Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies, 47221-47244 [2014-18614]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47221-47244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18614]



[[Page 47221]]

Vol. 79

Tuesday,

No. 155

August 12, 2014

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for 
the Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies; Final 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 47222]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0084; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ08


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status 
for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine endangered 
species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 
for the Florida leafwing (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) and Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak (Strymon acis bartrami), two butterflies endemic to 
South Florida. This final rule implements the protections provided by 
the Act for these species. This regulation will result in the addition 
of these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

DATES: This rule becomes effective September 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/. Comments and 
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation used in 
preparation of this rule, are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and documentation 
that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment, 
during normal business hours, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South 
Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 
32960; telephone 772-562-3909; facsimile 772-562-4288.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Aubrey, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, 
1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, by telephone 772-562-3909, or 
by facsimile 772-562-4288. Persons who use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), a species may warrant 
protection through listing if we find that it is an endangered or 
threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Listing a species as endangered or threatened can only be 
completed by issuing a rule. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we 
designate critical habitat for the Florida leafwing butterfly and the 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly under the Act.
    This rule will finalize the listing of the Florida leafwing 
butterfly and the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly as endangered 
species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Service) can determine that a species is an endangered or 
threatened species based on 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 the Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies meet the definition 
of an endangered species based on all five factors.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from eight 
independent experts to ensure that our action is based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these 
peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered 
all other comments and information received during the comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Florida leafwing 
and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies (78 FR 49878; August 15, 
2013) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning 
these species.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49878), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by October 15, 2013. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts, and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. 
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the 
Miami Herald and Key West Citizen.
    We published proposed rules concurrently for both the proposed 
listing of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, as well 
as the proposed designation of critical habitat for these two 
butterflies. Although the proposed rules were published in separate 
Federal Register notices, we received combined comments from the public 
on both actions. However, in this final rule we address only those 
comments that apply to the listing of the Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. Comments on the proposed critical habitat 
are addressed in the final critical habitat rule. All substantive 
information provided during the comment period has either been 
incorporated directly into this final determination or addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from eight knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with at 
least one of the two subspecies and its habitat, biological needs, and 
threats; the geographical region of South Florida in which these 
subspecies occur; and conservation biology principles. We received 
responses from seven of the peer reviewers we contacted.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed listing 
of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies. The 
peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, 
and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to 
improve the final listing rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in 
the following summary and incorporated into this final rule as 
appropriate.
    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer, as well as two public commenters, 
indicated that developing appropriate monitoring schemes to understand 
population biology, dynamics, dispersal abilities and various 
environmental variables will be critical to advancing recovery goals.
    Our Response: We agree that more rigorous information regarding 
population monitoring, ecological studies, and other ongoing or future 
research and recovery efforts for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak are needed, and we have updated the Population 
Estimates and Status sections, below.
    (2) Comment: Two peer reviewers indicated the importance of 
disturbance

[[Page 47223]]

regimes, such as fire, to achieving conservation goals for these 
subspecies, and that active adaptive management should be implemented.
    Our Response: We incorporated new information regarding fire 
management plans, as well as ongoing and future studies designed to 
measure the influence of prescribed burns and other management actions 
(such as mechanical clearing), into the Factor A discussion, below.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer mentioned the importance of smaller 
parcels for conservation. The reviewer also asked for clarification 
regarding the amount of remaining pine rockland habitat.
    Our Response: We agree that even small parcels of extant pine 
rocklands have important conservation value to imperiled butterflies. 
One of the analyses we cite in this rule (Institute for Regional 
Conservation 2006) pertained only to pineland croton occurrence on 
parcels greater than a single hectare. However, all extant pine 
rockland, with or without hostplant populations, were reviewed, both 
for the proposed listing rule and the proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat. The reference to 1,780 hectares (ha) (4,400 acres 
(ac)) of remaining pine rockland habitat refers only to 375 parcels of 
extant pine rockland within Miami-Dade County, outside of Everglades 
National Park (ENP). We have revised the information on extant pine 
rockland habitat and known hostplant distribution under the Habitat 
section, below.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer provided a link to research findings 
on the potential impact of sea-level rise on south Florida butterflies.
    Our Response: We incorporated this new information into the Factor 
A discussion, below.
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that, based on the threat 
of habitat loss from climate change, development, and other factors, it 
may be important to consider appropriate habitat at the fringes of the 
subspecies' historical ranges (Martin and Palm Beach Counties) in 
conservation planning.
    Our Response: Although the Florida leafwing and Bartram's 
hairstreak are only known to have occurred sporadically outside of 
Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida, future recovery actions may 
include efforts within the more northern parts of their historical 
ranges that retain hostplant populations. We incorporated information 
regarding this potential recovery option into the Factor A discussion, 
below.
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that pineland croton 
(Croton linearis) has sometimes been referred to by the common name of 
woolly croton. In addition, C. linearis and C. cascarilla are 
synonymous in the literature.
    Our Response: We incorporated this new information into the General 
Biology section of the Florida leafwing.
    (7) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that the high level of 
parasitism on immature Florida leafwing is not something that can be 
controlled. As a result, recovery efforts should focus on the adult 
stages.
    Our Response: We agree and have incorporated this new information 
into the Factor C discussion, below.
    (8) Comment: One peer reviewer provided a correction indicating 
that the Florida leafwing had not been included throughout the 
Determination section of the proposed rule.
    Our Response: We have incorporated the Florida leafwing throughout 
the Determination section of the final rule, below.
    (9) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that existing evidence 
supports the recognition of floridalis as a subspecies of Anaea 
troglodyta and referenced several articles in the literature.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided and have 
incorporated it into the Taxonomy section for the Florida leafwing.
    (10) Comment: One peer reviewer provided additional references in 
the literature pertaining to life histories of the Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. This reviewer also provided additional 
references pertaining to the historical ranges of the butterflies.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided and have 
incorporated it into the Life History and Historical Ranges sections 
for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
    (11) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that the rarity of the 
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and difficulty in 
collecting the leafwing, in particular, makes it unlikely that 
collecting could impact the population.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information; however, based on the 
small localized nature of extant Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak populations, any removal of individuals at this time may 
have an adverse impact to those populations. Based on information on 
collecting pressures, small population sizes, and limited law 
enforcement targeting butterfly collection, outlined in the proposed 
rule and in our decision record, we believe there is sound scientific 
information to conclude that collection poses a threat to these 
butterflies.
    (12) Comment: One peer reviewer suggests that many specimens of the 
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak offered for sale online 
may come from older collections, as opposed to poaching activities on 
conservation lands.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided and have 
incorporated it into the Factor C discussion, below.
    (13) Comment: Two peer reviewers support the proposed listing of 
the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak as endangered, but 
are skeptical as to what would be done to recover them. These reviewers 
indicate recovery efforts have not been successful for the endangered 
Schaus swallowtail or Miami blue butterflies and wonder what would be 
done differently for the proposed butterflies, if listed.
    Our Response: In accordance with section 4(f)(1) of the Act, we are 
required to develop and implement a recovery plan for any species 
listed as endangered or threatened under the Act unless ``such a plan 
will not promote the conservation of the species.'' We believe a 
recovery plan will promote the conservation of these species and would 
address many of the factors outlined in the Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species, below.
    (14) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested the phrase ``Collection, 
which is prohibited on conservation lands, could occur (e.g., ENP, 
National Key Deer Refuge [NKDR], State or County owned lands) without 
being detected, because these areas are all not actively patrolled . . 
.'' could attract poachers to these areas.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided, but feel the 
language, as written, emphasizes the threat of collection and where 
additional conservation actions may be warranted.
    (15) Comment: One peer reviewer indicates that, while he agrees 
that mark-release-recapture techniques may be harmful to small 
lycaenids, it is important to emphasize the potential downsides of not 
using such a technique, namely possible recounting, etc.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided and have 
incorporated it into the Factor B discussion, below.
    (16) Comment: One peer reviewer indicates that research on 
symbiosis between lycaenids and ants for the Miami blue should be 
included for the

[[Page 47224]]

immature stages of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
    Our Response: Although a symbiotic relationship between Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak larvae and ants has not been documented, we appreciate 
the information provided and have incorporated it into the Factor C 
discussion for the hairstreak, below.
    (17) Comment: One peer reviewer indicates that adult Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak have been observed within Zoo Miami in recent years 
and that it should be mentioned within the summary of known extant 
population.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided and have 
incorporated it into the Current Range section of the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak.
    (18) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that existing data do not 
support the necessity of indicating a specified return interval for 
disturbance (i.e., 3 to 5 years for fire) for Long Pine Key. The 
commenter indicated that the butterflies have been observed at varying 
densities within pine rocklands in Long Pine Key that have burned at 
intervals of up to 10 years.
    Our Response: We agree that, while the literature (Florida Natural 
Areas Inventory (FNAI) 2010a, p. 3) indicates a fire-return interval of 
approximately 3 to 7 years is appropriate for maintaining the pine 
rockland ecosystem, there is considerable variability in population 
numbers of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak from 
year to year. Observations of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak within portions of Long Pine Key that have experienced fire 
or other disturbance regimes at intervals of up to 10 years (Salvato 
and Salvato 2010a, p. 91; 2010b, p. 154; Sadle 2013c, pers. comm.) 
suggest further studies are required on the influence of these factors 
on butterfly ecologies. We appreciate the information provided and have 
incorporated it into the Factor A discussion, below.
    (19) Comment: One peer reviewer, as well as one public comment, 
indicated that it may not be accurate to call Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak a sedentary butterfly.
    Our Response: We agree that, although the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak is often described as sedentary, the need to evade natural 
disturbance (fires, storms) and subsequently recolonize suggests that 
adult hairstreaks, perhaps as a function of age, sex, or density, are 
adapted for effective dispersal throughout the pine rockland and 
associated ecosystems. We appreciate the information provided and have 
incorporated it into the Life History discussion for the hairstreak, 
below.
    (20) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that an additional 
habitat, hydric pine flatwoods, is often used during dispersal by the 
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, when it is adjacent or 
interspersed within pine rocklands.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided and have 
included a description of hydric pine flatwoods in the Habitat section, 
below.

Comments From States

    Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act requires the Secretary, not less 
than 90 days before publication of a final listing rule, to give actual 
notice of the rule to the State agency in each State in which the 
species is believed to occur, and invite the comment of such agency on 
the proposal. The two subspecies only occur in Florida, and we received 
comment letters from two entities from the State of Florida regarding 
the listing proposal. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission (FWC) found the document to be comprehensive, with 
conclusions that are well-documented and justified, but otherwise did 
not provide substantive comments requiring a response. The Florida 
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) neither 
supported nor opposed the proposed listing, but indicated their intent 
to work with the Service and other stakeholders in protecting imperiled 
species, as well as determining ways to mitigate potential risks of 
pesticide use and mosquito control toward imperiled species in Florida.
    (21) Comment: FDACS indicated that, given the current mosquito 
control district cooperation, any future considerations concerning 
research addressing potential for and magnitude of impact of mosquito 
control practices on imperiled butterflies, including the Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's hairstreak, should continue to be discussed in 
this forum where mosquito control districts can actively participate.
    Our Response: We agree and appreciate the mosquito control 
districts' cooperation and willingness to help support and direct 
research to minimize potential pesticide impacts on imperiled 
butterflies.

Public Comments

    During the comment period for the proposed listing rule, we 
received a total of 18 comment letters regarding the proposed listing: 
2 from Florida State agencies (addressed above) and 16 from local 
governments, nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens. Of 
the 16 non-State letters, 12 indicated support of the proposed listing, 
but otherwise did not provide specific comments on the rule. Four of 
the comment letters provided substantive comments regarding two general 
issues. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
Issue 1: Mosquito Control
    (22) Comment: One commenter questioned the inclusion of mosquito 
control activities as a factor affecting the species and suggested that 
habitat loss is the primary factor impacting the butterflies. The 
commenter also stated that ``it is reasonable and prudent to coordinate 
control measures to minimize risk in the remaining limited habitat 
areas'' and that ``protecting and preserving the species habitat 
through acquisition seems to be the most reasonable means of preserving 
the species.''
    Our Response: We agree that habitat loss has been a major factor 
leading to the current status of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak. However, as discussed in Factor E--Other Natural or 
Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence, below, we believe 
mosquito control activities are also a factor affecting these 
butterflies. We agree that protecting and preserving remaining habitat 
will be critical in the conservation and recovery of the butterflies 
and that mosquito control efforts should be coordinated between the 
Service and mosquito control districts in areas where suitable or 
occupied habitats exist.
    (23) Comment: Three counties (Lee, Manatee, and Lake) and another 
commenter recommended that mosquito control activities not be included 
as a factor affecting the species. The commenters state that this 
inclusion would lead to restrictions on mosquito control operations 
that would be detrimental to public health and the economy of south 
Florida.
    Our Response: The use of broad spectrum insecticides in and around 
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak habitat during mosquito 
control operations is a factor that must be considered when assessing 
threats to the species. The Act requires us to base our determination 
for listing a species ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available'' (section 4(b)(1)(A)). The Service has 
worked proactively in the past with mosquito control districts within 
habitat of the endangered Schaus' swallowtail (Papilio aristodemus 
ponceanus) (Hennessey et al. 1992, p. 715; Salvato 2001, p. 8) in order 
to coordinate mosquito control activities in such a way that public

[[Page 47225]]

health is adequately protected while still promoting conservation and 
recovery of the species. As a result, we believe similar cooperation 
between the Service and mosquito control districts will occur in 
suitable or occupied habitat of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak. Under public health emergency conditions, the Service 
would not impose restrictions that would jeopardize the safety or well-
being of the public.
    (24) Comment: Lee County contends that Salvato's (2001) suggestion 
that butterflies roosting in the canopy would be vulnerable to aerial 
mosquito control spray is incorrect, and that roosting under leaves 
would actually provide protection to the butterflies. Lee and Manatee 
Counties also state that using caged, nontarget insects to examine 
pesticide effects in the field following application events is not 
realistic and has a high level of bias in favor of an adverse effect. 
Specifically, Lee County mentions the work of Zhong et al. (2010) where 
larval and adult butterflies were exposed without the ability to seek 
refuge after dark, while Manatee County mentions the work of Bargar 
(2011) where caged species were placed in open field areas.
    Our Response: The Service agrees that refugia, including 
vegetation, may help to ameliorate pesticide effects on some field-
exposed organisms. The extent to which such refugia may protect against 
pesticide exposure is unknown. However, with no data to support the 
assertion that vegetative refugia prevents impacts to butterflies from 
mosquito control application, the Service must rely on the best 
available data, which suggests that impacts to butterflies are a 
possibility.
    (25) Comment: Lee County states that the risk assessment presented 
in Hoang et al. (2011) inappropriately uses the residue data from 
Pierce (2009). The commenter contends that pesticide residues 
quantified on surfaces in the environment would not be equivalent to 
residues on cryptic insects and that Hoang et al. (2011) assigns risk 
without considering actual insect contact with pesticides in the field.
    Our Response: The Service considers the risk analysis presented in 
Hoang et al. (2011, pp. 997-1005) to be a screening-level evaluation 
that examined worst-case scenarios, evidenced by the fact that the 
highest quantified deposition values from Pierce (2009, pp. 1-20) were 
used to determine risk. Actual insect exposures may vary from the 
deposition observed on leaves and filter pads, but no relevant field-
derived insect pesticide body load analysis has been conducted. With no 
supporting data to the contrary, the Service cannot assume insect 
exposure values are below a level of concern.
    (26) Comment: Lee County states that the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) labels pesticides for uses that do not pose unacceptable 
risk to individuals and the environment and that ``the EPA has 
successfully assessed the risk for mosquito control practices since no 
connection between pesticide residues and insect mortality outside of 
target zone is cited'' by the Service. Manatee County also states that 
the EPA's registration of aerial adulticides implies that the EPA has 
determined that this practice does not harm butterfly populations.
    Our Response: The Service acknowledges that more information is 
needed to better quantify the drift, and subsequent effects, of 
mosquito control chemicals outside of target zones. Registration of a 
pesticide by the EPA does not imply that there are no nontarget species 
potentially at risk from label-approved uses. When registering 
pesticides, the EPA does not conduct exhaustive testing on terrestrial 
invertebrates. Honeybees are the only species subject to acute toxicity 
testing. The results of such testing using naled and permethrin 
determined that both pesticides are highly toxic to honeybees (EPA 
2006a, p. 32; EPA 2006b, p. 81). Impacts of pesticides on butterfly 
species are not currently considered during EPA's registration process.
    (27) Comment: Manatee County states that the Service failed to 
report that naled application rates were higher than expected due to 
inaccurate GPS-guided flight patterns during the Zhong et al. (2010) 
study, where a 73.9 percent survival rate of Miami blue butterfly 
larvae was observed. The reviewer also states that Zhong had conducted 
previous research on the same topic that showed no effects of aerial 
naled application on Miami blue butterfly larvae.
    Our Response: The data cited from Zhong et al. (2010, pp. 1967-
1970) came from a peer-reviewed journal article. No mention was made in 
the journal article of any GPS-related impacts on the results of the 
study; therefore, the Service has no such information to report. The 
Service is also not aware of any additional work by Zhong that examined 
naled impacts on the Miami blue butterfly, but would welcome any such 
information.
    (28) Comment: Manatee County suggests that mosquito control 
spraying may be beneficial to butterfly populations. The County 
references the work of Marc Minno, a lepidopterist who has conducted 
butterfly population assessments in south Florida and has documented 
significant butterfly populations in areas such as Miami and Key West 
that receive mosquito control applications.
    Our Response: The Service is open to considering all potential 
aspects of the interaction between mosquito control practices and the 
success of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. In-
depth analysis, beyond anecdotal observations of various species, would 
be required to support the assertion that mosquito control practices 
are beneficial to any species of interest.
    (29) Comment: Lake County states that, if the two butterfly species 
of interest are imperiled because of mosquito control practices, then 
all other nontarget organisms with similar habitat needs and behaviors 
would be in jeopardy. The reviewer also states that no impacts on 
butterfly populations have occurred in Lake County despite more than 32 
years of mosquito control activity.
    Our Response: The Service believes that the individual life 
histories of the butterfly species of interest, and their 
susceptibilities to pesticide impacts, must be considered 
independently, and that the status of other nontarget organisms cannot 
be used as a surrogate during such consideration. The Service is also 
not aware of any comprehensive assessment on the population status of 
butterflies in Lake County, but would welcome such information.
    (30) Comment: Lee County indicates that the Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies continue to exist in areas that 
meet their environmental requirements, including those that have been 
sprayed for 40 years.
    Our Response: We agree that these butterflies have retained 
populations in appropriate extant pine rockland habitat within Monroe 
and Miami-Dade, including within areas actively treated with mosquito 
control pesticides. However, we present evidence under the Factor E 
discussion, below, that suggests pesticide application administered for 
mosquito control may also have a collateral influence on the ecologies 
of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. On the other 
hand, at no point in the proposed or final listing rules is the role of 
pesticide application considered as the sole contributor to the decline 
in populations of these taxa, but merely one potential factor. The 
purpose of the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section 
indicates all known or suspected factors, biological or anthropogenic, 
and this does include pesticide applications.

[[Page 47226]]

Issue 2: Population Dynamics
    (31) Comment: One commenter indicates that pineland croton may not 
be the only larval hostplant used by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. 
The commenter indicates other scrub-hairstreaks are generally known to 
use a variety of larval hostplants, and that more field observation 
might reveal additional hostplants for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
    Our Response: Extensive field studies have been conducted on the 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak over the past several decades; to date this 
research has documented oviposition only on pineland croton. However, 
we agree that ongoing ecological studies may indicate the hairstreak 
occasionally uses other pine rockland plants for larval development. We 
appreciate the information provided and have incorporated it into the 
General Biology discussion for the hairstreak, below.
    (32) Comment: Lee County indicates that the Florida leafwing shows 
annual mortality of up to 70 percent based on increased predation from 
exotic and native predators or parasites.
    Our Response: There are a number of factors which influence the 
populations of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. 
However, the mortality mentioned by this reviewer is part of the 
Florida leafwing's natural history. We have no evidence that natural 
mortality, from predation or parasitism, of Florida leafwing 
populations within the Long Pine Key portion of ENP is any different 
now than it was historically.
    (33) Comment: Lee County indicates that lack of burning on public 
lands by the Service and its partners is correlated with the loss of 
habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. In 
addition, these butterflies have shown increased population numbers in 
response to an appropriate fire-return interval.
    Our Response: As discussed in the previous comment, we agree that a 
number of factors influence the populations of the Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak; this includes a lack of adequate fire 
management within the pine rocklands on conservation lands.
    (34) Comment: Lee County indicates that the Service desires to 
expand the present range of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak to elsewhere in their historical ranges.
    Our Response: We have proposed the listing of the Florida leafwing 
and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak as endangered, as a first of many steps 
designed to recover these butterflies. Implementing conservation 
measures for populations of these butterflies within their extant or 
recent historical distributions will be a primary goal of the recovery 
plan, when drafted.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    In the Background section, we made the following changes:
    (1) We incorporated new information regarding population 
monitoring, ecological studies, and other ongoing or future research 
and recovery efforts for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak.
    (2) We clarified our discussion on extant pine rockland habitat, 
including smaller parcels, and known hostplant distribution.
    (3) We indicated throughout the document that adult butterflies 
will also make use of hydric pine flatwood vegetation when interspersed 
within the pine rockland habitat.
    (4) We included a full description of the hydric pine flatwoods 
forest community.
    (5) We indicated that additional studies are needed to understand 
varying butterfly densities in response to pine rockland fire-return 
intervals.
    (6) We included additional information on the scientific and common 
names of pineland croton.
    (7) We included additional references that recognize floridalis as 
a subspecies of Anaea troglodyte.
    (8) We included additional references on the life histories of the 
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
    (9) We included additional references on the historical ranges of 
the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
    (10) We incorporated additional information on the current range of 
the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
    (11) We included additional information on larval hostplants used 
by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
    (12) We included additional information regarding Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak dispersal abilities.
    In the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section, we made 
the following changes:
    (1) We incorporated new information regarding fire management 
plans, as well as ongoing and future studies designed to measure the 
influence of prescribed burns and other management actions (such as 
mechanical clearing).
    (2) We included new information on the potential impact of sea-
level rise on south Florida butterflies.
    (3) We incorporated information regarding potential recovery 
options based on the threat of habitat loss from climate change, 
development, and other factors.
    (4) We added that it may be important to consider appropriate 
habitat at the fringes of the subspecies' historical ranges.
    (5) We included the Florida leafwing in the Determination section.
    (6) We included additional information regarding the potential 
provenance of butterfly specimens offered for sale online.
    (7) We corrected the title of the Imperiled Butterflies of Florida 
Workgroup.
    (8) We corrected the title of CERP to read as the Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan.
    (9) We incorporated information to emphasize the potential 
downsides of not using mark-release-recapture techniques for butterfly 
monitoring.
    (10) We incorporated information on symbiosis between lycaenids and 
ants under the discussion of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak predation.

Background

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Florida leafwing 
and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies (78 FR 49878; August 15, 
2013) for species information. The sections below represent summaries 
of that information, and incorporate additions and edits based on peer 
review and public comments.

Florida Leafwing

General Biology
    The Florida leafwing butterfly is a medium-sized butterfly 
approximately 76 to 78 millimeters (mm) (2.75 to 3.00 inches (in)) in 
length with a forewing length of 34 to 38 mm (1.3 to 1.5 in) and an 
appearance characteristic of its genus (Comstock 1961, p. 44; Pyle 
1981, p. 651; Opler and Krizek 1984, p. 172; Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 
153). The upper-wing (or open wing) surface color is red to red-brown. 
The underside (closed wings) is gray to tan, with a tapered outline, 
cryptically looking like a dead leaf or the bark of South Florida slash 
pine trees (Pinus elliottii var. densa) when the butterfly is at rest. 
The Florida leafwing exhibits sexual dimorphism (male and female are 
different from each other), with females being slightly larger and with 
darker coloring along the wing margins than the males.
    The Florida leafwing has only one known hostplant, the pineland 
croton (or woolly croton) (Croton linearis, formerly referred to as C. 
cascarilla) (Euphorbiaceae).
Taxonomy
    The Florida leafwing butterfly (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) was 
first described

[[Page 47227]]

by Johnson and Comstock in 1941. Anaea troglodyta floridalis is a taxon 
considered to be both endemic to south Florida and clearly derived from 
Antillean stock (the islands of the West Indies except for the Bahamas, 
separating the Caribbean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean) (Comstock 1961, 
p. 45; Brown and Heineman 1972, p. 124; Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 153; 
Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Salvato 1999, p. 117; Hernandez 2004, p. 39; 
Pelham 2008, p. 393). Some authors (Comstock 1961, p. 44; Miller and 
Brown 1981, p. 164; Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Hernandez 2004, p. 39) 
placed the Florida leafwing as a distinct species, A. floridalis. 
Others (Brown and Heineman 1972, p. 124; Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 153; 
Salvato 1999, p. 117; Opler and Warren 2003, p. 40) considered the 
Florida leafwing as a subspecies of Anaea troglodyta Fabricius. Smith 
et al. (1994, p. 67) suggested that further comparison between immature 
stages of the Florida leafwing and its Antillean relatives may aid in 
determining whether or not the Florida leafwing is distinct at the 
species or subspecies level. Calhoun (1997, p. 47), Opler and Warren 
(2003, p. 40), Lamas (2004, p. 225) and Pelham (2008, p. 393) 
considered Anaea troglodyta floridalis, not A. floridalis, as the 
scientific name for the Florida leafwing.
    The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) (2013, p. 1) 
uses the name Anaea troglodyta floridalis (F. Johnson and W. Comstock) 
and indicates that this subspecies' taxonomic standing is valid. The 
FNAI (2012, p. 19) uses the name A. t. floridalis.
Life History
    Numerous authors have observed and documented the behavior and 
natural history of the Florida leafwing (Matteson 1930, pp. 1-9; 
Lenczewski 1980, p. 17; Pyle 1981, p. 651; Baggett 1982, pp. 78-79; 
Opler and Krizek 1984, p. 172; Schwartz 1987, p. 22; Hennessey and 
Habeck 1991, pp. 13-17; Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Worth et al. 1996, 
pp. 4-6; Salvato 1999, pp. 116-122; Salvato and Hennessey 2003, pp. 
243-249; Salvato and Salvato 2008, pp. 323-329; 2010a, pp. 91-97). 
Adults are rapid, wary fliers and have strong flight abilities and are 
able to disperse over large areas. The Florida leafwing is multivoltine 
(i.e., produces multiple generations per year), with an entire life 
cycle of about 2 to 3 months (Hennessey and Habeck 1991, p. 17) and 
maintains continuous broods throughout the year (Salvato 1999, p. 121).
    The immature stages of this butterfly feed on pineland croton for 
larval development. Eggs are spherical and light cream-yellow in color 
(Worth et al. 1996, p. 64). Females lay eggs singly on both the upper 
and lower surface of the host (croton plant) leaves, normally on 
developing racemes (flowers) (Baggett 1982, p. 78; Hennessey and Habeck 
1991, p. 16; Worth et al. 1996, p. 64; Salvato 1999, p. 120, Minno et 
al. 2005, p. 115). Worth et al. (1996, p. 64) and Salvato (1999, p. 
120) visually estimated that females may fly more than 30 meters (m) 
(98 feet (ft)) in search of a suitable host plant.

Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak

General Biology
    The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is a small butterfly approximately 
25 mm (1 in) in length with a forewing length of 10.0 to 12.5 mm (0.4 
to 0.5 in) and has an appearance characteristic of the genus (i.e., 
dark gray-colored on the upper (open) wings, light gray-colored under 
(closed) wings, small size, body shape, distinctive white barring or 
dots on underwings, and tailed hindwings) (Pyle 1981, p. 480; Opler and 
Krizek 1984, pp. 107-108; Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 129). As with the 
Florida leafwing, pineland croton is the only known hostplant for the 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak (Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 129; Smith et al. 
1994, p. 118). However, other related scrub-hairstreak species, such as 
the Martial scrub-hairstreak (Strymon martialis), while having 
preference for bay cedar as a larval hostplant, have recently been 
documented using nickerbean (Caesalpinia spp.) in the Florida Keys 
(Daniels et al. 2005, pp. 174-175). Similarly, the mallow scrub-
hairstreak (Strymon istapa) has also been shown to use a variety of 
host sources in southern Florida. While the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
has been consistently documented to use pineland croton, further 
natural history studies may indicate the subspecies' use of additional 
pine rockland plants for larval development.
Taxonomy
    The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly (Strymon acis bartrami) 
was first described by Comstock and Huntington in 1943. Seven 
subspecies of Strymon acis have been described (Smith et al. 1994, p. 
118).
    The ITIS (2013, p. 1) uses the name Strymon acis bartrami and 
indicates that this subspecies' taxonomic standing is valid. FNAI 
(2012, p. 21) uses the name S. a. bartrami.
Life History
    The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is rarely encountered more than 5 m 
(16.4 ft) from its host plant-pine rockland interface (Schwartz 1987, 
p. 16; Worth et al. 1996, p. 65; Salvato and Salvato 2008, p. 324). 
Worth et al. (1996, p. 63) and Salvato and Hennessey (2004, p. 223) 
indicate that the hairstreak may have limited dispersal abilities. 
However, while the hairstreak is often described as sedentary, the need 
to evade natural disturbance (fires, storms) and subsequently 
recolonize suggests that adult hairstreaks--perhaps as a function of 
age, sex, or density--are adapted for effective dispersal throughout 
the pine rockland and associated ecosystems. Eggs are laid singly on 
the flowering racemes of pineland croton (Worth et al., 1996, p. 62; 
Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p. 225). First and second instars remain 
well camouflaged amongst the white croton flowers, while the greenish 
later stages occur more on the leaves.
    The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak has been observed during every month 
on Big Pine Key and in ENP; however, the exact number of broods appears 
to vary sporadically from year to year (Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p. 
226; Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p. 156).

Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak

Habitat
    The Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak occur only 
within pine rocklands, specifically those that retain their mutual and 
sole hostplant, pineland croton. Adult butterflies will also make use 
of rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood vegetation when 
interspersed within the pine rockland habitat.
    Detailed descriptions of pine rockland and rockland hammock 
habitats are presented in the proposed listing rule for the Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak (78 FR 49882; August 15, 2013). 
The hydric pine flatwoods community, interspersed within pine 
rocklands, also supports Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak within the Long Pine Key region of ENP (Sadle 2013c, pers. 
comm.). We include a full description of the hydric pine flatwoods 
forest community below.
    Hydric Pine Flatwoods--Hydric pine flatwoods (Service 1999, pp. 
231-238; FNAI 2010b, pp. 1-2) are open pine forests with a sparse or 
absent midstory and a dense groundcover of hydrophytic grasses, herbs, 
and low shrubs. The pine canopy typically consists of South Florida 
slash pine. Other pines may include longleaf pine (P. palustris),

[[Page 47228]]

pond pine (P. serotina), and loblolly pine (P. taeda). The subcanopy, 
if present, consists of scattered sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), swamp 
bay (Persea palustris), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), pond 
cypress (Taxodium ascendens), dahoon (Ilex cassine), titi (Cyrilla 
racemiflora), and/or wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Shrubs include large 
gallberry (Ilex coriacea), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), titi, black titi 
(Cliftonia monophylla), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), red 
chokeberry (Photinia pyrifolia), and azaleas (Rhododendron canescens, 
R. viscosum). Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) and gallberry (I. glabra), 
species characteristic of mesic flatwoods sites, may be present. On 
calcareous sites, cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) is common both in the 
subcanopy and shrub layers. Herbs include wiregrass (Aristida stricta 
var. beyrichiana), blue maidencane (Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum), and/
or hydrophytic species such as toothache grass (Ctenium aromaticum), 
cutover muhly (Muhlenbergia expansa), coastalplain yellow-eyed grass 
(Xyris ambigua), Carolina redroot (Lachnanthes caroliana), beaksedges 
(Rhynchospora chapmanii, R. latifolia, R. compressa), and pitcherplants 
(Sarracenia spp.), among others. Hydric pine flatwoods occur in the 
ecotones between the drier pine rocklands and rockland hammock habitats 
(FNAI 2010b, pp. 1-2).
    The relative density of shrubs and herbs varies greatly in hydric 
pine flatwoods. Shrubs tend to dominate where fire has been absent for 
a long period or where cool-season fires predominate; herbs are more 
common in locations that are frequently burned. Soils and hydrology 
also may influence relative density of shrubs and herbs. Soils of 
shrubby hydric pine flatwoods are generally poorly to very poorly 
drained sands and include such series as Rutledge/Osier; these soils 
generally have a mucky texture in the uppermost horizon (FNAI 2010b, p. 
2).
    The general historical fire-return interval in pinelands across the 
southeastern U.S. coastal plain is estimated to be every 1-3 years 
(FNAI 2010b, p. 3). This interval is frequent enough to maintain grassy 
hydric pine flatwoods and inhibit invasion by shrubs (Drewa et al. 
2002). Hydric pine flatwoods that are naturally shrubbier and dominated 
by slash pine may have had longer fire-return intervals, or perhaps a 
few periods of longer intervals, on the order of 5-7 years (Landers 
1991), or up to 5-10 years (Grelen 1980), in order to allow the pines 
to establish and shrubs to proliferate.
Historical Ranges
    The Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak are endemic to 
south Florida including the lower Florida Keys. The butterflies were 
locally common within pine rockland habitat that once occurred within 
Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties and were less common and sporadic within 
croton-bearing pinelands in Collier, Martin (leafwing only), Palm 
Beach, and Broward Counties (Skinner 1884, p. 180; Slosson 1895, p. 
134; Comstock and Huntington 1943, p. 65; Kimball 1965, pp. 45-46; 
Baggett 1982, p. 78; Minno and Emmel 1994, pp. 626-627; 1994b, pp. 649-
651; Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Salvato 1999, p. 117; Salvato and 
Hennessey 2003, p. 243; 2004, p. 223).
Current Ranges
    Populations of Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak have 
become increasingly localized as pine rockland habitat has been lost or 
altered through anthropogenic activity (Lenczewski 1980, p. 43; Baggett 
1982, p. 78; Hennessey and Habeck 1991, p. 4; Schwarz et al. 1996, p. 
59; Salvato and Hennessey 2003, p. 243; Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p. 
223; Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 91; 2010b, p. 154).
    Destruction of pine rocklands for economic development has reduced 
this habitat in Miami-Dade County, including ENP, to about 11 percent 
of its natural extent, from approximately 74,000 hectares (ha) (183,000 
acres (ac)) to only 8,140 ha (20,100 ac) in 1996 (Kernan and Bradley 
1996, p. 2). Outside of ENP, only about 1 percent of the Miami Rock 
Ridge pinelands have escaped clearing, and much of what is left is in 
small remnant fragments isolated from other natural areas (Herndon 
1998, p. 1). Several of these fragments, particularly those adjacent to 
ENP, such as Navy Wells and Richmond Pine Rocklands (a mixture of 
publically and privately owned lands), maintain localized populations 
of pineland croton as well as small or sporadic occurrences of 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak (Salvato 1999, p. 123; Salvato and Hennessey 
2004, p. 223; Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p. 154; Salvato 2013, pers. 
comm.; Maschinski et al. 2013, p. 14; Cook 2013, pers. comm.).
    Breeding Florida leafwing populations have not been documented in 
pine rockland fragments adjacent to ENP for the past 25 years. The 
hairstreak retains breeding populations on Big Pine Key, on Long Pine 
Key in ENP, and within a number of pine rockland fragments adjacent to 
ENP.
    The current distribution and abundance of pineland croton across 
all extant pine rockland fragments within Miami-Dade County is not 
known. However, a geographic information system analysis conducted by 
the Service using data collected by The Institute for Regional 
Conservation (IRC) in 2004, indicated that 77 pine rockland fragments 
(totaling 516 ha (370 ac)) in Miami-Dade County, contained pineland 
croton (IRC 2006, no page numbers). More recently, in 2012, the Service 
funded Fairchild Tropical Botanic Gardens (FTBG) to conduct extensive 
surveys of Miami-Dade pine rockland fragments to determine current 
pineland croton abundance and distribution. Pineland croton populations 
were encountered at 11 of the 13 locations surveyed, the largest 
occurring at Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the Richmond Pine 
Rocklands, with each site retaining more than 21,000 individual plants 
(Maschinski et al. 2013, pp. 11-12).
    In the lower Florida Keys, Big Pine Key retains the largest 
undisturbed tracts of pine rockland habitat (Zhang et al. 2010, p. 15; 
Roberts 2012, pers. comm.). At present, within the Florida Keys, 
pineland croton is known to occur only on Big Pine Key. Although the 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is extant on Big Pine Key, the Florida 
leafwing is believed to be extirpated from Big Pine Key since it has 
not been seen on the island since 2006 (Minno and Minno 2009, pp. v, 9; 
Salvato and Salvato 2010c, p. 139).
Population Estimates and Status
    Florida Leafwing--Based on results of all historical (Baggett 1982, 
p. 78; Schwartz 1987, p. 22; Hennessey and Habeck 1991, p. 17; Worth et 
al. 1996, p. 62; Schwarz et al. 1996, p. 59) and recent surveys and 
natural history studies (Salvato 1999, p. 1; 2001, p. 8; 2003, p. 53; 
Salvato and Hennessey 2003, p. 243; Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 91), 
the Florida leafwing is extant in ENP and, until recently, had occurred 
on Big Pine Key and historically in pineland fragments in mainland 
Miami-Dade County (Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Salvato and Salvato 2010a, 
p. 91; 2010c, p. 139). Results from all known historical surveys are 
provided in Table 1. More recent studies are discussed below.

[[Page 47229]]



                             TABLE 1--Summary of historical Florida leafwing surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Size or density
            Population                 Ownership\*\         Years       numbers of adult           Source
                                                                           butterflies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Key Deer Refuge--Big      Federal--USFWS......    1985-1986  34 observed or        Schwartz (1987, p.
 Pine Key.                                                             collected.            25).
National Key Deer Refuge--Watson   Federal--USFWS......    1988-1989  3.7 per ha (1.5 per   Hennessey and Habeck
 Hammock.                                                              acre).                (1991, pp. 1-75).
Everglades National Park--Long     Federal--NPS........    1988-1989  3.7 per ha (1.5 per   Hennessey and Habeck
 Pine Key.                                                             acre).                (1991, pp. 1-75).
Everglades National Park--Long     Federal--NPS........    1994-1995  22 observed.........  Emmel et al. (1995,
 Pine Key.                                                                                   p. 14).
National Key Deer Refuge--Big      Federal--USFWS......    1994-1995  19 observed.........  Emmel et al. (1995,
 Pine Key.                                                                                   p. 14).
National Key Deer Refuge--Watson   Federal--USFWS......    1997-1998  3.1 per ha (1.2 per   Salvato (1999, p.
 Hammock.                                                              acre).                52).
Everglades National Park--Long     Federal--NPS........    1997-1998  2.4 per ha (1 per     Salvato (1999, p.
 Pine Key.                                                             acre).                52).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ USFWS--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS--National Park Service.

    Ongoing surveys conducted by Salvato (2014, pers. comm.) from 2009 
to 2013 have recorded an average abundance of 2.7 adult Florida 
leafwings per ha (1 per ac), in Long Pine Key in ENP. In addition, 
surveys conducted by ENP staff from 2005 to present have encountered a 
total of approximately 34 and 216 leafwing adults and larvae, 
respectively, throughout Long Pine Key (Land 2012, pers. comm.; Sadle 
2013b, pers. comm.).
    No leafwings have been documented on Big Pine Key in the Florida 
Keys since 2006 (Salvato and Salvato 2010c, p. 139). On the mainland, 
Salvato (2012, pers. comm.) has found that the extant leafwing 
population within ENP is maintained at several hundred individuals or 
fewer, although numbers vary greatly depending upon season and other 
factors. However, Minno (2009, pers. comm.) estimated the extant 
leafwing population size at less than 100 at any given period.
    Ongoing natural history studies of the leafwing by Salvato and 
Salvato (Salvato 2012, pers. comm.) and Sadle (2013d, pers. comm.) 
designed to evaluate mortality factors amongst the butterfly's immature 
stages have identified a suite of predators, parasitoids, and pathogens 
that may substantially influence annual variability.
    Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak--Based on the results of historical 
(Baggett 1982, p. 80; Schwartz 1987, p. 16; Hennessey and Habeck 1991, 
pp. 117-119; Smith et al. 1994, p. 118; Emmel et al. 1995, pp. 1-24; 
Worth et al. 1996, pp. 62-65; Schwarz et al. 1996, pp. 59-61) and 
recent (Salvato 1999, p. 1; 2001, p. 8; 2003, p. 53; Salvato and 
Hennessey 2004, p. 223; Minno and Minno 2009, p. 76; Salvato and 
Salvato 2010b, p. 154; Anderson 2012a, pers. comm.; Land 2012, pers. 
comm.) surveys and natural history studies, there are extant Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak populations in ENP and locally within pineland 
fragments in mainland Miami-Dade County, and on Big Pine Key in Monroe 
County. Results from all known historical surveys are provided in Table 
2. More recent studies are discussed below.

                        Table 2--Summary of Historical Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Size or density
           Population                 Ownership *            Years         numbers of adult         Source
                                                                              butterflies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Key Deer Refuge--Big     Federal--USFWS....  1985-1986.........  20 observed or      Schwartz (1987, p.
 Pine Key.                                                                 collected.          16).
National Key Deer Refuge--Big     Federal--USFWS....  1988-1989.........  3.9 per ha (1.6     Hennessey and
 Pine Key.                                                                 per ac).            Habeck (1991, pp.
                                                                                               49-50).
Everglades National Park--Long    Federal--NPS......  1988-1989.........  0.5 per ha (0.2     Hennessey and
 Pine Key.                                                                 per ac).            Habeck (1991, pp.
                                                                                               49-50).
Everglades National Park--Long    Federal--NPS......  1994-1995.........  7 observed........  Emmel et al.
 Pine Key.                                                                                     (1995, p. 14).
National Key Deer Refuge--Big     Federal--USFWS....  1994-1995.........  9 observed........  Emmel et al.
 Pine Key.                                                                                     (1995, p. 14).
National Key Deer Refuge--Big     Federal--USFWS....  1997-1998.........  4.3 per ha (1.7     Salvato (1999, p.
 Pine Key.                                                                 per ac).            52).
Everglades National Park--Long    Federal--NPS......  1997-1998.........  0 per ha (0 per     Salvato (1999, p.
 Pine Key.                                                                 ac).                60).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* USFWS--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS--National Park Service.

    Ongoing surveys by Salvato and Salvato (unpublished data) indicate 
the average number of adult Bartram's scrub-hairstreaks recorded 
annually on Big Pine Key has declined considerably, from a high of 19.3 
per ha (7.7 per ac) in 1999, to a low of less than 1 per ha (0.3 per 
ac) in 2011, based on monthly (1999-2006) or quarterly (2007 to 2012) 
surveys.
    Hairstreaks often occur at low densities, fly erratically and are 
small, making them inherently difficult to monitor (Henry 2013, pers. 
comm.). Since early 2012, North Carolina State University personnel 
have collaborated with the Service on techniques to improve detection 
probabilities, estimate abundances, and measure vegetation 
characteristics associated with butterfly populations on the NKDR

[[Page 47230]]

(Henry and Haddad 2013, p. 1). These studies have documented a mean 
monthly count across sites ranging from 0.0 to 2.8 (with a standard 
error of  0.33) adult hairstreaks per ha (Anderson 2012a, 
pers. comm.). During 2013, using these survey techniques, NKDR 
documented a peak abundance of 159 adults in the early summer months 
(Anderson 2014, pers. comm.). Future monitoring efforts on NKDR will 
include counts in both currently and historically occupied areas.
    Salvato and Salvato (2010b, p. 159) and Salvato (2014, pers. comm.) 
have encountered as many as 6.3 adult Bartram's scrub-hairstreaks per 
ha (2.5 per ac) annually from 1999 to 2013, based on monthly surveys in 
Long Pine Key. Ongoing surveys conducted by ENP staff from 2005 to 
present have encountered a total of approximately 24 and 30 hairstreak 
adults and larvae, respectively, throughout Long Pine Key (Land 2012, 
pers. comm.; Sadle 2013b, pers. comm.).
    Additional pine rockland fragments within Miami-Dade County that 
are known to maintain small, localized populations of pineland croton 
and sporadic occurrences of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, based on 
limited survey work, include: Navy Wells (120 ha (297 acres)), Camp 
Owaissa Bauer (39 ha (99 ac)) (owned and managed by Miami-Dade County), 
and several parcels within the Richmond Pine Rocklands, including: 
Larry and Penny Thompson Memorial Park (109 ha (270 ac)), Zoo Miami 
Preserve (300 ha (740 ac)), Martinez Pineland Park (53 ha (132 ac)), 
and U.S. Coast Guard lands in Homestead (29 ha (72 ac)) (Minno and 
Minno 2009, pp. 70-76; Possley 2010, pers. comm.). Adult butterflies 
have also been observed within Zoo Miami (Cook 2013, pers. comm.).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based 
on any of the following 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. Listing actions may be warranted 
based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. 
Each of these factors is discussed below.

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

Habitat Loss
    The Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak have 
experienced substantial destruction, modification, and curtailment of 
their habitat and range (see Status Assessment section). The pine 
rockland community of south Florida, on which both butterflies and 
their hostplant depend, is critically imperiled globally (FNAI 2012, p. 
27). Destruction of the pinelands for economic development has reduced 
this habitat community by 90 percent on mainland south Florida 
(including within ENP) (O'Brien 1998, p. 208). All known mainland 
populations of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
occur on publicly or privately owned lands that are managed for 
conservation (Table 3). However, any unknown extant populations of 
these butterflies or suitable habitat that may occur on private land or 
nonconservation public land, such as within the Richmond Pine 
Rocklands, are vulnerable to habitat loss.

 Table 3--Land Ownership of Extant Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-
                         Hairstreak Populations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Location                  Ownership              Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Pine Key...................  Public--Fish and     559 ha (1,382 ac).
                                  Wildlife Service.
                                 Public--Monroe
                                  County.
                                 Public--FDEP *, FWC
                                  *..
                                 Private............
Everglades National Park--Long   Federal--National    8,029 ha (19,840
 Pine Key.                        Park Service.        ac).
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve...  Public--Miami-Dade   120 ha (296 ac).
                                  County.
Camp Owaissa Bauer.............  Public--Miami-Dade   40 ha (99 ac).
                                  County.
Richmond Pine Rocklands........  Public--Federal      359 ha (889
                                  (U.S. Coast Guard).  acres).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Public--Miami-Dade
                                  County (Larry and
                                  Penny Thompson
                                  Memorial Park,
                                  Martinez Pineland
                                  Park, Miami Metro
                                  Zoo Preserve).
                                 Private--University
                                  of Miami.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Florida Leafwing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everglades National Park--Long   Federal--National    8,029 ha (19,840
 Pine Key.                        Park Service.        ac).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FDEP--Florida Department of Environmental Protection; FWC--Florida
  Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

    Similarly, most of the ecosystems on the Florida Keys have been 
impacted by humans, through widespread clearing of habitat in the 19th 
century for farming, or building of homes and businesses; extensive 
areas of pine rocklands have been lost (Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 6). 
Overall, the human population in Monroe County is expected to increase 
from 79,589 to more than 92,287 people by 2060 (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 
21). All vacant land in the Florida Keys is projected to be developed 
by then, including lands currently inaccessible for development, such 
as islands not attached to the Overseas Highway (US 1) (Zwick and Carr 
2006, p. 14). However, during 2006, Monroe County implemented a Habitat 
Conservation Plan (HCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys. Subsequently, 
development on these islands has to meet the requirements of the HCP 
with the resulting pace of development changed

[[Page 47231]]

accordingly. Furthermore, in order to fulfill the HCP's mitigation 
requirements, the County has been actively acquiring parcels of high-
quality pine rockland, such as The Nature Conservancy's 20-acre 
Terrestris Tract on Big Pine Key, and managing them for conservation. 
However, land development pressure and habitat losses may resume when 
the HCP expires in 2023. If the HCP is not renewed, residential or 
commercial development could increase to pre-HCP levels. Consequently, 
remaining suitable habitat for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and potential 
habitat for the Florida leafwing could be at significant risk to 
habitat loss and modification. Further losses will seriously affect the 
hairstreak's ability to persist in the wild and decrease the 
possibility of recovery or recolonization by the leafwing.
Fire Management
    The threat of habitat destruction or modification is further 
exacerbated by a lack of adequate fire management (Salvato and Salvato 
2010a, p. 91; 2010b, p. 154; 2010c, p. 139). Historically, lightning-
induced fires were a vital component in maintaining native vegetation 
within the pine rockland ecosystem, including pineland croton (Loope 
and Dunevitz 1981, p. 5; Slocum et al. 2003, p. 93; Snyder et al. 2005, 
p. 1; Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p. 154). Resprouting after burns is 
the primary mechanism allowing for the persistence of perennial shrubs, 
including pineland croton, in pine habitat (Olson and Platt 1995, p. 
101). Without fire, successional climax from tropical pineland to 
hardwood hammock is rapid, and displacement of native species by 
invasive nonnative plants often occurs.
    Cyclic and alternating treatment of burn units may have benefited 
the Florida leafwing throughout Long Pine Key (Salvato and Salvato 
2010a, pp. 91-97). The leafwing, with its strong flight abilities, can 
disperse to make use of adjacent patches of hostplant and then quickly 
recolonize burned areas following hostplant resurgence (Salvato 1999, 
p. 5; 2003, p. 53; Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 95). Salvato and 
Salvato (2010a, p. 95) encountered similar adult leafwing densities 
pre- and post-burn throughout their 10-year study within Long Pine Key, 
suggesting the leafwing can quickly recolonize pine rocklands following 
a fire. Surveys conducted shortly after burns often found adult 
leafwings actively exploring the recently burned locations in search of 
new hostplant growth (Land 2009, pers. comm.; Salvato and Salvato 2008, 
p. 326; 2010a, p. 95). In most instances croton returned to the burned 
parts of Long Pine Key within 1 to 3 months post-burn; however, it may 
take up to 6 months before the leafwing will use the new growth for 
oviposition (Lenczewski 1980, p. 35; Land 2009, pers. comm.; Salvato 
and Salvato 2010a, p. 95). Land (2009, pers. comm.) indicated that 96 
percent of pineland croton burned during prescribed burns on Long Pine 
Key had resprouted within a few months. Although Salvato and Salvato 
(2010a, p. 96) occasionally encountered signs of leafwing reproduction 
within recently burned Long Pine Key locations at approximately 6 weeks 
post-burn, the majority of their observations indicated that 
oviposition and larval activity increased at about 3 to 6 months post-
burn. Similarly, Land (2009, pers. comm.) reported finding leafwing 
larval activity on resprouting croton at 6 months post-burn. This 
finding suggests there may be some lag time between hostplant 
resurgence and compatibility with recolonization. However, observations 
of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak within portions 
of Long Pine Key that have experienced fire or other disturbance 
regimes at intervals of up to 10 years (Salvato and Salvato 2010a; 
2010b; Sadle 2013c, pers. comm.) suggest further studies are required 
on the influence of disturbance regime on butterfly ecologies.
    The influence of prescribed burns on the status and distribution of 
the hairstreak and croton is being evaluated by ENP throughout Long 
Pine Key. The effects of new burn techniques on the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak within Long Pine Key were not immediately obvious (Salvato 
and Salvato 2010b, p. 159). The hairstreak is rarely encountered more 
than 5 m (16.4 ft) from its hostplant (Schwartz 1987, p. 16; Worth et 
al. 1996, p. 65; Salvato and Salvato 2008, p. 324). Although further 
studies may be required to determine how the hairstreak responds to 
natural disturbances, Salvato and Hennessey (2004, p. 224) and Salvato 
and Salvato (2010b, p. 159) indicate that, if the hairstreak is unable 
to disperse adequately during fire events, then only adults at the 
periphery of burned areas are likely to escape to adjacent pine 
rocklands. Ideally, as a result of cyclic burns and multiyear treatment 
intervals, the hairstreaks will move from the burned location to 
adjacent refugia (i.e., unburned areas of croton hostplant) and then 
back to the burned area in numbers equal to or greater than before the 
fire. Starting in the fall of 2004 and continuing into early 2006, the 
hairstreak appeared to have benefited from prescribed burns with 
population densities greater than those recorded in any previous 
studies (Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p. 159), and this trend has 
continued subsequently (Land 2011, 2012a, pers. comm.; Salvato 2012, 
pers. comm.).
    ENP is actively coordinating with the Service, as well as other 
members of the Imperiled Butterflies of Florida Workgroup, to review 
and adjust the prescribed burn practices outlined in ENP's Fire 
Management Plan (FMP) to help maintain or increase Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak population sizes, protect pine rocklands, 
expand or restore remnant patches of hostplants and ensure that short-
term negative effects from fire (i.e., loss of hostplants, loss of eggs 
and larvae) can be avoided or minimized. Revisions to the FMP are 
expected to be completed in early 2014, with prescribed burn activities 
resuming at that time.
    Outside of ENP, Miami-Dade County has implemented various 
conservation measures, such as burning in a mosaic pattern and on a 
small scale, during prescribed burns in order to protect the 
butterflies (Maguire 2010, pers. comm.). Miami-Dade County Parks and 
Recreation staff has burned several of their conservation lands on a 
fire-return interval of approximately 3 to 7 years. In addition, 
prescribed burns on large conservation areas, such as Navy Wells, have 
been conducted in a cyclic and systematic pattern, which has provided 
refugia within or adjacent to treatment areas. As a result, the 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak has retained populations within many of 
these County-managed conservation lands.
    Recent natural or prescribed burn activity on Big Pine Key and 
adjacent islands within NKDR appears to be insufficient to prevent loss 
of pine rockland habitat (Carlson et al. 1993, p. 914; Bergh and Wisby 
1996, pp. 1-2; O'Brien 1998, p. 209; Snyder et al. 2005; Bradley and 
Saha 2009, pp. 28-29; Saha et al. 2011, pp. 169-184). As a result, many 
of the pine rocklands, across NKDR are being compromised by succession 
to hardwood hammock (Bradley and Saha 2009, pp. 28-29; Saha et al. 
2011, pp. 169-184). Pineland croton, which was historically documented 
from No Name and Little Pine Keys (Dickson 1955, p. 98; Hennessey and 
Habeck 1991, p. 4; Carlson et al. 1993, p. 923), is now absent from 
these locations (Emmel et al. 1995, p. 6; Salvato and Salvato 2010c, p. 
139).
    Fire management of pine rocklands in NKDR is hampered by the 
pattern of land ownership and development;

[[Page 47232]]

residential and commercial properties are embedded within or in close 
proximity to pineland habitat (Snyder et al. 2005, p. 2; Anderson 
2012a, pers. comm.). As a result, hand or mechanical vegetation 
management may be necessary at select locations on Big Pine Key (Emmel 
et al. 1995, p. 11; Minno 2009, pers. comm.; Service 2010, pp. 1-68) to 
maintain or restore pine rocklands. Clearing, such as that used to 
create firebreaks, can result in high croton densities. Anderson et al. 
(2012, page numbers not applicable) showed that croton densities were 
significantly higher in a fire break with annual mechanical treatments 
than adjacent areas with no management. However, even within fire 
breaks, hostplant density across NKDR has declined considerably in some 
areas over the past decade. Salvato and Salvato (unpublished data) have 
noted as much as a 100 percent loss of pineland croton from several of 
their long-term survey transects, which occur within both firebreaks 
and forested pine rocklands. These losses are believed to be due to a 
combination of mowing activity, habitat modification, and a lack of 
adequate fire management. Ongoing and future studies on NKDR will be 
designed to measure the influence of prescribed burns and other 
management actions, such as mechanical clearing. Mechanical treatments 
may be less beneficial than fire because they do not quickly convert 
debris to nutrients, and remaining leaf litter may suppress croton 
seedling development; fire has also been found to stimulate seedling 
germination (Anderson 2010, pers. comm.). Because mechanical treatments 
may not provide the same ecological benefits as fire, NKDR continues to 
focus efforts on conducting prescribed burns where possible (Anderson 
2012a, pers. comm.). Additional proposed experimental techniques that 
will be designed to simulate disturbance include complete vegetation 
removal (or scarping), fertilization (simulating the release of 
nutrients after fire), or other treatments that mimic fire influence 
(Haddad 2013, pers. comm., Anderson 2014, pers. comm.).
    The NKDR is attempting to increase the density of hostplants within 
their pine rockland habitat through the use of prescribed burns. 
However, the majority of pine rocklands within NKDR are several years 
departed from the ideal fire-return interval (5-7 years) suggested for 
this ecosystem (Synder et al. 2005, p. 2, Saha et al. 2011, pp. 169-
184). Tree ring and sediment data show that pine rocklands in the lower 
Keys have burned at least every 5 years and sometimes up to three times 
per decade historically (Albritton 2009, p. 123, Horn et.al., 2013, pp. 
1-67, Harley 2012, pp. 1-246). Prescribed burn implementation in the 
lower Keys has been hampered largely due to a shortage of resources, 
technical challenges, and expense of conducting prescribed burns in a 
matrix of public and private ownership. However, NKDR is taking steps 
to monitor croton before and after fire, provide refugia during 
treatments, and ensure that appropriate corridors are maintained during 
burns (Anderson 2010, pers. comm.). Given the difficulties in 
prescribed burn implementation on Big Pine Key, other options have been 
explored to increase the amount of available hostplant for extant 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations, as well as to restore formerly 
occupied Florida leafwing habitat on Big Pine Key. For example, NKDR 
currently is growing pineland croton for use in habitat enhancement 
activities across the Refuge (more than a thousand have been planted to 
date) (Anderson 2012b, pers. comm.).
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Related to Habitat Loss and 
Alteration
    Climatic changes, including sea level rise, are major threats to 
south Florida, and to the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak. Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing 
and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate 
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and variability of 
different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a 
typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer 
periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term ``climate 
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or 
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that 
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether 
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 
2007a, p. 78).
    Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that 
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been 
faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate 
system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of 
the world and decreases in other regions. For these and other examples, 
see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; and Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85. 
Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of 
the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th 
century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate, and is 
``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher 
probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) 
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, 
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 
2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 
21-35). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by 
Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely 
that approximately 75 percent of global warming since 1950 has been 
caused by human activities.
    Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include 
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various 
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate 
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in 
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007, 
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 
527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield 
very similar projections of increases in the most common measure of 
climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as 
global warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the 
magnitude and rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall 
trajectory of all the projections is one of increased global warming 
through the end of this century, even for the projections based on 
scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. 
Thus, there is strong scientific support for projections that warming 
will continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate 
of change will be influenced substantially by the extent of GHG 
emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44-45; Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764 and 
797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 
527, 529). See IPCC (2007b, p. 8), for a summary of other global 
projections of climate-related changes, such as frequency of heat waves 
and changes in precipitation. Also see IPCC 2011 (entire) for a summary 
of observations and projections of extreme climate events.
    Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on 
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they 
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant 
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables 
(e.g., habitat fragmentation)

[[Page 47233]]

(IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19). Identifying likely effects often involves 
aspects of climate change vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability refers 
to the degree to which a species (or system) is susceptible to, and 
unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including 
climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the 
type, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a 
species is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 
2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22). There is no 
single method for conducting such analyses that applies to all 
situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment and 
appropriate analytical approaches to weigh relevant information, 
including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of 
climate change.
    Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the 
only or the best scientific information available for us to use. 
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary 
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g., 
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections 
when they are available and have been developed through appropriate 
scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher 
resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for 
analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a 
discussion of downscaling).
    With regard to our analysis for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak, downscaled projections suggest that sea level rise is 
the largest climate-driven challenge to low-lying coastal areas and 
refuges in the subtropical ecoregion of southern Florida (U.S. Climate 
Change Science Program (CCSP) 2008, pp. 5-31, 5-32). The long-term 
record at Key West shows that sea level rose on average 0.224 
centimeters (cm) (0.088 in) annually between 1913 and 2006 (National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2008, p. 1). This 
equates to approximately 22.3 cm (8.76 in) over the last 100 years 
(NOAA 2008, p. 1). IPCC (2008, p. 28) emphasized it is very likely that 
the average rate of sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed 
that rate, although it was projected to have substantial geographical 
variability.
    Other processes to be affected by projected warming include 
temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and distribution), and 
storms (frequency and intensity). The Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology (MIT) modeled several scenarios combining various levels of 
sea level rise, temperature change, and precipitation differences with 
population, policy assumptions, and conservation funding changes. All 
of the scenarios, from small climate change shifts to major changes, 
indicate significant effects on the Florida Keys.
    The Nature Conservancy (TNC) modeled several scenarios for the 
Florida Keys, and predicted that sea level rise will first result in 
the conversion of habitat, and eventually the complete inundation of 
habitat. In the best-case scenario, by the year 2100, a rise of 18 cm 
(7 in) would result in the inundation of 745 ha (1,840 ac) (34 percent) 
of Big Pine Key and the loss of 11 percent of the island's upland 
habitat (TNC 2010, p. 1). In the worst-case scenario, a rise of 140 cm 
(4.6 ft) would result in the inundation of about 2,409 ha (5,950 ac) 
(96 percent) and the loss of all upland habitat on the Key (TNC 2010, 
p. 1). Extant populations of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak in the pine 
rocklands on Big Pine Key are located just slightly above mean sea 
level, and saturation or increase in salinity of the soil would 
correspondingly change the vegetation and habitat structure making the 
butterfly's survival at this location in the Keys very unlikely (Minno 
2013, page numbers not applicable). In addition, the Florida leafwing 
also occurred on Big Pine Key until 2006, within the same locations as 
extant Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations. Reestablishment of the 
Florida leafwing to this island will be a major component in recovering 
the butterfly. The loss of this portion of the Florida leafwing's range 
will further reduce their overall resiliency to threats and limit their 
capacity for survival and recovery.
    Hydrology has a strong influence on plant distribution in these and 
other coastal areas (IPCC 2008, p. 57). Such communities typically 
grade from salt to brackish to freshwater species. From the 1930s to 
1950s, increased salinity of coastal waters contributed to the decline 
of cabbage palm forests in southwest Florida (Williams et al. 1999, pp. 
2056-2059), expansion of mangroves into adjacent marshes in the 
Everglades (Ross et al. 2000, pp. 9, 12-13), and loss of pine rockland 
in the Keys (Ross et al. 1994, pp. 144, 151-155). Furthermore, Ross et 
al. (2009, pp. 471-478) suggested that interactions between sea level 
rise and pulse disturbances (e.g., storm surges) can cause vegetation 
to change sooner than projected based on sea level alone. Alexander 
(1953, pp. 133-138) attributed the demise of pinelands on northern Key 
Largo to salinization of the groundwater in response to sea level rise. 
Patterns of human development will also likely be significant factors 
influencing whether natural communities can move and persist (IPCC 
2008, p. 57; CCSP 2008, p. 7-6).
    Drier conditions and increased variability in precipitation 
associated with climate change are expected to hamper successful 
regeneration of forests and cause shifts in vegetation types through 
time (Wear and Greis 2011, p. 58). Climate changes are forecasted to 
extend fire seasons and the frequency of large fire events throughout 
the Coastal Plain (Wear and Greis 2011, p. 65). Increases in the scale, 
frequency, or severity of wildfires could also have severe 
ramifications on the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, 
considering their dependence on pine rocklands and general 
vulnerability due to their reduced population size, restricted range, 
few colonies, low fecundity, and relative isolation (see Factor E).
    The ranges of recent projections of global sea level rise (Pfeffer 
et al. 2008, p. 1340; Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009, p. 21530; Grinsted et 
al. 2010, pp. 469-470; Jevrejeva et al. 2010, Global Climate Change 
Impacts in the United States 2009, pp. 25-26) all indicate 
substantially higher levels than the projection by the IPCC in 2007, 
suggesting that the impact of sea level rise on south Florida could be 
even greater than indicated above. These recent studies also show a 
much larger difference (approximately 0.9 to 1.2 m (3 to 4 ft)) from 
the low to the high ends of the ranges, which indicates that the 
magnitude of global mean sea level rise at the end of this century is 
still quite uncertain.
Alternative Future Landscape Models
    Various model scenarios developed at MIT have projected possible 
trajectories of future transformation of the south Florida landscape by 
2060 based upon four main drivers: Climate change, shifts in planning 
approaches and regulations, human population change, and variations in 
financial resources for conservation (Vargas-Moreno and Flaxman 2010, 
pp. 1-6). The Service used various MIT scenarios in combination with 
extant and historical Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
occurrences and remaining hostplant-bearing pine rocklands to predict 
what may occur to the butterflies and their habitat.
    In the best-case scenario, which assumes low sea level rise, high 
financial resources, proactive planning, and only trending population 
growth, analyses suggest that the Big Pine Key

[[Page 47234]]

population of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak may be lost or greatly 
reduced. Based upon the above assumptions, extant butterfly populations 
on Big Pine Key (Bartram's scrub-hairstreak) and Long Pine Key (Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak) appear to be most susceptible 
for future losses, with losses attributed to increases in sea level and 
human population. In the worst-case scenario, which assumes high sea 
level rise, low financial resources, a `business as usual' approach to 
planning, and a doubling of human population, the habitat at Big Pine 
Key and Long Pine Key may be lost, with the loss of habitat at Long 
Pine Key resulting in the complete extirpation of the Florida leafwing. 
Under the worst-case scenario, pine rockland habitat would remain 
within both Navy Wells and the Richmond Pine Rocklands, both of which 
currently retain Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations. Actual impacts 
may be greater or less than anticipated based upon high variability of 
factors involved (e.g., sea level rise, human population growth) and 
assumptions made.
Everglades Restoration
    Projects designed to restore the historical hydrology of the 
Everglades and other natural systems in southern Florida (collectively 
known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)) may 
produce collateral impacts to extant pine rockland within Long Pine 
Key. Salvato (2012, pers. comm.) noted substantial flooding of pine 
rocklands at the gate 11 nature trail in Long Pine Key following 
Hurricane Isaac (August 2012) and subsequent above-average rainfall in 
the region. Although Long Pine Key has experienced storm damages in the 
recent past (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96), none of the prior 
activity produced the level (several feet) or duration (more than 2 
months) of inundation noted in the aftermath of Isaac. However, by mid-
December 2012, Salvato noted no apparent lasting influence on croton 
health or abundance from the inundation. Sadle (2012, pers. comm.) 
suggests various CERP projects (C-111 spreader canal; L-31N seepage 
barrier), specifically the operation of pumps and associated detention 
areas along the ENP boundary, may influence select portions of eastern 
Long Pine Key, including pineland croton populations at gate 11. 
However, Pace (2013, pers. comm.) attributed the pine rockland flooding 
event of late 2012 more to localized and above-average rainfall 
patterns than to a change in water management practices. Analysis of 
the hydrology associated with operation of these CERP-related 
structures along the Everglades boundary will be conducted following 
the initial years of operation. However, Service and National Park 
Service (NPS) biologists realize the need to assess this potential 
threat.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce the Present or Threatened Destruction, 
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
    The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the 
Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (601 FW 3, 602 FW 3) require 
maintaining biological integrity and diversity, comprehensive 
conservation planning for each refuge, and set standards to ensure that 
all uses of refuges are compatible with their purposes and the Refuge 
System's wildlife conservation mission. The comprehensive conservation 
plans (CCP) address conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources 
and their related habitats, while providing opportunities for 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation uses. An overriding 
consideration reflected in these plans is that fish and wildlife 
conservation has first priority in refuge management, and that public 
use be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does 
not detract from, the Refuge System mission and refuge purpose(s). The 
CCP for the Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges (NKDR, Key 
West National Wildlife Refuge, and Great White Heron National Wildlife 
Refuge) provides a description of the environment and priority resource 
issues that were considered in developing the objectives and strategies 
that guide management over the next 15 years. The CCP promotes the 
enhancement of wildlife populations by maintaining and enhancing a 
diversity and abundance of habitats for native plants and animals, 
especially imperiled species that are found only in the Florida Keys. 
The CCP also provides for obtaining baseline data and monitoring 
indicator species to detect changes in ecosystem diversity and 
integrity related to climate change. In the Lower Key Refuges, CCP 
management objective 11 provides specifically for maintaining and 
restoring butterfly populations of special conservation concern, 
including the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing 
butterflies.
    As Federal candidates, the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak are afforded some protection through sections 7 and 10 of 
the Act and associated policies and guidelines. Service policy requires 
candidate species be treated as proposed species for purposes of intra-
Service consultations and conferences where the Service's actions on 
National Wildlife Refuges may affect candidate species. Federal action 
agencies (e.g., the Service, NPS) are to consider the potential effects 
of their activities (e.g., prescribed burning, pesticide treatments) to 
these butterflies and their habitat during the consultation and 
conference process. Applicants and action agencies are encouraged to 
consider candidate species when seeking incidental take for other 
listed species and when developing habitat conservation plans. However, 
candidate species do not receive the same level of protection that a 
listed species would under the Act.
    The NPS is also currently preparing a revised General Management 
Plan (GMP) for ENP (Sadle 2013a, pers. comm.). ENP's current Management 
Plan (initiated in 1979) serves to protect, restore, and maintain 
natural and cultural resources at the ecosystem level (NPS 2000, p. 
10). The current GMP is not regulatory, and its implementation is not 
mandatory. In addition, this GMP does not specifically address either 
the Florida leafwing or Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
    Fairchild Tropical Botanic Gardens (FTBG), with the support of 
various Federal, State, local, and nonprofit organizations, has 
established the ``Connect to Protect Network.'' The objective of this 
program is to encourage widespread participation of citizens to create 
corridors of healthy pine rocklands by planting stepping-stone gardens 
and rights-of-way with native pine rockland species, and restoring 
isolated pine rockland fragments. By doing this, FTBG hopes to increase 
the probability that pollinators can find and transport seeds and 
pollen across developed areas that separate pine rocklands fragments to 
improve gene flow between fragmented plant populations and increase the 
likelihood that these species will persist over the long term. Although 
this project may serve as a valuable component toward the conservation 
of pine rockland species, it is dependent on continual funding, as well 
as participation from private landowners, both of which may vary 
through time.

Factor B--Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

Collection
    Rare butterflies and moths are highly prized by collectors, and an 
international trade exists in specimens for both live and decorative 
markets, as

[[Page 47235]]

well as the specialist trade that supplies hobbyists, collectors, and 
researchers (Collins and Morris 1985, pp. 155-179; Morris et al. 1991, 
pp. 332-334; Williams 1996, pp. 30-37). The specialist trade differs 
from both the live and decorative market in that it concentrates on 
rare and threatened species (U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ) 1993, 
pp. 1-3; United States v. Skalski et al., Case No. CR9320137, U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC) 1993, pp. 
1-86). In general, the rarer the species, the more valuable it is; 
prices can exceed $25,000 for exceedingly rare specimens. For example, 
during a 4-year investigation, special agents of the Service's Office 
of Law Enforcement executed warrants and seized more than 30,000 
endangered and protected butterflies and beetles, with a total 
wholesale commercial market value of about $90,000 in the United States 
(USDJ 1995, pp. 1-4). In another case, special agents found at least 13 
species protected under the Act, and another 130 species illegally 
taken from lands administered by the Department of the Interior and 
other State lands (USDC 1993, pp. 1-86; Service 1995, pp. 1-2). Law 
enforcement agents routinely see butterfly species protected under the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES) during port inspections in Florida, often without 
import declarations or the required CITES permits (McKissick 2011, 
pers. comm.).
    In the past, when the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak were widespread on Big Pine Key and throughout southern 
Miami-Dade County, collecting likely exerted little pressure on these 
butterfly populations. At present, even limited collection from the 
small, remaining populations could have deleterious effects on 
reproductive and genetic viability and thus could contribute to their 
eventual extinction (see Factor E--Effects of Few, Small Populations 
and Isolation, below). Collection, which is prohibited on conservation 
lands, could occur (e.g., ENP, NKDR, State or County owned lands) 
without being detected, because these areas are all not actively 
patrolled (see Factor D--The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms, below). Similarly, in some areas such as on Big Pine Key, 
where numerous pine rockland parcels within NKDR are interspersed among 
residential areas, there is no signage indicating that collection is 
prohibited (Salvato 2012, pers. comm.). Consequently, the potential for 
collection of eggs, larvae, pupae, and adult butterflies exists, and 
such collection could go undetected, despite the protection provided on 
Federal or other public lands.
    We have direct evidence of interest in the collecting, as well as 
proposed commercial sale, of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak. Salvato (2011, pers. comm.) has also been contacted by 
several individuals requesting specimens of the Florida leafwing, as 
well as information regarding locations where both butterflies may be 
collected in the field. Salvato (2012, pers. comm.) observed several 
individuals collecting butterflies at Navy Wells during 2005, including 
times when Bartram's scrub-hairstreak was present at this site.
    We are also aware of multiple Web sites that offer or have offered 
specimens of south Florida butterflies for sale that are candidates for 
listing under the Act (Minno 2009, pers. comm.; Nagano 2011, pers. 
comm.; Olle 2011, pers. comm.). Until recently, one Web site offered 
male and female Florida leafwing specimens for [euro]110.00 and 
[euro]60.00 (euros), respectively (approximately $144 and $78). It is 
unclear from where the specimens originated or when they were 
collected, but this butterfly is now mainly restricted to ENP where 
collection is prohibited. The same Web site currently offers specimens 
of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak for [euro]10.00 ($13). It is unclear from 
where these specimens originated or when they were collected. The 
hairstreak can be found on private lands on Big Pine Key and perhaps 
locally within Miami-Dade County. However, given that the majority of 
known populations of both butterflies now occur within protected 
Federal, State, and county lands, it is possible that some specimens 
are being poached. Alternatively, Calhoun (2013, pers. comm.) suggests 
that many specimens of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak offered from sale online or elsewhere may come from older 
collections, as opposed to from poaching activities on conservation 
lands.
Scientific Research
    Some techniques (e.g., capture, handling) used to understand or 
monitor the leafwing and hairstreak butterflies have the potential to 
cause harm to individuals or habitat. Visual surveys, transect counts, 
and netting for identification purposes have been performed during 
scientific research and conservation efforts with the potential to 
disturb or injure individuals or damage habitat. Mark-recapture, a 
common method used to determine population size, has been used by some 
researchers to monitor Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
populations (Emmel et al. 1995, p. 4; Salvato 1999, p. 24). This method 
has received some criticism. While mark-recapture may be preferable to 
other sampling estimates (e.g., count-based transects) in obtaining 
demographic data when used in a proper design on appropriate species, 
such techniques may also result in deleterious impacts to captured 
butterflies (Mallet et al. 1987, pp. 377-386; Murphy 1988, pp. 236-239; 
Haddad et al. 2008, pp. 929-940).
    Although effects may vary depending upon taxon, technique, or other 
factors, some studies suggest that marking may damage (wing damage) or 
kill butterflies or alter their behaviors (Mallet et al. 1987, pp. 377-
386; Murphy 1988, pp. 236-239). Salvato (2012, pers. comm.) ceased 
using mark-recapture shortly after initiating his long-term leafwing 
studies when he realized how much the tagging altered from the 
butterflies' cryptic (camouflage) underside as individuals alit 
(rested) on pineland foliage. Murphy (1988, p. 236) and Mattoni et al. 
(2001, p. 198) indicated that studies on various lycaenids (small 
butterflies known as hairstreaks and blues) have demonstrated mortality 
and altered behavior as a result of marking. Conversely, other studies 
have found that marking did not harm individual butterflies or 
populations (Gall 1984, pp. 139-154; Orive and Baughman 1989, p. 246; 
Haddad et al. 2008, p. 938). Cook (2013, pers. comm.) suggests that 
marking individuals improves the accuracy of population estimates by 
reducing sampling error from recounting or extrapolation. Emmel et al. 
(1995, p. 4) conducted mark-recapture studies on the hairstreak and 
noted no detrimental effects. In addition several individuals were re-
encountered (recaptured) during the days following marking. However, 
researchers currently studying the populations of the endangered Miami 
blue in the Florida Keys have opted not to use mark-release-recapture 
techniques due to the potential for damage to this small, fragile 
lycaenid (Haddad and Wilson 2011, p. 3).

Factor C--Disease or Predation

Florida Leafwing
    A number of predators have been documented to impact Florida 
leafwings throughout their life cycle. One of the earliest natural 
history accounts of the leafwing (Matteson 1930, p. 8) reported ants as 
predators of leafwing eggs in Miami. On Big Pine Key, Hennessey and 
Habeck (1991, p. 17) encountered a pupa of the Florida leafwing being

[[Page 47236]]

consumed by ants. Land (2009, pers. comm.) observed a native twig ant 
(Pseudomyrmex pallidus) carrying a young leafwing larva in Long Pine 
Key. Salvato and Salvato (2012, p. 3) witnessed an older leafwing larva 
repelling P. pallidus attacks while attempting to pupate. Minno (2009, 
pers. comm.) noted that the larger nonnative graceful twig ant 
(Pseudomyrmex gracilis) is also known to consume immature butterflies 
and moths. Salvato and Salvato (2012, p. 3) have observed a graceful 
twig ant attempting to capture a young leafwing larva. Cannon (2006, 
pp. 7-8) reported high mortality of giant and Bahamian (P. a. 
andraemon) swallowtail eggs from a nonnative species of twig ant 
(Pseudomyrmex spp.) on Big Pine Key, within habitat formerly occupied 
by the Florida leafwing. Both native and nonnative Pseudomyrmex ants 
are abundant within Long Pine Key and are frequently encountered 
patrolling the racemes of pineland croton. Forys et al. (2001, p. 257) 
found high mortality among immature giant swallowtails (Papilio 
cresphontes) from imported red fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) predation 
in experimental trials and suggested other butterflies in southern 
Florida might also be influenced.
    Additional predators of immature Florida leafwings include spiders 
(Rutkowski 1971, p. 137; Glassberg et al. 2000, p. 99; Salvato and 
Salvato 2010e, p. 6; 2011, p. 103; 2012c, p. 3), ambush bugs (Salvato 
and Salvato 2008, p. 324), and possibly mites (Salvato and Salvato 
2010e, p. 6). Salvato and Salvato (unpublished data) have examined the 
bite marks on wings of numerous adults in the field suggesting a 
variety of birds and lizards are among the predators of this butterfly.
    A number of parasites have been documented to impact Florida 
leafwings throughout their life cycle. Hennessey and Habeck (1991, p. 
16) and Salvato and Hennessey (2004, p. 247) noted that leafwing egg 
mortality within ENP and Big Pine Key from trichogrammid wasp 
(Trichogramma sp.) parasitism ranged from 70 to 100 percent. Salvato 
and Salvato (2011, p. 2) continually encounter leafwing eggs that have 
been attacked by trichogrammid wasps, suggesting this wasp remains a 
consistent parasitoid for the leafwing within ENP.
    Caldas (1996, p. 89), Muyshondt (1974, pp. 306-314), DeVries (1987, 
p. 21), and Salvato and Hennessey (2003, p. 247) each indicated high 
parasitism rates from tachinid flies for larvae of Anaea or similar 
genera. Hennessey and Habeck (1991, p. 17) and Salvato et al. (2009, p. 
101) each encountered Florida leafwing larvae within ENP that had been 
parasitized by Chetogena scutellaris (Diptera: Tachinidae). Ongoing 
studies of leafwing larvae in Long Pine Key have indicated that C. 
scutellaris serves as a consistent mortality factor to the butterfly in 
this part of its range (Salvato et al. 2009, p. 101; Salvato and 
Salvato 2010a, p. 95). Current studies suggest that leafwing mortality 
from the fly can vary considerably from year to year, thereby also 
influencing overall population numbers of the butterfly. In 2011, 
nearly all leafwing larvae observed to be parasitized by C. 
scutellaris, died prior to pupation. Conversely, in winter of 2012, 
three of four leafwing larvae observed to be heavily parasitized by the 
fly were found to successfully pupate and emerge (Salvato and Salvato 
2012, p. 3).
    Salvato et al. (2008, p. 237) observed a biting-midge, Forcipomyia 
(Microhelea) fuliginosa (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae), feeding on a young 
Florida leafwing larva within ENP. Ongoing studies of F. (M.) 
fuliginosa and a second biting midge F. (M.) eriophora (Salvato et al. 
2012a, p. 232) indicate they consistently parasitize leafwing larvae 
within Long Pine Key throughout their development.
    Salvato and Salvato (2012, p. 1) and Sadle (2013d, pers. comm.) 
have monitored Florida leafwing immature development in the field for 
several years at Long Pine Key. To date these studies have measured 
mortality rates of more than 70 percent for immature leafwing, 
individuals dying from various parasites, predators, and other factors 
such as fungal pathogens (Salvato and Salvato 2012, p. 1; Sadle 2013d, 
pers. comm.). The majority of mortality noted thus far in these studies 
has occurred in the earliest, immature stages. Caldas (2013, pers. 
comm.) suggests that, based on the high mortality of immature leafwing, 
often from natural factors such as parasitism, recovery efforts for 
these butterflies should be focused on the adult stage, specifically 
establishing and maintaining additional breeding populations.
Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak
    Native parasites and predators have been documented to impact 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreaks. Hennessey and Habeck (1991, p. 19) 
collected an older hairstreak larva on Big Pine Key from which a single 
braconid wasp emerged during pupation. During 2010, Salvato et al. 
(2012b, p. 113) encountered a hairstreak larva within Long Pine Key 
that had been parasitized by C. scutellaris. These are the only known 
records for a larval parasitoid on this butterfly. Tracking the fate of 
hairstreak pupae is extremely difficult because they pupate in the 
ground litter (Worth et al. 1996, p. 63). Collection of other 
parasitized hairstreak larvae is needed to determine the influence of 
parasitism on its early stages (Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p. 225). 
Many immature lycaenids, including those of the endangered Miami blue, 
demonstrate a symbiotic relationship with ants (Saarinen and Daniels 
2006, p. 69; Trager and Daniels 2009, p. 474; Daniels 2013, pers. 
comm.), as a strategy to ward off predation. However, no such symbiotic 
relationship between Bartram's scrub-hairstreak larvae and ants has 
been documented (Salvato 1999, p. 124).
    Salvato and Salvato (2010d, p. 71) observed erythraeid larval mite 
parasites on an adult Bartram's scrub-hairstreak in Long Pine Key. 
Although mite predation on butterflies is rarely fatal (Treat 1975, pp. 
1-362), the role of parasitism by mites in the natural history of the 
hairstreak requires further study. Salvato and Salvato (2008, p. 324) 
have observed dragonflies (Odonata) preying on adult hairstreaks. Crab 
spiders, orb weavers, ants, and a number of other predators discussed 
as mortality factors for the leafwing have also been frequently 
observed on croton during hairstreak surveys and may also prey on 
hairstreak adults and larvae (Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p. 225; 
Salvato 2012, pers. comm.). NKDR biologists have witnessed nonnative 
Cuban anoles (Anolis equestris) attempting to prey on adult Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreaks (Anderson 2013, pers. comm.). Minno and Minno (2009, 
p. 72) also cite nonnative predators such as ants as a major threat to 
both butterflies.

Factor D--The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species 
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any, 
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision 
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species. . . .'' In 
relation to Factor D, we interpret this language to require the Service 
to consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, plans, 
regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the 
threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors, or 
otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give strongest weight 
to statutes and their

[[Page 47237]]

implementing regulations and to management direction that stems from 
those laws and regulations. An example would be State governmental 
actions enforced under a State statute or constitution, or Federal 
action under statute.
    Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any 
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to 
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the 
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, 
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified 
threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal 
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or 
remove threats to the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
butterflies.
Federal
    Existing Federal regulatory mechanisms that could provide some 
protection for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
butterflies include: (1) The National Park Service Organic Act and its 
implementing regulations; (2) the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee) as amended, and the Refuge 
Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) and their implementing 
regulations.
    National Park Service (NPS) regulations at 36 CFR 2.1 and 2.2 
prohibit visitors from harming or removing wildlife, listed or 
otherwise, from ENP. In addition, NPS regulation 36 CFR 2.5 prohibits 
visitors from conducting research or collecting specimens without a 
permit. Although ENP was not able to provide specific information 
concerning poaching of butterflies or enforcement of NPS regulations 
protecting the butterflies and their habitats from harm, the apparent 
online sales of the butterflies suggests that poaching could be 
occurring. Insufficient implementation or enforcement could become a 
threat to the two butterflies in the future if they continue to decline 
in numbers.
    Special Use Permits (SUPs) are issued by the Refuges as authorized 
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 
668dd-ee) as amended, and the Refuge Recreation Act. The Service's 
South Florida Ecological Services Office and NKDR coordinate annually 
on potential impacts to the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak prior to issuance of an SUP to the Florida Keys Mosquito 
Control District (FKMCD) (see Factor E--Pesticides, below). In 
addition, as discussed above (Factor A--Conservation Efforts To Reduce 
the Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Its Habitat or Range), the CCP for the Lower Key Refuges provides 
specifically for maintaining and restoring butterfly populations within 
NKDR, including the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing 
butterflies.
State
    Neither the Florida leafwing nor Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
butterflies are currently listed by the State of Florida as a protected 
species under Chapter 68A-27, Rules Relating to Endangered or 
Threatened Species, so there are no existing State regulations 
designated to protect them. However, all State-owned property and 
resources are generally protected from harm in Chapter 62D-2.013(2), 
and animals are specifically protected from unauthorized collection in 
Chapter 62D-2.013(5) of the Florida Statutes.
Local
    Under Miami-Dade County ordinance (Section 26-1), a permit is 
required to conduct scientific research (Rule 9) on county 
environmental lands. In addition, Rule 8 of this ordinance provides for 
the preservation of habitat within County parks or areas operated by 
the Parks and Recreation Department. We have no information to suggest 
that other counties within the range of the leafwing and hairstreak 
have regulatory mechanisms that provide any protections for these 
butterflies.

Factor E--Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

Effects of Few, Small Populations and Isolation
    The Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak are vulnerable 
to extinction due to their severely reduced range, reduced population 
size, lack of metapopulation structure, few remaining populations, and 
relative isolation. Abundance of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak is not known, but each butterfly is estimated to 
number in the hundreds, and at times, possibly much lower. Although 
highly dependent on individual species considered, a population of 
1,000 has been suggested as marginally viable for an insect (Schweitzer 
2003, pers. comm.). Schweitzer (2003, pers. comm.) has also suggested 
that butterfly populations of fewer than 200 adults per generation 
would have difficulty surviving over the long term. In comparison, in a 
review of 27 recovery plans for listed insect species, Schultz and 
Hammond (2003, p. 1377) found that 25 plans broadly specified 
metapopulation features in terms of requiring that recovery include 
multiple population areas (the average number of sites required was 
8.2). The three plans that quantified minimum population sizes as part 
of their recovery criteria for butterflies ranged from 200 adults per 
site (Oregon silverspot (Speyeria zerene hippolyta)) to 100,000 adults 
(Bay checkerspot (Euphydryas editha bayensis)) (Schulz and Hammond 
2003, pp. 1374-1375).
    Schultz and Hammond (2003, pp. 1372-1385) used population viability 
analyses to develop quantitative recovery criteria for insects whose 
population sizes can be estimated and applied this framework in the 
context of the Fender's blue (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), a butterfly 
listed as endangered in 2000 due to the threats on the remaining 
reduced population and limited remaining habitat. They found the 
Fender's blue to be at high risk of extinction due to agriculture 
practices, development activities, forestry practices, grazing, 
roadside maintenance, and commercial Christmas tree farming.
    Losses in diversity within populations of the Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak may have already occurred (Salvato 2012, 
pers. comm.). The leafwing and hairstreak have been extirpated from 
several locations where they were previously recorded (Baggett 1982, 
pp. 78-81; Salvato and Hennessey 2003, p. 243; 2004, p. 223). Initially 
described from Brickell Hammock in Coral Gables, Florida (present day 
Vizcaya Museum and Gardens), in the 1940s (Salvato 2012, pers. comm.), 
mainland populations of the leafwing have subsequently retreated with 
the loss, fragmentation, and degradation of native pine rocklands 
throughout Miami-Dade County (Baggett 1982, pp. 78-81; Salvato and 
Hennessey 2003, p. 243). At present, the leafwing is extant only within 
ENP, and ongoing surveys suggest the butterfly actively disperses 
throughout the Long Pine Key region of the Park (Salvato and Salvato 
2010a, p. 91; 2010c, p. 139). Once locally common at Navy Wells and the 
Richmond Pine Rocklands (which occur approximately 8 and 27 km (5 and 
17 mi) to the northeast of ENP, respectively), leafwings are not known 
to have bred at either location in more than 25 years (Salvato and 
Hennessey 2003, p. 243; Salvato 2012, pers. comm.). In the lower 
Florida Keys, the leafwing had maintained a stronghold for many decades 
on Big Pine Key, within NKDR, until 2006 when that

[[Page 47238]]

population disappeared due to a variety of factors (Salvato and Salvato 
2010c, pp. 139-140).
    The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is extant within ENP, Navy Wells, 
Camp Owaissa Bauer, Richmond Pine Rocklands, as well as on Big Pine Key 
(Baggett 1982, pp. 80-81; Smith et al. 1994, pp. 118-119; Salvato and 
Salvato 2010b, p. 154). However, given the possible limited dispersal 
abilities of this butterfly, the distance between these sites, (Worth 
et al. 1996, p. 63; Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p. 223) and their 
fragmentation, it is unlikely there is any genetic exchange between 
locations.
    Another south Florida lycaenid, the Miami blue (Cyclargus thomasi 
bethunebakeri), also appears to have been impacted by relative 
isolation similar to that of the hairstreak. Over the past decade, this 
blue butterfly was known from only two contemporary populations, Bahia 
Honda Key and Key West National Wildlife Refuge. Saarinen (2009, p. 79) 
suggested that the separation of genetic exchange between these extant 
populations was only recent (within the past few decades). Despite 
fluctuations in annual and seasonal population sizes, the Bahia Honda 
blue population was thought to have retained an adequate amount of 
genetic diversity to maintain the butterfly. However, as of 2010, the 
Miami blue population on the island was extirpated.
    Extant hairstreak populations are likely experiencing a similar 
lack of continuity in genetic exchange given their current fragmented 
distribution. Based upon modeling with a different butterfly species, 
Fleishman et al. (2002, pp. 706-716) argued that factors such as 
habitat quality may influence metapopulation dynamics, driving 
extinction and colonization processes, especially in systems that 
experience substantial natural and anthropogenic environmental 
variability (see Environmental Stochasticity below). If only one or a 
few metapopulations remain, it is absolutely critical that remaining 
genetic diversity and gene flow are retained. Conservation decisions to 
augment or reintroduce populations should not be made without careful 
consideration of habitat availability, genetic adaptability, the 
potential for the introduction of maladapted genotypes, and other 
factors (Frankham 2008, pp. 325-333; Saarinen et al. 2009, p. 36; See 
Factors A-D above).
    In general, isolation, whether caused by geographic distance, 
ecological factors, or reproductive strategy, will likely prevent the 
influx of new genetic material and can result in a highly inbred 
population with low viability or fecundity (Chesser 1983, p. 68). 
Natural fluctuations in rainfall, hostplant vigor, or predation may 
weaken a population to such an extent that recovery to a viable level 
would be impossible. Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization 
from other sites and result in extinction. The leafwing and hairstreak 
are restricted to one (leafwing) or a few small (hairstreak) localized 
populations. The extent of habitat fragmentation makes these 
butterflies vulnerable to extinction.
Environmental Stochasticity
    The climate of southern Florida and the Florida Keys is driven by a 
combination of local, regional, and global events, regimes, and 
oscillations. There are three main ``seasons'': (1) The wet season, 
which is hot, rainy, and humid from June through October, (2) the 
official hurricane season that extends 1 month beyond the wet season 
(June 1 through November 30) with peak season being August and 
September, and (3) the dry season, which is drier and cooler from 
November through May. In the dry season, periodic surges of cool and 
dry continental air masses influence the weather with short-duration 
rain events followed by long periods of dry weather.
    According to the Florida Climate Center, Florida is by far the most 
vulnerable State in the United States to hurricanes and tropical storms 
(https://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/tropicalweather.shtml). Based on 
data gathered from 1856 to 2008, Klotzbach and Gray (2009, p. 28) 
calculated the climatological and current-year probabilities for each 
State being impacted by a hurricane and major hurricane. Of the coastal 
States analyzed, Florida had the highest climatological probabilities, 
with a 51 percent probability of a hurricane and a 21 percent 
probability of a major hurricane over a 52-year time span. Florida had 
a 45 percent current-year probability of a hurricane and an 18 percent 
current-year probability of a major hurricane (Klotzbach and Gray 2009, 
p. 28). Given the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreaks' low 
population sizes and few isolated occurrences within locations prone to 
storm influences, these butterflies are at substantial risk from 
hurricanes, storm surges, or other extreme weather. Depending on the 
location and intensity of a hurricane or other severe weather event, it 
is possible that the leafwing and hairstreak could become locally 
extirpated or extinct as a result of one event.
    Other processes to be affected by climate change include 
temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and distribution), and 
storms (frequency and intensity). Temperatures are projected to rise 
from 2 [deg]C to 5 [deg]C (3.6 [deg]F to 9 [deg]F) for North America by 
the end of this century (IPCC 2007, pp. 7-9, 13). Based upon modeling, 
Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are expected to 
decrease (Knutson et al. 2008, pp. 1-21). By 2100, hurricane frequency 
should decrease by 10 to 30 percent, with a 5 to 10 percent wind 
increase. This anticipated result is due to more hurricane energy 
available for intense hurricanes. However, hurricane frequency is 
expected to drop because more wind shear will impede initial hurricane 
development. In addition to climate change, weather variables are 
extremely influenced by other natural cycles, such as El Ni[ntilde]o 
Southern Oscillation with a frequency of every 4 to 7 years, solar 
cycle (every 11 years), and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. All 
of these cycles influence changes in Floridian weather. The exact 
magnitude, direction, and distribution of all of these changes at the 
regional level are difficult to project.
    The Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak have adapted 
over time to the influence of tropical storms and other forms of 
adverse weather conditions (Minno and Emmel 1994, p. 671; Salvato and 
Salvato 2007, p. 154). However, given the substantial reduction in the 
historical range of these butterflies in the past 50 years, the threat 
and impact of tropical storms and hurricanes on their remaining 
populations is much greater than when their distribution was more 
widespread (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96; 2010b, p. 157; 2010c, p. 
139).
    During late October 2005, Hurricane Wilma caused substantial damage 
to the pine rocklands of northwestern Big Pine Key (Salvato and Salvato 
2010c, p. 139), specifically within the Watson Hammock region of NKDR, 
the historical stronghold for the Florida leafwing on the island. In 
historical instances when leafwing and hairstreak population numbers 
were larger on Big Pine, such as following Hurricane Georges in 1998, 
these butterflies appeared able to recover soon after a storm (Salvato 
and Salvato 2010c, p. 139). In ENP, where leafwing and hairstreak 
densities remained stable, these butterflies were minimally affected by 
the 2005 hurricane season (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96, 2010b, p. 
157). However, for the leafwing, given its substantial decline on Big 
Pine Key prior to Wilma, it is possible that the impact of this storm

[[Page 47239]]

served to further hinder and reduce extant populations of the butterfly 
on the island (Salvato and Salvato 2010c, p. 139).
    Environmental factors have likely impacted both butterflies and 
their habitat within their historical and current ranges. For example, 
unusually cold temperatures were encountered throughout southern 
Florida during the winters of 2009 and 2010. Sadle (2009, pers. comm.) 
noted frost damage on croton at ENP on Long Pine Key in late 2009, but 
observed living larvae earlier that year, when temperatures were at or 
barely above freezing (2.2 [deg]C; 36 [deg]F) and frost was on the 
ground. Frost in winter 2010 resulted in substantial dieback of native 
plants, including damage and widespread defoliation of the croton in 
Long Pine Key (Sadle 2010, pers. comm.; Land 2010, pers. comm.; Hallac 
et al. 2010, pp. 2-3). Fifty percent of the individual leafwing larvae 
were impacted by the cold and observed to be dead or without nearby 
food supplies within Long Pine Key (Hallac et al. 2010, p. 3). Although 
Salvato and Salvato (2011, p. 2) did not record increased butterfly 
larval mortality on their survey sites in ENP during early 2010, they 
did encounter larvae on frost-killed plants and indicated that those 
larvae unable to successfully reach healthier adjacent hostplants 
likely perished.
    During late 2010, Salvato and Salvato (2011, p. 2) noted increased 
larval leafwing mortality on their survey sites due to a number of 
factors, including cold. Sadle (2011, pers. comm.) also observed 
significant leaf and stem damage to croton during the same time period. 
A single dead leafwing larva was observed on a frost-damaged croton 
plant, though it is unclear if the mortality was a direct or indirect 
consequence of the freezing temperatures (Sadle 2011, pers. comm.). 
Salvato and Salvato (2011, p. 2) examined several (n = 4) dark, 
apparently frozen leafwing larvae during this time period, but later 
determined these had likely been killed from tachinid fly parasitism 
prior to the freeze. Sadle (2011, pers. comm.) and Salvato and Salvato 
(2011, p. 2) noted living larvae following the late 2010 freeze, 
largely in areas unaffected by the frost. From these observations, 
Sadle (2011, pers. comm.) suggested that frost damage may produce 
similar effects to loss of aboveground plant parts that results from 
fire. It is not clear what the short- or long-term impacts of prolonged 
cold periods may be on leafwing or hairstreak populations; however, it 
is likely that prolonged cold periods have some negative impacts on 
both the butterflies and their hostplant (Sadle 2010, pers. comm.; Land 
2010, pers. comm.).
    As described above (see Factor C), ongoing natural history studies 
by Salvato and Salvato (2012, p. 1) indicate that the extant leafwing 
population within Long Pine Key experiences up to 80 percent mortality 
amongst immature larval stages. A similarly high mortality has been 
noted for the endangered Schaus swallowtail in southern Florida (Emmel 
1997, p. 11). Such high levels of mortality may explain why leafwing 
population densities vary considerably from year to year. As with the 
influence of tropical storms, population-level recoveries from high 
rates of parasitism or other factors at a select location would 
historically be offset from less-affected adjacent populations. 
Opportunities for such population-level recovery are now severely 
restricted (see ``Effects of Few, Small Populations and Isolation'' in 
this section).
Pesticides
    Efforts to control mosquitoes and other insect pests have increased 
as human activity and population have increased in south Florida. To 
control mosquito populations, organophosphate (naled) and pyrethroid 
(permethrin) adulticides are applied by mosquito control districts 
throughout south Florida. In a rare case in upper Key Largo, another 
organophosphate (malathion) was applied in 2011 when the number of 
permethrin applications reached its annual limit. All three of these 
compounds have been characterized as being highly toxic to nontarget 
insects by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002, p. 32; 
2006a, p. 58; 2006b, p. 44). The use of such pesticides (applied using 
both aerial and ground-based methods) for mosquito control presents a 
potential risk to nontarget species, such as the Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
    The potential for mosquito control chemicals to drift into 
nontarget areas and persist for varying periods of time has been 
documented. Hennessey and Habeck (1989, pp. 1-22; 1991, pp. 1-68) and 
Hennessey et al. (1992, pp. 715-721) illustrated the presence of 
mosquito spray residues long after application in habitat of the 
federally endangered Schaus swallowtail (Papilio aristodemus 
ponceanus), as well as the Florida leafwing, Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak, and other imperiled species in both the upper (Crocodile 
Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Key Largo) and lower Keys (NKDR). 
Residues of aerially applied naled were found 6 hours after application 
in a pineland area that was 750 m (820 yards (yd)) from the target 
area; residues of fenthion (an adulticide no longer used in the Keys) 
applied via truck were found up to 50 m (55 yd) downwind in a hammock 
area 15 minutes after application in adjacent target areas (Hennessey 
et al. 1992, pp. 715-721).
    More recently, Pierce (2009, pp. 1-17) monitored naled and 
permethrin deposition following application in and around NKDR from 
2007 to 2009. Permethrin, applied by truck, was found to drift 
considerable distances from target areas with residues that persisted 
for weeks. Naled, applied by plane, was also found to drift into 
nontarget areas but was much less persistent, exhibiting a half-life of 
approximately 6 hours. To expand this work, Pierce (2011, pp. 6-11) 
conducted an additional deposition study in 2010 focusing on permethrin 
drift from truck spraying and again documented low but measurable 
amounts of permethrin in nontarget areas. In 2009, Bargar (2011, pers. 
comm.) conducted two field trials on NKDR that detected significant 
naled residues at locations within nontarget areas on the Refuge that 
were up to 402 m (440 yd) from the edge of zones targeted for aerial 
applications. After this discovery, the Florida Key Mosquito Control 
District recalibrated the on-board model (Wingman[sscopy]). Naled 
deposition was reduced in some of the nontarget zones following 
recalibration (Bargar 2012b, p. 3).
    In addition to mosquito control chemicals entering nontarget areas, 
the toxic effects of mosquito control chemicals to nontarget organisms 
have also been documented. Lethal effects on nontarget moths and 
butterflies have been attributed to fenthion and naled in both south 
Florida and the Florida Keys (Emmel 1991, pp. 12-13; Eliazar and Emmel 
1991, pp. 18-19; Eliazar 1992, pp. 29-30). Zhong et al. (2010, pp. 
1961-1972) investigated the impact of single aerial applications of 
naled on the endangered Miami blue butterfly larvae in the field. 
Survival of butterfly larvae in the target zone was 73.9 percent, which 
was significantly lower than in both the drift zone (90.6 percent) and 
the reference (control) zone (100 percent), indicating that direct 
exposure to naled poses significant risk to Miami blue larvae. Fifty 
percent of the samples in the drift zone also exhibited detectable 
concentrations, once again exhibiting the potential for mosquito 
control chemicals to drift into nontarget areas. Bargar (2011, pers. 
comm.) observed cholinesterase activity depression, to a level shown to 
cause mortality in the laboratory, in great southern white and Gulf 
fritillary

[[Page 47240]]

butterflies exposed to naled during an application on NKDR in both 
target and nontarget zones.
    In the lower Keys, Salvato (2001, pp. 8-14) suggested that declines 
in populations of the Florida leafwing were also partly attributable to 
mosquito control chemical applications. Salvato (2001, p. 14; 2002, pp. 
56-57) found relative populations of the Florida leafwing, when extant 
on Big Pine Key within NKDR, to increase during drier years when 
adulticide applications over the pinelands decreased, although 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak did not follow this pattern. Salvato (2001, 
p. 14) suggested that butterflies, such as the leafwing, were 
particularly vulnerable to aerial applications based on their tendency 
to roost within the pineland canopy, an area with maximal exposure to 
aerial treatments. Because roosting sites for the Bartram's hairstreak 
are not well documented, more study is needed to assess their potential 
exposure. The role of vegetation in limiting exposure is unknown, but 
could be important when considering that spraying operations are 
conducted during early morning and late evening hours when, presumably, 
nontarget butterflies would be occupying roost sites (Anderson 2013, 
pers. comm.).
    Toxicity data on Florida native butterflies exposed to permethrin 
and naled in the laboratory (Hoang et al. 2011, pp. 997-1005) were used 
to calculate hazard quotients (concentrations in the environment--
concentrations causing an adverse effect) in order to assess the risk 
that concentrations of naled and permethrin found in the field pose to 
butterflies. A hazard quotient where the environmental concentration is 
greater than the concentration known to cause an adverse effect 
(mortality in this case), indicates significant risk to the organism. 
Environmental exposures for naled and permethrin were taken from Zhong 
et al. (2010, pp. 1961-1972) and Pierce (2009, pp. 1-17), respectively, 
and represent the highest concentrations of each chemical that were 
quantified during field studies in the Florida Keys. When using the 
lowest median lethal concentrations from the laboratory study, the 
hazard quotients for permethrin and naled indicated potential acute 
hazards to butterflies. Bargar (2012a, pp. 5-6) also conducted a 
probabilistic risk assessment using naled deposition values from NKDR 
and estimated that field-measured naled concentrations did pose a risk 
to adult butterflies of some species, particularly for species with 
large surface area to weight ratios.
    Based on these studies, it can be concluded that mosquito control 
activities that involve the use of both aerial and ground-based 
spraying methods have the potential to deliver pesticides in quantities 
sufficient to cause adverse effects to nontarget species in both target 
and nontarget areas. It should be noted that many of the studies 
referenced above dealt with single application scenarios and examined 
effects on only one to two butterfly life stages. Under a realistic 
scenario, the potential exists for exposure to all life stages to occur 
over multiple applications in a season. In the case of a persistent 
compound like permethrin where residues remain on vegetation for weeks, 
the potential exists for nontarget species to be exposed to multiple 
pesticides within a season (e.g., permethrin on vegetation coupled with 
aerial exposure to naled).
    Spraying practices by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District 
(FKMCD) at NKDR have changed to reduce pesticide use over the years. In 
addition, larvicide treatments to surrounding islands have 
significantly reduced adulticide use on Big Pine Key, No Name Key, and 
the Torch Keys since 2003 (FKMCD 2012, p. 11). According to the Special 
Use Permit issued by the Service, the number of aerially applied naled 
treatments allowed on NKDR has been limited since 2008 (FKMCD 2012, pp. 
10-11).
    The Service's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy (569 FW 1) 
establishes procedures and responsibilities for pest management 
activities on and off Service lands. These may include (1) preparing 
pesticide use proposals (PUPs) for approval before applying pesticides; 
(2) entering pesticide usage information annually into the online IPM 
and Pesticide Use Proposal System (PUPS) database; (3) conducting 
Endangered Species Act consultations; and (4) following National 
Environmental Policy Act policies. Since these butterflies have been on 
the candidate list, the Service's South Florida Ecological Services 
Office and NKDR coordinate annually on potential impacts to the Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak prior to issuance of a PUP to 
the FKMCD. Based on this consultation, 478 ha (1,180 ac) of the 705 ha 
(1,741 ac) of pine rockland in the NKDR have been designated no-spray 
zones by agreement (as of May 2012) between the Service and FKMCD that 
includes the core habitat used by pine rockland butterflies (Anderson 
2012a, pers. comm.; Service 2012, p. 32). In addition, several linear 
miles of pine rockland habitat within the Refuge-neighborhood interface 
were excluded from truck spray applications in the most sensitive 
habitats. These exclusions and buffer zones encompass over 95 percent 
of extant croton distribution on Big Pine Key, and include the majority 
of known extant and historical Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak population centers on the island (Salvato 2012, pers. 
comm.). However, some areas of pine rocklands within NKDR are still 
sprayed with naled (aerially applied adulticide), and buffer zones 
remain at risk from drift. Additionally, private residential areas and 
roadsides across Big Pine Key are treated with permethrin (ground-based 
applied adulticide) (Salvato 2001, p. 10). Therefore, the hairstreak 
and, if extant, the leafwing and their habitat on Big Pine Key may be 
directly or indirectly (via drift) exposed to adulticides used for 
mosquito control at some unknown level. Although there is evidence that 
mosquito control practices may influence butterfly species, limited 
information currently exists about population-level impacts. Actual 
impacts to the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak from 
mosquito control are unknown at this time; however, additional research 
is under way to quantify risk.
    In general Long Pine Key in ENP does not appear to be regularly 
impacted by mosquito control practices, except for the use of 
adulticides (e.g., Sumithrin (Anvil)) in Park residential areas and 
campgrounds. Housing areas, maintenance areas, outside work areas for 
park maintenance staff and contractors, and areas near buildings have 
been sprayed in the past (Perry 2007, pers. comm.). Spraying occurred 
within ENP following hurricanes in 2005 (Perry 2008, pers. comm.). 
Subsequently, however, no spraying has been conducted in or near Long 
Pine Key. Populations of these butterflies occurring adjacent to and 
outside ENP in suitable and potential habitat within Miami-Dade County 
are also vulnerable to the lethal and sublethal effects of adulticide 
applications. However, mosquito control pesticide use within Miami-Dade 
County pine rockland areas is limited (approximately 2 to 4 times per 
year, and only within a portion of proposed critical habitat) (Vasquez 
2013, pers. comm.)
    In summary, although substantial progress has been made in reducing 
impacts, the potential effects of mosquito control applications and 
drift residues remain a threat to both butterflies.

[[Page 47241]]

Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E

    The limited distributions and small population sizes of the Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak make them extremely susceptible 
to habitat loss, degradation, and modification and other anthropogenic 
threats. Mechanisms leading to the decline of the Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, as discussed above, range from local (e.g., 
a lack of adequate fire management, fragmentation, poaching), to 
regional (e.g., development, pesticides), to global influences (e.g., 
climate change, sea level rise). The synergistic (interaction of two or 
more components) effects of threats (such as hurricane effects on a 
species with a limited distribution consisting of just a few small 
populations) make it difficult to predict population viability. While 
these stressors may act in isolation, it is more probable that many 
stressors are acting simultaneously (or in combination) on Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

Florida Leafwing

    The Florida leafwing has been extirpated (no longer in existence) 
from nearly 96 percent of its historical range; the only known extant 
population occurs within ENP in Miami-Dade County. Threats of habitat 
loss and fragmentation, including climatic change (Factor A), poaching 
(Factor B), parasitism and predation (Factor C), and small population 
size, restricted range, and influence of chemical pesticides used for 
mosquito control (Factor E), still exist for the only remaining 
population. Because there is only one small extant population of this 
butterfly, and limited law enforcement, collection has and continues to 
be a significant threat to this butterfly. Existing regulatory 
mechanisms (Factor D) are inadequate to reduce these threats. The 
leafwing may be impacted when pine rocklands are converted to other 
uses or when lack of fire causes the conversion to habitats that are 
unsuitable for this butterfly. Because the remaining population is 
isolated and the butterfly has a limited ability to recolonize 
historically occupied habitats that are now highly fragmented, it is 
vulnerable to natural or human-caused changes in its habitats. As a 
result, impacts from increasing threats, singly or in combination, are 
likely to result in the extinction of the butterfly as there is no 
redundancy of populations.

Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak

    The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak has been extirpated from nearly 93 
percent of its historical range; only five isolated populations remain 
on Big Pine Key in Monroe County, Long Pine Key in ENP, and relict pine 
rocklands adjacent to the Park in Miami-Dade County. All five of these 
populations are, in part, on protected lands. Threats of habitat loss 
and fragmentation from lack of fire (Factor A), poaching (Factor B), 
disease and predation (Factor C), and small population size, restricted 
range, and influence of chemical pesticides used for mosquito control 
(Factor E) still exist for the remaining populations. Because there are 
only five small populations of the hairstreak, and limited law 
enforcement, collection has and continues to be a significant threat to 
this butterfly. Existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are 
inadequate to protect this butterfly from poaching. Because populations 
are isolated and the butterfly has a limited ability to recolonize 
historically occupied habitats that are now highly fragmented, it is 
vulnerable to natural or human-caused changes in its habitats. The 
remaining populations become less resilient and are not capable of 
recovering from the threats. As a result, impacts from increasing 
threats, singly or in combination, are likely to result in the 
extinction of the hairstreak.

Both Species

    Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, and associated 
pressures from increased human population are major threats; these 
threats are expected to continue, placing these butterflies at greater 
risk. Although efforts are being made to conserve natural areas and 
apply prescribed burns, the long-term effects of large-scale and wide-
ranging habitat modification, destruction, and curtailment will last 
into the future. Based on our analysis of the best available 
information, there is no evidence to suggest that vulnerability to 
collection and risks associated with scientific or conservation efforts 
will change and, instead, are likely to continue into the future. At 
this time, we consider predation, parasitism, and disease to be threats 
to both butterflies due to their current tenuous statuses. We have no 
information to suggest that vulnerability to these threats will change 
in the future. Based on our analysis of the best available information, 
we find that existing regulatory mechanisms, due to their inherent 
limitations and constraints, are inadequate to address threats to these 
butterflies throughout their ranges. We have no information to indicate 
that poaching, inconsistent fires, pesticide use, or habitat loss will 
be ameliorated in the future by enforcement of existing regulatory 
mechanisms.
    Therefore, we find it reasonably likely that the effects on the 
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak will continue at 
current levels or potentially increase in the future. Effects of small 
population size, isolation, and loss of genetic diversity are likely 
significant threats as well as natural changes to habitat and 
anthropogenic factors (e.g., pesticides, fire, processes affected by 
climate change). Collectively, these threats have impacted the 
butterflies in the past, are impacting these butterflies now, and will 
continue to impact these butterflies in the future.

Determinations

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies. As 
described in detail above, both butterflies are currently at risk 
throughout all of their respective ranges due to the immediacy, 
severity, and scope of threats from habitat destruction and 
fragmentation, including climatic change and lack of adequate fire 
management (Factor A); poaching (Factor B); parasitism and predation 
(Factor C); the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, including 
limited enforcement (Factor D); and small population size, restricted 
range, and influence of chemical pesticides used for mosquito control 
(Factor E). These stressors have had profound adverse effects on 
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations and the 
pine rockland habitat. As a result, impacts from increasing threats, 
singly or in combination, are likely to result in the extinction of 
these butterflies.
    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies are presently in danger of 
extinction throughout their entire ranges based on the severity and 
immediacy of threats currently impacting these subspecies. Their 
overall ranges have been significantly reduced; the remaining habitats 
and populations are threatened by a variety of factors acting in 
combination to reduce the overall

[[Page 47242]]

viability of these subspecies. The risk of extinction is high because 
the remaining populations are small and isolated and the potential for 
recolonization is limited. Therefore, on the basis of the best 
available scientific and commercial data available, we have determined 
that the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies 
meet the definition of endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 
4(a)(1) of the Act.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival of these 
species occur throughout the species' ranges and are not restricted to 
any particular significant portion of those ranges. Accordingly, our 
assessment and proposed determination applies to both the species 
throughout their entire ranges.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened 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 requires that recovery actions be carried out for all 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. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires 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 includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan. 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 identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five 
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be 
reclassified to threatened or delisted, 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 (comprising 
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 Web site 
(https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our South Florida 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.
    Following publication of this final listing rule, 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, under section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection and recovery of Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak butterflies. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for either or both of these butterflies. Additionally, 
we invite you to submit any new information on these butterflies 
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 
endangered or threatened 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. When 
a species is listed, 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 these butterflies' habitat that may 
require consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include 
but are not limited to, management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the Department of Defense, 
National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; construction 
and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway 
Administration; flood insurance and disaster relief efforts conducted 
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and pesticide treatments 
required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the event of 
emergency pest outbreak.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) 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 commerce in 
the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in 
interstate or foreign commerce any listed 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 agents of 
the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land 
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.

[[Page 47243]]

    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 must 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. There are also certain statutory 
exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 
of the Act.
    Our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34272), is 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. Based on the best 
available information, the following activities could potentially 
result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not 
comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized possession, collecting, trapping, capturing, 
killing, harassing, sale, delivery, or movement, including interstate 
and foreign commerce, or harming or attempting any of these actions, of 
the Florida leafwing or Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies 
(research activities where the Florida leafwing or Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak are handled, captured (e.g., netted, trapped), marked, or 
collected will require authorization pursuant to the Act).
    (2) Incidental take of the Florida leafwing or Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak without authorization pursuant to section 7 or section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
    (3) Sale or purchase of specimens of these taxa, except for 
properly documented antique specimens at least 100 years old, as 
defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
    (4) Unauthorized destruction or alteration of the Florida leafwing 
or Bartram's scrub-hairstreak habitat (including unauthorized grading, 
leveling, plowing, mowing, burning, herbicide spraying, or pesticide 
application) in ways that kill or injure individuals by significantly 
impairing these butterflies' essential breeding, foraging, sheltering, 
or other essential life functions.
    (5) Unauthorized use of pesticides or herbicides resulting in take 
of the Florida leafwing or Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies.
    (6) Unauthorized release of biological control agents that attack 
any life stages of these species.
    (7) Unauthorized removal or destruction of pineland croton, the 
hostplant utilized by the Florida leafwing or Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak butterflies, within areas used by the butterflies that 
result in harm to the butterflies.
    (8) Release of nonnative species into occupied Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak habitat that may displace the butterflies or 
their native host plants.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Field 
Supervisor of the Service's South Florida Ecological Services Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the NEPA, need not 
be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

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. Neither species occurs on any tribal 
lands or lands under tribal jurisdiction.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Butterfly, Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak'' and ``Butterfly, Florida leafwing'' to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under Insects 
to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Species                                           Vertebrate
---------------------------------------------------                     population
                                                                          where                                                   Critical     Special
                                                     Historical range   endangered    Status          Family       When listed    habitat       rules
          Common name             Scientific name                           or
                                                                        threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
            Insects              .................  .................  ...........  ..........  .................  ...........  ...........  ...........
 

[[Page 47244]]

 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Butterfly, Bartram's scrub-      Strymon acis       U.S.A. (FL)......           NA  E           Lycaenidae.......          843     17.95(i)           NA
 hairstreak.                      bartrami.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Butterfly, Florida leafwing....  Anaea troglodyta   U.S.A. (FL)......           NA  E           Nymphalidae......          843     17.95(i)           NA
                                  floridalis.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: July 22, 2014.
 Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-18614 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P