[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47003-47011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19332]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0041; 4500030113]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
Petitions To List the Two Spring Mountains Dark Blue Butterflies and 
Morand's Checkerspot Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on petitions to list the Spring Mountains dark blue 
butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla purpura and Euphilotes ancilla 
cryptica) and Morand's checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas anicia 
morandi) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (Act), and to designate critical habitat. Based on 
our review, we find that the petition requesting listing of the 
Morand's checkerspot butterfly does not present substantial information 
indicating that listing that species may be warranted. In addition, 
based on our review, we find that the petition requesting listing of 
the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing these 
species may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this 
notice, we will initiate status reviews of the two Spring Mountains 
dark blue butterflies to determine whether listing is warranted. To 
ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting 
scientific and commercial data and other information regarding these 
two subspecies. Based on these status reviews, we will issue a 12-month 
finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned 
action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request 
that we receive information on or before October 9, 2012. The deadline 
for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 
this date. After October 9, 2012, you must submit information directly 
to the Division of Policy and Directives Management (see ADDRESSES 
section below). Please note that we might not be able to address or 
incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2012-0041, 
which is the docket number for this action. You may submit a comment by 
clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.'' If your submission will 
fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information 
collection procedures. If you attach your submission as a separate 
document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach 
multiple documents (such as form letters), our preferred format is a 
spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2012-0041; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information 
section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 
Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, Nevada 89502, by telephone 775-861-
6300 or by facsimile 775-861-6301. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
    This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2012-0041. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Nevada 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see above for address).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are 
required to promptly initiate review of the status of the species 
(status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the 
best available scientific and commercial information, we request 
information on the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies from 
governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific 
community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek 
information on:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.

[[Page 47004]]

    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), which are:
    (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.
    If, after the status review, we determine that listing either or 
both of the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies is warranted, we 
will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the 
Act) under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we 
also request data and information on:
    (1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range 
currently occupied by the species;
    (2) Where these features are currently found;
    (3) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection;
    (4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species''; and
    (5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for 
designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such 
habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    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. 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 information concerning this status review by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the 
Web site. 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 personal identifying 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.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on 
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on 
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted 
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To 
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the 
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day 
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition 
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial 
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to 
promptly initiate a species status review, which we subsequently 
summarize in our 12-month finding.

Petition History

Two Spring Mountains Dark Blue Butterflies Petition
    On October 6, 2011, we received a petition dated September 30, 
2011, from Wild Earth Guardians, requesting that the two Spring 
Mountains dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla purpura and 
Euphilotes ancilla cryptica) be listed as endangered or threatened, and 
that critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly 
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification 
information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a 
December 20, 2011, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we 
reviewed the information presented in the petition and determined that 
issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species under 
section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also stated that we 
are currently required to complete a significant number of listing and 
critical habitat actions by the end of Fiscal Year 2016 pursuant to 
court orders, judicially approved settlement agreements, and other 
statutory deadlines, and that we might conduct a review of the petition 
prior to that time should budget and workload permit. This finding 
addresses the petition.
Morand's Checkerspot Butterfly Petition
    On November 1, 2011, we received a petition dated October 28, 2011, 
from Bruce M. Boyd, requesting that Morand's checkerspot butterfly 
(Euphydryas anicia morandi) be listed as endangered or threatened. The 
petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite 
identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 
424.14(a). In a November 16, 2011, letter to the petitioner, we 
responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition 
and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing 
the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also 
stated that we are currently required to complete a significant number 
of listing and critical habitat actions in Fiscal Year 2016 pursuant to 
court orders, judicially approved settlement agreements, and other 
statutory deadlines, and that we would conduct a review of the petition 
once we secured funds for this action. This finding addresses the 
petition.

Previous Federal Action(s)

Two Spring Mountains Dark Blue Butterflies Petition
    On November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), we added Euphilotes enoptes 
ssp. (dark blue butterfly) to our list of candidate species as a 
Category 2 candidate species. Euphilotes enoptes ssp. is currently 
recognized as E. ancilla. A Category 2 candidate species was a species 
for which we had information indicating that a proposal to list it as 
threatened or endangered under the Act may be appropriate, but for 
which additional information on biological vulnerability and threat was 
needed to support the preparation of a proposed rule. Euphilotes 
enoptes ssp. (dark blue butterfly) (=E. ancilla ssp.) was again 
included in our Category 2 candidate list on November 15, 1994 (59 FR 
58982).

[[Page 47005]]

    In the February 28, 1996, Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (61 FR 
7595), we adopted a single category of candidate species defined as 
follows: ``Those species for which the Service has on file sufficient 
information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support 
issuance of a proposed rule to list but issuance of the proposed rule 
is precluded.'' In previous CNORs, species meeting this definition were 
known as Category 1 candidates for listing. Thus, the Service no longer 
considered Category 2 species as candidates, including Euphilotes 
enoptes ssp. (dark blue butterfly) (=E. ancilla ssp.), and did not 
include it in the 1996 list or any subsequent CNORs. The decision to 
stop considering Category 2 species as candidates was designed to 
reduce confusion about the status of these species and to clarify that 
we no longer regarded these species as candidates for listing.
Morand's Checkerspot Butterfly Petition
    On January 6, 1989, we added Morand's checkerspot butterfly 
(Euphydryas anicia morandi) to our list of candidate species as a 
Category 2 candidate species (54 FR 554-579). Morand's checkerspot 
butterfly was again included in our Category 2 candidate list on 
November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), and in our Category 2 candidate list 
on November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). Morand's checkerspot butterfly was 
not included in the 1996 list or any subsequent CNORs.

Species Information

    The three butterfly subspecies included in the two petitions and 
evaluated in this finding are invertebrates endemic to the Spring 
Mountains in Nevada. All three of the petitioned butterflies are from 
the phylum Arthropoda, class Insecta, order Lepidoptera. The two dark 
blue butterflies are members of the family Lycaenidae. The Morand's 
checkerspot butterfly is a member of the family Nymphalidae. In 
specific sections below, we have included a short summary of available 
population and life-history information for each subspecies, as 
provided in the petitions, their references, and our files.
    The two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies petition provides 
information regarding the subspecies ranking for Euphilotes ancilla 
purpura according to NatureServe (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 4). 
Euphilotes ancilla purpura is considered at the subspecies taxonomic 
level and is ranked imperiled at the subspecies and national levels, 
and imperiled/critically imperiled at the State level, whereas E. a. 
cryptica is not ranked by Natureserve (Natureserve, 2012). In addition, 
Natureserve considers Morand's checkerspot butterfly at the subspecies 
taxonomic level and ranks it as imperiled at the subspecies, national, 
and State levels (Natureserve, 2012). According to the NatureServe Web 
site, assessment of any species ``does not constitute a recommendation 
by NatureServe for listing [that species]'' under the Act (NatureServe 
2012). In addition, NatureServe's assessment procedures include 
``different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic 
coverage [from those of] government lists of endangered and threatened 
species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected 
to coincide'' (NatureServe 2012).
Two Spring Mountains Dark Blue Butterflies
    The taxonomy of the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies was 
recently changed, and this change has been accepted by local experts. 
Prior to 2008, both subspecies were grouped together as Euphilotes 
ancilla purpura, whereas after 2008, E. a. purpura was split into E. a. 
purpura and E. a. cryptica. Austin et al. (2008) notes the differences 
in phenology and host plants between the two Spring Mountains dark blue 
butterflies (E. a. purpura and E. a. cryptica) and describes them as 
two subspecies centered around these biological differences. Based upon 
the information in the petition and in our files discussed above, we 
accept the characterization of the two Spring Mountains dark blue 
butterflies as subspecies.
    The two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla 
purpura and E. a. cryptica) are endemic to the Spring Mountains in 
southern Nevada; E. a. purpura only occurs in Clark County, whereas E. 
a. cryptica occurs in both Clark and Nye Counties (Austin et al. 2008, 
p. 151). Austin et al. (2008) describe the two dark blue butterflies as 
separate subspecies based on differences in phenology and host plants. 
For example, E. a. purpura uses Eriogonum umbellatum var. juniporinum 
(juniper buckwheat) as its larval host plant and has a flight season 
from early May to early July (Austin et al. 2008, p. 156). On the other 
hand, E. a. cryptica uses Eriogonum umbellatum var. subaridum (sulphur-
flower buckwheat) as its larval host plant and has a flight season from 
mid-July to mid-August (Austin et al. 2008, p. 156). The two subspecies 
also differ in the length of their flight seasons, their frequencies of 
visitations to mud, and the length of different life stages (pupation, 
diapause, and emergence); however they look identical (Austin et al. 
2008, p. 156). Euphilotes ancilla purpura is known only from the east 
slope of the Spring Mountains between Willow Creek and West Mud Spring 
and lower Macks Canyon near the northern end of the Spring Mountains in 
Clark County at an elevation range of 1,775-1,950 meters (m) (2,543-
6,398 feet (ft)) (Austin et al. 2008, p. 158). Euphilotes ancilla 
cryptica is known from several sites on both slopes of the Spring 
Mountains in Nye and Clark Counties, Nevada, from Big Timber Spring to 
Potosi Mountain at an elevation range of 1,800-3,000 m (5,906-9,843 ft) 
(Austin et al. 2008, p. 158). The distributions of E. a. purpura and E. 
a. cryptica overlap in Clark County (Austin et al. 2008, p. 151).
Morand's Checkerspot Butterfly
    Gunder (1928) first described Morand's checkerspot butterfly as a 
subspecies. Based upon the information in the petition and in our files 
discussed above, we accept the characterization of Morand's checkerspot 
butterfly as a subspecies.
    Morand's checkerspot butterfly is endemic to the Spring Mountains 
in southern Nevada and occurs in Clark County. It is locally common in 
the meadows on the ridge to Mt. Charleston and above the ski area in 
Lee Canyon, and it generally occurs above 2,012 m (6,601 ft) in 
elevation (Austin and Austin 1980, p. 44). The flight period for 
Morand's checkerspot butterfly is from late June to July (Austin and 
Austin 1980, p. 44). The larval host plants for Morand's checkerspot 
butterfly are Castilleja linariifolia (narrow leaved paint brush), 
Castilleja applegatei ssp. martini (=C. martinii var. clokeyi, wavy 
leaved paint brush), Penstemon eatonii (scarlet bugler, firecracker 
penstemon), P. leiophyllus var. keckii (Charleston beardtongue), and P. 
rostriflorus (scarlet penstemon, beaked beard-tongue) (Weiss et al. 
1995, p. 4; Niles and Leary 2007, p. 55-56; Austin and Leary 2008, p. 
106-107). Morand's checkerspot butterfly appears in three distinct 
phenotypes (the observable properties of an organism) on the Spring 
Mountains (Weiss et al. 1995, p. 4).

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a 
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be 
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more

[[Page 47006]]

of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (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.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual 
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no 
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If 
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may 
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat 
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the 
risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant 
listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the 
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The 
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the 
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of 
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall 
contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be 
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species 
may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding threats to the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies and 
the Morand's checkerspot butterfly, as presented in the petition and 
other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby 
indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Our evaluation 
of this information is presented below.

Two Spring Mountains Dark Blue Butterflies Petition

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that both subspecies of dark blue butterfly are 
at risk from wildfire exacerbated by invasive weeds, habitat 
degradation from recreation, off-road vehicle use, and equestrian use 
(WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 10; Austin et al. 2008, p. 158). 
Specifically, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and red brome (B. rubens) 
are described as being present in the Spring Mountains National 
Recreation Area (SMNRA) and are known to alter natural fire regimes and 
convert landscapes to annual grasslands (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 
10). In addition, the petition states that a fire fuels reduction 
project was approved by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in 2007 
with targeted sites in Euphilotes ancilla purpura and E. a. cryptica 
locations (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 10). The fuels reduction 
project plan analyzed the potential impacts to E. a. purpura, 
concluding that it may impact E. a. purpura, but impacts to E. a. 
cryptica were not separately analyzed (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 
10).
    The petition also notes that ungulates may affect the two Spring 
Mountains dark blue butterflies (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 17). 
Specifically, the petition states that Eriogonum spp. are palatable to 
native ungulates and domestic livestock, and Austin et al. (2008, p. 
153) found that ungulates heavily grazed Eriogonum umbellatum subaridum 
and severely reduced the number of flowers available to Euphilotes 
(WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 17).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition does not present any specific supporting information 
that wildfire exacerbated by invasive weeds may be impacting the two 
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies or is likely to in the future. 
The petition does not present specific information concerning past, 
present, or projected intensity of wildfire in or near areas occupied 
by the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies. The petition does 
not present specific information as to whether this potential threat 
has affected, is affecting, or is likely to affect the subspecies, 
their host plants, or nectar sources. The petition also does not report 
loss of populations or reductions in numbers of either of the 
subspecies as a result of wildfire exacerbated by invasive weeds. We 
have information in our files related to vegetation and fire history in 
the Spring Mountains (Hall 2006; Craig 2010); however, we have no 
information in our files about the impacts of wildfire upon either of 
the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies or their habitats.
    The petition states that ungulates may affect the two Spring 
Mountains dark blue butterflies, and the petition cites Austin et al. 
(2008, p. 153) regarding ungulate grazing and its effect on Eriogonum 
umbellatum subaridum and Euphilotes (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 17). 
Austin et al. (2008, p. 153) states that ungulate grazing was heavy in 
2002, ``severely reducing the number of flowers available to any 
Euphilotes present.'' However, the information in the petition and in 
our files does not provide specific supporting information that 
ungulate grazing may be affecting the two Spring Mountains dark blue 
butterflies now or in the future. The petition does not present 
specific information concerning past, present, or projected intensity 
of ungulate grazing in or near occupied or suitable locations. The 
petition does not present specific information as to whether this 
potential threat has affected, is affecting, or is likely to affect 
either of the two subspecies, their host plants, or their nectar 
sources, other than saying that ungulate grazing did occur in 2002 at 
one site. We have no information in our files related to ungulate 
grazing and its impacts to either of the two Spring Mountains dark blue 
butterflies or their habitats.
    Information in our files confirms that the 2007 Spring Mountains 
Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project analyzed the potential impacts to 
Euphilotes ancilla purpura, concluding that the project ``may impact 
individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or 
loss of viability of the subspecies'' (USDA 2007, p. 18). In addition, 
the project states that ``long-term benefits to larval host and 
nectaring plant populations may occur'' (USDA 2007, p. 18). These 
projects have been implemented, but no post-implementation assessment 
of impacts to these butterfly species has occurred.
    Information in our files references a 2010 Blue Tree Trails Project 
to be conducted in Lee Canyon with the goal of ``diversifying the trail 
experience on the National Recreation Area by designating additional 
multiple-use trails to meet visitor needs for trails outside of 
Wilderness, at lower elevations for a year-round experience that are 
easier to navigate, and located to avoid adverse impacts to natural 
resources'' (USDA 2010, p. 1). The trails system is intended for 
nonmotorized recreation opportunities for equestrians, mountain bike 
users, and hikers, and includes improving 45 miles (mi) (72 kilometers 
(km)), rerouting 17 mi (27 km), and closing 8.5 mi (14 km) of trails, 
resulting in a trail system of approximately 53.5 mi (86 km) in length, 
constructed to meet United States Forest Service pack and saddle trail 
standards (USDA 2010, p. 1). The

[[Page 47007]]

Blue Tree Trails Project aimed to minimize the loss of individual 
sensitive plants and covered butterfly host plants, and minimize the 
loss of habitat (USDA 2010, Appendix C). The Blue Tree Trails Project 
analyzed the potential impacts to the species covered in the Spring 
Mountains Conservation Agreement and Clark County Multiple Species 
Habitat Conservation Plan; Euphilotes enoptes ssp. (Spring Mountains 
dark blue butterfly) was listed as a covered species in the 1998 
Conservation Agreement. The Blue Tree Trails Project analysis 
determined that the project ``may impact individuals, but is not likely 
to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability'' (USDA 2010, 
p. 4).
    Information in our files describes a 2011 Archery Range Restoration 
Project that is designed to ``correct and prevent soil compaction and 
erosion problems, restore and protect natural resource habitat, and 
eliminate unauthorized use of NFS lands'' (USDA 2011, p. 5). This 
project analyzed the impacts to the Spring Mountains dark blue 
butterfly (Euphilotes ancilla purpura and E. a. cryptica), and the 
analysis showed that the project may impact individuals, but is not 
likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability of the 
two subspecies (USDA 2011, p. 3).
    Information in our files reveals that three projects have taken 
place in areas that have the potential to impact the two Spring 
Mountains dark blue butterflies, however, there is no information in 
the petition or in our files regarding post-project conditions to 
indicate that any of these projects may have negatively impacted 
habitat for either of the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies 
such that the petitioned action may be warranted.
    In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, 
as well as other information in our files, does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted due to a fuels reduction project, wildfire 
exacerbated by invasive weeds or ungulate grazing, or recreational 
activities. However, we will further evaluate all factors, including 
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
their habitat or ranges, in our 12-month status review and finding for 
these subspecies.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that collection of the two Spring Mountains 
dark blue butterflies has taken place by scientists and amateur 
collectors for many years (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 16). In 
addition, the petitioner claims to have encountered an individual who 
illegally captured a protected butterfly species in the Spring 
Mountains range (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 16).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition states that collection of butterflies in the Spring 
Mountains has taken place for a long time and that illegal capture of 
Spring Mountains butterflies has occurred. However, the petition does 
not provide information that overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes has negatively 
impacted either of the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies. In 
addition, we have no information in our files related to 
overutilization for these two subspecies. In summary, we find that the 
information provided in the petition, as well as other information in 
our files, does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due 
to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. However, we will further evaluate all factors, 
including overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes, in our 12-month status review and finding for 
these subspecies.

C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition notes that parasitism of Euphilotes larvae is 
expected, although there has been no evidence of parasitism of larvae 
in samples collected from the Spring Mountains (WildEarth Guardians 
2011, p. 16). The petition states that parasitism of butterfly larvae 
by tachnid flies (Diptera) and braconid wasps (Hymenoptera) has been 
recorded at rates of 60 percent in California and Washington (WildEarth 
Guardians 2011, p. 16). The petition also notes that, generally, larvae 
and adult butterflies are preyed upon by many vertebrate and 
invertebrate wildlife (for example, birds, herptofauna, and other 
insects), but it is not known whether predation is a threat to the two 
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 
16). The petition states that disease is not known to be a threat to 
the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies (WildEarth Guardians 
2011, p. 16).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition does not present any specific supporting information 
to suggest that disease or predation are threats that may be impacting 
the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies or are likely to impact 
either of the subspecies in the future. Disease and predation are 
listed in the petition, but the petition does not associate either of 
these threats to actual locations in the Spring Mountains known to be 
occupied by either of the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies. 
The threats are generally listed in the petition, but there is no 
information on existing or probable impacts to either of the subspecies 
associated with these potential threats in the petition or in our 
files. In summary, we find that the information provided in the 
petition, as well as other information in our files, does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to disease or predation. 
However, we will further evaluate all factors, including disease or 
predation, in our 12-month status review and finding for these 
subspecies.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition does not provide any information to suggest that an 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may be a threat to the two 
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition does not provide information that an inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms has negatively impacted the two Spring 
Mountains dark blue butterflies. In addition, we have no information in 
our files related to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
for these two subspecies. In summary, we find that the information 
provided in the petition, as well as other information in our files, 
does not present substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to an 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. However, we will further 
evaluate all factors, including the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms in our 12-month status review and finding for these 
subspecies.

[[Page 47008]]

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition discusses drought and its potential effects on the two 
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies. First, the petition states that 
drought may become even more common in the Great Basin as climate 
change alters future precipitation (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 16). 
Specifically, the petition references Austin et al. (2008) who states 
that exposed larval host plants (Eriogonum umbellatum) may dry out 
before blooming or seed production, and drought may kill host plants, 
especially at lower elevations or in marginal settings (WildEarth 
Guardians 2011, p. 17). Secondly, the petition states that drought may 
contribute to increased atmospheric CO2 by reducing the 
amount of CO2 that is annually taken up by terrestrial 
vegetation; this situation may favor invasive annual grasses, including 
cheatgrass (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 17). Third, the petition 
states that climate change could affect bloom phenology in butterfly 
host plants which could disrupt the butterfly's use of the plants 
(WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 17). Fourth, the petition states that 
butterflies in the Great Basin that exist in small, isolated 
populations will not likely be able to shift to other habitats to adapt 
to climate change (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 18).
    The petition states that hundreds of larval host plants were found 
dead, likely a result of drought and exposure, at a site that is 
considered a source for Euphilotes ancilla purpura, although no year 
was associated with this information in the petition (WildEarth 
Guardians 2011, p. 6). In addition, the petition claims that very few 
butterflies (approximately 20 individuals) were observed over six trips 
to this same site, representing perhaps 5 percent of annual peak 
numbers from the same location 10 years before (WildEarth Guardians 
2011, p. 6).
    The petition also discusses the biological vulnerability of the two 
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies due to their limited 
distribution and apparently small and/or small number of populations 
(WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 18). The petition cites Brook et al. 
(2008, p. 455) as evidence that population size matters and small 
populations are more likely to go extinct as a result of chance events 
(WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 18). In addition, the petition notes that 
characteristic butterfly population fluctuations and short generation 
times, combined with small populations, can influence genetic diversity 
and long-term persistence (Britten et al. 2003, pp. 229, 233). The 
petition further asserts that Euphilotes ancilla purpura and E. a. 
cryptica apparently occur as small populations that may be more 
vulnerable to extirpation (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 18).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition states that very few butterflies (approximately 20 
individuals) were observed during six trips to one location, 
representing perhaps 5 percent of the annual peak numbers at that 
location (likely Euphilotes ancilla purpura) compared with the same 
location 10 years before (WildEarth Guardians 2011, p. 6). However, the 
petition does not state the year in which these surveys took place. 
Overall, the petition provides little information related to the 
distribution, numbers of populations, size of populations, or 
population trends for the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies. 
The petition provides little to no specific information that indicates 
that biological vulnerability may be a threat to the two Spring 
Mountains dark blue butterflies.
    Information in the literature and in our files on numbers of 
individuals reported during various years has most likely grouped all 
individuals of E. a. purpura and E. a. cryptica together in some years 
because the subspecies was not split into two subspecies until 2008 
(Austin et al. 2008). It is therefore difficult to separate out the 
discussions of the distribution, abundance, number and size of 
populations, population trends, and threats by subspecies. For some 
data years, we are able to distinguish which subspecies was observed 
during the surveys based on the sample date (each subspecies has a 
different flight season so we were able to determine which subspecies 
was observed based on the date it was flying). In addition, survey 
methods were not identical between years and sampling efforts for all 
sites.
    Information in our files reveals 9 observations of Euphilotes 
ancilla purpura in 1995, and 13 observations of E. a. cryptica in 1996 
(Weiss et al. 1995, p. 21; Weiss et al. 1997, Map 2.1) (Table 1). In 
1998, there was 1 observation of E. a. purpura and 28-60 individuals of 
E. a. cryptica (Boyd and Austin 1999, Tables 1-12). In 1999, records 
indicate observations of seven individuals which likely included both 
E. a. purpura and E. a. cryptica (Dewberry et al. 2002, p. Appendix 1). 
In 2000, researchers observed 9-13 E. a. cryptica, and E. a. purpura 
was observed but no numbers were given (Boyd and Austin 2001, p. 7). No 
E. a. purpura or E. a. cryptica were detected in 2002 (Dewberry et al. 
2002, p. Appendix 1), and only a single E. a. purpura was seen in 2007 
(Datasmiths 2007, p. 17). Two studies have recently been conducted on 
dark blue butterflies in the Spring Mountains. The first study observed 
a single E. a. purpura in 2010, and 12 E. a. purpura in 2011, although 
additional survey areas were included in 2011 (Pinyon 2010, p. 2; 
Pinyon 2011, p. 22). The second study observed 11 E. a. cryptica and no 
E. a. purpura in 2010 (Thompson et al. 2010, pp. 1-7). Service files 
contain a record of a phone conversation with species experts where 
they indicated that ``decent'' numbers of the early-flying population 
of dark blue butterflies (now considered E. a. purpura) were detected 
in 2006, whereas the late-flying population of the dark blue butterfly 
(now considered E. a. cryptica) was present only at Cold Creek in very 
low numbers (Service 2006, p. 2).

Table 1--Observations of the Two Spring Mountains Dark Blue Butterflies Between 1995 and 2011 From Service Files
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Either E. a.
                          Year                               Euphilotes         Euphilotes     purpura or  E. a.
                                                          ancilla purpura    ancilla cryptica       cryptica
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995...................................................                  9  .................  .................
1996...................................................  .................                 13  .................
1998...................................................                  1              28-60  .................
1999...................................................  .................  .................                  7
2000...................................................           observed               9-13  .................

[[Page 47009]]

 
2002...................................................                  0                  0  .................
2007...................................................                  1  .................  .................
2010...................................................                  1                 11  .................
2011...................................................                 12  .................  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information in our files presents butterfly observations from a 
number of years, but these observations represent varying survey 
efforts and various survey methodologies (Table 1). Therefore, it is 
not possible to compare the observation numbers in our files to the 
petitioner's claim that the population numbers have declined over time. 
While we lack specific survey information about population numbers or 
population declines for the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies 
at this time, the information that is available may represent a cause 
for concern about the population size and potential declining trend of 
these butterflies because they are endemic to the Spring Mountains, 
exist in small, isolated populations, are biologically vulnerable, and 
have limited distributions. Therefore, given the above concerns and the 
information in the petition indicating a potential decline in 
population numbers, we find that there is substantial information that 
the petitioned action may be warranted.
    Based on the information in our files, recent projections of 
climate change in the Great Basin over the next century include: (1) 
Increased temperatures, with an increased frequency of extremely hot 
days in summer; (2) more variable weather patterns and more severe 
storms; (3) more winter precipitation in the form of rain, with 
potentially little change or decreases in summer precipitation; and (4) 
earlier, more rapid snowmelt (United States Environmental Protection 
Agency 1998, pp. 1-4; Chambers and Pellant 2008, pp. 29-33). It is 
difficult to predict local climate change impacts, due to substantial 
uncertainty in trends of hydrological variables, limitations in spatial 
and temporal coverage of monitoring networks, and differences in the 
spatial scales of global climate models and hydrological models (Bates 
et al. 2008, p. 3). Thus, while the information in the petition and our 
files indicates that climate change has the potential to affect 
vegetation and habitats used by butterflies in the Great Basin in the 
long term, there is much uncertainty regarding which habitat attributes 
could be affected, and the timing, magnitude, and rate of changes 
relevant to the two Spring Mountain dark blue butterflies. Therefore, 
the information in the petition and our files does not provide 
substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted 
because neither the petition nor our files provides specific 
information regarding how climate change is likely to impact the two 
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies in the future. Overall, the 
petition and the information in our files presents general information 
about potential impacts to the two Spring Mountains dark blue 
butterflies from climate change, and we will assess those impacts 
further in the status review.
    General biological information in our files indicates that the 
combination of few populations, small ranges, and restricted habitats 
can make a species susceptible to extinction or extirpation from 
portions of its range due to random events such as fire, drought, 
disease, or other occurrences (Shaffer 1987, pp. 71-74; Meffe and 
Carroll 1994, pp. 190-197). We have limited information related to the 
overall abundance, distribution, number and size of populations, or 
population trends for the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies in 
our files. We do not have additional information in our files related 
to biological vulnerability as a threat to either of the two 
subspecies.
    In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, 
as well as other information in our files, presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted due to other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence, especially given the low numbers of 
individuals observed of both subspecies and the petitioner's claim that 
the butterfly's (believed to be Euphilotes ancilla purpura) peak 
numbers are at 5 percent of the numbers from 10 years before. Because 
of the recent (2008) taxonomic change that split E. a. purpura into E. 
a. purpura and E. a. cryptica, we cannot determine with certainty to 
which subspecies much of the data and information in the petition 
refers. As a result, we cannot separate the effects and trend data 
between these two subspecies, and, therefore, without more information, 
we are assuming that any potential impacts and declining trends 
regarding either of these two subspecies actually applies to both 
subspecies. We will further evaluate all factors, including other 
natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence, in our 
12-month status review and finding for these subspecies.

Finding

    Based on our review of the information in the petition and readily 
available in our files, we find that the petition presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the two 
Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla purpura and 
E. a. cryptica) throughout their ranges may be warranted. This finding 
is based on information provided under factor E (see above). We 
determine that the information provided under factors A, B, C, and D is 
not substantial.
    Because we have found that the petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing the two Spring Mountains dark blue 
butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla purpura and E. a. cryptica) may be 
warranted, we will initiate status reviews to determine whether listing 
the two Spring Mountains dark blue butterflies (Euphilotes ancilla 
purpura and E. a. cryptica) under the Act is warranted.
    The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding, 
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our 
regulations, differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial 
data'' standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a 
petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a 
status review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine 
whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a 
thorough status

[[Page 47010]]

review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-
day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month 
findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day 
finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a 
warranted finding.

Morand's Checkerspot Butterfly Petition

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that Morand's checkerspot butterfly is 
recognized as a priority species by the United States Forest Service 
(USFS), and it is recognized as a species of concern in the 
Conservation Agreement for the SMNRA and in the Clark County Multiple 
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Boyd 2011, p. 1). The petition also 
notes that the Nevada Natural Heritage Program is tracking the species 
(Boyd 2011, p. 1).
    The petition lists several threats to the Morand's checkerspot 
butterfly including the proliferation of invasive plants (weeds), an 
elevated risk of wildland fires associated with invasive plants, and 
the loss of larval and adult resources caused by feral horses (Boyd 
2011, p. 2). In addition, the petition discusses concern with the 
survey methods used, the qualifications of the surveyors, and the use 
of data.
    The petition states that a fuels reduction project took place from 
2007 to 2010 and drastically modified a site where Morand's checkerspot 
butterflies occurred (Boyd 2011, p. 4). In addition, the petition 
claims that hundreds of thousands of larval host plants and nectar 
plants were destroyed as a result of this fuels reduction project, and 
the butterfly was impacted by worker trampling, vehicle crushing, 
moving equipment, and the disposal of cut waste (Boyd 2011, p. 4).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition does not present any specific supporting information 
that invasive plants, wildland fires, and feral horses are threats that 
may be impacting Morand's checkerspot butterfly or are likely to impact 
the subspecies in the future. These threats are listed in the petition, 
but the petition does not associate any of these threats to actual 
locations known to be occupied by the subspecies. The threats are 
generally listed in the petition, but there is no information on 
existing or probable impacts to the subspecies associated with these 
potential threats in the petition or in our files. In addition, the 
petition discusses concern with the survey methods used, the 
qualifications of the surveyors, and the decipherability of data. Our 
files contain information indicating that qualified biologists have 
used accepted methodologies to conduct surveys (USDA 2007, pp. 1-7; 
Thompson et al. 2010, pp. 72-73).
    Information in our files indicates that the 2007 Spring Mountains 
Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project analyzed the potential impacts to the 
Morand's checkerspot butterfly, concluding that the project ``may 
impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal 
listing or loss of viability of the subspecies'' (USDA 2007, p. 18). 
Even though the petition states that a Morand's checkerspot butterfly 
site was drastically modified, the petition does not provide specific 
information on the location of the site or evidence to show that the 
butterfly was affected by this project. There is no information in the 
petition or in our files to show that Morand's checkerspot butterfly 
numbers declined after the fuel reduction project or that butterflies 
were impacted as a result of this project.
    In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, 
as well as other information in our files, does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition does not provide any information to suggest that 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes may be a threat to the Morand's checkerspot 
butterfly.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition does not provide information that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes has 
negatively impacted the Morand's checkerspot butterfly. In addition, we 
have no information in our files related to overutilization for this 
subspecies. In summary, we find that the information provided in the 
petition, as well as other information in our files, does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition does not provide any information to suggest that 
disease or predation may be a threat to the Morand's checkerspot 
butterfly.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition does not provide information that disease or predation 
has negatively impacted the Morand's checkerspot butterfly. In 
addition, we have no information in our files related to disease or 
predation for this subspecies. In summary, we find that the information 
provided in the petition, as well as other information in our files, 
does not present substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to disease 
or predation.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition does not provide any information to suggest that an 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may be a threat to the 
Morand's checkerspot butterfly.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition does not provide information that an inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms has negatively impacted the Morand's 
checkerspot butterfly. In addition, we have no information in our files 
related to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for this 
subspecies. In summary, we find that the information provided in the 
petition, as well as other information in our files, does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to an inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition claims that general declines in the numbers of all 
covered butterfly species (covered means that the species is included 
in the Conservation Agreement for the SMNRA

[[Page 47011]]

and in the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan) in 
the Spring Mountains were evident in 2005 and that decreases in the 
numbers of Morand's checkerspot butterfly at some locations were 
identified by 2003 (Boyd 2011, p. 2). Specifically, the petition states 
that at one location, 104 individuals were recorded on a single survey 
day in 2001, whereas 65 were recorded in 2002, and 19 were recorded in 
2003. The petition states that they believe the highest number recorded 
in 2010 was 11, but the petition states that this number is not 
verified (Boyd 2011, p. 2). At another location in 2002, many hundreds 
were seen on each of two visits, whereas none were found in 2007 during 
a single day survey. In addition, no pre-diapause larvae were found and 
no earlier post-diapause larval feeding on the host plants was seen 
during that same survey day (Boyd 2011, p. 2). At a third location in 
2002, the petition states that 46 Morand's checkerspot butterflies were 
seen during a protocol survey and an additional 200-300 individuals 
were seen outside of the transect area, whereas the petition claims 
that only 1-3 individuals were recorded on a given day in 2010 in the 
same two areas (Boyd 2011, p. 2).
    The petition lists drought as a threat to the Morand's checkerspot 
butterfly (Boyd 2011, p. 4).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition claims that declines of Morand's checkerspot butterfly 
have occurred since 2003 as evidenced by declines in survey numbers at 
three unspecified locations (Boyd 2011, p. 2). Information in our files 
leads us to believe that two of these unspecified locations are 
Griffith Peak and Lee Canyon based on similarity of results reported in 
Dewberry et al. (2002, Appendix 1). Information in our files reveals 
that Morand's checkerspot butterfly surveys found 129 in 2010, and 
1,040 in 2011 (Pinyon 2011, p. 22). In addition, Pinyon (2011, p. 23) 
states that Morand's checkerspot butterflies were observed throughout 
the survey period in all three areas surveyed in 2010 and 2011. The 
most observed in a single day in 2010 was 76, and the most observed in 
a single day in 2011 was 343 (Pinyon 2011, p. 23). Given that butterfly 
populations are highly dynamic, and butterfly distributions can be 
highly variable from year to year (Weiss et al. 1997, p. 2), the widely 
varying information in the petition and in our files does not provide 
evidence to show a declining trend in Morand's checkerspot butterflies 
since 2003, as claimed by the petition.
    Drought is listed as a threat in the petition, but the petition 
does not provide any specific information that drought has negatively 
impacted the Morand's checkerspot butterfly, or is likely to impact the 
subspecies in the future. In addition, we have no information in our 
files related to drought as it relates to the effects of climate change 
for this subspecies. In summary, we find that the information provided 
in the petition, as well as other information in our files, does not 
present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that the petitioned action may be warranted due to other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Finding

    Based on our review of the information in the petition and readily 
available in our files, we find that the petition does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that 
listing the Morand's checkerspot butterfly under the Act as endangered 
or threatened may be warranted at this time. We base this conclusion on 
finding no specific information on threats to the subspecies. 
Additionally, we have more recent information in our files that does 
not support the petitioner's claim that Morand's checkerspot butterfly 
has experienced a decrease in its numbers since 2003. The information 
does not suggest that threats are acting on the Morand's checkerspot 
butterfly such that the species may be endangered or become endangered 
now or in the foreseeable future. We make this finding under section 
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations.
    Although we will not review the status of the species at this time, 
we encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will 
assist with the conservation of the Morand's checkerspot butterfly. If 
you wish to provide information regarding the Morand's checkerspot 
butterfly, you may submit your information or materials to the Field 
Supervisor/Listing Coordinator, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
ADDRESSES), at any time.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Nevada Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office and the Pacific Southwest Regional 
Office.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: July 27, 2012.
Rowan W. Gould,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-19332 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P