Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50971 

4. Verification of Consumer Eligibility 

for Lifeline—Sampling Methodology 

In the 2011 Lifeline and Link Up 

NPRM, the Commission proposed to 

amend § 54.410 of its rules to establish 

a uniform methodology for conducting 

verification sampling that would apply 

to all ETCs in all states. The NPRM also 

asked commenters to consider two 

proposals for modifying the existing 

sampling methodology to more 

effectively balance the need for an 

administratively feasible sampling 

methodology with the Commission’s 

obligation to ensure that ineligible 

consumers do not receive Lifeline/Link 

Up benefits. We invite additional 

comment on this issue. 

a. With respect to the Commission’s 

sample-and-census proposal, could the 

Commission implement it in a way that 

would be more easily administrable for 

ETCs, particularly ETCs with a small 

number of Lifeline subscribers? 

b. TCA proposes that, if the 

Commission adopts a sample-andcensus rule, carriers with a small 

number of Lifeline subscribers should 

be required to sample fewer consumers 

than ETCs with a larger number of 

Lifeline subscribers. We seek comment 

on this proposal. Should the 

Commission consider a smaller sample 

size for ETCs with a small number of 

Lifeline customers in a given state? 

What number of respondents could 

ETCs with a smaller number of Lifeline 

customers feasibly sample in a given 

year, keeping in mind that reducing the 

required number of respondents could 

result in larger margins of error? 

c. Alternatively, should carriers with 

a small number of Lifeline subscribers 

be required to sample only a specified 

percentage of their customer base? What 

would be a reasonable percentage in 

such cases? 

This matter shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentation and 

not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. Other rules pertaining to oral 

and written ex parte presentations in 

permit-but-disclose proceedings are set 

forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Trent Harkrader, 

Division Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20847 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0055; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Leona’s Little Blue 

Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly, Philotiella 

leona, as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act), and to 

designate critical habitat. Based on our 

review, we find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the Leona’s little blue butterfly 

may be warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the status of the 

species to determine if listing the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly is 

warranted. To ensure that this status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding 

this species. Based on the status review, 

we will issue a 12-month finding on the 

petition, which will address whether 

the petitioned action is warranted, as 

provided in the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before October 

17, 2011. The deadline for submitting an 

electronic comment using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on this date. After October 17, 

2011, you must submit information 

directly to the Klamath Falls Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section below). 

Please note that we might not be able to 

address or incorporate information that 

we receive after the above requested 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword 

box, enter Docket No. [FWS–R8–ES– 

2011–0055], which is the docket 

number for this action. Then, in the 

Search panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, click on the Proposed Rules 

link to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Send 

a Comment or Submission.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-deliver to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2011– 

0055; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all information we receive on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Request for Information section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurie Sada, Field Supervisor, Klamath 

Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, by 

telephone (541–885–8481), or by 

facsimile (541–885–7837). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly review the status 

of the species (status review). For the 

status review to be complete and based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we request 

information on the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly from governmental agencies, 

Native American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. We seek information 

on: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
50972 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

If, after the status review, we 

determine that listing the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly is warranted, we will 

propose critical habitat (see definition 

in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under 

section 4 of the Act, to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable at the 

time we propose to list the species. 

Therefore, we also request data and 

information on: 

(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species,’’ within the 

geographical range currently occupied 

by the species; 

(2) Where these features are currently 

found; 

(3) Whether any of these features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; 

(4) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species that are ‘‘essential for the 

conservation of the species’’; and 

(5) What, if any, critical habitat you 

think we should propose for designation 

if the species is proposed for listing, and 

why such habitat meets the 

requirements of section 4 of the Act. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Submissions merely stating support 

for or opposition to the action under 

consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this personal 

identifying information from public 

review. However, we cannot guarantee 

that we will be able to do so. We will 

post all hardcopy submissions on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Information and supporting 

documentation that we received and 

used in preparing this finding is 

available for you to review at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 

12-month finding. 

Petition History 

On May 12, 2010, we received a 

petition dated May 12, 2010, from the 

Xerces Society, Dr. David McCorkle of 

Western Oregon University, and Oregon 

Wild, requesting that the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly be listed as endangered 

and that critical habitat be designated 

under the Act. The petition clearly 

identified itself as such and included 

the requisite identification information 

for the petitioners, as required by 50 

CFR 424.14(a). In a September 10, 2010, 

letter to the petitioners, we responded 

that we reviewed the information 

presented in the petition and 

determined that issuing an emergency 

regulation temporarily listing the 

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

was not warranted. We also stated that 

we were required to complete a 

significant number of listing and critical 

habitat actions in Fiscal Year 2010 

pursuant to court orders, judicially 

approved settlement agreements, and 

other statutory deadlines, but that we 

had secured funding for Fiscal Year 

2011 and anticipated publishing a 

finding in the Federal Register in July 

2011. This finding addresses the 

petition. 

Species Information 

The Leona’s little blue butterfly is a 

member of the Polyommatini Tribe (a 

taxonomic group under family) (Pyle 

2002, p. 222) of the Lycaenidae family 

(Mattoni 1977, p. 223; Hammond and 

McCorkle 1999, p.1), and is the largest 

species in the Philotiella genus 

(Hammond and McCorkle 1999, p. 82). 

The Leona’s little blue butterfly was 

discovered in 1995; the historical range 

of the species is unknown. The current 

known distribution of the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly occurs within a 6-squaremile (15.5-square-kilometer) area of the 

Antelope Desert, east of Crater Lake 

National Park in southern Oregon 

(Hammond and McCorkle 1999, p. 77; 

Ross 2008, p. 1). The majority of this 

habitat occurs on the Mazama Tree 

Farm property, which is privately 

owned by Cascade Timberlands, LLC. A 

small percentage of land on which the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly occurs is in 

the Fremont-Winema National Forests, 

United States Forest Service (USFS). 

There have been no rigorous presence/ 

absence surveys conducted, and it is 

unknown if additional populations of 

the Leona’s little blue butterfly exist in 

similar habitat elsewhere in 

northeastern California and eastern 

Oregon (Hammond and McCorkle 1999, 

p. 80; Ross 2008, p.1). In addition, there 

is no information on population trends 

of the Leona’s little blue butterfly; 

however, the current population, based 

on a 2008 flight season count 

extrapolation, is estimated at 1,000 to 

2,000 individuals (Ross 2010, p. 7). 

The Leona’s little blue butterfly is 

found in volcanic ash and pumice fields 

and meadows (Hammond and McCorkle 

1999, p. 77; Pyle 2002, p. 236; Ross 

2008, p. 1) consisting of a nonforested 

bitterbrush/needlegrass-sedge 

community (Volland 1985, p. 29; 

Johnson 2010, p. 2). Johnson (2010, p. 

4) states that the plant community in the 

known, occupied habitat overlays a 

‘‘quaternary alluvial fan with very deep 

alluvium derived from pumice and 

other volcanic rock.’’ The Leona’s little 

blue butterfly utilizes several species of 

plants as nectar sources, including 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50973 

Eriogonum spergulinum (spurry 

buckwheat), Eriogonum umbellatum 

var. polyanthum (sulphur buckwheat), 

and an Epilobium species (Hammond 

and McCorkle 1999, p. 82; Ross 2008, 

pp. 1, 5, and 20; Johnson 2010, p. 5), but 

the butterfly is known to have only one 

larval hostplant, Eriogonum 

spergulinum (Hammond and McCorkle 

1999, p. 80; Ross 2008, p. 1; Johnson 

2010, p. 1). The Leona’s little blue 

butterfly undergoes complete 

metamorphosis, developing through the 

egg, larva, and pupa stages in one 

summer, and then emerges from its 

chrysalis as an adult the following year 

(Ross 2010, p. 4). Adults of this species 

emerge for approximately 2 to 3 weeks 

in mid-June through mid-July (Ross 

2008, p. 1; Ross 2010, p. 4). 

We accept the characterization of the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly at the 

species level based on the differences in 

size and wing coloration between it and 

the closely related Philotiella speciosa 

species (small-dotted blue butterfly), as 

well as the divergence of male and 

female genitalia between these two 

species (Hammond and McCorkle 1999, 

pp. 79–80). Additionally, the species is 

recognized as valid by the Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) 

and is described in NatureServe. 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

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

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424 set forth the procedures 

for adding a species to, or removing a 

species from, the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine how 

significant a threat it is. If the threat is 

significant, it may drive or contribute to 

the risk of extinction of the species such 

that the species may warrant listing as 

endangered or threatened as those terms 

are defined by the Act. This does not 

necessarily require empirical proof of a 

threat. The combination of exposure and 

some corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively may 

not be sufficient to compel a finding 

that listing may be warranted. The 

information shall contain evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether the information 

regarding threats to the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly, as presented in the 

petition and other information available 

in our files, is substantial, thereby 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. Our evaluation of 

this information is presented below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition asserts that the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly is threatened by loss 

of habitat due to intensified 

management for timber production, 

lodgepole pine tree encroachment, and 

fire (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, pp. 10–11). The 

petition recognizes the need for active 

management of the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat; however, it states that 

the impacts of intensified timber 

production management on the Mazama 

Tree Farm may be destructive to the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 11). In particular, 

the petition states concerns about the 

impacts of additional roads, traffic, and 

heavy equipment operations to the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 11). The petition 

states that fire suppression over the last 

50 years has led to a loss of meadow and 

other open canopy habitat (Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation 

2010, p. 10). Specifically, the petition 

states that young lodgepole pine trees 

have encroached into open patches of 

habitat resulting in a loss of breeding 

and foraging habitat for the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly on the Mazama Tree Farm 

property (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 10). This 

encroachment increases the fuel loads of 

the forest which could also result in a 

catastrophic fire across the landscape 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 10). The petition 

claims that such a fire could have 

deleterious impacts to the survival of 

the only population of the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 10). 

The petition also states that grazing, 

cinder mining, and the potential 

development of a biomass energy 

facility may have deleterious impacts on 

the only population of the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly. The first land 

management practice discussed in the 

petition is livestock grazing (Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation 

2010, p. 15). The petition cites the 

Winema National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan, hereafter 

the USFS Plan, and the Klamath Tribes’ 

Management of the Klamath Reservation 

Forest Plan, stating that both plans 

allow for livestock grazing on the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 16). While the 

petition notes the lack of knowledge of 

the impact of livestock grazing on the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat, it 

concludes that livestock grazing is 

incompatible with the management of 

the Leona’s little blue butterfly 

population because adult food sources 

may be eaten by the cattle and the cattle 

may disturb the soil, allowing weeds to 

invade (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, pp. 15–16). The 

petition also asserts that cattle have the 

ability to destroy native vegetation 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 15). 

The second land management practice 

that the petition cites is cinder mining 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 15). The petition 

asserts that numerous cinder mining 

pits, managed by the Oregon 

Department of Transportation, exist 

within the vicinity of the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly habitat, some of which 

occur within the Fremont-Winema 

National Forests (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 15). 

The petition claims that cinder mining 

pits are periodically expanded, resulting 

in the potential for exploration to occur 

within a 40 acre (ac) (16.2 hectare (ha)) 

area adjacent to any existing pits (Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation 

2010, p. 15). The petition declares that 

the exploration, drilling, and expansion 

processes have the ability to destroy the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 15). 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
50974 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Finally, the petition states that a 

biomass energy facility may be 

developed by The Klamath Tribes 

within the Leona’s little blue butterfly 

habitat if the Mazama Tree Farm 

property is transferred to The Klamath 

Tribes. The petition claims that such a 

facility could negatively impact the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 15). 

The petition discusses the use of three 

herbicides—chlorosulfuron, glysophate, 

and triclopyr—and their direct and 

indirect impacts to the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly habitat (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 14). 

The petition claims that these 

herbicides have the ability to impact the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat by 

reducing nectar resources and host 

plants (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 14). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Smallidge and Leopold (1997, p. 268) 

discuss the use of timber production as 

a means to maintain habitat for 

butterflies that require open clearings 

within woodlands. The occupied habitat 

of the Leona’s little blue butterfly was 

once logged, and the evidence of logging 

still persists. Timber extraction and 

production creates roads and additional 

disturbances that foster the 

development of early successional 

plants (Smallidge and Leopold 1997, p. 

268). To evaluate this claim for the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly, aerial 

photos were reviewed that showed a 

large number of roads, cleared Right-ofWays (ROWs), and large openings 

within the occupied habitat. In addition, 

the densest stands of Eriogonum 

spergulinum, the sole host plant for the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly, occur in 

disturbed areas around old burned slash 

piles, edges of unimproved roads, and 

periodically disturbed areas associated 

with the gas and electric powerline 

ROWs (Ross 2010, p. 5). In a study on 

Fender’s blue butterflies (Icaricia 

icarioides fenderi), Severns (2008, pp. 

56–57) observed that roads were not a 

barrier to butterflies, as long as they 

were narrow and without vegetation 

barriers, and contained infrequent or 

slow-moving traffic. However, it is 

unknown how intensive timber 

production would impact the habitat of 

the Leona’s little blue butterfly. At this 

point, we have no information to 

indicate that the current landowner, 

Cascade Timberlands, LLC, intends to 

resume timber extraction in the future. 

In addition, while there is information 

that indicates The Klamath Tribes’ 

proposed management for the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly habitat is timber 

extraction (Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 23– 

24), the Klamath Forest Plan will not be 

implemented until the U.S. Congress 

authorizes funding for The Klamath 

Tribes’ purchase of the Mazama Tree 

Farm property from Cascade 

Timberlands, LLC. Therefore, we do not 

have substantial information within our 

files to indicate the petitioned action 

may be warranted due to loss of habitat 

from timber production and 

management. However, we will further 

evaluate information about these 

activities’ potential impact to the 

species in our status review. 

The Klamath Forest Plan states that 

historically, the lodgepole pine/ 

bitterbrush habitat type that existed was 

comprised of lodgepole forests in 

different age mosaics and low densities, 

with a definite bitterbrush component 

(Johnson et al. 2008, p. 21). However, an 

on-the-ground assessment of the 

butterfly habitat in 2009 by Sarina 

Jepsen of the Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation indicates that 

encroachment of lodgepole pine trees is 

occurring (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 10). 

Neither the petition nor the information 

in our files indicates the rate at which 

lodgepole pine trees are encroaching 

into the openings and meadows that 

encompass the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat. However, we have 

determined that the information 

provided in the petition and in our files 

concerning loss of open habitat 

associated with the encroachment of 

lodgepole pine trees does present 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

A review of the information provided 

by the petition and within our files 

indicates that The Klamath Tribe 

intends to use controlled burns to 

manage habitat similar to the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly’s habitat (Johnson et 

al. 2008, pp. 23–24). The Klamath 

Forest Plan’s management of the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly habitat is contingent 

on the future authorization of funding 

by the U.S. Congress to support The 

Klamath Tribes’ purchase of the 

Mazama Tree Farm property from 

Cascade Timberlands, LLC. Until this 

purchase occurs, there is no information 

to indicate that Cascade Timberlands, 

LLC, the current landowner, plans to 

use fire to manage the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat. In addition, controlled 

burns appear to have both negative and 

positive effects on invertebrates 

(Smallidge and Leopold 1997, p. 271; 

Huntzinger 2003, p. 9; Black et al. 2009, 

p. 2; Vogel et al. 2010, p. 672). 

Huntzinger (2003, p. 8) observed that 

butterfly species richness and diversity 

was greater in burned rather than 

unburned sites. However, Black et al. 

(2009, pp. 2, 11) observed a decline in 

Mardon skipper butterfly (Polites 

mardon) abundance at some sites in 

2009 following a controlled burn in 

2008. In addition, areas that burned 

within these study sites experienced 

population reductions within the 2009 

flight period, compared to unburned 

areas, which increased in population 

numbers (Black et al. 2009, pp. 5–10). 

Vogel et al. (2010, p. 663) observed that 

habitat specialist butterflies required a 

long recovery period, approximately 50 

to 70 months post-burn, to return to 

their pre-fire abundance and richness. 

Vogel et al. (2010, p. 673) suggests that 

the only potential for fire-sensitive 

species recovery is for recolonization 

from nearby unburned areas. On the 

other hand, Smallidge and Leopold 

(1997, p. 271) suggest controlled burns 

as a means of vegetation management in 

butterfly habitat, though they caution 

that controlled burning is most 

beneficial when the historical natural 

regime included fire and a 

comprehensive monitoring plan exists 

that is associated with the controlled 

burn (Huntzinger 2003, p. 9). The 

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) 

has kept extensive records on lightning 

strikes and their associated fires in this 

area since 1960. Approximately 10 fires, 

all under 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) in size, have 

occurred in occupied Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat since 1960 (Johnson 

2010, p. 7). Each fire was suppressed by 

ODF (Johnson 2010, p. 7). 

Even though fires are often 

suppressed, controlled burns or 

lightning strike fires can escape their 

perimeters and burn across the 

landscape. The petition cites an article 

that recognizes the high potential for 

fire danger on the Mazama Tree Farm 

due to a high density of lodgepole pine 

(Milstein 2008). It is uncertain whether 

the portion of the 90,000-ac (36,422-ha) 

Mazama Tree Farm (Milstein 2008) that 

contains the Leona’s little blue butterfly 

habitat is at high risk of a catastrophic 

fire. However, a catastrophic fire could 

be devastating to the habitat. Therefore, 

we have determined that the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files presents substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to the potential effects of fire on the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat. 

A review of the literature provided by 

the petition and within our files 

indicates that managed grazing can be 

considered a useful tool for maintaining 

butterfly habitat. Sites in southern 

Britain that were previously managed by 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50975 

grazing, but were no longer grazed, had 

several species of butterflies that 

declined in abundance (Warren 1993, p. 

45). However, caution must be used in 

the decision to implement grazing as a 

management tool, because overgrazing 

can have negative consequences on 

species diversity and abundance. For 

example, a grazing study in Britain 

showed that as the intensity of grazing 

increased, the invertebrate species 

richness decreased (Gibson et al. 1992, 

p. 171). Different herbivores have 

various effects upon the vegetation and 

the habitat that they graze (Warren 1993, 

p. 46; Smallidge and Leopold 1997, p. 

270); therefore, the appropriate 

herbivores must be used for specific 

vegetation objectives, and the intensity 

of herbivore grazing must be monitored 

to avoid overgrazing (Warren 1993, p. 

46; Smallidge and Leopold 1997, 

p. 270). 

The USFS Plan allows for grazing 

within designated allotments on USFS 

land (USFS 1990, p. 2–6). However, 

there is no information within the USFS 

Plan or within our files, that indicates 

whether these allotments include the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly or its 

habitat. The USFS Plan does state that 

allotments will be managed to improve 

the condition of the range, and that the 

demand will be met only when it does 

not conflict with other uses such as 

wildlife and recreational needs (USFS 

1990, p. 4–12). While the Klamath 

Forest Plan will allow for grazing on 

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) 

winter range, the Klamath Forest Plan’s 

application to the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly is contingent on the future 

authorization of funding by the U.S. 

Congress to support The Klamath 

Tribes’ purchase of the Mazama Tree 

Farm property from Cascade 

Timberlands, LLC. There is no 

information within the petition or 

within our files that indicates that the 

current owner, Cascade Timberlands, 

LLC, or the USFS plan will allow 

grazing in the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat. Therefore, there is not 

substantial information to indicate that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to habitat loss from grazing. 

However, we will further evaluate 

information about this activity’s 

potential impact to the species in our 

status review. 

A review of the information in our 

files and provided by the petition 

regarding cinder mines indicates that 

proposed activities associated with the 

exploration for cinder mines could be 

detrimental to the habitat of the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly (Cruz 2006, Web 

site). However, the two proposed cinder 

mine expansion projects discussed by 

the petition, Lookout Butte and Jackson 

Creek, have both been canceled (USFS 

2010, p. 1). File maps describe these 

projects as a minimum of 7 straight-line 

miles (mi) (11.3 kilometers (km)) from 

the known, occupied habitat for the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly (ESRI 2010). 

The USFS Plan states that ‘‘salable 

mineral material sources located within 

state or interstate transportation and 

utility corridors normally should not be 

developed’’ (USFS Plan 1990, p. 4–57). 

However, the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat currently includes both 

transportation corridors and utility 

corridors in the form of ROWs for the 

Oregon Department of Transportation 

(ODOT) and the Bonneville Power 

Administration (BPA) (Johnson 2010, p. 

10). It is unknown whether the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly habitat on the USFS 

parcels will be developed into cinder 

mines. While the petition provided us 

with information regarding proposed 

projects and their potential impacts to 

the Leona’s little blue butterfly and its 

habitat, the petition did not provide 

information, nor do we have 

information in our files, regarding the 

status, proximity, or future 

considerations of other potential cinder 

mines in or near Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat. Therefore, we do not 

have substantial information to indicate 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted due to loss of habitat from 

cinder mining activities in the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly habitat. However, we 

will further evaluate information about 

this activity’s potential impact to the 

species in our status review. 

Milstein (2008) states that The 

Klamath Tribes intend to develop a 

‘‘green energy park centered around a 

biomass energy facility.’’ The Klamath 

Forest Plan indicates that a 10-megawatt 

(MW) biomass facility would require a 

minimum of 7 ac (2.8 ha) for proper 

siting and 40 truckloads per day of 

material for fuel (Johnson et al. 2008, 

pp. 92–93). The petition did not provide 

any information, nor do we have any 

information in our files, about the 

proposed location of this facility on the 

90,000 ac (36,422-ha) Mazama Tree 

Farm property, and whether or not it 

might occur in the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat. It is important to note 

that this proposed project cannot 

proceed until The Klamath Tribes 

receive funding from the U.S. Congress 

to purchase the property from Cascade 

Timberlands, LLC. Therefore, there is 

not substantial information to indicate 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted due to loss of habitat from the 

biomass facility construction. However, 

we will further evaluate information 

about this activity’s potential impact to 

the species in our status review. 

While the petition provides references 

that support the negative effects of 

herbicides on invertebrates, a review of 

their references and the information 

within our files did not provide any 

evidence that these chemicals are being 

applied to the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat. Therefore, we have 

determined that the information 

provided in the petition and in our files 

concerning the effects of herbicides on 

the Leona’s little blue butterfly does not 

present substantial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted due to loss of habitat 

associated with herbicides. However, 

we will further evaluate information 

about this activity’s potential impact to 

the species in our status review. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

presents substantial scientific and 

commercial information that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to the present or threatened destruction, 

modification or curtailment of habitat or 

range relating to the encroachment of 

lodgepole pine trees into the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly habitat and 

catastrophic fire events. We will further 

evaluate all information relating to 

activities addressed under this factor in 

our status review of the species. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes. 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition states that insect 

collection is an essential component to 

scientific study (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). 

The petition claims that, in a study to 

validate the Leona’s little blue butterfly 

as a species, it was necessary to collect 

100 individuals (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). 

The petition also states that the only 

known population of the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly has a population estimate 

of 1,000 to 2,000 individuals (Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation 

2010, p. 16). Therefore, the petition 

considers the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly to be ‘‘vulnerable to overcollection’’ (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Hammond and McCorkle (1999, p. 77) 

list the number of individual Leona’s 

little blue butterflies collected and 

distributed to various institutions and 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
50976 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

individuals as totaling 130 butterflies. 

We recognize that butterfly specialists 

in the past have been avid collectors of 

butterflies (Sullivan 1993; Yamaguchi 

1993, pp. 1–86). However, neither the 

petition, nor the information within our 

files, indicates that there is continued or 

ongoing collection of the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes. We also do not have 

information indicating that documented 

collections have had an adverse effect 

on the Leona’s little blue butterfly. 

Therefore, we find that the petition and 

the information within our files does 

not present substantial information to 

indicate that the petitioned action may 

be warranted due to overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes. However, we will 

further investigate the potential threat of 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes in our status review for this 

species. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition states that the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly is vulnerable to 

extinction by the threats of disease and 

predation due to the fact that it is ‘‘only 

a single population * * * in a highly 

restricted area’’ (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). 

The petition states that, with normal 

population fluctuations, even small 

amounts of habitat loss or degradation 

can result in a small population’s 

extirpation (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 16). 

The petition lists the Asian lady beetle 

(Harmonia axyridis) as a possible 

predator of the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 16). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

While the petition cites several 

sources pertaining to minimum 

population sizes and the practice of 

population conservation of invertebrate 

species in order to avoid extinction, it 

does not provide any specific 

information regarding the impacts of 

predators or disease on the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly. In addition, while the 

petition lists the Asian lady beetle as a 

potential predator, it does not provide 

any references regarding this species or 

other potential predators or diseases of 

Lepidopteron species. We also do not 

have any information regarding the 

effects of disease or predation on the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly within our 

files. We have reviewed the petition and 

the information in our files and find that 

there is not substantial information to 

indicate that the petitioned action may 

be warranted due to disease or 

predation. However, we will further 

investigate the potential threat of 

disease or predation in our status review 

for this species. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition states that there are no 

specific existing regulatory mechanisms 

that currently protect the ‘‘unique 

requirements of the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly’’ (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17). 

The petition states that the Service and 

USFS do not offer protective status to 

the Leona’s little blue butterfly or 

address the species within a 

conservation plan or a National Forest 

Plan (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 17). The petition 

also asserts that both agencies are and 

have been aware of the species and have 

funded surveys in the past to better 

understand the distribution of the 

species (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 17). Regarding 

State mechanisms, the petition notes 

that invertebrate species do not qualify 

for listing under the Oregon Endangered 

Species statute, and that the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife did not 

consider this species in its latest 

evaluation. Therefore, no State law 

offers any targeted protection to the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly (Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation 

2010, p. 17). In addition, the petition 

states that the Oregon Board of Forestry 

does not provide any regulations that 

protect the Leona’s little blue butterfly 

on private lands (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17). 

The petition notes that although The 

Klamath Tribes will own and manage 

the bulk of the known occupied habitat 

once a land acquisition under the 

Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is 

complete, no protection is extended to 

the Leona’s little blue butterfly in the 

Klamath Forest Plan (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 17). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

The petition states that there are no 

specific existing regulatory mechanisms 

that currently protect the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly or its habitat. As noted in 

the petition, the Oregon State 

Endangered Species statute does not 

recognize invertebrates as eligible for 

listing and, therefore, protection. We 

cannot find that the Oregon State 

Endangered Species statute is 

inadequate in offering protection that is 

beyond the scope of that regulation as 

written. Currently, there are no existing 

regulatory mechanisms for the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly or its habitat. 

Therefore, we find that the petition and 

information available within our files 

does not present substantial information 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted due to the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms. 

However, we will further investigate the 

potential threat of the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms in our 

status review for this species. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition states that due to its 

‘‘exceptionally limited range and small 

population size, the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly is uniquely susceptible to 

extinction from stochastic events’’ 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 17). In particular, 

the petition discusses the impacts of 

genetic inbreeding, droughts, and 

catastrophic fires on a small, 

geographically limited population 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 17). Such events, 

with no outside populations for recolonization, could occur and lead to a 

loss of genetic variability or 

extermination of the species (Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation 

2010, p. 17). 

In addition, the petition states that six 

of the threats which could result in 

habitat loss or curtailment, including 

fire, timber production management, 

herbicides, cinder mining, the 

construction of a biomass facility, and 

livestock grazing, also have the ability to 

cause direct mortality of individuals. It 

also states that the application of 

insecticides could result in the death of 

individuals at all stages of their 

development. The petition claims that 

fire suppression and the subsequent 

conifer encroachment that is occurring 

in the Leona’s little blue butterfly 

habitat is increasing the fuel loads of the 

forest and could result in a catastrophic 

fire across the landscape (Xerces Society 

for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 

10). It states that such a fire could result 

in the extinction of the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 10). 

Furthermore, while the petition 

recognizes the need for active 

management of the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat, it states that the 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50977 

impacts of intensified timber production 

on the Mazama Tree Farm may have a 

negative impact on the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly, especially if activities, 

such as trampling by personnel, piling 

of log slash, and burning of log piles, are 

completed without consideration of the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly distribution 

and biology (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 11). 

Additionally, the petition discusses 

the use of three herbicides— 

chlorosulfuron, glysophate, and 

triclopyr—and their direct and indirect 

impacts to the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 14). The petition 

claims that chlorosulfuron, glysophate, 

and triclopyr are the most commonly 

used herbicides in timber management 

and restoration projects and that these 

chemicals are known to delay the 

development of butterflies that feed on 

herbicide-treated plants (Xerces Society 

for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 

14). Also, the petition declares that the 

activities and heavy equipment 

associated with the exploration, drilling, 

and expansion processes associated 

with cinder mining have the ability to 

result in direct mortality of the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 15). 

The petition also states that a biomass 

energy facility may be developed by The 

Klamath Tribes within the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly habitat if the Mazama 

Tree Farm property is transferred to The 

Klamath Tribes. The petition claims that 

the construction of such a facility could 

result in direct mortality of individuals, 

ultimately driving the species to 

extinction (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 15). 

In addition, the petition cites the USFS 

Plan and The Klamath Tribes’ 

management plan, stating that both 

plans allow for livestock grazing on the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 16). While the 

petition notes the lack of knowledge of 

the impact of livestock grazing on the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly, it concludes 

that livestock grazing is incompatible 

with the management of the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly population because 

grazing can result in trampling of eggs, 

larvae, pupae, and adults (Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation 

2010, pp. 15–16). 

Finally, the petition lists three 

pesticides—diflubenzuron, carbaryl, 

and malathion—as being commonly 

used in Klamath County, Oregon, and 

states that they are toxic to the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly at various life stages 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, pp. 11–12). The 

petition states that diflubenzuron (also 

known as dimlin) is commonly used on 

the Klamath Marsh National Wildlife 

Refuge (KMNWR) to control native 

grasshopper outbreaks and is highly 

toxic in small doses to Lepidoptera 

caterpillars (Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation 2010, p. 12). 

The petition cites diflubenzuron’s 

ability to affect butterflies at their larval 

stage by arresting the chitin synthesis 

process (Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, p. 12). The petition 

also asserts that carbaryl and malathion 

both attack the nervous systems of 

individuals and are highly toxic to 

terrestrial invertebrates at all life stages 

(Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 2010, pp. 12–13). The 

petition asserts that these chemicals 

have the ability to affect the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly by direct application 

as well as by pesticide drift (Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation 

2010, p. 13). The petition claims that 

small doses of pesticide are capable of 

reaching a distance of 6.2 mi (10 km) via 

pesticide drift during ground or aerial 

applications completed by the Service 

and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) (Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation 

2010, pp. 11, 14). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Having a small population size in and 

of itself will not ordinarily lead to 

population extinction (Ehrlich and 

Murphy 1987, p. 127). Observations of 

small populations of checkerspot 

butterflies (Euphydras editha) suggest 

that the populations can persist for 

numerous generations (Ehrlich and 

Murphy 1987, p. 127). In addition, after 

a population of checkerspot butterflies 

went through a genetic bottleneck, it 

continued to persist, suggesting that 

such effects may not be limiting factors 

for butterflies (Ehrlich and Murphy 

1987, p. 127). Checkerspot butterflies 

have demonstrated the ability to 

increase their dispersal distance in dry 

years as well as in years with 

population explosions (Erhlich and 

Murphy 1987, p. 127). However, Ehrlich 

and Murphy (1987, p. 127) state that 

small populations are particularly 

susceptible to extinction due to 

stochastic events. While the information 

in our files suggests that butterflies are 

adaptable and capable of persisting in 

small populations, we agree that a 

small, geographically limited 

population is more vulnerable to 

extinction due to stochastic events, such 

as the potential threat of catastrophic 

fire in the case of Leona’s little blue 

butterfly. Therefore, we have 

determined that the information 

provided in the petition and in our files 

presents substantial information that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to stochastic events such as the 

potential threat of catastrophic fire. 

A review of the information provided 

by the petition and within our files 

indicates that The Klamath Tribe 

intends to use controlled burns to 

manage habitat similar to the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly habitat (Johnson et 

al. 2008, pp. 23–24). The Klamath 

Forest Plan’s management of Leona’s 

little blue butterfly habitat is contingent 

on the future authorization of funding 

by the U.S. Congress to support The 

Klamath Tribes’ purchase of the 

Mazama Tree Farm property from 

Cascade Timberlands, LLC. There is no 

information to indicate that Cascade 

Timberlands, LLC, the current 

landowner, plans to use fire to manage 

Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat. 

Even though fires are often 

suppressed, controlled burns or 

lightning strike fires can escape their 

perimeters and burn across the 

landscape. The petition cites an article 

that recognizes the high potential for 

fire danger on the Mazama Tree Farm 

due to a high density of lodgepole pine 

(Milstein 2008). It is uncertain whether 

the portion of the 90,000-ac (36,422-ha) 

Mazama Tree Farm (Milstein 2008) that 

contains the Leona’s little blue butterfly 

habitat is at high risk of a catastrophic 

fire. However, a catastrophic fire could 

cause the direct loss of individuals and 

have a devastating effect on the butterfly 

population. Therefore, we have 

determined that the information 

provided in the petition and in our files 

concerning the effects of fire on the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly presents 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to the direct loss of individuals to 

fire. 

It is unknown how intensive timber 

production impacts the Leona’s little 

blue butterfly. We recognize that the 

potential impacts of intensive timber 

production (piling of slash piles, 

burning piles, and trampling) could be 

detrimental to individuals if the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly is not taken into 

consideration prior to project initiation. 

However, we have no information to 

indicate that the current landowner, 

Cascade Timberlands, LLC, intends to 

resume timber extraction into the future. 

In addition, while there is information 

that indicates The Klamath Tribes’ 

proposed management for the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly habitat is timber 

extraction (Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 23– 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
50978 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

24), the Klamath Forest Plan will not be 

implemented until the U.S. Congress 

authorizes funding for The Klamath 

Tribes’ purchase of the Mazama Tree 

Farm property from Cascade 

Timberlands, LLC. Therefore, we do not 

have substantial information within our 

files to indicate the petitioned action 

may be warranted due to direct 

mortality from timber production. 

However, we will further evaluate 

information about this activity’s 

potential impact to the species in our 

status review. 

While the petition provides references 

that support the negative effects of 

herbicides on invertebrates, a review of 

the references provided by the petition 

and the information within our files 

does not provide evidence that these 

chemicals are being applied to the 

habitat of the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly. Therefore, we have 

determined that the information 

provided in the petition and in our files 

concerning the effects of herbicides on 

the Leona’s little blue butterfly does not 

present substantial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted due to direct 

mortality of individuals. However, we 

will further evaluate information about 

this activity’s potential impact to the 

species in our status review. 

A review of the information in our 

files and provided by the petition 

regarding cinder mines indicates that 

proposed activities associated with the 

exploration for cinder mines could be 

detrimental to the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly (Cruz 2006, Web site). 

However, while the petition provided 

information regarding proposed projects 

and their potential impacts to the 

Leona’s little blue butterflies and their 

habitats, it did not provide information, 

nor do we have information in our files, 

regarding the status, proximity, or future 

considerations of other potential cinder 

mines in or near the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat. Therefore, there is not 

substantial information to indicate that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to the direct loss of individuals 

from cinder mining activities. However, 

we will further evaluate information 

about this activity’s potential impact to 

the species in our status review. 

The Klamath Forest Plan indicates 

that a 10-megawatt (MW) biomass 

facility would require a minimum of 7 

ac (2.8 ha) for proper siting and 40 

truckloads per day of material for fuel 

(Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 92–93). The 

petition did not provide any 

information, nor do we have any 

information in our files, about the 

proposed location of this facility on the 

90,000-ac (36,422-ha) Mazama Tree 

Farm property, and whether or not it 

might occur in the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly habitat, and thus have the 

potential to directly impact individuals. 

It is important to note that this proposed 

project cannot proceed until The 

Klamath Tribes’ receive funding from 

the U.S. Congress to purchase the 

property from Cascade Timberlands, 

LLC. Therefore, there is not substantial 

information to indicate the petitioned 

action may be warranted due to direct 

mortality of individuals from the 

biomass facility construction and 

subsequent operations. However, we 

will further evaluate information about 

this activity’s potential impact to the 

species in our status review. 

The USFS Plan allows for grazing 

within designated allotments on USFS 

land (USFS 1990, pp. 2–6). However, 

there is no information within the USFS 

Plan, or within our files, that indicates 

whether these allotments include the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly or its 

habitat. The USFS Plan does state that 

allotments will be managed to improve 

the condition of the range, and that the 

demand for grazing will be met only 

when it does not conflict with other 

uses, such as wildlife and recreational 

needs (USFS 1990, pp. 4–12). While the 

Klamath Forest Plan will allow for 

grazing on mule deer winter range, the 

Klamath Forest Plan’s application to the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly habitat is 

contingent on the future authorization 

of funding by the U.S. Congress to 

support The Klamath Tribes’ purchase 

of the Mazama Tree Farm property from 

Cascade Timberlands, LLC. There is no 

information within the petition or 

within our files that indicates that the 

current owner, Cascade Timberlands, 

LLC, or the USFS plan to allow grazing 

in the Leona’s little blue butterfly 

habitat. Therefore, there is not 

substantial information to indicate that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to direct mortality associated with 

grazing. However, we will further 

evaluate information about this 

activity’s potential impact to the species 

in our status review. 

A review of the information provided 

by the petition and within our files 

indicates that, when used to control pest 

species, insecticides such as 

diflubenzuron, carbaryl, and malathion 

can have a detrimental effect on 

nontarget vertebrate and invertebrate 

species (Alston and Teppedino 2000, p. 

III.4–1; Sample et al. 1993, p. 622; Cox 

1993, pp. 31–34). A review of the 

Klamath Marsh National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (KMNWR–CCP) revealed that, 

since 2004, the KMNWR no longer uses 

pesticides to remove clear-winged 

grasshoppers (Camnula pellucida 

(Scudder)) unless the population 

exceeds the economic thresholds of 14 

to 24 individuals per square yard 

(USFWS 2010, p. 68). Since 2004, the 

KMNWR has used pesticides to remove 

grasshoppers in the years 2005 and 2007 

(USFWS 2010, p. 68). In addition, the 

KMNWR no longer uses malathion or 

carbaryl for the removal of pest species 

like clear-winged grasshoppers, but 

instead uses diflubenzuron (USFWS 

2010, p. 68). To minimize exposure 

impacts, the KMNWR applies the 

chemical to the ground from an allterrain vehicle utilizing a method 

known as Reduced Area Agent 

Treatment Strategy (RAATS) (USFWS 

2010, p. 68). This method not only 

reduces the amount of chemicals used, 

but it also reduces the area that is 

impacted both by direct application and 

pesticide drift. A review of a map of the 

KMNWR–CCP (2010, p. 69) depicting 

the general locations of clear-winged 

grasshopper outbreaks in 2007, shows a 

straight-line distance to the nearest 

known Leona’s little blue butterfly 

location to be over 7 mi (11.3 km). 

Disregarding the RAATS application 

method and its associated minimization 

methods, the distance of 7 mi (11.3 km) 

is still beyond the petition’s assumed 

worst case scenario pesticide drift 

distance of 6.2 mi (10 km) (Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation 

2010, p. 14). Based on the information 

provided in the petition and our files, 

there is not substantial information to 

indicate that the petitioned action may 

be warranted due to direct mortality of 

individuals from direct application of 

pesticides on KMNWR or pesticide drift 

from KMNWR. However, we will further 

evaluate information about this 

activity’s potential impact to the species 

in our status review. 

Private landowners near the KMNWR, 

and in cooperation with APHIS, use 

malathion, diflubenzuron, and carbaryl 

for grasshopper control (APHIS 2009, 

pp. 1, 12). This action occurs primarily 

on rangelands in Klamath County, 

Oregon, and is focused on grassland and 

shrublands while excluding forest 

(APHIS 2009, pp. 15–16). A review of 

our files regarding APHIS’ grasshopper 

and Mormon cricket (Anabrus simplex) 

suppression program shows several 

conservation measures designed to 

minimize the impact of pesticides on 

listed species and sensitive areas. 

Regardless of the mode of application, 

the Environmental Monitoring Plan 

states that APHIS is required to use 

buffers around areas with listed species 

and sensitive areas such as residential 

communities, organic crops, and surface 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50979 

water bodies (APHIS 2010, p. 1). A 

review of aerial photos within our files 

shows that the nearest known Leona’s 

little blue butterfly locations are 

separated from rangeland by both forests 

and residential communities. Aerial 

application is of greatest concern for 

pesticide drift (Ghassemi et al. 1982, p. 

510). APHIS has strict requirements 

when conducting aerial applications, 

including a requirement that they must 

not spray when winds exceed 10 miles 

per hour (mph) and that application will 

not occur when it is raining, or foggy, 

when foliage is wet, when there is air 

turbulence, when a temperature 

inversion exists in the project area, or 

when the temperature exceeds 80 

Fahrenheit degrees (26.7 °C) (Mauer 

2010, p. 3). In addition, all boundaries 

and buffers will be clearly marked, all 

airplanes will be equipped with global 

positioning systems to guide the pilots, 

and free flying is not allowed (Mauer 

2010, p. 3). APHIS will also conduct 

monitoring to ensure that they are in 

compliance with the protective 

measures, including dye cards to 

monitor the extent and concentration of 

pesticide drift (Mauer 2010, p. 3 and 

APHIS 2010 Environmental Monitoring 

Plan, p. 3). In order to minimize the risk 

to nontarget terrestrial invertebrate 

species, APHIS uses only diflubenzuron 

spray or carbaryl bait whenever possible 

(APHIS 2009, p. 33). These chemicals 

are only toxic to invertebrates when 

they are in their immature stages 

(APHIS 2009, p. 12). In addition, 

diflubenzuron is normally only applied 

prior to the third week of June, as its 

efficacy decreases by the first week of 

July as a result of grasshopper 

development (APHIS 2009, p. 12). The 

Leona’s little blue butterfly emerges 

from its chrysalis as an adult in midJune through mid-July, and its immature 

stages occur 2 to 6 weeks after the adults 

emerge (mid-July to August) (Ross 2008, 

pp. 1, 4, 8). In addition, a monitoring 

study of carbaryl bait application 

indicated that the maximum particle 

drift was 150 feet (46 meters) in 

crosswinds of 13 mph (APHIS 2010, p. 

7). Therefore, the immature stage of 

Leona’s little blue butterfly is not at risk 

from APHIS’ current diflubenzuron 

application program, because of the 

timing of its development and APHIS’ 

pesticide application methods. 

While information suggests that 

APHIS’ pesticide application methods 

may not harm the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly, we recognize that APHIS’ lowimpact method is a voluntary program 

(APHIS 2009, p. 1). A review of the 

petition and our files does not indicate 

to what extent private landowners near 

the known Leona’s little blue butterfly 

locations and habitat are utilizing 

APHIS’ methods. As a result, the 

impacts of private-rangeland pesticide 

application to the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly are unknown. Therefore, there 

is not substantial information to 

indicate that the petitioned action may 

be warranted due to direct mortality by 

the application of pesticides by the 

KMNWR, APHIS, and private 

landowners in Klamath County, Oregon. 

However, we will further evaluate 

information about this activity’s 

potential impact to the species in our 

status review. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

presents substantial scientific and 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to other natural and manmade 

factors relating to limited range and 

small population size and vulnerability 

to stochastic events. We will further 

evaluate information relating to events 

and activities addressed under this 

factor in our status review of the 

species. 

Finding 

On the basis of our determination 

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

find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly throughout 

its entire range may be warranted. This 

finding is based on information 

provided under Factors A (present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range) and E (other natural or manmade 

factors affecting the species’ continued 

existence). Specifically, we find that the 

following may pose threats to the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range, 

such that the petitioned action may be 

warranted: The encroachment of 

lodgepole pine trees into the Leona’s 

little blue butterfly habitat and the loss 

of habitat and individuals from 

catastrophic fire and stochastic events. 

We determine that the information 

provided under Factors B 

(overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific or educational 

purposes), C (disease or predation), and 

D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms) is not substantial. 

However, we will further evaluate all 

information related to these factors in 

our status review of the species. 

Because we have found that the 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly may be 

warranted, we are initiating a status 

review to determine whether listing the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly under the 

Act is warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding does not constitute a status 

review under the Act. In a 12-month 

finding, we will determine whether a 

petitioned action is warranted after we 

have completed a thorough status 

review of the species, which is 

conducted following a substantial 90- 

day finding. Because the Act’s standards 

for 90-day and 12-month findings are 

different, as described above, a 

substantial 90-day finding does not 

mean that the 12-month finding will 

result in a warranted finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Klamath Falls Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Klamath Falls 

Fish and Wildlife Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: August 4, 2011. 

David Cottingham, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20864 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 110606316–1463–01] 

RIN 0648–BB15 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 

Amendment 26 and Amendment 29 

Supplement 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS