[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76428-76445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27841]



[[Page 76428]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT96


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the 
Proposed Rule To List the Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly as 
Endangered With Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the 
proposed rule published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2001 
(66 FR 46575), to list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly 
(Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti) (butterfly) as endangered with critical 
habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). This withdrawal is based on our conclusion that the threats to 
the species as identified in the proposed rule are not as significant 
as earlier believed. We base this conclusion on our analysis of current 
threats. We find that best scientific and commercial data available 
indicate that the threats to the species and its habitat, as analyzed 
under the five listing factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, 
have been reduced below the statutory definition of threatened or 
endangered. Therefore, we are withdrawing our proposal to list the 
species as endangered.

ADDRESSES: Supporting documentation for this rulemaking is available 
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services 
Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan MacMullin, Field Supervisor, New 
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (telephone 505-761-4706, 
facsimile 505-346-2542).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
this final listing determination. For more information on the 
butterfly, refer to the September 6, 2001 (66 FR 46575) proposed rule, 
and the October 7, 2004 Conservation Plan (69 FR 60178). However, some 
of this information is discussed in our analyses below, such as the 
summary of factors affecting the species.

Previous Federal Action

    On January 28, 1999, we received a petition from Mr. Kieran 
Suckling of the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, 
Arizona, dated November 1998, which requested that we emergency list 
the butterfly as endangered. The petitioner stated that the species 
merits listing because of its restricted range, adverse impacts 
resulting from a proposed United States Department of Agriculture 
Forest Service (Forest Service) land transfer, improvements to a Forest 
Service campground, construction of homes and other structures, 
aggressive nonnative weeds that may be affecting the larval food plants 
and adult nectar sources, climate change, and livestock overgrazing. 
The petitioner requested emergency listing due to the perceived 
immediate threats to the species' continued existence from a proposed 
land transfer between the Forest Service and the Village of Cloudcroft 
in the Sacramento Mountains in Otero County, New Mexico.
    In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we published 
notice of our 90-day administrative finding in the Federal Register on 
December 27, 1999 (64 CFR 72300), that the petitioner presented 
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted, but 
that emergency listing was not warranted, and commenced a status 
review. No further action was conducted related to the listing of the 
butterfly following the publication of the December 27, 1999 finding.
    In response to our failure to make a 12-month finding within the 
statutory time frame allowed by the Act, the Center for Biological 
Diversity filed a lawsuit. On July 31, 2001, the United States District 
Court for the District of New Mexico, in Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Gale A. Norton, CIV 01-0258 PK/RLP ordered us to complete 
and submit for publication to the Federal Register a 12-month finding 
for the butterfly within 30 days. On September 6, 2001, we published a 
proposed rule to list the butterfly as endangered with critical habitat 
(66 FR 46575). The proposed rule constituted our 12-month 
administrative finding. As part of the rulemaking process, we also held 
one public hearing in Alamogordo, New Mexico, on October 18, 2001, and 
extended the public comment period until December 5, 2001 (66 FR 49158, 
September 16, 2001). We invited all interested parties to submit 
comments on the proposed listing rule and proposed critical habitat 
designation.
    In the proposed rule, we determined that the butterfly was in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range because much of the remaining suitable habitat and the long-term 
persistence of the subspecies were threatened. At that time, the known 
threats included: Commercial and private development, Forest Service 
projects, fire suppression activities, highway reconstruction, off-
highway vehicle use, and overgrazed range conditions. Additional 
background information is available in the September 6, 2001, proposed 
rule (66 FR 46575).
    In response to growing interest by the local community to conserve 
the butterfly, the Service began coordination in 2001 with local and 
Federal partners. Subsequently, we developed the ``Conservation Plan 
for the Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly'' (Conservation 
Plan) (see ``Conservation Plan'' section below). The Conservation Plan 
was available for a 30-day public comment period and documents 
conservation actions that will benefit the species (69 FR 60178, 
October 7, 2004). We also held a public information meeting in 
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, on October 13, 2004.
    On November 8, 2004, we announced the availability of the draft 
economic analysis and draft environmental assessment for the proposal 
to designate critical habitat for the butterfly (69 FR 64710). Section 
4 (b)(2) of the Act requires that we consider economic impacts, impacts 
to national security, and other relevant impacts prior to making a 
final decision on what areas to designate as critical habitat. We 
solicited data and comments from the public on these draft documents, 
as well as on all aspects of our proposal, so that we could consider 
these in this final determination.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the notices announcing the public comment periods, we requested 
all interested parties submit comments on the proposed listing and 
critical habitat designation, as well as the associated draft economic 
analysis and draft environmental assessment, and information pertaining 
to the Conservation Plan or management actions that reduce the threats 
to the butterfly, current status, ecology, distribution, threats, and 
management/conservation efforts in place. We requested this information 
in order to make a final listing determination based on the best 
scientific and commercial data currently available. During the public 
comment periods, we received written comments from a total of 40 
entities, and 22 speakers gave verbal

[[Page 76429]]

comments at the public hearing. Substantive information provided in all 
public comments, written and verbal, either has been incorporated 
directly into this withdrawal or is addressed below. Similar comments 
are grouped together by issue.
    (1) Comment: Commercial and private development is not a threat to 
the species, because very little is occurring within the range of the 
butterfly.
    Our Response: The economic analysis found that in recent years, 
approximately 8 to 10 new homes have been constructed annually within 
the boundary of the proposed critical habitat designation. This trend 
is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Based upon this 
estimate, over the next 20 years, approximately 160 to 200 small-scale 
residential projects may occur within the boundary of proposed critical 
habitat for the butterfly. Of these, the economic analysis assumed that 
55 to 69 may conduct butterfly surveys because they would be conducted 
within areas that were proposed as critical habitat and provide 
butterfly habitat. Eight to 24 of those areas surveyed may be found to 
be in use by butterflies (for a detailed discussion see Service 2004). 
This draft economic analysis estimated that the median lot size of 
these developments was 0.14 hectares (ha) (0.34 acres (ac)), indicating 
that up to 3.2 ha (8 ac) of suitable butterfly habitat may be impacted 
from commercial and private development activities (Service 2004). In 
the proposed rule, we described an additional 4 ha (10 ac) of impacts 
from a private development on the east side of the Village of 
Cloudcroft. Thus, we estimate that about 1 percent of the suitable 
butterfly habitat on private lands (i.e., 18 of 1,196 ac) may be 
subject to commercial and private development. We do not believe that 
this level of an impact is a significant threat to the butterfly (see 
``Summary of Factors'' section below for a more detailed discussion).
    (2) Comment: There is no evidence that exotic weeds have any effect 
on butterfly populations. How is listing the butterfly going to help 
solve the exotic weed problem?
    Our Response: Nearly 30 percent of mountain meadows and over half 
of some individual meadows were dominated by noxious weeds on the 
Sacramento Ranger District in 1995 (Forest Service 1995). In 2002, the 
Forest Service conferenced with us regarding a District-wide noxious 
weed management program. Under this action, the Forest is using manual 
methods (e.g., spot applications) to remove noxious weeds within 
habitat occupied by the butterfly. We anticipated some impacts to host 
plants will occur, but these were expected to be insignificant (i.e., 
should never reach the level where incidental take of the butterfly 
will occur) or discountable (i.e., effects to the butterfly from the 
action are extremely unlikely to occur) to the butterfly. The 
Sacramento Ranger District is currently monitoring and treating 
infestations of nonnative vegetation. These actions have long-term 
benefits for the butterfly because the threat of nonnative vegetation 
to the butterfly has been minimized.
    (3) Comment: If global warming is really a threat to the butterfly, 
are you going to get the whole planet to change its habits to protect 
this one butterfly?
    Our response: We agree that we cannot address an issue of this 
magnitude and complexity on a species by species basis. However, we 
recognized in the proposal that the butterfly may be vulnerable to 
changes in climate. We also note that this does not imply that the 
species cannot survive natural events such as drought since the 
butterfly evolved in an environment subject to periodic atypical 
weather events.
    When a species has specific and limited habitat requirements, it is 
reasonable to assume that climate shifts occurring more rapidly than 
evolutionary timeframes might have an impact on the species in the 
future. Even if we cannot address these issues on a species by species 
basis, we believe it is important, where possible, to document the 
extent of any problems, to spur research or collaborative solutions. 
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Service recently launched our 
Future Challenges Project with a scientific workshop at the National 
Conservation Training Center. At this workshop, we explored four 
environmental drivers that will affect our work and missions in the 
future. We examined the issues of water resources, invasive species, 
climate change, and biotechnology for their potential long-term impacts 
in managing biological resources and the systems that support them over 
the next 10 to 20 years. For example, we know the importance of 
coordinating research, monitoring, and risk assessment efforts so that 
human and financial resources are used effectively and directed at the 
highest priority needs. Closely related is the importance of accessing 
and sharing research and results so that the best information available 
is used by all decision-makers.
    (4) Comment: If listing the butterfly makes it more vulnerable to 
collection, then why list the subspecies?
    Our response: As part of our analysis under section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act, we disclose and analyze the known or potential threats to species 
and any related information. In the case of the butterfly, we 
acknowledged that listing can increase the publicity and interest in a 
species' rarity, and thus may directly increase the value and demand 
for specimens. To limit potential overcollecting, the Forest Service 
issued a closure order restricting the collection of any butterflies 
without a permit on the Smokey Bear and Sacramento Districts of the 
Lincoln National Forest (Forest Service 2001). The Forest Service 
posted the closure order in accordance with their regulations and also 
published a notice of the closure order in the newsletter of the 
Lepidopterists' Society (36 CFR 261, Lepidopterists' Society Newsletter 
1999, Holland 1999) (see discussion under ``Factor B'' below).
    (5) Comment: Based upon the fact that one of the only butterfly 
pupa ever found was attached to the side of a building, it does not 
appear that developments are a threat to the subspecies.
    Our response: The building where the pupa was found occurs in an 
area where butterfly habitat adjacent to the building was largely 
intact and is being used by the butterfly. Based on this and other 
information we have reviewed (see ``Factor A'' section below), it 
appears that private and commercial development activities can be 
conducted in such a way as to minimize impacts on the butterfly. For 
example, the Forest Service has found that the butterfly continues to 
exist within areas that are developed (Forest Service 2004e).
    (6) Comment: Recent studies have shown that the butterfly's 
population and range are actually much larger than previously thought. 
There is no evidence that the range of the butterfly is shrinking.
    Our response: As we noted in the 2001 proposed rule, the Forest 
Service has been conducting surveys since 1998 to estimate the range of 
the butterfly. The known range of the butterfly has not been extended 
since 2000 (Forest Service 2002). We do not have long-term monitoring 
data to evaluate whether the butterfly's population is increasing, 
stable, or declining. Still, on a gross scale, our observations 
indicate that the range of the butterfly has not changed since 2000 
(Forest Service 2002b). The Forest Service and Service will continue

[[Page 76430]]

to monitor the butterfly population and range (Service 2004b).
    (7) Comment: No studies have been conducted in the adjacent 
Mescalero Apache Nation lands, where there could be large numbers of 
butterflies in their plentiful meadows. The Village of Cloudcroft 
comments state they have spoken with ``at least two officials from the 
Mescalero Indian Reservation who assume the butterfly is found on the 
Mescalero Indian Reservation.''
    Our response: We have no information to be able to verify the 
information that the butterfly is found on the Mescalero Apache Nation 
lands (see ``Mescalero Apache Nation'' section below). We have provided 
technical assistance to the Mescalero Apache Nation through field 
identification and survey techniques that we conducted on Forest 
Service lands. We offered assistance to the Mescalero Apache Nation in 
conducting surveys. However, we have no knowledge that there is any 
occupied butterfly habitat on Mescalero Apache Nation lands or that 
surveys have ever been completed there.
    (8) Comment: There is no compelling information that the 
butterfly's population has been reduced.
    Our response: We have no evidence that the butterfly's population 
is declining (see also comment number 6). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
requires us to make listing determinations on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available. In this final listing 
determination, we are withdrawing the proposal to list the butterfly as 
endangered based upon our analysis of the current threats and our 
conclusion that the butterfly no longer meets the definition of 
threatened or endangered.
    (9) Comment: Both adult and larval foodplants for the butterfly are 
common and abundant throughout its range. There is no information to 
indicate that the foodplants are declining from any threats.
    Our response: We agree that adult foodplants are common. Larval 
foodplants have been impacted in some areas, but do not appear to be 
the sole determinant of the presence or abundance of the butterfly 
(Pittenger et al. 2001). Our current understanding of the threats to 
the butterfly and its foodplants is fully described under the ``Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species'' section below.
    (10) Comment: The Service needs to conduct an analysis under the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the listing of the 
butterfly.
    Our response: While we are not required to complete an analysis 
under NEPA for the listing of the butterfly, we did however, complete a 
draft environmental assessment under NEPA on the proposed designation 
of critical habitat, and released it for public comment on November 8, 
2004 (69 FR 64710). We believe that this issue is no longer relevant 
because we are withdrawing our listing proposal.
    (11) Comment: Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti is not a unique species 
or subspecies and was only referred to as cloudcrofti for regional 
identification purposes.
    Our response: We disagree. Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti is 
recognized as a distinct taxonomic subspecies that is a listable entity 
under the Act if it were to meet the definition of threatened or 
endangered (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The subspecies was isolated by post-
Pleistocene climate changes and subsequent changes in the distribution 
of plant communities (Pittenger and Yori 2003). This spatial isolation 
resulted in a unique variation that is locally adapted and recognized 
as a distinct subspecies (Pittenger and Yori 2003, Pratt 2001, Toliver 
et al. 1994, Cary and Holland 1992, Ferris and Holland 1980).
    (12) Comment: The scientific record indicates there was a specimen 
found 282 kilometers (km) (175 miles (mi)) north of the Village of 
Cloudcroft that was identified as this butterfly. The specimen might 
have been mislabeled, but should be looked into.
    Our response: Holland and Ferris (1980) stated that, ``There is a 
single male of cloudcrofti in the American Museum of Natural History 
collection (O. Buchholz Collection) labeled ``Beulah, New Mexico 
VI.27.02''. Beulah was a former settlement in the Sapello Valley, San 
Miguel Co., N.M., some 282 kilometers (km) (175 miles (mi)) north of 
the Village of Cloudcroft. We suspect that this specimen was mislabeled 
and actually came from the Cloudcroft area.'' Toliver et al. (1994) and 
Cary (2003) document an undescribed subspecies of Occidryas (= 
Euphydryas) anicia collected in San Miguel County, New Mexico, in 1882, 
1901, 1902, 1949, and 1954. It was also observed in Mora County, New 
Mexico, in 1995 (Toliver et al. 1994) and 2003 (Cary 2003). We 
conducted surveys within Mora County in 2003 and 2004 during the 
presumed active season. In 2003, adult butterflies of this undescribed 
subspecies were photographed by Cary (2003) in Mora County, although 
New Mexico penstemon (Penstemon neomexicanus) or orange sneezeweed 
(Helenium hoopesii), the primary foodplants of the butterfly, have not 
been observed. We suspect that if the undescribed subspecies still 
occupies the area, it occurs at very low densities.
    Pratt (2000, 2001), who conducted extensive surveys throughout New 
Mexico, including the Sacramento Mountains (Pratt 2001a, 2001b, 
2001cF), found that the butterfly is highly isolated from other 
populations of Euphydryas anicia and, after reviewing the taxonomic 
relationships within Euphydryas described by Brussard et al. (1989), he 
believes that cloudcrofti may be its own separate species. Genetic 
studies have not been conducted between cloudcrofti and other 
Euphydryas anicia populations, including the undescribed subspecies in 
Mora County, New Mexico. Because the known foodplants of the Sacramento 
Mountains checkerspot butterfly have not been documented outside of 
Otero and Lincoln Counties, we do not believe that the undescribed 
subspecies is the same as the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 
butterfly. This conclusion is consistent with previous interpretations 
of other lepidopterists who are familiar with and have observed these 
butterflies (Toliver et al. 1994, Holland and Ferris 1980).
    (13) Comment: Was the proposed rule peer reviewed?
    Our response: Yes. In September 2001, we sent the proposed rule to 
six peer reviewers. Only one responded; this peer reviewer supported 
the proposed listing.
    (14) Comment: Where have butterfly festivals been organized and are 
there any economic benefits of such festivals?
    Our response: We are aware of many butterfly festivals organized 
across the country. In fact, Mission, Texas, has been holding a 
festival for eight years (http://www.texasbutterfly.com/). Similarly, 
there are large butterfly festivals in Paris, Arkansas (http://www.butterflyfestival.com/), Haynesville, Louisiana (http://www.claiborneone.org/haynesville/butterfly.html), and celebrations for 
listed butterflies such as the Karner blue butterfly festival in Black 
River Falls, Wisconsin http://www.downtownblackriverfalls.com/karner_blue_butterfly_fest.htm). These festivals can draw thousands of 
participants and provide a large economic benefit to the community.
    The Service and the Albuquerque Biological Park organized an 
overnight trip to Cloudcroft to view the butterfly and other sensitive 
species. This trip entailed about 20 people staying in The Lodge 
overnight and visiting local businesses. The Albuquerque Biological 
Park conservatively estimated that their group spent a minimum of 
$3,500 in Cloudcroft businesses.

[[Page 76431]]

    (15) Comment: Cattle grazing has occurred for over 100 years in the 
Sacramento Mountains and is not threatening the butterfly.
    Our response: We agree with this statement. Livestock grazing was 
recognized as a threat to the species in 2001. We have reevaluated this 
conclusion in light of recent information from the Forest Service and 
others (e.g., Forest Service 2001, 2004b, 2004i, Service 2004a, 2004b, 
Weiss 1999). Historic and current levels of grazing are not a 
significant threat to the species. The potential threat of grazing is 
further reviewed under the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' 
section below. We conclude that current and future levels of grazing 
have not and will not result in significant adverse effects to the 
butterfly because grazing monitoring and subsequent management changes 
(reducing number of livestock, moving to other pastures, etc.) ensure 
that utilization levels are met and foodplants for the butterfly are 
being maintained.
    (16) Comment: The Forest Service indicated that there is no 
potential risk to the butterfly related to the control of tussock moth 
(Orgyia pseudotsugata) as it was described in the proposed rule. They 
stated that any future proposed treatments would need to be analyzed 
under NEPA, and the suggestion that carbaryl or Bacillus thuringensis 
would be used to control these or other forest insects was premature.
    Our response: We agree and have revised our analysis to reflect 
this new information. See ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' 
section below for further details.
    (17) Comment: The Forest Service indicated that all of their 
activities, including for example wildland urban interface (WUI) 
treatments, land exchanges, recreational improvements, and special use 
permits are currently evaluated for effects on the butterfly and its 
habitat. The Forest Service has implemented these conservation measures 
through modified project design features, avoidance of the species and/
or habitat, or implemented mitigation measures such as surveys or 
seasonal restrictions. The butterfly and its habitat are receiving 
adequate protection and management on the Lincoln National Forest as 
the Regional Forester designated the butterfly a Sensitive Species, 
and, as such, will continue to be analyzed in all applicable NEPA 
documents.
    Our response: We agree with the comments, and we are withdrawing 
our proposal to list the species (see ``Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species'' section below), in part, due to this effort and 
designation from the Forest Service.
    (18) Comment: The Forest Service indicated that the majority of 
range conditions within meadows used by the butterfly are in 
satisfactory condition and are providing the necessary host plants for 
the species. Host plants have likely increased or at minimum remained 
stable.
    Our response: We assumed in our proposed rule that butterfly 
abundance was related to density of foodplants. Although the presence 
of foodplants is a necessary component of suitable butterfly habitat, 
it appears that foodplant density has little influence on number of 
adult butterflies (Pittenger et al. 2001). We agree that range 
conditions within meadows used by the butterfly are providing the 
necessary host plants for the species (see ``Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species'' section below). It is also unknown why the 
butterfly is not present in meadows where larval and adult foodplant 
density is high (Pittenger et al. 2001, Pittenger and Yori 2003). 
Further research is needed to clarify the attributes of butterfly 
habitat.
    (19) Comment: Female butterflies lay hundreds of eggs. Therefore, 
biologically it does not make sense that if a few larvae get crushed by 
recreation or other activities, it would cause the butterfly population 
to decline or lead to its extinction.
    Our response: We have also reached this conclusion (see our 
response to Comment 24 below). The proposed rule was a comprehensive 
document that analyzed a myriad of potential threats. At that time, we 
indicated the potential significance of many of the impacts had not 
been quantified. After further evaluation, we believe that the 
magnitude of each potential threat is a necessary component to 
accurately evaluate the potential of each threat. The commentor is 
correct that in a functioning metapopulation, as we believe is the case 
here, the loss of a few butterflies will not jeopardize the continued 
existence of the species.
    (20) Comment: What level of impact triggers an ``adverse effect'' 
determination for the butterfly from the Service.
    Our response: If the species were listed under the Act, the level 
of impact that triggers an adverse effect determination would be the 
same as any other species under section 7 of the Act. Federal agencies 
are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act when 
activities with a Federal nexus (i.e., when a Federal agency is 
funding, permitting, or in some way authorizing a project) may affect a 
species or its designated critical habitat. The Federal action agency 
is required to make the determination as to whether their project may 
affect a species or designated critical habitat. If the anticipated 
effects from a proposed action are insignificant, discountable, or 
entirely beneficial, then we concur that the activity is not likely to 
adversely affect the species or its critical habitat (i.e., an informal 
consultation). Conversely, those activities that are likely to result 
in incidental take or adversely affect the species or its critical 
habitat require formal consultation.
    (21) Comment: Based upon Forest Service observations following the 
Scott Able fire in 2000, catastrophic wildfire is not a threat for the 
butterfly. The species lives in meadows, which are usually little 
affected from wildfires within mixed conifer fuel type.
    Our response: The information from the Scott Able fire indicates 
that the majority of areas burned were within the mixed conifer forest 
(Forest Service 2001). Meadows were essentially passed over by this 
wind-driven fire and did not sustain any high burn intensities (Forest 
Service 2001). In fact, within the meadows that burned, fire 
intensities were generally light (Forest Service 2001) (see Factor A 
below).
    Recovery of butterfly populations after fires is a function of the 
species' ability to gain access to suitable postfire habitats and their 
ability to rebuild numbers from survivors or colonizers (Swengel 2001). 
We expect that the effects of fire on butterfly habitat quality and 
availability will vary based on the severity and spatial configuration 
of the fire, the response of foodplants to burn severity, and 
suitability of postfire vegetation. While we have a good understanding 
of the general factors that influence fire behavior, the way in which a 
fire behaves on the landscape is highly complex. As a result, fire 
behavior and severity can be understood and predicted in general terms, 
but exact predictions are not possible (Forest Service 2004). For 
example, butterfly habitat quality may either be enhanced or diminished 
by wildfire. It is probable that a fire of moderate severity could 
enlarge existing meadows or create suitable corridors between occupied 
areas.
    As described below, the Sacramento Ranger District and surrounding 
area has been identified as a high-priority area for fuel treatments 
within New Mexico. As a result, the Lincoln National Forest has 
increased funding and implemented projects across the Sacramento Ranger 
District to reduce the threat of wildfire (Forest Service 2001). In 
their comments, the Forest

[[Page 76432]]

Service reviewed the last 50 years of fire activity on the Sacramento 
Ranger District, the impact of recent fuels-reduction projects, and the 
potential impacts to meadows from fires. They concluded that the 
potential impacts to the butterfly from catastrophic wildfire were low 
(Forest Service 2001). We agree with this conclusion as further 
explained in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' below.
    (22) Comment: The Forest Service stated that the only road 
construction project planned within butterfly habitat is associated 
with campground reconstruction activities.
    Our response: We agree and have revised our analysis to reflect 
this new information.
    (23) Comment: The Forest Service commented that recent and future 
developed recreation site rehabilitation projects were conducted to 
provide for public safety, accessibility, and compliance with the 
American with Disabilities Act, resource protection, and to improve 
campground image (color, style, etc). They indicated that the redesign 
of all campgrounds within meadows will result in a net reduction in 
camping and picnicking capacity by reducing the number of units (i.e., 
camp sites and picnic tables).
    Our response: We agree and have revised our analysis to reflect 
this new information.
    (24) Comment: The Forest Service contends that the annual mountain 
bike race is a recreational use that does not adversely affect the 
butterfly because the race occurs in mid-May prior to the growing 
season of the larval host plants.
    Our response: Although we believe that the annual mountain bike 
race has the potential to adversely affect (and incidentally take) 
post-diapause larvae, the significance of this threat is considered 
low. Some larvae may be crushed and killed, but we would expect less 
than 1 ha (2.4 ac) of occupied habitat (i.e., trails through occupied 
meadows) to be impacted from this activity to occur, which would not 
affect the metapopulation dynamics of the species (e.g., the linear 
nature of trails would not preclude butterfly movement and 
recolonization) (see ``the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' 
below).
    (25) Comment: Was the model used to estimate the amount of existing 
butterfly habitat developed by people qualified to do this kind of 
work? Was the model peer reviewed?
    Our response: As noted in the proposed rule, the Forest Service 
used a Geographic Information System (GIS) to model the extent of 
existing butterfly habitat (Forest Service 1999b). The model was 
developed to focus survey efforts within areas thought to provide 
butterfly habitat. It is our understanding that this model was 
developed by biologists and cartographers. The information upon which 
the model was built was identified in the proposed rule. We asked our 
peer reviewers to review any aspect of the proposed rule, which 
included the model and estimate of existing butterfly habitat. No one 
commented on this aspect of the proposal. This model has been refined 
since 2001 (Forest Service 2004e) (see ``Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species'' section below). We consider the refined model to be the 
best scientific and commercial information available for estimating 
existing butterfly habitat. As we have found, the model provided no 
certainty that the potential habitat may be occupied (e.g., the 1999 
model overestimated potential butterfly habitat by about 50 percent) 
(see ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section below).
    (26) Comment: The proposed rule states that the construction of 
roadways is believed to have historically eliminated or reduced the 
quality or quantity of butterfly habitat, and cites Pittenger (1999). 
Nowhere in the reference cited is there any discussion or mention of 
the historic effect of road construction on the quantity or quality of 
habitat for the butterfly.
    Our response: Our analysis used this citation because it documented 
the impact caused by recent road construction activities on the 
quantity and quality of butterfly habitat. On October 27, 2004, we 
visited this area and found that foodplants have naturally been 
reestablished during the 2004 growing season. Based upon our 
observation of a recently colonized site (Service 2004d), we believe 
the area impacted from the recent road construction activities may be 
utilized by the butterfly as soon as next year (see ``Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species'' section below).
    (27) Comment: Erroneous information is provided in the proposed 
rule regarding the severity of impacts of the New Mexico Highway 130 
reconstruction project at Deerhead Campground. The project did not 
result in the extirpation of the butterfly from Deerhead Campground, 
because it still exists in the area.
    Our response: The proposed rule did not state that butterflies were 
extirpated from Deerhead Campground. The rule identified that in 1998 
and 1999, butterflies were located within the construction footprint 
(Forest Service 1999a, 1999b; 1999d.); however, none were observed 
during surveys in 2000 and 2001. No butterflies have been observed 
within the construction footprint since 1999. However, the commentor is 
correct, in that, butterflies are still occupying other parts of 
Deerhead Campground. As noted above in our response to comment 26, this 
area has been naturally revegetated with foodplants during 2004.
    (28) Comment: There is little to no evidence to back the claim in 
the proposed rule that overgrazing has occurred in the valleys of the 
Sacramento Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest over the last 
several decades.
    Our response: Much of the information we reviewed in 2001 was from 
the Sacramento Grazing Allotment. We had assumed in the proposed rule 
that the continuing heavy grazing (i.e., above 35 percent forage 
utilization) on this allotment was impacting the butterfly. However, 
further examination of information from the Forest Service demonstrated 
that the butterfly and its proposed critical habitat are only found 
within a portion of the Nelson Pasture on the summer unit of the 
Sacramento Allotment, which does not receive any cattle use because of 
topography and lack of water (Service 2004a). For the other allotments 
within the range of the butterfly, we conclude that current and future 
grazing will not result in significant adverse effects to the butterfly 
because the Forest Service ensures that utilization levels are met and 
foodplants are maintained (see ``The Present or Threatened Destruction, 
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range'' section).
    (29) Comment: Has New Mexico penstemon (Penstemon neomexicanus) 
been found outside the geographic range of the butterfly?
    Our response: Yes. There are areas (e.g., Russia Canyon and Rawlins 
Canyon) where New Mexico penstemon is locally common, but are 
apparently unoccupied by the butterfly since it has not been located 
during surveys in these areas (Pittenger et al. 2001, Forest Service 
2000, 2000a, Bleakly 1998, 1999). Additionally, the butterfly's host 
plants are known to occur within portions of the Smokey Bear Ranger 
District, in the vicinity of Ruidoso, New Mexico, just north of 
Mescalero Apache Nation lands (Forest Service 2000a). However, the 
butterfly has not been documented north of the Sacramento Ranger 
District (Forest Service 2000a).
    (30) Comment: The information submitted in the proposed rule does 
not comply with the Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, 
Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Dissemination by 
Federal

[[Page 76433]]

Agencies issued by Executive Office of the President, Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) (Information Guidelines) (66 FR 49718).
    Our response: These guidelines require that agencies issue their 
own quality guidelines to ensure objectivity, utility, and integrity of 
information to be disseminated (66 FR 49718). The proposed rule was 
published prior to the October 1, 2001, effective date of the 
Information Guidelines. However, we used the best scientific and 
commercial data available in the formulation of our proposed rule as 
required by the Act. Additionally, we have reviewed this final 
determination and the rulemaking process that we have followed for this 
action relative to the current guidelines and have determined that this 
determination is in compliance with the parameters established therein.
    (31) Comment: We received a variety of comments regarding the 
proposed critical habitat, the draft economic analysis, and draft 
environmental assessment.
    Our response: Because we are withdrawing the proposal to list the 
butterfly, we are no longer proposing critical habitat for this 
subspecies. As such, the draft economic analysis and draft 
environmental assessment are no longer applicable, and we are not 
addressing comments on those documents in this determination.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal list of 
endangered and threatened species. A species may be determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The following analysis 
examines the listing factors and their application to the butterfly. 
Within this section we evaluate new data received since the proposed 
rule, projects that were completed since 2001, and the related 
conservation measures that reduce present and future threats to the 
species.

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

    Several categories of activities have the potential to affect the 
butterfly and its habitat, including commercial and private 
development, Forest Service activities, fire suppression and wildfire, 
highway and forest road reconstruction, recreational impacts, domestic 
livestock grazing, and nonnative vegetation. This section of the rule 
presents information for each of the factors affecting the butterfly 
and its habitat, followed by a summary of how formalized conservation 
efforts eliminate or reduce adverse effects.
Commercial and Private Development
    In 2001, commercial and private development was identified as a 
significant threat to the butterfly (66 FR 46575). The butterfly likely 
occupies a significant amount of private lands since habitat used by 
the butterfly occurs on Forest Service land that is immediately 
adjacent to these areas and the elevational and habitat characteristics 
are contiguous (Forest Service 2000a, 2004e).
    The proposed rule estimated that there were less than 2,104 ha 
(5,198 ac) of potential butterfly habitat, composed of 1,034 and 1,070 
ha (2,553 and 2,645 ac) on private and Forest Service lands, 
respectively. A refinement of the original data was conducted by the 
Forest Service in 2004 (Forest Service 2004e). These current data are 
similarly based upon focused surveys to ground truth the 1999 GIS model 
that we detailed in our proposed rule, but include only those lands 
within the proposed critical habitat boundary. Nevertheless, we are not 
aware of any butterfly occurrences outside of the previously known 
range of the butterfly, which was fully enclosed in the proposed 
critical habitat boundary. The refined estimate is that 1,096 ha (2,709 
ac) of suitable butterfly habitat exist on Forest Service and private 
lands, with 484 ha (1,196 ac) occupied by the butterfly on Forest 
Service lands and 314 ha (777 ac) occupied on private lands (Forest 
Service 2004e). About 298 ha (736 ac) of the 1,096 ha (2,709 ac) of 
suitable habitat are unoccupied, with 79 ha (194 ac) on Forest Service 
lands and 219 ha (542 ac) on private lands (Forest Service 2004e). This 
current estimate is the best information we have regarding the range 
and distribution of the butterfly.
    We also mapped meadows within the mixed-conifer forest at 
approximate elevations between 2,450 and 2,750 meters (8,000 to 9,000 
feet) elevation on the Mescalero Apache Nation lands, but have no data 
to indicate whether these lands are occupied by the butterfly (see 
``Mescalero Apache Nation'' section below). As detailed in response to 
comment 7 above, we have no knowledge that surveys have ever been 
completed there.
    Our economic analysis found that in recent years, approximately 8 
to 10 new homes have been constructed annually within the known range 
of the butterfly, which includes lands within the limits of the Village 
of Cloudcroft and areas outside these limits in Otero County (Service 
2004). Although development is no longer being encouraged by the 
Village of Cloudcroft due in part to the lack of water for residential 
use (Service 2004b, Village of Cloudcroft 2001), there are two existing 
subdivisions with developable lots available (Service 2004). The 
economic analysis estimated that over the next 20 years, approximately 
160 to 200 small-scale residential projects may occur within the 
butterfly's critical habitat boundary. Of these, 8 to 24 private lots 
within the range of the butterfly (i.e., the Village of Cloudcroft or 
Otero County) may be found to be in use by butterflies (Service 2004). 
These estimates, in conjunction with the median lot size of 0.14 ha 
(0.34 ac), indicates that up to 3.2 ha (8 ac) of suitable butterfly 
habitat may be impacted from commercial and private development 
activities over the next 20 years (Service 2004). In the proposed rule, 
we identified that a subdivision on the east side of the Village of 
Cloudcroft was currently developing and eliminating approximately 4 ha 
(10 ac) of suitable, and likely currently used, butterfly habitat. 
Depending on the location and configuration of each development, these 
activities have the potential to threaten the butterfly. Nevertheless, 
this amount is not a significant threat to the butterfly because it 
represents about 1 percent of the suitable butterfly habitat on private 
lands (i.e., 7.3 of 484 ha (18 of 1,196 ac)).
    In the proposed rule we stated that a 9-hole golf course was being 
discussed as a community recreational goal and objective for the 
Village of Cloudcroft in 2005 (Cloudcroft Area Sustainability Team 
1995). Based upon comments related to the proposed rule from the 
Village of Cloudcroft (2001), we found that this information is not 
accurate. The Village's view on development has changed, due in part to 
a lack of groundwater (Service 2004b). For example, in August 2004, a 
water crisis was declared in Cloudcroft and drinking water was being 
hauled to the Village (Shinabery 2004a, 2004b). They no longer intend 
to develop a golf course (Village of Cloudcroft 2001, Service 2004b).
    Since the proposed rule, we have also received updated information 
on the Village of Cloudcroft land transfer, which is located in areas 
adjacent to the Village. In the proposed rule, we found that the land 
transfer would provide additional land for commercial, industrial, 
educational, and recreational expansion for the Village of Cloudcroft, 
further degrading or eliminating suitable

[[Page 76434]]

habitat and restricting the movement of butterflies between local 
populations. The Forest Service has completed NEPA compliance and 
signed a decision notice to allow the Village of Cloudcroft to purchase 
33 ha (81 ac) of National Forest lands pursuant to the Townsite Act 
(Forest Service 2001a, 2001b). The land transfer includes five parcels 
of land totaling 33 ha (81 ac). Within these parcels butterflies have 
been observed in parts of parcels 3, 4, and 5. The portion of these 
parcels that is considered to be butterfly habitat amounts to about 1.2 
ha (3 ac) of the 33 ha (81 ac) being offered to the Village (Forest 
Service 2001a, 2001b, Service 2004, 2004d). The remaining 32 ha (78 ac) 
are currently not suitable butterfly habitat (Forest Service 2001a, 
2001b). To date, the Village has not purchased the five parcels of 
land; however, the majority of these parcels are intended for use as 
greenbelts and buffers and not development as we had described in our 
proposed rule (Forest Service 2001a, 2001b, Service 2004b). The use of 
these areas as greenbelt would be consistent with the Village of 
Cloudcroft's local zoning regulations related to open space. The 
Village of Cloudcroft's Village Code document (Chapter 7 of the Village 
Code--Greenbelt Zones Use Regulations G-1 Zone), states that Greenbelt 
Zones shall consist of open space with no structures or commercial 
signs allowed (Service 2004). In addition, the zoning regulations 
prohibit overnight parking or camping within greenbelt zones. The 
Village of Cloudcroft has stated its intention to keep all new land 
annexed from the Forest Service as greenbelt (Service 2004b). It is our 
understanding that greenbelt areas are not generally mowed by the 
Village of Cloudcroft (Forest Service 2004f). Because of the small 
scale of potential impacts involved in this land transfer (less than 
1.2 ha (3 ac)), the new information on the species' ability to 
recolonize areas (see discussion on the edges of the football field 
below), and the intention to keep these parcels as greenbelt, we now 
conclude that the incremental impact of this land transfer when added 
to other past, present, or reasonable foreseeable future actions (i.e., 
cumulative effects) on the butterfly's long-term persistence is not 
significant.
    The history of habitat occupied by the butterfly (e.g., Deerhead 
Campground, Pines Campground) could be characterized by frequent, often 
major, impacts to soils and vegetation. For example, impacts from 
logging operations and infrastructure were historically present 
throughout the Sacramento Mountains (Kaufmann et al. 1998, Glover 
1984). In fact, a railroad was constructed in June 1900 and operated 
until 1947 through the area where present-day Deerhead Campground is 
located (NMSHTD 2001; Glover 1984). The butterfly continues to be found 
at this locality. Thus, it appears that the butterfly and its 
foodplants can tolerate a certain amount of natural and man-made 
disturbances.
    We previously identified that heavy clearing or mowing of native 
vegetation on improved (i.e., with existing structures) or unimproved 
private lands, to reduce the threat of wildfire or improve the 
residential appearance, could eliminate larval or adult food plants 
and/or localities that are used by the butterfly. Additionally, we 
found that the conversion of native landscapes to nonnative vegetation 
(e.g., lawns or gardens) could fragment butterfly localities, eliminate 
movement corridors, and cause additional loss of suitable habitat (Wood 
and Samways 1991, Holland 2001). Although these activities have the 
potential to reduce blocks of native vegetation to fragments, creating 
a matrix of native habitat islands, we have no specific information to 
conclude that these activities are significantly threatening the 
butterfly.
    The Village of Cloudcroft is situated on approximately 324 ha (800 
ac), and is surrounded by National Forest lands (Forest Service 2001b). 
The character of the Village is largely residential, with cabins, 
houses, and business serving the local vacation and tourist-based 
economy. Within the butterfly habitat of the Village of Cloudcroft, the 
native vegetation is generally not cleared or mowed because it adds to 
the rustic charm of the area. The New Mexico State Highway 
Transporation Department (NMSHTD) is responsible for maintaining the 
rights-of-way within Highways 82, 244, and 130. Much of the potential 
butterfly habitat within these rights-of-way is too steep for mowing or 
mowing is not needed (Forest Service 1999b). The NMSHTD generally 
occurs outside of the known range of the butterfly Dry Canyon eastward 
to Mayhill, but may occasionally mow the vegetation within the known 
range of the butterfly adjacent to Highways 82, 244, and 130, if the 
rights-of-way are not too steep (Forest Service 1999b, 2004f). The 
Forest Service found there are at least 3 areas within the Village of 
Cloudcroft that are occupied by the butterfly, including the edges of 
the existing golf course, residential areas along the southeast, and 
adjacent to Highway 82 (Forest Service 2004e). As noted below, we found 
another area (i.e., the edges of the football field) that was not 
butterfly habitat and had been recently cleared of trees, has been 
colonized this year (Service 2004d). This has been reported elsewhere 
for butterflies in the genus Euphydryas (Ehrlich and Hanski 2004). For 
example, freshly created habitats on road verges, railway embankments, 
and wide forest tracks (associated with timber extraction) have been 
colonized by many species of butterfly (see Thomas 1994). These areas 
are likely to provide connectivity through ``stepping stones'' to other 
occupied butterfly localities (Thomas et al. 1992).
    Recently, we also found that butterfly habitat has been created 
adjacent to a football field that was part of a 1996 land purchase 
(Service 2004d, Forest Service 2001a, 2001b). In an area adjacent to 
the football field that was previously forested and not considered 
butterfly habitat (Forest Service 2001a), we found larvae in diapause. 
During surveys in October 2004, we found New Mexico penstemon and 
valerian (Valeriana edulis) growing abundantly throughout the area and, 
based upon the presence of larvae, conclude that reproduction occurred 
in this area during 2004 (Service 2004d). This indicates that larval 
foodplants were naturally reestablished following forest clearing and 
soil disturbance. The butterfly subsequently colonized the area. This 
information demonstrates the resiliency of the butterfly and its 
footplants, and their ability to colonize new habitat. Based upon our 
assessment of these data, it appears that habitat connectivity is still 
provided through much of the land within the range of the butterfly. 
Thus, heavy clearing or mowing of native vegetation cannot be 
considered a significant threat presently or in the foreseeable future.
Summary
    As evidenced by the foregoing discussion of occupied butterfly 
habitat on private lands within the Village of Cloudcroft and Otero 
County, it has been demonstrated that the butterfly can co-exist within 
developed areas. The potential threat to the butterfly from private and 
commercial development is not as significant as we originally believed. 
For example, we estimate that no more than 7.3 of 484 ha (18 of 1,196 
ac) of suitable butterfly habitat on private land have the potential to 
be impacted from development activities. The Village of Cloudcroft will 
also continue to follow their greenbelt zoning regulations, thus 
limiting potential impacts within butterfly habitat on newly purchased/
acquired land. This new information indicates commercial and private 
development is

[[Page 76435]]

no longer a substantial threat to the species currently or in the 
foreseeable future within the Village of Cloudcroft and Otero County.
Forest Service Activities
    In the proposed rule we concluded that those Forest Service 
projects listed below, that are within the known range of the 
butterfly, had the potential to adversely affect the butterfly. Since 
the time of the proposal, the Forest Service has eliminated some 
proposed projects (e.g., the construction of a new administrative 
building) in habitat used by the butterfly (Forest Service 2001, 
2003a). They have also taken actions to protect and manage the 
butterfly, including instituting a butterfly closure order (see 
discussion below), fencing occupied butterfly habitat, and conducting 
butterfly surveys to determine range and occupancy (Forest Service 
1999a, 1999b, 1999h, 2000a, 2000d, 2004). These actions have eliminated 
or lessened threats to the species and have been beneficial for 
increasing our knowledge of this species.
    Below, we provide a brief summary of projects that have gone 
through conferencing as required for proposed species under section 7 
of the Act. The next section includes an update to those projects 
previously identified as threats to the species: (1) The capital 
improvement projects for three campgrounds; (2) a new power line, 
service road, and corridor; (3) livestock grazing activities in several 
allotments, one of which (Sacramento Allotment) encompasses over 44,921 
ha (111,000 ac); (4) a land transfer to the Village of Cloudcroft, 
which was analyzed above; and fire suppression and wildfire.
    We have a good history of conferencing with the Forest Service 
under section 7 of the Act on activities that may affect the butterfly. 
Thus, we can describe the kinds of actions that have undergone informal 
and formal conferencing. For example, we have found that many potential 
threats anticipated in the proposed rule resulted in insignificant and 
discountable effects for the butterfly (Service 2002, 2004a). These 
include: noxious weed management, reconstruction of Fir Campground, 
some wildland urban interface fuels management projects, and 
construction of the new Forest Service administrative building (Service 
2002, 2003a, Forest Service 2003a). Additionally, the majority of 
formal conferences that have anticipated incidental take of butterflies 
have found that short-term impacts will occur, but the overall project 
will result in long-term benefits for the species (Rio Pe[ntilde]asco 
II, Pines Campground reconstruction), or that impacts to occupied 
habitat will not affect the metapopulation dynamics of the species 
(Service 2001a, 2002b, 2002c, 2004e).
    To date, six projects have undergone formal conferencing for the 
butterfly and its proposed critical habitat. The projects with 
anticipated take include: (1) Cloudcroft Water Wells (2-22-02-F-012; 
1.5 ha (3.7 ac) of occupied habitat impacted); (2) Genetics Study (2-
22-02-F-667; 100 pre-diapause larvae collected); (3) Mark-release 
movements study (2-22-02-F-470; 15 adult butterflies harmed, unlimited 
number harassed); (4) Rio Pe[ntilde]asco II vegetation management 
project (2-22-02-F-397; 14.7 ha (36.4 ac) of occupied habitat 
impacted); (5) Pines Campground Reconstruction project (2-22-03-F-0061; 
4.2 ha (10.5 ac) of occupied habitat impacted); (6) Village of 
Cloudcroft Apache and Powerline water wells (2-22-04-F-721; less than 
1.2 ha (3 ac) of occupied habitat impacted). We are also currently 
conferencing on two additional projects: (1) The reinitiation of the 
Rio Pe[ntilde]asco II vegetation management project that will likely 
impact an additional 13 ha (33 ac) of occupied butterfly habitat; and 
(2) a proposed elk study that will impact about 2.4 ha (6 ac) of 
occupied habitat. In all of our conferences, we concluded that the 
actions, as proposed, were not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the butterfly and are not likely to destroy or adversely 
modify proposed critical habitat.

Campground Projects

    In 1998, recreation managers and engineers of the Lincoln National 
Forest and the Forest Service's Southwest Regional Office reviewed 
improvements needed throughout existing developed campgrounds of the 
Sacramento Ranger District. In 1998, all phases of the district's 
recreation improvement proposal were submitted for funding under the 
Recreation Capital Improvement Program (Forest Service 2003b). As 
described below, three of the four phases have been completed (Pines, 
Fir, and Silver, Saddle, and Apache Campgrounds).
    Pines Campground located near the Village of Cloudcroft contains 
one of the largest known concentrations of the butterfly. 
Reconstruction activities in this campground were completed following 
formal conferencing (Service 2002a). We found that the implementation 
of this project, along with the conservation measures, will likely 
result in short-term adverse impacts to the butterfly and its habitat, 
but will ultimately reduce the long-term recreational impacts to the 
species and its habitat in this locality (Service 2002a). For example, 
the capacity of the campground has been significantly reduced, 
indicating that potential recreational impacts have decreased. The 
construction of retaining walls, fencing, and signs, the enforcement of 
areas not open to camping, and the installation of a barrier across the 
butterfly habitat has resulted in long-term benefits for the species 
(e.g., the impact of trampling of foodplants and crushing of larvae has 
been reduced). For these reasons, we believe that the reconstruction of 
Pines Campground did not disrupt the metapopulation dynamics of the 
butterfly (Service 2003). Because these activities were completed 
during 2004 (Service 2004d), this action no longer threatens the 
butterfly.
    The Fir Campground Capital Improvements Project underwent informal 
conferencing and resulted in a letter of concurrence (Service 2002). 
This project also redesigned the group camping area and paved the 
existing road. The Forest Service flagged and avoided butterfly 
locations during project construction. Additionally, a boundary fence 
was constructed to reduce long-term recreational and visitor impacts to 
butterfly habitat in the area. This action was completed in summer 2002 
and no longer threatens the butterfly.
    Silver, Saddle, and Apache Campgrounds were reconstructed during 
the summer of 2001 (Forest Service 2000). The Forest Service conducted 
butterfly surveys and did not locate any individuals; consequently, the 
Forest Service determined that no threatened, endangered, or sensitive 
species would be adversely affected (Forest Service 2000). Because this 
action was completed, it no longer threatens the butterfly.
    Under phase 4, the Forest Service is currently finalizing a 
proposal to reconstruct the remaining 5 campgrounds (Sleepy Grass, 
Black Bear Group, Aspen Group, Deerhead, and Slide Group) that are 
occupied by the butterfly (Forest Service 2003b, 2004i). We toured the 
five campgrounds on October 27, 2004, and discussed aspects of the 
proposal. For the final five campgrounds slated for renovations, the 
Forest Service's draft environmental analysis evaluates three 
alternatives: A no action and two action alternatives (Forest Service 
2004i). Both action alternatives incorporate measures to minimize 
impacts to the butterfly, although one alternative will protect more 
butterfly habitat through the placement of camp and day use sites in 
areas that are not butterfly habitat (e.g.,

[[Page 76436]]

forest habitat) (Forest Service 2004i). Regardless of which action 
alternative is chosen, this proposal will result in long-term benefits 
to the butterfly because more area of butterfly habitat will be 
protected than under existing conditions (Forest Service 2004i). The 
purpose of the project is to improve or replace the facilities in the 
campground to enhance the safety, accessibility and enjoyment of the 
site for National Forest visitors, while conserving the natural and 
cultural resources in the area. The main tenets of this proposal are to 
reduce the number of camping sites and condense the campgrounds into 
smaller areas through permanent campground boundaries with physical 
barriers (e.g., fences or boulders) to reduce access and associated 
trampling of butterfly habitat (Forest Service 2004i). Construction 
activities will likely be initiated during 2005 and will follow 
predefined best management practices and include seasonal restrictions 
during construction, monitoring of construction activities, surveys for 
the butterfly and foodplants, and revegetation where appropriate 
(Service 2004d, Forest Service 2004i). Construction will not result in 
a disruption of the overall metapopulation dynamics of the species 
because impacts will only be a short-term disturbance of butterfly 
habitat, with a minor amount of butterflies affected. We have found 
that these types of impacts are not a significant threat to the 
butterfly because the species and its foodplants have been demonstrated 
to be resilient to some disturbances (e.g., edges of the football 
field, campgrounds, and railroad) (Service 2004d). This remaining 
capital improvement project will offset the high demand for developed 
recreation, while limiting associated recreational impacts to the 
butterfly. For these reasons, reconstruction of the remaining five 
campgrounds is not considered a threat to the butterfly and will result 
in long-term benefits over existing conditions.

Powerline, Service Road, and Corridor

    The Forest Service issued a special use permit for the Otero County 
Electrical Cooperative Powerline project to install a new powerline 
corridor (Service 2000). The Forest Service determined that the 
powerline project was expected to result in a disturbance of less than 
0.4 ha (1 ac) of suitable butterfly habitat (Forest Service 1999a). 
They developed a seed mix for erosion control, avoided construction 
during the active season of butterfly, and added some nectar-source 
species to restore the area of disturbance (Forest Service 1999a, 
2000b). This action resulted in insignificant effects to the butterfly 
and does not threaten the butterfly currently or in the foreseeable 
future.
    In October 2001, we informally conferenced on the Dry Canyon 
Telephone project with the Forest Service (Service 2001a). Under this 
project, the Forest Service relocated a planned telephone line from 
suitable butterfly habitat to burial in the middle of a road (Forest 
Service 1999) that is not butterfly habitat. The Forest Service also 
completed several conservation measures (e.g., foodplants were flagged 
and avoided within equipment staging areas) as part of this project 
(Forest Service 2002). The impacts associated with habitat disturbance 
from this project were temporary. Therefore, this project was, but is 
no longer considered a threat to the species.
    The economic analysis estimated that over the next 10 years about 
145 km (90 mi) of rights-of-way within butterfly habitat will be 
maintained, and that the Forest Service and Otero County Electric 
Cooperative will apply conservation activities for the species that 
range from $30,400 to $39,600 per mile ($48,640 to $63,360 per km) 
(Service 2004c). Rights-of-way provide access to powerlines and poles 
for routine monitoring and maintenance activities (1999a). For example, 
powerlines are visually inspected about 4 to 6 times per year by 
driving a vehicle along the powerline and checking for any problems or 
hazards (e.g., remove hazard trees) (Forest Service 1999a). Existing 
rights-of-way access range from two-track dirt paths to graveled roads 
in some of the areas that traverse or are adjacent to a variety of 
areas including meadows, mixed conifer forest, and pavement (Forest 
Service 1999a). These activities could result in adverse effects to the 
butterfly from scraping and grading activities (e.g., some individuals 
will likely be crushed and killed); however, we anticipate that the 
majority of impacts from rights-of-way maintenance activities will be 
temporary (scraping and leveling vegetation from within the footprint 
of existing rights-of-way). The Forest Service indicated that they will 
issue a special use permit that includes conservation measures for the 
butterfly (Forest Service 2004i). Moreover, annual maintenance projects 
are expected to be conducted in phases such that not all 145 km (90 mi) 
of rights-of-way will be impacted in a given year (Forest Service 
2004l). We encouraged the Forest Service to include a seasonal 
restriction during the active season of the butterfly and revegetate 
areas that are disturbed during maintenance activities to limit adverse 
impacts (Service 2004c). The Forest Service indicated that they were 
unable to include specific measures because activities vary from year 
to year and project to project (Forest Service 2004l). Nevertheless, 
the contractors that conducted our draft economic analysis of the 
proposed critical habitat for the butterfly interviewed employees of 
the Otero County Electric Cooperative and found that they were 
anticipating seasonal restrictions on maintenance activities (Service 
2004). Based upon this information, the special use permit will likely 
include some measures to limit adverse effects on the butterfly, but 
may not avoid all impacts such as crushing of larvae from heavy 
equipment use. Nevertheless, because of the linear nature of these 
impacts and the recognition that adjacent habitat will remain intact, 
we believe this activity represents only a limited threat to the 
species. We also note that no new Electric Cooperative projects are 
currently planned, indicating no other powerline-related threats are 
foreseeable (Service 2004).

Domestic Livestock Grazing

    The known range of the butterfly includes portions of six livestock 
grazing allotments and two horse pastures: La Luz Watershed, 
Sacramento, Russia Canyon, Pumphouse, James Canyon, Walker C.C, and 
Heliport and Pines horse pastures. The La Luz Watershed allotment 
covers about 2,023 ha (5,000 ac) and is closed and not grazed by 
livestock (Service 2004c, Forest Service 2002d). No livestock grazing 
occurs in the portion of the Sacramento allotment occupied by the 
butterfly because the topography is too steep for cattle to access 
(Service 2004a). The Heliport Horse Pasture (180 ha (446 ac)) is not 
grazed, whereas the Pines Horse Pasture (23 ha (57 ac)) is stocked with 
up to 4 horses for about 5 months out of the year (Service 2004c). The 
Pumphouse Allotment currently is stocked with up to 66 cattle, the 
Walker C.C. Allotment is permitted to stock up to 69 cattle, and the 
Russia Canyon Allotment is stocked with up to 42 cattle (Service 2004, 
2004c). These allotments are grazed for about 6 months out of the year, 
from around mid-May to mid-October during the active season of the 
butterfly (Service 2004c). The butterfly occurs within about 91 ha (225 
ac) of the Pumphouse Allotment and 7.2 ha (18 ac) of the Russia Canyon 
Allotment; however, surveys have not detected butterflies within the 
Walker C.C. Allotment (Forest Service 2001, 2004n). The grazing permit 
for the James Canyon allotment (4,299 ha (10,623 ac)) was cancelled in 
the early 1990s. Prior to that time, the allotment was stocked

[[Page 76437]]

with about 142 cattle for 6 months out of the year. The Forest Service 
is currently considering resumption of livestock grazing in the James 
Canyon Allotment (Forest Service 2004b). The Forest Service has 
proposed a utilization level of 35 percent in areas open to livestock 
grazing, and would permanently close about 2,790 ha (6,900 ac) of the 
allotment to grazing within the Silver Springs Canyon area (Service 
2004c, Forest Service 2004b). Therefore, about 40 percent (63 ha (155 
ac) of 154 ha (380 ac)) of the occupied butterfly habitat will not be 
grazed by livestock (Forest Service 2004b).
    Currently, the allowable forage utilization level in livestock 
grazing allotments within the range of the butterfly is 35 percent with 
a minimum stubble height of 10 centimeters (cm) (4 inches ( in)) 
(Service 2004c). The Forest recently requested formally conferencing 
for the James Allotment regarding potential impacts related to 
trampling of larvae from livestock (Forest Service 2004b). Prior to 
this request, we there have been no conferences between the Forest 
Service and the Service on livestock activities and the butterfly 
(Service 2004c). Nevertheless, the Forest Service manages these 
allotments consistent with existing range management standards and 
guidelines under their Forest Plan, and when management adjustments are 
necessary to meet the forage levels, adjustments are made through the 
permit administration process (Forest Service 2002d, 2004i, 2004l, 
United States District Court 2002). The existing forage utilization 
(i.e., 35 percent) is adequate for the protection of the butterfly to 
limit adverse effects (Service 2004c). Moreover, the Forest Service has 
been and is proposing to distribute livestock throughout the pastures 
in each allotment to minimize the number of cattle and the potential 
for trampling of butterflies within individual meadows (Forest Service 
2002d, 2004b). The Forest Service will also formally monitor three 
meadows within the James Canyon and Pumphouse Allotments (Forest 
Service 2004i), in addition to monitoring requirements under a previous 
(2001) court settlement agreement (Forest Guardians v. United States 
Forest Service et al. CIV 00-490 JP/RLP & CIV 00-1240 JP/RLP-ACE 
(Consolidated)) and as part of the permit administration process 
(Forest Service 2002d). If needed, management adjustments (e.g., 
reducing the number of livestock or removing all livestock) are made 
through the permit administration process (Forest Service 2002d, 2004i, 
2004l).
    Although we previously assumed that grazing can eliminate or reduce 
the food plants used by the butterfly, we now conclude that management 
of current and future levels of grazing is compatible with conservation 
of the butterfly because the Forest Service is currently and will 
continue to manage these allotments for moderate grazing (i.e., 35 
percent forage utilization) (Service 2004c, Forest Service 2002d, 
2004i). For example, we incorrectly assumed that grazing would reduce 
or eliminate sneezeweed (Helenium hoopesii). In fact, the USDA 
Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory (2004) reports that sneezeweed is a 
poisonous nonpalatable species that induces chronic vomiting when eaten 
by animals. The Forest Service also indicated that most of the mountain 
meadows are currently in satisfactory range conditions and that 
sneezeweed may actually decrease as range conditions improve (Forest 
Service 2001).
    A focused study on the butterfly found that heavy grazing of 
butterfly foodplants, particularly during years with below-normal 
precipitation, may result in increased trampling and mortality of 
butterfly larvae because New Mexico penstemon may be among the few 
plants that are green (Pittenger and Yori 2003). On the other hand, the 
Forest Service indicated that Pumphouse Canyon has one of the highest 
densities of the butterfly even with high forage utilization in 1999 
(i.e., 60 to 70 percent) from combined elk and livestock use (Forest 
Service 2001, 2002d). Leaf lengths of palatable grass species in 
Pumphouse Canyon averaged 8.4 cm (3.3 in) in 1999, 11.4 cm (4.5 in) in 
2000, 21.3 cm (8.4 in) in 2001, and 10.1 cm (5.3 in) in 2002 (Forest 
Service 2002d). A leaf length of 10.1 cm (4 in) and greater reflects 
moderate forage utilization and equates to about 35 percent forage 
utilization (Forest Service 2002d). The Forest Service did not provide 
any monitoring data to us from 2003 or 2004, but indicated that they 
are managing this and other allotments to attain moderate forage use 
(Forest Service 2004d, 2004i). Although Pittenger and Yori (2003) found 
that heavy grazing on New Mexico penstemon occurred during 2002 within 
the Pumphouse Allotment, there were no differences in the density of 
New Mexico penstemon when compared to ungrazed meadows within Spud 
Patch Canyon. They also did not find a difference in the overall number 
of adult butterflies observed between moderate and heavy grazing years 
(i.e., 2000, 2001, and 2002) within the Pumphouse Allotment (Pittenger 
and Yori 2003). Forage utilization may have been high in 1999 because 
of a disproportionate amount of grazing by elk (Forest Service 2002d) 
(see discussion below on current elk management).
    We do not expect that heavy grazing will continue to occur within 
the range of the butterfly because the Forest Service has recently been 
monitoring and managing these allotments to attain 35 percent forage 
utilization and they must manage and protect long-term range conditions 
consistent with their range management regulations (e.g., see 36 CFR 
222) (Forest Service 2002d, 2004b, 2004i, 2004l, United States District 
Court 2002). We also note that, similar to other site-specific 
decisions, authorized grazing permits must be consistent with the 
applicable Forest Plan at the time they are issued (36 CFR 219.10).
    We find that the Lincoln National Forest Plan will manage butterfly 
habitat because at least two of the applicable standards and guidelines 
apply to the butterfly including: (1) Protecting and managing essential 
and critical habitats of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 
through ensuring that legal and biological requirements of designated 
plant and animal species are met; and (2) identifying, protecting, and 
enhancing existing and potential habitat of all threatened, endangered, 
and sensitive species (USDA Forest Service 1986). The butterfly has 
been designated by the Regional Forester as a Sensitive Species, and, 
as such, will continue to be analyzed in all applicable NEPA documents 
(Forest Service 2004i). The Forest Service has indicated that 
conservative stocking levels, deferred and rest-rotation grazing 
schemes, and timing of permitted grazing are the best ways to minimize 
grazing impacts on the butterfly (Forest Service 2001). We agree with 
this conclusion.
    We acknowledge that grazing can incidentally kill butterflies 
through trampling and/or accidental ingestion of larvae or eggs 
(Pittenger and Yori 2003, Forest Service 2002, White 1986), and 
anticipate such effects are occurring within each of the allotments 
that overlap with occupied butterfly habitat (i.e., Pumphouse, Russia 
Canyon, and La Luz Watershed). However, because the Forest Service is 
managing these allotments for medium-intensity grazing, we believe the 
effects will be minimal and not result in the butterfly population 
being compromised (Forest Service 2002d). In the future, this same 
management strategy (i.e., the forage

[[Page 76438]]

utilization threshold) will ensure larval and adult foodplants are 
maintained.
    In 2001, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish changed the 
management objective for game management unit 34, which overlaps with 
the range of the butterfly. A 5-year plan was adopted to reduce the 
number of elk from about 4,000 to 1,000 across the entire game 
management unit (Forest Service 2002). The current elk population goal 
is 1,700 animals, with the most recent survey results estimating a 
current elk population of 2,700 animals within this game management 
unit (Forest Service 2004b). The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 
has continued to increase the number of elk hunting tags and has 
implemented depredation hunts to minimize the impact of elk grazing on 
range conditions (Forest Service 2004b). These actions will continue to 
further reduce the impact of grazing on the butterfly.
    The foregoing analysis indicates that even when grazing is not 
closely managed, grazing appears to have a negligible effect on 
butterfly populations and its major foodplant, New Mexico penstemon 
(Pittenger and Yori 2003). Still, we expect that grazing will be 
closely managed to attempt to meet 35 percent forage utilization 
(Forest Service 2002d, 2004i, 2004l). For these reasons, the current 
and future occurrence of grazing does not represent a principal factor 
in the viability of the species and its habitat.

Trespass Horses

    About 20 to 40 trespass horses have been observed grazing in 
meadows of the James Allotment within the northern portion of the 
Sacramento Ranger District (Forest Service 2004b, Service 2004b). 
Trespass horses could have an impact on forage utilization levels and 
trampling of butterfly host plants and larvae (Forest Service 2004b). 
The Forest Service has posted impoundment notices, contacted presumed 
owners, and spent $10,000 repairing and rebuilding fences along the 
Forest boundary (Forest Service 2004i). To date, these efforts have not 
been successful in reducing the number of trespass horses on the 
Sacramento Ranger District (Forest Service 2004b). Similar to livestock 
grazing, we believe that trespass horses will have negligible effects 
on butterfly populations and its major foodplant, New Mexico penstemon. 
They are also unlikely to eat sneezeweed because it is a poisonous, 
nonpalatable species. Horses are currently having very little impact on 
soil and range conditions. For example, the Forest Service reports that 
the soil condition rating is satisfactory and range condition is stable 
or increasing on 98 percent of the James Allotment (Forest Service 
2004b). For these reasons, trespass horses are considered a low threat 
to the butterfly, because they occur in a limited number of meadows in 
the James Allotment (Forest Service 2004b). We also note that the 
Forest Service has committed to removing the feral horses from the 
James Allotment, and we anticipate that this will happen in the near 
future (Forest Service 2004b, Service 2004b). We have not relied upon 
this future removal in our determination that trespass horses are a low 
threat.

Fire Suppression and Wildfire

    In the proposed rule, we concluded that the condition of mountain 
forest lands as a result of 100 years of fire suppression in the 
Sacramento Ranger District threatened the butterfly. In light of new 
information we received (e.g., Service 2004b, Forest Service 2002a, 
2002c), we reexamined our original conclusion. Prior to 1900, the mean 
natural fire interval for forests in the Sacramento Mountains was about 
4 to 5 years (Kaufmann et al. 1998). Frequent, low-intensity surface 
fires historically maintained a forest that was more open (i.e., more 
non-forested patches of different size, more large, older trees, and 
fewer dense thickets of evergreen saplings) than is currently the case 
(Kaufmann et al. 1998).
    Due to the small known range and low abundance of the butterfly, 
the subspecies is potentially vulnerable to catastrophic wildfires. 
Although at least nine catastrophic wildfires have burned over 34,000 
ha (90,000 ac) during the last 50 years in the Sacramento Mountains 
(Kaufmann et al. 1998), a significant fire has not been documented 
within occupied habitat or proposed critical habitat since 1916 
(Service 2004b). Because fire is an inherently variable process 
depending on season, fuels, wind, moisture, etc. it impossible to 
accurately predict how the butterfly will respond. Nevertheless, the 
effects of fire on butterfly habitat quality and availability can be 
expected to vary based on the severity of fire, the response of 
foodplants to burn severity, and suitability of postfire vegetation 
(Romme et al. 2004).
    Although the effect of fire upon this species is unknown (e.g., for 
a recent review see Service 2004b), some local information is available 
from post-fire monitoring of the Scott Able fire that burned 24 km (15 
mi) southeast of the Village of Cloudcroft. In May 2000, the Scott Able 
fire burned 6,400 ha (16,000 ac) in the Lincoln National Forest, 
covering elevations between 2,250 to 3,000 m (7,000 to 9,300 ft) (Cary 
2004 cited in Service 2004b). This intense, wind-driven fire burned an 
estimated 0 to 10 percent of the meadows and 85 to 90 percent of the 
forested canopies within the mapped fire boundary (Cary 2004 cited in 
Service 2004b), meeting the qualifications for a stand replacement fire 
in much of the burned area (McCarthy and Yanoff 2003). Meadows in mixed 
conifer habitat that did not burn were situated primarily along 
drainages (Cary 2004 cited in Service 2004b). The butterfly does not 
occur in the location of the burn, but New Mexico penstemon and 
sneezeweed can be found (Cary 2004 cited in Service 2004b). Between 
2001 and 2003, mobile butterflies associated with shrubs, grasses, and 
forbs have shown a positive response to the fire, with most species 
peaking in 2001 after abundant spring precipitation (Cary 2004 cited in 
Service 2004b).
    Fires in the Sacramento Mountains tend to burn in a mosaic pattern 
(i.e., patches of burned and unburned vegetation) and are less likely 
to burn in meadows compared to surrounding forests because of the types 
of fuel involved (Forest Service 2001, 2002c). In fact, weather 
conditions that would trigger a wildfire in forested areas (i.e., mixed 
conifer fuel type) that are adjacent to meadows consist of very dry, 
windy days (Forest Service 2001, 2002c). Meadow habitat is usually not 
at high risk during fires within the mixed-conifer fuel type because 
fire behavior during wind-driven events generally burns through the 
crowns or canopy of trees, with little to no high-severity burns within 
meadows (Forest Service 2001, 2002c). These conditions would not result 
in pronounced heat effects in the soil or seedbank (R. Guaderrama cited 
in Service 2004b, Forest Service 2001), especially within areas where 
the larval host plants grow, because they usually lack continuous fine 
fuels. For example, in areas burned by the Scott Able fire, underlying 
soils were not exposed to extreme temperatures and soils were generally 
unharmed (Forest Service 2000). These data suggest that meadows and 
drainages may be less likely to burn during wind-driven events, which 
offers some protection to the butterfly and its habitat. Still, some 
amount of butterfly habitat will likely burn. In that event, it is 
likely that adjacent butterfly localities in surrounding habitat and 
unburned inclusions would serve as source populations to recolonize 
burned areas following a fire. This information suggests that 
catastrophic wildfire may

[[Page 76439]]

not be as great a threat as we had originally believed.
    Since 1999, the Sacramento Ranger District of the Lincoln National 
Forest has been working on reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire 
in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) (Forest Service 1999, Service 
2004). We have been following several projects throughout the 
Sacramento Ranger District, and have found that some projects may not 
only provide a reduction in the risk of catastrophic wildfire, but also 
enhance marginally suitable butterfly habitat along the edges of 
forests/meadows (Service 2004d). We have observed that the butterfly's 
foodplants, particularly New Mexico penstemon have been reestablished 
within areas that were recently disturbed (e.g., Highway 130 adjacent 
to Deerhead Campground, edges of the football field) (Service 2004d). 
The type of disturbance and soils likely influence whether foodplants 
will be reestablished; however, many of the forest/meadow edges that 
are contained within WUI projects have low-density foodplants already 
established (Forest Service 2000c). Within these areas, we believe that 
an increase in sunlight from thinning activities will allow foodplants 
to increase in both size and abundance. This is what we have observed 
within the construction footprint of Highway 130 adjacent to Deerhead 
Campground, the edges of the football field on Lost Lodge Road, and in 
drainages throughout these areas that have been thinned (Service 
2004d).
    In the Sacramento Mountains, several locations adjacent to occupied 
butterfly habitat have been progressively thinned since 2002. Thinned 
areas occur in Bailey Canyon (215 ha, 532 ac), Pineywood Canyon (262 
ha, 647 ac), Deerhead Canyon (146 ha, 360 ac), and along Cox Canyon (72 
ha, 178 ac). An additional 373 ha (921 ac) are designated for thinning 
in Apache Canyon and 81 ha (201 ac) are projected for a different part 
of Deerhead Canyon (Service 2004b). Thinned locations adjacent to 
suitable butterfly habitat may be used or colonized by the butterfly 
(Service 2004d). Pittenger and Yori (2003) documented butterfly 
movement between meadows, with the movements of one butterfly crossing 
a closed-canopy mixed-conifer forest for the entire route. Butterfly 
movements such as this example are likely not common because forests do 
not provide the necessary foodplants. Thus, woodland canopy reduction 
is important for open-habitat butterflies, which readily move from 
meadows into corridors, but rarely from meadows into dense woodlands 
(Sutcliffe and Thomas 1996). Also, open-habitat specialist butterflies 
are known to reach higher densities in patches connected by corridors 
than in isolated patches (Haddad and Baum 1999). The formation of 
cleared corridors or stepping-stone patches by thinning could allow the 
butterfly to migrate between suitable meadows (Maina and Howe 2000, 
Service 2001b), thus encouraging colonization of new sites or genetic 
exchange among the subpopulations. Thinning has also been associated 
with the establishment of plant and butterfly edge specialists (i.e., 
species that are adapted to the conditions created at the boundary 
between wild and disturbed lands such as a forest where the adjacent 
land has been cut), which could provide potential microhabitats or 
nectar sources for the butterfly (Bergman 2001). We have not done an 
extensive inventory of all areas thinned throughout the Sacramento 
Ranger District; however, we maintain that areas where foodplants 
become more abundant could enhance habitat connectivity between 
occupied localities and provide long-term benefits for the butterfly, 
even with the potential for short-term impacts (e.g., Service 2002b, 
2001b). Thus, we conclude that thinned forests could facilitate habitat 
connectivity between meadows occupied by the butterfly (Service 2001b).
    Since 2000, the Forest Service has invested almost $11 million to 
reduce hazardous fuels on more than 18,616 ha (46,000 ac) on the 
Lincoln National Forest, with funding and amount of land treated in 
2004 nearly three times the 2000 level (Forest Service 2001, 2002a, 
2003, 2004c, 2004h, 2004m, Service 2004b). As part of the Healthy 
Forests Initiative, in June 2004, the Lincoln National Forest received 
$750,000 to thin an additional 607 to 809 ha (1,500 to 2,000 ac) of 
overgrown stands of trees adjacent to communities in Lincoln and Otero 
counties (2004h). Vegetation management activities within the range of 
the butterfly consist primarily of thinning treatments to reduce fire 
fuels loads and restore forest structure to a more natural state. About 
89 percent of the lands within the proposed critical habitat boundary 
(12,419 of 17,628 ha (30,687 of 43,560 acres)) are classified by the 
Forest Service as WUI treatment areas (Service 2004c). The goals of 
these thinning treatments are to reduce the threat of catastrophic 
wildfire in the wildland-urban interface and to assist in the economic 
sustainability of these communities. As described above, little 
quantitative data has been gathered following the WUI projects being 
implemented on the Lincoln National Forest. Nevertheless, qualitatively 
we have found a beneficial response of the butterfly to the increase in 
thinning (Service 2004d). Recent WUI projects have targeted reducing 
ladder fuels (those fuels that convey flames from the ground to the 
tree canopy) and tree densities in forests surrounding the meadows 
(Service 2004b). These projects should assist in lowering the risk of 
catastrophic wildfire in forested areas and may reduce the intensity 
and severity of wildfires in adjacent butterfly habitat (i.e., 
meadows).
    The Forest Service is also currently proposing to amend their 
Forest Plan to allow broader application of natural fire to aid in 
forest restoration (Forest Service 2004d). Depending on the season of 
burns and other factors, fire activity from this action could be 
expected to range from creeping surface fires with flame lengths of 
less than 30 cm (12 in) burning in pine litter and duff (leaves and 
branches on the forest floor) during periods when temperatures are low 
and the relative humidity is high, to an active surface fire burning 
freely in all surface fuels, and actively torching groups of seedling 
and small-pole-size (2.54 to 10 cm)(1 to 4 in) trees. The more active 
fires will also regularly torch individual overstory trees of various 
sizes as well as small groups of overstory trees with continuous ladder 
fuels beneath them. These types of burns would generally provide 
conditions suitable for increased herbaceous plant growth by removing a 
thick layer of dead plant debris within treated areas, in addition to 
enlarging some of the meadows (i.e., from killing conifers that have 
encroached). We believe that the mosaic effect created by burned and 
unburned areas, in conjunction with a reduction in catastrophic fire 
risk and increase in meadows (from encroaching conifers burning), may 
result in long-term benefits for the butterfly.
    We previously concluded that wildfire was one of the most 
significant threats facing this species. In the proposed rule, we found 
that a significant increase in funding was required to reduce the risk 
of catastrophic fire for the butterfly. The new information we reviewed 
indicates this funding and subsequent increases in fuels management 
have occurred and will continue for the foreseeable future (Forest 
Service 2001, 2002a, 2003, 2004c, 2004h, Service 2004b). We have also 
reexamined our original conclusion based upon site-specific data from 
fires that have burned in the last few years. These data demonstrate 
that meadows

[[Page 76440]]

generally do not burn at high intensity, but usually burn as a mosaic 
(Service 2004b). Given recent information from the Sacramento Mountains 
and new and continued efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophic 
wildfire, we no longer consider fire a threat of high magnitude. In 
fact, fire and activities conducted to reduce the risk of fire may be 
beneficial by increasing connectivity between areas of suitable 
butterfly habitat. Thus, we find the threat to the butterfly from 
catastrophic wildfire has been reduced and is no longer significant.

Highway and Forest Road Reconstruction

    In the proposed rule, we concluded that construction of roadways 
had historically eliminated or reduced the quality or quantity of 
butterfly habitat. We reexamine this conclusion based upon new 
information. The Forest Service indicated in their comments on the 
proposed rule that the only road construction planned within butterfly 
habitat is associated with campground reconstruction projects (Forest 
Service 2001). These activities, including the associated road 
construction, are not considered a threat to the butterfly (see 
``Campground Projects'' section above). Road grading activities will 
likely occur on both Forest Service and private lands. The Forest 
Service has not found adverse impacts to the butterfly from these 
actions because the majority of these maintenance activities occur 
within the existing footprint of the road during the non-active season 
of the butterfly (Forest Service 2001). These road maintenance 
activities can cause localized adverse impacts to the butterfly through 
the elimination of larval food and adult host plants or the crushing of 
life history stages. However, as described under the Otero Electrical 
Powerline analysis above, many of these impacts are likely temporary 
and will not lead to a disruption of local populations.
    The NMSHTD project detailed in the proposed rule cleared a variety 
of vegetation by scraping and widening the road and shoulders, 
constructing retaining walls, adding drainage ditches and culverts, and 
reconstructing a curve. Topsoil and larval food plants were stockpiled 
and used in revegetation when the project was completed. Monitoring 
documented that transplanting efforts were not effective (Pittenger and 
Yori 2003); however, the area has been revegetated from naturally 
occurring seeds and now contains larval food plants and adult nectar 
sources (Service 2004). Although the butterfly has not been documented 
within this area to date, we believe it may be used as early as the 
2005 active season of the species (April through October). We base this 
conclusion on observations in the areas adjacent to the football field 
that had similar vegetation disturbance and subsequent foodplant and 
butterfly recolonization (Service 2004d). This information indicates 
that road maintenance and reconstruction activities have the potential 
to adversely affect the butterfly, but they have not been demonstrated 
to be a serious impact because the butterfly and its foodplants are 
more resilient than previously thought. Thus, we do not consider road 
reconstruction and maintenance activities to be a serious threat to the 
butterfly that will result in long-term consequences.
Recreational Impacts
    Off-highway vehicles (OHVs) pose a threat to the butterfly through 
direct crushing of eggs, larvae, pupae, or thermoregulating 
(maintenance of a constant internal body temperature regardless of 
environmental temperature) adults located on bare soils, leaves, or 
grasses within or adjacent to trails and roads (66 FR 46575, September 
6, 2001). The Forest Service recently produced a map and report that 
categorized meadow disturbances (Forest Service 2004e). They found that 
dispersed camping and OHV use is increasing on the Forest, and that 
impacts are occurring in about half of the occupied butterfly habitat 
(225 ha (555 ac)) (Forest Service 2004e). The level of OHV activity is 
high within four areas (Pumphouse Canyon, Bailey Canyon, Zinker Canyon, 
and La Luz road in the vicinity of Forest Road 162A).
    During 2004, the Forest Service focused on reducing the impact of 
illegal OHV traffic and related recreational impacts within the 
occupied butterfly habitat of Bailey Canyon by: (1) Fencing access 
points to meadows within these areas; (2) felling logs and trees across 
trails; (3) enforcing regulations that prohibit travel off-road use in 
certain areas; (4) placing signs in the middle of illegally created OHV 
trails; and (5) increasing public education regarding impacts of OHV on 
natural resources (Forest Service 2004f, Service 2004d). For example, 
fencing that was placed in Bailey Canyon during summer 2004 has thus 
far proved to be an effective deterrent against OHVs entering occupied 
butterfly habitat (Service 2004d, Forest Service 2004i). Fencing, 
signs, and monitoring by law enforcement personnel have similarly 
stopped OHVs from entering butterfly habitat in other areas of the 
forest (e.g., Pines Campground and Silver Springs) (Forest Service 
2000c). The Forest Service indicated that these fences have not been 
cut or torn down and OHVs generally stay out of meadows if their access 
is blocked (Service 2000c, 2004d). The Forest Service has committed to 
continue to alleviate OHV-related impacts to the butterfly by 
installing physical barriers, posting signs, felling trees, and 
enforcement (Forest Service 2004i). Nationally, the Forest Service is 
also currently revising their travel management regulations to require 
each Forest to establish a system of roads and trails and regulate or 
prohibit certain motor vehicle uses (July 15, 2004, 69 FR 42381).
    We are not relying on this effort in our analysis of this potential 
threat, but recognize that the revised travel management regulations 
may provide a long-term conservation benefit to the species by 
providing a consistent policy that can be applied to all classes of 
motor vehicles, including OHVs, that would allow the agency to regulate 
different types of uses. Nevertheless, it is likely that even with 
these measures, some temporary OHV-related impacts will continue to 
affect the butterfly and its habitat. OHV impacts will likely result in 
the temporary crushing or possible destruction of foodplants in 
localized areas and mortality of individual butterflies (or other life-
history stage) (Service 2004d). We believe the magnitude of these 
impacts is low based on our observations of OHV use and the estimate of 
OHV impacts in Kockelman (1983). Kockelman (1983) estimated that a two-
wheel OHV leaves a track about 13 cm (5 in) wide and disturbs about 0.4 
ha (1 ac) for every 32 km (20 mi) traveled, whereas tracks made by a 4-
wheel OHV are typically 0.5 m (18 in) wide and disturb about 0.4 ha (1 
ac) for every 10 km (6 mi) traveled. Using these estimates, we believe 
that only a small proportion of occupied butterfly habitat would be 
impacted in a given year. For example, if a 4-wheel OHV tracks across 
occupied butterfly habitat, the OHV would need to travel 96.5 km (60 
mi) uniformly to completely disturb a 4.0-ha (10-ac) meadow. Many of 
the OHV impacts that have been observed are single events (i.e., there 
are fewer than 5 to 10 OHV tracks across a meadow) (Forest Service 
2000c, Service 2004d). This type of an impact would account for very 
little habitat disturbance. For all of these reasons, we do not believe 
that OHVs significantly threaten the butterfly.
    In the proposed rule, we found the butterfly may also be threatened 
by impacts from mountain bikes, hiking, and camping because of the

[[Page 76441]]

development of trails, a reduction of native vegetation to barren 
areas, and trampling, but the potential significance of these impacts 
had not been quantified. We indicated that the species had the 
potential to be impacted by these activities because larvae could be 
found along and adjacent to several popular mountain biking routes, 
hiking trails, and dispersed camp sites.
    The Forest Service has conducted project-by-project analysis of 
large events (see discussion below) to determine potential impacts to 
the butterfly. These analyses will continue because the species is 
designated as a sensitive species on the Lincoln National Forest 
(Forest Service 2001, 2004i). As a sensitive species, the Forest 
Service conducts surveys within habitat that is capable of supporting 
the butterfly and analyzes the impacts of proposed projects as part of 
the NEPA process (Forest Service 2004i). For example, the Forest 
Service indicated that their biologists survey routes prior to large 
events such as races, and they determined the trails were not occupied 
by larvae and, therefore, were not affected (Forest Service 2001). It 
is our understanding that if larvae were to be found within the route 
of a race, the Forest would either analyze the impact on the species 
through the development of a Biological Evaluations (BEs) and a NEPA 
document, or they would move the route to avoid impacts to the 
butterfly. We do not have quantitative data on the potential impact 
from hiking or dispersed camping. However, our observations over the 
last several years suggest the potential adverse impacts from hiking 
and dispersed camping are minor and result in short-term crushing of 
vegetation (Service 2000a).
    We still believe mountain biking, hiking, or camping may directly 
or indirectly affect larval food plants, nectar sources, or various 
life stages of the butterfly through the development of trail ruts, the 
loss of residual topsoil and vegetation, increased erosion, the 
creation of stretches of standing water or muddy trail/road conditions, 
the development of parallel tracks, and the establishment of 
unauthorized trails (Cessford 1995). However, it does not appear that 
these impacts are likely significant for the butterfly. We reached this 
conclusion because we have found that some small-scale impacts such as 
those described above, particularly temporary crushing of vegetation 
(e.g., on trails), does not result in long-term impact to the local 
population (e.g., see Service 2000, 2000a, 2002c, 2004e) because only a 
small number of individuals have the potential to be affected. Thus the 
overall population would remain intact.
    We have continued to observe a variety of these small-scale impacts 
(e.g., barren ground, trampled food plants, multiple trails, vehicle 
tracking, etc.) in areas used by larval and adult life stages of the 
butterfly. Nevertheless, it does not appear that these small-scale 
disturbances have reduced the amount of suitable habitat in and around 
developed campgrounds or undeveloped campsites known to support the 
butterfly, because the subspecies is still abundant within these areas 
(e.g., Deerhead, Pines, Sleepygrass, Slide, Black Bear, and Fir 
Campgrounds) (Forest Service 2004e). Consequently, the effect of 
mountain bikes, hiking, and camping on the butterfly is not currently 
considered a threat.
Nonnative Vegetation
    In the proposed rule, we found that nonnative vegetation threatened 
the butterfly by out-competing and reducing or eliminating food plants 
for larvae and nectar plants used by adults (66 FR 46575, September 6, 
2001). On the Lincoln National Forest, there are 12 aggressive 
nonnative plant species, including Russian knapweed (Acroptilon 
repens), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), oat grass, and teasel (Dipsacus 
sylvestris). In 2002, we completed an informal conference with the 
Forest Service regarding a District-wide noxious weed management 
program (Service 2002, Forest Service 2000d). This program also 
authorizes the NMSHD to treat noxious weeds within state and Federal 
highway rights-of-way (Forest Service 2000d). We concluded that the 
effects from the Forest Service's proposal to manage and remove noxious 
weeds were expected to be insignificant (i.e., should never reach the 
level where incidental take will occur) or discountable (i.e., effects 
are extremely unlikely to occur) to the butterfly (Service 2002). These 
data indicate that nonnative vegetation and the application of 
herbicides are currently being managed, which significantly reduced the 
threat to the species. As such, we do not believe the nonnative 
vegetation and the application of herbicides are a significant threat 
to the butterfly.
Conclusion for Factor A
    The butterfly appears to exhibit much of the same behavior, life 
history, and patchy distribution as other well-studied species in this 
genus. The patchy distributional pattern is expected in many 
butterflies in the genus Euphydryas and other species, because they 
exist as metapopulations and at any instant butterflies may be using 
some areas and not others (Hanski and Gilpin 1991). Suitable habitat 
within the range of the species can play a pivotal role in maintaining 
natural metapopulations, especially butterflies that may have limited 
dispersal abilities (Murphy and Weiss 1988).
    In the proposed rule, we found that much of the remaining suitable 
butterfly habitat, and the long-term persistence of the species, was 
threatened by the direct and indirect effects of commercial and private 
development, Forest Service projects, catastrophic wildfire, fire 
suppression activities, highway reconstruction, OHV use, trampling, 
overgrazed range conditions, and nonnative vegetation. As detailed 
above, we received new information since publication of the proposed 
rule specific to the butterfly and the potential threats. It is our 
determination that based on an analysis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of the butterfly's habitat or range is no 
longer a significant factor because new information indicates that 
these threats have been eliminated or reduced. Considering the 
magnitude, imminence, and irreversibility of threats to the butterfly 
and its habitat, we now conclude that the threats identified under 
Factor A are not likely to cause the species to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range (see discussion after ``Factor E'' below). Based upon the 
information reviewed above, we also conclude that the butterfly is not 
endangered of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
known range.

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

    In our proposal, we found that the species was at risk from over-
collection. The Forest Service issued a closure order in April 2000 for 
the collection of any butterflies without a permit on the Smokey Bear 
and Sacramento Districts of the Lincoln National Forest (Forest Service 
2001). This closure order restricts the collection of the butterfly 
without a permit. Pursuant to 36 CFR, Sec.  261.58(s), the Forest 
Service specifically prohibited ``capture, collection, killing, 
possession, storage, or transportation of the Sacramento Mountains 
checkerspot butterfly, and of life stages or parts thereof.'' The 
Forest Service posted the closure order in accordance with their 
regulations and also published a notice of the closure

[[Page 76442]]

order in the newsletter of the Lepidopterists' Society (36 CFR 261, 
Lepidopterists' Society Newsletter 1999, Holland 1999). Forest Service 
Law Enforcement is aware of possible threat of illegal collecting. It 
is our understanding that they patrol these areas. Penalty for illegal 
collection is a maximum of $5,000 and 6 months in jail. Since the 
closure order was enacted, we have not found any evidence (e.g., 
glassine collection envelopes, commonly used to house captured 
individuals) that the butterfly is being illegally collected. Since 
2000, we and the Forest Service have spent hundreds of person-hours in 
the field surveying for the butterfly, and neither we nor they have 
observed any people that appeared to be collecting the butterfly. The 
Forest Service intends to keep the closure order in place indefinitely. 
Consequently, on the basis of the efforts of the Forest service and the 
implementation of the closure order, we believe that over-collection is 
no longer considered a threat to the species.

C. Disease or Predation

    There are no indications at this time or at the time of the 
proposal that disease or predation might be a limiting factor for the 
butterfly.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Public Lands
    While inadequate protection by way of existing regulatory 
mechanisms was a factor in our decision to propose this species for 
listing, developments since our proposal have addressed these 
inadequacies. The Forest Service has the authority through the National 
Forest Management Act (NFMA) to manage the land and activities under 
their administration to conserve the butterfly. For example, this 
species was placed on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List, 
and the Forest Service has minimized or avoided potentially adverse 
impacts to the butterfly by either altering or canceling several 
proposed projects including campground reconstruction, a new 
administrative building, Townsite Act proposal, nonnative vegetation 
management, and the Dry Canyon Telephone line project (see Factor A 
section above for details). The Forest Service indicated that they 
currently provide protection and management measures for the butterfly 
because it is a designated sensitive species (Forest Service 2001). The 
Forest Service will continue to protect and manage butterfly habitat on 
public lands by analyzing potential impacts of proposed projects on the 
butterfly (Service 2004b, Forest Service 2004i). In fact, Forest 
Service policy (FSM 2670.3) states that Biological Evaluations (BEs) 
must be completed for sensitive species, and signed by a journey-level 
biologist or botanist. The BE must be signed prior to any NEPA decision 
document. BEs must include an evaluation of effects of proposed 
management actions on these species or their habitats occurring within 
the analysis area. The NFMA also requires the Forest Service ``provide 
for a diversity of plant and animal communities'' (16 U.S.C. 
1604(g)(3)(B)) as part of their multiple use mandate. The Forest 
Service is required to maintain ``viable populations of existing native 
and desired non-native species in the planning area'' (36 CFR 219.19). 
The Sensitive Species program was designed to meet this mandate and 
demonstrate their commitment to maintain biodiversity on National 
Forest System lands. The intent of this program is a proactive approach 
to conserving species to prevent a trend toward listing under the Act, 
and to ensure the continued existence of viable, well-distributed 
populations.
    The Lincoln National Forest will continue developing BEs and 
conducting NEPA analyses for each project that will affect the 
butterfly or its habitat (Forest Service 2004i). We will continue to 
analyze these site-specific NEPA documents, conduct field surveys, and 
monitor the cumulative impacts of projects on the butterfly and its 
habitat.
    In areas that have the potential to support the butterfly, the 
Forest Service has and will continue to do so under their existing 
authorities: (1) Protected and managed occupied and unoccupied 
butterfly habitat on public lands; (2) applied appropriate weed and 
pest control practices in or near occupied meadows; (3) decreased risk 
of catastrophic wildfire; (prioritized fuel treatment areas near known, 
occupied habitat to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire); (4) 
managed public recreation; (5) managed campgrounds near butterfly 
meadows to limit vehicles, tents, and other equipment in confined 
areas; (6) developed and installed an interpretive kiosk regarding the 
butterfly at Pines campground to educate campers and visitors; (7) 
evaluated the potential impact to the butterfly prior to issuing 
special use permits; (8) managed domestic livestock grazing at levels 
that minimize impacts to the butterfly; (9) issued a closure order to 
protect the butterfly from the threat of collection; (10) ensured 
effective contract administration for projects occurring in butterfly 
habitat (i.e., monitor project implementation to document conservation 
measures are being implemented); and (11) implemented best management 
practices during maintenance of powerline corridors (Service 2004, 
2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2002, 2002a, Forest Service 2004b, 2004i, 
2002b, 2001, 2000b).
    In the proposed rule, we found that existing regulatory mechanisms 
did not fully protect this species or its habitat on Forest Service 
lands. Because the Forest Service has implemented many efforts to 
manage and maintain butterfly habitat, and has the authority and 
regulations in place to continue such efforts into the future, we now 
find these efforts contribute significantly to the adequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms.
Private Lands
    Private lands play an important role in the butterfly's continued 
existence. Since publication of the proposed rule, we have found that 
there are local regulatory mechanisms pertaining to open space on the 
Village of Cloudcroft's lands (Village of Cloudcroft 2001). As noted 
above, the Village of Cloudcroft local zoning regulations (i.e., the 
Village Code) states that Greenbelt Zones shall consist of open space 
with no structures or commercial signs allowed. Further, there shall be 
no overnight parking or camping allowed within these areas. Within the 
Village of Cloudcroft, it is our understanding that native vegetation 
within greenbelt areas is generally not mowed and, in some areas 
currently provides suitable butterfly habitat that is occupied (Forest 
Service 2004e). Although we are not relying a future land transfer in 
our current review, the Village of Cloudcroft is also proposing to 
offer 16 ha (40 ac) (some of which contains occupied butterfly habitat) 
near the Cloudcroft Ski Area in James Canyon to the Forest Service 
(Service 2004b). In exchange, the Forest Service has allotted 16 ha (40 
ac) that is not butterfly habitat to the Village. This would bring 
additional butterfly habitat under Forest Service management and remove 
the potential threat of development. The Village has committed to 
improving the status of the butterfly and contributing to its long-term 
conservation by: (1) Following their zoning regulations on ``greenbelt 
zones'' and open space with no structures in recently annexed (and any 
future annexed) lands; (2) committing to a land exchange with the 
Forest Service; and (3) providing community education and outreach for 
the conservation of the butterfly. We

[[Page 76443]]

view these actions as adequate existing regulatory mechanisms to 
minimize the current and future threats to the butterfly.
    On October 19, 2004, Otero County passed a resolution committed to 
conservation of the butterfly (Otero County 2004). This resolution 
outlines the County's commitment to conservation of the butterfly 
(Service 2004b, Otero County 2004), and initiated a process that will 
cause the County to begin amending its existing subdivision ordinance 
to provide conservation measures for the butterfly. The County has 
indicated to us that they intend to pass this ordinance in December 
2004. As identified in Factor A above, the threat of commercial and 
private development is not believed to be significant at this time. 
Therefore, although future developments within butterfly habitat will 
likely be required to follow the amended subdivision ordinance, and we 
encourage and support this effort, we have not relied upon the 
development of a protective ordinance when analyzing the potential 
threat of this activity in Factor A above.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Insect Control
    In the proposed rule, we also determined that the application of 
carbaryl and Bacillus thuringensis (BT) to control insects poses a 
threat to the butterfly. Carbaryl is considered moderately to highly 
toxic and is lethal to many non-target insects, whereas BT can kill the 
larval stage of many insects, including butterflies (Cornell University 
1998a, 1998b). The Forest Service stated that any future proposed 
treatments would need to be analyzed under NEPA, and the suggestion 
that carbaryl or BT would be used to control these or other forest 
insects was premature. Although future applications of carbaryl or BT 
may pose a potential risk to the butterfly, there are no proposals to 
spray for insect outbreaks currently or in the future (Forest Service 
2001, Service 2004b). This action is no longer considered a significant 
threat to the species.
Extreme Weather
    In the proposed rule we identified periodic droughts and atypical 
weather events as a threat to the butterfly. As noted in our response 
to comment 3 above, we believe that the species can survive and has 
persisted despite natural events such as drought since the butterfly 
evolved in an environment subject to periodic atypical weather events.
Roads
    When we proposed the butterfly as endangered we found that roads 
had the potential to threaten the butterfly (66 FR 46575, September 6, 
2001), but the direct and indirect impact on the butterfly was unknown. 
Similar to other potential threats, we now believe that existing roads 
are not likely to cause long-term impacts or disrupt metapopulation 
dynamics based upon the amount of foodplants growing along roads and 
the presence of butterfly egg masses and larvae observed in these areas 
(Service 2004b). Thus, we conclude that these impacts are not a 
significant threat to the long-term viability of the species.

Mescalero Apache Nation

    As identified in the proposed rule, it is unknown whether the 
butterfly is present on the Mescalero Apache Nation lands. These lands 
are managed by the Mescalero Apache Nation in accordance with tribal 
goals and objectives and within the framework of applicable laws. These 
lands are not Federal public lands or part of the public domain. The 
Mescalero Apache Nation is a sovereign government with inherent powers 
to make and enforce laws and manage and control its natural resources. 
To our knowledge, no butterfly surveys have been conducted on Mescalero 
Apache Nation lands. Therefore, we do not know the status of the 
butterfly on these lands, the amount or quality of suitable habitat, or 
the potential activities that may negatively or positively affect the 
species. Although timber harvest, prescribed burns, and grazing occur 
on Mescalero Apache Nation lands (i.e., see Service 2004g, Natural 
Resources Conservation Service 2004, Klinekole 1998), we have no 
information regarding the presence or significance of any of these or 
other potential threats to the butterfly on Mescalero Apache Nation 
lands. We have considered whether the Mescalero Apache Nation lands 
would be a significant portion of the range. While we have mapped 
meadows (i.e., potential butterfly habitat) within Mescalero Apache 
Nation lands which occur between 2,450 and 2,750 meters (8,000 to 9,000 
feet), it is unknown whether the butterfly is present on Mescalero 
Apache lands, and therefore we have very little information to suggest 
these lands are significant to the butterfly. Therefore, we determine 
that Mescalero Apache lands do not constitute a significant portion of 
the range.

Finding and Withdrawal

    A variety of projects and conservation measures have been 
implemented by the Forest Service since 2001 that have reduced or 
eliminated threats to the butterfly. We have detailed these above in 
our analysis. Furthermore, since the proposed rule to list the 
butterfly as endangered was published, information from the Forest 
Service refined mapping of occupied and unoccupied habitat. This 
information will assist greatly in planning efforts for individual 
projects by providing an overall representation to collectively guide 
activities that will manage and maintain connectivity between patches 
of suitable butterfly habitat. In addition, we have demonstrated the 
resiliency of the butterfly and its foodplants by documenting the 
creation of new habitat where the butterfly is reproducing (the edges 
of the football field) (Service 2004d).
    Based on a thorough analysis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information available on the butterfly, we have revised our 
conclusion about the threats to the species. We believe that the two 
greatest threats we previously identified, catastrophic wildfire and 
private and commercial development, are no longer significant. We also 
believe that new information and current management related to the 
threat of livestock has led to a reduction of this threat. Nonnative 
vegetation, OHVs, and other recreational activities are being currently 
managed to minimize impacts on the butterfly. Forest thinning and fuels 
management projects, in addition to campground reconstruction projects, 
may have had some short-term impacts, but will result in long-term 
benefits to the species. We have determined that the factors analyzed 
above either alone or in combination no longer significantly threaten 
the species or are of low magnitude. To be considered a threat, a 
factor must be shown to play a significant role in the dynamics of the 
species to such an extent that it is likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. Based upon the factors analyzed, we determine 
that the species no longer is in danger of extinction throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range, nor is it likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.
    This withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the butterfly as 
endangered is based on our conclusion that the butterfly is resilient 
to small-scale disturbance, such that the risk to the species has been 
reduced to a level

[[Page 76444]]

below the statutory definition of endangered or threatened. We have 
carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats facing the 
butterfly in determining to withdraw our proposed listing. Based on 
this evaluation, we are withdrawing our proposal to list the Sacramento 
Mountains checkerspot butterfly as endangered. As such, we are also 
withdrawing our proposal of critical habitat for the butterfly.
    We will continue to monitor the status of the species through 
monitoring, management, and project-related analyses (see 
``Conservation Plan'' below). Additional information and comments will 
continue to be accepted on aspects of the species. We encourage 
interested parties outside of those parties already signatories to the 
Conservation Plan to become involved in the conservation of the 
species. For example, the Forest Service will continue to analyze 
potential project-related impacts on the butterfly through NEPA. Any 
interested individual or party can review and comment on these 
documents. We will reconsider our determination in the event that new 
information indicates that threats to the species are of a considerably 
greater magnitude than we have identified.

Conservation Plan

    As described above, we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with 
the Village of Cloudcroft, Otero County, and the Forest Service, and 
cooperatively developed a Conservation Plan. The goal of the 
Conservation Plan is to provide conservation and management on public 
and private lands within the range of the butterfly (69 FR 60178). The 
individual and collective commitments of each of the parties are 
detailed in the Conservation Plan, and include time and cost estimates 
and responsible partners. Following the close of the public comment 
period, we collected the comments for all of the parties involved in 
the cooperative effort and provided the comments to them at the close 
of the public comment period. The cooperating parties of the 
Conservation Plan reviewed, analyzed, and incorporated public comments 
as they deemed appropriate.
    We did not rely upon the implementation of the conservation efforts 
identified in the Conservation Plan in making our final listing 
determination for the butterfly because many of the individual 
conservation efforts have not been completed and would require us to 
speculate on the certainty of their implementation and effectiveness. 
As such, we did not analyze the individual conservation efforts as they 
relate to the Service's Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts 
When Making Listing Determinations (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003) 
(PECE). Nevertheless, we summarize the Conservation Plan here to 
recognize that all of the parties are proactively looking for 
opportunities to conserve the butterfly within its range. We applaud 
the development of the Conservation Plan and believe it will assist in 
further improving the status of the butterfly and its habitat.
    The Conservation Plan provides an in-depth review of the 
butterfly's life history, habitat requirements, and known threats and 
further identifies the specific conservation efforts that will assist 
in management and maintenance of the butterfly and its habitat. 
Conservation efforts are categorized by the four primary objectives of 
the Conservation Plan: (1) Protect and manage occupied and unoccupied 
butterfly habitat on public lands; (2) manage habitat and promote 
conservation of the butterfly on non-Federal and other private lands 
through education and outreach; (3) conduct research to fill 
information gaps and inform continued management; and, (4) provide 
adequate regulatory protection.
    The Conservation Plan explains that long-term conservation of the 
species requires a thorough understanding of its life history and 
habitat requirements. Consequently, a step-down outline has been 
developed to guide research and monitoring to implement an adaptive 
management plan for the butterfly. The Conservation Plan describes in 
detail the process of adaptive management and assigns the 
responsibility to the cooperative team. We believe management of the 
butterfly will benefit from this process because the effectiveness of 
conservation measures will be monitored and adjustments will be made 
based on new information gained.
    The Forest Service has been involved in a variety of projects that 
have implemented measures to conserve the species (Service 2004b). The 
Conservation Plan represents a continuation of this major commitment on 
behalf of this Federal land manager that accounts for approximately 50 
percent of the known range of the species. Biologists from the Lincoln 
National Forest's Supervisor's Office and the Sacramento Ranger 
District have been implementing conservation actions since 1997 and 
will continue to serve in that capacity for the Conservation Plan 
(Forest Service 2000c, Service 2004b). Under the Conservation Plan we 
expect that the Forest Service will continue to allocate resources 
towards conservation efforts and coordinate with all parties involved 
with the conservation of the butterfly.
    The Conservation Plan also commits Otero County and the Village of 
Cloudcroft to manage and promote conservation of the butterfly and its 
habitat on private lands (Service 2004b). As described above, Otero 
County initiated a process that will cause the County to begin amending 
its existing subdivision ordinance to provide conservation measures for 
the butterfly. In addition, the County has committed to promoting 
public support for butterfly conservation through development and 
distribution of informational and educational materials (Service 
2004b). The Village of Cloudcroft is dedicated to public outreach and 
education programs to promote conservation of the butterfly. The 
Village will work with private landowners (in cooperation with the 
County) to educate landowners about butterfly conservation. This 
includes, but is not limited to, restoration of areas and planting 
butterfly food and larval host plants, and communication with 
landowners through the local newspaper and Village Council Workshops.
    The butterfly is currently a priority for the Service's Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife Program. This program has been working with the 
Forest Service and non-Federal entities regarding conservation efforts 
related to the butterfly. For example, the Forest Service gathered New 
Mexico penstemon seeds from sites on the Lincoln National Forest, and 
the Service funded a project through the USDA's Plant Materials Center, 
Los Lunas, New Mexico. This project grew 1,800 New Mexico penstemon, 
which will likely be planted at the Albuquerque Biological Park for 
educational and seed source purposes.
    All of the parties will assist each other to fill information gaps 
in the butterfly's basic biology, habitat, distribution, and population 
biology. The Conservation Plan describes research needs that were 
developed and prioritized in order to maximize the utility of the 
information gained such that it can be directly applied to management 
and conservation of the species. For example, we anticipate that 
regular monitoring will continue to be conducted by the Forest Service 
and other parties to the Conservation Plan. This information will be 
utilized in an adaptive management process to adjust or increase 
conservation efforts to manage OHV impacts on the butterfly

[[Page 76445]]

and its habitat (Service 2004b). Additionally, we intend to coordinate 
the development and implementation of this and other projects through 
the Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly Conservation Plan 
Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC). The cooperators will 
establish an ICC (see Conservation Plan, Appendix A. Section V, Service 
2004b). This Committee will monitor the implementation of the 
Conservation Plan, provide a forum for exchange of information on the 
species, will set annual priorities, seek funding sources, and provide 
feedback to the cooperators. This group will meet at least annually and 
likely more often in the first few years.
    We are confident in the interest and commitment of all parties to 
the Conservation Plan. We believe the implementation of conservation, 
management, and monitoring efforts will be beneficial for the 
butterfly.

Authority

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

    Dated: December 15, 2004.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 04-27841 Filed 12-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P