[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3739-3753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01210]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0069; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BG01
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas anicia
cloudcrofti), a butterfly from New Mexico, as an endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a
review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we
find that listing the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to
list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly as an endangered
species under the Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would
add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
extend the Act's protections to the species. We find that the
designation of critical habitat for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is not determinable at this time.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
March 28, 2022. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by March 11, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number or RIN
for this rulemaking (presented above in the document headings). For
best results, do not copy and paste either number; instead, type the
docket number or RIN into the Search box using hyphens. Then, click on
the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the
left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the
Proposed Rule box to locate this
[[Page 3740]]
document. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2021-0069, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Sartorius, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field
Office, 2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 505-346-2525.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that
a species warrants listing, we are required to promptly publish a
proposal in the Federal Register, unless doing so is precluded by
higher-priority actions and expeditious progress is being made to add
and remove qualified species to or from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Service will make a determination
on our proposal within 1 year. If there is substantial disagreement
regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the available data relevant
to the proposed listing, we may extend the final determination for not
more than six months. To the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
we must designate critical habitat for any species that we determine to
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species
as an endangered or threatened species and designation of critical
habitat can be completed only by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We propose to list the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly as an endangered species under the Act.
As explained later in this document, we conclude that the designation
of critical habitat for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
is not determinable at this time.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is primarily threatened by overgrazing by large
ungulates, recreation, climate change, nonnative plants, and an altered
wildfire regime.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is
an endangered or a threatened species must be made ``solely on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species is threatened
instead of
[[Page 3741]]
endangered, or we may conclude that the species does not warrant
listing as either an endangered species or a threatened species.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On January 28, 1999, we received a petition from the Southwest
Center for Biological Diversity (now Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD)) requesting emergency listing of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly as endangered with critical habitat. On December
27, 1999, we published a 90-day finding that the petition presented
substantial information that listing may be warranted, but that
emergency listing was not warranted (64 FR 72300).
On September 6, 2001, we published a 12-month finding and proposed
rule to list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly as
endangered with critical habitat (66 FR 46575). On December 21, 2004,
we published a withdrawal of the proposed rule (69 FR 76428),
concluding that the threats to the species were not as great as we had
perceived when we proposed it for listing.
On July 5, 2007, we received another petition from Forest Guardians
(now WildEarth Guardians) and CBD to list the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly under the Act due to ongoing threats, such as
cattle and feral horse grazing, noxious weeds, collection, and climate
change, and an imminent plan to spray for insect pests. On December 5,
2008, we published a 90-day finding that the petition presented
substantial information that listing may be warranted (73 FR 74123). On
September 2, 2009, we published a 12-month finding that listing was not
warranted (74 FR 45396).
Please refer to the previous proposed listing and critical habitat
rule (66 FR 46575; September 6, 2001), the withdrawal of the proposed
listing and critical habitat rule (69 FR 76428; December 21, 2004), and
the not-warranted 12-month finding (74 FR 45396; September 2, 2009) for
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly for a detailed
description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.
Since we published the not-warranted rule in 2009, drought from
climate change has worsened in New Mexico, worsening habitat conditions
for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. Further, during
abnormally dry conditions, both feral horses and elk switch to browsing
certain plants that are important for the butterfly. Additionally,
recreation on the Lincoln National Forest has increased in recent
years. Due to heightened concern about the impact of these stressors on
the habitat of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, we
initiated a discretionary status review of the species in January 2021.
On March 1, 2021, we received a petition from CBD to list the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly as endangered with critical
habitat. At that time, our analysis was already underway, and we
included the information provided in the petition in our analysis of
the species' status for consideration in this decision.
Supporting Documents
An assessment team prepared a current condition assessment report
for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. The team was
composed of Service biologists in consultation with other species
experts. The report represents a compilation of the best scientific and
commercial data available concerning the status of the species,
including the impacts of past and present factors (both negative and
beneficial) affecting the species. In accordance with our joint policy
on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the
role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we will seek the
expert opinions of at least three appropriate specialists regarding the
report. The report will be made available for peer and partner review
concurrently with this proposed listing determination. Any information
we receive will be incorporated into a final rule.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (butterfly) is a
subspecies of the Anicia checkerspot, or variable checkerspot, in the
Nymphalidae (brush-footed butterfly) family that is native to the
Sacramento Mountains in south-central New Mexico. The species requires
host plants for larvae, nectar sources for adults, and climatic
moisture.
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is a small butterfly
with a wingspan of approximately 5 centimeters (cm) (2 inches (in))
that has a checkered pattern with dark brown, red, orange, cream, and
black spots, punctuated with dark lines (Ferris and Holland 1980, p.
5). The butterfly's antennae have yellow-orange clubs at the tip, and
they have orange legs and eyes (Glassberg 2017, p. 207). Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly's larvae are between 0.5 to 1.0 cm (0.2
to 0.4 in) in length. Over time, the larvae change from bare and brown
to wooly and black with orange hairs (Service et al. 2005, p. 7).
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly inhabits high-
altitude meadows in the upper-montane and subalpine zone at elevations
between 2,380 and 2,750 meters (m) (7,800 and 9,000 feet (ft)) within
the Sacramento Mountains, which are an isolated mountain range in
south-central New Mexico (Service 2005 et al., p. 9). The ecosystem at
this elevation usually is cool and wet, supporting diverse and robust
plant life.
The main larval host plant for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly is the New Mexico beardtongue (Penstemon neomexicanus)
(Ferris and Holland 1980, p. 7), also known as New Mexico penstemon.
The preferred adult nectar source is orange sneezeweed (Helenium
(Hymenoxys) hoopesii), a native perennial forb (Service et al. 2005, p.
9). Other plants in the butterfly's habitat include valerian (Valeriana
edulis), arrowleaf groundsel (Senecio triangularis), curlycup gumplant
(Grindelia squarrosa), figworts (Scrophularia sp.), penstemon
(Penstemon sp.), skyrocket (Ipomopsis aggregata), milkweed (Asclepias
sp.), Arizona rose (Rosa woodsii), and Wheeler's wallflower (Erysimum
capitatum) (Forest Service 1999, entire).
In the Sacramento Mountains, small daily rainstorms (monsoons) are
common during the summer months. During this cycle, adult butterflies
are active during mid-morning when the sunlight has warmed the air but
before
[[Page 3742]]
rainstorms move into the area in the afternoon (Forest Service 1999, p.
3). On chilly, cloudy days when temperatures are around 60 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (16 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), butterflies are
inactive. Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies are most active
during sunny days when temperatures remain near 70 [deg]F (21 [deg]C)
(Forest Service 1999, p. 4). The optimal temperature range is between
73 and 80 [deg]F (23 and 27 [deg]C) (Ryan 2021a, pers. comm.). When
temperatures regularly exceed 80 [deg]F (27 [deg]C) during the summer
months, few adult butterflies were detected (Hughes 2021a, pers.
comm.).
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is univoltine,
meaning there is one generation per year. The butterfly's life cycle is
synchronized with the development of host and nectar plants. The flight
season lasts from mid-June to the end of August. The exact timing of
adult flight can vary dramatically from one year to the next (Service
et al. 2005, pp. 10-11). The adult butterflies stagger their emergence
from pupation, with numbers peaking around the second week of the
flight season. Females deposit a cluster of eggs on the underside of
New Mexico beardtongue leaves. A female can lay two to three sets of
eggs during her short lifetime (Service et al. 2005, pp. 10-11). The
eggs hatch within 2 weeks, and larvae collectively create a protective
silken shelter, known as a tent, over the host plant, feeding upon it
until winter or the plant is defoliated (Pratt and Emmel 2010, p. 108).
Caterpillars at this stage are relatively immobile and rely on host
plant health and abundance to complete the first stages of their life
cycle (Arriens et al. 2020, p. 2). Caterpillars can leave the plant and
search for additional resources, but it is unknown how far they can
travel in search of food (Pratt and Emmel 2010, p. 108; Service et al.
2005, p. 11).
After the third or fourth growth cycle, the larvae enter a period
of arrested metabolism known as diapause. Diapause begins between late
September and early October, depending on environmental conditions.
During diapause, larvae probably remain in leaf or grass litter near
the base of shrubs, under the bark of conifers, or in the loose soils
associated with pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) mounds (see 66 FR
46575; September 6, 2001). The larvae remain in diapause until warm
spring temperatures, moisture events, host plant growth, or some
combination of these events prompts individuals to come out of their
suspended state (Service et al. 2005, p. 11). It might be possible for
caterpillars to re-enter or remain in diapause for more than one year
if environmental conditions are not conducive for growth (Service et
al. 2005, p. 11).
Between March and April, post-diapause larvae emerge and begin to
feed again. In the spring, larvae are more mobile than they were in the
fall, moving on average 2.6 meters from their natal tents (Pittenger
and Yori 2003, p. 3). They have three or four more growth stages before
pupating (forming a chrysalis). Precisely what triggers caterpillars to
initiate pupation is not well understood, but likely relies on various
environmental cues (Service et al. 2005, p. 11). As many as 98 percent
of individuals do not survive to the adult stage (Ryan 2021b, pers.
comm.).
Because the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly has a life-
history pattern similar to other butterflies in the Euphydryas genus
that exist as metapopulations, it is likely that this butterfly also
has a metapopulation structure (Ehrlich et al. 1975, p. 221; Murphy and
Weiss 1988, pp. 192-194). A metapopulation is a group of local
populations within an area, where typically migration from one local
population to other areas containing suitable habitat is possible, but
not routine (Murphy and Weiss 1988, p. 192). Movement between areas
containing suitable habitat (i.e., dispersal) is restricted due to
inhospitable conditions around and between areas of suitable habitat
(Service et al. 2005, p. 15). Metapopulation-level processes appear to
be critical to the long-term persistence of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly.
Butterflies in the genus Euphydryas are typically restricted to
specific habitats (Ehrlich et al. 1975, p. 225; Cullenward et al. 1979,
p. 1; Murphy and Weiss 1988, p. 197). The extent of the historical
range of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is unknown due
to limited information collected on this subspecies before its
description in 1980 (Ferris and Holland 1980, p. 7). Although the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot's historical range is unknown, the
species is thought to have once occupied a more extensive (but still
limited) area based upon the location of its meadow habitat.
Surveys completed between 1996 and 1997 found that the butterfly
occupies roughly 85 square kilometers (33 square miles) within the
vicinity of the village of Cloudcroft (see 66 FR 46575; September 6,
2001). However, recent surveys indicate that the butterfly's suitable
habitat is likely less than 2 square miles within the range (Forest
Service 2020b, entire). The U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) has
been conducting presence-or-absence surveys since 1998 to estimate the
range of the butterfly (Forest Service 1999, p. 2). Based on the best
available information, the butterfly continues to exist within the same
general localities (Pittenger and Yori 2003, p. 15; McIntyre 2005, pp.
1-2; McIntyre 2008, p. 1; Ryan 2007, pp. 11-12).
The range of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly has
always been discontinuous and fragmented. Spruce-fir forests punctuate
suitable butterfly habitat comprised of mountain meadows, creating
intrinsic barriers to butterfly dispersal and effectively isolating
populations from one another (Pittenger and Yori 2003, p. 1). It is
likely that the meadow habitat upon which the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly relies was influenced by fire (Brown et al. 2001,
pp. 116-117). The historical fire regime would have allowed for more
temporary connectivity between populations as it opened up the canopy
of trees that separate meadows. However, fire suppression on public and
private lands to protect commercial and private development in suitable
habitat has resulted in the encroachment of conifers.
The Mescalero Apache Nation shares the northern border with the
Sacramento Ranger District on the Lincoln National Forest. This border
is the northern limit of butterfly surveys. We do not know if the range
of the butterfly extends into the lands of the Mescalero Apache Nation
because, to our knowledge, no surveys have been conducted on their
lands (see 66 FR 46575; September 6, 2001). Although we do not have
information on habitat on Mescalero Apache Nation lands, it is unlikely
that there is a significant amount of suitable habitat present there
because it is generally lower elevation than the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly requires (i.e., between 2,380 and 2,750 m (7,800
and 9,000 ft)) and is not proximal (i.e., provides connectivity) to
known butterfly localities (see 66 FR 46575; September 6, 2001).
Since 1998, populations have been known from 10 meadow units on
Forest Service land (Forest Service, 1999, p. 2). The meadows cover the
occupied areas within the species' range and give the most accurate
representation of species and habitat conditions available. These
meadow units include Bailey Canyon, Pines Meadow Campground, Horse
Pasture Meadow, Silver Springs Canyon, Cox Canyon, Sleepygrass Canyon,
Spud Patch Canyon, Deerhead Canyon, Pumphouse Canyon, and
[[Page 3743]]
Yardplot Meadow. The species has been extirpated from several of these
meadows recently. The Yardplot Meadow was sold and developed, while
suitable habitat in Horse Pasture Meadow was eliminated by logging
(Forest Service 2017, p. 3). No adults or caterpillars have been
detected within Pumphouse Canyon since 2003, and the species has likely
been extirpated at that site (Forest Service 2017, p. 3). In 2020, all
10 meadows were surveyed for butterflies and larvae, and a total of
eight butterflies were detected in only Bailey Canyon and Pines Meadow
Campground combined (Forest Service 2020b, p. 3), and no larval tents
were found at any site (Forest Service 2020b, pp. 1-3; Hughes 2020,
pers. comm.).
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The
Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species
because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The current condition assessment report documents the results of
our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and
commercial data regarding the status of the species, including an
assessment of the potential threats to the species. The current
condition assessment report does not represent a decision by the
Service on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary
of the key results and conclusions from the current condition
assessment report; the full report can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0069 and at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/.
To assess Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly viability, we
used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310).
Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
Our analysis can be categorized into several sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current conditions of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived
[[Page 3744]]
at its current condition. Throughout these stages, we used the best
available information to characterize viability as the ability of a
species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this
information to inform our regulatory decision.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
Below, we review the biological condition of the species and its
resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and
future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and
the risks to that viability.
For the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly to maintain
viability, its populations or some portion thereof must have sufficient
resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Several factors influence
the resiliency of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
populations, including larval and adult abundance and density, in
addition to elements of the species' habitat that determine whether
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly populations can survive and
reproduce. These resiliency factors and habitat elements are discussed
in detail in the current condition assessment report and are summarized
here.
Species Needs
Abundance and Density
To successfully reproduce and increase their fecundity and
abundance, butterflies need access to mates. The Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is not a long-distance flier and probably relies
on local abundance and population density to successfully mate and
reproduce (Pittenger and Yori 2003, p. 39). Higher densities and more
abundant individuals result in more successful mating attempts and
ensure species viability. Metapopulation dynamics are also maintained
by abundance and density within meadows (Pittenger and Yori 2003, pp.
39-40).
Host Plants
The most crucial habitat factor for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is the New Mexico beardtongue's presence and
abundance (McIntyre 2021a, pers. comm.). The larvae rely nearly
entirely upon the New Mexico beardtongue during pre- and post-diapause.
Because of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly's dependency
on New Mexico beardtongue, it is vulnerable to any type of habitat
degradation, which reduces the host plant's health and abundance
(Service et al. 2005, p. 9).
New Mexico beardtongue is a member of the Plantaginaceae, or
figwort, family (Oxelman et al. 2005, p. 425). These perennial plants
prefer wooded slopes or open glades in ponderosa pine and spruce/fir
forests at elevations between 1,830 and 2,750 m (6,000 and 9,000 ft)
(New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999, entire). New Mexico
beardtongue is native to the Sacramento Mountains within Lincoln and
Otero Counties (Sivinski and Knight 1996, p. 289). The plant is
perennial, has purple or violet-blue flowers, and grows to be half a
meter tall (1.9 ft). New Mexico beardtongue occurs in areas with loose
soils or where there has been recent soil disturbance, such as eroded
banks and pocket gopher burrows (Pittenger and Yori 2003, p. ii). Some
plant species within the figwort family, including the New Mexico
beardtongue, contain iridoid glycosides, a family of organic compounds
that are bitter and an emetic (vomit-inducing) for most birds and
mammal species. The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, like
other subspecies of Euphydryas anicia, sequester the iridoid glycosides
as caterpillars. It is believed that these compounds make the larvae
and adult butterflies unpalatable to predators (Gardner and Stermitz
1987, pp. 2152-2167).
Nectar Sources
Access to nectar sources is needed for adult Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterflies to properly carry out their life cycle. The
primary adult nectar source is orange sneezeweed (Service et al. 2005,
p. 9). To contribute to the species' viability, orange sneezeweed must
bloom at a time that corresponds with the emergence of adult Sacramento
Mountain checkerspot butterflies. Although orange sneezeweed flowers
are most frequently used, the butterfly has been observed collecting
nectar on various other native nectar sources (Service et al. 2005, pp.
9-10). If orange sneezeweed is not blooming during the adult flight
period (i.e., experiencing phenological mismatch), survival and the
butterfly's fecundity could decrease.
Habitat Connectivity
Before human intervention, the habitat of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly was dynamic, with meadows forming and
reconnecting due to natural wildfire regimes (Service et al. 2005, p.
21). These patterns would have facilitated natural dispersal and
recolonization of meadow habitats following disturbance events,
especially when there was high butterfly population density in adjacent
meadows (Service et al. 2005, p. 21). Currently, spruce-fir forests
punctuate suitable butterfly habitat, comprised of mountain meadows,
creating intrinsic barriers to butterfly dispersal and effectively
isolating populations from one another (Pittenger and Yori 2003, p. 1).
Preliminary genetic research suggested there is extremely low gene flow
across the species' range or between meadows surveyed (Ryan 2021a,
pers. comm.). If new sites are to become colonized or recolonized by
the butterfly, meadow areas will need to be connected enough to allow
dispersal from occupied areas. Therefore, habitat connectivity is
needed for genetically healthy populations across the species' range
(Service 2021, p. 8).
Risk Factors for the Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly
We reviewed the potential risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors)
that could be currently affecting the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. In this proposed rule, we will discuss only those factors in
detail that could meaningfully impact the status of the species. Those
risk factors that are unlikely to have significant effects on
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly populations, such as human
collection, disease, parasites, predation, insecticides, habitat loss,
and livestock grazing, are not discussed here but are evaluated in the
current condition assessment report. For example, livestock grazing has
the potential to impact the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
through various mechanisms (Service et al. 2005, pp. 29-30; Forest
Service 2008, p. 70; McIntyre 2010, pp. 76-77, 94-104; Forest Service
2019, p. 21). However, because there are no active grazing allotments
in any areas occupied by the butterfly, livestock grazing is not a
primary risk factor for the status of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly. The primary risk factors (i.e., threats)
affecting the status of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
are overgrazing by large ungulates (Factor A), recreation (Factor A),
climate change (Factor E), nonnative plants (Factor A), and an altered
wildfire regime (Factor A).
Overgrazing by Large Ungulates
Historically, Merriam's elk (Cervus canadensis merriami), an
extinct subspecies of elk, grazed meadows within the Sacramento
Mountains. Under normal conditions, these species likely coexisted
without impacting the existence of the butterfly. Rocky Mountain elk
(Cervus canadensis nelsoni) have been introduced to the
[[Page 3745]]
Sacramento Mountains, filling the previous ecological niche held by
Merriam's elk (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2009,
unpaginated). At natural population levels and normal environmental
conditions, elk do not pose a significant threat to the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly or its habitat. In fact, some studies
have shown a positive correlation between elk grazing and caterpillar
abundance (McIntyre 2010, pp. 66-69). Should elk herds expand beyond
natural levels or occur during times of resource scarcity, browse
pressure from elk can pose a significant threat to the butterfly's
habitat and viability (Service 2021, p. 13).
Feral horses were inadvertently released onto the Lincoln National
Forest around 2012. Horses are not native to the Sacramento Mountains
and add significant browse pressure to meadows. Larger than elk, horses
consume large quantities of vegetation. Roughly 60,000 horses now live
throughout the Sacramento Mountains (Ryan 2021, pers. comm.).
Under typical habitat conditions, the larval host plant, New Mexico
beardtongue, is not a main food source for large ungulates. However,
during abnormally dry conditions, both horses and elk switch to
browsing New Mexico beardtongue as other food plants become scarce
(McIntyre 2010, pp. 71-73). New Mexico beardtongue remains as small
rosettes less than an inch tall and does not flower when there is
significant browse pressure from large herbivores. These small, stunted
plants are not large enough to support tent colonies of caterpillars;
any larvae will starve after hatching (Forest Service 2020b, p. 11).
Feral horse and overpopulated elk browsing, compounded with drought
due to climate change, significantly impact habitat within meadow
ecosystems in the range of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. Over the past several years, sustained drought in Otero
County has driven large herbivores to graze most meadow areas to the
ground (McMahan et al. 2021, pp. 1-2). Currently, vegetation for host
plant and nectar sources is scarce in all the meadows throughout the
range of the species (Forest Service 2020, p. 11).
In summary, overgrazing by large ungulates results in decline of
suitable habitat, limiting larval host plants and adult nectar sources.
All meadow units within the range are experiencing impacts from
overgrazing.
Recreation
Over the past 10 years, recreation has increased in the Lincoln
National Forest. The previous proposed listing rule (66 FR 46575;
September 6, 2001) determined that off-road vehicle use on Forest
Service trails posed some threat to meadow units; off-road vehicle use
continues to this day and has increased in popularity. Large
recreational vehicle (RV) use has also increased, and the Forest
Service does not require permits for parking vehicles within the
Lincoln National Forest (Service 2021, p. 14). Meadows within the range
of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot are popular with RV users
because they are open, flat, and easily accessible by road (Hughes
2021b, pers. comm.). A variety of these impacts (e.g., soil compaction,
barren ground, trampled food plants, multiple trails, vehicle tracking)
are evident in areas used by larval and adult life stages of the
Sacramento Mountains butterflies; these impacts are reducing the
quality or quantity of suitable habitat in and around developed
campgrounds or undeveloped campsites in meadows known to support the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Hughes 2021b, pers. comm.).
Recreation can negatively affect the butterfly in several ways.
Trampling and crushing can physically kill both individual butterflies
and caterpillars. While adults can fly away, these butterflies are
slow, especially on cold mornings. Recreational activities can also
crush plants, including New Mexico beardtongue and orange sneezeweed.
During times of drought, these plants are especially vulnerable and
unlikely to survive repeated damage (Service 2021, p. 14).
Additionally, RVs compact soil where large vehicles are parked.
Repeated trampling by humans around the vehicles, caused by normal
camping activities, will further compact soils, making it less likely
for New Mexico beardtongue to recover or re-establish in former
campsites (Hughes 2021b, pers. comm.).
In summary, recreation by humans can directly kill Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterflies and their larvae. All meadow units
within the range are experiencing some level of impact from recreation.
Climate Change
Climate change is impacting natural ecosystems in the southwestern
United States (McMahan et al. 2021, p. 1). The Sacramento Mountains are
sky islands surrounded by a matrix of desert grassland, which hosts a
unique mix of flora and fauna (Brown et al. 2001, p. 116). This
ecosystem is sensitive even to small changes in temperature and
precipitation. Such changes to the environment can significantly alter
air temperature, the amount of precipitation, and the timing of
precipitation events (Service et al. 2005, p. 37).
New Mexico has been in a drought for the past several years.
Roughly 54 percent of New Mexico is currently experiencing an
exceptional drought, including the Sacramento Mountains (McMahan et al.
2021, pp. 1-2). Droughts of this severity push wildlife to alter
behavior based on available resources, while vegetation in habitats
becomes extremely degraded (McMahan et al. 2021, entire).
Over the past several years, annual precipitation levels have
decreased throughout the butterfly's range. Snowfall and corresponding
snowpack have remained well below normal levels (Forest Service 2020b,
pp. 11-12). Some alpine butterflies need high levels of snowpack levels
during diapause to shelter from wind and cold temperatures. The same
might be true for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, as
the species likely evolved with higher levels of winter snowpack than
are common over the past decade (Hughes 2021a, pers. comm.). However,
while snowpack might be an important factor, we do not have enough
evidence to analyze the effects of low snow years on the butterfly.
Recent shifts in climate due to human-induced climate change can
impact how species interact with their environment. The timing of
butterfly life-history events during an annual cycle shift due to
increases in temperature, changes in humidity, and length of growing
season. These shifts can directly be attributed to the effects of
climate change. For habitat specialists such as the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, shifts in phenological timing can have
important consequences for population dynamics and viability (Colorado-
Ruiz et al. 2018, pp. 5706-5707). It is likely that climate change has
already caused some level of phenotypic mismatch (when life-history
traits are no longer advantageous due to changes in the environment)
between the butterfly, host plants, and nectar sources. This shift
negatively impacts the butterfly because it has adapted to specific
timing of resource availability (i.e., growth of host plants, blooming
of nectar sources) in various stages of its life cycle, and climate
change has altered the timing, quality, and quantity of those
resources.
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly needs adequate
[[Page 3746]]
vegetation growth in host plants and nectar sources during the summer
months to survive (Service et al. 2005, p. 15). Vegetation growth
within the butterfly's range appears to rely heavily on summer rains.
Large rainfall events typically form during the mid-summer months in
the Sacramento Mountains, marking the beginning of the monsoon season.
These midday showers occur almost daily for several months, stimulating
much of the vegetation to grow and proliferate during the midsummer
season. Specifically, New Mexico beardtongue growth increases in
response to the monsoons. It is thought that moisture might also
encourage the butterflies to emerge from diapause as well (Service et
al. 2005, pp. 37-38).
Climate change is impacting the timing of monsoon events throughout
the Southwest (Service 2021, p. 15). New Mexico beardtongue and other
plant species in sub-alpine meadows are adapted to the pulse of
moisture from monsoons (Service et al. 2005, pp. 37-38). With a lack
of, or altered, monsoon rains, the butterfly is at risk, as the species
relies on vegetation growth dependent upon the timing of precipitation.
The 2020 monsoon season was an exceptionally weak one, with far
less precipitation falling than in an average summer (McMahan et al.
2021, unpaginated). As a result, New Mexico beardtongue growth was also
weak; few plants grew larger than small rosettes on the ground. Even
fewer plants survived to produce flowers (Forest Service 2020b, p. 12).
Some experts believe that the dry conditions, compounded with increased
browse pressure from large ungulates, contributed to the deterioration
of habitat throughout the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly's
range (Ryan et al. 2021, pers. comm.).
In summary, climate change impacts viability of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly. All meadow units within the range are
experiencing impacts from climate change.
Nonnative Plants
Nonnative plants have begun to encroach into meadow areas within
the Lincoln National Forest. Other species of butterfly had become
scarcer when nonnative plants appeared in suitable butterfly habitats
(Hughes 2021b, pers. comm.). During the drought, Kentucky bluegrass
(Poa pratensis) proliferated within meadow areas. This aggressive,
nonnative plant, which is primarily windblown, can outcompete native
wildflowers, such as New Mexico beardtongue. As nonnative plants begin
to expand their influence, native plants, host and nectar plants for
butterflies, such as New Mexico beardtongue and orange sneezeweed, are
likely to become scarcer (Kennedy 2020, pers. comm.; 62 FR 2313,
January 16, 1997).
In summary, nonnative plants can outcompete the native plants that
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies and their larvae require.
All meadow units within the range are experiencing some level of impact
from nonnative plants.
Altered Wildfire Regime
Fire is a natural part of the Sacramento Mountains ecosystem and
would have historically maintained many of the ecosystem processes
within the butterfly's range. The Lincoln National Forest has largely
suppressed wildfires over the past 150 years (Service et al. 2005, p.
21). Before human intervention, there would have been gradual ecosystem
clines between meadows and forests. Grassland corridors or sparsely
forested glades would have connected meadow areas. These habitat types
would have allowed for the butterfly to pass through, thereby
maintaining metapopulation dynamics. Fire exclusion and suppression
have reduced the size of grasslands and meadows by allowing the
encroachment of conifers, and these trends are projected to continue
(Service et al. 2005, pp. 21-22). No significant wildfires have
occurred in butterfly habitat since 1916 (Service et al. 2005, p. 21).
Before active fire suppression, fire in the Sacramento Mountains
occurred at intervals between three and ten years (Forest Service 1998,
p. 63). These frequent, low-intensity, surface fires historically
maintained a forest that was more open (i.e., more non-forested patches
of different size; more large, older trees; and fewer dense thickets of
evergreen saplings). Such low-intensity fires are now rare events. A
large fire can occur within the range of the species; there have been
at least nine large, severe wildfires (over 90,000 ac (34,000 ha)) in
the Sacramento Mountains during the past fifty years (Forest Service
1998, p. 63). Trees and other woody vegetation have begun encroaching
into suitable meadow habitats for the butterfly. Current forest
conditions make the chances of a high-severity fire within the range of
the butterfly increasingly likely (Service et al. 2005, p. 21).
It is likely that fire exclusion and historical cattle grazing have
altered and increased the threat of wildfire in ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa) and mixed conifer forests in the semi-arid western interior
forests, including New Mexico (Forest Service 1998, pp. 3, 63).
Further, there has been a general increase in the dominance of woody
plants, with a decrease in the herbaceous (non-woody) ground cover used
by the butterfly (Service et al. 2005, pp. 32-33). These data indicate
that the quality and quantity of the available butterfly habitat is
decreasing rangewide. Therefore, we conclude that fire exclusion has
substantially affected the species and will likely continue to
significantly degrade the quality and quantity of suitable habitat.
In summary, the altered fire regime can impact Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterflies and their larvae. All meadow units within the
range are experiencing impacts from altered fire regime.
Summary
Our analysis of the current influences on the needs of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly for long-term viability
revealed there are several threats that pose the largest risk to
viability: Overgrazing by large ungulates, recreation, climate change,
nonnative plants, and an altered wildfire regime. These influences
reduce the availability of host plants and nectar sources, thereby
reducing the quantity and quality of habitat, in addition to reducing
ecological and genetic diversity.
Species Condition
The current condition of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly considers the risks to those populations that are currently
occurring. In the current condition assessment report, for each
population, we developed and assigned condition categories for two
demographic factors and three habitat factors that are important for
viability of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. The
condition scores for each habitat factor were then used to determine an
overall condition of each population and meadow: High, moderate, low,
very low, or extirpated.
Two populations of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
remain in two meadows, Bailey Canyon and Pines Meadow Campground.
Historically, the populations likely had greater connectivity, but
today they are small and isolated due to the altered wildfire regime
resulting in a higher concentration of trees that separate meadows.
Repopulation of extirpated locations is unlikely without human
assistance. If butterflies have been detected at any site once or more
during the last 3 years, that population is not considered extirpated.
The two remaining populations are in very low
[[Page 3747]]
condition in terms of demographic factors (adult density and larval
density) (see Table 1, below) and low condition in terms of overall
meadow condition (see Table 2, below). There have not been any
observations of adults or larvae in the past 3 consecutive years in the
any of other eight populations, and they are, therefore, considered
demographically extirpated. Six of those eight populations have very
low overall meadow condition, and two are considered extirpated for
overall meadow condition because suitable habitat for the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly no longer exists there.
Table 1--Current Condition of Demographic Factors of the Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographic factors
Meadow unit ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult density Larval density
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Canyon.......................... Very Low........................... Very Low.
Pines Meadow Campground................ Very Low........................... Very Low.
Cox Canyon............................. Extirpated......................... Extirpated.
Silver Springs Canyon.................. Extirpated......................... Extirpated.
Pumphouse Canyon....................... Extirpated......................... Extirpated.
Sleepygrass Canyon..................... Extirpated......................... Extirpated.
Spud Patch Canyon...................... Extirpated......................... Extirpated.
Deerhead Canyon........................ Extirpated......................... Extirpated.
Horse Pasture Meadow................... Extirpated......................... Extirpated.
Yardplot Meadow........................ Extirpated......................... Extirpated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Current Condition of Habitat Factors of the Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat factors
Meadow unit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Overall meadow condition
Host plants Nectar sources Connectivity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Canyon................... Very Low.................... Low......................... Moderate.................... Low.
Pines Meadow Campground......... Very Low.................... Low......................... Moderate.................... Low.
Cox Canyon...................... Very low.................... Low......................... Low......................... Very Low.
Silver Springs Canyon........... Very Low.................... Low......................... Moderate.................... Very Low.
Pumphouse Canyon................ Very Low.................... Low......................... Low......................... Very Low.
Sleepygrass Canyon.............. Very Low.................... Low......................... Moderate.................... Very Low.
Spud Patch Canyon............... Very Low.................... Low......................... Moderate.................... Very Low.
Deerhead Canyon................. Extirpated.................. Very Low.................... Low......................... Very Low.
Horse Pasture Meadow............ Extirpated.................. Extirpated.................. High........................ Extirpated.
Yardplot Meadow................. Extirpated.................. Extirpated.................. Low......................... Extirpated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Canyon and Pines Meadow Campground are two adjacent meadows
in the northwest part of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly's range. During the 2020 survey season, approximately eight
butterflies were detected in both meadows combined (Forest Service
2020b, p. 3), and no larval tents were found (Forest Service 2020b, pp.
1-3; Phillip Hughes 2020, pers. comm.). Because of these adult and
larval density levels, we categorized resiliency for demographics as
very low for both meadows, which were the only two where butterflies
were found. In addition, the overall meadow condition for these sites
was low because there are few host plants and nectar sources present.
Although nectar sources are present, they are not blooming or providing
enough resources for the butterfly colonies. Further, these meadows are
within 800 meters of each other, which is within the dispersal distance
of the butterfly, allowing for potential gene flow between populations.
Overall resiliency of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
populations is very low for demographic factors and low for habitat
factors. This is because butterflies were only found in 2 of the 10
documented meadows, and both had very low recorded adult and larval
abundance and density numbers. Additionally, these two meadows have
poor habitat conditions (few host plants, nectar sources are abundant
but provide insufficient resources, and some connectivity to other
meadows), and the other eight meadows have either very low condition or
are extirpated in terms of habitat factors.
We define representation for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly as having ecological and genetic diversity. As a narrow-range
endemic, the entire range of the species is approximately 32 square
miles. However, suitable habitat is limited to only about 2 square
miles. Today, only 0.2 square miles might be occupied by the butterfly.
This range contraction suggests that most of the original
representation present within the species has declined. The entirety of
the butterfly's range represents one representation area because of the
narrow range and limited ecological diversity. The populations are
small and isolated in this single representation area with very little
to no connectivity between populations. The occupied meadows are among
spruce-fir forests, so some barriers limit the dispersal of individuals
among the populations. Due to the limited habitat connectivity of
populations, individual Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies
rarely, if ever, travel between populations. This effectively restricts
the transfer of genetic material, thus limiting genetic diversity.
There was likely greater habitat connectivity between populations in
the past due to a more natural fire regime. Therefore, overall
representation was always limited for this species and has declined in
recent years.
We define redundancy for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly as having populations or metapopulations spread across the
[[Page 3748]]
range. There are only 2 extant Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly populations located in adjacent meadows out of 10 documented
metapopulations within the single representation area. Given the
historical distribution of the butterfly, it is likely that Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly populations were more abundant within
the Sacramento Mountains. Therefore, redundancy of the butterfly has
declined over time. As a consequence of these current conditions, the
viability of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly primarily
depends on maintaining and restoring the remaining isolated populations
and reintroducing populations where feasible.
We incorporated the cumulative effects of the operative threats
into our analysis when we characterized the current condition of the
species. Because our characterization of current condition considers
not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they
collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment
integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a
standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Several habitat management actions can benefit the viability of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. To address the threat of
overgrazing from large ungulates, the Lincoln National Forest erected
exclosures to protect butterfly habitats from browsing. These efforts
are currently focused within Bailey Canyon and Pines Meadow Campground,
where adult butterflies were most recently found. Botanists involved
with the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly working group are
currently growing plants for habitat restoration. Biologists will soon
plant nectar sources, including orange sneezeweed and New Mexico
beardtongue, within exclosures to ensure the individual needs of
caterpillars and adult butterflies are met.
The Forest Service has proposed that fire management aimed at
reducing tree stocking within forested areas surrounding meadows might
also help restore suitable habitat and connectivity throughout the
range of the butterfly. Maintaining edge habitat and connectivity could
greatly improve the butterfly's viability in the long term.
Determination of Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or
a ``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as
a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' because of any of
the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we find that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
has declined in abundance, density, and number of populations.
Currently, there are only two extant populations where the species
exists in very low abundances and are isolated from one another.
Furthermore, existing available habitat is reduced in quantity and
quality relative to historical conditions. Our analysis revealed
several threats that caused these declines and pose a meaningful risk
to the viability of the species. These threats are primarily related to
habitat changes (Factor A) and include overgrazing by large ungulates,
recreation, nonnative plants, and altered wildfire regime, in addition
to climate change (Factor E).
Over the past two decades, the species has declined, both in
abundance and in the area occupied (Forest Service 2020b, p. 2).
Because of increased populations of ungulates (i.e., elk, horses),
grazing has increased in the subalpine meadows that support the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, reducing the availability
of host plants and nectar sources. The reduction in habitat quality and
quantity is further exacerbated by the impact of drought associated
with climate change. Additionally, the altered wildfire regime has
decreased habitat connectivity, and now populations are more isolated
from one another with limited to no dispersal among populations.
We considered sites with butterfly detections during the last 3
years to be extant for the purposes of this proposed determination.
Because adults or larvae have not been observed in the past 3
consecutive years in 8 of the 10 populations, we consider those 8
populations functionally extirpated. The two remaining populations are
extremely small and isolated. The habitat at those sites is currently
in very low condition due to a lack of both host plants for larvae and
nectar sources for adults.
Historically, the species, with more abundant and larger
populations, would have been more resilient to stochastic events. Even
if such events extirpated some populations, they could be recolonized
over time by dispersal from nearby surviving populations. Because many
of the areas of suitable habitat may be small and support small numbers
of butterflies, local extirpation of these small populations is
probable. A metapopulation's persistence depends on the combined
dynamics of these local extirpations and the subsequent recolonization
of these areas by dispersal (Murphy and Weiss 1988, pp. 192-194).
Habitat loss and the altered wildfire regime have reduced the size of
and connectivity between patches of suitable butterfly habitat. The
reduction in the extent of meadows and other suitable non-forested
areas has likely eliminated connectivity among some localities and may
have increased the distance beyond the normal dispersal ability of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, making recolonization of
some patches following local extirpation more difficult. In addition,
habitat reduction lowers the quality of remaining habitat by reducing
the diversity of microclimates and food plants for larvae and adult
butterflies (Murphy and Weiss 1988, p. 190).
Preliminary genetic evidence suggests little gene flow between
these units (Ryan et al. 2021, pers. comm.). Connectivity, which would
promote resiliency and representation, has been lost. Eight populations
are functionally extirpated, and the remaining two populations are in
very low condition in terms of demographic factors and low condition in
terms of habitat factors and are at high risk of loss. The Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly is extremely vulnerable to catastrophic
[[Page 3749]]
events (i.e., high-intensity, large wildfires) in suitable butterfly
habitats.
In summary, much of the remaining suitable butterfly habitat, and
therefore the long-term viability of the species, is at risk due to the
direct and indirect effects of overgrazing by large ungulates,
recreation, climate change, nonnative plants, and an altered wildfire
regime. The remaining populations are fragmented and isolated from one
another, unable to recolonize naturally. The populations are largely in
a state of chronic degradation due to habitat loss, which is
exacerbated by climate change, limiting their resiliency. The limited
geographic range of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
increases the threat of extinction for this species given the expected
continuing loss and degradation of suitable habitat and increased risks
of extinction from catastrophic events, such as catastrophic fire.
Historically, with a larger range of likely interconnected populations,
the species would have been more resilient to stochastic events because
even if some populations were extirpated by such events, they could be
recolonized over time by dispersal from nearby surviving populations.
This connectivity, which would have made for a resilient species
overall, has been lost, and with two populations in very low
demographic condition and low habitat condition, the remnant
populations are at risk of loss. A threatened status for the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly is not appropriate because the species
has already shown significant declines in current resiliency,
redundancy, and representation due to the threats mentioned above.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we determine
that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We have determined that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range and
accordingly did not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of
its range. Because the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
warrants listing as endangered throughout all of its range, our
determination is consistent with the decision in Center for Biological
Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which
the court vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on Interpretation of
the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered
Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened
Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided the Service does
not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species' range
if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of its
range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered species.''
Therefore, we propose to list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for removal
from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for monitoring
recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for
agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of
the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our New Mexico Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of New Mexico would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is only
proposed for listing under the Act at this time,
[[Page 3750]]
please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery
efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new
information on this species whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the Forest Service.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any species listed as an endangered species. It is
also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply
to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation
agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information,
the following actions are unlikely to result in a violation of section
9, if these activities are carried out in accordance with existing
regulations and permit requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Possession, delivery, or movement, including interstate
transport and import into or export from the United States, involving
no commercial activity, of dead specimens of this taxon that were
collected prior to the effective date of a final rule adding this taxon
to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
(2) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal
agencies (e.g., grazing management, non-forested area management,
private or commercial development, recreational trail or forest road
development or use, road construction, prescribed burns, timber
harvest, pesticide/herbicide application, or pipeline or utility line
construction crossing suitable habitat) when such activity is conducted
in accordance with a biological opinion from the Service on a proposed
Federal action;
(3) Low-impact, infrequent, dispersed human activities on foot or
horseback that do not degrade butterfly habitat (e.g., bird watching,
sightseeing, backpacking, hunting, photography, camping, hiking);
(4) Activities on private lands that do not result in the take of
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, including those
activities involving loss of habitat, such as normal landscape
activities around a personal residence, proper grazing management, road
construction that avoids butterfly habitat, and pesticide/herbicide
application consistent with label restrictions; and
(5) Activities conducted under the terms of a valid permit issued
by the Service pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Capture (i.e., netting), survey, or collection of specimens of
this taxon without a permit from the Service pursuant to section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act;
(2) Incidental take of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
without a permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act;
(3) Sale or purchase of specimens of this taxon, except for
properly documented antique specimens of this taxon at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(4) Use of pesticides/herbicides that are in violation of label
restrictions resulting in take of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly;
(5) Unauthorized release of biological control agents that attack
any life stage of this taxon;
(6) Removal or destruction of the native food plants being used by
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, defined as Penstemon
neomexicanus, Helenium hoopesii, or Valeriana edulis, within areas that
are used by this taxon that results in harm to this butterfly; and
(7) Destruction or alteration of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly habitat by grading, leveling, plowing, mowing, burning,
herbicide or pesticide spraying, intensively grazing, or otherwise
disturbing non-forested openings that result in the death of or injury
to eggs, larvae, or adult Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies
through significant impairment of the species' essential breeding,
foraging, sheltering, or other essential life functions.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
II. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
[[Page 3751]]
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals). Additionally, our regulations
at 50 CFR 424.02 define the word ``habitat,'' for the purposes of
designating critical habitat only, as the abiotic and biotic setting
that currently or periodically contains the resources and conditions
necessary to support one or more life processes of a species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However,
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas,
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the
life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. The implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further
delineate unoccupied critical habitat by setting out three specific
parameters: (1) When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will
first evaluate areas occupied by the species; (2) the Secretary will
only consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species; and (3) for an
unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the status report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
As the regulatory definition of ``habitat'' at 50 CFR 424.02
reflects, habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
[[Page 3752]]
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary
may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be
prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
As discussed earlier in this document, there is currently no
imminent threat of collection or vandalism identified under Factor B
for this species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is
not expected to initiate any such threat. In our current condition
assessment report and proposed listing determination for the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, we determined that the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range is a threat to Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly and
that those threats in some way can be addressed by section 7(a)(2)
consultation measures. The species occurs wholly in the jurisdiction of
the United States, and we are able to identify areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat. Therefore, because none of the
circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have
been met and because the Secretary has not identified other
circumstances for which this designation of critical habitat would be
not prudent, we have determined that the designation of critical
habitat is prudent for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is determinable. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not
determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is
located. Careful assessments of the economic and environmental impacts
that may occur due to a critical habitat designation are not yet
complete, and we are in the process of working with the States and
other partners in acquiring the complex information needed to perform
those assessments. The information sufficient to perform a required
analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking. Therefore, we
conclude that the designation of critical habitat for the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly is not determinable at this time. As
noted above, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a
critical habitat designation that is not determinable at the time of
listing (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). However,
when the range of the species includes States within the Tenth Circuit,
such as that of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, under
the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County Board of Commissioners v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we
undertake a NEPA
[[Page 3753]]
analysis for critical habitat designation. We will invite the public to
comment on the extent to which the upcoming proposed critical habitat
designation may have a significant impact on the human environment, or
fall within one of the categorical exclusions for actions that have no
individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human
environment. We will complete our analysis, in compliance with NEPA,
before finalizing the upcoming proposed critical habitat rule.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We solicited information from the
Mescalero Apache Nation within the range of the Sacramento Mountain
checkerspot butterfly to inform the development of the current
condition assessment report, but we did not receive a response. We will
also provide the Mescalero Apache Nation the opportunity to review a
draft of the current condition assessment report and provide input
prior to making our final determination on the status of the Sacramento
Mountain checkerspot butterfly. We will continue to coordinate with
affected Tribes throughout the listing process as appropriate.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the New
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11 amend the table in paragraph (h) by adding an entry
for ``Butterfly, Sacramento Mountains checkerspot'' to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under INSECTS
to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
Insects
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, Sacramento Mountains Euphydryas anicia Wherever found.... E [Federal Register
checkerspot. cloudcrofti. citation when
published as a final
rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-01210 Filed 1-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P