Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3739 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: singh.ben@epa.gov. Include 

the Docket ID No. EPA–R04–UST–2020– 

0696 in the subject line of the message. 

Instructions: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

UST–2020–0696, via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from https://

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit: 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Out of an abundance of caution for 

members of the public and our staff, the 

public’s access to the EPA Region 4 

Offices is by appointment only to 

reduce the risk of transmitting COVID– 

19. We encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov or via email. The 

EPA encourages electronic comment 

submittals, but if you are unable to 

submit electronically or need other 

assistance, please contact Ben Singh, the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT provision below. 

The index to the docket for this action 

is available electronically at https://

www.regulations.gov. The documents 

that form the basis of this codification 

and associated publicly available docket 

materials are available for review on the 

https://www.regulations.gov website. 

The EPA encourages electronic 

reviewing of these documents, but if 

you are unable to review these 

documents electronically, please contact 

Ben Singh to schedule an appointment 

to view the documents at the Region 4 

Offices. Interested persons wanting to 

examine these documents should make 

an appointment at least two weeks in 

advance. The EPA Region 4 requires all 

visitors to adhere to the COVID–19 

protocol. Please contact Ben Singh for 

the COVID–19 protocol requirements 

prior to your appointment. 

Please also contact Ben Singh if you 

need assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you. For 

further information on the EPA Docket 

Center services and the current status, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

The EPA continues to carefully and 

continuously monitor information from 

the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, local area health 

departments, and our Federal partners 

so that we can respond rapidly as 

conditions change regarding COVID–19. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Singh, RCRA Programs and Cleanup 

Branch, Land, Chemicals and 

Redevelopment Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 

Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960; Phone number: (404) 562– 

8922, email address: singh.ben@epa.gov. 

Please contact Ben Singh by phone or 

email for further information. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, see the direct 

final rule published in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 282 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Environmental protection, 

Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 

reference, Petroleum, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, State 

program approval, and Underground 

storage tanks. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 7004(b), 9004, 

9005 and 9006 of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6974(b), 

6991c, 6991d, and 6991e. 

Dated: January 18, 2022. 

Daniel Blackman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01297 Filed 1–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2021–0069; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BG01 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Sacramento Mountains 

Checkerspot Butterfly 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas 

anicia cloudcrofti), a butterfly from New 

Mexico, as an endangered species under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After a review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing the 

species is warranted. Accordingly, we 

propose to list the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly as an 

endangered species under the Act. If we 

finalize this rule as proposed, it would 

add this species to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and extend the Act’s protections to the 

species. We find that the designation of 

critical habitat for the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly is not 

determinable at this time. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 28, 2022. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by March 11, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking (presented above in the 

document headings). For best results, do 

not copy and paste either number; 

instead, type the docket number or RIN 

into the Search box using hyphens. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, check the 

Proposed Rule box to locate this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3740 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

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

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R2–ES–2021–0069, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shawn Sartorius, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 

Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113; 

telephone 505–346–2525. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, if we determine that a species 

warrants listing, we are required to 

promptly publish a proposal in the 

Federal Register, unless doing so is 

precluded by higher-priority actions and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add and remove qualified species to or 

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The 

Service will make a determination on 

our proposal within 1 year. If there is 

substantial disagreement regarding the 

sufficiency and accuracy of the available 

data relevant to the proposed listing, we 

may extend the final determination for 

not more than six months. To the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, we must designate critical 

habitat for any species that we 

determine to be an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

Listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species and designation of 

critical habitat can be completed only 

by issuing a rule. 

What this document does. We 

propose to list the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly as an 

endangered species under the Act. As 

explained later in this document, we 

conclude that the designation of critical 

habitat for the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly is not 

determinable at this time. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any of 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. We 

have determined that the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly is 

primarily threatened by overgrazing by 

large ungulates, recreation, climate 

change, nonnative plants, and an altered 

wildfire regime. 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

designate critical habitat concurrent 

with listing to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. Section 

3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 

as (i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protections; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species 

and existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of this 

species, including the locations of any 

additional populations of this species. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

a threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, our final 

determination may differ from this 

proposal. Based on the new information 

we receive (and any comments on that 

new information), we may conclude that 

the species is threatened instead of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3741 

endangered, or we may conclude that 

the species does not warrant listing as 

either an endangered species or a 

threatened species. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. For 

the immediate future, we will provide 

these public hearings using webinars 

that will be announced on the Service’s 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of these virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On January 28, 1999, we received a 

petition from the Southwest Center for 

Biological Diversity (now Center for 

Biological Diversity (CBD)) requesting 

emergency listing of the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly as 

endangered with critical habitat. On 

December 27, 1999, we published a 90- 

day finding that the petition presented 

substantial information that listing may 

be warranted, but that emergency listing 

was not warranted (64 FR 72300). 

On September 6, 2001, we published 

a 12-month finding and proposed rule to 

list the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly as endangered 

with critical habitat (66 FR 46575). On 

December 21, 2004, we published a 

withdrawal of the proposed rule (69 FR 

76428), concluding that the threats to 

the species were not as great as we had 

perceived when we proposed it for 

listing. 

On July 5, 2007, we received another 

petition from Forest Guardians (now 

WildEarth Guardians) and CBD to list 

the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly under the Act due to ongoing 

threats, such as cattle and feral horse 

grazing, noxious weeds, collection, and 

climate change, and an imminent plan 

to spray for insect pests. On December 

5, 2008, we published a 90-day finding 

that the petition presented substantial 

information that listing may be 

warranted (73 FR 74123). On September 

2, 2009, we published a 12-month 

finding that listing was not warranted 

(74 FR 45396). 

Please refer to the previous proposed 

listing and critical habitat rule (66 FR 

46575; September 6, 2001), the 

withdrawal of the proposed listing and 

critical habitat rule (69 FR 76428; 

December 21, 2004), and the notwarranted 12-month finding (74 FR 

45396; September 2, 2009) for the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly for a detailed description of 

previous Federal actions concerning this 

species. 

Since we published the not-warranted 

rule in 2009, drought from climate 

change has worsened in New Mexico, 

worsening habitat conditions for the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly. Further, during abnormally 

dry conditions, both feral horses and elk 

switch to browsing certain plants that 

are important for the butterfly. 

Additionally, recreation on the Lincoln 

National Forest has increased in recent 

years. Due to heightened concern about 

the impact of these stressors on the 

habitat of the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly, we initiated a 

discretionary status review of the 

species in January 2021. 

On March 1, 2021, we received a 

petition from CBD to list the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly as 

endangered with critical habitat. At that 

time, our analysis was already 

underway, and we included the 

information provided in the petition in 

our analysis of the species’ status for 

consideration in this decision. 

Supporting Documents 

An assessment team prepared a 

current condition assessment report for 

the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly. The team was composed of 

Service biologists in consultation with 

other species experts. The report 

represents a compilation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the species, 

including the impacts of past and 

present factors (both negative and 

beneficial) affecting the species. In 

accordance with our joint policy on peer 

review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we will seek the expert opinions of at 

least three appropriate specialists 

regarding the report. The report will be 

made available for peer and partner 

review concurrently with this proposed 

listing determination. Any information 

we receive will be incorporated into a 

final rule. 

I. Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

The Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly (butterfly) is a 

subspecies of the Anicia checkerspot, or 

variable checkerspot, in the 

Nymphalidae (brush-footed butterfly) 

family that is native to the Sacramento 

Mountains in south-central New 

Mexico. The species requires host plants 

for larvae, nectar sources for adults, and 

climatic moisture. 

The Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly is a small butterfly 

with a wingspan of approximately 5 

centimeters (cm) (2 inches (in)) that has 

a checkered pattern with dark brown, 

red, orange, cream, and black spots, 

punctuated with dark lines (Ferris and 

Holland 1980, p. 5). The butterfly’s 

antennae have yellow-orange clubs at 

the tip, and they have orange legs and 

eyes (Glassberg 2017, p. 207). 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly’s larvae are between 0.5 to 1.0 

cm (0.2 to 0.4 in) in length. Over time, 

the larvae change from bare and brown 

to wooly and black with orange hairs 

(Service et al. 2005, p. 7). 

The Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly inhabits highaltitude meadows in the upper-montane 

and subalpine zone at elevations 

between 2,380 and 2,750 meters (m) 

(7,800 and 9,000 feet (ft)) within the 

Sacramento Mountains, which are an 

isolated mountain range in south-central 

New Mexico (Service 2005 et al., p. 9). 

The ecosystem at this elevation usually 

is cool and wet, supporting diverse and 

robust plant life. 

The main larval host plant for the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly is the New Mexico 

beardtongue (Penstemon neomexicanus) 

(Ferris and Holland 1980, p. 7), also 

known as New Mexico penstemon. The 

preferred adult nectar source is orange 

sneezeweed (Helenium (Hymenoxys) 

hoopesii), a native perennial forb 

(Service et al. 2005, p. 9). Other plants 

in the butterfly’s habitat include 

valerian (Valeriana edulis), arrowleaf 

groundsel (Senecio triangularis), 

curlycup gumplant (Grindelia 

squarrosa), figworts (Scrophularia sp.), 

penstemon (Penstemon sp.), skyrocket 

(Ipomopsis aggregata), milkweed 

(Asclepias sp.), Arizona rose (Rosa 

woodsii), and Wheeler’s wallflower 

(Erysimum capitatum) (Forest Service 

1999, entire). 

In the Sacramento Mountains, small 

daily rainstorms (monsoons) are 

common during the summer months. 

During this cycle, adult butterflies are 

active during mid-morning when the 

sunlight has warmed the air but before 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3742 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

rainstorms move into the area in the 

afternoon (Forest Service 1999, p. 3). On 

chilly, cloudy days when temperatures 

are around 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 

(16 degrees Celsius (°C)), butterflies are 

inactive. Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterflies are most active 

during sunny days when temperatures 

remain near 70 °F (21 °C) (Forest Service 

1999, p. 4). The optimal temperature 

range is between 73 and 80 °F (23 and 

27 °C) (Ryan 2021a, pers. comm.). When 

temperatures regularly exceed 80 °F 

(27 °C) during the summer months, few 

adult butterflies were detected (Hughes 

2021a, pers. comm.). 

The Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly is univoltine, 

meaning there is one generation per 

year. The butterfly’s life cycle is 

synchronized with the development of 

host and nectar plants. The flight season 

lasts from mid-June to the end of 

August. The exact timing of adult flight 

can vary dramatically from one year to 

the next (Service et al. 2005, pp. 10–11). 

The adult butterflies stagger their 

emergence from pupation, with 

numbers peaking around the second 

week of the flight season. Females 

deposit a cluster of eggs on the 

underside of New Mexico beardtongue 

leaves. A female can lay two to three 

sets of eggs during her short lifetime 

(Service et al. 2005, pp. 10–11). The 

eggs hatch within 2 weeks, and larvae 

collectively create a protective silken 

shelter, known as a tent, over the host 

plant, feeding upon it until winter or the 

plant is defoliated (Pratt and Emmel 

2010, p. 108). Caterpillars at this stage 

are relatively immobile and rely on host 

plant health and abundance to complete 

the first stages of their life cycle (Arriens 

et al. 2020, p. 2). Caterpillars can leave 

the plant and search for additional 

resources, but it is unknown how far 

they can travel in search of food (Pratt 

and Emmel 2010, p. 108; Service et al. 

2005, p. 11). 

After the third or fourth growth cycle, 

the larvae enter a period of arrested 

metabolism known as diapause. 

Diapause begins between late September 

and early October, depending on 

environmental conditions. During 

diapause, larvae probably remain in leaf 

or grass litter near the base of shrubs, 

under the bark of conifers, or in the 

loose soils associated with pocket 

gopher (Thomomys bottae) mounds (see 

66 FR 46575; September 6, 2001). The 

larvae remain in diapause until warm 

spring temperatures, moisture events, 

host plant growth, or some combination 

of these events prompts individuals to 

come out of their suspended state 

(Service et al. 2005, p. 11). It might be 

possible for caterpillars to re-enter or 

remain in diapause for more than one 

year if environmental conditions are not 

conducive for growth (Service et al. 

2005, p. 11). 

Between March and April, postdiapause larvae emerge and begin to 

feed again. In the spring, larvae are more 

mobile than they were in the fall, 

moving on average 2.6 meters from their 

natal tents (Pittenger and Yori 2003, p. 

3). They have three or four more growth 

stages before pupating (forming a 

chrysalis). Precisely what triggers 

caterpillars to initiate pupation is not 

well understood, but likely relies on 

various environmental cues (Service et 

al. 2005, p. 11). As many as 98 percent 

of individuals do not survive to the 

adult stage (Ryan 2021b, pers. comm.). 

Because the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly has a life-history 

pattern similar to other butterflies in the 

Euphydryas genus that exist as 

metapopulations, it is likely that this 

butterfly also has a metapopulation 

structure (Ehrlich et al. 1975, p. 221; 

Murphy and Weiss 1988, pp. 192–194). 

A metapopulation is a group of local 

populations within an area, where 

typically migration from one local 

population to other areas containing 

suitable habitat is possible, but not 

routine (Murphy and Weiss 1988, p. 

192). Movement between areas 

containing suitable habitat (i.e., 

dispersal) is restricted due to 

inhospitable conditions around and 

between areas of suitable habitat 

(Service et al. 2005, p. 15). 

Metapopulation-level processes appear 

to be critical to the long-term 

persistence of the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly. 

Butterflies in the genus Euphydryas 

are typically restricted to specific 

habitats (Ehrlich et al. 1975, p. 225; 

Cullenward et al. 1979, p. 1; Murphy 

and Weiss 1988, p. 197). The extent of 

the historical range of the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly is 

unknown due to limited information 

collected on this subspecies before its 

description in 1980 (Ferris and Holland 

1980, p. 7). Although the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot’s historical 

range is unknown, the species is 

thought to have once occupied a more 

extensive (but still limited) area based 

upon the location of its meadow habitat. 

Surveys completed between 1996 and 

1997 found that the butterfly occupies 

roughly 85 square kilometers (33 square 

miles) within the vicinity of the village 

of Cloudcroft (see 66 FR 46575; 

September 6, 2001). However, recent 

surveys indicate that the butterfly’s 

suitable habitat is likely less than 2 

square miles within the range (Forest 

Service 2020b, entire). The U.S. Forest 

Service (Forest Service) has been 

conducting presence-or-absence surveys 

since 1998 to estimate the range of the 

butterfly (Forest Service 1999, p. 2). 

Based on the best available information, 

the butterfly continues to exist within 

the same general localities (Pittenger 

and Yori 2003, p. 15; McIntyre 2005, pp. 

1–2; McIntyre 2008, p. 1; Ryan 2007, pp. 

11–12). 

The range of the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly has 

always been discontinuous and 

fragmented. Spruce-fir forests punctuate 

suitable butterfly habitat comprised of 

mountain meadows, creating intrinsic 

barriers to butterfly dispersal and 

effectively isolating populations from 

one another (Pittenger and Yori 2003, p. 

1). It is likely that the meadow habitat 

upon which the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly relies was 

influenced by fire (Brown et al. 2001, 

pp. 116–117). The historical fire regime 

would have allowed for more temporary 

connectivity between populations as it 

opened up the canopy of trees that 

separate meadows. However, fire 

suppression on public and private lands 

to protect commercial and private 

development in suitable habitat has 

resulted in the encroachment of 

conifers. 

The Mescalero Apache Nation shares 

the northern border with the 

Sacramento Ranger District on the 

Lincoln National Forest. This border is 

the northern limit of butterfly surveys. 

We do not know if the range of the 

butterfly extends into the lands of the 

Mescalero Apache Nation because, to 

our knowledge, no surveys have been 

conducted on their lands (see 66 FR 

46575; September 6, 2001). Although we 

do not have information on habitat on 

Mescalero Apache Nation lands, it is 

unlikely that there is a significant 

amount of suitable habitat present there 

because it is generally lower elevation 

than the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly requires (i.e., 

between 2,380 and 2,750 m (7,800 and 

9,000 ft)) and is not proximal (i.e., 

provides connectivity) to known 

butterfly localities (see 66 FR 46575; 

September 6, 2001). 

Since 1998, populations have been 

known from 10 meadow units on Forest 

Service land (Forest Service, 1999, p. 2). 

The meadows cover the occupied areas 

within the species’ range and give the 

most accurate representation of species 

and habitat conditions available. These 

meadow units include Bailey Canyon, 

Pines Meadow Campground, Horse 

Pasture Meadow, Silver Springs 

Canyon, Cox Canyon, Sleepygrass 

Canyon, Spud Patch Canyon, Deerhead 

Canyon, Pumphouse Canyon, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3743 

Yardplot Meadow. The species has been 

extirpated from several of these 

meadows recently. The Yardplot 

Meadow was sold and developed, while 

suitable habitat in Horse Pasture 

Meadow was eliminated by logging 

(Forest Service 2017, p. 3). No adults or 

caterpillars have been detected within 

Pumphouse Canyon since 2003, and the 

species has likely been extirpated at that 

site (Forest Service 2017, p. 3). In 2020, 

all 10 meadows were surveyed for 

butterflies and larvae, and a total of 

eight butterflies were detected in only 

Bailey Canyon and Pines Meadow 

Campground combined (Forest Service 

2020b, p. 3), and no larval tents were 

found at any site (Forest Service 2020b, 

pp. 1–3; Hughes 2020, pers. comm.). 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. The Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

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. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The current condition assessment 

report documents the results of our 

comprehensive biological review of the 

best scientific and commercial data 

regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The current 

condition assessment report does not 

represent a decision by the Service on 

whether the species should be proposed 

for listing as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

However, it does provide the scientific 

basis that informs our regulatory 

decisions, which involve the further 

application of standards within the Act 

and its implementing regulations and 

policies. The following is a summary of 

the key results and conclusions from the 

current condition assessment report; the 

full report can be found at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2021–0069 and at https:// 

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/. 

To assess Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly viability, we used 

the three conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 

2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

Our analysis can be categorized into 

several sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current conditions of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3744 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

at its current condition. Throughout 

these stages, we used the best available 

information to characterize viability as 

the ability of a species to sustain 

populations in the wild over time. We 

use this information to inform our 

regulatory decision. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

Below, we review the biological 

condition of the species and its 

resources, and the threats that influence 

the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

For the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly to maintain 

viability, its populations or some 

portion thereof must have sufficient 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. Several factors influence 

the resiliency of Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly populations, 

including larval and adult abundance 

and density, in addition to elements of 

the species’ habitat that determine 

whether Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly populations can 

survive and reproduce. These resiliency 

factors and habitat elements are 

discussed in detail in the current 

condition assessment report and are 

summarized here. 

Species Needs 

Abundance and Density 

To successfully reproduce and 

increase their fecundity and abundance, 

butterflies need access to mates. The 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly is not a long-distance flier and 

probably relies on local abundance and 

population density to successfully mate 

and reproduce (Pittenger and Yori 2003, 

p. 39). Higher densities and more 

abundant individuals result in more 

successful mating attempts and ensure 

species viability. Metapopulation 

dynamics are also maintained by 

abundance and density within meadows 

(Pittenger and Yori 2003, pp. 39–40). 

Host Plants 

The most crucial habitat factor for the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly is the New Mexico 

beardtongue’s presence and abundance 

(McIntyre 2021a, pers. comm.). The 

larvae rely nearly entirely upon the New 

Mexico beardtongue during pre- and 

post-diapause. Because of the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly’s dependency on New Mexico 

beardtongue, it is vulnerable to any type 

of habitat degradation, which reduces 

the host plant’s health and abundance 

(Service et al. 2005, p. 9). 

New Mexico beardtongue is a member 

of the Plantaginaceae, or figwort, family 

(Oxelman et al. 2005, p. 425). These 

perennial plants prefer wooded slopes 

or open glades in ponderosa pine and 

spruce/fir forests at elevations between 

1,830 and 2,750 m (6,000 and 9,000 ft) 

(New Mexico Rare Plant Technical 

Council 1999, entire). New Mexico 

beardtongue is native to the Sacramento 

Mountains within Lincoln and Otero 

Counties (Sivinski and Knight 1996, p. 

289). The plant is perennial, has purple 

or violet-blue flowers, and grows to be 

half a meter tall (1.9 ft). New Mexico 

beardtongue occurs in areas with loose 

soils or where there has been recent soil 

disturbance, such as eroded banks and 

pocket gopher burrows (Pittenger and 

Yori 2003, p. ii). Some plant species 

within the figwort family, including the 

New Mexico beardtongue, contain 

iridoid glycosides, a family of organic 

compounds that are bitter and an emetic 

(vomit-inducing) for most birds and 

mammal species. The Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly, like 

other subspecies of Euphydryas anicia, 

sequester the iridoid glycosides as 

caterpillars. It is believed that these 

compounds make the larvae and adult 

butterflies unpalatable to predators 

(Gardner and Stermitz 1987, pp. 2152– 

2167). 

Nectar Sources 

Access to nectar sources is needed for 

adult Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterflies to properly carry 

out their life cycle. The primary adult 

nectar source is orange sneezeweed 

(Service et al. 2005, p. 9). To contribute 

to the species’ viability, orange 

sneezeweed must bloom at a time that 

corresponds with the emergence of 

adult Sacramento Mountain checkerspot 

butterflies. Although orange sneezeweed 

flowers are most frequently used, the 

butterfly has been observed collecting 

nectar on various other native nectar 

sources (Service et al. 2005, pp. 9–10). 

If orange sneezeweed is not blooming 

during the adult flight period (i.e., 

experiencing phenological mismatch), 

survival and the butterfly’s fecundity 

could decrease. 

Habitat Connectivity 

Before human intervention, the 

habitat of the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly was dynamic, 

with meadows forming and 

reconnecting due to natural wildfire 

regimes (Service et al. 2005, p. 21). 

These patterns would have facilitated 

natural dispersal and recolonization of 

meadow habitats following disturbance 

events, especially when there was high 

butterfly population density in adjacent 

meadows (Service et al. 2005, p. 21). 

Currently, spruce-fir forests punctuate 

suitable butterfly habitat, comprised of 

mountain meadows, creating intrinsic 

barriers to butterfly dispersal and 

effectively isolating populations from 

one another (Pittenger and Yori 2003, p. 

1). Preliminary genetic research 

suggested there is extremely low gene 

flow across the species’ range or 

between meadows surveyed (Ryan 

2021a, pers. comm.). If new sites are to 

become colonized or recolonized by the 

butterfly, meadow areas will need to be 

connected enough to allow dispersal 

from occupied areas. Therefore, habitat 

connectivity is needed for genetically 

healthy populations across the species’ 

range (Service 2021, p. 8). 

Risk Factors for the Sacramento 

Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly 

We reviewed the potential risk factors 

(i.e., threats, stressors) that could be 

currently affecting the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly. In this 

proposed rule, we will discuss only 

those factors in detail that could 

meaningfully impact the status of the 

species. Those risk factors that are 

unlikely to have significant effects on 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly populations, such as human 

collection, disease, parasites, predation, 

insecticides, habitat loss, and livestock 

grazing, are not discussed here but are 

evaluated in the current condition 

assessment report. For example, 

livestock grazing has the potential to 

impact the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly through various 

mechanisms (Service et al. 2005, pp. 

29–30; Forest Service 2008, p. 70; 

McIntyre 2010, pp. 76–77, 94–104; 

Forest Service 2019, p. 21). However, 

because there are no active grazing 

allotments in any areas occupied by the 

butterfly, livestock grazing is not a 

primary risk factor for the status of the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly. The primary risk factors (i.e., 

threats) affecting the status of the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly are overgrazing by large 

ungulates (Factor A), recreation (Factor 

A), climate change (Factor E), nonnative 

plants (Factor A), and an altered 

wildfire regime (Factor A). 

Overgrazing by Large Ungulates 

Historically, Merriam’s elk (Cervus 

canadensis merriami), an extinct 

subspecies of elk, grazed meadows 

within the Sacramento Mountains. 

Under normal conditions, these species 

likely coexisted without impacting the 

existence of the butterfly. Rocky 

Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis 

nelsoni) have been introduced to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3745 

Sacramento Mountains, filling the 

previous ecological niche held by 

Merriam’s elk (New Mexico Department 

of Game and Fish 2009, unpaginated). 

At natural population levels and normal 

environmental conditions, elk do not 

pose a significant threat to the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly or its habitat. In fact, some 

studies have shown a positive 

correlation between elk grazing and 

caterpillar abundance (McIntyre 2010, 

pp. 66–69). Should elk herds expand 

beyond natural levels or occur during 

times of resource scarcity, browse 

pressure from elk can pose a significant 

threat to the butterfly’s habitat and 

viability (Service 2021, p. 13). 

Feral horses were inadvertently 

released onto the Lincoln National 

Forest around 2012. Horses are not 

native to the Sacramento Mountains and 

add significant browse pressure to 

meadows. Larger than elk, horses 

consume large quantities of vegetation. 

Roughly 60,000 horses now live 

throughout the Sacramento Mountains 

(Ryan 2021, pers. comm.). 

Under typical habitat conditions, the 

larval host plant, New Mexico 

beardtongue, is not a main food source 

for large ungulates. However, during 

abnormally dry conditions, both horses 

and elk switch to browsing New Mexico 

beardtongue as other food plants 

become scarce (McIntyre 2010, pp. 71– 

73). New Mexico beardtongue remains 

as small rosettes less than an inch tall 

and does not flower when there is 

significant browse pressure from large 

herbivores. These small, stunted plants 

are not large enough to support tent 

colonies of caterpillars; any larvae will 

starve after hatching (Forest Service 

2020b, p. 11). 

Feral horse and overpopulated elk 

browsing, compounded with drought 

due to climate change, significantly 

impact habitat within meadow 

ecosystems in the range of the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly. Over the past several years, 

sustained drought in Otero County has 

driven large herbivores to graze most 

meadow areas to the ground (McMahan 

et al. 2021, pp. 1–2). Currently, 

vegetation for host plant and nectar 

sources is scarce in all the meadows 

throughout the range of the species 

(Forest Service 2020, p. 11). 

In summary, overgrazing by large 

ungulates results in decline of suitable 

habitat, limiting larval host plants and 

adult nectar sources. All meadow units 

within the range are experiencing 

impacts from overgrazing. 

Recreation 

Over the past 10 years, recreation has 

increased in the Lincoln National 

Forest. The previous proposed listing 

rule (66 FR 46575; September 6, 2001) 

determined that off-road vehicle use on 

Forest Service trails posed some threat 

to meadow units; off-road vehicle use 

continues to this day and has increased 

in popularity. Large recreational vehicle 

(RV) use has also increased, and the 

Forest Service does not require permits 

for parking vehicles within the Lincoln 

National Forest (Service 2021, p. 14). 

Meadows within the range of the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot are 

popular with RV users because they are 

open, flat, and easily accessible by road 

(Hughes 2021b, pers. comm.). A variety 

of these impacts (e.g., soil compaction, 

barren ground, trampled food plants, 

multiple trails, vehicle tracking) are 

evident in areas used by larval and adult 

life stages of the Sacramento Mountains 

butterflies; these impacts are reducing 

the quality or quantity of suitable 

habitat in and around developed 

campgrounds or undeveloped campsites 

in meadows known to support the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly (Hughes 2021b, pers. comm.). 

Recreation can negatively affect the 

butterfly in several ways. Trampling and 

crushing can physically kill both 

individual butterflies and caterpillars. 

While adults can fly away, these 

butterflies are slow, especially on cold 

mornings. Recreational activities can 

also crush plants, including New 

Mexico beardtongue and orange 

sneezeweed. During times of drought, 

these plants are especially vulnerable 

and unlikely to survive repeated damage 

(Service 2021, p. 14). Additionally, RVs 

compact soil where large vehicles are 

parked. Repeated trampling by humans 

around the vehicles, caused by normal 

camping activities, will further compact 

soils, making it less likely for New 

Mexico beardtongue to recover or reestablish in former campsites (Hughes 

2021b, pers. comm.). 

In summary, recreation by humans 

can directly kill Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterflies and their larvae. 

All meadow units within the range are 

experiencing some level of impact from 

recreation. 

Climate Change 

Climate change is impacting natural 

ecosystems in the southwestern United 

States (McMahan et al. 2021, p. 1). The 

Sacramento Mountains are sky islands 

surrounded by a matrix of desert 

grassland, which hosts a unique mix of 

flora and fauna (Brown et al. 2001, p. 

116). This ecosystem is sensitive even to 

small changes in temperature and 

precipitation. Such changes to the 

environment can significantly alter air 

temperature, the amount of 

precipitation, and the timing of 

precipitation events (Service et al. 2005, 

p. 37). 

New Mexico has been in a drought for 

the past several years. Roughly 54 

percent of New Mexico is currently 

experiencing an exceptional drought, 

including the Sacramento Mountains 

(McMahan et al. 2021, pp. 1–2). 

Droughts of this severity push wildlife 

to alter behavior based on available 

resources, while vegetation in habitats 

becomes extremely degraded (McMahan 

et al. 2021, entire). 

Over the past several years, annual 

precipitation levels have decreased 

throughout the butterfly’s range. 

Snowfall and corresponding snowpack 

have remained well below normal levels 

(Forest Service 2020b, pp. 11–12). Some 

alpine butterflies need high levels of 

snowpack levels during diapause to 

shelter from wind and cold 

temperatures. The same might be true 

for the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly, as the species 

likely evolved with higher levels of 

winter snowpack than are common over 

the past decade (Hughes 2021a, pers. 

comm.). However, while snowpack 

might be an important factor, we do not 

have enough evidence to analyze the 

effects of low snow years on the 

butterfly. 

Recent shifts in climate due to 

human-induced climate change can 

impact how species interact with their 

environment. The timing of butterfly 

life-history events during an annual 

cycle shift due to increases in 

temperature, changes in humidity, and 

length of growing season. These shifts 

can directly be attributed to the effects 

of climate change. For habitat specialists 

such as the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly, shifts in 

phenological timing can have important 

consequences for population dynamics 

and viability (Colorado-Ruiz et al. 2018, 

pp. 5706–5707). It is likely that climate 

change has already caused some level of 

phenotypic mismatch (when life-history 

traits are no longer advantageous due to 

changes in the environment) between 

the butterfly, host plants, and nectar 

sources. This shift negatively impacts 

the butterfly because it has adapted to 

specific timing of resource availability 

(i.e., growth of host plants, blooming of 

nectar sources) in various stages of its 

life cycle, and climate change has 

altered the timing, quality, and quantity 

of those resources. 

The Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly needs adequate 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3746 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

vegetation growth in host plants and 

nectar sources during the summer 

months to survive (Service et al. 2005, 

p. 15). Vegetation growth within the 

butterfly’s range appears to rely heavily 

on summer rains. Large rainfall events 

typically form during the mid-summer 

months in the Sacramento Mountains, 

marking the beginning of the monsoon 

season. These midday showers occur 

almost daily for several months, 

stimulating much of the vegetation to 

grow and proliferate during the 

midsummer season. Specifically, New 

Mexico beardtongue growth increases in 

response to the monsoons. It is thought 

that moisture might also encourage the 

butterflies to emerge from diapause as 

well (Service et al. 2005, pp. 37–38). 

Climate change is impacting the 

timing of monsoon events throughout 

the Southwest (Service 2021, p. 15). 

New Mexico beardtongue and other 

plant species in sub-alpine meadows are 

adapted to the pulse of moisture from 

monsoons (Service et al. 2005, pp. 37– 

38). With a lack of, or altered, monsoon 

rains, the butterfly is at risk, as the 

species relies on vegetation growth 

dependent upon the timing of 

precipitation. 

The 2020 monsoon season was an 

exceptionally weak one, with far less 

precipitation falling than in an average 

summer (McMahan et al. 2021, 

unpaginated). As a result, New Mexico 

beardtongue growth was also weak; few 

plants grew larger than small rosettes on 

the ground. Even fewer plants survived 

to produce flowers (Forest Service 

2020b, p. 12). Some experts believe that 

the dry conditions, compounded with 

increased browse pressure from large 

ungulates, contributed to the 

deterioration of habitat throughout the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly’s range (Ryan et al. 2021, pers. 

comm.). 

In summary, climate change impacts 

viability of the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly. All meadow units 

within the range are experiencing 

impacts from climate change. 

Nonnative Plants 

Nonnative plants have begun to 

encroach into meadow areas within the 

Lincoln National Forest. Other species 

of butterfly had become scarcer when 

nonnative plants appeared in suitable 

butterfly habitats (Hughes 2021b, pers. 

comm.). During the drought, Kentucky 

bluegrass (Poa pratensis) proliferated 

within meadow areas. This aggressive, 

nonnative plant, which is primarily 

windblown, can outcompete native 

wildflowers, such as New Mexico 

beardtongue. As nonnative plants begin 

to expand their influence, native plants, 

host and nectar plants for butterflies, 

such as New Mexico beardtongue and 

orange sneezeweed, are likely to become 

scarcer (Kennedy 2020, pers. comm.; 62 

FR 2313, January 16, 1997). 

In summary, nonnative plants can 

outcompete the native plants that 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterflies and their larvae require. All 

meadow units within the range are 

experiencing some level of impact from 

nonnative plants. 

Altered Wildfire Regime 

Fire is a natural part of the 

Sacramento Mountains ecosystem and 

would have historically maintained 

many of the ecosystem processes within 

the butterfly’s range. The Lincoln 

National Forest has largely suppressed 

wildfires over the past 150 years 

(Service et al. 2005, p. 21). Before 

human intervention, there would have 

been gradual ecosystem clines between 

meadows and forests. Grassland 

corridors or sparsely forested glades 

would have connected meadow areas. 

These habitat types would have allowed 

for the butterfly to pass through, thereby 

maintaining metapopulation dynamics. 

Fire exclusion and suppression have 

reduced the size of grasslands and 

meadows by allowing the encroachment 

of conifers, and these trends are 

projected to continue (Service et al. 

2005, pp. 21–22). No significant 

wildfires have occurred in butterfly 

habitat since 1916 (Service et al. 2005, 

p. 21). Before active fire suppression, 

fire in the Sacramento Mountains 

occurred at intervals between three and 

ten years (Forest Service 1998, p. 63). 

These frequent, low-intensity, surface 

fires historically maintained a forest that 

was more open (i.e., more non-forested 

patches of different size; more large, 

older trees; and fewer dense thickets of 

evergreen saplings). Such low-intensity 

fires are now rare events. A large fire 

can occur within the range of the 

species; there have been at least nine 

large, severe wildfires (over 90,000 ac 

(34,000 ha)) in the Sacramento 

Mountains during the past fifty years 

(Forest Service 1998, p. 63). Trees and 

other woody vegetation have begun 

encroaching into suitable meadow 

habitats for the butterfly. Current forest 

conditions make the chances of a highseverity fire within the range of the 

butterfly increasingly likely (Service et 

al. 2005, p. 21). 

It is likely that fire exclusion and 

historical cattle grazing have altered and 

increased the threat of wildfire in 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and 

mixed conifer forests in the semi-arid 

western interior forests, including New 

Mexico (Forest Service 1998, pp. 3, 63). 

Further, there has been a general 

increase in the dominance of woody 

plants, with a decrease in the 

herbaceous (non-woody) ground cover 

used by the butterfly (Service et al. 

2005, pp. 32–33). These data indicate 

that the quality and quantity of the 

available butterfly habitat is decreasing 

rangewide. Therefore, we conclude that 

fire exclusion has substantially affected 

the species and will likely continue to 

significantly degrade the quality and 

quantity of suitable habitat. 

In summary, the altered fire regime 

can impact Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterflies and their larvae. 

All meadow units within the range are 

experiencing impacts from altered fire 

regime. 

Summary 

Our analysis of the current influences 

on the needs of the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly for 

long-term viability revealed there are 

several threats that pose the largest risk 

to viability: Overgrazing by large 

ungulates, recreation, climate change, 

nonnative plants, and an altered 

wildfire regime. These influences 

reduce the availability of host plants 

and nectar sources, thereby reducing the 

quantity and quality of habitat, in 

addition to reducing ecological and 

genetic diversity. 

Species Condition 

The current condition of the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly considers the risks to those 

populations that are currently occurring. 

In the current condition assessment 

report, for each population, we 

developed and assigned condition 

categories for two demographic factors 

and three habitat factors that are 

important for viability of the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly. The condition scores for each 

habitat factor were then used to 

determine an overall condition of each 

population and meadow: High, 

moderate, low, very low, or extirpated. 

Two populations of the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly remain 

in two meadows, Bailey Canyon and 

Pines Meadow Campground. 

Historically, the populations likely had 

greater connectivity, but today they are 

small and isolated due to the altered 

wildfire regime resulting in a higher 

concentration of trees that separate 

meadows. Repopulation of extirpated 

locations is unlikely without human 

assistance. If butterflies have been 

detected at any site once or more during 

the last 3 years, that population is not 

considered extirpated. The two 

remaining populations are in very low 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3747 

condition in terms of demographic 

factors (adult density and larval density) 

(see Table 1, below) and low condition 

in terms of overall meadow condition 

(see Table 2, below). There have not 

been any observations of adults or 

larvae in the past 3 consecutive years in 

the any of other eight populations, and 

they are, therefore, considered 

demographically extirpated. Six of those 

eight populations have very low overall 

meadow condition, and two are 

considered extirpated for overall 

meadow condition because suitable 

habitat for the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly no longer exists 

there. 

TABLE 1—CURRENT CONDITION OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS OF THE SACRAMENTO MOUNTAINS CHECKERSPOT

BUTTERFLY

Meadow unit 

Demographic factors 

Adult density Larval density 

Bailey Canyon ......................................................................................................................................... Very Low ................ Very Low. 

Pines Meadow Campground .................................................................................................................. Very Low ................ Very Low. 

Cox Canyon ............................................................................................................................................ Extirpated ............... Extirpated. 

Silver Springs Canyon ............................................................................................................................ Extirpated ............... Extirpated. 

Pumphouse Canyon ............................................................................................................................... Extirpated ............... Extirpated. 

Sleepygrass Canyon ............................................................................................................................... Extirpated ............... Extirpated. 

Spud Patch Canyon ................................................................................................................................ Extirpated ............... Extirpated. 

Deerhead Canyon ................................................................................................................................... Extirpated ............... Extirpated. 

Horse Pasture Meadow .......................................................................................................................... Extirpated ............... Extirpated. 

Yardplot Meadow .................................................................................................................................... Extirpated ............... Extirpated. 

TABLE 2—CURRENT CONDITION OF HABITAT FACTORS OF THE SACRAMENTO MOUNTAINS CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY

Meadow unit 

Habitat factors Overall 

meadow 

Host plants Nectar sources Connectivity condition 

Bailey Canyon ................................................................ Very Low ................ Low ........................ Moderate ................ Low. 

Pines Meadow Campground .......................................... Very Low ................ Low ........................ Moderate ................ Low. 

Cox Canyon .................................................................... Very low ................. Low ........................ Low ........................ Very Low. 

Silver Springs Canyon .................................................... Very Low ................ Low ........................ Moderate ................ Very Low. 

Pumphouse Canyon ....................................................... Very Low ................ Low ........................ Low ........................ Very Low. 

Sleepygrass Canyon ...................................................... Very Low ................ Low ........................ Moderate ................ Very Low. 

Spud Patch Canyon ....................................................... Very Low ................ Low ........................ Moderate ................ Very Low. 

Deerhead Canyon .......................................................... Extirpated ............... Very Low ................ Low ........................ Very Low. 

Horse Pasture Meadow .................................................. Extirpated ............... Extirpated ............... High ....................... Extirpated. 

Yardplot Meadow ........................................................... Extirpated ............... Extirpated ............... Low ........................ Extirpated. 

Bailey Canyon and Pines Meadow 

Campground are two adjacent meadows 

in the northwest part of the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly’s 

range. During the 2020 survey season, 

approximately eight butterflies were 

detected in both meadows combined 

(Forest Service 2020b, p. 3), and no 

larval tents were found (Forest Service 

2020b, pp. 1–3; Phillip Hughes 2020, 

pers. comm.). Because of these adult 

and larval density levels, we categorized 

resiliency for demographics as very low 

for both meadows, which were the only 

two where butterflies were found. In 

addition, the overall meadow condition 

for these sites was low because there are 

few host plants and nectar sources 

present. Although nectar sources are 

present, they are not blooming or 

providing enough resources for the 

butterfly colonies. Further, these 

meadows are within 800 meters of each 

other, which is within the dispersal 

distance of the butterfly, allowing for 

potential gene flow between 

populations. 

Overall resiliency of Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly 

populations is very low for demographic 

factors and low for habitat factors. This 

is because butterflies were only found in 

2 of the 10 documented meadows, and 

both had very low recorded adult and 

larval abundance and density numbers. 

Additionally, these two meadows have 

poor habitat conditions (few host plants, 

nectar sources are abundant but provide 

insufficient resources, and some 

connectivity to other meadows), and the 

other eight meadows have either very 

low condition or are extirpated in terms 

of habitat factors. 

We define representation for the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly as having ecological and 

genetic diversity. As a narrow-range 

endemic, the entire range of the species 

is approximately 32 square miles. 

However, suitable habitat is limited to 

only about 2 square miles. Today, only 

0.2 square miles might be occupied by 

the butterfly. This range contraction 

suggests that most of the original 

representation present within the 

species has declined. The entirety of the 

butterfly’s range represents one 

representation area because of the 

narrow range and limited ecological 

diversity. The populations are small and 

isolated in this single representation 

area with very little to no connectivity 

between populations. The occupied 

meadows are among spruce-fir forests, 

so some barriers limit the dispersal of 

individuals among the populations. Due 

to the limited habitat connectivity of 

populations, individual Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterflies 

rarely, if ever, travel between 

populations. This effectively restricts 

the transfer of genetic material, thus 

limiting genetic diversity. There was 

likely greater habitat connectivity 

between populations in the past due to 

a more natural fire regime. Therefore, 

overall representation was always 

limited for this species and has declined 

in recent years. 

We define redundancy for the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly as having populations or 

metapopulations spread across the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3748 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

range. There are only 2 extant 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly populations located in adjacent 

meadows out of 10 documented 

metapopulations within the single 

representation area. Given the historical 

distribution of the butterfly, it is likely 

that Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly populations were more 

abundant within the Sacramento 

Mountains. Therefore, redundancy of 

the butterfly has declined over time. As 

a consequence of these current 

conditions, the viability of the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly primarily depends on 

maintaining and restoring the remaining 

isolated populations and reintroducing 

populations where feasible. 

We incorporated the cumulative 

effects of the operative threats into our 

analysis when we characterized the 

current condition of the species. 

Because our characterization of current 

condition considers not just the 

presence of the factors, but to what 

degree they collectively influence risk to 

the entire species, our assessment 

integrates the cumulative effects of the 

factors and replaces a standalone 

cumulative effects analysis. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Several habitat management actions 

can benefit the viability of the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly. To address the threat of 

overgrazing from large ungulates, the 

Lincoln National Forest erected 

exclosures to protect butterfly habitats 

from browsing. These efforts are 

currently focused within Bailey Canyon 

and Pines Meadow Campground, where 

adult butterflies were most recently 

found. Botanists involved with the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly working group are currently 

growing plants for habitat restoration. 

Biologists will soon plant nectar 

sources, including orange sneezeweed 

and New Mexico beardtongue, within 

exclosures to ensure the individual 

needs of caterpillars and adult 

butterflies are met. 

The Forest Service has proposed that 

fire management aimed at reducing tree 

stocking within forested areas 

surrounding meadows might also help 

restore suitable habitat and connectivity 

throughout the range of the butterfly. 

Maintaining edge habitat and 

connectivity could greatly improve the 

butterfly’s viability in the long term. 

Determination of Sacramento 

Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly’s 

Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species.’’ The 

Act defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as 

a species in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

a species likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The Act 

requires that we determine whether a 

species meets the definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

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. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we find that the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly has declined in abundance, 

density, and number of populations. 

Currently, there are only two extant 

populations where the species exists in 

very low abundances and are isolated 

from one another. Furthermore, existing 

available habitat is reduced in quantity 

and quality relative to historical 

conditions. Our analysis revealed 

several threats that caused these 

declines and pose a meaningful risk to 

the viability of the species. These 

threats are primarily related to habitat 

changes (Factor A) and include 

overgrazing by large ungulates, 

recreation, nonnative plants, and altered 

wildfire regime, in addition to climate 

change (Factor E). 

Over the past two decades, the species 

has declined, both in abundance and in 

the area occupied (Forest Service 2020b, 

p. 2). Because of increased populations 

of ungulates (i.e., elk, horses), grazing 

has increased in the subalpine meadows 

that support the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly, reducing the 

availability of host plants and nectar 

sources. The reduction in habitat quality 

and quantity is further exacerbated by 

the impact of drought associated with 

climate change. Additionally, the 

altered wildfire regime has decreased 

habitat connectivity, and now 

populations are more isolated from one 

another with limited to no dispersal 

among populations. 

We considered sites with butterfly 

detections during the last 3 years to be 

extant for the purposes of this proposed 

determination. Because adults or larvae 

have not been observed in the past 3 

consecutive years in 8 of the 10 

populations, we consider those 8 

populations functionally extirpated. The 

two remaining populations are 

extremely small and isolated. The 

habitat at those sites is currently in very 

low condition due to a lack of both host 

plants for larvae and nectar sources for 

adults. 

Historically, the species, with more 

abundant and larger populations, would 

have been more resilient to stochastic 

events. Even if such events extirpated 

some populations, they could be 

recolonized over time by dispersal from 

nearby surviving populations. Because 

many of the areas of suitable habitat 

may be small and support small 

numbers of butterflies, local extirpation 

of these small populations is probable. 

A metapopulation’s persistence depends 

on the combined dynamics of these 

local extirpations and the subsequent 

recolonization of these areas by 

dispersal (Murphy and Weiss 1988, pp. 

192–194). Habitat loss and the altered 

wildfire regime have reduced the size of 

and connectivity between patches of 

suitable butterfly habitat. The reduction 

in the extent of meadows and other 

suitable non-forested areas has likely 

eliminated connectivity among some 

localities and may have increased the 

distance beyond the normal dispersal 

ability of the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly, making 

recolonization of some patches 

following local extirpation more 

difficult. In addition, habitat reduction 

lowers the quality of remaining habitat 

by reducing the diversity of 

microclimates and food plants for larvae 

and adult butterflies (Murphy and Weiss 

1988, p. 190). 

Preliminary genetic evidence suggests 

little gene flow between these units 

(Ryan et al. 2021, pers. comm.). 

Connectivity, which would promote 

resiliency and representation, has been 

lost. Eight populations are functionally 

extirpated, and the remaining two 

populations are in very low condition in 

terms of demographic factors and low 

condition in terms of habitat factors and 

are at high risk of loss. The Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly is 

extremely vulnerable to catastrophic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3749 

events (i.e., high-intensity, large 

wildfires) in suitable butterfly habitats. 

In summary, much of the remaining 

suitable butterfly habitat, and therefore 

the long-term viability of the species, is 

at risk due to the direct and indirect 

effects of overgrazing by large ungulates, 

recreation, climate change, nonnative 

plants, and an altered wildfire regime. 

The remaining populations are 

fragmented and isolated from one 

another, unable to recolonize naturally. 

The populations are largely in a state of 

chronic degradation due to habitat loss, 

which is exacerbated by climate change, 

limiting their resiliency. The limited 

geographic range of the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly 

increases the threat of extinction for this 

species given the expected continuing 

loss and degradation of suitable habitat 

and increased risks of extinction from 

catastrophic events, such as catastrophic 

fire. Historically, with a larger range of 

likely interconnected populations, the 

species would have been more resilient 

to stochastic events because even if 

some populations were extirpated by 

such events, they could be recolonized 

over time by dispersal from nearby 

surviving populations. This 

connectivity, which would have made 

for a resilient species overall, has been 

lost, and with two populations in very 

low demographic condition and low 

habitat condition, the remnant 

populations are at risk of loss. A 

threatened status for the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly is not 

appropriate because the species has 

already shown significant declines in 

current resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation due to the threats 

mentioned above. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we determine that the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. We have 

determined that the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly is in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range and accordingly did not undertake 

an analysis of any significant portion of 

its range. Because the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly 

warrants listing as endangered 

throughout all of its range, our 

determination is consistent with the 

decision in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 

(D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the 

court vacated the aspect of the Final 

Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 

‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the 

Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

that provided the Service does not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly meets 

the Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species.’’ Therefore, we propose to list 

the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly as an endangered species in 

accordance with sections 3(6) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species 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 other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for 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. Section 4(f) of the 

Act calls for 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 consists of 

preparing draft and final recovery plans, 

beginning with the development of a 

recovery outline and making it available 

to the public within 30 days of a final 

listing determination. The recovery 

outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions and describes the process to be 

used to develop a recovery plan. 

Revisions of the plan may be done to 

address continuing or new threats to the 

species, as new substantive information 

becomes available. The recovery plan 

also identifies recovery criteria for 

review of when a species may be ready 

for removal from protected status 

(‘‘delisting’’), and methods for 

monitoring recovery 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 recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, and the final recovery 

plan will be available on our website 

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

from our New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad 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. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

If this species is listed, 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. In 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the State of New Mexico would be 

eligible for Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection or recovery of the 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly. Information on our grant 

programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at http:// 

www.fws.gov/grants. 

Although the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly is only proposed 

for listing under the Act at this time, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3750 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

please let us know if you are interested 

in participating in recovery efforts for 

this species. Additionally, we invite you 

to submit any new information on this 

species whenever it becomes available 

and any information you may have for 

recovery planning purposes (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service 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 

the species or 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 consultation 

with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the Forest 

Service. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 

50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take (which includes 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or 

to attempt any of these) endangered 

wildlife within the United States or on 

the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful 

to import; 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 

species listed as an endangered species. 

It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 

carry, transport, or ship any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally. 

Certain exceptions apply to employees 

of the Service, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, other Federal land 

management agencies, and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. The statute 

also contains certain exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as 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. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. Based on the best available 

information, the following actions are 

unlikely to result in a violation of 

section 9, if these activities are carried 

out in accordance with existing 

regulations and permit requirements; 

this list is not comprehensive: 

(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 prior to the effective 

date of a final rule adding this taxon to 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife; 

(2) Activities authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies (e.g., 

grazing management, non-forested area 

management, private or commercial 

development, recreational trail or forest 

road development or use, road 

construction, prescribed burns, timber 

harvest, pesticide/herbicide application, 

or pipeline or utility line construction 

crossing suitable habitat) when such 

activity is conducted in accordance with 

a biological opinion from the Service on 

a proposed Federal action; 

(3) Low-impact, infrequent, dispersed 

human activities on foot or horseback 

that do not degrade butterfly habitat 

(e.g., bird watching, sightseeing, 

backpacking, hunting, photography, 

camping, hiking); 

(4) Activities on private lands that do 

not result in the take of the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly, 

including those activities involving loss 

of habitat, such as normal landscape 

activities around a personal residence, 

proper grazing management, road 

construction that avoids butterfly 

habitat, and pesticide/herbicide 

application consistent with label 

restrictions; and 

(5) Activities conducted under the 

terms of a valid permit issued by the 

Service pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) 

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

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

may potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act if they are not 

authorized in accordance with 

applicable law; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Capture (i.e., netting), survey, or 

collection of specimens of this taxon 

without a permit from the Service 

pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 

Act; 

(2) Incidental take of Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot 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) Use of pesticides/herbicides that 

are in violation of label restrictions 

resulting in take of Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly; 

(5) Unauthorized release of biological 

control agents that attack any life stage 

of this taxon; 

(6) Removal or destruction of the 

native food plants being used by 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly, defined as Penstemon 

neomexicanus, Helenium hoopesii, or 

Valeriana edulis, within areas that are 

used by this taxon that results in harm 

to this butterfly; and 

(7) Destruction or alteration of 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly habitat by grading, leveling, 

plowing, mowing, burning, herbicide or 

pesticide spraying, intensively grazing, 

or otherwise disturbing non-forested 

openings that result in the death of or 

injury to eggs, larvae, or adult 

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterflies through significant 

impairment of the species’ essential 

breeding, foraging, sheltering, or other 

essential life functions. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the New Mexico Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

II. Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3751 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Additionally, our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.02 define the word ‘‘habitat,’’ for 

the purposes of designating critical 

habitat only, as the abiotic and biotic 

setting that currently or periodically 

contains the resources and conditions 

necessary to support one or more life 

processes of a species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation also 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the Federal agency would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 

Service were to conclude that the 

proposed activity would result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat, the Federal action 

agency and the landowner are not 

required to abandon the proposed 

activity, or to restore or recover the 

species; instead, they must implement 

‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ 

to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical or biological features that occur 

in specific occupied areas, we focus on 

the specific features that are essential to 

support the life-history needs of the 

species, including, but not limited to, 

water characteristics, soil type, 

geological features, prey, vegetation, 

symbiotic species, or other features. A 

feature may be a single habitat 

characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. The implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further delineate 

unoccupied critical habitat by setting 

out three specific parameters: (1) When 

designating critical habitat, the 

Secretary will first evaluate areas 

occupied by the species; (2) the 

Secretary will only consider unoccupied 

areas to be essential where a critical 

habitat designation limited to 

geographical areas occupied by the 

species would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species; and (3) 

for an unoccupied area to be considered 

essential, the Secretary must determine 

that there is a reasonable certainty both 

that the area will contribute to the 

conservation of the species and that the 

area contains one or more of those 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information from the 

status report and information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

As the regulatory definition of 

‘‘habitat’’ at 50 CFR 424.02 reflects, 

habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3752 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of the species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of those planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

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, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. Our 

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

that the Secretary may, but is not 

required to, determine that a 

designation would not be prudent in the 

following circumstances: 

(i) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of such 

threat to the species; 

(ii) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of a species’ habitat or range 

is not a threat to the species, or threats 

to the species’ habitat stem solely from 

causes that cannot be addressed through 

management actions resulting from 

consultations under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act; 

(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of 

the United States provide no more than 

negligible conservation value, if any, for 

a species occurring primarily outside 

the jurisdiction of the United States; 

(iv) No areas meet the definition of 

critical habitat; or 

(v) The Secretary otherwise 

determines that designation of critical 

habitat would not be prudent based on 

the best scientific data available. 

As discussed earlier in this document, 

there is currently no imminent threat of 

collection or vandalism identified under 

Factor B for this species, and 

identification and mapping of critical 

habitat is not expected to initiate any 

such threat. In our current condition 

assessment report and proposed listing 

determination for the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly, we 

determined that the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range is a 

threat to Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly and that those 

threats in some way can be addressed by 

section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. 

The species occurs wholly in the 

jurisdiction of the United States, and we 

are able to identify areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat. Therefore, 

because none of the circumstances 

enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1) have been met and because 

the Secretary has not identified other 

circumstances for which this 

designation of critical habitat would be 

not prudent, we have determined that 

the designation of critical habitat is 

prudent for the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Having determined that designation is 

prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

we must find whether critical habitat for 

the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly is determinable. Our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 

that critical habitat is not determinable 

when one or both of the following 

situations exist: 

(i) Data sufficient to perform required 

analyses are lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

identify any area that meets the 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

When critical habitat is not 

determinable, the Act allows the Service 

an additional year to publish a critical 

habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the species and habitat 

characteristics where this species is 

located. Careful assessments of the 

economic and environmental impacts 

that may occur due to a critical habitat 

designation are not yet complete, and 

we are in the process of working with 

the States and other partners in 

acquiring the complex information 

needed to perform those assessments. 

The information sufficient to perform a 

required analysis of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking. Therefore, we 

conclude that the designation of critical 

habitat for the Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot butterfly is not 

determinable at this time. As noted 

above, the Act allows the Service an 

additional year to publish a critical 

habitat designation that is not 

determinable at the time of listing (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the 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: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) 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 ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the proposed rule, 

your comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers 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. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with regulations 

adopted pursuant to 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). This position was upheld 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 

cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

However, when the range of the species 

includes States within the Tenth 

Circuit, such as that of the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly, under 

the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron 

County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 

(10th Cir. 1996), we undertake a NEPA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3753 

analysis for critical habitat designation. 

We will invite the public to comment on 

the extent to which the upcoming 

proposed critical habitat designation 

may have a significant impact on the 

human environment, or fall within one 

of the categorical exclusions for actions 

that have no individual or cumulative 

effect on the quality of the human 

environment. We will complete our 

analysis, in compliance with NEPA, 

before finalizing the upcoming proposed 

critical habitat rule. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We solicited information from the 

Mescalero Apache Nation within the 

range of the Sacramento Mountain 

checkerspot butterfly to inform the 

development of the current condition 

assessment report, but we did not 

receive a response. We will also provide 

the Mescalero Apache Nation the 

opportunity to review a draft of the 

current condition assessment report and 

provide input prior to making our final 

determination on the status of the 

Sacramento Mountain checkerspot 

butterfly. We will continue to 

coordinate with affected Tribes 

throughout the listing process as 

appropriate. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this proposed rule is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11 amend the table in 

paragraph (h) by adding an entry for 

‘‘Butterfly, Sacramento Mountains 

checkerspot’’ to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical 

order under INSECTS to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

******

INSECTS

* * * * * * * 

Butterfly, Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot.

Euphydryas anicia 

cloudcrofti.

Wherever found .............. E [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]. 

*******

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01210 Filed 1–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS