20948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0043; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AX83 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing of the Miami Blue 

Butterfly as Endangered Throughout 

Its Range; Listing of the Cassius Blue, 

Ceraunus Blue, and Nickerbean Blue 

Butterflies as Threatened Due to 

Similarity of Appearance to the Miami 

Blue Butterfly in Coastal South and 

Central Florida 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), are listing the Miami 

blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri), as endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We have determined 

that designation of critical habitat for 

the Miami blue butterfly is not prudent 

at this time. We also are listing the 

cassius blue butterfly (Leptotes cassius 

theonus), ceraunus blue butterfly 

(Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus), and 

nickerbean blue butterfly (Cyclargus 

ammon) as threatened due to similarity 

of appearance to the Miami blue in 

coastal south and central Florida, and 

establishing a special rule under section 

4(d) of the Act for these three species. 

DATES: This final rule becomes effective 

on April 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and http:// 

www.fws.gov/verobeach/. Comments 

and materials received, as well as 

supporting documentation used in the 

preparation of this rule, will be 

available for inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, South Florida Ecological 

Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero 

Beach, Florida 32960–3559; telephone 

772–562–3909; facsimile 772–562–4288. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida 

Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES above). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

This document consists of: (1) A final 

rule to list the Miami blue butterfly 

(Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) as 

endangered; and (2) a special rule 

pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act to list 

the cassius blue butterfly (Leptotes 

cassius theonus), ceraunus blue 

butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus 

antibubastus), and nickerbean blue 

butterfly (Cyclargus ammon) as 

threatened due to similarity of 

appearance to the Miami blue in 

portions of their ranges. 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species or subspecies may 

warrant protection through listing if it is 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. On 

August 10, 2011, we published 

emergency and proposed rules to list the 

Miami blue butterfly as endangered. In 

those documents we explained that the 

subspecies currently exists in a fraction 

of its historical range and faces 

numerous threats, and therefore 

qualifies for listing. This rule finalizes 

the protection proposed for the 

subspecies, following careful 

consideration of all comments received 

during the public comment period. One 

of the principal threats to the subspecies 

is collection for commercial purposes. 

For this reason, we are also prohibiting 

the collection of the cassius, ceraunus, 

and nickerbean blue butterflies, three 

species which are very similar in 

appearance to the Miami blue butterfly, 

within the historical range of the Miami 

blue. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, a species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened based on any 

of five factors: (1) Destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (2) Overutilization; (3) 

Disease or predation; (4) Inadequate 

existing regulations; or (5) Other natural 

or manmade factors. The Miami blue is 

endangered due to four of these five 

factors. Section 4(e) of the Act also 

allows for the extension of protections 

to similar species under certain 

circumstances. 

Peer reviewers support our methods. 

We solicited opinions from 

knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise to review the 

technical assumptions, analyses, 

adherence to regulations, and whether 

or not we had used the best available 

information in our proposed listing rule 

for the subspecies. We received 8 peer 

review responses, and 2 collaborative 

responses from State agencies. These 

peer reviewers generally concurred with 

the basis for listing the Miami blue, and 

provided additional information, 

clarifications, and suggestions to 

improve this final listing determination. 

Acronyms Used in This Document 

We use many acronyms throughout 

this final rule. To assist the reader, we 

provide a list of these acronyms here for 

easy reference: 

AME = Allyn Museum of Entomology 

BHSP = Bahia Honda State Park 

BNP = Biscayne National Park 

CCSP = U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program 

CITES = Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species 

DJSP = Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock 

Botanical State Park 

ENP = Everglades National Park 

FCCMC = Florida Coordinating Council on 

Mosquito Control 

FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 

FKMCD = Florida Keys Mosquito Control 

District 

FLMNH = Florida Museum of Natural 

History 

FPS = Florida Park Service 

FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

GWHNWR = Great White Heron National 

Wildlife Refuge 

INRMP = Integrated Natural Resource 

Management Plan 

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

IRC = Institute for Regional Conservation 

KWNWR = Key West National Wildlife 

Refuge 

MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

NABA = North American Butterfly 

Association 

NAS = Naval Air Station Key West 

NCSU = North Carolina State University 

NEP = nonessential experimental 

populations 

NKDR = National Key Deer Refuge 

TNC = The Nature Conservancy 

UF = University of Florida 

UN = United Nations 

USDJ = U.S. Department of Justice 

USGS = U.S. Geological Survey 

Previous Federal Actions 

Federal actions for the Miami blue 

butterfly prior to August 10, 2011, are 

outlined in our emergency rule (76 FR 

49542), which was published on that 

date. Publication of the proposed rule 

(76 FR 49408), concurrently published 

on that date, opened a 60-day comment 

period, which closed on October 11, 

2011. The emergency rule provides 

protection for the Miami blue, ceraunus 

blue, nickerbean blue, and cassius blue 

butterflies for a 240-day period, ending 

on April 6, 2012. Because of this time 

constraint, and the threat of collection 

of these species if the emergency rule 

expires before the proposed rule is 

finalized (see Factor B, Overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes), this rule does 

not have the standard 30-day period 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20949 

before becoming effective. It becomes 

effective upon the expiration of the 

emergency rule, April 6, 2012. 

Public Comments 

We received comments from the 

public on the proposed listing action, 

including the proposed listing of three 

similar butterflies due to similarity of 

appearance and our determination that 

designation of critical habitat is not 

prudent. In this rule, we respond to 

these issues in a single comment 

section. 

Background 

The Miami blue is a small, brightly 

colored butterfly approximately 0.8 to 

1.1 inches (1.9 to 2.9 centimeters [cm]) 

in length (Pyle 1981, p. 488), with a 

forewing length of 0.3 to 0.5 inches (8.0 

to 12.5 millimeters) (Minno and Emmel 

1993, p. 134). Wings of males are blue 

above (dorsally), with a narrow black 

outer border and white fringes; females 

are bright blue dorsally, with black 

borders and an orange/red and black 

eyespot near the anal angle of the 

hindwing (Comstock and Huntington 

1943, p. 98; Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 

134). The underside is grayish, with 

darker markings outlined with white 

and bands of white wedges near the 

outer margin. The ventral hindwing has 

two pairs of eyespots, one of which is 

capped with red; basal and costal spots 

on the hindwing are black and 

conspicuous (Minno and Emmel 1993, 

p. 134). The winter (dry season) form is 

much lighter blue than the summer (wet 

season) form and has narrow black 

borders (Opler and Krizek 1984, p. 112). 

Seasonal wing pattern variation may be 

caused by changes in humidity, 

temperature, or length of day (Pyle 

1981, p. 489). Miami blue larvae are 

bright green with a black head capsule, 

and pupae vary in color from black to 

brown (Minno and Emmel 1993, pp. 

134–135). 

The Miami blue is similar in 

appearance to three other sympatric 

(occupying the same or overlapping 

geographic areas, without interbreeding) 

butterfly species that occur roughly in 

the same habitats: cassius blue (Leptotes 

cassius theonus), ceraunus blue 

(Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus), and 

nickerbean blue (Cyclargus ammon). 

The Miami blue is slightly larger than 

the ceraunus blue (Minno and Emmel 

1993, p. 134), and the ceraunus blue has 

a different ventral pattern and flies close 

to the ground in open areas (Minno and 

Emmel 1994, p. 647). The cassius blue 

often occurs with the Miami blue, but 

has dark bars rather than spots on the 

undersides of the wings (Minno and 

Emmel 1994, p. 647). The Miami blue 

can be distinguished from the ceraunus 

blue and cassius blue by its very broad 

white ventral submarginal band, the 

dorsal turquoise color of both sexes, and 

the orange-capped marginal eyespot on 

the hind wings (Opler and Krizek 1984, 

p. 112). The nickerbean blue is also 

similar to the Miami blue in general 

appearance but is considerably smaller; 

it has three black spots across the basal 

hindwing, while the Miami blue has 

four (Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 15). The 

larvae and pupae of the nickerbean blue 

closely resemble the Miami blue 

(Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 15). 

In a comparison of Miami blue 

butterfly specimens within the Florida 

Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) 

collection, Saarinen (2009, pp. 42–43) 

found a significant difference in 

forewing length between males and 

females, with males having shorter 

forewings than females. However, no 

significant differences were found 

between forewing length in comparing 

wet and dry seasons, decade of 

collection, seven different regions, or 

between eastern mainland and Keys 

specimens (Saarinen 2009, pp. 42–43). 

No seasonal size differences were found 

between the mainland populations and 

those in the Keys (Saarinen 2009, p. 43). 

In a comparison of body size in a 

recent Miami blue population, females 

were significantly larger than males, and 

individuals sampled in the wet season 

were also significantly larger than in the 

dry season (Saarinen 2009, p. 43). In a 

comparison of recent Bahia Honda State 

Park (BHSP) individuals with 

specimens from historical collections 

(FLMNH data), BHSP individuals were 

significantly larger than historical 

specimens, females from BHSP were 

significantly larger than historical 

female specimens, and BHSP adults 

measured in wet seasons were larger 

than those sampled in wet seasons in 

museum collections (Saarinen 2009, p. 

43). Saarinen (2009, p. 47) suggested 

that perhaps larger adults were selected 

for over time with larger adults being 

more capable of dispersing and finding 

food and mates. Limited food resources 

during larval development or abrupt 

termination of availability of food in the 

last larval instar can lead to early 

pupation and a smaller adult size (T.C. 

Emmel, pers. comm., as cited in 

Saarinen 2009, p. 47). It is possible that 

differences in host plant (e.g., nutrition) 

and age of specimens (e.g., freshness) 

may also be factors when comparing 

body size between recent specimens and 

those from historical collections. 

Taxonomy 

The Miami blue belongs to the family 

Lycaenidae (Leach), subfamily 

Polyommatinae (Swainson). The species 

Hemiargus thomasi was originally 

described by Clench (1941, pp. 407– 

408), and the subspecies Hemiargus 

thomasi bethunebakeri was first 

described by Comstock and Huntington 

(1943, p. 97). Although some authors 

continue to use Hemiargus, Nabokov 

(1945, p. 14) instituted Cyclargus for 

some species, which has been supported 

by more recent research (Johnson and 

Balint 1995, pp. 1–3, 8–11, 13; Calhoun 

et al. 2002, p. 13; K. Johnson, Florida 

State Collection of Arthropods, in litt. 

2002). There are differences in the 

internal genitalic structures of the 

genera Hemiargus and Cyclargus 

(Johnson and Balint 1995, pp. 2–3, 11; 

K. Johnson, in litt. 2002). Kurt Johnson 

(in litt. 2002), who has published most 

of the existing literature since 1950 on 

the blue butterflies of the tribe 

Polyommatini, reaffirmed that thomasi 

belongs in the genus Cyclargus 

(Nabokov 1945, p. 14), not Hemiargus. 

Accordingly, Cyclargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri (Pelham 2008, p. 21) and 

its taxonomic standing is accepted 

(Integrated Taxonomic Information 

System 2011, p. 1). 

In 2003, questions about the 

taxonomic identity of Miami blues from 

BHSP were raised by a few individuals. 

To address these questions, the Service 

sent two pairs (male and female) of 

adult specimens to three independent 

taxonomists and reviewers (Dr. 

Jacqueline Miller, Associate Curator, 

Allyn Museum of Entomology (AME), 

FLMNH; Dr. Paul Opler, Colorado State 

University; and John Calhoun, Museum 

of Entomology, Florida State Collection 

of Arthropods) for verification. To avoid 

harm to the wild population, scientists 

examined moribund adults from a 

captive colony generated from 

individuals taken from BHSP. Each 

reviewer independently confirmed 

through various means (e.g., comparison 

with confirmed specimens, dissection 

and examination of genitalia) that the 

identities of the adult specimens 

examined were Cyclargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri (J. Miller, in litt. 2003; P. 

Opler, in litt. 2003; J. Calhoun, in litt. 

2003a). We received an additional 

confirmation from Lee Miller, Curator 

(AME, FLMNH), stating that the 

identities of the adult specimens 

examined were Cyclargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri (L. Miller, in litt. 2003). 

Taxonomic verification by genitalic 

dissection of the Miami blue at Key 

West National Wildlife Refuge 

(KWNWR) has not occurred, but 

preliminary molecular evidence has 

confirmed that they are the same taxon 

(E.V. Saarinen, unpub. data, as cited in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Saarinen 2009, p. 18; E. Saarinen, in litt. 

2011). 

Life History 

Like all butterflies, the Miami blue 

undergoes complete metamorphosis, 

with four life stages (egg, caterpillar or 

larva, pupa or chrysalis, and adult). The 

generation time is approximately 30–40 

days (Carroll and Loye 2006, p. 19; 

Saarinen 2009, pp. 22, 76) and similar 

for both males and females (Trager and 

Daniels 2011, p. 35). Although a single 

Miami blue female can lay 300 eggs, 

high mortality may occur in the 

immature larval stages prior to 

adulthood (T. Emmel, University of 

Florida [UF], pers. comm. 2002). Trager 

and Daniels (2011, p. 40) indicated that 

larger, longer-lived females demonstrate 

a higher fecundity. Reported host plants 

are blackbead (Pithecellobium spp.), 

nickerbean (Caesalpinia spp.), 

balloonvine (Cardiospermum spp.), and 

presumably Acacia spp. (Kimball 1965, 

p. 49; Lenczewski 1980, p. 47; Pyle 

1981, p. 489; Opler and Krizek 1984, p. 

113; Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 134; 

Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18; Cannon et al. 

2010, p. 851). In addition, Rutkowski 

(1971, p. 137) observed a female laying 

one egg just above the lateral bud on 

snowberry (Chiococca alba). Eggs are 

laid singly near the base of young pods 

or just above the lateral buds of 

balloonvine and the flowers of 

leguminous trees (Opler and Krizek 

1984, p. 113; Minno and Emmel 1993, 

p. 134); flower buds and young tender 

leaves of legumes are preferred laying 

sites (Minno and Minno 2009, p. 78; M. 

Minno, pers. comm. 2010). 

On nickerbean plants (Caesalpinia 

spp.), females lay eggs on developing 

shoots, foliage, and flower buds 

(Saarinen 2009, p. 22; Trager and 

Daniels 2011, p. 35). Oviposition occurs 

throughout the day with females often 

seeking terminal growth close to the 

ground (<3.3 feet [<1 meter]) or in 

locations sheltered from the wind 

(Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 13). Eggs 

are generally laid singly, but may be 

clustered on developing leaves, shoot 

tips, and flower buds (Saarinen 2009, p. 

22). After several days of development, 

larvae chew out of eggs and develop 

through four instar stages, with total 

larval development time lasting 3 to 4 

weeks, depending upon temperature 

and humidity (Saarinen 2009, p. 22). 

Fourth instar larvae pupate in sheltered 

or inconspicuous areas, often 

underneath leaf whorls or bracts 

(Saarinen 2009, p. 22). Adult butterflies 

eclose (emerge) after 5 to 8 days, 

depending on temperature and 

humidity (Saarinen 2009, p. 22). 

On blackbead plants, females lay eggs 

on flower buds and emerging leaves 

(Cannon et al. 2010, p. 851; Trager and 

Daniels 2011, p. 35). Oviposition on, or 

larval consumption of, mature 

blackbead leaves was not observed 

(Cannon et al. 2010, p. 851). Thus, 

Cannon et al. (2010, p. 851) suggested 

that abundance may be limited by the 

availability of young blackbead leaves 

and buds for egg-laying, even if 

abundant suitable nectar sources (see 

Habitat) are available year-round. 

On balloonvine, females lay single 

eggs near fruit (capsules) (Carroll and 

Loye 2006, p. 18). Newly hatched larvae 

chew distinctive holes through the outer 

walls of the capsules to access seeds 

(Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 134). After 

consuming seeds within the natal 

capsule, larvae must crawl to a sequence 

of two or three balloons before growing 

large enough to pupate. Attending ants 

follow through the same holes (see 

Interspecific relationships below). 

Miami blues were also observed to 

commonly pupate within mature 

capsules (sometimes with ants in 

attendance within the capsule) (Carroll 

and Loye 2006, p. 20). 

The Miami blue has been described as 

having multiple, overlapping broods 

year-round (Pyle 1981, p. 489). Adults 

can be found every month of the year 

(Opler and Krizek 1984, pp. 112–113; 

Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 135; 1994, 

p. 647; Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 9; 

Saarinen 2009, p. 22). Opler and Krizek 

(1984, pp. 112–113) indicated one long 

winter generation from December to 

April, during which time the adults are 

probably in reproductive diapause (a 

period in which growth, development, 

and physiological activity is suspended 

or diminished); a succession of shorter 

generations was thought to occur from 

May through November, the exact 

number of which is unknown. Glassberg 

et al. (2000, p. 79) described the Miami 

blue as having occurred all year, with 

three or more broods. Researchers have 

noted a marked decrease of adults from 

December to early February at BHSP, 

indicative of a short diapause (Emmel 

and Daniels 2003, p. 3; 2004, p. 9). 

Saarinen also noted that the life cycle at 

BHSP slowed in winter months and 

suspected a slight diapause (E.V. 

Saarinen and J.C. Daniels, unpub. data, 

as cited in Saarinen 2009, p. 22). 

Conversely, Minno (pers. comm. 2010) 

noted that there have been records of 

adults in December and January and 

suggested that this tropical butterfly 

may not have a winter diapause, but 

rather, emergence may be delayed by 

cold temperatures in some years. 

Salvato and Salvato (2007, p. 163) and 

Cannon et al. (2010, pp. 849–850) also 

reported numerous adults at BHSP and 

KWNWR, respectively, during winter 

months. 

Information on adult lifespan is 

limited. Based on field studies, adult 

Miami blues have been found to live 9 

days, but most adults are thought to live 

only a few days (J. Daniels, UF, pers. 

comm. 2003a, 2003b). In general, adults 

may survive less than a week in the 

wild; there are approximately 8–10 

generations per year (Saarinen et al. 

2009a, p. 31). Generations are not 

completely discrete due to the variance 

in development time of all life stages 

(Saarinen et al. 2009a, p. 31). Adult 

longevity is not well understood. Some 

lycaenids have the ability to survive 

longer than mark-recapture studies 

indicate (Johnson et al. 2011, p. 8). For 

example, the Palos Verdes blue 

(Glaucopsyche lygdamus 

palosverdesensis), thought to live 10 

days or less in the field, has been 

documented to have a life span of up to 

38 days in the laboratory (T. Longcore, 

University of California, in litt. 2011; 

Johnson et al. 2011, p. 8). Additional 

field studies are needed to better 

ascertain adult Miami blue longevity in 

the wild. 

Range size and dispersal—At this 

time, it is unclear how far adult Miami 

blues can disperse and the mechanisms 

for dispersal (i.e., active [flight] or 

passive [wind-assisted]). Initial markrecapture studies of the butterfly 

indicate they are nonmigratory and 

appear to be sedentary (Emmel and 

Daniels 2004, p. 6). Based on markrecapture work conducted in 2002– 

2003, recaptured adults (N=39) moved 

an average of 6.53 +/¥11.68 feet (2.0 

+/¥3.6 meters), four individuals moved 

between 25 and 50 feet (7.6 and 15.2 

meters), and only three individuals 

moved more than 50 feet (15.2 meters) 

over a few days (Emmel and Daniels 

2004, pp. 6, 32–38). Few individuals 

were found to move between the lower 

and upper walkway locations of the 

south end colony sites at BHSP 

(approximately 100 feet [30.5 meters]); 

no movement between any of the 

smaller individual, isolated colony sites 

was recorded (Emmel and Daniels 2004, 

p. 6). However, Saarinen (2009, pp. 73, 

78–79) found that genetic exchange 

between colonies occurred at BHSP and 

noted that small habitat patches may be 

crucial in providing links between 

subpopulations in an area. 

Interspecific relationships—As in 

many lycaenids worldwide (Pierce et al. 

2002, p. 734), Miami blue larvae 

associate with ants (Emmel 1991, p. 13; 

Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 135; Carroll 

and Loye 2006, pp. 19–20; Trager and 

Daniels 2011, p. 35) in at least four 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20951 

genera of ants in three subfamilies of 

Formicidae (Saarinen and Daniels 2006, 

p. 71; Saarinen 2009, pp. 131, 133). 

Miami blues using nickerbean at BHSP 

and Everglades National Park (ENP) 

(reintroduced individuals) were 

variously tended by Camponotus 

floridanus, C. planatus, Crematogaster 

ashmeadi, Forelius pruinosus, and 

Tapinoma melanocephalum (Saarinen 

and Daniels 2006, p. 71; Saarinen 2009, 

pp. 131, 138). C. floridanus was the 

primary ant symbiont, commonly found 

tending larvae; other ant species were 

encountered less often (Saarinen and 

Daniels 2006, p. 70; Saarinen 2009, pp. 

131–132). Liquid (honeydew) exuded 

from the butterfly’s dorsal nectary organ 

(honey gland) was actively imbibed by 

all species of ants (Saarinen and Daniels 

2006, p. 70; Saarinen 2009, p. 132). 

Late Miami blue instars were always 

found in association with ants, but early 

instars, prepupae, and pupae were 

frequently found without ants present 

(Saarinen and Daniels 2006, p. 70). 

Forelius pruinosus and Tapinoma 

melanocephalum were observed to 

derive honeydew from Miami blues they 

tended, but were not observed to 

actively protect them from any predator 

(Saarinen and Daniels 2006, p. 71; 

Saarinen 2009, p. 133). However, the 

presence of ants in the vicinity of larvae 

may potentially deter predators 

(Saarinen and Daniels 2006, pp. 71, 73; 

Saarinen 2009, p. 133; Trager and 

Daniels 2009, p. 480). Two additional 

ants, Paratrechina longicornis and P. 

bourbonica, have been identified as 

potential associates of the Miami blue 

(Saarinen and Daniels 2006, pp. 70–71; 

Saarinen 2009, pp. 131, 138). P. 

longicornis was found near Miami blue 

larvae and appeared to tend them 

during brief encounters; P. bourbonica 

tended another lycaenid, martial scrubhairstreak (Strymon martialis) at BHSP 

(Saarinen and Daniels 2006, p. 70). 

Cannon et al. (2007, p. 16) also observed 

two ant species attending Miami blues 

on KWNWR. Based on photographs, the 

ants appeared to be Camponotus 

inaequalis and P. longicornis. C. 

planatus was observed on blackbead. 

In the 1980s, Miami blue larvae that 

fed on balloonvine in the upper Keys 

were also tended by ants (Camponotus 

floridanus and C. planatus) (Carroll and 

Loye 2006, pp. 19–20). Carroll and Loye 

(2006, p. 20) found that Camponotus 

spp. raised with Miami blue larvae lived 

longer than ants raised with larvae of 

other lycaenid species or without any 

food source, demonstrating that larval 

secretions benefit ants. 

More recently, Trager and Daniels 

(2009, p. 479) most commonly found 

Camponotus floridanus and C. planatus 

associated with wild and recently 

released Miami blue larvae. In a 

comparison of Miami blue larvae raised 

with and without ants, no effect of ant 

presence was found on any 

measurements of larval performance 

(e.g., age at pupation, pupal mass, 

length of pupation, total time as an 

immature) (Trager and Daniels 2009, p. 

480). Miami blue larval development 

was found to be similar to that of other 

conspecific lycaenid species not tended 

by ants (Trager and Daniels 2009, p. 

480). Although the relationships are not 

completely understood, it appears that 

Miami blue larvae may receive some 

benefits from tending ants (e.g., 

potential defense from predators) 

without much, if any, costs incurred. 

Habitat 

The Miami blue is a coastal butterfly 

reported to occur in openings and 

around the edges of hardwood 

hammocks (forest habitats characterized 

by broad-leaved evergreens), and in 

other communities adjacent to the coast 

that are prone to frequent natural 

disturbances (e.g., coastal berm 

hammocks, dunes, and scrub) (Opler 

and Krizek 1984, p. 112; Minno and 

Emmel 1994, p. 647; Emmel and Daniels 

2004, p. 12). It also has been reported 

to use tropical pinelands (Minno and 

Emmel 1993, p. 134) and open sunny 

areas along trails (Pyle 1981, p. 489). In 

the Keys, it was most abundant near 

disturbed hammocks where weedy 

flowers provided nectar (Minno and 

Emmel 1994, p. 647). It also occurred in 

pine rocklands (fire-dependent slash 

pine community with palms and a 

grassy understory) on Big Pine Key 

(Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 134; 

Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18) and 

elsewhere in Monroe and Miami-Dade 

Counties. In Miami-Dade County, it 

occurred locally inland, sometimes in 

abundance (M. Minno, pers. comm. 

2010). Within KWNWR, all occupied 

areas had coastal strands and dunes 

fronted by beaches (Cannon et al. 2007, 

p. 13; Cannon et al. 2010, p. 851). 

Larval host plants include blackbead, 

nickerbean, balloonvine, and 

presumably Acacia spp. (Dyar 1900, pp. 

448–449, Kimball 1965, p. 49; 

Lenczewski 1980, p. 47; Pyle 1981, p. 

489; Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18). Gray 

nickerbean (Caesalpinia bonduc) is 

widespread and common in coastal 

south Florida. Following disturbances, 

it can dominate large areas (K. Bradley, 

The Institute for Regional Conservation 

[IRC], pers. comm. 2002). Gray 

nickerbean has been recorded as far 

north as Volusia County on the east 

coast, matching the historical range of 

the Miami blue, and Levy County on the 

west coast (J. Calhoun, pers. comm. 

2003b). The Miami blue is also reported 

to use peacock flower (Caesalpinia 

pulcherrima) (Matteson 1930, pp. 13– 

14; Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18), a widely 

cultivated exotic that occurs in 

disturbed uplands and gardens (Gann et 

al. 2001–2012, p. 1). Rutkowski (1971, 

p. 137) and Opler and Krizek (1984, p. 

113) reported the use of snowberry. 

Brewer (1982, p. 22) reported the use of 

cat’s paw blackbead (Pithecellobium 

unguis-cati) on Sanibel Island in Lee 

County. 

Prior to the 1970s, documented host 

plants for the butterfly were nickerbean 

and blackbead (J. Calhoun, pers. comm. 

2003b). Balloonvine (Cardiospermum 

spp.) was not reported as a host plant 

until the 1970s, when these plants 

seemed to have become common in 

extreme southern Florida (J. Calhoun, 

pers. comm. 2003b). Subsequently, 

balloonvine (Cardiospermum 

halicacabum), an exotic species in 

Florida, was the most frequently 

reported host plant for Miami blue (e.g., 

Lenczewski 1980, p. 47; Opler and 

Krizek 1984, p. 113; Minno and Emmel 

1993, p. 134; 1994, p. 647; Calhoun et 

al. 2002, p. 18). However, Carroll and 

Loye (2006, pp. 13–15) corrected ‘‘the 

common view that a principal host 

plant, balloonvine, is an exotic weed.’’ 

They found that published reports of 

Miami blue larvae on balloonvine all 

identified the host as C. halicacabum 

and stated that the butterfly was instead 

dependent upon a declining native, C. 

corindum (Carroll and Loye 2006, pp. 

14, 23). Bradley (pers. comm. 2002) also 

confirmed that C. halicacabum does not 

occur in the Keys, noting that the native 

balloonvine (C. corindum) is relatively 

common and widespread in the Keys 

and has been commonly mistaken as C. 

halicacabum in the Keys and other sites 

in south Florida. 

Calhoun (pers. comm. 2003b) 

suggested that the Miami blue may 

simply utilize whatever acceptable hosts 

are available under suitable conditions. 

According to Calhoun (pers. comm. 

2003b), a review of the historical range 

of the butterfly and its host plants 

suggests balloonvine was a more recent 

larval host plant and temporarily 

surpassed nickerbean as the primary 

host plant. As native coastal habitats 

were destroyed, balloonvine readily 

invaded disturbed environments, and 

the Miami blue used what was most 

commonly available. Minno (pers. 

comm. 2010) suggested that the Miami 

blue used balloonvine on Key Largo and 

Plantation Key extensively in the 1970s 

through the 1990s, noting that 

nickerbean, blackbead, and perhaps 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

other hosts were also probably used, but 

not documented. 

The Miami blue metapopulation 

(series of small populations that have 

some level of interaction) at KWNWR 

was found to rely upon Florida Keys 

blackbead as the singular host plant 

(Cannon et al. 2007, p. 1; Cannon et al. 

2010, pp. 851–852). Blackbead was also 

an important nectar plant when in 

flower. High counts of Miami blues at 

KWNWR were generally associated with 

the emergence of flowers and new 

leaves on blackbead (Cannon et al. 2007, 

pp. 14–15; Cannon et al. 2010, pp. 851– 

852). All sites that supported Miami 

blues contained blackbead (Cannon et 

al. 2007, p. 6; Cannon et al. 2010, p. 

851). Limited abundance of blackbead 

within select areas of KWNWR was 

thought to limit abundance of the Miami 

blue (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 10; Cannon 

et al. 2010, p. 850). At BHSP, the Miami 

blue was closely associated with gray 

nickerbean, but also used blackbead (M. 

Minno, pers. comm. 2010). In KWNWR, 

gray nickerbean was rare, with only a 

few small plants on Boca Grande Key 

and the Marquesas Keys (Cannon et al. 

2010, p. 851). 

Adult Miami blues have been 

reported to feed on a wide variety of 

nectar sources, including Spanish 

needles (Bidens alba), Leavenworth’s 

tickseed (Coreopsis leavenworthi), 

scorpionstail (Heliotropium 

angiospermum), turkey tangle fogfruit or 

capeweed (Lippia nodiflora), buttonsage 

(Lantana involucrata), snow squarestem 

(Melanthera nivea [M. aspera]), 

blackbead, Brazilian pepper (Schinus 

terebinthifolius), false buttonweed 

(Spermacoce spp.), and seaside 

heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) 

(Pyle 1981, p. 489; Opler and Krizek 

1984, p. 113; Minno and Emmel 1993, 

p. 135; Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 12). 

Emmel and Daniels (2004, p. 12) 

reported that the Miami blue uses a 

variety of flowering plant species in the 

Boraginaceae, Asteraceae, Fabaceae, 

Polygonaceae, and Verbenaceae families 

for nectar. Cannon et al. (2010, p. 851) 

found the butterfly uses nine plant 

species as nectar sources within 

KWNWR, including: blackbead, snow 

squarestem, coastal searocket (Cakile 

lanceolata), black torch (Erithalis 

fruticosa), yellow joyweed 

(Alternanthera flavescens), bay cedar 

(Suriana maritime), sea lavender 

(Argusia gnaphalodes), seaside 

heliotrope, and sea purslane (Sesuvium 

portulacastrum). 

Nectar sources must be near potential 

host plants since the butterflies are 

presumably sedentary and may not 

travel between patches of host and 

nectar sources (Emmel and Daniels 

2004, p. 13). This may help explain the 

absence of the Miami blue from areas in 

which host plants are abundant and 

nectar sources are limited (J. Calhoun, 

pers. comm. 2003b). Emmel and Daniels 

(2004, p. 13) argued that it is potentially 

critical that sufficient available adult 

nectar sources be directly adjacent to 

host patches and also important that a 

range of potential nectar sources be 

available in the event one plant species 

goes out of flower or is adversely 

impacted by environmental factors. 

Cannon et al. (2010, p. 851) suggested 

that the growth stage of blackbead, 

coupled with abundant nectar from 

herbaceous plants, likely influenced 

Miami blue abundance; the highest 

counts occurred when blackbead was 

flowering profusely and producing new 

leaves. 

Historical Distribution 

The Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus 

thomasi bethunebakeri) is endemic to 

Florida with additional subspecies 

occurring in the Caribbean (Smith et al. 

1994, p. 129; Hernandez 2004, p. 100; 

Saarinen 2009, pp. 18–19, 28). Field 

guides and other sources differ as to 

whether C. thomasi bethunebakeri 

occurs in the Bahamas. Clench (1963, p. 

250), who collected butterflies in the 

West Indies, indicated that the 

subspecies occurred only in Florida. 

Riley (1975, p. 110) and Calhoun et al. 

(2002, p. 13) indicated that the Miami 

blue of Florida rarely occurs as a stray 

in the Bahamas. Minno and Emmel 

(1993, p. 134; 1994, p. 647) and Calhoun 

(1997, p. 46) considered the Miami blue 

to occur only in Florida (endemic to 

Florida, with other subspecies found in 

the Bahamas and Greater Antilles). 

Smith et al. (1994, p. 129) indicated that 

the Miami blue occurs in southern 

Florida, but noted it has been recorded 

from the Bimini Islands in the Bahamas. 

However, in a recent comprehensive 

study of museum specimens, Saarinen 

(2009, p. 28) found no specimens in 

current museum holdings to verify this. 

Overall, the majority of historical 

records pertaining to this subspecies’ 

distribution are dominated by Florida 

occurrences, with any peripheral 

occurrences in the Bahamas possibly 

being ephemeral in nature. 

Although information on distribution 

is somewhat limited, it is clear that the 

historical range of the Miami blue has 

been significantly reduced. The type 

series (i.e., the original set of specimens 

on which the description of the species 

is based) contains specimens ranging 

from Key West up the east coast to 

Volusia County (Comstock and 

Huntington 1943, p. 98; J. Calhoun, 

pers. comm., 2003b). Opler and Krizek 

(1984, p. 112) showed its historical 

range as being approximately from 

Tampa Bay and Cape Canaveral 

southward along the coasts and through 

the Keys. It has also been collected in 

the Dry Tortugas (Forbes 1941, pp. 147– 

148; Kimball 1965, p. 49; Glassberg and 

Salvato 2000, p. 2). Lenczewski (1980, 

p. 47) noted that it was reported as 

extremely common in the Miami area in 

the 1930s and 1940s. Calhoun et al. 

(2002, p. 17) placed the historical limits 

of the subspecies’ northern distribution 

at Hillsborough and Volusia Counties, 

extending southward along the coasts to 

the Marquesas Keys (west of Key West). 

The Miami blue was most common on 

the southern mainland and the Keys, 

especially Key Largo and Big Pine Key 

(Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 17) and other 

larger keys with hardwood hammock 

(Monroe County) (M. Minno, pers. 

comm. 2010). The subspecies was 

recorded on at least 10 islands of the 

Keys (Adams Key, Big Pine Key, Elliott 

Key, Geiger Key, Key Largo, 

Lignumvitae Key, Old Rhodes Key, 

Plantation Key, Stock Island, Sugarloaf 

Key) (Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 134). 

On the Gulf coast, it was reportedly 

more localized and tended to occur on 

more southerly barrier islands (J. 

Calhoun, pers. comm. 2003b). 

According to Calhoun et al. (2002, p. 

17), the Miami blue occupied areas on 

the barrier islands of Sanibel, Marco, 

and Chokoloskee, along the west coast 

into the 1980s (based upon Brewer 

1982, p. 22; Minno and Emmel 1994, 

pp. 647–648). Lenczewski (1980, p. 47) 

reported that the Miami blue 

historically occurred at Chokoloskee, 

Royal Palm (Miami-Dade County), and 

Flamingo (Monroe County) within ENP, 

but that the subspecies has not been 

observed in ENP since 1972. 

Based upon examination of specimens 

from museum collections (N = 689), 

Saarinen (2009, pp. 42, 55–57) found a 

large, primarily coastal, geographic 

distribution for the butterfly. Most 

specimens from an 11-county area from 

1900 to 1990 were collected in MiamiDade and Monroe Counties (Saarinen 

2009, pp. 42, 58). Records from MiamiDade County (N = 212) were most 

numerous in the 1930s and 1940s; 

records from Monroe County (N = 387) 

(including all of the Florida Keys) were 

most numerous in the 1970s (Saarinen 

2009, pp. 42, 58). Saarinen (2009, p. 47) 

was not able to quantify issues of 

collector bias and noted that collecting 

restrictions, inaccessibility of certain 

islands, and targeted interest in certain 

areas may have been factors influencing 

the relative abundance (and 

distribution) of specimens collected. For 

example, it is unclear whether Key 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20953 

Largo represented a ‘‘central hotspot,’’ a 

spot simply heavily visited by 

lepidopterists, or both (Saarinen 2009, 

p. 47). Still, it is clear that specimens 

were common in museum collections 

from the early 1900s to the 1980s, 

suggesting that the butterfly was 

abundant, at least in local patches, 

during this time period (Saarinen 2009, 

p. 46). This is consistent with the work 

of Carroll and Loye (2006, pp. 15–18), 

who, in a compilation of location data 

for specimens (N = 209), found that 

most collections were from the Upper 

Keys; those from peripheral sites were 

generally less recent and only single 

specimens. Examination of museum 

records further verified the Miami blue’s 

wide distribution in southern Florida 

through time (Carroll and Loye 2006, 

pp. 15–18; Saarinen 2009, p. 46). 

By the 1990s, very few Miami blue 

populations were known to persist, and 

the butterfly had not been seen on the 

western Florida coast since 1990, where 

it was last recorded on Sanibel Island 

(Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 17). One of the 

few verifiable reports (prior to 

rediscovery in 1999) was on Big Pine 

Key in March 1992 (Glassberg et al. 

2000, p. 79; Glassberg and Salvato 2000, 

p. 1; Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 17). 

Following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, 

there were a few unsupported reports 

from Key Largo and Big Pine Key and 

the southeastern Florida mainland from 

approximately 1993 to 1998 (Glassberg 

and Salvato 2000, p. 3; Calhoun et al. 

2002, p. 17). In 1996, four adult Miami 

blues were observed in the area of 

Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock 

Botanical State Park (DJSP) by Linda 

and Byrum Cooper (L. Cooper, listowner 

of LEPSrUS Web site, pers. comm. 2002; 

Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 17). However, a 

habitat restoration project apparently 

eradicated that population (L. Cooper, 

pers. comm. as cited in Calhoun et al. 

2002, p. 17). 

The Miami blue was presumed to be 

extirpated until its rediscovery in 1999 

by Jane Ruffin, who observed 

approximately 50 individuals at a site in 

the lower Keys (Bahia Honda) (Ruffin 

and Glassberg 2000, p. 3; Calhoun et al. 

2002, p. 17). Additional individuals 

were located at a site within 0.5 mile 

(mi) (0.8 kilometers (km)) of where 

Ruffin had discovered the population 

(Glassberg and Salvato 2000, p. 3). 

Glassberg and Salvato (2000, p. 1) stated 

that more than 15 highly competent 

butterfly enthusiasts had failed to find 

any populations of the Miami blue from 

1992 until 1999, despite more than 

1,000 hours of search effort in all sites 

known to harbor former colonies and 

other potential sites throughout south 

Florida and the Keys. In May 2001, 

there was an additional sighting by 

Richard Gillmore of a single Miami blue 

in the hammocks in North Key Largo 

(Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 17; J. Calhoun, 

pers. comm. 2003b). 

Current Distribution 

Numerous searches for the Miami 

blue have occurred in the past decade 

by various parties. The Miami blue was 

not observed on 105 survey dates at 11 

locations on the southern Florida 

mainland from 1990 to 2002 (Edwards 

and Glassberg 2002, p. 4). In the Keys, 

surveys during the same time period 

also produced no sightings of the Miami 

blue at 29 locations for 224 survey dates 

(Edwards and Glassberg 2002, p. 4). In 

2002, the Service initiated a status 

survey, contracting researchers at the 

UF, to search areas within the 

subspecies’ historical range, 

concentrating on the extreme south 

Florida mainland and throughout the 

Keys. Despite surveys at 45 sites during 

2002–2003, adults or immature stages 

were found only at a single site near 

BHSP on West Summerland Key 

(Emmel and Daniels 2004, pp. 3–6; 21– 

25) (approximately 1.9 mi [3 km]) west 

of BHSP). The Miami blue was not 

found on the mainland, including 

Fakahatchee Strand, Charles Deering 

Estate, ENP, Marco Island, or 

Chokoloskee (Emmel and Daniels 2004, 

pp. 5–6, 25). It was also absent from the 

following locations in the Keys: Elliott, 

Old Rhodes, Totten, and Adams Key in 

Biscayne National Park (BNP) and Key 

Largo and Plantation Key in the Upper 

Keys; Lignumvitae, Lower Matecumbe, 

Indian, and Long Keys in the Middle 

Keys; and Little Duck, Missouri, Ohio, 

No Name, Big Pine, Ramrod, Little 

Torch, Wahoo, Cudjoe, Sugarloaf, and 

Stock Island in the Lower Keys (Emmel 

and Daniels 2004, pp. 3–5; 21–24). 

Based upon an additional 

independent survey in 2002, the Miami 

blue was also not found at 18 historical 

locations where it had previously been 

observed or collected in Monroe, 

Broward, Miami-Dade, and Collier 

Counties into the 1980s (D. Fine, unpub. 

data, pers. comm. 2002). These were: 

Cactus Hammock (Big Pine Key), 

County Road (Big Pine Key), Grassy 

Key, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State 

Park (Key Largo), Windley Key, Crawl 

Key, Stock Island, Plantation Key, and 

Lower Matecumbe Key in Monroe 

County; Hugh Taylor Birch State Park 

and Coral Springs (2 locations) in 

Broward County; Redlands, Frog City, 

Card Sound Road, and an unidentified 

road in Miami-Dade County; and Marco 

Island and Fakahatchee Strand State 

Preserve in Collier County. 

In 2003, the Service contracted the 

North American Butterfly Association 

(NABA) to perform systematic surveys 

in south Florida and the Keys to identify 

all sites at which 21 targeted butterflies, 

including the Miami blue, could be 

found. Despite considerable survey 

effort (i.e., 187 surveys performed), the 

Miami blue was not located at any 

location except BHSP (NABA 2005, pp. 

1–7). In addition, the Miami blue was 

not present within the J.N. Ding Darling 

National Wildlife Refuge or on SanibelCaptiva Conservation Foundation 

properties (both on Sanibel Island), 

during annual surveys conducted from 

1998 to 2009 (M. Salvato, pers. comm. 

2011a). Monthly or quarterly surveys of 

Big Pine Key, conducted from 1997 to 

2010, failed to locate Miami blues (M. 

Salvato, pers. comm. 2011b). Minno and 

Minno (2009, pp. 77, 123–193) failed to 

locate the subspecies during butterfly 

surveys throughout the Keys conducted 

from August 2006 to July 2009. 

Although two fourth-instar larvae 

were documented on West Summerland 

Key in November 2003, on unprotected 

land approximately 2.2 mi (3.6 km) west 

of BHSP (Emmel and Daniels 2004, pp. 

3, 24, 26), none have been seen there 

since. According to Daniels (pers. 

comm. 2003c), an adult (or adults) was 

likely blown to this key from BHSP by 

strong winds or was at least partially 

assisted by the wind. 

In November 2006, Miami blues were 

discovered on islands within KWNWR 

(Cannon et al. 2007, p. 2). This 

discovery was significant because it was 

a new, geographically separate 

population, and doubled the known 

number of metapopulations remaining 

(to 2). During the period from 1999 to 

2009, the Miami blue was consistently 

found at BHSP (Ruffin and Glassberg 

2000, p. 29; Edwards and Glassberg 

2002, p. 9; Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 

4; Daniels 2009, p. 3). However, this 

population may now be extirpated. 

Thus, islands of KWNWR appear to 

support the only known extant 

population. 

Overall, the Miami blue has 

undergone a substantial reduction in its 

historical range, with an estimated >99 

percent decline in area occupied 

(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission [FWC] 2010, p. 11). In 

2009, metapopulations existed at two 

main locations: BHSP and KWNWR, 

roughly 50 mi (80 km) apart. The 

metapopulation at BHSP is now 

possibly extirpated with the last adult 

documented in July 2010 (A. Edwards, 

Florida Atlantic University, pers. comm. 

2011). It is feasible that additional 

occurrences exist in the Keys, but these 

may be ephemeral and low in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20954 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

population number (Saarinen 2009, p. 

143). In 2010, the Service funded an 

additional study with UF to search 

remote areas for possible presence; this 

study has not identified any new 

populations. The subspecies was not 

located in limited surveys conducted in 

the Cape Sable area of ENP in March 

2011 (P. Halupa, pers. obs. 2011; M. 

Minno, pers. comm. 2011a) nor 

December 2011 (J. Daniels, pers. comm. 

2011). 

Bahia Honda State Park 

BHSP is a small island at the east end 

of the lower Keys, approximately 7.0 mi 

(11.3 km) west of Vaca Key (Marathon) 

and 2.0 mi (3.2 km) east of Big Pine Key. 

The amount of suitable habitat (habitat 

supporting larval host plants and 

adjacent adult nectar sources) within 

BHSP is approximately 1.5 acres (ac) 

(0.6 hectares [ha]). Of the suitable 

habitat available at BHSP, 

approximately 85 percent (1.3 ac [0.5 

ha]) was occupied by the Miami blue 

(Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 12). The 

metapopulation comprised 13 distinct 

colonies, with the core comprising 3 or 

4 colonies, located at the southwestern 

end (Emmel and Daniels 2004, pp. 6, 

27). This area contained the largest 

contiguous patch of host plants, 

although the size was estimated to be 

0.8 ac (0.32 ha) (Emmel and Daniels 

2004, p. 12). The second largest colony 

occurred at the opposite (northeast) end 

of BHSP and was based solely on the 

presence of two to three small, isolated 

patches of nickerbean directly adjacent 

to an existing nature trail and parking 

area (Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 6). 

The remaining colonies were isolated, 

with most occurring in close proximity 

to the main park road (Emmel and 

Daniels 2004, pp. 13, 27). Isolated 

colonies used very small patches of 

nickerbean (e.g., one was estimated to 

be 10 by 10 feet [3 by 3 meters]) (Emmel 

and Daniels 2003, p. 3), often adjacent 

to paved roads (Emmel and Daniels 

2004, pp. 6, 12, 27). 

Key West National Wildlife Refuge 

Efforts to define the limits of the 

KWNWR metapopulation were 

conducted from November 2006 to July 

2007 (Cannon et al. 2007, pp. 10–11; 

2010, p. 849). Miami blues were found 

at seven sites on five islands in the 

Marquesas Keys, approximately 18 to 23 

mi (29 to 37 km) west of Key West, and 

on Boca Grande Key, approximately 12 

mi (19 km) west of Key West (Cannon 

et al. 2007, pp. 1–24; 2010, pp. 847– 

848). The eight sites occupied by Miami 

blues ranged from approximately 0.25 to 

37.10 ac (0.1–15.0 ha) (Cannon et al. 

2007, p. 6; 2010, p. 848). The combined 

amount of upland habitat of occupied 

sites (within KWNWR) was roughly 59 

ac (23.8 ha) (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 848). 

Miami blues were not found on Woman 

Key, approximately 10.1 mi (16.2 km) 

west of Key West, or Man Key, 

approximately 6.8 mi (10.9 km) west of 

Key West; these sites had abundant 

nectar plants, but few host plants 

(Cannon et al. 2007, pp. 5, 12; 2010, pp. 

848–850). In addition, the Miami blue 

was not found on six islands in the 

Great White Heron National Wildlife 

Refuge (GWHNWR); these sites 

contained limited amounts of, or were 

lacking, either host plants or nectar 

plants (Cannon et al. 2007, pp. 5, 12; 

2010, pp. 847, 850–851). 

In a separate study, Daniels also 

found four of the sites previously 

occupied within KWNWR to support 

the Miami blue variously from 2008 to 

2010 (Emmel and Daniels 2008, pp. 7– 

10; 2009, pp. 9–13; Daniels 2008, pp. 1– 

6; Daniels 2010, pp. 3–5; J. Daniels, 

pers. comm. 2010a). Survey effort, 

however, was limited. Some previously 

occupied islands were not searched, and 

no new occupied areas were identified. 

Followup presence and absence 

surveys by KWNWR in 2009 showed 

that the Miami blue was present on two 

sites in the Marquesas, but not on Boca 

Grande (P. Cannon, pers. comm. 2010a). 

In 2010, similar surveys indicated that 

the Miami blue was present on Boca 

Grande and one site in the Marquesas; 

it was still not located on Woman Key 

(P. Cannon, pers. comm. 2010b; T. 

Wilmers, pers. comm. 2010a). In March 

and April 2011, Miami blues were still 

present on five of seven sites where 

previously found in KWNWR (T. 

Wilmers pers. comm. 2011a; Haddad 

and Wilson 2011, p. 2). 

Reintroductions 

Although Miami blue butterflies were 

successfully reared in captivity, 

reintroductions have been unsuccessful. 

Since 2004, approximately 7,140 

individuals have been released (J. 

Daniels, pers. comm. as cited in FWC 

2010, p. 8). Initially, larvae were 

released in the vicinity of Flamingo at 

multiple locations within ENP (J. 

Daniels, pers. comm. 2012). Between 

August 2007 and November 2008, 

reintroduction events were carried out 

at BNP and DJSP 12 times resulting in 

the release of 3,553 individuals (276 

adults/3,277 larvae) (Emmel and Daniels 

2009, p. 4). Monitoring efforts have been 

limited; 19 days were spent monitoring 

reintroduction sites (Emmel and Daniels 

2009, p. 4). To date, no evidence of 

colony establishment has been found 

(Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). It is not 

clear why reintroductions were 

unsuccessful. Numerous factors may 

have been involved (e.g., predation, 

parasitism, insufficient host plant or 

larval sources). Due to limited resources 

and other constraints, standard 

protocols were not employed to help 

identify factors that may have 

influenced reintroduction success. 

Research with surrogate species may be 

helpful to better establish protocols and 

refine techniques for the Miami blue 

prior to future propagation and 

reintroduction efforts. 

Population Estimates and Status 

Bahia Honda State Park 

Metapopulation 

Prior to its apparent extirpation, the 

metapopulation at BHSP was monitored 

regularly from 2002 to 2009 (Emmel and 

Daniels 2009, p. 4). Pollard transects 

(fixed-route transects walked weekly 

under favorable weather conditions) at 

the south-end colony site (largest) 

yielded annual peak counts of 

approximately 175, 84, 112, and 132, 

from 2002 to 2005 (prior to hurricanes), 

and 82, 81, 120, and 38, from 2006 to 

2009 (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). 

From October 2002 to September 2003, 

abundance estimates using markrelease-recapture (Schnabel method) 

ranged from a low of 19.7 in February 

2003 to a high of 114.5 in June 2003 

(Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 9). 

Counts ranged from 6 to 100 adults 

during surveys by the NABA, conducted 

from February 2004 to January 2005 

(NABA 2005, unpub. data). Monthly 

(2003 to 2006) or bimonthly (2007) 

monitoring by Salvato (pers. comm. 

2011c) at the south-end colony 

produced annual average counts of 129, 

58, 46, 6, and 8, respectively, from 2003 

to 2007. Salvato (pers. comm. 2011c) 

observed 21, 10, and 0 Miami blues 

from 2008 to 2010, respectively, based 

on limited surveys. 

Due to the differences in 

methodologies and other factors, the 

above estimates cannot be compared. 

Although abundance of select butterflies 

may change frequently, their overall 

geographic distribution from year-toyear is often more consistent. Given that 

the Miami blue has overlapping 

generations and, at times, capacity for 

explosive growth, it may be useful to 

report population status in terms of 

occupied habitat, as has been done for 

other butterflies (Longcore et al. 2010, 

pp. 335–346; T. Longcore, in litt. 2011). 

In general, early (dry) season numbers 

were low in most years and were 

attributed to a persistent south Florida 

drought (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). 

Abundance trends indicated that there 

was a marked decrease in the number of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20955 

individuals during the winter months 

(November to February) (Emmel and 

Daniels 2004, p. 9; 2009, p. 4). Higher 

abundances during the summer wet 

season may relate to production of a 

large quantity of new terminal growth 

on the larval host plants (nickerbean) 

and availability of nectar sources from 

spring rainfall (Emmel and Daniels 

2004, pp. 9–11). 

Four hurricanes affected habitat at 

BHSP in 2005, resulting in reduced 

abundance of Miami blue following 

subsequent storms that continued 

throughout 2006 (Salvato and Salvato 

2007, p. 160). Although no quantitative 

measurements were taken, a significant 

portion of the nickerbean in the survey 

area (> 35 percent of the area of 

available habitat) was damaged by the 

storms; roughly 60–80 percent of the 

vegetation on the southern side of the 

island was visually estimated to have 

been heavily damaged, including large 

stands of host and nectar plants (Salvato 

and Salvato 2007, p. 156). Despite a 

decline in abundance after the 

hurricanes, the Miami blue had 

appeared to rebound toward pre-storm 

abundance by the summer months of 

2007 (Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. 160). 

However, peaks remained below those 

found prior to the 2005 hurricane 

season (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). 

Although it is unclear when iguanas 

became established at BHSP, effects of 

herbivory on the host plant were 

apparent by late 2008 or early 2009 

(Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4; Daniels 

2009, p. 5; P. Cannon, pers. comm. 

2009; A. Edwards, pers. comm. 2009; P. 

Hughes, pers. comm. 2009; M. Salvato, 

pers. comm. 2010a). Defoliation was 

mostly limited to the south-end colony 

site (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). 

Cooperative eradication efforts to 

address this problem began in 2009 and 

continue today; however, iguanas 

continue to impact terminal nickerbean 

growth (see Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species) (Emmel and 

Daniels 2009, p. 4; Daniels 2009, p. 5; 

E. Kiefer, BHSP, pers. comm. 2011a). 

From 2006 through 2009, adult or 

immature Miami blues were found at 

several colony sites; however, one 

colony became relatively unproductive 

in 2005 (pre-hurricane) (Emmel and 

Daniels 2009, p. 4). No Miami blues 

have been found at any roadway 

nickerbean patches within BHSP since 

2005, prior to the advent of profound 

iguana herbivory and damages from 

hurricanes (Emmel and Daniels 2009, 

p. 4). 

The metapopulation has diminished 

in recent years likely due to the 

combined effects of small population 

size, drought, cold temperatures, and 

iguanas (see Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species). In 2010, few 

Miami blues were observed at BHSP. On 

January 23, 2010, a photograph was 

taken of a pair of Miami blues mating 

(Olle 2010, p. 5). On February 12, 2010, 

a photograph was taken of a single adult 

(C. DeWitt, pers. comm. 2011). In March 

2010, Daniels found one larva, but no 

adults (D. Cook, FWC, pers. comm. 

2010a). In July 2010, a single adult was 

observed and photographed (A. 

Edwards, pers. comm. 2011). No Miami 

blue adults have been located during 

quarterly surveys conducted in 2010 by 

Salvato (pers. comm. 2010b, 2011c). No 

Miami blue butterflies of any life stage 

were subsequently seen despite frequent 

searches (D. Cook, pers. comm. 2010a; 

P. Cannon, pers. comm. 2010c, 2010d, 

2010e, 2010f; M. Salvato, pers. comm. 

2011c, 2011d; Jim Duquesnel, BHSP, 

pers. comm. 2011a, 2011b). 

Key West National Wildlife Refuge 

Metapopulation(s) 

The metapopulation at KWNWR 

yielded counts of several hundred, at 

various times, in 2006–2007. Checklist 

counting, a method where suitable 

habitat is initially screened to determine 

the presence of target species, was used 

during surveys conducted between 

November 2006 and July 2007 to 

document the distribution and 

abundance of Miami blues (Cannon et 

al. 2007, p. 5; 2010, p. 848). Within the 

seven sites occupied in the Marquesas 

Keys, the highest counts ranged from 8 

to 521, depending upon site and 

sampling date (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 7; 

2010, p. 848). The highest count on 

Boca Grande was 441 in February 2007 

(Cannon et al. 2007, p. 7; 2010, p. 848). 

Highest counts occurred when 

blackbead flowered profusely and 

produced new leaves (Cannon et al. 

2010, p. 851). In March and April, 

blackbead was observed to yield little 

new growth and no flowering, and 

oviposition by Miami blues was not 

observed (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 8). 

Partial searches on two islands in May 

and June revealed few Miami blues; 

little new leaf growth and no flowering 

of blackbead was observed at these 

locations after February 2007 (Cannon et 

al. 2010, p. 850). Seasonality observed 

on KWNWR was different than that 

described for the BHSP metapopulation 

(above). Hurricane Wilma (October 

2005) heavily damaged or killed 

blackbead stands at most sites, but it 

also likely enhanced foraging habitat, if 

only temporarily, on select islands 

within the KWNWR (Cannon et al. 

2007, p. 10; 2010, p. 851) (see Summary 

of Factors Affecting the Species). 

Periodic surveys at KWNWR in 2008 

and 2009 suggested relatively lower 

levels of abundance, based upon limited 

effort (Emmel and Daniels 2008, pp. 7– 

10; 2009, pp. 9–13) and using different 

methodologies. In February 2008, 

researchers recorded 3 adults on Boca 

Grande and a total of 32 adults at two 

islands within the Marquesas; lack of 

rainfall resulted in very limited adult 

nectar sources and limited new growth 

of larval host plants (Emmel and Daniels 

2008, pp. 7–8). In April 2008, one adult 

was recorded on Boca Grande; one adult 

was also recorded at another island 

(Emmel and Daniels 2008, p. 8). In June 

2008, no adults were located on Boca 

Grande, and a total of 27 were recorded 

from two other islands (Emmel and 

Daniels 2008, p. 9). In August 2008, no 

adults were found at Boca Grande, and 

five adults were recorded at another 

island (Emmel and Daniels 2008, p. 10). 

In March 2009, no adults were recorded 

on Boca Grande; habitat conditions were 

deemed very poor, with limited new 

host growth and available nectar 

resources (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 

12). In April 2009, researchers found a 

total of 22 adults from 2 islands within 

the Marquesas (Emmel and Daniels 

2009, p. 13). 

Based upon limited data and 

observations, the Miami blue persisted 

on various islands within the KWNWR 

in 2010. From April through July 2010, 

the Miami blue was observed on 5 of 10 

dates at one location within the 

Marquesas, although in limited numbers 

during brief surveys (T. Wilmers, pers. 

comm. 2010b). On July 28, 2010, 

researchers recorded 19 adults from 3 

islands within the Marquesas, in limited 

surveys; another 25 adults were 

recorded on Boca Grande in less than 

1 hour of survey work (J. Daniels, pers. 

comm. 2010a). On September 30, 2010, 

dozens of Miami blues were observed 

on Boca Grande; this may have 

represented an actual population size in 

the hundreds (N. Haddad, North 

Carolina State University [NCSU]), pers. 

comm. 2010). On November 24, 2010, 

researchers positively identified 48 

Miami blue adults on Boca Grande in 

less than 3 hours of surveys, noting that 

assessment was difficult due to the 

many hundreds or possibly thousands 

of cassius blues, which were also 

present (P. Cannon, pers. comm. 2010b; 

T. Wilmers, pers. comm. 2010a). In 

March and April 2011, researchers 

observed Miami blue adults at five sites 

within KWNWR in numbers similar to 

those reported above (Haddad and 

Wilson 2011, p. 2). In July 2011, fewer 

adults were observed (P. Hughes, pers. 

comm. 2011a). In September 2011, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Refuge staff observed 14 adults on Boca 

Grande (P. Hughes, pers. comm. 2011b). 

In December 2011, 88 adults were found 

in roughly 4 hours (P. Cannon, pers. 

comm. 2012). In January 2012, Refuge 

staff observed 20 adults on Boca Grande 

and 14 adults at one site in the 

Marquesas during brief surveys under 

windy conditions (A. Morkill, pers. 

comm. 2012). 

At this time, both the size of the 

metapopulation at KWNWR and its 

dynamics are unclear. However, 

available data (given above) suggest 

wide fluctuations of adults within and 

between years and sites. The frequency 

of dispersal between islands is also not 

known (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 852). Due 

to the distance between the Marquesas 

and Boca Grande (i.e., about 7 mi [11 

km]) and the species’ apparent limited 

dispersal capabilities, it is possible that 

two (or more) distinct metapopulations 

exist within KWNWR (J. Daniels, pers. 

comm. 2010b). In September 2010, the 

Service initiated a new study with 

researchers from NCSU to conduct a 

comprehensive examination of potential 

habitat within KWNWR and GWHNWR, 

quantify current distribution and habitat 

use, and develop a monitoring protocol 

to estimate detectability, abundance, 

and occupancy parameters. 

Gene Flow and Genetic Diversity Within 

Contemporary Populations 

Saarinen (2009, pp. 15, 29–33, 40, 44) 

and Saarinen et al. (2009b, pp. 242–244) 

examined 12 polymorphic microsatellite 

loci (noncoding regions of 

chromosomes) to assess molecular 

diversity and gene flow of wild and 

captive-reared Miami blue butterflies. In 

addition, one of these microsatellite loci 

was successfully amplified from a 

subset of the museum specimens. 

Although results from historical 

specimens should be interpreted with 

caution (due both to small sample size 

and the single microsatellite locus), 

Saarinen (2009, pp. 15, 50–51) reported 

some loss of diversity in the 

contemporary populations, though less 

than had been expected. Even with 

small sample sizes, historical 

populations were significantly more 

diverse (with generally higher effective 

numbers of alleles and observed levels 

of heterozygosity) than BHSP; KWNWR 

population values were between 

historical values and BHSP values 

(Saarinen 2009, pp. 44–46). 

Both historical and contemporary 

populations showed evidence of a 

metapopulation structure with 

interacting subcolonies (E.V. Saarinen 

and J.C. Daniels, unpub. data as cited in 

Saarinen 2009, p. 49). However, the 

metapopulations at BHSP and KWNWR 

are separated by a distance of more than 

43 mi (70 km). Given the Miami blue’s 

dispersal capabilities (E.V. Saarinen and 

J.C. Daniels, unpub. data as cited in 

Saarinen 2009, p. 22), it is unlikely that 

they interacted. Saarinen’s work showed 

no gene flow and a clear distinction 

between the BHSP and KWNWR 

metapopulations (Saarinen 2009, pp. 36, 

74, 89) (see Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species). 

Studies addressing molecular 

diversity at BHSP showed the effective 

number of alleles remained relatively 

constant over time, at both a monthly 

(generational) and annual scale 

(Saarinen 2009, pp. 71, 84). Allelic 

(gene) richness was also stable over time 

in BHSP, with values ranging from 

2.988 to 3.121, when averaged across 

the 12 microsatellite loci from 

September 2005 to October 2006. These 

values were lower than those in 

KWNWR [3.790] (Saarinen 2009, p. 71). 

However, data showed that the BHSP 

metapopulation retained an adequate 

amount of genetic diversity to maintain 

the population in 2005 and 2006, 

despite perceived changes in overall 

population size (Saarinen 2009, p. 77). 

No significant evidence of a recent 

genetic bottleneck was found in the 

BHSP generations analyzed; however, 

there may have been a previous 

bottleneck that was undetectable with 

the methods used (Saarinen 2009, pp. 

72, 85, 141). 

To explore the level of gene flow and 

connectivity between discrete habitat 

patches at BHSP, Saarinen (2009, pp. 

64–65) conducted analyses at several 

spatial scales, analyzing BHSP as a 

single population (with no subdivision), 

as individual colonies occupying 

discrete habitat patches (as several 

groups acting in a metapopulation 

structure), and as a division of clumped 

colonies versus other, more spatially 

distant colonies. Analyses of 

microsatellite frequencies were also 

used to assess gene flow between habitat 

patches (Saarinen 2009, p. 72). While 

some subpopulations were well linked, 

others showed more division (Saarinen 

2009, p. 73). High levels of gene flow 

(and relatively little differentiation) 

were apparent even between distant 

habitat patches on BHSP, and the 

smaller patches appeared to be 

important links in maintaining 

connectivity (Saarinen 2009, pp. 78, 

141). Overall, gene flow between habitat 

patches on BHSP was considered 

crucial to maintaining genetic diversity 

and imperative for the Miami blue’s 

long-term persistence at this location 

(Saarinen 2009, p. 141). 

The metapopulation structure on 

KWNWR is more extensive than that 

which occurred at BHSP (Saarinen 

2009, p. 49). Due to small sample sizes 

from Boca Grande, only samples from 

the Marquesas Keys were used for 

genetic analysis of KWNWR, and results 

were limited (Saarinen 2009, pp. 66, 

72). Overall, this metapopulation was 

found to have higher genetic diversity 

(mean observed heterozygosity of 51 

percent versus 39.5 percent) than the 

BHSP population (Saarinen 2009, p. 49). 

Allelic richness (3.790 in February 

2008) was also higher in KWNWR 

(Saarinen 2009, pp. 71, 75). 

Accordingly, KWNWR is a particularly 

important source of variation to be 

considered for future conservation 

efforts for this taxon (Saarinen 2009, pp. 

71, 75), especially now if this is the only 

extant metapopulation(s) remaining. 

The KWNWR metapopulation showed 

signs of a bottleneck and may support 

the hypothesis that it is a newly 

founded population (Saarinen 2009, pp. 

76, 141). Further work is needed to 

better understand the metapopulation 

dynamics and genetic implications in 

this population. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

August 10, 2011 (76 FR 49408), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by October 11, 2011. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. Newspaper notices 

inviting general public comment were 

published in The Miami Herald, 

Orlando Sentinel, Tampa Tribune, The 

Daytona Beach News-Journal, and the 

Key West Citizen on Sunday, August 21, 

2011. We did not receive any requests 

for a public hearing. 

During the comment period for the 

proposed rule, we received 37 comment 

letters (from 35 entities) directly 

addressing the proposed listing of the 

Miami blue butterfly with endangered 

status and the proposed listing of the 

cassius blue, ceraunus blue, and 

nickerbean blue butterflies as threatened 

under similarity of appearance. With 

regard to listing the Miami blue 

butterfly as endangered, 25 comments 

were in support, 2 were in opposition, 

and 10 were neutral. With regard to 

listing the other 3 butterflies under 

similarity of appearance, 4 comments 

were in support, and 16 comments were 

in opposition. Of those comments in 

opposition, six suggested alternatives 

that were more limited in scope (e.g., 

applying similarity of appearance 

provisions to the Miami blue’s current 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20957 

or historical range). All substantive 

information provided during the 

comment period has either been 

incorporated directly into this final 

determination or addressed below. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinion 

from 14 individuals with specialties that 

include scientific expertise with 

butterflies, particularly lycaenids, and 

general expertise with ecology and 

conservation. We received independent 

responses from eight of the peer 

reviewers. We also received two 

collaborative responses from State 

governmental agencies, which had been 

solicited as part of this process. We 

address these under Comments from the 

State. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from peer reviewers for substantive and 

new information regarding the listing of 

the Miami blue butterfly as endangered 

and the cassius blue, ceraunus blue, and 

nickerbean blue butterflies as threatened 

under similarity of appearance. The 

peer reviewers concurred with the 

conclusion to list the Miami blue 

butterfly as endangered and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the final 

rule. In general, the majority of peer 

reviewers opposed Federal listing of the 

three other butterflies due to similarity 

of appearance; however, one reviewer 

agreed with the original proposal, and 

three suggested applying the similarity 

of appearance listing only to select areas 

where the butterflies may co-occur with 

the Miami blue. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer 

indicated that the Miami blue butterfly 

should remain in the genus Hemiargus, 

as originally described, citing Comstock 

and Huntington (1943), Nabokov (1945), 

and Vila et al. (2011) as relevant 

taxonomic papers. The reviewer noted 

that only limited phylogenetic analyses 

have been conducted to determine if the 

genus Hemiargus should be split into a 

variety of additional genera, such as 

Cyclargus. In his view, the Miami blue 

is well characterized and easily 

recognized, but should continue to be 

treated as Hemiargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri and listed as such, rather 

than Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

some sources continue to place the 

Miami blue in the genus Hemiargus. 

However, our basis for using Cyclargus 

is founded on published and 

unpublished literature, separate 

confirmation of specimens from 

independent taxonomists or reviewers, 

and other accepted taxonomic sources 

(see Taxonomy). We note that several 

Web sites (e.g., Butterflies of America, 

Catalog of the Butterflies of the United 

States and Canada, and the Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System), widely 

regarded as definitive sources, also 

continue to place the Miami blue as 

Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri. We 

determined that this is the most 

appropriate nomenclature because it is 

more widely accepted by the scientific 

community. Therefore, we have used 

the genus Cyclargus in this final rule. 

(2) Comment: Two peer reviewers and 

five commenters expressed concern over 

the Service’s determination that critical 

habitat is not prudent, disagreed with 

this decision, or otherwise suggested 

that we reconsider this determination. 

Two commenters supported our 

determination. Comments in opposition 

to our not prudent determination were 

largely based on the potential benefits of 

designating critical habitat and 

skepticism that increased risk and harm 

to the Miami blue would occur with 

designation, as ample detail is already 

available for poachers to locate 

remaining populations. 

Our Response: We determined that 

designating critical habitat for the 

Miami blue is not prudent. We 

recognize that designation of critical 

habitat can provide benefits to listed 

species (see Benefits to the Subspecies 

From Critical Habitat Designation, 

below, as well as discussion later in this 

response); however, for the Miami blue, 

increased threats (see Increased Threat 

to the Subspecies by Designating Critical 

Habitat, below) outweigh the benefits 

(see Increased Threat to the Subspecies 

Outweighs the Benefits of Critical 

Habitat Designation, below). 

We do not dispute the arguments of 

the two peer reviewers and some 

commenters who suggested that 

industrious or unethical collectors have 

enough information to be able to locate 

the remaining populations. We 

acknowledge that general location 

information is provided within the rule, 

and more specific location information 

can be found through other sources. 

However, we maintain that designation 

of critical habitat would more widely 

publicize the potential locations of the 

butterfly and its essential habitat to 

poachers, collectors, vandals, and 

mischievous individuals, thereby 

exacerbating the already significant 

threats of collection, vandalism, 

disturbance, fire, and other harm from 

humans. 

One commenter, who agreed with our 

decision that designating critical habitat 

is not prudent, provided additional 

references (Hoekwater 1997, Kleiner 

1995, O’Neill 2007) showing that 

individuals poach rare and imperiled 

taxa for profit, even to the point of 

driving a species to extinction in order 

to increase the value of individual 

specimens (Laufer 2009). We want to 

stress that our reasons for not 

designating critical habitat go beyond 

the potential increased threat of 

collection, but also involve potential 

associated increased risks to sensitive 

and important habitats (see also 

Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts 

From Humans, below). Designation of 

unoccupied habitat could also alienate 

any affected private landowners and 

stakeholders, thus limiting 

reintroduction and recovery options (see 

also Response to Comment #24 below). 

We agree that designation of critical 

habitat can provide some benefits to 

listed species (e.g., a tool to restore and 

manage habitat on Federal lands, greater 

awareness and education by the public, 

increased cooperation by other agencies 

to improve habitat). With the Miami 

blue, substantial efforts at education and 

active conservation efforts from Federal, 

State, and local agencies are already 

underway, so potential added benefits 

from designation would likely be 

minimal. 

(3) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that the status of the Miami blue 

is grave and that extinction is a distinct 

possibility. Another peer reviewer 

stated that the Miami blue has an 

extremely high likelihood of becoming 

extinct unless active conservation 

measures are applied immediately. 

One commenter indicated that the 

Miami blue is one of the rarest 

butterflies in the United States and in 

the world. The commenter specifically 

stated that it may be the single rarest 

butterfly species, and is rarer than at 

least 14 species that are listed under the 

Act. He indicated that understanding 

spatial and population structure and 

dispersal are keys to recovery, as are 

restoration and reintroduction. Another 

commenter, certified by the 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature to evaluate 

extinction risk, stated that the Miami 

blue meets all five criteria for listing 

under the Act. Another commenter 

urged immediate action to address 

threats and the development of a 

‘‘functional’’ recovery plan, with the 

assistance of experts. Another 

commenter encouraged the Service to 

take all possible steps to recover the 

subspecies, stressing the importance of 

future reintroductions in the best 

possible habitats. 

Our Response: We agree. The threats 

to the Miami blue pose a significant risk 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

to the subspecies and were the basis of 

our emergency determination, which 

immediately put forth conservation 

measures (see Available Conservation 

Measures, below). We are actively 

working with stakeholders and partners 

to implement additional conservation 

actions now to prevent extinction. We 

fully intend to actively engage others 

and implement actions that will help 

ensure survival and long-term recovery. 

We will work closely with scientific 

experts, land managers, stakeholders, 

and others to ensure that any future 

captive propagation and reintroduction 

efforts do not harm the wild population, 

and occur in optimal habitat to increase 

the likelihood of persistence. 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that the largest threat to the 

Miami blue is the small size of the 

single remaining metapopulation. He 

contended that, if the subspecies is to 

survive, the priority needs to be on 

improving the quality of existing 

habitats, enlarging breeding areas, and 

creating new breeding habitats, if 

possible. One commenter estimated 

numbers at the peak of the Miami blue’s 

flight period in the hundreds, stating 

that conservation biologists agree that 

numbers should be many thousands to 

counteract the negative effects of 

inbreeding, genetic drift, and 

environmental catastrophes. This 

commenter also stated the small area 

currently occupied is ‘‘frighteningly 

small’’ and that additional and more 

widespread sites are needed to provide 

insurance against the extinction of a 

localized population. This reviewer and 

other commenters believed that 

reestablishment at other locations is a 

priority because of the substantial risk 

of extinction due to stochastic events 

and other threats. 

Our Response: We agree that several 

of the most important threats to the 

Miami blue are currently small 

population size, few populations, and 

restricted range. We concur that the 

actions specified are needed and 

acknowledge that other actions to 

reduce threats are also needed for 

survival and recovery (see 

Determination of Status, below). 

(5) Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that poaching is a more 

accurate term than collection. This 

reviewer viewed poaching as a potential 

threat to the Miami blue and indicated 

that to spend ‘‘two full pages discussing 

hypothetical threats sounds biased’’ in 

his view. One commenter stated that the 

Miami blue has no protection from 

poachers and suggested that listing may 

invite poachers to offshore islands. She 

indicated that she has been contacted by 

someone interested in acquiring rare 

butterflies. Another commenter noted 

that listing would call additional 

attention from commercial traders to the 

Miami blue and related species. 

Our Response: We provided a 

thorough and detailed description of the 

threat posed by collection in the 

proposed rule. In addition, we believe 

that it is necessary to fully discuss the 

many activities that go beyond 

collection, and include other illegal and 

illicit activities. Because we do not have 

evidence of collection of the Miami 

blue, we outline illegal and illicit 

activities involving other listed or 

imperiled butterflies on various 

protected lands and the established 

markets for specimens. We have 

determined that poaching is a potential 

and significant threat that could occur at 

any time, but poaching is only a subset 

of the activities that threaten the Miami 

blue. The generic term ‘‘collection’’ is 

more easily understood by the public 

and better encompasses the breadth of 

activities related to this threat. 

We recognize that listing may 

inadvertently increase the threat of 

collection and trade (i.e., raise value, 

create demand). However, we have 

determined, based upon the best 

available scientific information, that the 

subspecies meets the criteria for Federal 

protection. Accordingly, it is our 

obligation to take protective action 

through Federal listing to help safeguard 

the subspecies. 

(6) Comment: Two peer reviewers 

indicated that a better understanding of 

host plants will be essential for effective 

Miami blue conservation. One noted 

that there is considerable ambiguity as 

to the breadth of host plant use and 

plant-herbivore interactions. Another 

peer reviewer noted the general 

preference of the Palos Verdes blue 

butterfly for fresh growth on host plants 

(citing Johnson et al. 2011). This 

reviewer suggested that not all available 

host plant mass at a given location may 

be appropriate for use (larval and female 

egg-laying) and that the actual available 

suitable host plant may be far less than 

the total mass at any given site. One 

commenter suggested that no natural 

populations of the Miami blue are 

known to feed on balloonvine, despite 

its availability. Another commenter 

noted that the Miami blue was 

originally associated with balloonvine, 

but subsequently adapted to using gray 

nickerbean due to efforts to control 

balloonvine. 

Our Response: We agree that further 

studies into historical and current 

Miami blue host plant preferences are 

essential to best conserve and recover 

the subspecies. Available scientific 

literature documents a variety of host 

plants for the Miami blue (see—Life 

History and Habitat under Background, 

above). This is consistent with recent 

host plant use in contemporary Miami 

blue populations. The last Miami blues 

observed on northern Key Largo in 1996 

fed on balloonvine; those at BHSP fed 

on nickerbean and blackbead; and those 

within KWNWR rely primarily on 

blackbead. We note that balloonvine 

was not reported as a host plant until 

the 1970s, and that host plant use 

appears to have changed through time 

depending upon availability (see 

Habitat for complete discussion). 

Balloonvine was likely only one of 

several legumes used by historical 

Miami blue populations. 

We agree that not all available host 

plants at a given location may be 

appropriate for larval use and that 

actual available suitable host plant mass 

may be far less than the total present. 

This is consistent with findings from 

available research. For example, when 

the Miami blue occurred at BHSP, only 

a small portion of available habitat on 

the island appeared occupied, and 

higher abundances were found when 

there was a large quantity of new 

terminal growth of nickerbean and 

when more nectar sources were 

available (Emmel and Daniels 2004, 

pp. 9–12). 

(7) Comment: One peer reviewer 

recommended several clarifications 

regarding the description of the Miami 

blue (wing-chord length) and aspects of 

its life history (four instars, not five). 

Our Response: We have replaced the 

term ‘‘wing-chord length’’ with the more 

frequently used measure of ‘‘forewing.’’ 

The term fifth-instar was a 

typographical error and has been 

corrected with fourth-instar. We also 

made other suggested minor 

clarifications. These changes are set 

forth in the Background section of this 

final rule. 

(8) Comment: Two peer reviewers 

questioned the maximum adult life span 

of the Miami blue and how this was 

determined and suggested that adults 

likely live more than 9 days. These 

reviewers suggested that older 

individuals may be more likely to 

disperse and that finding them once 

dispersed may be difficult. One 

reviewer cited research showing that 

older females may be prone to longer 

movements (Bergman and Landin 2002, 

p. 361). 

Our Response: We agree that the 

maximum 9-day life span as discussed 

in the emergency rule is unclear and 

may be an underestimate of natural 

adult life span. We have clarified the 

text in this final rule accordingly. 

Additional field studies are needed to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20959 

better ascertain adult Miami blue 

longevity in the wild and to determine 

dispersal capabilities. 

(9) Comment: Three peer reviewers 

and one commenter questioned the 

degree to which the Miami blue is 

sedentary, suggesting that it may be less 

sedentary than described. One reviewer 

suggested that the subspecies may be 

sedentary at certain stages of its life, but 

that the Miami blue’s historical range 

(i.e., central Florida to the Keys and Dry 

Tortugas) is evidence that it disperses 

over wide areas of water over long 

periods of time. Another suggested that 

it only takes a wayward gravid female 

to colonize a new habitat. Another 

suggested that a butterfly surviving in a 

metapopulation due to habitat structure 

such as the Miami blue must have 

stronger dispersal capabilities than 

described in the rule, at least in a small 

fraction of the population. 

One commenter stated that, although 

the butterfly appears to be sedentary 

now, it once occurred widely in the 

Keys and coastal areas of central and 

southern Florida and that it is capable 

of dispersing and colonizing new areas, 

including islands. 

Commenters suggested that keys to 

designing a recovery strategy include a 

clear focus on basic life history, 

population dynamics, and an improved 

understanding of dispersal. One 

commenter indicated that a wellinformed recovery plan would include a 

strategy for multiple interconnected 

populations that buffer the subspecies 

when some localized populations are 

lost and that more information is 

needed about dispersal capacity. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

Miami blue may be less sedentary than 

described and have made clarifications 

to the text. At this time, it is unclear 

how far the butterfly can disperse and 

the mechanisms for dispersal (i.e., 

active [flight] or passive [windassisted]). We acknowledge that 

wayward individuals and gravid 

females can colonize new areas. Clearly, 

additional study is needed to better 

understand the Miami blue’s dispersal 

capabilities and mechanisms. We agree 

that improved understanding of basic 

life history and population dynamics, 

including dispersal, will be key 

components to an effective recovery 

strategy. An effective recovery strategy 

will likely provide for multiple, 

interconnected populations that enable 

genetic exchange and facilitate 

recolonization in the event of local 

extirpations. 

(10) Comment: One peer reviewer 

indicated that diapause can be difficult 

to detect. He suggested that the Miami 

blue, like other closely related species, 

could enter diapause as third instars 

rather than as adults, in response to 

photoperiod, temperature, or changes in 

host plants. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

there is some uncertainty regarding 

diapause (see Life History). We believe 

that the Miami blue’s life history 

requires further study in order to better 

determine if any life stages undergo a 

dormant period. 

(11) Comment: One peer reviewer 

expressed his opposition of markrecapture methods for lycaenids, 

particularly small blues, such as the 

Miami blue butterfly. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

not enough information is known about 

the influence of mark-recapture on 

butterflies and that it can be harmful, 

depending upon the species, techniques 

employed, skill of handlers, and other 

factors. There have been several studies 

of various mark-recapture techniques 

with conflicting results regarding the 

impact on butterflies. Recently, Haddad 

et al. (2008, p. 938) reviewed several 

types of monitoring techniques and 

suggested that mark-recapture is not 

appropriate for small and/or imperiled 

butterflies. Researchers are not 

employing mark-recapture techniques 

on the Miami blue at this time. 

(12) Comment: One peer reviewer 

indicated that disturbance factors may 

be beneficial to the host plants and that 

conservationists have a tendency to 

remove disturbances from protected 

lands, which can work against species 

dependent upon early successional 

plants (citing Longcore and Osborne 

2010 and Longcore et al. 2010). One 

commenter indicated that trampling of 

host plants has occurred within 

KWNWR. 

Our Response: We agree that periodic 

natural disturbances may benefit the 

habitat, thereby increasing the vigor or 

distribution of important host plants. 

However, human-related disturbances 

(e.g., vandalism, trampling, camping, 

fire pits) can present significant risk to 

the Miami blue (especially larval stages) 

and important stands of host plants (see 

Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts 

from Humans). Given the butterfly’s 

overall vulnerability to extinction, we 

acknowledge that it will be important to 

minimize human-related and other 

controllable threats, especially in areas 

of known occupied habitat. Reducing 

threats will help safeguard the 

subspecies and its habitat. 

(13) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stressed the importance of ant 

associations among lycaenids and 

provided various examples and 

citations. This reviewer stated that he 

believed that carpenter ants, 

Camponotus spp., may be extremely 

important in the reintroduction and 

long-term survival of the Miami blue at 

specific locations and that successful 

establishment may be dependent upon 

presence of these ants. Another peer 

reviewer cited a new paper by Trager 

and Daniels (2011) on mating and egg 

production in the Miami blue, noting 

that incorporating that study into the 

background does not change the 

outcome or conclusions of the proposed 

and emergency rules. Two commenters 

also noted interactions (mutualistic, 

predatory) between the Miami blue and 

ants and suggested further investigation. 

Our Response: We agree that ant 

associations may be an important 

component of the Miami blue’s life 

history and that further studies of ant 

and Miami blue larval interactions are 

needed. Studies focusing on remaining 

populations would be useful. However, 

it may also be helpful to examine antlarval interactions using surrogate 

species at historical Miami blue 

locations (e.g., BHSP or Key Largo) or in 

the laboratory. We have included 

information from the Trager and Daniels 

(2011) paper in the Background (see Life 

History, above) and agree that this paper 

does not alter the conclusions of our 

proposed and emergency rules. It also 

does not alter the conclusions of this 

final rule. 

(14) Comment: One peer reviewer 

cautioned against comparisons of 

Pollard transect counts with markrecapture abundance estimates, noting 

that these two different methods of 

estimating population size can be 

compared with similar methods but not 

necessarily with each other. This 

reviewer suggested that, because the 

Miami blue has overlapping generations 

and presumably the capacity for 

explosive growth, it might be more 

productive to report population status 

in terms of area occupied (citing 

Longcore et al. 2010). 

Our Response: We agree. We 

understand that there are a variety of 

techniques to measure abundance and 

monitor butterfly populations and have 

clarified discussion of available data 

(see Population Estimates and Status, 

above). Researchers are currently 

refining methods and techniques to 

most effectively gauge population size 

within KWNWR, including seasonality, 

as part of an ongoing study the Service 

funded in 2010. Gauging overall status 

in terms of occupied habitat, as has been 

done for other butterflies, may be more 

meaningful (Longcore et al. 2010, pp. 

335–346; T. Longcore, in litt. 2011). 

(15) Comment: One peer reviewer 

noted that Clench only made one 

collecting trip to the West Indies (the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Bahamas before 1941) (see Clench 

1941). 

Our Response: We have clarified the 

text in this final rule accordingly. 

(16) Comment: One peer reviewer was 

concerned about a proposed project to 

develop a zip-line course at Crane Point 

in the City of Marathon and suggested 

that the Service work closely with the 

City to minimize potentially adverse 

impacts of such a development to the 

recovery of the Miami blue. 

Our Response: We were not aware of 

this particular project, but we are 

coordinating with agencies and partners 

regarding various development projects 

within Monroe County to avoid and 

minimize impacts to the Miami blue 

and other federally listed species. We 

will work closely with the City of 

Marathon and others on this potential 

project as well. 

Comments Relating to Similarity of 

Appearance Butterflies 

(17) Comment: Six peer reviewers and 

ten commenters opposed listing the 

other butterflies due to similarity of 

appearance, as proposed, for a variety of 

reasons. The proposed action was 

generally opposed because it was 

thought to be overly restrictive or not 

needed because the similar butterflies 

are common and can be readily 

differentiated from the Miami blue 

based upon clear morphological 

differences. 

Some reviewers and commenters 

supported the listing of the similar 

butterflies as proposed. Other reviewers, 

commenters, and FWC suggested 

alternatives for application of the 

similarity of appearance provision of the 

Act. These alternatives consisted of 

limiting application to only areas where 

the butterflies are sympatric with the 

Miami blue (potential or occupied 

habitat), only within critical habitat (if 

designated), only within specified 

counties, or only within counties within 

the Miami blue’s historical range. 

Those in opposition generally 

believed that listing similar butterflies 

would impede research and discourage 

cooperation or scientific support for 

future listing actions. Several 

commenters indicated that it would 

negatively and needlessly impact 

collectors, hobbyists, and those who 

collect insects for educational purposes. 

One commenter stated that there should 

not be any restrictions on the sale, 

purchase, or gifts of legally obtained 

cassius, ceraunus, or nickerbean blue 

butterflies. One commenter warned that 

the ‘‘unnecessary ban on collection and 

commerce’’ of the three ‘‘similar’’ 

species could ultimately harm the 

butterflies by impeding research and 

future discoveries, and also harm the 

relationships between the Service and 

hobbyist collectors, researchers, and 

naturalists. The same commenter 

suggested that careful monitoring and 

patrolling of occupied and historical 

suitable sites may be a more effective 

protective measure than enforcing a ban 

on collection and commercial 

transactions involving these taxa at a 

state or national level. 

Another commenter noted that the 

action was not necessary because those 

seeking to collect the Miami blue or 

similar species on protected 

conservation lands would theoretically 

already possess the necessary permits. 

Some commenters suggested that listing 

due to similarity of appearance was 

inconsistent with other butterfly listings 

that have similar species that more 

closely resemble each other and do not 

have similarity of appearance 

provisions. 

Our Response: We carefully 

considered all of the comments received 

and agree that prohibiting collection, 

possession, and trade of these similar 

butterflies throughout their national and 

international ranges could result in 

unnecessary restrictions and regulatory 

burdens. After careful review of the 

needs of the Miami blue and the 

potential impacts of the special 4(d) rule 

as originally proposed, we have 

reconsidered this aspect of the proposed 

rule and have made significant changes 

regarding its application. Consequently, 

in this final rule, only collection of 

these similar butterflies within the 

current and historical range of the 

Miami blue butterfly will be prohibited. 

See Summary of Changes from Proposed 

Rule, below, for more detail. 

We maintain that the Miami blue, due 

to its small population size and few 

populations, faces a significant threat 

from collection, and that prohibiting 

collection of similar butterflies within 

the historical range of the Miami blue is 

in the best interest of the subspecies. We 

have determined that limiting 

application of the special 4(d) rule to 

only the act of collecting and only 

within the historical range of the Miami 

blue is sufficient to protect the 

subspecies from threats faced due to 

collection pressure on the three similar 

butterflies. The proposed restrictions on 

trade and commerce have been 

removed, thus eliminating unnecessary 

restrictions and reducing regulatory 

burdens for most potentially affected 

parties (i.e., elsewhere in Florida, other 

countries). We value relationships and 

are committed to working cooperatively 

with stakeholders to relieve unnecessary 

burdens while safeguarding the 

subspecies. 

With regard to concerns regarding 

research, studies can be conducted on 

the similarity of appearance butterflies 

in the vast majority of their ranges (i.e., 

outside of Florida, outside of the 

affected counties in Florida). For 

research in south and central Florida, 

many scientific activities involving the 

similar butterflies will only need prior 

written authorization (e.g., a letter) from 

the Service. See Special Rule Under 

Section 4(d) of the Act below for more 

information. 

We agree that increased patrols and 

monitoring may be helpful in deterring 

collection of the Miami blue. However, 

due to limited resources, this may not 

be feasible. 

We disagree with views that listing 

the other butterflies due to similarity of 

appearance is unnecessary because 

those seeking to collect the Miami blue 

or similar species on conservation lands 

would already possess the necessary 

permits. We are aware of cases where 

federally listed species have been 

collected from conservation lands 

illegally or without permits (see 

Collection, below) and acknowledge that 

listing may increase demand for 

specimens. We have determined that the 

similarity of appearance provisions will 

help deter potential collection of Miami 

blues (purposeful or inadvertent) in all 

areas within its historical range, 

including those areas that are not 

conserved or those in private 

ownership. 

Finally, we acknowledge that 

similarity of appearance has not been 

previously applied to arthropods 

(including insects, such as butterflies) 

prior to this listing, but it is a tool 

available to us under the Act. Similarity 

of appearance protections can be 

effective in situations where collection 

is a primary threat and population sizes 

are extremely low, as in the case of the 

Miami blue butterfly. We have 

determined that a special rule listing the 

additional three butterflies is necessary 

in this instance to protect the subspecies 

from collection throughout its current 

and historical range. 

(18) Comment: One peer reviewer 

indicated that, if listing creates demand 

for collectors, then listing of the other 

similarity of appearance butterflies will 

increase the likelihood of intentional or 

unintentional collection of the Miami 

blue. Another reviewer and a 

commenter suggested that listing would 

increase their values to collectors. Other 

reviewers and commenters believed that 

the issue of illegal collection of the 

Miami blue is unlikely to be deterred by 

listing the three additional co-occurring, 

common butterflies. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20961 

Our Response: Although we agree that 

listing may create demand for some 

collectors, we find that prohibiting 

collection of the similarity of 

appearance butterflies within the Miami 

blue’s historical range will help reduce 

the threat of collection for the Miami 

blue. Through this action, the public 

and all stakeholders will be aware that 

the collection of the Miami blue and 

other similar blue butterflies in coastal 

south and central Florida is prohibited 

and illegal. 

(19) Comment: One peer reviewer 

questioned if the other similarity of 

appearance butterflies would remain 

listed should the Miami blue butterfly 

become extinct. 

Our Response: If the Miami blue 

becomes extinct, the similarity of 

appearance butterflies will remain listed 

until the Miami blue becomes delisted, 

or we deem that the similarity of 

appearance protections are no longer 

necessary. In either of these scenarios, 

the Service would need to have 

adequate scientific data suggesting these 

actions are warranted, and then proceed 

with the normal rulemaking process 

(i.e., publish proposed and final rules in 

the Federal Register). 

Comments From the State 

Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the 

Secretary shall submit to the State 

agency a written justification for his 

failure to adopt regulations consistent 

with the agency’s comments or 

petition.’’ Comments received from the 

State are addressed below. 

(20) Comment: The FWC stated that it 

did not have any additional data or 

other information that would lead to 

different conclusions regarding the 

Miami blue’s threats, life history, or 

other ecological attributes. The FWC 

supported our decision not to designate 

critical habitat. With regard to listing 

the other three blues as threatened due 

to similarity of appearance, the FWC 

supported the listing of the other blues, 

but suggested that it need only apply to 

the counties within the Miami blue’s 

historical range. The FWC also 

encouraged the use of their management 

plan as a basis for the Federal recovery 

plan and other management and 

recovery actions. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

FWC’s recommendation to apply 

similarity of appearance protection only 

in the counties within the Miami blue’s 

historical range and have modified this 

final rule accordingly in response to 

these and other comments received. See 

Summary of Changes from Proposed 

Rule, below. 

We intend to draw upon the State’s 

management plan for the Miami blue 

and all other relevant sources during 

recovery planning and implementation 

efforts. We will be soliciting input from 

the State and other stakeholders, who 

are integral in the conservation of the 

subspecies, during recovery planning. 

(21) Comment: The Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) found the proposed rule to be 

comprehensive and suggested no 

changes. The FDEP noted the thorough 

evaluation of research by Zhong et al. 

(2010), which demonstrated that a 

single treatment within normal 

mosquito control operations can kill 

substantial Miami blue larvae in 

targeted residential areas and, to a lesser 

extent, in adjacent nontarget areas. The 

FDEP suggested this research may 

indicate that normal mosquito control 

operations may have played a role in the 

historical decline of the Miami blue and 

other Keys insect fauna. The FDEP 

recommended that research be 

continued to better understand the 

impacts of mosquito control and exotic 

fire ants. 

Our Response: We agree that 

additional research will be helpful in 

developing a more thorough 

understanding of impacts from 

mosquito control, fire ants, and other 

threats. We are interested in working 

with others to better understand and 

address threats. 

Federal Agency Comments 

(22) Comment: The Naval Air Station 

Key West (NAS) expressed its 

commitment to work proactively with 

the Service to address potential issues 

should the Miami blue be listed as 

endangered. The commenter was 

concerned that, if critical habitat was 

designated, this would have significant 

impacts on the Navy’s ability to conduct 

mission-essential activities. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

Navy’s assistance in the conservation of 

the Miami blue and acknowledge their 

concerns. We have worked 

cooperatively with the Navy regarding 

their Integrated Natural Resource 

Management Plan (INRMP) for NAS and 

realize it affords many provisions for 

successful ecosystem management and 

protections for listed species. We will 

coordinate with NAS to incorporate 

conservation actions for the Miami blue 

into their INRMP. 

Public Comments 

Comments Relating to Critical Habitat 

(23) Comment: Several commenters 

encouraged the designation of critical 

habitat, emphasizing the need and 

importance of such designation, 

especially for reintroduction and 

recovery. One commenter stated that 

there is unquestionably habitat on the 

Keys and in south Florida that is critical 

to the butterfly’s recovery. Another 

commenter stated that critical habitat 

designations are required to ensure 

successful reintroductions of Miami 

blue populations elsewhere in its 

historical range. These commenters 

indicated that such designation is 

imperative for achieving recovery goals 

for the Miami blue and recommended 

that high-quality target areas for 

reintroduction be listed as critical 

habitat. One commenter suggested that 

designating critical habitat has the 

benefit of doubling the likelihood that 

an endangered species will recover. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

there are benefits to designating critical 

habitat, as the commenters suggest (see 

Benefits to the Subspecies From Critical 

Habitat Designation, below). For the 

Miami blue, we have determined that 

increased harm to the subspecies and its 

habitat outweighs the benefits that 

critical habitat may provide (see 

Increased Threat to the Subspecies by 

Designating Critical Habitat and 

Increased Threat to the Subspecies 

Outweighs the Benefits of Critical 

Habitat Designation, below). 

We disagree that designation of 

critical habitat is required or needed for 

successful reintroductions of the Miami 

blue, or that it is imperative for 

achieving recovery. Landowner 

permission is needed to reintroduce 

endangered species, even if unoccupied 

critical habitat is present. Some private 

property owners in the Keys have 

reportedly threatened to clear vegetation 

from undeveloped parcels to avoid 

restrictions regarding the butterfly (M. 

Minno, in litt. 2011b; N. PakhomoffSpencer, consultant, pers. comm. 2011). 

Designation of critical habitat would 

also preclude the use of nonessential 

experimental populations (NEPs) under 

section 10(j) of the Act, a tool that could 

be useful to help reintroduce the 

subspecies in select areas within its 

historical range in the future. Section 

10(j)(2) of the Act prohibits the use of 

NEPs where critical habitat is 

designated (the two are mutually 

exclusive). Overall, we believe that 

successful reintroductions and recovery 

will be dependent upon improved 

captive propagation and reintroduction 

techniques, removal of controllable 

threats, and cooperation of landowners, 

stakeholders, and partners. 

Finally, with regard to the 

recommendation to include targeted 

high-quality reintroduction sites as 

critical habitat, there is currently no 

accepted, established list of high-quality 

reintroduction sites, as implied. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Preliminary assessments to determine 

the best potential reintroduction sites 

are outdated. Since originally assessed, 

additional populations of the Miami 

blue (using a different host plant) have 

been found, we have a better 

understanding of threats, and the 

captive colony no longer exists. We 

expect to reevaluate potential 

reintroduction sites to determine those 

most suitable with the help of our 

partners and prior to future captive 

propagation, reintroduction, and 

monitoring efforts. 

(24) Comment: Two commenters 

suggested that it is not feasible to 

eliminate all threats throughout the 

Miami blue’s historical range, but that 

designating critical habitat will have the 

benefit of identifying focused 

management zones for persistence. One 

commenter suggested that critical 

habitat should provide additional 

benefits in that spraying for mosquitoes 

would be prohibited, host plants would 

be completely protected, and invasive 

species would be removed. He argued 

that without designating critical habitat 

there are few regulatory mechanisms 

that will mitigate illicit activities 

contributing to habitat destruction at 

potential reintroduction sites within the 

historical range. 

Another commenter acknowledged 

the value of designating critical habitat 

for conservation and management 

purposes and suggested that the limited 

amount of remaining vital habitat be 

identified for the Miami blue. He 

suggested that site assessments 

conducted during the unsuccessful 

reintroduction efforts could help 

identify this habitat. This commenter 

indicated that designating all 

undeveloped coastal areas as critical 

habitat is too sweeping and ignores the 

potential for more specific 

environmental requirements, which 

may help explain the failure of the 

reintroduction efforts. Additional 

studies to identify habitat requirements 

were recommended. 

Our Response: We agree that it is not 

possible to eliminate all threats 

throughout the Miami blue’s historical 

range and acknowledge that designating 

critical habitat could help focus 

management actions. However, we 

determined that designation of critical 

habitat is not prudent for the Miami 

blue for the reasons stated below (see 

Critical Habitat and Prudency 

Determination and explanatory sections 

that follow). 

With regard to threats, it is not 

realistic to assume that critical habitat 

designation would remove threats such 

as mosquito-control pesticides, 

completely protect host plants, or 

guarantee that invasive species would 

be removed, as one commenter 

purports. Critical habitat only provides 

protections where there is a Federal 

nexus (i.e., actions that come under the 

purview of section 7 of the Act) (see 

Benefits to the Subspecies from Critical 

Habitat Designation, below). Mosquito 

control activities are not normally 

considered Federal projects, and would 

therefore not typically be subject to 

section 7 review. Furthermore, a 

landowner is not obligated to conduct 

conservation actions, such as the 

removal of invasive plants, when 

critical habitat is designated. 

We disagree with the view that there 

are few regulatory mechanisms that will 

mitigate activities contributing to 

habitat destruction within the 

subspecies’ historical range. Sections 7, 

9, and 10 of the Act (see Available 

Conservation Measures, below) can 

provide useful regulatory mechanisms 

that will help conserve the Miami blue 

in its current and historical range. In 

addition, listing facilitates proactive 

programs and partnerships that can help 

protect and restore habitats and 

implement recovery actions (e.g., 

section 4 and 6 of the Act; see Available 

Conservation Measures, below). In 

short, some commenters may have 

overestimated the potential benefits of 

critical habitat designation and 

underestimated the regulatory 

protections that the Act confers simply 

when a species is listed as endangered. 

Finally, we agree that additional 

studies to identify specific habitat 

requirements are needed. Such studies 

would be helpful to both understanding 

the Miami blue’s specific physical and 

biological habitat needs and for 

increasing the likelihood of successful 

reintroductions in the future. These 

actions will likely be undertaken with 

researchers and others during recovery 

planning and implementation. 

(25) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the conditions given under 50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1) for a not prudent 

determination would apply to most 

endangered species, especially insects 

that maintain small populations. The 

commenter contended that the 

increased threat to the Miami blue from 

designating critical habitat would be 

minimal because most suitable habitat 

exists within protected State and 

Federal lands. 

Our Response: We disagree that a ‘‘not 

prudent’’ determination would apply to 

most endangered species. However, we 

acknowledge that it may often apply to 

endangered insects and plants that are 

highly sought after by collectors, 

hobbyists, and enthusiasts (e.g., 

butterflies, tiger beetles, orchids, cacti). 

Although we acknowledge that most 

suitable habitat for the Miami blue is on 

State, Federal, or other conservation 

land, we do not agree with the 

commenter’s view that increased threat 

to the butterfly from designation would 

be minimal. In fact, we find that the 

increased threat may be substantial in 

that it could exacerbate the already 

serious threats of collection, vandalism, 

disturbance, fire, and other harm from 

humans (see Increased Threat to the 

Subspecies by Designating Critical 

Habitat, below). 

(26) Comment: Two commenters 

suggested that since high-quality target 

areas for reintroduction are all located 

on Federal, State, or conservation lands, 

there would not be significant economic 

consequence to designating critical 

habitat. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

majority of suitable and potential 

habitat for the Miami blue occurs on 

Federal, State, or conservation lands. 

Our determination is that critical habitat 

designation for the Miami blue is not 

prudent. Therefore, an economic 

analysis was not required by the Act 

and was not conducted. 

Comments Related to Taxonomy and 

Current Distribution 

(27) Comment: The National 

Environmental and Planning Agency of 

Jamaica provided comments prepared 

by the Scientific Authority of Jamaica 

regarding the relative abundance and 

distribution of the cassius blue butterfly 

in that country. It indicated that it did 

not have data to support the suspected 

decline in Jamaica and had insufficient 

evidence to concur with the proposal. 

The agency suggested a population and 

distribution study was needed to 

determine conservation status in 

Jamaica. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

comments provided. However, the 

proposed rule did not suggest listing the 

cassius blue butterfly on the basis of 

imperilment. Rather, it proposed 

threatened status for the cassius blue 

solely due to its similarity in 

appearance to the Miami blue, and to 

provide greater protection for the Miami 

blue. In response to comments received 

during the public comment period, the 

similarity of appearance aspect of the 

final rule has been modified. The 

Service no longer sees a need to list the 

cassius blue, ceraunus blue, or 

nickerbean blue butterflies as threatened 

throughout their ranges. Rather, we 

believe that prohibiting collection of 

these similar butterflies only in the 

historical range of the Miami blue in 

Florida is sufficient for minimizing the 

threat of collection of the Miami blue. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20963 

Therefore, the cassius blue will not be 

listed under the similarity of appearance 

provision of the Act in Jamaica (see 

Summary of Changes from Proposed 

Rule, below.). 

(28) Comment: Five commenters 

expressed concern regarding taxonomy 

and current distribution. Another 

commenter stated that the question of 

taxonomic status has been settled since 

multiple, independent researchers have 

verified the unique standing of the 

Miami blue by genitalic dissection (See 

also Comment #29 and Response 

below). 

One commenter, who had previously 

identified captive-reared BHSP 

specimens as Cyclargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri, noted limitations in 

contemporary specimens and available 

literature about Cyclargus taxa. This 

commenter indicated that there are 

morphological and genetic differences 

between historical and contemporary 

populations of C. thomasi in Florida 

[noting Saarinen (2009)] and suspected 

that these disparities may indicate the 

presence of a Cuban entity now in the 

lower Keys. However, he acknowledged 

that he was unaware of any detailed 

morphological or genetic investigations 

of the Cuban entity. Considering 

Florida’s proximity to other West Indian 

populations, he suggested that it is 

possible that multiple genetic entities of 

C. thomasi have occurred (or do occur) 

in Florida, and the presence of a more 

genetically diverse metapopulation 

within the KWNWR may be the result 

of more recent immigrations from Cuba. 

Further, this commenter noted an 

unconfirmed report that captive-bred 

Miami blue larvae did not readily accept 

balloonvine, reinforcing his notion that 

historical and contemporary 

populations are not the same entity. 

Another commenter stated that the 

Service does not have the necessary 

information to determine if Cyclargus 

thomasi bethunebakeri is globally 

endangered or not since C. thomasi has 

recently been reported from Cuba and 

appears to be secure there. He indicated 

that it has not been determined if the 

entity in Cuba is different from the 

subspecies in Florida and that it is 

possible that these are the same 

subspecies. He also noted that C. 

thomasi bethunebakeri has been 

reported from the Bimini Islands in the 

western Bahamas. In his view, the entity 

in Cuba may be the same subspecies and 

it may be secure; therefore, the Florida 

taxon is not endangered, and should not 

be listed at this time. 

Another commenter noted that the 

Cyclargus thomasi complex was not 

well defined, citing Johnson and Balint 

(1995). This commenter recommended 

that the taxonomic status be clarified. 

Another commenter indicated the 

differences between photographs she 

had taken from BHSP with those she 

had discovered within KWNWR. She 

suggested the possibility that the 

KWNWR colonies may more closely 

resemble those of Cuba and elsewhere, 

rather than those from mainland 

Florida. She noted that the range of the 

butterfly does not seem well 

documented in recent years, and that 

the full range outside of the known 

locations should be determined. 

Our Response: We understand the 

commenters’ questions and uncertainty 

regarding taxonomy and distribution. 

We disagree with the comment that the 

subspecies is not well defined or 

described. The best scientific and 

commercial information and evidence 

indicates that Cyclargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri is a distinct, welldescribed and examined taxon (see 

Taxonomy, above) and that its 

distribution is limited (see Historical 

Distribution and Current Distribution). 

Some concerns over the taxonomy 

and current distribution are based on 

discussion of a similar looking blue 

butterfly recently documented in Cuba. 

Historically, the nickerbean blue, 

Cyclargus ammon, was reported from 

Cuba. However, Hernandez (2004, p. 

100) indicated that an undetermined 

subspecies of Cyclargus thomasi is now 

also known to occur on the island. 

Craves (2004, p. 43) indicated that she 

observed C. thomasi commonly at two 

locations in Cuba: Cayo Paredon and 

Santiago de Cuba. Based on examination 

of photographs, she suggested that these 

appeared to be C. t. bethunebakeri. 

However, no specimens were collected 

and, to our knowledge, there have been 

no additional studies of the Cuban C. 

thomasi. Craves (2004, p. 43) suggested 

the possibility that C. t. bethunebakeri 

recolonized Florida from Cuba. 

We acknowledge the concerns raised 

by some commenters regarding 

taxonomy, but we do not have any 

scientific evidence to suggest that 

Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri also 

now occurs in Cuba or that it recently 

immigrated from Cuba to Florida. Other 

subspecies of C. thomasi occur in the 

Caribbean (Smith et al. 1994, p. 129), 

and it is possible that the unidentified 

C. thomasi in Cuba is one of these 

subspecies, another subspecies that has 

not yet been described, or possibly C. t. 

bethunebakeri. Additional work to 

better understand the full range of the 

Miami blue outside of the known 

locations would be helpful. Surveys of 

remote areas in Florida are ongoing; 

additional surveys in the Bahamas (and 

Cuba) would be helpful. Additional 

research could help determine if other 

Caribbean taxa are also imperiled. 

It is unlikely that Cyclargus thomasi 

has only recently established in the 

lower Keys, as one commenter 

suggested. There were few historical 

surveys for butterflies at BHSP or 

KWNWR; therefore, it is unknown how 

long the Miami blue occurred at these 

locations prior to their discoveries. By 

contrast, many of the other islands in 

the lower Keys have been continually 

monitored for butterflies for several 

decades. If the Miami blue had recently 

colonized the lower Keys, it seems 

likely that it would have attempted to 

establish at numerous locations along 

the chain of islands, thereby being 

observed and reported prior to 

ultimately colonizing BHSP and 

KWNWR. 

The concern that captive Miami blue 

larvae may not have readily accepted 

balloonvine as the basis of historical 

and contemporary populations being 

different entities seems unfounded. 

Captive individuals and artificial 

conditions may produce responses that 

are different than those occurring in the 

wild. Available scientific literature 

documents a variety of host plants for 

the Miami blue (see Life History and 

Habitat under Background—and 

response to Comment #6, above). 

Balloonvine was likely only one of 

several legumes used by historical 

Miami blue populations. 

Based on the best scientific 

information, including recent genetic 

work, we find that Cyclargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri is a distinct and unique 

entity, that it is limited in distribution 

(i.e., Florida, possibly Bahamas), that it 

is imperiled, and that listing is 

warranted. We lack any substantial 

information or evidence that the Cuban 

entity is the same taxon and have no 

information on that entity’s abundance 

or status. 

(29) Comment: In support of our 

determination, one commenter, who 

had conducted her dissertation on the 

taxon, unequivocally stated that the 

Florida subspecies, Cyclargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri, is unique and imperiled. 

In addition to the work by multiple, 

independent scientists who have 

verified the unique standing of the 

Miami blue through dissection, this 

commenter cited her own additional 

genetic analyses, which compared 

genetic sequence data of a 

mitochondrial gene useful in 

elucidating species distinctions, and her 

finding of sequence differences between 

multiple specimens of C. thomasi from 

Florida, Cuba, and the Bahamas. The 

sequence data and genitalic dissections 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

make it possible to separate the 

bethunebakeri from others in the C. 

thomasi complex. This commenter 

definitively stated that C. thomasi 

bethunebakeri is unique and imperiled. 

She noted that other Caribbean taxa are 

also unique and recommended research 

to determine if these are also imperiled. 

Sequencing of specimens at additional 

mitochondrial and nuclear markers 

would be helpful in more fully 

understanding the relationship between 

Floridian and other Caribbean taxa of 

Cyclargus thomasi. 

Our Response: We agree. Based on the 

best scientific information, including 

recent genetics work, we find that 

Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri is a 

distinct and unique entity, that it is 

limited in distribution (i.e., Florida, 

possibly Bahamas), that it is imperiled, 

and that listing is warranted. We agree 

with the commenter’s suggestion for 

additional research to help determine if 

other Caribbean taxa are also imperiled. 

Comments Related to Threats 

(30) Comment: One commenter 

provided considerable new information 

on exotic green iguanas within 

KWNWR, potential impacts on the 

Miami blue, and prospects for 

eradication. This commenter identified 

studies to determine if green iguanas are 

eating blackbead in KWNWR as an 

immediate research need. He also noted 

that, worldwide, there are no known 

cases in which an exotic reptile, once 

established in an area, has been 

eradicated (citing G.H. Rodda, pers. 

comm. 2011). 

Our Response: We have incorporated 

new information pertaining to green 

iguanas within KWNWR into the text of 

this final rule (see Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species, Factor E). We 

agree that determining iguana food 

sources, both at KWNWR and within 

habitat formerly occupied by Miami 

blues, is a crucial first step in 

preventing further harm to the Miami 

blue from this exotic species. Because 

Miami blues have historically fed on a 

variety of legumes, studies are needed to 

determine iguana seasonal dietary 

preferences in south Florida and the 

Keys. We are working with the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), the State, 

researchers, and others to analyze gut 

contents of iguanas removed from 

current and historical locations. 

Preliminary gut content analyses 

conducted by FDEP and researchers 

have confirmed ingestion of at least one 

host plant (nickerbean) in the lower 

Keys (Jim Duquesnel, pers. comm. 

2012). 

We agree that there is an urgent need 

to better understand the extent of threat 

to the Miami blue and its host plants 

posed by iguanas at KWNWR and 

elsewhere. Efforts to better understand 

this threat and control or contain 

iguanas in select areas of Miami blue 

habitat are continuing. The State and 

other partners have been actively 

working to reduce the presence and 

impact of iguanas at BHSP. Efforts by 

FWC and the FDEP appear to have 

helped control impacts to host plants at 

BHSP. 

Iguanas are well-established 

throughout the islands of KWNWR. 

While efforts have been made to assess 

this potential threat at the Refuge, we 

acknowledge the difficulties with 

controlling iguanas and likelihood that 

broad eradication efforts will be 

unsuccessful. In the short term, 

extensive iguana eradication or 

containment efforts may need to be 

focused in select occupied areas, future 

reintroduction sites, or other areas with 

greatest habitat potential, where damage 

to host plant is evident. Given the 

current distribution of iguanas in the 

Keys, any island has the potential to be 

quickly colonized or recolonized by 

iguanas, despite substantial control and 

containment efforts. 

(31) Comment: Two commenters 

indicated that the role of fire in pine 

rockland habitats does not need to be 

discussed, because the Miami blue is a 

coastal butterfly that does not currently 

occur in fire-maintained habitats. 

Our Response: Historically, the Miami 

blue was documented from a variety of 

habitat types, including pine rocklands 

(Calhoun et al. 2000, pp. 17–18) (see 

Habitat). We believe discussion of pine 

rocklands and the need to maintain this 

habitat with natural or prescribed fires 

is applicable, and have kept it in the 

final rule. 

(32) Comment: One commenter 

indicated that mismanagement has been 

an ongoing problem and that the Miami 

blue is thriving at remote locations 

because humans have not burned, 

sprayed, cleared, or developed habitat. 

She believed that Federal listing will do 

nothing to save the Miami blue. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

the Miami blue faces numerous threats 

(see Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species) and that its persistence on a 

Refuge may be, in part, due to the 

absence of some threats. Protections 

under the Act (through sections 7, 9, 

and 10) and the recognition that 

immediately became available to the 

subspecies with Federal emergency 

listing (and will continue with 

permanent listing) will increase the 

likelihood that extinction can be 

prevented, and the subspecies can 

ultimately be recovered (see Available 

Conservation Measures, below). 

(33) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the most likely threats to the Miami 

blue are exotic predatory ants and the 

fragmentation and loss of critical 

breeding areas. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

the Miami blue faces numerous threats 

(see Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species). Habitat loss and fragmentation 

and predation are two of many threats 

affecting the butterfly. 

Forys et al. (2001, p. 256) found high 

mortality among immature giant 

swallowtails (Papilio cresphontes) from 

red imported fire ant (Solenopsis 

invicta) predation in experimental trials 

and suggested other butterflies in 

southern Florida might also be 

influenced. Similarly, Cannon (2006, 

p. 7) reported high mortality of giant 

and Bahamian (Papilio andraemon) 

swallowtail eggs from an exotic species 

of twig ant on Big Pine Key. Salvato and 

Salvato (2010, p. 95) extensively 

monitored the immature stages of the 

Federal candidate Florida leafwing 

(Anaea troglodyta floridalis) and 

reported mortality from a number of 

exotic and native predators, including 

ants. 

We are not aware of any studies that 

have been conducted to specifically 

examine the role of exotic ants on the 

natural history of the Miami blue. 

Therefore, while we agree that exotic 

ants, as well as other invasive species, 

have likely played a role in the decline 

of the Miami blue, to date, no field 

studies have identified exotic ants as 

specific predators of this subspecies. 

(34) Comment: Other commenters 

acknowledged that the Miami blue 

requires an active plan for 

reintroduction and that novel 

reintroduction schemes will be an 

important part of its recovery. 

Our Response: We agree that captive 

propagation and reintroduction may be 

important components of the 

subspecies’ survival and recovery, and 

that innovative methods may be needed. 

Actions need to be carefully planned, 

implemented, and monitored. Any 

future efforts should only be initiated 

after it has been determined that such 

actions will not harm the wild 

population, rigorous standards are met, 

and commitments are in place to 

increase the likelihood of success and 

maximize knowledge gained. Research 

with surrogate species may be helpful to 

better establish protocols and refine 

techniques for the Miami blue prior to 

propagation and reintroduction efforts. 

(35) Comment: One commenter stated 

that listing will hamper conservation 

efforts and research because of legal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20965 

restrictions. He claimed that some 

private property owners in the Keys 

have already threatened to clear 

vegetation from undeveloped properties 

to avoid any restrictions. He cited 

inconsistent funding for research and 

restoration, lack of cooperation between 

Federal and State agencies in recent 

times, and hindrances from permitting 

requirements and reporting efforts. This 

commenter suggested that the successful 

reintroductions of the Atala hairstreak 

(Eumaeus atala) be studied as an 

example of cooperative efforts, which 

were only possible because that 

butterfly was not listed. 

Our Response: We disagree with the 

commenter’s view that listing will 

impede conservation efforts and 

research due to legal restrictions. 

Federal listing will increase the 

likelihood that extinction can be 

prevented and that the Miami blue may 

ultimately be recovered (see Available 

Conservation Measures, below). 

Funding under section 4 and section 6 

of the Act may help implement actions 

that may be difficult to undertake 

otherwise. The need for a section 10 

permit under the Act to conduct 

research on a species is dependent upon 

the nature of the activity and the 

likelihood for incidental take. Some 

research activities may require a permit; 

others may not. However, the reporting 

requirements of a section 10 permit 

provide additional benefit by ensuring 

the Service receives the most recent and 

best available scientific information. 

With the Miami blue population at 

critically low numbers, section 10 

permits also allow us to control the 

amount of take allowed for research, 

which might otherwise threaten the 

subspecies through overutilization. 

We agree with the commenter’s view 

that funding can be inconsistent. In 

general, Federal funding is limited. 

However, Federal listing increases 

potential funding opportunities and 

funding sources. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

assertion that State and Federal agencies 

have not worked cooperatively in recent 

times. Agencies regularly coordinate on 

Miami blue butterfly issues, needs, and 

actions. For example, State agencies 

have provided vessel transportation for 

researchers and staff conducting 

federally funded surveys in remote 

areas. Federal agencies have supported 

previous captive propagation efforts and 

more recently assisted in the formation 

of a State management plan. 

While we agree that Atala hairstreak 

releases throughout Florida demonstrate 

how volunteer organizations can 

galvanize to work locally towards 

conservation, we question its 

applicability to the Miami blue 

situation. It is our understanding that 

Atala hairstreaks were reintroduced to 

numerous areas, including locations 

where they had not historically 

occurred. Any reintroduction efforts for 

the Miami blue would focus on the most 

suitable habitat within its historical 

range, with the cooperation of 

landowners. 

There have been several successful 

reintroductions for endangered blue 

butterflies elsewhere in the United 

States, such as the Karner (Plebejus 

samuelis) or Mission blue (Plebejus 

icarioides missionensis). We are hopeful 

that researchers and other conservation 

partners will draw on guidance from 

these and other successful 

reintroductions prior to undertaking 

future captive propagation and 

reintroduction efforts for the Miami 

blue. State and Federal funding has 

been provided in support of previous 

captive propagation efforts for the 

Miami blue. Due to the subspecies’ 

precarious status, it is imperative to 

identify the potential causes of failure 

from previous efforts before future 

efforts are undertaken. 

(36) Comment: One commenter 

contended that mosquito control 

activities have had minimal impact on 

the Miami blue butterfly. A second 

commenter stated that the record clearly 

demonstrates that mosquito control 

adulticides (insecticides targeting adult 

mosquitos) have not been a primary 

cause (or even a substantial contributory 

secondary cause) to mortality in the 

Miami blue and ‘‘its sibling species.’’ A 

third commenter stated that mosquito 

spraying is not an issue because the 

remaining Miami blue colonies in the 

KWNWR are not sprayed. 

Our Response: No comprehensive 

studies have been completed that 

examine the impact of current or 

historical mosquito control activities on 

Miami blue butterflies in the wild. 

Although there is no evidence of 

mosquito control impacts on wild 

Miami blue populations, potential 

impacts over the subspecies’ historical 

range have never been examined. Recent 

research has shown that exposure to 

mosquito control chemicals in sufficient 

quantities can impact various butterfly 

species, including captive-bred Miami 

blue (Zhong et al. 2010 pp. 1967–1968; 

Hoang et al. 2011 pp. 1000–1002). Based 

on these findings, the Service 

determined that mosquito control 

pesticides can be a threat to the Miami 

blue. 

(37) Comment: One commenter stated 

that Hennessey and Habeck (1991) 

found no adverse effect on insect 

populations due to pesticide drift. A 

second commenter stated that no harm 

was demonstrated in Hennessey and 

Habeck (1989), Hennessey and Habeck 

(1991), and Hennessey et al. (1992) 

when mosquito control chemicals 

drifted 750 meters into protected nospray zones. 

Another commenter cited two studies 

(Davis and Peterson 2008, Breidenbach 

and Szalay 2010) that demonstrated few 

deleterious effects on insect 

communities following mosquito 

control chemical application. 

Our Response: With regard to the first 

comment relating to pesticide drift, the 

results of the aforementioned field study 

(all three references detail activities 

associated with just one field study) did 

not provide conclusive findings 

regarding the effects of mosquito control 

spraying on the two butterfly species 

examined (Florida leafwing and 

Bartram’s hairstreak [Strymon acis 

bartrami]). A greater number of adult 

Florida leafwing butterflies was 

observed in untreated areas during one 

year of the study, but this difference was 

not observed in the second year of the 

study (Hennessey and Habeck 1991, 

p. 14). Additionally, the study revealed 

that one of the reference locations 

received adulticide deposition through 

aerial drift, thus compromising the 

utility of the location to be used as a 

reference site and making it difficult to 

discern any pesticide effects (Hennessey 

and Habeck 1991, pp. 29–30). 

With regard to deleterious effects of 

pesticides, we agree with the other 

commenter’s assertion that the two 

studies cited did not show dramatic 

effects on insect communities following 

mosquito control activities. There were 

exceptions in both studies where insect 

numbers declined following treatment 

events (Davis and Peterson 2008, pp. 

274–276; Breidenbach and Szalay 2010, 

pp. 594–595). It also did not appear that 

any butterfly families were included in 

the study, thus making it difficult to 

draw any conclusions about mosquito 

control effects on butterflies. 

(38) Comment: Two commenters 

stated that current mosquito control 

application methods are improved when 

compared to methods used in the 

Hennessey and Habeck (1991) study that 

documented drift of mosquito control 

chemicals. One of the commenters 

specifically stated that mosquito spray 

optimization utilizing smaller and more 

uniform insecticide aerosol droplets has 

been shown to mitigate exposure to 

nontarget organisms. Two studies are 

cited (Zhong et al. 2003, 2004) in 

support of this assertion. This same 

commenter also stated that the small 

droplets degrade rapidly and leave little 

or no residue at ground level. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

mosquito control spraying technology 

has advanced in recent years. Despite 

these advances, recent research (Pierce 

2009, pp. 2–15; Zhong et al. 2010, pp. 

1966–1967; Pierce 2011, pp. 6–11; T. 

Bargar, USGS, pers. comm. 2011) has 

still documented quantifiable residues 

of mosquito control chemicals on filter 

pads and foliage in nontarget areas. 

(39) Comment: Two commenters 

addressed the results of Zhong et al. 

(2010), a paper that assessed exposure 

and acute toxicity of late instar Miami 

blue larvae to aerially applied mosquito 

control adulticides in the field. One 

commenter noted that he has heard and 

read multiple comments regarding the 

mortality level of Miami blue 

caterpillars within a mosquito control 

spray zone from the Zhong et al. (2010) 

study, cited in the emergency rule. This 

same commenter noted that Miami blue 

caterpillar mortality in the ‘‘drift zone’’ 

did not differ statistically from control 

organisms that were 11 mi (18 km) from 

mosquito control chemical application. 

The second commenter noted that larval 

mortality was insignificant in the ‘‘drift 

zone’’, despite the fact that naled 

(organophosphate insecticide) residues 

were detected at least once in each of 

those locations. This commenter stated 

that these results may indicate that 

other variables need to be studied. 

Vitality of the larvae, uneven 

distribution of naled residue, and the 

effects of distance from the spray line on 

butterfly mortality under various wind 

conditions and spray drift offsets are all 

suggested as additional studies. 

Our Response: The naled residues 

that were observed in the drift zone 

were lower in concentration than the 

residues in the spray zone (Zhong et al. 

2010, p. 1966); therefore, it is not 

surprising that caterpillar mortality in 

the drift zone was significantly lower 

than in the spray zone. The mortality 

trend observed in mosquitoes placed in 

the spray, drift, and control zones also 

followed a clear dose-response similar 

to that of the butterfly caterpillars 

(Zhong et al. 2010, p. 1969). The vitality 

of the larvae used in the study is 

confirmed by the fact that no larval 

mortality was observed in the control 

zone (Zhong et al. 2010, p. 1969). The 

Service agrees with the second 

commenter’s suggestion that naled 

residue distribution and the effects of 

distance from the spray line on butterfly 

mortality under various wind 

conditions and spray drift offsets should 

be studied further. 

(40) Comment: One commenter 

provided quotes from a lepidopterist 

with experience studying butterflies in 

Florida. The lepidopterist presented a 

theory, based upon unpublished field 

observations, that mosquito control 

spraying may benefit butterfly species 

by decreasing parasitoids. 

Our Response: The theory presented 

in this comment appears to be based 

solely on an individual’s qualitative 

observations. No quantitative methods 

or data are given or cited. Concrete 

evidence in support of such a theory 

would need to be provided for further 

consideration. 

(41) Comment: One commenter stated 

that risk-based assessments to address 

the probability of injury, based on actual 

field exposure, rather than hazard-based 

assessments that simply indicate the 

potential to cause injury and do not take 

into account environmentally relevant 

exposure scenarios, should be used 

when examining pesticide impacts to 

threatened and endangered species. 

They maintain these assessments should 

be made in terms of long-term 

population-level effects, rather than 

localized effects upon individual 

organisms. This would allow for 

‘‘inadvertent take’’ provisions of the Act 

to be used. 

Our Response: The Service agrees that 

risk-based assessments that take into 

account actual field exposure scenarios 

are an effective way to evaluate risk to 

threatened and endangered species. For 

example, in a recent study, field 

deposition values for naled on the 

National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR), Big 

Pine Key, were incorporated into a 

probabilistic risk assessment that 

predicted significant risk to common 

butterflies (Bargar 2012, pp. 1–7). Such 

risk assessments would examine direct 

effects on individual organisms, but 

would also be interpreted at the 

population level. This could be used to 

estimate take and incidental take under 

the Act. 

(42) Comment: One commenter stated 

his support for recommendations made 

by the Imperiled Species Subcommittee 

of the Florida Coordinating Council on 

Mosquito Control, which include 

requiring buffers for known Miami blue 

populations, allowing for incidental 

take in areas receiving mosquito control, 

and supporting additional research into 

nontarget impacts from mosquito 

control. The commenter also indicated 

that it is important to definitively map 

populations of Miami blues to ensure 

that mosquito control activities are not 

unnecessarily curtailed. 

Our Response: The Service supports 

the aforementioned recommendations of 

the Imperiled Species Subcommittee 

and was instrumental in the 

development of the recommendations. It 

is helpful to identify important Miami 

blue habitat to help reduce threats to the 

subspecies and to not unnecessarily 

restrict mosquito control operations. 

Mapping potential suitable habitat 

would be more inclusive and likely 

provide broader conservation benefits 

than mapping populations since 

populations can fluctuate seasonally (or 

even more frequently) based upon 

habitat quality, availability, and other 

factors. 

(43) Comment: One commenter 

believed that the Service should not 

regulate the sale, purchase, or gifts of 

specimens of the Miami blue legally 

obtained before the rule was enacted. 

With regard to the exception for 

properly documented antique 

specimens, he noted that the butterfly 

was not even described until 1941 and 

that there are not likely to be many 

specimens at least 100 years old; if such 

specimens exist, these are probably the 

property of major museums, not private 

collectors. 

Our Response: We disagree. We have 

determined that prohibiting the sale and 

purchase of Miami blue specimens 

obtained before this rule is enacted (but 

not specimens documented to be over 

100 years old) will help deter collection 

and help safeguard the subspecies. This 

prohibition of sale or offering for sale 

automatically applies to all pre-Act 

specimens of species listed as 

endangered under the Act. Some 

authorized activities, with proper 

permits and documentation, would still 

be allowed (e.g., exchange of museum 

specimens among permitted 

institutions). We agree that it is not 

likely that many exempted specimens of 

at least 100 years are in existence. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

After consideration of the comments 

received during the public comment 

period (see above), we made changes to 

the final listing rule. Many small, 

nonsubstantive changes and corrections, 

not affecting the determination (e.g., 

updating the Background section in 

response to comments, minor 

clarifications) were made throughout 

the document. All substantial changes 

relate to similarity of appearance under 

section 4(e) of the Act and applicable 

prohibitions and exceptions under 

section 4(d) of the Act. 

These include the following: 

(1) We reduced prohibitions for the 

similarity of appearance butterflies to 

include collection only. We have 

removed prohibitions regarding 

possession and trade for the similarity 

of appearance butterflies. 

(2) We limited the collection 

prohibition for the similarity of 

appearance butterflies to only portions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20967 

of their ranges. Collection of the 

similarity of appearance butterflies is 

prohibited only within the historical 

range of the Miami blue. 

(3) We modified the special rule 

under section 4(d) for the similarity of 

appearance butterflies to specify that 

prohibitions apply only to the act of 

collecting them in coastal south and 

central Florida within the historical 

range of the Miami blue butterfly. 

(4) We modified our similarity of 

appearance determination to reflect the 

changes outlined above (see 

Determination of Status). 

(5) We modified our discussion 

regarding the effects of the rule to reflect 

the changes outlined above (see Effects 

of the Rule). 

See Similarity of Appearance, Special 

Rule Under Section 4(d) of the Act, 

Determination of Status, and Effects of 

the Rule below. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

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 species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

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

Act, we may determine a species to be 

endangered or threatened due to one or 

more of the following five factors: (A) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. Listing 

actions may be warranted based on any 

of the above threat factors, singly or in 

combination. Each of these factors is 

discussed below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The Miami blue has experienced 

substantial destruction, modification, 

and curtailment of its habitat and range 

(see Background, above), with an 

estimated >99 percent decline in area 

occupied (FWC 2010, p. 11). Although 

many factors likely contributed to its 

decline, some of which may have 

operated synergistically, habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation are 

undoubtedly major forces that 

contribute to its imperilment (Calhoun 

et al. 2002, pp. 13–19; Saarinen 2009, 

p. 36). 

Human Population Growth and 

Development 

The geographic range of this butterfly 

once extended from the Dry Tortugas 

north along the Florida coasts to about 

St. Petersburg and Daytona. It was most 

common on the southern mainland and 

the Keys, and more localized on the 

Gulf coast. Examination of museum 

collections indicated that specimens 

were common from the early 1900s to 

the 1980s; the butterfly was widely 

distributed, existing in a variety of 

locations in southern Florida for 

decades (Saarinen 2009, p. 46). 

However, through time, much of this 

subspecies’ native habitat has been lost, 

degraded, or fragmented, especially on 

the mainland, largely from development 

and urban growth (Lenczewski 1980, p. 

47; Minno and Emmel 1994, pp. 647– 

648; Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18; Carroll 

and Loye 2006, p. 25). 

On the east coast of Florida, the entire 

coastline in Palm Beach, Broward, and 

Miami-Dade Counties (as far south as 

Miami Beach) is densely urban, with 

only small remnants of native coastal 

vegetation conserved in fragmented 

natural areas. Most of the Gulf Coast 

barrier islands that previously 

supported the Miami blue, including 

Marco and Chokoloskee Islands, have 

experienced intense development 

pressure and undergone subsequent 

habitat loss (Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18). 

In an independent survey of historical 

sites where the Miami blue had 

previously been observed or collected, 

half were found to be developed or no 

longer supporting host plants in 2002 

(D. Fine, unpub. data, pers. comm. 

2002). 

Significant land use changes have 

occurred through time in south Florida. 

Considering political and economic 

structure and changes, Solecki (2001, 

pp. 339–356) divided Florida’s land-use 

history into three broad eras: frontier era 

(1870–1930), development era (1931– 

1970), and globalization era (1971– 

present). Within the development era, 

Solecki (2001, p. 350) noted that: 

‘‘Tremendous change took place from 

the early 1950s to the early and mid1970s. Between 1953 and 1973, nearly 

5,800 km2 (2,300 mi2) (28,997 ha/year or 

11,735 ac/year) of natural areas were 

lost to agricultural and urban land uses 

(Solecki and Walker, 2001).’’ During this 

time, ‘‘an almost continuous strip of 

urban development became present 

along the Atlantic coast’’ and ‘‘urban 

land uses became well established in 

the extreme southeastern part of the 

region, particularly around the cities of 

Miami and Fort Lauderdale, and along 

the entire coastline heading northward 

to West Palm Beach.’’ 

Saarinen (2009, pp. 42, 46) examined 

museum collections in the context of 

Solecki’s development eras and found 

that Miami blue records for Miami-Dade 

County were highest in the 1930s and 

1940s, prior to massive land use 

changes and urbanization. Records from 

Monroe County (including the Keys) 

were most numerous in the 1970s 

(Saarinen 2009, p. 46). Calhoun (pers. 

comm. 2003b) suggested the butterfly 

reached peak abundance when 

balloonvine invaded clearings 

associated with the construction boom 

of the 1970s and 1980s in the northern 

Keys and southern mainland and 

became available as a suitable host 

plant. If so, this may have represented 

a change in primary host plant at a time 

when the subspecies was beginning to 

decline due to continued development 

and destruction of coastal habitat. 

Saarinen (2009, p. 46) could not 

correlate decreases in natural land areas 

with changes in the numbers collected 

(or abundance), due to several 

confounding factors (e.g., increased 

pesticide use, exotic species). Calhoun 

et al. (2002, p. 13) also attributed the 

butterfly’s decline to loss of habitat due 

to coastal development, but 

acknowledged that other factors such as 

succession, tropical storms, and 

mosquito control also likely exacerbated 

the decline (see Factor E). 

Habitat loss and human population 

growth in coastal areas on the mainland 

and the Keys is continuing. The human 

population in south Florida has 

increased from less than 20,000 people 

in 1920 to more than 4.6 million by 

1990 (Solecki 2001, p. 345). Monroe 

County and Miami-Dade County, two 

areas where the Miami blue was 

historically abundant, increased from 

less than 30,000 and 500,000 people in 

1950, respectively, to more than 73,000 

and 2.5 million in 2009 (http://

quickfacts.census.gov). All available 

vacant land in the Keys is projected to 

be consumed by human population 

increases (i.e., developed) by 2060, 

including lands not accessible by 

automobile (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 

14). Scenarios developed by 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

(MIT) urban studies and planning 

department staff (Vargas-Moreno and 

Flaxman 2010, pp. 1–8) included both 

trend and doubling population 

estimates combined with climate change 

factors (see below) and show significant 

impacts on remaining conservation 

lands, including the refuges, within the 

Keys. While the rate of development in 

portions of south Florida has slowed in 

recent years, habitat loss and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

degradation, especially in desirable 

coastal areas, continues and is expected 

to increase. 

Although extensive loss and 

fragmentation of habitat has occurred, 

significant areas of suitable larval host 

plants still remain on private and public 

lands. Results from surveys (2002–2003) 

within south Florida and the Keys 

showed that numerous areas still 

contained host plants (Emmel and 

Daniels 2004, pp. 3–6). Results from 

similar surveys in 2007–2009 suggested 

that 14 of 16 sites on the mainland and 

20 of 22 in the Keys contained suitable 

habitat (Emmel and Daniels 2009, pp. 6– 

8). Other researchers noted that larval 

host plants are common in the Keys 

(Carroll and Loye 2006, p. 24; Minno 

and Minno 2009, p. 9). A search of IRC’s 

database suggests that 79 conservation 

areas in south Florida contain 

Caesalpinia spp., 39 areas contain 

Cardiospermum spp., and 77 contain 

Pithecellobium spp. 

(www.regionalconservation.org/ircs/ 

database/search). With significant areas 

of host plants still remaining in portions 

of the butterfly’s range, there is potential 

for additional populations of the Miami 

blue to exist. 

Acute habitat fragmentation appears 

to have severely diminished the Miami 

blue’s ability to repopulate formerly 

inhabited sites or to successfully locate 

host plants in new areas (Calhoun et al. 

2002, p. 18). Although larval host plants 

remain locally common, the 

disappearance of core populations and 

extent of habitat fragmentation may now 

prevent the subspecies from colonizing 

new areas (J. Calhoun, pers. comm. 

2003b). The Miami blue appears 

sedentary and is not known to travel far 

from pockets of larval host plants and 

adult nectar sources (J. Calhoun, pers. 

comm. 2003b; Emmel and Daniels 2004, 

pp. 6, 13). The presence of adult nectar 

sources proximal to larval host plants is 

critical to the Miami blue and may help 

explain its absence from areas that 

contain high larval host plant 

abundance but few nectar sources (J. 

Calhoun, pers. comm. 2003b; Emmel 

and Daniels 2004, p. 13). 

Land Management Practices 

Land management practices that 

remove larval host plants and nectar 

sources can be a threat to the Miami 

blue. Some actions on public 

conservation lands may have negatively 

affected occupied habitat, but the extent 

of this impact is not known. For 

example, the Miami blue had been 

sighted in DJSP in 1996, but following 

removal of balloonvine as part of 

routine land management, no adults 

were observed (L. Cooper, pers. comm. 

2002; J. Calhoun, pers. comm. 2003b; M. 

Salvato, pers. comm. 2003). In 2001, 

following the return of balloonvine, a 

single adult was observed (J. Calhoun, 

pers. comm. 2003b). Calhoun noted that 

the silver-banded hairstreak 

(Chlorostrymon simaethis), which also 

feeds on balloonvine, had also returned 

to the site. The silver-banded hairstreak 

has rebounded substantially on northern 

Key Largo within disturbed areas of 

DJSP; if any extant Miami blues remain 

on the island, reestablishment in this 

area is possible. 

Removal of nickerbean as part of trail 

maintenance and impacts to a tree 

resulting from placement of a facility 

may have impacted the south colony at 

BHSP in 2002 (J. Daniels, pers. comm. 

2002; P. Halupa, pers. obs. 2002). The 

tree was an apparent assembly area for 

display by butterflies during courtship 

(J. Daniels, pers. comm. 2002). Damage 

to host plant and nectar sources from 

trimming and mowing during the dry 

season and herbivory by iguanas (see 

Factor E) impacted habitat conditions at 

BHSP in 2010 (D. Olle, NABA, pers. 

comm. 2010). More recently, the FDEP 

has worked to improve habitat 

conditions at BHSP through plantings, 

modification of its mowing practices, 

removal of iguanas, protection of 

sensitive areas, and other actions (R. 

Zambrano, FWC, pers. comm. 2010; D. 

Cook, pers. comm. 2010a, 2010b; Janice 

Duquesnel, Florida Park Service [FPS], 

pers. comm. 2010a, 2010b; Jim 

Duquesnel, pers. comm. 2010, 2011b; E. 

Kiefer, pers. comm. 2011a). 

Maintenance, including pruning of 

host vegetation along trails and 

roadsides, use of herbicides, and 

impacts from other projects could lead 

to direct mortality in occupied habitats 

(Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 14). 

Habitat previously supporting immature 

stages of the butterfly on West 

Summerland Key is subject to periodic 

mowing for road maintenance by the 

Florida Department of Transportation (J. 

Daniels, pers. comm. 2003c); the 

butterfly no longer occurs at this 

location (Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 3; 

2009, p. 8). Since Miami blues appear 

sedentary with limited dispersal 

capabilities, alteration of even small 

habitat patches may be deleterious. 

Removal of host plants from 

conservation lands does not appear to 

be occurring on any large scale at this 

time. IRC has conducted extensive plant 

inventories on conservation lands 

within south Florida and is not aware of 

any attempts to eradicate balloonvine 

and noted that gray nickerbean has only 

rarely been controlled (i.e., purposefully 

removed or pruned, followed with 

herbicide treatment) (K. Bradley, pers. 

comm. 2002). Nickerbean is reported to 

occur in all of the State parks in the 

Keys. It is not removed, but where it is 

a safety hazard for visitors, such as 

when overgrowing into trails, it is 

trimmed (Janice Duquesnel, pers. comm. 

2003). Removal of host plants in or near 

occupied habitat remains a concern, 

given the subspecies’ small population 

size, isolated occurrences, and limited 

dispersal capabilities (see Factor E). 

Lack of prescribed fire on public 

lands may have adversely affected the 

Miami blue through time, but impacts 

are unclear. In addition to being found 

within coastal areas and hardwood 

hammocks, the Miami blue was also 

reported within tropical pinelands, a 

fire-dependent habitat (Minno and 

Emmel 1993, p. 134; Calhoun et al. 

2002, p. 18). Calhoun et al. (2002, p. 18) 

reported that, until the early 1990s, the 

Miami blue most commonly occurred 

within pine rocklands on Big Pine Key. 

In the absence of fire, pine rockland 

often progresses to hardwood hammock. 

Lack of fire may have resulted in habitat 

loss; however, the extent to which this 

condition occurred is unclear and 

difficult to assess. Since the Miami blue 

is presumably sedentary, changes in 

vegetation due to this and other land 

management practices may have 

exacerbated the effects of fragmentation. 

As part of its listing process, the FWC 

has completed a biological status review 

and management plan for the subspecies 

(FWC 2003, pp. 1–26). This 

management plan was recently revised 

(FWC 2010, pp. ii–39). Although the 

management plan is a fundamental step 

in outlining conservation needs, it may 

be insufficient for achieving 

conservation goals and long-term 

persistence. Recommended 

conservation strategies and actions 

within the plan are voluntary and 

dependent upon adequate funding, 

staffing, and the cooperation and 

participation of multiple agencies and 

private entities, which may or may not 

be available or able to assist. 

Conservation strategies include 

suggested actions to maintain, protect, 

and monitor known metapopulations; 

establish new metapopulations; and 

conduct additional research to support 

conservation (FWC 2010, pp. 17–26). 

In summary, a variety of land 

management practices on public lands 

(e.g., removal of host plants, mowing of 

nectar sources, and lack of prescribed 

fires) may have adversely affected the 

Miami blue and its habitat historically 

and continues to do so currently. 

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise 

Our analyses under the Act include 

consideration of ongoing and projected 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20969 

changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ 

and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the 

mean (average) and variability of 

different types of weather conditions 

over time, with 30 years being a typical 

period for such measurements, although 

shorter or longer periods also may be 

used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term 

‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change 

in the mean or variability of one or more 

measures of climate (e.g., temperature or 

precipitation) that persists for an 

extended period, typically decades or 

longer, whether the change is due to 

natural variability, human activity, or 

both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types 

of changes in climate can have direct or 

indirect effects on species. These effects 

may be positive, neutral, or negative and 

they may change over time, depending 

on the species and other relevant 

considerations, such as the effects of 

interactions of climate with other 

variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) 

(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our 

analyses, we use our expert judgment to 

weigh relevant information, including 

uncertainty, in our consideration of 

various aspects of climate change. 

Climatic changes, including sea level 

rise, are major threats to south Florida, 

including the Miami blue and its 

habitat. In general, the IPCC reported 

that the warming of the world’s climate 

system is unequivocal based on 

documented increases in global average 

air and ocean temperatures, 

unprecedented melting of snow and ice, 

and rising average sea level (IPCC 2007, 

p. 2; 2008, p. 15). On a global scale, sea 

level rise results from the thermal 

expansion of warming ocean water, 

water input to oceans from the melting 

of ice sheets, glaciers, and ice caps, and 

the addition of water from terrestrial 

systems (United Nations (UN) 2009, p. 

26). Sea level rise is the largest climatedriven challenge to low-lying coastal 

areas and refuges in the subtropical 

ecoregion of southern Florida (U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program [CCSP] 

2008, pp. 5–31, 5–32). The long-term 

record at Key West shows that sea level 

rose on average 0.088 inches (0.224 cm) 

annually between 1913 and 2006 

(National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 

2008, p. 1). This equates to 

approximately 8.76 inches (22.3 cm) in 

100 years (NOAA 2008, p. 1). 

In a technical paper following its 2007 

report, the IPCC (2008, p. 28) 

emphasized it is very likely that the 

average rate of sea level rise during the 

21st century will exceed that from 1961 

to 2003, although it was projected to 

have substantial geographical 

variability. Partial loss of the Greenland 

and Antarctic ice sheets could result in 

many feet (several meters) of sea level 

rise, major changes in coastlines, and 

inundation of low-lying areas (IPCC 

2008, pp. 28–29). Low-lying islands and 

river deltas will incur the largest 

impacts (IPCC 2008, pp. 28–29). 

According to CCSP (2008, p. 5–31), 

much of low-lying, coastal south Florida 

‘‘will be underwater or inundated with 

salt water in the coming century.’’ This 

means that most occupied, suitable, and 

potential habitat for Miami blue will 

likely be either submerged or affected by 

increased flooding. 

The 2007 IPCC report found a 90 

percent probability of an additional 7 to 

23 inches (18–58 cm) and possibly as 

high as many feet (several meters) of sea 

level rise by 2100 in the Keys. This 

would cause major changes to coastlines 

and inundation of low-lying areas like 

the Keys (IPCC 2008, pp. 28–29). The 

IPCC (2008, pp. 3, 103) concluded that 

climate change is likely to increase the 

occurrence of saltwater intrusion as sea 

level rises. Since the 1930s, increased 

salinity of coastal waters contributed to 

the decline of cabbage palm forests in 

southwest Florida (Williams et al. 1999, 

pp. 2056–2059), expansion of 

mangroves into adjacent marshes in the 

Everglades (Ross et al. 2000, pp. 9, 12– 

13), and loss of pine rockland in the 

Keys (Ross et al. 1994, pp. 144, 151– 

155). 

Hydrology has a strong influence on 

plant distribution in these and other 

coastal areas (IPCC 2008, p. 57). Such 

communities typically grade from salt to 

brackish to freshwater species. In the 

Keys, elevational differences between 

such communities are very slight (Ross 

et al. 1994, p. 146), and horizontal 

distances are also small. Human 

developments will also likely be 

significant factors influencing whether 

natural communities can move and 

persist (IPCC 2008, p. 57; CCSP 2008, p. 

7–6). For the Miami blue, this means 

that much of the butterfly’s habitat in 

the Keys, as well as habitat in other 

parts of its historical range, will likely 

change as vegetation changes. Any 

deleterious changes to important host 

plants and nectar sources could further 

diminish the likelihood of the 

subspecies’ survival and recovery. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (2010, 

pp. 1–4) used Light Detection and 

Ranging (LIDAR) remote sensing 

technology to derive digital elevation 

models and project future shorelines 

and distribution of habitat types for Big 

Pine Key based on sea level rise 

projections by 2100, ranging from the 

best case to worst case scenarios 

described by current scientific 

literature. In the Keys, models projected 

that sea level rise will first result in the 

conversion of habitat and eventually the 

complete inundation of habitat. In the 

best case scenario, a rise of 7 inches (18 

cm) would result in the inundation of 

1,840 ac (745 ha) (34 percent) of Big 

Pine Key and the loss of 11 percent of 

the island’s upland habitat (TNC 2010, 

p. 1). In the worst case scenario, a rise 

of 4.6 feet (140 cm) would result in the 

inundation of about 5,950 ac (2,409 ha) 

(96 percent) and the loss of all upland 

habitat (TNC 2010, p. 1). If modeling is 

accurate, under the worst case scenario, 

even upland habitat on Big Pine Key 

will become submerged, thereby making 

the butterfly’s potential recolonization 

or survival at this and other low-lying 

locations in the Keys very unlikely. 

Similarly, using a spatially explicit 

model for the Keys, Ross et al. (2009, p. 

473) found that mangrove habitats will 

expand steadily at the expense of 

upland and traditional habitats as sea 

level rises. Most of the upland and 

transitional habitat in the central 

portion of Sugarloaf Key is projected to 

be lost with a 0.2-meter rise (0.7-foot 

rise) in sea level; a 0.5-meter rise (1.6- 

foot rise) in sea level can result in a 95 

percent loss of upland habitat by 2100 

(Ross et al. 2009, p. 473). Furthermore, 

Ross et al. (2009, pp. 471–478) 

suggested that interactions between sea 

level rise and pulse disturbances (e.g., 

storm surges or fire [see Factor E]) can 

cause vegetation to change sooner than 

projected based on sea level alone. 

Scientific evidence that has emerged 

since the publication of the IPCC Report 

(2007) indicates an acceleration in 

global climate change. Important aspects 

of climate change seem to have been 

underestimated previously, and the 

resulting impacts are being felt sooner. 

For example, early signs of change 

suggest that the 1 °C of global warming 

the world has experienced to date may 

have already triggered the first tipping 

point of the Earth’s climate system—the 

disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice. 

This process could lead to rapid and 

abrupt climate change, rather than the 

gradual changes that were forecasted. 

Other processes to be affected by 

projected warming include 

temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal 

timing, and distribution), and storms 

(frequency and intensity) (see Factor E). 

The MIT scenarios combine various 

levels of sea level rise, temperature 

change, and precipitation differences 

with population, policy assumptions, 

and conservation funding changes. All 

of the scenarios, from small climate 

change shifts to major changes, will 

have significant effects on the Keys. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Several recent scientific publications 

have also addressed problems that the 

IPCC’s approach had in accounting for 

the observed level of sea level rise in the 

late 20th and early 21st centuries, and 

yielded new projections which reflect 

the possibility of rapid contributions 

from ice sheet dynamics beyond surface 

melting (see summaries by Church et al. 

2010, Rahmstorf 2010, and Nicholls et 

al. 2011). The ranges of recent 

projections of global sea level rise 

(Pfeffer et al., 2008, p. 1340, Vermeer & 

Rahmstorf 2009, p. 21530, Grinsted et 

al., 2010, pp. 469–470, Jevrejeva et al., 

2010, L07703, p. 4, (GCCUS) 2009, p. 

25) all indicate substantially higher 

levels than the projection by the IPCC in 

2007, suggesting that the impact of sea 

level rise on south Florida could be 

even greater than indicated above. 

These recent studies also show a much 

larger difference (approximately 3 to 4 

ft (0.9 to 1.2 m)) from the low to the high 

ends of the ranges, which indicates the 

magnitude of global mean sea level rise 

at the end of this century is still quite 

uncertain. 

Rising sea level is an acute threat to 

all sites known to currently support the 

Miami blue (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 852), 

and it appears that habitat is now being 

lost (T. Wilmers, pers. comm. 2012a). 

Most occupied sites are <1 meter (1.09 

yd) above sea level, and none are >2 

meter (2.18 yd) above sea level (Cannon 

et al. 2010, p. 852). Prominent beach 

erosion and narrowing of dunes and 

coastal strands have been documented 

within Boca Grande and at least one 

island within the Marquesas (Cannon et 

al. 2010, p. 852). Considerable 

blackbead on one island has eroded into 

the sea (T. Wilmers, pers. comm. 2012a). 

Summary of Factor A 

We have identified a number of 

threats to the habitat of the Miami blue 

which have operated in the past, are 

impacting the subspecies now, and will 

continue to impact the subspecies in the 

future. The decline of butterflies in 

south Florida is primarily the result of 

the long-lasting effects of habitat loss, 

degradation, and modification from 

human population growth and 

associated development and agriculture. 

Environmental effects resulting from 

climatic change, including sea level rise, 

are expected to become severe in the 

future and result in additional habitat 

losses. Although efforts have been made 

to restore habitat in some areas, the 

long-term effects of large-scale and 

wide-ranging habitat modification, 

destruction, and curtailment will last 

into the future. Therefore, based on our 

analysis of the best available 

information, present and future loss and 

modification of the subspecies’ habitat 

is a significant threat to the subspecies 

throughout all of its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Collection 

Rare butterflies and moths are highly 

prized by collectors, and an 

international trade exists in specimens 

for both live and decorative markets, as 

well as the specialist trade that supplies 

hobbyists, collectors, and researchers 

(Collins and Morris 1985, pp. 155–179; 

Morris et al. 1991, pp. 332–334; 

Williams 1996, pp. 30–37). The 

specialist trade differs from both the live 

and decorative market in that it 

concentrates on rare and threatened 

species (U.S. Department of Justice 

[USDJ] 1993, pp. 1–3; United States v. 

Skalski et al., Case No. CR9320137, U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District 

of California [USDC] 1993, pp. 1–86). In 

general, the rarer the species, the more 

valuable it is; prices can exceed $25,000 

for exceedingly rare specimens. For 

example, during a 4-year investigation, 

special agents of the Service’s Office of 

Law Enforcement executed warrants 

and seized more than 30,000 

endangered and protected butterflies 

and beetles, with a total wholesale 

commercial market value of about 

$90,000 in the United States (USDJ 

1995, pp. 1–4). In another case, special 

agents found at least 13 species 

protected under the Act, and another 

130 species illegally taken from lands 

administered by the Department of the 

Interior and other State lands (USDC 

1993, pp. 1–86; Service 1995, pp. 1–2). 

Law enforcement agents routinely see 

butterfly species protected under the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES) during port inspections in 

Florida, often without import 

declarations or the required CITES 

permits (E. McKissick, Service Law 

Enforcement, pers. comm. 2011). 

Several listings of butterflies as 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act have been based, at least 

partially, on intense collection pressure. 

Notably, the Saint Francis’ satyr 

(Neonympha mitchellii francisci) was 

emergency-listed as endangered on 

April 18, 1994 (59 FR 18324). The Saint 

Francis’ satyr was demonstrated to have 

been significantly impacted by 

collectors in just a 3-year period (59 FR 

18324). The Callippe and Behren’s 

silverspot butterflies (Speyeria callippe 

callippe and Speyeria zerene behrensii) 

were listed as endangered on December 

5, 1997 (62 FR 64306), partially due to 

overcollection. The Blackburn’s sphinx 

moth (Manduca blackburni) was listed 

as endangered on February 1, 2000 (65 

FR 4770), partially due to overcollection 

by private and commercial collectors. 

The Schaus swallowtail (Heraclides 

[Papilio] aristodemus ponceanus), the 

only other federally listed butterfly in 

Florida, was reclassified from 

threatened to endangered in 1984 due to 

its continued decline (49 FR 34501). At 

the time of its original listing, some 

believed that collection represented a 

threat. As the Schaus decreased in 

distribution and abundance, collection 

was estimated to be a greater threat than 

at the time of listing (49 FR 34501). 

Collection was cited as a threat to the 

Miami blue in both the original and 

subsequent petitions for emergency 

listing. The State’s management plan for 

the Miami blue acknowledges that 

butterfly collecting may stress small, 

localized populations and lead to the 

loss of individuals and genetic 

variability, but also indicates that there 

is no evidence or information on current 

or past collection pressure on the Miami 

blue (FWC 2010, p. 13). Butterflies in 

small populations are vulnerable to 

harm from collection (Gall 1984, p. 133). 

A population may be reduced to below 

sustainable numbers (Allee effect) by 

removal of females, reducing the 

probability that new colonies will be 

founded. Collectors can pose threats to 

butterflies because they may be unable 

to recognize when they are depleting 

colonies below the thresholds of 

survival or recovery (Collins and Morris 

1985, pp. 162–165). There is ample 

evidence of collectors impacting other 

imperiled and endangered butterflies 

(Gochfeld and Burger 1997, pp. 208– 

209), host plants (Cech and Tudor 2005, 

p. 55), and even contributing to 

extirpations (Duffey 1968, p. 94). For 

example, the federally endangered 

Mitchell’s satyr (Neonympha mitchellii 

mitchellii) is believed to have been 

extirpated from New Jersey due to 

overcollecting (57 FR 21567; Gochfeld 

and Burger 1997, p. 209). 

Although we do not have evidence of 

collection of the Miami blue, we do 

have evidence of illegal collection of 

other butterflies from Federal lands in 

south Florida, including the endangered 

Schaus swallowtail. In 1993, three 

defendants were indicted for conspiracy 

to violate the wildlife laws of the United 

States, including the Act, the Lacey Act, 

and 18 U.S.C. 371 (USDC 1993, p. 1). 

Violations involved numerous listed, 

imperiled, and common species from 

many locales; defendants later pled 

guilty to the felonies (Service 1995, p. 

1). As part of the evidence cited in the 

case, defendants exchanged butterflies 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20971 

taken from County and Federal lands in 

Florida and acknowledged that it was 

best to trade ‘‘under the table’’ to avoid 

permits and ‘‘extra red tape’’ because 

some were on the endangered species 

list (USDC 1993, p. 9). Acknowledging 

the difficulties in obtaining Schaus 

swallowtail, defendants indicated that 

they would traffic amongst each other to 

exchange a Schaus for other extremely 

rare butterflies (USDC 1993, p. 10). 

These defendants engaged in interstate 

commerce, exchanging a male Schaus in 

1984 in the course of a commercial 

activity (USDC 1993, p. 11). One 

defendant also trafficked with a 

collector in Florida, dealing the 

federally listed San Bruno elfin butterfly 

(Callophrys mossii bayensis) (USDC 

1993, p. 67). 

Illegal collection of butterflies on 

State, Federal, and other lands in 

Florida appears ongoing, prevalent, and 

damaging. As part of the 

aforementioned case, one defendant, 

who admitted getting caught collecting 

within ENP and Loxahatchee National 

Wildlife Refuge, stated that he ‘‘got 

away with it each time, simply claiming 

ignorance of the laws * * *.’’ (USDC 

1993, p. 13). Another defendant detailed 

his poaching in Florida and acquisition 

of federally endangered butterflies, 

acknowledging that he had ‘‘fared very 

well, going specifically after rare stuff’’ 

(USDC 1993, pp. 28–29). The same 

defendant offered to traffic atala 

hairstreaks (Eumaeus atala), noting that 

he did not do very well and had only 

taken about ‘‘600 bugs in 9 days’’ and 

that this number seemed poor for 

Florida (USDC 1993, p. 46). He further 

stated that collecting had become 

difficult in Florida due to restrictions 

and extreme loss of habitat, admitting 

that he needed to poach rare butterflies 

from protected parks (USDC 1993, p. 

45). Methods to poach wildlife and 

means to evade wildlife regulations, 

laws, and law enforcement were given 

as part of the evidence (USDC 1993, pp. 

32–33). In a separate incident in 2008, 

an individual was observed attempting 

to take butterflies from Service lands in 

the Keys (D. Pharo, pers. comm. 2008). 

When confronted by a FWC officer, he 

lied about his activities; a live 

swallowtail butterfly (unidentified) was 

found in an envelope on his person, a 

collapsible butterfly net was found in a 

nearby area, and a cooler containing 

other live butterfly species was in his 

car (D. Pharo, pers. comm. 2008). 

Additionally, we are aware of and 

have documented evidence of interest in 

the collection of other imperiled 

butterflies in south Florida. In the 

aforementioned indictment, one 

defendant noted that there was a ‘‘huge 

demand for Florida stuff,’’ that he knew 

‘‘exactly where all the rare stuff is 

found,’’ that he ‘‘can readily get 

material,’’ and that in most cases he 

would ‘‘have to poach the material from 

protected parks’’ (USDC 1993, p. 44). 

More recently, one commenter stated 

that she has been contacted by someone 

interested in acquiring rare butterflies 

(see Comment #5 and Response above). 

In addition, Salvato (pers. comm. 2011e) 

has also been contacted by several 

individuals requesting specimens of two 

Federal candidates, the Florida leafwing 

and Bartram’s hairstreak, or seeking 

information regarding locations where 

they may be collected in the field. In 

addition, interest in the collection of the 

Florida leafwing was posted by two 

parties on at least one Web site in 2010 

along with advice on where and how to 

bait trap, despite the fact that this 

butterfly mainly occurs on Federal lands 

within ENP. Thus, there is established 

and ongoing collection pressure for rare 

butterflies, including two other highly 

imperiled candidate species in south 

Florida. 

We are also aware of multiple Web 

sites that offer or had offered specimens 

of south Florida butterflies for sale that 

are candidates for listing under the Act 

(M. Minno, pers. comm. 2009; C. 

Nagano, pers. comm. 2011; D. Olle, pers. 

comm. 2011). Until recently, one Web 

site offered male and female Florida 

leafwing specimens for Ö110.00 and 

Ö60.00 (euros), respectively 

(approximately $144 and $78). It is 

unclear from where the specimens 

originated or when these were collected, 

but this butterfly is now mainly 

restricted to ENP. The same Web site 

offered specimens of Bartram’s 

hairstreak for Ö10.00 ($13). Although 

the specifics on its collection are not 

clear, this butterfly now mainly occurs 

on protected Federal, State, and County 

lands. The same Web site offers 

specimens of other butterflies similar in 

appearance to the Miami blue; the 

cassius blue is available for Ö4.00–10.00 

($5–$13). Additionally, other subspecies 

of Cyclargus thomasi that occur in 

foreign countries are also for sale. It is 

clear that a market currently exists for 

both imperiled species and those similar 

in appearance to the Miami blue. 

The potential for unauthorized or 

illegal collection of the Miami blue 

(eggs, larvae, pupae, or adults) exists, 

despite its State-threatened status and 

the protections provided on Federal 

(and State) land. Illegal collection could 

occur without detection at remote 

islands of KWNWR because these areas 

are difficult to patrol. The localized 

distribution and small population size 

render this butterfly highly vulnerable 

to impacts from collection. At this time, 

removal of any individuals may have 

devastating consequences to the 

survival of the subspecies. Although the 

Miami blue is no longer believed to be 

present at BHSP, its return is possible. 

At BHSP, the butterfly, like other 

wildlife and plant species within the 

Florida park system, is protected from 

unauthorized collection (Chapter 62 D– 

2.013(5)) (see Factor D). However, 

because BHSP is so heavily used, 

continual monitoring for illegal 

collections is a challenge. Daniels (pers. 

comm. 2002) believed that additional 

patrols would be helpful because 

unauthorized collection of specimens is 

possible, even though collection is 

prohibited. In addition, any colonies 

that might be found or become 

established outside of BHSP or other 

protected sites would also not be 

patrolled and would be at risk of 

collection. 

Although the Miami blue’s status as a 

State-threatened species provides some 

protection, this protection does not 

include provisions for other species of 

blues that are similar in appearance. 

Therefore, it is quite possible that 

collectors authorized to collect similar 

species may inadvertently (or 

purposefully) collect the Miami blue 

butterfly thinking it was, or planning to 

claim they thought it was, the cassius 

blue, nickerbean blue, or ceraunus blue, 

which can also occur in the same 

general geographical area and habitat 

type. Federal listing of other similar 

butterflies can partially reduce this 

threat (see Similarity of Appearance 

below) and provide added protective 

measures for the Miami blue above 

those afforded by the State. 

In summary, due to the few 

metapopulations, small population size, 

restricted range, and remoteness of 

occupied habitat, we have determined 

that collection is a significant threat to 

the subspecies and could potentially 

occur at any time. Even limited 

collection from the small population in 

KWNWR (or other populations, if 

discovered) could have deleterious 

effects on reproductive and genetic 

viability and thus could contribute to its 

extinction. 

Scientific Research and Conservation 

Efforts 

Some techniques (e.g., capture, 

handling) used to understand or 

monitor the Miami blue have the 

potential to cause harm to individuals 

or habitat. Visual surveys, transect 

counts, and netting for identification 

purposes have been performed during 

scientific research and conservation 

efforts with the potential to disturb or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

injure individuals or damage habitat. 

Mark-recapture, a common method used 

to determine population size, has been 

used by some researchers to monitor 

Miami blue populations. This method 

has received some criticism. While 

mark-recapture may be preferable to 

other sampling estimates (e.g., countbased transects) in obtaining 

demographic data when used in a 

proper design on appropriate species, 

such techniques may also result in 

deleterious impacts to captured 

butterflies (Mallet et al. 1987, pp. 377– 

386; Murphy 1988, pp. 236–239; 

Haddad et al. 2008, pp. 929–940). 

Although effects may vary depending 

upon taxon, technique, or other factors, 

some studies suggest that marking may 

damage or kill butterflies or alter their 

behaviors (Mallet et al. 1987, pp. 377– 

386; Murphy 1988, pp. 236–239). 

Murphy (1988, p. 236) and Mattoni et al. 

(2001, p. 198) indicated that studies on 

various lycaenids have demonstrated 

mortality and altered behavior as a 

result of marking. Conversely, other 

studies have found that marking did not 

harm individual butterflies or 

populations (Gall 1984, pp. 139–154; 

Orive and Baughman 1989, p. 246; 

Haddad et al. 2008, p. 938). No studies 

have been conducted to determine the 

potential effects of marking on the 

Miami blue. Although data are lacking, 

researchers permitted to use such 

techniques have been confident in their 

abilities to employ the techniques safely 

with minimal effect on individuals 

handled. Researchers currently studying 

the population within KWNWR have 

opted not to use mark-release-recapture 

techniques due to the potential for 

damage to this small, fragile butterfly 

(Haddad and Wilson 2011, p. 3). 

Captive propagation and 

reintroduction activities may present 

risks if wild populations are impacted 

or if the species is introduced to new or 

inappropriate areas outside of its 

historical range (65 FR 56916–56922, 

September 20, 2000). Although 

butterflies were successfully reared in 

captivity at the UF with the support of 

State and Federal agencies, efforts to 

reintroduce the Miami blue to portions 

of its historical range did not result in 

the establishment of any new 

populations (Emmel and Daniels 2009, 

pp. 4–5; FWC 2010, p. 8). While some 

monitoring occurred following releases, 

it is not clear why captive-reared 

individuals did not persist in the wild. 

Perhaps experiments using surrogate 

species (e.g., other lycaenids) and more 

structured and intense monitoring 

following releases can help elucidate 

possible causes for failure and improve 

chances for reestablishment in the 

future. 

Declines in the captive colony in 2005 

and 2006 were attributed to a 

baculovirus; consequently, this captive 

colony was terminated after 30 

generations and another was started 

with new stock from BHSP (Saarinen 

2009, p. 92). Baculovirus infections are 

capable of devastating both laboratory 

and wild butterfly populations 

(Saarinen 2009, pp. 99, 119). Irrevocable 

consequences may occur if a pathogen 

is transferred from laboratory-reared to 

wild populations. Genetic diversity 

within the captive colony was lost over 

time (between generations) (Saarinen 

2009, p. 100). At one point, the captive 

colony was not infused with new 

genetic material for approximately 1 

year due to low numbers within the 

wild population. As a result, decreases 

in genetic diversity, allelic richness, and 

number of individuals produced 

occurred during this time (Saarinen 

2009, p. 100). While captive propagation 

and reintroduction efforts offer 

enormous conservation potential, there 

can be associated risks and 

ramifications to both wild and captivereared individuals and populations. 

The use of captive-reared Miami blues 

in pesticide-use and life-history studies 

can be questioned and has been 

criticized by some (FWC 2010, p. 10). 

All experiments were conducted with 

captive-reared individuals; no wild 

individuals were used. Individuals used 

in experiments were not intended for 

release back into the wild or were reared 

specifically for this purpose. 

Researchers involved with the captive 

colony and others conducting scientific 

studies or other conservation efforts 

were authorized by appropriate agencies 

to conduct such work. 

Summary of Factor B 

Collection interest of imperiled 

butterflies is high, and there are ample 

examples of collection pressure 

contributing to extirpations. Although 

we do not have information indicating 

that Miami blues are being collected, we 

consider collection to be a significant 

threat to the subspecies due to the few 

remaining metapopulations, small 

population size, restricted range, and 

remoteness of occupied habitat, and 

because collection could potentially 

occur at any time. Even limited 

collection from the remaining 

metapopulation could have deleterious 

effects on reproductive and genetic 

viability of the subspecies and could 

contribute to its extinction. 

Captive propagation and 

reintroduction may be important 

components of the subspecies’ survival 

and recovery, but such actions need to 

be carefully planned, implemented, and 

monitored. Any future efforts should 

only be initiated after it has been 

determined that such actions will not 

harm the wild population, rigorous 

standards are met, and commitments are 

in place to increase the likelihood of 

success and maximize knowledge 

gained. 

Based on our analysis of the best 

available information, there is no 

evidence to suggest that its vulnerability 

to collection and risks associated with 

scientific or conservation efforts will 

change in the future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

The effects of disease or predation are 

not well known. Because the Miami 

blue is known from only a few locations 

and population size appears low, 

disease and predation could pose a 

threat to its survival. 

Disease 

A baculovirus was confirmed within 

the captive colony, and infection caused 

the death of Miami blue larvae in 

captivity (see Factor B above) (Saarinen 

2009, p. 120). Pathogens have affected 

other insect captive-breeding programs, 

however, this was the first time a 

baculovirus was found to affect a 

captive colony of an endangered 

Lepidopteran (Saarinen 2009, p. 120). A 

baculovirus or other disease or 

pathogens have the potential to destroy 

wild populations (Saarinen 2009, p. 99). 

Nice et al. (2009, p. 3137) identified 

widespread infection from the 

endosymbiotic bacterial Wolbachia 

within western populations of the 

endangered Karner blue (Lycaeides 

samuelis) and indicated the bacteria 

may also pose a significant threat 

towards other endangered arthropods. 

Plant pathogens could also negatively 

impact host plant survival, host growth, 

or the production of terminal host 

growth available to developing larvae 

(Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 14). At this 

time, there is no information to suggest 

that disease or pathogens are affecting 

Miami blue butterflies or host plants in 

the wild. 

Predation 

Predation of adults or immature stages 

was not observed during monitoring at 

BHSP, despite the presence of potential 

predators (Emmel and Daniels 2004, p. 

12; Trager 2009, p. 152). Several species 

of social wasps, specifically paper 

wasps (Polistes) and yellow jackets 

(Vespula), are known to depredate 

Lepidoptera on nickerbean and 

surrounding vegetation at BHSP and 

other sites with suitable habitat, but 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20973 

predation on Miami blue larvae was not 

observed (Trager 2009, p. 152). Carroll 

and Loye (2006, p. 18) encountered a 

parasitic wasp, Lisseurytomella flava, 

during their studies of the balloonvine 

insects on northern Key Largo during 

the late 1980s. No wasp parasitism 

towards Miami blue larvae was noted 

(Carroll and Loye 2006, p. 24). However, 

this wasp, along with the Miami blue, 

was absent from continued balloonvine 

sampling in 2003, suggesting the wasp 

may have used the butterfly as host. 

Cannon et al. (2007, p. 16) observed 

wasps (unidentified) eating Miami blue 

larvae at KWNWR; wasps and 

dragonflies were also observed to chase 

adults in flight. Adult Miami blues were 

found entrapped in the webs of silver 

orb spiders (Argiope argentata) (Cannon 

et al. 2007, p. 16). Trager (2009, pp. 149, 

153–154) indicated that the Miami blue 

is likely depredated under natural 

conditions, but only predation by an 

adult brown anole lizard (Anolis sagrei) 

was observed during field studies. 

Iguanas likely consume eggs and pupae 

when opportunistically feeding on host 

plants (P. Hughes, pers. comm. 2009; 

Daniels 2009, p. 5; FWC 2010, p. 13), 

especially since the butterfly uses the 

same terminal growth of host plants that 

iguanas typically eat (see Factor E). 

Predators and parasitoids have been 

suggested as potential contributors to 

the butterfly’s decline (M. Minno, pers. 

comm. 2010), but this has not been 

observed or confirmed in the field 

(Trager 2009, p. 149; Minno and Minno 

2009, p. 78; FWC 2010, pp. 13, 24). 

The extent to which native or exotic 

ants and other predators and parasitoids 

may pose a threat to the Miami blue is 

not clear, but deserves further attention. 

For example, invasive fire ants 

(Solenopsis invicta) were first confirmed 

in counties within the historical range 

of the Miami blue as early as 1958 

(Hillsborough); presence was confirmed 

in additional counties in the late 1960s 

(Brevard and Volusia) and 1970s 

(Broward, Collier, Miami-Dade, Lee, 

Monroe) (Callcott and Collins 1996, p. 

249); infestation has since expanded. In 

addition to the possible direct effects of 

predation, fire ants can also disrupt 

arthropod communities and displace 

native ants. In one study, Porter and 

Savignano (1990, pp. 2095–2106) found 

that S. invicta reduced species richness 

by 70 percent and abundance of native 

ants by 90 percent. 

Both the red imported fire ant and the 

little fire ant (Wasmannia 

auropunctata), another invasive exotic 

ant, currently occur at BHSP (Saarinen 

and Daniels 2006, p. 71). Fire ants have 

also been found on all beaches within 

KWNWR (Wilmers et al. 1996, pp. 341– 

343; Wilmers 2011, pp. 20–21; T. 

Wilmers, pers. comm. 2012a). In one 

study in Key Largo, fire ants were found 

within half of the study transects and in 

close proximity to the edge of hardwood 

hammock habitat (Forys et al. 2001, p. 

257). Forys et al. (2001, p. 257) found 

all immature swallowtail life stages to 

be vulnerable to predation by imported 

fire ants and recognized the potential 

impact of this predatory insect on the 

federally endangered Schaus 

swallowtail and other butterflies in 

south Florida. Thus, immature life 

stages of the Miami blue may be 

vulnerable to predation by fire ants 

within its current known locations or if 

the butterfly still persists, elsewhere in 

its historical range. 

In a greenhouse situation, Trager 

(2009, p. 151) observed fire ants 

removing Miami blue eggs in an indoor 

flight cage, but noted that the ants did 

not attack larvae on the same plant. In 

his studies, a captive colony of fire ants 

was found to consume captive-reared 

Miami blue pupae in food trays; 

however, the ants did not remove newly 

laid eggs from the host plant and even 

exhibited weak tending behavior toward 

larvae (Trager 2009, pp. 151–152). At 

this time, it is unclear to what extent 

native and exotic predatory insects may 

be impacting wild Miami blue 

populations. 

Some ant species may also protect 

Miami blue larvae against parasitoids 

and predators; however, this has not yet 

been observed in the wild (Trager and 

Daniels 2009, 479; Trager 2009, p. 101). 

In laboratory studies, Camponotus 

floridanus ants have been shown to 

display strong defensive behaviors (e.g., 

rapidly circling larvae, recruiting nearby 

workers, and lunging at forceps) when 

disturbed (Trager and Daniels 2009, p. 

480; Trager 2009, p. 102). The large size 

of this ant species and nearly constant 

tending may serve as a visual deterrent 

to potential attackers; however, 

researchers acknowledged that they 

have no definitive evidence that C. 

floridanus are more effective defenders 

of Miami blue larvae than small-bodied 

ant species (Trager and Daniels 2009, p. 

480; Trager 2009, p. 97). 

Researchers have suggested that some 

ant species may depredate Miami blue 

larvae or may opportunistically tend 

larvae without providing protection 

against predators or other benefits 

(Saarinen and Daniels 2006, p. 73; 

Saarinen 2009, pp. 134, 138). However, 

Trager and Daniels (2009, pp. 478–481) 

recorded a universal tending response 

among ants consistent with a 

mutualistic interaction through both 

field observations and laboratory trials. 

They did not observe any depredation of 

larvae by ants in the field and, based 

upon observations, doubted that many 

ant species regularly depredate larvae 

(Trager and Daniels 2009, pp. 479–481; 

Trager 2009, p. 149). 

Summary of Factor C 

Studies suggest that various stressors 

(e.g., baculovirus, fire ants) have the 

potential to negatively impact the 

Miami blue, but there is no information 

on their impacts to wild populations. 

The Miami blue may have some 

mechanisms to potentially deter 

predators and parasitoids, but these are 

not well understood. The role of 

predation and parasitism needs to be 

more closely examined. Disease and 

predation have the potential to impact 

the Miami blue’s continued survival, 

given its few remaining populations, 

low abundance, and restricted range. 

However, we do not have information to 

suggest that disease and predation are 

threats to the Miami blue at this time. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Despite the fact that they contain 

several protections for the Miami blue, 

Federal, State, and local laws have not 

been sufficient to prevent past and 

ongoing impacts to the Miami blue and 

its habitat within its current and 

historical range. 

In response to a petition from the 

NABA in 2002, the FWC emergencylisted the Miami blue butterfly in 2002, 

temporarily protecting the butterfly. On 

November 19, 2003, the FWC declared 

the Miami blue butterfly endangered 

(68A–27.003), making its protection 

permanent. On November 8, 2010, the 

FWC adopted a revised listing 

classification system, moving from a 

multi-tiered to single-category system. 

As a consequence of this change, the 

Miami blue butterfly (along with other 

species) became State-threatened; its 

original protective measures remained 

in place (68A–27.003, amended). This 

designation prohibits any person from 

taking, harming, harassing, possessing, 

selling, or transporting any Miami blue 

or parts thereof or eggs, larvae or pupae, 

except as authorized by permit from the 

executive director, with permits issued 

based upon whether issuance would 

further management plan goals and 

objectives. Although these provisions 

prohibit take of individuals, there is a 

general lack of law enforcement 

presence in many areas. In addition, 

existing regulations prohibit take, but do 

not provide substantive protection of 

Miami blue habitat or protection of 

potentially suitable habitat. Therefore, 

while the Miami blue butterfly is 

afforded some protection by its presence 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

on Federal (and State) lands, losses of 

suitable and potential habitat outside of 

these areas are expected to continue (see 

Factor A). 

The Miami blue’s presence on Federal 

(and State) lands offers some insulation 

against collection, but protection is 

somewhat limited (see Factor B). 

Permits are necessary for authorized 

collection, but law enforcement 

presence on Federal and State land is 

often inadequate. In addition, many 

areas are difficult to patrol and the 

State’s protection of the Miami blue 

does not extend to butterflies that are 

similar in appearance (see Similarity of 

Appearance below). Because there are 

only slight morphological differences 

between the Miami blue and other 

butterfly species in the same areas, the 

Miami blue remains at risk to illegal 

collection, despite the regulatory 

mechanisms already in place (see 

Factor B). 

As a Federal candidate subspecies, 

the Miami blue was afforded some 

protection through sections 7 and 10 of 

the Act and associated policies and 

guidelines, but protection was limited. 

Federal action agencies are to consider 

the potential effects to the butterfly and 

its habitat during the consultation 

process. Applicants and action agencies 

are encouraged to consider candidate 

species when seeking incidental take for 

other listed species and when 

developing habitat conservation plans. 

On Federal lands, such as KWNWR, 

candidate species are treated as 

‘‘proposed threatened.’’ 

Although the Miami blue occurs on 

Federal (and possibly State) land that 

offers protection, these areas are vast 

and often heavily used. Signage 

prohibiting collection is sometimes 

lacking or may not be advisable as it 

could draw attention to the presence of 

the subspecies; patrolling and 

monitoring of activities can be limited 

and dependent upon the availability of 

staffing and resources. Within KWNWR, 

the Marquesas Keys are open to the 

public; portions of the beach on Boca 

Grande are closed (T. Wilmers, pers. 

comm. 2011b). In general, occupied 

islands are remote and difficult to 

patrol, and trespassing and 

unauthorized uses (e.g., fire and fire 

pits) still occur (see Factor E). Therefore, 

the potential for illegal collection and 

damage to sensitive habitats still exists 

(see Factors B and E). 

Prior to its apparent extirpation, the 

metapopulation at BHSP was afforded 

some protection by its presence on State 

lands. All property and resources 

owned by FDEP are generally protected 

from harm in Chapter 62D–2.013(2), and 

animals are specifically protected from 

unauthorized collection in Chapter 

62D–2.013(5) of the Florida Statutes. 

Exceptions are made for collecting 

permits, which are issued, ‘‘for 

scientific or educational purposes.’’ 

Still, protection of resources at BHSP is 

a challenge due to the park’s popularity 

and high use (See Factor E). Although 

in 2010, the FDEP hired a temporary, 

full-time biologist to work on Miami 

blue conservation issues at BHSP, 

including patrol of sensitive habitats, 

this position has since been reduced to 

part-time. 

Permits are required from the FWC for 

scientific research on and collection of 

the Miami blue. For work on Federal 

lands (i.e., KWNWR, ENP, and BNP), 

permits are required from the Service or 

the NPS. For work on State lands, 

permits are required from FDEP. Permits 

are also required for work on Countyowned lands. 

Summary of Factor D 

Despite existing regulatory 

mechanisms, the Miami blue continues 

to decline due to the effects of a wide 

array of threats (see Factors A, B, and E). 

Based on our analysis of the best 

available information, we find that 

existing regulatory measures, due to a 

variety of constraints, do not work as 

designed, and, therefore, the existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to address threats to the subspecies 

throughout all of its range. We have no 

information to indicate that the 

aforementioned regulations, which 

currently do not offer adequate 

protection to the Miami blue, will be 

revised such that they would be 

adequate to provide protection for the 

subspecies in the future. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Impacts From Iguanas 

The exotic green iguana (Iguana 

iguana) appears to be a severe threat to 

the Miami blue (75 FR 69258; Daniels 

2009, p. 5; FWC 2010, pp. 6, 13; Olle 

2010, pp. 4, 14). Iguanas are prevalent 

within the Keys, and sightings within 

occupied and potential Miami blue 

habitat are common (P. Cannon, pers. 

comm. 2009, 2010d, 2010e). Effects of 

iguana herbivory to the host plant 

(nickerbean) at BHSP were evident by 

late 2008 and early 2009 (Emmel and 

Daniels 2009, p. 4; Daniels 2009, p. 5; 

P. Hughes, pers. comm. 2009; P. 

Cannon, pers. comm. 2009; A. Edwards, 

pers. comm. 2009). In January 2009, 

Cannon (pers. comm. 2009) reported 

that iguanas had stripped all new 

nickerbean growth, causing substantial 

losses since November 2008. In April 

2009, nickerbean showed signs of 

limited growth due to chronic herbivory 

(P. Hughes, pers. comm. 2009). 

In addition to damage, iguanas likely 

consume eggs and pupae when 

opportunistically feeding (P. Hughes, 

pers. comm. 2009; Daniels 2009, p. 5; 

FWC 2010, p. 13), especially since the 

butterfly uses the same terminal growth 

of host plants to lay eggs. For many 

years, host plant abundance within 

BHSP appeared capable of sustaining 

both iguanas and Miami blues. 

Depressed numbers of Miami blues in 

2008, however, were likely the result of 

both a severe drought and impacts to the 

nickerbean from iguanas feeding on the 

terminal nickerbean growth (FWC 2010, 

p. 6). During the winter of 2010, 

prolonged and unseasonably cold 

temperatures in the lower Keys resulted 

in a considerable decline in available 

nickerbean at BHSP (Olle 2010, p. 14). 

The suppressed Miami blue population 

at this site during this time may not 

have been able to survive this 

temporary, but severe, reduction in 

nickerbean, likely caused by the 

combined influences of iguanas and 

environmental factors (e.g., drought and 

cold). 

Iguana tracks have been found on 

islands occupied by the Miami blue in 

KWNWR (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 16; T. 

Wilmers, pers. comm. 2011c) as well as 

on three islands in GWHNWR (T. 

Wilmers, pers. comm. 2011b). Three 

large, gravid female iguanas were 

trapped and removed from the 

Marquesas in February 2011 (T. 

Wilmers, pers. comm. 2011d). To date, 

the presence of iguanas (burrows or 

tracks) has been documented on each of 

the islands known to harbor Miami 

blues (T. Wilmers, in litt. 2011e). 

Cannon et al. (2007, p. 16) stated that 

the exotic herbivore has the potential to 

impact host and nectar plants. Iguana 

populations in south Florida, after long 

periods of slow growth, have been 

shown to irrupt (increase suddenly or 

rapidly in numbers) (Meshaka et al. 

2004, pp. 157–158; Meshaka 2011, p. 

52). Given the absence of predators 

within KWNWR, the iguana population 

may grow unchecked until limited by 

food sources or other natural factors 

(e.g., hurricanes). A further concern is 

that severe damage to vegetation, as 

occurred during Hurricane Wilma 

(Cannon et al. 2010, p. 851), may 

concentrate Miami blues and iguanas in 

remnant stands of blackbead, thereby 

magnifying the iguana’s impact on the 

butterfly and its habitat (T. Wilmers, in 

litt. 2011e). 

Resource agencies are working to 

better understand and combat the threat 

of green iguanas in areas occupied (and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20975 

recently occupied) by the Miami blue. 

At BHSP, cooperative efforts resulted in 

the trapping and removal of 200 iguanas 

between November 2009 and October 

2011 (Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4; 

FWC 2010, p. 17; E. Kiefer, pers. comm. 

2011a, 2011b; E. Cowan, FPS, pers. 

comm. 2011). Removal efforts have 

significantly decreased the number of 

iguanas within BHSP; these 

management actions will need to be an 

ongoing effort due to the prevalence of 

iguanas in the surrounding areas (R. 

Zambrano, pers. comm. 2009; E. Cowan, 

pers. comm. 2011). Efforts are also 

underway to assess and address this 

threat at KWNWR, but it is unclear if 

iguanas regularly consume blackbead at 

the Refuge (T. Wilmers, pers. comm. 

2011a, 2011c, 2011d, 2011f). Despite 

cooperative efforts, the threat from 

iguanas is expected to continue due to 

their widespread distribution and the 

difficulties in control. 

Competition 

Host resource competition from other 

butterfly species could deleteriously 

impact metapopulation productivity of 

the Miami blue. The introduction of or 

future island colonization by potential 

Lepidopteran competitors may impact 

the Miami blue metapopulation. The 

nickerbean blue, cassius blue, and 

Martial’s scrub hairstreak are known to 

use various species of nickerbean host 

plants throughout their range (Glassberg 

et al. 2000, pp. 74–80; Calhoun et al. 

2002, p. 15). The nickerbean blue and 

Martial’s scrub hairstreak have been 

documented using gray nickerbean as a 

host plant at BHSP (Daniels et al. 2005, 

p. 174; P. Cannon, pers. comm. 2010g). 

Such host use may represent direct 

competition for host resources (Emmel 

and Daniels 2004, p. 14). However, 

Calhoun et al. (2002, p. 18) believed it 

was unlikely that competition played a 

significant role in the decline of the 

Miami blue based on the abundance of 

host plant sources available to lycaenids 

throughout the Lower Keys. There is no 

evidence to suggest that host resource 

competition is a threat to the Miami 

blue at this time or is likely to become 

so in the future. 

Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts 

From Humans 

Inadvertent damage from humans can 

affect the Miami blue and its habitat in 

its current and former range. For 

example, the seed pods of balloonvine 

‘‘pop’’ when squeezed and can be 

targeted by humans. Damage to 

balloonvine has been documented along 

roads in the Keys (J. Loye, University of 

California-Davis, pers. comm. 2003a, 

2003b). During a study in the mid-1980s 

examining balloonvine and its 

associated insect community, Loye 

(pers. comm. 2003a) found a difference 

in insect diversity between sites along 

roads and those without road access. 

Acknowledging other possible 

contributing factors (e.g., mosquito 

control, car emissions), Loye (pers. 

comm. 2003a) indicated that collectors 

and maintenance crews damaged 

balloons near roads, stating that 

‘‘humans damaged every balloon that 

could be easily found at our study sites’’ 

(J. Loye, pers. comm. 2003b). It is not 

clear what, if any, impact this had on 

the butterfly at or since that time. 

However, damage to host plants (whole 

or parts) could contribute to mortality of 

eggs or larvae. 

BHSP is heavily used by the public 

for recreational purposes, and although 

the butterfly has not been seen at this 

location since early 2010, suitable 

habitat is located along trails and other 

high-use areas (e.g., campgrounds). 

Former colonies may have experienced 

disturbance from Park visitors. 

Trampling of host plants and well-worn 

footpaths were evident, at least 

periodically from 2002 to 2010, and 

during times when other stressors (e.g., 

cold, drought, iguanas) occurred (P. 

Halupa, pers. obs. 2002; D. Olle, pers. 

comm. 2010; M. Salvato, pers. comm. 

2010a; R. Zambrano, pers. comm. 2010). 

To protect larval host plants and adult 

nectar sources, the FPS erected fencing 

and signage around the majority of the 

south colony site at BHSP. Although 

this is expected to minimize damage to 

the largest habitat patch, other small 

habitat patches (as small as 15.0 by 15.0 

feet [4.6 by 4.6 meters]) elsewhere on 

the island are still vulnerable to 

intentional or accidental damage. 

Fencing small colony sites or patches of 

available habitat is impractical and 

would make exact locations of colonies 

more evident, possibly increasing the 

risk of illegal collection or harm should 

the Miami blue return to the island. 

KWNWR lacks human developments, 

but local disturbances result from illicit 

camping, fire pits, smugglers, vandals, 

and immigrant landings. These 

disturbances are generally infrequent for 

most islands within KWNWR with the 

exception of Boca Grande, which 

contains the largest amounts of beach. 

Recreational visitation is high on Boca 

Grande, particularly during weekends 

(Cannon et al. 2010, p. 852). Trampling 

of dune vegetation has been a long-term 

problem on Boca Grande, and fire pits 

have been found many times over the 

past two decades on both Boca Grande 

and the Marquesas Keys (Cannon et al. 

2010, p. 852). Most recently, a fire pit 

was found adjacent to host plants 

within occupied habitat on Boca Grande 

in December 2011 (P. Cannon, pers. 

comm. 2012). The large amount of dead 

vegetation intermingled with host plants 

on Boca Grande and the Marquesas Keys 

makes the threat of fire (natural or 

human-induced), a significant threat to 

the Miami blue (Cannon et al. 2007, p. 

13; 2010, p. 852; P. Cannon, pers. 

comm. 2012; T. Wilmers, pers. comm. 

2012b). Immature stages (eggs, larvae), 

which are sedentary, would be 

particularly vulnerable. Glassberg and 

Olle (2010, p. 1) asserted that ‘‘the 

proximity of the islands within 

KWNWR, to both Key West and the Dry 

Tortugas, invite human mischief, and 

largely go unpoliced.’’ These areas 

within KWNWR are remote and 

accessible mainly by boat, making them 

difficult to patrol and monitor. 

Other patches of potential and 

suitable habitat are susceptible to 

purposeful impacts from humans. Some 

private property owners in the Keys 

have reportedly threatened to clear 

vegetation from undeveloped properties 

to avoid any restrictions regarding the 

butterfly (M. Minno, in litt. 2011b; N. 

Pakhomoff-Spencer, consultant, pers. 

comm. 2011). 

In summary, inadvertent and 

purposeful impacts from humans may 

have affected the Miami blue and its 

habitat. Due to the location of occupied 

and suitable habitat, the popularity of 

these areas with humans, and the 

projected human growth, especially in 

coastal areas, such impacts from 

recreation and other uses are expected 

to continue. 

Other Natural and Unnatural Changes 

to Habitat 

Natural changes to vegetation from 

environmental factors, succession, or 

other causes may now be a threat to the 

Miami blue because of its severely 

reduced range, few populations, and 

limited dispersal capabilities. Suitable 

and occupied habitat in KWNWR and 

other coastal areas is dynamic and 

fluctuating, influenced by a variety of 

environmental factors (e.g., storm surge, 

wind, precipitation). In 2010, 

substantial changes in habitat 

conditions on Boca Grande occurred 

with the proliferation of Galactia striata, 

a native climbing vine (T. Wilmers, 

pers. comm. 2010a; P. Cannon, pers. 

comm. 2010b, 2010h, 2010i, 2010j). The 

vine has enveloped a substantial 

amount of blackbead, occurring on 

about 40 percent of the blackbead 

growing on the seaward side at the dune 

interface (T. Wilmers, pers. comm. 

2010a). Wilmers (pers. comm. 2010a) 

indicated that the extensive growth was 

likely fueled by the markedly higher 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20976 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

precipitation during September and 

October 2010 (3.47 and 2.22 inches 

[8.81 and 5.64 cm], respectively, above 

normal in Key West). Under favorable 

conditions, the vine first grows in the 

dune, then sprawls landward laterally, 

eventually ascending and blanketing 

blackbead (T. Wilmers, pers. comm. 

2010a). While climbing vines can 

proliferate before eventually dying back, 

Wilmers (pers. comm. 2010a) stated that 

the intense proliferation in 2010 was 

unprecedented in his 25 years of work 

in the area. Left unchecked, this 

proliferation has the potential to impact 

host plants and affect the butterfly’s 

ability to persist on some islands. 

Invasive and Exotic Vegetation 

Displacement of native plants 

including host plants by invasive exotic 

species, a common problem throughout 

south Florida, also possibly contributed 

to habitat loss of the Miami blue. In 

coastal areas where undeveloped land 

remains, the Miami blue’s larval food 

plants are likely to be displaced by 

invasive exotic plants, such as Brazilian 

pepper, Australian pine (Casuarina 

equesitifolia), Asian nakedwood 

(Colubrina asiatica), cat-claw vine 

(Macfadyena ungius-cati), wedelia 

(Spahneticola trilobata), largeleaf 

lantana (Lantana camara), Portia tree 

(Thespesia populnea), wild indigo 

(Indigofera spicata), beach naupaka 

(Scaevola taccada), and several species 

of invasive grasses. Although we do not 

have direct evidence of exotic species 

displacing host plants or nectar sources, 

we recognize this as a potential threat, 

due to the magnitude of this problem in 

south Florida. 

Pesticides 

Efforts to control salt marsh 

mosquitoes, Aedes taeniorhynchus, 

among others, have increased as human 

activity and population have increased 

in south Florida. To control mosquito 

populations, second-generation 

organophosphate (naled) and pyrethroid 

(permethrin) adulticides are applied by 

mosquito control districts throughout 

south Florida. In a rare case in upper 

Key Largo, another organophosphate 

(malathion) was applied in 2011 when 

the number of permethrin applications 

reached its annual limit. All three of 

these compounds have been 

characterized as being highly toxic to 

nontarget insects by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (2002, 

p. 32; 2006a, p. 58; 2006b, p. 44). The 

use of such pesticides (applied using 

both aerial and ground-based methods) 

to control mosquitoes presents a 

potential risk to nontarget species, 

including the Miami blue butterfly. 

The potential for mosquito control 

chemicals to drift into nontarget areas 

and persist for varying periods of time 

has been well documented. Hennessey 

and Habeck (1989, pp. 1–22; 1991, pp. 

1–68) and Hennessey et al. (1992, pp. 

715–721) illustrated the presence of 

mosquito spray residues long after 

application in habitat of the Schaus 

swallowtail and other imperiled species 

in both the upper (Crocodile Lake NWR, 

North Key Largo) and lower Keys 

(NKDR). Residues of aerially applied 

naled were found 6 hours after 

application in a pineland area that was 

820 yards (750 meters) from the target 

area; residues of fenthion (an adulticide 

no longer used in the Keys) applied via 

truck were found up to 55 yards (50 

meters) downwind in a hammock area 

15 minutes after application in adjacent 

target areas (Hennessey et al. 1992, pp. 

715–721). 

More recently, Pierce (2009, pp. 1–17) 

monitored naled and permethrin 

deposition following application in and 

around NKDR from 2007 to 2009. 

Permethrin, applied by truck, was found 

to drift considerable distances from 

target areas with residues that persisted 

for weeks. Naled, applied by plane, was 

also found to drift into nontarget areas 

but was much less persistent, exhibiting 

a half-life of approximately 6 hours. To 

expand this work, Pierce (2011, pp. 6– 

11) conducted an additional deposition 

study in 2010 focusing on permethrin 

drift from truck spraying and again 

documented measurable amounts of 

permethrin in nontarget areas. In 2009, 

Tim Bargar (pers. comm. 2011) 

conducted two field trials on NKDR that 

detected significant naled residues at 

locations within nontarget areas on the 

Refuge that were up to 440 yards (402 

meters) from the edge of zones targeted 

for aerial applications. 

In addition to mosquito control 

chemicals entering nontarget areas, the 

toxic effects of mosquito control 

chemicals to nontarget organisms have 

also been documented. Lethal effects on 

nontarget Lepidoptera have been 

attributed to fenthion and naled in both 

south Florida and the Keys (Emmel 

1991, pp. 12–13; Eliazar and Emmel 

1991, pp. 18–19; Eliazar 1992, pp. 29– 

30). In the lower Keys, Salvato (2001, 

pp. 8–14) suggested that declines in 

populations of the Florida leafwing 

(now a Federal candidate) were also 

partly attributable to mosquito control 

chemical applications. Salvato (2001, p. 

14; 2002, pp. 56–57) found populations 

of the Florida leafwing (on Big Pine Key 

within NKDR) to increase during drier 

years when adulticide applications over 

the pinelands decreased, although 

Bartram’s hairstreak did not follow this 

pattern. It is important to note that 

vulnerability to chemical exposure may 

vary widely between species, and 

current application regimes do not 

appear to affect some species as strongly 

as others (Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18; 

Breidenbaugh and De Szalay 2010, pp. 

594–595; Rand and Hoang 2010, pp. 14– 

17, 20; Hoang et al. 2011, pp. 997– 

1005). 

Dose-dependent decreases in brain 

cholinesterase activity in great southern 

white butterflies (Ascia monuste) 

exposed to naled have been measured in 

the laboratory (T. Bargar, pers. comm. 

2011). An inhibition of cholinesterase, 

which is the primary mode of action of 

naled, prevents an important 

neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, from 

being metabolized, causing uncontrolled 

nerve impulses that may result in erratic 

behavior and, if severe enough, 

mortality. From these data, it was 

determined that significant mortality 

was associated with cholinesterase 

activity depression of at least 27 percent 

(T. Bargar, pers. comm. 2011). In a 

subsequent field study on NKDR, adult 

great southern white and Gulf fritillary 

(Agraulis vanillae) butterflies were 

placed in field enclosures at both target 

and nontarget areas during aerial naled 

application. The critical level of 

cholinesterase inhibition (27 percent) 

was exceeded in the majority of 

butterflies from the target areas, as well 

as in a large proportion of butterflies 

from the nontarget areas (T. Bargar, pers. 

comm. 2011). During the same field 

experiment, great southern white and 

Gulf fritillary larvae were also exposed 

in the field during aerial naled 

application and exhibited mortality at 

both target and nontarget sites (T. 

Bargar, pers. comm. 2011). 

In a laboratory study, Rand and Hoang 

(2010, pp. 1–33) and Hoang et al. (2011, 

pp. 997–1005) examined the effects of 

exposure to naled, permethrin, and 

dichlorvos (a breakdown product of 

naled) on both adults and larvae of five 

Florida native butterfly species 

(common buckeye (Junonia coenia), 

painted lady (Vanessa cardui), zebra 

longwing (Heliconius charitonius), atala 

hairstreak (Eumaeus atala), and white 

peacock (Anartia jatrophae). The results 

of this study indicated that, in general, 

larvae were slightly more sensitive to 

each chemical than adults, but the 

differences were not significant. 

Permethrin was generally the most toxic 

chemical to both larvae and adults, 

although the sensitivity between species 

varied. 

The laboratory toxicity data generated 

by this study were used to calculate 

hazard quotients (concentrations in the 

environment/concentrations causing an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20977 

adverse effect) to assess the risk that 

concentrations of naled and permethrin 

found in the field pose to butterflies. A 

hazard quotient that exceeds one 

indicates that the environmental 

concentration is greater than the 

concentration known to cause an 

adverse effect (mortality in this case), 

thus indicating significant risk to the 

organism. Environmental exposures for 

naled and permethrin were taken from 

Zhong et al. (2010, pp. 1961–1972) and 

Pierce (2009, pp. 1–17), respectively, 

and represent the highest concentrations 

of each chemical that were quantified 

during field studies in the Keys. When 

using the lowest median lethal 

concentrations from the laboratory 

study, the hazard quotients for 

permethrin were greater than one for 

each adult butterfly, indicating a 

significant risk of toxicity to each 

species. In the case of naled, significant 

risk to the zebra longwing was predicted 

based on its hazard quotient exceeding 

one. 

In a recent study, Bargar (2012, 

pp. 1–7) conducted a probabilistic risk 

assessment for adult butterflies using 

published acute toxicity data in 

combination with deposition values for 

naled that were quantified at eight 

locations within NKDR. The published 

toxicity data were used in conjunction 

with morphometric data (total surface 

area and weight) for 22 butterfly species 

and the NKDR naled deposition values 

to estimate the probability that field 

exposure to naled will exceed butterfly 

effect estimates (quantity of naled per 

unit body weight associated with 

mortality in adult butterflies). From the 

field deposition measurements, the 

probability that the effect estimate for 50 

percent of the examined butterfly 

species will be exceeded ranged from 70 

(lowest butterfly surface area to weight 

ratio) to 95 percent (highest surface area 

to weight ratio) based on filter paper 

deposition results and 33 to 87 percent 

based on yarn sampler results. As the 

surface area to weight ratio increases, 

the probability that a greater quantity of 

naled per unit body weight will be 

delivered increases. These results 

suggest that significant impacts on 

butterfly survival may result from aerial 

naled application. 

From 2006 to 2008, Zhong et al. 

(2010, pp. 1961–1972) investigated the 

impact of single aerial applications of 

naled on Miami blue larvae in the field. 

The study was conducted in North Key 

Largo in cooperation with the Florida 

Keys Mosquito Control District 

(FKMCD) and used experimentally 

placed Miami blue larvae that were 

reared in captivity. The study involved 

15 test stations: 9 stations in the target 

zone, 3 stations considered to be 

susceptible to drift (2 stations directly 

adjacent to the spray zone and 1 station 

12 mi (19.3 km) southwest of the spray 

zone), and 3 field reference stations (25 

mi (40.2 km) southwest of the spray 

zone). Survival of butterfly larvae in the 

target zone was 73.9 percent, which was 

significantly lower than both the drift 

zone (90.6 percent) and the reference 

zone (100 percent), indicating that 

direct exposure to naled poses 

significant risk to Miami blue larvae. In 

addition to observing elevated 

concentrations of naled at test stations 

in the target zone, 9 of 18 samples in the 

drift zone also exhibited detectable 

concentrations, once again exhibiting 

the potential for mosquito control 

chemicals to drift into nontarget areas. 

Based on these studies, it can be 

concluded that mosquito control 

activities that involve the use of both 

aerial and ground-based spraying 

methods have the potential to deliver 

pesticides in quantities sufficient to 

cause adverse effects to nontarget 

species in both target and nontarget 

areas. It should be noted that many of 

the studies referenced above dealt with 

single application scenarios and 

examined effects on only one to two 

butterfly life stages. Under a realistic 

scenario, the potential exists for 

exposure to all life stages to occur over 

multiple applications in a season. In the 

case of a persistent compound like 

permethrin where residues remain on 

vegetation for weeks, the potential exists 

for nontarget species to be exposed to 

multiple pesticides within a season 

(e.g., permethrin on vegetation coupled 

with aerial exposure to naled). 

Aspects of the Miami blue’s natural 

history may increase its potential to be 

exposed to and affected by mosquito 

control pesticides and other chemicals. 

For example, host plants and nectar 

sources are commonly found at 

disturbed sites and often occur along 

roads in developed areas, where 

chemicals are applied. Ants associated 

with the Miami blue (see Interspecific 

relationships) may be affected in 

unknown ways. Host plant and nectar 

source availability may also be 

indirectly affected through impacts on 

pollinators. Carroll and Loye (2006, pp. 

19, 24) and others (Emmel 1991, p. 13; 

Glassberg and Salvato 2000, p. 7; 

Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 18) suggested 

that the Miami blue butterfly may be 

more susceptible to pesticides than 

perhaps other lycaenids (e.g., the silverbanded hairstreak) because Miami blue 

larvae leave entrance holes open in seed 

pods to allow access for attending ants. 

Ants and larvae of the Miami blue on 

balloonvine were found to die when 

roadside spraying for mosquito control 

began in late spring, but larvae of the 

silver-banded hairstreak (also on 

balloonvine), who do not leave entrance 

holes in seed pods, apparently survived 

subsequent spraying (Emmel 1991, p. 

13). However, Minno (pers. comm. 

2010) argued that larvae using 

balloonvine pods would be protected 

from the effects of pesticides because 

the pods have internal partitions and 

exposure would be limited due to the 

size of the entrance hole. 

No mosquito control pesticides are 

used within KWNWR. At BHSP, the 

only application of adulticides 

(permethrin) is occasional truck-based 

spraying in the ranger residence areas 

(E. Kiefer, pers. comm. 2011a). Mosquito 

control practices currently pose no risk 

to the Miami blue within KWNWR. 

However, mosquito control activities, 

including the use of larvicides and 

adulticides, are being implemented 

within suitable and potential habitat for 

the Miami blue elsewhere in its range 

(Carroll and Loye 2006, pp. 14–15). The 

findings of Zhong et al. (2010, pp. 1961– 

1972) and Pierce (2009, pp. 1–17) along 

with other studies suggest that aerial or 

truck-based applications of mosquito 

control chemicals may pose a threat to 

the Miami blue, if the butterfly exists in 

other, unknown locations. Additionally, 

mosquito control practices potentially 

may limit expansion of undocumented 

populations or colonization of new 

areas. If the Miami blue colonizes new 

areas or if additional populations are 

discovered or reintroduced, adjustments 

in mosquito control (and other) 

practices may be needed to help 

safeguard the subspecies. 

Efforts are already underway by 

multiple agencies and partners to seek 

ways to avoid and minimize impacts to 

the Miami blue and other imperiled 

nontarget species. For example, in an 

effort to reduce the need for aerial 

adulticide spraying, the FKMCD is 

increasing larviciding activities, which 

are believed to have less of an ecological 

impact on wilderness islands near 

NKDR and GWHNWR (FKMCD 2009, 

pp. 3–4). This effort has led to a 

reduction in area receiving adulticide 

treatment on Big Pine Key, No Name 

Key, and Torch Key (FKMCD 2009, p. 

17). Another example is the Florida 

Coordinating Council on Mosquito 

Control (FCCMC), including the 

Imperiled Species Subcommittee, which 

was initially formed to resolve the 

conflict between mosquito control 

spraying and the reintroduction of 

Miami blues to their historical range 

(FWC 2010, p. 9). 

The FWC’s management plan for the 

Miami blue also recommended the use 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20978 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

of no-spray zones for all pesticides and 

use of buffers at or around Miami blue 

populations and other conservation 

measures (FWC 2010, pp. ii–41). 

However, there are no specific binding 

or mandatory restrictions to prohibit 

such practices or encourage other 

beneficial measures. The FWC plan 

suggested that an aerial no-spray buffer 

zone of 820 yards (750 meters) be 

established around Miami blue 

populations, where possible, and that 

buffer zones for truck-based 

applications of adulticides also be 

established (FWC 2010, p. 17). The 

FCCMC also recommended that the 

appropriate width of buffer zones be 

determined by future research. The 

Service is supporting research to 

characterize drift from truck-based 

spraying methods. The data from this 

study will aid in better determining 

appropriate buffer distances around 

sensitive areas. 

In summary, although substantial 

progress has been made in reducing 

impacts, the potential effects of 

mosquito control applications and drift 

residues remain a threat to the Miami 

blue. We will continue to work with the 

mosquito control districts and other 

partners and stakeholders to reduce 

threats wherever possible. 

Effects of Small Population Size and 

Isolation 

The Miami blue is vulnerable to 

extinction due to its severely reduced 

range, small population size, 

metapopulation structure, few 

remaining populations, and relative 

isolation. In general, isolation, whether 

caused by geographic distance, 

ecological factors, or reproductive 

strategy, will likely prevent the influx of 

new genetic material and can result in 

low diversity, which may impact 

viability and fecundity (Chesser 1983, 

pp. 66–77). Extinction risk can increase 

significantly with decreasing 

heterozygosity as was reported for the 

Glanville fritillary (Saccheri et al. 1998, 

pp. 491–494). Distance between 

metapopulations and colonies within 

those metapopulations and the small 

size of highly sporadic populations can 

make recolonization unlikely if 

populations are extirpated. 

Fragmentation of habitat and aspects of 

a butterfly’s natural history (e.g., limited 

dispersal, reliance on host plants) can 

contribute to and exacerbate threats. 

Estimated abundance of the Miami 

blue is not known, but may number in 

the hundreds, and at times, possibly 

higher. Although highly dependent on 

individual species considered, a 

population of 1,000 has been suggested 

as marginally viable for an insect (D. 

Schweitzer, TNC, pers. comm. 2003). 

Schweitzer (pers. comm. 2003) has also 

suggested that butterfly populations of 

less than 200 adults per generation 

would have difficulty surviving over the 

long term. In comparison, in a review of 

27 recovery plans for listed insect 

species, Schultz and Hammond (2003, 

p. 1377) found that 25 plans broadly 

specified metapopulation features in 

terms of requiring that recovery include 

multiple population areas (the average 

number of sites required was 8.2). The 

three plans that quantified minimum 

population sizes as part of their 

recovery criteria for butterflies ranged 

from 200 adults per site (Oregon 

silverspot [Speyeria zerene hippolyta]) 

to 100,000 adults (Bay checkerspot 

[Euphydryas editha bayensis]) (Schulz 

and Hammond 2003, pp. 1374–1375). 

Schultz and Hammond (2003, pp. 

1372–1385) used population viability 

analyses to develop quantitative 

recovery criteria for insects whose 

population sizes can be estimated and 

applied this framework in the context of 

the Fender’s blue (Icaricia icarioides 

fenderi), a butterfly listed as endangered 

in 2000 due to its small population size 

and limited remaining habitat. They 

found the Fender’s blue to be at high 

risk of extinction at most of its sites 

throughout its range despite that fact 

that the average population at 12 sites 

examined ranged from 5 to 738 (Schulz 

and Hammond 2003, pp. 1377, 1379). Of 

the three sites with populations greater 

than a few hundred butterflies, only one 

of these had a reasonably high 

probability of surviving the next 100 

years (Schulz and Hammond 2003, p. 

1379). Although the conservation needs 

and biology of the Miami blue and 

Fender’s blue are undoubtedly different, 

the two lycaenids share characteristics: 

Both have limited dispersal, and most 

remaining habitat patches are 

completely isolated. 

Losses in diversity within historical 

and current populations of the Miami 

blue butterfly have already occurred. 

Historical populations were genetically 

more diverse than two contemporary 

populations (BHSP and KWNWR) 

(Saarinen 2009, p. 48). Yet together, 

between the two contemporary 

populations, the Miami blue had 

retained a significant amount of genetic 

diversity from its historical values 

(Saarinen 2009, p. 51). Despite likely 

fluctuations in population size, the 

BHSP population had retained an 

adequate amount of genetic diversity to 

maintain the population (Saarinen 2009, 

p. 77). Overall, patterns of genetic 

diversity in the BHSP population (mean 

overall observed heterozygosity of 39.5 

percent) were similar to or slightly 

lower than other nonmigratory butterfly 

species studies utilizing microsatellite 

markers (Saarinen 2009, pp. 50, 74–75). 

Unfortunately, the BHSP population 

may now be lost. The extant KWNWR 

population is more genetically diverse 

(mean observed heterozygosity of 51 

percent vs. 39.5 percent for BHSP) 

(Saarinen 2009, p. 75). 

The Miami blue appears to have been 

impacted by relative isolation. No gene 

flow has occurred between 

contemporary populations (Saarinen et 

al. 2009a, p. 36). Saarinen (2009, p. 79) 

suggested that the separation was 

recent. While historical populations 

may have once linked the two 

contemporary populations, the recent 

absence of populations between 

KWNWR and BHSP appears to have 

broken the gene flow (Saarinen 2009, p. 

79). Based upon modeling with a 

different butterfly species, Fleishman et 

al. (2002, pp. 706–716) argued that 

factors such as habitat quality may 

influence metapopulation dynamics, 

driving extinction and colonization 

processes, especially in systems that 

experience substantial natural and 

anthropogenic environmental variability 

(see Environmental Stochasticity 

below). 

According to Saarinen et al. (2009a, p. 

36), the severely reduced size of the 

existing populations suggests that 

genetic factors, along with 

environmental stochasticity, may 

already be affecting the persistence of 

the Miami blue. However, they also 

suggested that, in terms of extinction 

risk, a greater short-term problem for the 

two contemporary natural populations 

(BHSP and KWNWR) may be the lack of 

gene flow rather than the current 

effective population size (Saarinen et al. 

2009a, p. 36). If only one or two 

metapopulations remain, it is absolutely 

critical that remaining genetic diversity 

and gene flow are retained. 

Conservation decisions to augment or 

reintroduce populations should not be 

made without careful consideration of 

habitat availability, genetic adaptability, 

the potential for the introduction of 

maladapted genotypes, and other factors 

(Frankham 2008, pp. 325–333; Saarinen 

et al. 2009a, p. 36). 

Aspects of Its Natural History 

Aspects of the Miami blue’s natural 

history may increase the likelihood of 

extinction. Cushman and Murphy (1993, 

p. 40) argued that dispersal is essential 

for the persistence of isolated 

populations. Input of individuals from 

neighboring areas can bolster dwindling 

numbers and provide an influx of 

genetic diversity, increasing fitness and 

population viability. The tendency for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20979 

lycaenids to be comparatively sedentary 

should result in less frequent 

recolonization, less influx of 

individuals, and reduced gene flow 

between populations (Cushman and 

Murphy 1993, p. 40). In short, taxa with 

limited dispersal abilities may be far 

more susceptible to local extinction 

events than taxa with well-developed 

dispersal abilities (Cushman and 

Murphy 1993, p. 40). 

Lycaenids with a strong dependence 

on ants may be more sensitive to 

environmental changes and, thus, more 

prone to endangerment and extinction 

than species not tended by ants (and 

non-lycaenids in general) (Cushman and 

Murphy 1993, pp. 37, 41). This 

hypothesis is based on the probability 

that the combination of both the right 

food plant and the presence of a 

particular ant species may occur 

relatively infrequently in the landscape. 

Selection may favor reduced dispersal 

by ant-associated lycaenids due to the 

difficulty associated with locating 

patches that contain the appropriate 

combination of food plants and ants 

(Cushman and Murphy 1993, pp. 39– 

40). Although significant research on 

the relationship between Miami blue 

larvae and ants has been conducted, this 

association is still not completely 

understood. Lycaenid traits (sedentary, 

host-specific, symbiotic with ants) that 

result in isolated populations of variable 

sizes may serve to limit genetic 

exchange (Cushman and Murphy 1993, 

pp. 37, 39–40). The Miami blue 

possesses several of these traits, all of 

which may increase susceptibility and 

contribute to imperilment. 

Environmental Stochasticity 

The climate of the Keys is driven by 

a combination of local, regional, and 

global events, regimes, and oscillations. 

There are three main ‘‘seasons’’: (1) The 

wet season, which is hot, rainy, and 

humid from June through October, (2) 

the official hurricane season that 

extends one month beyond the wet 

season (June 1 through November 30) 

with peak season being August and 

September, and (3) the dry season, 

which is drier and cooler from 

November through May. In the dry 

season, periodic surges of cool and dry 

continental air masses influence the 

weather with short-duration rain events 

followed by long periods of dry weather. 

Environmental factors have likely 

impacted the Miami blue and its habitat 

within its historical range. A hard freeze 

in the late 1980s likely contributed to 

the Miami blue’s decline (L. Koehn, 

pers. comm. 2002), presumably due to 

loss of larval host plants in south 

Florida. Prolonged cold temperatures in 

January 2010 and December 2010 

through January 2011 may have also 

impacted the remaining 

metapopulations in the Keys. 

Unseasonably cold temperatures during 

winter 2010 (in combination with 

impacts from iguanas) resulted in a 

substantial loss of nickerbean and nectar 

sources at BHSP. This reduction, albeit 

temporary, may have severely impacted 

an already depressed Miami blue 

population on the island. Similarly, 

extended dry conditions and drought 

can affect the availability of host plants 

and nectar sources and affect butterfly 

populations (Emmel and Daniels 2004, 

pp. 13–14, 17). Depressed numbers of 

the Miami blue at BHSP in 2008 were 

attributed to severe drought (Emmel and 

Daniels 2009, p. 4). 

The Keys are regularly threatened by 

tropical storms and hurricanes. No area 

of the Keys is more than 20 feet (6.1 

meters) above sea level (and many areas 

are only a few feet (meters) in 

elevation). These tropical systems have 

affected the Miami blue and its habitat. 

Calhoun et al. (2002, p. 18) indicated 

that Hurricane Andrew in 1992 may 

have negatively impacted the majority 

of Miami blue populations in southern 

Florida. In 2005, four hurricanes 

(Katrina, Dennis, Rita, and Wilma) 

affected habitat at BHSP, resulting in 

reduced abundance of Miami blues 

following the storms that continued 

throughout 2006 (Salvato and Salvato 

2007, p. 160) and beyond (Emmel and 

Daniels 2009, p. 4). A significant portion 

of the nickerbean and large stands of 

nectar plants at BHSP were temporarily 

damaged by the storms, including 

roughly 50 percent of the vegetation on 

the southern side of the island (Salvato 

and Salvato 2007, p. 157). Although the 

host plant quickly recovered following 

the storms (Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. 

160), the Miami blue never fully 

recolonized several parts of the island 

(Emmel and Daniels 2009, p. 4). 

Similarly, Hurricane Wilma heavily 

damaged blackbead across many islands 

within KWNWR (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 

850). Although the hurricane severely 

damaged or killed much of the Miami 

blue host plant on KWNWR, it is also 

believed to have enhanced or created 

many new habitats across the islands by 

clearing older vegetation and opening 

patches for growth of host plant and 

nectar sources (Cannon et al. 2010, p. 

852). Cannon et al. (2010, p. 852) 

suggested that the proximity and 

circular arrangement of these islands 

may provide some safeguard during 

mild or moderate storms. Given enough 

resiliency in extant populations, certain 

storm regimes may benefit populations 

over some timeframe if these events 

result in disturbances that favor host 

plants and other habitat components. 

According to the Florida Climate 

Center, Florida is by far the most 

vulnerable State in the United States to 

hurricanes and tropical storms (http:// 

coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/ 

tropicalweather.shtml). Based on data 

gathered from 1856 to 2008, Klotzbach 

and Gray (2009, p. 28) calculated the 

climatological and current-year 

probabilities for each State being 

impacted by a hurricane and major 

hurricane. Of the coastal States 

analyzed, Florida had the highest 

climatological probabilities, with a 51 

percent probability of a hurricane and a 

21 percent probability of a major 

hurricane over a 52-year time span. 

Florida had a 45 percent current-year 

probability of a hurricane and an 18 

percent current-year probability of a 

major hurricane (Klotzbach and Gray 

2009, p. 28). Given the Miami blue’s low 

population size and few isolated 

occurrences, the subspecies is at 

substantial risk from hurricanes, storm 

surges, or other extreme weather. 

Depending on the location and intensity 

of a hurricane or other severe weather 

event, it is possible that the Miami blue 

could become extirpated or extinct. 

Because it appears to have limited 

dispersal capabilities, natural 

recolonization of potentially suitable 

sites is anticipated to be unlikely or 

exceedingly slow at best. 

Other processes to be affected by 

climate change include temperatures, 

rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and 

distribution), and storms (frequency and 

intensity). Temperatures are projected to 

rise from 2 °C to 5 °C (3.6 °F to 9 °F) 

for North America by the end of this 

century (IPCC 2007, pp. 7–9, 13). Based 

upon modeling, Atlantic hurricane and 

tropical storm frequencies are expected 

to decrease (Knutson et al. 2008, pp. 1– 

21). By 2100, there should be a 10–30 

percent decrease in hurricane frequency 

with a 5–10 percent wind increase. This 

is due to more hurricane energy 

available for intense hurricanes. 

However, hurricane frequency is 

expected to drop due to more wind 

shear impeding initial hurricane 

development. In addition to climate 

change, weather variables are extremely 

influenced by other natural cycles, such 

as El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillation with a 

frequency of every 4–7 years, solar cycle 

(every 11 years), and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. All of these cycles 

influence changes in Floridian weather. 

The exact magnitude, direction, and 

distribution of all of these changes at the 

regional level are difficult to project. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20980 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Summary of Factor E 

Based on our analysis of the best 

available information we have identified 

a wide array of natural and manmade 

factors affecting the continued existence 

of the Miami blue butterfly. Effects of 

small population size, isolation, and 

loss of genetic diversity are likely 

significant threats. Aspects of the Miami 

blue’s natural history and 

environmental stochasticity may also 

contribute to its imperilment. Other 

natural (e.g., impacts from iguanas, 

changes to habitat, invasive and exotic 

vegetation) and anthropogenic factors 

(e.g., pesticides, habitat alteration, 

impacts from humans) are also 

identifiable threats. Collectively, these 

threats have operated in the past, are 

impacting the subspecies now, and will 

continue to impact the Miami blue in 

the future. 

Determination of Status 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Miami blue 

butterfly. The only confirmed 

metapopulation of Miami blue is 

currently restricted to a few, small 

insular areas in the extreme southern 

portion of its historical range. The 

butterfly’s range, which once extended 

from the Keys north along the Florida 

coasts to about St. Petersburg and 

Daytona, is now substantially reduced, 

with an estimated >99 percent decline 

in area occupied. Many factors likely 

contributed to the Miami blue’s decline, 

and numerous major threats, acting 

individually or synergistically, continue 

today (see Summary of Factors Affecting 

the Species). 

Habitat loss, degradation, and 

modification from human population 

growth and associated development and 

agriculture have impacted the Miami 

blue, curtailing its range (see Factor A). 

Environmental effects from climatic 

change, especially sea level rise, are 

expected to become severe in the future, 

resulting in additional habitat losses 

(see Factor A). Due to the few 

metapopulations, small population size, 

restricted range, and remoteness of 

occupied habitat, collection is a 

significant threat to the subspecies and 

could potentially occur at any time (see 

Factor B). Even limited collection from 

the remaining metapopulation could 

have deleterious effects on reproductive 

and genetic viability of the subspecies 

and could contribute to its extinction. 

Similarly, disease and predation (see 

Factor C) also have the potential to 

impact the Miami blue’s continued 

survival, given its vulnerability (see 

Factor E). 

The subspecies is currently also 

threatened by a wide array of natural 

and manmade factors (see Factor E). In 

addition to the effects of small 

population size, isolation, and loss of 

genetic diversity, aspects of the Miami 

blue’s natural history and 

environmental stochasticity may 

contribute to its imperilment. Other 

natural (e.g., impacts from iguanas, 

changes to habitat) and anthropogenic 

factors (e.g., pesticides, impacts from 

humans) are also threats of varying 

magnitude. Finally, existing regulatory 

mechanisms (see Factor D), due to a 

variety of constraints, do not work as 

designed and do not provide adequate 

protection for the subspecies. Overall, 

impacts from increasing threats, 

operating singly or in combination, are 

likely to result in the extinction of the 

subspecies. 

Section 3 of the Endangered Species 

Act defines an endangered species as 

‘‘* * * any species which is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range’’ and a 

threatened species as ‘‘* * * any 

species which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Based 

on the immediate and ongoing 

significant threats to the Miami blue 

butterfly throughout its entire occupied 

range and the fact that the subspecies is 

restricted to only one or possibly two 

populations, we have determined that 

the subspecies is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. Since threats 

extend throughout the entire range, it is 

unnecessary to determine if the Miami 

blue butterfly is in danger of extinction 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range. Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we have determined that 

the Miami blue butterfly meets the 

definition of an endangered species 

under the Act. Consequently, we are 

listing the Miami blue butterfly as an 

endangered species throughout its entire 

range. 

The survival of the Miami blue now 

depends on protecting the species’ 

occupied and suitable habitat from 

further degradation and fragmentation, 

removing and reducing controllable 

threats, increasing the current 

population in size, reducing the threats 

of illegal collection, retaining the 

remaining genetic diversity; and 

establishing populations at additional 

locations. The survey and monitoring 

efforts and scientific studies conducted 

to date, when combined with other 

available historical information, 

indicate that the Miami blue butterfly is 

on the brink of extinction. 

By listing the Miami blue butterfly as 

an endangered subspecies, the 

protections (through sections 7, 9, and 

10 of the Act) and recognition that 

immediately became available to the 

subspecies upon emergency listing will 

continue and increase the likelihood 

that it can be saved from extinction and 

ultimately be recovered. In addition, 

recovery funds may become available, 

which could facilitate recovery actions 

(e.g., funding for additional surveys, 

management needs, research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, 

monitoring) (see Available Conservation 

Measures, below). 

The Service acknowledges that it 

cannot fully address some of the natural 

threats facing the subspecies (e.g., 

hurricanes, tropical storms) or even 

some of the other significant, long-term 

threats (e.g., climatic changes, sea-level 

rise). However, through listing, we 

provide protection to the known 

population(s) and any new population 

of the subspecies that may be 

discovered (see section 9 of Available 

Conservation Measures, below). With 

listing, we can also influence Federal 

actions that may potentially impact the 

subspecies (see section 7 below); this is 

especially valuable if it is found at 

additional locations. With this action, 

we are also better able to deter illicit 

collection and trade. 

Through this action, the Miami blue 

will continue receiving protection from 

collection, possession, and trade 

(through sections 9 and 10 of the Act). 

The three butterflies that are similar in 

appearance to the Miami blue will 

receive protection from collection in 

portions of their ranges (i.e., portions 

that overlap with the Miami blue’s 

historical range). At present, the three 

similar butterflies are not protected by 

the State of Florida. Extending the 

prohibitions of collection to the three 

similar butterflies in portions of their 

ranges provides greater protection to the 

Miami blue. Listing will partially 

alleviate some of the imminent threats 

that now pose a significant risk to the 

survival of the subspecies. 

Critical Habitat and Prudency 

Determination 

Critical habitat is defined in section 

3(5)(A) of the Act as (i) the specific areas 

within the geographic area occupied by 

a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20981 

outside the geographic area occupied by 

a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Conservation is defined in 

section 3(3) of the Act as the use of all 

methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring any endangered or 

threatened species to the point at which 

listing under the Act is no longer 

necessary. 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, we designate critical 

habitat at the time we determine that a 

species is endangered or threatened. 

Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) 

state that the designation of critical 

habitat is not prudent when one or both 

of the following situations exist: (1) The 

species is threatened by taking or other 

human activity, and identification of 

critical habitat can be expected to 

increase the degree of threat to the 

species, or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. We have determined that 

both circumstances apply to the Miami 

blue butterfly. This determination 

involves a weighing of the expected 

increase in threats associated with a 

critical habitat designation against the 

benefits gained by a critical habitat 

designation. An explanation of this 

‘‘balancing’’ evaluation follows. 

Benefits to the Subspecies From Critical 

Habitat Designation 

The principal benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the requirement for Federal agencies to 

ensure actions they fund, authorize, or 

carry out are not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

any designated critical habitat, the 

regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act under which consultation is 

completed. Federal agencies must also 

consult with us on actions that may 

affect a listed species and refrain from 

undertaking actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

such species. The analysis of effects of 

a proposed project on critical habitat is 

separate and different from that of the 

effects of a proposed project on the 

species itself. The jeopardy analysis 

evaluates the action’s impact to survival 

and recovery of the species, while the 

destruction or adverse modification 

analysis evaluates the action’s effects to 

the designated habitat’s contribution to 

conservation. Therefore, the difference 

in outcomes of these two analyses 

represents the regulatory benefit of 

critical habitat. This will, in some 

instances, lead to different results and 

different regulatory requirements. Thus, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than would listing alone. 

All areas known to support the Miami 

blue butterfly since 1996 are or have 

been on Federal or State lands; these 

areas are currently being managed for 

the subspecies. Management efforts are 

consistent with, and geared toward, 

Miami blue conservation, and such 

efforts are expected to continue in the 

future. Because the butterfly exists only 

as one or possibly two small 

metapopulations, any future activity 

involving a Federal action that would 

destroy or adversely modify occupied 

critical habitat may also likely 

jeopardize the subspecies’ continued 

existence (see Jeopardy Standard, 

below). Consultation with respect to 

critical habitat would provide 

additional protection to a species only 

if the agency action would result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat but would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species. In the absence of a critical 

habitat designation, areas that support 

the Miami blue butterfly will continue 

to be subject to conservation actions 

implemented under section 7(a)(1) of 

the Act and to the regulatory protections 

afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 

standard, as appropriate. Federal actions 

affecting the Miami blue butterfly, even 

in the absence of designated critical 

habitat areas, will still benefit from 

consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act and may still result in 

jeopardy findings. Therefore, 

designation of specific areas as critical 

habitat that are currently occupied or 

recently occupied would not likely 

provide a measurable incremental 

benefit to the subspecies. 

Another potential benefit to the 

Miami blue butterfly from designating 

critical habitat is that it could serve to 

educate landowners, State and local 

government agencies, Refuge or Park 

visitors, and the general public 

regarding the potential conservation 

value of the area. Through the processes 

of listing the butterfly under the State of 

Florida’s endangered species statute in 

2002, the recognition of the Miami blue 

as a Federal candidate subspecies in 

2005, and our proposed and emergency 

rules for the subspecies in August 2011, 

much of this educational component is 

already in effect. Agencies, 

organizations, and stakeholders are 

actively engaged in efforts to raise 

awareness for the butterfly and its 

conservation needs. For example, the 

NABA has a Miami blue chapter, which 

helps promote awareness for the 

subspecies. The FWC and partners have 

also formed a workgroup, in part to raise 

awareness for imperiled butterflies in 

south Florida. Staff at BHSP have 

recruited volunteers to help search for 

the subspecies within the Park and 

surrounding areas, and they have 

organized speakers to inform the general 

public about the butterfly. In addition, 

designation of critical habitat could 

inform State agencies and local 

governments about areas that could be 

conserved under State laws or local 

ordinances. However, since awareness 

and education involving the Miami blue 

is already well underway, designation of 

critical habitat would likely provide 

only minimal incremental educational 

benefits. 

Increased Threat to the Subspecies by 

Designating Critical Habitat 

Designation of critical habitat requires 

the publication of maps and a narrative 

description of specific critical habitat 

areas in the Federal Register. The 

degree of detail in those maps and 

boundary descriptions is greater than 

the general location descriptions 

provided in this rule listing the species 

as endangered. At present, maps 

depicting the locations of extant 

populations and habitat most likely to 

support the Miami blue do not exist. We 

are concerned that designation of 

critical habitat would more widely 

announce the exact location of the 

butterflies (and highly suitable habitat) 

to poachers, collectors, and vandals and 

further facilitate unauthorized 

collection and trade. Due to its extreme 

rarity (a low number of individuals, 

combined with small areas inhabited by 

the remaining metapopulation), this 

butterfly is highly vulnerable to 

collection. Vandalism, disturbance, and 

other harm from humans are also 

serious threats to the butterfly and its 

habitat (see Factors B and E above). At 

this time, removal of any individuals or 

damage to habitat may have devastating 

consequences for the survival of the 

subspecies. We estimate that these 

threats would be exacerbated by the 

publication of maps and descriptions 

outlining the specific locations of this 

critically imperiled butterfly in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers. 

Maps and descriptions of critical 

habitat, such as those that would appear 

in the Federal Register if critical habitat 

were designated, are not now available 

to the general public. 

Although we do not have specific 

evidence of taking for this subspecies, 

illegal collection of imperiled butterflies 

from State, Federal, and other lands in 

Florida appears ongoing, prevalent, and 

damaging (see Factor B analysis above). 

In addition, we are aware that a market 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20982 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

exists for trade in rare, imperiled, and 

listed butterflies, including those in 

south Florida (see Factor B analysis 

above). 

Additionally, we are aware of a 

market for butterflies that look similar to 

the Miami blue, including all three of 

the subspecies we are listing due to 

similarity of appearance (see above), as 

well as other Cyclargus thomasi 

subspecies that occur in foreign 

countries. It is clear that a demand 

currently exists for both imperiled 

butterflies and those similar in 

appearance to the Miami blue. Due to its 

few metapopulations, small population 

size, restricted range, and remoteness of 

occupied habitat, we find that collection 

is a significant threat to the Miami blue 

butterfly and could occur at any time. 

Even limited collection from the 

remaining population (or other 

populations, if discovered) could have 

deleterious effects on reproductive and 

genetic viability and thus could 

contribute to its extinction. 

Identification of critical habitat would 

increase the severity of this threat by 

depicting the exact locations where the 

subspecies may be found and more 

widely publicizing detailed information 

and maps, exposing the fragile 

population to greater risks. 

Identification and publication of 

critical habitat may also increase the 

likelihood of inadvertent or purposeful 

habitat destruction. Damage to host 

plants from humans has been 

documented in the past (see Factor E 

above). Recreation within occupied 

areas has resulted in trampling of 

vegetation and negative impacts to the 

subspecies and its habitat (see Factor E 

above). High visitation and illicit uses 

(e.g., fire pits, camping, vandalism) 

within occupied and suitable habitat 

have resulted in local disturbances, and 

the risk of fire (natural or humaninduced) is now a significant threat (see 

Factor E above). In addition, some 

private property owners in the Keys 

have reportedly threatened to clear 

vegetation from undeveloped properties 

to avoid any restrictions regarding the 

butterfly (M. Minno, in litt. 2011b; N. 

Pakhomoff-Spencer, consultant, pers. 

comm. 2011). We recognize that 

landowner cooperation is key to the 

Miami blue’s survival and recovery; 

however, this may be reduced with 

critical habitat designation. We estimate 

that identification and advertisement of 

critical habitat may exacerbate these 

threats, thus making sensitive areas 

more vulnerable to purposeful harmful 

impacts from humans. Immature stages 

(eggs, larvae), which are sedentary, are 

particularly vulnerable. Overall, 

identification and publication of 

detailed critical habitat information and 

maps would likely increase exposure of 

sensitive habitats and increase the 

likelihood and severity of threats to both 

the subspecies and its habitat. 

Identification and publication of 

critical habitat may lead to increased 

attention to the subspecies, or increased 

attempts to illegally collect it, which 

could also lead to an increase in 

enforcement problems. Although take 

prohibitions exist, effective enforcement 

is difficult. As discussed in Factors B, 

D, and E and elsewhere above, the threat 

of collection and inadvertent impacts 

from humans exists; areas are already 

difficult to patrol. Areas within the 

KWNWR are remote and accessible 

mainly by boat, making them difficult 

for law enforcement personnel to patrol 

and monitor. Designation of critical 

habitat would facilitate further use and 

misuse of sensitive habitats and 

resources, creating additional difficulty 

for law enforcement personnel in an 

already challenging environment. 

Overall, we find that designation of 

critical habitat will increase the 

likelihood and severity of the threats of 

illegal collection of the subspecies and 

destruction of sensitive habitat. With 

increased attention and activities, we 

also anticipate that designation will 

contribute to, and exacerbate 

enforcement issues and problems. 

Increased Threat to the Subspecies 

Outweighs the Benefits of Critical 

Habitat Designation 

Upon reviewing the available 

information, we have determined that 

the designation of critical habitat would 

subject the subspecies to increased 

threats, while conferring little 

additional incremental benefit beyond 

that provided by listing. With 

designation, minor regulatory (e.g., 

consulting on adverse modifications) 

and educational benefits may be 

realized. However, these benefits 

(beyond listing) will be more than offset 

by the increased threats to the 

subspecies and its habitat that could be 

associated with critical habitat 

designation. 

Critical habitat involves the 

identification and publication of 

detailed descriptions and maps. 

Publication of such maps and 

information, otherwise not now 

available, exposes the Miami blue to an 

increased threat of collection. It also 

increases the potential for inadvertent or 

purposeful disturbance and vandalism 

to important and sensitive habitats and 

contributes to enforcement issues. 

Overall, we find that the risk of 

increasing significant threats to the 

subspecies by publishing location 

information in a critical habitat 

designation greatly outweighs the 

minimal regulatory and educational 

benefits of designating critical habitat. 

In conclusion, we find that the 

designation of critical habitat is not 

prudent, in accordance with 50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1), because the Miami blue 

butterfly is threatened by collection and 

habitat destruction, and designation can 

reasonably be expected to increase the 

degree of these threats to the subspecies 

and its habitat. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and requires 

that recovery actions be carried out for 

all listed species. The protection 

required by Federal agencies and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act requires the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed, 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan, and revisions to the plan as 

significant new information becomes 

available. The recovery outline guides 

the immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. The recovery plan identifies sitespecific management actions that will 

achieve recovery of the species, 

measurable criteria that determine when 

a species may be downlisted or delisted, 

and methods for monitoring recovery 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20983 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(composed of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the draft 

recovery plan, and the final recovery 

plan will be available on our Web site 

(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or 

from our South Florida Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

road range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. 

Achieving recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

Through this listing, funding for 

recovery actions will be available from 

a variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost share 

grants for non-Federal landowners, the 

academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. 

Additionally, under section 6 of the Act, 

we would be able to grant funds to the 

State of Florida for management actions 

promoting the conservation of the 

Miami blue. Information on our grant 

programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the Miami blue. Additionally, 

we invite you to submit any new 

information on the subspecies, its 

habitat, or threats whenever it becomes 

available and any information you may 

have for recovery planning purposes. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as endangered or 

threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is being 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal 

agencies to confer informally with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act 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 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into formal 

consultation with us. 

Federal agency actions that may 

require conference or consultation as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include the issuance of Federal funding, 

permits, or authorizations for 

construction, clearing, development, 

road maintenance, pesticide 

registration, pesticide use (on Federal 

land or with Federal funding), 

agricultural assistance programs, 

Federal loan and insurance programs, 

Federal habitat restoration programs, 

and scientific and special uses. 

Activities will trigger consultation 

under section 7 of the Act if they may 

affect the Miami blue butterfly. 

Jeopardy Standard 

Prior to and following listing, the 

Service applies an analytical framework 

for jeopardy analyses that relies heavily 

on the importance of core area 

populations to the survival and recovery 

of the species. The section 7(a)(2) 

analysis is focused not only on these 

populations but also on the habitat 

conditions necessary to support them. 

The jeopardy analysis usually 

expresses the survival and recovery 

needs of the species in a qualitative 

fashion without making distinctions 

between what is necessary for survival 

and what is necessary for recovery. 

Generally, if a proposed Federal action 

is incompatible with the viability of the 

affected core area populations(s), 

inclusive of associated habitat 

conditions, a jeopardy finding is 

considered to be warranted, because of 

the relationship of each core area 

population to the survival and recovery 

of the species as a whole. 

Section 9 Take 

The Act and implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered and threatened 

wildlife. These prohibitions are 

applicable to the Miami blue butterfly 

immediately with listing. The 

prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, 

codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered 

wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take (includes harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt 

any of these), import or export, deliver, 

receive, carry, transport, or ship 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 also is 

illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 

transport, or ship any such wildlife that 

has been taken illegally. Further, it is 

illegal for any person to attempt to 

commit, to solicit another person to 

commit, or to cause to be committed, 

any of these acts. Certain exceptions 

apply to our agents and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. We codified the 

regulations governing permits for 

endangered species at 50 CFR 17.22. 

Such permits are available for scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, or for incidental 

take in the course of otherwise lawful 

activities. 

It is our policy, published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify, to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act and associated 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.21. The intent 

of this policy is to increase public 

awareness of the effect of this final 

listing on proposed and ongoing 

activities within a species’ range. We 

estimate, based on the best available 

information, that the following actions 

will not result in a violation of the 

provisions of section 9 of the Act, 

provided these actions are carried out in 

accordance with existing regulations 

and permit requirements, if applicable: 

(1) Possession, delivery, or movement, 

including interstate transport and 

import into or export from the United 

States, involving no commercial 

activity, of dead specimens of this taxon 

that were collected or legally acquired 

prior to the effective date of the 

emergency rule (August 10, 2011). 

(2) Actions that may affect the Miami 

blue that are authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies when 

such activities are conducted in 

accordance with an incidental take 

statement issued by us under section 7 

of the Act. 

(3) Actions that may affect the Miami 

blue that are not authorized, funded, or 

carried out by a Federal agency, when 

the action is conducted in accordance 

with an incidental take permit issued by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20984 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

us under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. 

Applicants design a Habitat 

Conservation Plan (HCP) and apply for 

an incidental take permit. These HCPs 

are developed for species listed under 

section 4 of the Act and are designed to 

minimize and mitigate impacts to the 

species to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

(4) Actions that may affect the Miami 

blue that are conducted in accordance 

with the conditions of a section 

10(a)(1)(A) permit for scientific research 

or to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the subspecies. 

(5) Captive propagation activities 

involving the Miami blue that are 

conducted in accordance with the 

conditions of a section 10(a)(1)(A) 

permit, our ‘‘Policy Regarding 

Controlled Propagation of Species 

Listed Under the Endangered Species 

Act,’’ and in cooperation with the State 

of Florida. 

(6) Low-impact, infrequent, dispersed 

human activities on foot (e.g., bird 

watching, butterfly watching, 

sightseeing, backpacking, photography, 

camping, hiking) in areas occupied by 

the Miami blue or where its host and 

nectar plants are present. 

(7) Activities on private lands that do 

not result in take of the Miami blue 

butterfly, such as normal landscape 

activities around a personal residence, 

construction that avoids butterfly 

habitat, and pesticide/herbicide 

application consistent with label 

restrictions, if applied in areas where 

the subspecies is absent. 

We estimate that the following 

activities would be likely to result in a 

violation of section 9 of the Act; 

however, possible violations are not 

limited to these actions alone: 

(1) Unauthorized possession, 

collecting, trapping, capturing, killing, 

harassing, sale, delivery, or movement, 

including interstate and foreign 

commerce, or harming or attempting 

any of these actions, of Miami blue 

butterflies at any life stage without a 

permit (research activities where Miami 

blue butterflies are handled, captured 

(e.g., netted, trapped), marked, or 

collected will require a permit under 

section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act). 

(2) Incidental take of Miami blue 

butterfly without a permit pursuant to 

section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the Act. 

(3) Sale or purchase of specimens of 

this taxon, except for properly 

documented antique specimens of this 

taxon at least 100 years old, as defined 

by section 10(h)(1) of the Act. 

(4) Unauthorized destruction or 

alteration of Miami blue butterfly 

habitat (including unauthorized grading, 

leveling, plowing, mowing, burning, 

trampling, herbicide spraying, or other 

destruction or modification of occupied 

or potentially occupied habitat or 

pesticide application in known 

occupied habitat) in ways that kills or 

injures eggs, larvae, or adult Miami blue 

butterflies by significantly impairing the 

subspecies’ essential breeding, foraging, 

sheltering, or other essential life 

functions. 

(5) Use of pesticides/herbicides that 

are in violation of label restrictions 

resulting in take of Miami blue butterfly 

or beneficial ants associated with the 

subspecies in areas occupied by the 

butterfly. 

(6) Unauthorized release of biological 

control agents that attack any life stage 

of this taxon or beneficial ants 

associated with the Miami blue. 

(7) Removal or destruction of native 

food plants being utilized by Miami 

blue butterfly, including Caesalpinia 

spp., Cardiospermum spp., and 

Pithecellobium spp., within areas used 

by this taxon that results in harm to this 

butterfly. 

(8) Release of exotic species into 

occupied Miami blue butterfly habitat 

that may displace the Miami blue or its 

native host plants. 

We will review other activities not 

identified above on a case-by-case basis 

to determine whether they may be likely 

to result in a violation of section 9 of the 

Act. We do not consider these lists to be 

exhaustive, and we provide them as 

information to the public. 

You should direct questions regarding 

whether specific activities may 

constitute a future violation of section 9 

of the Act to the Field Supervisor of the 

Service’s South Florida Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for 

copies of regulations regarding listed 

species and inquiries about prohibitions 

and permits should be addressed to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services Division, 

Endangered Species Permits, 1875 

Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345 

(Phone 404–679–7313; Fax 404–679– 

7081). 

Similarity of Appearance 

Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the 

treatment of a species, subspecies, or 

population segment as endangered or 

threatened if: ‘‘(a) such species so 

closely resembles in appearance, at the 

point in question, a species which has 

been listed pursuant to such section that 

enforcement personnel would have 

substantial difficulty in attempting to 

differentiate between the listed and 

unlisted species; (b) the effect of this 

substantial difficulty is an additional 

threat to an endangered or threatened 

species; and (c) such treatment of an 

unlisted species will substantially 

facilitate the enforcement and further 

the policy of this Act.’’ Listing a species 

as endangered or threatened under the 

similarity of appearance provisions of 

the Act extends the take prohibitions of 

section 9 of the Act to cover the species. 

A designation of endangered or 

threatened due to similarity of 

appearance under section 4(e) of the 

Act, however, does not extend other 

protections of the Act, such as 

consultation requirements for Federal 

agencies under section 7 and the 

recovery planning provisions under 

section 4(f), that apply to species that 

are listed as endangered or threatened 

under section 4(a). All applicable 

prohibitions and exceptions for species 

listed under section 4(e) of the Act due 

to similarity of appearance to a 

threatened or endangered species will 

be set forth in a special rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act. 

There are only slight morphological 

differences between the Miami blue and 

the cassius blue, ceraunus blue, and 

nickerbean blue, making it difficult to 

differentiate between the species, 

especially due to their small size (see 

Background above). Aside from 

technical experts, most people would 

have difficulty distinguishing these 

similar butterflies (as adults, eggs, or 

larvae), especially without field guides 

or when adults are in flight. This poses 

a problem for Federal and State law 

enforcement agents trying to stem illegal 

collection and trade in the Miami blue. 

It is quite possible that collectors 

authorized to collect similar species 

may inadvertently (or purposefully) 

collect the Miami blue butterfly 

thinking it was the cassius blue, 

ceraunus blue, or nickerbean blue, 

which also occur in the same 

geographical area and habitat type. The 

listing of these similar blue butterflies as 

threatened due to similarity of 

appearance reduces the likelihood that 

amateur butterfly enthusiasts and 

private and commercial collectors will 

purposefully or accidentally 

misrepresent the Miami blue as one of 

these other species. 

The listing will also facilitate Federal 

and State law enforcement agents’ 

efforts to curtail illegal possession, 

collection, and trade in the Miami blue. 

At this time, the three similar butterflies 

are not protected by the State of Florida. 

Extending the prohibitions of collection 

to the three similar butterflies through 

this listing of these species due to 

similarity of appearance under section 

4(e) of the Act and providing applicable 

prohibitions and exceptions under 

section 4(d) of the Act will provide 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20985 

greater protection to the Miami blue. For 

these reasons, we are listing the cassius 

blue butterfly (Leptotes cassius 

theonus), ceraunus blue butterfly 

(Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus), and 

nickerbean blue butterfly (Cyclargus 

ammon) as threatened due to similarity 

of appearance to the Miami blue, in 

portions of their ranges, pursuant to 

section 4(e) of the Act. Therefore, the 

cassius blue, ceraunus blue, and 

nickerbean blue butterflies are listed as 

threatened species under the Act due to 

similarity of appearance only within the 

historical range of the Miami blue 

butterfly in Florida. This includes the 

coastal counties south of Interstate 4 

(I–4) and extending to the boundaries of 

the State at the endpoints of I–4 at 

Tampa and Daytona Beach. 

We are limiting the listing of these 

similar butterflies to only a portion of 

their ranges because we find this is 

sufficient to protect the Miami blue 

(from collection) while being responsive 

to comments received (see Comments 

Relating to Similarity of Appearance 

Butterflies, especially Comment #17 and 

Response above). 

Special Rule Under Section 4(d) of the 

Act 

Whenever a species is listed as a 

threatened species under the Act, the 

Secretary may specify regulations that 

he deems necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of that 

species under the authorization of 

section 4(d) of the Act. These rules, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘special rules,’’ 

are found in part 17 of title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 

§§ 17.40–17.48. This special rule for 

§ 17.47 prohibits take of any cassius 

blue butterfly (Leptotes cassius 

theonus), ceraunus blue butterfly 

(Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus), or 

nickerbean blue butterfly (Cyclargus 

ammon) or their immature stages only 

throughout coastal south and central 

Florida in order to protect the Miami 

blue butterfly from collection, 

possession, and trade. In this context, 

any activity where cassius blue, 

ceraunus blue, or nickerbean blue 

butterflies or their immature stages are 

attempted to be, or are intended to be, 

collected, in counties that overlap with 

the Miami blue’s historical range in 

Florida, are prohibited. Collection of the 

similar butterflies is prohibited south of 

I–4 and extending to the boundaries of 

the State of Florida at the endpoints of 

I–4 at Tampa and Daytona Beach. 

Specifically, such activities are 

prohibited in the following counties: 

Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, De 

Soto, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee, 

Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota, St. Lucie, 

Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm 

Beach, and Volusia. 

Capture of cassius blue, ceraunus 

blue, or nickerbean blue butterflies, or 

their immature stages, is not prohibited 

if it is accidental or incidental to 

otherwise legal collection activities, 

such as research, provided the animal is 

released immediately upon discovery at 

the point of capture. Scientific activities 

involving collection or propagation of 

these similarity of appearance 

butterflies are not prohibited, provided 

there is prior written authorization from 

the Service. All otherwise legal 

activities involving cassius blue, 

ceraunus blue, or nickerbean blue 

butterflies that are conducted in 

accordance with applicable State, 

Federal, Tribal, and local laws and 

regulations are not considered to be take 

under this regulation. For further 

explanation see ‘‘Effects of the Rule’’ 

immediately below. 

Effects of the Rule 

Listing the cassius blue, ceraunus 

blue, and nickerbean blue butterflies as 

threatened under the ‘‘similarity of 

appearance’’ provisions of the Act, and 

the promulgation of a special rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act, extend take 

prohibitions to these species and their 

immature stages in portions of their 

ranges. Capture of these species, 

including their immature stages, is not 

prohibited if it is accidental or 

incidental to otherwise legal collection 

activities, such as research, provided the 

animal is released immediately upon 

discovery, at the point of capture. 

However, this final rule establishes 

prohibitions on the collection of these 

species throughout coastal south and 

central Florida within the historical 

range of the Miami blue butterfly. 

All otherwise legal activities that may 

involve incidental take (take that results 

from, but is not the purpose of, carrying 

out an otherwise lawful activity) of 

these similar butterflies, and which are 

conducted in accordance with 

applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and 

local laws and regulations, will not be 

considered take under this regulation. 

For example, this special 4(d) rule 

exempts legal application of pesticides, 

yard care, vehicle use, vegetation 

management, exotic plant removal, 

burning, and any other legally 

undertaken actions that result in the 

accidental take of cassius blue, ceraunus 

blue, or nickerbean blue butterflies. 

These actions will not be considered as 

violations of section 9 of the Act. We 

find that listing the cassius blue, 

ceraunus blue, and nickerbean blue 

butterflies under the similarity of 

appearance provision of the Act, 

coupled with this special 4(d) rule, will 

help minimize enforcement problems 

and enhance conservation of the Miami 

blue. 

The provision to allow incidental take 

of these three similar butterflies will not 

pose a threat to the Miami blue because: 

(1) Activities such as yard care and 

vegetation control in developed or 

commercial areas that are likely to result 

in take of the cassius blue, ceraunus 

blue, and nickerbean blue are not likely 

to affect the Miami blue (which occur 

only on conservation lands), and (2) the 

primary threat that activities concerning 

the cassius blue, ceraunus blue, and 

nickerbean blue butterflies pose to the 

Miami blue comes from collection. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

As explained previously in Previous 

Federal Actions above, we believe that 

it is necessary to establish immediate 

protections under the Act for these 

butterfly species. The August 10, 2011, 

emergency rule (76 FR 49542) that 

implemented protections for 240 days 

expires April 6, 2012. Therefore, under 

the exemption provided in the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3)), we have determined that 

‘‘good cause’’ exists to make these 

regulations effective as stated above (see 

DATES). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: (a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; (c) Use clear language 

rather than jargon; (d) Be divided into 

short sections and sentences; and (e) 

Use lists and tables wherever possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us page numbers and the 

names of the sections or paragraphs that 

are unclearly written, which sections or 

sentences are too long, the sections 

where you feel lists or tables would be 

useful, etc. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq.) 

This final rule does not contain any 

new collections of information that 

require approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 

will not impose new recordkeeping or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

20986 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

reporting requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. We may not conduct or 

sponsor, and you are not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that we do not 

need to prepare an environmental 

assessment, as defined under the 

authority of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 4(a) 

of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this final rule is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

or upon request from the Field 

Supervisor, South Florida Ecological 

Services Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

staff members of the South Florida 

Ecological Services Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding new 

entries for the following, in alphabetical 

order under Insects, to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population 

where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat Common name Scientific name 

*******

INSECTS

* * * * * * * 

Butterfly, cassius blue Leptotes cassius 

theonus.

U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas, 

Greater Antilles, 

Cayman Islands.

NA T (S/A) (coastal south 

and central FL).

801 NA 

Butterfly, ceraunus 

blue.

Hemiargus ceraunus 

antibubastus.

U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas NA T (S/A) (coastal south 

and central FL).

801 NA 

* * * * * * * 

Butterfly, Miami blue .. Cyclargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri.

U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas NA E ................................. 801 NA 

* * * * * * * 

Butterfly, nickerbean 

blue.

Cyclargus ammon ...... U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas, 

Cuba.

NA T (S/A) (coastal south 

and central FL).

801 NA 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. In subpart D, add § 17.47 to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.47 Special rules—insects. 

(a) Cassius blue butterfly (Leptotes 

cassius theonus), Ceraunus blue 

butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus 

antibubastus), and Nickerbean blue 

butterfly (Cyclargus ammon). 

(1) The provisions of § 17.31(c) apply 

to these species (cassius blue butterfly, 

ceraunus blue butterfly, nickerbean blue 

butterfly), regardless of whether in the 

wild or in captivity, and also apply to 

the progeny of any such butterfly. 

(2) Any violation of State law will 

also be a violation of the Act. 

(3) Incidental take, that is, take that 

results from, but is not the purpose of, 

carrying out an otherwise lawful 

activity, will not apply to the cassius 

blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, 

and nickerbean blue butterfly. 

(4) Collection of the cassius blue 

butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and 

nickerbean blue butterfly is prohibited 

in coastal counties south of Interstate 4 

and extending to the boundaries of the 

State of Florida at the endpoints of 

Interstate 4 at Tampa and Daytona 

Beach. Specifically, such activities are 

prohibited in the following counties: 

Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, De 

Soto, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee, 

Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota, St. Lucie, 

Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm 

Beach, and Volusia. 

(b) [Reserved]. 

Dated: March 27, 2012. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8088 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3