Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly, 6177-6191 [2023-01146]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
6177
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES—Continued
Payment type code
New fee
Table 10 to § 1.1107
International Broadcast Stations (IBS) Applications:
New Construction Permit ...........................................
Construction Permit Modification ...............................
New License ..............................................................
License Renewal .......................................................
Frequency Assignment ..............................................
Transfer of Control ....................................................
Special Temporary Authority .....................................
MSN ...................................
FAN ....................................
MNN ...................................
MFN ....................................
MAN ...................................
MCN ...................................
MGN ...................................
$4,475.
$4,475.
$1,010.
$255.
$90.
$665.
$440.
Table 11 to § 1.1107
Permit to Deliver Programs to Foreign Broadcast Stations under Section 325(c) Applications:
New License ..............................................................
License Modification ..................................................
License Renewal .......................................................
Special Temporary Authority, Written Request .........
Transfer of Control, Written Request ........................
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Shawn Sartorius, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office, 2105
Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113;
telephone 505–346–2525. Individuals in
the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY,
TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2021–0069;
FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018–BG01
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Sacramento Mountains
Checkerspot Butterfly
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), are listing the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly (Euphydryas anicia
cloudcrofti), a butterfly from New
Mexico, as an endangered species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended. This rule extends the
Act’s protections to the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly. We
will propose the designation of critical
habitat for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly in a future
rulemaking.
DATES: This rule is effective March 2,
2023.
ADDRESSES: The January 25, 2022,
proposed rule (87 FR 3739) and this
final rule are available on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov. Comments
and materials we received, as well as
supporting documentation we used in
preparing this rule, are available for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
$400.
$205.
$175.
$175.
$290.
public inspection at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2021–0069.
[FR Doc. 2023–01470 Filed 1–30–23; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY:
MBU ...................................
MBV ....................................
MBW ...................................
MBX ....................................
MBY ....................................
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, a species warrants listing if it
meets the definition of an endangered
species (in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range) or a threatened species (likely
to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range). If we
determine that a species warrants
listing, we must list the species
promptly and designate the species’
critical habitat to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable. We have
determined that the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly meets
the definition of an endangered species;
therefore, we are listing it as such.
Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species can be completed
only by issuing a rule through the
Administrative Procedure Act
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et
seq.).
What this document does. We are
listing the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly as an endangered
species under the Act. As explained
later in this document, we are working
on a separate rule to propose critical
habitat for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we may determine that a species is
an endangered or threatened species
because of any of five factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We
have determined that the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly is
endangered due to the following threats:
incompatible grazing, recreation,
climate change, invasive and nonnative
plants, and an altered wildfire regime.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
designate critical habitat concurrent
with listing to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable. Section
3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat
as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed, on which
are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may
require special management
considerations or protections; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
6178
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
it is listed, upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the
Secretary must make the designation on
the basis of the best scientific data
available and after taking into
consideration the economic impact, the
impact on national security, and any
other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
We determined that designation of
critical habitat was prudent but not
determinable at this time because
specific information needed to analyze
the impacts of designation was lacking.
We are still in the process of assessing
this information. We plan to publish a
proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly in the near future.
Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
Previous Federal Actions
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
On January 25, 2022, we published in
the Federal Register (87 FR 3739) a
proposed rule to list the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly as an
endangered species and concluded that
critical habitat was not determinable at
that time (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please
refer to that proposed rule for a detailed
description of previous Federal actions
concerning this butterfly.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Peer Review
An assessment team prepared a
current condition assessment report for
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. The team was composed of
Service biologists in consultation with
other species experts. The report
represents a compilation of the best
scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly,
including the impacts of past and
present factors (both negative and
beneficial) affecting the subspecies. In
accordance with our joint policy on peer
review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
and our August 22, 2016, memorandum
updating and clarifying the role of peer
review of listing actions under the Act,
we solicited independent scientific
review of the information contained in
the report. As discussed in the proposed
rule, we sent the report to five
appropriate and independent peer
reviewers and received three responses.
The peer reviews can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov. In
preparing the proposed rule, we
incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, into the report,
which was the foundation for the
proposed rule and this final rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
We received comments and suggested
clarifications on the January 25, 2022,
proposed rule, and we updated the
corresponding text of the current
condition assessment report and this
rule. Those updates include:
(1) New observation data of the
butterfly in 2020 in Bailey Canyon;
(2) Additional details and clarification
on elk, feral horse, and cattle grazing;
and
(3) Several nonsubstantive
clarifications and corrections to ensure
better consistency, clarify some
information, and update references.
We did not make any substantial
changes to this final rule after
consideration of the comments we
received on the proposed rule.
In the proposed rule published on
January 25, 2022 (87 FR 3739), we
requested that all interested parties
submit written comments on the
proposal by March 28, 2022. 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 Alamogordo Daily
News, Albuquerque Journal, Las Cruces
Sun-News, Rio Rancho Observer, and
Ruidoso News. We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing.
Peer Review Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above,
we received comments from three peer
reviewers on the current condition
assessment report. We reviewed all
comments we received from the peer
reviewers for substantive issues and
new information regarding the
information contained in the current
condition assessment report. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and conclusions, and provided
additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions that we incorporated
into an updated version of the current
condition assessment report. The peer
reviewers’ comments did not change our
determination that the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly meets
the definition of an endangered species
under the Act. Below is a summary of
comments from peer reviewers we
received.
(1) Comment: Peer reviewers
commented that we should add
information to specific sections of the
current condition assessment report,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
such as climate change and the
butterfly’s life history.
Response: We added information to
these discussions in the current
condition assessment report. We
elaborated where appropriate but did
not go into as great of detail as the
reviewers requested because our
analysis indicates that the butterfly is in
danger of extinction based on its current
condition. We acknowledge that there is
a greater body of work on these issues,
such as climate change in the
southwestern United States, and the
current condition assessment report is
not meant to be a comprehensive
literature review on climate change
overall, nor would it change our
analysis. We will ensure that the
impacts of climate change and all other
appropriate information as it relates to
the butterfly, its life history, and
resources are included in recovery
planning.
Federal Agency Comments
(2) Comment: The U.S. Forest Service
(Forest Service) commented that we
need to define intensive grazing and
explain how to measure that in
monitoring and defined violations. They
further commented that new chemicals
and methods of herbicide use need to be
clarified.
Response: We are not able to provide
a specific definition on what constitutes
intensive grazing. Rather, we changed
‘‘intensive’’ to ‘‘incompatible’’ to
capture any grazing activities that are
incompatible with the needs of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. This may include any
activities that reduce suitable butterfly
habitat by impacting the resource needs
of the butterfly, such as presence/
quantity of host plants, nectar sources,
or moisture. We are also not able to
provide information on how new
chemicals and methods of herbicide use
may affect the subspecies. The use of
herbicide by a Federal agency in the
presence of a listed species would
require that Federal agency to consult
with the Service under section 7 of the
Act to ensure that the action is not
likely to jeopardize the species.
Similarly, should a Federal agency use
a new chemical or change the timing of
herbicide use, they would have to
consult with the Service. Particular
information regarding use and timing of
that chemical would be elucidated in
the consultation process, and avoidance
and minimization measures would be
determined.
(3) Comment: The Forest Service
stated that the use of herbicide/
pesticides in the list of actions that may
not violate section 9 of the Act is a
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
contradiction to the conservation
recommendation that herbicides should
be used to restore butterfly habitat.
Response: In the January 25, 2022,
proposed rule (87 FR 3739), we state
that herbicide application authorized or
carried out by a Federal agency would
not likely violate section 9 of the Act.
We clarify in this final rule that any use
of herbicides that would result in take
of the butterfly would be a violation, not
the use of herbicide itself. The use of
herbicide or pesticides by a Federal
agency in the presence of a listed
species would require that Federal
agency to consult with the Service
under section 7 of the Act to ensure that
the Federal agency action is not likely
to jeopardize the species, but we do not
consider that herbicide use itself would
likely result in a violation of section 9
of the Act. Herbicides may also be used
as a tool for habitat restoration and
would not be a violation of section 9 of
the Act if used as directed by the label
and after the Federal action agency
consults with the Service.
State Agency Comments
(4) Comment: New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish
commented that the limited data
available are insufficient to draw
conclusions regarding the impact of elk
on the butterfly.
Response: We considered the best
scientific and commercial data available
regarding the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly to evaluate its
status under the Act. Also, in
accordance with our peer review policy
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited peer review from
knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, the
geographic region in which the
subspecies occurs, and conservation
biology principles. Additionally, we
requested comments or information
from other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, and any
other interested parties concerning the
January 25, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR
3739). Comments and information we
received helped inform this final rule.
Elk will browse New Mexico
beardtongue (Penstemon neomexicanus)
during drought conditions, as vegetation
becomes scarce (McIntyre 2021, pers.
comm.). This causes the New Mexico
beardtongue to remain as small rosettes
that are not large enough to support tent
colonies of caterpillars and any larvae
will starve after hatching. Browsing
ultimately reduces available host plants,
which are an essential need for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
viability of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly. Therefore, we
think it is reasonable to conclude, as we
did in this final rule, that elk grazing
can impact the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly’s viability,
especially when populations are at low
numbers.
We agree that outside of drought
conditions, the effect of elk on the
butterfly’s habitat is different and more
nuanced. We acknowledge that elk are
a natural part of the ecosystem, filling
an ecological niche that is generally
compatible with the viability of the
butterfly. However, during times of
prolonged drought, synergistic effects
lead to increased habitat degradation,
during which times both butterflies and
elk can be negatively impacted by
increased temperature, decreased
precipitation, and increased browse
pressure from other ungulates.
(5) Comment: The New Mexico
Department of Agriculture stated that
the proposed rule implied that livestock
grazing is not a risk factor to the
butterfly due to the absence of livestock,
which can be misconstrued to suggest
that if the Forest Service were to resume
livestock grazing within the range of the
subspecies, that would be incompatible
with the conservation of the subspecies.
Response: The previous version of the
current condition assessment report
(Service 2021, pp. 12–13) stated that
there is no information indicating that
livestock grazing significantly affects the
butterfly’s status now or will do so in
the foreseeable future; therefore,
livestock grazing is not a significant
threat to the butterfly because it does
not occur within areas where the
butterfly is currently extant. In this rule,
we clarify that livestock grazing, were it
to occur within occupied habitat, has
the potential to impact the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly
especially during drought conditions.
We acknowledge that livestock grazing
does occur within the butterfly’s
historical range and acts synergistically
to contribute to the decline of habitat
suitability within those active
allotments. We amended the current
condition assessment report and the
information in this rule to reflect this
analysis of current condition and how it
has impacted the subspecies previously.
We have also updated the discussion in
this final rule of how grazing might
affect the butterfly’s status now and into
the foreseeable future.
Public Comments
We received 45 public comments on
the proposed rule. One comment
provided us with new information on
the Bailey Canyon population that we
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6179
have incorporated into our analysis, but
it did not change our determination that
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly is in danger of extinction. The
remaining comments did not provide
any new substantial information on the
subspecies’ status or threats. Therefore,
none of the public comments we
received changed our determination that
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly meets the Act’s definition of an
endangered species. Some commenters
provided suggestions that apply to
issues outside the scope of this
rulemaking, such as recovery strategies
for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly, but these
suggestions are not directly related to
the butterfly’s this final rule to list the
species as an endangered species. These
general comments included topics such
as the role of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly in the ecosystem,
the importance of habitat heterogeneity,
and the use of specific conservation
measures. While these comments are
not directly incorporated into this final
rule, we have noted the suggestions and
look forward to working with our
partners on these topics during recovery
planning for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly. Comments that
we incorporated as changes into this
final rule, comments outside the scope
of this rulemaking, and comments
without supporting information did not
warrant an explicit response and, thus,
are not presented here. Identical or
similar comments have been
consolidated, and a single response is
provided below.
(6) Comment: Several commenters
stated that critical habitat should be
designated for the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly. One
commenter said that it is determinable
and gave information on where we
should propose critical habitat, while
another recommended an approach for
us to use for the economic analysis.
Response: Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
and implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.12) require that we designate
critical habitat at the time a species is
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species, to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable. In the
proposed listing rule (87 FR 3739;
January 25, 2022), we determined that
designation of critical habitat was
prudent but not determinable because
specific information needed to analyze
the economic and environmental
impacts of designation was lacking.
Those analyses were not yet completed
at the time we published the proposed
rule. We are currently in the process of
assessing this information, and we plan
to publish a proposed rule to designate
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
6180
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
critical habitat for the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly in the
near future. In that upcoming
rulemaking, we will evaluate areas to
determine if they should be proposed
for critical habitat. We will request
public comments on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly when we publish that
proposed rule.
(7) Comment: Several commenters
stated concerns about the impacts to
landowners, such as taking away their
property rights and use of pesticides
and stated that we should compensate
affected landowners. Another
commenter added that the Act is
harmful to landowners and violates the
5th Amendment.
Response: The 5th Amendment states
that private property may not be taken
for public use without just
compensation. The mere promulgation
of a regulation, such as the listing of a
species under the Act, does not take
private property, unless the regulation
on its face denies the property owners
all economically beneficial or
productive use of their land, which is
not the case with the listing of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly.
The presence of a listed species does
not affect land ownership, establish any
restrictions on use of or access to the
designated areas, establish specific land
management standards or prescriptions,
or prevent access to any land. Therefore,
the Act does not violate the 5th
Amendment as private property is not
being taken for public use. Additionally,
the presence of a listed species does not
allow the Federal Government or public
to access private lands.
The Act does not authorize the
Service to regulate private actions on
private lands, and landowners are not
obligated to incur any costs related to
the species’ conservation or to alter their
current land management. Programs are
available to private landowners to
obtain permits for the incidental take of
a listed species (see 50 CFR 17.22 for
endangered wildlife and 50 CFR 17.32
for threatened wildlife) and to assist in
the voluntary conservation of listed
species. Voluntary conservation
programs may provide technical or
financial assistance to the landowner.
Private landowners may contact their
local Service field office to obtain
information about these permits and
programs.
(8) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is not a true
subspecies.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
Response: We considered the best
scientific and commercial data available
regarding the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly’s taxonomy. The
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly was first described as a
subspecies of the Anicia checkerspot in
1980 (Ferris and Holland 1980, pp. 3–
9), which was later corroborated
(Glassberg 2017, p. 207; Pohl et al. 2016,
p. 315). Checkerspot butterflies in the
Euphydryas genus are similar but can be
distinguished from one another by
several subtle morphological traits. The
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly has darker colors overall
compared to other checkerspots (Ferris
and Holland 1980, p. 5). Therefore, we
reaffirm our previous conclusion that
the Sacramento Mountain’s checkerspot
butterfly is a valid species, and thus, a
valid listable entity under the Act.
(9) Comment: One commenter stated
that there are many aspects of the
butterfly’s life history that are unknown
or not well understood, which makes it
impossible to determine the butterfly’s
viability.
Response: We based this final listing
determination on the best available
scientific and commercial information,
and the commenter did not provide any
new information for us to consider. The
best available information on the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly indicates the butterfly needs
host plants, larval food sources, and
climatic moisture. In assessing the
viability of the butterfly, the best
available scientific and commercial data
provide information about some aspects
of subspecies’ biology and habitat
requirements but may not represent a
full and complete knowledge of the
subspecies. We drew reasonable
conclusions about other aspects of the
subspecies’ biology and requirements
based on similar species, similar
habitats, and best available information.
(10) Comment: Two commenters
asked what our standard is for the ‘‘best
available science.’’
Response: In accordance with section
4 of the Act, we are required to list a
species on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available. Further,
our Policy on Information Standards
under the Act (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)),
the Information Quality Act (section 515
of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines (https://
www.fws.gov/program/informationquality) provide criteria and guidance,
and establish procedures to ensure that
our decisions are based on the best
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
scientific data available. They require
our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best
scientific data available, to use primary
and original sources of information as
the basis for listing recommendations.
Primary or original information sources
are those that are closest to the subject
being studied, as opposed to those that
cite, comment on, or build upon
primary sources. The Act and our
regulations do not require us to use only
peer-reviewed literature, but instead
they require us to use the ‘‘best
scientific data available’’ in a listing
determination. We use information from
many different sources, including, but
not limited to, articles in peer-reviewed
journals, scientific status surveys and
studies completed by qualified
individuals, Master’s thesis research
that has been reviewed but not
published in a journal, other
unpublished governmental and
nongovernmental reports, reports
prepared by industry, personal
communication about management or
other relevant topics, conservation plans
developed by States and counties,
biological assessments, other
unpublished materials, experts’
opinions or personal knowledge, and
other sources. We have considered
published articles, unpublished
research, habitat modeling reports,
digital data publicly available on the
internet, and the expert opinion of
subject biologists to determine that the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly meets the Act’s definition of an
endangered species.
Also, in accordance with our peer
review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited peer review
from knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, the
geographic region in which the
subspecies occurs, and conservation
biology principles. Additionally, we
requested comments or information
from other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, and any
other interested parties concerning our
January 25, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR
3739). Comments and information we
received helped inform this final rule.
(11) Comment: One commenter asked
how the public will know if comments
are considered in making a
determination or merely noted as
‘‘commercial data’’ and are therefore not
actually considered.
Response: In accordance with section
4 of the Act, we are required to list a
species on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore, if any comments are received
that we classify as ‘‘commercial data,’’
they are considered in our listing
determination.
(12) Comment: One commenter also
asked how the Service plans to address
drought and other natural occurrences
that are affecting the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
Response: Drought and other
naturally occurring events are important
as they relate to the conservation needs
of the butterfly, and we will consider
these factors as we develop a recovery
plan and specific recovery strategies for
the conservation of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
(13) Comment: One commenter asked
if the Service bears the total cost of
management actions as they relate to
recovery.
Response: The Service puts as many
resources as we can, including recovery
grant funding and staff time, into the
implementation of recovery actions.
Additionally, we also rely on expertise
and funding from other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, and other
entities to implement recovery of listed
species.
(14) Comment: One commenter asked
which animal(s) any exclosures are
meant to keep out of butterfly habitat on
the Lincoln National Forest and how
many taxpayer dollars will be spent to
construct these exclosures.
Response: Exclosures that have been
erected on the Lincoln National Forest
are meant to prevent any large ungulate
or grazer from feeding on butterfly host
plants and nectar sources. This practice
is often used by land management
agencies to allow for vegetation to
recover from overgrazing. Because the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly is known to occupy areas
entirely on the Lincoln National Forest,
we expect that the Forest Service would
be a leader in the recovery of the
species. We expect that additional
exclosures would be paid for by the
Service and Forest Service and we do
not have estimates on the total cost.
When we develop our recovery plan for
the species, it will include an estimate
of the costs of recovery.
(15) Comment: One commenter asked
what a ‘‘jeopardy finding’’ is, how it is
determined, and what the consequences
are.
Response: ‘‘Jeopardize the continued
existence of’’ means to engage in an
action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to
reduce appreciably the likelihood of
both the survival and recovery of a
listed species in the wild by reducing
the reproduction, numbers, or
distribution of that species (50 CFR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
402.02). Per policy and regulation, the
jeopardy analysis in a biological opinion
relies on four components in our
evaluation for each species:
1. The Status of the Species—
evaluates the species’ range-wide
condition, the factors responsible for
that condition, and its survival and
recovery needs;
2. The Environmental Baseline—
evaluates the condition of the species in
the action area, the factors which are
responsible for that condition, and the
relationship of the action area to the
survival and recovery of the species;
3. The Effects of the Action—
determines the consequences of the
proposed Federal action on the species
that are reasonably certain to occur as a
result of the proposed action; and,
4. Cumulative Effects—evaluates the
effects of future, non-Federal activities
in the action area on the species.
The jeopardy determination is made
by evaluating the effects of the Federal
action in the context of the species’
status. This analysis considers any
cumulative effects to determine if the
implementation of the action is likely to
cause an appreciable reduction in the
likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of the species in the wild. The
jeopardy analysis places emphasis on
consideration of the range-wide survival
and recovery needs of the species and
the role of the action area in the survival
and recovery of the species as the
context for evaluating the significance of
the effects of the Federal action, taken
together with cumulative effects, for
purposes of making the jeopardy
determination.
(16) Comment: One commenter asked
how law enforcement is involved in
listing the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly as an endangered
species.
Response: The Service’s Office of Law
Enforcement works to protect
threatened and endangered species by
enforcing violations of Section 9 under
the Act, such as, but not limited to,
preventing the unlawful commercial
exploitation of such species. The
Service is committed to meeting all
requirements and enforcing the Act and
doing so legally. The Service maintains
a comprehensive approach to
conservation, and we will work together
with the Office of Law Enforcement to
achieve our conservation goals.
(17) Comment: One commenter asked
how listing of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly is
determined when the Act directly
conflicts with the Wild Free-Roaming
Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6181
Response: The Wild Free-Roaming
Horses and Burros Act was established
to protect wild horses and burros on
Federal land from capture, branding,
harassment, or death by placing them
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest
Service. Each Act imposes its own
requirements. This rule listing the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly as an endangered species
under the Act does not violate the Wild
Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act
because we can achieve conservation of
the butterfly while also protecting wild
horses and burros on Federal land.
(18) Comment: One commenter asked
why the Secretary of Commerce is not
a determining agency for this rule.
Response: The Act states that the term
‘‘Secretary’’ means, except as otherwise
provided, the Secretary of the Interior or
the Secretary of Commerce as program
responsibilities are vested pursuant to
the provisions of Reorganization Plan
No. 4 of 1970, which established that
the Secretary of Commerce would have
functions relating to the oceans and
atmosphere, including commercial
fisheries functions. Because this
subspecies falls under the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Interior (i.e., the
Service) and not the Department of
Commerce (i.e., the National Marine
Fisheries Service), the Secretary of the
Interior maintains program
responsibilities under the Act.
(19) Comment: One commenter said
that our statement that possession,
delivery, or movement, including
interstate transport and import into or
export from the United States, involving
no commercial activity, of dead
specimens of this taxon that were
collected prior to the effective date of a
final rule adding this taxon to the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife is unlikely to
violate section 9 of the Act is a violation
of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371–3378;
18 U.S.C. 42).
Response: Section 9 of the Act (and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part
17) and the Lacey Act (and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part
16) impose separate permitting
requirements. This rule, authorized by
the Act, does not address permitting
requirements imposed under the Lacey
Act; as a result, importers and exporters
are responsible for following all
applicable regulatory requirements
under the Lacey Act and any other
relevant law.
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
6182
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
I. Final Listing Determination
Background
Please refer to the revised current
condition assessment report (Service
2022, entire) and the January 25, 2022,
proposed rule to list the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly (87 FR
3739) for a full summary of the taxon’s
information. Both are available on our
Southwest Region website at https://
www.fws.gov/about/region/southwest
and at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2021–
0069.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and the implementing regulations in
title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations set forth the procedures for
determining whether a species is an
endangered species or a threatened
species, issuing protective regulations
for threatened species, and designating
critical habitat for threatened and
endangered species. In 2019, jointly
with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Service issued final rules
that revised the regulations in 50 CFR
part 424 regarding how we add, remove,
and reclassify threatened and
endangered species and the criteria for
designating listed species’ critical
habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019).
At the same time the Service also issued
final regulations that, for species listed
as threatened species after September
26, 2019, eliminated the Service’s
general protective regulations
automatically applying to threatened
species the prohibitions that section 9 of
the Act applies to endangered species
(84 CFR 44753; August 27, 2019). We
collectively refer to these actions as the
2019 regulations.
As with the proposed rule, we are
applying the 2019 regulations for this
final rule because the 2019 regulations
are in effect just as they were when we
completed the proposed rule. Although
there was a period in the interim—
between July 5, 2022, and September 21,
2022—when the 2019 regulations
became vacated and the pre-2019
regulations were therefore reinstated
(see Center for Biological Diversity v.
Haaland, No. 4:19–cv–05206–JST, Doc.
168 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2022) (vacating the
2019 regulations and thereby reinstating
the pre-2019 regulations), the 2019
regulations are now in effect, so we
must apply them when making listing
and critical habitat decisions (In re:
Cattlemen’s Ass’n, No. 22–70194 (9th
Cir. Sept. 21, 2022) (staying the district
court’s order vacating the 2019
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
regulations until the district court
resolved a pending motion to amend the
order); Center for Biological Diversity v.
Haaland, No. 4:19–cv–5206–JST, Doc.
Nos. 197, 198 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2022)
(granting plaintiffs’ motion to amend
July 5, 2022, order and granting
government’s motion for remand
without vacatur).
The Act defines an ‘‘endangered
species’’ as a species that is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and a
‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to or are reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of a
species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition or the action or
condition itself.
However, the mere identification of
any threat(s) does not necessarily mean
that the species meets the statutory
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining
whether a species meets either
definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the
expected response by the species, and
the effects of the threats—in light of
those actions and conditions that will
ameliorate the threats—on an
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
individual, population, and species
level. We evaluate each threat and its
expected effects on the species, then
analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole.
We also consider the cumulative effect
of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that will have positive
effects on the species, such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets
the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only
after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected
effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in
the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Our implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a
framework for evaluating the foreseeable
future on a case-by-case basis. The term
‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far
into the future as the Service can
reasonably determine that both the
future threats and the species’ responses
to those threats are likely. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the
period of time in which we can make
reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not
mean ‘‘certain;’’ it means sufficient to
provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction. Thus, a
prediction is reliable if it is reasonable
to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary
to define foreseeable future as a
particular number of years. Analysis of
the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available
and should consider the timeframes
applicable to the relevant threats and to
the species’ likely responses to those
threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically
relevant to assessing the species’
biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan,
reproductive rates or productivity,
certain behaviors, and other
demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The current condition assessment
report (Service 2022, entire) documents
the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific
and commercial data regarding the
status of the species, including an
assessment of the potential threats to the
species. The current condition
assessment report does not represent
our decision on whether the species
should be listed as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
However, it does provide the scientific
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
basis that informs our regulatory
decisions, which involve the further
application of standards within the Act
and its implementing regulations and
policies.
To assess Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly’s viability, we
used the three conservation biology
principles of resiliency, redundancy,
and representation (Shaffer and Stein
2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency is
the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic
stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy is the
ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example,
droughts, large pollution events), and
representation is the ability of the
species to adapt to both near-term and
long-term changes in its physical and
biological environment (for example,
climate conditions, pathogens). In
general, species viability will increase
with increases in resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Smith
et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these
principles, we identified the butterfly’s
ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual,
population, and subspecies levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors
influencing the subspecies’ viability.
Our analysis can be categorized into
several sequential stages. During the
first stage, we evaluated the individual
subspecies’ life-history needs. The next
stage involved an assessment of the
historical and current conditions of the
subspecies’ demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an
explanation of how the subspecies
arrived at its current condition.
Throughout these stages, we used the
best available information to
characterize viability as the ability of
the subspecies to sustain populations in
the wild over time. We use this
information to inform our regulatory
decision.
The following is a summary of the key
results and conclusions from the current
condition assessment report; the full
report can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2021–0069 and at https://
www.fws.gov/office/new-mexicoecological-services.
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
Below, we review the biological
condition of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly and its resources,
and the threats that influence the
subspecies’ current and future
condition, in order to assess the
subspecies’ overall viability and the
risks to that viability.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
For the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly to maintain
viability, its populations or some
portion thereof must have sufficient
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. Several factors influence
the resiliency of Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly populations,
including larval and adult abundance
and density, in addition to elements of
the subspecies’ habitat that determine
whether Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly populations can
survive and reproduce. These resiliency
factors and habitat elements are
discussed in detail in the current
condition assessment report and are
summarized here.
Species Needs
Abundance and Density
To successfully reproduce and
maintain or increase their fecundity and
abundance, butterflies need access to
mates. The Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is not a longdistance flier and probably relies on
local abundance and population density
and particular mate-location behaviors
to successfully mate and reproduce
(Pittenger and Yori 2003, p. 39). Higher
densities and more abundant
individuals result in more successful
mating attempts and ensure the
subspecies’ viability. Metapopulation
dynamics are also maintained by
abundance and density within meadows
(Pittenger and Yori 2003, pp. 39–40).
Host Plants
The most crucial habitat factor for the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly is the New Mexico
beardtongue’s presence and abundance
(McIntyre 2021, pers. comm.). The
larvae rely nearly entirely upon the New
Mexico beardtongue during pre- and
post-diapause. Because of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly’s dependency on New Mexico
beardtongue, it is vulnerable to any type
of habitat degradation, which reduces
the host plant’s health and abundance
(Service et al. 2005, p. 9).
New Mexico beardtongue is a member
of the Plantaginaceae, or plantain,
family (Oxelman et al. 2005, p. 425).
These perennial plants prefer wooded
slopes or open glades in ponderosa pine
and spruce/fir forests at elevations
between 1,830 and 2,750 meters (m)
(6,000 and 9,000 feet (ft)) (New Mexico
Rare Plant Technical Council 1999,
entire). New Mexico beardtongue is
native to the Sacramento Mountains
within Lincoln and Otero Counties
(Sivinski and Knight 1996, p. 289). The
plant is perennial, has purple or violet-
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6183
blue flowers, and grows to be half a
meter tall (1.9 ft). New Mexico
beardtongue occurs in areas with loose
soils or where there has been recent soil
disturbance, such as eroded banks and
pocket gopher burrows (Pittenger and
Yori 2003, p. ii). Some plant species
within the plantain family, including
the New Mexico beardtongue, contain
iridoid glycosides, a family of organic
compounds that are bitter and an emetic
(vomit-inducing) for many birds and
small mammal species. The Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, like
other subspecies of Euphydryas anicia,
sequester the iridoid glycosides as
caterpillars. It is believed that these
compounds make the larvae and adult
butterflies distasteful or unpalatable to
predators (Gardner and Stermitz 1987,
pp. 2152–2167).
Nectar Sources
Access to nectar sources is needed for
adult Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterflies to properly carry
out their life cycle. The primary adult
nectar source is orange sneezeweed
(Hymenoxys hoopesii) (Service et al.
2005, p. 9). Forest Service personnel
observed butterflies visiting orange
composite flowers (family Asteraceae),
including orange sneezeweed, as much
as 90 percent of the time during surveys
(Forest Service 2000, p. 4). Other
surveys have shown that adult
butterflies are closely associated with
orange sneezeweed flowers (McIntyre
2010, p. 26). Although orange
sneezeweed flowers are most frequently
used, the butterfly has been observed
collecting nectar from various other
native nectar sources (Service et al.
2005, pp. 9–10). To contribute to the
subspecies’ viability, orange
sneezeweed and other native nectar
sources must bloom at a time that
corresponds with the emergence of
adult Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterflies. Although orange
sneezeweed flowers are most frequently
used, the butterfly has been observed
collecting nectar on various other native
nectar sources (Service et al. 2005, pp.
9–10). If orange sneezeweed is not
blooming during the adult flight period
(i.e., experiencing phenological
mismatch), survival and the butterfly’s
fecundity could decrease. In this case,
other species of nectar-producing
flowers might be essential for adult
butterflies to complete their life cycle.
Habitat Connectivity
Before human intervention, the
habitat of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is thought to have
been dynamic, with meadows forming
and reconnecting due to natural wildfire
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
6184
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
regimes (Service et al. 2005, p. 21).
These patterns and processes would
have facilitated natural dispersal and
recolonization of meadow habitats
following disturbance events, especially
when there was high butterfly
population density in adjacent meadows
(Service et al. 2005, p. 21). Currently,
spruce-fir forests punctuate suitable
butterfly meadow habitats, creating
intrinsic barriers to butterfly dispersal
and effectively isolating populations
from one another (Pittenger and Yori
2003, p. 1). Preliminary genetic research
suggested there is extremely low gene
flow across the subspecies’ range or
between meadows surveyed (Ryan 2021,
pers. comm.). If new sites are to become
colonized or recolonized by the
butterfly, meadow areas will need to be
connected enough to allow dispersal
from occupied areas. Therefore, habitat
connectivity is needed for genetically
healthy populations across the
subspecies’ range (Service 2021, p. 8).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Risk Factors for the Sacramento
Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly
We reviewed the potential risk factors
(i.e., threats, stressors) that could be
currently affecting the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly. In this
rule, we will discuss only those factors
in detail that could meaningfully impact
the status of the subspecies. Those risk
factors that are unlikely to have
significant effects on Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly
populations, such as human collection,
disease, parasites, predation,
insecticides, and habitat loss, are not
discussed here but are evaluated in the
current condition assessment report.
The primary risk factors (i.e., threats)
affecting the status of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly are
incompatible grazing (Factor A),
recreation (Factor A), climate change
(Factor E), invasive and nonnative
plants (Factor A), and an altered
wildfire regime (Factor A).
Incompatible Grazing
Historically, Merriam’s elk (Cervus
canadensis merriami), an extinct
subspecies of elk, grazed meadows
within the Sacramento Mountains.
Under normal conditions, this species
likely coexisted without impacting the
existence of the butterfly. Rocky
Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis
nelsoni) have been introduced to the
Sacramento Mountains, filling the
ecological niche previously occupied by
Merriam’s elk (New Mexico Department
of Game and Fish 2009, unpaginated).
At natural population levels and normal
environmental conditions, elk do not
pose a significant threat to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly or its habitat. In fact, some
studies have shown a positive
correlation between elk grazing and
caterpillar abundance (McIntyre 2010,
pp. 66–69). However, should elk herds
expand beyond natural levels or occur
during times of resource scarcity, such
as extended periods of drought, browse
pressure from elk could pose a
significant threat to the butterfly’s
habitat and viability (Service 2021, p.
13).
Additionally, feral horses were
inadvertently released from the
Mescalero Apache Reservation and
dispersed onto the Lincoln National
Forest around 2012. Horses are not
native to the Sacramento Mountains and
add significant browse pressure to
meadows. Larger than elk, horses
consume large quantities of vegetation
and graze more heavily in each area
before moving to seek more food
(Lightfoot 2022, pers. comm.).
The New Mexico beardtongue is not
the main source of food for horses or
elk. However, research has shown that
elk do selectively browse on large, more
robust New Mexico beardtongue plants,
which are often the same individual
plants selected by female Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterflies for
depositing eggs (McIntyre 2010, p. 72).
During dry conditions, such as has been
seen over the past 10 years, there is less
forage on the landscape overall, which
increases browse pressure on perennials
such as New Mexico beardtongue.
During these times of prolonged
drought, synergistic effects lead to
increased habitat degradation, during
which times both butterflies and elk can
be negatively impacted by increased
temperature, decreased precipitation,
and increased browse pressure from
other ungulates. Under such conditions,
New Mexico beardtongue remains as
small rosettes less than an inch tall and
does not flower when there is
significant browse pressure from large
herbivores. These small, stunted plants
are not large enough to support colonies
of caterpillars; any larvae will starve
after hatching (Forest Service 2020, p.
11).
The combined effects of feral horse
and elk browsing, compounded by
drought due to climate change, have
significantly impacted habitat within
meadow ecosystems in the range of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. Over the past several years,
sustained drought in Otero County has
driven large herbivores to graze most
meadow areas to the ground (McMahan
et al. 2021, pp. 1–2). Currently,
vegetation for host plant and nectar
sources is scarce in all the meadows
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
throughout the range of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Forest
Service 2020, p. 11).
Impacts of livestock grazing on native
wildlife in Southwestern montane
ecosystems vary depending on the
timing, duration, and intensity of
grazing (Service et al. 2005, p. 32).
Grazing intensities and durations that
exceed the ability of herbaceous plants
to recover or survive are detrimental to
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly (Service et al. 2005, p. 31).
Drought and increased temperatures can
exacerbate this trend. Overgrazing by
stock animals has led to the extinction
of some butterfly populations in the
United States, including butterflies in
the genus Euphydryas (Murphy & Weiss
1988, p. 187).
The Forest Service permits livestock
grazing in select allotments on the
Lincoln National Forest in the
Sacramento Mountains. The butterfly’s
range occurs within about 17 acres (ac)
(7.2 hectares (ha)) of the Russia Canyon
Allotment (Forest Service 2004, entire),
which has two grazing permittees. The
Pumphouse Allotment also contains
suitable butterfly habitats open to
livestock grazing (Service et al. 2005, p.
1; Forest Service 2009, p. 1). Most of the
butterfly’s range is encompassed by the
James Canyon Allotment. Currently, the
James Canyon Allotment is vacant
(Forest Service 2009, p. 2). At this time,
the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis has not
yet been finalized, and the James
Canyon Allotment remains ungrazed.
The areas where grazing allotments
overlap the subspecies’ range do not
currently contain extant populations of
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly (Service 2021, p. 12). Extant
populations are currently within the
ungrazed James Canyon Allotment.
Therefore, butterfly individuals are not
currently in direct competition with
domestic livestock for habitat resources.
However, there have been significant
impacts from grazing in the past
(Lightfoot 2022, pers. comm.).
Livestock grazing, primarily by cattle,
has historically been practiced
throughout the meadows inhabited by
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly (Service et al. 2005, p. 29).
However, based on the currently
available information, the exact
relationship between Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly
population abundance and cattle
grazing is not well understood (Service
et al. 2005, p. 30). It is likely the effect
of cattle grazing on butterfly abundance
varies, depending on the current habitat
and climatic conditions. Cattle grazing
can result in direct mortality by
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
trampling eggs and larva or by
consuming host plants (White 1986, p.
54), impacting butterfly habitat by
changing abundance and distribution of
host and nectar plants, reducing
vegetative cover, altering vegetative
communities, compacting and eroding
soil, and reducing natural disturbance
regimes (i.e., gopher activity) (Service et
al. 2005, p. 29). In some cases, cattle can
increase host plant abundance by
grazing on competing plant species
(Weiss 1999, p. 1480). However, New
Mexico beardtongue is consumed by
cattle as well, and grazing might reduce
available plants and impact the
butterfly’s presence and survival
(McIntyre 2010, pp. 94–104). Research
on population abundance in response to
grazing for other butterfly species has
shown that results vary depending on
the species and system studied (Service
et al. 2005, p. 30), and Forest Service
surveys did not show a strong
correlation between grazing and
butterfly abundance (Forest Service
2004, p. 7).
Due to current habitat conditions, it is
likely that in the areas of the butterfly’s
range where grazing does occur, that
livestock grazing continues to degrade
habitat for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly. Outside of
drought conditions, it might be possible
to collect data on the effects of cattle
grazing on Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly habitat and
establish an adaptive management plan
for grazing within butterfly habitat.
However, current conditions of butterfly
habitat are not compatible with cattle
grazing.
In summary, incompatible grazing has
resulted in decline of suitable habitat,
limiting larval host plants and adult
nectar sources for the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly. All
meadow units within the subspecies’
range reflect impacts from past and
recent grazing.
Recreation
Over the past 10 years, recreation has
increased in the Lincoln National
Forest. The September 6, 2001,
proposed listing rule (66 FR 46575)
determined that off-road vehicle use on
Forest Service trails posed some threat
to meadow units; off-road vehicle use
continues to this day and has increased
in popularity. Large recreational vehicle
(RV) use has also increased, and the
Forest Service does not require permits
for parking vehicles within the Lincoln
National Forest (Service 2021, p. 14).
Meadows within the range of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly are popular with RV users
because they are open, flat, and easily
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
accessible by road (Hughes 2021b, pers.
comm.). A variety of these impacts (e.g.,
soil compaction, barren ground,
trampled food plants, multiple trails,
vehicle tracking) are evident in areas
used by larval and adult life stages of
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly; these impacts are reducing the
quality or quantity of suitable habitat in
and around developed campgrounds or
undeveloped campsites in meadows
known to support the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly
(Hughes 2021b, pers. comm.).
Recreation can negatively affect the
butterfly in several ways. Trampling and
crushing can physically kill both
individual butterflies and caterpillars.
While adults can fly away, these
butterflies are slow, especially on cold
mornings. Recreational activities can
also crush plants, including New
Mexico beardtongue and orange
sneezeweed. During times of drought,
these plants are especially vulnerable
and unlikely to survive repeated damage
(Service 2021, p. 14). Additionally, RVs
compact soil where large vehicles are
parked. Repeated trampling by humans
around the vehicles, caused by normal
camping activities, will further compact
soils, making it less likely for New
Mexico beardtongue to recover or reestablish in former campsites (Hughes
2021b, pers. comm.).
In summary, recreation by humans
can directly kill Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterflies and their larvae.
All meadow units within the range are
experiencing some level of impact from
recreation.
Climate Change
Climate change is impacting natural
ecosystems in the southwestern United
States (McMahan et al. 2021, p. 1). The
Sacramento Mountains are sky islands
surrounded by a matrix of desert
grassland, which hosts a unique mix of
flora and fauna (Brown et al. 2001, p.
116). This ecosystem is sensitive even to
small changes in temperature and
precipitation regimes. Such changes to
the environment can significantly alter
air temperature, the amount of
precipitation, and the timing of
precipitation events (Service et al. 2005,
p. 37).
New Mexico has been in a drought for
the past several years. Roughly 54
percent of New Mexico is currently
experiencing an exceptional drought,
including the Sacramento Mountains
(McMahan et al. 2021, pp. 1–2).
Droughts of this severity push wildlife
to alter behavior based on available
resources, while vegetation in habitats
becomes extremely degraded (McMahan
et al. 2021, entire).
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6185
Over the past several years, annual
precipitation levels have decreased
throughout the butterfly’s range.
Snowfall and corresponding snowpack
have remained well below normal levels
(Forest Service 2020, pp. 11–12). Some
alpine butterflies need high levels of
snowpack during diapause to shelter
from wind and cold temperatures. The
same might be true for the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, as the
subspecies likely evolved with higher
levels of winter snowpack than have
been experienced over the past decade
(Hughes 2021a, pers. comm.). However,
while snowpack might be an important
factor, we do not have enough evidence
to analyze the effects of low snow years
on the butterfly.
Recent shifts in climate can impact
how species interact with their
environment. The timing of butterfly
life-history events during an annual
cycle can shift due to increases in
temperature, changes in humidity, and
length of growing season. These shifts
can directly be attributed to the effects
of climate change. For habitat specialists
such as the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly, shifts in
phenological timing can have important
consequences for population dynamics
and viability (Colorado-Ruiz et al. 2018,
pp. 5706–5707). It is likely that climate
change has already caused some level of
phenotypic mismatch (when life-history
traits are no longer advantageous due to
changes in the environment) between
the butterfly, its host plants, and its
nectar sources (Service 2022, p. 9). This
shift negatively impacts the butterfly
because it has adapted to specific timing
of resource availability (i.e., growth of
host plants, blooming of nectar sources)
in various stages of its life cycle, and
climate change has altered the timing,
quality, and quantity of those resources.
The Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly needs adequate
vegetation growth in host plants and
nectar sources during the summer
months to survive (Service et al. 2005,
p. 15). Vegetation growth within the
butterfly’s range appears to rely heavily
on summer rains. Large rainfall events
typically form during the mid-summer
months in the Sacramento Mountains,
marking the beginning of the monsoon
season. These midday showers occur
almost daily for several months,
stimulating much of the vegetation to
grow and proliferate during the
midsummer season. Specifically, New
Mexico beardtongue growth increases in
response to the monsoons. It is thought
that moisture might also encourage the
butterflies to emerge from diapause as
well (Service et al. 2005, pp. 37–38).
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
6186
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Climate change is impacting the
timing of monsoon events throughout
the Southwest (Service 2021, p. 15).
New Mexico beardtongue and other
plant species in subalpine meadows are
adapted to the pulse of moisture from
monsoons (Service et al. 2005, pp. 37–
38). With a lack of, or altered, monsoon
rains, the butterfly is at risk, as the
subspecies relies on vegetation growth
dependent upon the timing of
precipitation.
The 2020 monsoon season was an
exceptionally weak one, with far less
precipitation falling than in an average
summer (McMahan et al. 2021,
unpaginated). As a result, New Mexico
beardtongue growth was also weak; few
plants grew larger than small rosettes on
the ground. Even fewer plants survived
to produce flowers (Forest Service 2020,
p. 12). Some experts believe that the dry
conditions, compounded with increased
browse pressure from large ungulates,
contributed to the deterioration of
habitat throughout the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly’s range
(Ryan et al. 2021, pers. comm.).
In 2021, the monsoon season in the
Sacramento Mountains produced heavy
precipitation and several flash-flood
events (Hergert et al. 2022,
unpaginated). While this precipitation
allowed vegetation to temporarily
recover, it also caused erosion in some
meadow habitat (Hughes 2022, pers.
comm.). Despite these large
precipitation events during the summer
months of 2021, the Sacramento
Mountains remain in a moderate to
severe drought (U.S. Drought Monitor,
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/,
accessed June 30, 2022) and impacts to
the butterfly’s habitat from climate
change are likely to continue.
In summary, climate change adversely
impacts the viability of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly. All
meadow units within the subspecies’
range are experiencing impacts from
climate change.
Invasive, Nonnative Plants
Invasive, nonnative plants have begun
to encroach into meadow areas within
the Lincoln National Forest. Other
species of butterfly had become scarcer
when nonnative plants appeared in
suitable butterfly habitats (Hughes
2021a, pers. comm.). During the
drought, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa
pratensis) proliferated within meadow
areas. This aggressive, nonnative plant,
whose seeds are primarily windblown,
can outcompete native wildflowers,
such as New Mexico beardtongue. As
invasive, nonnative plants begin to
expand their influence, native plants,
including host and nectar plants for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
butterflies, such as New Mexico
beardtongue and orange sneezeweed,
are likely to be outcompeted and
become more scarce (Kennedy 2020,
pers. comm.; 62 FR 2313, January 16,
1997).
In summary, invasive, nonnative
plants can outcompete the native plants
that Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterflies and their larvae require. All
meadow units within the subspecies’
range are experiencing some level of
impact from nonnative plants.
Altered Wildfire Regime
Fire is a natural part of the
Sacramento Mountains ecosystem and
would have historically maintained
many of the ecosystem processes within
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly’s range. Humans have largely
suppressed wildfires over the past 150
years (Service et al. 2005, p. 21). Before
human intervention, there would have
been gradual ecosystem clines between
meadows and forests. Grassland
corridors or sparsely forested glades
would have connected meadow areas.
These habitat types would have allowed
for the butterfly to pass through, thereby
maintaining metapopulation dynamics.
Fire exclusion and suppression have
reduced the size of grasslands and
meadows by allowing the encroachment
of conifers, and these trends are
projected to continue (Service et al.
2005, pp. 21–22). No significant
wildfires have occurred in the
butterfly’s habitat since 1916 (Service et
al. 2005, p. 21). Before active fire
suppression, fire in the Sacramento
Mountains occurred at intervals
between 3 and 10 years (Forest Service
1998, p. 63). These frequent, cool, lowintensity, surface fires historically
maintained a forest that was more open
(i.e., more non-forested patches of
different size; more large, older trees;
and fewer dense thickets of evergreen
saplings). Such low-intensity fires are
now rare events. A large fire can occur
within the range of the subspecies; there
have been at least nine large, hot, highintensity wildfires (over 90,000 ac
(34,000 ha)) in the Sacramento
Mountains during the past 50 years
(Forest Service 1998, p. 63). Trees and
other woody vegetation have begun
encroaching into suitable meadow
habitats for the butterfly. Current forest
conditions make the chances of a highseverity fire within the range of the
butterfly increasingly likely (Service et
al. 2005, p. 21).
It is likely that fire exclusion and
historical cattle grazing have altered and
increased the threat of wildfire in
ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and
mixed conifer forests in the semi-arid
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
western interior forests, including New
Mexico (Forest Service 1998, pp. 3, 63).
Further, there has been a general
increase in the dominance of woody
plants, with a decrease in the
herbaceous (non-woody) ground cover
used by the butterfly (Service et al.
2005, pp. 32–33). These data indicate
that the quality and quantity of the
available butterfly habitat is decreasing
rangewide. Therefore, we conclude that
wildfire exclusion has substantially
affected the subspecies and will likely
continue to significantly degrade the
quality and quantity of suitable habitat.
In summary, the altered fire regime
can impact Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterflies and their larvae.
All meadow units within the
subspecies’ range are experiencing
adverse impacts from altered fire
regimes.
Summary
Our analysis of the current influences
on the needs of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly for
long-term viability revealed there are
several threats that pose the largest risk
to viability: incompatible grazing,
recreation, climate change, invasive and
nonnative plants, and an altered
wildfire regime. These influences
reduce the availability of host plants
and nectar sources, thereby reducing the
quantity and quality of essential habitat
for the subspecies, in addition to
reducing its ecological and genetic
diversity.
Species Condition
The current condition of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly considers the risks to those
populations that are currently occurring.
In the current condition assessment
report, for each population, we
developed and assigned condition
categories for two demographic factors
and three habitat factors that are
important for the viability of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. The condition scores for each
habitat factor were then used to
determine an overall condition of each
population and meadow: high,
moderate, low, very low, or extirpated.
Two populations of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly remain
in two meadows, Bailey Canyon and
Pines Meadow Campground.
Historically, the populations likely had
greater connectivity, but today they are
small and isolated due to the altered
wildfire regime, which fostered a greater
extent and density concentration of
trees separating habitat meadows.
Dispersal and colonization of extirpated
locations is unlikely without human
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
6187
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
assistance. If butterflies have not been
detected at any site once or more during
the last 3 years, we consider that
population to be extirpated. The two
remaining populations are in very low
condition in terms of demographic
factors (adult density and larval density)
(see table 1, below) and low condition
in terms of overall meadow condition
(see table 2, below). There have not been
any observations of adults or larvae in
the past 3 consecutive years in any of
the other eight populations, and we
therefore consider them to be
demographically extirpated. Six of those
eight populations have very low overall
meadow condition, and two are
considered extirpated for overall
meadow condition because suitable
habitat for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly no longer exists
there.
TABLE 1—CURRENT CONDITION OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS OF THE SACRAMENTO MOUNTAINS CHECKERSPOT
BUTTERFLY
Demographic factors
Meadow unit
Adult density
Bailey Canyon ...............................................................................................................................................
Pines Meadow Campground .........................................................................................................................
Cox Canyon ...................................................................................................................................................
Silver Springs Canyon ...................................................................................................................................
Pumphouse Canyon ......................................................................................................................................
Sleepygrass Canyon .....................................................................................................................................
Spud Patch Canyon ......................................................................................................................................
Deerhead Canyon .........................................................................................................................................
Horse Pasture Meadow .................................................................................................................................
Yardplot Meadow ..........................................................................................................................................
Very Low .............
Very Low .............
Extirpated ............
Extirpated ............
Extirpated ............
Extirpated ............
Extirpated ............
Extirpated ............
Extirpated ............
Extirpated ............
Larval density
Very Low.
Very Low.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
TABLE 2—CURRENT CONDITION OF HABITAT FACTORS OF THE SACRAMENTO MOUNTAINS CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY
Habitat factors
Meadow unit
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Bailey Canyon .................................................................................................
Pines Meadow Campground ..........................................................................
Cox Canyon ....................................................................................................
Silver Springs Canyon ....................................................................................
Pumphouse Canyon .......................................................................................
Sleepygrass Canyon .......................................................................................
Spud Patch Canyon ........................................................................................
Deerhead Canyon ...........................................................................................
Horse Pasture Meadow ..................................................................................
Yardplot Meadow ............................................................................................
Bailey Canyon and Pines Meadow
Campground are two adjacent meadows
in the northwest part of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly’s
range. During the 2020 survey season,
approximately eight butterflies were
detected in both meadows combined
(Forest Service 2020, p. 3), and no larval
tents were found (Forest Service 2020,
pp. 1–3; Hughes 2020, pers. comm.).
One individual observed dozens of
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterflies in Bailey Canyon in 2020
(Banker 2022, pers. comm.). In 2021,
surveys detected 23 adult butterflies and
two larval tents (Hughes 2022, pers.
comm.). Larvae from the two tents were
taken into captivity by experienced
biologists to establish a captive refugia
(Williams 2021, pers. comm.). Although
the 2021 field season represented an
increase in population numbers, the
adult and larval density levels remain at
historical lows. We categorized
resiliency for demographics as very low
for both meadows, which were the only
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
Host plants
Nectar sources
Connectivity
Very Low ........
Very Low ........
Very low .........
Very Low ........
Very Low ........
Very Low ........
Very Low ........
Extirpated .......
Extirpated .......
Extirpated .......
Low ................
Low ................
Low ................
Low ................
Low ................
Low ................
Low ................
Very Low ........
Extirpated .......
Extirpated .......
Moderate ........
Moderate ........
Low ................
Moderate ........
Low ................
Moderate ........
Moderate ........
Low ................
High ...............
Low ................
two meadows where butterflies were
found. In addition, the overall meadow
condition for these sites was low
because there are few host plants and
nectar sources present. Although nectar
sources are present, they are not
blooming or providing enough resources
for the butterfly colonies. These
meadows are within 800 meters of each
other, which is within the dispersal
distance of the butterfly, allowing for
potential gene flow between
populations.
Overall resiliency of Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly
populations is very low for demographic
factors and low for habitat factors. This
is because butterflies were only found in
2 of the 10 documented meadows, and
both had very low recorded adult and
larval abundance and density numbers.
Additionally, these two meadows have
poor habitat conditions (few host plants,
nectar sources are abundant but provide
insufficient resources, and some
connectivity to other meadows), and the
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Overall
meadow
condition
Low.
Low.
Very Low.
Very Low.
Very Low..
Very Low.
Very Low.
Very Low.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
other eight meadows have either very
low condition or are extirpated in terms
of habitat factors.
We define a species’ representation by
assessing ecological and genetic
diversity. As a narrow-range endemic,
the entire range of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly is
approximately 32 square miles.
However, suitable habitat within this
range is limited to only about 2 square
miles. Today, only 0.2 square miles
might be occupied by the butterfly. This
range contraction suggests that most of
the original representation present
within the subspecies has declined. The
entirety of the butterfly’s range
represents one representation area
because of the narrow range and limited
ecological diversity. The extant
populations are small and isolated in
this single representation area with no
current connectivity between those two
populations. There is some connectivity
between habitat patches, but there is no
connectivity between extant
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
6188
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
populations. The occupied meadows are
among spruce-fir forests, so some
barriers limit the dispersal of
individuals among the populations. Due
to the limited habitat connectivity of
populations, individual Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterflies
rarely, if ever, travel between
populations. This effectively restricts
the transfer of genetic material, thus
limiting genetic diversity. There was
likely greater habitat connectivity
between populations in the past due to
a more natural fire regime. Therefore,
overall representation was always
limited for this subspecies and has
declined since 2010.
We define redundancy for the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly as multiple populations or
metapopulations spread across the
subspecies’ range. There are only 2
extant Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly populations
located in adjacent meadows out of 10
documented populations within the
single representation area. Given the
historical distribution of the butterfly, it
is likely that Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly populations were
more abundant within the Sacramento
Mountains prior to European
colonization of the area. Therefore,
redundancy of the butterfly has
declined over time. As a consequence of
these current conditions, the viability of
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly primarily depends on
maintaining and restoring the remaining
isolated populations and reintroducing
populations where feasible.
We incorporated the cumulative
effects of the operative threats into our
analysis when we characterized the
current condition of the subspecies.
Because our characterization of current
condition considers not just the
presence of the factors, but to what
degree they collectively influence risk to
the entire subspecies, our assessment
integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone
cumulative effects analysis.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory
Mechanisms
Several habitat management actions
might benefit the viability of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. To address the threat of
overgrazing from large ungulates, the
Lincoln National Forest erected
exclosures to protect butterfly habitats
from browsing. These efforts are
currently focused within Bailey Canyon
and Pines Meadow Campground, where
adult butterflies are extant. Botanists
involved with the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
working group have planted New
Mexico beardtongue, orange
sneezeweed, and other pollinator plants
within exclosures for habitat restoration.
These efforts will help ensure the
individual needs of larvae and adult
butterflies are met.
In 2021, the Institute for Applied
Ecology, Forest Service, and other
partners initiated a conservation project
to address, enhance, and restore
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly habitat. Biologists collected,
cleaned, propagated, and mixed seeds
containing New Mexico beardtongue
and four nectar species, including
orange sneezeweed. These plants and
seeds were then planted into prepared
sites within both grazing exclosure
fences and protective tubing. Plants
were watered by Forest Service staff.
Survival rates of plantings were
assessed by the Forest Service in late
fall and determined to be high (greater
than 90 percent). Funds were provided
by the Forest Service and the Native
Plant Society of New Mexico (Gisler
2022, pers. comm.).
The Forest Service has proposed that
fire management aimed at reducing tree
stocking within forested areas
surrounding meadows might also help
restore suitable habitat and connectivity
throughout the range of the butterfly.
Maintaining edge habitat and
connectivity could greatly improve the
butterfly’s viability in the long term.
Determination of Sacramento
Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly’s
Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species meets
the definition of an endangered species
or a threatened species. The Act defines
an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in
danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and a
‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. The
Act requires that we determine whether
a species meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the
subspecies and assessing the cumulative
effect of the threats under the Act’s
section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly has declined in abundance,
density, and number of populations.
Currently, there are only two extant
populations where the subspecies exists
in very low abundances and are isolated
from one another. Furthermore, existing
available habitat is reduced in quantity
and quality relative to historical
conditions. Our analysis revealed
several threats that caused these
declines and pose a meaningful risk to
the viability of the subspecies. These
threats are primarily related to habitat
changes (Factor A) and include
incompatible grazing, recreation,
invasive and nonnative plants, and an
altered wildfire regime, in addition to
climate change (Factor E).
Over the past two decades, the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly has declined, both in
abundance and in the area occupied
(Forest Service 2020, p. 2). Because of
increased populations of ungulates (i.e.,
horses), grazing has increased in the
subalpine meadows that support the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly, reducing the availability of
host plants and nectar sources. The
reduction in habitat quality and
quantity is further exacerbated by the
impact of drought associated with
climate change. Additionally, the
altered wildfire regime has decreased
habitat connectivity, and now
populations are more isolated from one
another, with no dispersal among
populations.
We considered sites with butterfly
detections during the last 3 years to be
extant for the purposes of this
determination. Because adults or larvae
have not been observed in the past 3
consecutive years in 8 of the 10
populations, we consider those 8
populations functionally extirpated. The
two remaining populations are
extremely small and isolated. The
habitat at those sites is currently in very
low condition due to a lack of both host
plants for larvae and nectar sources for
adults.
Historically, the subspecies, with
more abundant and larger populations,
would have been more resilient to
stochastic events. Even if such events
extirpated some populations, they could
be recolonized over time by dispersal
from nearby surviving populations.
Because many of the areas of suitable
habitat may be small and support small
numbers of butterflies, local extirpation
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
of these small populations is probable.
A metapopulation’s persistence depends
on the combined dynamics of these
local extirpations and the subsequent
recolonization of these areas by
dispersal (Murphy and Weiss 1988, pp.
192–194). Habitat loss and the altered
wildfire regime have reduced the size of
and connectivity between patches of
suitable butterfly habitat. The reduction
in the extent of meadows and other
suitable non-forested areas has likely
eliminated connectivity among some
localities and may have increased the
distance beyond the normal dispersal
capability of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly, making
recolonization of some patches
following local extirpation more
difficult. In addition, habitat
deterioration or reduction lowers the
quality of remaining habitat by reducing
the diversity of microclimates and food
plants for larvae and adult butterflies
(Murphy and Weiss 1988, p. 190).
Preliminary genetic evidence suggests
little gene flow between these units
(Ryan 2021, pers. comm.). Connectivity,
which would promote resiliency and
representation, has been lost. Eight
populations are functionally extirpated,
and the remaining two populations are
in very low condition in terms of
demographic factors, are in low
condition in terms of habitat factors,
and are at high risk of loss. The
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly is extremely vulnerable to
catastrophic events (i.e., high-intensity,
large wildfires) in suitable butterfly
habitats.
In summary, much of the remaining
suitable butterfly habitat, and therefore
the long-term viability of the subspecies,
is at risk due to the direct and indirect
effects of incompatible grazing,
recreation, climate change, invasive and
nonnative plants, and an altered
wildfire regime. The remaining
populations are fragmented, isolated
from one another, and unable to
recolonize naturally. The populations
are largely in a state of chronic ongoing,
intensifying degradation due to habitat
loss, which is exacerbated by climate
change, limiting the subspecies’
resiliency. The limited geographic range
of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly increases the
threat of extinction for this subspecies
given the expected continuing loss and
degradation of suitable habitat and
increased risks of extinction from
catastrophic events, such as wildfire.
Historically, with a larger range of
interconnected populations, the
butterfly would have been more
resilient to stochastic events because
even if some populations were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
extirpated by such events, they could be
recolonized over time by dispersal from
nearby surviving populations. This
connectivity, which would have made
for a sufficiently resilient subspecies
overall, has been lost, and with two
populations in very low demographic
condition and low habitat condition, the
remnant populations are at serious risk
of imminent loss. A threatened status
for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is not appropriate
because the subspecies has already
shown significant declines in current
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation due to the threats
mentioned above.
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we determine that the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion
of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. We have
determined that the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range and accordingly did not undertake
an analysis of any significant portion of
its range. Because the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly
warrants listing as endangered
throughout all of its range, our
determination does not conflict with the
decision in Center for Biological
Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69
(D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), which vacated
the provision of the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant
Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered
Species Act’s Definitions of
‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened
Species’’ (Final Policy) (79 FR 37578,
July 1, 2014) providing that if the
Services determine that a species is
threatened throughout all of its range,
the Services will not analyze whether
the species is endangered in a
significant portion of its range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly meets
the Act’s definition of an endangered
species. Therefore, we are listing the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly as an endangered species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6189
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
recognition as a listed species, planning
and implementation of recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in
public awareness, and conservation by
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies, private organizations, and
individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other
countries and calls for recovery actions
to be carried out for listed species. The
protection required by Federal agencies,
including the Service, and the
prohibitions against certain activities
are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the
Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning consists of
preparing draft and final recovery plans,
beginning with the development of a
recovery outline and making it available
to the public within 30 days of a final
listing determination. The recovery
outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery
actions and describes the process to be
used to develop a recovery plan.
Revisions of the plan may be done to
address continuing or new threats to the
species, as new substantive information
becomes available. The recovery plan
also identifies recovery criteria for
review of when a species may be ready
for reclassification to threatened status
(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from
protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and
methods for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide
estimates of the cost of implementing
recovery tasks. Recovery teams
(composed of species experts, Federal
and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are
often established to develop recovery
plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the
final recovery plan will be available on
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
6190
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
our website (https://www.fws.gov/
program/endangered-species), or from
our New Mexico Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Once this species is listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost-share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, pursuant to section 6 of the
Act, the State of New Mexico will be
eligible for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at https://
www.fws.gov/service/financialassistance.
Please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery
efforts for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new
information on this butterfly whenever
it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
is proposed or listed as an endangered
or threatened species and with respect
to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision
of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part
402. Section 7(a)(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 any endangered or
threatened species or destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Jan 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species’ habitat that may require
conference, consultation, or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal
lands administered by the Forest
Service.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions
of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (which includes
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or
to attempt any of these) endangered
wildlife within the United States or on
the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful
to import; export; deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial
activity; or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any
species listed as an endangered species.
It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver,
carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to employees
of the Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, other Federal land
management agencies, and State
conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered
wildlife, a permit may be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for
incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. The statute
also contains certain exemptions from
the prohibitions, which are found in
sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a listing on proposed and
ongoing activities within the range of
the listed species. Based on the best
available information, the following
actions are unlikely to result in a
violation of section 9, if these activities
are carried out in accordance with
existing regulations and permit
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
requirements; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Possession, delivery, or movement,
including interstate transport and
import into or export from the United
States, involving no commercial
activity, of dead specimens of this taxon
that were collected prior to the effective
date of this final rule (see DATES, above);
(2) Activities authorized, funded, or
carried out by Federal agencies (e.g.,
grazing management, non-forested area
management, private or commercial
development, recreational trail or forest
road development or use, road
construction, prescribed burns, timber
harvest, pesticide/herbicide application,
or pipeline or utility line construction
crossing suitable habitat) when such
activity is conducted in accordance with
a biological opinion from the Service on
a proposed Federal action;
(3) Low-impact, infrequent, dispersed
human activities on foot or horseback
that do not degrade butterfly habitat
(e.g., bird watching, sightseeing,
backpacking, hunting, photography,
camping, hiking);
(4) Activities on private lands that do
not result in the take of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly,
including those activities involving loss
of habitat, such as normal landscape
activities around a personal residence,
proper grazing management, road
construction that avoids butterfly
habitat, and pesticide/herbicide
application consistent with label
restrictions; and
(5) Activities conducted under the
terms of a valid permit issued by the
Service pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A)
or 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
Based on the best available
information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act if they are not
authorized in accordance with
applicable law; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Capture (i.e., netting), survey, or
collection of specimens of this taxon
without a permit from the Service
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the
Act;
(2) Incidental take of Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly
without a permit pursuant to section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act;
(3) Sale or purchase of specimens of
this taxon, except for properly
documented antique specimens of this
taxon at least 100 years old, as defined
at section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(4) Use of pesticides/herbicides that
results in take of Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly;
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(5) Unauthorized release of biological
control agents that attack any life stage
of this taxon;
(6) Removal or destruction of the
native food plants being used by
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly, defined as Penstemon
neomexicanus, Helenium hoopesii, or
Valeriana edulis, within areas that are
used by this taxon that results in harm
to this butterfly; and
(7) Destruction or alteration of
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly habitat by grading, leveling,
plowing, mowing, burning, herbicide or
pesticide spraying, incompatible
grazing, or otherwise disturbing nonforested openings that result in the
death of or injury to eggs, larvae, or
adult Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterflies through
significant impairment of the taxon’s
essential breeding, foraging, sheltering,
or other essential life functions.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the New Mexico Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
II. Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and
implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.12) require that we designate
critical habitat at the time a species is
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species, to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable. In the
January 25, 2022, proposed listing rule
(87 FR 3739), we determined that
designation of critical habitat was
prudent but not determinable because
specific information needed to analyze
the impacts of designation was lacking.
We are still in the process of assessing
this information. We plan to publish a
proposed rule to designate critical
Common name
*
INSECTS
*
Butterfly, Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
*
habitat for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly in the near future.
butterfly, we will continue to coordinate
with affected Tribes.
Required Determinations
References Cited
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
Tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to Tribes.
We solicited information from the
Mescalero Apache Nation within the
range of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly to inform the
development of the current condition
assessment report, but we did not
receive a response. We also provided
the Mescalero Apache Nation the
opportunity to review a draft of the
current condition assessment report and
provide input prior to making our final
determination on the status of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly, but also did not receive a
response. As we move forward with
recovery planning and developing a
proposed critical habitat designation for
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
A complete list of references cited in
this rule is available on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the New Mexico Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Scientific name
*
*
*
Euphydryas anicia
cloudcrofti.
*
*
*
Where listed
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are
the staff members of the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment
Team and the New Mexico Ecological
Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
2. In § 17.11, amend paragraph (h) by
adding an entry for ‘‘Butterfly,
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot’’ to
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife in alphabetical order under
INSECTS to read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
Status
*
*
*
Wherever found ................
*
*
E
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
*
*
*
*
88 FR [INSERT FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE
WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS], 1/31/2023.
[FR Doc. 2023–01146 Filed 1–30–23; 8:45 am]
19:33 Jan 30, 2023
*
Listing citations and applicable rules
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
6191
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
*
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6177-6191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01146]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0069; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BG01
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are listing
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas anicia
cloudcrofti), a butterfly from New Mexico, as an endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. This rule
extends the Act's protections to the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. We will propose the designation of critical habitat for the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly in a future rulemaking.
DATES: This rule is effective March 2, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The January 25, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 3739) and this
final rule are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we received, as well as
supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-
R2-ES-2021-0069.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Sartorius, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field
Office, 2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 505-346-2525.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or
a threatened species (likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly meets the definition of an
endangered species; therefore, we are listing it as such. Listing a
species as an endangered or threatened species can be completed only by
issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking
process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. We are listing the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly as an endangered species under the Act. As
explained later in this document, we are working on a separate rule to
propose critical habitat for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is endangered due to the following threats:
incompatible grazing, recreation, climate change, invasive and
nonnative plants, and an altered wildfire regime.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
[[Page 6178]]
it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
We determined that designation of critical habitat was prudent but
not determinable at this time because specific information needed to
analyze the impacts of designation was lacking. We are still in the
process of assessing this information. We plan to publish a proposed
rule to designate critical habitat for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly in the near future.
Previous Federal Actions
On January 25, 2022, we published in the Federal Register (87 FR
3739) a proposed rule to list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly as an endangered species and concluded that critical habitat
was not determinable at that time (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please
refer to that proposed rule for a detailed description of previous
Federal actions concerning this butterfly.
Peer Review
An assessment team prepared a current condition assessment report
for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. The team was
composed of Service biologists in consultation with other species
experts. The report represents a compilation of the best scientific and
commercial data available concerning the status of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, including the impacts of past and
present factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the
subspecies. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and
our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent
scientific review of the information contained in the report. As
discussed in the proposed rule, we sent the report to five appropriate
and independent peer reviewers and received three responses. The peer
reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. In preparing the
proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the report, which was the foundation for the proposed
rule and this final rule.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
We received comments and suggested clarifications on the January
25, 2022, proposed rule, and we updated the corresponding text of the
current condition assessment report and this rule. Those updates
include:
(1) New observation data of the butterfly in 2020 in Bailey Canyon;
(2) Additional details and clarification on elk, feral horse, and
cattle grazing; and
(3) Several nonsubstantive clarifications and corrections to ensure
better consistency, clarify some information, and update references.
We did not make any substantial changes to this final rule after
consideration of the comments we received on the proposed rule.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on January 25, 2022 (87 FR 3739), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by March 28, 2022. 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
Alamogordo Daily News, Albuquerque Journal, Las Cruces Sun-News, Rio
Rancho Observer, and Ruidoso News. We did not receive any requests for
a public hearing.
Peer Review Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from three
peer reviewers on the current condition assessment report. We reviewed
all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues
and new information regarding the information contained in the current
condition assessment report. The peer reviewers generally concurred
with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions that we incorporated into an updated
version of the current condition assessment report. The peer reviewers'
comments did not change our determination that the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly meets the definition of an endangered species
under the Act. Below is a summary of comments from peer reviewers we
received.
(1) Comment: Peer reviewers commented that we should add
information to specific sections of the current condition assessment
report, such as climate change and the butterfly's life history.
Response: We added information to these discussions in the current
condition assessment report. We elaborated where appropriate but did
not go into as great of detail as the reviewers requested because our
analysis indicates that the butterfly is in danger of extinction based
on its current condition. We acknowledge that there is a greater body
of work on these issues, such as climate change in the southwestern
United States, and the current condition assessment report is not meant
to be a comprehensive literature review on climate change overall, nor
would it change our analysis. We will ensure that the impacts of
climate change and all other appropriate information as it relates to
the butterfly, its life history, and resources are included in recovery
planning.
Federal Agency Comments
(2) Comment: The U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) commented
that we need to define intensive grazing and explain how to measure
that in monitoring and defined violations. They further commented that
new chemicals and methods of herbicide use need to be clarified.
Response: We are not able to provide a specific definition on what
constitutes intensive grazing. Rather, we changed ``intensive'' to
``incompatible'' to capture any grazing activities that are
incompatible with the needs of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. This may include any activities that reduce suitable
butterfly habitat by impacting the resource needs of the butterfly,
such as presence/quantity of host plants, nectar sources, or moisture.
We are also not able to provide information on how new chemicals and
methods of herbicide use may affect the subspecies. The use of
herbicide by a Federal agency in the presence of a listed species would
require that Federal agency to consult with the Service under section 7
of the Act to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
species. Similarly, should a Federal agency use a new chemical or
change the timing of herbicide use, they would have to consult with the
Service. Particular information regarding use and timing of that
chemical would be elucidated in the consultation process, and avoidance
and minimization measures would be determined.
(3) Comment: The Forest Service stated that the use of herbicide/
pesticides in the list of actions that may not violate section 9 of the
Act is a
[[Page 6179]]
contradiction to the conservation recommendation that herbicides should
be used to restore butterfly habitat.
Response: In the January 25, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 3739), we
state that herbicide application authorized or carried out by a Federal
agency would not likely violate section 9 of the Act. We clarify in
this final rule that any use of herbicides that would result in take of
the butterfly would be a violation, not the use of herbicide itself.
The use of herbicide or pesticides by a Federal agency in the presence
of a listed species would require that Federal agency to consult with
the Service under section 7 of the Act to ensure that the Federal
agency action is not likely to jeopardize the species, but we do not
consider that herbicide use itself would likely result in a violation
of section 9 of the Act. Herbicides may also be used as a tool for
habitat restoration and would not be a violation of section 9 of the
Act if used as directed by the label and after the Federal action
agency consults with the Service.
State Agency Comments
(4) Comment: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish commented that
the limited data available are insufficient to draw conclusions
regarding the impact of elk on the butterfly.
Response: We considered the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly to
evaluate its status under the Act. Also, in accordance with our peer
review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited
peer review from knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise
that included familiarity with the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly, the geographic region in which the subspecies occurs, and
conservation biology principles. Additionally, we requested comments or
information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American
Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested
parties concerning the January 25, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 3739).
Comments and information we received helped inform this final rule. Elk
will browse New Mexico beardtongue (Penstemon neomexicanus) during
drought conditions, as vegetation becomes scarce (McIntyre 2021, pers.
comm.). This causes the New Mexico beardtongue to remain as small
rosettes that are not large enough to support tent colonies of
caterpillars and any larvae will starve after hatching. Browsing
ultimately reduces available host plants, which are an essential need
for the viability of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
Therefore, we think it is reasonable to conclude, as we did in this
final rule, that elk grazing can impact the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly's viability, especially when populations are at
low numbers.
We agree that outside of drought conditions, the effect of elk on
the butterfly's habitat is different and more nuanced. We acknowledge
that elk are a natural part of the ecosystem, filling an ecological
niche that is generally compatible with the viability of the butterfly.
However, during times of prolonged drought, synergistic effects lead to
increased habitat degradation, during which times both butterflies and
elk can be negatively impacted by increased temperature, decreased
precipitation, and increased browse pressure from other ungulates.
(5) Comment: The New Mexico Department of Agriculture stated that
the proposed rule implied that livestock grazing is not a risk factor
to the butterfly due to the absence of livestock, which can be
misconstrued to suggest that if the Forest Service were to resume
livestock grazing within the range of the subspecies, that would be
incompatible with the conservation of the subspecies.
Response: The previous version of the current condition assessment
report (Service 2021, pp. 12-13) stated that there is no information
indicating that livestock grazing significantly affects the butterfly's
status now or will do so in the foreseeable future; therefore,
livestock grazing is not a significant threat to the butterfly because
it does not occur within areas where the butterfly is currently extant.
In this rule, we clarify that livestock grazing, were it to occur
within occupied habitat, has the potential to impact the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly especially during drought conditions.
We acknowledge that livestock grazing does occur within the butterfly's
historical range and acts synergistically to contribute to the decline
of habitat suitability within those active allotments. We amended the
current condition assessment report and the information in this rule to
reflect this analysis of current condition and how it has impacted the
subspecies previously. We have also updated the discussion in this
final rule of how grazing might affect the butterfly's status now and
into the foreseeable future.
Public Comments
We received 45 public comments on the proposed rule. One comment
provided us with new information on the Bailey Canyon population that
we have incorporated into our analysis, but it did not change our
determination that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is in
danger of extinction. The remaining comments did not provide any new
substantial information on the subspecies' status or threats.
Therefore, none of the public comments we received changed our
determination that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly meets
the Act's definition of an endangered species. Some commenters provided
suggestions that apply to issues outside the scope of this rulemaking,
such as recovery strategies for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly, but these suggestions are not directly related to the
butterfly's this final rule to list the species as an endangered
species. These general comments included topics such as the role of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly in the ecosystem, the
importance of habitat heterogeneity, and the use of specific
conservation measures. While these comments are not directly
incorporated into this final rule, we have noted the suggestions and
look forward to working with our partners on these topics during
recovery planning for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
Comments that we incorporated as changes into this final rule, comments
outside the scope of this rulemaking, and comments without supporting
information did not warrant an explicit response and, thus, are not
presented here. Identical or similar comments have been consolidated,
and a single response is provided below.
(6) Comment: Several commenters stated that critical habitat should
be designated for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. One
commenter said that it is determinable and gave information on where we
should propose critical habitat, while another recommended an approach
for us to use for the economic analysis.
Response: Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12) require that we designate critical habitat at the time
a species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species, to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. In the proposed listing
rule (87 FR 3739; January 25, 2022), we determined that designation of
critical habitat was prudent but not determinable because specific
information needed to analyze the economic and environmental impacts of
designation was lacking. Those analyses were not yet completed at the
time we published the proposed rule. We are currently in the process of
assessing this information, and we plan to publish a proposed rule to
designate
[[Page 6180]]
critical habitat for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly in
the near future. In that upcoming rulemaking, we will evaluate areas to
determine if they should be proposed for critical habitat. We will
request public comments on the proposed designation of critical habitat
for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly when we publish that
proposed rule.
(7) Comment: Several commenters stated concerns about the impacts
to landowners, such as taking away their property rights and use of
pesticides and stated that we should compensate affected landowners.
Another commenter added that the Act is harmful to landowners and
violates the 5th Amendment.
Response: The 5th Amendment states that private property may not be
taken for public use without just compensation. The mere promulgation
of a regulation, such as the listing of a species under the Act, does
not take private property, unless the regulation on its face denies the
property owners all economically beneficial or productive use of their
land, which is not the case with the listing of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
The presence of a listed species does not affect land ownership,
establish any restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas,
establish specific land management standards or prescriptions, or
prevent access to any land. Therefore, the Act does not violate the 5th
Amendment as private property is not being taken for public use.
Additionally, the presence of a listed species does not allow the
Federal Government or public to access private lands.
The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions
on private lands, and landowners are not obligated to incur any costs
related to the species' conservation or to alter their current land
management. Programs are available to private landowners to obtain
permits for the incidental take of a listed species (see 50 CFR 17.22
for endangered wildlife and 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife) and
to assist in the voluntary conservation of listed species. Voluntary
conservation programs may provide technical or financial assistance to
the landowner. Private landowners may contact their local Service field
office to obtain information about these permits and programs.
(8) Comment: One commenter stated that the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is not a true subspecies.
Response: We considered the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly's
taxonomy. The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly was first
described as a subspecies of the Anicia checkerspot in 1980 (Ferris and
Holland 1980, pp. 3-9), which was later corroborated (Glassberg 2017,
p. 207; Pohl et al. 2016, p. 315). Checkerspot butterflies in the
Euphydryas genus are similar but can be distinguished from one another
by several subtle morphological traits. The Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly has darker colors overall compared to other
checkerspots (Ferris and Holland 1980, p. 5). Therefore, we reaffirm
our previous conclusion that the Sacramento Mountain's checkerspot
butterfly is a valid species, and thus, a valid listable entity under
the Act.
(9) Comment: One commenter stated that there are many aspects of
the butterfly's life history that are unknown or not well understood,
which makes it impossible to determine the butterfly's viability.
Response: We based this final listing determination on the best
available scientific and commercial information, and the commenter did
not provide any new information for us to consider. The best available
information on the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly indicates
the butterfly needs host plants, larval food sources, and climatic
moisture. In assessing the viability of the butterfly, the best
available scientific and commercial data provide information about some
aspects of subspecies' biology and habitat requirements but may not
represent a full and complete knowledge of the subspecies. We drew
reasonable conclusions about other aspects of the subspecies' biology
and requirements based on similar species, similar habitats, and best
available information.
(10) Comment: Two commenters asked what our standard is for the
``best available science.''
Response: In accordance with section 4 of the Act, we are required
to list a species on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards under the
Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)),
the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554;
H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines (https://www.fws.gov/program/information-quality) provide criteria and
guidance, and establish procedures to ensure that our decisions are
based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for listing recommendations. Primary or
original information sources are those that are closest to the subject
being studied, as opposed to those that cite, comment on, or build upon
primary sources. The Act and our regulations do not require us to use
only peer-reviewed literature, but instead they require us to use the
``best scientific data available'' in a listing determination. We use
information from many different sources, including, but not limited to,
articles in peer-reviewed journals, scientific status surveys and
studies completed by qualified individuals, Master's thesis research
that has been reviewed but not published in a journal, other
unpublished governmental and nongovernmental reports, reports prepared
by industry, personal communication about management or other relevant
topics, conservation plans developed by States and counties, biological
assessments, other unpublished materials, experts' opinions or personal
knowledge, and other sources. We have considered published articles,
unpublished research, habitat modeling reports, digital data publicly
available on the internet, and the expert opinion of subject biologists
to determine that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly meets
the Act's definition of an endangered species.
Also, in accordance with our peer review policy published on July
1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited peer review from knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, the geographic region
in which the subspecies occurs, and conservation biology principles.
Additionally, we requested comments or information from other concerned
governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, and any other interested parties concerning our
January 25, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 3739). Comments and information
we received helped inform this final rule.
(11) Comment: One commenter asked how the public will know if
comments are considered in making a determination or merely noted as
``commercial data'' and are therefore not actually considered.
Response: In accordance with section 4 of the Act, we are required
to list a species on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
data available.
[[Page 6181]]
Therefore, if any comments are received that we classify as
``commercial data,'' they are considered in our listing determination.
(12) Comment: One commenter also asked how the Service plans to
address drought and other natural occurrences that are affecting the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
Response: Drought and other naturally occurring events are
important as they relate to the conservation needs of the butterfly,
and we will consider these factors as we develop a recovery plan and
specific recovery strategies for the conservation of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
(13) Comment: One commenter asked if the Service bears the total
cost of management actions as they relate to recovery.
Response: The Service puts as many resources as we can, including
recovery grant funding and staff time, into the implementation of
recovery actions. Additionally, we also rely on expertise and funding
from other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, and other entities to
implement recovery of listed species.
(14) Comment: One commenter asked which animal(s) any exclosures
are meant to keep out of butterfly habitat on the Lincoln National
Forest and how many taxpayer dollars will be spent to construct these
exclosures.
Response: Exclosures that have been erected on the Lincoln National
Forest are meant to prevent any large ungulate or grazer from feeding
on butterfly host plants and nectar sources. This practice is often
used by land management agencies to allow for vegetation to recover
from overgrazing. Because the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly is known to occupy areas entirely on the Lincoln National
Forest, we expect that the Forest Service would be a leader in the
recovery of the species. We expect that additional exclosures would be
paid for by the Service and Forest Service and we do not have estimates
on the total cost. When we develop our recovery plan for the species,
it will include an estimate of the costs of recovery.
(15) Comment: One commenter asked what a ``jeopardy finding'' is,
how it is determined, and what the consequences are.
Response: ``Jeopardize the continued existence of'' means to engage
in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly,
to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery
of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers,
or distribution of that species (50 CFR 402.02). Per policy and
regulation, the jeopardy analysis in a biological opinion relies on
four components in our evaluation for each species:
1. The Status of the Species--evaluates the species' range-wide
condition, the factors responsible for that condition, and its survival
and recovery needs;
2. The Environmental Baseline--evaluates the condition of the
species in the action area, the factors which are responsible for that
condition, and the relationship of the action area to the survival and
recovery of the species;
3. The Effects of the Action--determines the consequences of the
proposed Federal action on the species that are reasonably certain to
occur as a result of the proposed action; and,
4. Cumulative Effects--evaluates the effects of future, non-Federal
activities in the action area on the species.
The jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the effects of the
Federal action in the context of the species' status. This analysis
considers any cumulative effects to determine if the implementation of
the action is likely to cause an appreciable reduction in the
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species in the
wild. The jeopardy analysis places emphasis on consideration of the
range-wide survival and recovery needs of the species and the role of
the action area in the survival and recovery of the species as the
context for evaluating the significance of the effects of the Federal
action, taken together with cumulative effects, for purposes of making
the jeopardy determination.
(16) Comment: One commenter asked how law enforcement is involved
in listing the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly as an
endangered species.
Response: The Service's Office of Law Enforcement works to protect
threatened and endangered species by enforcing violations of Section 9
under the Act, such as, but not limited to, preventing the unlawful
commercial exploitation of such species. The Service is committed to
meeting all requirements and enforcing the Act and doing so legally.
The Service maintains a comprehensive approach to conservation, and we
will work together with the Office of Law Enforcement to achieve our
conservation goals.
(17) Comment: One commenter asked how listing of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly is determined when the Act directly
conflicts with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).
Response: The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act was
established to protect wild horses and burros on Federal land from
capture, branding, harassment, or death by placing them under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
Each Act imposes its own requirements. This rule listing the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly as an endangered species under the Act
does not violate the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act because we
can achieve conservation of the butterfly while also protecting wild
horses and burros on Federal land.
(18) Comment: One commenter asked why the Secretary of Commerce is
not a determining agency for this rule.
Response: The Act states that the term ``Secretary'' means, except
as otherwise provided, the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Commerce as program responsibilities are vested pursuant to the
provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, which established that
the Secretary of Commerce would have functions relating to the oceans
and atmosphere, including commercial fisheries functions. Because this
subspecies falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the
Interior (i.e., the Service) and not the Department of Commerce (i.e.,
the National Marine Fisheries Service), the Secretary of the Interior
maintains program responsibilities under the Act.
(19) Comment: One commenter said that our statement that
possession, delivery, or movement, including interstate transport and
import into or export from the United States, involving no commercial
activity, of dead specimens of this taxon that were collected prior to
the effective date of a final rule adding this taxon to the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is unlikely to violate
section 9 of the Act is a violation of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371-
3378; 18 U.S.C. 42).
Response: Section 9 of the Act (and its implementing regulations at
50 CFR part 17) and the Lacey Act (and its implementing regulations at
50 CFR part 16) impose separate permitting requirements. This rule,
authorized by the Act, does not address permitting requirements imposed
under the Lacey Act; as a result, importers and exporters are
responsible for following all applicable regulatory requirements under
the Lacey Act and any other relevant law.
[[Page 6182]]
I. Final Listing Determination
Background
Please refer to the revised current condition assessment report
(Service 2022, entire) and the January 25, 2022, proposed rule to list
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (87 FR 3739) for a full
summary of the taxon's information. Both are available on our Southwest
Region website at https://www.fws.gov/about/region/southwest and at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0069.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for threatened and
endangered species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Service issued final rules that revised the regulations in
50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify threatened
and endangered species and the criteria for designating listed species'
critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). At the same time the
Service also issued final regulations that, for species listed as
threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the Service's
general protective regulations automatically applying to threatened
species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies to
endangered species (84 CFR 44753; August 27, 2019). We collectively
refer to these actions as the 2019 regulations.
As with the proposed rule, we are applying the 2019 regulations for
this final rule because the 2019 regulations are in effect just as they
were when we completed the proposed rule. Although there was a period
in the interim--between July 5, 2022, and September 21, 2022--when the
2019 regulations became vacated and the pre-2019 regulations were
therefore reinstated (see Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland,
No. 4:19-cv-05206-JST, Doc. 168 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2022) (vacating the
2019 regulations and thereby reinstating the pre-2019 regulations), the
2019 regulations are now in effect, so we must apply them when making
listing and critical habitat decisions (In re: Cattlemen's Ass'n, No.
22-70194 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022) (staying the district court's order
vacating the 2019 regulations until the district court resolved a
pending motion to amend the order); Center for Biological Diversity v.
Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-5206-JST, Doc. Nos. 197, 198 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16,
2022) (granting plaintiffs' motion to amend July 5, 2022, order and
granting government's motion for remand without vacatur).
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain;'' it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The current condition assessment report (Service 2022, entire)
documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the
best scientific and commercial data regarding the status of the
species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the
species. The current condition assessment report does not represent our
decision on whether the species should be listed as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the
scientific
[[Page 6183]]
basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further
application of standards within the Act and its implementing
regulations and policies.
To assess Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly's viability,
we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310).
Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy is the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to
both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological
environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general,
species viability will increase with increases in resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these
principles, we identified the butterfly's ecological requirements for
survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and subspecies
levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the
subspecies' viability.
Our analysis can be categorized into several sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual subspecies' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current conditions of the subspecies' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the subspecies arrived
at its current condition. Throughout these stages, we used the best
available information to characterize viability as the ability of the
subspecies to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this
information to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the current condition assessment report; the full report can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0069 and
at https://www.fws.gov/office/new-mexico-ecological-services.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
Below, we review the biological condition of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly and its resources, and the threats that
influence the subspecies' current and future condition, in order to
assess the subspecies' overall viability and the risks to that
viability.
For the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly to maintain
viability, its populations or some portion thereof must have sufficient
resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Several factors influence
the resiliency of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
populations, including larval and adult abundance and density, in
addition to elements of the subspecies' habitat that determine whether
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly populations can survive and
reproduce. These resiliency factors and habitat elements are discussed
in detail in the current condition assessment report and are summarized
here.
Species Needs
Abundance and Density
To successfully reproduce and maintain or increase their fecundity
and abundance, butterflies need access to mates. The Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly is not a long-distance flier and
probably relies on local abundance and population density and
particular mate-location behaviors to successfully mate and reproduce
(Pittenger and Yori 2003, p. 39). Higher densities and more abundant
individuals result in more successful mating attempts and ensure the
subspecies' viability. Metapopulation dynamics are also maintained by
abundance and density within meadows (Pittenger and Yori 2003, pp. 39-
40).
Host Plants
The most crucial habitat factor for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is the New Mexico beardtongue's presence and
abundance (McIntyre 2021, pers. comm.). The larvae rely nearly entirely
upon the New Mexico beardtongue during pre- and post-diapause. Because
of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly's dependency on New
Mexico beardtongue, it is vulnerable to any type of habitat
degradation, which reduces the host plant's health and abundance
(Service et al. 2005, p. 9).
New Mexico beardtongue is a member of the Plantaginaceae, or
plantain, family (Oxelman et al. 2005, p. 425). These perennial plants
prefer wooded slopes or open glades in ponderosa pine and spruce/fir
forests at elevations between 1,830 and 2,750 meters (m) (6,000 and
9,000 feet (ft)) (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999,
entire). New Mexico beardtongue is native to the Sacramento Mountains
within Lincoln and Otero Counties (Sivinski and Knight 1996, p. 289).
The plant is perennial, has purple or violet-blue flowers, and grows to
be half a meter tall (1.9 ft). New Mexico beardtongue occurs in areas
with loose soils or where there has been recent soil disturbance, such
as eroded banks and pocket gopher burrows (Pittenger and Yori 2003, p.
ii). Some plant species within the plantain family, including the New
Mexico beardtongue, contain iridoid glycosides, a family of organic
compounds that are bitter and an emetic (vomit-inducing) for many birds
and small mammal species. The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly, like other subspecies of Euphydryas anicia, sequester the
iridoid glycosides as caterpillars. It is believed that these compounds
make the larvae and adult butterflies distasteful or unpalatable to
predators (Gardner and Stermitz 1987, pp. 2152-2167).
Nectar Sources
Access to nectar sources is needed for adult Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterflies to properly carry out their life cycle. The
primary adult nectar source is orange sneezeweed (Hymenoxys hoopesii)
(Service et al. 2005, p. 9). Forest Service personnel observed
butterflies visiting orange composite flowers (family Asteraceae),
including orange sneezeweed, as much as 90 percent of the time during
surveys (Forest Service 2000, p. 4). Other surveys have shown that
adult butterflies are closely associated with orange sneezeweed flowers
(McIntyre 2010, p. 26). Although orange sneezeweed flowers are most
frequently used, the butterfly has been observed collecting nectar from
various other native nectar sources (Service et al. 2005, pp. 9-10). To
contribute to the subspecies' viability, orange sneezeweed and other
native nectar sources must bloom at a time that corresponds with the
emergence of adult Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies.
Although orange sneezeweed flowers are most frequently used, the
butterfly has been observed collecting nectar on various other native
nectar sources (Service et al. 2005, pp. 9-10). If orange sneezeweed is
not blooming during the adult flight period (i.e., experiencing
phenological mismatch), survival and the butterfly's fecundity could
decrease. In this case, other species of nectar-producing flowers might
be essential for adult butterflies to complete their life cycle.
Habitat Connectivity
Before human intervention, the habitat of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is thought to have been dynamic, with meadows
forming and reconnecting due to natural wildfire
[[Page 6184]]
regimes (Service et al. 2005, p. 21). These patterns and processes
would have facilitated natural dispersal and recolonization of meadow
habitats following disturbance events, especially when there was high
butterfly population density in adjacent meadows (Service et al. 2005,
p. 21). Currently, spruce-fir forests punctuate suitable butterfly
meadow habitats, creating intrinsic barriers to butterfly dispersal and
effectively isolating populations from one another (Pittenger and Yori
2003, p. 1). Preliminary genetic research suggested there is extremely
low gene flow across the subspecies' range or between meadows surveyed
(Ryan 2021, pers. comm.). If new sites are to become colonized or
recolonized by the butterfly, meadow areas will need to be connected
enough to allow dispersal from occupied areas. Therefore, habitat
connectivity is needed for genetically healthy populations across the
subspecies' range (Service 2021, p. 8).
Risk Factors for the Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly
We reviewed the potential risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors)
that could be currently affecting the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. In this rule, we will discuss only those factors in detail
that could meaningfully impact the status of the subspecies. Those risk
factors that are unlikely to have significant effects on Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly populations, such as human collection,
disease, parasites, predation, insecticides, and habitat loss, are not
discussed here but are evaluated in the current condition assessment
report.
The primary risk factors (i.e., threats) affecting the status of
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly are incompatible grazing
(Factor A), recreation (Factor A), climate change (Factor E), invasive
and nonnative plants (Factor A), and an altered wildfire regime (Factor
A).
Incompatible Grazing
Historically, Merriam's elk (Cervus canadensis merriami), an
extinct subspecies of elk, grazed meadows within the Sacramento
Mountains. Under normal conditions, this species likely coexisted
without impacting the existence of the butterfly. Rocky Mountain elk
(Cervus canadensis nelsoni) have been introduced to the Sacramento
Mountains, filling the ecological niche previously occupied by
Merriam's elk (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2009,
unpaginated). At natural population levels and normal environmental
conditions, elk do not pose a significant threat to the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly or its habitat. In fact, some studies
have shown a positive correlation between elk grazing and caterpillar
abundance (McIntyre 2010, pp. 66-69). However, should elk herds expand
beyond natural levels or occur during times of resource scarcity, such
as extended periods of drought, browse pressure from elk could pose a
significant threat to the butterfly's habitat and viability (Service
2021, p. 13).
Additionally, feral horses were inadvertently released from the
Mescalero Apache Reservation and dispersed onto the Lincoln National
Forest around 2012. Horses are not native to the Sacramento Mountains
and add significant browse pressure to meadows. Larger than elk, horses
consume large quantities of vegetation and graze more heavily in each
area before moving to seek more food (Lightfoot 2022, pers. comm.).
The New Mexico beardtongue is not the main source of food for
horses or elk. However, research has shown that elk do selectively
browse on large, more robust New Mexico beardtongue plants, which are
often the same individual plants selected by female Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterflies for depositing eggs (McIntyre 2010,
p. 72). During dry conditions, such as has been seen over the past 10
years, there is less forage on the landscape overall, which increases
browse pressure on perennials such as New Mexico beardtongue.
During these times of prolonged drought, synergistic effects lead
to increased habitat degradation, during which times both butterflies
and elk can be negatively impacted by increased temperature, decreased
precipitation, and increased browse pressure from other ungulates.
Under such conditions, New Mexico beardtongue remains as small rosettes
less than an inch tall and does not flower when there is significant
browse pressure from large herbivores. These small, stunted plants are
not large enough to support colonies of caterpillars; any larvae will
starve after hatching (Forest Service 2020, p. 11).
The combined effects of feral horse and elk browsing, compounded by
drought due to climate change, have significantly impacted habitat
within meadow ecosystems in the range of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly. Over the past several years, sustained drought
in Otero County has driven large herbivores to graze most meadow areas
to the ground (McMahan et al. 2021, pp. 1-2). Currently, vegetation for
host plant and nectar sources is scarce in all the meadows throughout
the range of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Forest
Service 2020, p. 11).
Impacts of livestock grazing on native wildlife in Southwestern
montane ecosystems vary depending on the timing, duration, and
intensity of grazing (Service et al. 2005, p. 32). Grazing intensities
and durations that exceed the ability of herbaceous plants to recover
or survive are detrimental to the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly (Service et al. 2005, p. 31). Drought and increased
temperatures can exacerbate this trend. Overgrazing by stock animals
has led to the extinction of some butterfly populations in the United
States, including butterflies in the genus Euphydryas (Murphy & Weiss
1988, p. 187).
The Forest Service permits livestock grazing in select allotments
on the Lincoln National Forest in the Sacramento Mountains. The
butterfly's range occurs within about 17 acres (ac) (7.2 hectares (ha))
of the Russia Canyon Allotment (Forest Service 2004, entire), which has
two grazing permittees. The Pumphouse Allotment also contains suitable
butterfly habitats open to livestock grazing (Service et al. 2005, p.
1; Forest Service 2009, p. 1). Most of the butterfly's range is
encompassed by the James Canyon Allotment. Currently, the James Canyon
Allotment is vacant (Forest Service 2009, p. 2). At this time, the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis has
not yet been finalized, and the James Canyon Allotment remains
ungrazed.
The areas where grazing allotments overlap the subspecies' range do
not currently contain extant populations of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly (Service 2021, p. 12). Extant populations are
currently within the ungrazed James Canyon Allotment. Therefore,
butterfly individuals are not currently in direct competition with
domestic livestock for habitat resources. However, there have been
significant impacts from grazing in the past (Lightfoot 2022, pers.
comm.).
Livestock grazing, primarily by cattle, has historically been
practiced throughout the meadows inhabited by the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly (Service et al. 2005, p. 29). However, based on
the currently available information, the exact relationship between
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly population abundance and
cattle grazing is not well understood (Service et al. 2005, p. 30). It
is likely the effect of cattle grazing on butterfly abundance varies,
depending on the current habitat and climatic conditions. Cattle
grazing can result in direct mortality by
[[Page 6185]]
trampling eggs and larva or by consuming host plants (White 1986, p.
54), impacting butterfly habitat by changing abundance and distribution
of host and nectar plants, reducing vegetative cover, altering
vegetative communities, compacting and eroding soil, and reducing
natural disturbance regimes (i.e., gopher activity) (Service et al.
2005, p. 29). In some cases, cattle can increase host plant abundance
by grazing on competing plant species (Weiss 1999, p. 1480). However,
New Mexico beardtongue is consumed by cattle as well, and grazing might
reduce available plants and impact the butterfly's presence and
survival (McIntyre 2010, pp. 94-104). Research on population abundance
in response to grazing for other butterfly species has shown that
results vary depending on the species and system studied (Service et
al. 2005, p. 30), and Forest Service surveys did not show a strong
correlation between grazing and butterfly abundance (Forest Service
2004, p. 7).
Due to current habitat conditions, it is likely that in the areas
of the butterfly's range where grazing does occur, that livestock
grazing continues to degrade habitat for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly. Outside of drought conditions, it might be
possible to collect data on the effects of cattle grazing on Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly habitat and establish an adaptive
management plan for grazing within butterfly habitat. However, current
conditions of butterfly habitat are not compatible with cattle grazing.
In summary, incompatible grazing has resulted in decline of
suitable habitat, limiting larval host plants and adult nectar sources
for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. All meadow units
within the subspecies' range reflect impacts from past and recent
grazing.
Recreation
Over the past 10 years, recreation has increased in the Lincoln
National Forest. The September 6, 2001, proposed listing rule (66 FR
46575) determined that off-road vehicle use on Forest Service trails
posed some threat to meadow units; off-road vehicle use continues to
this day and has increased in popularity. Large recreational vehicle
(RV) use has also increased, and the Forest Service does not require
permits for parking vehicles within the Lincoln National Forest
(Service 2021, p. 14). Meadows within the range of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly are popular with RV users because they
are open, flat, and easily accessible by road (Hughes 2021b, pers.
comm.). A variety of these impacts (e.g., soil compaction, barren
ground, trampled food plants, multiple trails, vehicle tracking) are
evident in areas used by larval and adult life stages of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly; these impacts are reducing the quality
or quantity of suitable habitat in and around developed campgrounds or
undeveloped campsites in meadows known to support the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Hughes 2021b, pers. comm.).
Recreation can negatively affect the butterfly in several ways.
Trampling and crushing can physically kill both individual butterflies
and caterpillars. While adults can fly away, these butterflies are
slow, especially on cold mornings. Recreational activities can also
crush plants, including New Mexico beardtongue and orange sneezeweed.
During times of drought, these plants are especially vulnerable and
unlikely to survive repeated damage (Service 2021, p. 14).
Additionally, RVs compact soil where large vehicles are parked.
Repeated trampling by humans around the vehicles, caused by normal
camping activities, will further compact soils, making it less likely
for New Mexico beardtongue to recover or re-establish in former
campsites (Hughes 2021b, pers. comm.).
In summary, recreation by humans can directly kill Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterflies and their larvae. All meadow units
within the range are experiencing some level of impact from recreation.
Climate Change
Climate change is impacting natural ecosystems in the southwestern
United States (McMahan et al. 2021, p. 1). The Sacramento Mountains are
sky islands surrounded by a matrix of desert grassland, which hosts a
unique mix of flora and fauna (Brown et al. 2001, p. 116). This
ecosystem is sensitive even to small changes in temperature and
precipitation regimes. Such changes to the environment can
significantly alter air temperature, the amount of precipitation, and
the timing of precipitation events (Service et al. 2005, p. 37).
New Mexico has been in a drought for the past several years.
Roughly 54 percent of New Mexico is currently experiencing an
exceptional drought, including the Sacramento Mountains (McMahan et al.
2021, pp. 1-2). Droughts of this severity push wildlife to alter
behavior based on available resources, while vegetation in habitats
becomes extremely degraded (McMahan et al. 2021, entire).
Over the past several years, annual precipitation levels have
decreased throughout the butterfly's range. Snowfall and corresponding
snowpack have remained well below normal levels (Forest Service 2020,
pp. 11-12). Some alpine butterflies need high levels of snowpack during
diapause to shelter from wind and cold temperatures. The same might be
true for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, as the
subspecies likely evolved with higher levels of winter snowpack than
have been experienced over the past decade (Hughes 2021a, pers. comm.).
However, while snowpack might be an important factor, we do not have
enough evidence to analyze the effects of low snow years on the
butterfly.
Recent shifts in climate can impact how species interact with their
environment. The timing of butterfly life-history events during an
annual cycle can shift due to increases in temperature, changes in
humidity, and length of growing season. These shifts can directly be
attributed to the effects of climate change. For habitat specialists
such as the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, shifts in
phenological timing can have important consequences for population
dynamics and viability (Colorado-Ruiz et al. 2018, pp. 5706-5707). It
is likely that climate change has already caused some level of
phenotypic mismatch (when life-history traits are no longer
advantageous due to changes in the environment) between the butterfly,
its host plants, and its nectar sources (Service 2022, p. 9). This
shift negatively impacts the butterfly because it has adapted to
specific timing of resource availability (i.e., growth of host plants,
blooming of nectar sources) in various stages of its life cycle, and
climate change has altered the timing, quality, and quantity of those
resources.
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly needs adequate
vegetation growth in host plants and nectar sources during the summer
months to survive (Service et al. 2005, p. 15). Vegetation growth
within the butterfly's range appears to rely heavily on summer rains.
Large rainfall events typically form during the mid-summer months in
the Sacramento Mountains, marking the beginning of the monsoon season.
These midday showers occur almost daily for several months, stimulating
much of the vegetation to grow and proliferate during the midsummer
season. Specifically, New Mexico beardtongue growth increases in
response to the monsoons. It is thought that moisture might also
encourage the butterflies to emerge from diapause as well (Service et
al. 2005, pp. 37-38).
[[Page 6186]]
Climate change is impacting the timing of monsoon events throughout
the Southwest (Service 2021, p. 15). New Mexico beardtongue and other
plant species in subalpine meadows are adapted to the pulse of moisture
from monsoons (Service et al. 2005, pp. 37-38). With a lack of, or
altered, monsoon rains, the butterfly is at risk, as the subspecies
relies on vegetation growth dependent upon the timing of precipitation.
The 2020 monsoon season was an exceptionally weak one, with far
less precipitation falling than in an average summer (McMahan et al.
2021, unpaginated). As a result, New Mexico beardtongue growth was also
weak; few plants grew larger than small rosettes on the ground. Even
fewer plants survived to produce flowers (Forest Service 2020, p. 12).
Some experts believe that the dry conditions, compounded with increased
browse pressure from large ungulates, contributed to the deterioration
of habitat throughout the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly's
range (Ryan et al. 2021, pers. comm.).
In 2021, the monsoon season in the Sacramento Mountains produced
heavy precipitation and several flash-flood events (Hergert et al.
2022, unpaginated). While this precipitation allowed vegetation to
temporarily recover, it also caused erosion in some meadow habitat
(Hughes 2022, pers. comm.). Despite these large precipitation events
during the summer months of 2021, the Sacramento Mountains remain in a
moderate to severe drought (U.S. Drought Monitor, https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/, accessed June 30, 2022) and impacts to the
butterfly's habitat from climate change are likely to continue.
In summary, climate change adversely impacts the viability of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. All meadow units within the
subspecies' range are experiencing impacts from climate change.
Invasive, Nonnative Plants
Invasive, nonnative plants have begun to encroach into meadow areas
within the Lincoln National Forest. Other species of butterfly had
become scarcer when nonnative plants appeared in suitable butterfly
habitats (Hughes 2021a, pers. comm.). During the drought, Kentucky
bluegrass (Poa pratensis) proliferated within meadow areas. This
aggressive, nonnative plant, whose seeds are primarily windblown, can
outcompete native wildflowers, such as New Mexico beardtongue. As
invasive, nonnative plants begin to expand their influence, native
plants, including host and nectar plants for butterflies, such as New
Mexico beardtongue and orange sneezeweed, are likely to be outcompeted
and become more scarce (Kennedy 2020, pers. comm.; 62 FR 2313, January
16, 1997).
In summary, invasive, nonnative plants can outcompete the native
plants that Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies and their
larvae require. All meadow units within the subspecies' range are
experiencing some level of impact from nonnative plants.
Altered Wildfire Regime
Fire is a natural part of the Sacramento Mountains ecosystem and
would have historically maintained many of the ecosystem processes
within the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly's range. Humans
have largely suppressed wildfires over the past 150 years (Service et
al. 2005, p. 21). Before human intervention, there would have been
gradual ecosystem clines between meadows and forests. Grassland
corridors or sparsely forested glades would have connected meadow
areas. These habitat types would have allowed for the butterfly to pass
through, thereby maintaining metapopulation dynamics. Fire exclusion
and suppression have reduced the size of grasslands and meadows by
allowing the encroachment of conifers, and these trends are projected
to continue (Service et al. 2005, pp. 21-22). No significant wildfires
have occurred in the butterfly's habitat since 1916 (Service et al.
2005, p. 21). Before active fire suppression, fire in the Sacramento
Mountains occurred at intervals between 3 and 10 years (Forest Service
1998, p. 63). These frequent, cool, low-intensity, surface fires
historically maintained a forest that was more open (i.e., more non-
forested patches of different size; more large, older trees; and fewer
dense thickets of evergreen saplings). Such low-intensity fires are now
rare events. A large fire can occur within the range of the subspecies;
there have been at least nine large, hot, high-intensity wildfires
(over 90,000 ac (34,000 ha)) in the Sacramento Mountains during the
past 50 years (Forest Service 1998, p. 63). Trees and other woody
vegetation have begun encroaching into suitable meadow habitats for the
butterfly. Current forest conditions make the chances of a high-
severity fire within the range of the butterfly increasingly likely
(Service et al. 2005, p. 21).
It is likely that fire exclusion and historical cattle grazing have
altered and increased the threat of wildfire in ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa) and mixed conifer forests in the semi-arid western interior
forests, including New Mexico (Forest Service 1998, pp. 3, 63).
Further, there has been a general increase in the dominance of woody
plants, with a decrease in the herbaceous (non-woody) ground cover used
by the butterfly (Service et al. 2005, pp. 32-33). These data indicate
that the quality and quantity of the available butterfly habitat is
decreasing rangewide. Therefore, we conclude that wildfire exclusion
has substantially affected the subspecies and will likely continue to
significantly degrade the quality and quantity of suitable habitat.
In summary, the altered fire regime can impact Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterflies and their larvae. All meadow units within the
subspecies' range are experiencing adverse impacts from altered fire
regimes.
Summary
Our analysis of the current influences on the needs of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly for long-term viability
revealed there are several threats that pose the largest risk to
viability: incompatible grazing, recreation, climate change, invasive
and nonnative plants, and an altered wildfire regime. These influences
reduce the availability of host plants and nectar sources, thereby
reducing the quantity and quality of essential habitat for the
subspecies, in addition to reducing its ecological and genetic
diversity.
Species Condition
The current condition of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly considers the risks to those populations that are currently
occurring. In the current condition assessment report, for each
population, we developed and assigned condition categories for two
demographic factors and three habitat factors that are important for
the viability of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. The
condition scores for each habitat factor were then used to determine an
overall condition of each population and meadow: high, moderate, low,
very low, or extirpated.
Two populations of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
remain in two meadows, Bailey Canyon and Pines Meadow Campground.
Historically, the populations likely had greater connectivity, but
today they are small and isolated due to the altered wildfire regime,
which fostered a greater extent and density concentration of trees
separating habitat meadows. Dispersal and colonization of extirpated
locations is unlikely without human
[[Page 6187]]
assistance. If butterflies have not been detected at any site once or
more during the last 3 years, we consider that population to be
extirpated. The two remaining populations are in very low condition in
terms of demographic factors (adult density and larval density) (see
table 1, below) and low condition in terms of overall meadow condition
(see table 2, below). There have not been any observations of adults or
larvae in the past 3 consecutive years in any of the other eight
populations, and we therefore consider them to be demographically
extirpated. Six of those eight populations have very low overall meadow
condition, and two are considered extirpated for overall meadow
condition because suitable habitat for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly no longer exists there.
Table 1--Current Condition of Demographic Factors of the Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographic factors
Meadow unit ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult density Larval density
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Canyon............................ Very Low.......................... Very Low.
Pines Meadow Campground.................. Very Low.......................... Very Low.
Cox Canyon............................... Extirpated........................ Extirpated.
Silver Springs Canyon.................... Extirpated........................ Extirpated.
Pumphouse Canyon......................... Extirpated........................ Extirpated.
Sleepygrass Canyon....................... Extirpated........................ Extirpated.
Spud Patch Canyon........................ Extirpated........................ Extirpated.
Deerhead Canyon.......................... Extirpated........................ Extirpated.
Horse Pasture Meadow..................... Extirpated........................ Extirpated.
Yardplot Meadow.......................... Extirpated........................ Extirpated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Current Condition of Habitat Factors of the Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat factors
Meadow unit --------------------------------------------------------------- Overall meadow
Host plants Nectar sources Connectivity condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Canyon................ Very Low........... Low................ Moderate........... Low.
Pines Meadow Campground...... Very Low........... Low................ Moderate........... Low.
Cox Canyon................... Very low........... Low................ Low................ Very Low.
Silver Springs Canyon........ Very Low........... Low................ Moderate........... Very Low.
Pumphouse Canyon............. Very Low........... Low................ Low................ Very Low..
Sleepygrass Canyon........... Very Low........... Low................ Moderate........... Very Low.
Spud Patch Canyon............ Very Low........... Low................ Moderate........... Very Low.
Deerhead Canyon.............. Extirpated......... Very Low........... Low................ Very Low.
Horse Pasture Meadow......... Extirpated......... Extirpated......... High............... Extirpated.
Yardplot Meadow.............. Extirpated......... Extirpated......... Low................ Extirpated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Canyon and Pines Meadow Campground are two adjacent meadows
in the northwest part of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly's range. During the 2020 survey season, approximately eight
butterflies were detected in both meadows combined (Forest Service
2020, p. 3), and no larval tents were found (Forest Service 2020, pp.
1-3; Hughes 2020, pers. comm.). One individual observed dozens of
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies in Bailey Canyon in 2020
(Banker 2022, pers. comm.). In 2021, surveys detected 23 adult
butterflies and two larval tents (Hughes 2022, pers. comm.). Larvae
from the two tents were taken into captivity by experienced biologists
to establish a captive refugia (Williams 2021, pers. comm.). Although
the 2021 field season represented an increase in population numbers,
the adult and larval density levels remain at historical lows. We
categorized resiliency for demographics as very low for both meadows,
which were the only two meadows where butterflies were found. In
addition, the overall meadow condition for these sites was low because
there are few host plants and nectar sources present. Although nectar
sources are present, they are not blooming or providing enough
resources for the butterfly colonies. These meadows are within 800
meters of each other, which is within the dispersal distance of the
butterfly, allowing for potential gene flow between populations.
Overall resiliency of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
populations is very low for demographic factors and low for habitat
factors. This is because butterflies were only found in 2 of the 10
documented meadows, and both had very low recorded adult and larval
abundance and density numbers. Additionally, these two meadows have
poor habitat conditions (few host plants, nectar sources are abundant
but provide insufficient resources, and some connectivity to other
meadows), and the other eight meadows have either very low condition or
are extirpated in terms of habitat factors.
We define a species' representation by assessing ecological and
genetic diversity. As a narrow-range endemic, the entire range of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is approximately 32 square
miles. However, suitable habitat within this range is limited to only
about 2 square miles. Today, only 0.2 square miles might be occupied by
the butterfly. This range contraction suggests that most of the
original representation present within the subspecies has declined. The
entirety of the butterfly's range represents one representation area
because of the narrow range and limited ecological diversity. The
extant populations are small and isolated in this single representation
area with no current connectivity between those two populations. There
is some connectivity between habitat patches, but there is no
connectivity between extant
[[Page 6188]]
populations. The occupied meadows are among spruce-fir forests, so some
barriers limit the dispersal of individuals among the populations. Due
to the limited habitat connectivity of populations, individual
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies rarely, if ever, travel
between populations. This effectively restricts the transfer of genetic
material, thus limiting genetic diversity. There was likely greater
habitat connectivity between populations in the past due to a more
natural fire regime. Therefore, overall representation was always
limited for this subspecies and has declined since 2010.
We define redundancy for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly as multiple populations or metapopulations spread across the
subspecies' range. There are only 2 extant Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly populations located in adjacent meadows out of 10
documented populations within the single representation area. Given the
historical distribution of the butterfly, it is likely that Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly populations were more abundant within
the Sacramento Mountains prior to European colonization of the area.
Therefore, redundancy of the butterfly has declined over time. As a
consequence of these current conditions, the viability of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly primarily depends on
maintaining and restoring the remaining isolated populations and
reintroducing populations where feasible.
We incorporated the cumulative effects of the operative threats
into our analysis when we characterized the current condition of the
subspecies. Because our characterization of current condition considers
not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they
collectively influence risk to the entire subspecies, our assessment
integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a
standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Several habitat management actions might benefit the viability of
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. To address the threat
of overgrazing from large ungulates, the Lincoln National Forest
erected exclosures to protect butterfly habitats from browsing. These
efforts are currently focused within Bailey Canyon and Pines Meadow
Campground, where adult butterflies are extant. Botanists involved with
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly working group have
planted New Mexico beardtongue, orange sneezeweed, and other pollinator
plants within exclosures for habitat restoration. These efforts will
help ensure the individual needs of larvae and adult butterflies are
met.
In 2021, the Institute for Applied Ecology, Forest Service, and
other partners initiated a conservation project to address, enhance,
and restore Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly habitat.
Biologists collected, cleaned, propagated, and mixed seeds containing
New Mexico beardtongue and four nectar species, including orange
sneezeweed. These plants and seeds were then planted into prepared
sites within both grazing exclosure fences and protective tubing.
Plants were watered by Forest Service staff. Survival rates of
plantings were assessed by the Forest Service in late fall and
determined to be high (greater than 90 percent). Funds were provided by
the Forest Service and the Native Plant Society of New Mexico (Gisler
2022, pers. comm.).
The Forest Service has proposed that fire management aimed at
reducing tree stocking within forested areas surrounding meadows might
also help restore suitable habitat and connectivity throughout the
range of the butterfly. Maintaining edge habitat and connectivity could
greatly improve the butterfly's viability in the long term.
Determination of Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we find that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
has declined in abundance, density, and number of populations.
Currently, there are only two extant populations where the subspecies
exists in very low abundances and are isolated from one another.
Furthermore, existing available habitat is reduced in quantity and
quality relative to historical conditions. Our analysis revealed
several threats that caused these declines and pose a meaningful risk
to the viability of the subspecies. These threats are primarily related
to habitat changes (Factor A) and include incompatible grazing,
recreation, invasive and nonnative plants, and an altered wildfire
regime, in addition to climate change (Factor E).
Over the past two decades, the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly has declined, both in abundance and in the area occupied
(Forest Service 2020, p. 2). Because of increased populations of
ungulates (i.e., horses), grazing has increased in the subalpine
meadows that support the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly,
reducing the availability of host plants and nectar sources. The
reduction in habitat quality and quantity is further exacerbated by the
impact of drought associated with climate change. Additionally, the
altered wildfire regime has decreased habitat connectivity, and now
populations are more isolated from one another, with no dispersal among
populations.
We considered sites with butterfly detections during the last 3
years to be extant for the purposes of this determination. Because
adults or larvae have not been observed in the past 3 consecutive years
in 8 of the 10 populations, we consider those 8 populations
functionally extirpated. The two remaining populations are extremely
small and isolated. The habitat at those sites is currently in very low
condition due to a lack of both host plants for larvae and nectar
sources for adults.
Historically, the subspecies, with more abundant and larger
populations, would have been more resilient to stochastic events. Even
if such events extirpated some populations, they could be recolonized
over time by dispersal from nearby surviving populations. Because many
of the areas of suitable habitat may be small and support small numbers
of butterflies, local extirpation
[[Page 6189]]
of these small populations is probable. A metapopulation's persistence
depends on the combined dynamics of these local extirpations and the
subsequent recolonization of these areas by dispersal (Murphy and Weiss
1988, pp. 192-194). Habitat loss and the altered wildfire regime have
reduced the size of and connectivity between patches of suitable
butterfly habitat. The reduction in the extent of meadows and other
suitable non-forested areas has likely eliminated connectivity among
some localities and may have increased the distance beyond the normal
dispersal capability of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly,
making recolonization of some patches following local extirpation more
difficult. In addition, habitat deterioration or reduction lowers the
quality of remaining habitat by reducing the diversity of microclimates
and food plants for larvae and adult butterflies (Murphy and Weiss
1988, p. 190).
Preliminary genetic evidence suggests little gene flow between
these units (Ryan 2021, pers. comm.). Connectivity, which would promote
resiliency and representation, has been lost. Eight populations are
functionally extirpated, and the remaining two populations are in very
low condition in terms of demographic factors, are in low condition in
terms of habitat factors, and are at high risk of loss. The Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly is extremely vulnerable to catastrophic
events (i.e., high-intensity, large wildfires) in suitable butterfly
habitats.
In summary, much of the remaining suitable butterfly habitat, and
therefore the long-term viability of the subspecies, is at risk due to
the direct and indirect effects of incompatible grazing, recreation,
climate change, invasive and nonnative plants, and an altered wildfire
regime. The remaining populations are fragmented, isolated from one
another, and unable to recolonize naturally. The populations are
largely in a state of chronic ongoing, intensifying degradation due to
habitat loss, which is exacerbated by climate change, limiting the
subspecies' resiliency. The limited geographic range of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly increases the threat of extinction for
this subspecies given the expected continuing loss and degradation of
suitable habitat and increased risks of extinction from catastrophic
events, such as wildfire. Historically, with a larger range of
interconnected populations, the butterfly would have been more
resilient to stochastic events because even if some populations were
extirpated by such events, they could be recolonized over time by
dispersal from nearby surviving populations. This connectivity, which
would have made for a sufficiently resilient subspecies overall, has
been lost, and with two populations in very low demographic condition
and low habitat condition, the remnant populations are at serious risk
of imminent loss. A threatened status for the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is not appropriate because the subspecies has
already shown significant declines in current resiliency, redundancy,
and representation due to the threats mentioned above.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we determine
that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We have determined that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range and
accordingly did not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of
its range. Because the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
warrants listing as endangered throughout all of its range, our
determination does not conflict with the decision in Center for
Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020)
(Everson), which vacated the provision of the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (Final Policy) (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014)
providing that if the Services determine that a species is threatened
throughout all of its range, the Services will not analyze whether the
species is endangered in a significant portion of its range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly meets the Act's definition of an endangered species.
Therefore, we are listing the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition as a listed species,
planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements for
Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies,
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities
are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and
functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification to threatened status (``downlisting'') or removal from
protected status (``delisting''), and methods for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to
coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on
[[Page 6190]]
our website (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from
our New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Once this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of New Mexico will be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this
butterfly whenever it becomes available and any information you may
have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(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 any endangered or
threatened 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 (action agency) must enter into
consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference, consultation, or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the Forest Service.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any species listed as an endangered species. It is
also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply
to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation
agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the listed species.
Based on the best available information, the following actions are
unlikely to result in a violation of section 9, if these activities are
carried out in accordance with existing regulations and permit
requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Possession, delivery, or movement, including interstate
transport and import into or export from the United States, involving
no commercial activity, of dead specimens of this taxon that were
collected prior to the effective date of this final rule (see DATES,
above);
(2) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal
agencies (e.g., grazing management, non-forested area management,
private or commercial development, recreational trail or forest road
development or use, road construction, prescribed burns, timber
harvest, pesticide/herbicide application, or pipeline or utility line
construction crossing suitable habitat) when such activity is conducted
in accordance with a biological opinion from the Service on a proposed
Federal action;
(3) Low-impact, infrequent, dispersed human activities on foot or
horseback that do not degrade butterfly habitat (e.g., bird watching,
sightseeing, backpacking, hunting, photography, camping, hiking);
(4) Activities on private lands that do not result in the take of
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, including those
activities involving loss of habitat, such as normal landscape
activities around a personal residence, proper grazing management, road
construction that avoids butterfly habitat, and pesticide/herbicide
application consistent with label restrictions; and
(5) Activities conducted under the terms of a valid permit issued
by the Service pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) or 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Capture (i.e., netting), survey, or collection of specimens of
this taxon without a permit from the Service pursuant to section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act;
(2) Incidental take of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
without a permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act;
(3) Sale or purchase of specimens of this taxon, except for
properly documented antique specimens of this taxon at least 100 years
old, as defined at section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(4) Use of pesticides/herbicides that results in take of Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly;
[[Page 6191]]
(5) Unauthorized release of biological control agents that attack
any life stage of this taxon;
(6) Removal or destruction of the native food plants being used by
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, defined as Penstemon
neomexicanus, Helenium hoopesii, or Valeriana edulis, within areas that
are used by this taxon that results in harm to this butterfly; and
(7) Destruction or alteration of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly habitat by grading, leveling, plowing, mowing, burning,
herbicide or pesticide spraying, incompatible grazing, or otherwise
disturbing non-forested openings that result in the death of or injury
to eggs, larvae, or adult Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies
through significant impairment of the taxon's essential breeding,
foraging, sheltering, or other essential life functions.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
II. Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.12) require that we designate critical habitat at the time a
species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species, to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable. In the January 25, 2022,
proposed listing rule (87 FR 3739), we determined that designation of
critical habitat was prudent but not determinable because specific
information needed to analyze the impacts of designation was lacking.
We are still in the process of assessing this information. We plan to
publish a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly in the near future.
Required Determinations
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We solicited information from the
Mescalero Apache Nation within the range of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly to inform the development of the current
condition assessment report, but we did not receive a response. We also
provided the Mescalero Apache Nation the opportunity to review a draft
of the current condition assessment report and provide input prior to
making our final determination on the status of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, but also did not receive a response.
As we move forward with recovery planning and developing a proposed
critical habitat designation for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly, we will continue to coordinate with affected Tribes.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rule is available on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the Fish
and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, amend paragraph (h) by adding an entry for
``Butterfly, Sacramento Mountains checkerspot'' to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under INSECTS
to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Insects...........................................................................................
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, Sacramento Mountains Euphydryas anicia Wherever found.... E 88 FR [INSERT FEDERAL
checkerspot. cloudcrofti. REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
1/31/2023.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-01146 Filed 1-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P