20918 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

not provide information indicating how 

climate change might potentially impact 

the prairie chub. The prairie chub has 

persisted for millennia with periods of 

extreme weather events, such as 

droughts and floods. If climate change 

causes more extreme weather events, 

there is no information to indicate that 

such events will have a negative impact 

on the prairie chub. At this time, we 

lack sufficient certainty to know 

specifically how climate change will 

affect the species. We are not aware of 

any data at an appropriate scale to 

evaluate habitat or population trends for 

the prairie chub within its range, make 

predictions about future trends, or 

determine whether the species will 

actually be impacted. Therefore, based 

on information presented by the 

petitioner and readily available in our 

files, we do not consider climate change 

to be a threat to the species; however, 

we intend to investigate this factor more 

thoroughly in our status review of the 

species. 

In summary, we find that the petition, 

along with information readily available 

in our files, has not presented 

substantial information that the prairie 

chub may warrant listing due to other 

natural or manmade factors. 

Finding 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

have determined that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the prairie chub throughout its 

entire range may be warranted. This 

finding is based on information 

provided under factors A and D about 

the potential threats from altered stream 

flows and degraded water quality, and 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to protect prairie chubs 

from altered stream flows or degraded 

water quality. We determine that the 

information provided under factors B, C, 

and E is not substantial. In considering 

what factors might constitute threats, we 

must look beyond the mere exposure of 

the species to the factor to determine 

whether the species responds to the 

factor in a way that causes actual 

impacts to the species. If there is 

exposure to a factor, but no response, or 

only a positive response, that factor is 

not a threat. If there is exposure and the 

species responds negatively, the factor 

may be a threat and we then attempt to 

determine how significant a threat it is. 

If the threat is significant, it may drive 

or contribute to the risk of extinction of 

the species such that the species may 

warrant listing as threatened or 

endangered as those terms are defined 

by the Act. This does not necessarily 

require empirical proof of a threat. The 

combination of exposure and some 

corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively may 

not be sufficient to compel a finding 

that listing may be warranted. The 

information must contain evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. 

Because we have found that the 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

prairie chub may be warranted, we are 

initiating a status review to determine 

whether listing the prairie chub as 

threatened or endangered under the Act 

is warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding does not constitute a status 

review under the Act. In a 12-month 

finding, we will determine whether a 

petitioned action is warranted after we 

have completed a thorough status 

review of the species, which is 

conducted following a substantial 90- 

day finding. Because the Act’s standards 

for 90-day and 12-month findings are 

different, as described above, a 

substantial 90-day finding does not 

mean that the 12-month finding will 

result in a warranted finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Oklahoma Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

the staff of the Oklahoma Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: April 4, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9089 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0031; MO 

92210–0–0008–B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List Hermes Copper 

Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

Hermes copper butterfly (Hermelycaena 

[Lycaena] hermes) as endangered and to 

designate critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). 

After review of all available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that listing Hermes copper butterfly as 

endangered or threatened is warranted. 

Currently, however, listing Hermes 

copper butterfly 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 

Hermes copper butterfly to our 

candidate species list. We will develop 

a proposed rule to list Hermes copper 

butterfly as our priorities allow. We will 

make any determination on critical 

habitat during development of the 

proposed listing rule. During any 

interim period, we will address the 

status of the candidate taxon through 

our annual Candidate Notice of Review 

(CNOR). 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on April 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R8–ES–2010–0031. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley 

Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the above 

internet address or the mailing address 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20919 

and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley 

Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; by 

telephone at 760–431–9440; or by 

facsimile at 760–431–9624. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition to revise the Federal Lists 

of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

that listing a species may be warranted, 

we make a finding within 12 months of 

the date of receipt of the petition. In this 

finding, we determine whether the 

petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but 

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 26, 2004, we received a 

petition dated October 25, 2004, from 

the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) 

and David Hogan, requesting that 

Hermes copper butterfly be listed as 

endangered under the Act and that 

critical habitat be designated. Included 

in the petition was supporting 

information regarding the species’ 

taxonomy, biology, ecology, historical 

and current distribution, status of 

population, and actual and potential 

threats affecting the species and its 

habitat. 

On August 8, 2006, we published a 

90-day finding for Hermes copper 

butterfly in the Federal Register (71 FR 

44966). The finding concluded that the 

petition and information in our files did 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing Hermes copper butterfly may be 

warranted. For a detailed history of 

Federal actions involving Hermes 

copper butterfly prior to the 2006 

90-day finding, please see the August 8, 

2006, Federal Register finding (71 FR 

44966). 

On March 17, 2009, CBD and David 

Hogan filed a complaint for declaratory 

and injunctive relief challenging the 

Service’s decision not to list Hermes 

copper butterfly as endangered or 

threatened under the Act. In a 

settlement agreement dated October 23, 

2009, (Case No. 09–0533 S.D. Cal.), the 

Service agreed to submit a new 90-day 

petition finding to the Federal Register 

by May 13, 2010, for Hermes copper 

butterfly. As part of the settlement 

agreement, we agreed to evaluate the 

October 25, 2004, petition filed by CBD 

and David Hogan, supporting 

information submitted with the petition, 

and information available in the 

Service’s files, including information 

that has become available since the 

August 8, 2006, publication of the 

negative 90-day finding (71 FR 44966). 

If the 90-day finding determined that 

listing may be warranted, we agreed to 

submit a 12-month finding for Hermes 

copper butterfly to the Federal Register 

by April 15, 2011. 

On May 4, 2010, we published a 

90-day finding in the Federal Register 

(75 FR 23654) that determined listing of 

Hermes copper butterfly as endangered 

or threatened may be warranted. This 

notice constitutes the 12-month finding 

on the October 25, 2004, petition to list 

Hermes copper butterfly as endangered. 

Species Information 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the listing of 

Hermes copper butterfly under the Act 

in this 12-month finding. For more 

information on the taxonomy, biology, 

and ecology of Hermes copper butterfly, 

please refer to the 90-day finding 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23654). That 

document is available on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

docket number FWS–R8–ES–2010– 

0031. 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Hermes copper butterfly was first 

described as Chrysophanus hermes by 

Edwards (1870, p. 21). Scudder (1876, 

p. 125) placed this species in the genus 

Tharsalea based on the presence of 

hindwing tails. Freeman (1936, p. 279) 

placed Hermes copper butterfly in the 

genus Lycaena as L. hermes based on 

the assessment of the male genetalia, 

finding that L. hermes was distinctly a 

lycaenid and not typical of the other 

taxa of Tharsalea. Miller and Brown 

(1979, p. 22) erected a monotypic genus 

to accommodate Hermes copper 

butterfly as Hermelycaena hermes. This 

segregation appears to be supported by 

allozyme data presented by Pratt and 

Wright (2002, p. 223); although these 

authors did not recommend separate 

genus or subgenus placement (Pratt and 

Wright 2002, p. 225). The broadly based 

morphological assessment of Miller and 

Brown (1979) coupled with the more 

recent allozyme work of Pratt and 

Wright (2002) support recognition of 

Hermes copper butterfly as a distinct 

genus; however, Lycaena hermes is the 

name predominantly used in recent 

literature (Scott 1986, p. 392; Faulkner 

and Brown 1993, p. 120; Emmel 1998, 

p. 832; Opler and Warren 2005, p. 22), 

and we recognize it as such for the 

purposes of this finding. Any data or 

information relevant to the taxonomic 

status of Hermes copper butterfly will 

be fully addressed in any proposed rule, 

and as such will be available for public 

comment. However, there is no question 

that as a unique species, Hermes copper 

butterfly is a listable entity under the 

Act. 

Hermes copper butterfly is a small, 

brightly-colored butterfly approximately 

1 to 1.25 inches (2.5 to 3.2 centimeters 

(cm)) in length, with one tail on the 

hindwing. On the upperside, the 

forewing is brown with a yellow or 

orange area enclosing several black 

spots, and the hindwing has orange 

spots that may be merged into a band 

along the margin. On the underside, the 

forewing is yellow with four to six black 

spots, and the hindwing is bright yellow 

with three to six black spots (USGS 

2006). Mean last instar (period between 

molts) larval body length is 0.6 inches 

(in) (15 millimeters (mm)) (Ballmer and 

Pratt 1988, p. 4). Emmel and Emmel 

(1973, pp. 62, 63) provide a full 

description of the early stages of the 

species (eggs, larvae, and pupae). 

Biology 

Females deposit single eggs on 

Rhamnus crocea (spiny redberry) in the 

early summer, often where a branch 

splits or on a leaf (Marschalek and 

Deutschman 2009, p. 401). Eggs 

overwinter, with larvae reported from 

mid-April to mid-May (Marschalek and 

Deutschman 2009, p. 400) followed by 

pupation on the host plant (Emmel and 

Emmel 1973, p. 63). Not much is known 

regarding larval biology, as this life 

stage is little-studied and extremely 

difficult to find in the field (Marschalek 

and Deutschman 2009, pp. 400, 401). 

Hermes copper butterflies have one 

flight period (termed univoltine) 

typically occurring in mid-May to early 

July, depending on weather conditions 

and elevation (Marschalek and 

Deutschman 2008, p. 100; Marschalek 

and Klein 2010, p. 5). Emergence 

appears to be influenced by weather; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20920 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

however this relationship is not well 

understood. For example, weather 

conditions in the spring of 2010 were 

cool and moist and resulted in a late 

emergence; however, the spring of 2006 

was hot and dry and also resulted in a 

late emergence period (Deutschman et 

al. 2010, p. 4). We have no information 

regarding the ability of immature life 

stages to undergo multiple-year 

diapause (a low metabolic rate resting 

stage) during years with poor conditions 

(Deutschman et al. 2010, p. 4). Multiple 

year diapause is rare and can occur in 

stages more advanced than the egg, such 

as pupae or larvae, after larvae have fed 

and accumulated energy reserves 

(Gullan and Cranston 2010, p. 169, 

Service 2003, p. 8); it is less likely to 

occur with Hermes copper butterflies 

because they overwinter (diapause) as 

eggs. 

Deutschman et al. (2010, p. 8) used 

145 Amplified Fragment Length 

Polymorphism (AFLP) markers to 

estimate fundamental Hermes copper 

butterfly population genetic parameters 

(i.e., polymorphism, expected 

heterozygosity, FST values, and private 

alleles) that allowed them to evaluate 

the magnitude of genetic differentiation 

within and among sampled populations, 

an indicator of dispersal ability (gene 

flow). The AFLP process was able to 

detect genetic differences among 

individuals, even those captured within 

several meters of each other. 

Deutschman et al. (2010, pp. 8–17) 

indicated that butterflies can show 

differentiation even when close in 

proximity, presumably due to physical 

barriers. Alternately, butterflies sampled 

at locations that are not close have 

shown little differentiation, indicating 

that butterflies can also disperse long 

distances under the right conditions. 

Deutschman et al. (2010, pp. 8–17) 

sampled at one location (Wildwood 

Glen) before and after a fire and found 

genetically differentiated groups, 

indicating that Hermes copper butterfly 

individuals are capable of movement 

between populations. Landscape 

features may enhance or restrict 

dispersal which overall, may have 

several implications regarding 

population structure and dynamics 

(Deutschman et al. 2010, p. 16). Genetic 

differentiation of individuals from 

proximal locations could be a result of 

dispersal barriers, genetic drift, original 

colonizers, or a combination of factors 

(Deutschman et al. 2010, p. 16). The 

genetic similarity of widely 

geographically separate sample 

locations indicates that recolonization 

events by females occur at much further 

distances than implied by previous 

studies that suggest most individuals 

move less than 656 ft (200 m) 

(Marschalek and Deutschman 2008, p. 

102; Marschalek and Klein 2010, p. 7). 

Deutschman et al. (2010, p. 16) noted 

the majority of genetically similar 

individuals were territorial males, so it 

is possible Hermes copper butterfly 

exhibits sex-biased long-distance 

dispersal by females, as has been noted 

for other lycaenids (Robbins and Small 

1981, pp. 312–313). In general, Hermes 

copper butterflies have limited directed 

movement ability (Marschalek and 

Klein 2010, p. 1), though lyceanids can 

be dispersed by the wind (Robbins and 

Small 1981 p. 312). Deutschman et al. 

(2010, p. 16) analysis also showed the 

genetic composition of individuals at 

any location exhibited a high degree of 

temporal variability, possibly due to 

biotic (drift, dispersal) and abiotic 

(landscape, fire regime) influences. 

Habitat 

Hermes copper butterfly inhabits 

coastal sage scrub and southern mixed 

chaparral (Marschalek and Deutschman 

2008, p. 98). Hermes copper butterfly 

larvae use only Rhamnus crocea as a 

host plant (Thorne 1963, p. 143; Emmel 

and Emmel 1973, p. 62). The range of 

R. crocea extends throughout coastal 

northern California, as far north as San 

Francisco (Consortium of California 

Herbaria 2010); however, Hermes 

copper butterfly has never been 

documented north of San Diego County 

(Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

(CFWO) GIS database). Therefore, some 

factor other than host plant availability 

apparently has historically limited or 

currently limits the range of the species. 

Researchers report adults are rarely 

found far from R. crocea (Thorne 1963, 

p. 143) and take nectar almost 

exclusively from Eriogonum 

fasciculatum (California buckwheat) 

(Marschalek and Deutschman 2008, p. 

5). The densities of host plants and 

nectar sources required to support a 

Hermes copper population are not 

known. Recent research has not added 

much to Thorne’s (1963, p. 143) basic 

description of Hermes copper butterfly 

habitat: ‘‘It is very difficult to analyze 

the complex factors which determine 

why a certain plant has been successful 

in a given spot * * * In the case of 

Rhamnus crocea, the only consistent 

requirement seems to be a well-drained 

soil of better than average depth, yet not 

deep enough to support trees. Such soils 

occur along canyon bottoms and on 

hillsides with a northern exposure; 

therefore, it is in these situations that 

[Hermes copper butterfly] is generally 

found.’’ 

Hermes copper butterflies exhibit a 

preference for micro-sites within stands 

of Rhamnus crocea, which may be 

related to temperature because adults 

become active around 72 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) (22 degrees Celsius (°C)) 

(Marschalek and Deutschman 2008, p. 

5). Marschalek and Deutschman (2008, 

p. 3) recorded densities of Hermes 

copper butterflies on paired transects 

along edges and within the interior of 

host plant stands in rural areas. Their 

study indicates that Hermes copper 

butterfly densities are significantly 

higher near host plant stand edges than 

in the interior (Marschalek and 

Deutschman 2008, p. 102). Adult males 

have a strong preference for openings in 

the vegetation, including roads and 

trails, specifically for the north and west 

sides of canopy openings (Marschalek 

and Deutschman 2008, p. 102). These 

areas capture the first morning light and 

reach the temperature threshold for 

activity more quickly than other areas 

(Deutschman et al. 2010, p. 4). Hermes 

copper butterflies tend to remain 

inactive under conditions of heavy 

cloud cover and cooler weather 

(Marschalek and Deutschman 2008, 

p. 5). Across all four sites sampled by 

Marschalek and Deutschman, Hermes 

copper butterfly presence was positively 

associated with Eriogonum 

fasciculatum, but negatively associated 

with Adenostema fasciculatum 

(chamise) (Marschalek and Deutschman 

2008, p. 102). Therefore, woody canopy 

openings with a northern exposure in 

stands of R. crocea and adjacent stands 

of Eriogonum fasciculatum appear to be 

components of suitable habitat for 

Hermes copper butterfly. 

Marschalek and Klein (2010) studied 

intra-habitat movement of Hermes 

copper butterflies using mark-releaserecapture techniques. They found the 

highest median dispersal distance for a 

given site in a given year was 146 ft 

(44.5 m), and their maximum recapture 

distance was 0.7 miles (mi) (1.1 

kilometers (km)) (Marschalek and Klein 

2010, p. 1). They also found no adult 

movement across non-habitat areas, 

such as type-converted grassland or 

riparian woodland (Marschalek and 

Klein 2010, p. 6). Hermes copper 

butterfly is typically relatively sedentary 

(Marschalek and Klein 2010, p. 1), 

although winds may aid dispersal 

(Robbins and Small 1981, p. 312). 

Studies to date infer that most 

individuals typically move less than 656 

ft. (200 m) (Marschalek and Deutschman 

2008, p. 102, Marschalek and Klein 

2010, pp. 725–726), supporting the 

assumption that Hermes copper 

butterflies are typically sedentary 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20921 

compared to other butterfly species such 

as painted ladies—(Vanessa cardui). 

However, as discussed above, genetic 

research indicates that females may 

disperse longer distances than males 

(Deutschman et al. 2010, p. 16) 

contradicting previous methods used 

such as mark-release-recapture 

(Marschalek and Deutschman 2008, p. 

102) that may not detect the movement 

of females and over sample territorial 

males. More information is needed to 

fully understand movement patterns of 

Hermes copper butterfly; however, 

dispersal is likely inhibited by lack of 

available habitat in many areas 

(Deutschman et al. 2010, p. 17). 

Range and Population Distribution 

Status 

Hermes copper butterfly is endemic to 

the southern California region, primarily 

occurring in San Diego County, 

California (Thorne 1963, p. 143). All 

records of Hermes copper butterflies in 

the United States are within San Diego 

County, with most occurrences 

concentrated in the southwest portion of 

the County (Marschalek and Klein 2010, 

p. 4). Notable exceptions to the 

‘‘southwestern distribution pattern’’ are 

two old museum specimens collected in 

north San Diego County, one from the 

vicinity of the community of Bonsall in 

1934, and another from the vicinity of 

the community of Pala in 1932. 

Historical data indicate Hermes copper 

butterflies ranged from the vicinity of 

the community of Pala, California, in 

northern San Diego County (CFWO GIS 

database) to approximately 18 mi (29 

km) south of Santo Tomas in Baja 

California, Mexico, and from Pine 

Valley in eastern San Diego County to 

Mira Mesa, Kearny Mesa, and Otay 

Mesa in western San Diego County 

(Thorne 1963, pp. 143, 147). They have 

never been recorded immediately 

adjacent to the coast, and have not been 

found east of the western slopes of the 

Cuyamaca Mountains above 

approximately 4,264 ft (1,300 m) 

(Marschalek and Klein 2010, p. 4). 

The distribution of Hermes copper 

butterfly in Mexico is not well-known 

and researchers have not explored this 

area (Marschalek and Klein 2010, p. 4). 

Of the two museum specimens from 

Mexico, one collected in 1936 was 

labeled ‘‘12 miles north of Ensenada,’’ 

and another collected in 1983 was 

labeled ‘‘Salsipuedes’’ (Marschalek and 

Klein 2010, p. 4). Assuming older 

specimens were usually collected 

relatively close to roads that existed at 

the time (Thorne 1963, p. 145), these 

Mexican locations probably were 

collected from approximately the same 

location, which is a popular surf 

destination known as Salsipuedes, 

located approximately 12 mi (19 km) 

north of Ensenada off the Esconica 

Tijuana-Ensenada (coastal highway to 

Ensenada). The known distribution in 

Mexico of Rhamnus crocea is relatively 

contiguous with that in the U.S., 

extending to approximately 190 mi (312 

km) south of the border into Mexico 

along the western Baja California 

Peninsula (Little 1976, p. 150). Hermes 

copper butterflies have been recorded as 

far south into Mexico as 18 mi ( 

29 km) south of Santo Tomas, which is 

approximately half the distance of the 

extent of Rhamus crocea’s Mexican 

range; (Thorne 1963, p. 143). As stated 

in our 2006, 90-day finding (71 FR 

44969; August 8, 2006), there have been 

recent discoveries (post-1993) of extant 

populations within the species’ known 

historical range in the United States. 

These include Black Mountain, 

Crestridge and two populations on the 

San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. 

However, there is still uncertainty as to 

the distribution of Hermes copper 

butterfly within the known historical 

range because we have very little 

information on the status of the species 

in Mexico. 

A species’ range can be defined at 

varying relevant scales of resolution, 

from maximum geographic range 

capturing all areas within the outermost 

record locations (coarsest scale, 

hereafter called ‘‘known historical 

range’’), to the scale of individual 

population distributions (finest scale, 

hereafter called ‘‘population 

distributions’’). This concept was 

discussed by Thorne (1963, p. 143): 

‘‘However within this range [Hermes 

copper butterfly] distribution is limited 

to pockets where the larval food plant 

occurs, so that the total area where the 

insect actually flies is probably not more 

than a fraction of one percent of the 

maximum area.’’ 

To more precisely determine the 

historical range of Hermes copper 

butterfly, we entered all Hermes copper 

butterfly observation records that had 

information about collection location in 

our GIS database, and mapped all 

observed and museum specimen records 

with an appropriate level of detail and 

location description. To better 

determine the geographic locations of 

historical Hermes copper butterfly 

records mapped by Thorne (1963, p. 

147), we overlaid a transparent image of 

his map on Google Earth imagery, and 

scaled it appropriately to ensure that 

geographic features and community 

locations corresponded with those of 

the imagery. Examination of Thorne’s 

(1963 p. 147) map expanded the known 

historical range as described by 

Deutschman et al. (2010, p. 3) to the 

southeast in the vicinity of the 

community of Pine Valley and Corte 

Madera Valley. The resulting known 

historical range of Hermes copper 

butterfly within the United States can be 

described as comprised of a narrow 

northern portion within the Central 

Valley and Central Coast ecoregions, 

north of Los Penasquitos Canyon and 

Scripps Poway Parkway (latitude 

midway between the northernmost 

record location and the international 

border), and a wider southern portion 

encompassing the Southern Coast, 

Southern Valley, and Southern Foothills 

ecoregions (see Figure 1 and Table 1 

below; San Diego County Plant Atlas 

2010). Although the distribution of 

Hermes copper butterfly populations in 

Mexico is not well understood, United 

States populations minimally 

encompass half the species’ known 

historical latitudinal range. The results 

of our population distribution analysis 

indicate areas in the United States most 

likely to harbor possible extant 

undiscovered Hermes copper butterfly 

populations within the known historical 

range are primarily limited to a 

relatively narrow area within the 

southern portion of the range bordered 

on the north and south by the 2003 

Cedar Fire and 2007 Harris Fire 

perimeters, and on the west and east 

roughly by Sycuan Peak and Long 

Valley (see Figure 1 and Table 1 below). 

TABLE 1—ALL KNOWN HERMES COPPER BUTTERFLY POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO

Map No. Population name (other names) Last 

observed Presumed status Extant in 2000 * Fire Extirpated why? 

1 ............... Elfin Forest (Onyx Ridge). .............. 2002 ................. Unknown ........... Y 2007 

2 ............... Rancho Santa Fe (Del Dios) .......... 2004 ................. Extirpated ......... Y 2007 Fire, Development. 

3 ............... Black Mountain ............................... 2004 ................. Unknown ........... Y 

4 ............... Van Dam Peak (Meadowbrook) ..... 2003 ................. Extirpated ......... Y .................. Isolation (Development). 

5 ............... Lopez Canyon ................................. 2008 ................. Extant ............... Y 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20922 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—ALL KNOWN HERMES COPPER BUTTERFLY POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO—Continued 

Map No. Population name (other names) Last 

observed Presumed status Extant in 2000 * Fire Extirpated why? 

6 ............... Sycamore Canyon .......................... 2003 ................. Extirpated ......... Y 2003 Fire. 

7 ............... North Santee (Fanita Ranch) .......... 2005 ................. Unknown ........... Y 2003 

8 ............... Mission Trails (Mission Gorge, Mission Dam).2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 2003 

9 ............... Crestridge ........................................ 2007 ................. Extirpated *** .... Y 2003 Fire. 

10 ............. Anderson Truck Trail ...................... 2003 ................. Extirpated ......... Y 2003 Fire. 

11 ............. Alpine (Wright’s Field) ..................... 2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 

12 ............. North McGinty Mountain ................. 2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 

13 ............. South McGinty Mountain ................ 2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 

14 ............. Los Montanas ................................. 2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 

15 ............. Rancho San Diego .......................... 2009 ................. Extant ............... Y 2007 

16 ............. San Miguel Mountain ...................... 2006 ................. Extirpated ......... Y 2007 Fire. 

17 ............. Rancho Jamul ................................. 2007 ................. Extirpated ......... Y 2003, 2007 Fire. 

18 ............. North Jamul ..................................... 2004 ................. Unknown ........... Y 2003 

19 ............. East McGinty Mountain ................... 2001 ................. Unknown ........... Y 

20 ............. Loveland Reservoir ......................... 2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 

21 ............. Sycuan Peak ................................... 2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 

22 ............. Skyline Truck Trail (Lawson Valley) 2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 

23 ............. Lyons Peak ..................................... 2003 ................. Unknown ........... Y 2007 

24 ............. Hollenbeck Canyon ......................... 2007 ................. Extirpated ......... Y 2003, 2007 Fire. 

25 ............. Dulzura (Near Marron Valley Road) 2005 ................. Extirpated ......... Y 2003, 2007 Fire. 

26 ............. Lawson Valley (Lawson Peak) ....... 2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 2006, 2007 

27 ............. Hidden Glen (Japutal Valley, Lyons 

Valley Road).

2008 ................. Extant ............... Y 

28 ............. Willows (Viejas Grade Road) .......... 2003 ................. Extirpated ......... Y 2003 Fire. 

29 ............. North Guatay Mountain ................... 2004 ................. Unknown ........... Y 2003 

30 ............. North Descanso (Wildwood Glen, 

Descanso).

2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 2003 

31 ............. South Descanso (Roberts Ranch) .. 2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 2003 

32 ............. Japutal (Japutal Valley) .................. 2009 ................. Extant ............... Y 

33 ............. South Guatay Mountain .................. 2008 ................. Extant ............... Y 

34 ............. Hartley Peak (Portrero) ................... 2010 ................. Extant ............... Y 2007 

35 ............. Pala ................................................. 1932 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Unknown. 

36 ............. Bonsall ............................................ 1934 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Unknown. 

37 ............. San Elijo Hills (San Marcos Creek, 

San Elijo Road and Questhaven 

Road).

1979 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Development. 

38 ............. Lake Hodges ................................... 1982 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. 2007 Fire. 

39 ............. Sabre Springs (Poway Road and 

395).

2001 ................. Extirpated ......... Y .................. Development. 

40 ............. Miramar ........................................... 1996 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Development. 

41 ............. Mira Mesa ....................................... Prior to 1963 ..... Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Development. 

42 ............. Cowles Mountain (Big Rock Road 

Park).

1973 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Isolation. 

43 ............. Kearny Mesa ................................... 1939 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Development. 

44 ............. Mission Valley (Fairmont Canyon, 

Canyons near Mission Valley).

1908 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Development. 

45 ............. San Diego State University (San 

Diego State College).

1957 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Development. 

46 ............. El Monte (El Monte Park, El Monte 

Road).

1960 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Fire, Development. 

47 ............. Pine Valley ...................................... Pre-1963 ........... Unknown. 

48 ............. Corte Madera .................................. Pre-1963 ........... Unknown. 

49 ............. Tecate Peak .................................... 1980 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. 2007 Fire. 

50 ............. Deerhorn Valley .............................. 1970 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. 2007 Fire. 

51 ............. Dictionary Hill .................................. 1962 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Isolation (Development). 

52 ............. Otay Mountain (Little Cedar Canyon, Otay foothill).1979 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. 2003, 2007 Fire. 

53 ............. South Otay Mesa ............................ Pre-1920 ........... Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Development. 

54 ............. Salsipuedes (12 miles North of Ensenada) **.1983 ................. Unknown. 

55 ............. Santo Tomas (18 miles south of 

Santo Tomas) **.

Pre-1920 ........... Unknown. 

56 ............. South Santee .................................. 1967 ................. Extirpated ......... .................. .................. Development. 

57 ............. North Ensenada (Bajamar) ** .......... 1936 ................. Unknown. 

* Populations with last observation prior to 2000 have lower geographic accuracy. 

** Map Nos. 54, 55, and 57 are populations in Mexico that are not represented on Figure 1 in this document. 

*** Extirpation was a result of high mortality from fire, followed by reduced population density. Only one male was observed in 2007, and none 

after that. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20923 

To evaluate the status of Hermes 

copper butterfly’s current range and 

populations, we considered all available 

historical data and recent research 

results, including record locations 

(CFWO GIS databases), monitoring data, 

(Marschalek and Deutschman 2008; 

Marschalek and Klein 2010), movement 

data (Marschalek and Deutschman 2009; 

Marschalek and Klein 2010), and data 

from a recent distribution study 

(Deutschman et al. 2010). To estimate 

the geographic population distribution 

of Hermes copper butterfly, we used all 

occurrence records and mapped areas 

within approximately 0.6 mi (1 km) of 

known observation sites. This distance 

is greater than the average recapture 

distance recorded by Marschalek and 

Klein (2010, p. 1), but just under the 

maximum recorded recapture distance, 

an approximate within-population 

movement distance further supported 

by Deutschman et al.’s (2010, p. 26) 

genetic data (see Habitat section above). 

Locations within approximately 1.2 mi 

(2 km) (where 0.6 mi (1 km) movement 

distances overlapped) were considered 

part of the same population, unless 

topographic or genetic information 

indicated the possibility of barriers to 

movement. We used recent fire footprint 

data and aerial GIS information, in 

addition to the information referenced 

above, to determine which Hermes 

copper butterfly populations may be 

extant, extirpated, or of unknown status. 

A Hermes copper population was 

considered to be ‘‘extant’’ if the species 

was recorded based on recent survey 

records and not affected by recent fires. 

A Hermes copper population was 

considered to be extirpated if the area 

had been developed and no habitat 

remained, a fire footprint encompassed 

the area and subsequent surveys were 

negative, or if the record was very old 

with no recent detections. In some 

instances, we had no recent information 

to make a determination on Hermes 

copper butterfly’s current status and it 

was therefore classified as ‘‘unknown.’’ 

See Figure 1 and Table 1 above for a list 

of populations and information used to 

determine population status. 

In summarizing the results of our 

analysis of Hermes copper butterfly’s 

current range and population 

distributions (see Figure 1 and Table 1 

above), we estimated there were at least 

57 known separate historical 

populations throughout the species’ 

range since the species was first 

described. In the year 2000, 35 

populations were thought to be extant. 

Since that time, 11 populations have 

been extirpated (2 by development, 1 by 

fire and development, 8 by fire alone) 

and 7 are of unknown status. As of 

2011, of the 57 known populations, 17 

Hermes copper butterfly populations are 

extant, 28 populations are believed to 

have been extirpated, and 12 

populations are of unknown status. In 

the northern portion of the range, most 

remaining suitable habitat is limited to 

the relatively isolated and fragmented 

undeveloped lands between the cities of 

San Marcos, Carlsbad, and Escondido 

and the community of Rancho Santa Fe, 

and the habitat ‘‘islands’’ containing the 

Black Mountain and Van Dam Peak 

observation locations; however, no new 

populations have been discovered. In 

the southern portion of the range, all 

extant populations except Lopez 

Canyon and the southern portion of 

Mission Trails Park (both isolated from 

other extant populations by 

development and fire) are within 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP14AP11.000</GPH>
20924 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

relatively well-connected undeveloped 

lands east of the City of El Cajon 

between the 2003 Cedar Fire and 2007 

Harris Fire perimeters (see Figure 1 and 

Table 1 above). The Mission Trails Park 

population remains extant even after 

approximately 74 percent of the 

population area burned in 2003, 

presumably because burned areas were 

recolonized (after host plant and nectar 

sources regrew) by Hermes copper 

butterflies from nearby unburned areas. 

The best information available leads us 

to conclude that the northern portion of 

the species’ known historical range has 

contracted or may no longer exist, and 

we estimate that approximately 27 

percent of the populations within the 

southern portion of the species’ known 

historical U.S. range that were extant in 

2000 have been extirpated (see Figure 1 

and Table 1 above; Map #s 6, 9, 10, 16, 

17, 24, 25, 28). Further investigation is 

needed to accurately determine the 

status of Hermes copper butterfly in 

Mexico (Marschalek and Klein 2010, 

p. 2). Klein (2010a, p. 1) visited the 

Salsipuedes location in the first week of 

June 2005 for approximately 30 

minutes. He did not observe any Hermes 

copper butterflies; however, he 

described the habitat as having a 

‘‘decent number of [Rhamnus crocea], a 

large amount of Eriogonum 

fasciculatum,’’ and said he felt the area 

was ‘‘very good’’ for Hermes copper 

butterfly (Klein 2010, p. 1). 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

Five 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, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on 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. 

In making this finding, information 

pertaining to Hermes copper butterfly in 

relation to the five factors provided in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed 

below. 

In considering whether a species 

warrants listing under any of the five 

factors, we look beyond the species’ 

exposure to a potential threat or 

aggregation of threats under any of the 

factors, and evaluate whether the 

species responds to those potential 

threats in a way that causes actual 

impact to the species. The identification 

of threats that might impact a species 

negatively is not sufficient to compel a 

finding that the species warrants listing. 

The information must include evidence 

indicating that the threats are operative 

and, either singly or in aggregation, 

affect the status of the species. Threats 

are significant if they drive, or 

contribute to, the risk of extinction of 

the species, such that the species 

warrants listing as endangered or 

threatened, as those terms are defined in 

the Act. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Here we describe the primary threats 

that result in Hermes copper butterfly 

habitat destruction and modification, 

describe how those threats interact to 

cause long-term or permanent range 

curtailment, and provide an assessment 

of the likelihood of those threats 

continuing into the foreseeable future. 

Development 

The current distribution of Hermes 

copper butterfly habitat in San Diego 

County is largely due to previous urban 

development within coastal and interior 

San Diego County which resulted in the 

loss and fragmentation of Hermes 

copper butterfly habitat (CalFlora 2010; 

Consortium of California Herbaria 2010; 

San Diego Plant Atlas 2010). Of the 28 

known extirpated Hermes copper 

butterfly populations, loss and 

fragmentation of habitat as a result of 

development has contributed to the 

extirpation of 14 populations (50 

percent) (see Background section above 

and, Table 1 above, and Factor E 

discussion below). Since the year 2000, 

occupied habitats containing Hermes 

copper butterfly’s host plant, Rhamnus 

crocea, in Rancho Santa Fe and Sabre 

Springs were lost due to urban 

development. In the City of San Marcos, 

one R. crocea stand near Jacks Pond was 

lost to development (Anderson 2010a, 

pp. 1, 2) and another R. crocea stand 

was significantly reduced in the vicinity 

of Palomar College (Anderson 2010b, 

pp. 1, 2). The R. crocea stand in Lopez 

Canyon is currently found within a 

relatively small preserve (roughly 

rectangular area 0.4 mi (0.6 km) by 0.5 

mi (0.8 km)) that is contiguous with 

suitable Hermes copper butterfly habitat 

in Del Mar Mesa where development is 

ongoing. This stand of R. crocea is likely 

all that remains of what was once a 

wider distribution, encompassing the 

community of Mira Mesa and the 

western portion of Miramar Naval Air 

Station (per Thorne’s 1963 map, p. 147). 

Although a significant amount of 

habitat has been lost due to 

development throughout the range of 

Hermes copper butterfly within the 

United States, the remaining currently 

occupied population areas are protected 

from destruction by development due to 

their presence on federally owned 

lands, on lands conserved under 

regional habitat conservation plans, or 

on lands subject to local resource 

protection ordinances in San Diego 

County (approximately 66 percent of the 

total area currently occupied by Hermes 

copper butterfly populations occurs on 

federal and non-federal conserved 

lands; see Figure 1 above) and the 

remaining 34 percent of occupied 

habitat occurs on lands subject to local 

resource protection ordinances in San 

Diego County. Our GIS analysis 

indicates that of the total conserved area 

discussed above (66 percent of all 

occupied areas), approximately 27 

percent (encompassing portions of 10 

populations) is located within 

established regional habitat 

conservation plan preserve lands (see 

Factor D San Diego Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP) 

discussion below), approximately 38 

percent (encompassing portions of 7 

populations) falls within U.S. Forest 

Service lands, and approximately 1 

percent (encompassing portions of 3 

populations) falls within Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) land. These 

lands are therefore afforded protection 

from development. Additionally, as 

described in Factor D below, the County 

of San Diego now has in place two 

ordinances that restrict new 

development or other proposed projects 

within sensitive habitats. The Biological 

Mitigation Ordinance of the County of 

San Diego Subarea Plan (County of San 

Diego, 1998b, Ord. Nos. 8845, 9246) 

regulates development within coastal 

sage scrub and mixed chaparral habitats 

that currently support portions of 10 

extant Hermes copper butterfly 

populations on non-Federal land within 

the boundaries of the County’s MSCP 

subarea plan. The County of San Diego 

Resource Protection Ordinance (County 

of San Diego 2007) restricts 

development within coastal sage scrub 

and mixed chaparral habitats that 

currently support all extant Hermes 

copper butterfly populations on nonFederal lands throughout the county. 

These ordinances provide some 

regulatory measures of protection for the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20925 

remaining 34 percent of extant Hermes 

copper butterfly habitat throughout the 

species occupied range. Although past 

development in occupied Hermes 

copper butterfly habitat resulted in a 

substantial number of extirpations of 

Hermes copper butterfly populations, 

restrictions are in place to limit 

development and the corresponding 

destruction and modification of Hermes 

copper butterfly habitat in the future. 

Therefore, we do not believe future 

development alone will significantly 

reduce or fragment remaining Hermes 

copper butterfly habitat on non-federal 

lands. However, as discussed below 

under ‘‘Habitat Fragmentation,’’ we 

believe that the combined impacts of 

existing development, limited future 

small-scale development, existing 

dispersal barriers, and megafires could 

further fragment Hermes copper 

butterfly habitat and threaten the 

species. Within U.S. Forest Service 

lands, we anticipate that future 

development, if any, will be limited, 

and the Forest Service has incorporated 

measures to address threats to Hermes 

copper butterfly and its habitat as it 

implements specific activities within 

forest lands (see Factor D below for 

additional discussion). The very limited 

number of Hermes copper butterfly 

populations within BLM lands are 

unlikely to face future development 

pressure. Therefore, we conclude that 

Hermes copper butterfly is not currently 

threatened by habitat loss due to future 

development alone. 

Wildfire 

The historical fire regime in southern 

California likely was characterized by 

many small lightning-ignited fires in the 

summer and a few, infrequent large fires 

in the fall of varying fire intensity 

(Keeley and Fotheringham 2003, p. 242– 

243). These infrequent, large, highintensity wildfires, so-called ‘‘megafires’’ 

(greater than 123,553 ac (50,000 ha) in 

size), burned the landscape long before 

Europeans settled the Pacific coast 

(Keeley and Zedler 2009, p. 90). As 

such, modern fire regimes in southern 

California ‘‘have much in common with 

historical regimes’’ (Keeley and Zedler 

2009, p. 69). While some researchers 

claim that the fire regime of chaparral 

growing in adjacent Baja California is 

not affected by megafires due to a lack 

of fire suppression activities (cf. 

Minnich and Chou 1997, Minnich 

2001), Keeley and Zedler (2009, p. 86) 

believe that the fire regime in Baja 

California similarly consists of ‘‘small 

fires punctuated at periodic intervals by 

large fire events.’’ The current fire 

regime in southern California consists of 

numerous small fires that are 

periodically impacted by megafires that 

are generally driven by extreme ‘‘Santa 

Ana’’ weather conditions of high 

temperatures, low humidity, and strong 

erratic winds (Keeley and Zedler 2009, 

p. 90). The primary difference between 

the current fire regime and historical 

fire regimes in southern California is 

that human-induced or anthropogenic 

ignitions have increased the frequency 

of fires, and in particular, megafires, far 

above historical levels. While this 

change may not have demonstrably 

affected the nectar sources of Hermes 

copper butterfly in San Diego County, 

especially within chaparral (Franklin et 

al. 2004, p. 701), frequent fires open up 

the landscape, particularly coastal sage 

scrub, making the habitat more 

vulnerable to invasive, nonnative plants 

(Keeley et al. 2005, p. 2117). However 

the primary concern with frequent 

megafires is the Hermes copper butterfly 

mortality associated with these 

extensive and intense events (see Factor 

E discussion below) which precludes 

recolonization of burned areas by 

Hermes copper butterfly. 

The significance of this concern can 

be seen in the current distribution of the 

species in southern California. Analysis 

of GIS information indicates 

approximately 66 percent of the extant 

occurrences are found within the 

footprint of the 1970 Laguna Fire, which 

Minnich and Chou (1997, p. 240) 

reported last burned in 1920. In 

contrast, the areas north and south of 

the extant Hermes copper butterfly 

occurrences reburned several times 

between 2001 and 2007 (Keeley et al. 

2009, pp. 287, 293). We examined maps 

of current high fire threat areas in San 

Diego County based on recent reports by 

the Forest Area Safety Task Force (Jones 

2008, p. 1; SANDAG 2010, p. 1). Areas 

identified as most vulnerable include all 

occupied and potentially occupied 

Hermes copper butterfly habitats in San 

Diego County within the species’ known 

historical range, with the exception of 

Black Mountain, Van Dam Peak, Lopez 

Canyon, and the unburned southern 

portion of Mission Trails Park. In light 

of the recent spate of droughtinfluenced wildfires in southern 

California, especially the 2007 fires, a 

future megafire affecting most or all of 

the area burned by the Laguna Fire in 

1970 (40-year chaparral) is likely to 

occur and would pose a significant 

threat to Hermes copper butterfly in the 

United States because it would 

encompass the majority of extant 

populations (see Factor E below for 

direct mortality effects discussion). 

As described in our August 8, 2006, 

90-day finding (71 FR 44966), Rhamnus 

crocea are ‘‘obligate resprouters’’ after 

fires and are resilient to frequent burns 

(Keeley 1998, p. 258). Additionally, 

although Keeley and Fotheringham 

(2003, p. 244) indicated that continued 

habitat disturbance, such as fire, will 

result in conversion of native 

shrublands to nonnative grasslands, 

Keeley (2004, p. 7) also noted that 

invasive, nonnative plants will not 

typically displace obligate resprouting 

plant species in mesic shrublands that 

burn once every 10 years. Therefore, 

because R. crocea is an obligate 

resprouter, it will likely recover in those 

areas that retain this burn frequency. 

Specific information regarding Hermes 

copper butterfly’s primary nectar source 

(Eriogonum fasciculatum (California 

buckwheat)) is less understood. 

Eriogonum fasciculatum is a facultative 

seeder and high proportions of this 

nectar source are likely killed by fire, 

and densities are reduced the following 

year within burned areas (Zedler et al. 

1983, p. 814); however, E. fasciculatum 

does show minimal resprouting 

capability (approximately 10 percent) if 

individuals are young (Keeley 2006, p. 

375). The extent of invasion of 

nonnative plants and type conversion in 

areas specifically inhabited by Hermes 

copper butterfly are unknown. However, 

information clearly indicates that 

wildfire results in at least temporary 

reductions in suitable habitat for 

Hermes copper butterfly and may result 

in lower densities of E. fasciculatum 

(Zedler et al. 1983, p. 814; Keeley 2006, 

p. 375; Marschalek and Klein 2010, p. 

728). In areas where R. crocea is capable 

of resprouting, the quantity of E. 

fasciculatum nectar source necessary to 

support a persisting Hermes copper 

butterfly population may be temporarily 

unavailable due to recent fire impacts. 

If areas are repeatedly burned, E. 

fasciculatum will not have the time 

necessary to become reestablished, 

rendering the habitat unsuitable for 

Hermes copper butterfly (Marschalek 

and Klein 2010, p. 728). Increased fire 

frequency may also pose a threat to 

Hermes copper butterfly through loss of 

host plant and nectar source habitat, 

and fire management plans are not 

expected to provide protection from 

megafires such as those that occurred in 

2003 and 2007. Based on the above, we 

consider wildfire, specifically megafires 

that encompass vast areas and are 

increasing in frequency, a significant 

threat to Hermes copper butterfly. 

Habitat Fragmentation 

Habitat fragmentation can result in 

smaller, more vulnerable Hermes copper 

butterfly populations (see Factor E 

discussion below). The presence of 

suitable habitat on which Hermes 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20926 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

copper butterflies depend often 

determines the size and range of the 

local population. Wildfires and past 

development have caused habitat 

fragmentation that separates 

populations and inhibits movement by 

creating a gap in area that Hermes 

copper butterflies are not capable of 

traversing. The connectivity of habitat 

occupied by a butterfly population is 

not defined by host plant distribution at 

the scale of host plant stands or patches, 

but rather by adult butterfly movement 

that results in interbreeding (see Service 

2003, pp. 22, 162–165). Any loss of 

resource contiguity on the ground that 

does not affect butterfly movement, 

such as burned vegetation, may degrade 

habitat, but may not fragment habitat. 

Therefore, in order for habitat to be 

fragmented, movement must be 

prevented by a barrier, or the distance 

between remaining host plants where 

larvae develop must be greater than 

adult butterflies will move to mate or 

deposit eggs. Genetic analysis 

(Deutschman et al. 2010; p. 16) 

indicates that butterflies can show 

differentiation even when close in 

proximity, presumably due to physical 

barriers that may be a result of 

development or a landscape feature (i.e., 

the three McGinty Mountain sites that 

are on opposite sides of the mountain 

may be separated by topography). 

Alternately, sampling locations that are 

not close have shown little genetic 

differentiation, indicating that 

butterflies can also disperse long 

distances under the right conditions. 

Sampling at one location before and 

after a fire found genetically 

differentiated groups. Deutschman et al. 

(2010, p. 16) concluded their findings 

supported the idea that Hermes copper 

butterfly individuals are capable of 

long-distance movement, but developed 

areas and natural landscape features 

may enhance or restrict dispersal. It is 

important to note that although 

movement may be possible, the habitat 

must be suitable at the time Hermes 

copper butterflies arrive to ensure 

successful recolonization. 

As described in our 90-day finding 

published in 2010 (75 FR 23658, May 4, 

2010) Hermes copper butterfly habitat 

has become fragmented by both past 

urban development (permanently) and 

wildfires. Comparison of Hermes copper 

butterfly occurrences and host plant 

distribution with mapped wildfire 

perimeters indicates that wildfires cause 

short-term fragmentation of habitat, and, 

historically, Hermes copper butterfly 

habitat in San Diego County has been 

fragmented and lost due to the 

progression of development over the last 

50 years. Analysis of the Hermes copper 

butterfly populations indicates that in 

the northern portion of the U.S. range, 

the habitat has been fragmented (and 

lost) permanently by development and 

further fragmented temporally by 

wildfires, resulting in extirpation of at 

least four Hermes copper butterfly 

populations (see Table 1 above). As 

described in the Background section 

above and Factor E below, two historical 

Hermes copper butterfly populations 

(Rancho Santa Fe and Van Dam Peak) in 

the northern portion of the range have 

been lost since the year 2000, 

presumably because the habitat became 

isolated to an extent that connectivity 

with other populations was lost. Neither 

the Rancho Santa Fe habitat area nor 

Van Dam Peak habitat area is expected 

to be recolonized because the distance 

to the next nearest source population 

(13 mi (20 km) and 7 mi (11 km), 

respectively) exceeds the dispersal 

capability of the species. In the southern 

portion of the range, Lopez Canyon and 

the extant portion of Mission Trails Park 

are both isolated (7 mi (11 km) 

separation) from other extant 

populations by development and 

burned areas that are no longer likely 

occupied. Although the Mission Trails 

Park population remains extant this 

population was likely reduced up to 74 

percent by the 2003 fire, and remaining 

unburned habitat is surrounded by 

development, functionally isolating it 

from any potential source populations 

thought to be extant (see Figure 1 

above). While we do not expect future 

development alone to threaten Hermes 

copper butterfly habitat, we believe that 

the combined impacts attributable to 

wildfire and small scale development 

may fragment habitat further and hence, 

threaten the species’ continued 

existence. Based on the above, we 

consider habitat fragmentation, due to 

the combined impact of existing 

development, possible future (limited) 

development, existing dispersal barriers, 

and megafires, a significant threat to 

Hermes copper butterfly. 

Summary of Factor A 

Based on the above information, we 

consider Hermes copper butterfly to be 

threatened by the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species habitat or 

range. Specifically, we consider Hermes 

copper butterfly threatened by habitat 

fragmentation and wildfire. The 

combination of habitat fragmentation (as 

a result of past and potential limited 

future urban development), existing 

dispersal barriers, and megafires (that 

encompass vast areas and are increasing 

in frequency) that fragment, limit, and 

degrade Hermes copper butterfly habitat 

threaten the species with extirpation 

throughout its range. These threats are 

evidenced by the loss and isolation of 

many populations throughout the range; 

those remaining extant populations fall 

within areas of high megafire risk. Thus, 

we consider threats under this factor to 

be significant. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

We found two Internet postings 

(accessed in June 2004) offering to sell 

specimens of Hermes copper butterfly 

(Martin 2004, pers. comm.). We found 

no evidence that Hermes copper 

butterflies, whole or in parts, were being 

used in a commercial ‘‘butterfly essence’’ 

process (Morning Star Essences 2006, 

pers. comm.) and we have no other 

information to indicate that other 

commercial business activities are a 

threat to Hermes copper butterfly. 

Neither of these previously viewed Web 

sites offered Hermes copper butterfly for 

sale during a more recent search 

(November 22, 2010), nor did we locate 

any additional commercially available 

specimens. We found no other 

information to indicate Hermes copper 

butterfly is used for commercial, 

scientific, or educational purposes. 

Therefore, based on our review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we do not consider 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes a current threat to Hermes 

copper butterfly. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Disease 

We evaluated the potential of disease 

to threaten Hermes copper butterfly 

rangewide and found no information 

indicating disease to be current threat to 

Hermes copper butterfly. 

Predation 

Predation (including parasitism) is a 

factor that is known to cause mortality 

in butterflies, and therefore could 

potentially threaten any butterfly 

species. Faulkner and Klein (2005, p. 

26) stated that ‘‘no papers have reported 

any parasites or predators for the 

Hermes copper butterfly, though they 

obviously exist.’’ Birds may consume 

Hermes copper butterfly larvae, 

although we are not aware of any data 

that indicate bird predation is a 

significant threat to Hermes copper 

butterfly. Furthermore, heavy predation 

of adult insects and their progeny is a 

common ecological phenomenon, and 

most species have evolved under 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20927 

conditions where high mortality due to 

natural enemies has shaped their 

evolution (see Ehrlich et al. 1988). 

However, we found no information to 

indicate predation to be current threat to 

Hermes copper butterfly. 

Therefore, based on our review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we do not consider disease 

or predation a current threat to Hermes 

copper butterfly. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Act requires us to examine the 

adequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, with respect to threats, 

that may ameliorate the danger of 

Hermes copper butterfly becoming 

either endangered or threatened. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms that 

may have an effect on potential threats 

to Hermes copper butterfly can be 

placed into two general categories: (1) 

Federal mechanisms, and (2) State and 

local mechanisms. 

Federal Mechanisms 

There are five primary Federal 

regulatory mechanisms that we discuss 

below: the National Forest Management 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.); the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act; the 

Sikes Act as amended (16 U.S.C. 670a 

et seq.); the Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.); and 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

Under the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976, the U.S. 

Forest Service (Forest Service) is 

required to prepare a comprehensive 

land and natural resource management 

plan for each unit of the Forest Service, 

in accordance with NEPA’s procedural 

requirements, to guide the maintenance 

and use of resources within national 

forests. The plans require an 

interdisciplinary approach, including a 

provision providing for diversity for 

plant and animal communities (16 

U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). The Forest Service 

is currently operating under the 

transition provisions of the 2000 

Planning Rule (65 FR 67514; November 

9, 2000) as an interim measure until a 

new planning rule is issued (see 74 FR 

67059; December 18, 2009). The 2000 

rule allows forests to develop, revise 

and amend forest plans using the 

procedures of the 1982 Rule (47 FR 

43037; September 30, 1982). All existing 

forest plans have been developed using 

the 1982 Planning Rule procedures, 

including the Cleveland National Forest 

Plan. 

In preparing the Cleveland National 

Forest (CNF) Plan, the Forest Service 

evaluated and identified Hermes copper 

butterfly as a species of concern and 

then evaluated this species relative to its 

potential of risk from Forest Service 

activities and plan decisions in its 2005 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(USFS 2005). Hermes copper butterfly, 

along with 148 other species, was 

defined as a ‘‘species-at-risk’’ (USFS 

2005, Appendix B, p. 36), requiring a 

further individual viability assessment. 

The subsequent threat category 

identified for Hermes copper butterfly 

was ‘‘5’’ or ‘‘Uncommon, narrow 

endemic, disjunct, or peripheral in the 

plan area with substantial threats to 

persistence or distribution from Forest 

Service activities’’ (USFS 2005, 

Appendix B, p. 43). The specific threat 

associated with Hermes copper butterfly 

and Forest Service management 

activities is described as ‘‘Prescribed fire 

or fuel reduction projects in habitat 

(affecting host plant, Rhamnus crocea)’’ 

(USFS 2005, Appendix B, p. 52). There 

are approximately 7,860 acres (ac) 

(3,181 hectares (ha)) of extant Hermes 

copper butterfly habitat (encompassing 

7 populations) within the CNF and 

approximately 2,100 ac (850 ha) of 

Hermes copper butterfly habitat that has 

been extirpated or is of unknown status. 

The Forest Service incorporates 

measures into its planning efforts to 

address identified threats as it 

implements specific activities on forest 

lands. As an example, in 2007, measures 

were included to protect Hermes copper 

butterfly habitat ahead of the Horsethief 

Fuels Reduction Project (Jennings 2007, 

pers. comm.). Although the proposed 

project has not yet been implemented, 

the recommendations of flagging and 

avoidance of all R. crocea bushes are 

standard management measures for 

relevant CNF activities (Winter 2010, 

pers. comm.). 

The CNF has also initiated two 

projects for restoration of habitat at 

Barber Mountain related to impacts 

from the Harris Fire (Metz 2010, pers. 

comm.). In an effort to restore nectar 

and host plants at this site, seeds from 

both Eriogonum fasciculatum and 

Rhamnus crocea plants have been 

collected locally and E. fasciculatum 

seeds have already been planted (Metz 

2010, pers. comm.). 

Because fires, particularly recent 

wildfires (megafires), have been 

identified as a factor affecting the 

distribution of this species, the CNF has 

been monitoring Hermes copper 

butterfly populations in burned and 

unburned areas of CNF to assist in 

monitoring the recovery and 

management of this species on its lands 

(HDR and E2M, 2009, p. 1). As part of 

the Forest Service’s approach to 

management of Hermes copper butterfly 

and its habitat, the Forest Service 

commissioned a 2009 survey to 

determine the current status of Hermes 

copper butterfly populations at eight 

locations in the Descanso Ranger 

District of the CNF. A total of 16 Hermes 

copper butterflies were observed at 12 

locations at 5 study sites (HDR and 

E2M, 2009, p. 11). The 2009 study 

concluded that the low number of 

observations were reflective of the ongoing recovery of Hermes copper 

butterfly habitats from the effects of 

wildfires, the precipitation pattern in 

Hermes copper butterfly habitat in 2009, 

and host plant health (HDR and E2M, 

2009, p. 25). 

Previous monitoring surveys 

conducted on CNF lands include a 2005 

survey for assessment of recolonization 

at Viejas Mountain, an area impacted by 

the Cedar Fire in 2003, in which no 

Hermes copper butterflies were 

observed (Klein 2005, pers. comm.). 

Additionally, a 2005 survey at Barber 

Mountain, an area that had not recently 

burned, revealed 95 specimens of 

Hermes copper butterflies (Faulkner 

2005, pers. comm.), while a wider 2008 

survey of the area after the Witch Fire 

in 2007 found scattered populations 

with only two sites containing more 

than a single specimen (Faulkner 2008 

pers. comm.). Locations were marked 

for revegetation with Eriogonum 

fasciculatum and Rhamnus crocea in an 

attempt to extend the unburned 

chaparral habitat so as to expand the 

existing Hermes copper butterfly 

populations or establish new 

populations (Faulkner 2008, pers. 

comm.). 

Recent fire events appear to have 

negatively affected the current 

occupancy of Hermes copper butterfly at 

the surveyed locations on CNF lands. 

The 2009 survey results indicate that of 

the study sites affected by fires in 2003 

and 2007, Hermes copper butterfly was 

only found at one site (North Descanso), 

an area located on the southern edge of 

the area affected by the 2003 Cedar Fire 

and adjacent to unburned private lands, 

which the authors speculate contain a 

source population of Hermes copper 

butterflies (HDR and E2M, 2009, p. 25). 

The current monitoring, management 

efforts, and conservation measures 

implemented and planned by the Forest 

Service indicate that the CNF is actively 

working towards conservation of 

Hermes copper butterfly and its habitat. 

The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) 

governs the management of public lands 

under the jurisdiction of the BLM. The 

legislative goals of FLPMA are to 

establish public land policy; to establish 

guidelines for its [BLM’s] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20928 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

administration; and to provide for the 

management, protection, development 

and enhancement of the public lands. 

While FLPMA generally directs that 

public lands be managed on the basis of 

multiple use, the statute also directs that 

such lands be managed to ‘‘protect the 

quality of scientific, scenic, historical, 

ecological, environmental, air and 

atmospheric, water resource, and 

archeological values; * * * [ to] 

preserve and protect certain public 

lands in their natural condition; [and to] 

provide food and habitat for fish and 

wildlife * * *.’’ (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8)). 

Although the BLM has a multiple-use 

mandate under the FLPMA which 

allows for grazing, mining, and off-road 

vehicle use, the BLM also has the ability 

under the FLPMA to establish and 

implement special management areas 

such as Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, wilderness areas, research 

areas, etc. BLM’s South Coast Resource 

Management Plan covers the San Diego 

County area. Approximately 1 percent, 

or 411 ac (166 ha) of the total Hermes 

copper butterfly habitat occupied by 

extant populations (3 populations in 

this case) occur within the BLM owned 

lands. An additional approximately 289 

ac (117 ha) of Hermes copper butterfly 

habitat that supported populations 

believed to have been extirpated or that 

are of unknown status (encompassing 3 

populations) also occurs on BLM lands. 

Hermes copper butterfly was a species 

considered but not addressed in the 

BLM’s South Coast Resource 

Management Plan (SCRMP; BLM 1994, 

p. 76) but many components of Hermes 

copper butterfly habitat (coastal sage 

scrub and chaparral) are contained 

within the SCRMP planning area, and 

receive some regulatory protection 

under the plan. Approximately half of 

Hermes copper butterfly habitat 

supporting extant populations on BLM 

lands, a 201 ac (81 ha) portion of the 

Descanso South population (see Table 1 

and Figure 1 above; Map #31) falls 

within the Pine Creek Wilderness Area 

and therefore benefits from BLM’s 

wilderness protection policies. The Pine 

Creek Wilderness Area is managed in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

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

et seq.). The Wilderness Act of 1964 

strictly limits use of wilderness areas, 

imposing restrictions on use of vehicles, 

new developments, chainsaw use, 

mountain bike use, leasing, and mining, 

in order to protect the natural habitats 

of the areas, maintain species diversity, 

and enhance biological values. Lands 

acquired by BLM within wilderness area 

boundaries become part of the 

designated wilderness area and are 

managed in accordance with all 

provisions of the Wilderness Act and 

applicable laws. We believe existing 

BLM regulations provide adequate 

protection from the threat of 

development described in Factor A 

above, but not from mortality and 

habitat fragmentation due to megafire as 

described in Factors A above and E 

below. However, megafire is not a threat 

that is susceptible to reduction or 

elimination by regulatory mechanisms. 

The Sikes Act requires the 

Department of Defense to develop and 

implement integrated natural resources 

management plans (INRMPs) for 

military installations across the United 

States. We are not aware of any 

currently extant Hermes copper 

butterfly populations on military 

installations; however there are 

historical Hermes copper butterfly 

observation locations and potential 

Hermes copper butterfly habitat (see 

Table 1 and Figure 1 above, Map #40) 

on Miramar Naval Air Station and the 

adjacent Mission Gorge Recreational 

Facility (MGRF) (also known as Admiral 

Baker Field). Through the 2002 Naval 

Base San Diego INRMP, which is 

currently under revision, the Navy 

manages its open space areas using an 

ecosystem-level approach that includes 

invasive species removal, habitat 

restoration and enhancement, and 

natural resource inventories (Stathos 

2010, pers. comm.). In the 2002 INRMP, 

the Navy identified the following focus 

areas for management actions: Wildlife 

conservation and management, rare 

wildlife species, exotic vegetation 

control, habitat restoration, and fire 

management (U.S. Navy 2002, section 3, 

pp. 37–40 and 45–47). Hermes copper 

butterfly is not identified as a rare 

species in the INRMP; however, some 

existing management recommendations 

and actions may also be beneficial to 

Hermes copper butterfly, if it is 

rediscovered on Navy lands. The 

INRMPs are reviewed every year by 

military installations and modified as 

needed, and are reviewed at least every 

5 years with the Service and States. 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

of 2003 includes the first meaningful 

statutory incentive for the U.S. Forest 

Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management to give consideration to 

prioritized fuel reduction projects 

identified by local communities. In 

order for a community to take advantage 

of this opportunity, a Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) must 

be prepared. The process of developing 

a CWPP can help a community identify 

and clarify priorities for the protection 

of life, property and critical 

infrastructure in the wildland-urban 

interface (WUI) (Fire Safe Council of 

San Diego County 2011). See our 

discussion of CWPPs below under the 

State and Local Regulations subsection. 

Combined, the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act and the Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan emphasize the 

need for federal, state and local agencies 

to work collaboratively with 

communities in developing hazardous 

fuel reduction projects, and place 

priority on treatment areas identified by 

the communities themselves in a CWPP 

(Fire Safe Council of San Diego County 

2011). While these regulations reduce 

the impact of wildfire to some extent, 

especially with regard to human 

property and safety, the impact of 

megafires on wildlands is not a threat 

that is susceptible to elimination by 

such regulatory mechanisms. 

All Federal agencies are required to 

adhere to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 for projects 

they fund, authorize, or carry out. The 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulations for implementing NEPA (40 

CFR parts 1500–1518) state that in their 

environmental impact statements 

agencies shall include a discussion on 

the environmental impacts of the 

various project alternatives (including 

the proposed action), any adverse 

environmental effects which cannot be 

avoided, and any irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources 

involved (40 CFR part 1502). NEPA 

itself is a disclosure law that provides 

an opportunity for the public to submit 

comments on the particular project and 

propose other conservation measures 

that may directly benefit listed species; 

however, it does not require subsequent 

minimization or mitigation measures by 

the Federal agency involved. Although 

Federal agencies may include 

conservation measures for listed species 

as a result of the NEPA process, Hermes 

copper butterfly may be provided 

indirect protections due to its cooccurrence with listed species. Any 

such measures are typically voluntary in 

nature and are not required by the 

statute. Additionally, activities on nonFederal lands are subject to NEPA if 

there is a Federal nexus. 

As stated above, land and resource 

management plans prepared by the 

Forest Service and BLM must be 

developed in accordance with NEPA 

requirements and, as noted above, the 

Forest Service prepared an 

environmental impact statement for its 

2005 Land Management Plans 

(including the Cleveland National 

Forest Plan) and will be required to 

meet NEPA requirements in preparing 

its revised plan. Similarly, the U.S. 

Navy must meet the procedural 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20929 

requirements of NEPA in developing its 

INRMPs. 

State and Local Mechanisms 

The California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 

21000–21177) and the CEQA Guidelines 

(California Code of Regulations, Title 

14, Division 6, Chapter 3, sections 

15000–15387) requires State and local 

agencies to identify the significant 

environmental impacts of their actions 

and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, 

if feasible. CEQA applies to projects 

proposed to be undertaken or requiring 

approval by State and local government 

agencies and the lead agency must 

complete the environmental review 

process required by CEQA, including 

conducting an initial study to identify 

the environmental impacts of the project 

and determine whether the identified 

impacts are ‘‘significant.’’ If significant 

impacts are determined, then an 

environmental impact report must be 

prepared to provide State and local 

agencies and the general public with 

detailed information on the potentially 

significant environmental effects 

(CERES 2010). ‘‘Thresholds of 

Significance’’ are comprehensive criteria 

used to define environmental significant 

impacts based on quantitative and 

qualitative standards and include 

impacts to biological resources such as 

candidate, sensitive, or special status 

species identified in local or regional 

plans, policies, or regulations, or by the 

California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG) or the Service; or impacts to any 

riparian habitat or other sensitive 

natural community identified in local or 

regional plans, policies, regulations or 

by the CDFG or Service (Appendix G, 

CEQA 2010). Defining these significance 

thresholds helps ensure a ‘‘rational basis 

for significance determinations’’ and 

provides support to the final 

determination and appropriate revisions 

or mitigation actions to a project in 

order to develop a mitigated negative 

declaration rather than an 

environmental impact report 

(Governor’s Office of Planning and 

Research, 1994, p. 5). 

The County of San Diego has 

developed the Guidelines for 

Determining Significance and Report 

Format and Content Requirements— 

Biological Resources (Guidelines) 

(County of San Diego, 2010) to review 

discretionary projects and 

environmental documents pursuant to 

the CEQA. The Guidelines provide 

guidance for evaluating adverse 

environmental effects that a proposed 

project may have on biological resources 

and are consulted during the evaluation 

of any biological resource pursuant to 

CEQA. Included in the specific 

guidelines, under Special Species 

Status, is a determination as to whether 

a project will impact occupied Hermes 

copper butterfly habitat. Section 4.1 K 

(p. 14) of the guidelines states: 

‘‘Though not state or federally listed, 

the Hermes copper meets the definition 

of endangered under CEQA Sec. 15380 

because its ‘survival and reproduction 

in the wild are in immediate jeopardy 

from one or more causes, including loss 

of habitat, change in habitat, 

overexploitation, predation, 

competition, disease, or other factors.’ 

The County’s determination that the 

Hermes copper meets the definition of 

endangered under CEQA is based on the 

loss of Hermes copper populations by 

development and wildfire, and the 

review of published and unpublished 

literature. Interim guidelines for 

surveying, assessing impacts, and 

designing mitigation for Hermes copper 

are provided in Attachment C of the 

Report Format and Content 

Requirements—Biological Resources.’’ 

(County of San Diego, 2010, p. 14). 

The newly added Hermes copper 

butterfly section of the guidelines offers 

a proactive requirement for project 

review under CEQA that can provide a 

specific protective measure to the 

species and its habitat. 

The San Diego Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP) is a 

subregional habitat conservation plan 

(HCP) and Natural Community 

Conservation Plan (NCCP) made up of 

several subarea plans that have been in 

place for more than a decade. Under the 

umbrella of the MSCP, each of the 12 

participating jurisdictions is required to 

prepare a subarea plan that implements 

the goals of the MSCP within that 

particular jurisdiction. The MSCP 

covers 582,243 ac (235,625 ha) and the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan 

covers 252,132 ac (102,035 ha) of 

unincorporated county lands in the 

southwestern portion of the MSCP plan 

area. The County subarea plan is 

implemented in part by the Biological 

Mitigation Ordinance (BMO), which 

outlines specific project design criteria 

and species and habitat protection and 

mitigation requirements for projects 

within subarea boundaries (see MSCP 

Subarea Plan, County of San Diego 

2007, and Biological Mitigation 

Ordinance (Ord. Nos. 8845, 9246), 

County of San Diego 1998b). All projects 

within the County’s subarea plan 

boundaries must comply with both the 

MSCP requirements and the County’s 

policies under CEQA. Hermes copper 

butterfly is not a covered species under 

any MSCP subarea plans; however, the 

protections afforded by the BMO 

indirectly benefit the species by 

establishing mitigation ratios and 

project development conditions that 

restrict development within coastal sage 

scrub and mixed chaparral habitats. Of 

the 17 currently extant Hermes copper 

butterfly populations, the BMO affords 

some indirect protection to the 10 that 

fall all or partially within the County’s 

subarea plan boundaries. 

The County of San Diego Resource 

Protection Ordinance (RPO) (County of 

San Diego 2007) applies to all nonfederal lands within the County located 

within and outside of the County of San 

Diego subarea plan boundaries. The 

RPO imposes restrictions on 

development to reduce impacts to 

natural resources including sensitive 

habitat lands. Sensitive habitat lands are 

those that support unique vegetation 

communities or those that are either 

necessary to support a viable population 

of sensitive species, are critical to the 

proper functioning of a balanced natural 

ecosystem, or which serve as a 

functioning wildlife corridor (County of 

San Diego, 2007, p. 3). They can include 

areas that contain maritime succulent 

scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, 

coastal and desert dunes, calcicolous 

scrub, and maritime chaparral, among 

others. Impacts to RPO sensitive habitat 

lands, which include lands with 

potential host and nectar plant habitat 

for Hermes copper butterfly (i.e., scrub 

and chaparral), are only allowed when 

all feasible measures have been applied 

to reduce impacts and when mitigation 

provides an equal or greater benefit to 

the affected species (County of San 

Diego, 2007, p. 13). 

The California Department of Forestry 

and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is an 

emergency response and resource 

protection department. CAL FIRE 

protects lives, property and natural 

resources from fire, and protects and 

preserves timberlands, wildlands, and 

urban forests. The CAL FIRES’s varied 

programs work together to plan 

protection strategies incorporating 

concepts of the National Fire Plan, the 

California Fire Plan, individual CAL 

FIRE Unit Fire Plans, and Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs). Fire 

Plans outline the fire situation within 

each CAL FIRE Unit, and CWPPs do the 

same for communities (CALFIRE 2011a, 

p. 1; County of San Diego 2011a). Each 

plan identifies prevention measures to 

reduce risks, informs and involves the 

local communities in the area, and 

provides a framework to diminish 

potential wildfire losses and implement 

all applicable fire management 

regulations and policies (CALFIRE 

2011b; County of San Diego 2011a). 

Planning includes other state, federal 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

and local government agencies as well 

as Fire Safe Councils (CALFIRE 2011a, 

p. 1). Cooperative efforts via contracts 

and agreements between state, federal, 

and local agencies are essential to 

respond to wildland fires (CALFIRE 

2011a, p. 1). Because of these types of 

cooperative efforts, fire engines and 

crews from many different agencies may 

respond at the scene of an emergency 

(CALFIRE 2011a, p. 1); however 

CALFIRE typically takes the lead with 

regard to planning for megafire, 

prevention, management, and 

suppression, and CAL FIRE is in charge 

of incident command during a wildfire. 

The San Diego County Fire Authority 

(SDCFA), local governments, and CAL 

FIRE cooperatively protect 1.42 million 

acres of land with 54 fire stations 

throughout San Diego County (County 

of San Diego 2011b, p. 1). Wildfire 

management plans and associated 

actions can help to reduce the impacts 

of wildfire on natural resources, 

including Hermes copper butterfly, but 

their first priority is human health and 

safety. While these plans and associated 

measures ameliorate the impacts of 

wildfire to some extent, especially with 

regard to human property and safety, 

the impact of megafires on wildlands is 

not a threat that is susceptible to 

elimination by such regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Summary of Factor D 

In summary, we considered the 

adequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to protect Hermes copper 

butterfly. On Forest Service lands, the 

Cleveland National Forest Plan 

addresses the conservation of natural 

resources, including Hermes copper 

butterfly, and specific management 

practices have been identified and are 

being implemented to conserve existing 

populations of Hermes copper butterfly 

and its habitat. Approximately 1 percent 

of Hermes copper butterfly habitat 

occurs on BLM lands and is afforded 

some protection through the South 

Coast Management Plan and Wilderness 

Area designation through management 

of habitat areas for listed and other 

sensitive species and land use 

limitation. Although the Navy has not 

recorded extant populations of Hermes 

copper butterfly on their lands in San 

Diego County, we believe the 

management measures identified in 

their INRMP for the Mission Gorge 

Recreational Facility provides an 

adequate protective mechanism for 

existing coastal sage habitat suitable for 

Hermes copper butterfly. Hermes copper 

butterfly and its habitat may also receive 

protection under NEPA as land 

management plans, INRMPs, and 

activity level plans are developed on 

Forest Service, BLM and U.S. Navy 

lands either occupied by or that contain 

suitable habitat for the species. 

On State and county lands occupied 

by Hermes copper butterfly or 

containing its habitat, we believe the 

requirements of CEQA and the two 

County ordinances are adequate 

regulatory mechanisms that protect the 

species and its habitat from 

development related impacts. The 

Biological Mitigation Ordinance of the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan and 

the County of San Diego Resource 

Protection Ordinance impose 

restrictions on development within 

coastal sage scrub and mixed chaparral 

habitats that support half of the 

historical distribution of Hermes copper 

butterfly populations. Although Federal, 

State, and local regulatory mechanisms 

help to reduce wildfire impacts, 

primarily to property and human safety, 

they do not adequately protect Hermes 

copper butterfly from direct mortality or 

habitat fragmentation due to megafires. 

However, we do not consider the impact 

of megafire on wildlands to be a threat 

that is susceptible to elimination by 

regulatory mechanisms. 

Therefore, based on our review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we do not consider the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to be a threat to Hermes 

copper butterfly. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Wildfire 

As discussed in the Background 

section and Factor A discussions above, 

wildfire can result in temporal loss of 

Hermes copper butterfly habitat. 

However, the most significant threat 

posed by wildfire to Hermes copper 

butterfly is the direct loss (i.e., 

mortality) of butterflies associated with 

extensive and intense fire events. The 

magnitude of this threat is increased by 

the periodic occurrence of megafires, 

which are typically created by extreme 

‘‘Santa Ana’’ weather conditions of high 

temperatures, low humidity, and strong 

erratic winds (see Background section 

and Factor A’s wildfire discussion 

above; Keeley and Zedler 2009, p. 90). 

Human-induced or anthropogenic 

ignitions have increased the frequency 

of fire far above historical levels (Keeley 

and Fotheringham 2003, p. 240). 

Recolonization of burned areas by 

Hermes copper butterfly can be 

precluded when fires, and particularly 

megafires, occur too frequently. The 

significance of this concern can be seen 

in the current distribution of the species 

in southern California; analysis of GIS 

information indicates approximately 66 

percent of the extant occurrences are 

found within the footprint of the 1970 

Laguna Fire, which Minnich and Chou 

(1997, p. 240) reported last burned in 

1920. In contrast, the areas north and 

south of the extant Hermes copper 

butterfly occurrences burned several 

times from 2001 to 2007 (Keeley et al. 

2009, pp. 287, 293). A single megafire 

burning most or all of the 40-year old 

chaparral in the footprint of the Laguna 

fire would likely imperil the species in 

the United States (see Figure 1 above). 

Additionally, as discussed in the 

Background section above, the 2003 

Otay and Cedar fires and the 2007 

Harris and Witch fires in particular have 

negatively impacted the species, 

resulting in or contributing to the 

extirpation of 9 of 35 populations (see 

Table 1 above). 

It is well-documented that wildfires 

that occur in occupied Hermes copper 

butterfly habitat result in loss of Hermes 

copper butterflies (Klein and Faulkner 

2003, pp. 96, 97; Marschalek and Klein 

2010, pp. 4, 5). The butterflies rarely 

survive wildfire because life stages of 

the butterfly inhabit host plant foliage, 

and Rhamnus crocea typically burns to 

the ground and resprouts from stumps 

(Deutschman et al. 2010, p. 8; 

Marschalek and Klein 2010, p. 8). This 

results in at least the temporal loss of 

both the habitat (until the R. crocea and 

nectar source regrowth occurs) and the 

presence of butterflies (occupancy) in 

the area. Wildfires can also leave 

patches of unburned occupied habitat 

that are functionally isolated (e.g., 

further than the dispersal distance of the 

butterfly) from other occupied habitat. 

Furthermore, large fires can eliminate 

source populations before previously 

burned habitat can be recolonized, and 

can result in long-term or permanent 

loss of butterfly populations. For 

example, in Mission Trails Park the 

7,303 ac (2596 ha) ‘‘Assist #59’’ Fire in 

1981 and the smaller 126 ac (51 ha) 

‘‘Assist #14’’ Fire in 1983 (no significant 

overlap between fires), resulted in an 

approximate 18-year extirpation of the 

Mission Trails Park Hermes copper 

butterfly population (Klein and 

Faulkner 2003, pp. 96, 97). More recent 

examples include extirpations of the 

monitored Crestridge, Rancho Jamul, 

Anderson Road, Hollenbeck Canyon, 

and San Miguel Mountain populations, 

as well as other less-monitored 

populations (Marschalek and Klein 

2010, pp. 4, 5; Deutschman et al. 2010, 

p. 36). After the 2003 Cedar Fire, 

Hermes copper butterfly records at the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20931 

regularly monitored Crestridge 

population, once considered the largest 

and most robust population within the 

species’ range (Klein and Faulkner 2003, 

p. 86), were limited to presumably the 

same male for a 6-day period in 2005, 

and another single male observed in 

2007 (Marschalek and Klein 2010, p. 4; 

Deutschman et al. 2010, p. 33). 

Marschalek (2010a, p. 2) described how 

when his study ‘‘colonies’’ in the Rancho 

Jamul population were extirpated by fire 

in 2003, he discovered additional 

occupied habitat on the other side of a 

nearby firebreak in 2004; however the 

remaining population distribution was 

extirpated in the 2007 Harris Fire 

(Marschalek 2010a, p. 1). Data indicate 

all historical populations burned in both 

the 2003 and 2007 fires were extirpated 

except North Descanso, where record 

locations were within a narrow 

extension of the fire perimeter 

surrounded on three sides by unburned 

habitat (see Table 1 and Figure 1 above). 

We know this habitat was recolonized 

because genetic research determined the 

colonizing individuals were not related 

to those collected before the fire 

(Deutschman et al. 2010, p. 26). These 

facts underscore the importance of 

having available Hermes copper 

butterfly source populations to 

recolonize habitat after fire. As 

discussed in the Background section 

above, of the 35 known Hermes copper 

butterfly populations in 2000, 1 

northern Hermes copper butterfly 

population and 8 southern populations 

are believed to have been extirpated by 

fire or a combination of fire and 

development since 2003 (see Table 1 

above). 

As discussed above under Factor A, 

we examined maps of current high fire 

threat areas in San Diego County based 

on recent reports by the Forest Area 

Safety Task Force (Jones 2008; SANDAG 

2010). Areas identified as most 

vulnerable include all occupied and 

potentially occupied Hermes copper 

butterfly habitats in San Diego County 

within the species’ known historical 

range, with the exception of Black 

Mountain, Van Dam Peak, Lopez 

Canyon, and the unburned southern 

portion of Mission Trails Park. Nineteen 

potential source populations for 

recolonization of habitats burned in the 

past 10 years (extant or of unknown 

status) fall within a contiguous area that 

has not recently burned (southeastern 

populations in Figure 1), and where the 

threat of fire is considered high 

(SANDAG 2010). All except 3 of these 

potential source populations (North 

Descanso, Hartley Peak, and North 

Guatay Mountain) also fall within the 

174,026 ac (70,426 ha) 1970 Laguna Fire 

perimeter (similar in size to the 2003 

and 2007 fires), and the 3 that do not 

fall within the Laguna Fire perimeter 

fall partially within the 2003 and 2007 

fire perimeters. This analysis of current 

fire danger and fire history illustrates 

the potential for permanent loss of the 

majority, if not all, remaining butterfly 

populations should another large fire 

occur prior to recolonization of burned 

habitats (per discussion above, 

recolonization may not occur for up to 

18 years). As discussed by Marschalek 

and Klein (2010, p. 9) and Deutschman 

et al. (2010, p. 42), there is a risk that 

one or more wildfires could extirpate 

the majority of extant Hermes copper 

butterfly populations. Based on the 

above, we consider wildfire, specifically 

megafires that encompass vast areas and 

are increasing in frequency, a significant 

threat to Hermes copper butterfly. 

Vulnerability of Small and Isolated 

Populations 

Small population size, low population 

numbers, and population isolation are 

not necessarily independent factors that 

threaten a species. Typically, it is the 

combination of small size and number 

and isolation of populations in 

conjunction with other threats (such as 

the present or threatened destruction 

and modification of the species’ habitat 

or range) that may significantly increase 

the probability of species’ extinction. 

Population isolation renders smaller 

populations more vulnerable to 

stochastic extirpation. Small 

populations and isolation could also 

subject Hermes copper butterfly to 

genetic drift and restricted gene flow 

that may decrease genetic variability 

over time and could adversely affect 

species’ viability (Allee 1931, pp. 12–37; 

Stephens et al. 1999, pp. 185–190; 

Dennis 2002, pp. 389–401). The best 

available scientific information 

indicates adult Hermes copper butterfly 

densities have been reduced to low or 

no detectability, or occupancy has been 

entirely eliminated in some burned 

areas (for example Crestridge, see Factor 

A discussion above), and habitat has 

been fragmented and isolated by 

development (Deutschman et al. 2010, 

p. 33). As discussed in the Background 

section and Factor A discussion above, 

most remaining northern habitats are 

limited to the relatively isolated and 

fragmented undeveloped lands between 

the cities of San Marcos, Carlsbad, and 

Escondido and the community of 

Rancho Santa Fe. The nearest occupied 

Hermes copper butterfly location 

(Mission Trails) to the habitat ‘‘islands’’ 

containing the Black Mountain and Van 

Dam Peak observation locations are 

approximately 9 mi (14 km) and 7 mi 

(11 km) away, respectively, and 

separated by highly developed areas. 

Future recolonization of Hermes copper 

butterfly to these areas, which appear to 

contain suitable habitat, is not likely 

due to their isolation. One population 

isolated by development was extirpated 

due to the 2007 Witch Fire (Rancho 

Santa Fe), and a second isolated 

population was extirpated for unknown 

reasons (Van Dam Peak). As discussed 

above under Factor A, neither the 

Rancho Santa Fe habitat area nor the 

Van Dam Peak habitat area is expected 

to be recolonized because the distance 

to the next nearest source population 

exceeds the dispersal capability of the 

species. In the southern portion of the 

range, Lopez Canyon and the extant 

portion of Mission Trails Park are both 

isolated from other extant populations 

by development and burned areas that 

are no longer likely occupied. Although 

the Mission Trails Park population 

remains extant this population was 

likely reduced up to 74 percent by the 

2003 fire, and remaining unburned 

habitat is surrounded by development, 

functionally isolating it from any 

potential source populations thought to 

be extant (see Figure 1 above). 

Therefore, we consider the effects of 

restricted geographical range, 

population isolation, and reduced 

population size a significant threat to 

Hermes copper butterfly. 

Global Climate Change 

Evaluations by Parmesan and 

Galbraith (2004, pp. 1–2, 29–33) 

indicate whole ecosystems may be 

shifting northward and upward in 

elevation, or are otherwise being altered 

by differing climate tolerance among 

species within communities. Climate 

change may be causing changes in the 

arrangement and community 

composition of occupied habitat 

patches. Current climate change 

predictions for terrestrial areas in the 

Northern Hemisphere and the 

southwestern United States indicate 

warmer air temperatures, more intense 

precipitation events, and increased 

summer drying (Field et al. 1999, pp. 

1–3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan 

et al. 2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 

11). However, predictions of climatic 

conditions for smaller subregions, such 

as San Diego County, remain less 

certain. Tabor and Williams (2010, p. 

562) summarized the four major sources 

of uncertainty in downscaled climate 

projections: (1) Uncertainties in future 

greenhouse gas emissions and 

atmospheric composition (scenario 

uncertainty); (2) uncertainties in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20932 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

modeling the climate response (Global 

Circulation Model uncertainty); (3) 

uncertainties in the observational data 

sets used as the basemap for the 

debiasing procedure (historical 

observational uncertainty); and (4) 

uncertainty over the validity of 

assumptions underlying the changefactor approach (change-factor 

uncertainty). These uncertainties are a 

general phenomenon of climate model 

downscaling and they can be 

substantial, especially the first two 

(Tabor and Williams 2010, pp. 562, 

564). Thus, discretion is necessary when 

using downscaled climate projections, 

because downscaling Global Circulation 

Models to the finest available resolution 

may produce misleading results (Tabor 

and Williams 2010, p. 564). Southern 

California has a unique and globally rare 

Mediterranean climate. Summers are 

typically dry and hot while winters are 

cool, with minimal rainfall averaging 

about 10 inches per year. The maritime 

influence of the Pacific Ocean combined 

with the coastal and inland mountain 

ranges creates an inversion layer typical 

of Mediterranean-like climates, 

particularly in southern California. 

These conditions also create 

microclimates, where the weather can 

be highly variable within small 

geographic areas at the same time. These 

microclimates are difficult to model and 

make it even more difficult to predict 

meaningful changes in climate for this 

region, specifically for small local areas, 

and the resultant impact on the Hermes 

copper butterfly and its habitat. 

We evaluated the available historical 

weather data and the species biology to 

determine the likelihood of effects 

assuming the climate has been and will 

continue to change. The typical effect of 

a warmer climate, as observed with 

Hermes copper butterfly in lower, 

warmer elevation habitats compared to 

higher, cooler elevations, is an earlier 

flight season by several days (Thorne 

1963, p. 146; Marschalek and 

Deutschman 2008, p. 98). Marschalek 

and Klein (2010, p. 2) noted that past 

records suggest a slightly earlier flight 

season in recent years compared to the 

1960s. The earliest published day of 

flight prior to 1963, after ‘‘30 years of 

extensive collecting,’’ was May 20 

(Thorne 1963, pp. 143, 146), but adults 

began flying on May 16 and May 12 in 

2003 and 2004, respectively 

(Marschalek and Deutschman 2008, p. 

100), and were reported as early as April 

29 in 2003, and May 14 in 2008 (CFWO 

GIS database). The record early 

observation on April 29, 2003, was from 

Fortuna Mountain in Mission Trails 

Park, a well-collected population with 

records dating back to 1958, including 

collections by Thorne (called ‘‘Mission 

Gorge’’ or ‘‘Mission Dam’’ on museum 

specimen labels) where May 21 was the 

earliest documented record from the 

1960s and early 1970s (before climate 

change trends were reasonably 

detectable as described by the IPCC 

(2007, pp. 2, 4)). The historical 

temperature trend in Hermes copper 

butterfly habitats for the month of April 

(when larvae are typically developing 

and pupating) from 1957 to 2006 can be 

calculated with relatively high 

confidence (p values from 0.001 to 

0.05). The rate of temperature change 

has been an increase of 0.04 to 0.07 °F 

(0.07 to 0.13 °C) per year (Climate 

Wizard 2010), a total increase of which 

could explain the earlier than average 

flight seasons. The latest published 

observation date (presumed end of flight 

season) of an adult prior to 1970 was on 

July 30, 1967 (museum specimen 

collected by Thorne at ‘‘Suncrest’’); 

however, the latest observation date 

from monitoring and data and other 

records in the past 10 years was on July 

2 in 2010, despite an 

uncharacteristically late start to the 

flight season (May 29). Shorter flight 

seasons are also consistent with higher 

average temperatures, as a higher 

metabolism in these exothermic shortlived invertebrates typically results in 

faster growth and earlier death. 

Nevertheless, given the temporal and 

geographical availability of their 

widespread perennial host plant, and 

exposure to extremes of climate 

throughout their known historical range 

(Thorne 1963, p. 144), Hermes copper 

butterfly and its host and nectar plants 

are not likely to be negatively affected 

throughout the majority of the species’ 

range by phenological shifts in 

development of a few days (unlike 

species such as Edith’s checkerspot 

(Euphydryas editha) that depend on 

annual host plants; Service 2003, pp. 63, 

64). While it is possible the species’ 

climatic tolerance, such as temperature 

thresholds for activity (see Background 

section above), could result in a change 

in the species niche and distribution of 

suitable habitat as the climate changes, 

predicting any such changes would be 

speculative because we do not 

understand what currently limits the 

species’ range to a much smaller 

geographic area than its host plant. 

Based on the above, we do not consider 

global climate change a current threat to 

Hermes copper butterfly. 

Mexico Populations 

Although wildfire and isolation of 

small populations may be threats to 

Hermes copper butterfly and its habitat 

in Mexico, especially near the U.S. 

border where the human population and 

development is most concentrated (see 

for example National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration’s 2010 October 24 

update wildfire satellite imagery that 

includes Baja California, Mexico), these 

threats are likely of less magnitude 

because there is far less development in 

the more remote areas of Baja California 

that may support Hermes copper 

butterfly. We are not aware of any 

conservation activities related to 

Hermes copper butterfly in Mexico. 

Summary of Factor E 

In summary, we consider Hermes 

copper butterfly threatened by other 

natural or manmade factors affecting the 

species’ continued existence. 

Specifically, Hermes copper butterfly is 

threatened with extirpation due to 

wildfire (megafire), restricted 

geographical range, and population 

isolation. The loss of populations, due 

to megafires and population 

fragmentation and isolation, inhibits the 

ability of Hermes copper butterfly to 

rebound from stochastic events such as 

megafires. These threats are evidenced 

by the loss of populations in the north 

and south of the U.S. range and 

subsequent isolation of other 

populations throughout the range. The 

remaining extant populations fall within 

a restricted area bounded by 

development and face high megafire 

risk. Thus, we consider threats under 

this factor to be significant. 

Finding 

As required by the Act, we conducted 

a review of the status of the species and 

considered the five factors in assessing 

whether Hermes copper butterfly is 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. We 

examined the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by Hermes copper 

butterfly. We reviewed the petition, 

information available in our files, other 

available published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

Hermes copper butterfly experts and 

other Federal, State, and local 

jurisdictions. 

This status review identified threats 

to Hermes copper butterfly attributable 

primarily to ‘‘megafires’’ (large wildfires) 

and small and isolated populations 

(Factor E), and to a lesser extent, habitat 

loss due to increased wildfire frequency 

and due to fragmentation resulting from 

the combined impacts of existing 

development, possible future (limited) 

development, existing dispersal barriers, 

and megafires (Factor A). The primary 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20933 

threats to the species are mortality from 

wildfire and small population size. 

These threats increase the risk of 

extirpation of Hermes copper butterfly 

populations rangewide. Hermes copper 

butterfly occupies scattered areas of sage 

scrub and chaparral habitat in an arid 

region susceptible to wildfires of 

increasing frequency and size. The 

likelihood that the species will be 

burned by catastrophic wildfires, 

combined with the isolation and small 

size of extant populations makes 

Hermes copper butterfly particularly 

vulnerable to population extirpation 

rangewide. Therefore, we find that there 

are threats of sufficient imminence, 

intensity, or magnitude to indicate that 

Hermes copper butterfly is in danger of 

extinction (endangered), or likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future (threatened), 

throughout its range or a significant 

portion of its range based on the threats 

described above. 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the petitioned action to list 

Hermes copper butterfly is warranted. 

We will make a determination on the 

status of the species as endangered or 

threatened when we do a proposed 

listing determination. However, as 

explained in more detail below, 

immediate proposal of a regulation to 

implement this finding is precluded by 

higher priority listing actions, and we 

are making expeditious progress to add 

or remove qualified species from the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. 

We reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats render Hermes 

copper butterfly at risk of extinction 

now such that issuing an emergency 

regulation temporarily listing the 

species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act 

is warranted. We determined that 

issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species is not 

warranted at this time, because the 

threat of extinction is not immediate. 

However, if at any time we determine 

that issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species is 

warranted, we will initiate such action 

at that time. 

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. The system places 

the greatest emphasis on taxonomic 

distinctiveness by assigning priority in 

descending order to monotypic genera 

(genus with one species), full species, 

and subspecies. 

Using the Service’s LPN guidance, we 

assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, 

depending on the magnitude of threats 

(high vs. 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). 

Under the Service’s guidelines, 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. The threats that 

Hermes copper butterfly faces are high 

in magnitude because the major threats 

(particularly mortality due to wildfire 

and increased wildfire frequency) occur 

throughout all of the species’ range and 

are likely to result in adverse impacts to 

the status of the species. Based on an 

evaluation of all known historical 

populations, approximately 49 percent 

are believed to have been extirpated. 

Historical records indicate that 

development has isolated and modified 

habitats in the northern portion of the 

U.S. range. The isolation of these 

habitats has inhibited the species’ 

ability to recolonize after stochastic 

events such as wildfires. When a 

wildfire passes through an occupied 

area, it is highly likely that all 

individuals or eggs, if present, within 

the area are killed (see discussion under 

Factor E: Wildfire above). As 

populations become more isolated from 

other occupied areas, their ability to 

recolonize after such events is lost. As 

described in the discussions of wildlife 

under Factors A and E above, wildfires 

are increasing in frequency and 

magnitude which increases the potential 

for isolation of populations and, in turn, 

increases the risk of extirpation 

rangewide. 

Under our LPN guidelines, 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 that are intrinsically 

vulnerable but are not known to be 

presently facing such threats. Hermes 

copper butterfly faces actual, 

identifiable threats as discussed under 

Factors A and E of this finding, 

including the threat of a large, highintensity wildfire (megafire) capable of 

killing Hermes copper butterfly 

populations and destroying or 

modifying the species’ habitat in a way 

that would cause a rangewide reduction 

in populations; however, the impact of 

wildfire to Hermes copper butterfly and 

its habitat occurs on a sporadic basis 

and we do not have the ability to predict 

when wildfires will occur. While we 

conclude that listing Hermes copper 

butterfly is warranted, an immediate 

proposal to list this species is precluded 

by other higher priority listings, which 

we address below. 

The third criterion in our LPN 

guidance is intended to devote 

resources to those species representing 

highly distinctive or isolated gene pools 

as reflected by taxonomy. Hermes 

copper butterfly is a valid taxon at the 

species level. Hermes copper butterfly 

faces high magnitude, non-imminent 

threats, and is a valid taxon at the 

species level. Thus, in accordance with 

our LPN guidance (48 FR 43098, 

September 21, 1983), we have assigned 

Hermes copper butterfly an LPN of 5. 

As a result of our analysis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we assigned Hermes 

copper butterfly a Listing Priority 

Number of 5, based on species level 

taxonomic classification and high 

magnitude but nonimminent threats. 

Hermes copper butterfly is threatened 

by megafires, habitat fragmentation, and 

the effects of restricted range and small 

population size throughout all of the 

known populations in the United States. 

The effect of past habitat fragmentation 

is considered irreversible and has 

continuing impacts over the range of the 

species. The threat of wildfire continues 

to exist throughout the species range; 

however, the impact of wildfire on 

Hermes copper butterfly and its habitat 

occurs on a sporadic basis and we do 

not have the ability to predict when 

wildfires will occur. While we conclude 

that listing Hermes copper butterfly is 

warranted, an immediate proposal to list 

this species is precluded by other higher 

priority listings, which we address 

below. 

We will continue to monitor the 

threats to Hermes copper butterfly, and 

the species’ 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 Hermes copper 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20934 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

butterfly is precluded by work on higher 

priority listing actions with absolute 

statutory, court-ordered, or courtapproved 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 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, 

$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 that 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 

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 (see 16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), 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-but-precluded 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 March 18, 2010, 

Congress passed a continuing resolution 

which provides funding at the FY 2010 

enacted level through April 8, 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 

must 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 litigation-related, 

administrative, and listing programmanagement functions; and highpriority listing actions for some of our 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20935 

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 determinations 

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 for this function. Although 

there are 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 administrative record). 

For the above reasons, funding a 

proposed listing determination for the 

Hermes copper butterfly is precluded by 

court-ordered and court-approved 

settlement agreements, listing actions 

with absolute statutory deadlines, work 

on final listing determinations for those 

species that were proposed for listing 

with funds from FY 2011, and work on 

proposed listing determinations for 

those candidate species with a higher 

listing priority (i.e., candidate species 

with LPNs of 1 to 4). 

Based on our September 21, 1983, 

guidelines for assigning an LPN for each 

candidate species (48 FR 43098), we 

have a significant number of species 

with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines, 

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, because 

as listed species, they are already 

afforded the protections 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 

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 

‘‘warranted-but-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; see 

76 FR 3029.) Given the limited 

resources available for listing, we find 

that we are making expeditious progress 

in FY 2011. This progress includes 

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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20936 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication 

date Title Actions FR pages 

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 7634–7679. 

2/17/2011 ..... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Sand Verbena Moth as 

Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

76 FR 9309–9318. 

2/22/2011 ..... Determination of Threatened Status for the New Zealand-Australia 

Distinct Population Segment of the Southern Rockhopper Penguin.

Final Listing, Threatened ............ 76 FR 9681–9692. 

2/22/2011 ..... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora) as Endangered.Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.76 FR 9722–9733. 

2/23/2011 ..... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly 

as Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.76 FR 991–1003. 

2/23/2011 ..... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus hamiltonii, 

Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and 

Trifolium friscanum as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded & 

Not Warranted.

76 FR 10166–10203. 

2/24/2011 ..... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Wild Plains Bison or Each 

of Four Distinct Population Segments as Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Not substantial.

76 FR 10299–10310. 

2/24/2011 ..... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Unsilvered Fritillary Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Not substantial.

76 FR 10310–10319. 

3/8/2011 ....... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Mt. Charleston Blue Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened.Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.76 FR 12667–12683. 

3/8/2011 ....... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Texas Kangaroo Rat as 

Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

76 FR 12683–12690. 

3/10/2011 ..... Initiation of Status Review for Longfin Smelt .................................... Notice of Status Review .............. 76 FR 13121–31322. 

3/15/2011 ..... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard 

as Threatened.

Proposed rule withdrawal ............ 76 FR 14210–14268. 

3/22/2011 ..... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave Salamander 

as Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.76 FR 15919–15932. 

4/1/2011 ....... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Spring Pygmy Sunfish as 

Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

76 FR 18138–18143. 

4/5/2011 ....... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Bearmouth 

Mountainsnail, Byrne Resort Mountainsnail, and Meltwater 

Lednian Stonefly as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not Warranted and Warranted but precluded.76 FR 18684–18701. 

4/5/2011 ....... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Peary Caribou and Dolphin and Union population of the Barren-ground Caribou as Endangered or Threatened.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

76 FR 18701–18706. 

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, when compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 

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

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement 

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

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20937 

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

Species Action 

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. 

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 & 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. 

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

Black-footed albatross .................................................................................................................................................... 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 & 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 & Utah) .................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Peary caribou .................................................................................................................................................................. 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. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20938 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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

Species Action 

Golden-winged warbler 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 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 & 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 & 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) & rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) 4 ................................................................. Proposed listing. 

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

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

Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (LPN = 2) 5 .......................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

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

Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2) ................................................................................................................................... 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. 

4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen plains cactus 

(Pediocactus peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii) (LPN = 8), Gierisch 

mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii) (LPN = 2)) 5.

Proposed listing. 

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

3 Southern FL plants (Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea corallicola) (LPN = 2), shellmound applecactus 

(Harrisia (=Cereus) aboriginum (=gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable thoroughwort (Chromolaena frustrata) (LPN = 

2)) 5.

Proposed listing. 

21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—5 plants & 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. 3Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds. 

4Funded with FY 2010 funds. 

5Funded with FY 2011 funds. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20939 

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 Hermes copper 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 

classification of the Hermes copper 

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 references cited is 

available on the internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office. 

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: March 29, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9028 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS