Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid's lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT91

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid's lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy)

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are designating critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly (

Icaricia icarioides fenderi

),

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

(Kincaid's lupine), and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

(Willamette daisy) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Approximately 3,010 acres (ac) (1,218 hectares (ha)) for Fender's blue butterfly in Benton, Lane, Polk, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon; 585 ac (237 ha) for

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

in Benton, Lane, Polk, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon, and Lewis County, Washington; and 718 ac (291 ha) for

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

in Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, and Polk Counties, Oregon, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation.

DATES:

This rule becomes effective on November 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266 (telephone (503) 231-6179). The final rule, economic analysis, and map will also be available via the Internet at

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/ESA-Actions/WillValleyPage.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266 (telephone 503/231-6179; facsimile 503/231-6195).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and Implementing the Act

Attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of exclusions under ESA section 4(b)(2), there are significant limitations on the regulatory effect of critical habitat designation under ESA section 7(a)(2). In brief, (1) designation provides additional protection to habitat only where there is a Federal nexus; (2) the protection is relevant only when, in the absence of designation, destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat would in fact take place (in other words, other statutory or regulatory protections, policies, or other factors relevant to agency decision-making would not prevent the destruction or adverse modification); and (3) designation of critical habitat triggers the prohibition of destruction or adverse modification of that habitat, but it does not require specific actions to restore or improve habitat.

As of September 22, 2006, only 475 species, or 36 percent of the 1,310 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Service, have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,311 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the Section 4 recovery planning process, the Section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, Section 6 funding to the States, the Section 10 incidental take permit process, and cooperative, nonregulatory efforts with private landowners. The Service believes that it is these measures that may make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.

In considering exclusions of areas originally proposed for designation, we evaluated the benefits of designation in light of

Gifford Pinchot Task Force

v.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

In that case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the Service's regulation defining “destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.” In response, on December 9, 2004, the Director issued guidance to be considered in making section 7 adverse modification determinations. This critical habitat designation does not use the invalidated regulation in our consideration of the benefits of including areas in this final designation. The Service will carefully manage future consultations that analyze impacts to designated critical habitat, particularly those that appear to be resulting in an adverse modification determination. Such consultations will be reviewed by the Regional Office prior to finalizing to ensure that an adequate analysis has been conducted that is informed by the Director's guidance.

On the other hand, to the extent that designation of critical habitat provides protection, that protection can come at significant social and economic cost. In addition, the mere administrative process of designating critical habitat is expensive, time-consuming, and controversial. The current statutory framework of critical habitat, combined with past judicial interpretations of the statute, make critical habitat the subject of excessive litigation. As a result, critical habitat designations are driven by litigation and courts rather than biology, and made at a time and under a time frame that limits our ability to obtain and evaluate the scientific and other information required to make the designation most meaningful.

In light of these circumstances, the Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need of protection.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically urgent species conservation needs.

The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on existing proposals are all significantly delayed.

The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left the Service with limited ability to provide for public participation or to ensure a

defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals, due to the risks associated with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, and is very expensive, thus diverting resources from conservation actions that may provide relatively more benefit to imperiled species.

The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs; the cost of preparation and publication of the designation; the analysis of the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to public comment; and in some cases the costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These costs, which are not required for many other conservation actions, directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.

Background

In this rule, it is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat. For more information on the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii,

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens,

refer to the final listing rule published in the

Federal Register

on January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3875), or the proposed critical habitat rule published in the

Federal Register

on November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66492). Provided below is a general overview of the habitat requirements of Fender's blue butterfly,

L. sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii,

and

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens.

These species occur in wet prairie, upland prairie, and oak savanna habitats (collectively referred to as prairie habitat) that were once more widely distributed across western Oregon and southwestern Washington (Clark 1996, p. 8; Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 69; Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 79). Prairie habitat has been reduced to less than one percent of pre-settlement distribution (Hammond and Wilson 1993, p. 2), making the ecosystem among the most endangered in the United States (Noss

et al.

1995, p. 67). The decline in these habitats and their increased fragmentation have led to the decline of many native prairie plants and animals (Wilson 1998a, p. 2 and 1998b, p. 1). Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

are among the rarest of the native species dependent on this unique habitat type and are known to co-occur within the boundaries of some remnant prairie locations.

Various descriptions of prairie habitats have been published over the years and they usually vary in their division of communities and the dominant species present in each community (Jackson 1996, p. 2). We describe two habitat types, wet prairie and upland prairie, and define these by describing the plant communities reported co-occurring with the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens.

Upland prairie (including oak savanna) habitat occurs on well-drained soils and is characterized by a short grass stature dominated by native bunch grasses and forbs (Wilson 1998a, p. 2; Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 79). Wet prairies are seasonally flooded ecosystems occurring on both poorly drained soil types and well-drained soils where shallow bedrock impedes drainage (Wilson 1998b, p. 1). Although wet prairie soils dry out during typical summer droughts, they have soils with hydric characteristics (

i.e.

, soils formed under conditions of water saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough to develop anaerobic conditions) that support facultative or obligate wetland plant species (Wilson 1998b, p. 1).

Fender's blue butterfly and Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii

The Fender's blue butterfly and

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

populations primarily occur on early seral (one stage in a sequential progression) upland prairie habitat with plant species including but not limited to:

Achillea millefolium

(common yarrow),

Aster hallii

(Hall's aster),

Brodiaea congesta

(Brodiaea),

Bromus carinatus

(California brome),

Calochortus tolmiei

(Cat's ear, Tolmie star-tulip),

Carex tumulicola

(splitawn sedge),

Cirsium callilepis

(fewleaf thistle),

Danthonia californica

(California oatgrass),

Elymus glaucus

(blue wildrye),

Eriophyllum lanatum

(common woolly sunflower, Oregon sunshine),

Festuca californica

(California fescue),

Festuca roemeri

(Roemer's fescue),

Fragaria virginiana

(Virginia strawberry),

Geranium oreganum

(Oregon geranium),

Grindelia integrifolia

(gumweed),

Lomatium nudicaule

(barestemmed desert parsley),

Luzula campestris

(wood rush),

Prunella vulgaris

(common selfheal),

Sanicula crassicaulis

(Pacific blacksnakeroot),

Sidalcea virgata

(rose checkermallow and dwarf checkerbloom),

Silene hookeri

(Hooker's silene), and

Wyethia angustifolia

(California compassplant) (Wilson 1998b, pp. 2-7; Kaye

in litt.

a, p. 2). Many of these associated species are considered indicators for upland prairie habitat (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 65; Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 79).

The Fender's blue butterfly habitat requirements include a larval host plant (

i.e.

,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

,

L. arbustus

(spurred lupine), and

L. albicaulis

(sickle-keeled lupine), native forbs for adult nectar sources, and native grasses that comprise short-grass upland prairies (Wilson

et al.

1997, p. 3; Schultz 2001, p. 1008). These requirements are considered essential to the survival and conservation of these species (Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 79).

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

is a primary larval host plant for the Fender's blue butterfly and is utilized by the butterfly for oviposition (laying eggs) and as a larval food source (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 64; Wilson

et al.

2003, pp. 73, 77). Adult Fender's blue butterflies use nectar sources in wet prairie habitat that occur near their host plant habitat. The Fender's blue butterfly is more vigorous in full sun conditions (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 68), which are important for adult butterflies to seek out nectar, search for a mate, oviposit, and disperse (Severns in prep. Manuscript, pp. 1, 3, 13-19). The Fender's blue butterfly appears to have limited dispersal ability, with most dispersing adults likely remaining within approximately 1.2 miles (mi) (2 kilometers (km)) of their natal lupine patch (Schultz 1998, p. 284). The maximum dispersal distance reported for the Fender's blue butterfly is 2 mi (3.2 km) (Severns 2004, p. 4).

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

habitat is generally described as prairie or open areas, and this species is typically unable to survive prolonged periods of shade (Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 79). However, populations of

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

occurring in Douglas County, Oregon, have been documented as occurring in atypical habitat for the species (Barnes 2004, p. 102). The Douglas County populations are in wooded areas with canopy cover ranging from 50 to 80 percent (Barnes 2004, p. 102) and dominated by species such as:

Arbutus menziesii

(Pacific madrone),

Arctostaphylos columbiana

(hairy manzanita),

Calocedrus decurrens

(incense cedar),

Calochortus tolmiei

(Cat's ear, Tolmie star-tulip),

Canadanthus modestus

(giant mountain aster),

Ceanothus cuneatusa

(buckbrush),

Cerastium arvense

(field chickweed),

Cynosurus echinatus

(bristly dogstail grass),

Daucus carota

(Queen Anne's Lace, wild carrot),

Dichelostemma capitatum

(bluedicks),

Festuca californica

(California fescue),

Festuca roemeri

(Roemer's fescue),

Fragaria vesca

(woodland strawberry),

Hieracium albiflorum

(white hawkweed),

Holodiscus discolor

(oceanspray),

Lathyrus polyphyllus

(leafy pea),

Lonicera hispidula

(pink honeysuckle),

Pinus ponderosa

(ponderosa pine),

Pseudotsuga menziesii

(Douglas fir, Doug fir),

Quercus kelloggii

(California black oak),

Rubus ursinus

(California blackberry),

Sanicula crassicaulis

(Pacific blacksnakeroot),

Symphoricarpos albus

(snowberry),

Torilis arvensis

(spreading hedgeparsley),

Toxicodendron diversilobum

(poison oak),

Vicia americana

(American vetch), and

Whipplea modesta

(common whipplea) (Friedman

in litt.

a, p.1; Friedman

in litt.

b, p.1).

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

is a low-growing herbaceous perennial with large individual plant clones (Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 73). Excavation efforts indicate that above-ground vegetation 33 feet (10 m) or more apart can be interconnected by below-ground stems. The species is long-lived with lateral growth rates, suggesting that some plants could be several decades old (Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 73).

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

clones are scattered in patches across the prairie habitat and intermixed with several other prairie-associated plant species.

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

is a primary larval host plant for the Fender's blue butterfly and is utilized by the butterfly for oviposition (laying eggs) and as a larval food source (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 64; Wilson

et al.

2003, pp. 73, 77).

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

grows in wet prairies occurring on relatively impermeable soils. Wet prairie habitat supporting

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

is typically defined by the plant species co-occurring with the plant including, but not limited to:

Anthoxanthum odoratum

(sweet vernalgrass),

Aster curtus

(white-top aster),

Aster hallii

(Hall's aster),

Brodiaea coronaria

(crown brodiaea), Camassia quamash (common camas),

Danthonia californica

(California oatgrass),

Deschampsia caespitosa

(tufted hairgrass),

Festuca arundinacea

(tall fescue),

Grindelia integrifolia

(gumweed),

Holcus lanatus

(velvet grass),

Horkelia congesta

(Sierra horkelia),

Saxifraga integrifolia

(bog saxifrage),

Lomatium bradshawii

(Bradshaw's lomatium),

Luzula campestris

(wood rush),

Panicum capillare

(witchgrass),

Potentilla gracilis

(slender cinquefoil),

Prunella vulgaris

(common selfheal) and

Sisyrinchium angustifolium

(narrowleaf blue-eyed grass) (Clark

et al.

1993, p. 18; Clark

et al.

1995a, p. 1, 1995b, p. 1; Jackson 1996, p. 14; Clark 2000, p. 3).

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

also grows in upland prairies as previously described (Clark

et al.

1993, p. 18; Clark

et al.

1995a, p. 1; Jackson 1996, p. 18; Clark 2000, p. 3).

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

typically occurs where woody cover is nearly absent and where herbaceous vegetation cover is low in stature relative to the surrounding areas (Clark

et al.

1993, pp. 21, 22).

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

is a low-growing (6-24 inches (in) (15-60 centimeters (cm))) herbaceous perennial occurring in clumps of genetically identical ramets (

i.e.

, a vegetatively reproduced copy of the parent plant) that are typically patchy in distribution across the prairie habitat (Clark

et al.

1993, p. 23). These plants are intermixed with several associated species which are considered indicator species for the prairie habitat (Clark

et al.

1993, p. 18).

Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

populations historically functioned as metapopulations in the more widespread prairie habitat (Jackson 1996, p. 20; Liston

et al.

1995, p. 318; Schultz 1998, p. 285; and Severns 2003a, p. 221). Currently, most populations of these species are isolated from neighboring populations, and interactions between populations are thought to be rare events (Jackson 1996, p. 6; Schultz 1998, p. 286; Severns 2003a, p. 222). Recovery will require reestablishing connected populations by restoring habitat networks (Kaye,

in litt.

b, 2005, p. 1; Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 61; Severns 2003a, p. 227). In this document, we define “habitat networks” as prairie habitat that can support connected populations and function as metapopulations.

Previous Federal Actions

On April 23, 2003, a complaint was filed against the Service (CV 03 513 JE (D. Or.)) for failure to designate critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

. In December 2003, a settlement agreement resulted in a schedule for the Service to submit a proposed critical habitat rule to the

Federal Register

by October 15, 2005, and a final rule by October 15, 2006.

On November 2, 2005, a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

was published in the

Federal Register

(70 FR 66492). The initial comment period closed on January 3, 2006. On April 21, 2006, we published a notice in the

Federal Register

announcing the reopening of the comment period and the public hearing for the proposed critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

(71 FR 20636). On June 15, 2006, we published a notice in the

Federal Register

announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for these species and a reopening of the public comment period (71 FR 34566). The third public comment period closed on June 30, 2006. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning Fender's blue butterfly,

L. sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

refer to the November 2, 2005, proposed rule (70 FR 66492).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed designation of critical habitat for Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

in the proposed rule published on November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66492). We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. In addition, we held a public hearing on May 9, 2006, in Corvallis, Oregon. No comments were received during the public hearing.

During the comment period that opened on November 2, 2005, and closed on January 3, 2006, we received 72 comments directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation: 5 from peer reviewers, 3 from Federal agencies, and 64 from organizations or individuals. During the comment period that opened on April 21, 2006, and closed on May 19, 2006, we received an additional 11 comments directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation: one from a peer reviewer, one from a Federal agency, and nine from organizations or individuals. During the comment period that opened on June 15, 2006, and closed on June 30, 2006, we received 12 comments directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation and the draft economic analysis. Of these latter comments, one was from a peer reviewer and 11 were from organizations or individuals. The received comments were grouped into

six general categories specifically relating to the proposed critical habitat designation or draft economic analysis for Fender's blue butterfly,

L. sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens.

The comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from eight knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which the species occur, and conservation biology principles. Five of the eight peer reviewers responded. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final critical habitat rule.

We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens.

Peer review comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Review Comments Related to Life History, Habitat Characteristics, and Ecological Considerations

1.

Comment:

During the 2005 field season, one peer reviewer reported finding a Fender's blue butterfly population that has become successfully established at the Deer Creek County Park in Yamhill County within a large patch of

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and has been growing and expanding rapidly over the past few years. The peer reviewer recommended adding this site to the critical habitat designation in association with the Gopher Valley metapopulation since the site is only 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) south of units FBB-2 and KL-3.

Our Response:

At the time we proposed critical habitat, the best scientific information available identified 0.2 acre (ac) (0.1 hectare (ha)) of

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

habitat occuring in Deer Creek County Park. We did not have information describing available surrounding prairie habitat; therefore, it did not meet our criteria at the time of our proposal. We have been unable to verify that these sites meet our criteria.

2.

Comment:

One peer reviewer recommended deleting the critical habitat unit on Monmouth Highway (FBB-6B) within unit FBB-6 in Polk County. This peer reviewer stated that this Fender's blue butterfly population is located on a disturbed agricultural field, which has been replanted with young conifer trees. The reviewer believes that eventually the trees will out-compete the existing lupine species and eliminate the butterfly from the site.

Our Response:

FBB-6B meets our criteria for inclusion because it is the largest known population of Fender's blue butterfly in this portion of the species' range and contains primary constituent elements essential to the conservation of the species. We do not know the extent of tree planting on the site or how much habitat may be affected; however the site does provide PCEs despite the fact it has been planted to some degree. Other sites that were planted with young conifers for commercial Christmas tree farms in the early 1990's still support butterflies with recently reported increasing populations. Periodic Christmas tree harvest may act as a disturbance that opens the habitat and allows the lupine to spread back into these areas with butterfly populations increasing in response to the additional available habitat. These are disturbance dependent species. Since butterfly numbers at this site have been estimated at substantially higher numbers from 2003 to 2005, we feel that this site should remain in the designation. During the development of the proposed rule, another peer reviewer stated that this site could serve as an important stepping-stone habitat (

see

Schultz 1998, p. 291) and enhance the genetic exchange among Fender's blue butterfly populations at other sites. Additionally, FBB-6A provides

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

habitat within the butterfly's average dispersal distance, which may serve as a stepping stone between FBB-6 and FBB-5. This unit has the features that are essential to the conservation of the butterfly and is, therefore, included in this final designation.

3.

Comment:

One peer reviewer recommended that the maximum dispersal distance for Fender's blue butterfly be changed to 1.9 mi (3.0 km) based on an observed colonization event.

Our Response:

We are using a Fender's blue butterfly average adult lifetime movement distance of 1.2 mi (2 km) based on a behavioral study by Schultz (1998, pp. 287-290). We acknowledge that the Fender's blue butterfly is capable of moving greater distances, but data with which to determine how frequently such movements may occur is currently lacking. Therefore, based on the above study, we retained the use of the 1.2 mi (2 km) distance as a more typical and conservative estimate of adult butterfly movement.

4.

Comment:

One peer reviewer wanted us to clarify actions that would further isolate populations of Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

as discussed under Section 7 Consultation in the proposed rule. The peer reviewer stated that current habitats for these species are essentially isolated and data for the two plants species are unavailable to determine how the listed actions would cause further isolation, especially associated with pollinator travel and seed dispersal distances.

Our Response:

In the proposed rule, we stated that if critical habitat units for the plants are located more than 5 mi (8 km) apart, or if critical habitat units for Fender's blue butterfly are located more than 1.2 mi (2 km) apart, then actions in the areas separating the units would not be considered to further isolate the species.

5. Comment: One peer reviewer stated that we should include the pollinators for

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

as a primary constituent element similar to what we did for

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii.

Our Response:

There is very little data that has been published or reported in the literature on this species, including requirements for reproduction. Although insect pollination has been documented as facilitating sexual reproduction, it has not been reported as essential to the reproduction of

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens.

Therefore, because we were not able to determine the specific pollinator essential to the conservation of the species, we did not include the presence of insect outcrossing pollinators as a primary constituent element for the species.

Comments From the Public Related to Life History, Habitat Characteristics, and Ecological Considerations

6.

Comment:

An increase in urbanization within the West Eugene area could create barriers to dispersal for the Fender's blue butterfly between core and satellite areas.

Our Response:

We agree that increased urbanization may have direct and indirect effects (

e.g.

, mortality from vehicle collisions and increased habitat loss) on Fender's blue butterfly dispersal, but specific scientific studies addressing the effects of urbanization on Fender's blue butterfly dispersal are not available. We will evaluate potential

future impacts to the designated critical habitat on specific projects through the section 7 consultation process.

7.

Comment:

A number of commenters stated that the effects of climate variability, natural flooding, and water management are not taken into consideration in the designation. Specifically, these events may result in hydrologic changes; accordingly, the critical habitat designation should cover a broader range of topographic elevation. Specific recommendations were made to include additional habitat for

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

to address a variety of concerns, such as elevation, topography, and slope.

Our Response:

While we agree that climate variability could play a role in future distributions of the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

, we are not aware of scientific information that specifically addresses the effects of these events on these species or how to modify the designation to address these potential threats. We worked with local land managers and scientific experts to identify the extent of prairie habitat that supported

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

populations, and that also met our criteria for designation.

8.

Comment:

Forest succession between core populations of Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

could create smaller genetically isolated populations that would put them at a greater risk of local extirpation from the lack of genetic diversity. To address this concern, the commenter recommended designating lupine patches for butterfly core areas with recovery management criteria to reduce intervening forest or ensure open prairie corridors are available through the forest. Additionally, the commenter was concerned about the uncertainty of lake bays as barriers to butterfly dispersal.

Our Response:

Gene flow among populations of the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

could be partially or completely restricted depending on the degree of intervening forest and the size of a given lake bay. The commenter cited a personal communication with peer reviewer Paul Severns, documenting Severns' observation of Fender's blue butterflies flying over tall oak trees, which further shows the uncertainty of this potential risk. To our knowledge, there are no currently available scientific studies that have been completed for these species to further our understanding of this potential gene flow issue. For the Fender's blue butterfly, McIntire

et al.

(2006, p. 27) states that they do not know butterfly response to barriers such as woodlands, light industrial development, and roads. Therefore, they do not know the effects these elements may have on dispersal. McIntire

et al.

(2006, p. 27) notes that if elements such as woodlands or topography change butterfly movement or mortality, then connectivity would likely be affected. For these reasons, researchers are currently undertaking field studies to estimate these potential effects. However, as these studies are not yet complete, we cannot rely on them for this designation.

9.

Comment:

The proposed critical habitat stated that land within the Willamette Valley was “subjected to fire suppression,” which assumes that naturally occurring fires routinely burned in the valley and were suppressed by humans. To the contrary, the commenter believes that Native Americans converted the valley to agricultural lands when they began routinely burning to enhance the growth of harvestable food crops. This commenter stated that without human intervention, Fender's blue butterfly habitat would not have existed to any great extent and wanted to know what scientific evidence is available to prove that the butterfly was once more widely distributed in the Willamette Valley.

Our Response:

Based on information in the final listing rule for the Fender's blue butterfly (65 FR 3875), the precise historic distribution of the butterfly is unknown due to limited information collected on this species prior to its description in 1931. However, early records indicate that before European settlement, the landscape of the Willamette Valley was largely an open expanse of prairie and savannah habitat (Altman

et al.

2001, p. 262; Franklin and Dyrness 1973, p. 119). Given the greater amount of upland prairie patches, we assumed that the butterfly and

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

were also more widely distributed (Schultz 1998, p. 290-291; Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 79). However, as stated previously, we do not know the historic distribution of these species, and it is possible that distribution was always patchy. This assumption is independent of whether prairie habitats were created or maintained under natural or human-induced conditions.

Comments From the Public Related to Critical Habitat, Primary Constituent Elements, and Methodology

10.

Comment:

Several commenters recommended that we designate multiple stepping-stone pathways for Fender's blue butterflies to ensure connectivity among critical habitat units and that we designate additional large core areas to ensure that some of the areas achieve stable butterfly populations. Additionally, commenters were concerned about the habitat condition of specific units designated in West Eugene. One commenter suggested specific sites for inclusion in West Eugene to address the following concerns: Stepping-stone redundancy, climatic variability, connectivity, elevation diversity, and population expansion. The commenters also suggested using a rule set for selecting habitats based on fine scale sub-watersheds.

Our Response:

We used the best available scientific information and included occupied Fender's blue butterfly habitat identified as having the features that are essential for re-establishing a viable, connected metapopulation in the Eugene, Oregon area (McIntire

et al.

2006, in review, pp. 20-22). Although we recognize that additional habitat may further contribute to recovery, our best available information (McIntire

et al.

2006, in review, p. 20-22) does not identify the commenter's suggested areas as appropriate for designation as critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly. Outside of Eugene, Oregon, the best available information is not sufficient to identify stepping-stone pathways, thus, none were designated. Additional

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

habitat will likely be needed for recovery; however, we are unaware of any additional lupine patches that meet the minimum patch size within the pollinator distance criteria. The best available scientific information (Gisler

et al., in litt.,

2005, pp. 4, 5) defines criteria without regard to sub-watershed.

11.

Comment:

Several commenters stated that designated

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

patches should be closer together (1.2 mi (2 km)) to allow for more frequent cross-pollination between patches by native pollinators.

Our Response:

We included occupied

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

sites that are within 5 mi (8 km) (based on the maximum flight distance of the non-native honeybee) of a lupine core area and that met our minimum patch size of 0.25 ac (0.1 ha). By using the 5 mi (8 km) distance, we included lupine patches that are within 1.2 mi (2 km) of each other.

12.

Comment:

We failed to designate sufficient critical habitat that would provide

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

the ability to colonize other areas, especially in response to threats from predation, parasites, and invasive plant species. One of the commenters made specific recommendations for the inclusion of unoccupied and occupied

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

patches in the critical habitat designation to allow for increased lupine succession, regeneration, population stabilization, topographic relief, and improved pollination.

Our Response:

We included the prairie habitat occupied by

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

that met our selection criteria and believe that we have provided for the concerns listed in the comment. We agree that additional areas not included in this designation that did not meet our selection criteria for critical habitat may also be needed to recover the species. However, information currently available does not suggest that these specific areas have the features that are essential to the conservation of the species.

13.

Comment:

No apparent biological reason exists for gaps between critical habitat units in the narrow waterway corridors for the Fender's blue butterfly in Eugene, Oregon. This commenter and eight others made recommendations for the inclusion of additional Fender's blue butterfly areas in the West Eugene area to address this issue and provide for species recovery.

Our Response:

We did not include waterways between critical habitat units because the distance between lupine patches supporting Fender's blue butterflies exceeded the 1.2-m (2 km) average adult butterfly movement distance (Schultz 1998, pp. 288-290). Each unit includes all populations that are believed to be connected and functioning as a larger metapopulation given the current landscape. Schultz (1998, p. 291) documented that stepping-stones would be more beneficial to the butterfly than corridors, and McIntire

et al.

(2006, in review, pp. 20-22) identified necessary butterfly stepping-stone habitat in Eugene, Oregon. Refer to the Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule section in this rule for more information on changes to the critical habitat designation for the butterfly.

14.

Comment:

The inclusion of an additional habitat patch to unit KL-12B would allow for a more stable population of smaller

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

patches along the Amazon Channel. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) recommended including specific occupied sites they manage for

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

.

Our Response:

We have not had enough time to evaluate all of the information regarding potential critical habitat sites that we received during the public comment periods to determine if these sites meet our criteria.

15.

Comment:

The Eugene District of the Bureau of Land Managemnt (BLM) recommended including two newly discovered (June 2005) sites for Fender's blue butterfly and

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

within their District's upper Willamette resource area (Oak Basin).

Our Response:

We appreciate the BLMs' recognition of the value of these sites; however, they did not meet our criteria for selection.

16.

Comment:

Several commenters stated that the proposed critical habitat designation for the Fender's blue butterfly or

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

included areas that overrepresent the extent of the habitat for these species.

Our Response:

We revised the critical habitat boundaries, as appropriate, based on information received during the comment period. Prairie habitat that contains one or more of the Fender's blue butterfly primary constituent elements within 1.2 mi (2 km) of a butterfly population is considered occupied by the butterfly. Contiguous prairie habitat surrounding known populations of

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

and

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

is also considered occupied if it contained one or more of the species-specific primary constituent elements (

see

the Primary Constituent Elements and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections).

17.

Comment:

We erroneously excluded areas of Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens,

including historic sites that are no longer extant, from the critical habitat designation. Additionally, the Army Corp of Engineers recommended including potential habitat sites they manage for

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

and

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens.

Our Response:

We recognize that areas outside of this designation will contribute to the recovery of

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

and appreciate the Army Corp of Engineers' on-going efforts to manage for the species. However, not all sites that historically supported these species are considered to have the features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Some sites did not meet our criteria to be included in the final designation.

18.

Comment:

The Roseburg District of the BLM stated that the atypical habitat conditions where

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

occurs in Douglas County is described inconsistently with regard to the shade tolerance of the species, and that the first lupine primary constituent element does not apply in Douglas County.

Our Response:

We agree, and have clarified the information in the Background, Primary Constituent Elements, and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections of this rule to address BLM's concerns associated with the atypical habitat conditions for

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

in Douglas County. Individual critical habitat units for

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

do not have to contain all of the species-specific primary constituent elements, but must contain at least one of the primary constituent elements to support a portion of the species' life history. The second primary constituent element for

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

is associated with the critical habitat designation in Douglas County. We proposed critical habitat in Douglas County using the same criteria as in other areas, with the addition of atypical habitat conditions found in the county. Refer to the Primary Constituent Elements and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections in this rule for more information on how we defined the critical habitat criteria for

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

.

19.

Comment:

The proposed critical habitat rule, including primary constituent elements, is too narrowly focused to protect the habitat essential for the long-term survival and recovery of the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens.

In addition, the designation should include low quality areas.

Our Response:

Most populations of the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

have not been studied adequately to determine how best to restore functioning metapopulations in the highly fragmented prairie habitats within the Willamette Valley. We used the best available scientific information to determine primary constituent elements and critical habitat criteria for each species. We recognize that critical habitat designations, based on the species' primary constituent elements and other criteria, may not include all areas that may be necessary for species recovery. Future research and recovery planning will likely identify other areas that will aid in recovery. We only included areas of sufficient quality that

are able to sustain the species and have the features that are essential to the conservation of the species. (

see

the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section).

Comments From the Public Related to the Act and Implementing Regulations

20.

Comment:

The City of Eugene's West Eugene Wetlands Plan and Bureau of Land Management's West Eugene Wetlands Restoration Schedule do not include the level of special management considerations and protections provided under a critical habitat designation, and it would be inappropriate to exclude any area covered under these plans that would otherwise qualify as critical habitat.

Our Response:

We agree, while the City of Eugene's West Eugene Wetlands Plan and Bureau of Land Management's West Eugene Wetlands Restoration Schedule include general planning schedules for the area, they did not provide the specificity of management that we needed to evaluate under our section 4(b)(2) process. As these and other planning efforts progress, we will work with involved entities to address the conservation of the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens.

If we revise critical habitat in the future, we will revaluate the status of planning efforts.

21.

Comment:

The Eugene District of the BLM requested that we consider (1) exempting all BLM-administered lands within the West Eugene Wetlands from the final critical habitat rule, or (2) exempting all actions under their 10-year schedule for restoration from further section 7 consultation on effects to critical habitat designations for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens.

Our Response:

Biological opinions resulting from a consultation are not in and of themselves a basis for exclusion. However, management plans that commit to specific appropriate management criteria, whether associated with a biological opinion or not, are considered for exclusion. We do not anticipate that further minimization measures on the West Eugene Wetlands Schedule Environmental Assessment (No. OR090-EA-05-03) will be required due to this final rule.

22.

Comment:

The Eugene District of the BLM stated that the development of a wetland education center is planned for the Danebo site. BLM and several other commenters believe that the positive effects of public education on the values and vulnerability of wetland species outweigh the benefits of designating critical habitat at this site.

Our Response:

We agree that public outreach and voluntary conservation on wetlands and associated species in West Eugene is important. However, we have not been provided any project documention associated with a potential education center and are unable to assess whether the area has conservation in place that is comparable to designation as critical habitat.

23.

Comment:

Several commenters stated that they are willing to voluntarily manage the habitat on their property for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, or

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

, but do not want to be included in the critical habitat designation because of increased regulatory burdens. Some commenters specifically suggested not designating private agricultural lands, and requested a description of proper prairie habitat management to understand how it would affect agricultural operations.

Our Response:

We support and appreciate the efforts that are being made by organizations and individuals to conserve listed species on their lands. When undertaking the process of designating critical habitat for a species, we evaluate lands defined by physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species without regard to land ownership or land use. We will gladly evaluate conservation plans and efforts to determine if areas can be excluded because conservation is in place. At the time of this rule, we did not have conservation plans or other documents that would allow us to assess the adequacy of conservation on these specific lands. For a general description of proper management of prairie habitat, refer to the Special Management Considerations or Protections section of this rule. The specifics of management can vary from site to site, and we offer technical assistance to landowners in establishing management plans for conserving species.

24.

Comment:

Commenters disagree with our statement that “the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species.” Commenters also note several court decisions that have invalidated this position, which violates Congressional intent and the plain language of the Endangered Species Act.

Our Response:

In most cases, conservation mechanisms provided through section 7 consultations, section 4 recovery planning process, section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, section 10 incidental take permits, and cooperative programs with private and public landholders and tribal nations provide greater incentives and conservation benefits than designation of critical habitat.

25.

Comment:

The City of Eugene identified several conservation accomplishments achieved through implementation of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, including the outgrowth of the West Eugene Wetlands Partnership. The City provided suggestions for reducing the regulatory requirements associated with critical habitat designation on their property in order to increase their ability to effectively manage their lands.

Our Response:

We agree that the City of Eugene and its partners have significantly contributed to wetland conservation through the implementation of their wetland mitigation plan. The mitigation plan, however, is not specifically designed to protect and manage habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

, and does not provide the specific management details needed to meet our section 4(b)(2) requirements.

Comments From States Related to Critical Habitat, Primary Constituent Elements, and Methodology

26.

Comment:

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) recommended that the Lewis County, Washington

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

parcels be excluded from the critical habitat designation. WDNR believes that the willingness of landowners to cooperate with the WDNR on species conservation may be negatively affected if landowners view the designation as a restriction on their ability to use the land.

Our Response:

We are excluding unit KL-1A from critical habitat designation based on the

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

conservation provisions documented in the landowner's management plan with U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. For more information, see the “Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section of the rule. Unit KL-1B is not eligible for exclusion because there is no current management or conservation plan for the species or the features essential to its conservation at this site.

Comments Related to Economic Analysis; and Other Relevant Impacts

27.

Comment:

We received a comment stating that the draft economic analysis does not consider the impact of critical habitat designation on the conservation market (

i.e.

, the supply, demand, and exchange of habitat through decisions by buyers and sellers); that designating critical habitat removes both the option for development and the appeal of the area for potential conservation land. The commenter believes the draft economic analysis only quantifies the former cost, and not the latter.

Our Response:

If landowners forgo the development of their land to conserve the habitat, their value for conservation is equal to or greater than the value of the development opportunity. The draft economic analysis measured this opportunity cost. The cost of acquiring conservation easements is captured in Section 4.0, which includes estimates of the cost of land use restrictions imposed on landowners by conservation efforts associated with the species. The lost land value (

i.e.

, growth premium and option value) calculated in Section 4.0 represents the underlying value of conservation easements that could be purchased in order to remove the development opportunity from the land and to protect the habitat. This same concept applies if the land is sold for conservation purposes (presumably at some market price). The market price for conservation would be set by the highest valued use for the land. The extent that critical habitat designation reduces the appeal of an area for potential conservation land, and results in a reduction in land value beyond the option for development measured by the draft economic analysis, is understated in the draft economic analysis. However, no evidence was provided indicating that critical habitat designation makes land less attractive for conservation.

28.

Comment:

We should include the value of ecosystems in analyzing economic issues associated with the designation of critical habitat designations.

Our Response:

We recognize that the various functions of an ecosystem have value, but we are unable to meaningfully place an economic value on the biological attributes that function to make a viable ecosystem. The benefits of critical habitat are best expressed in biological terms,

e.g.

, the conservation benefit provided to a species, which can then be weighed against the expected economic impacts of the rulemaking. The purpose of a critical habitat economic analysis is to assist the Secretary in deciding whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and if areas should be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We may not be able to quantitatively account for the value of ecosystems in analyzing economic issues related to the designation of critical habitat, but we have done so qualitatively in a manner that supports the Secretary's exclusion analysis through the 4(b)(2) process.

29.

Comment:

The economic analysis can not reasonably weigh the biological benefits of critical habitat designation without weighing its biological costs, such as habitat losses brought on as a result of the landowners' beliefs that they have disincentives to maintain the habitat. The economic analysis dismisses these biological costs as rare, but the commenter believes they are potentially substantial.

Our Response:

In the proposed rule and draft economic analysis, we indicated that we did not expect the designation of critical habitat to provide significant additional regulatory or economic burdens or restrictions beyond those afforded the species pursuant to the Act. This assertion is based on the regulatory protections afforded to Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

as a result of their existing listed status, and the protections that status affords. Since all the lands designated as critical habitat are already occupied by one or more of species, there is little additional regulatory burden placed on private landowners.

30.

Comment:

Other commenters stated the draft economic analysis does not assess the potential impacts to them as landowners if a vintner is discouraged from leasing or they are discouraged from developing a vineyard on their land in Polk County due to the critical habitat designation.

Our Response:

As described in Section 4.1 of the draft economic analysis, if development of a parcel of agriculture land is restricted, it will be worth less than its value in the previously unrestricted state. This loss of value is a cost to the landowner; with the magnitude of loss depending on the type of land use restriction imposed. Specifically, if a piece of land is restricted from any kind of use, all of its economic value will be lost. Based on recent sales transactions obtained from Farm Credit Services of agriculture land similar to the proposed critical habitat in Polk County (

i.e.

, 49 sales during the period 2000 to 2005), a complete loss of economic value to the commenter's land in Polk County could approach $8,000 per acre.

However, as stated in Section 4.0 of the draft economic analysis, this analysis assumes the agriculture use of privately owned land will be unrestricted, and the draft economic analysis only presents economic impacts to the commenter's land related to the loss of development opportunity. In this case, the development impact measured in the draft economic analysis is nearly $6,600 per acre, 93 percent of their estimated land value. If a vineyard opportunity is restricted on private property in order to conserve species, there may be an additional loss in property value above that quantified in the draft economic analysis.

31.

Comment:

The draft economic analysis does not calculate the lost farm and forest values associated with land development. Development destroys the farm or forest potential, eliminating a stream of economic benefits. This income and benefit stream is associated with land conservation and should be included among the economic benefits of critical habitat designation.

Our Response:

As described in Section 4.0 of the of the draft economic analysis, the existing agricultural use of the private land within the proposed critical habitat designation is assumed to remain unrestricted. While critical habitat designation may restrict development opportunities, depending on the existence of a Federal nexus, the ongoing use of the land for farming and forestry is expected to continue, is embedded in the land value, and is included in the economic analysis.

32.

Comment:

The economic cost of recovering very small populations or populations that lack adequate habitat will be significantly greater than the cost of recovering populations with adequate habitat. Conserving rare plant species through the designation of critical habitat will also conserve other species. The effort to recover rare species should be considered when performing an economic analysis pursuant to the designation of critical habitat.

Our Response:

The economic costs of future recovery actions for species not addressed in the designation are independent of the economic impacts caused by the critical habitat designation, which is the focus of this economic analysis. It would be inappropriate for us to speculate on how an unknown suite of future recovery actions for other species might be made more or less costly as a result of the designation.

33.

Comment:

The economic analysis exaggerated the economic costs of the

critical habitat designation through sheer speculation.

Our Response:

To ensure that all possible potential economic impacts were given adequate consideration, we contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, Tribes, county governments, elected officials, and other interested parties and invited them to comment. In addition, we invited public comment through the publication of notices in several local newspapers. We provided notification of the draft economic analysis through telephone calls, letters, and news releases faxed or mailed to affected elected officials, local jurisdictions, and interest groups. We also published the draft economic analysis and associated material on our internet site (

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/ESA-Actions/WillValleyPage.asp

) following the draft's release on June 15, 2006. In addition to inviting public comment on the proposed designation, the later notices announced the dates and times of a public hearing on the proposed designation. Any economic impacts described in the draft economic analysis are a direct result of this extensive effort to collect data on the actual potential impacts. While some potential impacts are less likely than others, all impacts described result from following a consistent approach to gathering this information.

34.

Comment:

The economic analysis illegally attributed costs associated with the species listing to costs of critical habitat designation.

Our Response:

The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat for these three species. We interpret the Act to require that the economic analysis include all of the economic impacts associated with the conservation of the species, which may include some of the effects associated with listing. We note that the Act generally requires critical habitat to be designated at the time of listing, and if we had conducted an economic analysis at that time, the impacts associated with listing would not be readily distinguishable from those associated with critical habitat designation.

35.

Comment:

The draft economic analysis first suggests that the costs arising from the potential loss of development opportunity on private lands in Benton County will be borne by the existing landowners, and then suggests that the acquisition of conservation easements under the Benton County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) will be borne by the County (

i.e.

, public).

Our Response:

Private owners of critical habitat in Benton County could sell the development opportunity (

i.e.

, conservation easement) on their land to the County if their land is a desired acquisition identified in the HCP. Under this scenario, the development impact would be to the public, because the development opportunity would be purchased from the private landowner with public funds. The conclusions in final economic analysis will be corrected.

36.

Comment:

The economic costs in the draft economic analysis are overstated because the critical habitat designation is assumed to result in a complete loss of all development potential for all private lands within the critical habitat designation, even though there are no direct regulatory impacts on privately owned lands within the critical habitat designation. Further, the draft economic analysis does not consider wetland and rural zoning constraints that already limit development. Most of the privately owned critical habitat is located outside the urban growth boundaries (UGBs) and would not be developed within the 20 year scope of the draft economic analysis.

Our Response:

As described in Section 4.0, Federal regulations do not usually constrain development on private lands, and Federal endangered species laws generally do not apply to listed plants on private lands. However, much of the

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

habitat overlaps with Fender's blue butterfly habitat, is classified as wet prairie grassland habitat (

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

), or occurs within the boundaries of the future Benton County HCP. In these situations, privately owned Fender's blue butterfly,

L. sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

habitat will have some level of protection through conservation actions included in an incidental take permit for Fender's blue butterfly, recommended through a section 7 consultation for a section 404 permit, or built into an HCP. Considering the absence of specific information on how development projects would mitigate for impacts to the species, the extent to which a future development project would be impacted by the species and habitat conservation is uncertain. The draft economic analysis presents the value derived from the option for future development of private lands, and explains that estimated impacts are overstated in the case that development is not constrained within the proposed critical habitat designation. Embedded in land values is the likelihood and timing of potential future development; that is, a parcel of land unlikely to be developed within the next 20 years would have a lower option value for development than an imminently developable parcel. The likelihood and timing of development is therefore incorporated into this analysis. The analysis further explains that the cost of development restrictions can be calculated proportionally for a unit if development is prohibited on only a portion of the unit.

While wetland classification and rural zoning may limit development, they will not preclude it now or in the future. As described in the “Example of Potential Development Impacts” text box in Section 4.0, major development projects are being proposed on

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

wet prairie habitat, subject to compensatory mitigation. It is true that much of the privately owned land located outside the UGB may not be developed during the 20-year scope of the analysis, and that if it were developed it would be subject to the rural zoning regulations. However, the current zoning and future timing of development of each parcel of private land is not relevant to the economic analysis, because the economic impacts to private landowners will occur immediately after the lands are designated. Once announced, the critical habitat designation would impact the future development opportunity of a parcel for as long as the regulation is in place, even if the property is rural and located outside an UGB. Thus, while the actual development of a property may not occur within the 20-year scope of analysis, the impact to the private landowner from the critical habitat designation will occur the day the designation is announced, and therefore is appropriately measured in the draft economic analysis.

37.

Comment:

If critical habitat designation limits the development opportunity of privately owned land, as presented in the draft economic analysis, the analysis should evaluate likely price increases on the remaining developable land within the region, because a reduction in the supply of developable land will cause the price of the remaining developable land to increase.

Our Response:

The impact of the loss in development opportunity on the remaining privately owned developable land, within the critical habitat designation is expected to be small, because the area impacted is relatively small compared to the supply of developable land in the region. As

explained in Section 4.1 of the draft economic analysis, most of the future urban and rural development is projected to occur predominately on lands used for agriculture. The privately owned portion of the designation (approximately 2,100 acres) represents one-tenth of one percent of the agricultural acres in the eight county area (approximately 2 million acres).

38.

Comment:

The proposed West Eugene Parkway (WEP), as designed prior to the critical habitat designation, was not an at-grade highway as described in the draft economic analysis, but rather an elevated highway. Therefore, the cost of species conservation activities presented in the draft economic analysis is in question.

Our Response:

The comment is correct. According to Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the proposed project design is for an elevated structure. However, the proposed critical habitat designation caused ODOT to look more closely at the elevation, placement of supports, and length of elevated section. Because of the proposed critical habitat designation, the elevation of the proposed project is now higher and the length of the elevated section longer. While Section 6.1.2.1 incorrectly described the pre-critical habitat designation project as an at-grade roadway, the cost estimate provided by ODOT for the draft economic analysis correctly reflects the best estimate of additional costs associated with reconfiguring the elevated section spanning the proposed designation (

i.e.

, higher and longer) to off-set impacts to the species. The final economic analysis will be corrected.

39.

Comment:

The WEP is unlikely to be built anytime in the near future, and it should be considered speculative until the project is approved in a Record of Decision (ROD) and survives numerous legal and financial obstacles and political hurdles. Because the project is only speculative at this time, it should be excluded from the draft economic analysis.

Our Response:

As described in Section 1.3, the draft economic analysis estimates impacts based on activities that are “reasonably foreseeable,” including, but not limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the public. The WEP falls under this latter category. While it is not known when WEP will ultimately be constructed, WEP is a proposed project that is the product of more than 20 years of planning, public involvement, environmental analysis, and engineering, and the goal is to complete the NEPA process with a signed ROD by the end of 2006 (Section 6.1.2.1). Because the timing of the project is unknown (it will commence no earlier than 2008 based on anticipated dates for environmental compliance and permitting), the project is assigned an equal probability of occurring between years 2008 and 2026 to reflect the uncertainty.

40.

Comment:

The draft economic analysis does not consider benefits of critical habitat designation, including social welfare, input to regional economics, conservation bank revenues, recreation/educational/cultural benefits, support of local agriculture industry and jobs, land input for recreational values, and support of local tourism industry.

Our Response:

Where data are available, the analysis attempts to recognize and measure the net economic impact of the proposed designation. For example, as described in Section 7.2.3, 145,000 people visit the Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge annually, primarily to hike and observe wildlife. While the visitor data are not broken down by species, and the annual number of individuals that visit the Refuge specifically to see Fender's blue butterfly and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

is not known, at least 300 elementary school students and teachers visit the Refuge annually to observe Fender's blue butterfly. The use demonstrates educational, cultural, and recreational benefits related to wildlife viewing. However, the Refuge does not charge for the school program, and there are no willingness-to-pay values specific to the species. Therefore, the analysis acknowledges the educational, cultural, and recreational benefits that the Refuge provides, but does not quantify associated welfare benefits.

41.

Comment:

Economic benefits should be better quantified in the economic analysis, specifically the benefits associated with existence value, private land value increases due to supply constraints, farm and forest values of undeveloped lands, use values of natural lands, option values, amenity values of natural open spaces, ecological values, environmental quality, and social health and welfare.

Our Response:

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary to designate critical habitat based on the best scientific data available after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Our approach for estimating economic impacts includes both economic efficiency and distributional effects. The measurement of economic efficiency is based on the concept of opportunity costs, which reflect the value of goods and services foregone in order to comply with the effects of the designation (

e.g.

, lost economic opportunity associated with restrictions on land use). When data are available, we attempt to measure the net economic impact in our economic analyses. However, no data was found that allows the measurement of such an impact, nor was information submitted during the public comment period.

Most of the other benefit categories submitted reflect broader social values, which are not the same as economic impacts. While the Secretary must consider economic and other relevant impacts as part of the final decision-making process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Act explicitly states that it is the government's policy to conserve all threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Thus, we believe that explicit consideration of broader social values for these species and their habitats, beyond the more traditionally defined economic impacts, is not necessary because Congress has already clarified the social importance. As a practical matter, it is difficult to develop credible estimates of such values, because they are not readily observed through typical market transactions and can only be inferred through advanced, tailor-made studies that are time consuming and expensive to conduct.

42.

Comment:

The cost estimates in the draft economic analysis fail to consider the cumulative effect of regulations on private lands.

Our Response:

We are required to consider only the effect of the proposed government action, which in this case is the designation of critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

. The appropriate baseline for use in the economic analysis is the regulatory environment without this regulation. Against this baseline, we attempt to identify and measure the incremental costs and benefits associated with the designation of critical habitat. When critical habitat for other species has already been designated, it is properly considered part of the baseline for this analysis. Future critical habitat designations for other species in the area will be part of separate rulemakings, and consequently, their economic effects will be considered separately.

43.

Comment:

The draft economic analysis includes costs that are independent of and unrelated to the listing or critical habitat designation,

particularly costs related to maintaining the Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge and the West Eugene Wetlands restoration program. The proposed critical habitat is an overlay on previously delineated resources, and city and county ordinances and zoning, that are not considered in the draft economic analysis, resulting in an underestimation of actual costs; the draft economic analysis does not estimate the cumulative effects of regulation on private ownership.

Our Response:

As described in Section 1.2 of the draft economic analysis, coextensive effects as quantified in the draft economic analysis may also include impacts associated with overlapping protective measures of other Federal, State, and local laws and programs that aid habitat conservation in the areas proposed for designation. The draft economic analysis notes that in the past, some measures have been precipitated by the listing of the species and impending designation of critical habitat. Habitat conservation actions protecting a listed species are likely to contribute to the efficacy of critical habitat designations. Therefore, the impacts of them are considered relevant for understanding the full effect of the proposed critical habitat designation. Further, considering the absence of specific information on how development projects on private land would mitigate impacts to the species, the extent to which a future development project would be impacted by the species and habitat conservation is uncertain. The draft economic analysis therefore presents the value derived from potential future development on private lands (

i.e.

, the complete loss of any and all development potential) and explains that estimated impacts would be overstated if development occurs within the proposed critical habitat designation. Any city, county, or other ordinance or regulation, such as wetland classification and rural zoning, may limit development, but not preclude it now or in the future (

see

“Example of Potential Development Impacts” text box in Section 4.0). Thus, the economic impact of restrictions to the private landowner is already captured in the estimation of complete loss of any and all development potential. Enforcement actions taken in response to violations of the Act, however, are not included.

44.

Comment:

The cost estimates are inadequate because of the extreme range of costs presented in the draft economic analysis.

Our Response:

To account for the range of land values, the variety of mitigation measures available for off-setting impacts, and the uncertain timing and cost of project mitigation, the analysis presents the potential costs associated with species conservation actions as a range.

45.

Comment:

The draft economic analysis recognizes the potential for additional economic impacts under other state or local laws triggered by critical habitat designation. Yet, the economic analysis does not consider the efforts recently begun by the City of Eugene to inventory upland prairie and other habitats under Goal 5, which will be the basis of future recommendations on possible protection measures or conservation incentive programs.

Our Response:

This is correct; the draft economic analysis does not specifically consider the City's inventory program. As stated by the commenter, this is goal oriented and it is uncertain what this inventory means in terms of future regulatory costs.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

The area proposed as critical habitat in Eugene, Oregon, for the Fender's blue butterfly has been revised for this final designation. Specifically, the areas that were proposed as a corridor between stepping-stone areas and core populations are not included in this final designation. We re-evaluated these areas and determined that they do not provide features essential to the conservation of the Fender's blue butterfly. Specifically, the corridor is largely a channel of water, delineated bank to bank, which does not include prairie habitat. Furthermore, Schultz (1998, p. 291) documented that stepping-stones would be more beneficial to the butterfly than corridors, and McIntire

et al.

(2006, in review, p. 20-22) identified specific butterfly stepping-stone habitat in the Eugene, Oregon, area necessary to re-establish a connected, functioning network of habitat. Areas specifically identified in McIntire

et al.

(2006, in review, p. 20-22) were included in the proposed rule and remain in this final designation, with the exception of one stepping-stone area (0.4 ac (0.2 ha)) that was overlooked as a result of a mapping error in the proposed designation.

During the initial comment period for the proposed critical habitat designation, we received new information about two of the

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

units and one of the Fender's blue butterfly units. This information indicated that KL-8, KL-16B, and FBB-7 units included areas that do not provide the features essential to the conservation of these species. Therefore, we reduced KL-8 and FBB-7 to include only areas containing the features essential to the conservation of the species. Unit KL-16B was eliminated because it lacks appropriate features.

Based on comments from peer reviewers, we made minor modifications to the primary consitutent elements for all three species. In the first primary consitutent elements for the Fender's blue butterfly and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens,

we clarified that both upland and wet prairie habitat are features essential to the conservation of the species. For

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

and

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens,

we removed references from the first primary consitutent elements that gave a greater level of importance to proper moisture and protection from competitive invasive species than is essential.

In the proposed rule, the first Fender's blue butterfly primary consitutent element was as follows:

(1) Early seral upland prairie, oak savanna habitat with undisturbed subsoils that provides a mosaic of low-growing grasses and forbs, and an absence of dense canopy vegetation allowing access to sunlight needed to seek nectar and search for mates;

In this final rule, the first PCE is as follows:

(1) Early seral upland prairie, wet prairie, or oak savanna habitat with a mosaic of low-growing grasses and forbs, an absence of dense canopy vegetation; and undisturbed subsoils.

In the proposed rule, the first primary consitutent element for

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

was as follows:

(1) Early seral upland prairie, oak savanna habitat with a mosaic of low-growing grasses, forbs, and spaces to establish seedlings or new vegetative growth, with an absence of dense canopy vegetation providing sunlight for individual and population growth and reproduction and with undisturbed subsoils and proper moisture and protection from competitive invasive species.

In this final rule, the first primary consitutent element is as follows:

(1) Early seral upland prairie, or oak savanna habitat with a mosaic of low-growing grasses and forbs, and spaces to establish seedlings or new vegetative growth; an absence of dense canopy vegetation; and undisturbed subsoils.

In the proposed rule, the primary consitutent element for

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

was as follows:

(1) Early seral upland prairie, oak savanna habitat with a mosaic of low-

growing grasses, forbs, and spaces to establish seedlings or new vegetative growth, with an absence of dense canopy vegetation providing sunlight for individual and population growth and reproduction and with undisturbed subsoils and proper moisture and protection from competitive invasive species.

In this final rule, the primary consitutent element is as follows:

(1) Early seral upland prairie, wet prairie, or oak savanna habitat with a mosaic of low-growing grasses and forbs, and spaces to establish seedlings or new vegetative growth; an absence of dense canopy vegetation; and undisturbed subsoils.

Based on the information provided by several peer reviewers, we made minor corrections throughout the document to reflect the most accurate representation of the best available scientific information, including revisions to the methodology section to more accurately describe the methodology used for the proposed designation. The unit descriptions were also updated to more accurately identify areas included within the final designation.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as—(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, regulated taking.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or public access to private lands. Section 7 is a purely protective measure and does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures.

To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within the area occupied by the species must first have features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (

i.e.

, areas on which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).

Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below, such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2).) Accordingly, when the best available scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species require additional areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. An area currently occupied by the species but not known to be occupied at the time of listing will likely, but not always, be essential to the conservation of the species, and therefore, typically included in the critical habitat designation.

The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in the

Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), along with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service, provide criteria and guidance and establish procedures to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best scientific data available. They require Service biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, the Service generally uses the listing package as a primary source of information. Additional information sources include articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or not required for recovery. It is generally understood that recovery of remaining populations will involve expanding existing populations, increasing connectivity, and/or improving habitat quality (Schultz

et al.

2003, pp. 61, 68-70; Severns 2003a, p. 227; Wilson

et al.

2003, pp. 79-80).

Most populations of Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

have not been studied well enough to determine how to restore functioning metapopulations in these highly fragmented prairie remnants. Because each of the remaining populations occurs in a unique habitat setting, habitat analyses will likely need to be completed to determine which lands are suitable for expanding populations, increasing connectivity, and reestablishing functioning metapopulations. McIntire

et al.

(in review, p. 2) demonstrate the usefulness of utilizing a focal species approach and spatially explicit models in planning restoration activities for at-risk species such as the Fender's blue butterfly. However, this approach to developing restoration options for conserving at-risk species requires an understanding of potentially suitable habitat within the constraints of a unique habitat setting (McIntire

et al.

in review, p. 3). For many populations of Fender's blue butterfly,

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens,

we do not have the information necessary to specifically identify additional areas that may be suitable for restoration and useful for increasing connectivity between populations and larger metapopulations.

Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different strategy.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to designate as critical habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements (PCEs)) that are essential to the conservation of the species, and within areas occupied by the species at the time of listing, that may require special management considerations and protection. These include, but are not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.

The specific primary constituent elements required for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

are derived from the biological needs of these species as described in the Background section of this proposal.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior

Fender's blue butterfly

Historically, the Willamette Valley was a mosaic of upland and wetland prairie, with lupine patches rarely more than 0.3 miles (0.5 km) apart, providing a high probability that the Fender's blue butterfly could disperse between patches (Schultz 1998, p. 284). Habitat fragmentation has isolated the remaining populations of Fender's blue butterfly to such an extent that dispersal between suitable habitat patches is now likely a rare event (Schultz 1998, p. 291), which increases the risk of inbreeding depression (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 70). The rarity of host lupine patches and habitat fragmentation are the major ecological factors limiting reproduction, dispersal, and subsequent colonization of new habitat (Hammond and Wilson 1992, p. 172; Schultz 1997a, p. 88; Schultz and Dlugosch 1999, p. 231).

Conservation recommendations for recovering the Fender's blue butterfly include having enough high-quality habitat to maintain viable populations across the range of the species (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 61, 68). This will require habitat restoration to create new sites, expanding the size of existing sites, and creating habitat networks that connect isolated populations (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 68, 69-70). By comparing field notes (USFWS 2004a, entire data set) to population counts (Fitzpatrick 2005, pp. 10, 11; Hammond 2004, p. 35), we determined that the largest remaining Fender's blue butterfly populations generally occur in the largest, most connected prairie remnants currently supporting the species. Although the prairie habitat supporting these populations is threatened to varying degrees by invasive species and woody succession, it also appears to have the highest diversity of native plant species. Large habitat patches tend to support higher native species diversity (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, p. 34) and the Fender's blue butterfly depends on a diversity of native plant species for survival (Wilson

et al.

1997, p. 3, 5).

To promote successful dispersal among lupine patches and reestablish functioning metapopulations, Fender's blue butterflies will likely require stepping stones of lupine patches that are close enough together for dispersing butterflies to have a high probability of finding the patches (Schultz 1998, p. 284, 286). This conservation reserve strategy is superior to narrow linear corridors because the Fender's blue butterfly flight patterns into non-lupine habitat make it unlikely they would stay in a narrow corridor (Schultz 1998, p. 284, 286, 291). Reestablishing stepping stones of lupine habitat between existing populations increases the likelihood that dispersing individuals will move from one large lupine patch to the next (Schultz 1998, p. 291). Lupine patches should be less than 0.6 mile (1 km) from their nearest neighbor (Schultz 1998, p. 291; Schultz 2001, p. 1008; Schultz and Crone 2005, p. 887, 892) to restore functioning metapopulations for the Fender's blue butterfly and ensure the long-term persistence of this species (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 70).

For the conservation of the Fender's blue butterfly we anticipate we will need several functioning habitat networks distributed across the range of the species. Connectivity will be best achieved among the component butterfly subpopulations by a stepping-stone arrangement of sites that meet minimum size, distance, and quality criteria.

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

For many organisms that are patchily distributed, the minimum viable population will often depend on both the occupied and surrounding unoccupied habitat that is protected and managed for the species (Nunny and Campbell 1993, p. 238). Plant populations often occupy only small regions of the available habitat at any one period, and this pattern is relevant to their conservation (Menges 1991, pp. 53, 54). The habitat between plant patches may serve as a site for future populations and may be critical for the long-term perseverance of the species (Nunny and Campbell 1993, p. 238). Wilson (1998b, p. 2) has documented that the open spaces between bunchgrasses in prairie habitat are often utilized for seedling establishment and the vegetative spread of forbs.

Native upland prairies are low-growing plant communities dominated by bunchgrasses with open spaces occurring between plants (Wilson 1998b, p. 2). Spaces between bunchgrasses remain available for the vegetative spread of lupine and seedling establishment necessary for expanding population size and increasing population viability. Severns (in review, p. 10) documents that

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

natural germinants were found primarily growing in habitats with exposure to sunlight such as areas of bare ground and short grasses. In addition to providing space for population growth, larger prairie habitats provide opportunity for population expansion because the native grasses and forbs maintain the short-grass prairie stature and provide the full-sun conditions necessary for the species to grow and expand into surrounding habitat (Wilson 1998b, p. 2).

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

populations exhibit typical signs of inbreeding depression (a process that weakens plant fitness through repeated generations of inbreeding) such as low seed production, which is attributed to the small size and isolated nature of the species' current distribution (Severns 2003a, p. 221, 222; Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 75). Insect outcrossing pollination (the transfer of pollen from the flower of one plant to the flower of another plant of the same species) has been documented as important for the conservation of

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

(Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 72, 75). Since

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

is a long-lived perennial that can grow wider than 10 m across, and observations suggest that lupine patches are either one individual or a few closely related individuals (Severns 2003a, p. 225), successful outcrossing pollination will require large populations with many individuals or multiple plant patches of unrelated individuals that are functionally connected (

i.e.

, they are in close enough proximity that pollinators will move between the patches). The number of

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

patches occurring within a prairie remnant has been positively correlated with increased seed production, likely because larger populations have a higher density of floral displays and attract more pollinators (Severns 2003a, pp. 221, 222, 225). Since population size is important for visibility to pollinators and the successful reproduction of

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, increasing the size of existing populations will play a role in recovering this species (Severns 2003a, p. 226).

Habitat management for the conservation of

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

should include expanding the size of existing populations by augmenting them with individuals from other populations (Severns 2003a, p. 227). The prairie habitat occurring between existing lupine patches is necessary to provide space for augmentations intended to reduce the effects of inbreeding depression. Smaller distances between plant patches increase the likelihood of outcrossing as insect pollinators more readily travel among nearby patches to transfer pollen between individual plants. Therefore, the stepping-stone reserve design recommended for the Fender's blue butterfly will also benefit

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

by increasing opportunity for pollen transfer between existing plant patches and allowing current small populations to function together as larger ones (Severns 2003a, p. 227).

The

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

will benefit from conserved habitat across the historic range of the species, with populations larger than 0.25 ac (0.1 ha) of lupine cover and within 5 miles (8 km) of neighboring populations (Gisler

et al., in litt.

, 2005, pp. 6, 7). An area-based measurement is used for minimum patch size due to the difficulty of counting individual plants of this clonal species. The 5-mile (8-km) criterion is based on the maximum pollinating distance of the honeybee (

Apis mellifera

) (Beekman and Ratnieks 2000, p. 493; Steffan Dewenter and Kuhn 2003, p. 571), which is the pollinator with the greatest travel distance for

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

(Gisler

et al., in litt.

, 2005, p. 7). These criteria are expected to promote larger functioning metapopulations, with increased population sizes and genetic diversity, which in turn promote long-term population viability and species conservation.

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

Erigeron decumbens

var. decumbens populations are currently vulnerable to inbreeding depression throughout their range because they occur in small, isolated habitat patches (Jackson 1996, p. 88). Jackson (1996, p. 28) documents that conservation plans for the wet prairie habitat must emphasize connections, corridors, and large areas of contiguous habitat. Clark

et al.

(1993, p. 44) identified habitats critical for the conservation of

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

and recommends protecting sites harboring large populations of native plants, prairie habitat providing physical links between

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens populations

, and potential sites for restoration in order to reduce the current threats to survival.

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

populations are typically distributed in clumps scattered across the prairie habitat and dispersed among other prairie indicator species (Clark

et al.

1993, pp. 21, 22). Larger prairie remnants are more likely to provide the conditions necessary to support population growth because the native species composition maintains the light and open spaces between bunch grasses necessary for this species to persist and expand. Conservation measures necessary for maintaining and increasing the few remaining populations of

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

include promoting conditions for natural regeneration and possibly augmenting small populations with propagated individuals (Clark

et al.

1995b, p. 22). Open spaces between bunch grasses allow

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

to establish seedlings and vegetatively spread within a habitat patch. Larger prairie remnants provide the area necessary for planting propagated individuals and for natural regeneration.

Food

The Fender's blue butterfly uses

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

,

L. arbustus

(spurred lupine), and

L. albicaulis

(sickle-keeled lupine) as larval host plants. Adult Fender's blue butterflies require several forbs for nectar (Schultz and Dlugosch 1999, p. 232; Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 65). Examples of adult nectar sources include:

Allium acuminatum

(tapertip onion),

Allium amplectans

(narrowleaf onion),

Calochortus tolmiei

(Tolmie's mariposa lily),

Eriophyllum lanatum

(woolly sunflower),

Sidalcea campestris

(Meadow checkermallow),

Sidalcea virgata

(rose checker-mallow),

Vicia sativa

(common vetch), and

V. hirsuta

(tiny vetch) (Kaye

in litt.a

, p. 2) These exotic vetches (

V. sativa

and

V. hirsuta

) are heavily used at many sites but are considered a lower quality source of nectar (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 65).

Light

As previously described, all three species are early seral and occur in open areas. Willamette Valley grasslands have been described as a mixture of wet and upland prairie habitat and oak/savanna habitat having a relatively open canopy cover (Altman

et al.

2001, p. 261). These open areas were historically maintained by indigenous people who seasonally burned the land to facilitate hunting and gathering of food (Clark 2000, p. 3; Jackson 1996, pp. 11, 12). The fires prevented the widespread abundance of woody species and maintained the openness needed for early seral species to persist (Jackson 1996, p. 1; Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 79). Change in this historic disturbance regime has allowed shrubs and trees to invade many prairies and oak/savannas.

Populations of Fender's blue butterfly and

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

historically occurring in the oak/savannas were probably the first to be lost to succession and development. Most of the remaining populations were found in the valley floor prairies.

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

and many of the Fender's blue butterfly nectar sources do not tolerate decreases in available light resulting from dense canopy closure as prairies gradually grow into woodlands in the absence of disturbance (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 69).

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

typically occurs where woody cover is

nearly absent and where herbaceous vegetation cover is low in stature relative to the surrounding areas (Clark

et al.

1993, p. 22).

Native Willamette Valley prairies are predominantly low-stature communities with most plant foliage occurring within 8 inches (20 cm) of the soil, but with flowering stalks of some of the grasses reaching up to 59 inches (150 cm) in height (Wilson 1998a, p. 2, 1998b, p. 2). Maintaining the stature of the prairie habitat that surrounds the patches of

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

is important for the conservation of these species.

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

seedlings are more numerous in shortgrass prairie habitat without tall competing vegetation (Severns in review, p. 9). Shading, whether by native or non-native vegetation, is likely to hamper

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

seed germination and germinant survival, although reproducing plants may be able to persist in shaded conditions (Severns in review, p. 10, 11). The shortgrass prairie stature is also important for the conservation of the Fender's blue butterfly (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 69). This butterfly is more vigorous in the full sun of open habitats, which provide conditions that promote nectaring and ovipositioning (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 68).

As previously identified, populations of

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

occurring in Douglas County, Oregon, have been documented in atypical habitat for the species (Barnes 2004, p. 95). The Douglas County populations are in wooded areas dominated by

Pseudotsuga menziesii

(Douglas-fir),

Arbutus menziesii

(Pacific madrone), and other trees and shrubs (Barnes 2004, p. 102) with canopy cover ranging from 50 to 80 percent (Barnes 2004, p. 102). Because these populations represent the southern most extent of this species' range, they may be adapted to tolerate more extreme habitat and/or other environmental conditions.

Moisture

Plant communities in prairie ecosystems mainly vary due to the differences in moisture attributed to elevation, slope, and soil permeability (Jackson 1996, p. 9). The Willamette Valley prairies have been categorized into two habitat types, wet prairie and upland prairie (Jackson 1996, p. 9). The wet prairie habitat is defined as areas of low relief, with poor drainage and hydric, clayey soils (Jackson 1996, p. 9), dominated by bunchgrasses, most predominately

Deschampsia caespitosa

(Clark

et al.

1993, p. 18; Jackson 1996, pp. 9, 10). Jackson (1996, p. 9) describes the term “upland prairie” as misleading because the habitat largely occurs on the valley floor. A few upland prairie habitat patches occur on colluvium upland soils (

i.e.

, poorly sorted debris that has accumulated at the base of slopes, in depressions, or along small streams through gravity, soil creep, and local wash (Jackson 1996, p. 10)), but many occur on soils not considered upland, such as terraces, alluvium, and even floodplain soils (Clark

et al.

1993, p. 20; Jackson 1996, p. 10; Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 79). Although many of the habitat patches supporting the Fender's Blue Butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

occur on the valley floor, they have been characterized as “upland prairies” because of their drier conditions, which are attributed to better draining soils or local variations in topography (Jackson 1996, p. 10). This upland prairie habitat is typically characterized by the vegetation that thrives in these well-drained conditions (associated species previously identified) (Jackson 1996, p. 10).

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

grows in both wet and upland prairies. The populations in wet prairies tend to occur in the driest portions of the wet prairie habitat.

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

grows in the driest habitats in which

Deschampsia caespitosa

can grow, but prefers slightly dryer microsites where

D. caespitosa

is sparse (Clark

et al.

1993, p. 18).

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

populations occur predominately in upland prairie habitat with a few occurring in the transitional areas between wet and upland prairie habitats. The Fender's blue butterfly largely occurs in upland prairies; however, several adult nectar sources occur in wet prairies and are utilized by the butterfly when wet prairie patches are adjacent to lupine patches.

Reproduction

Fender's blue butterfly

Adult Fender's blue butterflies emerge in May and females lay their eggs on the underside of lupine leaves. The butterfly uses the following three lupine species as host plants for oviposition:

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

,

L. arbustus

, and

L. albicaulis

. A few weeks after oviposition, the eggs hatch and the larvae eat lupine leaves for a few weeks until the lupines senesce. After lupine senescence, the larvae enter an extended diapause that lasts until the following March. When the lupine plants resurface, the larvae emerge from the soil litter and begin eating the young lupine leaves until the larvae pupate in mid-April (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 64). Adult females likely lay up to 350 eggs (Schultz

et al.

2003, pp. 66, 67) over their estimated 15-day lifespan. Based on survivorship information (Schultz and Crone 1998, p. 247; Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 67), we estimate that of the 350 eggs, approximately 1.5 will survive to adulthood, indicating that Fender's blue butterfly survivorship is very low.

Native prairie composition, including short-stature grasses, provides the full sun conditions required for

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

plants to produce an abundance of leaves on which Fender's blue butterfly lays eggs. Invasive species often cover the lupine leaves, making it difficult for the butterfly to oviposit. Native nectar sources are of higher quality than non-native adult food sources, and butterfly populations dependent on low quality exotic vetches may spend more of their limited adult flight time nectaring, and less time ovipositioning (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 65).

Schultz and Crone (2001, pp. 1889-1890) found that Fender's blue butterfly population patterns are influenced by habitat patch size through residence time of female butterflies; butterflies emigrate from smaller patches more quickly than they do from larger patches. This directly influences the numbers and spatial distribution of eggs, and therefore the future number of butterflies. The tendency of the Fender's blue butterfly to quickly disperse from small, isolated lupine patches increases the risk they won't find another suitable oviposition site. This, in turn, reduces the total lifetime reproduction to well below the 350 egg maximum reported by Schultz

et al.

(2003, pp. 66, 67). Because Fender's blue butterflies only live for approximately 2 weeks, a change in residence time of even 1 day may markedly influence the distribution of eggs.

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

flowers possess a pump or piston arrangement for cross-pollination by insects, as is common in other lupines (Kaye 1999, p. 50). Pollination of

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

appears to be carried out by bees visiting the flowers; the relatively small flowers attract only small bees (Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 74). Several bee species have been documented commonly visiting

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

flowers, such as small bumblebees (

Bombus mixtus

and

B. californicus

) and the European honey bee (

Apis mellifera

). As described in Wilson

et al.

(2003, p. 75), insect pollination appears to be critical for successful seed production in

L.

sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

. The maturation of the flowers of

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

promotes outcrossing pollination because of the way they mature from the bottom of the inflorescence to the top (Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 75).

Inbreeding depression may limit the seed set and seed fitness of smaller lupine populations (Severns 2003a, p. 225; Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 75). Conserving

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

will likely require the outcrossing of populations by planting new individuals from different sources near existing populations, and increasing pollinator connectivity between existing populations (Severns 2003a, p. 227).

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

This species spreads vegetatively via rhizomes over short distances (about 4 inches (10 cm)) (Kaye 2000, p. 1) and the plants often grow in clumps, making it difficult to distinguish individuals. Sexual reproduction is facilitated by insect pollination. Pollinators include species such as the field crescent butterfly (

Phyciodes campestris

), sweat bees (Halictidae spp.), and a syrphid fly (

Toxomerous occidentalis

) (Jackson 1996, p. 81). Seeds are dispersed by wind, but over very short distances (Clark

et al.

1993, p. 33). Research indicates that scarification stimulates germination, but the mechanism for seed coat scarification (scoring of the seed coat) in the wild is unknown (Clark

et al.

1995b, pp. 14-15). Germination of

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

seeds occurs mostly in April and May (Clark

et al.

1997, p. 45) and flowering is concentrated in June and early July (Meinke 1982, p. 136).

Jackson (1996, p. 2) reports that remaining populations of

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

may be experiencing reproductive difficulties because they are extremely small and isolated from one another. Gene flow between individuals of a sexually-reproducing species is requisite for their persistence (Jackson 1996, pp. 2-3). Research results indicate that the

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

is at risk of inbreeding depression (Jackson 1996, p. 88). To reduce this risk and to conserve the species, it will likely be necessary to increase the number of habitat patches located in close proximity to one another such that functioning metapopulations are restored. This population arrangement increases the opportunities for insects to carry pollen between individual plants and increases the likelihood of reproductive success of

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

.

Areas Representative of the Historic Geographical and Ecological Distributions of a Species

Fender's blue butterfly

Conservation recommendations for the Fender's blue butterfly include having a reserve design with a minimum of two populations for each occupied county (eight total) so that a local back-up is always available in case of site extirpations (Hammond and Wilson 1993, p. 45). By maintaining viable metapopulations across the species' range, the distribution would be wide enough to buffer the species from catastrophes that may occur in portions of its range (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 68).

Recommendations for reserve design criteria for this species include preserving populations that occur under unique conditions, as distinct ecological segregates (Hammond and Wilson 1993, p. 45). Therefore, populations occurring in unique habitat conditions should be conserved across the range of the species. A few unique Fender's blue butterfly populations occur on valley hillsides, such as Coburg Ridge, but the vast majority of remaining sites occur on the valley floor under different habitat conditions (Hammond and Wilson 1993, p. 45). The unique habitat supporting these valley hillside populations appears to be stable climax grasslands due to the presence of deep, fine-textured, self-mulching soils or Ustic (very dry) lithosols (Franklin and Dyrness 1973, p. 119; Hammond 1994, p. 45).

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

populations in Douglas County, Oregon and Lewis County, Washington, represent the furthest southern and northern extent of the current range, respectively. These populations are highly disjunct and isolated from the Willamette Valley populations with approximately 81 miles (131 km) between the northernmost Willamette Valley population to the Lewis County, Washington population, and approximately 54 miles (87 km) separating Oregon's south Willamette Valley populations from the Douglas County populations.

The primary habitat for

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

is open upland prairie and meadow edges, often near oak trees with a relatively open canopy cover. Most of the Douglas County, Oregon, populations appear to tolerate more shaded habitat conditions with canopy cover of 50 to 80 percent (Barnes 2004, p. 102). Because these populations represent the southern-most extent of this species' range, they may be adapted to tolerate more extreme habitat or other environmental conditions. Therefore, conservation of

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

populations across their current range will require conservation of areas in Lewis County, Washington and Douglas County, Oregon, in addition to areas in the Willamette Valley, Oregon (Gisler

et al.

, in litt., 2005, pp. 3, 11; Robinson

et al.

,

in litt.

, 2005, pp. 2, 3).

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

occurs on wetland prairie dominated by

Deschampsia caespitosa.

It also occurs on a few upland prairie sites characterized by a mix of native and non-native bunchgrasses (Jackson 1996, p. 39; Clark 2000, p. 3). Because the species occurs in both wet prairie and upland prairie habitat, conservation of representative populations in both of these habitat types is important to its conservation. As previously described, the long-term persistence of small populations will likely depend on augmentation with propagated individuals (Clark

et al.

1995b, p. 23). Because there are very few surviving populations of

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

, and they occur in both wet and upland prairie habitats, population augmentations must be sensitive to geographic variation within the species.

Although it may be possible to reestablish functioning metapopulations across the range of the Fender's Blue Butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

, it is highly unlikely that these metapopulations will ever be reconnected because of the distance between existing populations in an extremely fragmented landscape. Each metapopulation will therefore need to be independently viable, supporting multiple populations to reduce the risk of localized extinction.

With so few remaining populations of each of these species, losing any one of the populations through a natural or human-caused event will measurably increase the likelihood of extinction for that species. For example, an accidental spraying of insecticide or herbicide on a Fender's blue butterfly and

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

population could eliminate the entire population of one or both species. Hammond (2001, pp. 3, 4 and 2002, pp. 3, 4) documents a substantial Fender's blue butterfly population decline in 1998 as the result of roadside herbicide spraying and bulldozer scraping throughout large portions of the habitat supporting a population in Yamhill County. Fortunately, this population is supported by three distinct lupine

patches, and only two of the patches were impacted. The butterflies from the third patch were able to re-colonize the impacted areas, and the Fender's blue butterfly population was able to recover by 2001 (Hammond 2002, pp. 3, 4). Although the likelihood of such an event is variable and difficult to predict, the extant small populations are at high risk of extirpation when they do occur.

Primary Constituents Elements for the Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known physical and biological features (primary constituent elements (PCEs)) essential to the conservation of the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens.

All areas designated as critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

are occupied, are within the species' historic geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one life history function.

Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined that the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

PCEs are as follows:

The PCEs for Fender's blue butterfly are:

(1) Early seral upland prairie, wet prairie, or oak savanna habitat with a mosaic of low-growing grasses and forbs, an absence of dense canopy vegetation, and undisturbed subsoils.

(2) Larval host plants

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

,

L. arbustus

, or

L. albicaulis

;

(3) Adult nectar sources, such as:

Allium acuminatum

(tapertip onion),

Allium amplectens

(narrowleaf onion),

Calochortus tolmiei

(Tolmie's mariposa lilly),

Camassia quamash

(small camas),

Cryptantha intermedia

(clearwater cryptantha), Eriophyllum lanatum (wooly sunflower),

Geranium oreganum

(Oregon geranium),

Iris tenax

(toughleaf iris),

Linum angustifolium

(pale flax),

Linum perenne

(blue flax), Sidalcea campestris (Meadow checkermallow), Sidalcea virgata (rose checker-mallow),

Vicia cracca

(bird vetch),

V. sativa

(common vetch), and

V. hirsute

(tiny vetch);

(4) Stepping-stone habitat, consisting of undeveloped open areas with the physical characteristics appropriate for supporting the short-stature prairie oak savanna plant community (well drained soils), within 1.2 miles (~2 km) of natal lupine patches.

The PCEs for

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

are:

(1) Early seral upland prairie, or oak savanna habitat with a mosaic of low-growing grasses and forbs, and spaces to establish seedlings or new vegetative growth; an absence of dense canopy vegetation; and undisturbed subsoils.

(2) The presence of insect outcrossing pollinators, such as

Bombus mixtus

and

B. californicus

, with unrestricted movement between existing lupine patches.

The PCE for

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

is:

(1) Early seral upland prairie, wet prairie, or oak savanna habitat with a mosaic of low-growing grasses and forbs, and spaces to establish seedlings or new vegetative growth; an absence of dense canopy vegetation; and undisturbed subsoils.

This designation is designed for the conservation of PCEs necessary to support the life history functions which were the basis for the proposal. Because not all life history functions require all the PCEs, not all critical habitat will contain all the PCEs.

Units are designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to support one or more of the species's life history functions. Some units contain all PCEs and support multiple life processes, while some units contain only a portion of the PCEs necessary to support the species' particular use of that habitat. Where a subset of the PCEs is present at the time of designation, this rule protects those PCEs and thus the conservation function of the habitat.

Methods

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available in determining areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens.

We reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of these species and evaluated all known species locations using data from the following sources—spatial data for known species locations from the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC 2004, entire data set), Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP 2005, entire data set), Corps (Corps 2004, entire data set), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM 2005, entire data set); United States Geological Survey (USGS 2000, data set for species range) 1:24,000 scale 3.75 digital orthophotographic quarter quadrangle images; recent biological surveys and reports; site-specific habitat evaluations (USFWS 2003a, pp. 1-34; USFWS 2004a, pp. 1-576, 2004c, pp. 1-7); data in reports submitted during section 7 consultations and by biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research published in peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses or reports; and discussions with species experts.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

We are designating critical habitat for specific areas that we have determined were occupied at the time of listing and that contain the primary constituent elements for Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens.

Prior to the critical habitat proposal, Fender's blue butterfly occupancy was recorded by simply reporting the location of occupied lupine patches (Schultz and Dlugosch 1999, pp. 231-232). However, as previously described, adult butterflies utilize a variety of prairie species in addition to the lupine habitat. As a result, the final listing rule under-represented the known range of the Fender's blue butterfly at the time of listing. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in the literature regarding how occupancy is documented. Often the occurrence data are presented by site; other times they are presented by population (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 62) or by documenting occupied prairie remnants (Schultz 1998, p. 284; Schultz 2001, p. 1008), and at least one publication interchanges populations and sites (Wilson

et al.

1997, p. 5). Furthermore, there is often an inconsistency in the number of populations that are reported since there is no defined convention for grouping sites into populations. For example, Severns (2003a, p. 222) documents 13 isolated populations based on Schultz's (1998, p. 286) discussion of isolated prairie remnants, while other documents identify 16 populations (Hammond 2004, p. 1; Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 62). For this critical habitat designation, we have identified prairie habitat supporting Fender's blue butterfly occurrences known at the time of listing, regardless of the presence or absence of lupine. In order to determine the extent of the area supporting these populations, we identified those areas within 1.2 miles (2 km) (Fender's blue butterfly average dispersal distance) that contain the

features essential to the conservation of this species.

To identify areas of habitat containing the features essential for the conservation of all three species, we selected areas that represent the current distribution of each species, are of sufficient quality (including size) to contribute to functioning metapopulations (including areas necessary for connectivity between populations), or that represent unique ecological conditions.

We selected occupied areas exhibiting the highest quality habitat by evaluating the following factors for each known occurrence—the presence of prairie indicator species, degree of habitat degradation (exotic species and succession to shrubs and trees), population size, and available surrounding prairie habitat to support population growth. Specifically, we selected occupied prairie habitat supporting a minimum of three prairie indicator species and providing adequate available habitat for population growth (surrounded by short-grass prairie habitat), and areas where habitat management activities would be effective at controlling threats (USFWS 2004a, entire data set; USFWS 2005, pp. 1-19).

We then selected areas that provide for population connectivity. As described in the Primary Constituent Elements section, connectivity is central to re-establishing functioning metapopulations for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

and to ensure their long-term persistence. For the Fender's blue butterfly, we evaluated areas providing the features essential to the conservation of the species within 1.2 miles (2 km) of the largest populations across the range of the species. For both

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

and

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

, we evaluated occupied areas within 5 miles (8 km) (estimated pollinating distance of the honeybee (

Apis mellifera

)) of the largest populations across the range of both species.

All areas occupied at the time of listing that support the PCEs were screened using the criteria below, and the results were used to delineate the habitat containing the features essential to the conservation of the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens:

(1) We used our best professional judgment to select prairie remnants supporting core populations distributed across their respective ranges. Based on site-specific evaluations completed during field verification of occurrence data (USFWS 2003a, pp. 1-34, 2004a, entire data set), and various scientific reports (Severns 2004, pp. 1-12; Hammond 2004, pp. 1-35; Fitzpatrick 2005, pp. 1-11; Kuykendall and Kaye 1993a, pp. 1-41 + append., 1993b, pp. 1-16 + append.; Clark

et al.

1993, pp. 1-55 + append.), core sites were identified as the largest, best-quality sites that significantly contribute to both local metapopulation function and rangewide distribution.

From the areas selected according to the above principles, we eliminated some areas from further consideration if (1) the area was degraded and unlikely to be restorable; and (2) the area was small, highly fragmented, or severely isolated so that it would provide little or no long-term conservation value. These sites may prove to be important in the future if new species occurrences are identified in their vicinity.

(2) In addition to habitat patches meeting criteria 1 above, we evaluated all prairie habitat in proximity to core populations. Specifically, these areas include habitat patches meeting the criteria below:

(a) For the Fender's blue butterfly, we selected areas providing the Primary Constituent Elements within 1.2 miles (2 km) of a core Fender's blue butterfly population. These areas generally occur adjacent to or between core Fender's blue butterfly populations.

(b) For

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

, we selected areas located within 5 miles (8 km) of core populations supporting at least 0.25 ac (0.1 ha) of plant cover (Gisler

et al.

,

in litt.

, 2005, pp. 6, 7), and occupied areas with enough surrounding prairie habitat to support 0.25 ac (0.1 ha) of plant cover;

(c) For

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens,

we selected areas located within 5 miles (8 km) of core populations supporting a minimum of 200 plants (Robinson

et al., in litt.,

2005, p. 4; Zwartjes,

in litt.,

2005, p. 2), and occupied areas with enough surrounding prairie habitat to support a minimum of 200 plants. Because we do not have plant counts for all populations, we used

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

average density information (Clark

et al.

1993, p. 23, 42 ) to estimate the area needed to support 200 plants, which equaled 0.6 ac (0.24 ha).

After screening prairie remnants using criteria 1 and 2 above, we completed a review of these areas to ensure populations occurring in atypical ecological settings were also included. Specifically, we determined that the selection criteria assured inclusion of Fender's blue butterfly populations occurring on valley hillsides that may be climax grasslands, and of

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

populations occurring on both wet and upland prairie habitats. Because selection criteria number 1 identified core populations across the range of each species, it inherently included

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

populations in Douglas County, Oregon, where plants tend to be more shade tolerant.

The PCEs were examined in combination with habitat maps, land use maps, aerial photographs, and occurrence data for populations meeting the above criteria, in order to identify the extent of prairie habitat supporting viable species occurrences. By working with local land managers and scientific experts familiar with the prairie habitat patches, we identified the prairie habitat boundaries for the occurrences meeting our criteria and digitized these prairie boundaries. We then asked the local land managers and scientific experts to review prairie boundary maps to ensure that only areas able to support the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

were included in our prairie boundaries. The proposed critical habitat units were delineated by overlaying extant species locations meeting criteria 1 and 2 above, and mapping prairie boundaries onto 2000 USGS 1:24,000-scale 3.75 orthophotographic quadrangle images. The mapped prairie boundaries formed the boundaries of critical habitat units.

When determining final critical habitat map boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as buildings, paved areas, and other structures that lack any PCEs for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens.

Any such structures and the land under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries of this final rule are excluded by text and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.

We designated critical habitat in areas that we determined were occupied at the time of listing, and that contain sufficient primary constituent elements (PCEs) to support life history functions essential for the conservation of the species. All units were designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to support Fender's blue butterflies,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

life

processes. Some units contained all PCEs and supported multiple life processes. Some segments contained only a single PCE necessary to support use of that habitat by Fender's blue butterfly,

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens.

A discussion of each area designated as critical habitat is provided in the unit descriptions below.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

When designating critical habitat, we determine whether areas occupied at the time of listing and containing the primary constituent elements may require special management considerations or protections.

Maintenance of open habitat conditions

Since most prairie habitat within the range of these species is early-seral, active management is necessary for the conservation of all populations of Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

that occur in the proposed units described below. Without active management or natural disturbance, many populations may be lost to habitat succession (Wilson 1998a, p. 15, 1998b, p. 13; Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 80) as trees and shrubs grow and outcompete early seral plants and shade or crowd out important early seral species such as

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii, E. decumbens

var.

decumbens,

and Fender's blue butterfly nectar sources. Left unmanaged, entire lupine populations in these early seral habitats may disappear (Wilson

et al.

2003, pp. 79, 80).

Fender's blue butterfly and

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

Fender's blue butterfly and

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

populations respond positively to habitat restoration. Mowing, burning, and mechanical removal of weeds, when done appropriately, have all been shown to benefit Fender's blue populations. At sites managed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Fender's blue butterfly and

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

populations increased following removal of noxious non-native plants such as

Rubus discolor

(Himalayan blackberry) and

Cytisus scoparius

(Scotch broom) (Fitzpatrick 2005, pp. 6, 7, 10, 11, 20). At Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge in western Oregon, Wilson and Clark (1997, p. 10, 11) studied the effects of controlled fire and mowing on the Fender's blue butterfly and its native upland prairie. Although fire killed all larvae in treated patches, nearby unburned (untreated) patches provided a source of female Fender's blue butterflies that were able to recolonize the entire burned (treated) area. Wilson and Clark (1997, pp. 10, 23) also found that in the year following mowing and burning treatments, Fender's blue butterfly eggs were 10 to 14 times more abundant in treated plots than in undisturbed control plots. Woody plants were reduced by 45 percent with burning and by 66 percent with mowing. At the Corps' Fern Ridge Reservoir, the Fender's blue population has increased dramatically since fall mowing of

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

patches has been implemented. The abundance of Fender's blue butterfly eggs and

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

has increased as blackberry bushes have been controlled in several test plots located on BLM lands in Eugene, Oregon (Kaye and Cramer 2003, p. 10). In general, Fender's blue butterfly egg abundance increased substantially at sites treated to control non-native weeds (Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 69).

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

Since periodic fire is believed to have historically maintained open prairie conditions, the use of prescribed burning as a maintenance tool has been investigated for restoring wet prairie habitats (Clark and Wilson 1998, p. 2). Studies investigating the effects of fire on

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

populations have been inconclusive as to whether fire promotes or inhibits populations (Wilson and Clark 1997, p. 1). Additionally, research efforts investigating the control of woody vegetation in wet prairies demonstrated that none of the treatments (fire, mowing, and hand removal of woody vegetation) proved to be more effective than the others (Clark and Wilson 2000, p. 2). Mowing with the removal of cut material increased the presence of non-native herbaceous species and should not be used as a management tool (Clark and Wilson 2000, p. 2). Because

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

does not tolerate the presence of woody vegetation, habitat management will be required for the long-term persistence of this species. Further investigation is needed to determine the most appropriate techniques for managing available habitat. Also, due to the low reproductive capability of the species, conservation of the

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens

will likely depend on artificially augmenting populations in areas where woody vegetation has been removed (Clark 2000, pp. 9-10).

Reduce Habitat Fragmentation and Increase Population Size

The Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

are at risk of inbreeding depression and site extirpation across their respective ranges because populations are small and isolated from one another (Jackson 1996, p. 6; Schultz

et al.

2003, p. 62, Severns 2003a, p. 222, 2003b, p. 334). All three species will benefit from reestablishing prairie plant patches in proximity to core populations.

Efforts have been made to establish stepping stones of lupine habitat between core Fender's blue butterfly populations occurring on BLM lands and Corps lands. A small patch of

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

planted in 2001, between two core Fender's blue butterfly populations, became occupied by the species during the 2004 field season (Severns 2004, pp. 7-8). While inconclusive, this observation provides evidence that Schultz's (1998, p. 291) recommended stepping-stone reserve design may allow for successful dispersal between populations (Severns 2004, p. 12). Restoration of a metapopulation structure is considered necessary to restore viable populations (McIntire

et al.

in review, p. 1).

McIntire et al. (in review, p. 1-47) completed a study to determine if fragmented prairie remnants near Eugene, Oregon, can be restored to a large functioning metapopulation that will persist over the long term. Several populations occur in this area but they are too far apart for the butterfly to disperse (greater than 1.2 miles (2 km)), and there are few intervening habitat patches. This study specifically looked at the conservation potential of restorable land located between the populations in a matrix of urban and agricultural land uses. Results of this study indicate that restoring existing prairie habitat to high quality may result in viable but unconnected populations unless habitat between populations is also reestablished.

Expanding

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

populations will require more investigation into the roles of sexual and vegetative reproduction of this species. If sexual reproduction proves to be most important for population recruitment, mangers will need to focus on strategies that promote flowering, seed production, and seedling establishment (Clark 2000, p. 9). However, if vegetative regeneration is predominant, managers will need to focus on activities that promote ramet (refers to individual plants in a

clump,

each portion of which is identical with the original parent plant) production (Clark 2000, p. 9). Clark et al. (1995b, pp. 22-23) found that vegetative propagation is a viable technique for

E. decumbens

var.

decumbens;

populations may also be increased by sowing seeds under appropriate conditions, although this technique appeared to be less effective than vegetative propagation.

Roadside, Power Right-of-Way, and Railroad Maintenance

Many remaining populations of Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp. kincaidii, and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

populations occur in road rights of ways and are adversely affected by maintenance activities such as mowing or spraying of herbicides at the wrong time of year. A few

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

populations along roads persist, likely because the routine maintenance provides open, full-sun conditions characteristic of

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

habitat.

Protection

Several

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

populations occur on private lands and consequently remain unprotected by existing state or Federal statutes, which do not protect listed plants on private lands (Wilson

et al.

2003, p. 72). Limited conservation of plant populations may be provided under programs administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, such as the Wetland Reserve Program. Current program rules prioritize disturbed agricultural lands over prairie remnant habitats; this limits the programs' ability to protect existing plant populations that typically do not occur in disturbed agricultural lands. Wilson

et al.

(2003, p. 80) concluded that, lacking statutory protection, many of the plant populations occurring on private lands will likely be lost to development, agriculture, and invasion of weeds.

The Fender's blue butterfly depends primarily on

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

as a larval food source and for egg laying (ovipositioning). When populations of

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

are destroyed, it also reduces the opportunity to expand existing Fender's blue butterfly populations.

Critical Habitat Designation

We are designating 13 units as critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly, 13 units for

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and 9 units for

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

(

see

Figure 1). The critical habitat areas described below represent our best assessment at this time of areas determined to be occupied at the time of listing, containing the primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the species, and that may require special management.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

ER31OC06.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Table 1 shows the lands being excluded from critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and Table 2 shows the approximate area designated as critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii,

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

by land ownership and State.

Table 1.—Approximate Area ac (ha) Excluded From Critical Habitat for the

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

Pursuant to Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Location

Area proposed for designation

Excluded area

Lewis County, Washington (Private lands excluded)

4 ac (1.6 ha)

1.8 ac (0.7 ha).

Douglas County, Oregon (All Federal and private lands excluded)

100.4 ac (40.6 ha)

100.4 ac (40.6 ha).

Table 2.—Approximate Area ac (ha) for Critical Habitat Units Designated for the Fender's blue butterfly (FBB),

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

Kincaidii

(KL), and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

(WD)

Unit

Federal

State

County/city

Private

Total

FBB-1

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

20.3 (8.2)

20.3 (8.2)

FBB-2

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

51 (20.6)

51 (20.6)

FBB-3

0 (0)

2.5 (1)

0 (0)

1.1 (0.5)

3.6 (1.5)

FBB-4

628.6 (254.4)

0 (0)

0 (0)

535.8 (216.8)

1,164.4 (471.2)

FBB-5

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

12.3 (5)

12.3 (5)

FBB-6

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

18.3 (7.4)

18.3 (7.4)

FBB-7

0 (0)

1.8 (0.7)

0 (0)

9.7 (3.9)

11.5 (4.6)

FBB-8

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

716.7 (290)

716.7 (290)

FBB-9

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

48.5 (19.6)

48.5 (19.6)

FBB-10

307.8 (124.5)

0 (0)

17.8 (7.2)

161.8 (65.5)

487.4 (197.2)

FBB-11

175.7 (71.1)

2.5 (1)

13.9 (5.6)

36.7 (14.9)

228.8 (92.6)

FBB-12

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

114.4 (46.3)

114.4 (46.3)

FBB-13

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

132.5 (53.6)

132.5 (53.6)

Total

1,112 (450)

6.8 (2.8)

31.7 (12.8)

1,859.1 (752.4)

3,009.7 (1,218)

KL-1

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

4 (1.6)

4 (1.6)

KL-2

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

20.4 (8.2)

20.4 (8.2)

KL-3

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

51 (20.6)

51 (20.6)

KL-4

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

68.6 (27.8)

68.6 (27.8)

KL-5

0 (0)

1.7 (0.7)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1.7 (0.7)

KL-6

0 (0)

2.5 (1)

0 (0)

1.1 (0.5)

3.6 (1.5)

KL-7

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

12.3 (5)

12.3 (5)

KL-8

0 (0)

1.8 (0.7)

0 (0)

9.7 (3.9)

11.5 (4.6)

KL-9

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

171.6 (69.4)

171.6 (69.4)

KL-10

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

17.9 (7.2)

17.9 (7.2)

KL-11

56.6 (22.9)

0 (0)

0.5 (0.2)

7.5 (3.1)

64.6 (26.2)

KL-12

21.5 (8.7)

0 (0)

0 (0)

119.7 (48.4)

141.2 (57.1)

KL-13

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

16.2 (6.6)

16.2 (6.6)

Total

78.1 (31.6)

6 (2.4)

0.5 (0.2)

500 (202.3)

584.6 (236.5)

WD-1

41.2 (16.7)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

41.2 (16.7)

WD-2

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

12.2 (4.9)

12.2 (4.9)

WD-3

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

58.3 (23.6)

58.3 (23.6)

WD-4

0 (0)

0 (0)

5.8 (2.3)

3.5 (1.4)

9.3 (3.8)

WD-5

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

38.5 (15.6)

38.5 (15.6)

WD-6

77.1 (31.2)

0 (0)

0 (0)

8.4 (3.4)

85.4 (34.6)

WD-7

128.3 (51.9)

6 (2.4)

0 (0)

31.4 (12.7)

165.7 (67.1)

WD-8

77.6 (31.4)

0 (0)

0.5 (0.2)

135.1 (54.7)

213.2 (86.3)

WD-9

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

94.1 (38.1)

94.1 (38.1)

Total

324.2 (131.2)

6 (2.4)

6.3 (2.5)

381.5 (154.4)

718 (290.7)

We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii,

and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens,

below.

Fender's blue butterfly

In total, we are designating 13 critical habitat units, each of which represents areas of habitat containing the features essential to the conservation of existing core populations of Fender's blue butterfly throughout its range. Each unit was occupied at the time of listing, and each unit represents a population that is currently isolated from other populations. To simplify unit descriptions, we have grouped units that with proper management and restoration, and may function as larger connected metapopulations.

Unit 1 for Fender's blue butterfly (Units FBB-1A and 1B)

Units FBB-1A and 1B encompass approximately 6.2 ac (2.5 ha) and 14.1 ac (5.7 ha), respectively, of private land occurring within northern Yamhill County and within the Oak Ridge habitat network. The Oak Ridge butterfly population is supported by three separate habitat patches, and the population has been monitored annually since 1993 (Hammond 2004, pp. 1, 3). The population has become much larger over the last 3 years, with an estimated 259 butterflies in 2004 (Hammond 2004, pp. 3, 34). FBB-1A represents the northernmost known occupied habitat patch in the current range of Fender's blue butterfly, and occurs along both the east and west sides of Oak Creek Road. FBB-1B is located approximately 0.7 miles (1.1 km) south of FBB-1A along both the east and west sides of Oak Creek Road, near the junction with Fairdale Road. The prairie habitat within FBB-1A and FBB-1B contains the PCEs essential to the conservation of this core population.

In recent years the Oak Ridge butterfly metapopulation has been evenly distributed among the three lupine patches. However, 10 years of monitoring reports for this population indicate that the number of individuals supported by each habitat patch has increased and decreased annually, with one habitat patch disproportionately supporting the population each year. The population fluctuations documented at these sites are attributed to roadside maintenance and presence of invasive species (Hammond 2002, pp. 3, 4; Hammond 2004, pp. 5, 33). The overall population has remained relatively stable, likely because its distribution among the three habitat patches provides opportunity for recolonization of impacted habitat patches (Hammond 2004, pp. 4-5). The prairie habitat within and between FBB-1A and 1B should be managed to allow for growth and expansion of this relatively small population in order to achieve and maintain the population.

Unit 1 for Fender's blue butterfly contains habitat features that are essential to the continued persistence of the species' core population throughout its range. Establishing stepping-stone habitat between FBB-1A and 1B will contribute to a more connected functioning metapopulation. However, at this time we do not have enough information to identify additional potential habitat for population expansion that may be necessary to meet delisting criteria. The habitat identified in FBB-1A and 1B has the features essential to the conservation of Fender's blue butterfly; has one of the largest remaining Fender's blue butterfly metapopulations; supports the butterfly's primary host plant,

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii;

occurs at the northernmost extent of the species' range (Hammond 2004, p. 5); and is surrounded by prairie habitat available for population expansion.

Unit 2 for Fender's blue butterfly (Unit FBB-2)

Unit FBB-2 consists of approximately 51 ac (20.6 ha) of private lands within southern Yamhill County. The Gopher Valley butterfly population has been monitored annually since 1995 (Hammond 2004, p. 7), and has remained stable with a relatively low number of individuals consistently being reported (compared to other stable populations) (Hammond 2004, p. 35). The

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

habitat supporting this population occurs in two habitat patches scattered along the east and west sides of Gopher Valley Road. The largest distance separating lupine patches is approximately 0.12 miles (0.2 km). This population is threatened by the limited availability of nectar sources, presence of invasive species, and roadside maintenance activities.

With proper management of the prairie habitat surrounding the population located within the FBB-2 unit boundary, the habitat provides opportunities for population growth and expansion of both Fender's blue butterfly and

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii.

Unit FBB-2 provides ease of Fender's blue butterfly movement between lupine habitat patches, and to all the features essential to the conservation of the species. Given the increased size of the lupine patch at the Deer Creek Park site (Hammond 2005, p. 8), this area will substantially contribute to the conservation of the Fender's blue butterfly. The habitat in FBB-2 has the features essential to the conservation of Fender's blue butterfly; one of the largest remaining Fender's blue butterfly populations in this portion of the butterfly's range; supports one of Fender's blue butterfly's primary host plants; provides the foundation for the existence of the species in this portion of its range; and has surrounding prairie habitat available for population expansion. In addition, Hammond (2005, pp. 8, 9) identified an expanding

L. sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

population at Deer Creek Park that now supports Fender's blue butterfly, increasing the size and long-term viability of this metapopulation.

Unit 3 for Fender's blue butterfly (Unit FBB-3)

Unit FBB-3 encompasses approximately 3.6 ac (1.5 ha) of primarily State-owned lands within northern Polk County. The Mill Creek butterfly population has been monitored annually since 1993 (Hammond 1993, pp. 18, 24; Hammond 2004, pp. 9, 10) and the overall number of individuals has increased over the past 3 years (Hammond 2004, p. 10). The lupine habitat supporting this population occurs in two patches scattered along the northeast and southwest sides of Highway 22, near the intersection with Mill Creek Road. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) owns most of the habitat supporting this population. Hammond (2004, p. 10) documented the threats to this unit as largely the presence of invasive grasses and shrubs that have overgrown the habitat, suppressing the lupine and

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

populations occupying this prairie remnant.

Habitat management activities implemented by ODOT in 2000 resulted in a large growth flush of

Lupinus sulphureus

ssp.

kincaidii

and an increased number of Fender's blue butterflies. This demonstrates that appropriate management of this site can provide for population growth and expansion. The habitat in unit FBB-3 supports the butterfly's primary host plant; the Fender's blue butterfly population size has been increasing over the last few years.

Unit 4 for Fender's blue butterfly (Units FBB-4A and 4B)

Units FBB-4A and 4B encompass approximately 748.4 ac (302.9 ha) and 416.1 ac (168.4 ha), respectively, of private and Federal land occurring within northern Polk County. Units FBB-4A and 4B are located adjacent to Highway 22 approximately 5.5 miles (8.8 km) northeast of the City of Dallas. An estimated 64 percent of the habitat encompassed within Unit FBB-4 occurs within the boundaries of the Service's Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) and approximately 36 percent of the prairie habitat occurs on adjacent private lands. Refuge biologists have documented the occurrence of the PCEs throughout the habitat within FBB-4A and 4B and also the Fender's blue butterfly's utilization of these areas (USFWS 2005, Smith,

in litt.

a, pp. 2, 3).

Many of the populations occurring in FBB-4A have been monitored annually since 1993 (Hammond 2004, p. 17), and the populations occupy ten separate patches of

Lupinus arbustus

which are

scattered across the unit. Between 1993 and 2001, habitat conditions steadily declined in many areas due to encroachment of grasses and brush in the upland prairie habitat (Hammond 2004, p. 18). Such habitat conditions adversely impacted not only the Fender's blue butterfly but also the population of

Erigeron decumbens

var.

decumbens

supported within FBB-4A. Recent survey results indicate that this metapopulation increased dramatically in size during 2003-2004 (Hammond 2004, p. 18). The total population size was estimated at 223 individuals in 2001 and approximately 1,368 individuals in 2004.

Unit FBB-4B is located approximately 0.12 miles (0.2 km) from FBB-4A with predominately agricultural lands occurring between the areas supporting this metapopulation. Unit FBB-4 (FBB-4A and 4B) supports the largest known Fender's blue butterfly metapopulation and the largest contiguous occupied prairie patch in the range of the species. This relatively large, contiguous prairie habitat is one of a few occupied remnants occurring on valley hillsides; most remaining populations occur on the valley floor. The open nature of the lands occurring between FBB-4A and 4B increases the potential for individuals to successfully disperse among habitat patches. The habitat in this unit has the features essential to the conserv

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.