Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1421 

petitions simultaneously (Sportsmen’s 

Alliance Foundation et al. 2023a, p. 34). 

In one petition, petitioners asked us to 

designate a Western Great Lakes (WGL) 

DPS of gray wolf and remove that 

petitioned DPS from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

because the DPS does not meet the Act’s 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species (Sportsmen’s 

Alliance Foundation et al. 2023a, 

entire). Petitioners also presented claims 

related to currently listed gray wolves 

outside of the Western Great Lakes, and 

provided two suggestions for how the 

Service should address these wolves. 

First, petitioners stated that the nonDPS remnant is a listable entity that 

would be entitled to the continued 

protections of the Act (Sportsmen’s 

Alliance Foundation et al. 2023a, p. 35) 

(‘‘The circumstances here warrant 

continuing protections for remnant 

wolves in the original Lower 48 wolf 

listing through a non-DPS remnant 

listing.’’). Alternatively, they suggested 

that the Service could adopt the 

approach in their companion petition 

and protect West Coast wolves as a DPS 

(Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation et al. 

2023a, p. 36) (‘‘Alternatively, even if the 

Service does not continue a ‘‘non-DPS 

remnant’’ listing under the original 

Lower 48 listing, delisting the WGL DPS 

will not result in the elimination of 

protections for the remnant population 

because the remnant West Coast 

[w]olves satisfy the criteria to be listed 

as a DPS if ESA protections are 

warranted.’’). 

In their companion petition, 

petitioners proposed two specific 

actions for addressing listed gray wolves 

in the lower 48 States outside of the 

petitioned WGL DPS: (1) recognize a 

non-DPS remnant and continue 

endangered species protections for the 

non-DPS remnant; and (2) recognize a 

West Coast DPS of gray wolf and 

reclassify the petitioned DPS from an 

endangered species to a threatened 

species under the Act (Sportsmen’s 

Alliance Foundation et al. 2023b, 

entire). Petitioners did not ask the 

Service to assign any specific status to 

the remainder of the listed entity if the 

second action is implemented, but they 

suggested that we might delist all the 

remnant areas not included within the 

two petitioned DPSs due to extinction. 

Finally, petitioners clarified that we 

should take one, or preferably both, 

actions concurrent with recognizing and 

delisting a WGL DPS. 

Each petition clearly identified itself 

as such and included the requisite 

identification information for the 

petitioners, required at 50 CFR 

424.14(c). As requested by the 

petitioners, we are evaluating their 

petitions jointly and this finding 

addresses both petitions. 

Finding 

Based on our review of the petitions, 

sources cited in the petitions, and other 

readily available information (within 

the constraints of the Act and 50 CFR 

424.14(h)(1)), we find that the petitions 

do not provide substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. The petitioners failed to 

present substantial information for us to 

conclude that the petitions, considered 

together, provide a valid approach for 

revising the current gray wolf (Canis 

lupus) listed entities. As requested by 

petitioners, we have considered these 

petitions jointly. Based on our review of 

the petitions, we find that petitioners 

provide substantial information that the 

Western Great Lakes population of gray 

wolf may qualify as a valid DPS under 

the Act. However, we find that the 

petitions do not provide substantial 

information supporting the petitioned 

action with respect to gray wolves 

outside of the Western Great Lakes. 

They fail to provide substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that a gray wolf remnant in 

the lower 48 States or a West Coast gray 

wolf population may constitute a valid 

listable entity under the Act. Thus, we 

do not further consider whether revising 

the currently listed gray wolf entities to 

recognize a Western Great Lakes DPS 

and delist it due to recovery may be 

warranted. The basis for our finding on 

these petitions and other information 

regarding our review of the petitions can 

be found as an appendix at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2024–0187 under the 

Supporting Documents section. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of our evaluation of the 

information presented in the petitions 

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

have determined that the petitions 

summarized above for the gray wolf do 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. Therefore, we will not 

further consider whether the petitioned 

revisions to the currently listed gray 

wolf entities are warranted. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff members of the Branch of 

Delisting and Foreign Species, 

Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31754 Filed 1–7–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0041; 

FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] RIN 

1018–BH49 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for the Bleached Sandhill 

Skipper 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the bleached sandhill skipper 

(Polites sabuleti sinemaculata), an 

insect subspecies from Humboldt 

County, Nevada, as an endangered 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This 

determination also serves as our 12- 

month finding on a petition to list the 

bleached sandhill skipper. After a 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that listing the subspecies is warranted. 

Accordingly, we propose to list the 

bleached sandhill skipper as an 

endangered species under the Act. If we 

finalize this rule as proposed, the final 

rule would add this subspecies to the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and extend the Act’s 

protections to the subspecies. We find 

that a designation of critical habitat for 

the bleached sandhill skipper is not 

determinable at this time. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 10, 2025. 

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 February 24, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1422 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R8–ES–2024–0041, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this 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–R8–ES–2024–0041, 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 https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

subspecies status assessment report, are 

available on the Service’s website at 

https://www.fws.gov/office/reno-fishand-wildlife, at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2024–0041, or both. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Justin Barrett, Deputy Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno 

Fish and Wildlife Field Office, 1340 

Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, 

NV 89502–7147; telephone 775–861– 

6300. 

Individuals in the United States who 

are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability may dial 711 

(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0041 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. The 

Act defines a ‘‘species’’ as including any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature. Under 

the Act, a species warrants listing if it 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species (in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range) or a threatened species (likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range). If we 

determine that a species warrants 

listing, we must list the species 

promptly and designate the species’ 

critical habitat to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. We have 

determined that the bleached sandhill 

skipper meets the definition of an 

endangered species; therefore, we are 

proposing to list it as such. Listing a 

species as an endangered or threatened 

species can be completed only by 

issuing a rule through the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. This 

document proposes to add the bleached 

sandhill skipper to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as 

an endangered species under the Act. 

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 humanmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that the bleached 

sandhill skipper is endangered due to 

the following threats: increased 

warming and drying conditions due to 

the synergistic effects of climate change 

and groundwater pumping. 

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

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), to 

the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, concurrently with listing 

to designate critical habitat for the 

species. We have not yet been able to 

obtain the necessary economic 

information needed to develop a 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the bleached sandhill skipper, although 

we are in the process of obtaining this 

information. At this time, we find that 

designation of critical habitat for the 

bleached sandhill skipper is not 

determinable. 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)). 

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 subspecies’ biology, range, 

and population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the subspecies, 

including habitat requirements for 

feeding, breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns and the 

locations of any additional populations 

of this subspecies; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the subspecies, its habitat, 

or both. 

(2) Threats and conservation actions 

affecting the subspecies, including: 

(a) Factors that may be affecting the 

continued existence of the subspecies, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or humanmade factors. 

(b) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this 

subspecies. 

(c) Existing regulations or 

conservation actions that may be 

addressing threats to this subspecies. 

(3) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status of this 

subspecies. 

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, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 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 https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1423 

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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov. 

Our final determination may differ 

from this proposal because we will 

consider all comments we receive 

during the comment period as well as 

any information that may become 

available after this proposal. Based on 

the new information we receive (and, if 

relevant, any comments on that new 

information), we may conclude that the 

subspecies is threatened instead of 

endangered, or we may conclude that 

the subspecies does not warrant listing 

as either an endangered species or a 

threatened species. In our final rule, we 

will clearly explain our rationale and 

the basis for our final decision, 

including why we made changes, if any, 

that differ from this proposal. 

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. We 

may hold the public hearing in person 

or virtually via webinar. We will 

announce any public hearing on our 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

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

Previous Federal Actions 

We identified the bleached sandhill 

skipper as a Category 2 candidate on 

November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804). 

Category 2 candidates were defined as 

species for which we had information 

that proposed listing was possibly 

appropriate, but conclusive data on 

biological vulnerability and threats were 

not available to support a proposed rule 

at the time. In the February 28, 1996, 

Candidate Notice of Review (61 FR 

7596), we discontinued the designation 

of Category 2 species as candidates; 

therefore, the bleached sandhill skipper 

was no longer a candidate species. 

On January 29, 2010, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians 

requesting that 10 subspecies of Great 

Basin butterflies, including the bleached 

sandhill skipper, be listed as an 

endangered or threatened species with 

critical habitat under the Act. On 

October 4, 2011, we made our 90-day 

finding that the petition presented 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing of the 

bleached sandhill skipper may be 

warranted, and we initiated a status 

review for this subspecies (76 FR 

61532). On September 4, 2012, we 

published a 12-month finding that the 

bleached sandhill skipper did not 

warrant listing under the Act (77 FR 

54294). 

On October 16, 2022, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity requesting that the bleached 

sandhill skipper be listed as a 

threatened species or an endangered 

species and critical habitat be 

designated for this subspecies under the 

Act. On August 17, 2023, we made our 

90-day finding that the petition 

presented substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing of the bleached sandhill skipper 

may be warranted (88 FR 55991). The 

petition also requested that the bleached 

sandhill skipper be emergency listed as 

endangered. The Act does not provide 

for a process to petition for emergency 

listing. However, in light of the 

concerns raised by the petitioner, at the 

time the petition was received, we did 

consider the immediacy of possible 

threats to the subspecies and whether 

emergency listing may be necessary. We 

reviewed the information in the petition 

and in our files, and because the threats 

were not deemed to be of such a 

magnitude and extent that immediate 

species protection was necessary, we 

did not find emergency listing to be an 

appropriate course of action. This 

proposed rule constitutes our 12-month 

finding on the petition. 

Peer Review 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

bleached sandhill skipper. The SSA 

team was composed of Service 

biologists, in consultation with other 

species experts. The SSA report 

represents a compilation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the subspecies, 

including the impacts of past, present, 

and future factors (both negative and 

beneficial) affecting the subspecies. 

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 in listing and recovery actions 

under the Act, we solicited independent 

scientific review of the information 

contained in the bleached sandhill 

skipper SSA report. We sent the SSA 

report to 10 independent peer reviewers 

and received 3 responses. Results of this 

structured peer review process can be 

found at https://www.regulations.gov. In 

preparing this proposed rule, we 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA 

report, which is the foundation for this 

proposed rule. 

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments from three peer 

reviewers on the draft SSA report. We 

reviewed all comments we received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the information contained in the SSA 

report. The peer reviewers concurred 

with our methods and conclusions and 

provided additional information, 

clarifications, and suggestions, 

including updates to the discussion on 

population counts, clarifications in 

terminology and discussions of 

physiological limits, and editorial 

suggestions. Otherwise, no substantive 

changes to our analysis and conclusions 

within the SSA report were deemed 

necessary, and peer reviewer comments 

are addressed in version 1.1 of the SSA 

report. 

I. Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the bleached 

sandhill skipper is presented in the SSA 

report (version 1.1; Service 2024, pp. 9– 

23). 

The bleached sandhill skipper is a 

small-sized, narrow endemic butterfly 

found in Humboldt County, Nevada. 

The bleached sandhill skipper is one of 

13 named subspecies of the sandhill 

skipper and can be distinguished from 

other sandhill skipper subspecies based 

on the unusually pale coloration of the 

wings that give the subspecies a 

bleached appearance (Austin 1987, p. 

8). It occupies alkali meadows in three 

isolated populations: Pueblo Slough, 

Gridley Lake, and Rincon Creek which 

are located within an approximately 14- 

mile (22-kilometer) area (figure 1). The 

populations at Pueblo Slough and 

Gridley Lake are primarily found on 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1424 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

lands, with some occurrences on private 

land, and the population at Rincon 

Creek is found on the Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge. The three populations 

are genetically differentiated (Jahner 

2023, pp. 3, 9–10) which suggests 

limited gene flow and that dispersal is 

minimal. Additionally, the combination 

of small wing size and large thorax, 

coupled with short generation time 

(approximately one year) and short 

adult flight period further suggests low 

dispersal habits (Scott 1986, pp. 42–43, 

425; Sekar 2011, pp. 179–182; Stantec 

2020, p. 10). 

Figure 1—Distribution of the Bleached 

Sandhill Skipper 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP08JA25.007</GPH>

Bleached Sandhill Skipper (Polites sabuleti sinemaculata) Distribution 

.A Bleached Sandhill Skipper Occurrence N 0 1.5 3 

--· State Highway A Miles 

mlili Humboldt County 

--i Kilometers 

D Groundwater Basin 0 1.5 3 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1425 

The specific timing and expression of 

life-history characteristics of the 

bleached sandhill skipper have not been 

studied in detail, but its phenology is 

likely similar to other P. sabuleti 

subspecies and univoltine (having one 

adult flight period per year) skipper 

species found in similar habitat 

communities (Service 2024, pp. 11–12). 

Bleached sandhill skippers occupy 

alkali meadow communities dominated 

by saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and 

rabbitbrushes (Chrysothamnus spp. and 

Ericameria spp.). Saltgrass is the 

presumed sole larval hostplant, 

providing food and shelter for larvae 

and presumably shelter for pupae; the 

availability of nutritious saltgrass plants 

throughout the fall is essential for larvae 

growth, development, and survival 

(Austin 1987, p. 8; Service 2024, p. 15). 

Rabbitbrushes are the primary nectar 

sources for adults; the availability of 

non-senescing plants during late 

summer through fall is essential for 

adult reproduction and survival. These 

food plants typically grow in areas 

where there is a shallow water table, 

and they rely on groundwater as their 

primary source of water uptake. Lastly, 

all bleached sandhill skipper life 

stages—egg, larvae, pupae, and adult— 

require suitable microclimate, including 

suitable temperatures and moisture 

levels. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and the implementing regulations in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

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 

species’ expected response 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. 

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, which is 

further described in the 2009 

Memorandum Opinion on the 

foreseeable future from the Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://

www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.

ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M37021.pdf). 

The foreseeable future extends as far 

into the future as the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service can make reasonably 

reliable predictions about the threats to 

the species and the species’ responses to 

those threats. We need not identify the 

foreseeable future in terms of a specific 

period of time. We will describe the 

foreseeable future on a case-by-case 

basis, using the best available data and 

taking into account considerations such 

as the species’ life-history 

characteristics, threat projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

over which we can make reasonably 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction, in light of 

the conservation purposes of the Act. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA 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 SSA report 

does not represent our decision 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. 

To assess bleached sandhill skipper 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, 

resiliency is the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years); 

redundancy is the ability of the species 

to withstand catastrophic events (for 

example, droughts, large pollution 

events); and representation is the ability 

of the species to adapt to both near-term 

and long-term changes in its physical 

and biological environment (for 

example, climate conditions, 

pathogens). In general, species viability 

will increase with increases in 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 

306). Using these principles, we 

identified the subspecies’ ecological 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1426 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the subspecies’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

subspecies’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

subspecies’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the subspecies 

arrived at its current condition. The 

final stage of the SSA involved making 

predictions about the subspecies’ 

responses to positive and negative 

environmental and anthropogenic 

influences. Throughout all of these 

stages of the SSA process, we used the 

best available information to 

characterize viability as the ability of a 

species to sustain populations in the 

wild over time, which we then used to 

inform our regulatory decision. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

report; the full SSA report can be found 

at Docket FWS–R8–ES–2024–0041 on 

https://www.regulations.gov and at 

https://www.fws.gov/office/reno-fishand-wildlife. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the subspecies 

and its resources, and the threats that 

influence the subspecies’ current and 

future condition, in order to assess the 

subspecies’ overall viability and the 

risks to that viability. 

Species Needs 

The SSA report contains a detailed 

discussion of the bleached sandhill 

skipper individual, population, and 

subspecies requirements (Service 2024, 

pp. 9–23); we provide a summary here. 

Based upon the best available scientific 

and commercial information, and 

acknowledging existing ecological 

uncertainties, the resource and 

demographic needs for breeding, 

feeding, sheltering, and microclimate 

conditions of the bleached sandhill 

skipper are summarized below. 

Bleached sandhill skippers need 

alkali meadow communities dominated 

by saltgrass (the sole larval food plant) 

and rabbitbrushes (the primary adult 

nectar source). Each stage of the 

bleached sandhill skipper’s life cycle 

relies on saltgrass (Austin 1987, p. 8). 

The density or cover of saltgrass needed 

for the bleached sandhill skipper is 

unknown. The quality (health) of 

saltgrass is important during the larval 

stage as green plants are more nutritious 

(due to increased moisture content) and 

likely more edible. Because 

rabbitbrushes are the primary nectar 

plants for adults (Austin 1987, p. 8; 

Stantec 2020, p. 125), they are essential 

for reproduction and survival of 

bleached sandhill skippers. 

All life stages—egg, larvae, pupae, 

and adult—require suitable 

microclimate, including suitable 

temperatures and moisture levels. 

Bleached sandhill skippers are 

poikilothermic, meaning that their body 

temperature is controlled by ambient 

temperature, which controls critical 

physiological functions and behaviors, 

such as respiration, immunity, 

metabolism, growth and development, 

fecundity, flight ability, dispersal, 

oviposition, feeding, and diapause. 

Moisture conditions are also an 

important determinant of survival, 

especially in desert areas. The optimal 

range of temperature and moisture 

levels is unknown for bleached sandhill 

skipper (see ‘‘Climate Change’’ below), 

but as a desert occupant, it likely 

experiences conditions close to its 

upper thermal and moisture limits 

under normal conditions (Service 2024, 

pp. 21–23). Studies from a number of 

other insects, including butterflies, 

across broad geographic areas show 

significant fitness (growth, 

development, fecundity, and survival) 

consequences as temperatures exceed 

upper thermal limits (Service 2024, pp. 

17–19). Although the optimal range of 

temperature for bleached sandhill 

skipper is unknown, based on studies 

conducted for other butterfly species, 

substantial fitness consequences 

(reproduction and survival) are likely 

triggered when temperatures exceed 35– 

41 degrees Celsius (C) (95– 105 degrees 

Fahrenheit (F)) (Service 2024, pp. 17– 

19, 49–51). 

Bleached sandhill skipper 

populations, owing to their 

poikilothermic physiology, can 

experience large swings in abundance 

year-to-year in response to 

environmental conditions. Thus, to 

successfully recruit over time, 

populations need to be large (thousands 

of individuals) and maintain robust 

growth rates (l >1.0). Populations also 

require large sizes and gene flow to 

maintain genetic health and 

evolutionary potential. Bleached 

sandhill skipper populations also 

require high quality and quantity of 

habitat to support a robust demography. 

The amount of habitat required is 

unknown, but we know that suitable 

habitat means non-senescing patches of 

saltgrass and rabbitbrushes embedded 

within a healthy alkali meadow 

vegetation community with few 

dispersal barriers. 

Threats 

The main threats affecting the 

bleached sandhill skipper are related to 

warming and drying conditions due to 

climate change and exacerbated by 

groundwater pumping. We also 

evaluated existing regulatory 

mechanisms and ongoing conservation 

measures. In the SSA report, we 

considered additional threats: livestock 

grazing and potential impacts from 

future geothermal development. We 

concluded that, as indicated by the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, these additional threats 

individually are having no to minor 

impact, but the effects could be 

intensified through synergistic 

interactions among all threats. For full 

descriptions of all threats and how they 

impact the bleached sandhill skipper, 

please see the SSA report (Service 2024, 

pp. 29–56). 

Climate Change 

Bleached sandhill skipper fitness is 

tightly controlled by the microclimate 

(temperature and moisture) experienced 

by individuals and the quality and 

quantity of habitat resources (nectar 

resources and hostplants) (Service 2024, 

pp. 11–19). Changes in the microclimate 

conditions and the quality of their 

habitat, therefore, directly and 

indirectly influence critical processes 

such as adult flight ability and timing, 

reproductive behavior, fecundity, 

oviposition, feeding, development, and 

diapause (Palumbo 2011, entire; Caldas 

2012, entire). Furthermore, the bleached 

sandhill skipper is a desert occupant, 

likely living close to its upper thermal 

limits under normal conditions, leaving 

little buffer for accommodating warming 

and drying conditions. 

The climate within bleached sandhill 

skipper range has been drying and 

warming over the last several decades. 

The Southwest region where the 

bleached sandhill skipper occurs is one 

of the hottest and driest areas of the 

United States, and climate change has 

exacerbated these conditions. Average 

annual temperatures have increased 

almost 1.1 degrees Celsius (°C) (2.0 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) over the last 

century (Garfin et al. 2014, p. 464). 

Every part of the Southwest experienced 

higher average temperatures between 

2000 and 2020 than the long-term 

average (1895–2020) (Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), 2023, p. 3). 

Within the last decade (comparing 

2010–2019 to 1958–2009) in Humboldt 

County, Nevada, the average annual 

number of days where the maximum 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1427 

temperature exceeded the 35 °C (95 °F) 

thermal limit of bleached sandhill 

skipper, increased by 2 days (21 versus 

23 days) and 1.5 days (3 versus 4.5 days) 

for 38 °C (100 °F). During the years 

(2020–2022), the average annual number 

of days where the maximum 

temperature exceeded 35 °C (95 °F) 

increased from the historical average by 

15 days, with 5 and 10 days in fall and 

summer, respectively, and 38 °C (100 

°F) was exceeded for 3 days, with 2 days 

in fall and one day in summer (Service 

2024, pp. 47–50). 

Temperatures are increasing more at 

night than during the day and more in 

winter than in summer, leading to fewer 

cold snaps, more heatwaves, fewer 

frosty days and nights, less snow, and 

earlier snowmelt (Stewart et al. 2005, p. 

1152; Mote et al. 2006, entire; Knowles 

et al. 2006, p. 4557; Abatzoglou and 

Kolden 2013, entire; Snyder et al. 2019, 

p. 3; Service 2024, p. 49). Both daytime 

high temperatures and nighttime low 

temperatures have exhibited widespread 

warming trends (Garfin et al. 2013, pp. 

79–80; Service 2024, p. 49). In recent 

decades, reductions in precipitation and 

winter snowpack—key sources of 

moisture—have been observed (Garfin et 

al. 2014, p. 465). Since 2001, large 

portions of the arid Southwest have 

experienced prolonged drought, with 

widespread drought occurring in 2002, 

2003, 2007, and 2009 (MacDonald 2010, 

p. 21256). During these years, the 

region’s precipitation averaged as much 

as 22–25 percent below the 20th-century 

mean, with local deficits being greater 

(MacDonald 2010, p. 21256; Service 

2024, pp. 49–53). Based on the longterm Palmer Drought Severity Index, 

drought conditions in the Southwest 

have varied since 1895 (EPA 2023, p. 3; 

Service 2024, p. 46) and since 1990, the 

Southwest has seen some of the most 

persistent droughts on record (Garfin et 

al 2013, p. 84). 

The warming and drying conditions 

are also likely impacting the quality of 

bleached sandhill skipper habitat, 

specifically causing early senescence or 

loss of saltgrass and rabbitbrushes, 

although the extent to which this 

situation is occurring is unknown. 

Given the subspecies’ limited dispersal 

ability (Service 2024, p. 12), low genetic 

diversity (Jahner 2023, pp. 3–4), 

inflexible thermal limits, and narrow 

diet, bleached sandhill skippers likely 

lack the capacity to timely and 

sufficiently adapt to warming 

temperatures and drying conditions. 

Groundwater Pumping 

Bleached sandhill skippers are found 

across two different groundwater basins. 

The Pueblo Slough and Rincon Creek 

populations are found within 

Continental Lake Valley groundwater 

basin, and the Gridley Lake population 

is found within Gridley Lake Valley 

groundwater basin (Service 2024, pp. 

31–39). Pumping of groundwater occurs 

in these basins for many uses, but the 

vast majority is for irrigation of 

agricultural crops (Nevada Division of 

Water Resources (NDWR) 2023a, p. 1; 

NDWR 2023b, p. 1). Groundwater 

pumping that exceeds aquifer recharge 

may result in surface or groundwater 

level decline, spring drying and 

degradation, or the loss of aquatic 

habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396–397; 

Aldous and Gannett 2021, p. 10). 

Saltgrass and rabbitbrushes are 

groundwater-dependent species with 

shallow root systems. Because of their 

shallow root systems, they can be 

harmed by long-term declining or 

fluctuating water tables (Groeneveld 

1994, entire; Manning 1999, entire; 

Elmore et al. 2006, pp. 775–776; Patten 

et al. 2008, p. 8). With declining water 

tables, as the depth to groundwater 

increases, the ability of shallow roots to 

access this water resource is affected. A 

long-term decline in groundwater 

supply may shift the vegetative 

community from groundwaterdependent plants to more upland 

species that rely on precipitation rather 

than groundwater (Patten et al. 2008, p. 

10) or to successional dead-ends where 

further disturbance results in bare soils 

dominated by nonnative species 

(Manning 1999, p. 236). 

Groundwater pumping for irrigation 

occurs hydrologically upgradient from 

all three populations. Increasing depthto-groundwater levels have been 

documented for several groundwater 

wells upgradient of the Pueblo Slough 

population (Service 2024, pp. 31–38). 

Although there are no wells upgradient 

of the other two populations with 

sufficient data to determine trends, the 

increasing depth-to-groundwater trend 

near Pueblo Slough, coupled with an 

analysis of normalized vegetation 

difference index (NVDI) data (a measure 

of vegetation health; higher values mean 

more dense and green vegetation) 

adjusted for climate variability, suggests 

a drying of the groundwater- dependent 

vegetation communities across the two 

water basins where bleached sandhill 

skipper are found. These data suggest 

that pumping is currently contributing 

to increasing the depth-to-groundwater 

levels at Pueblo Slough and Gridley 

Lake and drying of the groundwaterdependent vegetation (Service 2024, pp. 

31–38). Gridley Lake Valley 

groundwater basin (where the Gridley 

Lake population is located) is currently 

appropriated and pumped above 

perennial yield, which is consistent 

with this assessment. Continental Lake 

Valley groundwater basin (where 

Rincon Creek and Pueblo Slough 

populations are located) is close to fully 

appropriated and pumped around 25 

percent of perennial yield. Our 

assessment of the available data clearly 

indicates that, despite being pumped 

below perennial yield in this valley, the 

increasing depth-to-groundwater trend 

is still being realized (Service 2024, pp. 

38–39). 

In the near-term (years 2020–2029), 

continued and/or increased 

groundwater pumping is projected, 

which will continue to increase the 

depth to groundwater, impairing the 

ability of saltgrass and rabbitbrushes to 

connect with the water table (due to 

shallow root systems) (Service 2024, p. 

65). Thus, we anticipate that continued 

groundwater pumping, coupled with the 

impacts of climate change, will continue 

to cause drying of these areas such that 

they will no longer support a vegetation 

community needed to support bleached 

sandhill skipper populations. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The Nevada Department of Wildlife 

and the Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources do 

not have authority to manage or 

conserve terrestrial invertebrates such as 

the bleached sandhill skipper. Nevada 

Revised Statute (NRS) section 501.110 

outlines the ‘‘Classification of Wildlife’’ 

in Nevada and lists the Nevada 

Department of Wildlife as having 

authority over wild mammals, wild 

birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, 

mollusks, and crustaceans but does not 

mention insects. The Nevada 

Department of Agriculture has statutory 

authority over insects that are ‘‘normally 

considered to be a pest of cultivated 

plants, uncultivated plants, agricultural 

commodities, horticultural products or 

nursery stock, or that the Director [of the 

Department of Agriculture] declares to 

be a pest’’ (NRS section 555.005(5)). 

Because the bleached sandhill skipper is 

not an agricultural pest, it is 

functionally unmanaged by any State 

agency. 

The bleached sandhill skipper has 

been placed on Nevada’s list of ‘‘at-risk 

species’’ by the Nevada Division of 

Natural Heritage (Nevada Division of 

Natural Heritage 2022, p. 16). However, 

species included on the At-Risk Plant 

and Animal Tracking List are not 

provided any protections by the State 

(Nevada Division of Natural Heritage 

2022, p. 1). The bleached sandhill 

skipper is considered a BLM Sensitive 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1428 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Species in Nevada (BLM 2017, p. 24). 

BLM Sensitive Species are ‘‘species 

requiring special management 

consideration to promote their 

conservation and reduce the likelihood 

and need for future listing under the 

Act’’ (BLM 2008, p. 3). Beyond the 

Sensitive Species designation, other 

BLM regulations do not provide 

protections for the bleached sandhill 

skipper. The BLM Winnemucca District 

Resources Management Plan requires 

that proposed actions on BLM land do 

not affect a species in such a way that 

it may lead to further listing under the 

Act (BLM 2013, p. 34). This is the only 

regulatory mechanism providing any 

level of protection for the bleached 

sandhill skipper. 

Cumulative Effects 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have analyzed the 

cumulative effects of identified threats 

and conservation actions on the 

subspecies. To assess the current and 

future condition of the subspecies, we 

evaluate the effects of all the relevant 

factors that may be influencing the 

subspecies, including threats and 

conservation efforts. Because the SSA 

framework considers not just the 

presence of the factors, but to what 

degree they collectively influence risk to 

the entire subspecies, our assessment 

integrates the cumulative effects of the 

factors and replaces a standalone 

cumulative-effects analysis. 

Current and Near-Term Conditions 

Since 2010, periodic standardized 

surveys (visual encounter techniques 

resulting in numbers of individuals 

counted) have been conducted at Pueblo 

Slough (Service and BLM 2014, entire; 

Service and BLM 2022, entire); count 

data are available for 6 out of the last 10 

years (figure 2). At Pueblo Slough, 

bleached sandhill skipper counts have 

steeply declined since 2014, with 

counts decreasing from an estimated 

7,482 individuals in 2014 to an estimate 

of 245 individuals in 2023 (figure 2). 

Prior to 2014, bleached sandhill skipper 

numbers were suggested to be in the 

thousands, but this information is 

anecdotal as standardized surveys were 

not conducted before that time. 

Although the count data do not provide 

an abundance estimate, the decline from 

thousands of butterflies to hundreds of 

butterflies indicates that the population 

size is now much smaller, 

approximately 97 percent less than it 

had been in 2014. Thus, these data also 

suggest a declining population trend. 

Figure 2—Number of Individuals 

Counted During Standardized Transect 

Surveys at Pueblo Slough 

(Stantec 2015, p. 14; Stantec 2016, p. 9; 

Stantec 2020, p. 10; Arid West 2022, p. 10; 

Arid West 2023, p. 11; Stantec 2023, p. 2. 

Trend line: linear model in R using 

Tidyverse, ggplot2, and Viridis packages.) 

From Gridley Lake, we have only 1 

year of count data (from 2023), and the 

number of bleached sandhill skippers 

counted was low (313 individuals). 

Similarly, we have only 1 year of count 

data (from 2015) from Rincon Creek, 

and the number of bleached sandhill 

skippers counted there was also low (78 

individuals). Therefore, data are not 

available to discern population trends 

for either Gridley Lake or Rincon Creek 

populations. 

Data are too limited to assess whether 

the extent and health of saltgrass and 

rabbitbrushes have changed over time at 

all three populations. However, NVDI 

data suggest that the health of the 

vegetation community has declined at 

Pueblo Slough and Gridley Lake and 

this trend is expected to continue into 

the near-term. 

The steep decline in bleached 

sandhill skipper population counts 

coupled with recent studies implicating 

climate change as the cause of butterfly 

declines in the Southwestern United 

States (Crossley et al. 2021, p. 2,707; 

Forister et al. 2021, p. 1,044) suggest 

that climate change is a key driver in 

bleached sandhill population dynamics 

at Pueblo Slough. Given the regional 

extent of climate change, it is likely that 

it is a key driver of the population 

dynamics at Gridley Lake and Rincon 

Creek populations as well. Taken 

together with the magnitude of warming 

and drying that has occurred in the last 

couple of decades, it can be reasonably 

discerned that climate change and 

groundwater pumping is having 

negative impacts on all three bleached 

sandhill skipper populations. 

Current and Near-Term Condition 

Summary 

Bleached sandhill skipper viability 

requires multiple, resilient populations 

(high abundance and strong growth 

rates). Until recently, bleached sandhill 

skipper populations appeared to have 

sufficient abundances and growth rates 

to withstand unfavorable environmental 

conditions despite its narrow 

geographic range (low redundancy) and 

seemingly low representation (owing to 

the limited ability to shift its range and 

its low within and among population 

genetic diversity). However, over the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP08JA25.008</GPH>

7482 

. 

··-· .. . . 

"'~ ..... 

2015 .2016 2018 2019 2020 

Year 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1429 

last 10 years, bleached sandhill skipper 

abundance has been declining at Pueblo 

Slough, due to climate change and 

groundwater pumping. Gridley Lake 

and Rincon Creek populations, because 

of their proximity to Pueblo Slough, are 

likely experiencing and responding 

similarly to rising temperatures and 

drying conditions. Thus, given its 

overall declining population health (low 

number of individuals, deteriorating 

habitat conditions), the subspecies is 

considered to have low resiliency. 

Because the subspecies is limited to a 

relatively small area (three populations 

within an approximately 14-mile (22- 

kilometer) area), and because all three 

populations are considered to have low 

resiliency, the subspecies is considered 

to have little redundancy. A single 

catastrophic event, such as a severe 

drought or heat wave, could result in 

the extinction of the subspecies. 

Additionally, given the subspecies’ 

narrow range and limited to no 

dispersal capabilities, we consider the 

subspecies to have low representation, 

and we do not expect any significant 

changes in behavioral, ecological, or 

genetic variation. 

Within the near-term (by 2029), the 

synergistic effects of climate change and 

groundwater pumping are projected to 

intensify, further reducing the bleached 

sandhill skipper’s ability to sustain 

itself, while concurrently impairing the 

subspecies’ ability to withstand 

stochasticity and catastrophic events. 

Moreover, current and near-term 

declining population health will further 

constrain the bleached sandhill 

skipper’s low representation, thereby 

exacerbating declines in the subspecies’ 

resiliency and redundancy over time. 

Future Condition 

As part of the SSA, we also developed 

three future-condition scenarios to 

capture the range of uncertainties 

regarding future threats and the 

projected responses by the bleached 

sandhill skipper. Our scenarios assumed 

a moderate to major increase in the 

warming and drying conditions within 

bleached sandhill skipper habitats, due 

to climate change and the synergistic 

effects of continued or enhanced 

groundwater pumping activities. 

Because we determined that the current 

condition of the bleached sandhill 

skipper is consistent with an 

endangered species (see Determination 

of Bleached Sandhill Skipper Status, 

below), we are not presenting the results 

of the future scenarios in this proposed 

rule. Please refer to the SSA report 

(Service 2024, pp. 58–81) for the full 

analysis of future scenarios. 

Determination of the Bleached Sandhill 

Skipper 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. 

We presented summary evaluations of 

the primary threats analyzed in the SSA 

report including climate change (Factor 

E) and groundwater pumping (Factor A). 

We also evaluated existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) and ongoing 

conservation measures. In the SSA 

report, we also considered additional 

threats: livestock grazing (Factor A) and 

geothermal development (Factor A). We 

concluded that, as indicated by the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, livestock grazing and 

geothermal development currently have 

no impact to minor impacts on the 

bleached sandhill skipper and its 

habitat and, thus, the overall effect of 

these activities now and into the nearterm is expected to be minimal. 

However, we consider each of these 

factors in the determination for the 

subspecies, because although they may 

have low impacts on their own, 

combined with impacts of other threats, 

they could further reduce the already 

low number of bleached sandhill 

skippers. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the 

subspecies and assessing the cumulative 

effect of the threats under the Act’s 

section 4(a)(1) factors, we have 

determined that the bleached sandhill 

skipper has limited resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation to 

maintain viability over time. Since 

2014, counts of bleached sandhill 

skipper have been declining at Pueblo 

Slough, due to climate change and 

exacerbated by groundwater pumping. 

Gridley Lake and Rincon Creek 

populations have limited population 

data, but because of their proximity to 

Pueblo Slough, they are likely 

experiencing and responding similarly 

to warming temperatures and drying 

conditions. Because the subspecies is 

limited to a relatively small area (three 

populations within an approximately 

14-mile (22-kilometer) area), the 

subspecies is considered to have little 

redundancy. A single catastrophic 

event, such as a severe drought or heat 

wave, could result in the extinction of 

the subspecies. Additionally, given the 

subspecies’ narrow range and limited to 

no dispersal capabilities, we consider 

the subspecies to have low 

representation, and we do not expect 

any significant changes in behavioral, 

ecological, or genetic variation. 

Within the near-term (by 2029), the 

synergistic effects of climate change and 

groundwater pumping are projected to 

intensify, further reducing the bleached 

sandhill skipper’s ability to sustain 

itself, while concurrently impairing the 

subspecies’ ability to withstand 

stochasticity and catastrophic events. 

Moreover, current and near-term 

declining population health will further 

constrain the bleached sandhill 

skipper’s seemingly low evolutionary 

potential, thereby exacerbating declines 

in the subspecies’ resiliency and 

redundancy over time. 

With declining population health 

(low number of individuals, 

deteriorating habitat conditions) 

coupled with its small geographic range, 

the subspecies currently has limited 

ability to withstand inherent 

stochasticity (environmental, 

demographic, and genetic), catastrophic 

events (e.g., heat waves and droughts), 

and changing environmental conditions 

(e.g., chronic increases in temperatures, 

drying conditions). Thus, extirpation 

risks at all three populations are 

expected to continue and increase in the 

near-term. 

We do not find the bleached sandhill 

skipper meets the definition of a 

threatened species because the 

subspecies currently has a low number 

of individuals, has already shown 

population declines resulting in low 

resiliency of its populations, and has 

deteriorating habitat conditions driven 

or exacerbated by the identified threats. 

Because the bleached sandhill skipper 

has low redundancy and representation 

is limited, the subspecies is vulnerable 

to even a single catastrophic heat wave 

or drought event. Thus, after assessing 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available, we conclude that the bleached 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1430 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

sandhill skipper is currently 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 within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We have 

determined that the bleached sandhill 

skipper 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 bleached sandhill 

skipper warrants listing as endangered 

throughout all of its range, our 

determination does not conflict with the 

decision in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 

(D.D.C. 2020), because that decision 

related to significant portion of the 

range analyses for species that warrant 

listing as threatened, not endangered, 

throughout all of their range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the bleached sandhill 

skipper meets the definition of an 

endangered species. Therefore, we 

propose to list the bleached sandhill 

skipper 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 as a listed species, 

planning and implementation of 

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, foreign 

governments, 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, 

including the Service, 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 goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

The recovery planning process begins 

with development of a recovery outline 

made available to the public soon after 

a final listing determination. The 

recovery outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions while a recovery plan is being 

developed. Recovery teams (composed 

of species experts, Federal and State 

agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) may be 

established to develop and implement 

recovery plans. The recovery planning 

process involves the identification of 

actions that are necessary to halt and 

reverse the species’ decline by 

addressing the threats to its survival and 

recovery. The recovery plan identifies 

recovery criteria for review of when a 

species may be ready for reclassification 

from endangered to threatened 

(‘‘downlisting’’) or 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. Revisions of the plan 

may be done to address continuing or 

new threats to the species, as new 

substantive information becomes 

available. The recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, final recovery plan, and 

any revisions will be available on our 

website as they are completed (https:// 

www.fws.gov/program/endangeredspecies), or from our Reno Fish and 

Wildlife 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 subspecies 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 Nevada would be 

eligible for Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection or recovery of the bleached 

sandhill skipper. Information on our 

grant programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: 

https://www.fws.gov/service/financialassistance. 

Although the bleached sandhill 

skipper is only proposed for listing 

under the Act at this time, please let us 

know if you are interested in 

participating in recovery efforts for this 

subspecies. Additionally, we invite you 

to submit any new information on this 

subspecies whenever it becomes 

available and any information you may 

have for recovery planning purposes 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7 of the Act is titled, 

‘‘Interagency Cooperation,’’ and it 

mandates all Federal action agencies to 

use their existing authorities to further 

the conservation purposes of the Act 

and ensure that their actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Regulations 

implementing section 7 are codified at 

50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal 

action agency shall, in consultation with 

the Secretary, ensure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of designated critical habitat. Each 

Federal agency shall review its action at 

the earliest possible time to determine 

whether it may affect listed species or 

critical habitat. If a determination is 

made that the action may affect listed 

species or critical habitat, formal 

consultation is required (50 CFR 

402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in 

writing that the action is not likely to 

adversely affect listed species or critical 

habitat. At the end of a formal 

consultation, the Service issues a 

biological opinion, containing its 

determination of whether the Federal 

action is likely to result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification. 

In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any action which is 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat proposed to be 

designated for such species. Although 

the conference procedures are required 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1431 

only when an action is likely to result 

in jeopardy or adverse modification, 

action agencies may voluntarily confer 

with the Service on actions that may 

affect species proposed for listing or 

critical habitat proposed to be 

designated. In the event that the subject 

species is listed or the relevant critical 

habitat is designated, a conference 

opinion may be adopted as a biological 

opinion and serve as compliance with 

section 7(a)(2). 

Examples of discretionary actions for 

the bleached sandhill skipper that may 

be subject to conference and 

consultation procedures under section 7 

are land management or other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the BLM, the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

and the Federal Highway 

Administration as well as actions on 

State, Tribal, local, or private lands that 

require a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

or a permit from the Service under 

section 10 of the Act) or that involve 

some other Federal action (such as 

funding from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. Federal agencies should 

coordinate with the local Service Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT) with any specific questions on 

section 7 consultation and conference 

requirements. 

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, and the 

Service’s implementing regulations 

codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal 

for any person subject to the jurisdiction 

of the United States to commit, to 

attempt to commit, to solicit another to 

commit or to cause to be committed any 

of the following acts with regard to any 

endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or 

export from, the United States; (2) take 

(which includes harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect) within the United States, 

within the territorial sea of the United 

States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, 

sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by 

any means whatsoever, any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) 

deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 

in interstate or foreign commerce, by 

any means whatsoever and in the course 

of commercial activity; or (5) sell or 

offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. Certain exceptions to these 

prohibitions apply to employees or 

agents 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 for endangered 

wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 

and general Service permitting 

regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 

13. With regard to endangered wildlife, 

a permit may be issued: for scientific 

purposes, for enhancing the propagation 

or survival of the species, or for take 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities. 

The statute also contains certain 

exemptions from the prohibitions, 

which are found in sections 9 and 10 of 

the Act. 

II. Critical Habitat 

Background 

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

that, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, we designate a 

species’ critical habitat concurrently 

with listing the species. Critical habitat 

is defined in section 3 of the Act as: 

(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). 

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 each Federal action 

agency 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 designated 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 non-Federal landowners. 

Rather, designation requires that, where 

a landowner requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization for an action 

that may affect an area designated as 

critical habitat, the Federal agency 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may 

affect the listed species itself (such as 

for occupied critical habitat), the 

Federal agency would have already been 

required to consult with the Service 

even absent the designation because of 

the requirement to ensure that the 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. Even 

if the Service were to conclude after 

consultation that the proposed activity 

is likely to 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1432 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

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 

data available, those physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species (such as 

space, food, cover, and protected 

habitat). 

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. 

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 compiled in 

the SSA 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. 

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 

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, or other 

species conservation planning efforts if 

new information available at the time of 

those planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

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.’’ 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the bleached sandhill skipper 

and habitat characteristics where the 

subspecies is located. A careful 

assessment of the economic impacts that 

may occur due to a critical habitat 

designation is still ongoing, and we are 

in the process of acquiring the complex 

information needed to perform that 

assessment. Therefore, due to the 

current lack of data sufficient to perform 

required analyses, we conclude that the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

bleached sandhill skipper is not 

determinable at this time. 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 Order 

(E.O.) 12866 and E.O. 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 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. 

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, May 4, 

1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), the President’s 

memorandum of November 30, 2022 

(Uniform Standards for Tribal 

Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 

2022), and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations (ANCs) on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretaries’ 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 will work with Tribal entities during 

the future development of a proposed 

rule for the designation of critical 

habitat for the bleached sandhill 

skipper. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1433 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Reno Fish 

and Wildlife 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 Reno Fish 

and Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

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, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife by adding an entry for 

‘‘Skipper, bleached sandhill’’ 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 

*******

Skipper, bleached sandhill Polites sabuleti 

sinemaculata.

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

rule]. 

* * * * * * * 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31761 Filed 1–7–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1