), 

immediacy of threats (imminent or 

nonimminent), and taxonomic status of 

the species (in order of priority: 

Monotypic genus (a species that is the 

sole member of a genus); species; or part 

of a species (subspecies, distinct 

population segment, or significant 

portion of the range)). The lower the 

listing priority number, the higher the 

listing priority (that is, a species with an 

LPN of 1 would have the highest listing 

priority). 

Because of the large number of highpriority species, we have further ranked 

the candidate species with an LPN of 2 

by using the following extinction-risk 

type criteria: International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, originally comprised a 

group of approximately 40 candidate 

species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate 

species have had the highest priority to 

receive funding to work on a proposed 

listing determination. As we work on 

proposed and final listing rules for those 

40 candidates, we apply the ranking 

criteria to the next group of candidates 

with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the 

next set of highest priority candidate 

species. Finally, proposed rules for 

reclassification of threatened species to 

endangered are lower priority, since as 

listed species, they are already afforded 

the protection of the Act and 

implementing regulations. However, for 

efficiency reasons, we may choose to 

work on a proposed rule to reclassify a 

species to endangered if we can 

combine this with work that is subject 

to a court-determined deadline. 

With our workload so much bigger 

than the amount of funds we have to 

accomplish it, it is important that we be 

as efficient as possible in our listing 

process. Therefore, as we work on 

proposed rules for the highest priority 

species in the next several years, we are 

preparing multi-species proposals when 

appropriate, and these may include 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

species with lower priority if they 

overlap geographically or have the same 

threats as a species with an LPN of 2. 

In addition, we take into consideration 

the availability of staff resources when 

we determine which high-priority 

species will receive funding to 

minimize the amount of time and 

resources required to complete each 

listing action. 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add and 

remove qualified species to and from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. As with our 

‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of 

whether progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists has been expeditious 

is a function of the resources available 

for listing and the competing demands 

for those funds. (Although we do not 

discuss it in detail here, we are also 

making expeditious progress in 

removing species from the list under the 

Recovery program in light of the 

resource available for delisting, which is 

funded by a separate line item in the 

budget of the Endangered Species 

Program. So far during FY 2011, we 

have completed one delisting rule.) 

Given the limited resources available for 

listing, we find that we are making 

expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the 

Listing. This progress included 

preparing and publishing the following 

determinations: 

FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

10/6/2010 ............... Endangered Status for the Altamaha 

Spinymussel and Designation of Critical 

Habitat.

Proposed Listing Endangered ......................... 75 FR 61664–61690 

10/7/2010 ............... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to list the Sacramento Splittail as Endangered or Threatened.Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 62070–62095 

10/28/2010 ............. Endangered Status and Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow.

Proposed Listing Endangered (uplisting) ......... 75 FR 66481–66552 

11/2/2010 ............... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay 

Springs Salamander as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.75 FR 67341–67343 

11/2/2010 ............... Determination of Endangered Status for the 

Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted 

Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Final Listing Endangered ................................. 75 FR 67511–67550 

11/2/2010 ............... Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered.Proposed Listing Endangered ......................... 75 FR 67551–67583 

11/4/2010 ............... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Cirsium 

wrightii (Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 

but precluded.

75 FR 67925–67944 

12/14/2010 ............. Endangered Status for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard.Proposed Listing Endangered ......................... 75 FR 77801–77817 

12/14/2010 ............. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 

North American Wolverine as Endangered 

or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 

but precluded.

75 FR 78029–78061 

12/14/2010 ............. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 

Sonoran Population of the Desert Tortoise 

as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 

but precluded.

75 FR 78093–78146 

12/15/2010 ............. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus 

schmolliae as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 

but precluded.

75 FR 78513–78556 

12/28/2010 ............. Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered Throughout Their Range.Final Listing Endangered ................................. 75 FR 81793–81815 

1/4/2011 ................. 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Red 

Knot subspecies Calidris canutus roselaari 

as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.76 FR 304–311 

1/19/2011 ............... Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and 

Spectaclecase Mussels.

Proposed Listing Endangered ......................... 76 FR 3392–3420 

2/10/2011 ............... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pacific Walrus as Endangered or Threatened.Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 

but precluded.

76 FR 7634 

Our expeditious progress also 

includes work on listing actions that we 

funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but 

have not yet been completed to date. 

These actions are listed below. Actions 

in the top section of the table are being 

conducted under a deadline set by a 

court. Actions in the middle section of 

the table are being conducted to meet 

statutory timelines, that is, timelines 

required under the Act. Actions in the 

bottom section of the table are highpriority listing actions. These actions 

include work primarily on species with 

an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above, 

selection of these species is partially 

based on available staff resources, and 

when appropriate, include species with 

a lower priority if they overlap 

geographically or have the same threats 

as the species with the high priority. 

Including these species together in the 

same proposed rule results in 

considerable savings in time and 

funding, as compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12681 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement 

Flat-tailed horned lizard ........................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Mountain plover 4 ...................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Solanum conocarpum .............................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Thorne’s Hairstreak butterfly 3 .................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Hermes copper butterfly 3 ......................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow-billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet macaw) 5 ............... 12-month petition finding. 

4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet, hyacinth 

macaw) 5.

12-month petition finding. 

4 parrots species (crimson shining parrot, white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo, yellow-crested 

cockatoo) 5.

12-month petition finding. 

Utah prairie dog (uplisting) ....................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Actions with Statutory Deadlines 

Casey’s june beetle .................................................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

Southern rockhopper penguin—Campbell Plateau population ................................................................ Final listing determination. 

6 Birds from Eurasia ................................................................................................................................ Final listing determination. 

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ............................................................................................ Final listing determination. 

Queen Charlotte goshawk ....................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and 

laurel dace) 4.

Final listing determination. 

Ozark hellbender 4 .................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Altamaha spinymussel 3 ........................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute 

Beardtongue), and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) 4.

Final listing determination. 

Salmon crested cockatoo ......................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

6 Birds from Peru and Bolivia .................................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 ........................................................ Final listing determination. 

2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 .......................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Mt Charleston blue 5 ................................................................................................................................. Proposed listing determination. 

CA golden trout 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Black-footed albatross .............................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Mount Charleston blue butterfly ............................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard 1 ........................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population 1 ............................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 ............................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Northern leopard frog ............................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Tehachapi slender salamander ................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Coqui Llanero ........................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding/Proposed listing. 

Dusky tree vole ........................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly (Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp.3, Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species petition.12-month petition finding. 

5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, 

Trifolium friscanum) from 206 species petition.

12-month petition finding. 

5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) 

pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition.

12-month petition finding. 

Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) .......................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 3 ....................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 ................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Gopher tortoise—eastern population ....................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) ............................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 4 ............................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475 species petition) 3 ................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 species petition).12-month petition finding. 

2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) ..................................... 12-month petition finding. 

3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 

species petition).

12-month petition finding. 

5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) .............................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

14 parrots (foreign species) ..................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Berry Cave salamander 1 ......................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Striped Newt 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 ............................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 ........................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 3 ............................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Western gull-billed tern ............................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 4 ........................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

HI yellow-faced bees ................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Giant Palouse earthworm ........................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Whitebark pine ......................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12682 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 1 ............................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Ashy storm-petrel 5 ................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Honduran emerald ................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Southeastern pop snowy plover and wintering pop. of piping plover 1 ................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Eagle Lake trout 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Smooth-billed ani 1 ................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 .................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

42 snail species (Nevada and Utah) ....................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Peary caribou ........................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Plains bison .............................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Spring pygmy sunfish ............................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Bay skipper .............................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Unsilvered fritillary .................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Texas kangaroo rat .................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Spot-tailed earless lizard .......................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Eastern small-footed bat .......................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Northern long-eared bat ........................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Prairie chub .............................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

10 species of Great Basin butterfly ......................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

6 sand dune (scarab) beetles .................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Golden-winged warbler 4 .......................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Sand-verbena moth .................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

404 Southeast species ............................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Franklin’s bumble bee 4 ............................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly and Idaho snowfly) 4 ........................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

American eel 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Gila monster (Utah population) 4 .............................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Arapahoe snowfly 4 ................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Leona’s little blue 4 ................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Aztec gilia 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

White-tailed ptarmigan 5 ........................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

San Bernardino flying squirrel 5 ................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Bicknell’s thrush 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Chimpanzee ............................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Sonoran talussnail 5 .................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum bartrami and Pectis imberbis) 5 ................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

I’iwi 5 ......................................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

High-Priority Listing Actions 

19 Oahu candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN 

= 9).

Proposed listing. 

19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with 

LPN = 8).

Proposed listing. 

2 Arizona springsnails 2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) ................. Proposed listing. 

Chupadera springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2)) ................................................................ Proposed listing. 

8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama 

pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 

5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 4.

Proposed listing. 

Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9) 4 ............................................. Proposed listing. 

Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 ........................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) and Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) 4 ..................................... Proposed listing. 

Diamond darter (LPN = 2) 4 ..................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) 4 .......................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Miami blue (LPN = 3) 3 ............................................................................................................................. Proposed listing. 

4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3.Proposed listing. 

5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom 

springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2)) 3.

Proposed listing. 

2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) 3.Proposed listing. 

FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) 3 .................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—5 plants and 3 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 

1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4, 2 with LPN = 8).

Proposed listing. 

12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN = 

3), streaked horned lark (LPN = 3), Taylor’s checkerspot (LPN = 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8)) 3.

Proposed listing. 

2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2)) 5 ........................ Proposed listing. 

Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 ................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

1Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 

2Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing 

priorities, these actions are still being developed. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12683 

3Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds. 

4Funded with FY 2010 funds. 

5Funded with FY 2011 funds. 

We have endeavored to make our 

listing actions as efficient and timely as 

possible, given the requirements of the 

relevant law and regulations, and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 

together. Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the Act, these 

actions described above collectively 

constitute expeditious progress. 

The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly will 

be added to the list of candidate species 

upon publication of this 12-month 

finding. We will continue to monitor the 

status of this species as new information 

becomes available. This review will 

determine if a change in status is 

warranted, including the need to make 

prompt use of emergency listing 

procedures. 

We intend that any proposed listing 

action for the Mt. Charleston blue 

butterfly will be as accurate as possible. 

Therefore, we will continue to accept 

additional information and comments 

from all concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

is available on request from the Nevada 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: February 11, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4884 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0011; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Texas Kangaroo 

Rat as Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

Texas kangaroo rat, Dipodomys elator, 

as endangered or threatened and to 

designate critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. Based on our review, we find 

that the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing the Texas 

kangaroo rat may be warranted. 

Therefore, with the publication of this 

notice, we are initiating a status review 

to determine if listing the Texas 

kangaroo rat is warranted. To ensure the 

status review is comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding 

this species. Based on the status review, 

we will issue a 12-month finding on the 

petition, which will address whether 

the petitioned action is warranted, as 

provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before May 9, 

2011. Please note that if you are using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline 

for submitting an electronic comment is 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. 

After May 9, 2011, you must submit 

information directly to the Arlington 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below). Please note that we might not be 

able to address or incorporate 

information that we receive after the 

above requested date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the box that 

reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the 

Docket number for this finding, which 

is FWS–R2–ES–2011–0011. Check the 

box that reads ‘‘Open for Comment/ 

Submission,’’ and then click the Search 

button. You should then see an icon that 

reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ Please 

ensure that you have found the correct 

rulemaking before submitting your 

comment. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2– 

ES–2011–0011; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information received on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Request for Information section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas J. Cloud, Jr., Field Supervisor, 

Arlington Ecological Services Field 

Office, 711 Stadium Drive, Suite 252, 

Arlington, TX 76011; by telephone (817) 

277–1100; or by facsimile (817) 277– 

1129. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly review the status 

of the species (status review). For the 

status review to be complete and based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we request 

information on the Texas kangaroo rat 

from governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. We seek information 

on: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS