Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32859 

Reasonable Accommodation 

The Service is committed to providing 

access to the public informational 

meeting and public hearing for all 

participants. Closed captioning will be 

available during the public 

informational meeting and public 

hearing. Further, a full audio and video 

recording and transcript of the public 

hearing will be posted online at https:// 

www.fws.gov/pacificislands after the 

hearing. Participants will also have 

access to live audio during the public 

informational meeting and public 

hearing via their telephone or computer 

speakers. Persons with disabilities 

requiring reasonable accommodations to 

participate in the meeting and/or 

hearing should contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT at least 5 business days prior 

to the date of the meeting and hearing 

to help ensure availability. An 

accessible version of the Service’s 

public informational meeting 

presentation will also be posted online 

at https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands 

prior to the meeting and hearing (see 

DATES, above). See https://www.fws.gov/ 

pacificislands for more information 

about reasonable accommodation. 

Authors 

The primary author of this document 

is Ecological Services staff of the 

Interior-Region 9/12 Regional Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Signing Authority 

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Martha Williams, Principal Deputy 

Director Exercising the Delegated 

Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, approved this 

document on June 21, 2021, for 

publication. 

Anissa Craghead, 

Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division 

of Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13290 Filed 6–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020–0082; 

FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BD97 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassifying the Fender’s 

Blue Butterfly From Endangered to 

Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

reclassify the Fender’s blue butterfly 

(Icaricia icarioides fenderi) from 

endangered to threatened (downlist) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). The Fender’s 

blue butterfly is endemic to the 

Willamette Valley of Oregon. The 

proposed downlisting is based on our 

evaluation of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

which indicates that the species’ status 

has improved such that it is not 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, but that it is still likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future. We 

also propose a rule under section 4(d) of 

the Act that provides for the 

conservation of the species. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

August 23, 2021. 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 public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by August 9, 2021. 

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 FWS–R1–ES–2020–0082, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

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, click on 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–R1–ES–2020–0082, 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 Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

Document availability: This proposed 

rule and supporting documents, 

including the 5-year review, the 

Recovery Plan, and the species status 

assessment (SSA) report are available at 

https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo and at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020–0082. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Henson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, 

Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; 

telephone 503–231–6179. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act a species may warrant 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened if it no longer meets the 

definition of endangered (in danger of 

extinction). The Fender’s blue butterfly 

is listed as endangered, and we are 

proposing to reclassify (downlist) the 

Fender’s blue butterfly as threatened 

because we have determined it is not 

currently in danger of extinction. 

Downlisting a species as a threatened 

species can only be made by issuing a 

rulemaking. 

What this document does. This rule 

proposes to downlist the Fender’s blue 

butterfly from endangered to threatened 

(i.e., to ‘‘downlist’’ the species), with a 

rule issued under section 4(d) of the 

Act, based on the species’ current status, 

which has been improved through 

implementation of conservation actions. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered species or a 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 may downlist a species if 

the best available commercial and 

scientific data indicate the species no 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32860 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

longer meets the applicable definition in 

the Act. We have determined that the 

Fender’s blue butterfly is no longer in 

danger of extinction and, therefore, does 

not meet the definition of an 

endangered species, but is still affected 

by the following current and ongoing 

threats to the extent that the species 

meets the definition of a threatened 

species under the Act: The loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation of 

prairie and oak savannah habitats 

including conversion to non-habitat 

land uses (e.g., urban development, 

agriculture); elimination of natural 

disturbance regimes; encroachment into 

prairie habitats by shrubs and trees due 

to fire suppression; insecticides and 

herbicides; and invasion by non-native 

plants. 

We are proposing to promulgate a 

section 4(d) rule. We propose to prohibit 

all intentional take of the Fender’s blue 

butterfly and specifically allow 

incidental take by landowners or their 

agents while conducting management 

for the creation, restoration, or 

enhancement of short-stature native 

upland prairie or oak savannah 

conditions under section 9(a)(1) of the 

Act as a means to provide protective 

mechanisms to our State and private 

partners so that they may continue with 

certain activities that will facilitate the 

conservation and recovery of the 

species. 

This document consists of: (1) A 

summary of the status of Fender’s blue 

butterfly and the most recent 5-year 

review recommendation that the species 

be reclassified from endangered to 

threatened status; (2) a proposed rule to 

list Fender’s blue butterfly as a 

threatened species under the Act; and 

(3) a proposed rule under section 4(d) of 

the Act to provide for the conservation 

of the species (hereafter, a ‘‘4(d) rule’’). 

Additionally, to support our species 

status review, we prepared a Species 

Status Assessment Report for the 

Fender’s Blue Butterfly (USFWS 2020, 

entire) that presents a thorough review 

of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, 

and overall viability of the Fender’s blue 

butterfly (available at http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS– 

R1–ES–2020–0082, under Supporting 

Documents). 

Information Requested 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments and 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. In particular, we seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Reasons we should or should not 

reclassify Fender’s blue butterfly from 

an endangered species to a threatened 

species. 

(2) New biological or other relevant 

data concerning any threat (or lack 

thereof) to Fender’s blue butterfly and 

any existing regulations that may be 

addressing these or any of the stressors 

to the species discussed here. 

(3) New information concerning the 

population size or trends of Fender’s 

blue butterfly. 

(4) Current or planned activities 

within the geographic range of Fender’s 

blue butterfly that may have adverse or 

beneficial impacts on the species. 

(5) New information or data on the 

projected and reasonably likely impacts 

to Fender’s blue butterfly or its habitat 

associated with climate change or any 

other factors that may affect the species 

in the future. 

(6) Information on regulations that are 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of Fender’s blue 

butterfly and that the Service can 

consider in developing a 4(d) rule for 

the species. 

(7) Information concerning the extent 

to which we should include any of the 

section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or 

whether any other forms of take should 

be excepted from the prohibitions in the 

4(d) rule. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications, 

preferably in English) 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 directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your 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 

determinations 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 should remain listed as 

endangered instead of being reclassified 

as threatened, or we may conclude that 

the species no longer warrants listing as 

either an endangered species or a 

threatened species. In addition, we may 

change the parameters of the 

prohibitions or the exceptions to those 

prohibitions if we conclude it is 

appropriate in light of comments and 

new information received. For example, 

we may expand the incidental-take 

prohibitions to include prohibiting 

additional activities if we conclude that 

those additional activities are not 

compatible with conservation of the 

species. Conversely, we may establish 

additional exceptions to the incidentaltake prohibitions in the final rule if we 

conclude that the activities would 

facilitate or are compatible with the 

conservation and recovery of the 

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 

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

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32861 

Fender’s blue butterfly. 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 species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

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), 

our August 22, 2016, Director’s Memo 

on the Peer Review Process, and the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

December 16, 2004, Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

(revised June 2012), we sought the 

expert opinions of 12 appropriate and 

independent specialists with knowledge 

of the biology and ecology of Fender’s 

blue butterfly or its habitat regarding the 

SSA report. The purpose of peer review 

is to ensure that our determination 

regarding the status of the species under 

the Act is based on scientifically sound 

data, assumptions, and analyses. We 

received feedback from 5 of the 12 peer 

reviewers contacted. In preparing this 

proposed rule, we incorporated the 

results of these reviews, as appropriate, 

into the final SSA report, which is the 

foundation for this proposed rule. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On January 27, 1998, we published a 

proposed rule (63 FR 3863) to list the 

Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia 

icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus 

ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine), and 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens 

(Willamette daisy) under the Act, 

without critical habitat. On January 25, 

2000, we published the final rule 

designating endangered status for the 

Fender’s blue butterfly and Willamette 

daisy, and threatened status for 

Kincaid’s lupine (65 FR 3875). 

On November 2, 2005, we published 

a proposed rule in the Federal Register 

to designate critical habitat for the 

Fender’s blue butterfly, Kincaid’s 

lupine, and Willamette daisy (70 FR 

66492). We published the final rule 

designating critical habitat for the 

Fender’s blue butterfly, Kincaid’s 

lupine, and Willamette daisy on October 

31, 2006 (71 FR 63862). The final 

critical habitat designation included 

approximately 1,218 hectares (ha) (3,010 

acres [ac]) for Fender’s blue butterfly in 

Oregon; 237 ha (585 ac) for Kincaid’s 

lupine in Oregon and Washington; and 

291 ha (718 ac) for Willamette daisy in 

Oregon. 

On September 22, 2008, we published 

the notice of availability of the draft 

Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of 

Western Oregon and Southwestern 

Washington (hereafter ‘‘recovery plan’’) 

in the Federal Register (73 FR 54603). 

The notice of availability for the final 

recovery plan was published in the 

Federal Register on June 29, 2010 (75 

FR 37460). 

On July 6, 2005, we announced the 

initiation of a 5-year review of the 

Fender’s blue butterfly under section 

4(c)(2)(b) of the Act (70 FR 38972). The 

5-year status review for the Fender’s 

blue butterfly was signed on March 6, 

2019. 

Background 

Status Assessment for the Fender’s Blue 

Butterfly 

We prepared an SSA report for the 

Fender’s Blue Butterfly (USFWS 2020, 

entire) that presents a thorough review 

of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, 

and overall viability of the Fender’s blue 

butterfly. In this proposed rule we 

present only a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

report; the full report is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov, as 

referenced above. 

Recovery Planning and Recovery 

Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 

recovery plans must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, that the species be 

removed from the List. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A 

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all of the criteria in a recovery plan 

being fully met. For example, one or 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, follow all of the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

In 2010, we finalized the Recovery 

Plan for the Prairie Species of Western 

Oregon and Southwestern Washington, 

which applied to a suite of endemic 

species including Fender’s blue 

butterfly (USFWS 2010, entire). The 

objective of the recovery plan is to 

achieve viable populations of the listed 

species distributed across their 

historical ranges in a series of 

interconnected populations. This 

objective was to be accomplished by 

establishing metapopulations of restored 

prairie reserves across the geographic 

range covered by the recovery plan 

(USFWS 2010, p. v). The recovery plan 

set abundance and distribution goals for 

Fender’s blue butterfly by delineating 

three recovery zones (Salem, Corvallis, 

and Eugene) encompassing the 

historical range of the species. The two 

downlisting criteria established for 

Fender’s blue butterfly were as follows: 

(1) Each recovery zone has one 

functioning network (a metapopulation 

with several interacting subpopulations, 

as defined in the recovery plan) with a 

minimum count of 200 butterflies, 

distributed among 3 subpopulations, for 

at least 10 years; in addition to this 

network, there must be a second 

functioning network or 2 independent 

populations with butterflies present 

each year in each recovery zone. 

Downlisting goals were set at a 90 

percent probability of persistence for 25 

years. 

(2) Two functioning networks or one 

functioning network and two 

independent populations in each zone 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32862 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

must be protected and managed for 

high-quality prairie habitat. The plan 

described high-quality prairie as habitat 

consisting of a diversity of native, nonwoody plant species, various nectar 

plants that bloom throughout the flight 

season of Fender’s blue butterfly, low 

frequency of nonnative plant species 

and encroaching woody species, and 

essential habitat elements (e.g., nest 

sites and food plants) for native 

pollinators. At least one of the larval 

host plant species, Lupinus sulphureus 

ssp. kincaidii, L. arbustus or L. 

albicaulis, must be present. 

All three recovery zones have at least 

two metapopulations (Table 1). The 

Baskett, Wren, West Eugene, and 

Willow Creek metapopulations have 

had more than 200 butterflies each year 

for at least 10 consecutive years and are 

therefore meeting the recovery criteria. 

In addition, the Gopher Valley, Oak 

Ridge, Butterfly Meadows, Greasy 

Creek, Lupine Meadows, Coburg Ridge, 

and Oak Basin metapopulations have 

had butterflies present for at least 10 

years though they have not exceeded the 

count of 200 butterflies. Thus, the 

species is currently meeting population 

criteria for downlisting. That said, 

concern remains for the Corvallis 

recovery zone in the middle of the 

species’ range, with metapopulations 

that are generally less robust and more 

vulnerable to deteriorating in condition 

over time. 

The species is currently meeting 

habitat management and protection 

downlisting criteria. In each recovery 

zone, we have at least three 

metapopulations with greater than 75 

percent of their habitat protected (Table 

1). Managers of protected land either 

have a habitat management plan in 

place, or are in the process of creating 

plans to maintain prairie quality for 

Fender’s blue butterfly. Although the 

recovery plan has identified the number 

of nectar species and sufficient amount 

of nectar to make up high quality 

habitat, our metapopulations currently 

do not meet the strict definition as 

spelled out in the recovery plan. 

However, we believe that for the species 

to achieve recovery, it does not need to 

fulfill this part of the criteria as laid out 

in the recovery plan. We will discuss 

this in greater detail below. 

TABLE 1—FENDER’S BLUE BUTTERFLY DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE AND PROTECTION ACROSS RECOVERY ZONES

Metapopulation 

At least 200 

butterflies for 

10 years 

Number 

consecutive 

years ≥200 

butterflies 

Time period 

with ≥200 

butterflies 

Butterflies 

present for 

past 10 years 

Habitat 

protection 

(%) 

Salem Recovery Zone: 

Baskett .......................................................................... Y 18 2000–2018 Y 100 

Gopher Valley ............................................................... N 7 2012–2018 Y 100 

Hagg Lake .................................................................... N 8 2011–2018 N 100 

Moores Valley ............................................................... N 0 – N 100 

Oak Ridge ..................................................................... N 6 2013–2018 Y 35 

Turner Creek ................................................................. N 0 – N 45 

Corvallis Recovery Zone: 

Butterfly Meadows ........................................................ N 6 2003–2009 Y 24 

Finley ............................................................................ N 3 2016–2018 N 100 

Greasy Creek ................................................................ N 0 – Y 4 

Lupine Meadows ........................................................... N 6 2003–2009 Y 100 

Wren ............................................................................. Y 12 2006–2018 Y 93 

Eugene Recovery Zone: 

Coburg Ridge ................................................................ N 2 2006–2007 Y 77 

Oak Basin ..................................................................... N 0 – Y 100 

West Eugene ................................................................ Y 15 2003–2018 Y 100 

Willow Creek ................................................................. Y 25 1993–2018 Y 100 

While Fender’s blue butterfly meets 

downlisting criteria, the species does 

not meet delisting criteria. The three 

delisting criteria established for 

Fender’s blue butterfly were as follows: 

(1) Each of the three recovery zones 

has a combination of functioning 

networks and independent populations 

such that the probability of persistence 

is 95 percent over the next 100 years; 

Annual population surveys in each 

functioning network and independent 

population must count at least the 

minimum number of adult butterflies 

for 10 consecutive years. 

(2) Sites supporting populations of 

Fender’s blue butterflies considered in 

Criterion 1 above must be protected and 

managed for high-quality prairie habitat 

as described in the recovery plan. 

(3) Monitoring of populations 

following delisting will verify the 

ongoing recovery of the species, provide 

a basis for determining whether the 

species should be again placed under 

the protection of the Act, and provide a 

means of assessing the continuing 

effectiveness of management actions. 

Delisting may be achieved with a 

variety of combinations of 

metapopulations and independent 

populations in each recovery zone as 

detailed in the recovery plan. Currently, 

each recovery zone has at least four 

metapopulations meaning that each 

metapopulation would need a minimum 

of 400 butterflies in each of 10 

consecutive years to meet delisting 

Criterion 1. At this time, none of the 

recovery zones meet this criterion. For 

Criterion 2, many of the sites for the 

Fender’s blue butterfly have protection 

in place. Currently, we have three HCPs, 

17 SHA, and many partners agreement 

in place. These agreements help 

maintain the species habitat through 

prairie habitat restoration and 

enhancement. Overall, there is currently 

management and protection for the 

Fender’s blue butterfly habitat. 

However, these sites do not possess 

sufficient number of butterflies to meet 

Criterion 1. Additionally, we also do not 

have post-delisting monitoring plans or 

agreements in place to assure habitat 

management will continue for this 

conservation-reliant species as per 

delisting Criterion 3. Therefore, 

although there are management plans in 

place for the species habitat, because we 

do not have sufficient number of 

butterflies within the metapopulations 

and we also do not have long term 

agreements for continual habitat 

management, this species does not meet 

the threshold for delisting. 

The extinction thresholds underlying 

downlisting and delisting criteria were 

derived from a census-based population 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32863 

viability analysis (PVA) conducted 

shortly after listing the Fender’s blue 

butterfly (USFWS 2010, pp. IV–29–IV– 

31 and IV–34). However, for the reasons 

described below, we are conducting a 

new PVA using an individual-based 

population model and reevaluating the 

delisting recovery criteria in light of the 

best scientific data that are now 

available. As described in the SSA 

report, the PVA used to develop the 

initial recovery criteria relied upon 

several assumptions that, based on our 

improved understanding of the ecology 

of the butterfly, we now know are 

outdated and require modification. We 

also have an additional decade of 

monitoring data and increased 

confidence in the accuracy of a 

standardized monitoring protocol 

implemented in 2012 (USFWS 2020, pp. 

47–52). Furthermore, the recovery plan 

set specific targets for the abundance 

and diversity of nectar species required 

to be of high habitat quality to support 

Fender’s blue butterfly, as well as a 

minimum density of lupine leaves (the 

host plant for the species’ larval life 

stage). For various reasons detailed in 

the SSA report, including a limited 

dataset and conflicting results regarding 

the correlation between these resources 

and densities of Fender’s blue butterfly, 

these targets are also now in question 

(USFWS 2020, pp. 65–67). 

Because we are in the process of 

reevaluating the current recovery 

criteria for Fender’s blue butterfly as 

presented in the recovery plan for the 

species (USFWS 2010, pp. IV–29–IV–31 

and IV–34), we did not assess the status 

of Fender’s blue butterfly relative to all 

of the existing habitat targets. However, 

in our SSA, we did consider the status 

of the species relative to the overarching 

goals of protecting existing populations, 

securing the habitat, and managing for 

high-quality prairie habitats; all of these 

were downlisting and delisting 

considerations described in the recovery 

plan (USFWS 2010, p. IV–9). In 

addition, our evaluation under the SSA 

framework (USFWS 2016) reflects the 

fundamental concepts captured in the 

recovery plan strategy of achieving 

multiple populations with connectivity 

between them distributed across the 

historical range of the species. For 

example, we find that the minimum 

number threshold from the recovery 

plan remains valid because population 

size targets based on minimum 

population size eliminate confounding 

variation from stochastic events that 

may not reflect demographic changes. In 

other words, averages may be artificially 

high or low if you have one unusual 

weather year. 

Additionally, we partially rely upon 

the habitat targets for nectar species for 

evaluating the status of the species. We 

acknowledge that the species needs a 

variety of different species as nectar 

sources. The recovery plan identifies the 

quantity of nectar needed per area and 

the number of native nectar species. 

However, we do not find that the 

quantity defined in these habitat targets 

of the recovery plan is needed for the 

recovery of the species as we have seen 

sites maintain viability despite not 

meeting the target (i.e., there are sites 

that are able to maintain viability with 

lower quantity of nectar and nonnative 

nectar species). We also explicitly 

considered not only the quality of the 

prairie habitat, using the recommended 

guidelines for prairie quality and nectar 

availability in the recovery plan, but 

also the management and protection 

status of butterfly occurrences (see, e.g., 

USFWS 2010, p. IV–13, pp. IV–29–IV– 

31). 

In sum, for the purpose of this status 

review, we evaluated the status of 

Fender’s blue butterfly in terms of the 

relative viability of the species over time 

and the conservation biology principles 

of resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation of its constituent 

populations (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 

307–310; Wolf et al. 2015, entire; Smith 

et al. 2018, entire). Extinction risk is 

generally reduced as a function of 

increased population abundance 

(resiliency), numbers of populations 

(redundancy), and distribution or 

geographic or genetic diversity 

(representation). We combined our 

assessment of the resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of 

Fender’s blue butterfly populations with 

our evaluation of the ongoing and future 

threats to the species, as defined under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, to assess the 

overall status of the species in terms of 

its current viability and relative viability 

over a range of plausible futures (Smith 

et al. 2018, p. 306; USFWS 2020, entire). 

Taxonomy and Historical Distribution 

The Fender’s blue butterfly was first 

described in 1931 as Plebejus maricopa 

fenderi based on specimens collected 

near McMinnville, Oregon, in Yamhill 

County (Macy 1931, pp. 1–2). The 

Fender’s blue butterfly was classified in 

the Lycaenidae family within the 

subfamily Polyommatinae as a 

subspecies of Boisduval’s blue butterfly 

based on adult characters and 

geographic distribution. The species 

maricopa was considered a synonym of 

the species icarioides and was later 

determined to be a member of the genus 

Icaricia, rather than the genus Plebejus. 

The worldwide taxonomic arrangement 

of the subtribe Polyommatina (which 

contains blue butterflies) was 

fluctuating between Plebejus and 

Icaricia until it was revised in 2013 as 

Icaricia. The current scientific name, 

Icaricia icarioides fenderi, was validated 

by the Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) and experts at 

the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and 

Biodiversity, a division of the Florida 

Museum of Natural History at the 

University of Florida (see USFWS 2020, 

p. 15, for all citations). 

We do not know the precise historical 

distribution of Fender’s blue butterfly 

due to the limited information collected 

on this subspecies prior to its 

description in 1931. Only a limited 

number of collections were made 

between the time of the subspecies’ 

discovery and its presumed last 

observation on May 23, 1937, in Benton 

County, Oregon, leading the scientific 

community to assume the species was 

extinct (Hammond and Wilson 1993, p. 

3). Fender’s blue butterfly was 

rediscovered in 1989 at the McDonald 

State Forest, Benton County, Oregon, on 

the uncommon plant, Kincaid’s lupine. 

Surveys since its rediscovery indicate 

that the distribution of Fender’s blue 

butterfly is restricted to the Willamette 

Valley in Benton, Lane, Linn, Polk, 

Yamhill, and Washington Counties in 

Oregon. 

Population Terminology 

In some instances, populations that 

are spatially separated interact, at least 

on occasion, as individual members 

move from one population to another. In 

the case of Fender’s blue butterfly, the 

clear delineation of discrete populations 

and subpopulations is challenging 

because of the uncertainty regarding the 

extent to which individuals at known 

sites interact with each other or with 

other individuals on the landscape of 

adjacent private lands that are 

inaccessible to researchers and remain 

unsurveyed. Thus, in the SSA report 

and in this document, we use the term 

‘‘metapopulation’’ as a rough analog to 

the more familiar term ‘‘population’’. 

We use the term metapopulation to 

describe groups of sites occupied by 

Fender’s blue butterflies that are within 

2 kilometers (km) (1.2 miles [mi]) of one 

another and not separated by barriers. 

We chose this distance because it is the 

estimated dispersal distance of Fender’s 

blue butterfly (Schultz 1998, p. 290). We 

assume that butterflies within a 

metapopulation are capable of at least 

occasional interchange of individuals. 

We do not anticipate that 

metapopulations across the range of the 

species will interact with one another 

given the distance and structural 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32864 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

barriers between them. The definition of 

metapopulation used here and in the 

SSA report is not the same as the 

‘‘functioning network’’ defined in the 

recovery plan because the latter does 

not allow for circumstances when 

populations do not meet the recovery 

plan definition of either an independent 

population or a functioning network. It 

also included a requirement for a 

minimum patch size of 18 ha (44 ac) for 

each network, which we now know is 

not necessary, as the butterfly can thrive 

in much smaller patch sizes. Further 

information regarding these definitions 

is detailed in the SSA report (USFWS 

2020, pp. 41–42). 

Locations containing Fender’s blue 

butterfly occur across multiple land 

ownerships and have varying degrees of 

habitat protection, and are managed in 

different ways. We use the term ‘‘site’’ 

to identify a management unit or land 

ownership designation; multiple sites 

may therefore comprise a single 

metapopulation. An ‘‘independent 

group’’ of Fender’s blue butterfly refers 

to occupied sites that are more than 2 

km (1.2 mi) from another occupied site 

and/or are separated by barriers from 

other occupied sites such that butterflies 

are unable to interact. 

Summary of the Biology and Life History 

of the Species 

The Fender’s blue butterfly is found 

only in the prairie and oak savannah 

habitats of the Willamette Valley of 

Oregon. Adult Fender’s blue butterflies 

are quite small, having a wingspan of 

approximately 25 millimeters (mm) (1 

inch [in]). The upper wings of males are 

brilliant blue in color with black borders 

and basal areas, whereas the upper 

wings of females are brown. 

The Fender’s blue butterfly relies 

primarily upon a relatively uncommon 

lupine plant, the Kincaid’s lupine, also 

endemic to the Willamette Valley and 

listed as a threatened species under the 

Act (65 FR 3875; January 25, 2000), as 

the host plant for the larval (caterpillar) 

life stage (Hammond and Wilson 1993, 

p. 2). The only other host plants known 

for Fender’s blue butterflies are Lupinus 

arbustus (longspur lupine) and Lupinus 

albicaulis (sickle-keeled lupine) 

(Schultz et al. 2003, pp. 64–67). Females 

lay single eggs on the underside of the 

leaves of one of these three lupine 

species, up to approximately 350 eggs in 

total. Eggs hatch from mid-May to midJuly, and the larvae feed on the lupine 

until the plants senesce and the larvae 

go into diapause for the fall and winter. 

The larvae break diapause in early 

spring, feed exclusively on the host 

lupine, and metamorphose into adults, 

emerging as butterflies between midApril and the end of June. Adult 

Fender’s blue butterflies only live 7 to 

14 days, and feed exclusively on nectar 

from flowering plants (Schultz 1995, p. 

36; Schultz et al. 2003, pp. 64–65). 

Given its short adult lifespan, the 

Fender’s blue butterfly has limited 

dispersal ability. Butterflies are 

estimated to disperse approximately 

0.75 km (0.5 mi) if they remain in their 

natal lupine patch, and approximately 2 

km (1.2 mi) if they disperse between 

lupine patches (Schultz 1998, p. 290). 

Habitat 

Both Fender’s blue butterfly and its 

primary larval host plant, the Kincaid’s 

lupine, are restricted to the upland 

prairies and oak savannahs of the 

Willamette Valley in western Oregon. 

Although wet prairies are occasionally 

occupied by the butterfly, most sites are 

found on upland prairie as that is where 

Kincaid’s lupine tends to be found. The 

Willamette Valley is approximately 200 

km (130 mi) long and 30 to 50 km (20 

to 40 mi) wide, characterized by a broad 

alluvial floodplain (Franklin and 

Dyrness 1988, p. 16). The alluvial soils 

of the Willamette Valley host a mosaic 

of grassland, woodland, and forest 

communities. Most grasslands in this 

region are early seral and require natural 

or human-induced disturbance for 

maintenance (Franklin and Dyrness 

1988, p. 122). Historically, frequent 

burning reduced the abundance of 

shrubs and trees, favoring open prairies 

or savannahs with a rich variety of 

native plants and animals. As settlers 

arrived in the valley, they converted 

native habitats to agricultural 

landscapes, annual burning ceased, and 

both woody species and nonnative 

weeds encroached on the remaining 

prairie habitats. Native upland prairies 

now cover less than one percent of their 

former area, making them among the 

rarest of North American ecosystems 

(USFWS 2020, p. 27). 

The upland prairies used by Fender’s 

blue butterfly are dominated by shortstature vegetation and slopes containing 

microtopography (small-scale surface 

features of the earth) of a variable 

nature. Most importantly, these prairies 

support at least one of the three larval 

host plants—Kincaid’s lupine, longspur 

lupine, or sickle-keeled lupine— 

required by Fender’s blue butterfly. The 

leaves of these lupine species grow to 

approximately 61 cm (24 in) tall, with 

flowers extending up to 90 cm (35 in); 

the plant requires sunny open areas 

without dense canopy cover (USFWS 

2020, p. 32). These three lupines are an 

obligate food source for the larvae or 

caterpillars, but an abundance of 

wildflowers is essential for the adult life 

form. Nectar from wildflowers is the 

sole food source for adult butterflies, 

making a diversity of wildflowers a 

required component of prairie habitat 

for Fender’s blue butterfly. 

The upland prairie habitats used by 

Fender’s blue butterfly often contain 

scattered Quercus garryana (Oregon 

white oak) and the following native 

grass species: Danthonia californica 

(California oatgrass), Festuca idahoensis 

roemeri (Roemer’s fescue), and Elymus 

glaucus (blue wild rye). Two nonnative 

grass species are also frequently present, 

Arrhenatherum elatius (tall oatgrass) 

and Festuca arundinacea (tall fescue). 

Tall grasses, including oatgrass and 

fescue, inhibit the growth of the lupine 

host plants and native nectar sources by 

crowding or shading them out; they can 

also overtop the lupines, and preclude 

access by females for oviposition. When 

tall grasses or other tall vegetation 

become dominant, they can prevent 

Fender’s blue butterfly from using the 

native plant species necessary for the 

butterfly’s survival and reproduction 

(USFWS 2020, p. 28). Invasive exotics 

that form thick stands of cover, such as 

Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom) or 

Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan 

blackberry), also contribute to this 

problem. 

Historical and Current Abundance and 

Distribution 

While we do not know the precise 

historical abundance or distribution of 

Fender’s blue butterfly, at the time the 

subspecies was listed as endangered in 

2000, we knew of approximately 3,391 

individuals on 32 sites (USFWS 2020, p. 

35). By retroactively applying the 

criteria for our refined population 

terminology, we calculate there would 

have been 12 metapopulations of 

Fender’s blue butterfly distributed 

across approximately 165 ha (408 ac) of 

occupied prairie in 4 counties at the 

time of listing (Table 2). Those numbers 

have now grown across all 3 recovery 

zones identified for Fender’s blue 

butterfly (see Recovery Planning and 

Recovery Criteria) as a result of 

population expansion, population 

discovery, and population creation; 

currently, 15 Fender’s blue butterfly 

metapopulations and 6 independent 

groups are distributed throughout the 

Willamette Valley in Benton, Lane, 

Linn, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill 

Counties (6 total Counties). There are 

137 total sites, containing more than 

13,700 individuals of the Fender’s blue 

butterfly, throughout an area totaling 

approximately 344 ha (825 ac) of 

occupied prairie habitat with a broad 

range of land ownerships and varying 

degrees of land protection and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32865 

management (USFWS 2020, pp. 52–53). 

In 2016, the estimated number of 

Fender’s blue butterflies hit a presumed 

all-time high of nearly 29,000 

individuals (USFWS 2020, p. 71). Maps 

showing the historical and current 

distribution of Fender’s blue butterfly 

throughout its range are available in the 

SSA report (USFWS 2020, pp. 51, 54– 

56). 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF FENDER’S BLUE BUTTERFLY ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN TIME OF LISTING IN

2000 AND SURVEY RESULTS FROM 2018 

[USFWS 2020, Table 3.4] 

Listed as endangered (2000) Survey results as of 2018 * 

Number of metapopulations .................................................................... 12 ................................................... 15. 

Number of independent groups .............................................................. 0 ..................................................... 6. 

Total abundance (# of individuals) .......................................................... 3,391 .............................................. 13,700. 

Number of sites ....................................................................................... 32 ................................................... 137. 

Area of prairie habitat known to be occupied, in hectares (acres) ......... 165 (408) ....................................... 344 (825). 

Counties known to be occupied .............................................................. 4 (Benton, Lane, Polk, and 

Yamhill).

6 (Benton, Lane, Linn, Polk, 

Washington, and Yamhill). 

* Note this is not a total count, as not all sites can be surveyed every year; thus, the number of individuals reported in 2018 is an underestimate of the rangewide abundance. 

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 consider these same five 

factors in downlisting a species from 

endangered to threatened (50 CFR 

424.11(c)–(e)). 

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 now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

Determining whether the status of a 

species has improved to the point that 

it can be reclassified from endangered to 

threatened (‘‘downlisted’’) or removed 

from the Federal Lists of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants 

(‘‘delisted’’) requires consideration of 

whether the species is endangered or 

threatened because of the same five 

categories of threats specified in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are 

already listed as endangered or 

threatened, this analysis of threats is an 

evaluation of both the threats currently 

facing the species and the threats that 

are reasonably likely to affect the 

species in the foreseeable future 

following the delisting or downlisting 

and the removal of the Act’s protections. 

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 we 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, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32866 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1A ‘‘stepping stone’’ habitat is a prairie patch that 

provides both lupine and nectar plants, and occurs 

in an area with barrier-free movement for 

butterflies; such areas are likely too small to 

support a subpopulation or metapopulation of 

butterflies over the long term, but provide sufficient 

resources to support multi-generational movement 

of individuals between larger areas of habitat. 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. We used 25 to 35 

years as our foreseeable future for this 

species, which encompasses 35 

generations of Fender’s blue butterfly, is 

a long enough timeframe for to us to 

observe species responses in response to 

threats acting on the species, and 

reflects time frames associated with 

current conservation agreements for the 

species. 

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 a decision by the 

Service on whether the species should 

be reclassified as a threatened species 

under the Act. It does, however, 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 full SSA report, 

which may be found at Docket No. 

FWS–RX–ES–2020–0082 on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

To assess Fender’s blue 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. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three 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 condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of 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 

Factors Affecting the Fender’s Blue 

Butterfly 

In this section, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resource needs, 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. 

Key Resource Needs for Species 

Viability 

Table 3 summarizes the key ecological 

resources required by individual 

Fender’s blue butterflies at various life 

stages, as presented in the SSA report 

(from USFWS 2020, Table 2.4). 

TABLE 3—RESOURCE NEEDS OF FENDER’S BLUE BUTTERFLY AT THE LEVEL OF THE INDIVIDUAL BY LIFE STAGE

Life stage Timeline Resource needs 

Egg .................................................. Mid-April through June .................. • Kincaid’s lupine, longspur lupine, or sickle-keeled lupine 

Larva (including diapause) .............. Mid-May through early April (including diapause).• Kincaid’s lupine, longspur lupine, or sickle-keeled lupine 

Pupa ................................................ April through May .......................... • Kincaid’s lupine, longspur lupine, or sickle-keeled lupine 

Adult butterfly .................................. Mid-April through June .................. • Early seral upland prairie, wet prairie, or oak savannah habitat with 

a mosaic of low-growing grasses and forbs, an open canopy, and a 

disturbance regime maintaining the habitat 

• Kincaid’s lupine, longspur lupine, or sickle-keeled lupine 

• Variety of nectar flowers 

Based on our evaluation as detailed in 

the SSA report, we determined that to 

be resilient, Fender’s blue butterfly 

metapopulations need an abundance of 

lupine host plants and nectar plants 

within prairie patches at least 6 ha (14.8 

ac) in size, with habitat heterogeneity 

and minimal amounts of invasive plants 

and woody vegetation. Healthy 

metapopulations would also contain a 

minimum of 200 butterflies (resiliency) 

distributed across multiple groups 

(redundancy) in lupine patches that are 

within 0.5 to 1.0 km (0.31 to 0.62 mi) 

of one another. Ideally, at the species 

level, resilient metapopulations would 

be distributed across the historical range 

of the species (redundancy and 

representation) and have multiple 

‘‘stepping stone’’ 1 habitats for 

connectivity across the landscape 

(redundancy and representation) 

(USFWS 2020, p. 33). The key resources 

and circumstances required to support 

resiliency in Fender’s blue butterfly 

metapopulations, and redundancy and 

representation at the species level, are 

identified in Table 4 (from USFWS 

2020, Table 2.5). Based on the biology 

of the species and the information 

presented in the recovery plan, as 

synthesized in the SSA report, these are 

the characteristics of Fender’s blue 

butterfly metapopulations that we 

conclude would facilitate viability in 

the wild over time (USFWS 2020, pp. 

31–34). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32867 

TABLE 4—RESOURCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES NEEDED TO SUPPORT RESILIENCY IN FENDER’S BLUE BUTTERFLY

METAPOPULATIONS AND REDUNDANCY AND REPRESENTATION AT THE SPECIES LEVEL, BASED ON THE CONDITIONS

REQUIRED FOR THE SPECIES AS DESCRIBED IN THE RECOVERY PLAN

[USFWS 2020, Table 2.5] 

Metapopulation Needs 

Habitat Quantity/Quality Abundance Distribution 

Abundant density of lupine host plants ................................................... Minimum of 200 adult butterflies 

per metapopulation for 10 years.

0.5–1.0 km (0.3–0.6 mi) between 

lupine patches within a 

metapopulation 

A diversity of nectar plant species throughout the flight season ............ Consists of multiple sites with butterflies.Occur across the historical range 

Prairie relatively free of invasive plants and woody vegetation, especially those that prevent access to lupine or nectar (e.g., tall 

grasses).

n/a .................................................. Stepping stone prairie patches 

with lupine and/or nectar to facilitate connectivity within a 

metapopulation 

Patch sizes of at least 6 ha (14.8 ac) per metapopulation ..................... n/a .................................................. n/a 

Heterogeneity of habitat, including varying slopes and varying microtopography.n/a .................................................. n/a 

Factors Affecting the Viability of the 

Species 

At the time we listed the Fender’s 

blue butterfly as endangered (65 FR 

3875; January 25, 2000), we considered 

the loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

of native prairie habitat in the 

Willamette Valley to pose the greatest 

threat to the species’ survival. Forces 

contributing to the loss of the little 

remaining native prairie included urban 

development (named as the largest 

single factor threatening the species at 

the time); agricultural, forestry, and 

roadside maintenance activities, 

including the use of herbicides and 

insecticides; and heavy levels of 

grazing. In addition, habitat loss through 

vegetative succession from prairie to 

shrubland or forest as a result of the 

absence of natural disturbance 

processes, such as fire, was identified as 

a long-term threat, and the invasion of 

prairies by nonnative plants was 

identified as a significant contributor to 

habitat degradation. Although predation 

is a natural condition for the species, 

the listing rule considered that 

predation may significantly impact 

remaining populations of Fender’s blue 

butterfly because they had been reduced 

to such low numbers. Small population 

size was also identified as posing a 

threat of extinction due to the increased 

risk of loss through random genetic or 

demographic factors, especially in 

fragmented or localized populations. 

The possibility that the rarity of 

Fender’s blue butterfly could render it 

vulnerable to overcollection by butterfly 

enthusiasts was cited as a potential 

threat. Finally, the listing rule pointed 

to the inadequacies of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to protect the 

Fender’s blue butterfly or its habitat, 

especially on lands under private 

ownership. Threats not recognized or 

considered at the time of listing, but 

now known to us, include the potential 

impacts resulting from climate change 

(Factor E). 

Habitat Loss, Degradation, and 

Fragmentation 

As discussed in the SSA report, 

habitat loss from land conversion for 

agriculture and urbanization, and from 

heavy grazing, has decreased since the 

time of listing due to land protection 

efforts and management agreements; 

these activities are still occurring at 

some level, especially in Lane and Polk 

Counties but not at the scope and 

magnitude seen previously (Factor A) 

(USFWS 2020, pp. 57–59; see also 

Conservation Measures, below). Habitat 

degradation due to invasion of prairies 

by nonnative invasive plants and by 

woody species (Factors A and E) has 

decreased in many metapopulations due 

to active management using herbicides, 

mowing, and prescribed fire to maintain 

or restore prairie habitats, as well as 

augmentation of Kincaid’s lupine and 

nectar species (USFWS 2020, Appendix 

C; see also Conservation Measures, 

below). Some nonnative plants, such as 

the tall oatgrass, can be difficult to 

effectively manage, thereby requiring 

development of new methods to combat 

these invasive plants. While threats 

have been reduced across the species 

range, ongoing habitat management is 

required to maintain these 

improvements over time and will be 

critical to the viability of Fender’s blue 

butterfly. In addition, habitat 

degradation due to invasion of prairies 

by nonnative invasive plants and by 

woody species, which may potentially 

be exacerbated in the future by the 

effects of climate change, remains a 

significant and ongoing threat at sites 

that are not managed for prairie 

conditions. 

The overall number of sites 

supporting Fender’s blue butterfly has 

increased across all land ownership 

categories since listing, as has the 

percentage of sites with habitat 

management. Although the percentage 

of sites that are protected has remained 

roughly the same (just over 70 percent) 

relative to the time of listing, we now 

have a far greater number of sites that 

are protected (101 out of 137 sites 

protected, compared to 23 of 32 sites at 

the time of listing). More importantly, 

there is a significant increase in the 

proportion of sites that are actively 

managed to maintain or restore prairie 

habitat. At listing, only 31 percent of 

known sites (10 of 32) and only 44 

percent of protected sites (10 of 23) were 

managed for prairie habitat to any 

degree. At present, 74 percent of current 

sites (101 of 137) and 100 percent of 

protected sites (101 of 101) are managed 

for prairie habitat. This significant 

increase in the number of sites protected 

and managed to benefit the Fender’s 

blue butterfly and its habitat represents 

substantial progress since listing in 

addressing the threat of habitat loss and 

degradation, and demonstrates the 

effectiveness of existing conservation 

actions and regulatory mechanisms. 

Impacts from habitat conversion, woody 

succession, and invasive plant species 

are decreasing in areas with existing 

metapopulations of Fender’s blue 

butterflies due to active habitat 

management and protection; these 

impacts are more likely to stay the same 

or increase in areas of remaining prairie 

that are not currently protected or 

managed (USFWS 2020, p. 59). With 

continued protection and proper habitat 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32868 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

management, greater range expansion is 

possible, as explored in detail under 

Future Scenario 3 (Future Species 

Condition, below), potentially 

increasing representation and 

redundancy of the Fender’s blue 

butterfly. 

Pesticides 

Insecticides and herbicides can 

directly kill eggs, larvae, and adult 

butterflies during application of the 

chemicals to vegetation or from drift of 

the chemicals from nearby applications 

in agricultural and urban areas. For 

instance, Bacillus thuringiensis var. 

kurstaki, a bacterium that is lethal to all 

butterfly and moth larvae, is frequently 

used to control unwanted insects and 

has been shown to drift at toxic 

concentrations over 3 km (2 mi) from 

the point of application (Barry et al. 

1993, p. 1977). Sublethal effects may 

indirectly kill all life stages by reducing 

lupine host plant vigor, decreasing 

fecundity, reducing survival, or 

affecting development time. Both 

insecticides and herbicides are used in 

agricultural practices, while herbicides 

are also used for timber reforestation 

and roadside maintenance and to 

control invasive species and woody 

vegetation encroachment. The threat to 

Fender’s blue butterflies that may occur 

in roadside populations has been 

reduced through the development of 

several HCPs that specifically address 

pesticide application practices in these 

areas (e.g., Oregon Department of 

Transportation HCP; see Conservation 

Measures, below). The potential for 

exposure of Fender’s blue butterfly to 

herbicides or insecticides remains 

throughout the species’ range, especially 

in agricultural areas. However, we do 

not have any record of documented 

exposure or other data to inform our 

evaluation of the magnitude of any 

possible exposure, or the degree to 

which herbicides or insecticides may be 

potentially affecting the viability of the 

species (USFWS 2020, pp. 60–61). That 

said, while we cannot quantify the 

magnitude of possible exposure, 

agricultural land is widely distributed 

throughout the Willamette Valley, more 

lands are being converted to agriculture, 

and pesticide use is generally occurring 

more now than at any other time in 

history (Forister et al 2019, p. 4). 

Because pesticides are used on most 

agricultural crops to increase crop yield 

and prevent disease spread, pesticide 

use in the Willamette Valley is likely to 

affect multiple metapopulations. 

Disease and Predation 

Although the listing rule stated that 

predation may have a significant 

negative impact on Fender’s blue 

butterfly due to the reduced size of their 

populations, the best available 

information does not indicate that 

predation is a limiting factor for the 

species. Small population size was also 

identified as posing a threat of 

extinction due to the increased risk of 

loss through random genetic or 

demographic factors, especially in 

fragmented or localized populations 

(Factor E). Some very small, isolated 

populations of Fender’s blue butterfly 

known at the time of listing do appear 

to have become extirpated (USFWS 

2020, pp. 51–52), and existing small 

metapopulations or independent groups 

remain especially vulnerable to 

extirpation. Overall, however, the threat 

of small population size has decreased 

since listing due to the discovery of new 

metapopulations, the expansion of 

existing metapopulations, and the 

creation of new metapopulations of 

Fender’s blue butterflies. Most, but not 

all, metapopulations of Fender’s blue 

butterfly have increased in abundance 

relative to the time of listing, and the 

total population size has increased from 

just over 3,000 individuals in 12 

metapopulations distributed across 4 

counties, to well over 13,000 

individuals in 15 metapopulations 

distributed across 6 counties (USFWS 

2020, pp. 52–53). 

Overcollection 

The best available information does 

not indicate that Fender’s blue butterfly 

has been subject to overcollection. This 

threat does not appear to have 

manifested as anticipated in the listing 

rule. 

Climate Change 

The severity of threat posed to 

Fender’s blue butterfly from the impacts 

of climate change is difficult to predict. 

The Willamette Valley, and prairies 

specifically, may fare better than other 

regions; however, various changes in 

average annual temperatures and 

precipitation are predicted and may 

affect Fender’s blue butterfly or its 

habitat (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 424; 

USFWS 2017, p. B–10; USFWS 2020, 

pp. 61–62). Such potential changes 

include higher water levels in wet 

prairies during winter and spring, 

increased spring flooding events, and 

prolonged summer droughts. Two 

models have conducted climate change 

vulnerability assessments for butterfly 

species within the Willamette Valley 

using the Special Report on Emissions 

Scenarios (SRES) created by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Under the SRES B1 scenario 

(comparable to the RCP 4.5 scenario), 

both models ranked Fender’s blue 

butterfly as stable. Under the SRES A1B 

scenario (RCP 6.0), both models ranked 

Fender’s blue butterfly as moderately 

vulnerable. Under the SRES A2 scenario 

(RCP 8.5), however, Fender’s blue 

butterfly was ranked as extremely 

vulnerable under one model and highly 

vulnerable under the other model due to 

its limited range and loss of both nectar 

and host plants. While the models do 

not agree on the degree of vulnerability, 

both models did show an increase in 

vulnerability as climate change 

scenarios worsened due to the species’ 

limited range and the potential for loss 

of both nectar and host plants, as well 

as a possible increase in invasive 

nonnative plants (Steel et al. 2011, p. 5; 

Kaye et al. 2013, pp. 23–24). 

In our analysis of the future condition 

of the Fender’s blue butterfly, we 

considered climate change to be an 

exacerbating factor in the decrease in 

nectar plants, lupine plants, and open 

prairie or oak savannah habitat. 

Scenario 2 of our assessment of Future 

Species Condition specifically 

considered the potential for severe 

consequences of climate change (an RCP 

8.5 scenario) for Fender’s blue butterfly. 

If climate change impacts result in less 

effective habitat management, more 

invasive species, and disruptions to 

plant phenology, then we anticipate the 

potential loss or deterioration of more 

than half of the existing 

metapopulations. Although the results 

indicated an extensive loss of resiliency 

and redundancy, with seven 

metapopulations subject to potential 

extirpation under such conditions, we 

also projected that all recovery zones 

would still maintain at least one 

metapopulation in high condition. We 

therefore estimate that Fender’s blue 

butterfly would likely sustain 

populations under such conditions, but 

its relative viability in terms of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation would be diminished. 

While Scenario 2 looked at a high 

emissions scenario, Scenario 1 and 

Scenario 3 considered climate change to 

continue under RCP 4.5 in which we 

project that Fender’s blue butterfly 

would remain stable based on the 

aforementioned models. Therefore, we 

estimated resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation would be unlikely to 

change substantially from climate 

change. 

Conservation Measures 

Because of extensive loss of native 

prairie habitats in the Willamette Valley 

and the resulting Federal listing of 

multiple endemic plant and animal 

species, the region has been the focus of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32869 

intensive conservation efforts. 

Numerous entities, including Federal, 

State, and county agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations (NGO) 

such as land trusts, and private 

landowners have all become engaged in 

efforts to restore native Willamette 

Valley prairie and oak savannah habitats 

and the associated endemic animal 

communities. Collectively, the agencies 

and organizations that manage lands 

have acquired conservation easements 

and conducted management actions to 

benefit prairie and oak savannah 

habitats; in many cases, conservation 

efforts have been designed specifically 

to benefit the Fender’s blue butterfly. 

Various types of agreements have been 

established with private landowners to 

perform voluntary conservation actions 

on their land, while agencies are 

working collaboratively on habitat 

restoration and active prairie 

management under interagency 

agreements. 

Our SSA report summarizes the 

conservation measures implemented 

across the range of the Fender’s blue 

butterfly since the species was listed in 

2000 (USFWS 2020, pp. 62–65). These 

measures include native prairie habitat 

restoration and management on public 

lands or lands that are managed by a 

conservation organization, including 

Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge 

and surrounding areas, William L. 

Finley National Wildlife Refuge, Fern 

Ridge Reservoir, West Eugene Wetlands, 

Willow Creek Preserve, Yamhill Oaks 

Preserve, Coburg Ridge, Lupine 

Meadows, Hagg Lake, a small portion of 

the McDonald State Forest, and some 

Benton County public lands. The longterm viability of Fender’s blue butterfly 

is dependent on an ongoing, consistent 

commitment to active management to 

remove woody vegetation and invasive 

plants, thereby maintaining the native 

plant community and open prairie 

conditions required by this species. 

The contributions of private 

landowners have also made a significant 

impact on the conservation of Fender’s 

blue butterfly. Approximately 96 

percent of the Willamette Valley 

ecoregion is in private ownership 

(Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife 2006), and the majority (66 

percent) of designated critical habitat for 

Fender’s blue butterfly is on private 

lands (71 FR 63862; October 31, 2006). 

Thus, the conservation and recovery of 

Fender’s blue butterfly, Kincaid’s 

lupine, and the suite of native species 

associated with them relies in large part 

on the voluntary actions of willing nonFederal landowners to conserve, 

enhance, restore, reconnect and actively 

manage the native prairie habitats that 

support these species. Many Fender’s 

blue butterfly sites on private or other 

non-Federal lands across the range of 

the species now have Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife (PFW) agreements, Safe 

Harbor Agreements (SHAs), or Habitat 

Conservation Plans (HCPs) in place with 

the Service. 

Through many PFW agreements in 

place with private landowners in the 

Willamette Valley, we provide technical 

assistance to the landowners for the 

enhancement and restoration of native 

habitats on their lands; these 

conservation actions benefit multiple 

native species, including the Fender’s 

blue butterfly. We administers and 

implements a programmatic SHA for the 

benefit of Fender’s blue butterfly. This 

program encourages non-Federal 

landowners to undertake proactive 

conservation and restoration actions to 

benefit native prairie, as well as 

Fender’s blue butterfly and Kincaid’s 

lupine, in Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, 

Polk, Washington, and Yamhill 

Counties of Oregon (USFWS 2016, 

entire). Currently, 17 properties 

covering approximately 595 ha (1,471 

ac) are enrolled under the programmatic 

SHA as of November 2020; another 12 

agreements that will cover an additional 

417 ha (1,031 ac) are in development. In 

addition, three HCPs in place are 

designed to minimize and mitigate 

effects to the Fender’s blue butterfly: the 

Benton County HCP (2011; 50-year 

term), Yamhill County Road Right-ofWays HCP (2014; 30-year term), and the 

Oregon Department of Transportation 

HCP (2017; 25-year term). These 

agreements include various provisions 

ensuring the implementation of best 

management practices and offsetting 

any potential negative impacts of 

activities through augmenting or 

enhancing populations of Fender’s blue 

butterfly or prairie habitats. 

Finally, NGOs have actively pursued 

conservation easements and acquisition 

of properties throughout the Willamette 

Valley to benefit native prairies and the 

Fender’s blue butterfly. Specific 

examples include the 2005 acquisition 

and establishment of the Lupine 

Meadow Preserve by the Greenbelt Land 

Trust, and the 2008 acquisition and 

establishment of the Yamhill Oaks 

Preserve by The Nature Conservancy. 

Overall, there are 137 total sites 

containing Fender’s blue butterfly that 

occur over a broad range of land 

ownerships with varying degrees of land 

protection and management. Forty-four 

sites are on tracts of public land owned 

by the USACE; BLM; Bureau of 

Reclamation (BOR); OSU; or the Service, 

all of which are being managed for 

prairie habitat to varying degrees given 

funding and personnel. Fourteen sites 

are in public ROWs managed by ODOT 

or County Public Works and all are 

being managed for prairie. Thirty sites 

are on private land without any form of 

protection or active management for 

Fender’s blue butterfly or its habitat. 

Another 43 sites are on private land 

with some level of protection via a 

conservation easement (20 sites) or 

under a cooperative agreement (23 sites) 

and are being managed for prairie 

habitat. More information on 

conservation measures performed by 

NGOs specific to each metapopulation 

of Fender’s blue butterfly are listed in 

the SSA report in the section 

Metapopulation Descriptions under 

Current Conditions (USFWS 2020, 

Appendix C). 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the factors 

that may be influencing the species 

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 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Current Species Condition 

After assessing the biology of Fender’s 

blue butterfly and the information 

presented in its recovery plan, we 

determined that the resiliency of a 

metapopulation of the species relies on 

an abundant supply of lupine host 

plants and nectar plants within prairie 

patches at least 6 ha (14.8 ac) in size, 

habitat heterogeneity, and minimal 

amounts of invasive plants and woody 

vegetation. Healthy metapopulations 

would also contain a minimum of 200 

butterflies (resiliency) distributed across 

multiple groups within a 

metapopulation (redundancy) in lupine 

patches that are within 0.5 to 1.0 km 

(0.31 to 0.62 mi) of one another. At the 

species level, resilient metapopulations 

would ideally be distributed across the 

historical range of the species 

(representation and redundancy across 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32870 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

metapopulations) and have numerous 

habitat ‘‘stepping stones’’ for 

connectivity across the landscape 

(redundancy and representation). 

In our evaluation, we used the best 

scientific data available to evaluate the 

current condition of each Fender’s blue 

butterfly metapopulation in terms of 

resiliency. We developed criteria to 

assess specific habitat and demographic 

factors contributing to the overall 

resilience of metapopulations, and to 

rank each metapopulation as to whether 

it is in high, moderate, or low condition; 

these categories reflected our estimate of 

the probability of persistence over a 

period of 25 to 35 years (explained 

below; see Future Species Condition), as 

detailed in the SSA report (USFWS 

2020, pp. 71–73). Criteria used to score 

metapopulation condition included the 

number of sites contributing to the 

metapopulation, butterfly abundance, 

connectivity, habitat patch size, lupine 

density, presence of nectar species, and 

measures of prairie quality and habitat 

heterogeneity (USFWS 2020, Table 6.2, 

p. 73). 

Five of the existing 15 Fender’s blue 

butterfly metapopulations are ranked as 

having a high current condition, while 

3 are ranked as moderate, 6 are ranked 

low, and one may be extirpated (Table 

5). Overall, the majority of 

metapopulations, 8 out of 15, are ranked 

as either in high or moderate condition, 

indicating a degree of resiliency across 

the range of the species. Fender’s blue 

butterfly currently demonstrates a good 

degree of metapopulation redundancy, 

with multiple metapopulations 

occurring both within and across the 

three recovery zones spanning the 

historical range of the species. Although 

no direct measures of genetic or 

ecological diversity are available, we 

consider the species to have a good 

degree of representation, as there are 

multiple metapopulations and groups of 

Fender’s blue butterfly distributed 

relatively evenly across the geographic 

range of the species (six in the Salem 

recovery zone, five in the Corvallis 

recovery zone, and four in the Eugene 

recovery zone), in all known habitat 

types (both prairie and oak savannah) 

and elevations. 

TABLE 5—CURRENT CONDITION OF

FENDER’S BLUE BUTTERFLY

METAPOPULATIONS

Metapopulation Current condition 

Salem Recovery Zone 

Baskett ........................ High. 

Gopher Valley ............. Moderate. 

Hagg Lake .................. High. 

TABLE 5—CURRENT CONDITION OF

FENDER’S BLUE BUTTERFLY

METAPOPULATIONS—Continued 

Metapopulation Current condition 

Moores Valley ............. Possible extirpation. 

Oak Ridge .................. Moderate. 

Turner Creek .............. Low. 

Corvallis Recovery Zone 

Butterfly Meadows ...... Low. 

Finley .......................... Moderate. 

Greasy Creek ............. Low. 

Lupine Meadows ........ Low. 

Wren ........................... High. 

Eugene Recovery Zone 

Coburg Ridge ............. Low. 

Oak Basin ................... Low. 

West Eugene .............. High. 

Willow Creek .............. High. 

The discovery of Fender’s blue 

butterflies in additional counties since 

the listing of the species, as well as the 

expansion of existing metapopulations, 

increases both the geographic range of 

the species and connectivity throughout 

the landscape. An increased number of 

metapopulations, composed of a greater 

number of individuals and with 

expanded distribution and connectivity 

across the range of Fender’s blue 

butterfly (see Table 3), means the 

species has a greater chance of 

withstanding stochastic events 

(resiliency), surviving potentially 

catastrophic events (redundancy), and 

adapting to changing environmental 

conditions (representation) over time. 

Future Species Condition 

To understand the potential future 

condition of Fender’s blue butterfly 

with respect to resiliency, redundancy 

and representation, we considered a 

range of potential scenarios that 

incorporate important influences on the 

status of the species, and that are 

reasonably likely to occur. We 

additionally forecast the relative 

likelihood of each scenario occurring, 

based on our experience with the 

species and best professional judgment 

(see USFWS 2020, p. 77). Through these 

future scenarios, we forecast the 

viability of Fender’s blue butterfly over 

the next 25 to 35 years. We chose this 

timeframe because it represents up to 35 

generations of the Fender’s blue 

butterfly, and therefore provides 

adequate time to collect and assess 

population trend data. The recovery 

plan also used this general timeframe 

for the determination of downlisting 

criteria and this timeframe can reveal 

the immediate effects of management 

strategies given that our current interim 

protections (e.g., HCPs, SHAs) have a 

lifespan ranging from 10–50 years. We 

bracketed our timeframe to a shorter 

period based on our knowledge of the 

species and our ability to project current 

and future threats and conservation 

efforts. We scored the projected future 

condition of each metapopulation based 

on a ruleset incorporating abundance 

and trend data, quality of prairie habitat, 

level of habitat protection, and type of 

habitat management (see USFWS 2020, 

pp. 77–83). In addition to the high, 

moderate, and low condition categories, 

we added a fourth category in our future 

scenarios accounting for possible 

extirpation. The purpose of evaluating 

the status of Fender’s blue butterfly 

under a range of plausible future 

scenarios is to create a risk profile for 

the species into the future, allowing for 

an evaluation of its viability over time. 

Scenario 1 assumes ‘‘continuing 

efforts’’—Fender’s blue butterfly will 

continue on its current trajectory and 

influences on viability, habitat 

management, and conservation 

measures will all continue at their 

present levels. Due to our analysis of 

current management actions, 

protections, and threats, we consider 

this scenario as highly likely to play out 

over the next 25 to 35 years. Scenario 

2 is based on an increased level of 

impact from negative influences on 

viability, particularly alterations in 

environmental conditions as a result of 

climate change. We consider this 

scenario moderately likely to occur over 

the next 25 to 35 years due to greater 

uncertainty in assessing the degree of 

climate change and the impact it may 

have on the species. Scenario 3 is based 

on increased conservation effort, 

including the potential for improved 

habitat conditions at currently occupied 

sites; metapopulation expansion by 

restoring currently unoccupied prairie 

sites; and augmentation, translocation, 

and/or introduction of butterflies. In 

this scenario, we evaluated the potential 

for expansion at currently protected 

sites and protected areas identified as 

possible introduction sites (USFWS 

2020, pp. 81–104). Due to questions 

regarding potential funding, personnel, 

and other conservation agreements 

needed to provide additional 

protections, we consider this scenario as 

also moderately likely to occur over the 

next 25 to 35 years. The results from 

these three scenarios describe a range of 

possible conditions in terms of viability 

of the Fender’s blue butterfly (USFWS 

2020, pp. 104–106; Table 6). We used 

two different methodologies for 

assessing future conditions. Under 

scenario 1 and 2, we analyzed trends in 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32871 

population number and habitat quality 

and projected that out into the future. 

Meanwhile, in scenario 3, we mapped 

out and identified potential areas for 

conservation and worked with partners 

on the feasibility of conservation actions 

there. We then used these responses to 

project habitat enhancement in these 

areas and the impact that enhancement 

will have on the species’ population 

trends. While these two methods differ, 

both apply our knowledge of the species 

and current and planned or potential 

management actions in order to project 

what its condition will be in the future. 

TABLE 6—CONDITION SCORES FOR METAPOPULATION RESILIENCY, COMPARING CURRENT CONDITION TO THREE PLAUSIBLE FUTURE SCENARIOS AS DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT. RELATIVE LIKELIHOODS OF EACH SCENARIO AT 25 TO 35 

YEARS ARE ALSO PROVIDED; SEE USFWS 2020, P. 77, FOR AN EXPLANATION OF CONFIDENCE TERMINOLOGIES

USED TO ESTIMATE THE LIKELIHOOD OF SCENARIO OCCURRENCE

Condition score 

Number of metapopulations 

Current 

condition 

Scenario 1— 

continuing 

efforts 

(highly likely) 

Scenario 2— 

considerable 

impacts 

(moderately 

likely) 

Scenario 3— 

conservation 

efforts 

(moderately 

likely) 

High .................................................................................................................. 5 7 3 7 

Moderate .......................................................................................................... 3 1 5 5 

Low .................................................................................................................. 6 5 0 2 

Possible Extirpation ......................................................................................... 1 2 7 1 

Because the natural processes that 

historically maintained this ecosystem 

and Fender’s blue butterfly’s early seral 

habitat are now largely absent from the 

Willamette Valley, the species is reliant 

upon ongoing management that sets 

back succession and controls invasive 

tall grasses and woody plant species. 

Therefore, an important consideration 

in our evaluation of the viability of the 

species is whether or not management 

actions will continue that restoration 

and maintenance of prairie systems, 

including actions that maintain 

populations of the lupine host plants 

and nectar resources in the Willamette 

Valley. 

Scenario 1 results in improved 

condition for several metapopulations 

currently ranked as moderate, as 

conservation efforts continue. On the 

other hand, metapopulations that are 

currently in low condition or already at 

risk of extirpation would likely either 

remain in that state or (in one case) 

degrade in condition from low to 

possible extirpation. Overall, we expect 

that the viability of Fender’s blue 

butterfly under this scenario would 

improve relative to its current 

condition, characterized by increases in 

resiliency of existing metapopulations. 

Seven metapopulations would be in 

high condition, one in moderate 

condition, five in low, and two at risk 

of possible extirpation. There would be 

at least two metapopulations in high 

condition in each of the three recovery 

zones; the Salem recovery zone would 

be in the best condition, with three 

metapopulations in high condition. The 

resiliency of metapopulations would be 

lowest in the Corvallis recovery zone, 

with three of five metapopulations 

ranked either low or at risk of 

extirpation. Thus, there is a possibility 

for some loss of redundancy, with the 

Corvallis recovery zone at greatest risk. 

We anticipate that most, but not all, of 

the current metapopulations would 

maintain viability under this scenario. 

Scenario 2 would be expected to 

result in decreases in resiliency and 

redundancy, with seven 

metapopulations subject to possible 

extirpation. While some 

metapopulations would likely retain 

their resiliency, more than half of the 

current metapopulations would be at 

risk of extinction within the next 25 to 

35 years under this scenario. We 

anticipate that, under these conditions 

Fender’s blue butterfly would persist, 

but its long-term viability in terms of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation would be greatly 

diminished even with continued 

management for the conservation of the 

species. 

Under Scenario 3, we expect 

resiliency to increase as several 

metapopulations remain at or move into 

high condition, with others 

transitioning from low to moderate 

condition; seven metapopulations 

would be in high condition, five in 

moderate condition, two in low 

condition, and one at risk of extirpation. 

Redundancy and representation would 

be maintained in all recovery zones; all 

recovery zones would have a minimum 

of two metapopulations in high 

condition. We anticipate that all of the 

currently extant metapopulations would 

maintain viability under this scenario, 

with the exception of one that is small 

and at risk of extirpation under all 

scenarios considered. 

For the reasons described above under 

Future Species Condition, we forecast 

the future condition of Fender’s blue 

butterfly out for a period of 25 to 35 

years. Although information exists 

regarding potential impacts from 

climate change beyond this timeframe, 

the projections depend on an increasing 

number of assumptions as they move 

forward in time, and thus become more 

uncertain with increasingly long 

timeframes. For our purposes, as 

detailed above, we concluded that a 

foreseeable future of 25 to 35 years was 

the most reasonable period of time over 

which we could reasonably rely upon 

predictions of the future conservation 

status of Fender’s blue butterfly. 

Determination of Fender’s Blue 

Butterfly 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 ‘‘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 a 

species meets the definition of 

endangered species or 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32872 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we found that Fender’s blue 

butterfly has experienced a marked 

increase in resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation across its historical 

range, contributing to an overall 

increase in viability. We listed the 

Fender’s blue butterfly as endangered in 

2000, upon a determination at that time 

that the species was presently in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range (65 FR 

3875; January 25, 2000, p. 3886). Since 

then, our evaluation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

indicates that the abundance and 

distribution of Fender’s blue butterfly 

has improved as a result of 

metapopulation expansion, 

metapopulation discovery, and 

metapopulation creation, as well as a 

marked increase in habitat protection 

and management across the range of the 

species. The presence of Fender’s blue 

butterflies in new counties, the 

expansion of existing metapopulations, 

and the creation of new 

metapopulations increases both the 

geographic range of the species and 

potential connectivity throughout the 

landscape. In addition, active recovery 

efforts occurring since Fender’s blue 

butterfly was listed have led to the 

amelioration of threats to the species, as 

detailed above in the section 

Conservation Measures. As described in 

the Summary of Biological Status and 

Factors Affecting Fender’s Blue 

Butterfly, there has been a marked 

reduction in threats to the species posed 

by Factors A and E, helped in large part 

by effective conservation actions and 

existing regulatory mechanisms in place 

(Factor D). Furthermore, threats 

identified at the time of listing under 

Factors B and C have not materialized 

as originally anticipated. Our 

assessment of the present condition of 

the species demonstrates that Fender’s 

blue butterfly is currently found in 

metapopulations primarily ranked as in 

high to moderate condition throughout 

all three recovery zones established for 

the species within its historical range, 

exhibiting an appreciable degree of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that the 

Fender’s blue butterfly no longer meets 

the Act’s definition of an endangered 

species. 

We next consider whether the 

Fender’s blue butterfly meets the Act’s 

definition of a threatened species. 

Although threats to the species have 

been reduced relative to the time of 

listing, the species remains vulnerable. 

Six out of fifteen metapopulations are 

currently ranked in low condition, and 

all future scenarios include the possible 

extirpation of some existing 

metapopulations (USFWS 2020, p. 104). 

Some of these metapopulations (e.g., 

Lupine Meadows) are in decline for 

unknown reasons, despite their 

apparently relatively high-quality 

habitat (USFWS 2020, p. 71). Eleven of 

the fifteen metapopulations do not meet 

the minimum criteria of 200 butterflies 

each year, and connectivity both within 

and between metapopulations remains 

limited due to the reduction and 

fragmentation of native prairie habitats, 

as well as the relative rarity and patchy 

distribution of the primary host plant, 

Kincaid’s lupine. In particular, concern 

remains for the Corvallis recovery zone 

in the middle of the species’ range, with 

metapopulations that are generally less 

robust and more vulnerable to 

deteriorating in condition over time 

(under current conditions only one 

metapopulation in this zone is 

considered highly resilient, compared to 

two or more in the other zones). 

While it is true that many 

metapopulations in the Corvallis 

recovery zone have low current 

condition, the two remaining 

metapopulations, Finley and Wren, are 

heavily managed by local counties. The 

Finley metapopulation is on a National 

Wildlife Refuge, was recently 

introduced, and is continually 

increasing. Additionally, these two 

metapopulations occur at opposite ends 

of these recovery zone, ensuring that no 

gaps in the species’ range will develop 

even if the ‘‘low’’ metapopulation 

becomes extirpated. Furthermore, all 

three of our future scenarios project that 

the Finley and Wren metapopulations 

will maintain viability. Therefore, while 

there remains lingering concern about 

the condition of the Corvallis recovery 

zone, this recovery zone possesses 

sufficient resiliency and redundancy to 

allow it to maintain viability into the 

foreseeable future. 

With regard to influences on viability, 

the potential for exposure to pesticides 

(herbicides, insecticides) is an ongoing 

threat to the species throughout its 

range, due to the close proximity of 

Fender’s blue butterfly occurrence sites 

to agricultural lands as well as areas 

subject to spraying to control gypsy 

moths or mosquitoes. In addition, we 

have yet to develop an effective method 

for eradicating tall oatgrass, a nonnative 

invasive plant that is rapidly expanding 

into prime prairie habitats and posing a 

growing management concern. The low 

availability of lupine host plants, and 

inadequate supply of appropriate lupine 

seed for restoration efforts, is also a 

limiting factor for Fender’s blue 

butterfly. Finally, we consider Fender’s 

blue butterfly to be a ‘‘conservation 

reliant’’ species (sensu Scott et al. 2010, 

p. 92), and it remains highly vulnerable 

to loss of its prairie habitat should 

active management cease. Because it 

relies on consistent disturbance to 

maintain its early seral prairie habitat, 

the future viability of Fender’s blue 

butterfly is dependent upon ongoing 

management to set back succession and 

control the invasion of tall grasses and 

woody plant species since the natural 

processes that once historically 

maintained this ecosystem are now 

largely absent from the Willamette 

Valley. The viability of the Fender’s 

blue butterfly over the long term will 

therefore require addressing influences 

on viability including ongoing habitat 

conversion, loss of habitat disturbance 

resulting in habitat succession, invasion 

by nonnative plants, and exposure to 

insecticides and herbicides, as well as 

continued conservation and 

management efforts. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, including but not limited 

to the current status of the species, 

ongoing threats to the species, and 

predicted status of Fender’s blue 

butterfly under various future scenarios, 

including the consequences of climate 

change, we conclude that Fender’s blue 

butterfly is not currently in danger of 

extinction but is likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future 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. The court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 

WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) 

(Center for Biological Diversity), 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 that the Services do not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32873 

we proceed to evaluating whether the 

species is endangered in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which both (1) the portion is 

significant; and (2) the species is in 

danger of extinction in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Center for Biological Diversity, we now 

consider whether there are any 

significant portions of the species’ range 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 

undertaking this analysis for Fender’s 

blue butterfly, we choose to address the 

status question first—we considered 

information pertaining to the geographic 

distribution of both the species and the 

threats that the species faces to identify 

any portions of the range where the 

species is endangered. 

For Fender’s blue butterfly, we 

considered whether the threats are 

geographically concentrated in any 

portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. We 

examined the following threats: Habitat 

loss from land conversion for 

agriculture and urbanization; habitat 

degradation due to invasion of prairies 

by nonnative invasive plants and by 

succession to woody species; 

insecticides and herbicides; effects of 

climate change; small population size; 

and the cumulative effects of these 

threats. The threats occur in both prairie 

and oak savannah habitat types 

throughout the Willamette Valley such 

that they are affecting all Fender’s blue 

butterfly metapopulations. We found no 

concentration of threats in any portion 

of the range of Fender’s blue butterfly at 

a biologically meaningful scale. Thus, 

there are no portions of the species’ 

range where the species has a different 

status from its rangewide status. 

Therefore, no portion of the species’ 

range provides a basis for determining 

that the species is in danger of 

extinction in a significant portion of its 

range, and we determine that the 

species is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. This is 

consistent with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. Department of the 

Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 

WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), 

and Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. 

Ariz. 2017). 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Fender’s blue butterfly 

meets the definition of a threatened 

species. Therefore, we propose to 

downlist the Fender’s blue butterfly as 

a threatened species in accordance with 

sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) 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. Because we are proposing to list 

this species as a threatened species, the 

prohibitions in section 9 would not 

apply directly. We are therefore 

proposing below a set of regulations to 

provide for the conservation of the 

species in accordance with section 4(d), 

which also authorizes us to apply any 

of the prohibitions in section 9 to a 

threatened species. The proposal, which 

includes a description of the kinds of 

activities that would or would not 

constitute a violation, complies with 

this policy. 

Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 

4(d) of the Act 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the ‘‘Secretary shall issue such 

regulations as he deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation’’ of species listed as 

threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

noted that statutory language like 

‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates 

a large degree of deference to the agency 

(see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 

(1988)). Conservation is defined in the 

Act to mean ‘‘the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to [the Act] 

are no longer necessary.’’ Additionally, 

the second sentence of section 4(d) of 

the Act states that the Secretary ‘‘may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 

or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case 

of plants.’’ Thus, the combination of the 

two sentences of section 4(d) provides 

the Secretary with wide latitude of 

discretion to select and promulgate 

appropriate regulations tailored to the 

specific conservation needs of the 

threatened species. The second sentence 

grants particularly broad discretion to 

the Service when adopting the 

prohibitions under section 9. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld rules developed under section 

4(d) as a valid exercise of agency 

authority where they prohibited take of 

threatened wildlife, or include a limited 

taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. 

Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); 

Washington Environmental Council v. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 

U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 

2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) 

rules that do not address all of the 

threats a species faces (see State of 

Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th 

Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative 

history when the Act was initially 

enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the 

threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to him with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. He 

may, for example, permit taking, but not 

importation of such species, or he may 

choose to forbid both taking and 

importation but allow the transportation 

of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 

93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). 

Exercising this authority under 

section 4(d), we have developed a 

proposed rule that is designed to 

address the specific threats and 

conservation needs of Fender’s blue 

butterfly. Although the statute does not 

require us to make a ‘‘necessary and 

advisable’’ finding with respect to the 

adoption of specific prohibitions under 

section 9, we find that this rule as a 

whole satisfies the requirement in 

section 4(d) of the Act to issue 

regulations deemed necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the Fender’s blue 

butterfly. As discussed above in the 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Factors Affecting the Fender’s Blue 

Butterfly, we have concluded that the 

Fender’s blue butterfly is likely to 

become in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future primarily due to 

loss and degradation of habitat, 

including impacts from habitat 

conversion, woody succession, and 

invasive plant species (Factors A and E); 

and the potential exposure of Fender’s 

blue butterfly to herbicides or 

insecticides (Factor E). Although the 

condition of Fender’s blue butterfly has 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32874 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

improved, the species remains 

vulnerable to these threats due to the 

small size of many of its 

metapopulations, limited connectivity 

between metapopulations as a 

consequence of fragmentation and the 

reduced extent of native prairie habitats, 

and the relative rarity of its lupine host 

plants on the landscape. The provisions 

of this proposed 4(d) rule will promote 

conservation of Fender’s blue butterfly 

and expansion of their range by 

increasing flexibility in certain 

management activities for our State and 

private landowners. The provisions of 

this rule are one of many tools that we 

would use to promote the conservation 

of the Fender’s blue butterfly. This 

proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if 

and when we make final the 

reclassification of Fender’s blue 

butterfly as a threatened species. 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule 

This proposed 4(d) rule would 

provide for the conservation of the 

Fender’s blue butterfly by specifically 

prohibiting the following actions that 

can affect Fender’s blue butterfly, except 

as otherwise authorized or permitted: 

Import or export; take; possess and 

engage in other acts with unlawfully 

taken specimens; deliver, receive, 

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. These 

prohibitions will result in regulating a 

range of human activities that have the 

potential to affect Fender’s blue 

butterfly, including agricultural or 

urban development; certain agricultural 

practices (e.g., pesticide use); heavy 

levels of grazing; mowing; some 

practices associated with forestry (e.g., 

road construction); roadside 

maintenance activities; control of 

nonnative, invasive plant species; and 

direct capture, injury, or killing of 

Fender’s blue butterfly. 

We have included the prohibition of 

import, export, interstate and foreign 

commerce, and sale or offering for sale 

in such commerce, because while the 

number of metapopulations and 

abundance within most 

metapopulations has increased since the 

time of listing, the Fender’s blue 

butterfly is not thriving to the degree 

that the species is considered to be 

capable of sustaining trade. Rare 

butterflies such as the Fender’s blue are 

easily subject to overcollection, and the 

potential for population declines as a 

result of increased collection was one of 

the factors considered in the original 

listing of Fender’s blue butterfly as an 

endangered species. Fortunately, the 

potential threat of overcollection has not 

thus far been realized, but any increased 

incentive for capture of Fender’s blue 

butterfly from the wild would be highly 

likely to result in negative impacts to 

the long-term viability of the species. 

The Fender’s blue butterfly remains 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range; although the status of the 

species has improved relative to when 

it was first listed as an endangered 

species, the species has not recovered to 

the point that it is capable of sustaining 

unrestricted capture or collection from 

the wild without the likelihood of 

negative impacts to the long-term 

viability of the species. Because capture 

and collection of Fender’s blue butterfly 

remains prohibited as discussed below, 

maintaining the complementary 

prohibition on possession and other acts 

with illegally taken Fender’s blue 

butterfly will further discourage such 

illegal take. Thus, the possession, sale, 

delivery, carrying, transporting, or 

shipping of illegally taken Fender’s blue 

butterflies should continue to be 

prohibited in order to continue progress 

toward the conservation and recovery of 

the species. 

Under the Act, ‘‘take’’ means to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

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

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct. Some of these provisions have 

been further defined in regulation at 50 

CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or 

otherwise, by direct and indirect 

impacts, intentionally or incidentally. 

Regulating incidental and intentional 

take would help preserve the remaining 

metapopulations of the Fender’s blue 

butterfly. 

Although the number of 

metapopulations, and abundance within 

most metapopulations, has increased 

since the time of listing, Fender’s blue 

butterfly remains a vulnerable species 

and has not yet attained full recovery. 

We do not consider the Fender’s blue 

butterfly capable of withstanding 

unregulated take, either intentional or 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities, 

without likely negative impacts to the 

long-term viability of the species. There 

are a few circumstances in which 

allowing incidental take may ultimately 

benefit the Fender’s blue butterfly as a 

species and further its recovery. We 

have outlined such circumstances below 

as exceptions to the prohibitions of take. 

By allowing take under specified 

circumstances, the rule will provide 

needed protection to the species while 

allowing management flexibility to 

benefit the species’ long-term 

conservation. Anyone taking, attempting 

to take, or otherwise possessing a 

Fender’s blue butterfly, or parts thereof, 

in violation of section 9 of the Act will 

still be subject to a penalty under 

section 11 of the Act, except for the 

actions that are specifically excepted 

under the 4(d) rule. 

Incidental take by landowners or their 

agents is allowed while conducting 

management for the creation, 

restoration, or enhancement of shortstature native upland prairie or oak 

savannah conditions within areas 

occupied by Fender’s blue butterfly, 

subject to the restrictions described 

herein and as long as reasonable care is 

practiced. An important aspect of 

prairie management is the timing and 

location of treatment. Lupine is patchy 

and distributed in small clumps low to 

the ground whereas invasive tall grasses 

are more uniform. This means the 

person doing the herbicide spray or 

other removal work needs to be able to 

recognize the plants to be sure they are 

treating the correct areas, the correct 

species, and know when to treat the area 

before the seed has set. To help avoid 

potential issues, we are proposing to 

have a qualified biologist involved in 

the planning even if the landowners 

does the treatment themselves. The 

biologist does not need to be present onsite on the day of the treatment but does 

need to be consulted and involved 

beforehand. Reasonable care may 

include, but is not limited to: (1) 

Procuring and/or implementing 

technical assistance from a qualified 

biologist on timing and location of 

habitat management activities prior to 

implementation; and (2) using best 

efforts to avoid trampling or damaging 

Fender’s blue butterflies (eggs, larvae, 

pupae, adults) and their host and nectar 

plants during all activities. 

Fender’s blue butterfly is a 

conservation-reliant species. Active 

management for prairie conditions 

within the historical range of the 

Fender’s blue butterfly is essential for 

long-term viability, and is one of the key 

recovery actions identified for the 

species. Allowing certain forms of active 

management for the purpose of creating, 

restoring, or enhancing native upland 

prairie or oak savannah conditions is 

necessary to facilitate and encourage the 

implementation of conservation 

measures that will address one of the 

primary threats to Fender’s blue 

butterfly, the loss or degradation of 

native short-stature prairie or oak 

savannah habitat within the Willamette 

Valley. Restoration actions may include 

manual, mechanical, and herbicidal 

treatments for invasive and nonnative 

plant control that does not result in 

ground disturbance including mowing; 

and planting by hand of native 

vegetation, especially native food 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32875 

resources for Fender’s blue butterfly 

larvae (Kincaid’s, longspur, or sicklekeeled lupine) or adults (native nectar 

species). Prescribed burning is a 

complex endeavor and there is potential 

for impacts to Fender’s blue butterfly 

beyond that which local 

metapopulations or subpopulations may 

be capable of withstanding should the 

burn exceed its intended geographic 

limits; therefore, we do not provide an 

exception for take as a result of 

prescribed burning here. Take coverage 

for prescribed burning can be obtained 

through section 7 consultation, a 

10(a)(1)(A) permit, or through the 

Programmatic Restoration Opinion for 

Joint Ecosystem Conservation by the 

Services (PROJECTS) program. 

Providing landowners management 

flexibility facilitates the creation, 

restoration, and enhancement of native 

upland prairie and oak savannah 

habitats. Habitat is considered occupied 

by Fender’s blue butterfly if it is within 

the historical range of the species and 

supports or may support lupine, unless 

a qualified biologist using direct 

observation has conducted surveys for 

adult Fender’s blue butterfly during the 

April 15 to June 30 flight period and 

documented no adult butterflies. 

Occupied habitat also includes all 

nectar habitat within 0.5 km (0.3 miles) 

of habitat containing at least one of the 

three host lupine species and occupied 

by Fender’s blue butterfly. This 

proposed 4(d) rule would authorize 

landowners to plant native vegetation 

by hand; conduct manual and 

mechanical treatments to control woody 

and invasive nonnative plants; perform 

tractor and hand mowing; and apply 

herbicides within occupied Fender’s 

blue butterfly habitat. To prevent 

possible negative effects on the Fender’s 

blue butterfly or its host lupine, the 

following time restrictions apply to the 

exceptions to take by landowners in 

areas occupied by Fender’s blue 

butterfly: 

(1) Manual and mechanical treatments 

for control of woody and invasive and 

nonnative plant species that do not 

result in ground disturbance are 

authorized within occupied habitat 

outside of the butterfly flight period 

(April 15 to June 30) to avoid impacts 

to adult butterflies. 

(2) To prevent invasive plant species 

establishment, tractor mowing is 

authorized throughout sites with 

Fender’s blue butterflies before February 

15 (when lupine emerges) and after 

August 15 (when lupine undergoes 

senescence). Mowing with handheld 

mowers is authorized throughout the 

year; however, a buffer of at least 8 m 

(25 ft) must be maintained between the 

mower and any individual lupine plant 

during the Fender’s blue butterfly flight 

season (April 15 to June 30). 

(3) Hand wiping, wicking, and spotspray applications of herbicides for 

either the removal of nonnative invasive 

plant species, or to prevent resprouting 

of woody species subsequent to cutting 

are authorized year-round. Weed wiping 

and broadcast application of herbicides 

are authorized outside of the flight 

period of April 15 to June 30; however, 

additional timing and use restrictions 

are required based on the chemicals 

used. Contact the Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office prior to herbicide 

implementation for a list of currently 

acceptable herbicides, their application 

methods, their appropriate timing of 

use, and best management practices 

associated with herbicide use. 

We expect that the actions and 

activities that are allowed under this 

proposed 4(d) rule, while they may 

cause some minimal level of harm or 

disturbance to individual Fender’s blue 

butterflies, will not on balance 

adversely affect efforts to conserve and 

recover the species, and in fact, should 

facilitate these efforts because they will 

make it easier for our State and private 

partners to implement recovery actions 

and restore the habitats required by 

Fender’s blue butterfly. The loss or 

degradation of early seral prairie 

habitats is one of the primary threats to 

Fender’s blue butterfly, and disturbance 

(such as that described under the take 

exemptions provided here) is required 

to restore or maintain the habitat 

characteristics that are essential to the 

survival of this conservation-reliant 

species. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities, 

including those described above, 

involving threatened wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: Scientific purposes, 

to enhance propagation or survival, for 

economic hardship, for zoological 

exhibition, for educational purposes, for 

incidental taking, or for special 

purposes consistent with the purposes 

of the Act. There are also certain 

statutory exemptions from the 

prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship with our State natural 

resource agency partners in contributing 

to conservation of listed species. State 

agencies often possess scientific data 

and valuable expertise on the status and 

distribution of endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species of wildlife and 

plants. State agencies, because of their 

authorities and their close working 

relationships with local governments 

and landowners, are in a unique 

position to assist us in implementing all 

aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 

6 of the Act provides that we shall 

cooperate to the maximum extent 

practicable with the States in carrying 

out programs authorized by the Act. 

Therefore, any qualified employee or 

agent of a State conservation agency that 

is a party to a cooperative agreement 

with us in accordance with section 6(c) 

of the Act, who is designated by his or 

her agency for such purposes, would be 

able to conduct activities designed to 

conserve Fender’s blue butterfly that 

may result in otherwise prohibited take 

without additional authorization. 

Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule 

would change in any way the recovery 

planning provisions of section 4(f) of the 

Act, the consultation requirements 

under section 7 of the Act, or our ability 

to enter into partnerships for the 

management and protection of the 

Fender’s blue butterfly. However, 

interagency cooperation may be further 

streamlined through planned 

programmatic consultations for the 

species between us and other Federal 

agencies, such as the existing 

programmatic consultation on habitat 

restoration actions in the existing 

PROJECTS Biological Opinion (USFWS 

2015, entire), which includes provisions 

for management actions that benefit 

Fender’s blue butterfly. We ask the 

public, particularly State agencies and 

other interested stakeholders that may 

be affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to 

provide comments and suggestions 

regarding additional guidance and 

methods that we could provide or use, 

respectively, to streamline the 

implementation of this proposed 4(d) 

rule (see Information Requested, above). 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32876 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

determining a species’ listing status 

under the Endangered Species Act. In 

an October 25, 1983, notice in the 

Federal Register (48 FR 49244), we 

outlined our reasons for this 

determination, which included a 

compelling recommendation from the 

Council on Environmental Quality that 

we cease preparing environmental 

assessments or environmental impact 

statements for listing decisions. 

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 have determined that no Tribes 

would be affected by this rule because 

there are no Tribal lands or interests 

within or adjacent to Fender’s blue 

butterfly habitat. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020– 

0082 or upon request from the Oregon 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife 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. Amend § 17.11(h), the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Butterfly, 

Fender’s blue’’ 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, Fender’s blue ............. Icaricia icarioides fenderi ......... Wherever found ....................... T ............ 65 FR 3875, 1/25/2000; 

[Federal Register citation of 

the final rule]; 50 CFR 

17.47(f).4d

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.47 by adding paragraph 

(f) to read as follows: 

§ 17.47 Special rules—insects. 

* * * * * 

(f) Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia 

icarioides fenderi). 

(1) Definitions. As used in this 

paragraph (f), the following terms have 

these meanings: 

(i) Occupied habitat. Habitat within 

the historical range of Fender’s blue 

butterfly in the Willamette Valley of 

Oregon that supports or may support 

lupine, unless a qualified biologist using 

direct observation has conducted 

surveys for adult Fender’s blue butterfly 

during the April 15 to June 30 flight 

period and documented no adult 

butterflies. Occupied habitat also 

includes all nectar habitat within 0.5 

kilometers (km) (0.3 miles (mi)) of 

habitat containing at least one of the 

three host lupine species and occupied 

by Fender’s blue butterfly. Unsurveyed 

areas within 2 km (1.25 mi) of a known 

Fender’s blue butterfly population shall 

be assumed occupied if no surveys are 

conducted. 

(ii) Qualified biologist. An individual 

with a combination of academic training 

in the area of wildlife biology or related 

discipline and demonstrated field 

experience in the identification and life 

history of Fender’s blue butterfly, or in 

habitat restoration methods to benefit 

Fender’s blue butterfly. If capture of 

individuals is required for accurate 

identification, the individual must hold 

a valid permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) 

of the Act. 

(iii) Lupine. Any one of the three 

species of lupines known to be required 

as host plants for the larvae of the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32877 

Fender’s blue butterfly: Kincaid’s lupine 

(Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii), 

longspur lupine (L. arbustus), and 

sickle-keeled lupine (L. albicaulis). 

(2) Prohibitions. The following 

prohibitions that apply to endangered 

wildlife also apply to Fender’s blue 

butterfly. Except as provided under 

paragraph (f)(3) of this section and 

§§ 17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to commit, to attempt to 

commit, to solicit another to commit, or 

cause to be committed, any of the 

following acts in regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) 

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth 

at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. 

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of commercial activity, as set 

forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. 

(3) Exceptions from prohibitions. In 

regard to this species, you may: 

(i) Conduct activities as authorized by 

a permit under § 17.32. 

(ii) Possess and engage in other acts 

with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set 

forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) 

through (4) for endangered wildlife. 

(iv) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b). 

(v) Take incidental to an otherwise 

lawful activity caused by: 

(A) Manual and mechanical removal 

of invasive and/or nonnative plant 

species. Manual and mechanical 

treatments for invasive and nonnative 

plant control (including encroaching 

native woody species) that do not result 

in ground disturbance is authorized 

within occupied habitat outside the 

butterfly’s flight period of April 15 to 

June 30, provided: 

(1) Landowners or their agents 

conducting invasive or nonnative plant 

removal must use reasonable care, 

which includes, but is not limited to, 

procuring and/or implementing 

technical assistance from a qualified 

biologist on timing and location of 

habitat management activities and 

avoidance of ground disturbance to 

avoid impacts to larvae or pupae. Best 

management practices for felling of 

trees, removal of vegetation off-site, and 

temporary piling of cut vegetation onsite are available from the Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office. 

(2) Reasonable care during all 

activities includes best efforts to avoid 

trampling or damaging Fender’s blue 

butterflies (eggs, pupae, larvae, and 

adults) and their host and nectar plants. 

Foot traffic shall be minimized in 

occupied habitat, and especially in the 

area of any lupine plants. 

(B) Mowing. Tractor mowing for 

invasive and nonnative plant control 

(including encroaching native woody 

species) and the maintenance of early 

seral conditions is authorized 

throughout occupied Fender’s blue 

butterfly habitat before February 15 

when lupine emerges and after August 

15 when lupine undergoes senescence. 

(1) Mowing with handheld mowers is 

authorized throughout the year; 

however, a buffer of at least 8 meters (25 

feet) must be maintained between the 

mower and any individual lupine plant 

during the Fender’s blue butterfly flight 

season (April 15 to June 30). 

(2) During mowing, landowners or 

their agents must use reasonable care, 

which includes, but is not limited to, 

procuring and implementing technical 

assistance from a qualified biologist on 

timing and location of habitat 

management activities; avoidance of 

ground disturbance to avoid impacts to 

larvae or pupae; and using best efforts 

during all activities to avoid trampling 

or damaging Fender’s blue butterflies 

(eggs, pupae, larvae, and adults) and 

their host and nectar plants. Foot traffic 

shall be minimized in occupied habitat, 

and especially in the area of any lupine 

plants. 

(C) Herbicide application for removal 

of invasive and/or nonnative plant 

species. Hand wiping, wicking, and 

spot-spray applications of herbicides for 

either the removal of nonnative invasive 

plant species, or to prevent resprouting 

of woody species subsequent to cutting 

are authorized year-round. Weed wiping 

and broadcast application of herbicides 

are authorized outside of the flight 

period of April 15 to June 30; however, 

additional timing and use restrictions 

are required based on the chemicals 

used. Contact the Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office prior to herbicide 

implementation for a list of currently 

acceptable herbicides, their application 

methods, their appropriate timing of 

use, and best management practices 

associated with herbicide use. 

(1) During herbicide application, 

landowners or their agents must use 

reasonable care, which includes, but is 

not limited to, procuring and 

implementing technical assistance from 

a qualified biologist on habitat 

management activities; complying with 

all State and Federal regulations and 

guidelines for application of herbicides; 

and avoiding broadcast spraying in 

areas adjacent to occupied habitat if 

wind conditions are such that drift into 

the occupied area is possible. 

(2) Landowners or their agents 

conducting herbicide application must 

use best efforts to avoid trampling or 

damaging Fender’s blue butterflies 

(eggs, pupae, larvae, and adults) and 

their host and nectar plants. Foot traffic 

shall be minimized in occupied habitat, 

and especially in the area of any lupine 

plants. 

(D) Ground disturbance for the 

purpose of planting native vegetation. 

Limited ground disturbance (digging 

and placement by hand) is authorized 

for the purpose of planting native 

vegetation as part of habitat restoration 

efforts, especially native food resources 

used by larvae and adults, in areas 

occupied by Fender’s blue butterfly. 

(1) Larvae of the Fender’s blue 

butterfly require lupine. For adults, 

preferred native nectar sources include, 

but are not limited to, the following 

flower species: tapertip onion (Allium 

acuminatum), narrowleaf onion (Allium 

amplectens), Tolmie’s mariposa lily 

(Calochortus tolmiei), small camas 

(Camassia quamash), Clearwater 

cryptantha (Cryptantha intermedia), 

Oregon sunshine (Eriophyllum 

lanatum), Oregon geranium (Geranium 

oreganum), Oregon iris (Iris tenax), 

meadow checkermallow (Sidalcea 

campestris), rose checkermallow 

(Sidalcea virgata), and purple vetch 

(Vicia americana). 

(2) While planting native vegetation, 

landowners or their agents must use 

reasonable care, which includes, but is 

not limited to, procuring and 

implementing technical assistance from 

a qualified biologist on timing and 

location of habitat management 

activities and using best efforts during 

all activities to avoid trampling or 

damaging Fender’s blue butterflies 

(eggs, pupae, larvae, and adults) and 

their host and nectar plants. Foot traffic 

shall be minimized in occupied habitat, 

and especially in the area of any lupine 

plants. 

(E) Summary of authorized methods 

and timing of habitat restoration 

activities for the Fender’s blue butterfly. 

Management activity Dates authorized for use in occupied habitat 

Manual and mechanical treatments Outside of the flight period of April 15 to June 30. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32878 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Management activity Dates authorized for use in occupied habitat 

Mowing—tractors ............................ Before February 15 and after August 15. 

Mowing—handheld ......................... Year-round, with a buffer of 8 m (25 ft) between the mower and any individual lupine plant during the flight 

period of April 15 to June 30. 

Herbicides—hand wiping ................ Year-round. 

Herbicides—wicking ........................ Year-round. 

Herbicides—spot-spray ................... Year-round. 

Herbicides—broadcast spray .......... Outside of the flight period of April 15 to June 30 *. 

Herbicides—weed wiping ................ Outside of the flight period of April 15 to June 30 *. 

Planting native vegetation ............... Year-round. 

* Additional timing restrictions will apply based on the chemicals used. Contact the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office for additional information. 

(F) Reporting and disposal 

requirements. Any injury or mortality of 

Fender’s blue butterfly associated with 

the actions excepted under paragraphs 

(f)(3)(v)(A) through (D) of this section 

must be reported to the Service and 

authorized State wildlife officials within 

5 calendar days, and specimens may be 

disposed of only in accordance with 

directions from the Service. Reports 

should be made to the Service’s Office 

of Law Enforcement (contact 

information is at § 10.22) or the 

Service’s Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office and to the State of Oregon 

Department of Parks and Recreation, 

Stewardship Section, which has 

jurisdiction over invertebrate species. 

The Service may allow additional 

reasonable time for reporting if access to 

these offices is limited due to closure. 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12576 Filed 6–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2021–0048; 

FXMB12330900000//212//FF09M13000] 

RIN 1018–BF62 

Revision of Federal Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

(Duck Stamp) Contest Regulations 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

revise the regulations governing the 

annual Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Contest (also 

known as the Federal Duck Stamp 

Contest (Contest)). Our proposed 

amendments would remove the 

previously specified permanent theme 

and the mandatory inclusion of an 

appropriate hunting element within all 

Contest entries and revise the 

qualifications of the judging panel to 

reflect this change. This change would 

be scheduled to begin with the 2022 

Contest. 

DATES: We will accept comments that 

we receive on or before July 23, 2021. 

Please note that if you are using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below), the deadline for 

submitting an electronic comment is 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2021– 

0048. 

• U.S. Mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–MB–2021– 

0048, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: JAO/3W, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We will not accept hand-delivered, 

emailed, or faxed comments. We will 

post all comments on https://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that your entire submission— 

including any personal identifying 

information—will be posted on the 

website. See Public Comments 

Procedures and Public Availability of 

Comments, below, for more information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerome Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior, 

(202) 208–1050. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

History of the Federal Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck 

Stamp) Program 

On March 16, 1934, Congress passed 

and President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

signed the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Stamp Act, which was later amended to 

become the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718– 

718j, 48 Stat. 452). Popularly known as 

the Duck Stamp Act, the law requires all 

waterfowl hunters who have attained 

the age of 16 to buy an annual stamp. 

Funds generated from Duck Stamp sales 

are used to protect waterfowl and 

wetland habitat that is incorporated into 

the National Wildlife Refuge System 

from willing sellers and those interested 

in obtaining conservation easements. 

Over 1.5 million stamps are sold each 

year, and, as of 2021, Federal Duck 

Stamps have generated more than $1.1 

billion for the conservation of more than 

6 million acres of waterfowl habitat in 

the United States. In addition to 

waterfowl, numerous other birds, 

mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians 

benefit from habitat protected by the 

Duck Stamp revenues, including an 

estimated one-third of the nation’s 

endangered and threatened species. The 

healthy wetlands protected by Duck 

Stamp funding sequester carbon and 

contribute to addressing the impacts of 

climate change, including absorbing 

flood waters and storm surge. These 

wetlands purify water supplies and 

provide economic support to local 

communities as they attract outdoor 

recreationists from many different 

backgrounds. 

History of the Duck Stamp Contest 

The first Federal Duck Stamp was 

designed at President Roosevelt’s 

request by Jay N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling, a 

nationally known political cartoonist for 

the Des Moines Register and a hunter 

and wildlife conservationist. In 

subsequent years, noted wildlife artists 

were asked to submit designs for the 

stamp. The first Contest was opened in 

1949 to any U.S. artist who wished to 

enter. Since then, the Contest has 

attracted large numbers of entrants, and 

it remains the only art competition of its 

kind sponsored by the U.S. Government. 

The Secretary of the Interior appoints a 

panel of judges who have expertise in 

the area of art, waterfowl, or philately to 

select each year’s winning design. 

Winners receive no compensation for 

the work, except a pane of Duck Stamps, 

based on their winning design, signed 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS