You are on page 1of 9

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 29933

mandate the use of such techniques for DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Public Information Solicited
some, or even all, of the commercial
spectrum to be auctioned in the 700 Fish and Wildlife Service When we make a finding that
MHz bands. substantial information is presented to
50 CFR Part 17 indicate that listing a species may be
The Public Notice also seeks comment warranted, we are required to promptly
on Google’s proposal that the unpaired Endangered and Threatened Wildlife commence a review of the status of the
6 MHz E Block (722–728 MHz) in the and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a species. To ensure that the status review
current Lower 700 MHz band plan Petition To List the Mt. Charleston Blue is complete and based on the best
should be designated primarily or Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered available scientific and commercial
exclusively to be used for deployment of information, we are soliciting
interactive, two-way broadband AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, information on the Mt. Charleston blue
services; connected to the public Interior. butterfly. We request any additional
internet; and used to support innovative ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition information, comments, and suggestions
software-based applications, services finding. from the public, other concerned
and devices. governmental agencies, North American
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife tribes, the scientific community,
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Service (Service), announce a 90-day industry, or any other interested parties
Economic Impact on Small Entities and finding on a petition to list the Mt. concerning the status of the Mt.
Significant Alternatives Considered Charleston blue butterfly (Icaricia Charleston blue butterfly. We are
shasta charlestonensis) as threatened or seeking information regarding the
The RFA requires an agency to endangered under the Endangered
describe any significant, specifically subspecies’ historical and current status
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). and distribution, its ecology, ongoing
small business, alternatives that it has We find that the petition presents
considered in reaching its proposed conservation measures for the
substantial scientific or commercial subspecies and its habitat, and threats to
approach, which may include the information indicating that listing the
following four alternatives (among the subspecies and its habitat.
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly may be
others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of warranted. Therefore, with the We will base our 12 month finding on
differing compliance or reporting publication of this notice, we are a review of the best scientific and
requirements or timetables that take into initiating a status review of this commercial information available,
account the resources available to small subspecies, and we will issue a 12- including all information received
entities; (2) the clarification, month finding to determine if the during the public comment period. If
consolidation, or simplification of petitioned action is warranted. To you wish to provide comments you may
compliance and reporting requirements ensure that the status review of the Mt. submit your comments and materials
under the rule for such small entities; Charleston blue butterfly is concerning this finding to the Field
(3) the use of performance rather than comprehensive, we are soliciting Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife
design standards; and (4) an exemption scientific and commercial data Office (see ADDRESSES section). Please
from coverage of the rule, or any part regarding this subspecies. A note that comments merely stating
thereof, for such small entities.’’ determination on critical habitat will be support or opposition to the actions
made if and when a listing action is under consideration without providing
The Public Notice seeks comment on supporting information, although noted,
the relative merits of dynamic auction initiated for this subspecies.
will not be considered in making a
techniques. The Public Notice also seeks DATES: The finding announced in the
determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of
comment on whether the Commission document was made on May 30, 2007. the Act directs that determinations as to
should designate the unpaired 6 MHz E To be considered in the 12-month whether any species is a threatened or
Block (722–728 MHz) in the current finding for this petition, comments and endangered species shall be made
Lower 700 MHz band plan primarily or information should be submitted to us ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific
exclusively for deployment of by July 30, 2007. and commercial data available.’’ At the
broadband communications platforms. ADDRESSES: Data, information, conclusion of the status review, we will
To assist the Commission in its analysis, comments, or questions concerning this issue the 12-month finding on the
commenters are requested to provide petition and our finding should be petition, as provided in section
information regarding how small submitted to the Field Supervisor, 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
entities would be affected if the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. If you wish to comment or provide
Commission were to adopt Google’s Fish and Wildlife Service, by mail at information, you may submit your
proposals. Commenters should also 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las comments and materials concerning this
provide information on alternative Vegas, NV, 89130, or by fax at (702) finding to the Field Supervisor (see
approaches to alleviate any potential 515–5231. The petition is available at ADDRESSES section). Before including
burdens on small entities. http://www.fws.gov/nevada. The your address, phone number, e-mail
petition, supporting data, and comments address, or other personal identifying
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, will be available for public inspection,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed information in your comment, you
by appointment, during normal business should be aware that your entire
Rules hours at the Nevada Fish and Wildlife comment—including your personal
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1

None. Office at the above address. identifying information—may be made


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: publicly available at any time. While
Federal Communications Commission.
Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, you can ask us in your comment to
James D. Schlichting, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see withhold your personal identifying
Deputy Chief. ADDRESSES) (telephone 702/515–5230; information from public review, we
[FR Doc. E7–10417 Filed 5–29–07; 8:45 am] facsimile 702/515–5231). cannot guarantee that we will be able to
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: do so.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:19 May 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1
29934 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules

Background identification information of the underside of the hindwing (Scott 1986,


Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires petitioner, as required in 50 CFR p. 410).
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 424.14(a). Weiss et al. (1997, pp. 10–11) describe
the natural habitat for the Mt.
(Service) make a finding on whether a Species Information Charleston blue as relatively flat
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is a ridgelines above 8,202 feet (2,500
species presents substantial scientific or
distinctive subspecies of the wider meters); however, isolated individuals
commercial information indicating that
ranging Shasta blue butterfly (Icaricia have been observed as low as 6,562 feet
the petitioned action may be warranted.
shasta), which is a member of (2,000 meters). Like many butterfly
This finding is based on information
Lycaenidae (little butterfly family). The species, the Mt. Charleston blue
contained in the petition and
subspecies is known only from the high butterfly is dependent on plants both
information otherwise available in our
elevations of the Spring Mountains, during larval development (larval host
files at the time we make the finding. To
located approximately 25 miles (40 plants) and the adult butterfly flight
the maximum extent practicable, we are period (nectar plants). The butterfly
to make this finding within 90 days of kilometers (km)) west of Las Vegas in
Clark County, Nevada (Austin 1980, p. requires open habitats that support
our receipt of the petition, and publish Torrey’s milkvetch (Astragalus
our notice of the finding promptly in the 20; Scott 1986, p. 410).
Within Icaricia shasta there are six calycosus var. mancus), the only known
Federal Register. larval host plant for the subspecies
Our standard for substantial scientific subspecies: I. s. calchas, I. s. shasta, I.
s. minnehaha, I. s. charlestonensis, I. s. (Weiss et al. 1994, p. 3; Weiss et al.
or commercial information within the 1997, p. 10). Torrey’s milkvetch and
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with pallidissima, and I. s. pitkinensis (Scott
1986, p. 410; Murphy 2006, p. 3). The Clokey fleabane (Erigeron clokeyi) are
regard to a 90-day finding is ‘‘that the primary nectar plants for the
amount of information that would lead first mention of I. s. charlestonensis as
a unique taxon was in 1928 by Garth, subspecies; however, butterflies have
a reasonable person to believe that the also been observed nectaring on
measure proposed in the petition may who recognized it as distinct from the
species shasta (Austin 1980, p. 20). Lemmon’s bitterweed (Hymenoxys
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we lemmonii) and Aster sp. (Boyd 2005, p.
find that substantial scientific or Howe in 1975 described specimens from
the Spring Mountains as I. s. shasta 1; Weiss et al. 1994, p. 3). Torrey’s
commercial information was presented, milkvetch is a small, low growing,
we are required to promptly commence form comstocki (Austin 1980, p. 20).
However, in 1976, Ferris placed the perennial herb that grows in open areas
a status review of this subspecies, if one between 5,000–10,804 feet (1,524–3,293
has not already been initiated under our subspecies into the wider ranging I. s.
meters) in subalpine, bristlecone, and
internal candidate assessment process. minnehaha (Austin 1980, p. 20).
mixed conifer vegetation communities
In making this finding, we relied on Finally, Austin (1980) asserted that
of the Spring Mountains. Weiss et al.
information provided by the petitioner Ferris had not included populations
(1997, p. 31) describe favorable habitat
and otherwise available in our files at from the Sierra Nevada in his study, and
for the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly as
the time of the petition review. We in light of the geographic isolation and
having high densities of Torrey’s
evaluated this information in distinctiveness of the Spring Mountains
milkvetch, which exceed 10 plants per
accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). The shasta population, and the presence of
square meter. Good habitat contains
process of making a 90-day finding at least three other well defined races of
relatively little grass cover and visible
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act is butterflies endemic to the area, it was mineral soil (Boyd 2005, p. 1; Service
based on a determination of whether the appropriate to name this population as 2006a, p. 1).
information in the petition meets the the individual subspecies The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is
‘‘substantial scientific or commercial charlestonensis (Austin 1980, p. 20). generally presumed to diapause (period
information’’ threshold. This name and subspecies classification of suspended growth or development
On October 20, 2005, we received a has been retained in the most recent similar to hibernation) at the base of the
petition from The Urban Wildlands treatments of butterfly taxonomy (Opler larval host plant or in the surrounding
Group, Inc., requesting to emergency-list and Warren 2002, p. 79). substrate for at least one season (Boyd
the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly The wing span of Icaricia shasta is 3⁄4 2005, p. 1). The typical flight and
(Icaricia shasta charlestonensis) as a to 1 inch (19 to 26 millimeters (mm)) breeding period for the butterfly is early
threatened or endangered species. In a (Opler 1999, p. 251). Males and females July to mid-August with a peak in late
letter dated April 20, 2006, we of Icaricia shasta are dimorphic. The July, although the species has been
responded to the petitioner that our upperside of males is dark to dull observed as early as mid-June and as
initial review did not indicate that an iridescent blue, and females are brown late as mid-September (Austin 1980, p.
emergency situation existed, but that if with a blue overlay. The subspecies has 22; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. 17; Forest
conditions changed an emergency rule a discal black spot on the forewing and Service 2006a, p. 9). As with most
could be developed. This a row of submarginal black spots on the butterflies, the Mt. Charleston blue
correspondence also indicated that hindwing. The underside is gray, with butterfly typically flies during sunny
funding was provided to address this a pattern of black spots, brown blotches, conditions, which are particularly
petition in Fiscal Year 2006 and that we and pale wing veins to give it a mottled important for this subspecies given the
anticipated making an initial finding appearance. The underside of the cooler air temperatures at high
early in Fiscal Year 2007 as to whether hindwing has an inconspicuous band of elevations (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 31).
or not the petition contained substantial submarginal metallic spots (Opler 1999, Excessive winds also deter flight of most
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1

information. The purpose of this finding p. 251). Based on morphology, I. s. butterflies, although Weiss et al. (1997,
is to determine whether or not the charlestonensis appears to be most p. 31) speculate this may not be a
petition presented substantial closely related to the Great Basin significant factor for the Mt. Charleston
information regarding the status of this populations of I. s. minnehaha (Austin blue butterfly given its low-to-the-
subspecies within the context of the 1980, p. 23) and can be distinguished ground flight pattern. Other than
Act. The petition clearly identified itself from I. s. minnehaha by sharper and observations by surveyors, little
as such and included the requisite blacker post medial spots on the information is known regarding the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:19 May 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 29935

phenology of the Mt. Charleston blue 2–3 and 32; Boyd and Austin 1999, p. County, Nevada. The majority of the
butterfly, as the key determinants for the 8). occurrences or observations are in the
interactions between the butterfly’s Based on current and historic Lee Canyon area, with a few in Kyle
flight and breeding period, larval host occurrences, the geographic range of the Canyon. Table 1 identifies the fifteen
plant, and environmental conditions Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is on the separate current and historic locations
have not been specifically studied. east side of the Spring Mountains, of the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly that
Observations indicate that above or centered on lands managed by the are documented in the petition or
below average precipitation, coupled Forest Service in the Spring Mountains identified in the State of Nevada Natural
with above or below average National Recreation Area of the Heritage Program database (The Urban
temperatures, influence the phenology Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, pp. 1–3;
of this subspecies (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. within Kyle and Lee Canyons, Clark Service 2006b, pp. 2–4).

TABLE 1.—LOCATIONS OR OCCURRENCES OF THE MT. CHARLESTON BLUE BUTTERFLY SINCE 1928 AND THE STATUS OF
THE BUTTERFLY AT THE LOCATIONS

First/last time
Location name surveyed or Status Primary references
observed

1. South Loop Trail, Kyle Canyon ........... 1995/2005 Presumed extant—core colony ............... Weiss et al. 1997.
2. LVSSR #1, Lee Canyon ...................... 1995/2005 Presumed extant—core colony 1 ............. Weiss et al. 1997; Boyd and Austin
2002.
3. LVSSR #2, Lee Canyon ...................... 1963/2005 Presumed extant—core colony 1 ............. Austin 1980; Weiss et al. 1994; Weiss et
al. 1997; Boyd and Austin 2002.
4. Foxtail Camp, Lee Canyon ................. 1998/1998 Presumed extant—ephemeral ................. Boyd and Austin 1999.
5. Youth Camp, Lee Canyon ................... 1995/1995 Presumed extant—ephemeral ................. Weiss et al. 1997.
6. Gary Abbott, Lee Canyon ................... 1995/1995 Presumed extant—ephemeral ................. Weiss et al. 1997.
7. LVSSR Parking, Lee Canyon .............. 1995/1995 Presumed extant—ephemeral ................. Weiss et al. 1997.
8. Mummy Spring, Kyle Canyon ............. 1995/1995 Presumed extant—ephemeral 2 ............... Weiss et al. 1997.
9. Lee Meadow, Lee Canyon .................. 1965/1995 Presumed extant—ephemeral ................. Weiss et al. 1997.
10. Lee Canyon holotype ........................ 1963/1976 Presumed extirpated 2 ............................. Austin 1963; Austin 1980; Weiss et al.
1997.
11. Cathedral Rock, Kyle Canyon ........... 1972/1972 Presumed extirpated ............................... Austin 1980; Weiss et al. 1997.
12. Kyle Canyon Ski Area ....................... 1965/1972 Presumed extirpated 2 ............................. Austin 1980; Weiss et al. 1997.
13. Old Town, Kyle Canyon .................... 1970s/1970s Presumed extirpated 3 ............................. The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005.
14. Deer Creek, Kyle Canyon ................. 1950/1950 Presumed extirpated ............................... Austin 1980.
15. Willow Creek ..................................... 1928/1928 Presumed extirpated ............................... Austin 1980; Weiss et al. 1997.
1 LVSSR = Las Vegas Ski & Snowboard Resort; LVSSR #2 is not identified as a separate site in Nevada Natural Heritage Program database
(likely combined by Heritage with LVSSR #1).
2 Location is not mentioned in the petition.
3 Location is not identified in the Nevada Natural Heritage Program database.

The Service presumes that the Mt. been sighted through formal surveys or For our analysis, we define a Mt.
Charleston blue butterfly is extirpated informal observation since observed in Charleston blue butterfly core colony as
from a location when it has not been 1995 by Weiss et al. (1997), or formal a colony that meets the following
sighted at that location through formal surveys have not occurred at that factors: (1) Contains good quality
surveys or informal observation for location since the butterfly was sighted habitat, defined as habitat containing
more than twenty years. We presume in 1995 by Weiss et al. (1997). As noted high densities of the host plant, Torrey’s
the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is in Table 1, the current status of the Mt. milkvetch, with little grass cover,
extirpated from 6 of the 15 locations as Charleston blue butterfly is presumed particularly nonnative grass cover
noted in Table 1 (The Urban Wildlands extant—ephemeral at 6 of the 15 (because grasses have been suggested as
Group, Inc. 2005, pp. 1–3; Service locations or occurrences (The Urban a reason for habitat degradation or
2006b, pp. 8–9). The status of the Mt. Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, pp. 1–3; successional changes that make habitat
Charleston blue butterfly at a location is Service 2006b, pp. 7–8). unsuitable for the subspecies, see
described as presumed extant— Three of the 15 historical locations are discussion below); and (2) persists as
ephemeral by the Service when the presumed to be extant core colonies of habitat that maintains the
location is within the extant range of the the subspecies, as adults have been metapopulation dynamics of the
subspecies and is within potential identified through time and were subspecies, such that adults are
recruitment distance of an extant core located during formal surveys in 1995 consistently sighted through formal or
colony. The butterfly exhibits and 2005: South Loop Trail, Las Vegas informal surveys within the colony and
metapopulation dynamics at these Ski and Snowboard Resort (LVSSR) #1, emigrants are provided to smaller,
locations, likely emigrating to these and LVSSR #2 (see Table 1) (Weiss et al. outlying habitat patches. The amount of
smaller patches of habitat from the core 1997; Boyd and Austin 2002; Boyd habitat supporting two of the three core
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1

colonies during years when 2005, p. 1; Service 2006b, p. 7; The colonies of this subspecies has been
environmental conditions are favorable Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, pp. mapped using a global positioning unit
(see subsequent core colonies, 1–3; Service 2006b, p. 2). The term and field-verified by the Service and
metapopulation dynamics, and ‘‘core colony’’ as applied to our Forest Service; the core colony at
favorable environmental conditions). At discussion of the Mt. Charleston blue LVSSR #1 occupies 2.4 acres (0.97
many of these ephemeral locations, the butterfly is used only to describe a hectares), and the core colony at LVSSR
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly has not specific type of habitat for the butterfly. #2 occupies 1.3 acres (0.53 hectares),

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:19 May 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1
29936 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules

totaling 3.7 acres (1.5 hectares) (Service populations (Erlich et al. 1980, pp. 101– conditions in the summer of 2006. The
2006a, p. 1). The total area of the third 105; Thomas 1984, p. 344). Late season following possible explanations for the
core Mt. Charleston blue butterfly snowstorms have caused alpine lack of butterfly sightings were offered
colony (South Loop Trail) has not been butterfly population extinctions in by two local Mt. Charleston blue
field-verified and is estimated at 5 acres Colorado (Ehrlich et al. 1972, p. 246), butterfly experts as indicated in our
(2 hectares) within Kyle Canyon (The and high rainfall years have also been files. Boyd (2006, p. 1) theorizes that the
Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. associated with population declines for Mt. Charleston blue butterfly’s host
2). Thus across its range, current other butterfly species in Europe plant, Torrey’s milkvetch, experienced
estimates indicate the Mt. Charleston (Dobkin et al. 1987, p. 164). Drought, delayed emergence in the year 2005 due
blue butterfly is restricted to less than late season snowstorms, unusually wet to the persistence of the snow pack well
9 acres (3.6 hectares) of core habitat, and weather, and flash flooding associated into the plant’s growing season. The
the core habitat represents the only with summer monsoon thunderstorms delayed emergence of Torrey’s
known occupied habitat remaining for are extreme climatic phenomena that milkvetch in 2005 could have negatively
this subspecies. occur within the Spring Mountains at impacted butterfly reproduction in the
Our files indicate that Boyd (2006, pp. unpredictable intervals and have been year 2005, which would equate to low
1–2) conducted focused surveys from reported as negatively affecting recruitment of emerging juveniles in the
late May through August of 2006 for the numerous butterfly species in the year 2006. Boyd (2006, p. 1) further
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly at all Spring Mountains, including the Mt. hypothesized that since Torrey’s
extant core colonies and at extant Charleston blue butterfly, in all stages of milkvetch flowered in early May and
ephemeral locations. In addition to development and their host plants June in 2006 (in response to a dry
these locations, potential Mt. Charleston (Weiss et al. 1997, pp. 2–3 and 31–32; winter and spring), the emergence of the
blue butterfly habitat along Griffith Boyd et al. 2000, p. 3). butterfly (typically in July) could have
Peak, the South Loop Trail, North Loop The 1995 season was a boom year for again been out of synchronization with
Trail, Bristlecone Trail, and South the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (Weiss the host plant. Murphy (2006, p. 1)
Bonanza Trail was also surveyed in et al. 1997, p. 32). Weiss et al. (1997, p. proposed that the localized rain events
2006. No observations of Mt. Charleston 32) commented that in 1995 almost in late June and July of 2006 could have
blue butterfly were made at any every patch of host plants encountered killed any butterflies that had emerged
location, including the three core during the flight season supported to date. Murphy (2006, p. 1) also
colonies (Boyd 2006, p. 1). However, butterflies, including small isolated suggests that the dry winter and spring
Murphy (2006, p. 1) hypothesizes that patches. The 1995 season probably may have prevented the Mt. Charleston
the butterfly potentially may have a represents the maximum population blue butterfly from emerging at all.
survival mechanism to adapt and size when environmental conditions Murphy (2006, p. 1) hypothesizes that
remain in diapause, and therefore may were most favorable and includes both the butterfly potentially may have a
be able to survive unfavorable or the larger core colonies and the smaller, survival mechanism to adapt and
inclement conditions for at least one ephemeral habitat patches. In 1928 and remain in diapause, and therefore may
season. 1963, the subspecies also exhibited be able to survive unfavorable or
Most butterfly populations occur in higher abundances (Austin 1980, p. 22; inclement conditions for at least one
roughly the same numbers from year to The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, season. Although individuals were not
year, though nearly every population p. 2). identified during surveys in 2006, we do
experiences the occasional significant In contrast, the 1996 season not consider this subspecies extirpated
increase or decline depending on represents a low population size for the from the three core colonies. It will be
environmental conditions, and desert Mt. Charleston blue butterfly when critical for the Mt. Charleston blue
species seem particularly prone to environmental conditions were butterfly to successfully reproduce and
dramatic fluctuations in numbers (Scott unfavorable and very few patches of pupae to emerge in 2007.
1986, pp. 108–109). The Mt. Charleston habitat were occupied. Weiss et al. Based on information in our files,
blue butterfly has been characterized as (1997, pp. 32) indicate an extremely dry most butterflies almost invariably exist
particularly rare, but common in some winter may have caused poor larval host as regional metapopulations (Murphy et
years as noted in the petition (Boyd and plant quality and, thus, low al. 1990, p. 44). Metapopulation
Austin 1999, p. 17; The Urban overwintering success by Mt. Charleston dynamics make it difficult to interpret
Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 2). As blue larvae in 1996. In addition, Weiss the true extent of the distribution of Mt.
previously mentioned, variations in et al. (1997, p. 32) suggested that heavy Charleston blue butterfly. Small habitats
precipitation and temperature that affect thunderstorms in early July 1996, which tend to support small populations that
both the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly delivered 3 inches of rainfall in a few are frequently extirpated by events that
and its larval host plant are likely hours, may have killed any Mt. are part of normal variation (Murphy et
responsible for the fluctuation in Charleston blue butterflies that had al. 1990, p. 44). The continued existence
population numbers between years emerged, as well as pupae waiting to of smaller populations requires the
(Weiss et al. 1997, pp. 2–3 and 31–32). emerge, leading to very reduced presence of one or more large reservoir
The specific requirements and timing of numbers observed in survey efforts that populations or core colonies to provide
environmental conditions for larval host year. emigrants to smaller, outlying habitat
plant development, and in turn Similarly, there were no sightings of patches (Murphy et al. 1990, p. 44).
subspecies reproduction, is not known. the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly in Boyd and Austin (1999, p. 17) suggest
Murphy et al. (1990, p. 43) note that in 2006 despite focused survey efforts. One smaller colonies of the Mt. Charleston
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1

general, extreme weather (drought, late possible explanation for the 2006 season blue butterfly may be ephemeral in the
season snowstorms, unusually wet may be extreme weather; prior to 2005, long term with the larger colonies of the
weather, etc.) often is the proximate there were numerous years of drought, subspecies being the only colonies to
cause of declines or extinctions of followed by a record snow in the winter persist in poor, dry years.
butterfly populations throughout the of 2004–2005, a dry winter and spring The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly’s
world. Drought has been shown to in 2005–2006, and several localized, larval host plant, Torrey’s milkvetch, is
negatively impact other butterfly high rainfall events and cloudy dependent on early successional habitat

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:19 May 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 29937

(Weiss et al. 1995, p. 5). Healthy overutilization for commercial, blue butterfly. This claim is supported
metapopulation dynamics allow recreational, scientific, or educational by information in our files (The Urban
butterflies, like the Mt. Charleston blue purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3;
butterfly, to establish new colonies in inadequacy of existing regulatory Service 2006a, pp. 1–5; Forest Service
new habitat patches as vegetation mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 2004a, p. 1–3; Forest Service 2004b, p.
succession renders occupied habitat manmade factors affecting its continued 9; Forest Service 2006b, pp. 1–9). Based
unsuitable (Hanski and Simberloff 1997, existence. In making this finding, we on the best available information in our
p. 9). Fire and avalanches are natural evaluated whether threats to the Mt. files (habitat mapping performed by
disturbances that help create this Charleston blue butterfly presented in Weiss et al. (1995, Figure 8C) and
mosaic of different successional states the petition may pose a concern with habitat mapping performed by the
that supports the Mt. Charleston blue respect to its survival. The Act identifies Service and Forest Service in July 2006
butterfly (Weiss et al. 1995, p. 5). Forty- the five factors to be considered, either (Service 2006a, pp. 1–5)), we calculate
three percent (3.7 acres (1.5 hectares)) of singly or in combination, to determine that 2.4 acres (0.97 hectares) of this core
remaining habitat known to be occupied whether a species may be threatened or colony of Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
by the butterfly occurs on the LVSSR, endangered. Our evaluation of these habitat remains, and we estimate that
which operates on Forest Service lands threats, based on information provided the construction project associated with
under a special use permit. Weiss et al. in the petition, is presented below. the replacement of the specified
(1995, p. 5) observed an old avalanche snowmaking line caused the loss of 0.2
A. Present or Threatened Destruction,
chute, which supports one of the three acres (0.08 hectares) of the core habitat.
Modification, or Curtailment of the (3) The petition states that the
core colonies for this subspecies on a
Species’ Habitat or Range construction of an avalanche deflection
LVSSR ski run. Large-scale, natural
avalanches in the LVSSR, which could The petitioner claims that present or berm in 2000 or 2001 at the top of the
have created new habitat for the threatened destruction, modification, or northwestern-most ski run (location of
butterfly, have been prevented for more curtailment of the habitat or range of the the third core colony at LVSSR #2)
than 40 years due to the regular use of Mt. Charleston blue butterfly threatens caused loss and degradation of core
explosives in the upper portions of the this subspecies such that listing may be butterfly habitat. The location of the
avalanche chutes by the LVSSR. Fire warranted. The claim is detailed in the earthen berm, and information in our
suppression and other Forest Service petition by multiple instances of files that maps the Mt. Charleston blue
management practices have also limited destruction or modification of the butterfly habitat on the LVSSR ski runs,
the formation of new replacement subspecies’ habitat by construction and verifies this assertion (Service 2006a,
habitat for the Mt. Charleston blue other activities, including: (1) Bisection pp. 1–5).
butterfly. Similar losses of suitable of habitat by South Loop Trail and (4) The petition describes further
habitat in woodlands and their negative unsanctioned trails created in habitat in impacts to the core colony habitat at
effect on butterfly populations have Kyle Canyon; (2) resort improvements at LVSSR #2 associated with the
been documented elsewhere (Thomas LVSSR #1 in Lee Canyon; (3) replacement of a snowmaking apparatus
1984, pp. 337–338). However, as construction of a berm at LVSSR #2 in or line in 2005 on a ski run east of the
described in the petition, because the Lee Canyon; (4) installation and core colony, and information in our files
natural processes that create and expansion of snowmaking apparatus at confirms this construction project
maintain successional habitat in an LVSSR #2 in Lee Canyon; (5) small (Forest Service 2004c, p. 8). The petition
early state, as required by Torrey’s construction activities at Foxtail Camp claims that lower quality peripheral
milkvetch, have been limited, the in Lee Canyon; (6) expansion of the habitat for the butterfly was disturbed.
LVSSR now provides important core water system at the Youth Camp in Lee Based on information in our files
habitat for the Mt. Charleston blue Canyon; and (7) expansion of the regarding the extent of the disturbance
butterfly (The Urban Wildlands Group, parking lot at LVSSR in Lee Canyon associated with the snowmaking line
Inc. 2005, p. 2). Periodic maintenance (The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, and other improvements in 2005, as
(removal of trees and shrubs) of the ski pp. 2–3). As further detailed below, well as the mapping of Mt. Charleston
runs has effectively arrested succession information in our files supports the blue butterfly habitat at LVSSR #2, the
on the ski slopes and maintains the petitioner’s claim and the examples petition’s assertion is accurate (Forest
early successional state favorable to the cited. Service 2006b, pp. 1–9; Service 2006a,
Mt. Charleston blue butterfly; however, (1) The petition describes that Mt. pp. 1–5). Outside of the core colony
the ski runs are not specifically Charleston blue butterfly habitat along habitat at LVSSR #2, peripheral habitat
managed to benefit habitat for this South Loop Trail in Kyle Canyon (one of lower quality for the subspecies was
subspecies and operation activities of three core colonies) is being impacted impacted by the improvements.
regularly modify and remove butterfly by recreation activity, specifically (5) The petition does not present
habitat. unsanctioned hiking trails. Based on specific information regarding the
information in our files, an assessment extent of impact from small
Threats Analysis of an unsanctioned hiking trail to a construction projects at Foxtail Camp in
Section 4 of the Act and its plane crash site in the vicinity of Lee Canyon. We do not have any
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) butterfly habitat identified that the information in our files to corroborate or
set forth the procedures for adding unsanctioned trail has disturbed refute the petition’s claim regarding
species to the Federal List of (through loss and trampling) habitat for impacts to Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly as habitat at this location.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1

and Plants. A species may be stated in the petition (Service 2006c, pp. (6) The petitioner also claims that the
determined to be an endangered or 2–7). expansion of the water system at the
threatened species due to one or more (2) The petition describes replacement Youth Camp in Lee Canyon impacted
of the five factors described in section of a snowmaking apparatus or line that habitat for the Mt. Charleston blue
4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) Present or occurred within and impacted the butterfly. This assertion is confirmed by
threatened destruction, modification, or habitat at LVSSR #1, another of the a Forest Service report in our files
curtailment of habitat or range; (B) three core colonies of the Mt. Charleston (Forest Service 2002, pp. 16–18).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:19 May 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1
29938 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules

(7) The petition identifies a location Finally, 3 of the 15 locations (estimated pp. 1–3). The following details these
on the LVSSR where Mt. Charleston to encompass less than 9 acres (3.6 assertions.
blue butterfly habitat was lost due to hectares) of habitat) are currently known (1) The petition alleges that
modifications to a parking lot near the to be extant core colonies. Habitat loss responsibilities as described in section
end of State Route 156 (The Urban and modification threatens all three of 5.6 of the Conservation Agreement have
Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3). Based these occupied core colonies, as not been met (The Urban Wildlands
on data in our files, the Mt. Charleston documented by the petition and verified Group, Inc. 2005, p. 1). This section
blue butterfly was first recorded at this by information in our files. We conclude states that the Forest Service and other
location during 1995 surveys (Weiss et that the petition presents substantial Conservation Agreement signatories will
al. 1997, p. 10), and the subspecies has information to indicate that listing may ‘‘Work with Las Vegas Ski and
not been observed in the area in recent be warranted due to the present or Snowboard Resort to develop protective
years (Boyd 2005, p. 1). The petition threatened destruction or modification strategies for sensitive ecological
states that approximately 2 acres (0.81 of habitat or range for the Mt. Charleston resources. This will include
hectares) once supported a large number blue butterfly. investigating options for erosion control
of host plants for the butterfly at this of the Lee Canyon ski slopes with native
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
site (The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. seed mixes, including Astragalus
Recreational, Scientific or Educational
2005, p. 3). The modifications likely calycosus var. mancus to enhance
Purposes
occurred in 2004, when the parking area butterfly habitat, management of
was used as a temporary storage pond Neither the petition nor information herbicides and pesticides, and a plan for
for snowmaking water. Given our in our files provides any information eventual elimination of nonnative
knowledge of the habitat requirements pertaining to Factor B with regard to the seeding, and management of the Three
for the butterfly and remaining host Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. Springs area’’ (The Urban Wildlands
plants around the margins of the Group, Inc. 2005, p. 1; Forest Service
C. Disease or Predation
parking area, the petition accurately 1998, p. 39). With a change in
states that Mt. Charleston blue butterfly Neither the petition nor information ownership of the LVSSR in 2004,
habitat was impacted by these in our files provides any information nonnative seeding at the LVSSR was
modifications. pertaining to Factor C with regard to the eliminated. In addition, a Forest Service
Present destruction, modification, or Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. decision notice dated September 13,
curtailment of this subspecies’ habitat or D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 2004, directed the LVSSR to prepare a
range is documented by numerous Mechanisms monitoring plan for disturbed areas,
activities described in the petition and which evolved into a broader Adaptive
verified by information in our files. Of Although the Mt. Charleston blue Management Vegetation Plan
the seven claims made in the petition butterfly is not federally listed, some (Vegetation Plan) and a specific 2005
regarding habitat loss or modification, protections are in place, as documented Program of Work (Forest Service 2004a,
six were supported by information in in the petition. The subspecies is p. 2; Forest Service 2005a, pp. 1–24;
our files: (1) Bisection of habitat by included in a 1998 Conservation Forest Service 2005b, pp. 1–11). One
South Loop Trail and unsanctioned Agreement for the Spring Mountains purpose of this Vegetation Plan was to
trails created in habitat in Kyle Canyon; National Recreation Area, Clark and Nye implement the conservation actions
(2) improvements at LVSSR #1 in Lee Counties, Nevada (Conservation described in section 5.6, as well as
Canyon; (3) construction of a berm at Agreement) signed by the State of Forest Service General Management
LVSSR #2 in Lee Canyon; (4) Nevada, Forest Service, and the Service Plan objectives to benefit numerous
installation and expansion of (Forest Service 1998, pp. 1–50). The endemic species within the LVSSR. The
snowmaking apparatus at LVSSR #2 in Conservation Agreement described Vegetation Plan will guide revegetation
Lee Canyon; (5) expansion of the water conservation actions for the butterfly on efforts at the LVSSR from 2005 through
system at the Youth Camp in Lee lands within the Forest Service’s 2011. The objectives of this Vegetation
Canyon; and (6) expansion of the jurisdiction. In 2000, the 55 species that Plan include: increase self-sustaining
parking lot at LVSSR in Lee Canyon. are the subject of the Conservation populations of sensitive plants species
The petition states that the current Agreement, including the Mt. and butterfly host plants; eliminate the
situation of the Mt. Charleston blue Charleston blue butterfly, were use and occurrence of nonnative species
butterfly is perilous, with the extant incorporated as covered species under in the ski area; describe inventory
colonies all at risk of extinction (The the Clark County Multiple Species guidelines and protocols; describe
Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. Habitat Conservation Plan (Clark County rehabilitation guidelines and protocols;
2). Based on the information in the MSHCP). describe monitoring guidelines and
petition and our files, 15 locations have The petition makes three assertions protocols; and facilitate maintenance,
been occupied by the Mt. Charleston that inadequacy of existing regulatory construction, and reconstruction, as
blue butterfly since 1928. The mechanisms is a threat to the Mt. well as limited expansion, of skiing
subspecies is presumed extirpated from Charleston blue butterfly: (1) opportunities and facilities (Forest
6 of the 15 locations. At another 6 Responsibilities as described by section Service 2005a, p. 3). Monitoring of
locations, the butterfly’s occurrence is 5.6 of the Conservation Agreement have disturbed areas and control plots, and
extant, but ephemeral. The butterfly not been met; (2) required butterfly targeted native seed collection, occurred
exhibits metapopulation dynamics at surveys were not conducted for a project in 2005 and 2006. On-the-ground
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1

these locations, likely emigrating to at the LVSSR in 2005; and (3) no cultivation or planting of native seed
these smaller patches of habitat from the mitigation for the loss of habitat from has not yet occurred. If implementation
core colonies during years when projects described in the petition has of the Vegetation Plan continues with
environmental conditions are favorable. occurred to meet the measurable success, the Service estimates that
The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly has biological goals of no net unmitigated habitat restoration for the Conservation
not been sighted at the majority of these loss under the Clark County MSHCP Agreement’s species, including the Mt.
6 extant ephemeral locations since 1995. (The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, Charleston blue butterfly, will be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:19 May 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 29939

realized in 3 to 5 years (1 to 3 more Natural Recreation Area,’’ and (b) projects described in the petition has
years for seed collection and cultivation, ‘‘Maintain stable or increasing occurred. As described previously,
and 2 additional years for establishment population numbers and host and larval certain responsibilities have been
of habitat). This Vegetation Plan is an plant species’’ (RECON 2000a, Table initiated or met under section 5.6 of the
important step towards meeting the 2.5, pp. 2–154). Conservation Agreement, although
objectives of section 5.6 of the Information in our files confirms the others have not yet been initiated or
Conservation Agreement, however, the petitioner’s claim that mitigation did fully implemented. Pre-activity butterfly
Vegetation Plan was initiated in 2005 not occur for several projects noted in surveys were not conducted prior to
and its success is yet to be determined. the petition, including: (a) The multiple construction projects at the
Thus based on information in our files, expansion of the water system at the LVSSR in 2005, as described in the
the petition is correct that some Youth Camp in Lee Canyon, (b) the petition and verified by information in
responsibilities described in section 5.6 modification of the parking area at the our files. Mitigation for site-specific
of the Conservation Agreement have not LVSSR (likely in 2004), and (c) the impacts to butterfly habitat have been
been initiated or completed, such as construction of an avalanche deflection implemented for some projects, and not
management of the Three Springs area, berm located at the top of the implemented for others. Now it appears
and on-the-ground cultivation or northwestern-most ski run at the LVSSR that there has been a net loss of habitat
planting of native seed for erosion within the LVSSR #2 core colony for the containing Mt. Charleston blue butterfly
control and enhancement of butterfly Mt. Charleston blue butterfly in 2000 or larval host plant or nectar plant species
habitat. However, the petition is 2001 (Forest Service 2002, pp. 15–18). in the Spring Mountains Natural
incorrect with regard to other However, with regard to the projects Recreation Area as a result of
responsibilities under Section 5.6 of the implemented in 2005, there is implementation of specific projects;
Conservation Agreement, as some have information in our files that the Forest however, due to actions recently
been fulfilled or have been initiated, Service based their permitting approval initiated, habitat restoration should be
such as elimination of nonnative for these projects on implementation of realized in the future. Despite these
seeding, and development of the the Vegetation Plan (Forest Service recent restoration efforts, the interim
Vegetation Plan to move toward 2005a, pp. 1–24). One purpose of the loss may still be substantial due to
establishing native seed and butterfly Vegetation Plan is to achieve mitigation restricted size of the occupied habitat
host plants at the LVSSR. for loss of habitat from various LVSSR and the uncertain population status of
(2) The petitioner alleges that project impacts to affected Conservation the subspecies.
butterfly surveys were not completed for Agreement species, including the Mt. Although there are existing
a project implemented in 2005 that Charleston blue butterfly. As stated agreements that intended to conserve
disturbed Mt. Charleston blue butterfly above, the Vegetation Plan was initiated the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, to date
habitat at the LVSSR (The Urban in 2005 with monitoring of disturbed these agreements either have not been
Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3). areas and control plots, as well as implemented or the limited
Section 1.0 of the Conservation targeted native seed collection, in 2005 implementation does not appear to have
Agreement states that the Forest Service, and 2006. The Forest Service and the provided sufficient conservation for this
as a general commitment, would LVSSR made the commitment to subspecies. Given the uncertain
‘‘conduct pre-activity surveys for provide for habitat restoration for population status of and 2006 survey
species of concern prior to taking an projects that were implemented in 2005; results for the Mt. Charleston blue
action’’ (Forest Service 1998, p. 29). however, on-the-ground cultivation or butterfly, it is necessary for the Service
Information in our files confirms that planting of native seed has not yet to re-evaluate the mechanisms currently
pre-activity surveys for butterflies were occurred to replace the lost Mt. in place to protect this subspecies.
not completed before either a 2005 Charleston blue butterfly habitat. As Based on the above information, we find
construction project associated with previously stated, if implementation of that the petition presents substantial
replacing a snowmaking line that the Vegetation Plan continues with information to indicate that listing may
affected the core colony at LVSSR #1, or success, the Service estimates that be warranted due to the inadequacy of
other LVSSR projects implemented in habitat restoration for the Mt. existing regulatory mechanisms to
2005 (Forest Service 2004c, p. 1; Forest Charleston blue butterfly will be protect the Mt. Charleston blue
Service 2005c, p. 7). realized in 3 to 5 years (1 to 3 more butterfly.
(3) The petitioner also asserts that no years for seed collection and cultivation,
mitigation for the loss of habitat from and 2 additional years for establishment E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
projects described in the petition has of habitat). Overall, it appears that there Affecting Its Continued Existence
occurred to provide for no net has been a current net loss of Mt. The petitioner describes the threat to
unmitigated loss under the Clark County Charleston blue butterfly larval host Mt. Charleston blue butterfly habitat
MSHCP (The Urban Wildlands Group, plant or nectar plant species habitat in resulting from vegetation succession
Inc. 2005, p. 3). As a signatory to the the Spring Mountains National and introduced plant species (The
Implementing Agreement of the Clark Recreation Area as a result of specific Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p.
County MSHCP, the Forest Service projects. With successful 2). The petition provides two
committed to implementing mitigation, implementation of the Vegetation Plan, illustrations of this threat: (1) The loss
minimization, and monitoring actions measurable biological goals of the of habitat near Old Town in Kyle
under the Clark County MSHCP for MSHCP may be met within 5 years. Canyon due to shading of the larval host
covered species on Forest Service lands In summary, the petition states the plant (as a result of vegetative
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1

in Clark County. The Clark County following three points: (1) succession) and introduction of
MSHCP Environmental Impact Responsibilities have not been met nonnative species including alfalfa; and
Statement identifies two measurable under section 5.6 of the Conservation (2) the loss of the butterfly from Lee
biological goals for the Mt. Charleston Agreement; (2) pre-activity butterfly Meadow in Lee Canyon (The Urban
blue butterfly: (a) ‘‘No net unmitigated surveys were not conducted for a project Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. 3). Based
loss of larval host plant or nectar plant implemented in 2005; and (3) no on information in our files, Weiss et al.
species habitat in the Spring Mountains mitigation for the loss of habitat from (1995, p. 5) concluded host plant

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:19 May 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1
29940 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules

densities in Lee Meadow appeared evaluation, we find that the petition these locations, likely emigrating to
insufficient to support the Mt. does present substantial information to these smaller patches of habitat from the
Charleston blue butterfly. Decreases in indicate that listing the Mt. Charleston core colonies during years when
the quality or abundance of larval host blue butterfly as threatened or environmental conditions are favorable.
plant and nectar sources can be caused endangered may be warranted. The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly has
by changes in plant community The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is not been sighted at the majority of these
composition, particularly changes known only from the high elevations of 6 extant ephemeral locations since 1995.
associated with succession, disturbance, the Spring Mountains in Clark County As described in the petition and verified
and grazing regimes (Murphy et al. Nevada, where it depends upon its by information in our files, the
1990, p. 43). Changes in vegetation larval host plant, Torrey’s milkvetch. butterfly’s persistently occupied range is
structure and composition associated The range of the Mt. Charleston blue currently known to be restricted to three
with succession may have contributed butterfly is centered on the east side of locations or colonies on approximately
to the loss of Torrey’s milkvetch, and, the Spring Mountains in Kyle and Lee 9 acres (3.6 hectares), and all three
therefore, to the loss of the Mt. Canyons, on lands managed by the locations are threatened by habitat loss
Charleston blue butterfly at historic sites Forest Service in the Spring Mountains and modification. We are further
in Kyle Canyon (Boyd and Austin 2002, National Recreation Area of the concerned that formal surveys in 2006
p. 13). Based on information in our files, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. were unable to identify any adult
Weiss et al. (1997, p. 33) describe the Based on historic records and surveys, butterflies across the subspecies’ known
impact of erosion control plantings of the subspecies has occupied 15 range, including at the three core
grasses and alfalfa (Medicago sativa) on locations since 1928. Currently, the Mt. colonies. While we do not consider the
the butterfly’s host plants at the LVSSR Charleston blue butterfly is known to species extirpated from the three core
as a butterfly management issue due to occupy three core colonies in Kyle and colonies, successful reproduction and
competition with butterfly host plants Lee Canyons. Two of the core colonies emergence of pupae in 2007 is critical
and potential structural changes to of the subspecies in Lee Canyon total for this subspecies.
butterfly habitat. Further information in 3.7 acres (1.5 hectares), while the size of
There is substantial information
our files confirmed that the LVSSR ski the core colony in Kyle Canyon is
presented in the petition and verified by
runs were seeded with both cultivated estimated at 5 acres (2 hectares); thus,
information in our files that listing may
varieties of native and nonnative grasses the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly is
be warranted for the Mt. Charleston blue
and introduced forbs in the 1970s and currently known to occupy less than 9
acres (3.6 hectares) of habitat. butterfly due to the inadequacy of
1980s (Titus and Landau 2003, pp. 1–3).
The petitioner also mentions wild There is substantial information existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor
horse grazing as an issue and notes that presented in the petition and verified by D). The petition describes and
wild horses are nearly always present at information in our files that listing may information in our files verifies that
one of the core colonies of the butterfly be warranted for the Mt. Charleston blue some responsibilities under the
(LVSSR #1) (The Urban Wildlands butterfly due to the present destruction, Conservation Agreement (Sections 1.0
Group, Inc. 2005, p. 2). The petition modification, or curtailment of the and 5.6) have not been met. However,
does not provide any supporting subspecies’ habitat or range (Factor A) some responsibilities under the
documentation to describe this threat or and the inadequacy of existing Conservation Agreement, such as
the extent of impact from the threat to regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). elimination of non-native seeding at the
the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly. Based Present habitat destruction and LVSSR, have been met and still others
on information in our files, the Clark modification to the Mt. Charleston blue have recently been initiated.
County MSHCP identified trampling by butterfly and Torrey’s milkvetch was Furthermore, the petition describes and
wild horses and livestock grazing as documented at the LVSSR in Lee information in our files verifies that
potential threats to the subspecies and Canyon from multiple projects mitigation for site-specific impacts to
other butterflies (RECON 2000b, p. B– implemented since 2000, including butterfly habitat have been implemented
158). The extent of any impact from construction of a berm within a core for some projects, and not implemented
trampling and grazing to the Mt. colony, modifications to a parking lot, for others. It appears that currently there
Charleston blue butterfly and its host and replacement of snowmaking lines has been a net loss of habitat containing
plants is undocumented or unknown. (one of which affected a core colony). In Mt. Charleston blue butterfly larval host
There is insufficient information in addition, expansion of the water system plant or nectar plant species in the
the petition or our files to adequately at the Youth Camp in Lee Canyon Spring Mountains National Recreation
characterize the threat of vegetation affected the butterfly’s habitat. Finally, Area as a result of implementation of
succession, nonnative plant species, or a core colony in Kyle Canyon is bisected specific projects. Due to actions recently
wild horses at the locations identified in by the South Loop Trail and is affected initiated, however, habitat restoration
the petition or across the range of the by an additional unsanctioned trail. should be realized in the future.
subspecies. Therefore, we conclude that The petition states that the current Although there are existing agreements
there is not substantial scientific or situation of the Mt. Charleston blue in place that intended to conserve the
commercial information to indicate that butterfly is perilous with the extant Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, to date
listing the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly colonies all at risk of extinction (The these agreements either have not been
may be warranted due to the other Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005, p. implemented or the limited
natural or manmade factors described in 2). Based on the information in the implementation does not appear to have
the petition. petition and our files, 15 locations have provided sufficient conservation for this
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1

been occupied by the Mt. Charleston subspecies. Given the uncertain


Finding blue butterfly since 1928. The population status of and the 2006
We have reviewed and evaluated the subspecies is presumed extirpated from survey results for the Mt. Charleston
five listing factors with regard to the Mt. 6 of the 15 locations. At another 6 blue butterfly, it is necessary for the
Charleston blue butterfly, based on the locations, the butterfly’s occurrence is Service to re-evaluate the mechanisms
information in the petition and in our extant, but ephemeral. The butterfly currently in place to protect this
files. On the basis of this review and exhibits metapopulation dynamics at subspecies.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:19 May 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 29941

In summary, based on listing factors References Cited Authority


A and D, we conclude that the petition A complete list of all references cited The authority for this action is the
has presented substantial information herein is available, upon request, from Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
that listing may be warranted for the Mt. the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Charleston blue butterfly. We will ADDRESSES).
Dated: May 15, 2007.
initiate a status review to determine
whether listing the subspecies as Author H. Dale Hall,
threatened or endangered is warranted. The primary author of this notice is Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see [FR Doc. E7–10140 Filed 5–29–07; 8:45 am]
ADDRESSES). BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:19 May 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1

You might also like