i

Disclaimer

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be 

required to recover and/or protect listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, publish recovery plans, sometimes preparing them with the assistance of 

recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be 

obtained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other 

constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other 

priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official 

positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan 

formulation, other than our own. They represent our official position only after 

they have been signed by the Director, Regional Director, or California/Nevada 

Operations Manager as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to 

modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the 

completion of recovery actions. 

LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Recovery plan for the Carson wandering 

skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Sacramento, California. viii + 94 pages. 

An electronic version of this recovery plan is available at 

http://www.r1.fws.gov/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/plans.html and 

http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html. 
ii

Acknowledgments

This recovery plan was prepared by Marcy Haworth, Fish and Wildlife 

Biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with input from species experts 

and stakeholders. We gratefully acknowledge the commitment and efforts of the 

following individuals in the recovery of the Carson wandering skipper. Without 

their assistance and participation during recovery team meetings, this document 

would not have been possible. 

Recovery Team Members 

Mr. Donald Armentrout, Bureau of Land Management, Eagle Lake Office, 

Susanville, California 

Ms. Gail Bellenger, Nevada Department of Transportation, Carson City, Nevada 

Dr. Peter Brussard, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada 

Mr. Walt Devaurs, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City Field Office, 

Carson City, Nevada 

Mr. Peter Epanchin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, 

Sacramento, California 

Dr. Alyce Hreha, Honey Lake Conservation Team/Michael Baker Jr., Inc., 

Midvale, Utah 

Ms. Karen Kovacs, California Department of Fish and Game, Eureka, California 

Mr. David Lile, University of California Extension Service, Susanville, California 

Mr. Jack Miller, California Department of Fish and Game, Redding, California 

Mr. Robert Pyle, Lassen Board of Supervisors, Susanville, California 

Ms. Jeanne Ruefer, Washoe County Department of Water Resources, Reno, 

Nevada 

Ms. Sharon Stacey, California Department of Transportation, Redding, California 

Mr. Dan Strait, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California/Nevada Office, 

Sacramento, California 

Ms. Melani Tescher, Sierra Army Depot, Herlong, California 

Mr. Ken Weaver, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Susanville, California 

We would also like to thank the following individuals for their assistance 

in the development or preparation of this document: 

Dr. Erica Fleishman, Stanford University, Stanford, California 

Mr. Damian Higgins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife 

Office, Reno, Nevada 

Dr. Dennis Murphy, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada 

Dr. David Wright, Sacramento, California 
iii

Executive Summary

Current Species Status: The Carson wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes 

eunus obscurus) is a small butterfly in the subfamily Hesperiinae (grass skippers). 

The subspecies was federally listed as endangered on November 29, 2001. At the 

time of listing, only two extant populations were known, one in Washoe County, 

Nevada, and one in Lassen County, California. A third known population of the 

subspecies, from Carson City, Nevada, is considered extirpated as of 1998. In 

2004, one additional population was located south of Carson City in Douglas 

County, Nevada, along the Carson River. In 2005, a second population in 

Washoe County, Nevada, was confirmed. Currently, there are four extant 

populations of the Carson wandering skipper. The long-term persistence of the 

newly discovered populations in Douglas County and Washoe County must be 

determined. 

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: Carson wandering skipper 

habitat is characterized as lowland grassland habitats on alkaline substrates. 

Occupied areas are located in a small region east of the Sierra Nevada in 

northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, and are characterized by an 

elevation of less than 1,524 meters (5,000 feet), the presence of Distichlis spicata

(saltgrass) (Hickman 1993) and nectar sources in open areas near springs or 

water, and possible association with geothermal activity. 

Threats to the subspecies include habitat destruction, degradation, and 

fragmentation due to urban and residential development, wetland habitat 

modification, agricultural practices, gas and geothermal development, and 

nonnative plant invasion. Other threats include collecting, excessive livestock 

trampling/grazing, water exportation projects, road construction, recreation, 

pesticide drift, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. This subspecies is also 

vulnerable to chance environmental or demographic events, to which small 

populations are particularly vulnerable. The combination of only four known 

populations, small range, and restricted habitat makes the subspecies highly 

susceptible to extinction or extirpation from a significant portion of its range due 

to random events such as fire, drought, disease, or other occurrences (Shaffer 

1981, 1987; Groom et al. 2006). 

Recovery Priority: The Carson wandering skipper has a recovery priority 

number of 3C. This ranking, determined in accordance with the Recovery 

Priority Criteria published in the Federal Register (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1983), is based on a high degree of threat, high potential for recovery, and 

taxonomic classification as a subspecies. Conflict with construction or 

development actions (urban, residential, and agricultural) may occur. 

Recovery Goal: To recover the Carson wandering skipper to the point where it 

can be delisted. 
iv

Recovery Criteria: Downlisting of the Carson wandering skipper to threatened 

status can be considered when the following criteria are met: 

1) For the Lassen County, California, population/metapopulation and one of the 

three known Nevada populations or a comparable newly discovered population, 

management has been established in perpetuity to effectively address threats to 

the species and ensure persistence of the populations. The population in Nevada 

must have been occupied for 6 years out of the most recent 10-year sequence with 

no downward trend in abundance. In California, suitable habitat patches 

equivalent to 50 percent or more of the currently known suitable habitat patches 

must be managed to effectively address threats, and each of these habitat patches 

must have been occupied for 6 years out of the most recent 10-year sequence with 

no downward trend in abundance across the population/metapopulation. 

2) Adaptive management plans have been developed and implemented with 

adequate long-term funding, either individually or comprehensively, for the two 

populations in downlisting criterion #1. These plans must address appropriate 

management for the Carson wandering skipper with regards to habitat and land 

uses that may affect habitat quality, including but not limited to development 

(urban, residential, water, gas and geothermal), livestock grazing, recreation, 

invasive plant control, pesticide use, and public education. 

Delisting of the Carson wandering skipper can be considered when the following 

conditions are met: 

1) For the Lassen County, California, population/metapopulation and two of the 

three known Nevada populations or comparable newly discovered populations, 

management has been established in perpetuity to effectively address threats to 

the species and ensure persistence of the populations. Each population in Nevada 

must have been occupied for 6 years out of the most recent 10-year sequence after 

downlisting criteria are met, with no downward trend in abundance. In 

California, suitable habitat patches equivalent to 75 percent or more of the 

currently known suitable habitat patches must be managed to effectively address 

threats, and each of these habitat patches must have been occupied for 6 years out 

of the most recent 10-year sequence after downlisting criteria are met, with no 

downward trend in abundance across the population/metapopulation. Appropriate 

landscape connectivity must exist among patches (i.e., land use between most 

sites is considered open space and not urban or suburban) in order to facilitate 

potential movement of the Carson wandering skipper among patches. 

2) Adaptive management plans have been developed and implemented with 

adequate long-term funding, either individually or comprehensively, for the three 

populations in delisting criterion #1. These plans must address appropriate 

management for the Carson wandering skipper with regard to habitat and land 

uses that may affect habitat quality, including but not limited to development 
v

(urban, residential, water, gas, and geothermal), livestock grazing, recreation, 

invasive plant control, pesticide use, and public education. 

3) In addition to the populations in delisting criterion #1, for at least one 

additional Carson wandering skipper population or metapopulation, including a 

known population or any that may be discovered or established within Carson 

wandering skipper historical range, management has been established in 

perpetuity to effectively address threats to the species and ensure persistence of 

the population, unless we conclude (through intensive, comprehensive surveying) 

that additional populations or metapopulations do not exist and it would not be 

ecologically feasible to establish/reestablish one or more of them within Carson 

wandering skipper historical range. 

4) Lepidium latifolium invasion into known and presumed suitable habitat for the 

Carson wandering skipper has been eliminated or reduced and managed to levels 

that do not pose a threat to the persistence of the Carson wandering skipper. 

5) A long-term conservation plan and conservation agreements have been 

developed to guide management throughout the range of the Carson wandering 

skipper after it has been delisted. 

6) A monitoring plan to cover a minimum of 5 years post-delisting of the Carson 

wandering skipper has been developed and is ready to be implemented to ensure 

the ongoing recovery of the species and the continuing effectiveness of 

management actions. 

The criteria for downlisting and delisting of the Carson wandering skipper may 

change as more information becomes available. 

Recovery Actions: Major actions needed for achieving recovery of the Carson 

wandering skipper are: 

1. Manage existing populations and important habitat on public and private 

lands to minimize threats. 

2. Establish a research program to determine the ecological requirements and 

life history of the Carson wandering skipper, and develop a program to 

survey for additional populations and monitor existing populations and 

habitats for trends and threats. 

3. Develop and implement an outreach program to keep local communities 

informed of the Carson wandering skipper’s status and means to carry out 

recovery actions. 
vi

4. Evaluate progress of recovery, effectiveness of management and recovery 

actions, and revise management plans and recovery criteria as necessary. 

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery (in $1,000s): Details are found in the 

Implementation Schedule. 

 YEAR ACTION 1 ACTION 2 ACTION 3 ACTION 4 

2007 10 248.2 4 

2008 430 215 10 

2009 635 266.5 5 

2010 608 233.3 

2011 610 276.5 6 

2012 600 125 

2013 600 125 5 

2014 5 35 5 

2015 13 25 

2016 25 5 

2017 5 35 

2018 75 

2019 75 5 

2020 13 35 5 

2021 25 5 

2022 25 

2023 25 5 

2024 25 5 

2025 8 25 

2026 25 5 

TOTAL 3,537 1,944.5 49 21 

The total estimated cost of recovering the Carson wandering skipper is 

$5,551,500 over the next 20 years, plus additional costs that cannot be estimated 

at this time. 

Date of Recovery: If surveying and habitat management efforts to eliminate 

threats are successful in allowing actions to be implemented as recommended and 

recovery criteria are met, downlisting could be considered in 2017. Delisting 

could be considered in 2027, if actions are implemented as recommended and 

recovery criteria are met. 
vii

Table of Contents 

I. BACKGROUND................................................................................................ 1 

A. Status of the Species ...................................................................................... 1 

B. Species Description and Taxonomy............................................................... 3 

C. Population Trends and Distribution............................................................... 4 

1. Nevada......................................................................................................... 6 

2. California................................................................................................... 10 

D. Life History/Ecology ................................................................................... 14 

E. Habitat Characteristics/Ecosystem............................................................... 15 

1. Nevada....................................................................................................... 17 

2. California................................................................................................... 20 

F. Reasons for Listing/Threats.......................................................................... 26 

G. Conservation Measures................................................................................ 30 

1. Federal Protection ..................................................................................... 30 

2. State Protection ......................................................................................... 32 

3. Private Organizations ................................................................................ 33 

H. Recovery Strategy........................................................................................ 34 

II. RECOVERY ................................................................................................... 39 

A. Recovery Objectives and Criteria................................................................ 39 

1. Recovery Objectives ................................................................................. 39 

2. Recovery Criteria ...................................................................................... 39 

B. Step-Down Outline for Recovery Actions................................................... 43 

C. Recovery Narrative Outline for Actions Addressing Threats...................... 46 

III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE.............................................................. 65 

IV. REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 77 

A. Literature Cited............................................................................................ 77 

B. Personal Communications ........................................................................... 81 

C. Personal Observations.................................................................................. 82 

D. In Litteris References................................................................................... 83 

Appendix A. Summary of Threats and Recommended Recovery Actions ......... 85 

Appendix B. Glossary of Terms Used in the Recovery Plan............................... 87 

Appendix C. Summary of Comments on the Draft Recovery Plan ..................... 93 
viii

List of Figures 

Figure 1. General locations of extant and extirpated populations of the Carson 

wandering skipper ............................................................................................2 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Occupied Carson wandering skipper nectar sites in Nevada, and dates of 

monitoring efforts since 1997. ......................................................................... 8 

Table 2. Occupied Carson wandering skipper nectar sites in Lassen County, 

California, and dates of monitoring efforts since 1997.......................... 11 

Table 3. Currently and formerly occupied Carson wandering skipper sites in 

Nevada..................................................................................17 

Table 4. Currently or formerly occupied Carson wandering skipper sites in 

Lassen County, California, with site characteristics. ..................................... 21 
1

I. Background

A. STATUS OF THE SPECIES 

The Carson wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus) is a 

small butterfly in the subfamily Hesperiinae (grass skippers). The subspecies* is 

federally listed as endangered. The Carson wandering skipper was given shortterm protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, on 

November 29, 2001, when we published an emergency rule (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2001a) to list the subspecies as endangered. The emergency rule 

provided Federal protection to the Carson wandering skipper for 240 days, during 

which time we initiated the normal listing process for ensuring its long-term 

protection. A proposed rule to list the Carson wandering skipper was published in 

the Federal Register concurrently with the emergency listing (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2001b). On August 7, 2002, we published a final rule listing the 

Carson wandering skipper as an endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2002). Critical habitat has not been designated for this subspecies. 

 At the time of listing, only two extant populations were known, one in 

Washoe County in northwestern Nevada and one in Lassen County in 

northeastern California. A third known population of the subspecies, from Carson 

City, Nevada, is considered extirpated as of 1998. Currently, there are four 

extant populations (Figure 1). In 2004, one additional population was discovered 

and two single sightings of individual Carson wandering skippers occurred in 

Nevada. The new population was found south of Carson City in Douglas County 

along the Carson River. One of the single sightings occurred approximately 16 

kilometers (10 miles) south of the previously known population in Washoe 

County. The second single sighting occurred south of Flanigan, Washoe County. 

In 2005, habitat for one of the single sightings was impacted due to development; 

a habitat conservation plan was prepared for mitigation of these impacts and a 

section 10 (a)(1)(a) incidental take permit was issued by the Service in 2005. An 

additional population located on another private landowner’s property adjacent to 

this habitat was confirmed in 2005. The long-term persistence of the newly 

 

* A glossary is provided in Appendix B of this plan. Words written in bold type

within the text are defined in the glossary. 
2
3

discovered populations in Douglas County and Washoe County must be 

determined.

B. SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

 The genus Pseudocopaeodes in the family Hesperiidae (skippers) and 

subfamily Hesperiinae (grass skippers) contains only one species, the alkali 

skipper or wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus). The species 

Pseudocopaeodes eunus consists of five subspecies: the nominate subspecies 

Pseudocopaeodes eunus eunus, the alkali skipper or eunus skipper; P. e. 

obscurus, the Carson wandering skipper; P. e. alinea, the Ash Meadows alkali 

skipper; P. e. flavus, the Nevada alkali skipperling or yellow alkali skipper; and 

an undescribed fifth subspecies found in 1998 (Brussard et al. 1999). Common 

names of subspecies reflect usage by New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

(2000), The International Lepidoptera Survey (2004), and Nevada Natural 

Heritage Program (2004). Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus, the Carson 

wandering skipper, is locally distributed in grassland habitats on alkaline 

substrates in eastern California and western Nevada. Pseudocopaeodes eunus 

alinea is found in eastern desert areas of southern California and in southern 

Nevada; P. e. eunus is located in western desert areas of southern California; and 

P. e. flavus is found in western and central Nevada and the east slope of the Sierra 

Nevada in California. The undescribed fifth subspecies is found in Mono County, 

California (Brussard et al. 1999). Only the Carson wandering skipper, P. e. 

obscurus, is listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

The Carson wandering skipper was first described by Austin and Emmel 

(1998). The dorsal ground color is dull, somewhat brownish orange. The costal

area of the forewing is smudged with black. The hind wing is dusted rather 

heavily with black especially along the anal margin. The black terminal line on 

both wings is broad. Veins are blackened, and fringes of both wings are broadly 

dark gray proximally and whitish distally. The ventral surface is dull yellowishorange and paler distally on the forewing and all of the hind wing. The forewing 

apex is grayish. Vein tips of the forewing are heavily blackened, and the veins of 

the hind wing are broadly outlined with dark gray, nearly filling cells anterior to 

M1 (medial vein 1) and posterior to CuA2 (anterior cubitus vein 2). The 

female’s dorsal surface is similar to that of the male, as described above, but with 
4

heavier dusting on the discal area of the hind wing. The ventral surface is like 

that of the male. Males tend to average 13.1 millimeters (0.52 inches) in size, 

ranging from 12.0 to 13.9 millimeters (0.47 to 0.55 inches) (size is forewing 

length from base to apex). Females average 14.7 millimeters (0.58 inches) in 

size, and range from 13.4 to 15.6 millimeters (0.53 to 0.61 inches). 

The Carson wandering skipper can be distinguished from the other 

subspecies of Pseudocopaeodes eunus by a combination of several characteristics. 

The Carson wandering skipper is browner and less intensely orange on its dorsal 

surface, with thicker black coloring along the veins, outer margin, and on both 

basal surfaces; and it is duller, overall, with an expanse of bright yellow and 

orange ground color, especially on the ventral surface, interrupted by broadly 

darkened veins. Infrequently, specimens from populations of other 

Pseudocopaeodes eunus subspecies approach the less heavily marked extremes of 

the Carson wandering skipper. However, they do not give the impression of an 

insect with a dark ventral hind wing, and they lack the dark apex on the ventral 

forewing (Austin and Emmel 1998). Larvae (caterpillars) of the subfamily 

Hesperiinae are usually green or tan caterpillars with dark heads and black collars 

(Scott 1986). 

C. POPULATION TRENDS AND DISTRIBUTION 

 The Carson wandering skipper currently occupies areas located in a small 

region east of the Sierra Nevada in northwestern Nevada and northeastern 

California, at elevations of less than 1,524 meters (5,000 feet). Historically, 

known population locations included the type locality found near the Carson Hot 

Springs in Carson City (formerly Ormsby County), Nevada, and one other site in 

Lassen County, California. When described in Austin and Emmel (1998), 

specimens from two additional sites, Dechambeau Hot Springs at Mono Lake 

(misspelled in publication as “Dechambean”) and Hot Springs, Mono County, 

California, were assigned, with uncertainty due to their small numbers, to the 

Carson wandering skipper subspecies. Based on 1998 surveys (Brussard et al.

1999), these Mono County specimens would be more appropriately assigned to 

the currently undescribed subspecies (G. Austin, Nevada State Museum and 

Historical Society, pers. comm. 2001). 
5

No information is available on historical population numbers of the 

Carson wandering skipper. It is possible that a fairly large population of the 

subspecies occurred from the Carson Hot Springs site to the Carson River. 

Outflow from the springs likely supported a water table high enough to support 

Distichlis spicata (L.) Greene (saltgrass) (Hickman 1993), its larval food plant, 

and a variety of nectar sources. Urban development, water diversions, and 

wetland manipulations have eliminated most of the habitat in this area (Brussard 

2000). 

Likewise, it is possible that more appropriate habitat once existed for the 

Carson wandering skipper between the existing populations in Lassen County, 

California, and Washoe County, Nevada (P. Brussard, University of Nevada, 

Reno, pers. comm. 2001). Over time, habitat between these populations has 

become unsuitable and fragmented due to natural drying and human activities, 

and the populations may have become isolated from one another. The population 

locations are approximately 120 kilometers (75 miles) apart. While the dispersal 

capability of the Carson wandering skipper is unknown, it is unlikely that any 

current genetic exchange occurs between these populations because skippers, in 

general, seldom fly far (Scott 1986). Further surveys are needed to determine if 

the single Carson wandering skipper sighting that occurred near Flanigan, 

Washoe County, in 2004 indicates a population/metapopulation in the area. The 

subspecies likely represents a remnant of a more widely distributed complex of 

populations in the western Lahontan basin (Brussard et al. 1999). 

Currently, there are four extant populations of the Carson wandering 

skipper. Two of these populations were newly discovered by surveys conducted 

in 1998 throughout potential, suitable habitat in Nevada and California. Presence 

of the Carson wandering skipper is most easily determined by observing adults 

feeding on a nectar source and as such is reported as a nectar site location. The

distribution of the Carson wandering skipper population that may occur in the 

vicinity of that nectar site must be determined. One nectar site was located in 

Warm Springs Valley, Washoe County, Nevada, and two nectar sites were located 

in Honey Lake Valley, Lassen County, California. The sites in Lassen County 

could be a rediscovery of the area where skippers were collected in the 1970s; 

however, the collection record is too vague to be certain (P. Brussard, pers. 

comm., 2001). The two nectar sites in Honey Lake Valley were located about 
6

8 kilometers (5 miles) from one another. Other populations were not found in 

2000 and 2001, despite additional, more limited attempts (P. Brussard, pers. 

comm. 2000; R. Niell, University of Nevada-Reno, pers. comm. 2002). 

Surveys in 2002 and 2003 located four other nectar sites; two of them 

were in close proximity to the two previously known nectar sites in Honey Lake 

Valley, California (R. Niell in litt. 2003, Earth Tech, Inc. 2003). In 2004, several 

additional nectar sites were found in Honey Lake Valley, California (Honey Lake 

Conservation Team 2005; Sanford 2004). Depending on the distances among 

these numerous nectar sites, the Carson wandering skipper in Honey Lake Valley 

may consist of one large population rather than a metapopulation. Further 

research is needed to determine the population structure in Honey Lake Valley, 

California. 

One new population was found in Nevada along the Carson River in 

Douglas County in 2004 (D. Murphy, University of Nevada, Reno, pers. comm. 

2004). Two single sightings of Carson wandering skipper individuals were made 

in Washoe County in 2004, one in Spanish Springs Valley and the other near 

Flanigan (D. Murphy, pers. comm. 2004; Sanford 2004). In 2005, habitat for the 

single sighting in Spanish Springs was impacted due to residential and 

commercial development. A population located on another private landowner’s 

property adjacent to this habitat was confirmed in 2005. 

To the best of our knowledge, only four populations of the Carson 

wandering skipper are extant, one in Lassen County, California, two in Washoe 

County, and one in Douglas County, Nevada. The single Carson wandering 

skipper sighting near Flanigan, Washoe County, observed in 2004 may or may not 

indicate a local population/metapopulation is present. Further research is needed 

in this area. 

1. Nevada 

a) Carson City Site. The Carson wandering skipper was first collected 

in 1965 at a location north of U.S. Highway 50, Carson City (formerly Ormsby 

County), Nevada. Habitat at this site has been greatly modified over time, and 

most of it was destroyed by construction of a shopping center (Brussard et al.

1999). Several years later, an extension of the population was discovered north of 
7

the original location (Brussard et al. 1999). In the 1990s, additional urban 

development further reduced the remaining habitat, and the site is now completely 

surrounded by development. 

The Carson City site was surveyed for the Carson wandering skipper by 

the University of Nevada, Reno from 1997 to 2001 (Table 1). Only five 

individuals (four males and one female) were observed during surveys in June 

1997. One possible sighting of a Carson wandering skipper occurred at a project 

site in 1998 (Brussard et al. 1999). No individuals were observed at this site in 

1999, 2000, or in 2001 (P. Brussard, pers. comm., 2000; R. Niell, pers. comm., 

2001). In 2002, surveys were again conducted with no individuals observed (M. 

Haworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. obs. 2002). This population is 

now considered extirpated. 

Habitat changes resulting from drainage manipulations for residential and 

commercial development are likely responsible for this probable extirpation of the 

Carson City population (Brussard et al. 1999). Furthermore, construction of a 

freeway bypass in its entirety will impact approximately 2 hectares (6 acres) of 

previously occupied habitat and about 8 hectares (20 acres) of the potential habitat 

remaining at both areas north and south of U.S. Highway 50 (P. Frost in litt. 

1998). Construction activities began in 2002-2003, and the section of the bypass 

located north of U. S. Highway 50 opened in spring 2006 (M. Haworth, pers. obs. 

2004, 2006). 

b) Douglas County (Carson River) Site. This nectar site, found and 

searched in 2004 (Table 1), occurs on Bureau of Land Management administered 

lands in Douglas County, Nevada. The site is about 4 hectares (10 acres) in size. 

Additional habitat likely extends onto adjacent Nevada State lands and City of 

Incline Village lands. The entire habitat on the three properties combined is 

estimated at about 57 hectares (140 acres). Approximately nine Carson 

wandering skippers were observed but none were seen feeding on nectar (R. Niell 

in litt. 2004). The long-term persistence of this population must be determined. 

This site was searched in 2005 but no Carson wandering skippers were observed 

(M. Haworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and C. Funari, Bureau of Land 

Management, pers. obs. 2005). 
8

Table 1. Occupied Carson wandering skipper nectar sites in Nevada, and dates of 

monitoring efforts since 1997. 

Site Name 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Carson City X O O O O O 

Douglas County 

(Carson River) 

 X O 

Washoe County Site #1: 

Warm Springs Valley 

(BLM) 

 X X X X X X 

Washoe County Site #1: 

Warm Springs Valley 

(Private) 

 X X 

Washoe County Site # 2a: 

Spanish Springs 

 X 

Washoe County Site # 2b: 

Spanish Springs 

 X 

Washoe County Site #3: 

Flanigan 

 X 

X site searched and subspecies present 

O site searched and subspecies not present 

c) Washoe County Site #1 (Warm Springs Valley). This site occurs on 

Bureau of Land Management and adjacent private lands (Table 1). The nectar site 

is estimated to include about 10 to 12 hectares (25 to 30 acres), with 

approximately half of the site occurring on Bureau of Land Management lands 

and half on private lands (Brussard et al. 1999). Because management activities 

differ between the public and private ownerships at this site, we report it as two 

nectar sites (Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Private). A few Carson 

wandering skippers were seen approximately 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) northeast 

of this site. This suggests the Carson wandering skipper may occur in small 

numbers elsewhere in the valley (Brussard et al. 1999). Surveys were not 

conducted in 1999 or 2000 at these nectar sites. In 2001, searches of this area 

were made to confirm the Carson wandering skipper’s presence. Five individuals 

were found at the nectar site on Bureau of Land Management lands; private lands 

were not searched (V. Rivers, Truckee Meadows Community College, pers. 

comm. 2001). In 2002 and 2003, searches of the Bureau of Land Management 

nectar site were made to confirm the Carson wandering skipper’s presence, and 3 

and approximately 15 individuals, respectively, were observed in 1 day in both 

years (M. Haworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and W. Devaurs, Bureau of 

Land Management, pers. obs. 2002, 2003). In 2004, one and three Carson 
9

wandering skippers were observed during 2 days of searching the Bureau of Land 

Management nectar site (M. Haworth and C. Funari, pers. obs. 2004). 

In 2005, both the Bureau of Land Management parcel and the private 

lands were searched, and Carson wandering skippers were observed on both 

properties. One and nine individuals were observed on the Bureau of Land 

Management parcel during 2 days of searching, and eight individuals were 

observed on the private lands during 1 day (M. Haworth and C. Funari, pers. obs. 

2005). In August 2005, approximately 32 hectares (80 acres) of the private 

property was acquired by the Bureau of Land Management through Southern 

Nevada Public Lands Management Lands Act funding. 

d) Washoe County Site #2 (single sighting – Spanish Springs a and 

b). Part of this nectar site (Spanish Springs a) was found in 2004 (Table 1). This 

site is located on private lands in Spanish Springs Valley. One male Carson 

wandering skipper was observed feeding on nectar (D. Murphy in litt. 2004). 

Suitable habitat is estimated at approximately 16 hectares (40 acres). Additional 

Carson wandering skipper habitat may occur on adjacent private property. 

In 2005, 39 acres (16 hectares) of habitat in the vicinity of this single 

sighting was impacted due to residential and commercial development. A habitat 

conservation plan was prepared (Lionel Sawyer & Collins 2005) and a section 10 

(a)(1)(a) incidental take permit was issued by the Service. Mitigation for the 

affected habitat involves the off-site acquisition of replacement habitat that is of 

equal or better quality than the affected acreage. The applicant is responsible for 

acquiring at least 39 acres (16 hectares) of replacement habitat. 

A newly discovered population (Spanish Springs b) located on another 

private landowner’s property adjacent to the above-mentioned habitat was 

confirmed in 2005. Based on the location of the single sighting in 2004, 

permission to search the adjacent property was requested and granted. Four 

Carson wandering skipper individuals (three males and one female) were 

observed during 4 days of searching (M. Haworth and C. Funari, pers. obs. 2005). 

The long-term persistence of this population must be determined. 

e) Washoe County Site #3 (single sighting – Flanigan). A single male 

Carson wandering skipper was observed in 2004 (Table 1) along the southeastern 
10

boundary of an alkali flat south of Flanigan (Sanford 2004). This area was not 

surveyed in 2005 (M. Sanford in litt. 2005).

2. California 

The Carson wandering skipper population/metapopulation in Honey Lake 

Valley in Lassen County, California, appears to be larger than all three 

populations in Nevada in terms of both numbers and amount of habitat, as 

suggested by the following information. Numerous nectar sites were located 

around Honey Lake during the period from 1998 to 2005. While it is not yet clear 

whether the Carson wandering skippers found around Honey Lake form a single 

population or a metapopulation, distances between the nearest nectar sites may be 

within the dispersal range of adults. As additional information is collected, the 

population structure in Honey Lake Valley should become evident. 

Two nectar sites found in 1998 in Lassen County, California, occurred on 

public lands managed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG, 

Site #1) and private lands (Site #2) (Table 2). In 1998, two individuals were 

observed on the public lands, while several individuals were observed at a nectar 

site less than 2 hectares (5 acres) in size on the private lands. These nectar sites 

are located approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) from each other (Brussard et al.

1999). 

Surveys were not conducted at these sites in 1999. Surveys were 

conducted in 2000, and while several individuals were seen on the privateproperty nectar site, none were seen on the public lands (P. Brussard, pers. 

comm., 2000). In 2001, searches were conducted to confirm the Carson 

wandering skipper’s presence. A few Carson wandering skippers (three and four 

individuals found on separate days) were observed on the private-property nectar 

site, but none were observed on the public lands nectar site (V. Rivers, pers. 

comm. 2001). In 2002, no individuals were observed on the private-property 

nectar site (M. Haworth, pers. obs. 2002; R. Niell in litt. 2003). In 2002, two 

individuals were seen on the California Department of Fish and Game public 

lands (S. Black in litt. 2002; M. Vaughn in litt. 2002; R. Niell in litt. 2003). 

During surveys conducted in the Honey Lake Valley in 2002 and 2003 for 

specific proposed projects, four more nectar sites were found (Table 2). In 2002, 
11

Table 2. Occupied Carson wandering skipper nectar sites in Lassen County, 

California, and dates of monitoring efforts since 1997. 

Site Name 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

CDFG (#1) X O O X X 

Private (#2) X X X O 

Wendel Area (#3) X X 

Mapes Rd (#4) X 

The Island (#5) X X 

Cross Depot 

Access (#6) X X X 

North Shore – 

Honey Lake Ranch 

(#7-8) 

 X X 

North Shore – 

Dakin Unit (#9-10) X X 

East Shore – 

Wendel Hot 

Springs (#11-14) 

 X X 

East Shore – 

Amedee Hot 

Springs (#15-17) 

 X X 

Northern Shore 

Island (#18-22) X X 

Western Shore 

Island (#23) X O 

Southern Shore 

Island (#24-25) X 

X Site searched and subspecies present 

O Site searched and subspecies not present 

a new nectar site (Site #3) was found near the Wendel Hot Springs area. On 4 

different days, 1 to 20 individuals were seen feeding on nectar. Also in 2002, 

three individuals were seen on Mapes Road (Site #4), approximately 3 miles west 

of the private property site (Site #2) (P. Epanchin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in litt. 2002). In 2003, Carson wandering skippers were observed on two parcels 

of land, The Island (Site #5) and Cross Depot Access (Site #6), that have been 

transferred to the Honey Lake Conservation Team for future deeding to the 

California State Lands Commission. The number of Carson wandering skippers 

observed nectaring ranged from 1 to 33 over 3 survey days at these 2 sites (Earth 

Tech Inc. 2003). In 2004, Sanford (2004) observed three Carson wandering 

skippers in the general area of the Cross Depot Access site (Site #6). 
12

In June 2004, employees of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., inventoried land 

around the Honey Lake shoreline within the lake’s boundary (meander) line. 

Forty areas were identified, based on habitat data collected (nectar sources, areas 

of Distichlis cover, elevation, soil alkalinity, nearby water sources, etc.), as 

potential habitat to be surveyed for Carson wandering skipper presence during the 

spring/summer flight season. As a result of this effort, 22 nectar sites for the 

Carson wandering skipper were found in Honey Lake Valley, California (Honey 

Lake Conservation Team 2005). Most of the surveys occurred on former military 

lands immediately around the lake currently held by the Honey Lake 

Conservation Team. Other, more upland, areas were surveyed with permission 

from the landowners. 

Due to the number of new occupied nectar sites (17) found in 2004, for 

reporting purposes we group them into 6 general areas around Honey Lake: 

North Shore (Honey Lake Ranch), North Shore (Dakin Unit), East Shore (Wendel 

Hot Springs), East Shore (Amedee Hot Springs), Northern Shore Island, and 

Western Shore Island. The remaining individual nectar sites found in 2004 were 

located very near to nectar sites found previously in 2002 and 2003 (as indicated 

in Table 2), and 2004 information will be included under those previous locations 

to avoid double-counting nectar sites. Thus, in 2004, between 7 and 37 Carson 

wandering skipper individuals were observed at these nectar sites found 

previously in 2002 and 2003. 

The six general areas where new nectar sites were found around Honey 

Lake during 2004 are discussed below: 

• North Shore (Honey Lake Ranch). This general area includes two new 

nectar sites (#7 and #8) where one Carson wandering skipper individual 

was observed at each site. Land ownership includes Honey Lake 

Conservation Team and private lands. 

• North Shore (Dakin Unit). This general area includes 2 new nectar sites 

(#9 and #10) where 2 and 22 Carson wandering skipper individuals, 

respectively, were observed. Land ownership includes Honey Lake 

Conservation Team, private, Bureau of Land Management, and state 

lands. 
13

• East Shore (Wendel Hot Springs). This general area includes 4 new nectar 

sites (Sites #11 to #14) where between 1 and 186 Carson wandering 

skipper individuals were observed. Land ownership includes Honey Lake 

Conservation Team, private, and Bureau of Land Management lands. 

• East Shore (Amedee Hot Springs). This general area includes three new 

nectar sites (#15 to #17) where one Carson wandering skipper was 

observed at each site. Land ownership includes Honey Lake Conservation 

Team and state lands. 

• Northern Shore Island. This general area includes 5 new nectar sites (#18 

to #22) where 1 to 37 Carson wandering skippers were observed. Land 

ownership includes Honey Lake Conservation Team, private, and state 

lands. 

• Western Shore Island. This general area includes one new nectar site 

(#23) where three Carson wandering skippers were observed. Land 

ownership includes Honey Lake Conservation Team, private, and state 

lands. 

 In 2005, Honey Lake Conservation Team (2006) surveyed 24 areas around 

Honey Lake. This reduction from 40 areas surveyed in 2004 is a result of 

eliminating areas on private lands and combining and adjusting the boundaries of 

the remaining areas. The areas surveyed in 2005 covered approximately the same 

areas along the northern, eastern, and southern shorelines of Honey Lake as those 

surveyed in 2004. Because of these changes, we are unable to compare the 17 

individual sites identified in 2004 with sites identified in 2005; we can, however, 

compare the 6 general areas between these years for observations of Carson 

wandering skippers. 

• North Shore (Honey Lake Ranch). Carson wandering skippers (24 and 

43) were observed near the two nectar sites. 

• North Shore (Dakin Unit). Twenty-four Carson wandering skippers were 

observed near each of the two sites in 2005. 
14

• East Shore (Wendel Hot Springs). Carson wandering skippers were 

observed near the four sites in 2005, ranging from 8 to 499 individuals. 

• East Shore (Amedee Hot Springs). Carson wandering skippers were 

observed near two of the three sites in 2005. One individual was seen on 

one site and three individuals on the second site. 

• Northern Shore Island. All five sites supported Carson wandering 

skippers in 2005. Numbers of individuals ranged from 1 to 15. 

• Western Shore Island. Carson wandering skippers were not seen in this 

general area in 2005. 

• Southern Shore Island. In 2004, Carson wandering skippers were not 

observed in this general area. As a result, it was not identified as a new 

nectar site. In 2005, individuals were observed at two sites; one individual 

was seen at one site and two individuals at the second site. 

D. LIFE HISTORY/ECOLOGY 

Little is known about the life history and ecology of the Carson wandering 

skipper. During summer (June and July), females lay their cream-colored eggs on 

Distichlis spicata, the larval host plant for the species (Garth and Tilden 1986, 

Scott 1986). The Carson wandering skipper apparently requires Distichlis spicata

with succulent, green leaves from March through June to complete its life cycle. 

Distichlis spicata is a common species in the Atriplex-Sarcobatus (saltbushgreasewood) vegetation communities of the intermountain west and is widely 

distributed in lowland areas of now dry pluvial lakes. Different kinds of 

Distichlis communities exist, ranging from near-monotypic communities in 

meadow areas to understories in shrub-dominated communities (Young et al.

1986). Some Distichlis communities have roots in contact with the groundwater 

table while others rely on soil moisture from precipitation. 

Limited observations have been made of the early life stages of the Carson 

wandering skipper. However, the Carson wandering skipper’s life cycle is likely 

similar to other species of the subfamily Hesperiinae. Larvae of the Hesperiinae 
15

live in silked-leaf nests, and some species make their nests partially underground. 

Pupae generally rest in the nest, and larvae generally hibernate during winter 

(Scott 1986). The Honey Lake Conservation Team (2006) described Carson 

wandering skipper larvae as having a light green body with a distinctive black 

collar below the head. The head is a rusty brown orange color. Some larvae may 

be able to extend their period of diapause for more than one year depending on 

the individual and environmental conditions (P. Brussard, pers. comm., 2001). 

The pupae emerge as adult butterflies in late spring/early summer. The life span 

of an adult Carson wandering skipper is possibly 1 to 2 weeks but they may live 

longer where abundant nectar sources exist with minimal habitat disturbance 

(Sanford 2006). 

Carson wandering skippers may differ from other Pseudocopaeodes eunus

subspecies in producing only one brood per year during the June to mid-July 

flight season (Austin and Emmel 1998). The other subspecies may produce a 

second brood in late July to late September (Austin and Emmel 1998). During the 

1998 surveys (Brussard et al. 1999), the formerly occupied Carson City site and 

the two occupied sites were visited in June and July and again in August and 

September to look for second broods; none were found. 

E. HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS/ECOSYSTEM 

Little is known about the specific habitat requirements of the Carson 

wandering skipper beyond the similarities recognized among known locations of 

this subspecies. Carson wandering skipper habitat is generally characterized as 

lowland grassland habitats on alkaline substrates. Based on observations of 

known, occupied sites, suitable habitat for the Carson wandering skipper in any 

given year has the following characteristics: elevation of less than 1,524 meters 

(5,000 feet), location east of the Sierra Nevada, and presence of green Distichlis 

spicata cover with a flowering nectar source during March through June. Other 

characteristics may include possible geothermal activity and open areas near 

springs or water (Brussard et al. 1999). 

There are no data in the literature on the micro-habitat requirements of 

the Carson wandering skipper (Brussard et al. 1999). However, it is likely that 

suitable larval habitat is related to the depth of the water table. Many Distichlis
16

areas are inundated in the spring. During wet years, larval survival likely depends 

on Distichlis areas being above standing water. In dry years, however, survival is 

probably related to the timing of the host plant senescence. Therefore, microtopographic variation is probably important for larval survival because it 

provides a greater variety of appropriate habitats throughout the landscape over 

time (Brussard et al. 1999). Because the few historical collections of the Carson 

wandering skipper have been near hot springs, it is possible this subspecies may 

require the higher water table or ground temperatures associated with these areas 

to provide the appropriate temperatures for successful larval development 

(Brussard et al. 1999). However, more recent nectar sites are not located 

particularly close to geothermal springs. Larval development may not rely on 

appropriate temperatures but rather on the presence of good quality Distichlis 

spicata cover provided by more permanent water sources. 

Adult Carson wandering skippers require nectar for food. For a Distichlis

area to provide appropriate habitat for the Carson wandering skipper, an 

appropriate nectar source must be present and in bloom during the spring/summer 

flight season. Few plants that can serve as nectar sources grow in the highly 

alkaline soils occupied by Distichlis spicata. Plant species known to be used by 

the Carson wandering skipper for nectar include Thelypodium crispum 

(thelypody), Sisymbrium altissimum (tumble mustard), Pyrrocoma racemosus 

(racemose golden-weed), Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle), Cirsium vulgare (bull 

thistle), Lotus corniculatus (bird’s foot trefoil)†, Cleomella parviflora (slender 

cleomella), Cleomella plocasperma (small-flowered cleomella), Heliotropium

curassavicum (heliotrope), Potentilla sp. (cinquefoil), Sesuvium verrucosum

(western sea purslane), and Cressa truxillensis (alkali weed) (Brussard et al.

1999; R. Niell in litt. 2003; D. Murphy in litt. 2004; Honey Lake Conservation 

Team 2005; Honey Lake Conservation Team 2006). If alkaline-tolerant plant 

species are not present but there is a fresh-water source to support alkalineintolerant nectar sources adjacent to the larval host plant, the area may provide 

suitable habitat (Brussard et al. 1999). Nectar sources depend on various 

environmental conditions and are likely to be transitory. Thus, nectar sites used 

by the Carson wandering skipper may change from year to year. In general, 

 

† Lotus occurrences are referred to as Lotus corniculatus in this recovery plan, 

although identification to species is possibly ambiguous. According to The 

Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993:618-619), “[i]n Europe, diploid L. tenuis Willd. is 

segregated [from L. corniculatus]; it seems indistinguishable in California.”
17

habitat for the Carson wandering skipper is indicated by overall Distichlis cover 

located near or encompassing patches of nectar plants. 

1. Nevada 

a) Carson City Site. This site (Table 3) no longer supports the Carson 

wandering skipper as a result of surrounding development and habitat changes 

likely caused by drainage manipulations to accommodate residential and 

commercial development. Most of the original habitat was destroyed by the 

construction of a shopping center. Subsequent urban development in the 1990s 

further reduced the remaining habitat to approximately 8 hectares (20 acres) 

(Brussard et al. 1999). While the site still supports Distichlis spicata and areas of 

the native mustard Thelypodium crispum, which served as the only nectar source 

at this site, the Carson wandering skipper has not been observed there since 1997. 

The elevation of this site is about 1,420 meters (4,660 feet). The Carson Hot 

Springs drainage currently meanders through this general area though portions of 

it have been modified as a result of development activities. 

b) Douglas County (Carson River) Site. This site in Douglas County 

(Table 3) occurs on Bureau of Land Management administered lands, with 

additional habitat likely extending onto adjacent Nevada state lands and City of 

Incline Village lands. The potential nectar sources include Lotus corniculatus and 

the site is about 4 hectares (10 acres) in size. The entire habitat, including the 

nectar site, on the three properties is estimated at about 57 hectares (140 acres). 

The elevation is 1,420 meters (4,659 feet). Distichlis spicata occurs throughout 

the habitat and is interspersed with an overstory of Artemisia sp. (sagebrush), 

Sarcobatus vermiculatus (greasewood), and Atriplex sp. (saltbush). The density 

of D. spicata cover ranges from very sparse to fairly dense. There is an 

accumulation of salt on the soil surface. Hot springs are noted about 2 kilometers 

(1.5 miles) south of the site. The Carson River is located nearby, and the lands 

within the City of Incline Village support wetlands (R. Niell in litt. 2004). 

The Bureau of Land Management portion of the site is dissected by a two-track 

unpaved road; a second dirt road occurs along two sides of the site. Evidence of 

recreational shooting was found on-site (R. Neill in litt. 2004), which could 

impact the site through habitat trampling. 
18

Table 3. Currently and formerly occupied Carson wandering skipper sites in Nevada, with site characteristics. 

Site Name Found East 

of Sierra Nevada 

Elevation less than 5,000 feet 

Salt Grass Nectar Microtopographic 

Relief 

Geo-thermal Spring within 1.5 miles 

Non Geothermal Spring wi1.5 miles 

Carson City X X X X X X Douglas County X X X X X X Washoe County Site #1: Warm Springs Valley (BLM) 

X X X X X X 

Washoe County Site #1: Warm Springs Valley (Private) 

X X X X X X 

Washoe County Site #2a: Spanish Springs 

X X X X X 

Washoe County Site #2b: Spanish Springs 

X X X X X 

Washoe County Site #3: Flanigan 

X X X X X ? ? 
19

c) Washoe County Site #1 (Warm Springs Valley). This site occurs on 

Bureau of Land Management administered lands and adjacent private lands, and 

is reported as two nectar sites (Table 3). Both nectar sites combined are estimated 

to be about 10 to 12 hectares (25 to 30 acres), with approximately half occurring 

on Bureau of Land Management lands and half on private lands (Brussard et al.

1999). The nectar source Pyrrocoma racemosus is abundant, as is Distichlis 

spicata. The nectar sites are located at 1,290 meters (4,233 feet) in elevation. 

Springs are located within about 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the nectar sites. 

In 2005, 32 hectares (80 acres) of private property was acquired by the 

Bureau of Land Management through Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Lands Act funding (W. Devaurs in litt. 2005). This area includes 

the portion of the above-mentioned nectar site on private lands. 

d) Washoe County Site #2 (single sighting – Spanish Springs a and 

b). This site is located on private lands in Spanish Springs Valley (Table 3). One 

male Carson wandering skipper was observed nectaring on Cleomella 

plocasperma (D. Murphy in litt. 2004). The nectar site where the Carson 

wandering skipper was seen was less than 2 hectares (5 acres) in size but this 

particular nectar source, along with other known nectar sources such as 

Pyrrocoma racemosus, Lotus corniculatus, and Sisymbrium altissimum, occurred 

in scattered areas over the property. The site is located at 1,359 meters (4,460 

feet) in elevation. A large, open water body occurs nearby, approximately 0.4 

kilometer (0.25 mile) away. Springs occur between 6 and 13 kilometers (4 and 8 

miles) away. This site is threatened by ongoing residential development. In 

2005, habitat in the vicinity of this single sighting was impacted due to residential 

and commercial development; a habitat conservation plan was prepared (Lionel 

Sawyer & Collins 2005) and a section 10 (a)(1)(a) incidental take permit was 

issued by the Service in 2005. This impacted area will be mitigated with 

acquisition of off-site replacement habitat. 

In 2005, adjacent private lands (Spanish Springs b) were surveyed with 

permission and four Carson wandering skippers were seen. The nectar source 

Cleomella plocasperma occurs in patches scattered over approximately 16 to 20 

hectares (40 to 50 acres). The site is located at approximately 1,359 meters 

(4,460 feet) in elevation. A large, open water body occurs on-site. Springs occur 
20

between 6.4 and 12.9 kilometers (4 and 8 miles) away. Lepidium latifolium (tall 

whitetop or perennial pepperweed), a nonnative, perennial herbaceous plant, is 

invading these lands (M. Haworth and C. Funari, pers. obs. 2005). The Service is 

working with the current landowner on the possible establishment of a 

wetland/wildlife preserve for this site. 

e) Washoe County Site #3 (single sighting – Flanigan). A single male 

Carson wandering skipper was sighted south of Flanigan along the southeastern 

boundary of a dry alkali flat at elevation 1,212 meters (3,975 feet) (Sanford 2004). 

The individual was observed on Distichlis spicata. The vegetation in the area was 

composed of D. spicata and Sarcobatus vermiculatus, with some Artemisia sp. 

Potential nectar sources were Chrysothamnus sp. (rabbitbrush) or Medicago 

sativa (alfalfa). The entire habitat encompasses 283 hectares (700 acres), with 

nectar sources covering about 0.4 hectares (1 acre). The nearest spring site was 

less than 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) away. Surveys are needed to determine if a 

population/metapopulation exists in this area. 

2. California 

Carson wandering skippers were observed at a total of approximately 25 

sites/areas in the vicinity of Honey Lake from 1998 to 2005 (Table 4). 

 a) Lassen County Site #1. A general area with nectar sites found in 

1998 occurred on public lands (one site) managed by the California Department 

of Fish and Game and on adjacent private lands (one site) (Brussard et al. 1999). 

Two females were observed on the public lands, one on Lotus corniculatus. 

Distichlis spicata is abundant in this area. The site is located at approximately 

1,234 meters (4,050 feet) in elevation. Springs are known to be located within 2 

kilometers (1.5 miles) of the site. 

In 2002, Carson wandering skippers were again located on California 

Department of Fish and Game lands in this general area. One Carson wandering 

skipper was seen nectaring on Cleomella parviflora (R. Niell in litt. 2003). The 

Distichlis habitat in the immediate area is about 2 hectares (5 acres) in size. The 

site is at about 1,219 meters (4,000 feet) in elevation. Ditches provide a 
21

Table 4. Currently or formerly occupied Carson wandering skipper sites in Lassen County, California, with site 

Site Name Found East 

of Sierra Nevada 

Elevation less than 5,000 feet 

Salt Grass Nectar Microtopographic 

Relief 

Geo thermal Spring within 1.5 miles 

Non GthermSpring within 1.5 mi

CDFG (#1) X X X X X X Private (#2) X X X X X X Wendel Area (#3) X X X X X X Mapes Rd (#4) X X X X X ? ? The Island (#5) X X X X X Cross Depot Access (#6) X X X X X North Shore – Honey Lake Ranch (#7-8) 

X X X X X 

North Shore – Dakin Unit (#9-10) 

X X X X X 

East Shore – Wendel Hot Springs (#11-14) 

X X X X X 

East Shore – Amedee Hot Springs (#15-17) 

X X X X X 

Northern Shore Island (#18-22) X X X X X Western Shore Island (#23) X X X X X Southern Shore Island (#24-25) X X X X X 
22

freshwater source on site. Another sighting on the California Department of Fish 

and Game lands was reported in 2002 (S. Black in litt. 2002, M. Vaughn in litt. 

2002). A Carson wandering skipper also was seen on a levee separating ponds 

created for waterfowl. The site’s elevation is about 1,219 meters (4,000 feet). In 

2004, one Carson wandering skipper was observed on/near California Department 

of Fish and Game lands on Heliotropium curassavicum at approximately 1,222 

meters (4,010 feet) in elevation (Honey Lake Conservation Team 2005). The 

nectar source Sesuvium verrucosum was also available on-site. Water sources 

occur within 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) of the sighting. 

b) Lassen County Site #2. Another general area with nectar sites found 

in 1998 occurred on private lands with nectar plants covering less than 0.4 hectare 

(1 acre) in size. Distichlis spicata is abundant in this area, but the attraction 

appears to be the nectar source, Lotus corniculatus. Eight Carson wandering 

skippers were observed during one particular visit in 1998 (Brussard et al. 1999). 

This site is located at approximately 1,234 meters (4,050 feet) in elevation. 

Springs occur within 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) of the site. 

 c) Lassen County Site #3. This site, on the north side of Honey Lake 

(Wendel Area), is a nectar site consisting of several nectar sources (R. Niell in litt. 

2003). Carson wandering skippers were seen nectaring on Cleomella parviflora,

Potentilla sp., and Lotus corniculatus. As many as 15 to 20 individuals were seen 

on different days. The Distichlis habitat is about 4 hectares (10 acres) in size. 

The site is located at approximately 1,219 meters (4,002 feet) in elevation. 

Springs are located on-site. In 2004, seven Carson wandering skippers were 

observed on Lotus corniculatus, though Cleomella parviflora was also available, 

at elevation 1,228 meters (4,030 feet). 

d) Lassen County Site #4. In 2002, three Carson wandering skippers 

were observed along Mapes Road on the north side of Honey Lake, nectaring on 

Lotus corniculatus. This area was near a culvert under the road, which created an 

artificial low, wet area (P. Epanchin in litt. 2002). Details on the size of the 

habitat or its elevation were not provided. 

e) Lassen County Site #5. This site (The Island) was located in 2003 on 

the peninsula on the south side of Honey Lake. It includes various-sized nectar 
23

patches up to 40 hectares (100 acres) consisting of Heliotropium curassavicum

and Sisymbrium altissimum (Earth Tech Inc. 2003). The entire Distichlis habitat 

is about 81 hectares (200 acres) in size. Numerous Carson wandering skippers 

were seen nectaring on H. curassavicum. The site’s elevation is 1,213 meters 

(3,980 feet). Freshwater sources are located approximately 13 kilometers (8 

miles) away. Geothermal springs are located about 24 kilometers (15 miles) from 

the site. In 2004, 37 and 7 Carson wandering skippers were observed at 

elevations 1,219 meters (4,000 feet) and 1,216 meters (3,991 feet), respectively, 

in this area (Honey Lake Conservation Team 2005). Individuals were observed 

on H. curassavicum and Sesuvium verrucosum. 

f) Lassen County Site #6. This site (Cross Depot Access), also found 

on the south side of Honey Lake in 2003, is located at about 1,211 meters (3,975 

feet) in elevation. The Distichlis habitat is about 162 hectares (400 acres), and the 

nectar site is less than 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre). A few Carson wandering skippers 

were seen nectaring on Heliotropium curassavicum. Freshwater sources are 

located approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) away. Geothermal springs are 

located more than 24 kilometers (15 miles) from the site (Earth Tech Inc. 2003). 

In 2004, 7 and 14 Carson wandering skippers were found at elevations of 

1,218.6 meters (3,998 feet) and 1,211.9 meters (3,976 feet), respectively. 

Individuals were observed on Heliotropium curassavicum though Sesuvium 

verrucosum was also available (Honey Lake Conservation Team 2005). Also in 

2004, three Carson wandering skipper individuals were observed nectaring on 

Heliotropium curassavicum in this general area. Sesuvium verrucosum was also 

available (Sanford 2004). 

 g) Lassen County Sites #7-23 in 2004, #24-25 in 2005. As stated 

earlier, 17 new nectar sites were located around Honey Lake in 2004 and were 

grouped into 6 general areas for ease of reporting (Honey Lake Conservation 

Team 2005). Because the number and boundaries of surveyed areas changed in 

2005, it is not possible to describe 2005 sites as discrete from 2004 sites. 

Therefore, Southern Shore Island is the only new site found in 2005 that is 

described below. 
24

• North Shore (Honey Lake Ranch). Two nectar sites (Sites #7 and #8) 

were found at elevations of 1,210 meters and 1,213 meters (3,969 and 

3,980 feet), respectively. Nectar sites were less than 2.0 hectares (5 acres) 

to 4.0 hectares (10 acres) in size. While Carson wandering skippers were 

observed nectaring on Heliotropium curassavicum, Lotus corniculatus and 

Sisymbrium altissimum were also available as nectar sources. The 

Distichlis habitat is between 8 and 12 hectares (20 and 30 acres) in size 

over both sites combined. Water sources are 0.8 to 1.6 kilometers (0.5 to 

1 mile) away (Honey Lake Conservation Team 2005). 

• North Shore (Dakin Unit). Two nectar sites (Sites #9 and #10) were found 

at elevations of 1,213 meters (3,980 feet) and 1,214 meters (3,984 feet), 

respectively, in this area and were less than 2 hectares (5 acres) in size. 

Carson wandering skippers were observed nectaring on Heliotropium 

curassavicum, but Lotus corniculatus, Sisymbrium altissimum, and

Sesuvium verrucosum were also available as nectar sources. Nearby 

Distichlis habitat is between 16 and 101 hectares (40 and 250 acres) in 

size. Water sources are within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of these sites 

(Honey Lake Conservation Team 2005). 

• East Shore (Wendel Hot Springs). Four nectar sites (Sites #11 to #14) 

were included in this general area and were found between 1,214 and 

1,222 meters (3,982 and 4,008 feet) in elevation. Nectar sites were 

between 2 hectares (5 acres) and 16 hectares (40 acres) in size. Carson 

wandering skippers were observed nectaring on Heliotropium 

curassavicum, Sesuvium verrucosum, and Lotus corniculatus, although 

Cleomella parviflora was also available as a nectar source. The Distichlis

habitat was between less than 2 and 97 hectares (5 and 240 acres) in size 

at these sites. Water sources were between 0.8 and 1.6 kilometers (0.5 and 

1.5 miles) away (Honey Lake Conservation Team 2005). 

• East Shore (Amedee Hot Springs). The three nectar sites (Sites #15 to 

#17) found in this general area were located between 1,212 and 1,216 

meters (3,975 and 3,990 feet) in elevation. Nectar sites were between less 

than 2 hectares (5 acres) and 8 hectares (20 acres) in size. While Carson 

wandering skippers were observed nectaring on Heliotropium 
25

curassavicum, Sesuvium verrucosum was also available as a nectar source. 

The Distichlis habitat was between 12 and 47 hectares (30 and 115 acres) 

in size. A water source was 0.3 kilometers (0.2 miles) away from one site 

but between 3 and 5 kilometers (2 and 3 miles) away from the other two 

sites (Honey Lake Conservation Team 2005). 

• Northern Shore Island. The five nectar sites (#18 to #22) were found 

between 1,213 and 1,215 meters (3,979 and 3,986 feet) in elevation. 

Nectar sites were from less than 2 hectares to about 26 hectares (5 acres to 

65 acres) in size. Carson wandering skippers were observed nectaring on 

Heliotropium curassavicum and Sesuvium verrucosum, although Lotus 

corniculatus, Cleomella parviflora, and Sisymbrium altissimum were also 

available as nectar sources. The Distichlis habitat was between 14 and 77 

hectares (35 and 190 acres) in size. Water sources were between 3 and 8 

kilometers (2 and 5 miles) away (Honey Lake Conservation Team 2005). 

• Western Shore Island. This nectar site (#23) was found at an elevation of 

1,219 meters (4,000 feet). The nectar site was less than 2 hectares (5 

acres) in size. While Carson wandering skippers were observed nectaring 

on Heliotropium curassavicum, Lotus corniculatus was also available as a 

nectar source. The Distichlis habitat was about 16 hectares (40 acres) in 

size. Water sources were between 6.8 and 7.2 kilometers (4.2 and 4.5 

miles) away. 

• Southern Shore Island. In 2005, Carson wandering skippers were 

observed at two sites (#24 and #25). These nectar sites were found at an 

elevation of 1,217 meters (3,993 feet) and 1,210 meters (3,970 feet), 

respectively. The first nectar site of about 14 hectares (34 acres) consisted 

primarily of Heliotropium curassavicum, but Sesuvium verrucosum, Lotus 

corniculatus, and Sisymbrium altissimum were also present. The 

Distichlis habitat was about 28 hectares (68 acres) in size. Water sources 

were between about 5 and 16 kilometers (3 and 10 miles) away. The 

second nectar site was about 9 hectares (23 acres) in size, and both H. 

curassavicum and S. verrucosum covered most of the site; Sisymbrium 

altissimum was also present. The Distichlis habitat was about 21 hectares 

(52 acres) in size. Water sources were between 1.6 kilometers and about 
26

16 kilometers (1 and 10 miles) away (Honey Lake Conservation Team 

2005). 

F. REASONS FOR LISTING/THREATS 

Species are placed on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants based on one or more of the five listing factors for Federal listing of a 

species in section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act. The five listing factors 

are (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (2) over-utilization for commercial, recreation, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. On August 7, 2002, we published a final rule listing the 

Carson wandering skipper as an endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2002). 

Although the Carson wandering skipper is thought to have been 

historically rare, it is likely to have been more widespread in the past (Brussard et 

al. 1999). Only four populations are currently known to exist. At the time of 

listing the following threats were discussed: habitat destruction, degradation, and 

fragmentation due to urban and residential development; wetland habitat 

modification; agricultural practices (such as excessive livestock grazing and 

trampling); gas and geothermal development; and nonnative plant invasion. 

Other threats include collecting, water exportation projects, road construction, 

recreation, pesticide drift, lack of state regulatory mechanisms for the protection 

of insects, and naturally occurring events in conjunction with the small, isolated 

nature of the known populations. 

1. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Adult Carson wandering skippers have not been observed at the Carson 

City, Nevada, site since 1997. The Carson wandering skipper has likely been 

extirpated from this site due to development and habitat changes resulting from 

drainage manipulations for residential and commercial development (Brussard et 
27

al. 1999). Adjacent lands surrounding this site will continue to be developed for 

commercial and residential use. 

The remaining unoccupied habitat at the Carson City site also will be 

fragmented or destroyed by construction of a freeway bypass and associated flood 

control facilities in their entirety by the Nevada Department of Transportation. 

The alignment will impact approximately 2 hectares (6 acres) of previously 

occupied habitat and about 8 hectares (20 acres) of the potential habitat remaining 

at both areas north and south of U.S. Highway 50 (P. Frost in litt. 1998). 

Construction activities began in 2002-2003, and the section of freeway corridor 

located north of U. S. Highway 50 opened in spring 2006 (M. Haworth, pers. obs. 

2004, 2006). 

Residential development is occurring in the vicinity of the Washoe 

County, Nevada, populations. Urban development is occurring in the vicinity of 

the Lassen County, California, population/metapopulation. Increases in domestic 

wells could reduce the water table in the area, resulting in changes to the 

Distichlis community in these valleys (Brussard et al. 1999). As these areas 

become more populated, fragmentation and degradation of the Carson wandering 

skipper’s habitat is expected to increase due to development. 

Inappropriately managed livestock grazing is a potential threat to the 

Carson wandering skipper through reduction of the availability of nectar sources 

and Distichlis spicata cover, trampling, ground compaction, and increased spread 

of weeds. Until 2001, grazing practices on Bureau of Land Management 

administered lands at the Washoe County Site #1 allowed for a November to 

March grazing season. While this season of use avoids adverse impacts to adult 

Carson wandering skipper nectar sources and Distichlis spicata larval host plants 

during spring and summer, high livestock densities can cause mortality to 

hibernating larvae through trampling during the winter. On adjacent private 

lands, cattle densities and timing are not regulated, and cattle have access to 

nectar sources during the Carson wandering skipper’s spring/summer flight 

season. With acquisition of these private lands adjacent to Bureau of Land 

Management lands in 2005, cattle grazing will be suspended unless determined 

useful as a habitat management tool. Cattle also have access to various 

ownerships on some of the Lassen County sites; however, it is unknown at this 
28

time what type of management is being implemented. As stated earlier, timing of 

use and densities of livestock can affect the availability of adult nectar sources 

and Distichlis spicata larval host plants, as well as larval survival. 

Implementation of proposed large-scale water exportation projects could 

result in the lowering of the water table in Warm Springs (Nevada) or Honey 

Lake (California) Valleys. Reduced groundwater supply may cause the loss of a 

portion of the Distichlis community upon which the Carson wandering skipper 

population in these areas depends (Brussard et al. 1999). 

As development increases near known sites, there may be a potential for 

increases in recreational activities, such as off-highway vehicle use. This use is 

likely to occur both on public and private lands as these areas become more 

developed (Brussard et al. 1999). Recreational use at the Carson City, Nevada, 

site may have contributed to the possible extirpation of that population through 

habitat destruction and fragmentation. 

A proposed gas and geothermal development permit has been issued near 

the Lassen County, California, population. The Carson wandering skipper may be 

associated with geothermal areas (Brussard et al. 1999), and the resulting 

hydrologic and ground disturbances caused by exploratory drilling may affect the 

subspecies and its habitat. 

At the Lassen County population, Lepidium latifolium is of concern. 

Lepidium latifolium is a perennial herbaceous plant native to Europe and Asia that 

grows in disturbed sites, wet areas, ditches, roadsides, and croplands. Spreading 

roots and numerous seeds make this plant very competitive relative to other native 

plants and difficult to control (Stoddard et al. 1996). Lepidium latifolium often 

occurs in dense patches that become near-monoculture sites (Young et al. 1995). 

Beginning in 2000, this nonnative species began to encroach on the nectar site on 

a private property in California, and has become established in patches of Lotus 

corniculatus, this site’s nectar source. By 2002, a portion of this nectar site had 

been eliminated due to Lepidium latifolium invasion. In Lassen County, Lepidium 

latifolium has become widely established (Howard 2000). In Washoe County, 

Nevada, Lepidium latifolium has become established at the Spanish Springs #2b 
29

site. A few individual plants have been noted at the Warm Springs Valley 

Site #1. 

Pesticide use can be a potential threat to the Carson wandering skipper. 

Pesticides used to control pests could affect the Carson wandering skipper if used 

in close proximity or through pesticide drift (Brussard et al. 1999). 

2. Over-Utilization for Commercial, Recreation, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

The known populations of Carson wandering skipper that remain could 

face strong pressure from collectors. Because some of the nectar sites occur near 

public roadsides, the subspecies is easily accessible, and the limited number and 

distribution of these populations make it vulnerable to collectors. To date, there 

are no known cases of collecting causing a population extirpation. However, 

collecting of the Carson wandering skipper at the Carson City, Nevada, site over 

several years may have contributed to the extirpation of that population. Between 

1965 and 1989, at least 90 females and 86 males were collected during 7 different 

years by various collectors (Austin and Emmel 1998). During this time, this was 

the only site where the Carson wandering skipper was thought to occur. 

3. Disease or Predation 

Threats from predation, parasitism, or disease have not been determined. 

In 2005, a robber fly (Efferia sp.) was observed preying on an adult Carson 

wandering skipper (Honey Lake Conservation Team 2006). A minute pirate bug 

(Cortus tristicolor) and spiders were observed preying on Carson wandering 

skipper larvae (Yssel 2005 as cited in Honey Lake Conservation Team 2005). It 

is unknown whether predation is occurring at a level that may cause a concern. 

4. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Carson wandering skipper occurs on Federal, State, and private lands. 

The California Department of Fish and Game is unable to protect insects under its 

current regulations (California Fish and Game Code undated). Although the 

California Environmental Quality Act and California Endangered Species Act 
30

may provide a measure of protection to this subspecies, these laws are not 

adequate to protect the Carson wandering skipper and ensure its long-term 

survival (see further discussion in section I.G [Conservation Measures]). The 

Nevada Division of Wildlife does not protect insects under its current regulations 

(Nevada Revised Statutes 1999). 

5. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued 

Existence 

The apparent low numbers of the Carson wandering skipper make it 

vulnerable to risks associated with small, restricted populations (Shaffer 1981, 

1987; Groom et al. 2006). Because the Carson wandering skipper occurs at only 

four known isolated locations and in fairly small numbers, this subspecies is 

susceptible to extinction as a result of naturally occurring stochastic

environmental or demographic events. These events could include wildfire, 

disease or predation, and severe weather events such as flooding. Random 

demographic effects (such as skewed sex ratios) and loss of genetic variability 

also may result in individuals and populations being less able to cope with 

environmental change, and could cause the loss of one or more populations. In 

addition, the loss of habitat compromises the ability of the Carson wandering 

skipper to disperse. Populations remain isolated with no opportunity to migrate or 

recolonize if conditions become unfavorable. 

G. CONSERVATION MEASURES 

Conservation measures include scientific studies, laws that provide 

protection, and other activities that affect the conservation of the Carson 

wandering skipper. 

1. Federal Protection 

Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act provides for Cooperative 

Agreements between the Service and state wildlife agencies that have approved 

conservation management programs for listed species. To date, neither the 

California Department of Fish and Game nor the Nevada Department of Wildlife 

has applied for section 6 funds for conservation of the Carson wandering skipper. 
31

Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to 

evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed to be listed or is 

listed as endangered or threatened, and with respect to its critical habitat, if any 

is proposed or designated. Federal agencies are required to confer with us 

informally on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 

proposed species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. If a species is subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal 

agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of such a species, or to destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal agency action may affect a listed species 

or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation 

with us. Section 7(a)(1) requires that these agencies use their authorities to 

further the conservation of listed species. Several informal and formal 

consultations have been conducted in Nevada and California since the Carson 

wandering skipper’s listing. These have included construction of a Federal 

Correctional Institute, Department of Defense ordnance and explosive response 

actions, land transfers to Lassen County, Herlong, and the Honey Lake 

Conservation Team, Caltrans construction of a wetlands mitigation bank in 

California, several recreational events, and construction of water supply pipelines 

on Bureau of Land Management lands in Nevada (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

files). 

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act makes it illegal for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt any 

such conduct), import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 

transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Regulations 

further define harm to include significant habitat modification or degradation that 

results in the killing or injury of wildlife by significantly impairing essential 

behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harassment consists 

of intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed 

species to such an extent to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which 

include, but are not limited to breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 
32

Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act provides for the issuance of two 

types of permits. These permits authorize actions that would otherwise be 

prohibited under section 9. Such permits are available for scientific purposes or 

to enhance the propagation or survival of the listed species [section 10(a)(1)(A)] 

and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities [section 

10(a)(1)(B)]. To date, one section 10(a)(1)(A) permit request that included the 

Carson wandering skipper among several species of butterflies has been reviewed 

and a permit issued for harassment of the Carson wandering skipper for 

photographic purposes only (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service files). In addition, 

one section 10(b)(1)(B) permit has been issued for incidental take associated with 

habitat impacts resulting from planned residential development activities in 

Nevada (Lionel Sawyer & Collins 2005). The habitat conservation plan prepared 

to minimize and mitigate the effects of incidental take includes provisions to 

acquire approximately 16 hectares (39 acres) of offsite replacement habitat. 

Some protection is afforded the Carson wandering skipper on lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management at Washoe County Site #1 due 

to their commitment to assist in the conservation of this subspecies through a 

Cooperative Agreement. This Cooperative Agreement was signed by the Service, 

Nevada Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and 

the Bureau of Land Management in October 1999. Since then, the Bureau of 

Land Management has designated 98 hectares (243 acres) of their lands at the 

Washoe County site as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. This 

designation allows the Bureau of Land Management discretion in determining 

actions that can occur within this area (Bureau of Land Management 2001). In 

2005, the Bureau of Land Management acquired 32 hectares (80 acres) of 

adjacent private lands which support habitat occupied by the Carson wandering 

skipper. This area will become part of Bureau of Land Management’s Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern for the Carson wandering skipper, resulting in a 

total area of 130 hectares (323 acres). 

2. State Protection 

Although California State laws may provide a measure of protection to 

this subspecies, these laws are not adequate to protect the Carson wandering 

skipper and ensure its long-term survival. The California Environmental Quality 
33

Act pertains to projects on non-Federal lands and requires that a project proponent 

publicly disclose the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects. 

Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines requires a 

“finding of significance” if a project has the potential to “reduce the number or 

restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,” including those that are 

eligible for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. However, under 

the California Environmental Quality Act, where overriding social and economic 

considerations can be demonstrated, a project may go forward despite significant 

adverse impacts to a species. 

 A wetlands mitigation bank located adjacent to existing California 

Department of Fish and Game lands is being established near the Lassen County 

Site #1. This parcel of 121 hectares (300 acres) has been recently grazed and 

farmed. The bank is intended to create a minimum of 37 hectares (92 acres) of 

emergent wetlands at this site to mitigate for wetland losses in sagebrush scrub 

and juniper woodland habitats due to road construction in Lassen and Modoc 

Counties and in the eastern portion of Plumas County. This bank will be 

managed by the California Department of Fish and Game (California Department 

of Transportation and California Department of Fish and Game 1998). Long-term 

maintenance of the wetlands will follow the terms and conditions of the Honey 

Lake Wildlife Area Management Plan (Holmes and Novick 1993, California 

Department of Transportation 2002). The Honey Lake Wildlife Area 

Management Plan (Holmes and Novick 1993) is scheduled to be updated in the 

near future. This plan allows for providing suitable habitat and protecting 

threatened and endangered species, including the Carson wandering skipper. 

3. Private Organizations 

 The Honey Lake Conservation Team is a consortium of two non-profit 

natural resource conservation organizations (The Trust for Public Lands and the 

Center for Urban Watershed Renewal) and two natural resource consulting firms 

(The Bioengineering Group, Inc., and Michael Baker Jr., Inc.). These 

organizations were selected by the Department of Defense to hold title of the 

Honey Lake property, which encompasses those sites within and immediately 

around the lake, for a period of five years (2003 to 2008) or until transferred to 

the State of California. The transfer of this property recently occurred in 
34

November 2006. The Department of Defense has committed to providing funds 

of $8,650,000 until 2008 for management of the Honey Lake property. Of this 

sum, $1,000,000 will be spent for studying, understanding, promoting, and 

enhancing the Carson wandering skipper and its habitats. This will include the 

development of a Carson wandering skipper Conservation Strategy and a Honey 

Lake Management Plan for these lands (G. Burton in litt. 2003). The Honey Lake 

Conservation Team has worked with other parties as appropriate in managing 

these transferred lands in consideration of the Carson wandering skipper. The 

California State Lands Commission will continue this management. 

H. RECOVERY STRATEGY 

Due to the restricted range of this subspecies and its vulnerability, a 

priority for recovery is to manage and maintain the remaining populations and the 

habitats on which they occur; threats must be effectively counteracted to assure 

the persistence of populations. Threats to habitat may be addressed through such 

means as land acquisition from willing sellers, conservation agreements, 

management agreements, or by other means. 

Very little is understood about the ecology, life history, or population 

structure of the Carson wandering skipper. A good understanding of these 

parameters is needed to protect fully the subspecies from extinction. Research is 

essential in making scientifically based conservation decisions. A research 

program that targets the life history and habitat requirements of the Carson 

wandering skipper is necessary to achieve its recovery. Additional research needs 

to be conducted to provide a better understanding of the subspecies’ 

demographics and whether or not the Carson wandering skipper occurs as local 

populations at a local scale or as metapopulations at a metapopulation scale

(Hanski and Gilpin 1991). Annual monitoring of the known populations with 

appropriate, consistent methods is essential to better understand normal 

population fluctuations, trends, and movement into or out of changing habitats. 

Monitoring should be applied during a sufficient period of time (a minimum of 20 

years) to address the variability of environmental conditions that may be 

experienced by the Carson wandering skipper. Surveys are needed in potential 

habitats to determine the distribution of known populations or the presence of 

additional populations. As more information becomes available, areas that 
35

support adequate amounts of suitable habitat will be evaluated as possible 

reintroduction sites. Delisting of the Carson wandering skipper could be based, in 

part, on the discovery or establishment of one or more additional populations or 

metapopulations located elsewhere within its range. However, we may determine 

that locating or establishing one or more additional populations or 

metapopulations elsewhere within its range is not feasible. 

Viable populations or metapopulations must be perpetuated throughout the 

Carson wandering skipper’s geographic range in California and Nevada. This can 

be accomplished by maintaining extant populations or metapopulations 

throughout its range, and improving and stabilizing those populations or 

metapopulations that are less secure such that they are large enough to be viable. 

Monitoring and adaptive management should protect areas against threats, 

maintain suitable habitat over time, and identify appropriate responses to any 

declines. 

Because of the natural fluctuation of butterfly abundance due to various 

factors, using numbers of individuals as a recovery criterion is inappropriate. 

This also applies to identifying a required minimum population size. Due to the 

difficulties involved with associating numbers of populations or individuals 

within each population with recovery success for invertebrates, the amount of 

suitable habitat and its occupancy is recommended as a feasible means of 

expressing recovery criteria (D. Murphy, University of Nevada, Reno, and E. 

Fleischman, Stanford University, pers. comm. 2004). Some habitat/landscape 

characteristics known or suspected to be associated with Carson wandering 

skipper occupancy include green Distichlis spicata for larval feeding at the 

appropriate time of year, nectar sources for adult feeding at the appropriate time 

of year, and presence of springs or other water sources for larval host plant/nectar 

establishment. It is reasonable to presume that a site with these characteristics is 

suitable for Carson wandering skippers. The definitive measure of habitat 

suitability is occupation by and persistence of a species over time. 

For the purposes of this plan, “known suitable habitat” equates with 

“occupancy” of the habitat by the Carson wandering skipper, as determined by 

survey results; “presumed suitable habitat” has Carson wandering skipper habitat 

characteristics, but occupancy has not been determined. It is important to clarify 
36

known and presumed suitable habitat patches and opportunities for managing 

these areas for the benefit of the Carson wandering skipper. At this time it is not 

known how many presumed habitat patches exist or where they are located. The 

spatial extent of suitable habitat patches, distances between them, and the extent 

of suitable migration corridors are also not currently known. 

Four categories of suitable habitat patches can be identified: (1) known 

suitable habitat (occupied habitat) that is currently managed or can be managed 

for the Carson wandering skipper; (2) known suitable habitat that is not currently 

managed or cannot be managed for the Carson wandering skipper; (3) presumed 

suitable habitat that is currently managed or can be managed for the benefit of the 

Carson wandering skipper; and (4) presumed suitable habitat that is not currently 

managed or cannot be managed for the Carson wandering skipper. Over time, 

consideration will be given to eliminating areas that appeared to be presumed 

suitable habitat, but are not, as determined by repeated searches and monitoring. 

Within the four known populations/metapopulations in Nevada and 

California, known suitable habitat exists that is managed or can be managed for 

the benefit of the Carson wandering skipper. These include the Bureau of Land 

Management site and recently acquired private lands in Warm Springs Valley, 

Washoe County, Nevada (1 combined nectar site); the private lands site in 

Spanish Springs Valley, Washoe County, Nevada (1 nectar site); the California 

Department of Fish and Game site in Lassen County, California (1 nectar site); 

the Carson River site in Douglas County, Nevada (1 nectar site); and the Honey 

Lake Conservation Team/California State Lands Commission lands in Lassen 

County, California (19 nectar sites). Some currently known suitable habitat also 

exists that is not being managed or cannot be managed for the Carson wandering 

skipper at the Lassen County, California, Site #2 (Private, 1 nectar site), Site #3 

(Wendel area, 1 nectar site), and Site #4 (Mapes Road, 1 nectar site). 

The California population/metapopulation appears to be larger in size and 

to cover a greater land base than the Nevada populations. As such it will be 

necessary to ensure appropriate management of known suitable habitat patches for 

the Carson wandering skipper in perpetuity at the California site. In addition, the 

possible influence of varying Honey Lake water levels on population size must be 

determined for the population/metapopulation. Surveys conducted in 2004 and 
37

2005 occurred primarily within the lake’s boundary (meander) line and numerous 

nectar sites were located. During the 2004 survey, Honey Lake was dry. In 2005, 

conditions were wetter with some standing water in Honey Lake. No previously 

known sites were reported as under water in 2005. During wet years, it is 

possible that some nectar sites and Distichlis acreage used by the Carson 

wandering skipper will be inundated by rising lake levels. As a result, this 

population/metapopulation may experience fluctuations in the number of 

individuals based on the availability of nectar sites for adults and the amount of 

Distichlis spicata available for larvae. Dry years may offer an opportunity for 

population/metapopulation increases or expansion while wet years may cause 

declines or contraction. Long-term monitoring should help clarify the effects of 

lake water levels. Management of nectar sites in more upland areas around 

Honey Lake to eliminate threats may be essential to the long-term persistence of 

this subspecies in California. 

Recovery of the Carson wandering skipper can be based, in part, on the 

number of known suitable habitat patches being managed for the species. 

Increasing the number of known suitable habitat patches managed for the Carson 

wandering skipper from the three other categories listed above would be 

beneficial, and appropriate management for a sufficient number of these known 

suitable habitat patches should be ensured in perpetuity for downlisting or 

delisting of the Carson wandering skipper to occur. The occupancy of these sites 

must be documented over time because they may not be used every year. Priority 

for appropriate management of these areas will be assigned to known or suspected 

nectar source patches. 

The support and participation of stakeholders will be necessary for the 

recovery of the Carson wandering skipper in California and Nevada. The Carson 

wandering skipper has been found on public (Federal and State) and private lands. 

As indicated in section II.C (Recovery Narrative) below, many opportunities are 

available for stakeholders and other interested parties to become involved in the 

recovery of the Carson wandering skipper. 

Monitoring of the Carson wandering skipper should incorporate methods 

and techniques that will be applicable and consistent with monitoring after the 

subspecies is delisted. A post-delisting monitoring plan that can be integrated 
38

into ongoing surveys for recovery will be developed and implemented for a 

minimum period of 5 years after delisting to ensure recovery. 
39

II. Recovery

A. RECOVERY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA

1. Recovery Objectives

The primary objective of this recovery plan is to prevent the extinction of 

the Carson wandering skipper and to ensure that existing populations or 

metapopulations are protected from threats for the foreseeable future, thereby 

perpetuating viable populations or metapopulations of the subspecies throughout 

its range. The secondary objective is to allow for reclassification and eventual 

recovery and delisting of this subspecies. This plan is intended to guide willing 

participants in achieving these objectives. Actions emphasized in this plan that 

will be needed to meet recovery objectives are described in the recovery criteria 

below. Recovery objectives for the Carson wandering skipper may be achieved if 

additional populations or metapopulations are found, if appropriate management 

to counteract threats is ensured in perpetuity for a large amount of the known 

suitable habitat, if the number of the known populations increases naturally or 

through propagation and augmentation, if reintroduction/introduction efforts are 

successful, and if threats are eliminated or reduced. While knowledge of the 

current status of the Carson wandering skipper and its range-wide distribution is 

limited, the following criteria for downlisting and delisting are based on the best 

available information. These criteria may be revised and further quantified as 

additional information from research and monitoring becomes available in the 

future. 

2. Recovery Criteria

 Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are intended to provide 

guidance to the Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing 

threats to listed species, and criteria that may be used to determine when recovery 

is achieved. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 

recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one 

or more criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been 

accomplished. In that instance, the Service may judge that over all criteria, the 
40

threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust enough to 

reclassify from endangered to threatened or perhaps delist. In other cases, 

recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were not known at the time 

the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of 

methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, new information may change 

our understanding of the subspecies’ biology. This new information may change 

our evaluation of appropriate recovery criteria in the future. Overall, recovery is a 

dynamic process requiring adaptive management, and judging the degree of 

recovery of a species is also an adaptive process that may, or may not, fully 

follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

 Downlisting or delisting is warranted when a listed species no longer 

meets the definition of endangered or threatened, respectively, under the 

Endangered Species Act. We set recovery criteria to serve as objective, 

measurable guidelines to assist us in determining when a species has recovered to 

the point that the protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act are no 

longer necessary. However, the actual change in listing status is not solely 

dependent upon achieving the recovery criteria set forth in a recovery plan; it 

requires a formal rulemaking process based upon an analysis of the same five 

factors considered in the listing of a species (see section I.F [Reasons for 

Listing/Threats]). The recovery criteria presented in this recovery plan thus 

represent our best assessment of the conditions that would most likely result in a 

determination that downlisting or delisting of the Carson wandering skipper is 

warranted as the outcome of a formal five factor analysis in a subsequent 

regulatory rulemaking. 

Downlisting of the Carson wandering skipper to threatened status can be 

considered when the following criteria are met: 

(1) For the Lassen County, California, population/metapopulation and one 

of the three known Nevada populations or a comparable newly discovered 

population, management has been established in perpetuity to effectively address 

threats to the species and ensure persistence of the populations. The population in 

Nevada must have been occupied for 6 years out of the most recent 10-year 

sequence with no downward trend in abundance. In California, suitable habitat 

patches equivalent to 50 percent or more of the currently known suitable habitat 
41

patches must be managed to effectively address threats, and each of these habitat 

patches must have been occupied for 6 years out of the most recent 10-year 

sequence with no downward trend in abundance across the population/ 

metapopulation. 

(2) Adaptive management plans have been developed and implemented 

with adequate long-term funding, either individually or comprehensively, for the 

two populations in downlisting criterion #1. These plans must address 

appropriate management for the Carson wandering skipper with regards to habitat 

and land uses that may affect habitat quality, including but not limited to 

development (urban, residential, water, gas and geothermal), livestock grazing, 

recreation, invasive plant control, pesticide use, and public education. 

Delisting of the Carson wandering skipper can be considered when the 

following conditions are met: 

(1) For the Lassen County, California, population/metapopulation and

two of the three known Nevada populations or comparable newly discovered 

populations, management has been established in perpetuity to effectively address 

threats to the species and ensure persistence of the populations. Each population 

in Nevada must have been occupied for 6 years out of the most recent 10-year 

sequence after downlisting criteria are met, with no downward trend in 

abundance. In California, suitable habitat patches equivalent to 75 percent or 

more of the currently known suitable habitat patches must be managed to 

effectively address threats, and each of these habitat patches must have been 

occupied for 6 years out of the most recent 10-year sequence after downlisting 

criteria are met, with no downward trend in abundance across the population/ 

metapopulation. Appropriate landscape connectivity must exist among patches 

(i.e., land use between most sites is considered open space and not urban or 

suburban) in order to potentially facilitate movement of the Carson wandering 

skipper among patches. 

(2) Adaptive management plans have been developed and implemented 

with adequate long-term funding, either individually or comprehensively, for the 

three populations in delisting criterion #1. These plans must address appropriate 

management for the Carson wandering skipper with regard to habitat and land 
42

uses that may affect habitat quality, including but not limited to development 

(urban, residential, water, gas, and geothermal), livestock grazing, recreation, 

invasive plant control, pesticide use, and public education. 

(3) In addition to the populations in delisting criterion #1, for at least one 

additional Carson wandering skipper population or metapopulation, including a 

known population or any that may be discovered or established within Carson 

wandering skipper historical range, management has been established in 

perpetuity to effectively address threats to the species and ensure persistence of 

the population, unless we conclude (through intensive, comprehensive surveying) 

that additional populations or metapopulations do not exist and it would not be 

ecologically feasible to establish/reestablish one or more of them within Carson 

wandering skipper historical range. 

(4) Lepidium latifolium invasion into known and presumed suitable 

habitat for the Carson wandering skipper has been eliminated or reduced and 

managed to levels that do not pose a threat to the persistence of the Carson 

wandering skipper. 

(5) A long-term conservation plan and conservation agreements have 

been developed to guide management throughout the range of the Carson 

wandering skipper after it has been delisted. 

(6) A monitoring plan to cover a minimum of 5 years post-delisting of the 

Carson wandering skipper has been developed and is ready to be implemented to 

ensure the ongoing conservation of the species and the continuing effectiveness of 

management actions. 

Prior to implementation of any action in this plan, the lead Federal agency 

must comply with all applicable provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

Act and the Endangered Species Act. All necessary Federal, State, and local 

permits or authorizations must be obtained. These recovery criteria were 

designed to provide a basis for consideration of downlisting and delisting, but not 

for automatic downlisting or delisting. Before delisting occurs, we must 

determine that the five listing factors no longer are present or no longer continue 

to adversely affect the listed species. The final decision regarding delisting will 
43

be made only after a thorough review of all relevant information and public 

participation in the review process. 

B. STEP-DOWN OUTLINE FOR RECOVERY ACTIONS

1. Manage existing populations and essential habitat on public and private 

lands to minimize threats 

 1.1 Identify and map known occupied sites, especially those of 

suspected source populations. 

 1.2 Establish appropriate long-term management of known occupied 

sites, especially those of suspected source populations. 

1.3 Identify and map spring sites important to the Carson wandering 

skipper. 

1.4 Establish appropriate long-term management of important spring 

sites. 

 1.5 Support mapping of Lepidium latifolium by Federal, State, local 

agencies, and other interested parties. 

 1.6 Support control of Lepidium latifolium by Federal, State, local 

agencies, and other interested parties. 

1.7 Support monitoring of Lepidium latifolium by Federal, State, local 

agencies, and other interested parties. 

 1.8 Work with interested landowners, University of California 

Cooperative Extension, and other interested parties to control 

Lepidium latifolium at occupied and potential sites. 

1.9 Work with interested landowners of occupied sites to develop 

livestock grazing management plans to enhance habitat conditions 

for the Carson wandering skipper. 

 1.10 Coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies to address issues 

of large-scale ground water pumping to ensure adverse impacts to 

the Carson wandering skipper do not occur. 

 1.11 Work with non-Federal public and private interests (local 

landowners, agricultural interests, geothermal development 

interests, water developers, etc.) on a voluntary basis to develop 

and implement safe harbor agreements, conservation agreements, 

habitat conservation plans, or other programs (such as Partners for 
44

Fish and Wildlife and Farm Bill conservation programs) to protect, 

restore, enhance, and manage existing populations and habitat, as 

well as potential habitat of the Carson wandering skipper. 

 1.12 Coordinate with State wildlife resource agencies (California 

Department of Fish and Game and Nevada Department of 

Wildlife) to provide Federal section 6 funds to be used by the 

states to carry out species recovery actions. 

1.13 Coordinate with Bureau of Land Management to acquire additional 

habitat and water rights from a willing seller at the Washoe 

County, Nevada, Site #1 and develop a management plan. 

 1.14 Seek to acquire additional occupied or potential habitat from 

willing sellers, when possible, through fee acquisitions. 

 1.15 Conduct Endangered Species Act section 7 consultations with 

various Federal agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, 

Federal Highway Administration, Department of Defense, 

Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Army Corps of 

Engineers, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and 

Natural Resource Conservation Service) or their designated agents 

as appropriate to protect Carson wandering skipper populations 

and enhance Carson wandering skipper habitat. 

1.16 Coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers to avoid, minimize, 

or compensate for impacts to Distichlis and wetland habitat in 

relation to section 404 of the Clean Water Act activities. 

 1.17 Coordinate with the California Department of Transportation and 

California Department of Fish and Game regarding 

implementation of the Honey Lake Mitigation Bank in 

consideration of the Carson wandering skipper. 

1.18 Coordinate with the Honey Lake Conservation Team/California 

State Land Commission on the management of their lands adjacent 

to Honey Lake in consideration of the Carson wandering skipper. 

2. Establish a research program to determine the ecological requirements and 

life history of the Carson wandering skipper, and develop a program to 

survey for additional populations and monitor existing populations and 

habitats for trends and threats. 
45

 2.1 Develop and implement a program to survey for additional 

populations (a survey protocol for proposed projects has been 

developed). 

 2.2 Develop and implement a monitoring program for known 

populations and habitat for trends and threats. 

 2.3 Better understand ecological (including specific habitat needs) and 

life history requirements of the Carson wandering skipper. 

 2.4 Determine population structure and dispersal distance of Carson 

wandering skippers in Honey Lake and Warm Springs Valleys and 

at the Douglas County site. 

2.5 Determine the relationship between livestock grazing and the 

Carson wandering skipper and its habitat. 

 2.6 Develop a hydrologic model to better understand the relationship 

between surface and groundwater resources in Honey Lake and 

Warm Springs Valleys and at the Douglas County site. 

 2.7 Develop techniques for captive propagation with possible 

introduction/reintroduction to unoccupied, suitable sites. 

 2.8 Develop techniques for Carson wandering skipper habitat creation 

and enhancement. 

3. Develop and implement an outreach program to keep local communities 

informed of the Carson wandering skipper’s status and means to carry out 

recovery actions. 

3.1 Create an internet web site to provide information on the 

subspecies and the recovery process. 

3.2 Prepare general information materials for the public. 

 3.3 Use and develop kiosks at appropriate sites such as California 

Department of Fish and Game management areas, Honey Lake 

Conservation Team/California State Lands Commission lands, and 

California Department of Transportation Safety Roadside Rest 

Areas for educational material distribution. 

 3.4 Encourage Resource Conservation Districts and cooperative 

extension to provide technical assistance to landowners to further 

land management activities to assist in Carson wandering skipper 

recovery. 
46

 3.5 Foster community involvement and educational opportunities with 

schools, scouts, 4H, and other groups to assist in Carson wandering 

skipper recovery. 

 3.6 Identify landowners with suitable habitat willing to assist in the 

recovery of the Carson wandering skipper. 

4. Evaluate progress of recovery and effectiveness of management and 

recovery actions; revise management plans and recovery criteria as 

necessary. 

 4.1 Revise the recovery plan as appropriate at 5-year intervals. 

 4.2 Hold periodic stakeholder meetings to encourage information 

sharing. 

C. RECOVERY NARRATIVE OUTLINE FOR ACTIONS ADDRESSING 

THREATS

1. Manage existing populations and essential habitat on public and private lands

to minimize threats. Only four populations of Carson wandering skipper are 

currently known to exist. Protection and management of these populations are 

essential to the subspecies’ survival. 

 1.1 Identify and map known occupied sites, especially those of 

suspected source populations. Identify known, occupied sites of 

Carson wandering skipper habitat that occur on Federal, State, and 

private property, and obtain spatial coordinates of sites using GPS 

(global positioning systems). Access permission must be obtained 

to conduct surveys. 

 

 1.2 Establish appropriate long-term management of known occupied 

sites, especially those of suspected source populations. Known, 

occupied sites of Carson wandering skipper habitat occur on 

Federal, State, and private property. Because of the low number of 

known sites, ensuring appropriate management of these areas to 

minimize threats, through such means as acquisition from willing 

sellers, conservation agreements, management agreements, or 
47

other means, is important to the survival of the subspecies. Those 

sites that are believed to provide habitat for source populations 

especially need protection. Access permission must be obtained to 

conduct surveys. 

1.3 Identify and map spring sites important to the Carson wandering 

skipper. Because of the close association of Carson wandering 

skipper with Distichlis spicata, and the influence of springs on 

D. spicata quality and availability of nectar plants, identification of 

spring habitats is likely important to Carson wandering skipper 

survival and recovery. Spatial coordinates of spring sites can be 

obtained using GPS. Access permission must be obtained to 

conduct surveys. 

1.4 Establish appropriate long-term management of important spring 

sites. Because of the close association of the Carson wandering 

skipper with Distichlis spicata, and the influence of springs on 

D. spicata quality and availability of nectar plants, spring habitats 

are likely important to Carson wandering skipper survival and 

recovery. Appropriate management of those areas within/near 

occupied Carson wandering skipper habitat must be ensured 

through acquisition from willing sellers, conservation agreements, 

management agreements, or other means. Access permission must 

be obtained to conduct surveys. 

 1.5 Support mapping of Lepidium latifolium by Federal, State, local 

agencies, and other interested parties. Aggressive plant species 

invasions, such as by L. latifolium, can be a threat to the Carson 

wandering skipper by replacing other plant species, particularly 

nectar plants, required by the Carson wandering skipper. The first 

line of defense in invasive species control is prevention; when that 

fails, early detection and a rapid response to new infestations, 

containment of larger infestations, and local eradications can 

control further infestation. This action would provide support 

(funds and personnel) to local entities such as the Lassen County 

Special Weed Action Team, University of California Cooperative 
48

Extension, and other interested parties to map L. latifolium in and 

around areas known to be used by the Carson wandering skipper. 

Additional support may also be provided for the mapping of 

L. latifolium in areas where potential Carson wandering skipper 

habitat could be threatened by this invasive species. Refer to 

recovery actions 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8. 

1.6 Support control of Lepidium latifolium by federal, state, local 

agencies, and other interested parties. This action would provide 

support (funds and personnel) to local entities such as the Lassen 

County Special Weed Action Team, University of California 

Cooperative Extension, and other interested parties to control L. 

latifolium in and around areas known to be used by Carson 

wandering skipper. Additional support may also be provided for 

the control of L. latifolium in areas where potential Carson 

wandering skipper habitat could be threatened by this invasive 

species. Refer to recovery actions 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8. 

 1.7 Support monitoring of Lepidium latifolium by Federal, State, local 

agencies, and other interested parties. This action would provide 

support (funds and personnel) to local entities such as the Lassen 

County Special Weed Action Team, University of California 

Cooperative Extension, and other interested parties to monitor L. 

latifolium in and around areas known to be used by Carson 

wandering skipper. Additional support may also be provided for 

the monitoring of L. latifolium in areas where potential Carson 

wandering skipper habitat could be threatened by this invasive 

species. Refer to recovery actions 1.5, 1.6, and 1.8. 

 1.8 Work with interested landowners, University of California 

Cooperative Extension, and other interested parties to control 

Lepidium latifolium at occupied and potential sites. Invasions of L. 

latifolium into areas containing Distichlis spicata and/or nectar 

plants have resulted in loss of occupied and potential habitats, and 

continued invasions are likely to result in greater losses of 

appropriate habitats and the conversion and degradation of lowland 
49

grassland habitats. Opportunities exist for landowners to conduct 

habitat improvement projects, manage livestock grazing, control 

weeds, and engage in other actions to reduce the coverage of L. 

latifolium and to prevent it from invading new sites. Technical 

assistance and/or program funds to help interested landowners 

conduct those kinds of activities are available from the Service, the 

University of California Cooperative Extension, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, and other agencies and organizations. Landowners 

who are concerned about the effects of L. latifolium on the Carson 

wandering skipper or on the land in general, and who wish to 

engage in projects to remove L. latifolium, are encouraged to 

contact their local agency or extension office to begin that effort. 

Likewise, agency and extension service staff are encouraged to 

outreach to landowners to inform them about land and habitat 

degradation from L. latifolium invasions and to provide technical 

assistance and funds toward control and elimination of 

L. latifolium from affected lands. Refer to recovery actions 1.5, 

1.6, and 1.7. 

1.9 Work with interested landowners of occupied sites to develop 

livestock grazing management plans to enhance habitat conditions 

for the Carson wandering skipper. Landowners of occupied sites 

should be informed about the Endangered Species Act and the 

associated legal requirements and assistance programs available. 

Educational material on the Carson wandering skipper should be 

distributed to landowners. Landowners should be notified of any 

financial assistance available to implement programs. The Service, 

the landowner, and other involved agencies should form working 

partnerships with the University of California Cooperative 

Extension (Livestock Farm Advisor) and Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (Range Specialist) to develop a mutually 

agreeable livestock grazing management plan to enhance habitat 

conditions for the Carson wandering skipper and at the same time 

continue to provide a viable livestock operation. Grazing 

guidelines must be developed to provide an economically sound 

business for the landowner of occupied sites. These management 
50

plans would be developed in association with the research 

discussed in recovery action 2.5. 

 1.10 Coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies to address issues 

of large-scale ground water pumping to ensure adverse impacts to 

the Carson wandering skipper do not occur. Groundwater 

extractions in sensitive habitat for the Carson wandering skipper 

may reduce or eliminate spring discharges supporting the 

vegetation that appears to provide necessary habitat elements. It is 

recommended that we work closely with Federal, State, and local 

water management and purveyor agencies in California and 

Nevada to evaluate the effects of groundwater level declines 

associated with municipal and agricultural groundwater extraction 

in Honey Lake and Warm Springs Valleys. Proposed evaluations 

include an inventory of existing wells and water rights, anticipated 

future groundwater development potential based upon water rights, 

assessment of geological and hydrological conditions, and 

development of numerical groundwater flow models to assess the 

surface effects of groundwater extraction. Monitoring of 

vegetation and the Carson wandering skipper should occur in 

association with commencement of pumping. 

 1.11 Work with non-Federal public and private interests (local 

landowners, agricultural interests, geothermal development 

interests, water developers, etc) on a voluntary basis to develop 

and implement safe harbor agreements, conservation agreements, 

habitat conservation plans, or other programs (such as Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife and Farm Bill conservation programs) to protect, 

restore, enhance, and manage existing populations and habitat as 

well as potential habitat of the Carson wandering skipper. 

Opportunities for Carson wandering skipper recovery on private 

and non-Federal public lands should be investigated on a 

willing/interested landowner basis on suitable lands. Existing 

water rights and infrastructure installation and maintenance issues 

will need to be considered. Landowners should be informed of the 

various opportunities available through safe harbor agreements and 
51

habitat conservation plans. Funding sources include, but are not 

limited to, the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program 

and Landowner Incentive Program; and the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service’s Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project 

funds. Refer to recovery action 3.6. 

 1.12 Coordinate with State wildlife resource agencies (California 

Department of Fish and Game, California Parks and Recreation 

Department, and Nevada Department of Wildlife) to provide 

Federal section 6 funds to be used by the States to carry out species 

recovery actions. Opportunities for Carson wandering skipper 

recovery on State lands should be investigated. Land managers 

should be informed of the opportunities and funding sources 

available through Endangered Species Act section 6 grants. 

1.13 Coordinate with Bureau of Land Management to acquire additional 

habitat and water rights from a willing seller at the Washoe 

County, Nevada, Site #1 and develop a management plan. In 

2005, the Bureau of Land Management Carson City Field Office 

acquired 32 hectares (80 acres) of occupied habitat along with 

groundwater rights to sustain that habitat. This parcel is adjacent 

to and will become part of the Bureau of Land Management’s 

Carson Wandering Skipper Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act 

appropriations were used to finalize the transactions with willing 

sellers. A site-specific management plan to address habitat 

management needs and threats to the population or habitat will be 

developed. The plan will include goals, strategies, funding 

sources, and time line, and will incorporate an adaptive 

management strategy. 

 1.14 Seek to acquire additional occupied or potential habitat from 

willing sellers, when possible, through fee acquisitions. Occupied 

and potential habitats could be acquired from willing sellers 

throughout the Carson wandering skipper’s range, with first 

preference to fee acquisitions. Where appropriate, conservation 
52

agreements could be acquired from willing sellers to ensure habitat 

is managed to prevent threats from disturbance or development. 

Funding sources could include Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Act, Land and Water Conservation Fund, agency 

appropriations, donations or grants. Future management of 

acquired fee-title lands would be directed toward Carson 

wandering skipper conservation and restoration in accordance with 

the acquiring agency’s or organization’s mission. 

 1.15 Conduct Endangered Species Act section 7 consultations with 

various Federal agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, 

Federal Highway Administration, Department of Defense,

Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Army Corps of 

Engineers, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and 

Natural Resource Conservation Service) or their designated agents 

as appropriate to protect and enhance Carson wandering skipper

populations and habitat. We will conduct section 7 consultations 

with various Federal agencies or their designated agents on 

projects affecting the Carson wandering skipper throughout its 

range to ensure these projects do not jeopardize its continued 

existence. 

 

1.16 Coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers to avoid, minimize, 

or compensate for impacts to Distichlis and wetland habitats in 

relation to section 404 of the Clean Water Act activities. We will 

coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when a permit 

is required to reduce proposed project impacts to wetland and 

Distichlis habitats through section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Where impacts to these habitats cannot be avoided, mitigation will 

be required. 

 1.17 Coordinate with the California Department of Transportation and 

California Department of Fish and Game regarding 

implementation of the Honey Lake Mitigation Bank in 

consideration of the Carson wandering skipper. A wetlands 

mitigation bank located adjacent to existing California Department 
53

of Fish and Game lands is being established near the Lassen 

County Site #1 (see section I.G [Conservation Measures]). The 

bank is intended to create a minimum of 37 hectares (92 acres) of 

emergent wetlands at this site to mitigate for wetland losses in 

sagebrush scrub and juniper woodland habitats due to road 

construction in Lassen and Modoc Counties and in the eastern 

portion of Plumas County. This bank will be managed by the 

California Department of Fish and Game (California Department 

of Transportation and California Department of Fish and Game 

1998). Long-term maintenance of the wetlands will follow the 

terms and conditions of the Honey Lake Wildlife Area 

Management Plan (Holmes and Novick 1993, California 

Department of Transportation 2002). Opportunities to pursue 

Carson wandering skipper recovery at the bank site should be 

explored. 

 1.18 Coordinate with the Honey Lake Conservation Team/California 

State Lands Commission on the management of their lands 

adjacent to Honey Lake in consideration of the Carson wandering 

skipper. The Honey Lake Conservation Team is a consortium of 

two non-profit natural resource conservation organizations (The 

Trust for Public Lands and the Center for Urban Watershed 

Renewal) that will receive the Honey Lake property from the 

Department of Defense (see section I.G [Conservation Measures]). 

The Honey Lake Conservation Team will hold title to the lands 

until transferred to the State of California. The Department of 

Defense has committed to providing the Honey Lake Conservation 

Team with $8,650,000 for management of the property. Of this 

sum, $1,000,000 will be spent for studying, understanding, 

promoting, and enhancing the Carson wandering skipper and its 

habitats. This will include the development of a Carson wandering 

skipper Conservation Strategy and a Honey Lake Management 

Plan for these lands. 

2. Establish a research program to determine the ecological requirements and 

life history of the Carson wandering skipper, and develop a program to 
54

survey for additional populations and monitor existing populations and 

habitats for trends and threats. The current understanding of the biology 

and ecology of the Carson wandering skipper is limited. A better 

understanding of habitat requirements, behavior, and population dynamics 

is necessary to support appropriate recovery recommendations. Research 

is needed to determine the best techniques for propagation and/or 

introduction/reintroduction into suitable habitats if selected as a 

conservation strategy. This strategy should be used only as a last resort 

and not in place of protecting existing populations. 

 2.1 Develop and implement a program to survey for additional 

populations. Although Distichlis areas in northwestern Nevada 

and northeastern California have been surveyed to varying degrees 

since 1999, there is still a possibility that additional populations 

may exist. Areas in Lassen County, California, and Washoe and 

Douglas Counties, Nevada, identified as having soils that support 

Distichlis spicata should be mapped and then searched during the 

flight season. Additional populations also may be found if more 

access to private land becomes available (access permission must 

be obtained). 

 Survey guidelines to determine presence or absence became 

available prior to the 2002 Carson wandering skipper flight season. 

The survey guidelines may be obtained from either the Nevada 

Fish and Wildlife Office in Reno, Nevada, or from the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office in Sacramento, California. Survey 

guidelines should be obtained annually because the methods are 

subject to change as additional information is gathered over time. 

2.2 Develop and implement a monitoring program for known 

populations and habitat for trends and threats. Annual monitoring 

of Carson wandering skipper populations is needed to track their 

status and progress towards recovery. Parameters for population 

and habitat trends must be selected, methods and techniques 

determined, and a plan developed and implemented. Population 

trends in invertebrates are very difficult to determine, since normal 
55

annual variation in numbers may span two to three orders of 

magnitude. It is highly unlikely that standard capture-markrelease-recapture techniques can be used successfully to obtain 

quantitative estimates of Carson wandering skipper population 

sizes. Individuals are difficult to capture and too small to handle 

without damaging them. Furthermore, their relative rarity and 

unknown dispersal tendencies make the likelihood of obtaining 

enough recaptures for meaningful estimates remote at best. 

Brussard et al. (1999) attempted to obtain estimates of relative 

population numbers using the Pollard (1977) walking transect 

technique. However, the variance in transect counts was so large 

that the attempt did not provide statistically useful information. 

The application of qualitative descriptors is probably the most 

reliable method of monitoring Carson wandering skipper 

populations. The following descriptors were used by Brussard et 

al. (1999): abundant (usually observed in large numbers), 

common (usually observed but not in large numbers), fairly 

common (usually observed but in small numbers or not always 

observed), uncommon (occasionally observed) and rare (a single 

sighting). We have developed survey guidelines for the Carson 

wandering skipper (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006) that 

provide the following categories to indicate the number of 

individuals seen: low (1-10 individual seen per day); medium (11-

30 individuals seen per day); and high (31-100 or more individuals 

seen per day). When possible, recording of actual numbers when 

observations are less than 10 is preferable. Inter-annual trends in 

these descriptors/ranges, along with maps showing occupied and 

unoccupied localities, should give reasonable insight into 

population trends in the Carson wandering skipper. Properly 

established photo points and verbal descriptions should provide 

adequate documentation of habitat trends. Reporting requirements 

of various environmental laws should provide information on landuse changes that might adversely impact the Carson wandering 

skipper. 
56

Data will be gathered according to methods outlined in the 

monitoring program. Monitoring methods should be applied 

consistently during a sufficient period of time (minimum of 20 

years). This period of time is needed to include the variability of 

environmental conditions experienced by the Carson wandering 

skipper. Any new threats to the Carson wandering skipper also 

should be identified. Copies of monitoring reports should be 

provided to the Service so review and assessment of the status of 

populations and habitat can be made. This information will be 

maintained in a database developed by the Nevada Fish and 

Wildlife Office in Reno, Nevada. 

2.3 Better understand ecological (including specific habitat needs) and

life history requirements of the Carson wandering skipper. For 

example, raising individuals from egg to adult in the laboratory is 

important to determine: (1) whether the larvae spin webs, (2) how 

many larvae can co-exist and ultimately develop on a single 

Distichlis spicata plant, and (3) if the species can re-enter diapause 

under adverse conditions. Once this information is known, careful 

field studies may produce more information on larval ecology. 

 It is also important to better understand larval habitat. For 

example, monitoring adult female ovipositing within the Distachlis 

spicata habitat will assist in determining which habitat patches the 

larvae and pupae will occupy. Suitable larval habitat may be 

determined by soil moisture levels, Distachlis spicata phenology, 

flooding, or other microhabitat factors. It will be important to 

effectively manage Distachlis spicata habitat for larval survival 

and growth. See recovery actions 2.2 and 2.4. 

2.4 Determine population structure and dispersal distance of Carson 

wandering skippers at Honey Lake and Warm Springs Valleys and 

at the Douglas County sites. Understanding the structure of 

Carson wandering skipper populations is necessary for recovery. 

Populations could be independent demographic and genetic units 

with little or no dispersal among them (island model); the 
57

populations could have independent dynamics but sufficient 

dispersal among them to recolonize after extinction events 

(metapopulation model), or movement among habitat patches may 

be extensive enough that dynamics are essentially correlated 

(single population model). Each of these population structures 

would require a different management approach. Because it is 

probably infeasible to determine dispersal distances with any 

precision and to make accurate estimates of population size in the 

Carson wandering skipper (see recovery action 2.2), an incidencefunction approach following presence/absence at nectar sites over 

time is probably the most appropriate method for determining 

population structure. All nectar sites where the Carson wandering 

skipper has been found must be mapped accurately; these sites 

should be visited every year to determine the presence or absence 

of individuals. Over time, these data will allow estimation of 

annual colonization and extinction rates. These rate probabilities, 

plus the spatial arrangement of habitat patches and the distances 

among them, would provide insight into whether or not patch 

dynamics are synchronous or asynchronous, and whether or not 

asynchronous dynamics are correlated with distance. 

Information on both daily and long-distance movements would be 

useful for determining population structure, habitat requirements 

and connectivity, and restoration opportunities. This information 

will be extremely difficult to obtain. Because of the difficulties 

with using capture-mark-release-recapture studies on the Carson 

wandering skipper (see recovery action 2.2), this approach is 

infeasible. One possibility is to monitor a surrogate, such as one of 

the other subspecies of Pseudocopaeodes eunus, to estimate 

dispersal distances. Another possibility is to place concentrations 

of nectar sources at increasing distances from known areas of adult 

concentration and monitor their use to determine movements. 

2.5 Determine the relationship between livestock grazing and the 

Carson wandering skipper and its habitat. Livestock grazing is a 

major agricultural activity in Carson wandering skipper habitat 
58

areas. Currently there is no information on what level of grazing 

and type of grazing management enhances or degrades habitats for 

the Carson wandering skipper. Differences in animal stocking 

rates (number and type of livestock per acre) and management 

(grazing early season, late season, year-long, high intensity/short 

duration, etc.) may improve, degrade, or have no significant effect 

on the quality of habitats for the Carson wandering skipper. 

Research on different grazing regimes, likely assisted by 

exclosure/seasonality manipulations, should occur on a smaller 

scale prior to any applications to larger-scale areas. The Service 

should work with universities, agricultural extension offices, 

government agencies, Farm Bureaus, non-governmental 

organizations, Cattlemen’s Associations, and others to support 

research on the types of grazing management that are most 

beneficial or detrimental to the Carson wandering skipper (through 

the use of a surrogate). Livestock operators can use this 

information to determine what type and level of grazing can 

improve their lands for the Carson wandering skipper and which 

practices are least likely to result in conflicts between the Carson 

wandering skipper and livestock grazing. This research would be 

applied to the development of grazing management plans as 

encouraged in recovery action 1.9. 

2.6 Develop a hydrologic model to better understand the relationship 

between surface and groundwater resources in Honey Lake and

Warm Springs Valleys and at the Douglas County site. Habitat 

requirements of the Carson wandering skipper include the presence 

of Distichlis spicata, which usually grows in areas where the water 

table is near the surface. Since it is likely that suitable Carson 

wandering skipper habitat is related to water table depth, a 

numerical groundwater model should be constructed to evaluate 

the interactions between surface and groundwater. Activities 

include an inventory of current groundwater extraction wells and 

pumping records, mapping spring locations, placement of 

monitoring wells for measurement of water level fluctuations, 

conducting aquifer tests to ascertain the effects of groundwater 
59

extraction on spring discharge, and collection of water quality data 

to attempt to correlate the presence of geothermal water with 

Carson wandering skipper habitat. These data can be incorporated 

into a numerical model used to evaluate the effects of groundwater 

fluctuations on spring discharge and shallow water tables. 

2.7 Develop techniques for captive propagation with possible 

introduction/reintroduction to unoccupied, suitable sites. While 

many butterfly species have been raised in captivity, rearing them 

on a scale large enough for a successful introduction/reintroduction 

program is difficult and expensive. Inducing individuals to mate is 

often a limiting factor to continuous rearing. Hand pairing is often 

used, but the technique is tedious, impractical for rearing large 

numbers of individuals, and probably results in unwanted artificial 

selection. Successful introduction/reintroduction of the Carson 

wandering skipper is also highly problematic because we know so 

little about its ecological requirements. Success with recovery 

action 2.3 could facilitate the development of these techniques, but 

captive propagation and introduction/reintroduction as a 

conservation strategy should be used only as a last resort to prevent 

extinction of the subspecies. 

2.8 Develop techniques for Carson wandering skipper habitat creation 

and enhancement. Because it is highly likely that the Carson 

wandering skipper requires Distichlis spicata with succulent, green 

leaves from March through June to complete its life cycle, adding 

enough water to D. spicata areas to keep the plants green should 

enhance larval habitat considerably. This could be done on a small 

scale with shallow wells and low-flow solar or wind-powered 

pumps. A predictable supply of water also would facilitate the 

availability of suitable nectar sources for adult Carson wandering 

skippers. The plants and the butterflies will very likely establish 

on enhanced sites on their own. Nectar sources also should be 

planted if appropriate. 
60

3. Develop and implement an outreach program to keep local communities 

informed of the Carson wandering skipper’s status and means to carry out 

recovery actions. Increasing public awareness of the Carson wandering 

skipper will assist efforts to protect and recover this subspecies. 

3.1 Create an internet web site to provide information on the 

subspecies and the recovery process. A website will be created by 

Service to provide information on the Carson wandering skipper 

and the recovery process. 

3.2 Prepare general information materials for the public. Regional and 

local information on Carson wandering skipper protection and 

recovery should be prepared and distributed to interested parties. 

These materials should include brochures and fact sheets that 

describe the status of the listed subspecies, its value and role in the 

environment, the importance of its habitats, and the efforts being 

undertaken for its recovery. Information related to recreational 

activities and possible impacts to the Carson wandering skipper 

and its habitat should be included. Public outreach also should 

include warnings to lepidopterists and other insect collectors that 

taking of specimens without proper authorization is a violation of 

the Endangered Species Act, which provides both criminal and 

civil penalties. Outreach materials should be distributed to 

affected landowners, schools, and other community facilities. 

Outreach methods also should involve working with the media, 

displaying exhibits at community centers, preparing school lesson 

plans, etc. 

3.3 Use and develop kiosks at appropriate sites such as California 

Department of Fish and Game management areas, Honey Lake 

Conservation Team/California State Lands Commission lands, and 

California Department of Transportation Safety Roadside Rest 

Areas for educational material distribution. Education and 

outreach activities can be important tools in the recovery of 

threatened or endangered species, especially for little-known 

invertebrate species such as the Carson wandering skipper. 
61

Educational programs encourage conservation and proper 

management. Brochures and other outreach materials should be 

made available to the public at local California Department of Fish 

and Game management areas and California Department of 

Transportation Safety Roadside Rest Areas kiosks. These 

materials should include a discussion of the importance of the 

subspecies to the region (i.e., federally listed, restricted range, 

unique to the area) and how the public can assist in its recovery. 

3.4 Encourage Resource Conservation Districts and cooperative 

extension to provide technical assistance to landowners to further 

land management activities to assist in Carson wandering skipper

recovery. There are a variety of threats to the Carson wandering 

skipper that are linked to various activities on both public and 

private lands. Several agencies can provide land management 

and/or pest management recommendations to assist private 

landowners in the reduction of these threats and the recovery of the 

Carson wandering skipper. These include the Honey Lake Valley 

Resources Conservation District, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, University of California Cooperative 

Extension, University of Nevada Reno Cooperative Extension 

Service, and the Lassen County Agricultural Commissioner. 

3.5 Foster community involvement and educational opportunities with 

schools, scouts, 4H, and other groups to assist in Carson wandering 

skipper recovery. An important component in the recovery of a 

species is community involvement. Schools, parents and teachers, 

youth groups, and other volunteer organizations are involved 

throughout California and Nevada in projects to restore fish and 

wildlife habitats on private lands and elsewhere. These activities 

have the dual purpose of educating the public about habitats and 

the species that use them while restoring and improving lands for 

fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. In 

some cases schools have “adopted” a threatened or endangered 

species as a mascot, worked to learn about the species, and have 

taken a personal stake in its survival. As a result, fears 
62

surrounding the species and its associated regulatory restrictions 

are lessened, the species gains habitat and public support, and 

prospects for recovery are enhanced. Federal, State, and local 

agencies, and other interested parties, are urged to reach out to a 

variety of schools and volunteer organizations to assist them in 

developing educational programs about the Carson wandering 

skipper and its life history and habitat needs, and to encourage 

schools and volunteer organizations to become involved in 

activities that foster its long-term survival. 

3.6 Identify landowners with suitable habitat willing to assist in the 

recovery of the Carson wandering skipper. Landowners having 

suitable Carson wandering skipper habitat should be contacted to 

inquire about their interest in participating in the recovery of the 

Carson wandering skipper. Their assistance is important in the 

success of Carson wandering skipper recovery. Agencies will 

work with participants on a voluntary basis to provide technical 

assistance and inform participants of funding opportunities 

available. It is important to let private landowners make their own 

decisions and determine the level of participation they are willing 

to undertake. Also refer to recovery actions 1.11., 3.2, and 3.4. 

4. Evaluate progress of recovery and effectiveness of management and 

recovery actions; revise management plans and recovery criteria as 

necessary.

4.1 Revise the recovery plan as appropriate at 5-year intervals. This 

plan should be updated or revised, as appropriate, at 5-year 

intervals to reflect current conditions and to incorporate new 

research findings. 

4.2 Hold periodic stakeholder meetings to encourage information 

sharing. It is important to share information regarding research, 

habitat management techniques, monitoring, and success of 

adaptive management efforts. Recovery partners and other 

interested parties should be involved. Meetings should be held 
63

when sufficient information has been gathered, possibly every 3 to 

5 years. 
64
65

III. Implementation Schedule

The Implementation Schedule that follows lists the actions and estimated costs for 

the recovery program for the Carson wandering skipper. It is a guide for meeting 

the recovery goals outlined in this plan. Parties with authority, responsibility, or 

expressed interest to implement a specific recovery action are identified in the 

Implementation Schedule. When more than one party has been identified the 

proposed lead party may be indicated by an asterisk (*). The listing of a party in 

the Implementation Schedule does not require, nor imply a requirement, that the 

identified party has agreed to implement the actions(s) or to secure funding for 

implementing the action(s). However, parties willing to participate may benefit 

by being able to show in their own budgets that their funding request is for a 

recovery action identified in an approved recovery plan and is therefore 

considered a necessary action for the overall coordinated effort to recover the 

Carson wandering skipper. Also, section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act 

directs all federal agencies to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Endangered Species Act by carrying out programs for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species. 

A. Key to Recovery Action Priority Numbers 

Action priorities are set according to the following standards: 

Priority 1: Those actions that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent 

the species from declining irreversibly; 

Priority 2: Those actions that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in 

species populations/habitat quality or some other significant 

negative impact short of extinction; and 

Priority 3: All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the 

species. 
66

B. Codes used in the Implementation Schedule 

Continual: Action will be implemented on a periodic basis once begun. 

Ongoing: Action is currently being implemented and will continue until no 

longer necessary for recovery. 

TBD: To be determined 

* Primary responsible party: a party likely to take the lead, or have 

an especially large role in implementing a recovery action. 

C. Key to Acronyms in Implementation Schedule 

ACIN Academic Institutions 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

COE Army Corps of Engineers 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CSLC California Division of State Lands Commission 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service 

HLCT Honey Lake Conservation Team 

NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

SWAT Lassen County Special Weed Action Team 

UCCE University of California Cooperative Extension 

UNR University of Nevada Reno 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

WCDWR Washoe County Department of Water Resources 
67

Implementation Schedule for the Carson Wandering Skipper Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Recovery 

Action 

Priority 

Recovery 

Action 

Number 

Recovery Action 

Description 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

(years) 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY 

07 

FY 

08 

FY 

09 

FY 

10 

FY 

11 

1 1.1 Identify and map 

known occupied sites, especially those of suspected source populations 

2 FWS 

CDFG 

UNR 

BLM 

HLCT 

2 2 2 2 2 

1 1 1 1 1 

 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1.2 Establish appropriate 

long-term management of occupied sites, especially those of suspected source populations 

TBD FWS 

CDFG 

BLM 

Landowners 

TBD 

1 1.3 Identify and map spring 

sites important to the Carson wandering skipper 

2 FWS 

CDFG 

UNR 

BLM 

HLCT 

2 2 2 2 2 

1 1 1 1 1 

 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1.4 Establish appropriate 

long-term management of important spring sites 

TBD FWS 

CDFG 

BLM 

Landowners 

TBD 

1 1.8 Work with interested 

landowners, UCCE, and other interested parties to control Lepidium latifolium at occupied and potential sites 

Ongoing SWAT 

UCCE 

NRCS 

Landowners 

-- 
68

Implementation Schedule for the Carson Wandering Skipper Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Recovery 

Action 

Priority 

Recovery 

Action 

Number 

Recovery Action 

Description 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

(years) 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY 

07 

FY 

08 

FY 

09 

FY 

10 

FY 

11 

1 1.11 Work with non-Federal 

interests to develop and implement Safe Harbor agreements, conservation agreements, habitat conservation plans, or other programs to protect, restore, enhance, and manage existing Carson wandering skipper populations and habitat as well as potential habitat 

5 FWS* 

Landowners 

25 5 5 

1 1.13 Coordinate with BLM 

to acquire additional habitat and water rights from a willing seller at the Washoe County, Nevada, Site #1 and develop a management plan 

1 BLM 400 400 

1 2.1 Develop and implement 

a program to survey for additional populations 

3 FWS* 

UNR/ACIN 

BLM 

CDFG 

25 25 25 25 

8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 

 8.3 

8.3 8.3 8.3 

 8.3 

8.3 8.3 8.3 
69

Implementation Schedule for the Carson Wandering Skipper Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Recovery 

Action 

Priority 

Recovery 

Action 

Number 

Recovery Action 

Description 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

(years) 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY 

07 

FY 

08 

FY 

09 

FY 

10 

FY 

11 

1 2.2 Develop and implement 

a monitoring program for known populations and habitat for trends and threats 

20 FWS* 

UNR/ACIN 

BLM 

CDFG 

HLCT 

100 100 100 100 100 

5 5 5 5 5 

5 5 5 5 5 

5 5 5 5 5 

5 5 5 5 5 

5 5 5 5 5 

1 2.3 Better understand 

ecological (including specific habitat needs) and life history requirements of the Carson wandering skipper 

2 FWS* 

UNR/ACIN 

BLM 

CDFG 

HLCT/CSLC 

150 75 75 

1 2.4 Determine population 

structure and dispersal distance of Carson wandering skipper in Honey Lake and Warm Springs Valleys and at the Douglas County site 

3 FWS* 

UNR/ACIN 

BLM 

CDFG 

HLCT/CSLC 

250 83.3 83.3 83.3 

1 3.6 Identify landowners 

with suitable habitat willing to assist in the recovery of Carson wandering skipper 

1 FWS* 

BLM 

NRCS 

1 1 1 

 1 

1 1 

2 1.5 Support mapping of 

Lepidium latifolium by Federal, State, local agencies, and other interested parties 

2 SWAT* 

UCCE 

NRCS HLCT 

12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 

 6.25 

6.25 6.25 6.25 

6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 
70

Implementation Schedule for the Carson Wandering Skipper Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Recovery 

Action 

Priority 

Recovery 

Action 

Number 

Recovery Action 

Description 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

(years) 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY 

07 

FY 

08 

FY 

09 

FY 

10 

FY 

11 

2 1.6 Support control of 

Lepidium latifolium by Federal, State local agencies, and other interested parties 

Ongoing SWAT 

UCCE 

NRCS 

Landowners 

750 750 750 750

 150 

150 150 150 

150 150 150 150 

150 150 150 150 

2 1.7 Support monitoring of 

Lepidium latifolium by federal, state, local agencies, and other interested parties 

Continual SWAT 

UCCE 

NRCS HLCT 

8 8 8 8 

 2 

2 2 2 

2 1.12 Coordinate with State 

wildlife resource agencies to provide Federal section 6 funds to be used by the states to carry out species recovery actions 

Continual FWS* 

CDFG 

NDOW 

TBD 

2 1.14 Seek to acquire 

additional occupied or potential habitat from willing sellers, when possible, through fee acquisitions 

Continual TBD TBD 

2 1.15 Conduct Endangered 

Species Act section 7 consultations to protect and enhance Carson wandering skipper populations and habitat 

Ongoing FWS* 

BLM, 

FHWA, 

DOD, DOJ, 

COE, NRCS, 

APHIS 

-- 
71

Implementation Schedule for the Carson Wandering Skipper Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Recovery 

Action 

Priority 

Recovery 

Action 

Number 

Recovery Action 

Description 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

(years) 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY 

07 

FY 

08 

FY 

09 

FY 

10 

FY 

11 

2 2.5 Determine the 

relationship between livestock grazing and the Carson wandering skipper and its habitat 

3 UCCE 

NRCS 

ACIN 

Ag Agencies 

7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 

 2.5 

2.5 2.5 2.5 

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 

2 3.4 Encourage Resource 

Conservation Districts and cooperative extension to provide technical assistance to landowners to further land management activities to assist in Carson wandering skipper recovery 

Continual Federal/State 

Agencies 

-- 

3 1.9 Work with interested 

landowners of occupied sites to develop livestock grazing management plans to enhance habitat conditions for the Carson wandering skipper 

2 FWS 

UCCE 

NRCS 

BLM 

Ag Agencies 

Landowners 

10 
72

Implementation Schedule for the Carson Wandering Skipper Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Recovery 

Action 

Priority 

Recovery 

Action 

Number 

Recovery Action 

Description 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

(years) 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY 

07 

FY 

08 

FY 

09 

FY 

10 

FY 

11 

3 1.10 Coordinate with 

federal, state, and local agencies to address issues of large-scale ground water pumping to ensure adverse impacts to the Carson wandering skipper do not occur 

Ongoing WCDWR -- 

3 1.16 Coordinate with the 

COE to avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts to Distichlis and 

wetland habitat in relation to section 404 of the Clean Water Act activities 

Ongoing COE* 

FWS 

-- 

3 1.17 Coordinate with 

Caltrans and CDFG regarding implementation of the Honey Lake Mitigation Bank in consideration of the Carson wandering skipper 

Ongoing FWS 

CDFG* 

Caltrans 

-- 
73

Implementation Schedule for the Carson Wandering Skipper Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Recovery 

Action 

Priority 

Recovery 

Action 

Number 

Recovery Action 

Description 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

(years) 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY 

07 

FY 

08 

FY 

09 

FY 

10 

FY 

11 

3 1.18 Coordinate with the 

Honey Lake Conservation Team/California State Land Commission on the management of their lands adjacent to Honey Lake in consideration of the Carson wandering skipper 

5 FWS* 

BLM 

CDFG 

-- 

3 2.6 Develop a hydrologic 

model to better understand the relationship between surface and groundwater resources in Honey Lake and Warm Springs Valleys and at the Douglas County site 

7 WCDWR 700 100 100 100 100 100 

3 2.7 Develop techniques for 

captive propagation with possible introduction/ reintroduction to unoccupied, suitable sites 

2 FWS* 

UNR/ACIN 

100 
74

Implementation Schedule for the Carson Wandering Skipper Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Recovery 

Action 

Priority 

Recovery 

Action 

Number 

Recovery Action 

Description 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

(years) 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY 

07 

FY 

08 

FY 

09 

FY 

10 

FY 

11 

3 2.8 Develop techniques for 

Carson wandering skipper habitat creation and enhancement. 

4 FWS 

BLM 

UNR 

NRCS 

CDFG 

8 8 8 8 8 

 2 

2 2 2 2 

3 3.1 Create an internet web 

site to provide information on the subspecies and the recovery process 

1 FWS 1 1 

3 3.2 Prepare general 

information materials for the public 

1 FWS 3 3 

3 3.3 Use and develop kiosks 

at appropriate sites for educational material distribution 

1 Caltrans 

CDFG 

HSLT 

CSLC 

2 2 

3 3.5 Foster community 

involvement and educational opportunities with schools, scouts, 4H, and other groups to assist in Carson wandering skipper recovery 

Continual FWS* 

BLM 

NRCS 

UCCE 

CDFG 

8 8 8 8 8 

 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

3 4.1 Revise the recovery 

plan as appropriate at 5-year intervals 

Periodic FWS 20 5 
75

Implementation Schedule for the Carson Wandering Skipper Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Recovery 

Action 

Priority 

Recovery 

Action 

Number 

Recovery Action 

Description 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

(years) 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY 

07 

FY 

08 

FY 

09 

FY 

10 

FY 

11 

3 4.2 Hold periodic 

stakeholder meetings to encourage information sharing 

Continual FWS 1 1 

Total estimated cost of recovery over 20 years: $5,551,500 
76
 77

IV. References 

A. LITERATURE CITED 

Austin, G. T., and J. F. Emmel. 1998. New subspecies of butterflies 

(Lepidoptera) from Nevada and California. Pages 501-522 in T. C. 

Emmel (editor), Systematics of western North American butterflies. 

Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida. 

Brussard, P. 2000. Draft conservation plan for the Carson skipper, 

Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus. Biological Resources Research Center, 

University of Nevada, Reno. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, 

Nevada. 

Brussard, P., B. Neill, and G. T. Austin. 1999. Report on the distribution, 

genetics, and conservation status of the Carson wandering skipper, 

Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus. University of Nevada, Reno. 

Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Final southern Washoe County urban 

interface plan amendment. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Carson City, Nevada. 

California Department of Transportation. 2002. Biological evaluation for Carson 

wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus) for construction of 

the Honey Lake wetland mitigation bank, in Lassen County on state route 

395 at post mile 70.1. California Department of Transportation, Redding, 

California. 

California Department of Transportation and California Department of Fish and 

Game. 1998. Prospectus for the Honey Lake wetland mitigation bank in 

Lassen County. California Department of Transportation, Redding, 

California. 
 78

California Fish and Game Code. Undated. Section 2116-2127. 

Earth Tech Inc. 2003. The results of a protocol survey for Carson wandering 

skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus) on two parcels (north part of 

“The Island” and Cross Depot access) Honey Lake, Lassen County, 

California. Earth Tech Inc., Colton, California. 

Garth, J. S., and J. W. Tilden. 1986. California butterflies. California Natural 

History Guides: 51. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 

Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, and C.R. Carroll. 2006. Principles of conservation 

biology, third edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, 

Massachusetts. 

Hanski, I., and M. Gilpin. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and 

conceptual domain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (42):3-16. 

Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. 

University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 

Holmes, C., and K. Novick. 1993. Honey Lake Wildlife Area management plan. 

State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and 

Game, Region 1, Redding, California. 

Honey Lake Conservation Team. 2005. 2004 Survey report for the endangered 

butterfly Carson wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus) 

family: Hesperiidae Honey Lake Conveyance Project, Lassen County, 

California. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. 

Honey Lake Conservation Team. 2006. 2005 Survey report for the endangered 

butterfly Carson wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus) 

family: Hesperiidae Honey Lake Conveyance Project, Lassen County, 

California. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. 
 79

Howard, A. 2000. Lepidium latifolium L. Pages 222-227 in C. C. Bossard, J. M. 

Randall, and M. C. Hosbovsky (editors), Invasive plants of California’s 

wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 

The International Lepidoptera Survey. 2004. Standardized common – North 

American butterfly names. Updated November 23, 2004. The 

International Lepidoptera Survey, Herndon, Virginia. Available online at 

<http://tils-ttr.org/sc-nabn>. Accessed February 28, 2005. 

Lionel Sawyer & Collins. 2005. Habitat conservation plan for the Carson 

wandering skipper for Pioneer Meadows. Unpublished report prepared for 

Pioneer Meadows Development, LLC, BCI Properties, LLC, DBJ 

Holdings, LLC, BB Investment Holdings, LLC, and BPH 1, LLC, Nevada. 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2004. Detailed rare animal list. March 18, 

2004. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Carson City, Nevada. Available online at 

<http://heritage.nv.gov/animlsml.htm>. Accessed February 28, 2005. 

Nevada Revised Statutes. 1999. Title 45 – Wildlife, Chapter 501 – 

Administration and Enforcement, 501.097 and 501.110. 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2000. Biota Information System of 

New Mexico (BISON). Version 1/2000. New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Available online at 

<http://www.fw.vt.edu/fishex/nmex_main/species/211225.htm>. 

Accessed February 28, 2005. 

Pollard, E. 1977. A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. 

Biological Conservation 12:115-134. 
 80

Sanford, M. 2004. Assessment of Carson wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes 

eunus obscurus) habitat, distribution, and abundance within areas of 

potential groundwater drawdown, North Valleys Water Project Honey 

Lake Valley, Dry Valley, and Bedell Flat, Nevada and California. 

Unpublished report submitted to Maxim Technologies, Inc., Helena, 

Montana. 

Sanford, M. 2006. Biology and conservation of the endangered Carson 

wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus Austin and Emmel) 

in western Great Basin saltgrass communities. Natural Areas Journal 

26:396-402). 

Scott, J. A. 1986. The butterflies of North America. Stanford University Press, 

Stanford, California. 

Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. 

BioScience 3(2):131-134. 

Shaffer, M. L. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. 

Pages 69-86 in M. E. Soule (editor), Viable populations for conservation. 

Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. 

Stoddard, S. W., W. S. Johnson, and R. E. Wilson. 1996. Invasive plants in 

Nevada: an identification handbook. University of Nevada Cooperative 

Extension, Reno, Nevada. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Endangered and threatened species listing 

and recovery priority guidelines. Federal Register 48:43098-43105. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; emergency rule to list the Carson wandering skipper as 

endangered. Federal Register 66:59537-59545. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; proposed rule to list the Carson wandering skipper as endangered. 

Federal Register 66:59550-59552. 
 81

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; final rule to list the Carson wandering skipper as endangered. 

Federal Register 67:51116-51129. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Interim survey guidelines: Carson 

wandering skipper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and 

Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. 

Young, J., R. A. Evans, B. A. Roundy, and J. A. Brown. 1986. Dynamic 

landforms and plant communities in a pluvial lake basin. The Great Basin 

Naturalist 46:1-21. 

Young, J.A., C.E. Turner, and L.F. James. 1995. Perennial pepperweed. 

Rangeland 17:121-123. 

B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 

Austin, George. 2001. Personal communication February 2, 2001. Nevada State 

Museum and Historical Society, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Brussard, Peter. 2000. Personal communication October 18, 2000. University of 

Nevada, Reno. 

Brussard, Peter. 2001. Personal communication January 30, 2001. University of 

Nevada, Reno. 

Murphy, Dennis. 2004. Personal communication June 2004. University of 

Nevada, Reno. 

Murphy, Dennis, and Erica Fleishman. 2004. Personal communication April 21, 

2004. University of Nevada, Reno, and Stanford University, Stanford, 

California. 

Niell, Rebecca. 2001. Personal communication July 31, 2001. University of 

Nevada, Reno. 
 82

Niell, Rebecca. 2002. Personal communication May 17, 2002. University of 

Nevada, Reno. 

Rivers, Virginia. 2001. Personal communication July 17 and 24, 2001. Truckee 

Meadows Community College, Reno, Nevada. 

C. PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS 

Haworth, Marcy. 2002. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. 

Haworth, Marcy. 2004. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. 

Haworth, Marcy. 2006. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. 

Haworth, Marcy, and Walt Devaurs. 2002. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada, and 

Lead Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City Field 

Office, Carson City, Nevada. 

Haworth, Marcy, and Walt Devaurs. 2003. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, 

Nevada, and Lead Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, 

Carson City Field Office, Carson City, Nevada. 

Haworth, Marcy, and Claudia Funari. 2004. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, 

Nevada, and Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Carson 

City Field Office, Carson City, Nevada. 

Haworth, Marcy, and Claudia Funari. 2005. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, 

Nevada, and Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Carson 

City Field Office, Carson City, Nevada. 
 83

D. IN LITTERIS REFERENCES 

Black, Scott Hoffman. 2002. The Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon. Carson 

wandering skipper email to Marcy Haworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada, dated June 26, 

2002. 

Burton, Gary. 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 

Letter to Mr. Michael R. Bain, Department of the Army, Sacramento, 

California, regarding Endangered Species Consultation on the Department 

of the Army’s Transfer of Honey Lake and the Cross Deport Access, 

Lassen County, California, dated August 25, 2003. 

Devaurs, Walter. 2005. Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada. Fax 

of copy of the General Warranty Deed of real property in Washoe County, 

Nevada, sent to Marcy Haworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada 

Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada, dated October 5, 2005. 

Epanchin, Peter. 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 

Carson wandering skipper email to Marcy Haworth, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada, dated 

November 26, 2002. 

Frost, Paul. 1998. Nevada Department of Transportation, Carson City, Nevada. 

Fax of the estimated acreage of potential and suitable skipper habitat 

impacted by Carson City bypass project, sent to Marcy Haworth, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada, 

dated December 18, 1998. 

Murphy, Dennis. 2004. University of Nevada, Reno. Wandering skipper surveys 

and other activities email to Bob Williams, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada, dated June 25, 2004. 
 84

Niell, Rebecca. 2003. University of Nevada, Reno. Carson wandering skipper 

email to Marcy Haworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and 

Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada, dated February 19, 2003. 

Niell, Rebecca. 2004. University of Nevada, Reno. Carson wandering skipper 

email to Marcy Haworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and 

Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada, dated September 28, 2004. 

Sanford, Monte. 2005. University of Nevada, Reno. CWS surveys 2004 email to 

Marcy Haworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife 

Office, Reno, Nevada, dated November 10, 2005. 

Vaughn, Mace. 2002. The Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon. Carson wandering 

skipper sighting information sent to Marcy Haworth, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada, dated 

July 23, 2002. 
 85

Appendix A. Summary of Threats and Recommended Recovery Actions

 Listing Factor Threat Recovery 

Criteria 

 Recovery Action Numbers 

 A Development (urban, 

residential, road) 

A(1,2) 

B(1,2,3,5,6) 

1.1; 1.2; 1.3; 1.4; 1.11; 1.13; 1.14; 1.15; 2.8; 

3.1; 3.2; 3.5; 3.6; 4.1; 4.2 

 A Wetland loss A(1,2) 

B(1,2,3,5,6) 

1.2; 1.4; 1.10; 1.11; 1.12; 1.13; 1.14; 1.16; 

1.17; 1.17; 2.8; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4; 3.5; 3.6; 

4.1; 4.2 

 A Agricultural practices A(1,2) 

B(1,2,3,5,6) 

1.2; 1.4; 1.5; 1.6; 1.7; 1.8; 1.9; 1.10; 1.11; 

1.12; 1.16; 2.5; 2.8; 3.1; 3.2; 3.4; 3.5; 3.6; 4.1 

 A Gas and geothermal 

development 

A(1,2) 

B(1,2,3,5,6) 

1.1; 1.2; 1.11; 1.14; 1.15; 2.3; 2.8; 3.1; 3.2; 

3.4; 3.5; 3.6; 4.1; 4.2 

 A Nonnative plant invasion B(4,5,6) 1.5; 1.6; 1.7; 1.8; 1.9; 1.11; 1.12; 1.15; 1.16; 

1.17; 1.18; 2.8; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4; 3.5; 3.6; 

4.1; 4.2 

 A Water exportation A(1,2) 

B(1,2,3,5,6) 

1.3; 1.4; 1.8; 1.9; 1.10; 1.11; 1.12; 1.15; 1.16; 

1.17; 2.6; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4; 3.5; 3.6; 4.1; 4.2 

 B Collection A(1,2) 

B(1,2,3,5,6) 

1.2; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.5; 4.2 

 B Recreation A(1,2) 

B(1,2,3,5,6) 

1.2; 1.4; 1.11; 1.12; 1.13; 1.14; 1.15; 1.16; 

1.17; 1.18; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4; 3.5; 4.1; 4.2 

 C Disease, predation N/A N/A 

 D Inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms 

N/A Beyond scope of recovery plan; would 

require legislation changes 

 E Use of pesticides/insecticides A(1,2) 

B(1,2,3,5,6) 

1.6; 1.8; 1.11; 1.12; 1.13; 1.17; 1.18; 3.1; 3.2; 

3.3; 3.4; 3.5; 3.6; 4.1; 4.2 

 E Stochastic events, small 

population size 

A(1,2) 

B(1,2,3) 

1.2; 1.4; 1.9; 1.10; 1.11; 1.12; 1.13; 1.14; 

1.16; 1.17; 1.18; 2.1; 2..2; 2.3; 2.4; 2.5; 2.7; 

2.8; 3.4; 3.5; 3.6 

Listing Factors: 

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

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

C. Disease or Predation (no known diseases; predation not known to be a threat at this time) 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 
 86

Recovery Criteria 

A. Downlisting criteria

(1) For the Lassen County, California, population/metapopulation and one of the three known Nevada 

populations or a comparable newly discovered population, management has been established in perpetuity to 

effectively address threats to the species and ensure persistence of the populations. The population in Nevada 

must have been occupied for 6 years out of the most recent 10-year sequence with no downward trend in 

abundance. In California, suitable habitat patches equivalent to 50 percent or more of the currently known 

suitable habitat patches must be managed to effectively address threats, and each of these habitat patches 

must have been occupied for 6 years out of the most recent 10-year sequence with no downward trend in 

abundance across the population/metapopulation. 

(2) Adaptive management plans have been developed and implemented with adequate long-term funding, 

either individually or comprehensively, for the two populations in downlisting criterion #1. These plans must 

address appropriate management for the Carson wandering skipper with regards to habitat and land uses that 

may affect habitat quality, including but not limited to development (urban, residential, water, gas and 

geothermal), livestock grazing, recreation, invasive plant control, pesticide use, and public education. 

B. Delisting criteria

(1) For the Lassen County, California, population/metapopulation and two of the three known Nevada 

populations or comparable newly discovered populations, management has been established in perpetuity to 

effectively address threats to the species and ensure persistence of the populations. Each population in 

Nevada must have been occupied for 6 years out of the most recent 10-year sequence after downlisting 

criteria are met, with no downward trend in abundance. In California, suitable habitat patches equivalent to 

75 percent or more of the currently known suitable habitat patches must be managed to effectively address 

threats, and each of these habitat patches must have been occupied for 6 years out of the most recent 10-year 

sequence after downlisting criteria are met, with no downward trend in abundance across the 

population/metapopulation. Appropriate landscape connectivity must exist among patches (i.e., land use 

between most sites is considered open space and not urban or suburban) in order to facilitate potential 

movement of the Carson wandering skipper among patches. 

(2) Adaptive management plans have been developed and implemented with adequate long-term funding, 

either individually or comprehensively, for the three populations in delisting criterion #1. These plans must 

address appropriate management for the Carson wandering skipper with regard to habitat and land uses that 

may affect habitat quality, including but not limited to development (urban, residential, water, gas, and 

geothermal), livestock grazing, recreation, invasive plant control, pesticide use, and public education. 

(3) In addition to the populations in delisting criterion #1, for at least one additional Carson wandering 

skipper population or metapopulation, including a known population or any that may be discovered or 

established within Carson wandering skipper historical range, management has been established in perpetuity 

to effectively address threats to the species and ensure persistence of the population, unless we conclude 

(through intensive, comprehensive surveying) that additional populations or metapopulations do not exist and 

it would not be ecologically feasible to establish/reestablish one or more of them within Carson wandering 

skipper historical range. 

(4) Lepidium latifolium invasion into known and presumed suitable habitat for the Carson wandering skipper 

has been eliminated or reduced and managed to levels that do not pose a threat to the persistence of the 

Carson wandering skipper. 

(5) A long-term conservation plan and conservation agreements have been developed to guide management 

throughout the range of the Carson wandering skipper after it has been delisted. 

(6) A monitoring plan to cover a minimum of 5 years post-delisting of the Carson wandering skipper has 

been developed and is ready to be implemented to ensure the ongoing conservation of the species and the 

continuing effectiveness of management actions.
 87

Appendix B. Glossary of Terms Used in the 

Recovery Plan 

adaptive management a type of natural resource management in which decisions 

are made as part of an ongoing science-based process. 

Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, and 

evaluating applied strategies, and incorporating new 

knowledge into management approaches that are based 

on scientific findings and the needs of society. Results 

are used to modify management policy, strategies, and 

practices.

anterior near or toward the head 

apex on the wing near its tip 

basal on the wing near its base 

broods generations per year 

cell any area between wing veins in an insect; each cell is 

designated by the vein in front of it 

costal side of the wing toward the body 

critical habitat the specific areas within the geographical area currently 

occupied by a species, at the time of listing, on which are 

found physical and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species and that may require special 

management considerations or protections; and specific 

areas outside of the geographic area occupied by a 

species at the time of listing upon determination by the 

Secretary of the Department of Interior that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the species 
 88

diapause a natural state of suspended development at any life stage 

discal an area in the center of a butterfly wing 

distal away from the point of attachment

dorsal the upper surface 

endangered a species which is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range 

extant in existence 

extinction complete disappearance or death of a species throughout 

its entire range 

extirpated the disappearance of a species from a portion of its range 

flight season period of time during which a single generation of adults 

appear

forewing the front wing of a butterfly 

habitat conservation a plan developed for land management to meet Federal 

plan requirements for obtaining an incidental take permit 

pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended 

habitat patch a discrete geographic area containing habitat/landscape 

characteristics associated with Carson wandering skipper 

occupancy, such as green Distichlis spicata, nectar 

sources, and springs or other water sources. At this time 

it is not known how many presumed suitable habitat 

patches exist or where they are located. The spatial 

extent of suitable habitat patches, distances between 
 89

them, and the extent of suitable migration corridors are 

also not currently known. 

hind wing the rear wing of a butterfly 

larva (plural larvae) the immature and wingless form (caterpillar) that hatches 

from the egg of a holometabolous insect (an insect that 

develops by metamorphosis from larva to adult). The 

larva will eventually transform into a pupa before 

reaching adulthood. 

local population set of individuals which all interact with each other with a 

high probability 

local scale the scale at which individuals move and interact with 

each other in the course of their routine feeding and 

breeding activities 

metapopulation set of local populations which interact via individuals 

moving among populations 

metapopulation scale the scale at which individuals infrequently move from 

one place (populations) to another, typically across 

habitat types which are not suitable for their feeding and 

breeding activities, and often with substantial risk of 

failing to locate another suitable habitat patch in which to 

settle 

micro-habitat a small specialized habitat 

micro-topographic pertaining to slight irregularities of a land surface 

nectar sugar secretion of a plant. Nectar attracts insects and 

birds which pollinate the flowers on the plant. 
 90

nectar sites areas where the adult Carson wandering skipper has been 

observed feeding on flowering plants. Carson wandering 

skippers are most readily observed when nectaring on 

plants during their flight season. These areas vary in size 

and offer a food resource but may or may not provide the 

other necessary life history requirements of the Carson 

wandering skipper. 

occupied habitat areas utilized for breeding, feeding, and shelter, and 

adjoining dispersal corridors 

pluvial formed by the action of rainfall 

population a group of individuals in a locality that interbreed when 

mature 

posterior away from the head 

protect to guard against loss; i.e., effectively counteract threats to 

assure the persistence of a population. Carson wandering 

skipper habitat may be protected through such means as 

land acquisition from willing sellers, conservation 

agreements, management agreements, or by other means. 

proximal next to the point of attachment 

pupa (plural pupae) stage between larva and adult 

range geographic area occupied by a species or subspecies 

recovery improvement in the status of a listed species to the point 

where listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria 

established in the Endangered Species Act 

senescence aging 
 91

silked-leaf nest larvae of the Hesperiidae family can silk together a leaf 

tube where most larvae live and pupate. The pupa may 

rest in a Y-shaped silk girdle inside this leaf nest. 

source populations populations in high-quality habitat where birth rates 

exceed death rates and surplus individuals disperse to 

other areas as migrants 

species as defined by the Endangered Species Act, a species 

includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and 

any distinct population segment of any species or 

vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature 

subspecies a group of interbreeding natural populations differing 

taxonomically and by gene pool characteristics, often 

isolated geographically from other such groups within a 

biological species 

stochastic random or chance variables 

threatened a species which is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range 

type locality the locality where the specimen from which a species was 

named was collected 

vein any of the riblike structures that form the framework of 

an insect’s wing 

ventral the bottom surface 
 92
 93

Appendix C. Summary of Comments on the Draft 

Recovery Plan 

 On March 2, 2006, the Service released the Draft Recovery Plan for the 

Carson Wandering Skipper for a 90-day public comment period that ended on 

May 31, 2006, for Federal agencies, state and local governments, and members of 

the public (71 FR 10703). In addition, we solicited comments on the recovery 

plan from three independent peer reviewers. 

 Comments were received from all three peer reviewers. These comments, 

where appropriate, have been incorporated into the text of the recovery plan. In 

addition, we offer the following discussion in the interest of providing a fuller 

explanation and response to certain specific comments. We received no 

comments from the public. 

1. Comment: One peer reviewer suggested a post-delisting period of 10 years 

rather than 5 years. Response: This length of time was not changed in the 

recovery plan. A post-delisting monitoring period of not less than 5 years, as 

required by section 4(g) of the Endangered Species Act, is a reasonable period of 

time to continue to monitor a species after delisting to ensure ongoing recovery 

and continued effectiveness of management actions. Additionally, this period is 

stated in the recovery plan as a “minimum” period of 5 years. 

2. Comment: One peer reviewer thought the inclusion of an abundance criterion 

seemed inconsistent with the rest of the draft recovery plan as habitat suitability 

and occupancy seemed to be selected as the major indicators of Carson wandering 

skipper status. Response: It is correct that habitat suitability and occupancy are a 

part of the recovery criteria for downlisting and delisting of the Carson wandering 

skipper. In the Recovery Strategy section of the plan, we indicate the need for a 

better understanding of normal population fluctuations, trends, and movements 

into or out of changing habitats. While using actual numbers of individuals as a 

recovery criterion is inappropriate because of the natural fluctuation of butterfly 

abundance due to various factors, including population trend information can be 

informative. The criteria for downlisting and delisting include both of these 

criteria as well as additional ones. 
 94

3. Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether Recovery Action Number 

3.6 (identify landowners with suitable habitat) in the Implementation Schedule 

should be an ongoing action instead of a 1-year action. Response: The intention 

is to make an initial concerted effort to contact landowners with suitable habitat to 

inquire about their interest in participating in the Carson wandering skipper’s 

recovery. We recognize that as more information is obtained about the Carson 

wandering skipper and its habitat, there is a potential for additional habitat to be 

located over time. Additional landowner contacts may be necessary at a later 

time.