Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked Horned Lark and Designation of Critical Habitat, 61937-62058 [2012-24465]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 77
Thursday,
No. 197
October 11, 2012
Part IV
Department of the Interior
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Taylor’s
Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked Horned Lark and Designation of
Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61938
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R1–ES–2012–0080; 4500030113]
RIN 1018–AY18
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Listing Taylor’s
Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked
Horned Lark and Designation of
Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, propose to list the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly as an
endangered species, and to list the
streaked horned lark as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We
additionally propose to designate
critical habitat for these species. These
determinations fulfill our obligations
under a settlement agreement. These are
proposed regulations, and if finalized,
the effect of these regulations will be to
add these species to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and to designate critical habitat under
the Endangered Species Act.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
SUMMARY:
December 10, 2012. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 26,
2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2012–
0080, which is the docket number for
this rulemaking. You may submit a
comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment
Now!’’.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–ES–2012–
0080; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both
from which the critical habitat maps are
generated are included in the
administrative record for this
rulemaking and are available at https://
www.fws.gov/wafwo/,
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
[FWS–R1–ES–2012–0080], and at the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Any additional tools or supporting
information that we may develop for
this rulemaking will also be available at
the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site
and Field Office set out above, and may
also be included in the preamble and/
or at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
S. Berg, Manager, Washington Fish and
Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive,
Lacey, WA 98503, by telephone (360)
753–9440, or by facsimile (360) 534–
9331. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Endangered Species Act (Act), a
species may warrant protection through
listing if it is an endangered or
threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The
species addressed in these proposed
rules are candidates for listing and, by
virtue of a settlement agreement, we
must make a determination as to their
present status under the Act. These
status changes can only be done by
issuing a rulemaking. The table below
summarizes our determination for each
of these candidate species:
Present range
Taylor’s
checkerspot
butterfly,
Euphydryas editha taylori.
Streaked horned lark, Eremophila
alpestris strigata.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Species
British Columbia, Canada; Clallam, Pierce, and Thurston Counties, WA; and
Benton County, OR.
Grays Harbor, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, Thurston, Cowlitz, and Wahkiakum
Counties, WA; Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Lane, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill Counties, OR.
The basis for our action. Under the
Endangered Species Act, we may
determine that a species is an
endangered or threatened species based
on any of five factors: (A) The present
or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
For those species for which we are
proposing listing, we have determined
that these species are impacted by one
or more of the following factors to the
extent that the species meets the
definition of an endangered or
threatened species under the Act:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
• Habitat loss through conversion and
degradation of habitat, particularly from
agricultural and urban development,
successional changes to grassland
habitat, military training, and the spread
of invasive plants;
• Predation;
• Inadequate existing regulatory
mechanisms that allow significant
threats such as habitat loss;
• Other natural or manmade factors,
including low genetic diversity, small or
isolated populations, low reproductive
success, and declining population sizes;
• Aircraft strikes and training at
airports; and
• Pesticide use or control as a pest
species.
In this rule we propose to designate
critical habitat for these species. We are
proposing to designate critical habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Status
Proposed Endangered.
Proposed Threatened.
for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
and streaked horned lark in Washington
and Oregon as follows:
• Approximately 6,875 acres (ac)
(2,782 hectares (ha)) are proposed for
designation as critical habitat for the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.
• Approximately 12,159 ac (4,920 ha)
are proposed for designation as critical
habitat for the streaked horned lark.
The basis for our action. Under the
Endangered Species Act, we are
required to designate critical habitat for
any species that is determined to be
endangered or threatened. We are
required to base the designation on the
best available scientific data after taking
into consideration economic, national
security, and other relevant impacts. An
area may be excluded from the final
designation of critical habitat if the
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation, unless the
exclusion will result in the extinction of
the species.
We are proposing to promulgate
special rules. We are considering
whether to exempt from the Act’s take
prohibitions (at section 9), existing
maintenance activities and agricultural
practices located on private and Tribal
lands where the streaked horned lark
occurs. The intent of this special rule
would be to increase support for the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
and provide an incentive for continued
management activities that benefit this
species and its habitat.
We are preparing an economic
analysis. To ensure that we fully
consider the economic impacts, we are
preparing a draft economic analysis of
the proposed designations of critical
habitat. We will publish an
announcement and seek public
comments on the draft economic
analysis when it is completed.
We will seek peer review. We are
seeking comments from knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise to
review our technical assumptions,
analysis of the best available science,
and application of that science or to
provide any additional scientific
information to improve these proposed
rules. Because we will consider all
comments and information received
during the comment period, our final
determinations may differ from this
proposal.
We are seeking public comment on
this proposed rule. Anyone is welcome
to comment on our proposal or provide
additional information on the proposal
that we can use in making a final
determination on the status of this
species. Please submit your comments
and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. Within 1 year
following the publication of this
proposal, we will publish in the Federal
Register a final determination
concerning the listing of the species and
the designation of its critical habitat or
withdraw the proposal if new
information is provided that supports
that decision.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule will be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The species’ biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat or
both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species under section 4(a) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to this species
and existing regulations that may be
addressing those threats;
(4) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of this
species, including the locations of any
additional populations of this species;
(5) Any information on the biological
or ecological requirements of the
species, and ongoing conservation
measures for the species and its habitat;
(6) The reasons why we should or
should not designate areas as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether
there are threats to any of these species
from human activity, the degree of
which can be expected to increase due
to the designation, and whether that
increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation
of critical habitat may not be prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of
habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark;
(b) What areas that were occupied at
the time of listing (or are currently
occupied) and that contain features
essential to the conservation of the
species should be included in the
designation and why;
(c) Special management
considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are
proposing; and
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61939
(d) What areas not occupied at the
time of listing are essential for the
conservation of the species and why.
(8) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(9) Information on the projected and
reasonably likely impacts of climate
change on the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark, and
on proposed critical habitat.
(10) Any probable economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any area that may be
included in the final designation; in
particular, any impacts on small entities
or families, and the benefits of including
or excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are
proposing for critical habitat
designation should be considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, and whether the benefits of
potentially excluding any specific area
outweigh the benefits of including that
area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(12) Additional information
pertaining to the promulgation of a
special rule to exempt take of the
streaked horned lark on civilian
airports, agricultural fields, and tribal
lands under section 4(d) of the Act.
(13) Whether any populations of the
streaked horned lark should be
considered separately for listing as a
distinct population segment (DPS), and
if so, the justification for how that
population meets the criteria for a DPS
under the Service’s Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments under the
Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996).
(14) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ‘‘solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We request that you
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61940
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
send comments only by the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov. Please
include sufficient information with your
comments to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial information
you include.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Previous Federal Actions
Candidate History
We first identified the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and the streaked
horned lark as candidates for listing in
the 2001 Notice of Review of Native
Species that are Candidates for Listing
as Endangered or Threatened (CNOR)
(USFWS 2001). All candidate species
are assigned listing priority numbers
(LPN) that are based on the immediacy
and magnitude of threats and taxonomic
status. In 2001, both of these species
were assigned an LPN of 6, which
reflects threats of a high magnitude that
are not considered imminent.
In 2004, based on new information,
we determined that the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly faced imminent
threats of a high magnitude and
reassigned it an LPN of 3 (69 FR 24876;
May 4, 2004). In 2006, the streaked
horned lark was also reassigned an LPN
of 3. During our review we determined
that the continued loss of suitable lark
habitat, risks to the wintering
populations; and plans for development,
hazing, and military training activities
(71 FR 53755; September 12, 2006) were
imminent threats to the subspecies. The
candidate status for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark was most recently
reaffirmed in the October 26, 2011,
CNOR (USFWS 2011). The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service)
completed action plans for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
horned lark and set conservation targets
and identified actions to achieve those
targets over the next 5 years. These
plans can be found on the Service’s Web
site at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/
action_plans/doc3089.pdf (Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly) and https://
www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/
STHL_Action%20Plan_Sept2009.pdf
(streaked horned lark).
Petition History
In 2001, we developed internal,
discretionary candidate assessment
documents for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark.
These candidate assessments were
published in the Federal Register on
October 30, 2001 (USFWS 2001). On
December 10, 2002, we received two
separate petitions for these species. The
first was from the Xerces Society, Center
for Biological Diversity, Oregon Natural
Resources Council, Friends of the San
Juans, and Northwest Ecosystem
Alliance to list the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly (also known as ‘‘whulge
checkerspot’’) (Euphydryas editha
taylori) as endangered. The petitioners
requested that critical habitat be
designated. We also received a petition
from the Center for Biological Diversity,
Friends of the San Juans, Oregon
Natural Resources Council, and
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance
requesting that we list the streaked
horned lark (Eremophila alpestris
strigata) as endangered and designate
critical habitat concurrent with the
listing. Because the Service had already
determined that these species warranted
listing and placed them on the
candidate list in 2001, we have been
evaluating these species as resubmitted
petition findings on an annual basis. On
July 12, 2011, the Service filed a
multiyear work plan as part of a
proposed settlement agreement with the
Center for Biological Diversity and
others, in a consolidated case in the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Columbia. The settlement agreement
was approved by the court on
September 9, 2011, and will enable the
Service to systematically review and
address the conservation needs of more
than 250 candidate species, over a
period of 6 years, including the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark. These proposed rules
fulfill, in part, the terms of that
settlement agreement.
Background
We discuss below only those topics
directly relevant to the proposed listing
of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
the streaked horned lark in this section
of the proposed rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Species Information—Taylor’s
Checkerspot Butterfly
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies are
medium-sized, colorfully marked
butterflies with a checkerboard pattern
on the upper (dorsal) side of the wings
(Pyle 2002, p. 310). They are orange
with black and yellowish (or white) spot
bands, giving a checkered appearance
(Pyle 1981, p. 607; Pyle 2002, p. 310).
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were
historically known to occur in British
Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, and
current distribution has been reduced
from over 80 locations rangewide to 14.
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies produce
one brood per year. They overwinter
(diapause) in the fourth or fifth larval
instar (developmental) phase and have a
flight period as adults of 10 to 14 days,
usually in May, although depending on
local site and climatic conditions, the
flight period begins in late April and
extends into early July, as in Oregon,
where the flight season may last for up
to 45 days (Ross 2008, p. 2).
Taxonomy
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is a
subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot
butterfly (Euphydryas editha). The
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was
originally described by W.H. Edwards
(1888) from specimens collected from
Beacon Hill Park in Victoria, British
Columbia (BC). Euphydryas editha
taylori is recognized as a valid
subspecies by the Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS 2012a). It is
one of several rare and threatened
subspecies, including the Bay
checkerspot (E. e. bayensis) from the
San Francisco Bay area and the Quino
checkerspot (E. e. quino) from the San
Diego, California, region; both are
federally listed as endangered species.
Several other subspecies of Euphydryas
editha are known to occur in
Washington and Oregon, including
Bean’s checkerspot (E. e. beani) known
from the north Cascades of Washington;
Strand’s checkerspot (E. e. edithana) in
the foothills of the Columbia Basin,
including the low hills of the Blue
Mountains in Washington and the
Wallowa Mountains in Oregon,
primarily east of where other subspecies
are known; and Colonia checkerspot (E.
e. colonia) known from high-elevation
sites of the Olympic Peninsula and the
Cascades of Washington and Oregon
from the Wenatchee Mountains in
Washington to the Siskiyou Mountains
in Oregon.
Habitat and Life History
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
occupy open habitat dominated by
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
grassland vegetation throughout their
range. In Washington, Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies inhabit glacial
outwash prairies in the south Puget
Sound region; shallow-soil balds (a bald
is a small opening on slopes in a treeless
area, dominated by herbaceous
vegetation) (Chappell 2006 p. 1) and
grasses, within a forested landscape,
roadsides, and former clear-cut areas
within a forested matrix on the
northeast Olympic Peninsula, and a
coastal stabilized dune site near the
Straits of Juan de Fuca (Stinson 2005,
pp. 93–96). The two Oregon sites are
found in the vicinity of Corvallis,
Benton County, on grassland hills in the
Willamette Valley (Vaughan and Black
2002, p. 7; Ross 2008, p. 1; Benton
County 2010, Appendix N, p. 5). The
recently discovered population on
Denman Island in Canada (for details,
see Current Range and Distribution,
below), discovered in May 2005,
occupies an area that had been clear-cut
harvested, and is now dominated by,
and maintained as, grass and forb
vegetation. This is the first record for
the species in British Columbia since
1998 (Heron 2008, pers. comm.; Page et
al. 2009, p. 1). In British Columbia,
Canada, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
were historically known to occupy
coastal grassland habitat, not forests that
were converted to early successional
conditions by clear-cutting, on
Vancouver Island and nearby islands.
Female Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies and their larvae utilize plants
that contain defensive chemicals known
as iridoid glycosides, which have been
recognized to influence the selection of
oviposition sites by adult nymphalid
butterflies (butterflies in the family
Nymphalidae) (Murphy et al. 2004, p.
22; Page et al. 2009, p. 2), and function
as a feeding stimulant for some
checkerspot larvae (Kuussaari et al.
2004, p. 147). As maturing larvae feed,
they accumulate these defensive
chemical compounds from their larval
host plants into their bodies. According
to the work of Bowers (1981, pp. 373–
374), this accumulation appears to deter
predation. These larval host plants
include members of the Broomrape
family (Orobanchaceae), such as
Castilleja (paintbrushes) and
Orthocarpus = Tryphysaria (owl’s
clover), and native and nonnative
Plantago species, which are members of
the Plantain family (Plantaginaceae)
(Pyle 2002, p. 311; Vaughan and Black
2002, p. 8). The recent rediscovery in
2005 of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
in Canada indicated that additional food
plants (Veronica serpyllifolia (thymeleaf
speedwell) and V. beccabunga ssp.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Americana (American speedwell)) were
being utilized by Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly larvae (Heron 2008, pers.
comm.; Page et al. 2009, p. 2). Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly larvae had
previously been confirmed feeding on
Plantago lanceolata (narrow-leaf
plantain) and P. maritime (sea plantain)
in British Columbia (Guppy and
Shepard 2001, p. 311), narrow-leaf
plantain and Castilleja hispida (harsh
paintbrush) in Washington (Char and
Boersma 1995, p. 29; Pyle 2002, p. 311;
Severns and Grosboll 2011, p. 4), and
feed exclusively on narrow-leaf plantain
in Oregon (Dornfeld 1980, p. 73; Ross
2008, pers. comm.; Severns and Warren
2008, p. 476). Dr. Robert Michael Pyle
has speculated that Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly larvae likely fed upon the
threatened Castilleja levisecta (golden
paintbrush) in historical times when
both species were more widespread and
sympatric (overlapped) in their
distribution (Pyle 2002, p. 311; Pyle
2007, pers. comm.).
Historical Range and Distribution
Historically, Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly was likely distributed
throughout grassland habitat found on
prairies, shallow-soil balds, grassland
bluffs, and grassland openings within a
forested matrix in south Vancouver
Island, northern Olympic Peninsula, the
Puget Sound, and the Willamette Valley.
The historical range and abundance of
the species are not precisely known
because extensive searches for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly did not occur until
recently. Northwest prairies were
formerly more common, larger, and
interconnected, and would likely have
supported a greater distribution and
abundance of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies than prairie habitat does
today. According to Pyle (2012, in litt.):
‘‘Euphydryas editha taylori was previously
more widely distributed and much denser in
occurrence than is presently the case on the
Puget Prairies. The checkerspot was
abundant on the Mima Mounds National
Area Preserve (NAP) and surrounding
prairies in 1970. In the mid-eighties, the
butterflies flew by the thousands on Rock
Prairie, a private farm property west of
Tenino. All of these sites have since been
rendered unsuitable for E. e. taylori through
management changes, and the butterfly has
dropped out of them; meanwhile, many other
colonies have disappeared in their vicinity
through outright development or conversion
of the habitat. The same is true for bluff-top
colonies I knew in the early ’70s at
Dungeness. The ongoing loss and alteration
of habitat in the western Washington
grasslands has without question led to the
shrinkage of Taylor’s checkerspot
occurrences from a regional constellation to
a few small clusters.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61941
Before recent declines over roughly
the last 10 or 15 years the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly was known from
an estimated 80 locations: 24 in British
Columbia, 43 in Washington, and 13 in
Oregon (Hinchliff 1996, p. 115; Shepard
2000, pp. 25–26; Vaughan and Black
2002, p. 6; Stinson 2005, pp. 93–96,
123–124). These sites included coastal
and inland prairies on southern
Vancouver Island and surrounding
islands in the Straits of Georgia, British
Columbia and the San Juan Island
archipelago (Hinchliff 1996, p. 115; Pyle
2002, p. 311), as well as open prairies
on post-glacial gravelly outwash and
shallow-soil balds in Washington’s
Puget Trough (Potter 2010, p. 1), the
north Olympic Peninsula (Holtrop 2010,
p. 1), and grassland habitat within a
forested matrix in Oregon’s Willamette
Valley (Benton County 2010, Appendix
N, p. 5).
The 1949 field season summary for
North American lepidoptera (Hopfinger
1949, p. 89) states that an abundant
distribution of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly was known from the south
Puget Sound prairies: ‘‘Euphydryas
editha (taylori), as usual, appeared by
the thousands on Tenino Prairie.’’ By
1989, Pyle (p. 170) had reported that
there were fewer than 15 populations
remaining rangewide. Surveys in 2001
and 2002 of the three historical
locations on Hornby Island, British
Columbia, failed to detect any Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies; the last
observation of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly from this location was 1995
(Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2011, p.
15). By fall 2002, only six populations
were known to occur rangewide, four
from the south Puget Sound region in
Washington, one from San Juan County,
Washington, and one from the
Willamette Valley of Oregon (USFWS
2002a).
Current Range and Distribution
Based on historical and current data,
the distribution and abundance of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have
declined significantly rangewide with
the majority of local extirpations
occurring from approximately the mid1990s in Canada (COSEWIC 2011, p.
15), 1999–2004 in south Puget Sound,
and around 2006 at the Bald Hills
location. Several new locations
harboring Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies have been rediscovered on
historical sites on Washington
Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) lands (USFWS 2004, pp. 3–4;
USFWS 2007, p. 5) and have also been
found at new locations on natural and
manipulated balds within the upper
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61942
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Dungeness River watershed in
Washington. Currently 13 individual
populations of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies are known to occur; these
populations are distributed in British
Columbia, Canada (1), Washington (10),
and Oregon (2).
Nearly all localities for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies in British
Columbia have been lost; the only
location currently known from British
Columbia was discovered in 2005
(COSEWIC 2011, p. iv). In Oregon,
although many surveys have been
conducted at a variety of historical and
potential locations within the
Willamette Valley, many of those have
failed to detect the species; the number
of locations occupied by Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies has declined
from 13 to 2 (Ross 2011, in litt., p. 1).
In Washington State, more than 43
historical locales were documented for
Taylor’s. In 2012, we have 11
documented locations for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies with only 1 of
the localities harboring more than 1,000
individuals, and the majority of known
sites have daily counts of fewer than
100 individual butterflies.
Due to the limited distribution and
few populations of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly, surveys for this species are
quite thorough, generally consisting of a
minimum of 3 days of visits during the
flight period, and occasionally
numbering up to 10 or 12 days of
counts. Multiple days of counts during
the annual flight period greatly
increases the reliability of abundance
data for butterflies, thus we believe the
data on numbers of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies to be highly reliable.
Canada
After years of surveys (2001 through
2004) at historical population sites in
British Columbia that failed to detect
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
(COSEWIC 2011, pp. 15–16), a
population was discovered on Denman
Island in 2005. Denman Island is
located approximately 106 miles (170
km) north of Victoria, British Columbia,
along the eastern shores of Vancouver
Island in the Straits of Georgia. Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly records from
British Columbia date from 1888
through 2011, when the last survey was
conducted. Surveys are regularly
conducted on Vancouver Island and
other historical locations (Page et al.
2009, p. iv). In 2008, a single Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly was detected on
Vancouver Island in the CourtneyComox area, where they had not been
observed since 1931 (COSEWIC 2011,
pp. 15–16). Additional surveys were
conducted at this location and only the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
single butterfly was observed. It is likely
that this single adult had dispersed from
the Denman Island population located
approximately 0.3 mi (0.5 km) away. As
of 2012, the only existing known
population for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies in Canada is on Denman
Island (Page et al. 2009, p. 2; COSEWIC
2011, p. iv).
Washington
In Washington, surveys have been
conducted annually for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies in currently and
historically occupied sites. Surveys on
south Puget Sound prairies have been
conducted from 1997 through 2011 by
the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW), WDNR, The Nature
Conservancy of Washington (now the
Center for Natural Lands Management),
and personnel from the Wildlife Branch
of Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM;
formerly known as Fort Lewis). In 1994,
a report from Char and Boersma (1995)
indicated the presence of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies on the 13th
Division Prairie on JBLM; no additional
locations have been reported since 1999,
when a handful of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies were observed by WDFW
(Hays et al. 2000, p. 13). Surveys have
been conducted annually in this area
since 2000; however, no Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies have been
detected during the spring flight period
(Ressa 2003, pp. 7, 14; Gilbert 2004, p.
5; Linders 2012c, in litt.). Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies are believed to
be extirpated from the 13th Division
Prairie at JBLM (Linders 2012c, in litt.).
Four other populations in Thurston
County (Glacial Heritage, Scatter Creek
north and south units, and Rocky Prairie
NAP) had Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies present in 1997. No adult
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were
observed during surveys conducted in
1998 and 1999 at these locations (Hays
et al. 2000, p. 13; Stinson 2005, p. 95).
Subsequent annual surveys at these four
sites have not detected Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies (with the
exception of two sites where the
butterfly has recently been translocated
(Linders and Olson 2011, p. 17; Bidwell
2012, pers. comm.)).
Four historical locales for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies were
permanently lost in the south Puget
Sound region to development (Dupont,
JBLM Training Area 7S, Spanaway, and
Lakewood in Pierce County) or
conversion to agriculture (Rock Prairie
in Thurston County) (Stinson 2005, pp.
93–96). In addition, several older
Washington specimens are labeled with
general or imprecise locality names on
their collection labels (e.g., Olympia
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1893; Tenino 1929; Shelton 1971,
Dungeness 1999) (Stinson 2005, pp. 94–
95). Some of these site names may refer
to unknown or currently occupied
locales but due to their imprecise
nature, the true location of these
potential populations has not been
determined.
Surveys of 15 prairies within the
south Puget Sound landscape in 2001
and 2002 located Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies on only 4 sites in Thurston
and Pierce Counties (Stinson 2005, pp.
93–96). Three of the four sites were
found in the Bald Hill landscape in
Southeast Thurston County. Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies were
documented at the Bald Hills through
2007, but there have been no detections
since, despite regular and thorough
surveying from 2001 through 2011
(Potter 2011, p. 3). This number has
declined substantially in recent years as
habitat has become increasingly shaded
and modified by encroaching trees,
nonnative grasses, and the invasive,
nonnative shrub Scot’s broom (Cytisus
scoparius). Potter (2010, p. 1) reported
multiple site visits to conduct
redundant surveys in formerly occupied
bald habitats during the 2008–2010
flight period with no Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies observed. The
species is presumed to be extirpated
from this location.
The 91st Division Prairie is located on
JBLM on the eastern edge of the
approximately 6,000 acre (2,400 ha)
prairie. The largest current populations
of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly within
the south Puget Sound have been
observed here, and have served as the
source populations for the collection of
larvae for captive breeding to support
translocation efforts. Several small,
discrete patches of habitat are occupied
by Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. The
close proximity of these patches
indicates that a relatively robust
population (more than 1,000 butterflies
surveyed in a single day in 2006) is
likely present at JBLM.
In the course of conducting surveys
for another rare grassland-associated
butterfly found in Washington, the
island marble (Euchloe ausonides
insulanus), over 150 potential grassland
locations were surveyed for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly in the north Puget
Sound region during spring of 2005
through the spring of 2011 (Miskelly
2005; Potter et al. 2011) where historical
locales for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies exist (Pyle 1989, p. 170).
Although the flight periods and habitat
of both butterflies overlap, no Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies were found
during these surveys.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Several historical sites with
potentially suitable habitat were
surveyed on the north Olympic
Peninsula (Clallam County) during
spring 2003. Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly was found to occupy five
locations in this geographic area in
2003. At one historical site near the
mouth of the Dungeness River, only a
few individuals were detected.
However, no Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies were detected at this location
during surveys from 2005 through 2009
(McMillan 2007, pers. comm.; Potter
2012, pers. comm.). The other four
populations were found on grassy
openings on shallow-soiled bald habitat
west of the Elwha River. Two of these
sites were estimated to support at least
50 to 100 adult Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies (Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden
Valley), and just a few individuals were
found at the two other bald sites
(Striped Peak and Highway 112) (Hays
2011, p. 1). Subsequent surveys at the
latter two sites, Striped Peak and
Highway 112, from 2004–2011, have
failed to relocate or detect any Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies.
In 2006 a population was discovered
near the town of Sequim. Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies have since been
detected annually at this location from
2006–2011 (Hays 2009, pers. comm.;
Hays 2011, p. 29). At this site, Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies inhabit
approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of estuarine,
deflation plain (or back beach), a road
with restricted use, and farm-edge
habitat. In 2010, a maximum count of
568 Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies was
recorded on a single day (April 3, 2010);
normally peak daily counts from this
location range from 50 to 240
individuals (Hays 2011, p. 29).
Since 2007, three new Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly populations have
been found in Clallam County on
Olympic National Forest lands. All
three sites are located in the Dungeness
River watershed: Bear Mountain, Three
O’Clock Ridge, and Upper Dungeness
(Holtrop 2009, p. 2). The Forest Service
and WDFW are currently monitoring
butterfly numbers at these sites
annually. As of 2012, a total of six
occupied sites are known from Clallam
County: Sequim, Eden Valley, Bear
Mountain, Three O’Clock Ridge, and
Upper Dungeness.
Oregon
All of the 13 historical locales within
the Willamette Valley of western Oregon
have been surveyed regularly by local
lepidopterists (McCorkle 2008, pers.
comm.; Ross 2005: Stinson 2005, p. 124;
Benton County 2010, p. 13; Potter 2012,
pers. comm.). Taylor’s checkerspot
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
butterflies were formerly reported to
exist in large numbers (‘‘swarms on the
meadows beside Oak Creek’’) on the
upland prairies of the Willamette Valley
in Lane, Benton, and Polk Counties
(Dornfeld 1980, p. 73). Now only
remnant populations exist in Oregon. In
1999, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
were discovered along the Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) right-ofway corridor in an area known as Fitton
Green in Benton County. In 2004
surveys for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly were expanded in the
Willamette Valley where a second
population was discovered on grassland
openings within the Beazell Memorial
Forest in Benton County. These two
locations for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly are currently the only occupied
patches known from Oregon.
Population Estimates/Status
There is little historical information
on population estimates for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies and the survey
techniques used for monitoring have
differed over time. Early surveys at most
locations were done using Pollard
transect sampling methodology. Prior to
implementing distance sampling as the
accepted survey method for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies, population sizes
were determined by tallying the number
of all butterflies observed in a day and
this was expressed as the maximum day
count for a population at a specific site.
During the survey season from 2007
through 2011, WDFW implemented
distance sampling methods to estimate
abundance at the site in Washington on
JBLM. Distance sampling involves
establishing permanent transects over a
proportion of the survey area to
determine the probability of detecting
the butterfly. This number is used to
calculate abundance (Marques 2009).
Because Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
population numbers change daily due to
emergence and mortality of individuals,
density estimates were computed by
survey date (Linders and Olson 2011, p.
11). Although the sampling methods
have changed over the years, we believe
they are useful in providing a general
estimate of population trend
information. Additionally, since 2007, a
consistent survey method for distance
sampling has been implemented
throughout most of the range, providing
reliable annual information.
Canada
The recently discovered population in
British Columbia (BC) was confirmed by
the invertebrate specialist for the BC
Ministry of the Environment (Heron
2008, pers. comm.). A total of 12 adults
were observed on Denman Island during
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61943
2005 (Table 1) (Page et. al. 2009, p. 1).
We have no reports regarding counts for
2006 surveys. However, in 2007, more
than 600 butterflies were detected and
tallied from this location during the
entire survey effort (Heron 2008, p. 5).
Surveys at this location in 2008 detected
324 Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
(Page et al. 2009, p. 17). In 2009, a markrecapture study of Taylor’s was
conducted on Denman Island. Over
1,200 butterflies were marked and 45
were recaptured. Based on this study
the population was estimated at 13,000
individual butterflies; however, this
estimate is likely exaggerated and
inaccurate since the survey efforts were
not consistent over the course of the
study (COSEWIC 2011, p. 38). During
the same flight period in 2009, an
additional 950 individuals were
observed on Denman Island (COSEWIC
2011, p. 38). Only 12 butterflies were
observed in 2011 by the same surveyors
using identical methods at the same
location.
Washington
In Washington State, more than 43
historical locales were documented as
having Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
populations. In 2012, there are only 11
documented populations, with only 1 of
the sites harboring more than 1,000
individuals at any time and the majority
of known sites yielding daily counts of
fewer than 100 individual butterflies.
These locations are as follows: Striped
Peak, Highway 112, Sequim, Eden
Valley, Dan Kelly Ridge, Bear Mountain,
Three O’Clock Ridge, Upper Dungeness,
91st Division Prairie on JBLM, Scatter
Creek Wildlife Area, and the Bald Hills.
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have
been surveyed annually on the
northeastern Olympic peninsula since
2003. Striped Peak, located on WNDR
lands, supported Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies as early as 1985. Between
2003 and 2005, only a few adult
butterflies were observed by WDFW
personnel at Striped Peak and a second
site known as Highway 112. No
butterflies have been observed at the
Striped Peak or Highway 112 locations
since that time (McMillan 2009, pers.
comm.; Hays 2011, p. 1). Both sites are
being encroached by Pseudotsuga
menziesii (Douglas-fir) native shrubs,
and the invasive shrub Scot’s broom
(Thomas 2011, pers. obs.).
In 2006, at the Sequim population, as
many as 100 butterflies were detected
on a single day; however, on many days
fewer butterflies were observed
(McMillan 2007, pers. comm.). In spring
2007, researchers detected 100 to 200
butterflies on peak days. Both larvae
and adults were present at this site in
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61944
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
2007 and 2008 (Potter 2012b, in litt.). At
Eden Valley, up to 60 butterflies had
been detected on a single day survey
prior to surveys in 2006, but fewer than
30 were detected during the 2006
surveys. During surveys conducted
between 2007 and 2011, maximum daily
counts ranged between 50 and 538
individuals (Potter 2012b, in litt.).
On Dan Kelly Ridge, as many as 50
butterflies were detected during surveys
on a single day in 2006. This is a large,
linear site with a ridgeline road greater
than 2 miles (3.2 km) long; grassland
habitat with larval food plants are found
along the road margins and in forest
openings on steep south facing slopes
where shallow-soil balds support
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies.
Between 2007 and 2010, maximum
daily counts ranged from 60 to 100
butterflies. Surveys were not conducted
at this site in 2011.
In 2007, on Three O’Clock Ridge in
the upper Dungeness watershed of
Olympic National Forest, a small
number (two) of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies were first detected (Holtrop
2010, p. 1). This site was surveyed in
2008 by Forest Service and WDFW
personnel who detected 12 adult
butterflies (Holtrop 2010, p. 1). In 2009,
approximately 300 ac (121 ha) of
suitable habitat were surveyed (Holtrop
2010, p. 5) and two new populations
were discovered, at Upper Dungeness
and Bear Mountain. Maximum single
day counts ranged from 40 to 69
butterflies at the Three O’Clock Ridge,
Upper Dungeness, and Bear Mountain.
These sites have supported Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies consistently
since their discovery (Holtrop 2010,
p. 13).
The largest known population of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is located
on the 91st Division Prairie at JBLM
where a high complement of larval and
nectar host plants exist. During the 2005
and 2006 flight seasons (Combs 2005, p.
8; Wolford 2006, pp. 18–20), more than
1,000 individuals were detected on
maximum single day counts and
hundreds of individuals were observed
throughout the flight season (Combs
2005, p. 8; Wolford 2006, pp. 18 and
20). Surveys in spring 2007 detected
slightly lower numbers despite the high
survey effort. In 2007, the single-day
maximum count for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies was 637
(Wolford et al. 2007, p. 8). This decrease
in butterfly numbers was observed
elsewhere for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly in Thurston County during
2007, and is likely related to weather
conditions that year. In 2008, detections
at 91st Division Prairie indicated a
further decline to 187 butterflies, a 37
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
percent decline from the 2007 surveys
(Linders 2012, in litt.).
During 10 surveys conducted in the
spring of 2009 at 91st Division Prairie,
77 individual butterflies were counted
as a maximum daily count (Linders
2009a, entire; Thomas 2009b, pers.
obs.). Spring counts in 2009, 2010, and
in 2011 showed a general trend of
increasing observations at this site,
apparently because of a rebound in
larval food plants along the roads
margins used by military training
vehicles, and from repeated and
frequent fires caused by military
training exercises. Oviposition on larval
host plants (narrow-leaf plantain) near
road margins was observed at all known
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly locations
in Washington State (Severns and
Grosboll 2011, p. 66).
Experimental introductions of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have
been attempted in the south Puget
Sound region. In 2006, Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly larvae were placed
out at four locations in Thurston and
Pierce County: (1) In March 2006, larvae
were released at Glacial Heritage
Preserve, a Thurston County park; (2) in
June 2006, larvae were placed at two
locations on JBLM (Training Area 7
South (TA 7S) and 13th Division
Prairie); and (3) at the Scatter Creek
Wildlife area in Thurston County. None
of these initial test releases resulted in
observations of adult butterflies at these
locations during the subsequent flight
season (Linders 2007, p. vi). A
subsequent release of 199 larvae in
March 2007 at Scatter Creek Wildlife
Area resulted in 11 Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly observations there in May 2007
(Linders 2007, p. 18).
Based on this early success with
captive rearing of larvae, an additional
340 larvae were placed at Scatter Creek
Wildlife Area in March 2008. A peak
daily count of 16 adult Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies were
documented at this location in 2008
(Linders 2011c). In 2009, Linders
released approximately 2,250 postdiapause larvae onto suitable habitat at
Scatter Creek Wildlife Areas and 13th
Division Prairie on JBLM, which
resulted in 48 observations of adult
butterflies and a peak day count of 36
adults at Scatter Creek South, two adults
at Scatter Creek North and 1 individual
at 13th Division Prairie on JBLM
(Linders 2010, in litt., entire). In 2010,
155 adult butterflies were detected at
Scatter Creek Wildlife Area, and 207
adults were detected (counted) at Range
50 on JBLM (Linders and Olson 2011, p.
23). During late winter of 2010, a total
of 2,036 post-diapause larvae were
released onto restored prairie habitat at
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Scatter Creek Wildlife Area and Range
50 on the 91st Division Prairie on JBLM
in the south Puget Sound region
(Linders and Olson 2011, p. 17. During
distance survey counts in 2011, 84 adult
butterflies were counted at Scatter Creek
Wildlife Area, and 903 adults were
counted at Range 50 on the 91st
Division Prairie on JBLM (Linders and
Olson 2011, p. 23).
Surveys of private property and
WDNR-managed land in the Bald Hill
area in 2006 detected only a few
individual Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies during any given survey day
on each of the primary balds. Reports
and personal observation indicate that
the density and composition of larval
host plants have declined at the Bald
Hills area and portions of some of the
balds have been invaded by Douglas-fir
and other shrub species, including
Scot’s broom, thus reducing the area
and suitability of habitat (Potter 2011, p.
1). Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have
not been detected in the Bald Hills area
since 2007, despite intensive survey
efforts in 2008 and 2011 (Potter 2011, p.
1). This population of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly is presumed to be
extirpated.
Oregon
In Oregon, Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies are known from two locations
in the Willamette Valley of Benton
County, Beazell Memorial Park (BMP)
and Fitton Green Natural Area.
Annually, population estimates at these
two sites have varied from greater than
1,200 butterflies at Fitton Green in 2005
to as few as 150 butterflies in 2006 at
BMP (Ross, 2010, pp. 4, 6; Ross 2011,
in litt.). During spring of 2010, the flight
period began later than normally, due to
cool, wet weather that persisted over
much of the Pacific Northwest. In 2011,
the flight season for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly in Oregon began
later than any year since surveys
commenced (Ross 2012, p. 3). In 2010
and 2011, total population counts were
991 and 516 for Fitton Green (Ross
2012, p. 4), and 849 and 223 for the
BMP location (Ross 2012, p. 6),
respectively.
Species Information—Streaked Horned
Lark
The streaked horned lark is endemic
to the Pacific Northwest (British
Columbia, Washington, and Oregon;
Altman 2011, p. 196) and is a
subspecies of the wide-ranging horned
lark (Eremophila alpestris). Horned
larks are small, ground-dwelling birds,
approximately 16–20 centimeters (6–8
inches) in length (Beason 1995, p. 2).
Adults are pale brown, but shades of
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
brown vary geographically among the
subspecies. The male’s face has a yellow
wash in most subspecies. Adults have a
black bib, black whisker marks, black
‘‘horns’’ (feather tufts that can be raised
or lowered), and black tail feathers with
white margins (Beason 1995, p. 2).
Juveniles lack the black face pattern and
are varying shades of gray, from almost
white to almost black with a silverspeckled back (Beason 1995, p. 2). The
streaked horned lark has a dark brown
back, yellowish underparts, a walnut
brown nape and yellow eyebrow stripe
and throat (Beason 1995, p. 4). This
subspecies is conspicuously more
yellow beneath and darker on the back
than almost all other subspecies of
horned lark. The combination of small
size, dark brown back, and yellow
underparts distinguishes this subspecies
from all adjacent forms.
Taxonomy
The horned lark is found throughout
the northern hemisphere (Beason 1995,
p. 1); it is the only true lark (Family
Alaudidae, Order Passeriformes) native
to North America (Beason 1995, p. 1).
There are 42 subspecies of horned lark
worldwide (Clements et al. 2011,
entire). Twenty-one subspecies of
horned larks are found in North
America; 15 subspecies occur in
western North America (Beason 1995, p.
4). Subspecies of horned larks are based
primarily on differences in color, body
size, and wing length. Molecular
analysis has further borne out these
morphological distinctions (Drovetski et
al. 2005, p. 875). Western populations of
horned larks are generally paler and
smaller than eastern and northern
populations (Beason 1995, p. 3). The
streaked horned lark was first described
as Otocorys alpestris strigata by
Henshaw (1884, pp. 261–264, 267–268);
the type locality was Fort Steilacoom,
Washington (Henshaw 1884, p. 267).
There are four other breeding subspecies
of horned larks in Washington and
Oregon: Pallid horned lark (E. a. alpina),
dusky horned lark (E. a. merrilli),
Warner horned lark (E. a.
lamprochroma), and arctic horned lark
(E. a. articola) (Marshall et al. 2003, p.
426; Wahl et al. 2005, p. 268). None of
these other subspecies breed within the
range of the streaked horned lark, but all
four subspecies frequently overwinter in
mixed species flocks in the Willamette
Valley (Marshall et al. 2003, pp. 425–
427).
Drovetski et al. (2005, p. 877)
evaluated the genetic distinctiveness,
conservation status, and level of genetic
diversity of the streaked horned lark
using the complete mitochondrial ND2
gene. Samples from 32 streaked horned
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
larks in western Washington and 66
horned larks from Alaska, alpine
Washington, eastern Washington,
eastern Oregon, and California were
analyzed. The 30 haplotypes identified
from the 98 horned larks formed three
clades: Pacific Northwest (alpine and
eastern Washington, Alaska), Pacific
Coast (Puget Sound and Washington
coast) and coastal California), and Great
Basin (Oregon) (Drovetski et al. 2005,
p. 880)).
Streaked horned larks were closely
related to the California samples and
only distantly related to the three
closest localities (alpine Washington,
eastern Washington, and Oregon); only
one of the eastern Washington
individuals shared the streaked horned
lark haplotype, indicating a single
example of gene flow from western
Washington to eastern Washington
(Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 880). There
was no evidence of immigration into the
streaked horned lark range from any of
the sampled localities. Analyses
indicate that the streaked horned lark
population is well-differentiated and
isolated from all other sampled
localities, including coastal California,
and has ‘‘remarkably low genetic
diversity’’ (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 875).
All 32 streaked horned lark individuals
shared the same haplotype with no
variation between sequences compared.
All other localities had multiple
haplotypes despite smaller sample sizes
(Drovetski et al. 2005, pp. 879–880).
The lack of mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) diversity exhibited by streaked
horned larks is consistent with a
population bottleneck (Drovetski et al.
2005, p. 881). The streaked horned lark
is differentiated and isolated from all
other sampled localities, and although it
was ‘‘* * * historically a part of a larger
Pacific Coast lineage of horned larks, it
has been evolving independently for
some time and can be considered a
distinct evolutionary unit’’ (Drovetski et
al. 2005, p. 880). Thus, genetic analyses
support the subspecies designation for
the streaked horned lark (Drovetski et
al. 2005, p. 880), which has been
considered a relatively well-defined
subspecies based on physical
(phenotypic) characteristics (Beason
1995, p. 4). The streaked horned lark is
recognized as a valid subspecies by the
Integrated Taxonomic Information
System (ITIS 2012c).
Life History and Habitat
Horned larks forage on the ground in
low vegetation or on bare ground
(Beason 1995, p. 6); adults feed mainly
on grass and weed seeds, but feed
insects to their young (Beason 1995, p.
6). A study of winter diet selection
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61945
found that streaked horned larks in the
Willamette Valley eat seeds of
introduced weedy grasses and forbs,
focusing on the seed source that is most
abundant (Moore 2008b, p. 9). In this
Willamette Valley study, a variety of
grasses (Digitaria sanguinalis (large
crabgrass), Panicum capillare
(witchgrass), Sporobulum sp.
(dropseed)), and unidentified grasses
(Poaceae) and forbs (Chenopodium
album (common lambsquarters),
Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot
pigweed), Trifolium arvense (rabbitfoot
clover) and Kickxia sp. (cancerweed))
were common in the winter diet of the
streaked horned lark (Moore 2008b, p.
16).
Horned larks form pairs in the spring
(Beason 1995, p. 11). Altman (1999, p.
11) used a small sample (n=3) of
streaked horned lark territories in the
Willamette Valley to give a mean
territory size of 1.9 acres (0.77 ha) with
a range of 1.5 to 2.5 acres (0.61 to 1.0
ha). Horned larks create nests in shallow
depressions in the ground and line them
with soft vegetation (Beason 1995, p.
12). Female horned larks select the nest
site and construct the nest without help
from the male (Beason 1995, p. 12).
Streaked horned larks establish their
nests in areas of extensive bare ground,
and nests are placed adjacent to clumps
of bunchgrass (Pearson and Hopey 2004,
pp. 1–2). In the Willamette Valley, nests
are almost always placed on the north
side of a clump of vegetation or another
object such as root balls or soil clumps
(Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 18).
Studies from Washington sites (the open
coast, Puget lowlands and the Columbia
River islands) have found strong natal
fidelity to nesting sites—that is, streaked
horned larks return each year to the
place they were born (Pearson et al.
2008, p. 11).
The nesting season for streaked
horned larks begins in mid-April and
ends in the early part of August
(Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11; Moore
2011, p. 32). Clutches range from 1 to
5 eggs, with a mean of 3 eggs (Pearson
and Hopey 2004, p. 12). After the first
nesting attempt in April, streaked
horned larks will often re-nest in late
June or early July (Pearson and Hopey
2004, p. 11). Young streaked horned
larks leave the nest by the end of the
first week after hatching, and are cared
for by the parents until they are about
4 weeks old when they become
independent (Beason 1995, p. 15).
Nest success studies (i.e., the
proportion of nests that result in at least
one fledged chick) in streaked horned
larks report highly variable results. Nest
success on the Puget lowlands of
Washington is low, with only 28 percent
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61946
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
of nests successfully fledging young
(Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 14,
Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16).
According to reports from sites in the
Willamette Valley, Oregon, nest success
has varied from 23 to 60 percent
depending on the site (Altman 1999, p.
1; Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 23). At
one site in Portland, Oregon, Moore
(2011, p. 11) found 100 percent nest
success.
Historically, nesting habitat was
found on grasslands, estuaries, and
sandy beaches in British Columbia, in
dune habitats along the coast of
Washington, in western Washington and
western Oregon prairies, and on the
sandy beaches and spits along the
Columbia and Willamette Rivers. Today,
the streaked horned lark nests in a broad
range of habitats, including native
prairies, coastal dunes, fallow and
active agricultural fields, wetland
mudflats, sparsely-vegetated edges of
grass fields, recently planted Christmas
tree farms with extensive bare ground,
moderately- to heavily-grazed pastures,
gravel roads or gravel shoulders of
lightly-traveled roads, airports, and
dredge deposition sites in the lower
Columbia River (Altman 1999, p. 18;
Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 5; Pearson
and Hopey 2005, p. 15; Moore 2008, pp.
9–10, 12–14, 16). Wintering streaked
horned larks use habitats that are very
similar to breeding habitats (Pearson et
al. 2005b, p. 8).
Habitat used by larks is generally flat
with substantial areas of bare ground
and sparse low-stature vegetation
primarily comprised of grasses and forbs
(Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27).
Suitable habitat is generally 16–17
percent bare ground, and may be even
more open at sites selected for nesting
(Altman 1999, p.18; Pearson and Hopey
2005, p. 27). Vegetation height is
generally less than 13 in (33 cm)
(Altman 1999, p.18; Pearson and Hopey
2005, p. 27). Larks eat a wide variety of
seeds and insects (Beason 1995, p. 6),
and appear to select habitats based on
the structure of the vegetation rather
than the presence of any specific food
plants (Moore 2008, p. 19). A key
attribute of habitat used by larks is open
landscape context. Our data indicate
that sites used by larks are generally
found in open (i.e., flat, treeless)
landscapes of 300 acres (120 ha) or more
(Converse et al. 2010, p. 21). Some
patches with the appropriate
characteristics (i.e., bare ground, low
stature vegetation) may be smaller in
size if the adjacent areas provide the
required open landscape context; this
situation is common in agricultural
habitats and on sites next to water. For
example, many of the sites used by larks
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
on the islands in the Columbia River are
small (less than 100 ac (40 ha)), but are
adjacent to open water, which provides
the open landscape context needed.
Streaked horned lark populations are
found at nearly every airport within the
range of the subspecies, because airport
maintenance requirements provide the
desired open landscape context and
short vegetation structure.
Although streaked horned larks use a
wide variety of habitats, populations are
vulnerable because the habitats used are
often ephemeral or subject to frequent
human disturbance. Ephemeral habitats
include bare ground in agricultural
fields and wetland mudflats; habitats
subject to frequent human disturbance
include mowed fields at airports,
managed road margins, agricultural crop
fields, and disposal sites for dredge
material (Altman 1999, p. 19).
Historical Range and Distribution
The streaked horned lark’s breeding
range historically extended from
southern British Columbia, Canada,
south through the Puget lowlands and
outer coast of Washington, along the
lower Columbia River, through the
Willamette Valley, the Oregon coast and
into the Umpqua and Rogue River
Valleys of southwestern Oregon.
British Columbia. The streaked
horned lark was never considered
common in British Columbia, but local
breeding populations were known on
Vancouver Island, in the Fraser River
Valley, and near Vancouver
International Airport (Campbell et al.
1997, p. 120; COSEWIC 2003, p. 5). The
population declined throughout the
20th century (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 13–
14); breeding has not been confirmed
since 1978, and the subspecies is
considered to be extirpated in British
Columbia (COSEWIC 2003, p. 15). A
single streaked horned lark was sighted
on Vancouver Island in 2002 (COSEWIC
2003, p. 16).
Washington. The first report of
streaked horned lark in the San Juan
Islands, Washington, was in 1948 from
Cattle Point (Goodge 1950, p. 28). There
are breeding season records of streaked
horned larks from San Juan and Lopez
Islands in the 1950s and early 1960s
(Retfalvi 1963, p. 13; Lewis and Sharpe
1987, p. 148, 204), but the last record
dates from 1962, when seven
individuals were seen in July on San
Juan Island at Cattle Point (Retfalvi
1963, p. 13). The WDFW conducted
surveys in 1999 in the San Juan Islands
(Rogers 1999, pp. 3–4). Suitable nesting
habitat was visually searched and a tape
recording of streaked horned lark calls
was used to elicit responses and
increase the chance of detections
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Rogers 1999, p. 4). In 2000, MacLaren
and Cummins (in Stinson 2005, p.63)
surveyed several sites recommended by
Rogers (1999) including Cattle Point and
Lime Kiln Point on San Juan Island. No
larks were detected in the San Juan
Islands during either survey effort
(Rogers 1999, p. 4; Stinson 2005, p. 63).
There are a few historical records of
streaked horned larks on the outer coast
of Washington near Lake Quinault, the
Quinault River and the Humptulips
River in the 1890s (Jewett et al. 1953, p.
438; Rogers 2000, p. 26). More recent
records reported larks at Leadbetter
Point and Graveyard Spit in Pacific
County in the 1960s and 1970s (Rogers
2000, p. 26). But no larks were detected
on the Outer Coast during surveys
conducted there in 1999 and 2000
(Stinson 2005, p. 63).
There are scattered records of streaked
horned larks in the northern Puget
Trough, including sightings in Skagit
and Whatcom Counties in the mid-20th
century (Altman 2011, p. 201). The last
recorded sighting of a streaked horned
lark in the northern Puget Trough was
at the Bellingham Airport in 1962
(Stinson 2005, p. 52).
Over a century ago, the streaked
horned lark was described as a common
summer resident in the prairies of the
Puget Sound region in Washington
(Bowles 1898, p. 53; Altman 2011, p.
201). Larks were considered common in
the early 1950s ‘‘in the prairie country
south of Tacoma’’ and had been
observed on the tide flats south of
Seattle (Jewett et al. 1953, p. 438). By
the mid-1990s, only a few scattered
breeding populations existed on the
south Puget Sound on remnant prairies
and near airports (Altman 2011, p. 201).
There are sporadic records of streaked
horned larks along the Columbia River.
Sightings on islands near Portland,
Oregon, date back to the early 1900s
(Rogers 2000, p. 27). A number of old
reports of streaked horned larks from
the Columbia River east of the Cascade
Mountains have been re-examined, and
have been recognized as the subspecies
Eremophila alpestris merrilli (Rogers
2000, p. 27; Stinson 2005, p. 51). On the
lower Columbia River, it is probable that
streaked horned larks breed only as far
east as Clark County, Washington, and
Multnomah County, Oregon (Roger
2000, p. 27; Stinson 2005, p. 51).
Oregon. The streaked horned lark’s
range extends south through the
Willamette Valley of Oregon where it
was considered abundant and a
common summer resident over a
hundred years ago (Johnson 1880, p.
636; Anthony 1886, p. 166). In the
1940s, the subspecies was described as
a common permanent resident in the
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
southern Willamette Valley (Gullion
1951, p. 141). By the 1990s, the streaked
horned lark was called uncommon in
the Willamette Valley, nesting locally in
small numbers in large open fields
(Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205; Altman
1999, p. 18). In the early 2000s, a
population of more than 75 breeding
pairs was found at the Corvallis
Municipal Airport, making this the
largest population of streaked horned
larks known (Moore 2008, p. 15).
The streaked horned lark, while
occasionally present, was never
reported to be more than uncommon on
the Oregon coast. The subspecies was
described as an uncommon and local
summer resident all along the coast on
sand spits (Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205);
a few nonbreeding season records exist
for the coastal counties of Clatsop,
Tillamook, Coos, and Curry (Gabrielson
and Jewett 1940, p. 403). Small numbers
of larks were known to breed at the
South Jetty of the Columbia River in
Clatsop County, but the site was
abandoned in the 1980s (Gilligan et
al.1994, p. 205). There are no recent
occurrence records from the Oregon
coast.
In the early 1900s, the streaked
horned lark was considered a common
permanent resident of the Umpqua and
Rogue River Valleys (Gabrielson and
Jewett 1940, p. 402). The last confirmed
breeding record in the Rogue Valley was
in 1976 (Marshall et al. 2003, p. 425).
There are no recent reports of streaked
horned larks in the Umpqua Valley
(Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205; Marshall et
al. 2003, p. 425).
Current Range and Distribution
Breeding Range. The streaked horned
lark has been extirpated as a breeding
species throughout much of its range,
including all of its former range in
British Columbia, the San Juan Islands,
the northern Puget Trough, the
Washington coast north of Grays Harbor,
the Oregon coast, and the Rogue and
Umpqua Valleys in southwestern
Oregon (Pearson & Altman 2005,
pp. 4–5).
The current range of the streaked
horned lark can be divided into three
regions: (1) The south Puget Sound in
Washington; (2) the Washington coast
and lower Columbia River islands
(including dredge spoil deposition sites
near the Columbia River in Portland,
Oregon); and (3) the Willamette Valley
in Oregon.
In the south Puget Sound, the
streaked horned lark is found in Mason,
Pierce, and Thurston Counties,
Washington (Rogers 2000, p. 37; Pearson
and Altman 2005, p. 23; Pearson et al.
2005a, p. 2; Anderson 2009, p. 4).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Recent studies have found that streaked
horned larks currently breed on six sites
in the south Puget Sound. Four of these
sites (13th Division Prairie, Gray Army
Airfield, McChord Field, and 91st
Division Prairie) are on JBLM. Small
populations of larks also breed at the
Olympia Regional Airport and the Port
of Shelton’s Sanderson Field (airport)
(Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 23;
Pearson et al. 2008, p. 3).
On the Washington coast, there are
four known breeding sites: (1) Damon
Point; (2) Midway Beach; (3) Graveyard
Spit; and (4) Leadbetter Point in Grays
Harbor and Pacific Counties. On the
lower Columbia River, streaked horned
larks breed on several of the sandy
islands downstream of Portland,
Oregon. Recent surveys have
documented breeding streaked horned
larks on Rice, Miller Sands Spit, Pillar
Rock, Welch, Tenasillahe, Coffeepot,
Whites/Browns, Wallace, Crims, and
Sandy Islands in Wahkiakum and
Cowlitz Counties in Washington, and
Columbia and Clatsop Counties in
Oregon (Pearson and Altman 2005, p.
23; Anderson 2009, p. 4; Lassen 2011,
in litt.). The Columbia River forms the
border between Washington and
Oregon; some of the islands occur
wholly in Oregon or Washington, and
some are bisected by the State line.
Larks also breed in Portland
(Multnomah County, Oregon) at suitable
sites near the Columbia River. These
include an open field at the Rivergate
Industrial Complex and the Southwest
Quad at Portland International Airport;
both sites are owned by the Port of
Portland, and are former dredge spoil
deposition fields (Moore 2011, pp. 9–
12).
In the Willamette Valley, streaked
horned larks breed in Benton,
Clackamas, Lane, Linn, Marion, Polk,
Washington, and Yamhill Counties.
Larks are most abundant in the southern
part of the Willamette Valley. The
largest known population of larks is
resident at Corvallis Municipal Airport
in Benton County (Moore 2008. p. 15);
other resident populations occur at the
Baskett Slough, William L. Finley, and
Ankeny units of the Service’s
Willamette Valley National Wildlife
Refuge Complex (Moore 2008, pp. 8–9).
Breeding populations also occur at
municipal airports in the valley
(including McMinnville, Salem, and
Eugene) (Moore 2008, pp. 14–17). In
2008, a large population of streaked
horned larks colonized a wetland and
prairie restoration site on M–DAC
Farms, a privately-owned parcel in Linn
County; as the vegetation at the site
matured in the following 2 years, the
site became less suitable for larks, and
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61947
the population declined (Moore and
Kotaich 2010, pp. 11–13). This is likely
a common pattern, as breeding streaked
horned larks shift sites as habitat
becomes available among private
agricultural lands in the Willamette
Valley (Moore 2008, pp. 9–11).
Wintering Range. Pearson et al.
(2005b, p. 2) found that the majority of
streaked horned larks winter in the
Willamette Valley (72 percent) and on
the islands in the lower Columbia River
(20 percent); the rest winter on the
Washington coast (8 percent) or in the
south Puget Sound (1 percent). In the
winter, most of the streaked horned
larks that breed in the south Puget
Sound migrate south to the Willamette
Valley or west to the Washington coast;
streaked horned larks that breed on the
Washington coast either remain on the
coast or migrate south to the Willamette
Valley; birds that breed on the lower
Columbia River islands remain on the
islands or migrate to the Washington
coast; and birds that breed in the
Willamette Valley remain there over the
winter (Pearson et al. 2005b, pp. 5–6).
Streaked horned larks spend the winter
in large groups of mixed subspecies of
horned larks in the Willamette Valley,
and in smaller flocks along the lower
Columbia River and Washington Coast
(Pearson et al. 2005b, p. 7; Pearson and
Altman 2005, p. 7). During the winter of
2008, a mixed flock of over 300 horned
larks was detected at the Corvallis
Municipal Airport (Moore 2011a, pers.
comm.).
Population Estimates and Current Status
Data from the North American
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) indicate
that most grassland-associated birds,
including the horned lark, have
declined across their ranges in the past
three decades (Sauer et al. 2011, pp. 3–
5). The BBS can provide population
trend data only for those species with
sufficient sample sizes for analyses;
there is insufficient data in the BBS for
a rangewide analysis of the streaked
horned lark’s population trend (Altman
2011, p. 214). An analysis of recent data
from a variety of sources concludes that
the streaked horned lark has been
extirpated from the Georgia Depression
(British Columbia, Canada), the Oregon
coast, and the Rogue and Umpqua
Valleys (Altman 2011, p. 213); this
analysis estimates the current rangewide
population of streaked horned larks to
be about 1,170–1,610 individuals
(Altman 2011, p. 213).
In the south Puget Sound,
approximately 150–170 streaked horned
larks breed at six sites (Altman 2011, p.
213). Recent studies have found that
larks have very low nest success in
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61948
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Washington (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 8);
comparisons with other ground-nesting
birds in the same prairie habitats in the
south Puget Sound showed that streaked
horned larks had significantly lower
values in all measures of reproductive
success (Anderson 2010, p. 16).
Estimates of population growth rate (l,
lambda) that include vital rates from
nesting areas in the south Puget Sound,
Washington coast, and Whites Island in
the lower Columbia River indicate that
the Washington population is declining
precipitously; one study estimated that
the population of streaked horned larks
was declining by 40 percent per year (l
= 0.61 ± 0.10 SD), apparently due to a
combination of low survival and
fecundity rates (Pearson et al., 2008, p.
12). More recent analyses of territory
mapping at 4 sites in the south Puget
Sound found that the total number of
breeding streaked horned lark territories
decreased from 77 territories in 2004 to
42 territories in 2007—a decline of over
45 percent in 3 years (Camfield et al.
2011, p. 8). Pearson et al. (2008, p. 14)
concluded that there is a high
probability of south Puget Sound
population loss in the future given the
low estimates of fecundity and adult
survival along with high emigration out
of the Puget Sound.
On the Washington coast and
Columbia River islands, there are about
120–140 breeding larks (Altman 2011, p.
213). Data from the Washington coast
and Whites Islands were included in the
population growth rate study discussed
above; populations at these sites appear
to be declining by 40 percent per year
(Pearson et al. 2008, p. 12). Conversely,
nest success is very high at the Portland
industrial sites (Rivergate and the
Southwest Quad). In 2010, nearly all
nests successfully fledged young (Moore
2011, p. 13); only 1 of 10 monitored
nests lost young to predation (Moore
2011, pp. 11–12).
There are about 900–1,300 breeding
streaked horned larks in the Willamette
Valley (Altman 2011, p. 213). The
largest known population of streaked
horned larks breeds at the Corvallis
Municipal Airport; depending on the
management conducted at the airport
and the surrounding grass fields each
year, the population has been as high as
100 breeding pairs (Moore and Kotaich
2010, pp. 13–15). In 2007, a large (580acre (235-ha)) wetland and native
prairie restoration project was initiated
at M–DAC Farms on a former rye grass
field in Linn County (Cascade Pacific
RC&D 2012, p. 1). Large semipermanent
wetlands were created at the site, and
the prairie portions were burned and
treated with herbicides (Moore and
Kotaich 2010, pp. 11–13). These
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
conditions created excellent quality
ephemeral habitat for streaked horned
larks and the site was used by about 75
breeding pairs in 2008 (Moore and
Kotaich 2010, p. 12), making M–DAC
the second-largest known breeding
population of streaked horned larks that
year. M–DAC had high use again in
2009, but as vegetation at the site
matured, the number of breeding larks
has declined, likely shifting to other
agricultural habitats (Moore and Kotaich
2010, p. 13).
We do not have population trend data
in Oregon that is comparable to the
study in Washington by Pearson et al.
(2008, entire); however, research on
breeding streaked horned larks indicates
that nest success in the southern
Willamette Valley is higher than in
Washington (Moore 2011b, pers.
comm.). The best information on trends
in the Willamette Valley comes from
surveys by the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); the agency
conducted surveys for grasslandassociated birds, including the streaked
horned lark, in 1996 and again in 2008
(Altman 1999, p. 2; Myers and Kreager
2010, p. 2). Point count surveys were
conducted at 544 stations in the
Willamette Valley (Myers and Kreager
2010, p. 2); over the 12-year period
between the surveys, measures of
relative abundance of streaked horned
larks increased slightly from 1996 to
2008 (Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 11).
Population numbers decreased slightly
in the northern Willamette Valley and
increased slightly in the middle and
southern portions of the valley (Myers
and Kreager 2010, p. 11).
We do not have conclusive data on
population trends throughout the lark’s
range, but the rapidly declining
population on the south Puget Sound
suggests that the range of the streaked
horned lark may still be contracting.
Range Contraction
The streaked horned lark has
experienced a substantial contraction of
its range; it has been extirpated from all
formerly documented locations at the
northern end of its range (British
Columbia, and the San Juan Islands and
northern Puget Trough of Washington),
the Oregon coast, and the southern edge
of its range (Rogue and Umpqua Valleys
of Oregon). The lark’s current range
appears to have been reduced to less
than half the size of its historical range
in the last 100 years. The pattern of
range contractions for other Pacific
Northwest species (e.g., western
meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)) shows
a loss of populations in the northern
part of the range, with healthier
populations persisting in the southern
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
part of the range (Altman 2011, p. 214).
The streaked horned lark is an
exception to this pattern—its range has
contracted from both the north and the
south simultaneously (Altman 2011,
p. 215).
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533),
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR part 424, set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, we may list a species based on any
of the following five factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Listing
actions may be warranted based on any
of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is
discussed below.
In making this finding, information
pertaining to each of the species in
question in relation to the five factors
provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is
discussed below. In considering what
factors might constitute threats, we must
look beyond the mere exposure of the
species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the
factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or
only a positive response, that factor is
not a threat. If there is exposure and the
species responds negatively, the factor
may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine how significant a threat it is.
If the threat is significant, it may drive
or contribute to the risk of extinction of
the species such that the species
warrants listing as an endangered or
threatened species as those terms are
defined by the Act. This does not
necessarily require empirical proof of a
threat. The combination of exposure and
some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice.
The mere identification of factors that
could impact a species negatively is not
sufficient to compel a finding that
listing is appropriate; we require
evidence that these factors are operative
threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the
definition of an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
We considered and evaluated the best
available scientific and commercial
information in evaluating the factors
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
affecting each of the species under
consideration in this proposed rule.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Under this factor, the primary long
term threats to Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark are
the loss, conversion, and degradation of
habitat particularly to agricultural and
urban development, successional
changes to grassland habitat, and the
spread of invasive plants.
The prairies of south Puget Sound and
western Oregon are part of one of the
rarest ecosystems in the United States
(Noss et al. 1995, p. I–2; Dunn and
Ewing 1997, p. v). Dramatic changes
have occurred on the landscape over the
last 150 years, including a 90 to 95
percent reduction in the prairie
ecosystem. In the south Puget Sound
region, where most of western
Washington’s prairies historically
occurred, less than 10 percent of the
original prairie persists, and only 3
percent remains dominated by native
vegetation (Crawford and Hall 1997, pp.
13–14). In the remaining prairies, many
of the native bunchgrass communities
have been replaced by nonnative
pasture grasses (Rogers 2000, p. 41),
which larks avoid using for territories
and nest sites (Pearson and Hopey 2005,
p. 27). In the Willamette Valley, Oregon,
native grassland has been reduced from
the most common vegetation type to
scattered parcels intermingled with
rural residential development and
farmland; it is estimated that less than
one percent of the native grassland and
savanna remains in Oregon (Altman et
al. 2001, p. 261).
Development
Native prairies and grasslands have
been severely reduced throughout the
range of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and the streaked horned lark as
a result of human activity due to
conversion of habitat to residential and
commercial development and
agriculture. Prairie habitat continues to
be lost, particularly to residential
development (Stinson 2005, p. 70) by
removal of native vegetation and the
excavation and grading of surfaces and
conversion to non-habitat (buildings,
pavement, other infrastructure).
Residential development is associated
with increased infrastructure such as
new road construction, which is one of
the primary causes of landscape
fragmentation (Watts et al. 2007, p. 736).
Activities that accompany low-density
development are correlated with
decreased levels of biodiversity,
mortality to wildlife, and facilitated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
introduction of nonnative invasive
species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000,
entire; Watts et al. 2007, p. 736). In the
south Puget Sound lowlands, the glacial
outwash soils and gravels underlying
the prairies are deep and valuable for
use in construction and road building,
which leads to their degradation and
destruction.
Since the 1850s, much of the
Willamette Valley of Oregon has been
altered by development (agricultural
and urban). About 96 percent of the
Willamette Valley is privately owned,
and it is both the fastest growing area in
Oregon and the most densely populated.
The Willamette Valley provides about
half of the state’s agricultural sales, and
16 of top 17 private sector employers
(manufacturing, high technology, forest
products, agriculture, and services) are
located there. The population projected
for 2050 is approximately four million,
or nearly double the current population
(Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife 2006, p. 237). The increase in
population will result in increased
building construction and road
development, further impacting the
remaining prairies and oak woodlands.
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. The
habitat of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
is highly fragmented across the region
due to agricultural and low-density
residential development. Fragmentation
due to residential and associated road
development has led to a reduction of
native larval host plants and adult
nectar plants as introduced invasive
plant species, primarily Mediterranean
grasses and shrubs such as Scot’s
broom, increasingly dominate the
landscape and outcompete native plant
species (see discussion below, under
Invasives). Construction directly
destroys habitat, as does conversion,
and may kill any sessile or slow-moving
organism in the construction footprint
(Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 19).
Unlike many other species of butterflies,
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies spend
approximately 50 weeks of their life
cycle as eggs, larvae, or pupae with only
a brief window of time (approximately
1–2 weeks) as winged adults (Stinson
2005, p. 78). Commercial and residential
development, construction of related
infrastructure including roads, and
conversion of habitat to incompatible
uses such as gravel mining directly
affects Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
larvae by killing individuals and
destroying habitat.
When in flight, butterflies become
subject to mortality from collision with
vehicles on roads associated with
residential development, which is
commonly known to affect animals of
all sizes, but especially insects
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61949
(Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 20).
Since the short flight season of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies directly
corresponds with their reproductive
period, death of gravid females could
lead to population level consequences
such as failure of entire populations.
These sorts of traffic-collision related
deaths may disproportionately affect
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in
comparison with other butterflies, as
many other kinds of butterflies are in
flight for periods much longer than just
their reproductive window.
Four historical locales for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies in the south
Puget Sound region were lost to
development or conversion. Dupont,
Spanaway, and Lakewood were all
converted to urban areas, and JBLM
Training Area 7S became a gravel pit
(Stinson 2005, pp. 93–96).
Streaked Horned Lark. Horned larks
need expansive areas of flat, open
ground to establish breeding territories.
The large, flat, treeless areas that
airports necessarily require have
become attractive breeding sites for
streaked horned larks as native prairies
and scoured river banks in the Pacific
Northwest have declined. Five of the six
streaked horned lark nesting sites
remaining in the Puget lowlands are
located on or adjacent to airports and
military airfields (Rogers 2000, p. 37;
Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 15). At least
four breeding sites are found at airports
in the Willamette Valley, including the
largest known population at Corvallis
Municipal Airport (Moore 2008, pp. 14–
17). Stinson (2005, p. 70) concluded that
if large areas of grass had not been
maintained at airports, the streaked
horned lark might have been extirpated
from the south Puget Sound area.
Although routine mowing to meet flight
path regulations helps to maintain
grassland habitat in suitable condition
for nesting larks, the timing of mowing
is critical.
Mowing during the active breeding
season (mid-April to late July) can
destroy nests or flush adults, which may
result in nest failure (Pearson and
Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson 2005, p. 72).
Some of the airports in the range of the
streaked horned lark have adjusted the
frequency and timing of mowing in
recent years to minimize impacts to
larks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 10).
In 2011, McChord Air Field at JBLM
agreed to a mowing regime which
would provide protections to the lark
during their nesting period.
Unfortunately, recent unseasonably wet
weather hasn’t allowed this strategy to
be implemented. WDFW coordinates
mowing schedules at the Olympia
Airport to reduce impacts to larks.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61950
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
In 2008, the Port of Olympia prepared
an Interlocal Agreement with the
WDFW that outlines management
recommendations and mitigation for
impacts to state-listed species from
development at the airport. In
December, 2010, a white paper and
supplemental planning memorandum
was developed as part of the Airport
Master Plan Update (Port of Olympia
2010, entire). This document, which is
outlined in Appendix 2 of the Master
Plan Update, outlines management
recommendations for the protection of
critical areas and priority species,
including the streaked horned lark. The
recommendations include minimizing
development, retaining open or bare
ground, and avoiding mowing during
the nesting season (March 15 through
August 15) in known or potential lark
nesting areas. Although the Port does
not anticipate any development to occur
in the streaked horned lark nesting areas
within the next 20 years, the agreement
is not a regulatory document that would
preclude future development, which is
a primary source of revenue for the Port.
Airport expansions could result in
further losses of some populations. At
the Olympia Airport, hangars were built
in 2005 on habitat used by streaked
horned larks for foraging, resulting in a
loss of grass and forb-dominated habitat,
which could result in a smaller local
population due to reduced habitat
availability for breeding and wintering
larks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 12).
Based on discussions with staff at
Sanderson Field in Shelton, future
development plans do not include
impacts to streaked horned lark habitat
at this time. The majority of the
proposed development at Sanderson
Field will occur in areas already
impacted (between existing buildings).
The West Ramp at Gray Army Air Field
on JBLM was expanded in 2005 into
areas previously used by breeding larks,
resulting in a loss of available breeding
habitat (Stinson 2005, p. 72).
At Portland International Airport,
streaked horned larks nest in an area
called the Southwest Quad; this is an
old dredge material deposition site in a
currently unused part of the airport. The
Port of Portland, which owns the
airport, may propose to develop the
Southwest Quad to accommodate future
expansion, though there is no current
plan in place (Green 2012, in litt.). The
future development of the Southwest
Quad would result in the loss of at least
33 ac (13 ha) of habitat and three
breeding territories (Moore 2011, p. 12).
The 13th Division Prairie at JBLM is
used for helicopter operations
(paratrooper practices, touch-and-go
landings, and load drop and retrievals)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
and troop training activities. Foot traffic
and training maneuvers that are
conducted during the streaked horned
lark breeding season likely are a
contributing factor to nest failure and
low nest success at 13th Division
Prairie. Recently, a lark nest was
destroyed at 13th Division Prairie by a
porta-potty service vehicle (Linders
2012b, in litt.). Artillery training, offroad use of vehicles and troop
maneuvers at the 91st Division Prairie
are also conducted in areas used by
larks during the nesting season. Because
access into this training area is limited
and streaked horned lark surveys are
only conducted opportunistically, we
do not know if or how many lark nests
are lost due to military activities at 91st
Division Prairie.
Industrial development has also
reduced habitat available to breeding
and wintering larks. The Rivergate
Industrial Park, owned by the Port of
Portland, is a large industrial site in
north Portland near the Columbia River;
the site is developed on a dredge spoil
field, and still has some large areas of
open space between the industrial
buildings. Rivergate has been an
important breeding site for streaked
horned larks, and a wintering site for
mixed flocks of up to five horned lark
subspecies (including the streaked
horned lark). In 1990, the field used by
larks at Rivergate measured more than
260 ha (650 acres) of open sandy habitat
(Dillon 2012, pers. comm.). In the years
since, new industrial buildings have
been constructed on the site; now only
one patch of 32 ha (79 acres) of open
dredge spoil field remains (Moore 2011,
p. 9) and the breeding population has
dropped from 20 pairs to 5 pairs in this
time (Moore 2011, p. 10).
Loss of Ecological Disturbance
Processes, Invasive Species, and
Succession
The suppression and loss of
ecological disturbance regimes, such as
fire and flooding, across vast portions of
the landscape has resulted in altered
vegetation structure in the prairies and
meadows and has facilitated invasion by
nonnative grasses and woody
vegetation, rendering habitat unusable
for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and
streaked horned larks. The basic
ecological processes that maintain
prairies, meadows, and scoured river
banks have disappeared from, or have
been altered on, all but a few protected
and managed sites.
Historically, the prairies and
meadows of the south Puget Sound
region of Washington and western
Oregon are thought to have been
actively maintained by the native
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
peoples of the region, who lived here for
at least 10,000 years before the arrival of
Euro-American settlers (Boyd 1986,
entire; Christy and Alverson 2011, p.
93). Frequent burning reduced the
encroachment and spread of shrubs and
trees (Boyd 1986, entire; Chappell and
Kagan 2001, p. 42), favoring open
grasslands with a rich variety of native
plants and animals. Following EuroAmerican settlement of the region in the
mid-19th century, fire was actively
suppressed on grasslands, allowing
encroachment by woody vegetation into
the remaining prairie habitat and oak
woodlands (Franklin and Dyrness 1973
p. 122; Boyd 1986, entire; Kruckeberg
1991, p. 287; Agee 1993, p. 360; Altman
et al. 2001, p. 262).
Fires on the prairie create a mosaic of
vegetation conditions, which serve to
maintain native prairie forbs like
Camassia quamash (common camas)
Achillea millefolium (yarrow) and
Lomatium spp. (desert parsley or biscuit
root), which are adult nectar foods for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Stands of
native perennial grasses (Festuca
idahoensis ssp. roemeri (Roemer’s
fescue)) are also well adapted to regular
fires and produce habitat favorable to
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. In
some prairie patches fires will reset
succession back to bare ground, creating
early successional vegetation conditions
suitable for both Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies and streaked horned larks
(Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 13). The
historical fire frequency on prairies has
been estimated to be 3 to 5 years (Foster
2005, p. 8).
The result of fire suppression has
been the invasion of the prairies and oak
woodlands by native and nonnative
plant species (Dunn and Ewing 1997, p.
v; Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 146),
notably woody plants such as the native
Douglas-fir and the nonnative Scot’s
broom, and nonnative grasses such as
Arrhenatherum elatus (tall oatgrass) in
Washington and Brachypodium
sylvaticum (false brome) in the
Willamette Valley of Oregon. This
increase in woody vegetation and
nonnative plant species has resulted in
less available prairie habitat overall and
habitat that is avoided by Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies and streaked
horned larks (Tveten and Fonda 1999, p.
155; Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 2, 27;
Olson 2011a, pp. 12, 16).
Most butterflies avoid densely
forested areas, as they are unable to
generate enough heat from their own
metabolism to provide them with the
heat and energy they need to fly in
shaded conditions. Streaked horned
larks prefer areas that afford long sight
lines and have low vegetation; both of
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
which are impeded by the presence of
trees.
On tallgrass prairies in midwestern
North America, fire suppression has led
to degradation and the loss of native
grasslands (Curtis 1959, pp. 296, 298;
Panzer 2002, p. 1297). On northwestern
prairies, fire suppression has allowed
Douglas-fir to encroach on and
outcompete native prairie vegetation for
light, water, and nutrients (Stinson
2005, p. 7). On JBLM alone, over 16,000
acres (6,477 ha) of prairie has converted
to Douglas-fir forest since the mid-19th
century (Foster and Shaff 2003, p. 284).
Where controlled burns or direct tree
removal are not used as a management
tool, this encroachment will continue to
cause the loss of open grassland habitats
for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.
Restoration in some of the south Puget
Sound grasslands in Washington has
resulted in temporary control of Scot’s
broom and other invasive plants
through the careful and judicious use of
herbicides, mowing, grazing, and fire.
Fire has been used as a management
tool to maintain native prairie
composition and structure and is
generally acknowledged to improve the
health and composition of grassland
habitat by providing a short-term
nitrogen addition, which results in a
fertilizer effect to vegetation, thus aiding
grasses and forbs as they resprout.
Unintentional fires ignited by military
training burns patches of prairie grasses
and forbs on JBLM on an annual basis.
These light ground fires create a mosaic
of conditions within the grassland,
maintaining a low vegetative structure
of native and nonnative plant
composition, and patches of bare soil.
Because of the topography of the
landscape, fires create a patchy mosaic
of areas that burn completely, some
areas that do not burn, and areas where
consumption of the vegetation is mixed
in its effects to the habitat. One of the
benefits to fire in grasslands is that it
tends to kill regenerating conifers, and
reduces the cover of nonnative shrubs
such as Scot’s broom, although Scot’s
broom seed stored in the soil can be
stimulated by fire (Agee 1993, p. 367).
Fire also improves conditions for many
native bulb-forming plants, such as
Camassia sp. (camas) (Agee and
Dunwiddie 1984, p. 367). On sites
where regular fires occur, such as on
JBLM, there is a high complement of
native plants and fewer invasive
species. These types of fires promote the
maintenance of the native short-statured
vegetation communities (Severns and
Warren 2008, p. 476) favored by
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies for
larval and nectar food resources. Fire
management to maintain or restore
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
native vegetation is essential to
maintaining suitable habitat for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly, but the timing of
the management activity is important, as
improperly-timed actions can destroy
larvae, eggs, or adult butterflies.
Management practices such as
intentional burning and mowing require
expertise in timing and technique to
achieve desired results. If applied at the
wrong season, frequency, or scale, fire
and mowing can be detrimental to the
restoration of native prairie species. For
example, during a prescribed fire event
that was implemented in an adjacent
training area on JBLM in late summer
2011, fire occurred in an area containing
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat
that was under a protection agreement.
This burn was inconsistent with the
prescribed burn plan and eliminated a
large area of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly larval host and nectaring
plants on the 91st Division Prairie.
Excessive and high intensity burning
can result in a lack of vegetation or
encourage regrowth to nonnative
grasses. Where such burning has
occurred over a period of more than 50
years on the artillery ranges of the
JBLM, prairies are covered by nonnative
forbs and grasses instead of native
perennial bunchgrasses (Tveten and
Fonda 1999, pp. 154–155).
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. On
JBLM, the 91st Division Prairie is
frequently ignited through routine
training exercises involving ordnance,
which prevents invasive shrubs and
nonnative grasses and native Douglas-fir
from encroaching onto the prairie, and
preserves the high quality of habitat
(larval and nectar food plants) for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and the
generally good condition of the prairie.
Vegetation at this site remains in an
early successional stage that is
dominated by native grasses and forbs,
such as Balsamorhiza deltoidea (deltoid
balsamroot), which is an important
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly nectar
plant. Fires on grassland (prairie)
habitat generally have low fuel content
and produce regular, short duration fires
(Agee 1993, p. 354; Chappell and Kagan
2001, p. 43), which restricts the
establishment of invasive plants and
encroaching trees and helps to maintain
native grasses and forbs. Swales and
overall topographic heterogeneity
prevent the entire grassland landscape
from being consumed by fire, as
grasslands fires tend to be patchy in
their distribution creating a mosaic of
conditions. Nonnative grasses have
invaded many sites occupied by
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies (Severns
and Warren 2008, p. 476). Several
hundred acres (more than 40 ha) of tall
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61951
oatgrass is currently encroaching upon
the largest Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly population in Washington
(JBLM’s 91st Division Prairie).
Bald habitats at the Forest Service and
WDNR sites where Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies are found were formerly
forested. These areas appear to have
been colonized by Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly shortly after they were cleared.
At the time the trees were harvested
from each of these balds they were
reforested with conifers to comply with
the Washington State Forest Practices
rules. The establishment and growth of
the conifers, and the establishment and
expansion of Acer macrophyllum
(bigleaf maple), Holodiscus discolor
(oceanspray), and other shrubs has
resulted in shaded habitat which have
replaced areas that the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly is currently using.
Sites that currently have Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies present will
quickly become unsuitable if trees and
shrubs are not removed and if the site
is not managed specifically for the longterm conservation of the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly or the
maintenance of bald habitat. This is the
case for several balds recently occupied
by Taylor’s but no longer supporting the
species, including Bald Hills NAP in
south Puget Sound, and Highway 112
and Striped Peak on the Olympic
Peninsula.
A large portion of the existing
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat on
Denman Island in Canada resulted from
timber harvest. After the area was
logged, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
colonized the disturbed area from
nearby suitable habitat. Currently, Alnus
rubra (red alder), bigleaf maple, and
Douglas-fir trees are expanding onto the
site, which will directly threaten the
butterfly habitat there (COSEWIC 2011,
p. 18). As the forest becomes
reestablished on the property, it will
shade and outcompete the host plants
for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly for
space, water, light, and nutrients. The
population of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly is expected to decline
significantly within the next 10 years at
the Canada site if the habitat on Denman
Island is not managed for the species
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 31).
Streaked Horned Lark. Prior to the
construction of dams on the Columbia
River, annual flooding and scouring
likely created nesting and wintering
habitat for streaked horned larks on
sandy islands and beaches along the
river’s edge (Stinson 2005, p. 67). Once
the dams were in place, Salix spp.
(willows), Populus trichocarpa (black
cottonwood), and other vegetation
established broadly on the sandbars and
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61952
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
banks (Rogers 2000, pp. 41–42),
resulting in unsuitable habitat for larks.
Loss of these habitats may have been
partially ameliorated by the formation of
dredge spoil islands that have been
established as part of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) shipping
channel maintenance (Stinson 2005, p.
67).
Streaked horned larks currently use
sand islands in the lower Columbia
River for both breeding and wintering
habitat; these islands are a mosaic of
Federal, State, and private lands, but
there are no management or
conservation plans in place to protect
larks or these important habitats. The
Corps has a dredging program to
maintain the navigation channel in the
Columbia River. In 2002, the Corps
established a deeper navigation channel
in the river, a regular maintenance
dredging program, and a plan for
disposition of dredge material on the
islands in the lower Columbia River
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) (USFWS 2002b, pp. 1–14). In
this plan, the Corps addressed the
disposition of dredge material in the
lower Columbia River, which has the
potential to both benefit and harm
streaked horned larks, depending on the
location and timing of deposition.
Recent studies by Anderson (2010a, p.
29) on the islands in the lower
Columbia River have shown that fresh
dredge material stabilizes and develops
sparse vegetation suitable for lark
nesting approximately 3 years after
deposition, and can be expected to
remain suitable for approximately 2
years before vegetation becomes too
dense. Thus, deposition of dredge
material can be both a tool for habitat
creation and a threat, as deposition of
dredge material at the wrong time (e.g.,
during the nesting season) can destroy
nests and young or degrade suitable
habitat.
Destruction of occupied lark habitat
through the deposition of dredge
materials has been documented several
times on the lower Columbia River
islands (Stinson 2005, p. 67; Pearson
and Altman 2005, p. 11; Pearson et al.
2008, p. 14). In 2006, dredge spoils were
deposited on Whites Island while larks
were actively nesting. All nests at this
site were apparently destroyed (Pearson
2012a, pers. comm.). This site had at
least 21 nests and 13 territories during
the 2005 nesting season (Pearson et al.
2008, p. 21). In a similar situation on
Rice Island, singing males were
observed on Rice Island in June 2000,
but dredge spoil was placed on the site
in July 2000, which destroyed nesting
habitat during the breeding season
(MacLaren 2000, p. 3). In 2004 on Miller
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Sands Spit, the Army Corps of
Engineers deposited dredge material on
lark breeding habitat, which likely
resulted in nest failure (Pearson and
Altman 2005, p. 10). The Corps has
recently began working with the Center
for Natural Lands Management to
coordinate dredge spoil depositions
with timing of lark breeding season
(Anderson 2011, in litt.).
Dredge spoil deposition also creates
habitat for Caspian terns (Sterna
caspia), a native bird species that nests
in very large numbers in the lower
Columbia River; these large terns have
been shown to eat substantial numbers
of salmon smolts, and the reduction of
predation by terns on young salmon has
been the focus of an interagency effort
for the past decade (Lyons et al. 2011,
p. 2). One aspect of the effort to reduce
the numbers of terns in the lower
Columbia River has been a program to
discourage tern nesting on Rice Island
by planting vegetation and placing
barrier fencing on open sandy habitats;
these measures have also reduced
habitat available to larks on the island
and are ongoing (Stinson 2005, p. 73;
Roby et al. 2011, p. 14).
There is ample evidence that larks
respond positively to habitat
management that simulates natural
processes. From 2001 through 2004,
JBLM used nonbreeding season mowing
and controlled burns to control Scot’s
broom (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 30).
The September 2004 burns resulted in
increased lark abundance and a
dramatic vegetative response on 13th
Division Prairie; relative to the control
sites, late summer fire in 2006 resulted
in increased use of the burned areas by
larks immediately after the fires, and in
the breeding season following the fires
(Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 30).
Throughout the year, streaked horned
larks use areas of bare ground or sparse
vegetative cover in grasslands. These
grasslands may be native prairies in the
Puget lowlands, perennial or annual
grass seed fields in the Willamette
Valley, or the margins of airport
runways throughout the range of the
species. All of these habitats receive
management to maintain desired
structure: prairies require frequent
burning or mowing to prevent
succession to woodlands; agricultural
fields are mowed at harvest or burned
to reduce weed infestations; airports
mow to maintain low-stature grasses
around airfields to minimize attracting
hazardous wildlife. Burning and
mowing are beneficial to larks in that
they maintain the habitat structure
required by the bird, but these activities
can also harm larks if the activities
occur during the breeding season when
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
nests and young are present (Pearson
and Hopey 2005, p. 29). In the nesting
seasons from 2002 to 2004, monitoring
at the Puget lowlands sites (Gray Army
Airfield, McChord Field, and Olympia
Airport) documented nest failure of 8
percent of nests caused by mowing over
the nests, young, and adults (Pearson
and Hopey 2005, p. 18). Habitat
management to maintain low-stature
vegetation is essential to maintaining
suitable habitat for streaked horned
larks, but the timing of the management
is important, as improperly-timed
actions can destroy nests and young.
Military Training
Populations of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies and streaked horned larks
occurring on JBLM are exposed to
differing levels of training activities on
the base. The DOD’s proposed actions
under ‘Grow the Army’ (GTA) include
stationing 5,700 new soldiers, new
combat service support units, a combat
aviation brigade, facility demolition and
construction to support the increased
troop levels, additional aviation,
maneuver, and live fire training (75 FR
55313, September 10, 2010). The
increased training activities will affect
nearly all training areas at JBLM
resulting in an increased risk of
accidental fires, and habitat destruction
and degradation through vehicle travel,
dismounted training, bivouac activities,
and digging. While training areas on the
base have degraded habitat for these
species, with implementation of
conservation measures, these areas still
provide habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark.
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly.
Military training on JBLM has resulted
in direct mortality of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies and destruction
of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat.
Vehicle use and soldier foot traffic can
crush larvae and damage larval host
plants. These actions disrupt intact
prairie plant communities by disturbing
vegetation and exposing soils, directly
introducing invasive plant seeds carried
in on tires or boots, and accelerating the
rate of establishment of invasive grasses
or other nonnative plants that are lightseeded and easily blown onto a site
from adjacent areas, like Cirsium spp.
(thistles), Senecio spp. (groundsel),
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum (oxeye
daisy). For example, in January 2009 an
exercise occurred that did not follow the
documented training plan, which would
have restricted vehicles to established
roads in order to protect sensitive
habitat. Instead vehicles moved
haphazardly across an area known to be
occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies and streaked horned larks.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Approximately 67 ac (27 ha) of prairie
were repeatedly traversed by eight
wheeled armored personnel carriers
known as Strykers. DOD staff later
estimated that up to 37.5 ac (15 ha) were
highly disturbed (Gruhn 2009, pers.
comm.), with much of this acreage
scraped to bare soil (Linders 2009b,
entire). This impact would have directly
affected overwintering larvae by
crushing larvae and destroying the
larvae plants used by Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies.
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly counts
were the lowest ever recorded at this
site during the following spring (Linders
2009a, entire; Randolph 2009, p. 4;
Thomas 2009, pers. obs). Prior to the
butterfly flight season in May 2009, the
three brigades of Strykers were
dispatched away from JBLM and the
prairies were not used for Stryker
training during the spring of 2009 or
2010, which corresponds to the butterfly
flight period. This training break
allowed Range 74–76 of the 91st
Division Prairie to regenerate or recover
the vegetative qualities associated with
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark habitat. JBLM has
subsequently coordinated with the
Service to establish specific
conservation measures regarding vehicle
use within this training area. Military
training also occurs on a specific
portion of the 91st Division Prairie
called Training Area 50 where Taylor’s
larvae have been translocated during
spring 2009, 2010, and 2011, and at the
proposed checkerspot translocation site
at 13th Division Prairie.
Under the GTA initiative, more troops
and vehicles will be stationed at JBLM;
this is likely to result in increased
pressure on Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly habitat and larvae, particularly
if the Army continues training on 91st
Division Prairie. It is likely that a higher
number of troops will equate to a higher
number of individuals recreating on
JBLM in places like Marion and Jackson
prairies (this is further discussed under
recreational impacts below).
Streaked Horned Lark. Military
training, including bombardment with
explosive ordnance and hot downdraft
from aircraft has been documented to
cause nest failure and abandonment for
streaked horned larks at Gray Army
Airfield and McChord Field at JBLM
(Stinson 2005, pp. 71–72). These
activities harass and may kill some
streaked horned larks, but the frequent
disturbance also helps to maintain
sparse vegetation and open ground
needed for streaked horned lark nesting.
In the odd-numbered years since
2005, McChord Field has hosted a
military training event known as the Air
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Mobility Rodeo. This international
military training exercise is held at the
end of July. This event includes aircraft,
vehicles, and tents staged on or near
lark nesting areas, although the majority
of these activities take place on concrete
hardstand areas (Geil 2010, in litt.). In
even-numbered years, McChord Field
hosts a public air show known as Air
Expo, which is scheduled in mid-July.
At the Air Expo, aerial events
incorporate simulated bombing and firebombing, including explosives and
pyrotechnics launched from an area
adjacent to the most densely populated
streaked horned lark nesting site at this
location; these disturbances likely have
adverse effects to fledglings of late nests
(Stinson 2005, p. 72). Surveys in 2004
detected 31 pairs of streaked horned
larks at McChord Field (Anderson 2011,
p. 14). In 2006, the number of lark pairs
at McChord Field had dropped by more
than half to 14 pairs, and the number of
lark pairs has remained low, with just
11 pairs detected in 2011 (Anderson
2011, p. 14). The Rodeo and Air Expo
events are scheduled to take advantage
of the good weather that typically
occurs in the summer on the south
Puget Sound; this timeframe also
coincides with the streaked horned lark
nesting season, and the disturbance may
continue to cause nest failure and
abandonment (Pearson et al. 2005a, p.
18). During the airshows, tents, vehicles
and concession stands are set up in the
grassy areas along the runways used by
streaked horned larks for nesting and
thousands of visitors a day line the
runways for viewing the shows.
Airports routinely implement a
variety of approaches to minimize the
presence of hazardous wildlife on or
adjacent to airfields and to prevent
wildlife strikes by aircraft. McChord
Field uses falcons to scare geese and
gulls off the airfield, and also uses two
dogs for this purpose; the falcons and
dogs are part of McChord Field’s
Integrated Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike
Hazard program and are designed to
minimize aircraft and crew exposure to
potentially hazardous bird and wildlife
strikes (Geil 2010, in litt.). The falcons
and dogs cause streaked horned larks to
become alert and fly (Pearson and
Altman 2005, p. 12), which imposes an
energetic cost to adults and could
expose nests to predation. Portland
International Airport uses a variety of
hazing and habitat management tools to
minimize wildlife hazards. Raptors and
waterfowl pose the greatest danger to
aircraft operations, but the airport’s
Wildlife Hazard Management Plan aims
to reduce the potential for any bird
strikes (Port of Portland 2009, pp. 5–6).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61953
Streaked horned larks are not known to
nest near the runways at Portland
International Airport, but foraging
individuals from the nearby Southwest
Quad could be harassed by the hazing
program, which could impose resulting
energetic costs.
JBLM has committed to restrictions
both seasonally and operationally on
military training areas, in order to avoid
and minimize potential affects to the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark. These restrictions
include identified non-training areas,
seasonally restricted areas during
breeding, and the adjustment of mowing
schedules to protect these species.
These conservation management
practices are outlined in an operational
plan that the Service has assisted the
DOD in developing for JBLM (Thomas
2012, pers. comm.).
Restoration Activities
Management for invasive species and
encroachment of conifers requires
control through equipment, herbicides,
and other activities. While restoration
has conservation value for the species,
management activities to implement
restoration may also have direct impacts
to the species that are the target of
habitat restoration.
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. On
occupied sites, Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies are present throughout the
year in some life cycle form. Restoration
activities (application of herbicides, use
of restoration equipment, and fire) can
result in trampling, crushing and
destruction of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly larvae and larval host plants.
Mowing to reduce the cover and
competition from woody species, if
done at the wrong time of year, can
crush larval host plants and nectar
plants used by adult butterflies on a site.
Streaked Horned Lark. The
introduction of Ammophila arenaria
(Eurasian beachgrass) and A.
breviligulata (American beachgrass),
currently found in high and increasing
densities in most of coastal Washington
and Oregon, has dramatically altered the
structure of dunes on the outer coast
(Wiedemann and Pickart 1996, p. 289).
The tall leaf canopy of beachgrass
creates areas of dense vegetation, which
is unsuitable habitat for streaked horned
lark nesting (MacLaren 2000, p. 5).
Streaked horned larks require sparse,
low-stature vegetation with at least 16–
17 percent bare ground; areas invaded
by beachgrass are too dense for streaked
horned larks. The area suitable for
streaked horned lark breeding on the
Washington coast has decreased as a
result of the spread of beachgrasses
(Stinson 2005, p. 65; USFWS 2011a, p.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61954
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
4–2). In a 10-year period (from 1977 to
1987) at Leadbetter Point on the Willapa
National Wildlife Refuge, spreading
beachgrass reduced the available nesting
habitat for streaked horned larks by
narrowing the distance from vegetation
to water by 112 feet (34 meters) (WDFW
1995, p. 19). Since 1985, encroaching
beachgrasses have spread to cover over
two-thirds of Damon Point at Grays
Harbor, another lark breeding site on the
Washington coast (WDFW 1995, p. 19).
At Damon Point, Scot’s broom is also
encroaching on lark habitat, reducing
the area available for nesting (Pearson
2011, in litt.). On the Oregon coast, the
disappearance of the streaked horned
lark has been attributed to the invasion
of exotic beachgrasses and the resultant
dune stabilization (Gilligan et al. 1994,
p. 205).
Some efforts have been successful in
reducing the cover of encroaching
beachgrasses. The Service’s Willapa
National Wildlife Refuge has restored
habitat on Leadbetter Point. In 2007, the
area of open habitat measured 84 ac (34
ha); after mechanical and chemical
treatment to clear beachgrass (mostly
American beachgrass) and spreading
oyster shell across 45 ac (18 ha), 121 ac
(50 ha) of sparsely vegetated open
habitat suitable for lark nesting was
created (Pearson et al. 2009, p. 23). The
main target of the Leadbetter Point
restoration project was the threatened
western snowy plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus), but the
restoration actions also benefited the
streaked horned lark. Before the
restoration project, this area had just 2
streaked horned lark territories (Pearson
et al. 2005a, p. 7); after the project, an
estimated 8 to 10 territories were
located in and adjacent to the
restoration area (Pearson 2012b, pers.
comm.).
Disease Impacts to Habitat
Disease is not known to be a threat to
the habitats of the streaked horned lark.
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. Until
recently disease was not known to be a
factor affecting the habitat of the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. We now
have evidence of a plant pathogen
(Pyrenopeziza plantaginis) known to
affect the leaf tissue of the narrow-leaf
plantain, the primary larval food for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly at several
locations, and the exclusive larval food
plant at all sites known from Oregon. At
some locations on the north Olympic
Peninsula, the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies select harsh paintbrush as the
primary larval food plant and select
narrow-leaf plantain as the secondary
larval host. Pyrenopeziza plantaginis is
active in late winter through early
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
spring, and contributes to the mortality
of leaf tissue at a time when postdiapause larvae are feeding on narrowleaf plantain. Narrow-leaf plantain is an
exotic but widely distributed invasive
European weed in North America (Wolff
and Schaal 1992, pp. 326, 330).
Although the pathogen is common in
Europe it has only recently been
reported in North America (Severns
2011, in litt.; Stone et al. 2011, p. 1).
Severns and Warren (2008. p. 476)
identified the pathogen on leaves of
narrow-leaf plantain from remnant
prairies in Benton County, Oregon,
where Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
are known to occur and where they feed
exclusively on narrow-leaf plantain.
Similar instances of leaf mortality were
previously attributed to frost damage on
prairies of south Puget Sound,
Washington. Recently, P. plantaginis
has been identified on narrow-leaf
plantain at Scatter Creek Wildlife Area
in Thurston County, and at the 91st
Division Prairie on JBLM, in Pierce
County; both sites are in Washington.
Uncertainty exists regarding how
Pyrenopeziza plantaginis affects
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae.
The pathogen has been identified
locally in Washington at sites where
Taylor’s checkerspot larvae feed on
narrow-leaf plantain. The pathogen kills
leaf tissue in late winter and early
spring, coinciding with the time postdiapause larvae are feeding (Severns
2011, in litt.), which would lead to
declining food resource to support the
butterfly’s larvae. If the food resource is
killed by this pathogen it may affect the
ability of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
larvae to survive through the critical
larval feeding period prior to emergence
as an adult butterfly. Therefore, based
on our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we conclude that disease may be a
threat to the larval foods utilized by
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and,
subsequently, may indirectly affect the
butterfly. At this time, we have evidence
of the presence of this pathogen at
Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in
Washington, where the pathogen
appears common and its effect to
Plantago is severe (Severns 2011, in litt.)
This threat may affect populations if the
pathogen were to become widespread
on sites occupied by Taylor’s
checkerspots; however, because we are
uncertain of its potential as a
population-level threat, we conclude
that disease is a relatively minor threat
to Taylor’s checkerspot at this time, and
we have no evidence to suggest that it
is likely to become a significant threat
within the future.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Transient Agricultural Habitat
The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is
not affected by transient agricultural
habitat.
Streaked Horned Lark. Roughly half
of all the agricultural land in the
Willamette Valley is devoted to grass
seed production fields (Oregon Seed
Council 2012, p. 1). Grasslands—both
rare native prairies and grass seed
fields—are important habitats for
streaked horned larks in the Willamette
Valley; open areas within the grasslands
are used for both breeding and
wintering habitat (Altman 1999, p. 18;
Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 11; Myers
and Kreager 2010, p. 9). About 420,000
ac (170,000 ha) in the Willamette Valley
are currently planted in grass seed
production fields. Demand for grass
seed is declining in the current
economic climate (Oregon Department
of Agriculture 2011, p. 1); this decreased
demand for grass seed has resulted in
farmers switching to other agricultural
commodities, such as wheat or nurseries
and greenhouses (U.S. Department of
Agriculture—National Agricultural
Statistical Service Oregon Field Office
2009, p. 3; Oregon Department of
Agriculture 2011, p. 1). The continued
decline of the grass seed industry in the
Willamette Valley will likely result in
conversion from grass seed fields to
other agricultural types; this will result
in fewer acres of suitable breeding and
wintering habitat for streaked horned
larks.
Another potential threat related to
agricultural lands is the streaked horned
lark’s use of ephemeral habitats. In the
breeding season, streaked horned larks
will move into open habitats as they
become available, and as the vegetation
grows taller over the course of the
season, will abandon the site to look for
other open habitats later in the season
(Beason 1995, p. 6). This ability to shift
locations in response to habitat changes
is a natural feature of the streaked
horned lark’s life history strategies, as
breeding in recently disturbed habitats
is part of their evolutionary history. In
the Willamette Valley, patches of
suitable habitat in the agricultural fields
shift from place to place as fields are
burned, mowed, or harvested. Other
suitable sites appear when portions of
grass fields perform poorly,
inadvertently creating optimal habitat
for larks. The shifting nature of suitable
habitat is not in itself a threat; the
potential threat is in the overall
reduction of compatible agriculture,
which would reduce the area within
which lark habitat could occur.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Summary of Factor A
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly.
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies face
threats from loss of habitat due to
conversion of native grasslands to
agriculture, and permanent loss when
prairies are developed for residential or
commercial purposes. Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies also face threats
from changes in vegetation structure
and composition of native grasslanddominated plant communities. Changes
to vegetation structure and composition
can occur through conversion to
agriculture, through natural succession
processes, and invasion by nonnative
species (Agee 1993, p. 345; Chappell
and Kagan 2001, p. 42). In addition to
the loss of grasslands from
development, conversion to agriculture,
and other uses, as well as plant
succession, these plant communities are
faced with degradation due to invasion
of the grassland habitat that remains by
native conifers and nonnative pasture
grasses, shrubs, and forbs. As grasslands
have been converted, the availability of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larval
host plants and adult nectar plants has
declined.
In addition, we conclude that disease,
specifically Pyrenopeziza plantaginis,
may pose a potential threat to the larval
food plant of the Taylor’s checkerspot,
and therefore a potential indirect threat
to the species. However, we have no
information to suggest that it is
currently a threat to Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly. Any threat of
disease to the larval food plant for this
species has the potential to become a
threat in the future due to the small
number of remaining populations of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. However,
based on our review of the best available
information, we have no data at this
point to suggest that it is likely to
become a widespread threat in the
future.
The current threats to Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies are similar to
those identified at the time the species
was determined to be a candidate for
listing in 2001. Since then, the threat
from invasive species and their impacts
on native vegetation has increased.
Other threats, particularly the pressure
to develop Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly habitat, have increased on
Denman Island, Canada, in south Puget
Sound, and in the Willamette Valley
(IAE 2010, p. 1). Moreover, prior to
entering two wars in 2003, military
training (DOD, Army, JBLM) on
occupied Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
habitat was lower in intensity and
duration. The only remaining highquality native habitat occupied by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly within
the south Puget Sound region is found
on the 91st Division Prairie of JBLM, a
site of highly active training that can
inadvertently result in the destruction of
larval host plants and crushed larvae.
Based on current projected
development and impacts to habitat, the
loss of historically occupied locations,
military training, recreation, the limited
distribution of the species, existing and
future habitat fragmentation, habitat
disturbance, and land use changes
associated with agriculture and longterm fire suppression, we conclude that
there are current and ongoing threats to
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat
which are expected to continue into the
future.
Streaked Horned Lark. The streaked
horned lark population decline in the
south Puget Sound of Washington
indicates that the observed range
contraction for this subspecies may be
continuing, and the subspecies may
disappear from that region in the near
future. There are many other ongoing
threats to the streaked horned lark’s
habitat throughout its range, including:
(1) Conversion to agriculture and
industry; (2) loss of natural disturbance
processes such as fire and flooding; (3)
encroachment of woody vegetation; (4)
invasion of coastal areas by nonnative
beachgrasses; and (5) incompatible
management practices. The continued
loss and degradation of streaked horned
lark habitat may result in smaller, more
isolated habitats available to the
subspecies, which could further depress
the rangewide population or reduce the
geographic distribution of the streaked
horned lark. We conclude that the
current and ongoing threats to streaked
horned lark habitat are resulting in a
significant impact to the species and its
habitat and will continue into the
future.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization of species results
when the number of individuals
removed from the system exceeds the
ability of the population of the species
to sustain its numbers or reduces
populations of the species to a level
such that it is vulnerable to other
influences (threats) upon its survival.
This overutilization can result from
removal of individuals from the wild for
commercial, recreational, scientific or
educational purposes.
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly.
Populations of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies have declined dramatically
during the past decade. We know of no
overutilization of the Taylor’s
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61955
checkerspot butterfly for commercial,
recreational, or educational purposes.
However, scientific studies may have
negatively affected Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly populations at the 13th
Division Prairie on JBLM (Vaughan and
Black 2002). Over 7,000 individuals
were observed as recently as 1997, but
only 10 adults were observed during
surveys in 2000, and no Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies have been
observed since (Stinson 2005, p. 94;
Linders 2012c, in litt.). Mark-recapture
studies were conducted at this site for
several years during this timeframe, and
the study methods involved capturing
all adults and moving them to a single
release location. This action likely
influenced the population
demographics, but because no
simultaneous population monitoring
was conducted, it is impossible to know
whether there was an effect. According
to McGarrahan (1997), mark, release,
and recapture studies of the Bay Edith’s
checkerspot (Euphydryas editha
bayensis) were considered a
contributing factor in the extirpation of
this population from Stanford’s Jasper
Ridge Preserve. There are no current
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly ‘‘mark,
release and recapture studies’’ in
progress. Collection of butterflies and
the threat of trampling associated with
scientific studies continue to be a threat
to the species, although it is likely a
minor one.
Streaked Horned Lark. Overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes is not known to
be a threat to the streaked horned lark.
Summary of Factor B
In summary, although there is some
evidence of historical mortality from
overutilization for the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and there may
have been recent mortality from
utilization of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly, we have no reason to believe
that current levels of utilization impact
the species alone or to a degree such
that it is vulnerable to other threats. We
have no information to suggest that
overutilization will become a threat in
the future. In addition, there is no
evidence that commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational use is
occurring at a level that would pose a
threat to the streaked horned lark.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
Most healthy ecosystems include
organisms such as viruses, bacteria,
fungi, and parasites that cause disease.
Healthy wildlife and ecosystems have
evolved defenses to fend off most
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61956
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
diseases before they have devastating
impacts. An ecosystem with high levels
of biodiversity (diversity of species and
genetic diversity within species) is more
resilient to the impacts of disease
because there are greater possibilities
that some species and individuals
within a species have evolved
resistance, or if an entire species is lost,
that there will likely be another species
to fill the empty niche.
Where ecosystems are not healthy,
due to a loss of biodiversity and threats
such as habitat loss, climate change,
pollutants or invasive species, wildlife
and ecosystems are more vulnerable to
emerging diseases. Diseases caused by
or carried by invasive species are
particularly severe threats, as native
wildlife may have no natural immunity
to them (National Wildlife Federation
2012).
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial data found no
evidence to indicate that disease is a
threat to the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly or streaked horned lark. We
conclude that disease is not a threat to
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or
streaked horned lark now, nor do we
anticipate it to become a threat in the
future.
Predation
Predation is a process of major
importance in influencing the
distribution, abundance, and diversity
of species in ecological communities.
Generally, predation leads to changes in
both the population size of the predator
and that of the prey. In unfavorable
environments, prey species are stressed
or living at low population densities
such that predation is likely to have
negative effects on all prey species, thus
lowering species richness. In addition,
when a nonnative predator is
introduced to the ecosystem, negative
effects on the prey population may be
higher than those from co-evolved
native predators. The effect of predation
may be magnified when populations are
small, and the disproportionate effect of
predation on declining populations has
been shown to drive rare species even
further towards extinction (Woodworth
1999, pp. 74–75).
Predation has an impact on
populations of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark. The
degree of threat to Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly from predation is not as
pronounced as with the streaked horned
lark due to the concentration of
defensive plant compounds within the
larvae and adults that make them
distasteful to predators.
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly.
Generally, butterflies exhibit some
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
protective mechanisms to avoid
predation, and this is true for the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Larvae of
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
sequester iridoid glycosides (plant
defensive chemicals) during
consumption of their larval host plants,
narrow-leaf plantain and paintbrush
species. These compounds are
distasteful to predators (COSEWIC 2011,
p. 36) and generalist predators such as
insects and spiders avoid checkerspot
larvae (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140).
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae
also tend to be brightly colored, which
makes them highly visible and signals
the presence of noxious compounds to
predators, including birds and some
invertebrate predators that avoid
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae
(Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 139). However,
birds are known to attack and consume
adult butterflies. Bowers et al. (1985, p.
101), found avian predation to be a
significant factor in mortality of adult
variable checkerspot butterflies
(Euphydryas chalcedona) They also
found sex bias in selection of prey as the
avian predator ate more female variable
butterflies (less bright red) than male
variable checkerspot butterflies, adding
support to the idea that brightly colored
insects are avoided (Bowers 1985 p.
100). This is likely a naturally occurring
predation event and we conclude that at
this time it is currently not a threat, nor
do we expect it to become a threat to
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.
Streaked Horned Lark. Predation on
adult streaked horned larks has not been
identified as a threat, but it is the most
frequently documented source of
mortality for eggs and young larks. In
most studies of streaked horned lark
nesting ecology, predation has been the
primary documented source of nest
failure (Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson and
Hopey 2004, p. 15; Pearson and Hopey
2005, p. 16; Pearson and Hopey 2008, p.
1; Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 32).
Sixty-nine percent of nest failures were
caused by predation at four south Puget
Sound study sites (Gray Army Airfield,
13th Division Prairie, Olympia Airport,
McChord Field) in 2002–2004 (Pearson
and Hopey 2005, p. 18). Anderson
(2006, p. 19) concluded that the primary
predators of streaked horned lark eggs
and young were avian, most likely
American crows (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), although garter snakes
(Thamnophis spp.) and western
meadowlarks have also been
documented preying on eggs and young
in the region (Pearson and Hopey 2005,
p. 16; Pearson and Hopey 2008, p. 4).
On the Washington coast and lower
Columbia River islands, 46 percent of
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
nest failures were caused by predation
at three study sites (Midway Beach,
Damon Point, and Puget Island) in 2004
(Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 18). A
study of five sites in the Willamette
Valley (Corvallis Airport, M–DAC
Farms, William L. Finley, Baskett
Slough, and Ankeny National Wildlife
Refuges) determined that 23 to 58
percent of all streaked horned lark nests
were lost to predation (Moore and
Kotaich 2010, p. 32).
Video cameras were used to identify
predators in this Willamette Valley
study; documented predators include:
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
northern harrier (Circus cyaneus),
American kestrel (Falco sparverius),
great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus),
and rats and mice (Family Cricetidae)
(Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 36).
Streaked horned larks are groundnesting birds and are vulnerable to
many other potential predators,
including domestic cats and dogs,
coyotes (Canis latrans), raccoons
(Procyon lotor), striped skunks
(Mephitis mephitis), red foxes (Vulpes
vulpes), long-tailed weasels (Mustela
frenata), opossums (Didelphis
virginiana), meadow voles (Microtus
pennsylvanicus), deer mice (Peromyscus
maniculatus), and shrews (Sorex spp.)
(Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson
2005, p. 59).
Predation is a natural part of the
streaked horned lark’s life history, and
in stable populations, the effect of
predation would not be considered a
threat to the species. However, in the
case of the streaked horned lark, the
effect of predation may be magnified
when populations are small, and the
disproportionate effect of predation on
declining populations has been shown
to drive rare species even further
towards extinction (Woodworth 1999,
pp. 74–75). We consider the effect of
predation on streaked horned lark
populations, particularly on the south
Puget Sound, to be a threat to the
subspecies.
The one area where predation does
not appear to be a threat to nesting
streaked horned larks is in Portland at
Rivergate Industrial Complex and the
Southwest Quad at Portland
International Airport. In 2009 and 2010,
nesting success was very high, and only
a single predation event was
documented at these sites (Moore 2011,
p. 11). The reason for the unusually low
predation pressure may be that the two
industrial sites have few predators since
both sites are isolated from other nearby
natural habitats.
Predation may have contributed to the
extirpation of streaked horned larks on
the San Juan Islands. The subspecies
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
was last documented on the islands in
1962 (Lewis and Sharpe 1987, p. 204).
The introduction of several exotic
animal species to the island roughly
coincides with the disappearance of the
streaked horned lark, including feral
ferrets (Mustela outorius) and red foxes.
These introduced predators may have
significantly affected ground nesting
birds and played a role in the eventual
extirpation of streaked horned larks
(Rogers 2000, p. 42).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Summary of Factor C
Based on our review of the best
available information, we conclude that
disease is not a threat to the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned
lark now, nor do we expect it to become
a threat in the future.
We found only one study with
evidence to indicate that predation from
avian predators may be a threat to the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. While
predation does occur on the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly, it does not appear
to be occurring beyond expected natural
levels; therefore, we do not consider it
to be a threat now, and we have no
information to indicate that it will
become a threat in the future.
Because the populations of streaked
horned larks are declining and small,
we find that effect of the threat of
predation is resulting in a significant
impact on the species. Therefore, based
on our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we conclude that predation is currently
a threat to the streaked horned lark now
and will continue to be in the future.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine
whether existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to address the threats to
the species discussed under the other
factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the Service to take into account
‘‘those efforts, if any, being made by any
State or foreign nation, or any political
subdivision of a State or foreign nation,
to protect such species * * *.’’ In
relation to Factor D under the Act, we
interpret this language to require the
Service to consider relevant Federal,
State, and tribal laws, regulations, and
other such mechanisms that may
minimize any of the threats we describe
in threat analyses under the other four
factors, or otherwise enhance
conservation of the species. We give
strongest weight to statutes and their
implementing regulations and to
management direction that stems from
those laws and regulations. An example
would be State governmental actions
enforced under a State statute or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
constitution, or Federal action under
statute.
The following section includes a
discussion of Federal, State, or local
laws, regulations, or treaties that apply
to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or
the streaked horned lark. It includes
legislation for Federal land management
agencies and State and Federal
regulatory authorities affecting land use
or other relevant management.
Canadian Laws and Regulations
In British Columbia, Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and the streaked
horned lark are on the Conservation
Data Centre’s Red List. The Red List
includes ecological communities,
indigenous species and subspecies that
are extirpated, endangered, or
threatened in British Columbia; placing
taxa on the Red List flags them as being
at risk and requiring investigation, but
does not confer any protection (British
Columbia Ministry of Environment
2012, p. 1).
In 2003, the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and in 2005, the streaked
horned lark were determined to be
endangered under the Canadian Species
at Risk Act (SARA) (Environment
Canada 2007, p. iii). SARA makes it an
offense to kill, harm, harass, capture or
take an individual of a listed species
that is endangered or threatened;
possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an
individual of a listed species that is
extirpated, endangered or threatened, or
its part or derivative; damage or destroy
the residence of one or more individuals
of a listed endangered or threatened
species or of a listed extirpated species
if a recovery strategy has recommended
its reintroduction.
For many of the species listed under
SARA, the prohibitions on harm to
individuals and destruction of
residences are limited to Federal lands,
but this limitation is inapplicable to
migratory birds protected under the
Migratory Birds Convention Act,
including the streaked horned lark
(Statutes of Canada (S.C). ch. 29, § 34).
Hence, SARA protects streaked horned
larks, where present, from harm and
destruction of their residences, not only
on Federal lands, but also on provincial
and private lands, where most of the
remaining habitat for the species occurs.
Moreover, SARA mandates
development and implementation of a
recovery strategy and action plans (S.C.
ch. 29, §§ 37, 47). Invertebrate species
assessed by the Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) as endangered will be
protected by the British Columbia
Wildlife Act and Wildlife Amendment
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61957
Act, once these regulations are finalized
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 44).
The horned lark (all subspecies) is
also protected under Canada’s Federal
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994
(MBCA) (S.C. ch. 22), which is their
domestic legislation similar to the
United States’ Migratory Bird Treaty Act
of 1918 (MBTA). The MBCA and its
implementing regulations prohibit the
hunting of migratory nongame birds and
the possession or sale of ‘‘migratory
birds, their nests, or eggs’’ (S.C. ch. 22
§§ 5, 12).
Although British Columbia has no
stand-alone endangered species act, the
provincial Wildlife Act protects
virtually all vertebrate animals from
direct harm, except as allowed by
regulation (e.g., hunting or trapping).
Legal designation as endangered or
threatened under this act increases the
penalties for harming a species, and also
enables the protection of habitat in a
Critical Wildlife Management Area
(British Columbia Wildlife Act 1996,
accessed online). The streaked horned
lark is not listed under Canada’s
provincial Wildlife Act as an
endangered or threatened species.
To date there is no finalized recovery
strategy for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly in Canada (COSEWIC 2011, p.
44). A majority (97 percent) of the
known populations observed in Canada
occur on private land on Denman
Island, which is not protected from
development by individual landowners;
approximately 1,173 ac (475 ha) of this
private land has been officially
transferred to the government and will
become a Provincial Park or Ecological
Reserve (COSEWIC 2011, p. 45). A final
recovery strategy for the streaked
horned lark was released in 2007
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 40); the streaked
horned lark is essentially extirpated in
Canada, and the recovery goal for this
species is to reestablish a breeding
population of at least 10 breeding pairs
at a minimum of 3 sites within its
historical breeding range in Canada
(Environment Canada 2007, p. iv).
Based on our evaluation, we have
determined that SARA provides
protections for both the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark given their limited
occurrences in British Columbia, and,
additionally, the streaked horned lark is
afforded protections under the MBCA.
United States Federal Laws and
Regulations
There are no Federal laws in the
United States that specifically protect
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. The
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16
U.S.C. 703 et seq.) is the only Federal
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61958
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
law in the United States currently
providing specific protection for the
streaked horned lark due to its status as
a migratory bird. The MBTA prohibits
the following actions, unless permitted
by Federal regulation:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
To ‘‘pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt
to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale,
sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for
shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver
for transportation, transport, cause to be
transported, carry, or cause to be carried by
any means whatever, receive for shipment,
transportation or carriage, or export, at any
time, or in any manner, any migratory bird
* * * or any part, nest, or egg of any such
bird.’’
There are no provisions in the MBTA
that prevent habitat destruction unless
direct mortality or destruction of active
nests occurs (for example, as was
described in Factor A, above, for dredge
spoil disposal in the breeding season),
nor does the MBTA require any
planning to recover declining species or
provide funding to protect individuals
or their habitats. Therefore, we conclude
that the MBTA does not address threats
to the streaked horned lark from further
population declines associated with
habitat loss or inappropriate
management.
The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670)
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to
develop cooperative plans with the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior for natural resources on public
lands. The Sikes Act Improvement Act
of 1997 requires Department of Defense
installations to prepare Integrated
Natural Resource Management Plans
(INRMPs) that provide for the
conservation and rehabilitation of
natural resources on military lands
consistent with the use of military
installations to ensure the readiness of
the Armed Forces. INRMPs incorporate,
to the maximum extent practicable,
ecosystem management principles and
provide the landscape necessary to
sustain military land uses. While
INRMPs are not technically regulatory
mechanisms because their
implementation is subject to funding
availability, they can be an added
conservation tool in promoting the
recovery of endangered and threatened
species on military lands.
On JBLM in Washington, several
policies and an INRMP are in place to
provide conservation measures to
grassland-associated species that occupy
training lands on the military base.
JBLM in partnership with local agencies
and nongovernmental organizations has
provided funding to conserve these
species through the acquisition of new
conservation properties and
management actions intended to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
improve the amount and distribution of
habitat for these species. JBLM has also
provided funding to reintroduce
declining species (e.g., Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly) into suitable
habitat on and off military lands. In June
2011, representatives from DOD
(Washington, DC office) met with all
conservation partners to assess the
success of this program and make
decisions as to future funding needs.
Support from the Garrison Commander
of JBLM and all partners resulted in an
increase in funding for habitat
management and acquisition projects for
these species on JBLM.
The Service has worked closely with
the DOD to develop protection areas
within the primary habitat for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly on JBLM. These
include areas where no vehicles are
permitted on occupied habitat, where
vehicles will remain on roads only, and
where foot traffic is allowed.
JBLM policies include Army
Regulation 420–5, which covers the
INRMP, and AR–200–1. This is an
agreement between each troop and DOD
management that actions taken by each
soldier will comply with restrictions
placed on specific Training Areas, or
range lands. Within the INRMP, the
wildlife branch of the DOD developed
updated Endangered Species
Management Plans (ESMPs) that
provide site specific management and
protection actions that are taken on
military lands for the conservation of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark. The ESMPs
provide assurances of available funding,
and an implementation schedule that
determines when certain activities will
occur and who will accomplish these
actions. ESMPs require regular updates
to account for dispersal of animals, or
for activities to enhance habitat for
animals that may have been translocated
to a new habitat patch. INRMPs also
have a monitoring component that
would require modifications, or
adaptive management, to planning
actions when the result of that specific
action may differ from the intent of the
planned action. Based on the military’s
efforts, we conclude that although
military actions may continue to harm
individuals of the species, through the
Sikes Act, the JBLM INRMP protects the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark from further
population declines associated with
habitat loss or inappropriate
management on JBLM properties.
The National Park Service Organic
Act of 1916, as amended (39 Stat. 535,
16 U.S.C. 1), states that the National
Park Service (NPS) ‘‘shall promote and
regulate the use of the Federal areas
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
known as national parks, monuments,
and reservations * * * to conserve the
scenery and the national and historic
objects and the wildlife therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same
in such manner and by such means as
will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.’’ The
NPS Management Policies indicate that
the Park Service will ‘‘meet its
obligations under the National Park
Service Organic Act and the Endangered
Species Act to both pro-actively
conserve listed species and prevent
detrimental effects on these species.’’
This includes working with the Service
and undertaking active management
programs to inventory, monitor, restore,
and maintain listed species habitats,
among other actions.
The National Forest Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B) has required the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) Forest Service to incorporate
standards and guidelines into Land and
Resource Management Plans, including
provisions to support and manage plant
and animal communities for diversity
and for the long-term, rangewide
viability of native species. The final
planning rule (2012 rule, 36 CFR part
219) provides a framework to guide the
collaborative and science-based
development, amendment and revision
of land management plans. This
framework is designed to promote
healthy, resilient, diverse, and
productive national forests and
grasslands with a range of social,
economic, and ecological benefits now
and for future generations. In the face of
changing environmental conditions and
stressors, such as a changing climate,
the 2012 rule requires plans to include
plan components to: (1) Maintain and
restore ecosystem and watershed health
and resilience (ecological integrity); (2)
protect key resources on the unit,
including water, air, and soil; and (3)
address water quality and riparian area
protection and restoration.
The 2012 rule contains a strong
implementation approach to provide for
the diversity of plant and animal
communities and the persistence of
native species in the plan area. This
approach requires that plans use a
complementary ecosystem and speciesspecific approach to maintaining the
diversity of plant and animal
communities and the persistence of
native species in the plan area. The
intent is to provide the ecological
conditions (habitat) necessary to keep
common native species common,
contribute to the recovery of threatened
and endangered species, conserve
proposed and candidate species, and
maintain viable populations of each
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
species of conservation concern within
the plan area. The 2012 rule requires
that plans provide the ecological
conditions necessary to contribute to the
recovery of threatened and endangered
species, and to conserve candidate and
proposed species. In addition, the
requirements for restoration and
ecological sustainability are intended to
reduce the risk that species will become
listed as an endangered or a threatened
species in the future.
On USDA Forest Service (FS) lands,
management for listed and candidate
species, as well as species of concern,
follow FS Sensitive Species policy
(Kerwin and Huff 2007, p. 6). For the
FS, these policies require the agency to
maintain viable populations of all native
and desired nonnative wildlife, fish,
and plant species in habitats distributed
throughout their geographic range on
National Forest System lands.
Management ‘‘must not result in a loss
of species viability or create significant
trends toward Federal listing’’ for any
identified Sensitive Species (Kerwin
and Huff 2007, p. 6).
The Olympic National Forest is in the
process of developing site management
plans for each location where Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly is known to occur.
This planning document will call for
restoration actions to remove
encroaching conifers and shrubs,
nonnative plant removal and control,
road management, and may possibly
include planting or seeding of larval
host plants (Holtrop 2010, p. 7). Because
this planning process is not finished,
however, we do not rely on it in our
assessment of the adequacy of Forest
Service regulatory mechanisms. As a
Federal candidate species, the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly receives support
from the Forest Service Interagency
Special Status and Sensitive Species
Program (Huff, 2011, pers. comm.).
Based on our review, we conclude that
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark are protected from
further population declines associated
with habitat loss or inappropriate
management on FS lands, and the
inadequacy of existing regulations
under the National Forest Management
Act is not a threat to these species.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C.
668dd et seq.) establishes the protection
of biodiversity as the primary purpose
of the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
system. This has led to various
management actions to benefit the
federally listed species including
development of Comprehensive
Conservation Plans (CCP) on NWRs.
CCPs typically set goals and list needed
actions to protect and enhance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
populations of key wildlife species on
refuge lands. The Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly is not known to occur on any
NWR. However, streaked horned larks
occur on the Willapa National Wildlife
Refuge on the Washington coast and in
the Willamette Valley Complex on the
William L. Finley, Ankeny, and Baskett
Slough Refuges. The CCPs for the
Willapa Refuge and all the units in the
Willamette Valley Complex contain
habitat conservation measures to
address threats such as habitat
degradation and benefit streaked horned
larks; measures include surveys, habitat
enhancement, and removal of invasive
plants (USFWS 2011a, p. 2–34; USFWS
2011b, pp. 2-47–2-48). The joint CCP for
the Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler
Hansen Refuges in the lower Columbia
River states that streaked horned larks
do not occur on the refuges, although
they do occur on suitable habitats near
the refuge parcels (USFWS 2010, p. 4–
37). The joint CCP identifies actions to
benefit streaked horned larks on offrefuge lands (but that are within the
refuge acquisition boundary), including
working with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to manage the dredge spoil
deposition program to benefit larks
(USFWS 2010, pp. 2-29–2-30).
CCPs detail program planning levels
that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations, and as such,
are primarily used for strategic planning
and priority setting; inclusion of a
project in a CCP does not guarantee that
the project will be implemented. The
CCPs at the Willapa and Willamette
Valley National Wildlife Refuges
specifically provides for the
conservation of the streaked horned
lark, and implementation of the
conservation measures in the refuge
CCPs could benefit as many as 10
nesting pairs of larks at Willapa
(USFWS 2011a, pp. 4-44–4-45) and
likely more than 50 pairs at the three
Willamette Valley refuges (Moore 2009,
pp. 5–9). These actions may improve the
status of streaked horned larks on the
refuges. Therefore based on our review,
we conclude that the streaked horned
lark is protected from further population
declines associated with habitat loss or
inappropriate management on NWR
lands, and the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to
the species on NWR lands.
State Laws and Regulations
Although there is no State
Endangered Species Act in Washington,
the Washington Fish and Wildlife
Commission has authority to list species
(Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
77.12.020). State-listed species are
protected from direct take, but their
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61959
habitat is not protected (RCW
77.15.120). The Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark are
listed by the WDFW and are listed as
critically imperiled (S1) by the
Washington Natural Heritage Program.
State listings generally consider only the
status of the species within the State’s
borders, and do not depend upon the
same considerations as a potential
Federal listing. Unoccupied or
unsurveyed habitat is not protected
unless by County prairie ordinances or
other similar rules or laws.
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark are Priority Species
under WDFW’s Priority Habitats and
Species Program (WDFW 2008, pp. 19,
80, 120). As Priority Species, the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark may benefit from
some protection of their habitats under
environmental reviews of applications
for county or municipal development
permits (Stinson 2005, pp. 46, 70). For
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, WDFW
has developed a recommended
approach to protect the species on
private property. Their approach is nonregulatory and encourages landowners
to engage in cooperative efforts to
protect and conserve Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly habitat. However,
State regulatory mechanisms appear to
be insufficient to protect these species
in areas where permits are not required
or requested. We therefore conclude that
Washington State regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to protect
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
the streaked horned lark and do not
protect these species from further
population declines associated with
habitat loss or inappropriate
management.
Under the Washington State Forest
Practices Act (RCW 76.09 accessed
online 2012), WDNR must approve
certain activities related to growing,
harvesting or processing timber on all
local government, State, and privately
owned forest lands. WDNR’s mission is
to protect public resources while
maintaining a viable timber industry.
The primary goal of the forest practices
rules is to achieve protection of water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and
capital improvements while ensuring
that harvested areas are reforested.
Presently, the Washington State Forest
Practices Rules do not specifically
protect Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
or streaked horned larks; only the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly actually
occurs within areas where Forest
Practices Rules might apply.
Landowners have the option to develop
a management plan for the species if it
resides on their property, or if
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61960
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
landowners choose to not develop a
management plan for the species with
WDFW, their forest practices
application will be conditioned to
protect this public resource. If this
approach does not provide the required
protections for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly, then WDFW and WDNR may
request the Forest Practice Board to
initiate rule making, and possibly, an
emergency rule would be developed
(Whipple 2008, pers. comm.).
The WDNR also manages
approximately 66,000 ac (26,710 ha) of
lands as Natural Area Preserves (NAP).
NAPs provide the highest level of
protection for excellent examples of
unique or typical land features in
Washington State. These NAPs provide
protection for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and therefore, based on their
proactive management, we do not find
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to be
threatened by the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms on WDNR lands.
Oregon has a State Endangered
Species Act (ESA), which was last
updated in 1998. The streaked horned
lark is not State-listed, and the State
does not protect invertebrates like the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly under the
State ESA (Oregon ESA 2004, p. 3). The
list of threatened and endangered
species tracked by the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife does
not include insects, and does not
classify the streaked horned lark with
any conservation status. However, once
an Oregon ‘‘native wildlife’’ species is
federally listed as threatened or
endangered, it is included as a Statelisted species and receives some
protection and management, primarily
on State-owned or managed lands (OAR
635–100–0100 to OAR 635–100–0180;
ORS 496.171 to ORS 496.192).
The Oregon Forest Practices Act (ORS
527.610 to 527.992 and OAR Chapter
629, Divisions 600 to 665) lists
protection measures specific to private
and State-owned forested lands in
Oregon. These measures include
specific rules for resource protection,
including threatened and endangered
species, riparian areas along lakes,
streams, springs and seeps; and
wetlands. Compliance of the forest
practice rules does not substitute for or
ensure compliance with the Federal
Endangered Species Act. Landowners
and operators are advised that Federal
law prohibits a person from taking
certain threatened or endangered
species which are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (OAR 629–605–
0105). Although neither the streaked
horned lark nor the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly are forest-dependent species,
protective measures taken on forest
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
lands in Oregon may provide benefits
for these species.
Based on our review of State
regulatory mechanisms for the States of
Washington and Oregon, we conclude
that they do not protect the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and the streaked
horned lark from further population
declines associated with habitat loss or
inappropriate management.
Local Laws and Regulations
The Washington State Growth
Management Act of 1990 requires all
jurisdictions in the state to designate
and protect critical areas. The state
defines five broad categories of critical
areas, including: (1) Wetlands; (2) areas
with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water; (3) fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
(4) frequently flooded areas; and (5)
geologically hazardous areas. Quercus
garryana (Oregon white oak) habitat and
prairie both predominantly fall into the
category of fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, though due to the
coarse nature of prairie soils and the
presence of wet prairie habitat across
the landscape, critical area protections
for crucial aquifer recharge areas and
wetlands may also address prairie
habitat protection.
Within counties, the CAO applies to
all unincorporated areas, but
incorporated cities are required to
independently address critical areas
within their Urban Growth Area. The
incorporated cities within the range of
the streaked horned lark and the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are: (1)
Shelton (Mason County); and (2)
Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, Tenino and
Yelm (Thurston County), all in the State
of Washington.
In 2009, the Thurston County Board
of Commissioners adopted Interim
Ordinance No. 14260, which
strengthened protections for prairie and
Oregon white oak habitat in
consideration of the best available
science. The County worked with the
Service and WDFW to include an up-todate definition of prairie habitat and to
delineate soils where prairie habitat is
likely to occur. In July 2010, the
ordinance was renewed and amended,
including revisions to the prairie soils
list and changes to administrative
language. Since July 2010, the interim
prairie ordinance has been renewed on
a 6-month basis and is currently in
place. Several prairie species were also
included as important species subject to
critical areas regulation, including the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark (Thurston County
2012, p. 1).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
County staff use the known presence
or historical locations of the Taylor’s
checkerspot or streaked horned lark to
determine whether these species may be
present at a site and impacted by the
land use activity. After a field review, if
one of these species is found on the site,
the County requires a habitat
management plan (HMP) to be
developed, typically by a consultant for
the landowner, in accordance with
WDFW’s management
recommendations. This HMP specifies
how site development should occur,
and assists developers in achieving
compliance with CAO requirements to
minimize impact to the prairie habitat
and species. The HMPs typically
include onsite restoration and
enhancement activities. Mitigation for
prairie impacts may also be required,
on-site or off (Thurston County 2012, p.
2).
In Clallam, Pierce, and Mason
Counties, specific critical area
ordinances have not been identified for
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or the
streaked horned lark. However, prairie
habitats and species garner some
protection under Fish (or Aquatic) and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
(Mason County 2009, p. 64; Clallam
County 2012, Part Three, entire; Pierce
County 2012, pp. 18E.40–1–3). All
developments within these areas are
required to: preserve and protect habitat
adequate to support viable populations
of native wildlife (Clallam County 2012,
Part Three, entire); to achieve ‘‘no net
loss’’ of species and habitat where, if
altered, the action may reduce the
likelihood that these species survive
and reproduce over the long term
(Pierce County 2012, p. 18E.40–1); and
support viable populations and protect
habitat for Federal or State listed * * *
fish or wildlife (Mason County 2009, p.
63). While these regulations are likely
adequate for the management of species
with stable populations and large
ranges, the loss of individual animals
can have a cumulative impact
deleterious to species facing a wide
range of other threats and that already
have decreased numbers of individuals
or populations.
County-level CAOs do not apply to
incorporated cities within county
boundaries, thus the incorporated cities
of Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, Yelm,
and Tenino that overlap the range of the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the
streaked horned lark do not provide the
same specificity of protection for these
taxa as the Thurston County CAO.
Below we address the relevant city
ordinances that overlap these species’
ranges. We conclude below with a
summary of whether we deem these city
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
ordinances adequate for the
conservation of the Taylor’s checkerspot
and the streaked horned lark.
The City of Olympia. The City of
Olympia’s municipal code states that
‘‘The Department [City] may restrict the
uses and activities of a development
proposal which lie within one thousand
feet of important habitat or species
location,’’ defined by Washington
State’s Priority Habitat and Species
(PHS) Management Recommendations
of 1991, as amended.’’ (Olympia
Municipal Code (OMC) 18.32.315 B).
When development is proposed within
1,000 feet of habitat of a species
designated as important by Washington
State, the Olympia CAO requires the
preparation of a formal ‘‘Important
Habitats and Species Management Plan’’
unless waived by the WDFW (OMC
18.32.320).
The City of Lacey. The City of Lacey
CAO includes in its definition of critical
area any area identified as habitat for a
Federal or State endangered, threatened,
or sensitive species or State listed
priority habitat and calls these Habitat
Conservation Areas (HCAs) (Lacey
Municipal Code (LMC) 14.33.060).
These areas are defined through
individual contract with qualified
professional biologists on a site by site
basis as development is proposed. The
code further states that ‘‘No
development shall be allowed within a
habitat conservation area or buffer [for
a habitat conservation area] with which
state or federally endangered,
threatened, or sensitive species have a
primary association’’ (LMC 14.33.117).
The City of Tumwater. The City of
Tumwater CAO outlines protections for
Habitat Critical Areas and for ‘‘habitats
and species of local importance.’’
Tumwater’s Habitat Critical Areas are
established on a case-by-case basis by a
‘‘qualified professional’’ as development
is proposed and the Habitat Critical
Areas are required to be consistent with
the ‘‘recommendations issued by the
Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife’’ (Tumwater Municipal
Code (TMC) 16.32.60). Species of local
importance are defined as locally
significant species that are not Statelisted as threatened, endangered, or
sensitive, but live in Tumwater and are
of special importance to the citizens of
Tumwater for cultural or historical
reasons, or if the city is a critically
significant portion of its range (TMC
16.32.055 A). Tumwater is considered a
‘‘critically significant portion of a
species’ range’’ if the species’
population would be divided into
nonviable populations if it is eliminated
from Tumwater’’ (TMC 16.32.055 A2).
Species of local importance are further
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
defined as State monitor or candidate
species where Tumwater is a significant
portion of its range such that a
significant reduction or elimination of
the species from Tumwater would result
in changing the status of the species to
that of State endangered, threatened, or
sensitive (TMC 16.32.055 A3).
The City of Yelm. The municipal code
of Yelm states that it will ‘‘regulate all
uses, activities, and developments
within, adjacent to, or likely to affect
one or more critical areas, consistent
with the best available science’’ (Yelm
Municipal Code/(YMC) 14.08.010E4f)
and mandates that ‘‘all actions and
developments shall be designed and
constructed to avoid, minimize, and
restore all adverse impacts.’’ Further, it
states that, ‘‘no activity or use shall be
allowed that results in a net loss of the
functions or values of critical areas’’
(YMC 14.08.010 G) and ‘‘no
development shall be allowed within a
habitat conservation area or buffer
which state or federally endangered,
threatened, or sensitive species have a
primary association, except that which
is provided for by a management plan
established by WDFW or applicable
state or federal agency’’ (YMC
14.080.140 D1a). The City of Yelm
municipal code states that by ‘‘limiting
development and alteration of critical
areas’’ it will ‘‘maintain healthy,
functioning ecosystems through the
protection of unique, fragile, and
valuable elements of the environment,
and * * * conserve the biodiversity of
plant and animal species’’ (17.08.010
A4b) .
The City of Tenino. The City of
Tenino municipal code gives
Development Regulations for Critical
Areas and Natural Resource Lands that
include fish and wildlife habitat areas
(Tenino Municipal Code (TMC)
18D.10.030 A) and further ‘‘protects
unique, fragile, and valuable elements of
the environment, including critical fish
and wildlife habitat’’ (TMC 18D.10.030
D). The City of Tenino references the
DNR Critical Areas Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Areas-Stream Typing Map and
the WDFW PHS Program and PHS Maps
as sources to identify fish and wildlife
habitat (TMC 18D.10.140 E1, 2). The
City also defines critical fish and
wildlife species habitat areas as those
areas known to support or have ‘‘a
primary association with State or
Federally listed endangered, threatened,
or sensitive species of fish or wildlife
(specified in 50 CFR 17.11, 50 CFR
17.12, WAC 232–12–011) and which, if
altered, may reduce the likelihood that
the species will survive and reproduce
over the long term.’’ (TMC 18D.40.020A,
B).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61961
The City of Shelton. The CAO for the
city of Shelton (Mason County) specifies
compliance with the PHS through
designation of habitat conservation
areas (HCAs) (Shelton Municipal Code
(SMC) 21.64.300 B1), indicating that
where HCAs are designated,
development will be curtailed (SMC
21.64.010 B) except at the discretion of
the director (city), who may allow
single-family development at such sites
without a critical areas assessment
report if development is not believed to
directly disturb the components of the
HCA (SMC 21.64.360 B).
Summary. Each city’s CAO has been
crafted to preserve the maximum
amount of biodiversity while at the
same time encouraging high density
development within their respective
Urban Growth Areas. Each city requires
that potential fish and wildlife habitat
be surveyed by qualified professional
habitat biologists as development is
proposed. A Habitat Conservation Area
(HCA) is determined according to the
WDFW Priority Habitat and Species list.
If an HCA is identified at a site, the
development of the parcel is then
subject to the CAO regulations.
Mitigation required by each city’s CAO
prioritizes reconsideration of the
proposed development action in order
to avoid the impact to the HCA.
For the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
and streaked horned lark, only known
or historical locations are considered
prior to applying the CAOs. There are
currently no WDFW Priority Habitat and
Species Recommendations for these
species and no surveys are completed
for these species in suitable habitats that
may be affected by development or site
disturbance.
Connectivity of populations,
abundance of resources (prey species or
food plants), and undisturbed habitat
are three primary factors affecting plant
and animal populations. The piecemeal
pattern that development unavoidably
exhibits is difficult to reconcile with the
needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark
within a given Urban Growth Area.
Further, previously common species
may become uncommon due to
disruption by development, and
preservation of small pockets of habitat
is unlikely to prevent extirpation of
some species without intensive species
management, which is beyond the scope
of these individual CAOs. The Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and the streaked
horned lark have been affected by
habitat loss through development and
conversion. Protective measures
undertaken while development of lands
is taking place may provide benefits for
these species; however, based on our
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61962
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
review of the Washington County and
State regulatory mechanisms, we
conclude that these measures are
currently inadequate to protect the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and the
streaked horned lark from further
population declines associated with
habitat loss, inappropriate management
and loss of connectivity.
In Oregon, the Land Conservation and
Development Commission in 1974
adopted ‘‘Goal 5’’ a broad Statewide
planning goal that covers more than a
dozen resources, including wildlife
habitats and natural areas. Goal 5 and
related Oregon Administrative Rules
(Chapter 660, Divisions 16 and 23)
describe how cities and counties are to
plan and zone land to conserve
resources listed in the goal.
Goal 5 and its rules establish a fivestep planning process for Oregon’s cities
and counties: (1) Inventory local
occurrences of resources listed in Goal
5 and decide which ones are important;
(2) Identify potential land uses on or
near each resource site and any conflicts
that might result; (3) Analyze economic,
social, environmental, and energy
consequences of such conflicts; (4)
Decide whether the resource should be
fully or partially protected, and justify
the decision; and, (5) Adopt measures
such as zoning to put that policy into
effect. This five-step Goal 5 process was
established by rules adopted in 1982,
and revised in 1996. The revisions
tailored the process to the individual
resources covered by the Goal.
Local governments shall identify
conflicting uses that exist, or could
occur, with regard to significant Goal 5
resource sites. A local government may
determine that one or more significant
Goal 5 resource sites are conflicting uses
with another significant resource site.
Local governments shall analyze the
consequences that could result from
decisions to allow, limit, or prohibit a
conflicting use. The local government
shall determine the level of protection
for each significant site. Local
governments shall determine whether to
allow, limit, or prohibit identified
conflicting uses for significant resource
sites. A local government may decide
that the conflicting use should be
allowed fully, notwithstanding the
possible impacts on the resource site.
In summary, Goal 5 is a required
planning process that allows local
governments to make decisions about
land use regulations and whether to
protect the individual resources based
upon potential conflicts involving
economic, social, environmental, and
energy consequences. It does not require
minimum levels of protections for
natural resources, but does require
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
weighing the various impacts to
resources from land use. Based on our
review of Oregon State regulatory
mechanisms, we conclude that they are
inadequate to protect the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned
lark from further population declines
associated with habitat loss or
inappropriate management.
Summary of Factor D
In summary, the existing regulatory
mechanisms described above are not
sufficient to significantly reduce or
remove the existing threats to the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the
streaked horned lark. The Canadian
recovery strategy is a positive forward
step for the streaked horned lark,
although, as the species is thought to be
extirpated from Canada, it is unlikely to
result in a change in the streaked
horned lark’s downward trend across its
range. Lack of essential habitat
protection under State laws leaves these
species at continued risk of habitat loss
and degradation in Washington and
Oregon. National Wildlife Refuges
provide important protections for
streaked horned lark habitat in
Washington and Oregon.
On JBLM, regulations applying to the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the
streaked horned lark are covered by the
current INRMP and ESMP. We find that
the military training, as it currently
occurs, causes direct mortality of
individuals and impacts habitat for the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned larks in all areas where
training and the species overlap;
however, these management plans
sufficiently provide for the long-term
conservation of these species on the
military base. Therefore, we do not find
existing regulatory mechanisms to be
inadequate on JBLM lands.
The Washington CAOs generally
provide conservation measures to
minimize habitat removal and direct
effects to the Taylors’ checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark.
However, habitat removal and
degradation, direct loss of individuals,
increased fragmentation, decreased
connectivity, and the lack of consistent
regulatory mechanisms to address the
threats associated with these effects
continues to occur.
Based upon our review of the best
commercial and scientific data
available, we conclude that the existing
regulatory mechanisms are not adequate
to reduce the threats to the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark now or in the future.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Low Genetic Diversity, Small or Isolated
Populations, and Low Reproductive
Success
Most species’ populations fluctuate
naturally, responding to various factors
such as weather events, disease, and
predation. Johnson (1977, p.3), however,
suggested that these factors have less
impact on a species with a wide and
continuous distribution. Populations
that are small, fragmented, or isolated
by habitat loss or modification of
naturally patchy habitat, and other
human-related factors, are more
vulnerable to extirpation by natural
randomly occurring events, cumulative
effects, and to genetic effects that plague
small populations, collectively known
as small population effects. These
effects can include genetic drift (loss of
recessive alleles), founder effects (over
time, an increasing percentage of the
population inheriting a narrow range of
traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading
to increasingly lower genetic diversity,
with consequent negative effects on
evolutionary potential.
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly.
Although the genetic diversity and
population structure of the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly is unknown, a loss
of genetic diversity may have occurred
as a result of geographic isolation and
fragmentation of habitat patches across
the distribution of the existing
populations. Dispersal of individuals
directly affects the genetic composition
of populations and possibly the
abundance of individuals in a
population (Hellmann et al. 2004, p.
59). For other subspecies of Edith’s
checkerspot and their closely related
European relative Melitaea, small
populations led to a high rate of
inbreeding (Boggs and Nieminen 2004,
p. 98). The Service is currently
partnering with WDFW to explore
questions of genetic relatedness in the
subpopulations of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies. Due to its small population
size and fragmented distribution, we
conclude that these negative factors
associated with small population size,
as well as the potential historical loss of
genetic diversity, may contribute to
further population declines for the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.
Streaked Horned Lark. Genetic
analysis has shown that streaked horned
larks have suffered a loss of genetic
diversity due to a population bottleneck
(Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881), the effect
of which may be exacerbated by
continued small total population size. In
general, decreased genetic diversity has
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
been linked to increased chances of
inbreeding depression, reduced disease
resistance, and reduced adaptability to
environmental change, leading to
reduced reproductive success (Keller
and Waller 2002, p. 235).
Recent studies in Washington have
found that streaked horned larks have
lower fecundity and nest success than
other Northwestern horned lark
subspecies (Camfield et al. 2010, p.
277). In a study on the south Puget
Sound, all measures of reproductive
success were lower for streaked horned
larks than for other ground-nesting birds
at the same prairie sites (Anderson
2010, p. 15). The streaked horned lark’s
egg hatching rate at these sites is
extremely low (i.e., 44 percent at 13th
Division Prairie) (Anderson 2010, p. 18).
Comparisons with savannah sparrows
(Passerculus sandwichensis), a bird
with similar habitat requirements that
nests on the same prairies, found that
streaked horned lark fecundity was 70
percent lower (Anderson 2010, p. 18). If
the streaked horned lark’s very low
reproductive success was caused by
poor habitat quality, other groundnesting birds at the study sites would be
expected to show similarly low nest
success rates; that other bird species
have much higher nest success in the
same habitat suggests that inbreeding
depression may be playing a role in the
decline of streaked horned larks in the
south Puget Sound (Anderson 2010, p.
27). Other factors consistent with
hypothesized inbreeding depression in
the south Puget Sound population
include two cases of observed motherson pairings (Pearson and Stinson 2011,
p. 1), and no observations of
immigration from other sites into the
Puget lowland breeding sites (Pearson et
al. 2008, p. 15).
Estimates of population growth rate
(l) that include vital rates from all of the
nesting areas in Washington (south
Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and
one lower Columbia River island)
indicate that streaked horned larks in
Washington are declining by 40 percent
per year, apparently due to a
combination of low survival and
fecundity rates (Pearson et al. 2008, pp.
10, 13; Camfield et al. 2011, p. 7).
Territory mapping at 4 sites on the
south Puget Sound found that the total
number of breeding streaked horned
lark territories decreased from 77
territories in 2004 to 42 territories in
2007—a decline of over 45 percent in 3
years (Camfield et al. 2011, p. 8). The
combination of low genetic variability,
small and rapidly declining nesting
populations, high breeding site fidelity,
and no observed migration into the
Puget lowlands populations suggests
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
that the south Puget Sound population
could become extirpated in the near
future (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 1, 14,
15).
In 2011, a project was initiated to
increase genetic diversity in the south
Puget Sound streaked horned lark
population. Twelve eggs (four three-egg
clutches) were collected from streaked
horned lark nests in the southern
Willamette Valley and were placed in
nests at the 13th Division Prairie site at
JBLM (Wolf 2011, p. 9). At least five
young successfully fledged at the
receiving site; if even one of these birds
return to breed in future years, it will
likely increase genetic diversity in the
receiving population, resulting in
improved fitness and reduced extinction
risk for the south Puget Sound larks
(Wolf 2011, p. 9). Based on our
consideration of these factors, we
conclude that the loss of genetic
diversity, the current number of small
and isolated populations (particularly in
Washington State), and the species’ low
reproductive success are likely to
combine to result in continued
population declines for the streaked
horned lark.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include
consideration of ongoing and projected
changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’
and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’
refers to the mean and variability of
different types of weather conditions
over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although
shorter or longer periods also may be
used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term
‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change
in the mean or variability of one or more
measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or
longer, whether the change is due to
natural variability, human activity, or
both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning
several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and
that the rate of change has been faster
since the 1950s. Examples include
warming of the global climate system,
and substantial increases in
precipitation in some regions of the
world and decreases in other regions.
(For these and other examples, see IPCC
2007a, p. 30; and IPCC 2007d, pp. 35–
54, 82–85). Results of scientific analyses
presented by the IPCC show that most
of the observed increase in global
average temperature since the mid-20th
century cannot be explained by natural
variability in climate, and is ‘‘very
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61963
likely’’ (defined by the IPCC as 90
percent or higher probability) due to the
observed increase in greenhouse gas
(GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere
as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions
from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007a, pp.
5–6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; IPCC
2007d, pp. 21–35). Further confirmation
of the role of GHGs comes from analyses
by Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who
concluded it is extremely likely that
approximately 75 percent of global
warming since 1950 has been caused by
human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate
models, which include consideration of
natural processes and variability, as
well as various scenarios of potential
levels and timing of GHG emissions, to
evaluate the causes of changes already
observed and to project future changes
in temperature and other climate
conditions (e.g., IPCC 2007c, entire;
Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558;
Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). All
combinations of models and emissions
scenarios yield very similar projections
of increases in the most common
measure of climate change, average
global surface temperature (commonly
known as global warming), until about
2030. Although projections of the extent
and rate of warming differ after about
2030, the overall trajectory of all the
projections is one of increased global
warming through the end of this
century, even for the projections based
on scenarios that assume that GHG
emissions will stabilize or decline.
Thus, there is strong scientific support
for projections that warming will
continue through the 21st century, and
that the scope and rate of change will be
influenced substantially by the extent of
GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44–45;
IPCC 2007c, pp. 760–764 and 797–811;
Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555–15558;
Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). (See
IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other
global projections of climate-related
changes, such as frequency of heat
waves and changes in precipitation.
Also see IPCC 2011 (entire) for a
summary of observations and
projections of extreme climate events.)
Various changes in climate may have
direct or indirect effects on species.
These effects may be positive, neutral,
or negative, and they may change over
time, depending on the species and
other relevant considerations, such as
interactions of climate with other
variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation)
(IPCC 2007e, pp. 214–246). Identifying
likely effects often involves aspects of
climate change vulnerability analysis.
Vulnerability refers to the degree to
which a species (or system) is
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61964
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
susceptible to, and unable to cope with,
adverse effects of climate change,
including climate variability and
extremes. Vulnerability is a function of
the type, scope, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a species
is exposed, its sensitivity, and its
adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89;
see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19–22).
There is no single method for
conducting such analyses that applies to
all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We
use our expert judgment and
appropriate analytical approaches to
weigh relevant information, including
uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
As is the case with all stressors that
we assess, even if we conclude that a
species is currently affected or is likely
to be affected in a negative way by one
or more climate-related impacts, it does
not necessarily follow that the species
meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’
under the Act. If a species is listed as
endangered or threatened, knowledge
regarding the vulnerability of the
species to, and known or anticipated
impacts from, climate-associated
changes in environmental conditions
can be used to help devise appropriate
strategies for its recovery.
Global climate projections are
informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information
available for us to use. However,
projected changes in climate and related
impacts can vary substantially across
and within different regions of the
world (e.g., IPCC 2007a, pp. 8–12).
Therefore, we use ‘‘downscaled’’
projections when they are available and
have been developed through
appropriate scientific procedures,
because such projections provide higher
resolution information that is more
relevant to spatial scales used for
analyses of a given species (see Glick et
al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of
downscaling). With regard to our
analysis for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and the streaked horned lark,
downscaled projections are available.
The ranges of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and the streaked horned lark
extend from the southern edge of the
Georgia Basin, down through the Puget
Sound trough, and south to the
Willamette Valley. Downscaled climate
change projections for this ecoregion
predict consistently increasing annual
mean temperatures from 2012 to 2095
using the IPCC’s medium (A1B)
emissions scenario (IPCC 2000, p. 245).
Using the General Circulation Model
(GCM) that most accurately predicts
precipitation for the Pacific Northwest,
the Third Generation Coupled Global
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Climate Model (CGCM3.1) under the
medium emissions scenario (A1B),
annual mean temperature is predicted to
increase approximately 1.8 °Fahrenheit
(F) (1 °Celsius (C)) by the year 2020, 3.6
°F (2 °C) by 2050, and 5.4 °F (3 °C) by
2090 (Climatewizardcustom 2012). This
analysis was restricted to the ecoregion
encompassing the overlapping range of
the species of interest and is well
supported by analyses focused only on
the Pacific Northwest by Mote and
´
Salathe in their 2010 publication,
Future Climate in the Pacific Northwest
´
(Mote and Salathe 2010, entire).
Employing the same GCM and medium
emissions scenario, downscaled model
runs for precipitation in the ecoregion
project a small (less than 5 percent)
increase in mean annual precipitation
over approximately the next 80 years.
Most months are projected to show an
increase in mean annual precipitation.
May–August are projected to show a
decrease in mean annual precipitation,
which corresponds with the
reproductive season for all species of
interest in this proposed rule
(Climatewizardcustom 2012).
The potential impacts of a changing
global climate to Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark are
presently unclear. Projections localized
to the Georgia Basin—Puget Sound
Trough—Willamette Valley Ecoregion
suggest that temperatures are likely to
increase approximately 5 °F (2.8 °C) at
the north end of the region by the year
2080 based on an average of greenhouse
gas emission scenarios B1, A1B, and A2
and all Global Circulation Models
employed by Climatewizard (range = 2.6
°F to 7.6 °F; 1.4 °C to 4.2 °C). Similarly,
the mid region projection predicts an
increase an average of 4.5 °F (range = 2.1
°F to 7.1 °F) (average of 2.5 °C with a
range of 1.2 °C to 3.9 °C) and the
southern end to increase by 4.5 °F
(range = 2.2 °F to 7.1 °F) (average of 2.5
°C with a range of 1.2 °C to 3.9 °C).
Worldwide, the IPCC states it is very
likely that extreme high temperatures,
heat waves, and heavy precipitation
events will increase in frequency (IPCC
2007c, p. 783).
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly.
Because the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly occupies a relatively small area
of specialized habitat, it may be
vulnerable to climatic changes that
could decrease suitable habitat or alter
food plant seasonal growth patterns
(phenology). However, while it appears
reasonable to assume that the butterfly
may be affected, as detailed below, we
lack sufficient certainty to know
specifically how climate change will
affect the subspecies.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The relationship between climate
change and survival for the Euphydryas
editha complex is driven more by the
indirect effects of the interaction
between seasonal growth patterns of
host plants and the life cycle of the
checkerspot butterfly than by the direct
effects of temperature and precipitation
(Guppy and Fischer 2001, p. 11;
Parmesan 2007, p. 1868; Singer and
Parmesan 2010, p. 3170).
Predicting seasonal growth patterns of
butterfly host plants is complicated,
because these patterns are likely more
sensitive to moisture than temperature
(Cushman et al. 1992, pp. 197–198; Bale
et al. 2002, p. 11), which is predicted to
be highly variable and uncertain in the
´
Pacific Northwest (Mote and Salathe
2010, p. 31). Climate models for the
Georgia Basin—Puget Sound Trough—
Willamette Valley Ecoregion
consistently predict a deviation from the
historical monthly average
precipitation, with the months of
January–April projected to show an
increase in precipitation across the
region while June–September are
predicted to be much drier than the
historical average (Climatewizard 2012).
During the active season of prediapause larvae (early spring), the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly feeds
primarily on plants of the family
Scrophulariaceae (snapdragon family,
including species of Castilleja and
Triphysaria) and Plantaginaceae
(plaintain family) (Stinson 2005, p. 88).
Available information suggests that if
climate change disrupts seasonal growth
patterns of food plants, it is conceivable
that as an adult the butterfly may be
able to use alternative food plants that
occur within its range (Singer and Wee
2005, pp. 353–355; Singer et al. 1992,
pp. 17–18). The larval stage of Taylor’s
checkerspot is more limited in terms of
potential host plant species.
Nevertheless, we have no information
indicating that any of these changes
(e.g., in availability of food plants) is
likely to occur in the near future.
It is likely that the overlap of seasonal
growth patterns between these primary
larval host plants and the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly will display some
level of stochasticity due to climatic
shifts in precipitation and increased
frequency of extreme weather events.
For the Edith’s checkerspot (Euphydryas
editha), Parmesan (2007, p. 1869)
reported that a lifecycle mismatch can
cause a shortening of the time window
available for larval feeding, causing the
death of those individuals unable to
complete their larval development
within the shortened period, citing a
study by Singer (1972, p. 75). In that
study, Singer documented routine
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mortality of greater than 98 percent in
the field due to phenological
mismatches between larval
development and senescence of their
annual host plant Plantago erecta
(California plantain). When mismatches
such as these form the ‘starting point,’
insects may be highly vulnerable to
small changes in synchrony with their
hosts (Parmesan 2007, p. 1869).
Predicting future population
dynamics and distributions is complex
for animals such as butterflies that have
two very different physiological stages
(larva and adult) (for example, see Bale
et al. 2002, p. 5). Moreover, forecasting
the responses of butterflies and other
insects to elevated temperatures or
variable precipitation is largely based on
field and laboratory studies (Hellmann
2002, pp. 927–929). However, the
relationship between these changing
environmental conditions and the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has not
been explicitly studied, though the
extirpation of populations in British
Columbia is attributed to drought
conditions and the encroachment of
woody vegetation into formerly suitable
habitat (Guppy 2012, in litt.). One of the
two primary host plants for the butterfly
is ubiquitous across the entire range of
the species and extends well beyond
areas where the butterfly populations
persist. This suggests that there is
potential for range shifting, if the
butterfly had the capacity to disperse
across the landscape.
Uncertainty about climate change
impacts does not mean that impacts
may or may not occur; it means that the
risks of a given impact are difficult to
quantify (Schneider and Kuntz-Duriseti
2002, p. 54; Congressional Budget Office
2005, entire; Halsnaes et al. 2007, p.
129). The interplay between host plant
distribution, larval and adult butterfly
dispersal, and female choice of where to
lay eggs will ultimately determine the
population response to climate change
(Singer and Parmesan 2010, p. 3164).
However, determining the long-term
responses to climate change from even
well-studied butterflies in the genus
Euphydryas is difficult, given their
ability to switch to alternative larval
food plants in some instances (Singer
and Thomas 1996, pp. S33–34;
Hellmann 2002, p. 933; Singer et al.
1992, pp. 17–18). Attempts to analyze
the interplay between climate and host
plant growth patterns using predictive
models or general State-wide
assessments and to relate these to the
butterfly are equally complicated
(Murphy and Weiss 1992, p. 8). Despite
the potential for future climate change
in Western Washington, as discussed
above, we have not identified, nor are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
we aware of any data on, an appropriate
scale to evaluate habitat or populations
trends for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly or to make predictions about
future trends and whether the species
will be significantly impacted.
Streaked horned lark. Sea level on the
Pacific Coast of Washington and Oregon
is predicted to rise according to
expected values generated by an
ensemble mean of models of relative sea
level rise (Tebaldi 2012, p. 4). At Toke
Point, Willapa Bay, Washington, near
occupied nesting habitat for the streaked
horned lark, sea level is predicted to rise
3.9 in (9.9 cm) by 2030 and 9.8 in (0.25
cm) by 2050 (Tebaldi 2012, p. 4).
Streaked horned larks are attracted to
breeding sites where there are long sight
lines and sparse vegetation, making
sandy islands and shorelines ideal
habitats for nesting. Sea level rise is not
currently projected to reach the height
of streaked horned lark nesting habitat
on the beaches. If these projections
underestimate sea level rise and nesting
habitat is infringed upon by rising
waters, streaked horned larks will likely
respond by moving to up shore or to
other breeding habitats.
The indirect effects of climate change
are primarily associated with changes in
habitat, such as succession from a
sparsely vegetated condition to a
shrubby or forested state, which would
make habitat unsuitable for nesting.
These negative impacts may be offset by
other, potentially positive effects and
continued management of occupied
habitats. On the ocean beaches an
increase in the frequency of winter
storm surges may improve upshore
nesting habitat for larks by disturbing or
killing encroaching vegetation. Many
islands used for nesting in the Columbia
River are likely to continue receiving
dredge spoil deposits, perpetuating the
conditions of early primary succession
that streaked horned larks seek for
nesting. Primary management on most
of the currently occupied breeding sites
on the mainland of Washington and
Oregon is for agricultural, industrial, or
military uses. Such management attracts
streaked horned larks through the
reduction of standing vegetation, thus
conversion to unsuitable habitat due to
shifts in climate is less likely in these
areas. As a result, we have not identified
nor are we aware of any data on an
appropriate scale to evaluate habitat or
populations trends for the streaked
horned lark or to make predictions
about future trends and whether the
species will be significantly impacted.
Habitat changes to streaked horned lark
habitat from climate change may
provide some benefit to the species and
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61965
as such is not currently considered a
threat.
Stochastic Weather Events
Stochasticity of extreme weather
events may impact the ability of
threatened and endangered species to
survive. Vulnerability to weather events
can be described as being composed of
three elements; exposure, sensitivity,
and adaptive capacity.
The small, isolated nature of the
remaining populations of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark increases the species’
vulnerability to stochastic (random)
natural events. When species are limited
to small, isolated habitats, they are more
likely to become extinct due to a local
event that negatively affects the
population. While a population’s small,
isolated nature does not represent an
independent threat to the species, it
does substantially increase the risk of
extirpation from the effects of all other
threats, including those addressed in
this analysis, and those that could occur
in the future from unknown sources.
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly.
Environmental threats exacerbated by
small population size and weather can
be a factor in Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly breeding success. Poor weather
conditions, such as cool temperatures
and rainy weather, reduce the number
of days in the flight period for several
early spring flying butterflies, including
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. A shorter
flight season reduces the number of
opportunities for oviposition (egg
laying) for female butterflies, thus
affecting the emergence of adult
butterflies in the future. Peterson (2010,
in litt) provided climate and butterfly
abundance data that indicated cold
winter temperature may affect the
timing of butterfly emergence and the
size of populations in years when
winters are severe. Late emergence of
adults may directly impact the mortality
of larval stages if larvae are unable to
complete their life cycle before their
host plants senesce, or the larvae may
return to diapause.
Butterflies, including Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly, may experience
increased mortality or reduced
fecundity if the timing of plant
development does not match the timing
of larval or adult butterfly development
(Peterson 1997, p. 167), and large
fluctuations in population sizes have
been observed based on local weather
patterns (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 45).
During 2010 and 2011, the emergence of
Taylor’s adults was approximately three
weeks later than ‘‘normal’’ due to wet
and cool spring weather. In addition, it
has been reported that both drought and
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61966
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
deluge may interrupt the insect-plant
interaction, resulting in decreased
populations (Hellmann et al. 2004, p.
45). The effects of drought have been
shown to deleteriously affect
populations of Edith checkerspots in
California (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 45).
Based on our review, we conclude that
stochastic weather events are a threat to
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly due to
the vulnerability of isolated, small
populations.
Streaked Horned Lark. There are
estimated to be fewer than 1,600
streaked horned larks rangewide
(Altman 2011, p. 213). During the
breeding season, small populations of
larks are distributed across the range; in
the winter, however, streaked horned
larks concentrate mainly on the lower
Columbia River sites and in the
Willamette Valley. Such concentration
exposes the wintering populations to
potentially disastrous stochastic events
such as ice storms or flooding that could
kill individuals or destroy limited
habitat; a severe weather event could
wipe out a substantial percentage of the
entire subspecies (Pearson and Altman
2005, p. 13). We have not documented
the occurrence of these threats to date,
but the small and declining population
of streaked horned larks is certainly at
risk of random environmental events
that could have catastrophic
consequences. Based on our review, we
conclude that the effects of stochastic
weather events are a potential threat to
the streaked horned lark.
Aircraft Strikes and Activities at
Civilian Airports
Streaked horned larks are attracted to
the flat open habitats around airports
throughout their range. Horned lark
strikes are frequently reported at
military and civilian airports throughout
the country, but because of the bird’s
small size, few strikes result in
significant damage to aircraft (Dolbeer et
al. 2011, p. 48; Air Force Safety Center
2012, p. 2). Most of the specific
information available for threats to
streaked horned larks at airports comes
from the monitoring program at the
Department of Defense’s JBLM on the
south Puget Sound; similar threats to
streaked horned larks likely exist at
other airports, but without focused
monitoring, the threats to the birds have
not been documented. Information
provided from monitoring at McChord
Field is used here as a surrogate for
civilian airport information which is not
readily accessible. McChord Field has
had seven confirmed streaked horned
lark strikes from 2002 through 2010; the
larks were killed in the strikes, but the
strikes resulted in only minimal cost or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
damage to the aircraft (Elliott 2011, pers.
comm.). Aircraft strikes are potentially a
large source of adult mortality for
streaked horned larks at McChord Field.
Surveys in 2010 at McChord Field
detected up to 26 individuals at the site
(Linders 2011a, p. 3); loss of even 1
adult (and possibly more, since some
strikes may not be noticeable given the
small mass of a horned lark) per year
could remove up to 4 percent of the
population each year. Recent modeling
has shown that adult survival has the
greatest influence on population growth
rates for streaked horned larks (Pearson
et al. 2008, p. 13; Camfield et al. 2011,
p. 10), so consistent loss of adult
streaked horned larks to aircraft strikes
could be pushing this population closer
to extirpation.
The annual Olympic Air Show takes
place in June at the Olympia Regional
Airport; the events at the air show
include low-level aerobatic flying
(Olympic Flight Museum 2012, p. 1).
The events do not occur on lark habitat,
but parking and staging for the event
may occur on the streaked horned lark’s
breeding grounds (Tirhi 2012b, in litt.).
As the air show occurs during the
streaked horned lark’s breeding season,
the level of human activity at the site
could cause nest abandonment,
exposure of young to predators or actual
nest destruction (see discussion for
similar military activities under Factor
A).
The Corvallis Municipal Airport is the
site of the largest known streaked
horned lark population. The airport
hosts training exercises for police
departments on the airport grounds
(Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 25);
intensive training sessions have
destroyed nests, and the disturbance
may also cause streaked horned larks to
delay breeding activity (Moore and
Kotaich 2010, p. 25) (see discussion for
similar use at military sites under Factor
A, military activities).
The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is
not known to be impacted by aircraft
strikes and aircraft activities at airports.
Habitat management activities at these
sites are covered under Factor A.
Pesticides and Herbicides
In the south Puget Sound region,
currently occupied Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly sites are found in a matrix of
rural agricultural lands and low-density
development. In this context herbicide
and insecticide use may have direct
effects on nontarget plants (butterfly
larval and nectar hosts) and arthropods
like butterflies (Stark et al. 2012, p. 23).
The application of the pesticide
Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk)
for control of the Asian gypsy moth
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Lymantria dispar) likely contributed to
the extirpation of three historical locales
for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in
Pierce County, Washington (Vaughan
and Black 2002, p. 13). Spraying of Btk
is known to have adverse effects to
nontarget lepidopteran species
(butterflies and moths) (Severns 2002, p.
169). Severns (2002) sampled butterfly
diversity, richness, and abundance
(density) for 2 years following a Btk
application at Schwarz Park in Lane
County, Oregon. Diversity, richness and
density were found to be significantly
reduced for 2 years following spraying
of Btk (Severns 2002, p. 168). Species
like Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies,
which have a single brood per year, are
active in the spring and their larvae are
active during the spray application
period. Most lepidopterans are more
susceptible to Btk than the target species
(Asian gypsy moth) (Haas and Scriber
1998). For nontarget lepidoptera, the
early instar stages of larvae are the most
susceptible stage (Wagner and Miller
1995, p. 21).
The application of pesticides is
usually restricted to a short period of
the year. However, if the target species
is active at the same time as larvae and
adult Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies,
the effect could be significant. Spraying
of Btk still occurs in Pierce County for
gypsy moths during the time of year
when Taylor’s checkerspot larvae are
active and the threat of pesticide drift
onto the prairies of Pierce County
cannot be discounted. At this time,
however, we have no evidence that Btk
has been sprayed in any locations where
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies are
known to occur.
Organophosphate-based insecticides
are used in a number of agricultural
applications including black fly and
mosquito control, spraying of vegetable,
nut, and fruit crops, and treatment of
seed, though they are now banned from
residential use. One of these
insecticides, Naled (Dibrom), has been
determined to have broad impacts on a
wide array of butterfly families (Bargar
2011, p. 888) and direct effects to the
larvae and adults of a closely related
species of a federally listed threatened
butterfly, the Bay checkerspot
(Euphydyras editha bayensis) (EPA
2010, p. 23), if exposed. The extent to
which these insecticides are used in the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly’s range is
currently unknown and current data
was not available from the USDA.
The streaked horned lark is not
known to be impacted by pesticides or
herbicides directly, but may be
impacted by the equipment used to
dispense them. These impacts are
covered under Factor A.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Recreation
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly.
Recreational foot traffic may be a threat
to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, as
trampling will crush larvae if they are
present underfoot. The incidence of
trampling is limited to the few locations
where Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
and recreation overlap. For example,
foot traffic is relatively common at
Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in
Washington, where plants and butterfly
habitat have been trampled by horses
during specialized dog competitions in
which dogs are followed by observers
on horseback (Stinson 2005, p. 6), and
by foot traffic using the trail system to
access the meadows of Beazell
Memorial Forest (Park) in Oregon.
Recreation by JBLM personnel and local
individuals occurs on and near the 13th
Division Prairie. Trampling by humans
and horses, as well as people walking
dogs on the 13th Division Prairie, is
likely to crush some larvae, and the
larval and nectar prairie plant
communities that are restored and
managed for in this area.
Larvae have been crushed on Dan
Kelly Ridge, on the north Olympic
Peninsula by vehicles that access the
site to maintain a cell tower on the
ridge. Also, recreational off-road vehicle
(ORV) traffic on Dan Kelly Ridge, and
on Eden Valley, has damaged larval host
plants. The ORV damage on Dan Kelly
Ridge occurs despite efforts by WDNR to
block access into the upper portions of
the road system through gating of the
main road. Based on our review, we
conclude that recreation is a threat to
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
where the population is depressed may
constitute a serious threat to the longterm conservation of the species.
Streaked Horned Lark. There are
documented occurrences of adverse
effects to larks from recreation.
Recreation at coastal sites is a common
threat to rare species; activities such as
dog walking, beachcombing, ORV use,
and horseback riding in coastal habitats
may indirectly increase predation, nest
abandonment and nest success for
streaked horned larks (Pearson and
Hopey 2005, pp. 19, 26, 29). One nest
(of 16 monitored) at Midway Beach on
the Washington coast was crushed by a
horse in 2004 (Pearson and Hopey 2005,
pp. 18–19). Open sandy beaches (e.g.
dredge spoil sites on the lower
Columbia islands) make good camping
areas for kayakers and boaters, and nests
could be lost due to accidental crushing.
During western snowy plover surveys
conducted between 2006 and 2010 at
coastal sites in Washington, humancaused nest failures were reported in 4
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
of the 5 years (Pearson et al. annual
reports, 2007, p. 16; 2008, p. 17; 2009,
p. 18; 2010, p. 16). Because streaked
horned larks nest in the same areas as
snowy plovers along the Washington
Coast, it is highly likely that humancaused nest failures also occur due to
recreational activities at these sites.
Good communication between
researchers and landowners has resulted
in some positive actions to reduce the
adverse effects of recreation. In 2002,
JBLM restricted recreational activity at
the 13th Division Prairie to protect lark
nesting; prohibiting model airplane
flying, dog walking, and vehicle traffic
in the area used by streaked horned
larks (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 29).
Although restrictions to recreational
use were placed on the 13th Division
Prairie by JBLM, it is a difficult area to
patrol and enforce restrictions of this
type. This area, adjacent to where
streaked horned larks nest, is scheduled
for a release of captive bred and
translocated Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly larvae during March 2012.
Based on our review, we conclude that
activities associated with recreation are
threats to the streaked horned lark.
Nest Parasitism
Nest parasitism by brown-headed
cowbirds (Molothrus ater) is a potential,
though little documented, threat to
streaked horned larks. Cowbirds are
common in grasslands and urban areas
throughout North America; female
cowbirds lay their eggs in the nests of
other songbirds (Lowther 1993, p. 1).
Upon hatching, young cowbirds
compete for food with the young of the
host species, and may result in lower
reproductive success for the host pair
(Lowther 1993, p. 11). In a study in
Kansas, brown-headed cowbird
parasitism of horned lark nests reduced
the larks’ nest success by half in those
nests that were parasitized (from 1.4
young larks fledged per nest in nonparasitized nests to 0.7 young larks
produced per nest with cowbird
parasitism (Hill 1976, pp. 560–561)).
Cowbirds are native to the open
grasslands of central North America, but
apparently only expanded into Oregon
and Washington in the 1950’s, as a
result of human clearing of forested
habitats (Lowther 1993, p. 2). Brownheaded cowbirds have been noted at all
streaked horned lark study areas, and
fledgling cowbirds have been observed
begging for food from adult streaked
horned larks in the south Puget Sound
(Stinson 2005, p. 56). Extensive nest
monitoring of streaked horned nests in
the Willamette Valley has not identified
cowbird brood parasitism as a threat in
this area (Moore 2009, entire; Moore and
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61967
Kotaich 2010, entire). Streaked horned
larks have had just 50 years of exposure
to brown-headed cowbirds, and as such,
have not coevolved with this nest
parasite. We, therefore, conclude that
the effect of cowbird brood parasitism
may be considered a threat if it further
depresses nest success of the declining
streaked horned lark population on the
south Puget Sound.
The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is
not known to be impacted by nest
parasitism.
Summary of Factor E
Based upon our review of the best
commercial and scientific data
available, the loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of prairies has resulted in
smaller population sizes, loss of genetic
diversity, reduced gene flow among
populations, destruction of population
structure, and increased susceptibility
to local population extirpation for the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the
streaked horned lark from a series of
threats including pesticide use, crushing
and trampling from recreational
activities, aircraft strikes and collisions,
and nest parasitism, as summarized for
each species below.
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. Based
upon our review of the best commercial
and scientific data available, the
degradation of habitat from recreational
trampling and crushing produced by
humans, dogs, and horses has killed
larvae at several sites occupied by
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. In
addition, the use of the insecticide BtK
is suspected to be responsible for the
extirpation of two sites in Pierce
County, WA in 1992. We have also
determined that the loss of genetic
diversity through inbreeding depression
due to habitat fragmentation and the
isolation of the species is likely an
ongoing active threat. We consider the
impacts from recreation and pesticide
use to pose potential threats to Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly, particularly given
its inherent vulnerability due to small
population sizes and isolation of small
populations.
Streaked horned lark. Genetic
analysis has shown that streaked horned
larks have suffered a loss of genetic
diversity due to a bottleneck in
population size (Drovetski et al. 2005, p.
881), the effect of which may be
exacerbated by continued small total
population size.
Habitat changes to streaked horned
lark habitat from climate change may
provide some benefit to the species and
as such is not currently considered a
threat. However, recreation activities
can cause the degradation of streaked
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61968
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
horned lark habitat and direct mortality
to nest and young.
We consider the impacts from
recreation, the loss of genetic diversity,
and the species’ low reproductive
numbers to pose potentially substantial
threats to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly,
particularly given its inherent
vulnerability due to small population
sizes and isolation of small populations.
Proposed Determination
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has
been lost from most locations in the
Canadian portion of its range with just
one known population remaining. In
Washington the species was once
known from seven Puget Sound
counties, and is now known to occur
naturally in just two counties, Clallam
and Pierce. In Oregon, the range of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has been
reduced to two small relict grasslands in
the foothills of the coast range near
Corvallis, in Benton County, Oregon.
The distribution of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies has been reduced from
greater than 70 populations to 10
populations rangewide today; some of
these populations have been extirpated
in the past decade, and many declined
from robust population sizes with
greater than 5,000 individual butterflies
to zero within a 3-year interval and have
not returned. Most remaining
populations of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies are very small; 5 of the 10
known populations have fewer than 100
individuals. Only 1 population
consistently has more than 1,000
individual butterflies, and this
population has been severely impacted
due to habitat impacts from military
training.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly. We find that the
threat of development and adverse
impacts to habitat from conversion to
other uses (agriculture), the loss of
historically occupied locations resulting
in the present isolation and limited
distribution of the species, the impacts
of military training and recreation,
existing and likely future habitat
fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and
land use changes associated with
agriculture, long-term fire suppression,
the and the threats associated with the
present and threatened destruction,
modification, and curtailment of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat
are significant. These threats are
currently ongoing and will continue
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
into the foreseeable future for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies.
We find that disease may be a threat,
but is not currently at a significant level
to affect Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.
The threat of disease to the larval host
plant of the species may become
substantial in the foreseeable future due
to the prevalence of small population
sizes for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly. Predation is not a threat to
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies at this
time. We conclude that the existing
regulatory mechanisms do not address
and reduce the threats to the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly. The voluntary
protections from WDNR have not
provided protection to the species on
DNR lands in north Olympic peninsula,
and WDNR grassland properties in
south Puget Sound no longer support
the subspecies.
The observed habitat fragmentation
and the isolation of small populations of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly suggests
that the loss of genetic diversity through
inbreeding depression may be a threat.
All known locations where Taylor’s
checkerspots are found in Oregon and
Washington are sufficiently distant from
each other such that exchange of genetic
material from a dispersing individual
moving from population to populations
would be unlikely. The threat of
extreme weather events (drought and
deluge, and overcast, cold springs) affect
host plant phenology and adult butterfly
emergence, which influences whether
the larvae completes their annual life
cycle, thus affecting the size of annual
populations. The effects of weather
events are particularly a threat when it
affects one of the few small populations
that remain. There is a potential threat
of continuing pesticide application,
which is suspected to be responsible for
the extirpation of some populations of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in Pierce
County. Recreational activities (off-road
vehicles, trampling and crushing from
hikers and horses) have been shown to
be a threat at several of the sites
occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies.
In summary, the combination of
several significant threats and the
ongoing nature of these threats to the
few remaining small populations of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly leads us
to conclude that the species is currently
in danger of extinction throughout the
species’ range. The threats to the
survival of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly occur throughout the species’
range and are not restricted to any
particular significant portion of that
range. Accordingly, our assessment and
proposed determination will apply to
the species throughout its entire range.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The Act defines an endangered species
as any species that is ‘‘in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range’’ and a threatened
species as any species ‘‘that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range within
the foreseeable future.’’ Because we find
that the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is
presently in danger of extinction
throughout its entire range, based on the
immediacy, severity, and scope of the
threats described above, and the fact
that the range and population size of the
species has already been drastically
reduced, a proposed determination of
threatened species status for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly is not appropriate.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we determine that the
Taylors’ checkerspot butterfly meets the
definition of an endangered species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
This proposal is based on current
information about the location, status
and threats for these subspecies. If new
information is found which results in an
expanded range of habitats used by the
subspecies, or a decreased level of
threats, we will consider that
information in the final rule.
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly meets the
definition of an endangered species
throughout its entire range, we need not
further evaluate any significant portion
of the range for this species.
Proposed Determination for the
Streaked Horned Lark
The streaked horned lark has
disappeared from all formerly
documented locations in the northern
portions of its range (British Columbia,
the San Juan Islands, and the northern
Puget trough), the Oregon coast, and the
southern edge of its range (Rogue and
Umpqua Valleys). There are currently
estimated to be fewer than 1,600
streaked horned larks rangewide.
The streaked horned lark’s range may
be continuing to contract. The south
Puget Sound breeding population is
estimated to be 150–170 individuals; the
Washington coast and Columbia River
islands breeding population is 120–140
individuals. Recent research estimates
that the number of streaked horned larks
in Washington and on the Columbia
River islands is declining. This decline
taken together with evidence of
inbreeding depression on the south
Puget Sound indicates that the streaked
horned lark’s range may contract further
in the future.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Throughout the entirety of the
streaked horned lark’s range, its habitat
is threatened by loss of natural
disturbance regimes, succession of
woody plants and the invasion of
nonnative plants that alter habitat
structure, and incompatible
management practices. In winter, most
of the subspecies congregates in the
Willamette Valley, putting it at risk of
stochastic events in bad weather years.
Most of the sites used by streaked
horned larks require management to
maintain the low vegetative structure
and open landscape needed by streaked
horned larks, although few of the
streaked horned lark’s breeding or
wintering habitats are managed for the
conservation of the subspecies.
The range of the streaked horned lark
is small and shrinking; the magnitude of
threats is not uniform throughout the
range since they appear to be
concentrated in Washington based on
the more severe population level effects
observed there, but weighing the small
overall population size there against the
relatively larger and stable populations
in Oregon, we conclude the subspecies
as a whole is not in danger of extinction
now, but is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding past, present, and
future threats to the streaked horned
lark. Threats exist throughout the range
of the subspecies, population numbers
are declining, and there are few
regulatory protections in place that
could reduce the threats to the
subspecies. Based on the threats to the
subspecies throughout its range, we
have determined the streaked horned
lark meets the definition of a threatened
species in accordance with sections
3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
After finding that the streaked horned
lark is a threatened species throughout
its range, we next consider whether a
distinct vertebrate population segment
(DPS) meets the definition of
endangered, in accordance with the
Service’s Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments under the
Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996). The policy identifies
three elements that are to be considered
regarding the status of a possible DPS.
These elements include:
(1) The discreteness of the population
segment in relation to the remainder of
the species to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population
segment to the species to which it
belongs; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
(3) The population segment’s
conservation status in relation to the
Act’s standards for listing (i.e., does the
population segment, when treated as if
it were a species, meet the Act’s
definition of endangered or threatened?)
(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
The first two elements are used to
determine if a population segment
constitutes a valid DPS. If it does, then
the third element is used to consider
whether such DPS warrants listing. In
this section, we will consider the first
two criteria (discreteness and
significance) to determine if any unit of
the streaked horned lark’s overall
population is a valid DPS (i.e., a valid
listable entity). Our policy further
recognizes it may be appropriate to
assign different classifications (i.e.,
threatened or endangered) to different
DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon (61FR
4722; February 7, 1996).
Discreteness. Under the DPS policy, a
population segment of a vertebrate
species may be considered discrete if it
satisfies either one of the following two
conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors.
Quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity (separation
based on genetic or morphological
characters) may provide evidence of this
separation;
(2) It is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation
status, or regulatory mechanisms exist
that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Marked Separation. In our evaluation
of discreteness under the DPS policy,
we primarily considered the
information indicating the separation of
streaked horned larks during the
breeding season into three regions (the
south Puget Sound, Washington Coast
and Columbia River, and the Willamette
Valley). Observation of banded streaked
horned larks has shown that the birds
show strong site philopatry in the
breeding season (i.e., individuals tend to
return to the same location to breed
each year), but birds from all regions
mix in the winter (Pearson et al. 2005,
pp. 2–6). In the winter most of the
streaked horned larks that breed in the
south Puget Sound migrate south to the
Willamette Valley or west to the
Washington coast; larks that breed on
the Washington coast either remain on
the coast or migrate south to the
Willamette Valley; birds that breed on
the lower Columbia River islands
remain on the islands or migrate to the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61969
Washington coast; and birds that breed
in the Willamette Valley remain there
over the winter (Pearson et al. 2005b;
pp. 5–6). Streaked horned larks spend
the winter in large mixed subspecies
flocks of horned larks in the Willamette
Valley, and in smaller flocks along the
lower Columbia River and Washington
Coast (Pearson et al. 2005b, p. 7;
Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 7).
Possible evidence of inbreeding
depression (Anderson 2010, p. 27,
Pearson and Stinson 2011, p. 1) may
suggest that there is a discrete
population of streaked horned larks that
breed in Washington. Estimates of
population growth rate with data from
nesting areas in Washington (south
Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and
one lower Columbia River island)
indicate that the number of streaked
horned larks in Washington is declining
each year, apparently due to a
combination of low survival and
fecundity rates (Pearson et al. 2008, pp.
10, 13; Camfield et al. 2011, p. 7); this
trend is not apparent in Oregon (Myers
and Kreager 2010, p. 11). The
combination of low genetic variability,
small and rapidly declining nesting
populations, high breeding site fidelity,
and no observed migration into the
south Puget Sound suggests that the
streaked horned lark in the south Puget
Sound could become extirpated in the
near future (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 1,
14, 15). Efforts to reduce this apparent
isolation and concomitant genetic
consequences have been implemented
within the last year.
A project was initiated in 2011 to
counteract the apparent decline in the
south Puget Sound breeding birds. This
genetic rescue effort is aimed at
increasing genetic diversity in the
streaked horned larks breeding in
Washington, which could result in
increased nest success and an increase
in the population. Twelve eggs (four
three-egg clutches) were collected from
streaked horned lark nests in the
southern Willamette Valley and were
placed in nests at the 13th Division
Prairie site at Joint Base Lewis-McChord
(Wolf 2011, p. 9). At least five young
successfully fledged at the receiving
site; if even one of these birds returns
to breed in future years, it will likely
increase genetic diversity in the
receiving population, resulting in
improved fitness and reduced extinction
risk for the south Puget Sound larks
(Wolf 2011, p. 9). This genetic rescue
project will likely be continued for the
next several years.
With the evidence of extensive mixing
that occurs in the winter, and the
genetic rescue project to bolster genetic
diversity in Washington, which has
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61970
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
resulted in genetic mixing between
Oregon and Washington populations,
there does not appear to be marked
separation among streaked horned larks
from the three regions. In addition, the
evidence of deleterious genetic
consequences to the birds breeding in
Washington suggests that any possible
isolation of this population is not the
result of adaptation or natural
differentiation of this population, but
rather is symptomatic of drastic
population declines and loss of
connectivity between potentially
interbreeding subpopulations. Because
we find the potential ‘‘regional
populations’’ are not markedly separate,
we do not consider them to be discrete
under the DPS policy.
Evaluation of Discreteness. Our
analysis of the apparent level of
isolation and evidence of inbreeding
depression does not lead to a finding
that any subunit of streaked horned
larks that nest in Washington, in the
south Puget Sound, the Washington
coast or the Columbia River islands, are
discrete, therefore these populations
cannot be considered as a potential DPS.
This does not mean that the three
breeding regions of the subspecies are
unimportant and do not have significant
conservation value. It simply means
that, per our policy, the best available
data at this time do not support a
marked separation between the breeding
larks in the three regions, based on
information available to us, such that
this population would meet the
discreteness criterion of our DPS policy.
Significance. Under our DPS Policy, a
population must be discrete and
significant to qualify as a DPS. Since we
have determined that no populations of
streaked horned larks are discrete, we
will not consider whether that
population segment is significant.
Conclusion of DPS Analysis for the
Streaked Horned Lark
On the basis of the best available
information, we have determined that
there are no discrete populations of the
streaked horned lark. Since no
population segments met the
discreetness element, and therefore, no
populations qualify as a DPS under the
Service’s DPS policy, we will not
proceed with an evaluation of the status
of the population segment under the
Act.
Significant Portion of the Range
As described above, we have
determined that the streaked horned
lark is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range, therefore the subspecies
meets the definition of a threatened
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
species under the Act. In the course of
this rangewide determination, we
considered whether some portion of the
full range of the subspecies may face
threats or potential threats acting
individually or collectively on the
streaked horned lark to such degree that
the subspecies as a whole should be
considered endangered. We detail our
consideration of that question here.
Although the threats to streaked
horned larks in Washington and Oregon
are apparently similar in nature
(including loss of habitat to
development, poor habitat quality due
to lack of adequate management to
maintain low-stature vegetation,
predation, and human disturbance
during the breeding season), for reasons
unknown, the population trend for
streaked horned larks in Washington
appears to be markedly different than
the trend for the subspecies in Oregon.
Streaked horned larks in Washington
occur on the south Puget Sound, the
Washington coast, and on islands and
dredge disposal sites in the lower
Columbia River (including two sites in
Portland, Oregon). The total estimated
population of streaked horned larks in
these areas is 270–310 birds (Altman
2011, p. 213). Demographic modeling
using data from these sites uniformly
show precipitous population declines.
Pearson et al. (2008, pp. 3, 12) examined
population vital rates (reproductive
rates, juvenile survival and adult
survival) at seven sites (four in the south
Puget Sound, two on the Washington
Coast, and one Columbia River island)
over 4 years (2002–2005) and concluded
that the Washington population is
declining by 40 percent per year.
Schapaugh (2009, pp. 9, 15, 18) used
both deterministic and stochastic
models to analyze the data collected by
Pearson et al. (2008, p. 3), and projected
that, in all cases, the streaked horned
larks in Washington would likely
become extinct within 25 years.
Camfield et al. (2011, p. 4) analyzed
the data from the same three local
populations considered by Pearson et al.
(2008) and Schapaugh (2009), described
above (the data were collected from
about 137 nests over 4 years (2002–
2005)). Camfield et al. (2011, p. 8)
concluded that these populations have
reached a point where they are
declining towards extinction, and are
not sustainable without immigration.
The declining trend is probably most
pronounced in the south Puget Sound
population, where studies have
identified apparent inbreeding
depression, which is likely a result of
the small population size, high site
fidelity, and complete absence of
breeding season immigration (i.e., no
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
observed immigration of breeding birds
from any other sites) (Pearson et al.
2008, pp. 14–15).
The population of streaked horned
larks in the Willamette Valley of Oregon
appears to be more stable. The
population in the Willamette Valley is
estimated at 900–1,300 birds (Altman
2011, p. 213); no population modeling
has been done using data from Oregon,
but the apparent trend of the species in
the Willamette Valley is stable or
slightly increasing, based on the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 1996
and 2008 surveys for streaked horned
larks at sites throughout the Willamette
Valley (Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 11).
Population monitoring at various sites
in the Willamette show that several
large populations are fairly stable or
increasing. Surveys conducted at
Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge
from 2006 to 2009 showed a population
increase from 18 pairs in 2006 to 35
pairs in 2009 (Moore 2008, p. 8; Moore
2012, in litt.). Surveys at William L.
Finley National Wildlife Refuge found
the population increasing from 15 pairs
in 2006 to 40 pairs in 2010 (Moore 2008,
p. 9; Moore 2012, in litt.). The streaked
horned lark population at Corvallis
Municipal Airport, the site of the largest
known population of the subspecies,
measured 75 pairs in 2006, 102 pairs in
2007, 80 pairs in 2008, and 85 pairs in
2011 (Moore 2008, p. 16; Moore 2012,
in litt.).
Although streaked horned larks in the
Willamette Valley face many of the
same threats as populations in
Washington, we have no information to
indicate that populations in the
Willamette Valley are experiencing
declines, or to suggest that they are
likely to experience significant declines
in the foreseeable future, to the degree
that this population would be
considered in danger of extinction at the
present time. The threats in the
Willamette Valley are relatively small
population size, and likely loss of
habitat to future development and
incompatible management practices,
which leads us to conclude that the
subspecies is threatened in the
Willamette Valley.
The best available data therefore
suggests that under current conditions,
streaked horned larks in Washington
(south Puget Sound, Washington coast,
Columbia River islands) will likely
continue to decline towards extinction
within this century. Having already
determined that the streaked horned
lark is threatened throughout its range,
we considered whether threats may be
so concentrated in some portion of its
range that, if that portion were lost, the
entire subspecies would be in danger of
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
extinction. In applying this test, we
determined that even with the potential
loss of the Washington populations, the
relatively larger, more stable population
in the Willamette Valley of Oregon
would likely persist, therefore the
subspecies as a whole is not presently
in danger of extinction, and therefore
does not meet the definition of an
endangered species under the Act.
Continued decline of the Washington
populations is considered in
conjunction with the relatively more
stable populations in the Willamette
Valley leads us to the conclusion that,
on balance, the subspecies is
appropriately defined as a threatened
species throughout its range under the
Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
Listing results in recognition and public
awareness and conservation by Federal,
State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act
encourages cooperation with the States
and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. The
protection required by Federal agencies
and the prohibitions against certain
activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act requires the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed,
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan, and revisions to the plan as
significant new information becomes
available. The recovery outline guides
the immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions and describes the
process to be used to develop a recovery
plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
specific management actions that will
achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when
a species may be downlisted or delisted,
and methods for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide
estimates of the cost of implementing
recovery tasks. Recovery teams
(comprised of species experts, Federal
and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are
often established to develop recovery
plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the
final recovery plan will be available on
our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/
endangered), or from our Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribal,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If these species are listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, pursuant to section 6 of the
Act, the States of Washington and
Oregon would be eligible for Federal
funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection and
recovery of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark.
Information on our grant programs that
are available to aid species recovery can
be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark are
only proposed for listing under the Act
at this time, please let us know if you
are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for these species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit
any new information on these species
whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61971
Section 7(a) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
is proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is designated.
Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into formal
consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include actions to manage or restore
critical habitat, actions that require
collecting or handling the species for
the purpose of captive propagation and
translocation to new habitat, actions
that may negatively affect the species
through removal, conversion or
degradation of habitat. Examples of
activities conducted, regulated or
funded by Federal agencies that may
affect listed species or their habitat
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Military training activities and air
operations conducted in or adjacent to
occupied or suitable habitat on DOD
lands;
(2) Activities with a Federal nexus
that include vegetation management
such as burning, mechanical treatment,
and/or application of herbicides/
pesticides on Federal, State, private, or
Tribal lands;
(3) Ground-disturbing activities
regulated, funded or conducted by
Federal agencies in or adjacent to
occupied and/or suitable habitat; and
(4) import, export or trade of the
species, to name a few.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to all endangered wildlife. The
prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered
wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (includes harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61972
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt
any of these), import, export, ship in
interstate commerce in the course of
commercial activity, or sell or offer for
sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any listed species. Under the Lacey Act
(18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378),
it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver,
carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to agents of the
Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened
wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for
endangered species, and at 17.32 for
threatened species. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit must be
issued for the following purposes: for
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species,
and for incidental take in connection
with otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of species proposed for listing.
The following activities could
potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling,
possessing, selling, delivering, carrying,
or transporting of the species, including
import or export across State lines and
international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique
specimens of these taxa at least 100
years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1)
of the Act;
(2) Introduction of nonnative species
that compete with or prey upon the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or
streaked horned lark, such as the
introduction of competing, nonnative
plants or animals to the States of
Washington and Oregon;
(3) The unauthorized release of
biological control agents that attack any
life stage of these species, for example,
Btk release in the range of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies;
(4) Unauthorized modification of the
soil profiles or the vegetation
components on sites known to be
occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies and streaked horned larks;
and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
(5) Deposition of dredge materials on
occupied streaked horned lark breeding
habitats, intentional harassment of
species at airports as part of a wildlife
hazard reduction program, mowing or
burning of occupied species habitats
during the breeding season.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Requests for copies of the
regulations concerning listed animals
and general inquiries regarding
prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, Eastside
Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue,
Portland, OR 97232–4181 (telephone
503–231–6158; facsimile 503–231–
6243).
If the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or
streaked horned lark are listed under the
Act, the States of Washington and
Oregon Endangered Species Acts (WAC
232–12–297 and OAR 629–605–0105)
are automatically invoked, which would
also prohibit take of these species and
encourage conservation by State
government agencies. Further, the States
may enter into agreements with Federal
agencies to administer and manage any
area required for the conservation,
management, enhancement, or
protection of endangered species. Funds
for these activities could be made
available under section 6 of the Act
(Cooperation with the States) or through
competitive application to receive
funding through our Recovery Program
under section 4 of the Act. Thus, the
Federal protection afforded to these
species by listing them as endangered or
threatened species will be reinforced
and supplemented by protection under
State law.
Special Rule
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the
Secretary may publish a special rule
that modifies the standard protections
for threatened species in the Service’s
regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, which
implement section 9 of the Act, with
special measures that are determined to
be necessary and advisable to provide
for the conservation of the species. As
a means to promote conservation efforts
on behalf of the streaked horned lark,
we are proposing a special rule for this
species under section 4(d) of the Act. In
the case of a special rule, the general
regulations (50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71)
applying most prohibitions under
section 9 of the Act to threatened
species do not apply to that species, and
the special rule contains the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
prohibitions necessary and appropriate
to conserve that species.
Under the proposed special rule, take
of the streaked horned lark caused by
restoration and maintenance activities
either through agricultural operations or
by airports on State, county, private, or
tribal lands would be exempt from
section 9 of the Act. These activities
include mechanical weed and grass
removal on airports. In addition, we also
propose to exempt certain normal
farming or ranching activities,
including: grazing, routine fence and
structure maintenance, mowing,
herbicide use, burning, and other
routine activities described under
proposed § 17.41 (Special Rules—Birds)
at the end of this document. The rule
targets these activities to encourage
landowners to continue to maintain
those areas that are not only important
for airport safety and agricultural use,
but also provide habitat for the streaked
horned lark. Airport restoration and
maintenance activities on Federal lands
will be addressed through the section 7
process.
Justification
Airport Management. Some
management actions taken at airports
are generally beneficial to streaked
horned larks. Streaked horned larks
have been documented to breed
successfully and to maintain stable
populations at airports in the south
Puget Sound and Willamette Valley.
Although horned larks are one of the
most commonly struck birds according
to the Federal Aviation Administration’s
bird strike database, they rarely cause
damage to airplanes due to their small
size. However, larger birds can cause
significant damage and are a danger to
planes. The Service believes current
management of these areas provide for
safe aircraft operations while
simultaneously providing for the
conservation of streaked horned larks.
Under the proposed rule, covered
actions would include vegetation
management to maintain desired grass
height on or adjacent to airports through
mowing or herbicide use; hazing of
hazardous wildlife (geese, and other
large birds and mammals), routine
management, repair and maintenance of
roads and runways; and management of
forage, water, and shelter to be less
attractive to these hazardous wildlife.
If finalized, the listing of the streaked
horned lark would impose a
requirement of airport managers where
the species occur to consider the effects
of their management activities on these
species. Additionally, airport managers
would likely take actions to deter the
species from areas where they currently
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
occur in order to avoid the burden of the
resulting take restrictions that would
accrue from the presence of a listed
species. However, special rule under
section 4(d) of the Act for airports
which exempts activities, such as
mowing or other management to deter
hazardous wildlife, that would result in
take under section 9 of the Act, would
eliminate the incentive for airports to
reduce or eliminate populations of
streaked horned larks from the airfields.
Agricultural Lands. Streaked horned
larks use agricultural habitats in the
Willamette Valley each year, even
though appropriate habitat
characteristics on these lands may shift
from year to year. In the agricultural
fields of the Willamette Valley, the open
habitats with the desired combination of
bare ground and low vegetation
structure may occur anywhere within
the agricultural matrix of the valley
floor. Habitat characteristics of
agricultural lands used by streaked
horned larks include: (1) Bare or
sparsely vegetated areas within or
adjacent to grass seed fields, pastures, or
fallow fields; (2) recently planted (0–3
years) Christmas tree farms with
extensive bare ground; and (3) wetland
mudflats or ‘‘drown outs’’ (i.e., washedout and poorly performing areas within
grass seed or row crop fields). Currently,
there are approximately 420,000 ac
(169,968 ha) of grass seed fields in the
Willamette Valley, and an additional
approximately 500,000 ac (202,343 ha)
of other agriculture. In any year, some
portion of these roughly 1 million ac
(404,685 ha) will have suitable streaked
horned lark habitat, but the geographic
location of those areas will not be
consistent from year to year, nor can we
predict their occurrence.
While some agricultural activities
may harm or kill streaked horned larks,
maintenance of extensive agricultural
lands in the Willamette Valley is crucial
to maintaining a large, stable population
of streaked horned larks in the valley.
Section 9 of the Act provides general
prohibitions on activities that would
result in take of a threatened species;
however, the Service recognizes that
routine agricultural activities, even
those with the potential to inadvertently
take individual streaked horned larks,
may be necessary components of
agricultural operations and may provide
for the long-term conservation needs of
the streaked horned lark. The Service
recognizes that in the long term, it is a
benefit to the streaked horned lark to
maintain those aspects of the Willamette
Valley’s agricultural landscape that can
aid in the recovery of the species. We
believe this special rule will further
conservation of the species by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
discouraging conversions of the
agricultural landscape into habitats
unsuitable for the streaked horned lark
and encouraging landowners to
continue managing the remaining
landscape in ways that meet the needs
of their operation as well as providing
suitable habitat for the streaked horned
lark. Under the proposed rule, we
propose to exempt normal farming
activities such as planting, harvest and
rotation of crops, mowing and tilling,
herbicide use, and burning, which may
result in take of the streaked horned lark
under section 9 of the Act.
In addition, we believe that, in certain
instances, easing the general take
prohibitions on non-Federal agricultural
lands may encourage continued
responsible land uses that provide an
overall benefit to the species. We also
believe that such a special rule will
promote the conservation efforts and
private lands partnerships critical for
species recovery (Bean and Wilcove
1997, pp. 1–2). However, in easing the
take prohibitions under section 9, the
measures developed in the special rule
must also contain prohibitions
necessary and appropriate to conserve
the species. As discussed elsewhere in
this proposed rule, the streaked horned
lark faces many threats. Foremost
among these is the scarcity of large,
open spaces with very early seral stage
vegetation. In the Willamette Valley,
large expanses of burned prairie or the
scour plains of the Willamette and
Columbia Rivers may have provided
suitable habitat for streaked horned
larks in the past. With the loss of these
natural habitats during the last century,
alternative breeding and wintering sites,
including active agricultural lands, have
become critical for the continued
survival and recovery of the streaked
horned lark.
Provisions of the Proposed Special Rule
We believe these actions and
activities, while they may have some
minimal level of harm to or disturbance
of the streaked horned lark, are not
expected to adversely affect the species’
conservation and recovery efforts.
This proposal will not be finalized
until we have reviewed comments from
the public and peer reviewers.
Exempted activities include existing
routine airport practices as outlined
above by non-Federal entities on
existing airports, and agricultural and
ranching activities.
Critical Habitat Designation for
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and
Streaked Horned Lark
It is our intent to discuss below only
those topics directly relevant to the
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61973
designation of critical habitat for the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the
streaked horned lark in this section of
the proposed rule.
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species, and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
seeks or requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action
that may affect a listed species or
critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) would
apply, but even in the event of a
destruction or adverse modification
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61974
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
finding, the obligation of the Federal
action agency and the landowner is not
to restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographic area occupied by
the species at the time it was listed are
included in a critical habitat designation
if they contain physical or biological
features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2)
which may require special management
considerations or protection. For these
areas, critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific and commercial data
available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected
habitat). In identifying those physical
and biological features within an area,
we focus on the principal biological or
physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites,
nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands,
water quality, tide, soil type) that are
essential to the conservation of the
species. Primary constituent elements
are the elements of physical or
biological features that provide for a
species’ life-history processes and are
essential to the conservation of the
species.
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographic area occupied by
the species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently
occupied by the species, but that was
not occupied at the time of listing, may
be determined to be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be
included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical
habitat in areas outside the geographic
area occupied by a species only when a
designation limited to its range would
be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species.
Methods
As required by Section 4 of the Act,
we used the best scientific data
available in determining those areas that
contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
these species. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards under the
Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act
(section 515 of the Treasury and General
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
should be designated as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include the recovery plan for the
species (if available), articles in peerreviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties,
scientific status surveys and studies,
biological assessments, other
unpublished materials, or experts’
opinions or personal knowledge. In this
case we used existing occurrence data
for each species and identified the
habitat and ecosystems upon which
they depend. These sources of
information included, but were not
limited to:
1. Data used to prepare the proposed
rule to list the species;
2. Information from biological
surveys;
3. Peer-reviewed articles, various
agency reports, and databases;
4. Information from the U.S.
Department of Defense—Joint Base
Lewis McChord and other cooperators;
5. Information from species experts;
6. Data and information presented in
academic research theses; and
7. Regional Geographic Information
System (GIS) data (such as species
occurrence data, land use, topography,
aerial imagery, soil data, and land
ownership maps) for area calculations
and mapping.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. Climate change will be a particular
challenge for biodiversity because the
interaction of additional stressors
associated with climate change and
current stressors may push species
beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy
2005, pp. 325–326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and
habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for
biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p. 4).
Current climate change predictions for
terrestrial areas in the Northern
Hemisphere indicate warmer air
temperatures, more intense
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
precipitation events, and increased
summer continental drying (Field et al.
1999, pp. 1–3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p.
12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181). Climate
change may lead to increased frequency
and duration of severe storms and
droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504;
McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook
et al. 2004, p. 1015).
The information currently available
on the effects of global climate change
and increasing temperatures does not
make sufficiently precise estimates of
the location and magnitude of the
effects. Nor are we currently aware of
any climate change information specific
to the habitat of the species that would
indicate what areas may become
important to the species in the future.
Therefore, we are unable to determine
what additional areas, if any, may be
appropriate to include in the final
critical habitat for this species to
address the effects of climate change.
We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, and (3) the
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if
actions occurring in these areas may
affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical
habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These
protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of
this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the
best available information at the time of
designation will not control the
direction and substance of future
recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans (HCPs), or other species
conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of
these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary designate
critical habitat at the time the species is
determined to be endangered or
threatened. Our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when one
or both of the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking
or other activity and the identification
of critical habitat can be expected to
increase the degree of threat to the
species; or (2) such designation of
critical habitat would not be beneficial
to the species.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Species Proposed for Listing
As we have discussed under the
threats analysis for Factor B, there is no
documentation that the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned
lark are currently significantly
threatened by collection for private or
commercial purposes. We do have some
evidence that the historical collection of
butterflies for scientific studies may
have contributed to the decline and
extirpation of the 13th Division Prairie
population of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly in the late 1990s. This is
consistent with the decline and
extirpation of the Jasper Ridge
population of Edith’s checkerspot in
California reported by McGarrahan
(1977, p. 479), which was determined to
have been caused, in part, by scientific
studies.
We reviewed the information
available for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark
pertaining to their biological needs and
habitat characteristics. In the absence of
finding that the designation of critical
habitat would increase threats to a
species, if there are any benefits to a
critical habitat designation, then a
prudent finding is warranted. The
potential benefits of critical habitat to
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark include: (1)
Triggering consultation under section 7
of the Act, in new areas for actions in
which there may be a Federal nexus
where it would not otherwise occur
because, for example, it is or has
become unoccupied or the occupancy is
in question; (2) focusing conservation
activities on the most essential features
and areas; (3) providing educational
benefits to State or county governments
or private entities; and (4) preventing
people from causing inadvertent harm
to the species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
The primary regulatory effect of
critical habitat is the section 7(a)(2)
requirement that Federal agencies
refrain from taking any action that
destroys or adversely modifies critical
habitat. We find that the designation of
critical habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark will
benefit these subspecies by serving to
focus conservation efforts on the
restoration and maintenance of
ecosystem functions that are essential
for attaining their recovery and longterm viability. In addition, the
designation of critical habitat serves to
inform management and conservation
decisions by identifying any additional
physical or biological features of the
ecosystem that may be essential for the
conservation of these subspecies.
Therefore, because we have determined
that the designation of critical habitat
will not likely increase the degree of
threat to the species and may provide
some measure of benefit, we find that
designation of critical habitat is prudent
for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
and streaked horned lark, as critical
habitat would be beneficial and there is
no evidence that the designation of
critical habitat would result in an
increased threat from taking or other
human activity for these species.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is
prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
we must find whether critical habitat for
the species is determinable. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following
situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform
required analyses of the impacts of the
designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species
are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as
critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not
determinable, the Act allows the Service
an additional year to publish a critical
habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available
information pertaining to the biological
needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark and
habitat characteristics where these
subspecies are located. This and other
information represent the best scientific
data available and led us to conclude
that the designation of critical habitat is
determinable for the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61975
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which
areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing to designate as critical habitat,
we identify the physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. These
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring;
and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or
biological features required for each
subspecies from studies of their habitat,
ecology, and life history as described
above in this document. We have
determined that the physical and
biological features described below are
essential for the conservation of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and the streaked
horned lark, and have further
determined that these features may
require special management
considerations or protection.
The designation of critical habitat is
an authority restricted to the boundaries
of the United States; critical habitat
cannot be designated in a foreign
country (50 CFR 424.12(h)). Thus for the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark, both subspecies
that range into Canada (or historically
occurred there), we discuss the
population in Canada (in the listing
portion of the document) for the
purpose of evaluating the viability of the
species, and to inform our
determination of those areas within the
United States that are essential for the
conservation of the species. We do not
propose to designate critical habitat in
Canada.
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly
We have determined that the
following physical or biological features
are essential for the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly.
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
Habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly is characterized by open
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61976
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
grassland habitat with short-statured
vegetation structure (Stinson 2005, p.
86; Severns and Warren 2008, p. 476)
throughout their range in British
Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. A
diverse topography is a feature that is
essential to the conservation of other
checkerspot butterflies (Ehrlich and
Murphy 1987, p. 122; Hellmann et al.
2004, p. 41) and strongly influences the
distribution and abundance of larvae
and butterflies within a habitat patch
(Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 46).
Topographic diversity creates
conditions where larval food plant
phenology (timing of bud development,
bud break, and flowering) is variable
across different slopes angles. For
example, plants on south facing slopes
may develop earlier in the season as
compared to those on north facing
aspects. This difference in plant
phenology, as influenced by
topography, allows larvae to move to
areas with plentiful, mature host plants,
or to move away from hot exposed
slopes when the larval host plants begin
to dry and wither, and no longer
provides sufficient amounts or quality
nutrition for the larvae. Topography has
been shown to directly influence postdiapause larval growth (Hellmann 2004
p. 46), and topographically influenced
microclimates affect the distribution
and abundance of larvae and butterflies
within its habitat (Hellmann et al. 2004,
p. 46). Open grassland habitat
dominated by short statured native
grasses and diverse native forbs, without
the presence of conifers, and shrubs
such as the nonnative Scot’s broom, and
native snowberry (Symphoricarpus
albus), and rose (Rosa spp.) facilitate the
movement of butterflies for mating, egglaying (ovipositing), and adult nectaring
(see below—Sites for Breeding,
Reproduction, or Rearing (or
Development) of Offspring).
Areas of habitat with open bare soil
may also be advantageous to the
butterfly as these areas warm more
quickly than the surrounding
vegetation, and butterflies thermoregulate by basking (Scott 1986, p. 296;
Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140; Stinson
2005, p. 81). The presence of tall,
nonnative grasses creates a habitat
structure that is unsuitable to
checkerspot butterflies, making it
difficult for adults to locate larval host
plants for egg-laying (ovipositing).
Given a choice, Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies oviposited on larval host
plants surrounded by short-statured
native bunchgrasses and adult nectar
plants, indicating that females select
egg-laying sites based on habitat
conditions (structure) rather than just
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
the presence of the host plant (Severn
and Warren 2008, p. 476). Post-diapause
larvae forage singularly and are capable
of moving much greater distances than
pre-diapause larvae (Kuussaari et al.
2004, p. 140). Edith’s checkerspot larvae
have been documented to move up to 10
m (33 ft) from a release site, often
moving within a habitat patch to
different exposures to raise their body
temperature (Stinson 2005, p. 81), and
presumably to find suitable foraging
conditions (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p.
140). Dispersal within a habitat patch
benefits the larvae because they are able
to elevate their body temperature to an
optimal range for foraging and
development.
Large expanses of open grassland
habitat are in limited abundance
throughout the range of the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly; however, using
current occupation by the butterfly as an
example, it appears the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly can use relatively
small patches of suitable habitat. At this
time, only one area of open grassland
habitat that supports Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies is larger than 50
ac (20 ha). This location is known as the
Artillery Impact Area (91st Division
Prairie) on JBLM and it is approximately
6,000 ac (2,430 ha). Even on this large
expansive prairie the butterfly uses two
distinct patches that are less than 100 ac
(40 ha) each in size, and they are
separated by several kilometers. The
areas between the patches are not
trained upon, and are composed of
grasslands, however, the abundance and
diversity of larval host and adult nectar
plants in this intervening area does not
appear to be sufficient to attract and be
used by Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies.
In Oregon, the two locations where
Taylor’s are found are composed of
several distinct grassland patches with
no individual patch larger than 5 ac (2
ha) (Kaye et al. 2011, p. 10) and many
of the numerous bald patches on the
north Olympic Peninsula in Washington
are small as well. The WDNR balds on
Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley are a
series of small openings that are all less
than 1 ac (0.4 ha) (Hays 2011, pp. 8–9,
18); whereas the Taylor’s locations
found on Forest Service lands on the
Olympic Peninsula range in size from
25 to 60 ac (10 to 24 ha) (Holtrop 2009,
pp. 7–10). The Oregon sites and the
north Olympic Peninsula balds are both
found in a matrix of conifer forests
(Kaye et al. 2011, pp. 19–20).
Based on information provided by an
expert panel and predictions from a
Prairie Reserve Design model, Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly have the highest
probability of survival on patches from
approximately 20–50 ac (8–20 ha) in
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
size (probability of survival range 0.8–
0.98) (Converse et al., 2010, p. 8). In the
case of this model, survival is defined
as patch of habitat that is occupied in
year y+1 if Taylor checkerspot butterfly
eggs were oviposited in the patch in
year y. The model was run annually for
50 years to predict the occupancy
probability in relation to patch size for
the species. Beyond a patch size of 50
ac (20 ha) there was no added
probability of survival (Converse et al.
2009, p. 8).
Little work has been carried out on
the ability of this species to disperse.
However, a mark-recapture study
conducted in Oregon (Kaye et al. 2011,
p. 15) showed that dispersal distance
was short (less than 984 ft (300 m) (Kaye
et al. 2011, p. 16) and that Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies tended to move
to the nearest open patch, or from poor
resource patches to rich resource
patches, although rates of recapture
were low (2 out of 100) (Kaye et al.
2011, p. 12). Mark-recapture studies
with checkerspot butterflies in Finland
documented that they generally flew
less than 1,640 ft (500 m), and that long
distance migrations were clearly
restricted (Nieminen et al. 2004, p. 73).
Research conducted in California on
Edith’s checkerspot butterfly described
the butterfly as sedentary (Murphy et al.
2004, p. 23) and rarely undertaking
long-distance movements (Singer and
Hanski 2004, p. 184). Hellmann et al.
(2004, p. 37) found evidence of limited
dispersal between closely situated
populations even though the habitat
provided similar food resources and was
well within dispersal distance
(Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 39). Based
upon the current distribution of the
known Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
populations, there is a lack of
opportunity for genetic interchange and
a reduced likelihood that populations
that decline due to stochastic events are
likely to be repopulated by emigrating
individuals.
While Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
may not need large areas to survive,
they do require habitat patches
composed of short-statured, abundant,
and diverse larval host and nectar
species (described below). These
patches (separated by 984 ft (300 m) or
less (Kaye et al, 2011. p.16)) should be
scattered throughout their range to
allow for movement within patches,
dispersal to new habitat patches, and
recolonization of lost or nonviable sites
both within and between patches due to
habitat or population changes. Although
dispersal by Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies appears to be limited, in
order to recover the species there will
need to be an ability to recolonize new
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
habitat and provide for genetic
exchange, which is essential to the longterm viability (survival) of the species.
At this time, the distance between
habitat patches in Washington and
Oregon is too great for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies to disperse
between patches. The connections
between patches are lacking throughout
the species’ range, and only through
protection and restoration using special
management of the intervening patches
will genetic exchange be accomplished.
High quality reproductive habitat is
currently relegated to relatively small
areas within a larger context of degraded
prairie landscape (Severns and Warren
2008, p. 476; Severns and Grossball
2011, p. 2).
Landscape and habitat diversity, or
heterogeneity, are essential elements for
the conservation of Edith’s checkerspot
butterflies (Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p.
122; Hellman et al. 2004, p. 41), and
based on their similar habitat needs, we
presume that habitat diversity is also
essential to the conservation of the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, even
though the species may only require and
use small areas of suitable habitat.
Patches of habitat where Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly populations are
robust also tend to have high
topographic diversity including areas
with mima mounds (low, domelike,
mounds of earth found in certain
prairies) and areas composed of swales
(depressions) that produce ecotone
habitat (Johnson and O’Neil 2001, p.
715) between dry upland habitat typical
of south Puget Sound prairies, and wet
prairie habitat more typical of the
Willamette Valley (Easterly et al. 2005,
p. 1). Swales may enhance the wildlife
resources available on the landscape
(Easterly et al. 2005, p. 1) or improve the
richness of wildlife resources
(biodiversity) of an area and as such are
important for wildlife conservation
(Thomas et al. 1979, p. 48). Mima
mounds and swales are important
because they may support plants not
found in the either the dry or wet
portions of a grassland. Swales formed
on the prairies of south Puget Sound
support a rich assemblage of native
plants because of the variation in aspect
exposure found there, with the south
aspect being dry compared with more
shaded northern aspects. The northfacing portion of a swale is likely to
maintain moist conditions later into the
growing season than the surrounding
level ground.
Moist, cool conditions of a swale or a
mima mound may be similar to the
moist, cool, and overcast conditions
experienced throughout most of the
species’ range in 2011, which made for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
one of the longest flight seasons on
record for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
in Washington (45 days; Linders 2011b,
p. 17) and in Oregon (42 days; Ross
2011, in litt. p. 3). In a study by Peterson
(1997, p. 167), he demonstrated that
flowering phenology varied by aspect
and elevation of plant patches, which
affects a butterfly’s ability to complete
its life cycle. The timing of plant
flowering directly affects whether a
butterfly larva finds the required plant
patches during the period they have to
complete their larval development. If
the food resource becomes exhausted
before the larvae complete their life
cycle they will either return to diapause,
or die.
Based on the information above, we
identified areas of open grassland
habitat with suitable habitat patches of
short-statured grasses from less than 1
acre to greater than 50 ac (roughly 0.4
ha to more than 20 ha) in size within a
large landscape context are essential to
the conservation of the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly. In the Pacific
Northwest, suitable occupied habitat
patches may be found in a large forested
landscape with small grassland opening
of suitable habitat (such as in Oregon or
at sites on the north Olympic
Peninsula), or the entire landscape may
be a large relatively degraded grassland
with smaller suitable habitat patches
occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot.
To allow for dispersal between suitable
habitat patches the occupied patches
would ideally be located within
approximately 1,640 ft (500 m) of other
suitable habitat patches within the
larger landscape context.
In summary, a wide range of suitable
habitat patch sizes, including large to
very small connected patches, appear to
accommodate the requisite needs of the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, as the
butterfly is known to occupy areas in
disjunct locations scattered across the
Pacific northwest grassland landscape
from sea-level to as high as 4,000 ft
(1,220 m) elevation.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Because checkerspots are coldblooded (exothermic), they are required
to complete their life cycle in a short
period of time in open conditions where
solar exposure is maximized. Larvae
often seek and disperse to warm, open
slopes (James and Nunnallee 2011, p.
286). Adult checkerspot butterflies often
bask and remain in open grassland
conditions using the sunshine and
warm air temperature to increase their
body temperature to the level required
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61977
for normal activity (73 FR 3328, p. 3335;
January 17, 2008).
The availability of abundant food
resources for larval development and
adult nectaring is an essential factor to
protecting populations of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly. Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies require open
grassland habitat with specific host
plants for larval development, and
nectar plants for adult feeding. Habitat
quality may range from relatively
pristine to severely degraded (disturbed)
as long as the requisite larval host plants
(Plantago lanceolata, (nonnative
narrow-leaf plantain) and Castilleja
hispida (native harsh paintbrush), and
in Canada, nonnative and native species
of Veronica (speedwell) such as V.
scutella (marsh speedwell), V.
beccabunga var. americana (American
speedwell), and V. serpyllifolia
(thymeleaf speedwell) are present in
sufficient abundance to support larval
development, chrysalis formation, and
emergence as an adult.
Regardless of the quality of grassland
habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies, conditions suitable to
support Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
must have representatives of at least
one, or both, of the two food plant
families utilized by the larvae (Pyle
2002, p. 311; Erhlich and Hanski 2004,
p. 17; Severns 2008, p. 2; Severns and
Warren 2008; p. 476). Specifically,
larval food plants utilized by the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are
species from the Orobanchacae
(formerly Scrophulariacae; the
snapdragon or figwort family) and
Plantanginacae (Plantain) family (Erlich
and Hanski 2004, p. 22). These plant
families represent two of four plant
families found within the region that
contain secondary chemicals called
iridoid glycosides (Erhlich and Hanski
2004, p. 22), which may make adult
butterflies distasteful to predators (van
Nouhuys and Hanski 2004, p. 161;
Murphy et. al. 2004 p. 22). Although
numerous plant families (up to 16) may
be utilized by checkerspot larvae
(Murphy et. al. 2004, p. 22), the larvae
are known to preferentially select plant
members of the plantain and
snapdragon (now broomrape) families in
the Pacific Northwest. Checkering on
wings of adult butterflies and the
sequestering of chemical compounds
that make adult butterflies distasteful
are two of many mechanisms used by
butterflies as a signal and defense
against natural enemies (Van Nouhys
and Hanski 2004, p. 161).
Adult Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies
are known to use a wide diversity of
nectar plants for feeding, including, but
not limited to several native plant
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61978
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
species including: Balsamorhiza
deltoidea (balsamroot); Eriophyllum
lanatum (woolly sunshine); Lomatium
triternatum (nine-leaved desert parsley);
Lomatium utriculatum (fine-leaved
desert parsley, spring gold); Camassia
quamash (common camas); Erigeron
speciosus (showy fleabane); Cirsium
arvense (Canada thistle); Achillea
millefolium (common yarrow); Lupinus
lepidus (prairie lupine); and Lupinus
albicaulis (sickle-keeled lupine).
Adult butterflies obtain some
moisture from nectar sources and the
need for actual water sources may only
occur during years of extreme drought
(Stinson 2005, p. 81). There is evidence
that points to butterflies using puddles
to obtain salts leached from soil
(Stinson 2005, p. 81), or they may use
mud, carrion, animal urine, or feces to
obtain salts, minerals, amino acids and
proteins (Guppy and Shepard 2001, p.
69). The intake of amino acids by
females results in larger eggs, and
consequently larger and healthier larvae
(Murphy et al. 1983, p. 259).
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify open, short-statured
grassland structure with rich and
diverse plant communities containing
one or both primary larval food plants,
the narrow-leaved plantain and harsh
paintbrush, as a physical and biological
feature essential to the conservation of
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.
Habitat should include open bare soil
with a background structure composed
of a bunchgrass community (Roemer’s
fescue or California oat-grass). A source
of water, or puddles, is used to avoid
dehydration and to acquire nutrients,
particularly in drought years (Stinson
2005, p. 81; Guppy and Shepard 2001,
p. 41). Other important larval food
plants include, but are not limited to,
other members of the Orobanchaceae
(broomrape; formerly Scrophulariaceae
(snapdragon or figwort)) family, which
are documented larval host plants
(James and Nunnallee 2011, p. 286; Pyle
2001, p. 311; Hellmann et al., 2004, p.
35) and are essential to the conservation
of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.
Other species of the Plantaginaceae
family have not been documented as a
favored larval host plant, except in
Canada (COSEWIC 2011 p. 25), where
Taylor’s have been observed utilizing
the nonnative Plantago major (common
plantain). Plant community patches
utilized by Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly, especially those within a
highly degraded prairie landscape
context, must also include a diverse mix
of native forbs to provide nectar for
adult butterflies.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring
Taylors’s checkerspot butterflies
require open grassland habitat with
specific host plants for larval and adult
feeding as discussed above. As plant
communities become invaded by taller
structure grass, sites for breeding are
reduced and the availability of larval
and adult butterfly resources is limited.
The encroachment of nonnative,
invasive species reduces the quality and
size of habitat patches used for
reproduction that are found in an
otherwise larger grassland landscape
(Severns and Warren 2008, p. 478;
Severns and Grosboll 2011, p. 2). The
quality of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
habitat resources is quite variable across
its distribution, with Oregon sites being
relatively depauperate (sparse
vegetation and low plant diversity)
when compared with floristically
abundant occupied habitat in
Washington (Severns and Grosboll 2011,
p. 2).
Oviposition (egg deposition) by
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has most
often been documented on narrow-leaf
plantain and harsh paintbrush. Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly larvae are known
to also utilize several species of
speedwell in Canada (marsh speedwell,
American speedwell, and thyme-leaved
speedwell) (COSEWIC 2011, p. 25). In
Washington, Collinsia parviflora (blueeyed Mary), and potentially Plectritis
congesta (sea blush) may be used for
egg-laying (James and Nunnullee 2011,
p. 286; Severns and Grossball 2011, p.
60).
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae
require sheltered sites out of the wind
and weather for diapause (Linders 2012,
pers. comm.). Adult butterflies tend to
roost on nearby nectar plants (deltoid
balsamroot, sickle-keeled lupine, and
nine-leaved desert parsley) in close
proximity to larval host plants (plantain
and paintbrush) where eggs are
oviposited or larvae are developing by
feeding on host plants. The preferred or
most suitable habitat for larval feeding
is on sites with topographic variation or
exposure (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140).
This allows larvae to move from one
host plant to another of the same
species, as host plants are ephemeral in
nature and phenology of an individual
plant can differ within a habitat patch,
depending on local weather and host
plant quality (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p.
140). Because of their limited ability to
move, prediapause larvae must hatch
from eggs oviposited in a favorable site
for locating the appropriate host plant
under the appropriate environmental
condition (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 138).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In the climate and local weather
conditions of the Pacific Northwest,
larval development requires a site that
is warm and dry (Kuussaari et al. 2004,
p. 138).
Therefore, based on the information
above, we have determined that areas
within open grasslands with shortstatured structure, that contain larval
host plants for egg laying and feeding,
which are in close proximity to host
plants that provide protection from
wind and wet weather for larval rearing
is a physical and biological feature
essential to the conservation of the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or
Representative of the Historical,
Geographical, and Ecological
Distributions of the Species
Disturbance serves an important
function in restoring and sustaining
habitat composition and function for
improving prairie quality. As vegetation
responds positively to disturbances,
habitat succession occurs, restoring the
early seral species, including the larval
host plants narrow-leaved plantain and
harsh paintbrush.
Typically, management is needed to
improve prairie quality. Management
treatments disturb the land and soil, and
may involve prescribed fire, weed
control using herbicides, the harvesting
of encroaching trees, or the simple
process of planting grasses, forbs and
rare or uncommon plant species by
hand or using mechanical means. Short
term and small scale disturbances range
from a few square feet to several acres
(1 square meter to a few hectares).
Larger scale disturbances can range from
ten to hundreds of acres (∼2.5 to 40
hectares).
Occupied sites on the north Olympic
Peninsula on Forest Service and
Washington Department of Natural
Resources land receive regular
disturbance from off road vehicles
(ORV), and service trucks using the road
weekly to access cell-phone towers at
one site (Dan Kelly Ridge). At the single
private land location on the north
Olympic Peninsula no public access is
permitted on the property. Disturbances
generated from the frontage road was
reduced at this site by closing the road
during the spring and summer leading
to the single most important
management action carried out at the
site (Hays 2011 p. 32). The road closure
was implemented for the conservation
of the species in 2009 and has improved
the habitat in the short-term, leading to
increased numbers of larval host plants
(P. lanceolata) and pre-diapause larval
masses observed at the site (Severns and
Grosboll 2011, p. 32).
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify areas with early seral
habitat that experience regular
disturbance as essential to the
conservation of the species. Regular
disturbance is necessary to maintain
early seral habitat conditions required to
aid establishment of the larval host and
adult nectar plants. Because natural
disturbance regimes have largely been
eliminated in areas occupied by Taylor’s
checkerspot, active, planned
management is generally required to
maintain habitats in the early seral
condition required by the butterfly.
Between times of planned disturbance,
sites should receive protection from
disturbance in a temporal context, as too
much disturbance too often will reduce
numbers of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies and the spatial extent of their
habitat. Disturbance will be beneficial
and essential to resetting the habitat
back to early seral conditions
approximately every 2–5 years, based on
recovery from disturbance history, and
the resiliency of larval food plants as
documented from experience at JBLM
and other south Puget Sound locations
that have received proactive
management. The larval host plants and
adult nectar plants are resilient and can
recover if the habitat is provided
sufficient time to rest (at least two
growing seasons) between episodes of
use and disturbance.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Primary Constituent Elements for
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, we are required to identify
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in areas
occupied at the time of listing, focusing
on the features’ primary constituent
elements. We consider primary
constituent elements to be the elements
of physical or biological features that
provide for a species’ life-history
processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of
the physical or biological features and
habitat characteristics required to
sustain the species’ life-history
processes, we determine that the
primary constituent elements specific to
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are:
(i) Patches of early seral, shortstatured, perennial bunchgrass plant
communities composed of native grass
and forb species in a diverse
topographic landscape ranging in size
from less than 1 ac up to 100 ac (0.4 to
40 ha) with little or no overstory forest
vegetation that have areas of bare soil
for basking that contain:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
(a) In Washington and Oregon,
common bunchgrass species found on
northwest grasslands include Festuca
roemeri (Roemer’s fescue), Danthonia
californica (California oat grass),
Koeleria cristata (prairie Junegrass),
Elymus glaucus (blue wild rye), Agrostis
scabra (rough bentgrass), and on cooler,
high-elevation sites typical of coastal
bluffs and balds, Festuca rubra (red
fescue).
(b) On moist grasslands found near
the coast and in the Willamette Valley,
there may be Bromus sitchensis (Sitka
brome) and Deschampsia cespitosa
(tufted hairgrass) in the mix of prairie
grasses. Less abundant forbs found on
the grasslands include, but are not
limited to, Trifolium spp. (true clovers),
narrow-leaved plantain, harsh
paintbrush, Puget balsam root, woolly
sunshine, nine-leaved desert parsley,
fine-leaved desert parsley, common
camas, showy fleabane, Canada thistle,
common yarrow, prairie lupine, and
sickle-keeled lupine.
(ii) Primary larval host plants
(narrow-leaved plantain and harsh
paintbrush) and at least one of the
secondary annual larval host plants
(blue-eyed Mary, sea blush, or dwarf
owl-clover) or one of several species of
speedwell (marsh speedwell, American
speedwell, or thymeleaf speedwell).
(iii) Adult nectar sources for feeding
that include several species found as
part of the native (and one nonnative)
species mix on northwest grasslands,
including: Narrow-leaved plantain;
harsh paintbrush; Puget balsam root;
wooly sunshine; nine-leaved desert
parsley; fine-leaved desert parsley or
spring gold; common camas; showy
fleabane; Canada thistle; common
yarrow; prairie lupine; and sickle-keeled
lupine.
(iv) Aquatic features such as
wetlands, springs, seeps, streams,
ponds, lakes, and puddles that provide
moisture during periods of drought,
particularly late in the spring and early
summer. These features can be
permanent, seasonal, or ephemeral.
With this proposed designation of
critical habitat, we intend to identify the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,
through the identification of the primary
constituent elements essential to
support the life-history processes of the
species. We are proposing to designate
critical habitat within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing. In addition, we are proposing
to designate some specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing that were
historically occupied, but are presently
unoccupied, because we have
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61979
determined that these areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.
Streaked Horned Lark
We have determined that the
following physical or biological features
are essential for the streaked horned
lark:
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
An open landscape context is an
essential attribute of habitat used by
streaked horned larks. Open areas allow
streaked horned larks to detect
predators while nesting and foraging on
the ground and provide the space
needed during aerial courtship displays
in the springtime. Our data indicate that
sites used by streaked horned larks are
generally found in open (i.e., flat,
treeless) landscapes of 300 ac (120 ha)
or more. Sites used by streaked horned
larks are usually flat, with slopes
between 0 and 5 percent, and generally
not more than 10 percent, over the
entire area. Some patches with the
appropriate characteristics (i.e., sand,
bare ground, low stature vegetation)
may be smaller in size if the adjacent
patches provide the required open
landscape context. This situation may
occur in agricultural habitats and on
sites next to water. For example, some
of the sites used by streaked horned
larks on the islands in the Columbia
River are small, but are adjacent to open
water, which provides the open
landscape context needed. Streaked
horned larks use the same habitats for
all life history processes, in both the
breeding and wintering seasons.
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify flat (typically 0 to 5
percent slope), open sites (treeless, low
vegetation or bare ground), or smaller
suitable habitat patches located in an
open landscape context (roughly 300 ac
(120 ha) in size), as a physical or
biological feature essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned
lark.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction,
Rearing of Offspring, Foraging and
Wintering
Streaked horned larks use habitats
that have very early seral stage
vegetation for all life stages. Suitable
streaked horned lark habitats have
substantial areas of bare ground, few or
no shrubs, and sparse, low stature
vegetation, primarily short annual
grasses, bunch grasses, and forbs
(Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27).
Suitable habitat is generally 16–17
percent bare ground (consisting of dirt,
gravel, or sand), and may be more open
at sites selected for nesting (Altman
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61980
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1999, p. 18; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p.
27). Vegetation height is generally less
than 13 inches (33 centimeters) (Altman
1999, p. 18; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p.
27), with less than 15 percent shrub
cover (Pearson and Hopey, 2005 p. 2).
Streaked horned larks apparently select
nesting sites based on the vegetation
structure, and not on the presence of
any particular type of vegetation
(Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson and Hopey
2005, pp. 19–20). Nests are generally
placed on the north side of a clump of
grass or a forb (Moore and Kotaich,
2010, p. 18). These sites may be
frequently disturbed in a way that resets
succession, eliminating dense grasses
and forbs, and halting the invasion of
shrubs and trees.
These habitats may be native prairies,
coastal dunes, fallow and active
agricultural fields, wetland mudflats,
sparsely vegetated edges of grass fields,
recently planted Christmas tree farms
with extensive bare ground, moderately
to heavily grazed pastures, gravel roads
or gravel shoulders of lightly traveled
roads, graveled or grassy areas adjacent
to airport runways, idle industrial
properties, and dredge material
deposition sites. These sites provide
both breeding and wintering habitat for
streaked horned larks.
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify sparse, low-stature
vegetation with areas of bare ground as
a physical or biological feature essential
to the conservation of the streaked
horned lark.
Primary Constituent Elements for
Streaked Horned Lark
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, we are required to identify
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
streaked horned lark in areas occupied
at the time of listing, focusing on the
features’ primary constituent elements.
We consider primary constituent
elements to be the elements of physical
or biological features that provide for a
species’ life-history processes and are
essential to the conservation of the
species.
Based on our current knowledge of
the physical or biological features and
habitat characteristics required to
sustain the species’ life-history
processes, we determine that the
primary constituent elements specific to
the streaked horned lark are:
(i) Areas having a minimum of 16
percent bare ground that have sparse,
low stature vegetation composed
primarily of grasses and forbs less than
13 in (33 cm) in height found in:
a. Large (300-ac (120-ha)), flat (0–5
percent slope) areas within a landscape
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
context that provides visual access to
open areas such as open water or fields,
or
b. Areas smaller than described in
i(a), but that provide visual access to
open areas such as open water or fields.
With this proposed designation of
critical habitat, we intend to identify the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,
through the identification of the primary
constituent elements sufficient to
support the life-history processes of the
species. All but one of the units
proposed to be designated as critical
habitat are currently occupied by the
streaked horned lark and contain the
primary constituent elements to support
the life-history needs of the species. One
subunit, Coffeepot Island in the
Columbia River, is not currently
occupied by the streaked horned lark,
but has been determined to be essential
to the conservation of the species, as
described below.
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features which are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. Here we
describe the type of special management
considerations or protections that may
be required for the physical or biological
features identified as essential for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark. The specific
critical habitat units and subunits where
these management considerations or
protections apply for each species are
identified in Table 1.
All areas designated as critical habitat
will require some level of management
to address the current and future threats
to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark and to maintain or
restore the PCEs. A detailed discussion
of activities influencing the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark and their habitats can be
found in the preceding proposed listing
rule. Threats to the physical or
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of these species and
that may warrant special management
considerations or protection include,
but are not limited to: (1) Loss of habitat
from conversion to other uses; (2)
control of nonnative, invasive species;
(3) development; (4) construction and
maintenance of roads and utility
corridors; and (5) habitat modifications
brought on by succession of vegetation
from the lack of disturbance, both small
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and large scale. These threats also have
the potential to affect the PCEs if they
are conducted within or adjacent to
designated units.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly may require
special management considerations or
protection to improve the viability and
distribution of habitat suitable for the
butterfly. These include preventing the
establishment of invasive, nonnative
and native woody species, and
hastening restoration by actively
managing sites to establish native plant
species and the structure of the plant
community that is suitable for the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.
Restoration and maintenance of
occupied Taylor’s sites will require
active management to plan, restore,
enhance and manage habitat using an
approach that resets the vegetation
composition and structure to an early
seral stage. Management actions that
produce suitable conditions for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies and reset the
ecological clock to early seral conditions
favored by the butterfly include
prescribed fires, mechanical harvesting
of trees, activities such as hand planting
or mechanical planting of grasses and
forbs, and the judicious use of
herbicides for nonnative invasive
species control.
These early-seral conditions favor the
production and maintenance of
plantain, paintbrush, and other larval
host plants in a short-structure
vegetation community that allows
utilization of the plants by the butterfly.
Areas where the butterfly occupies a site
should have limited soil and vegetation
disturbance at times when the larvae are
active, which extends from late
February when post-diapause larvae are
active to late June when pre-diapause
larvae are on site. Other activities that
could cause trampling or impacts to the
larvae and that should be minimized,
reduced or restricted during larval
feeding include use of the site by offroad vehicles, military training using
vehicles or impacts caused by large
infantry (foot soldiers), or activities that
transport or spread nonnative plants,
and the risk of wildfire or prescribed
fire.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or
protection to ensure the provision of
early seral conditions and landscape
context of sufficient quantity and
quality for long-term conservation and
recovery of the species. Activities such
as mowing, burning, grazing, tilling,
herbicide treatment, grading, beach
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
nourishment, or placement of dredge
material can used to maintain or restore
nesting and wintering habitats. Regular
disturbance is necessary to create and
maintain suitable habitat, but the timing
of management is important. The
management actions should be
conducted outside of the breeding
season to avoid the destruction of nests
and young, or if habitat management
must be done during the breeding
season, it should be done in a way that
minimizes destruction of nests or
harassment of individuals. Nesting
61981
success is highest in locations with
restricted public use or entry such as
military facilities, airports, islands,
wildlife refuges, or sites that are remote
or difficult to access.
TABLE 1—THREATS TO THE TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY AND STREAKED HORNED LARK IDENTIFIED IN SPECIFIC
PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS; THREATS SPECIFIC TO THE PHYSICAL OR BIOLOGICAL FEATURES, WHICH MAY
REQUIRE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS OR PROTECTION AS DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT, ARE IDENTIFIED
WITH AN ASTERISK
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
Factor A:
Development * .............................................
Columbia River Dredge Spoil Deposition *
Loss of Natural Disturbance Processes,
Invasive Species and Succession.*
Military Training * .........................................
Restoration Activities ** ................................
Factor B:
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes.
Factor C:
Disease * .....................................................
Predation .....................................................
Factor D:
The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms.*
Factor E:
Low Genetic Diversity, Small or Isolated
Populations, and Low Reproductive Success.
Stochastic Weather Events .........................
Climate Change * .........................................
Aircraft Strikes and Activities at Civilian Airports.
Pesticides and Herbicides ...........................
Recreation ...................................................
Nest Parasitism ...........................................
Streaked horned lark
Unit 1: 1–D, 1–E, 1–F, 1–G, 1–H (Pvt), 1–I,
1–J; Unit 2: 2–C.
NA ....................................................................
Unit 1: 1–A, 1–B, 1–C, 1–D, 1–E, 1–F; 1–G;
Unit 3: 3–Q; Unit 4: 4–A, 4–C, 4–E, 4–H.
Unit 3: 3–E, 3–F, 3–G, 3–H, 3–I, 3–K, 3–M,
3–N.
All units and subunits.
Unit 1: all subunits; Unit 2: all subunits; Unit
4: all subunits.
Unit 1: 1–A, 1–B, 1–C, 1–E .............................
All units and subunits .......................................
Unit 1: 1–B, 1–C, 1–D, 1–E.
All units and subunits.
NA ....................................................................
NA.
Unit 1: 1–A, 1–B, 1–C, 1–E, 1–H; Unit 4: All
subunits.
NA ....................................................................
NA.
All units and subunits.
Unit 1: 1–E, 1–F, 1–G, 1–H, 1–I, 1–J; Unit 2:
2–D.
NA.
All units and subunits .......................................
Unit 1: All subunits.
All units and subunits .......................................
All units and subunits .......................................
NA ....................................................................
NA.
NA.
Unit
Unit
Unit
NA.
Unit
All units and subunits .......................................
Unit 1: 1–C, 1–D, 1–E, 1–F, 1–H; Unit 2: 2–A,
2–B, 2–C, 2–E; Unit 4: 4–A.
NA ....................................................................
1: 1–A, 1–B, 1–C, 1–D, 1–E, 1–F.
3: 3–Q.
4: 4–A, 4–C, 4–E, 4–H.
3: 3–A, 3–B, 3–C, 3–D.
NA.
** Although
restoration is necessary for the maintenance of suitable habitat, the methods and timing of those restoration practices may directly
impact individual Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark if the life-histories of the species are not taken into consideration during
application of restoration techniques. Please see the sections entitled Loss of Natural Disturbance Processes, Invasive Species and Succession
and Restoration Activities in the listing portion of the document.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act, we use the best scientific and
commercial data available to designate
critical habitat. We review available
information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of the species, and begin
by assessing the specific geographic
areas occupied by the species at the
time of listing. If such areas are not
sufficient to provide for the
conservation of the species, in
accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we then consider whether
designating additional areas outside the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:31 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
geographic areas occupied at the time of
listing may be essential to ensure the
conservation of the species. We consider
unoccupied areas for critical habitat
when a designation limited to the
present range of the species may be
inadequate to ensure the conservation of
the species. In this case, since we are
proposing listing simultaneously with
the proposed critical habitat, all areas
presently occupied by the subspecies
are presumed to constitute those areas
occupied at the time of listing; those
areas currently occupied by the
subspecies are identified as such in each
of the unit or subunit descriptions
below. These descriptions similarly
identify which of the units or subunits
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are believed to be unoccupied at the
time of listing. Our determination of the
areas occupied at the time of listing, and
our rationale for how we determined
specific unoccupied areas to be essential
the conservation of the subspecies, are
provided below.
We plotted the known locations of the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark where they occur
in Washington and Oregon using 2011
NAIP digital imagery in ArcGIS, version
10 (Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a computer geographic
information system program.
To determine if the currently
occupied areas contain the primary
constituent elements, we assessed the
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61982
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
life history components and the
distribution of the subspecies through
element occurrence records in State
natural heritage databases and natural
history information on each of the
subspecies as they relate to habitat. We
first considered whether the presently
occupied areas were sufficient to
conserve the species. If not, to
determine if any unoccupied sites met
the criteria for critical habitat, we then
considered: (1) The importance of the
site to the overall status of the
subspecies to prevent extinction and
contribute to future recovery of the
subspecies; (2) whether the area
presently provides the essential
physical or biological features, or could
be managed and restored to contain the
necessary physical and biological
features to support the subspecies; and
(3) whether individuals were likely to
colonize the site. We also considered
the potential for reintroduction of the
subspecies, where anticipated to be
necessary (for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly only).
Occupied Areas
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly
For Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, we
are proposing to designate critical
habitat within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing, as well as in unoccupied areas
that we have determined to be essential
to the conservation of the species
(described below). These presently
occupied areas provide the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, which may
require special management
considerations or protection. We
determined occupancy in these areas
based on recent survey information. All
sites occupied by the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly have survey data
as recently as 2011, except for the Forest
Service sites on the north Olympic
Peninsula where data is as recent as
2010 (Potter, 2011; Linders 2011; Ross
2011; Holtrop 2010, Severns and
Grossboll 2011). In addition, there have
been some recent experimental
translocations of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly to sites where it had been
extirpated within its historical range. If
translocated populations have been
documented as successfully
reproducing, we considered those sites
to be presently occupied by the
subspecies. Areas proposed as critical
habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly are representative of the
known historical geographic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
distribution for the species, outside of
Canada.
In all cases, when determining
proposed critical habitat boundaries, we
made every effort to avoid including
developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement (such as airport
runways and roads), and other
structures because such lands lack the
essential physical or biological features
for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or
streaked horned lark, with the exception
of graveled margins of the airport
runways and taxiways. The scale of the
maps we prepared under the parameters
for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any
such lands inadvertently left inside
critical habitat boundaries shown on the
maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule
and are not proposed for designation as
critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical
habitat is finalized as proposed, a
Federal action involving these lands
would not trigger section 7 consultation
with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification
unless the specific action would affect
the physical or biological features in the
adjacent critical habitat.
We are proposing four units of critical
habitat for designation based on
sufficient elements of physical and
biological features being present to
support life-history processes for the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark. These 4 units are
further divided into 47, some of which
contain proposed critical habitat for
both subspecies. Some subunits within
the units contain all of the identified
elements of physical and biological
features and support multiple lifehistory processes. Some subunits
contain only some elements of the
physical and biological features
necessary to support the subspecies’
particular use of that habitat. Because
we determined that the areas presently
occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and the streaked horned lark
are not sufficient to provide for the
conservation of these subspecies, we
have additionally identified some
subunits that are presently unoccupied,
but that we have determined to be
essential to the conservation of the
species. Therefore, we are also
proposing these unoccupied areas as
critical habitat for the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark.
We invite public comment on our
identification of those areas presently
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly or streaked horned lark and
provide the physical or biological
features that may require special
management considerations or
protection, as well as areas that are
currently unoccupied but that we have
determined to be essential to the
conservation of the subspecies.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing critical habitat for
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark in four units in the
States of Washington and Oregon, as
follows:
(1) The South Sound Unit (Unit 1) has
proposed critical habitat subunits for
both the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
and streaked horned lark.
(2) The Strait of Juan De Fuca Unit
(Unit 2) has proposed critical habitat
subunits only for the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly.
(3) The Washington Coast and
Columbia River Unit (Unit 3) has
proposed critical habitat subunits only
for the streaked horned lark.
(4) The Willamette Vally Unit (Unit 4)
has proposed critical habitat subunits
for both the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and the streaked horned lark.
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Units
1, 2, and 4
We are proposing three units as
critical habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly. The critical habitat areas we
describe below constitute our current
best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
species. The three units we propose as
critical habitat are: Unit 1, South
Sound—5,801 ac (2,348 ha) in
Washington State (2,324 ac of Federal
ownership; 1,444 ac of State ownership;
1,325 ac of private ownership; 545 ac of
County ownership; and 163 ac of lands
owned by a Port, local municipality, or
nonprofit conservation organization);
Unit 2, Strait of Juan De Fuca—923 ac
(374 ha) in Washington State (160 ac of
Federal ownership; 320 ac of State
ownership; 253 ac of private ownership;
and 190 ac of land owned by a Port,
local municipality, or nonprofit
organization); and Unit 4, Willamette
Valley—the 151 ac (62 ha) in Oregon
(151 ac of lands owned by a Port, local
municipality, or nonprofit conservation
organization). The approximate area of
each proposed critical habitat unit and
its relevant subunits, as well as land
ownership within each unit is shown in
table 2.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:35 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Unit 1 Totals ................
TA7S ...........................
91st Division Prairie ....
13th Division Prairie ....
Rocky Prairie ...............
Tenalquot Prairie .........
Mima Mounds/Glacial
Heritage.
West Rocky Prairie .....
Scatter Creek ..............
Rock Prairie ................
Bald Hills .....................
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
160 (65)
Unit 2 Totals ................
0
0
0
1,764 (694)
0
0
0
0
320 (129)
39 (16)
132 (53)
0
0
149 (60)
1,444 (595)
134 (54)
603 (255)
0
246 (100)
0
0
0
54 (22)
0
406 (164)
Ac (ha)
State
2,484 (1,006)
Unit 4 Totals ................
Fort Hoskins Historic
Park.
Baezell Memorial Forest.
Fitton Green ................
0
0
0
0
160 (65)
Grand Total—all Units
* Other = Ports, local municipalities and non-profit conservation organizations.
4–3 ...........................
4–2 ...........................
4–1 ...........................
0
2,324 (941)
0
0
0
0
78 (31)
1,377 (557)
647 (262)
0
222 (90)
0
Deception Pass State
Park.
Central Whidbey .........
Elwha ..........................
Sequim ........................
Upper Dungeness .......
Unit 4 Willamette Valley
2–B
2–C
2–D
2–E
2–A ..........................
Ac (ha)
Federal
545 (220)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
545 (220)
........................................
0
0
........................................
........................................
0
545 (220)
Ac (ha)
County
1,578 (643)
0
0
0
0
253 (106)
0
102 (45)
151 (61)
0
0
1,325 (537)
0
98 (40)
621 (251)
221 (90)
0
0
0
385 (156)
0
0
Ac (ha)
Private
TABLE 2—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY
[Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within proposed critical habitat unit boundaries.]
Subunit name
Unit 2 Strait of Juan De Fuca
1–G ..........................
1–H ..........................
1–I ............................
1–J ...........................
1–A ..........................
1–B ..........................
1–C ..........................
1–D ..........................
1–E ..........................
1–F ...........................
Unit 1 South Sound
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
151 (62)
84 (34)
61 (25)
6 (3)
190 (77)
190 (77)
0
0
0
0
163 (66)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28 (12)
135 (55)
0
504 (205)
Ac (ha)
Other *
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
61983
61984
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
We present brief descriptions of all
units, and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly, below.
Unit 1: South Sound (or Puget
Lowland)—Taylor’s Checkerspot
Butterfly
The South Sound Unit consists of
5,830 ac (2,359 ha) of land proposed for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in 10
subunits. This critical habitat unit is
located in the south Puget Sound region
of Washington State, within Pierce and
Thurston County. This unit is owned
and managed by several State and
Federal agencies, and includes the
Department of Defense (DOD),
Washington Departments of Natural
Resources and Fish and Wildlife,
Thurston County Parks and Recreation,
and a single private site at Tenalquot
(Morgan) prairie. The subunits proposed
within the South Sound Unit for the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are a mix
of occupied and unoccupied areas; 3
subunits are presently occupied, and 7
subunits are unoccupied but essential to
the conservation of the species, for the
reasons described in the section Criteria
Used to Identify Critical Habitat. Only
one subunit (91st Division Prairie;
subunit 1–B) is occupied by a native
population of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly, and two other subunits (I–B
Range 50 and 1–H, Scatter Creek SW)
are occupied by recently translocated
butterflies that now successfully breed,
survive, and have populations that are
increasing in numbers. Subunit 1–B is
owned and managed by the DOD (Army)
on JBLM. Subunit 1–H is located on the
local Scatter Creek Wildlife Area (south
unit) owned and managed by the
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Four of these subunits are
being managed primarily for military
training.
The DOD (Army) has written
Endangered Species Management Plans
for these subunits for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly (under the DOD
Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan, or INRMP), and we
are proposing to exempt of these lands
under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (see
Exemptions, below). For those threats to
the essential physical or biological
features that are common to all
subunits, special management
considerations or protection may be
required to address direct or indirect
habitat loss due to development, conifer
and shrub encroachment, invasive plant
species, use of herbicides, and
restoration activities. For those threats
that are unique to DOD lands, special
management considerations or
protection may be required to address
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
uncontrolled fires due to deployment of
explosive or incendiary devices,
military training involving heavy
equipment (resulting in trampling or
crushing of burrows), digging or
trenching, bombardment, or use of live
ammunition.
Subunit 1–A: Training Area (TA) 7s.
This subunit contains 78 ac (32 ha) in
Pierce County, Washington, on DOD
lands. This unit is currently
unoccupied, but was previously
occupied. We have determined it is
essential to the conservation of the
species because it has the potential for
restoration of the physical or biological
features sufficient to enable the
reintroduction and reestablishment of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. This
subunit is an intensely managed prairie
located directly north of the Central
Impact Area on JBLM. It is bordered by
a gravel pit to the west and Madigan
Hospital Grounds to north and west,
and the Burlington Northern Railroad
Right of Way to the East. The gravel pit
is no longer used and could be restored,
and is currently a site with extensive
distribution of the Taylor’s primary host
plant, narrow- leaved plantain. The
southern border of this subunit is
formed by the conifer forest along its
southern edge. Landscape heterogeneity
from the presence of swales and the
gravel pit are present at this subunit.
This critical habitat subunit (1–A) is
being proposed for exemption from
designation of critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
contingent on our approval of the DOD
INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1–B: The Artillery Impact
Area (AIA), also known as the 91st
Division Prairie. This subunit (east and
west) totals 1,377 ac (557 ha) and is
located entirely within Pierce County,
Washington, on DOD lands. The eastern
portion of this subunit is occupied by
the only remaining native population of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in the
south Sound Unit. The west subunit is
occupied by translocated Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies first released
here in 2008 and now represents an
occupied ‘‘small population’’ center.
This subunit provides the essential
physical or biological features for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, which
may require special management
considerations or protection. This
subunit receives periodic, heavy
military training, which results in
regular ground fires being ignited that
serve a surrogate function as the form of
special management that would be
implemented during prescribed fires.
Other forms of special management will
be required to control nonnative,
invasive species that are found within
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the eastern portion of the subunit. Some
minimal management takes place on the
periphery of the AIA, creating
conditions suitable for maintaining the
PCEs. The eastern portion of the subunit
is bordered by a military access road;
the southeast corner of this unit is King
Hill and extends west for ∼1 mile (1.6
km). This area includes the north and
south ‘‘castles’’ (structures used as target
objectives for live fire training) in TA 76
and is bordered to the north by the main
paved road (Story Road) north of the
AIA. The second area is located at
Range 51 and is bordered by the oak/
conifer forests to the south. This area
extends into the AIA approximately 1
mi (1.6 km) north from the SE corner
and extends due west to intersect with
the south boundary access road of the
AIA. This critical habitat subunit (1–B)
is being proposed for exemption from
designation of critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
contingent on our approval of the DOD
INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1–C: Training Area 15, is
located in an area often referred to as
the 13th Division Prairie. This subunit
is located entirely in Pierce County,
Washington, on DOD lands and totals
647 ac (262 ha). We have determined it
is essential to the conservation of the
species because it has the potential for
restoration of the physical or biological
features sufficient to enable the
reintroduction and reestablishment of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. This site
is currently being enhanced to improve
butterfly habitat and will be used for
release of captive bred and translocated
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae,
where larval releases are planned for the
spring of 2013. This subunit includes
grassland habitat and forest margins,
and already provides some of the PCEs
in the form of large patches of suitable
habitat providing abundant, diverse
larval host food resources and adult
nectar food plants for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly. Water sources are
available in Muck and South Creek.
This subunit is topographically diverse,
with swales and riparian habitat formed
by Muck and South Creek. The western
and southern boundaries are formed by
military access roads. Formerly (prior to
the year 2000), this unit was known to
harbor thousands of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies. This critical
habitat subunit (1–C) is being proposed
for exemption from designation of
critical habitat under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, contingent on
our approval of the DOD INRMP for
JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1–D: Rocky Prairie. This
subunit includes the Rocky Prairie
Natural Area Preserve (NAP;
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Washington Department of Natural
Resources), which includes 35 ac (14
ha) of high-quality habitat. The subunit
also includes three privately owned
properties; the rail line that borders the
NAP on the east side (15 ac (6 ha)), and
the adjoining grassland east of the
railroad property (388 ac (157 ha)), and
Wolf Haven International (29 ac; 12 ha),
which is south of the grassland. The
entire subunit is located within
Thurston County, Washington. This
subunit is currently unoccupied by
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies,
although a small population was
detected as recently as 1989 (Pyle 1989,
p. 170) at the Rocky Prairie NAP. This
population is no longer present and this
subunit is considered an historical site.
We have determined it is essential to
the conservation of the species because
it has the potential for restoration of the
physical or biological features sufficient
to enable the reintroduction and
reestablishment of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly. Some of the essential features
are already present on the landscape in
this area. The proposed subunit is
composed entirely of grasslands and
includes oak woodland margins, some
transitional colonization (first growth)
Douglas-fir forest within the greater
prairie landscape. Several other PCEs,
including landscape heterogeneity, and
diverse, abundant larval and adult plant
resources are present. The north
boundary is formed by Waldrick Road
and Highway 99 the west. Wolf Haven
International is at the southeastern
extent. The Rocky Prairie Natural Area
Preserve portion makes up 35 ac (14 ha)
of this critical habitat subunit (1–D) and
is being proposed for exclusion from
designation of critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, due to the
approved WDNR State Trust Lands HCP
(see Exclusions).
Subunit 1–E: Tenalquot Prairie. This
subunit includes grassland and oak
woodland portions of JBLM Training
Area 22 and the privately owned
Morgan property. The subunit is located
in Thurston County, Washington, and
managed by the DOD (Johnson Prairie)
and the nonprofit Center for Natural
Lands Management, respectively. The
subunit designation for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly on Tenalquot
Prairie is made up of Johnson Prairie
(also known as ‘‘El Guettar dropzone’’),
(222 ac (90 ha)) on JBLM lands, and the
Morgan property (135 ac (55 ha)). Both
locations are presently unoccupied by
Taylor’s, although Johnson Prairie is an
historical site. We have determined it is
essential to the conservation of the
subspecies because it would provide for
the reintroduction and reestablishment
of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Some
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
of the essential features are already
present on the landscape in this area
and as it would provide a
metapopulation center within a large
landscape (more than 2,000 ac (810 ha)
of managed prairie in the south end of
the County. In addition, this proposed
subunit provides several of the essential
features to support Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly, including landscape
heterogeneity, diverse and abundant
larval and adult plant resources, and
bare ground. Each area within the
subunit is periodically managed using
fire and mechanical methods to remove
Scot’s broom and sustain early seral
conditions. The portion of this proposed
critical habitat designation on JBLM
(222 ac (90 ha) located at Training Area
22 is being proposed for exemption from
designation of critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
contingent on our approval of the DOD
INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1–F: Mima Mounds/Glacial
Heritage. This subunit is located in
Thurston County, Washington. The
Glacial Heritage Preserve is 545 ac (220
ha) and is owned and managed by
Thurston County. The Mima Mounds
NAP is roughly 406 ac (164 ha), and is
owned and managed as a NAP by the
WDNR. Both sites were historically
occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies but are currently unoccupied.
We have determined it is essential to the
conservation of the subspecies because
it has the potential to provide for the
reintroduction and reestablishment of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to
support recovery. Many of the essential
features required to support a
reintroduced population are already
present on the landscape in this area.
This subunit provides diverse
topography, a water course, abundant
and diverse larval and adult food
resources, and areas of bare soil due to
active management. Glacial Heritage
Preserve had a robust population of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in the
mid-1990s and is scheduled to receive
translocated Taylor’s checkerspot larvae
this year (2012). Both sites contain
landscape heterogeneity, abundant and
diverse larval and adult food resources,
and areas of bare soil, and Glacial
Heritage is bounded on the east side by
a water course. The Mima Mounds NAP
portion (406 ac (164 ha)) of this critical
habitat subunit (1–F) is proposed for
exclusion from designation of critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
due to the approved WDNR State Trust
Lands HCP (see Exclusions).
Subunit 1–G: West Rocky Prairie. This
subunit contains 134 ac (54 ha) and was
historically occupied by Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly but is currently
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61985
unoccupied. It is located in Thurston
County, Washington, and owned and
managed by WDFW. The subunit lies
between 140th Avenue SE to the south,
an east-west running Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad line
to the north and a north-south BNSF
railroad line to the east and Tilley Road
to the west. This subunit contains
landscape heterogeneity with
topographic relief from mima mounds,
small wetland depressions, and an
active creek and pond that contains a
Federally listed threatened plant
(Howellia aquatilis; water howellia) and
the Federal candidate species Oregon
spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). Distinct
areas of West Rocky Prairie have rich
larval host and adult food resources. We
have determined this subunit is
essential to the conservation of the
subspecies because it has the potential
to provide for the reintroduction and
reestablishment of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly to support recovery. In
addition, this area has many of the
physical or biological features essential
to support the long-term conservation
and recovery of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly, providing topographic
diversity (including mima mounds),
wetlands, ponds, and a perennial creek.
This area receives active management to
sustain suitable prairie habitat, and is
specifically being enhanced for
butterflies and the Federally listed
threatened plant Castilleja levisecta
(golden paintbrush), which has been
reintroduced to the site.
Subunit 1–H: Scatter Creek. This
subunit includes Scatter Creek Wildlife
Area (SCWA), a small private land
parcel, and a power line right-of-way
managed by the Federal Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) in
Thurston County, Washington. The
north and south units of Scatter Creek
SCWA contain 730 ac (295 ha). The
private land parcel totals 98 ac (40 ha)
and is managed by WDFW in the same
way as the Wildlife Area. This property
was historically occupied by Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly, and is currently
occupied by a population established
from larvae released between 2007–
2011. This subunit contains the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including
landscape heterogeneity with swales
and mima mounds; rich, diverse larval
and adult food resources; bare ground
(due to management practices); and a
stream running through the center of the
property.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to maintain bare ground in
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61986
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
this subunit. The north subunit is
bounded on the east by Case Road, and
on the south subunit is bordered by
183rd Avenue SW. Scatter Creek runs
through the property and forms the
north boundary of the portions subunit
and the south boundary of the north
subunit; this property is bounded on the
west by residential areas. The northern
portion of the Wildlife Area is bounded
to the west by second growth conifer
forests. We are considering the
exclusion of approximately 98 ac (40 ha)
of private property in this subunit under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, due to the
level of public benefits derived from
encouraging collaborative efforts and
encouraging private and local
conservation efforts; and the effect
designation would have on
partnerships, as well as the existing
WDFW lease on this property, and the
fact that this property is managed in a
manner consistent with the
conservation of this species (see
Exclusions).
Subunit 1–I: Rock Prairie. This
subunit is made up of two private
properties in south Thurston County,
Washington. The acreage for the subunit
is 621 ac (251 ha). The southernmost
private property is an historical location
for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly,
but it is currently unoccupied. We have
determined this subunit is essential to
the conservation of the subspecies
because it has the potential to provide
for the reintroduction and
reestablishment of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly to support recovery. In
addition, this area has many of the
features essential to support the longterm conservation and recovery of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly,
including diverse topography with
terraces and swales, abundant and
diverse larval and adult food resources,
and a water course formed by Scatter
Creek along the southern boundary of
the property. It is managed under a
Grassland Reserve Program agreement
and has a permanent conservation
easement on 530 ac (215 ha) of the
property.
The northern border for the southern
property and the southern border for the
northern property is 183rd Avenue SW.;
in other words, 183rd Avenue SW.
bisects the two properties. The eastern
border of the southern portion of the
subunit is an active gravel and sand
mining operation, and to the north of
the northern portion of the subunit is
forest, and to the southwest of the
southern property is forest. These
forested areas clearly delineate property
and land use boundaries. The entire
acreage of the proposed critical habitat
(379 ac (153 ha)) on one private
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
landowner’s property is considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, due to the conservation easement
on approximately 530 acres of their
property and the Grassland Reserve
Program plan developed in partnership
with the USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) for the
long-term management of their property,
which is consistent with restoration and
management needs for sustaining
prairies (see Exclusions).
Subunit 1–J: Bald Hills. This subunit
is located in southeast Thurston County,
Washington, and is managed by WDNR
and several timber companies. The total
area of this subunit is 468 ac (189 ha).
This is an historical location for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies but was recently
extirpated (2007); therefore, it is not
believed to be currently occupied. We
have determined this subunit is
essential to the conservation of the
subspecies because it has the potential
for active management to restore the
physical or biological features essential
to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and to
provide for the reintroduction and
reestablishment of the subspecies to
support recovery. In addition, this area
already provides some of the features
essential to support the long-term
conservation and recovery of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly, including diverse
topography of balds, steep slopes,
canyons, oak glades, a rich diversity of
larval and adult food resources, and
areas of bare soil, which are used for
basking and resting by the butterfly.
This area is the southeastern most
distribution of Taylor’s checkerspot in
Thurston County, and is the only
Thurston County site that is formed on
bald habitat. The Bald Hills NAP
portion (247 ac (100 ha)) of this critical
habitat subunit (1–J) is proposed for
exclusion from designation of critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
due to the approved WDNR State Trust
Lands HCP, which covers Natural Area
Preserves (see Exclusions).
Unit 2: Strait of Juan de Fuca—Taylor’s
Checkerspot Butterfly
The Strait of Juan de Fuca Unit for
Taylor’s Checkerspot butterfly consists
of 924 ac (374 ha) of land in 5 subunits.
The Strait of Juan de Fuca Unit includes
coastal bluff, dune, and bald habitat in
Clallam and Island Counties,
Washington. Except for two coastal
dune sites at Sequim and Deception
Pass State Park, the subunits in this
location contain bald habitat,
surrounded by and found within a large
forested landscape. These balds are all
found on south, or southwest facing,
steep, rocky, and thin-soil areas. The
balds themselves and the road margins
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(verges) are rich in larval and adult food
resources, and in this location Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies lay eggs and
larvae subsist on harsh paintbrush,
although plentiful plantain is also
available and the plantain is also
utilized at this location. This unit is
within the historical range of the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and
several designated subunits are
presently occupied by the subspecies.
In addition, some subunits are
proposed for designation that are
currently unoccupied, but that we have
determined to be essential to the
conservation and recovery of the
subspecies, as described in the section
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat.
All subunits, both occupied and
unoccupied, contain several of the
PCEs, and the coastal sites have lagoons,
fresh water lakes, wetlands. The bald
locations have the PCEs of topographic
relief, abundant and diverse larval and
adult food plants, and bare soil areas
associated with adjacent roads.
Management to expand the size of
several balds as Douglas fir, Acer
macrphyllum, (bigleaf maple) A.
circinatum (vine maple), Holodiscus
discolor (oceanspray), Arctostapholus
columbiana (hairy manzanita, and
nonnative shrubs (such as Scot’s broom)
are quickly encroaching. Landowners in
this unit include WDNR, the U.S. Forest
Service, Washington State Parks, and a
private landowner at Sequim. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species may
require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features including the general
succession of vegetation at all sites,
which reduces the distribution and
availability of native food resources.
The subunits on WDNR and Forest
Service lands are threatened by ORV use
and service trucks accessing cell-phone
towers (Dan Kelly Ridge). The owner of
the private subunit at Sequim is
currently managing the dune and
abandoned road corridor for the
conservation of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly.
Subunit 2–A: Deception Pass. This
subunit is located on Island County in
Washington and managed by
Washington State Parks. The subunit
contains sites found along low-lying
beach areas (coastal dunes), and include
several balds on high points within the
park. These open areas are disjunct from
each other and total 149 ac (60 ha). The
State Park is an historically occupied
location for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly, but is currently unoccupied.
We have determined this subunit is
essential to the conservation of the
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
subspecies because it has the potential
to provide for the reintroduction and
reestablishment of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly to support recovery. This was
an historically occupied location in a
coastal area that is currently represented
at just one occupied site. In addition,
this area has many of the features
essential to support the long-term
conservation and recovery of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly, including diverse
topography on balds and protected
beaches, diverse and abundant larval
and adult food plants, and areas of bare
soil for basking and resting.
Subunit 2–B: Central Whidbey. This
subunit is located on Island County in
Washington and includes Ebey’s
Landing, the Naas Conservation Area,
and the former Smith Prairie. This
subunit contains both State and private
lands. In total these areas comprise 230
ac (93 ha), although the Smith Prairie is
disjunct from the remaining contiguous
coastal grasslands bluffs. The subunit
was historically occupied by Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly but is not
currently occupied. The subunit would
require captive breeding and
translocation of the species to bring it
back to this location. We have
determined this subunit is essential to
the conservation of the subspecies
because it has the potential to provide
for the reintroduction and
reestablishment of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly to support recovery. In
addition, it provides many of the
features essential to supporting
reintroduced population of the
subspecies, including diverse
topography, abundant larval and adult
nectar food resources, areas of bare soil,
some freshwater wetlands, and saltwater
along the coast. Some management is
ongoing at the site, and will be required
to restore and maintain the essential
features to support a reintroduced
population, including management to
restrict encroaching trees and to sustain
larval food resources.
Subunit 2–C: Elwha. This subunit
includes sites on the northern Olympic
Peninsula in Clallam County,
Washington, totaling 235 ac (95 ha) and
is occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly at the time of listing. These
lands are primarily owned and managed
by WDNR (172 ac (69 ha)), although
small inholdings of private timber
companies (Aloha Lumber) have been
included as the habitat continuity was
found to follow the topography. At Eden
Valley, 23 ac (9 ha) of WDNR property
were included in the proposed subunit,
as were 2 ac (approximately 1 ha) of
private property. At the Dan Kelly Ridge
location, 109 ac (44 ha) of WDNR land
and 99 ac (40 ha) of private timber lands
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
were included in this subunit. The balds
are presently occupied by Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies on WDNR lands,
and the butterflies have been observed
flying up and down the steep slopes of
the habitat onto private lands. The
location known as Eden Valley is
composed of several small connected
and some isolated balds. This area
contains several PCEs including
topographic heterogeneity, abundant
and diverse larval and adult food
resources, and bare soil for basking. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species may
require special management
considerations or protection to sustain
the open conditions that are needed to
manage for and sustain the larval and
adult food resources. The subunit runs
along the top of the ridge including the
north margin (road verge) of the road
and extends down the south slope to the
1,250 ft (381 m) contour interval. At Dan
Kelly Ridge, the entire ridgeline
including the road and road verge on
the north margin of the road are part of
the subunit. The subunit extends down
the south facing slope to include bald
habitat recently exposed by forest
harvesting.
Subunit 2–D: Sequim. This subunit is
located in Clallam County, Washington,
on private property that contains
approximately 151 ac (61 ha) of lowlying stabilized dune habitat. This unit
is presently occupied by Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and contains the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the subspecies.
The subunit includes stabilized dune
and beach habitat adjacent to the Strait
of Juan de Fuca at approximately 20 ft
(6 m) elevation. This subunit contains
several PCEs, including landscape
heterogeneity with fore dune, and back
dune areas and terraces; rich and
abundant larval and adult food
resources; a marsh; and bare soil for
basking. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats to the
essential features. We are considering
the exclusion of private land subunit (2–
D) located at Sequim under the section
4(b)(2) of the Act. This consideration of
exclusion is due to the ongoing
conservation management for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies of this subunit,
and the long-term management plan that
is currently being developed in
coordination with the WDFW. The
landowner has been working with
WDFW for several years to manage for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and is
in the process of formalizing their
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61987
management of the site in a
Management Plan, developed in
coordination with WDFW (see
Exclusions).
Subunit 2–E: Upper Dungeness. This
subunit occurs in the Upper Dungeness
Watershed on U.S. Forest Service lands
in Clallam County, Washington. This
subunit contains 160 ac (65 ha), is
composed of bald habitat, is currently
occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly, and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. Sites
within the subunit are referred to as
Bear Mountain, 3 O’Clock Ridge, and
Upper Dungeness. Bear Mountain is
disjunct from the 3 O’Clock Ridge and
Upper Dungeness units. All sites within
this subunit are found within the
Dungeness watershed at three separate
locations, with Bear Mountain at the
lowest elevation, 3 O’Clock Ridge found
at mid-elevation and the Upper
Dungeness site at the highest elevation
where we have detected the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly. The features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats by
encroachment of several conifer species,
maple, oceanspray, and sparse amounts
of Scot’s broom, which all compete with
native grasses and forbs for space, water
and nutrients. Early restoration work
conducted by the Forest Service has
included tree harvesting and removal,
and has resulted in the larval and adult
resources expanding on this habitat. The
subunit contains several PCEs,
including landscape heterogeneity,
abundant larval and adult food
resources, nearby streams, and plentiful
areas of bare ground for basking. We are
considering the exclusion of 160 ac (65
ha) of subunit (2–E) under 4(b)(2) of the
Act due to ongoing management for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat,
which is consistent with the NW Forest
Plan’s allowance for small openings in
Late Successional Reserve allocations of
federal forests (see Exclusions).
Unit 4: Willamette Valley Unit—Taylor’s
Checkerspot Butterfly
The Willamette Valley Unit for
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly is made
up of three subunits, all of which are
located in Benton County, Oregon,
totaling 152 ac (61 ha). Two subunits are
presently occupied by Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies (Beazell
Memorial Forest and Fitton Green
Natural Area) and contain the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. The third
subunit at Fort Hoskins Historic Park is
unoccupied, but we have determined it
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61988
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
is essential to the conservation of the
subspecies for the reasons detailed in
the section Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat.
All areas within this subunit provide
some physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly, whether presently
occupied or unoccupied by the
subspecies, including abundant larval
and adult food resources, and areas of
bare soil for basking and resting. The
habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly is confined to dispersed small
meadow (grassland) openings within a
larger forested matrix. Areas proposed
for critical habitat for the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly in this unit
constitute the only known, currently or
recently occupied habitat for the species
in Oregon with the capability to support
the breeding and reproduction of the
subpsecies. The features essential to the
conservation of the species may require
special management considerations or
protection to address direct or indirect
habitat loss due to development, conifer
and shrub encroachment, invasive plant
species, use of herbicides, and
restoration activities. In all subunits,
disturbance will be needed to sustain
the early-seral conditions required by
the butterfly larval and adult lifestages.
Two of the subunits (Beazell and Fort
Hoskins Historic Park) are owned and
managed by Benton County.
Approximately 45 percent of the third
subunit (Fitton Green) is held in trust as
a permanent conservation easement.
All subunits are proposed for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act due to the Benton County HCP, and
will be managed under the HCP’s Prairie
Conservation Strategy (see Exclusions).
The Benton County HCP Prairie
Management Plan meets the species
need by conserving occupied prairie
habitat by implementing measures to
restore, and manage for the long-term
conservation of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly. The plan’s goals have been
implemented by Benton County Parks
and Recreation department and they
plan to continue these actions in
support of the butterfly. The plan meets
the needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly by controlling invasive,
nonnative shrubs (Scot’s broom),
reduces the cover of tall, invasive
pasture grasses, reduces the cover of
encroaching trees, and to augment
through planting and seeding the larval
and adult food resources and native
grass species that form the low-statured
structure of the habitat required by the
butterfly.
Subunit 4–A: Fort Hoskins Historic
Park. The Fort Hoskins Historic Park
subunit is composed of a southern and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
northern portion. Subunit 4–A north
consists of 1.4 ac (0.57 ha) and subunit
4–A south consists of 5 ac (2 ha). This
subunit is located within Fort Hoskins
Historic Park, which is owned and
managed by Benton County, Oregon.
The Park is located west of where
Hoskins Road joins Oregon Route 223
and is about 12 mi (19 km) northwest
of the City of Corvallis. The subunit
consists of open meadows on a
southwest-facing hillside of Dunn
Ridge, mostly surrounded by Douglasfir/Oregon white oak forest. The park is
open to the public for day use and
contains hiking trails. The park is also
used for natural resource research that
has included mowing and burning of
meadows. A single individual Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly, presumably a
dispersing individual, was discovered
there in 2005; however, no butterflies
have been observed there in subsequent
surveys and we consider Fort Hoskins
Historic Park to be currently
unoccupied. We have determined this
subunit is essential to the conservation
of the subspecies because it has the
potential to provide for the
reintroduction and reestablishment of
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to
support recovery. In particular, since
there are only two small extant
populations of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly in the Willamette Valley, an
additional population at Fort Hoskins
Historic Park would provide essential
redundancy in populations for the
subspecies. In addition, the subunit
provides many of the features essential
to supporting a reintroduced
population, including abundant and
diverse larval and adult food resources
in the grassland parts of the park,
diverse topography, bare soil patches,
and areas dominated by early
successional plant species. The site is
located far enough away from the other
two occupied Oregon sites (greater than
2 mi (3.2 km)) to be considered a
separate population if it the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly is reestablished
there.
We propose to exclude the 6.4 acres
(2.57 ha) of this subunit (4–A) from
proposed critical habitat under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, as the Taylor’s
checkerspot and management for the
species at Fort Hoskins Historic Park is
covered by the Benton County HCP (see
Exclusions).
Subunit 4–B: Beazell Memorial Forest.
The Beazell Memorial Forest subunit is
composed of five areas that total 61 ac
(25 ha), all within the Beazell Memorial
Forest owned by Benton County. The
Beazell Memorial Forest is located
approximately 9 mi (14.5 km) southwest
of the City of Corvallis, Oregon. The
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
subunit is mostly open meadow, with
some forested components, surrounded
by Douglas-fir/Oregon white oak forest
at about 1,000–1,300 ft (305–396 m)
elevation. This subunit is known to be
currently occupied by Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies at varying
densities, and contains several PCEs
including the presence of perennial
bunchgrass plant communities with the
requisite larval and adult food
resources, landscape heterogeneity, and
bare soil areas for basking. The subunit
is open to the public with hiking trails
and picnicking facilities, and is
managed as a demonstration forest and
open space area, with management
intended to protect, conserve, and
restore natural, scenic values.
Benton County was issued a section
10(a)1(B) permit on January 14, 2011, in
conjunction with their Prairie Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Some
of the meadow areas in the Beazell
Memorial Forest will be used for
mitigation purposes under the HCP and
will be otherwise managed to maintain
the meadow complexes under the HCP’s
Prairie Conservation Strategy. Special
management may be required within
this subunit to restore or maintain the
essential features for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly. While some
management is ongoing in the form of
mowing and encroaching tree removal,
additional management is needed to
address invasion of nonnative grasses
and woody vegetation, and possibly to
improve the diversity of food resources.
We propose to exclude the 61 ac (25 ha)
in this subunit (4–B) from proposed
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act, as the Taylor’s checkerspot and
management for the species at Beazell
Memorial Forest is covered by the
Benton County HCP (see Exclusions).
Subunit 4–C: Fitton Green Natural
Area. This subunit is composed of four
areas totaling 83 ac (34 ha). This subunit
is located 5 mi (8 km) west of the City
of Corvallis, Oregon. Portions of this
subunit (approximately 41 ac (17 ha))
are within property acquired by Benton
County for the purposes of
demonstrating land stewardship
practices on mixed public and private
ownership. The Benton County owned
or managed portions of this subunit are
a recognized component of the County’s
Prairie Species HCP and will be
managed under their Prairie
Conservation Strategy as well as used as
a mitigation site. The Fitton Green
Natural Area subunit is mostly
composed of open meadows with
scattered trees, and bordered by
Douglas-fir/Oregon white oak forest.
The subunit is currently occupied by
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies,
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
contains the features essential to the
conservation of the species and includes
areas that function as a dispersal
corridor. The subunit contains several
PCEs including the presence of
perennial bunchgrass plant
communities with larval and adult food
resources, little or no overstory forest
vegetation, landscape heterogeneity, and
bare soil areas for basking.
While some management to restore or
maintain the features essential to
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has
already occurred in the form of mowing
and encroaching tree removal, the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species may
require special management
considerations or protection to address
invasion of nonnative grasses and
woody vegetation, and to improve the
diversity of food resources. A portion of
the Fitton Green Natural Area subunit is
being conserved through a specialized
Right of Way Management Plan for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
developed and approved by the BPA
and Xerces Society in coordination with
the Service’s Oregon Fish and Wildlife
office in Portland in 2005.
We propose to exclude the 41 acres
(17 ha) of County lands (noted as South
and BPA) in this subunit (4–C) from
proposed critical habitat under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, as the Taylor’s
checkerspot and management for the
species on County-owned lands is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
covered by the Benton County HCP (see
Exclusions).
Streaked horned lark—Units 1, 3, and
4
We are proposing for designation of
critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of
listing and contain sufficient elements
of physical or biological features to
support life-history processes essential
for the conservation of the streaked
horned lark. In addition, we are
proposing one subunit unoccupied at
the time of listing, but that we have
determined is essential the conservation
of the subspecies, as detailed in the
section Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat.
We are proposing to designate three
units as critical habitat for the streaked
horned lark. The three units are: Unit
1—South Sound (with 6 subunits), Unit
3—Washington Coast and Columbia
River (with 18 subunits), and Unit 4—
Willamette Valley (with 8 subunits).
The South Sound Unit (Unit 1) totals
3,763 ac (1,523 ha) and comprises 2,813
ac of Federal ownership and 950 ac of
private land. The Washington Coast and
Columbia River Unit (Unit 3) totals
3,516 ac (1,423 ha) and comprises 564
ac of Federal ownership, 2,597 ac of
State-owned lands, 151 ac of private
lands, 182 ac of Tribal lands, and 22 ac
of lands owned by a Port, local
municipality, or nonprofit conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61989
organization. The Willamette Valley
Unit (4) totals 4,880 ac (1,975 ha) and
comprises 1,729 ac of Federal
ownership and 3,151 ac of privately
owned land.
Streaked horned larks have been
documented nesting on all but one of
the subunits within the last few years
and all subunits are therefore
considered occupied at the time of
listing, with the exception of Subunit 3–
J, Coffeepot Island in the Columbia
River, which has not been surveyed
recently; streaked horned larks were last
detected there in 2004. We, therefore,
evaluated Coffeepot Island as if it were
unoccupied, and have determined that
it is essential for the conservation of the
subspecies to provide connectivity
between the streaked horned lark
populations nesting on Columbia River
islands. All of the subunits, both
occupied and unoccupied, currently
have one or more of the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned
lark, and which may require special
management considerations or
protection.
The critical habitat areas described
below constitute our best assessment of
areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the streaked horned lark. The
approximate area and landownership of
each proposed critical habitat unit and
associated subunit is shown in Table 4.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:35 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Unit 3 Totals ..........................
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
* Other
5,106 (2,066)
Unit 4 Totals ..........................
Grand Total—all Units
Streaked Horned Lark.
1,729 (700)
McMinnville Airport ................
Basket Slough NWR .............
Salem Airport ........................
Ankeny NWR ........................
Corvallis Airport .....................
William L Finley NWR ...........
M–DAC Farms ......................
Eugene Airport ......................
= Ports, local municipalities, and nonprofit conservation organization.
4–A .................
4–B .................
4–C ................
4–D ................
4–E .................
4–F .................
4–G ................
4–H ................
0
1,006 (407)
0
264 (107)
0
459 (186)
0
0
564 (228)
Damon Point .........................
Midway Beach .......................
Shoalwater Spit .....................
Leadbetter Point ....................
Rice Island ............................
Miller Sands ..........................
Pillar Rock/Jim Crow .............
Welch Island .........................
Tenasillahe Island .................
Coffeepot Island ....................
Whites/Brown ........................
Wallace Island .......................
Crims Island ..........................
Sandy Island .........................
Portland International Airport
Unit 4 Willamette Valley
3–A .................
3–B .................
3–C ................
3–D ................
3–E .................
3–F .................
3–G ................
3–H ................
3–I ..................
3–J .................
3–K .................
3–L .................
3–M ................
3–N ................
3–O ................
0
0
0
564 (228)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,813 (1,138)
Unit 1 Totals ..........................
0
(307)
(140)
(359)
(331)
0
759
347
888
819
Ac (Ha)
Sanderson Field ....................
McChord Airforce Base .........
Gray Army Airfield .................
91st Division Prairie ..............
13th Division Prairie ..............
Olympia Airport .....................
Subunit name
Federal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,597 (1,050)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,597 (1,050)
456 (185)
611 (247)
377 (152)
101 (41)
224 (91)
123 (50)
44 (18)
43 (18)
23 (9)
0
98 (39)
13 (5)
60 (24)
37 (15)
388 (157)
Ac (Ha)
State
Ac (Ha)
Private
151 (61)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
151 (61)
24 (10)
0
102 (41)
0
0
0
0
0
0
25 (10)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ac (Ha)
Tribal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
182 (74)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
182 (74)
0
0
182 (74)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TABLE 4—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE STREAKED HORNED LARK
[Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within proposed critical habitat unit boundaries]
Unit 3 Washington Coast Columbia River Islands
1–A .................
1–B .................
1–C ................
1–D ................
1–E .................
1–F .................
Unit 1 South Sound
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
4,123 (1,669)
3,151 (1,275)
600 (243)
0
534 (216)
0
1,103 (447)
0
601 (243)
313 (127)
22 (9)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22 (9)
950 (385)
376 (152)
0
0
0
0
575 (233)
Ac (Ha)
Other *
61990
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Unit 1: South Sound—Streaked Horned
Lark
In the South Sound Unit, streaked
horned larks are found on flat, open
sites that are remnants of the original
Puget lowland prairies. All of the
known currently occupied sites in the
South Sound area are associated with
airfields or military training grounds.
The areas used by streaked horned larks
for nesting at all of the airports consist
of grass and gravel margins of the
runways and taxiways. We are
proposing six subunits for a total of
3,764 ac (1,523 ha) in the South Sound
Unit. All subunits are occupied and
contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the streaked horned lark. Ownership in
this unit is by the Department of
Defense and local municipalities. The
current threats to the essential features
in the South Sound Unit include
mowing and disturbance from special
training events during the nesting
season, and loss of habitat from
commercial and industrial
development. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral
vegetation on all of these subunits and
to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 1–A: Sanderson Field Airport
(Mason County, Washington).
Sanderson Field Airport is in the town
of Shelton and is owned by the Port of
Shelton; the subunit contains about 375
ac (152 ha). This subunit is currently
occupied and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. The site
is bounded on the north and western
edges by forest, on the eastern edge by
airport buildings (hangars, offices) and
US 101 and includes the grass perimeter
along the runway on the southern side.
Streaked horned larks nest along the
southern edge of the airport adjacent to
an abandoned or seldom-used runway.
The Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife works with Sanderson Field to
coordinate mowing schedules to
minimize threats to streaked horned
larks however, a management plan does
not currently exist that specifically
addresses conservation or habitat
protection for the streaked horned lark.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral
vegetation required by the subspecies
and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Subunit 1–B: McChord Field (Pierce
County, Washington). McChord Field is
part of DOD’s JBLM; the subunit is
about 759 ac (307 ha) in size. This
airport is used by large military cargo
planes; the subunit includes areas
adjacent to the main runway and
taxiways. This subunit is currently
occupied and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies, with
most of the documented nesting by
streaked horned larks occurring in the
northeast portion of the airport. Soils on
this site are gravelly and poor, with
sparse low grass and bare ground. The
site has the both the landscape context
and the low vegetative structure that
make up the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral
vegetation required by the subspecies
and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
This critical habitat subunit (1–B) is
being proposed for exemption from
designation of critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
contingent on our approval of the DOD
INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1–C: Gray Army Airfield
(Pierce County, Washington). Gray
Army Airfield is part of DOD’s JBLM;
the subunit is about 347 ac (140 ha) in
size. This airport is predominantly used
by military helicopters, but also
supports fixed-wing aircraft. This
subunit is currently occupied and
contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. Streaked horned larks
nest in the grassy medians and gravel
shoulders along the edge of the runway
and taxiways throughout this airport,
including gravel areas in paved
helicopter parking areas. The site has
both the open landscape context and
sparse grassy vegetation that make up
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral
vegetation required by the subspecies
and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
This critical habitat subunit (1–C) is
being proposed for exemption from
designation of critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
contingent on our approval of the DOD
INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61991
Subunit 1–D: 91st Division Prairie/
Artillery Impact Area (Pierce County,
Washington). This site is also part of
DOD’s JBLM; the subunit contains about
888 ac (359 ha). The boundaries of this
subunit are delineated by military
access roads and forested areas. This
subunit is currently occupied and
contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. Streaked horned lark
nesting has been documented in the
eastern half of this large prairie in areas
referred to by the army as Range 74–76
and Training Area 6. No surveys are
conducted in the center of the Artillery
Impact Area. The site has both the open
landscape context and early seral
vegetation that make up the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species; both of the
PCEs are maintained by regular grounddisturbing activities such as fires, troop
maneuvers and off-road military
training exercises. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain
the early-seral vegetation required by
the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season. In addition, special
management considerations or
protection may be required to address
threats specific to the Artillery Impact
Area (Range 74–76 and Training Area
6), including explosives and live fire
operations, off-road vehicle operations,
troop maneuvers, and military training
activities. This critical habitat subunit
(1–D) is being proposed for exemption
from designation of critical habitat
under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
contingent on our approval of the DOD
INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1–E: 13th Division Prairie
(Pierce County, Washington). This site is
part of DOD’s JBLM; the subunit is
about 819 ac (331 ha) in size. This
subunit is currently occupied and
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. This subunit is largely
prairie habitat and includes an
infrequently used runway. It is bordered
on the northern and eastern edges by
Muck Creek and the western and
southern edges by military access roads.
Streaked horned lark nests have been
documented throughout the site, and
the site has the both the open landscape
context and early seral vegetation that
make up the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the streaked horned lark may require
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
61992
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral
vegetation required by the subspecies
and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Threats at 13th Division Prairie are
somewhat less intense than in the
Artillery Impact training areas because
motorized vehicles are restricted to
roads. However, threats to the essential
features specific to this site and that
may require additional special
management considerations or
protection include foot traffic and
helicopter operations (parachute drops,
touch-and-go landings) that are
conducted during the summer months.
This critical habitat subunit (1–E) is
being proposed for exemption from
designation of critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
contingent on our approval of the DOD
INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1–F: Olympia Regional
Airport (Thurston County, Washington).
This site is owned by the Port of
Olympia. The airport is enclosed by a
perimeter fence, which restricts access
and reduces human disturbance. The
subunit contains about 575 ac (233 ha),
and is delineated by airport taxiways,
trees, buildings, and county roads. This
subunit is currently occupied and
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. Streaked horned lark
nests have been documented throughout
the airport grounds, but most recently
nests have been found in the central
area. The site has both the open
landscape context and low vegetation
that make up the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral
vegetation required by the subspecies
and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Unit 3: Washington Coast and Columbia
River—Streaked Horned Lark Only
On the Washington coastal sites,
streaked horned larks occur on sandy
beaches and breed in the sparsely
vegetated low dune habitats of the
upper beach. We are proposing to
designate four subunits and a total of
1,753 ac (708 ha) as critical habitat on
the Washington coast. The coastal sites
are owned and managed by Federal,
State and tribal entities. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to reduce
human disturbance during the nesting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
season and continued encroachment of
invasive nonnative plants that requires
special management to restore or retain
the open habitat preferred by streaked
horned larks. Proposed subunits 3–A, 3–
B, 3–C, and 3–D overlap areas that are
designated as critical habitat for the
western snowy plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus). The snowy
plover nesting areas are posted and
monitored during the spring and
summer to keep recreational beach users
away from the nesting areas; these
management actions also benefit
streaked horned larks.
In the lower Columbia River, we are
proposing ten island subunits and one
mainland subunit adjacent to the river
at Portland International Airport for a
total of 1,785 ac (724 ha). The island
subunits are owned by the States of
Oregon and Washington and private
landowners. On the Columbia River
island sites, only a small portion of each
island is proposed as critical habitat for
the streaked horned lark; most of the
areas mapped are used by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for dredge material
deposition in its channel maintenance
program. Within any deposition site,
only a portion is likely to be used by
streaked horned larks in any year, as the
area of habitat shifts within the
deposition site over time as new
materials are deposited and as older
deposition sites become too heavily
vegetated for use by streaked horned
larks. All of the island subunits are
small, but are adjacent to open water,
which provides the open landscape
context needed by the streaked horned
lark. The subunit at Portland
International Airport is adjacent to the
runways, and on a small public beach;
the site is owned by Port of Portland
and Metro, the Portland-area regional
government.
The main threats to the essential
features in the critical habitat subunits
proposed on the Columbia River islands
are invasive vegetation and direct
impacts associated with deposition of
dredge material onto streaked horned
lark nests during the nesting season. In
all subunits, the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
each subspecies may require special
management considerations or
protection to restore, protect, and
maintain the PCEs supported by the
subunits. For those threats that are
common to all subunits, special
management considerations or
protections may be required to address
direct or indirect habitat loss due to the
location and timing of dredge material
placement to areas that have become
unsuitable for streaked horned lark
nesting and wintering habitat. Special
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
management will be needed at Portland
International Airport to address mowing
during the nesting season, human
disturbance, and future development of
the site.
Subunit 3–A: Damon Point (Grays
Harbor County, Washington). This
critical habitat subunit is about 481 ac
(194 ha) in size. It extends from the
Ocean Shores wastewater treatment
plant on the western edge through the
Oyhut wildlife management unit and
Damon Point spit (also called Protection
Island). The area is managed by the
State of Washington (Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife and
Parks and Department of Natural
Resources). This subunit is currently
occupied and provides the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. The site
has the both the open landscape context
and sparse, low-growing vegetation that
make up the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. Streaked horned larks
currently nest and winter on Damon
Point and have also been documented to
nest along the beach just west of the
treatment plant. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to reduce
human disturbance during the nesting
season and encroachment by invasive
nonnative plants that render the habitat
too dense for use by streaked horned
larks.
Subunit 3–B: Midway Beach (Pacific
County, Washington). This subunit is
about 611 ac (247 ha) in size. The
northern edge of the subunit starts at
Grayland Beach State Park and extends
south to the Warrenton Cannery road.
The landward extent is defined by the
vegetation line in the mid-dune area.
This site is owned by the State of
Washington (Washington State Parks
and Recreation Department). This
subunit is currently occupied and
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. Both open landscape
context and the sparse, low-growing
vegetation that make up the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species are present
at the site, and Midway Beach is used
by streaked horned larks for nesting and
wintering. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or
protection to reduce human disturbance
during the nesting season and
encroachment by invasive nonnative
plants that render the habitat too dense
for use by streaked horned larks.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Subunit 3–C: Shoalwater/Graveyard
Spit (Pacific County, Washington). This
subunit is about 661 ac (267 ha). The
central portion of the proposed subunit
(182 ac; 74 ha) is within the Shoalwater
Bay Indian Reservation. We are
considering the exclusion of these tribal
lands from the designation due to the
existing high level of protection already
provided on the Shoalwater Bay Indian
reservation lands that provides
conservation, regulations, and
management for the streaked horned
lark (see Exclusions).
Streaked horned larks have been
documented off and on at this site
during the breeding season since 2000.
Although the site has been unoccupied
for the past couple of years, singing
male streaked horned larks were
documented at this site during early
June surveys of 2012, therefore we
consider this site to be currently
occupied. As with Midway Beach,
streaked horned larks use the area for
nesting and wintering. The subunit is a
dynamic area and has a constantly
changing sand spit that supports the
essential features for nesting and
wintering habitat. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to reduce
human disturbance during the nesting
season and encroachment by invasive
nonnative plants that render the habitat
too dense for use by streaked horned
larks.
Subunit 3–D: Leadbetter Point (Pacific
County, Washington). This subunit
contains about 665 ac (269 ha) at the
northern tip of the Long Beach
Peninsula. This subunit is on the
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and
the Seashore Conservation Area
(managed by Washington State). This
site is occupied and provides the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the subspecies.
Most of the streaked horned larks at this
site nest within the habitat restoration
area and in ponded swales landward of
the restoration area that go dry in the
summer (Ritchie 2012, pers. comm.).
The site has the open landscape context
and sparse, low-growing vegetation that
make up the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. The Willapa National
Wildlife Refuge completed its
Comprehensive Conservation Plan in
August 2011 and manages habitat at the
tip of Leadbetter Spit for western snowy
plovers, streaked horned larks, and
other native coastal species. These
management activities are compatible
with streaked horned lark conservation.
As with the other coastal sites,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Leadbetter is used by streaked horned
larks year-round. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain
the early seral vegetation required by
the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season.
Subunit 3–E: Rice Island (Clatsop
County, Oregon, and Wahkiakum
County, Washington). This subunit is
about 224 ac (91 ha) in size. The island
is located at river mile (RM) 21,
approximately 7 mi (11 km) upstream of
the Astoria-Megler Bridge near the
mouth of the Columbia River. Although
the island is within the planning
boundary of the Julia Butler Hansen
National Wildlife Refuge, Rice Island is
owned by the Oregon Department of
State Lands. A very small portion of the
subunit is in Wahkiakum County and on
Washington State lands. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers uses this site for
dredge material disposal as part of its
maintenance of the Columbia River
shipping channel. This subunit is
occupied and provides the features
essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. Streaked horned larks
currently nest and winter on Rice
Island. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral
vegetation required by the subspecies
and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 3–F: Miller Sands Spit
(Clatsop County, Oregon). Miller Sands
Spit is across the shipping channel from
Rice Island at River Mile (RM) 24. The
subunit is a 2-mi-long (1.2-km-long)
sand spit about 123 ac (50 ha) in size on
the northern shore of the island. The
subunit is currently occupied and
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies for nesting and wintering
habitat. The island is owned by the
Oregon Department of State Lands, but
is also within the planning unit
boundary for the Julia Butler Hansen
National Wildlife Refuge. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers uses this site
for dredge material disposal as part of
its maintenance of the Columbia River
shipping channel. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain
the early seral vegetation required by
the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61993
Subunit 3–G: Pillar Rock/Jim Crow
Sands (Clatsop County, Oregon). This
island is located at about RM 27 on the
Columbia River. The subunit is about 44
ac (18 ha) in size. Pillar Rock is
currently occupied and provides the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the subspecies.
Streaked horned larks nest and winter at
the site. The island is owned by the
Oregon Department of State Lands and
is within the planning unit boundary for
the Julia Butler Hansen National
Wildlife Refuge. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers uses this site for dredge
material disposal as part of its
maintenance of the Columbia River
shipping channel. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain
the early seral vegetation required by
the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season.
Subunit 3–H: Welch Island (Clatsop
County, Oregon). This island is at RM
34 and is owned by the Oregon
Department of State Lands. The critical
habitat subunit is about 43 ac (17 ha) on
the northeastern shore of the island.
This site is currently occupied and
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers uses this site for dredge
material disposal as part of its
maintenance of the Columbia River
shipping channel. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain
the early seral vegetation required by
the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season.
Subunit 3–I: Tenasillahee Island
(Columbia County, Oregon). This island
is at RM 38; the subunit is on a small
unnamed spit at the southern tip of
Tenasillahee Island. The subunit is
about 23 ac (9 ha) in size. This site is
currently occupied and provides the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the subspecies.
The site is owned by the Oregon
Department of State Lands. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers uses this site
for dredge material disposal as part of
its maintenance of the Columbia River
shipping channel. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain
the early seral vegetation required by
the subspecies and to minimize nest
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61994
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season.
Subunit 3–J: Coffeepot Island
(Wahkiakum County, Washington). This
small island is at RM 42 in the
Columbia River and sits between Puget
Island and the Oregon shore; the
subunit is 25 ac (10 ha) in size and is
privately-owned. There have been no
recent detections of streaked horned
larks on the site; the most recent records
of streaked horned lark occupancy are
from 2004. We presume that Coffeepot
Island is still occupied by nesting
streaked horned larks, as we have no
reason to believe they have been
extirpated since the last survey attempt.
However, as we acknowledge it is
uncertain whether the site is currently
occupied by the species due to the lack
of recent survey effort, we have
evaluated Coffeepot Island as if it is
unoccupied, and have determined that
it is nonetheless essential to the
conservation of the species to provide
connectivity between nesting
populations of streaked horned larks in
the Columbia River to insure genetic
connectivity. This island is not
currently used as a dredge disposal site,
although the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is interested in using it as
such, and the island is presently too
vegetated to provide the sparse
vegetation needed for streaked horned
lark nesting. The site will require future
restoration management activities to
restore and maintain the low vegetative
structure required by the streaked
horned lark.
Subunit 3–K: Whites/Browns Island
(Wahkiakum County, Washington).
Whites/Browns Island is connected to
the southern end of Puget Island at RM
46 and is owned by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The
subunit is a small spit at the southern
end of Whites/Browns Island and is
about 98 ac (39 ha) in size. The site is
used by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for dredge material disposal
as part of its maintenance of the
Columbia River shipping channel. This
site is currently occupied and provides
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. Whites/Browns Island
supports one of the largest populations
of streaked horned larks in the lower
Columbia River islands. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain
the early seral vegetation required by
the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Subunit 3–L: Wallace Island
(Columbia County, Oregon). Wallace
Island is located across the channel
from Whites/Browns Island at RM 47.
Streaked horned larks were detected at
the site in 2012 in the critical habitat
subunit, which is about 13 ac (5 ha) in
size. The area is owned by the Oregon
Department of State Lands. This site is
not a dredge material disposal site. This
subunit currently contains the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, but will
require special management to maintain
the low vegetative structure required by
the streaked horned lark.
Subunit 3–M: Crims Island (Columbia
County, Oregon). This island is located
upstream of Wallace Island at RM 57.
The subunit is about 60 ac (24 ha) in
size. The subunit is currently occupied
and provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. The area is owned by
the Oregon Department of State Lands,
but is also within the planning unit
boundary for the Julia Butler Hansen
National Wildlife Refuge. Crims Island
is an approved U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers dredge material disposal site.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral
vegetation required by the subspecies
and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 3–N: Sandy Island (Columbia
County, Oregon). This island, at RM 76,
is the island farthest upstream that is
known to be used by streaked horned
larks for nesting. The subunit is about
37 ac (15 ha) in size on the southern end
of Sandy Island and is owned by the
Oregon Department of State Lands. This
subunit is currently occupied and
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers uses this site for dredge
material disposal as part of its
maintenance of the Columbia River
shipping channel. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain
the early seral vegetation required by
the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season.
Subunit 3–O: Portland International
Airport (Multnomah County, Oregon).
This subunit is in the city of Portland
and is bordered by the Columbia River
to the north, NE 33rd Drive to the west
and the Broadmoor Golf Course to the
south and totals 410 ac (166 ha). This
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
subunit includes the airport’s Southwest
Quad, the grassy areas at the western
end of Runway 10R, and Broughton
Beach. The Southwest Quad is an old
dredge spoil disposal field located just
outside of the perimeter fence at
Portland International Airport, south of
Runway 10R and west of Runway 3/21.
This subunit is currently occupied and
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. The habitat is open with
a sandy substrate and low-stature
vegetation; breeding at the site has been
documented. The area around the
western end of Runway 10R is flat, lowstature grass fields; streaked horned
larks have been seen foraging in this
area. The Southwest Quad and Runway
10R are on the grounds of Portland
International Airport, which is owned
by the Port of Portland.
Broughton Beach is a narrow, sandy
beach on the Columbia River and is not
within the boundaries of Portland
International Airport. Streaked horned
lark sightings at Broughton Beach are
frequent, and large mixed-subspecies
flocks are seen there often during the
fall and winter; Broughton Beach is
owned by Metro, the regional governing
body in the Portland area. Due to the
proximity of these sites to active
runways, the sites are managed for air
traffic safety; preventing the
development of dense vegetation and
pooling water, which could attract
hazardous wildlife. These management
activities unintentionally maintain the
appropriate habitat characteristics for
streaked horned larks. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain
the early seral vegetation required by
the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season.
Unit 4: Willamette Valley—Streaked
Horned Lark
In the Willamette Valley, we are
proposing to designate eight subunits.
Four subunits are on municipal airports,
three subunits are on the Willamette
Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Complex, and one subunit is a private
habitat restoration site. The total acreage
is 4,880 ac (1,975 ha). All of the
subunits were occupied at the time of
listing and contain the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species that may
require special management
considerations or protection.
The areas used by streaked horned
larks for nesting at all of the airports are
grass and gravel margins of the runway
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
and taxiways. Special Management will
be needed to address threats to the
essential features at the Willamette
Valley airports including development,
mowing during the nesting season, and
intermittent training activities. All of
the airports inadvertently maintain
habitat for streaked horned larks as a
result of their management to minimize
attracting hazardous wildlife. None of
the Willamette Valley airports has
developed a management plan to
address conservation of the streaked
horned lark; special management of
these sites would require avoidance or
minimization of mowing in the streaked
horned lark nesting areas during the
breeding season.
The three subunits on the Willamette
Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Complex are managed mainly to provide
forage for wintering dusky Canada geese
(Branta canadensis occidentalis), which
is compatible with maintaining the
essential features for streaked horned
larks. The refuge complex has
incorporated management for streaked
horned larks into its recently completed
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and
streaked horned lark habitat
conservation is being implemented in
the refuge units.
The one proposed subunit on private
land is a large habitat restoration site.
Management for native prairies and
vernal wetlands at this site provide
habitat for streaked horned larks.
Subunit 4–A: McMinnville Municipal
Airport (Yamhill County, Oregon).
McMinnville Municipal Airport is just
south of State Route 18 and west of SE
Airport Road in the town of
McMinnville. This subunit includes the
areas around the runways and an open
field to the east. The site is about 600
ac (243 ha). This subunit is currently
occupied and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. It has
both the open landscape context and the
sparse low-growing vegetation required
by streaked horned larks, and there have
been observations of streaked horned
larks along the east runway and in the
field to the east of the runways during
the breeding season. This small airport
is owned by the City of McMinnville.
The primary threat to the essential
features at this subunit is mowing
during the breeding season, which
could destroy nests and young; special
management is needed to coordinate
mowing to minimize impacts to
streaked horned larks during the
breeding season.
Subunit 4–B: Baskett Slough National
Wildlife Refuge (Polk County, Oregon).
There are two parts to this critical
habitat subunit. Subunit 4–B North is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
181 ac (73 ha) and is in the North
Morgan Reservoir area of the refuge.
Subunit 4–B South is 825 ac (334 ha)
and is the South Baskett Slough
Agricultural area of the refuge; State
Route 22 forms the southeast boundary
of the south subunit. Both of the
subunits are agricultural fields that are
heavily grazed by dusky Canada geese
in the winter. This subunit is currently
occupied and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. Baskett
Slough National Wildlife Refuge has
large areas of agricultural lands and
restored native prairies, which provides
the landscape context and vegetation
structure required by the streaked
horned lark. The Refuge manages
primarily for wintering dusky Canada
geese, which also provides suitable
management for streaked horned larks.
This subunit is consistently used by
streaked horned larks in the breeding
season. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral
vegetation required by the subspecies
and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 4–C: Salem Municipal
Airport (Marion County, Oregon). Salem
Municipal Airport is south of State
Route 99E and bordered on the east by
25th Street SE in Salem. This subunit
encompasses the area surrounding the
runways, and is approximately 534 ac
(216 ha). The subunit is currently
occupied (streaked horned larks have
been observed at the south end of the
runway during the breeding season),
and contains the essential features for
the conservation of the subspecies,
including open landscape context and
sparse, open vegetation present at the
site. This regional airport is owned by
the City of Salem. The primary threat to
the essential features at this subunit is
mowing during the breeding season,
which could destroy nests and young;
special management is needed to
coordinate mowing to minimize impacts
to streaked horned larks during the
breeding season.
Subunit 4–D: Ankeny National
Wildlife Refuge (Marion County,
Oregon). This site is in the middle of the
Ankeny Refuge, in the Field 6 Complex;
the northeast boundary of the subunit is
formed by the Sydney Ditch. The
critical habitat subunit is 264 ac (107
ha). The site is composed of agricultural
fields that are heavily grazed by dusky
Canada geese in the winter. The subunit
is currently occupied and has consistent
use by streaked horned larks in the
breeding season. This subunit contains
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61995
all of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. Ankeny National Wildlife
Refuge has both agricultural lands and
restored native prairies, which provide
the landscape context and vegetation
structure required by the streaked
horned lark. The Refuge manages
primarily for wintering dusky Canada
geese, which also provides suitable
management for streaked horned larks.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral
vegetation required by the subspecies
and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 4–E: Corvallis Municipal
Airport (Benton County, Oregon).
Corvallis Municipal Airport is west of
State Route 99W and bordered on the
north by SW Airport Avenue, directly
south of the City of Corvallis. This
subunit includes all the areas
surrounding the runways and in
adjacent fields owned and managed by
the airport. The unit is about 1,103 ac
(446 ha) and is owned by the City of
Corvallis. This subunit is currently
occupied and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. The
Corvallis Municipal Airport is home to
the largest known breeding population
of streaked horned larks; streaked
horned larks breed adjacent to runways
and in sparse grass fields throughout the
airport. Large flocks of mixed
subspecies of horned larks also winter at
the site. The site provides the open
landscape context and low-growing
vegetation required by streaked horned
larks. As at other airports, the City of
Corvallis manages the site to minimize
attraction of hazardous wildlife. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the streaked
horned lark may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from
mowing during the breeding season and
police training activities that disrupt
nesting behavior. Special management
is needed to coordinate mowing and
training activities to minimize impacts
to streaked horned larks during the
breeding season.
Subunit 4–F: William L. Finley
National Wildlife Refuge (Benton
County, Oregon). This critical habitat
subunit is on Fields 11 and 12 in the
South Finley Agricultural Lands area of
the refuge; Bruce Road bisects the
subunit, and McFarland Road forms the
southern boundary of the site. The
subunit is 459 ac (186 ha) in size. This
subunit is currently occupied and
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61996
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. The site is composed of
agricultural fields that are heavily
grazed by dusky Canada geese in the
winter, and it has consistent use by
streaked horned larks in the breeding
season; streaked horned larks also
winter at the refuge. Finley National
Wildlife Refuge has large areas of
agricultural lands and restored native
prairies, which provide the landscape
context and vegetation structure
required by the streaked horned lark.
The Refuge manages primarily for
wintering dusky Canada geese, which
also provides suitable management for
streaked horned larks. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain
the early seral vegetation required by
the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season.
Subunit 4–G: M–DAC Farms (Linn
County, Oregon). This site is a large
prairie and wetland habitat restoration
project; the subunit is about 601 ac (243
ha) on former agricultural land. The site
is located east of the town of Harrisburg,
and about a mile east of Interstate
Highway 5, and bordered on the south
by Diamond Hill Drive. This subunit is
currently occupied and contains the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the subspecies.
The second largest known population of
streaked horned larks was observed at
M–DAC in 2008, the year following
initial site preparation. As vegetation at
the site has matured, fewer streaked
horned larks have used the site, but the
large wetlands will likely continue to
provide suitable breeding habitat as the
mudflats dry in the early summer. Both
PCEs are present at the site, although
their availability will shift over time as
the habitat is managed and the wetlands
fill and recede each year. The site is
privately owned; the habitat restoration
project has been developed with
assistance from the Cascade Pacific
Resource Conservation and
Development Area, USDA’s NRCS, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
Partners for Wildlife Program, Oregon
Watershed Enhancement Board, and the
Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The site will be managed to
maintain native prairie and wetland
habitats, which will benefit the streaked
horned lark; special management will be
needed to ensure that management
activities are not implemented in the
breeding season when streaked horned
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
lark nests and young are vulnerable to
destruction.
Subunit 4–H: Eugene Airport (Lane
County, Oregon). Eugene Airport is west
of the City of Eugene, and about a mile
west of State Route 99. This subunit
encompasses the grassy areas
surrounding the runway, and is
approximately 313 ac (126 ha). This
subunit is currently occupied and
contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. It provides the open
landscape context and low-growing
vegetation required by streaked horned
larks. Streaked horned larks have been
observed on the east side of the runway
during the breeding season. This
regional airport is owned by the City of
Eugene. The primary threat to the
essential features at this subunit is
mowing during the breeding season that
disrupts nesting behavior. The features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to coordinate mowing to
minimize impacts to streaked horned
larks during the breeding season.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Courts of Appeals have invalidated our
regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or
adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02)
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d
1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245
F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we
do not rely on this regulatory definition
when analyzing whether an action is
likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory
provisions of the Act, we determine
destruction or adverse modification on
the basis of whether, with
implementation of the proposed Federal
action, the affected critical habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process are actions on State, tribal,
local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the
Service (under section 10 of the Act) or
that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded or
authorized, do not require section 7
consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation,
we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, or are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species or destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat, we provide
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy
or destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. We define
‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’
(at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions
identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species
or avoid the likelihood of destroying or
adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies sometimes may need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation
value of critical habitat for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly or the streaked
horned lark. As discussed above, the
role of critical habitat is to support lifehistory needs of the species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
affect the physical or biological features
of critical habitat, or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
activities that may affect critical habitat
for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or
streaked horned lark, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency, require consultation. These
activities may include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that restore, alter, or
degrade habitat features through
development, agricultural activities,
burning, mowing, herbicide use or other
means in suitable habitat for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies and streaked
horned larks.
(2) Actions that would alter the
physical or biological features of critical
habitat including modification of soil
profiles or the composition and
structure of vegetation in suitable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies and streaked horned larks.
Such activities could include, but are
not limited to, construction, grading or
other development, mowing, conversion
of habitat, or use of herbicides to
remove vegetation (military training on
DOD lands, recreational use, off road
vehicles on Federal, State, private, or
Tribal lands). These activities may affect
the physical or biological features of
critical habitat for the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies and streaked
horned larks, by removing sources of
food, shelter, nesting or oviposition
sites, or otherwise impacting habitat
essential for completion of life history.
(3) Actions that would reduce the
open landscape context required by
streaked horned larks, such as
construction of buildings or planting tall
trees adjacent to a suitable site.
(4) Deposition of dredge materials on
occupied streaked horned lark habitats
during the breeding season.
(5) Installation of shoreline
stabilization structures or modification
of beaches and open shorelines in
critical habitat.
(6) Activities (pedestrians, motor
vehicles, people with pets, etc.) within
or adjacent to critical habitat that result
in disturbance of Taylor’s checkerspot
butterflies and streaked horned larks,
that affect or degrade the conservation
value or function of the physical or
biological features of critical habitat.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resource management
plan (INRMP) by November 17, 2001.
An INRMP integrates implementation of
the military mission of the installation
with stewardship of the natural
resources found on the base. Each
INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61997
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
We consult with the military on the
development and implementation of
INRMPs for installations with listed
species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations
located within the range of the proposed
critical habitat designation for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark to determine if they are
exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
The following areas are Department of
Defense lands within the proposed
critical habitat designation: (1) 91st
Division Prairie, (2) Thirteenth Division
Prairie. (3) TA7S, (4) Marion Prairie, (5)
portions of Tenalquot Prairie, (6)
McChord AFB, and (7) Gray Airfield.
All of these areas are part of JBLM in
Washington, except for the portion of
Tenalquot Prairie known as the Morgan
property.
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington
Joint Base Lewis-McChord (formerly
known as Fort Lewis and McChord Air
Force Base) is an 86,000 ac (34,800 ha)
military complex in western
Washington. JBLM has an approved
Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan (INRMP) in place,
dated July 2006, that covers the years
2006 through 2010. This INRMP is being
updated and a revision will be
submitted to the Service in 2012
(Steucke 2008, pers. comm.). JBLM is
composed of both native and degraded
grasslands; shrub-dominated vegetation;
conifer, conifer-oak, oak-savannah, oak
woodland and pine woodland/savannah
forests; riverine, lacustrine, and
palustrine wetlands; ponds and lakes; as
well as other unique habitat, such as
mima mounds. Portions of JBLM are
currently occupied by the streaked
horned lark and Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly. Actions on this property
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61998
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
include military training, recreation,
transportation, utilities (including
dedicated corridors), and land use.
The mission of JBLM is to maintain
trained and ready forces for Army
commanders worldwide, by providing
them with training support and
infrastructure. This includes a land base
capable of supporting current and future
training needs through good
stewardship of the Installation’s natural
and cultural resources, as directed by
Federal statutes, Department of Defense
directives, directives and programs such
as ACUB (Area Compatible Use Buffer
Program), and Army and JBLM
regulations.
Although only military actions occur
on JBLM, several additional actions
could pose substantial threats to the
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned larks, and are restricted
to a few grassland properties (e.g., dog
trials, model airplanes, recreational
activities). Many of the avoidance
measures for military training action
subgroups are implemented through
environmental review and permitting
programs related to a specific action.
Timing of actions and education of
users are important avoidance measures
for the other activities.
Joint Base Lewis-McChord actively
manages prairie habitat as part of Fort
Lewis’ Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan (INRMP 2006). The
purpose of the plan is to ‘‘provide
guidance for effective and efficient
management of the prairie landscape to
meet military training and ecological
conservation goals.’’ There are three
overall goals including: (1) No net loss
of open landscapes for military training;
(2) no net reduction in the quantity or
quality of moderate- and high-quality
grassland; and (3) viable populations of
all prairie-dependent and prairieassociated species.
Joint Base Lewis-McChord has a
stewardship responsibility that includes
actions to help recover threatened and
endangered species under the Act. It is
Army policy to consider candidate
species when making decisions that
may affect them, to avoid taking actions
that may cause them to be listed, and to
take affirmative actions that can
preclude the need to list (AR 200–3).
Under this mandate, JBLM is
currently restoring and enhancing
habitat conditions for the Taylor’s
checkerspot in potential habitat. JBLM
has restored habitat on one Training
Area and one Range (TA 14 and Range
50) that have received captive-bred and
translocated butterflies. These actions
are occurring primarily in areas in
which the butterfly could coexist with
the existing land-use designations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Currently, the only populations of this
species on JBLM are within the Artillery
Impact Area (Range 76 and Range 50 on
the 91st Division Prairie), and at this
time, we have JBLM’s commitment
(Garrison Commander Thomas Brittain,
Colonel, 13 May 2010) specifying ‘‘no
off road vehicle zone and foot traffic
zone’’ only within TA 76.
The primary concern for streaked
horned larks is to protect nesting
populations from disturbance and direct
mortality due to human activities.
Currently, there are four areas on the
installation that have nesting
populations of this species. Timing of
mowing at McChord and Gray Army
Airfields are concerns, as are
recreational activities and military
training on the 13th Division Prairie and
military training and wildfires in the
Artillery Impact Area. Presently, there
are restrictions on mowing activities on
the airfield: Minimum mowing for
airfield safety during the primary
nesting period (April to July) and no
mowing at any time around known nest
locations. In the training areas, Land
Rehabilitation and Maintenance does
not mow during the breeding season in
occupied streaked horned lark habitat.
There also are restrictions on
recreational activities in Thirteenth
Division Prairie during the streaked
horned lark nesting period (April to
August).
Two regional programs managed
under the INRMP and funded by the
DOD are currently underway on many
of the lands where the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark occur. The Fort Lewis Army
Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) program
is a proactive effort to prevent
‘‘encroachment’’ at military
installations. Encroachment includes
current or potential future restrictions
on military training associated with
currently listed and candidate species
under the Endangered Species Act. The
Fort Lewis ACUB program focuses on
management of non-Federal
conservation lands in the vicinity of
Fort Lewis that contain, or can be
restored to, native prairie. Some of the
ACUB efforts include improving the
habitat on JBLM property, such as the
prescribed fire program, and the
streaked horned lark genetic rescue
project. It is implemented by means of
a cooperative agreement between the
Army and The Nature Conservancy
(now Center for Natural Lands
Management), and includes WDFW and
WDNR as partners. To date, a total of
$8.23 million has been allocated to this
program (Anderson 2012, pers. comm).
This funds conservation actions such as
invasive plant control, butterfly
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
monitoring, butterfly habitat
enhancement on occupied sites and the
restoration of unoccupied lands for
butterflies. Taylor’s checkerspot and
mardon skipper (Polites mardon)
butterfly captive rearing and
translocation, native seed (forb and
grass) production and native plant
establishment are several currently
(2012) ongoing projects (Foster 2005,
entire; The Nature Conservancy 2007;
entire).
The JBLM Legacy program is
dedicated to ‘‘protecting, enhancing,
and conserving natural and cultural
resources on DOD lands through
stewardship, leadership, and
partnership.’’ Legacy supports
conservation actions that have regional
or DOD-wide significance, and that
support military training or fulfill legal
obligations (DOD 2011, p. 2). In recent
years, substantial effort and funding
have gone toward projects, both on and
off JBLM, related to the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark.
Although JBLM’s INRMP has the
potential to provide a conservation
benefit to the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark, it
does not currently. Since their INRMP is
currently undergoing revision and is
subject to change, we are reserving
judgment on whether management
under the new INRMP will meet our
criteria for exemption from critical
habitat at this time. In accordance with
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, if we
determine prior to our final rulemaking
that conservation efforts identified in
the newly revised INRMP will provide
a conservation benefit to the species
identified previously, we may at that
time exempt the identified lands from
the final designation of critical habitat.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the statute on its face, as well as the
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
legislative history are clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
In considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
identify the benefits of including the
area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If the analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the
Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the
species.
When identifying the benefits of
inclusion for an area, we consider the
additional regulatory benefits that area
would receive from the protection from
adverse modification or destruction as a
result of actions with a Federal nexus;
the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the
listed species; and any benefits that may
result from a designation due to State or
Federal laws that may apply to critical
habitat.
When identifying the benefits of
exclusion, we consider, among other
things, whether exclusion of a specific
area is likely to result in conservation;
the continuation, strengthening, or
encouragement of partnerships; or
implementation of a management plan
that provides equal to or more
conservation than a critical habitat
designation would provide.
The Secretary can consider the
existence of conservation agreements
and other land management plans with
Federal, private, State, and Indian
entities when making decisions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Secretary
may also consider relationships with
landowners, voluntary partnerships,
and conservation plans, and weigh the
implementation and effectiveness of
these against that of designation to
determine which provides the greatest
conservation value to the listed species.
Consideration of relevant impacts of
designation or exclusion under section
4(b)(2) may include, but is not limited
to, any of the following factors:
(1) Whether the plan provides specific
information on how it protects the
species and the physical and biological
features, and whether the plan is at a
geographical scope commensurate with
the species;
(2) Whether the plan is complete and
will be effective at conserving and
protecting the physical and biological
features;
(3) Whether a reasonable expectation
exists that conservation management
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
strategies and actions will be
implemented, that those responsible for
implementing the plan are capable of
achieving the objectives, that an
implementation schedule exists, and
that adequate funding exists;
(4) Whether the plan provides
assurances that the conservation
strategies and measures will be effective
(i.e., identifies biological goals, has
provisions for reporting progress, and is
of a duration sufficient to implement the
plan);
(5) Whether the plan has a monitoring
program or adaptive management to
ensure that the conservation measures
are effective;
(6) The degree to which the record
supports a conclusion that a critical
habitat designation would impair the
benefits of the plan;
(7) The extent of public participation;
(8) Demonstrated track record of
implementation success;
(9) Level of public benefits derived
from encouraging collaborative efforts
and encouraging private and local
conservation efforts; and
(10) The effect designation would
have on partnerships.
After identifying the benefits of
inclusion and the benefits of exclusion,
we carefully weigh the two sides to
evaluate whether the benefits of
exclusion outweigh those of inclusion.
If our analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether
exclusion would result in extinction. If
exclusion of an area from critical habitat
will result in extinction, we will not
exclude it from the designation.
Based on the information provided by
entities seeking exclusion, as well as
any additional public comments
received, we will evaluate whether
certain lands in proposed critical habitat
are appropriate for exclusion from the
final designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act. If the analysis indicates that
the benefits of excluding lands from the
final designation outweigh the benefits
of designating those lands as critical
habitat, then the Secretary may exercise
his discretion to exclude the lands from
the final designation.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
must consider all relevant impacts of
the designation of critical habitat,
including economic impacts. In
addition to economic impacts
(discussed in the Economics Analysis
section, below), we consider a number
of factors in a 4(b)(2) analysis. For
example, we consider whether there are
lands owned by the Department of
Defense (DoD) where a national security
impact might exist. We also consider
whether Federal or private landowners
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61999
or other public agencies have developed
management plans or habitat
conservation plans (HCPs) for the area
or whether there are conservation
partnerships or other conservation
benefits that would be encouraged or
discouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat in an
area. In addition, we look at the
presence of Indian lands or Indian trust
resources that might be affected, and
consider the government-to-government
relationship of the United States with
Indian entities. We also consider any
other relevant impacts that might occur
because of the designation. To ensure
that our final determination is based on
the best available information, we are
inviting comments on any foreseeable
economic, national security, or other
potential impacts resulting from this
proposed designation of critical habitat
from governmental, business, or private
interests and, in particular, any
potential impacts on small businesses.
For the reasons discussed above, if the
Secretary decides to exercise his
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we have identified certain areas
that we are considering for exclusion
from the final critical habitat
designation for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly, and streaked horned lark.
However, we solicit comments on the
inclusion or exclusion of such particular
areas, as well as any other areas
identified in the proposed rule (see
Public Comments section). During the
development of the final designation,
we will consider economic impacts,
public comments, and other new
information. However, the Secretary’s
decision as to which, if any, areas may
be excluded from the final designation
is not limited to these lands. Additional
particular areas, in addition to those
identified below for potential exclusion
in this proposed rule, may be excluded
from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. In other words, potential
exclusions are not limited to those areas
specifically identified in this proposed
rule.
However, we specifically solicit
comments on the inclusion or exclusion
of such areas. In the paragraphs below,
we provide a detailed analysis of our
exclusion of these lands under section
4(b)(2) of the Act.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we are preparing an analysis of
the economic impacts of the proposed
critical habitat designation and related
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
62000
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
factors. We will announce the
availability of the draft economic
analysis as soon as it is completed, at
which time we will seek public review
and comment. At that time, copies of
the draft economic analysis will be
available for downloading from the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov,
or by contacting the Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
During the development of a final
designation, we will consider economic
impacts, public comments, and other
new information, and areas may be
excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act and our implementing regulations at
50 CFR 424.19.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense (DOD) where a national security
impact might exist. The U.S. Army’s
Joint Base Lewis-McChord Military
Reservation (JBLM) is the only DOD
land included within the proposed
designation of critical habitat. As
described above, in preparing this
proposal, we are considering JBLM for
exemption from the designation of
critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of
the Act, pending our evaluation of their
revised INRMP, scheduled for
completion in 2012, to determine
whether it provides a conservation
benefit to the species under
consideration in this proposed rule. We
have determined that the remaining
lands within the proposed designation
of critical habitat for the species are not
owned or managed by the Department of
Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate
no impact on national security.
Consequently, the Secretary is not
intending to exert his discretion to
exclude any areas from the final
designation based on impacts on
national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts, in
addition to economic impacts and
impacts to national security, of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. We consider a number of
factors, including whether landowners
have developed any HCPs or other
management plans for the area, or
whether there are conservation
partnerships or relationships that would
be encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
addition, we look at any tribal issues,
and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United
States with tribal entities. We also
consider any other relevant impacts that
might occur because of the designation.
Our weighing of the benefits of
inclusion versus exclusion considers all
relevant factors in making a final
determination as to what will result in
the greatest conservation benefit to the
listed species. Depending on the
specifics of each situation, there may be
cases where the designation of critical
habitat will not necessarily provide
enhanced protection, and may actually
lead to a net loss of conservation
benefit. Here we present a brief
description of three general areas
considered for exclusion from the final
designations of critical habitat for the
subspecies.
We are considering the exclusion of
private lands associated with the Scatter
Creek Wildlife Area and Rock Prairie
(Unit 1, subunits 1–H and 1–I for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly), both
within Thurston County, and the private
land site at Sequim (Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly subunit 2–D), in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca, located in
Clallam County, Washington.
The first proposed exclusion is
located in the south Puget Sound region,
in the Scatter Creek subunit of Unit 1,
the South Sound Unit (this is subunit 1–
H for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly).
We are considering excluding the
combined area of private lands in this
unit totaling 98 ac (40 ha) based on the
benefits of partnerships and other
conservation agreements. The South
Puget Sound Prairie Landscape Working
Group is an informal, voluntary group
that meets regularly, and discusses local
conservation issues and planning.
Members of the group are tasked to
implement prairie conservation and best
management practices (BMPs) with their
landowner contacts. The Service and
WDFW are members of this working
group. WDFW worked with the private
landowner in subunit 1–H to develop a
management plan which includes a
commitment from the landowner that
the parcel will be managed in such a
manner to support native prairie species
(composition and structure), consistent
with the adjacent WDFW State wildlife
area. This management plan is currently
active and in effect through 2014 with
plans to renew the management plan
prior to the end in 2014.
The second area is located in the
south Puget Sound, in the Rock Prairie
subunit also in Unit 1, the South Sound
Unit. This is subunit 1–I for Taylor’s
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
checkerspot butterfly. In this subunit,
379 ac (153 ha) is considered for
exclusion as it is managed under a
permanent conservation easement and a
Grassland Reserve Program Management
Plan agreement with NRCS; which is
also an active member of the South
Puget Sound Prairie Landscape Working
Group. The management plan is
modified regularly as new information
becomes available regarding BMPs for
prairie ecosystems. The private
landowner in subunit 1–I is committed
through the management plan to
maintaining more than 300 ac (122 ha)
of native prairie.
The third location is a 150-ac (61-ha)
active farm in Unit 2, Strait of Juan de
Fuca Unit, in subunit 2–D, the Sequim
subunit. The Service has worked with
the landowner in this subunit, which
has restored Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly habitat, and a portion of this
site is being managed for the long-term
conservation of the species which they
are incorporating under a management
plan developed in coordination with the
WDFW. The landowner has shown a
track record of conservation of coastal
grassland species, including Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly. For instance,
native plants have been planted on the
property for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and the landowner has stopped
driving along one farm road to
encourage the reestablishment of native
larval host plants for the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly. As a result, larval
host plants have become more abundant
as a result of this voluntary management
action.
Each area contains one landholding
that is under a conservation easement
for agriculture and open space
protection, species conservation, and/or
prairie conservation. We are considering
the exclusion of these privately-owned
lands (subunit 1–H, 1–I for the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly, and subunit 2–D
for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca Unit) based on the
partnerships that have been developed
for the conservation of the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly as evidenced by
the management plan and conservation
easement on those private lands as well
as the conservation benefit to the
subspecies from the management plan.
We request public comments on the
relative benefits of inclusion or
exclusion of these areas from the
designation of critical habitat. At
present, we seek public comment on the
general benefits of including or
excluding private lands in this area (see
Public Comments).
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
62001
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—LANDS PROPOSED OR THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE FINAL RULE TO DESIGNATE
CRITICAL HABITAT FOR SEVERAL PUGET SOUND SPECIES
Type of agreement
Critical habitat unit name
Habitat Conservation Plans—proposed for exclusion.
State
Unit 2 — Strait of Juan De Fuca; WA
Subunit TCB: 2–D.
Conservation Agreements, Other
agreements or Partnerships—
proposed for exclusion.
Unit 1 — South Sound; Subunits WA
TCB: 1–F & 1–J: 1–D.
Name of agreement/entity
Washington Department of Natural Resources State Lands
Habitat Conservation Plan.
Benton County Habitat Conservation Plan.
Scatter Creek Wildlife Area Private Landowner Management
Plan.
Rock Prairie Grassland Easement
and Private Landowner Partnership.
Sequim Private Landowner Partnership.
.......................................................
Unit 3 — WA Coast and Columbia WA
River; Subunit SHL: 3–C.
.......................................................
Shoalwater Tribal Management
Plan.
Unit
4 — Willamette
Valley; OR
Subunits TCB: 4A,B & C.
Unit 1 — South Sound; Subunit WA
TCB: 1–H.
Unit 1 — South Sound; Subunit WA
TCB: 1–I.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Total Proposed .......................
Tribal .............................................
Benefits of Excluding Lands With
Habitat Conservation Plans
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are
planning documents required as part of
an application for an ‘‘incidental take’’
permit. They describe the anticipated
effects of the proposed taking; how
those impacts will be minimized, or
mitigated; and how the HCP is to be
funded. HCPs can apply to both listed
and nonlisted species, including those
that are candidates or have been
proposed for listing. Anyone whose
otherwise-lawful activities will result in
the ‘‘incidental take’’ of a listed wildlife
species needs a permit. The Act defines
‘‘take’’ as ‘‘* * * to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct.’’ ‘‘Harm’’
includes significant habitat modification
that actually kills or injures a listed
species through impairing essential
behavior such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering. Section 9 of the Act prohibits
the take of endangered and threatened
species. The purpose of the incidental
take permit is to exempt non-Federal
permit-holders—such as States and
private landowners—from the
prohibitions of section 9, not to
authorize the activities that result in
take.
In developing HCPs, people applying
for incidental take permits describe
measures designed to minimize and
mitigate the effects of their actions— to
ensure that species will be conserved
and to contribute to their recovery.
Habitat Conservation Plans are required
to meet the permit issuance criteria of
section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act:
• Taking will be incidental;
• The applicant will, to the maximum
extent practicable, minimize and
mitigate the impacts of the taking;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:35 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
• The applicant will ensure that
adequate funding for the plan will be
provided;
• Taking will not appreciably reduce
the likelihood of the survival and
recovery of the species in the wild; and
• Other measures, as required by the
Secretary, will be met.
The benefits of excluding lands with
approved HCPs from critical habitat
designation may include relieving
landowners, communities, and counties
of any additional regulatory burden that
might be imposed as a result of the
critical habitat designation. Many HCPs
take years to develop and, upon
completion, are consistent with the
recovery objectives for listed species
covered within the plan area. Many
conservation plans also provide
conservation benefits to unlisted
sensitive species.
A related benefit of excluding lands
covered by approved HCPs from critical
habitat designation is that it can make
it easier for us to seek new partnerships
with future plan participants, including
States, counties, local jurisdictions,
conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can
implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish
otherwise. HCPs often cover a wide
range of species, including species that
are not State and federally listed and
would otherwise receive little
protection from development. By
excluding these lands, we preserve our
current partnerships and encourage
additional future conservation actions.
We also note that permit issuance in
association with HCP applications
requires consultation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act, which would include
the review of the effects of all HCPcovered activities that might adversely
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Acres
Hectares
658
267
108
44
98
40
379
153
151
61
1,394
182
565
73
impact the species under a jeopardy
standard, including possibly significant
habitat modification (see definition of
‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 17.3), even without
the critical habitat designation. In
addition, all other Federal actions that
may affect the listed species would still
require consultation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would review
these actions for possible significant
habitat modification in accordance with
the definition of harm referenced above.
We consider a current HCP to be
appropriate for consideration for
exclusion from a final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act if:
(1) It provides for the conservation of
the essential physical and biological
features or areas otherwise determined
to be essential;
(2) There is a reasonable expectation
that the conservation management
strategies and actions contained in a
management plan will be implemented
into the future;
(3) The conservation strategies in the
HCP are likely to be effective; and
(4) The HCP contains a monitoring
program or adaptive management to
ensure that the conservation measures
are effective and can be adapted in the
future in response to new information.
Below is a brief description of each
HCP and the lands proposed as critical
habitat covered by each plan that we are
proposing to exclude under section
4(b)(2) of the Act from the final
designation of critical habitat .
State of Oregon
Benton County HCP
The Service coordinated with Benton
County, the Xerces Society, and the
Institute for Applied Ecology in Oregon
to include the Taylor’s checkerspot
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62002
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
butterfly in the Benton County HCP
(Benton County 2010, p. 24). In addition
to the Benton County HCP, a Prairie
Conservation Strategy (2010) was
developed for all species covered by the
HCP, including Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly. The strategy is stratified by the
level of protection afforded to the
various covered species, including
permanent protection, limited
protection, and opportunity areas for
unoccupied but suitable habitat for
species that may be conserved in new
areas through assisted migration, or
translocation efforts. A draft
Management Plan for Taylor’s
checkerspot Butterfly was completed by
Ross (2008), and was finalized and
incorporated into the HCP as Appendix
N (Benton County 2010). The guidelines
set forth in the management plan will
assist Benton County in managing their
lands in a way that is consistent with
protection and conservation of the
species. The Benton County HCP Prairie
Management Plan meets the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly needs by
conserving occupied prairie habitat by
implementing measures to restore, and
manage for its long-term conservation.
The plan’s goals have been
implemented by Benton County Parks
and Recreation department and they
plan to continue these actions in
support of the butterfly. The plan meets
the needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly by controlling invasive,
nonnative shrubs (Scot’s broom),
reduces the cover of tall, invasive
pasture grasses, reduces the cover of
encroaching trees, and to augment
through planting and seeding the larval
and adult food resources and native
grass species that form the low-statured
structure of the habitat required by the
butterfly. The streaked horned lark was
considered but not included in the HCP
(Benton County 2010, p. 142).
We propose to exclude lands managed
under the Benton County Prairie
Species Habitat Conservation Plan from
the final critical habitat designation for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. The
permit issued under this HCP (notice
October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60802), and
issued January 14, 2011) has a term of
50 years and addresses 18,908 ac (7,652
ha) of prairie habitat. The HCP includes
over 500 ac (200 ha) of prairie
conservation areas to be managed for
conservation purposes and where
habitat restoration and enhancement
activities are planned to occur.
Specifically, they have identified 152 ac
(61 ha) that will be managed for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterflies. These lands are
located in Fort Hoskins Historic Park
subunit 4–A, Beazell Memorial Forest
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
(subunit 4–B, and Fitton Green Natural
Area (subunit 4–C). The HCP has
guidelines for management of sites
currently with and currently without
Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. These
guidelines are intended to both avoid
adverse impacts as well as to improve
habitat conditions and increase the
distribution of the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly in Oregon. As indicated above,
among the management
recommendations are restoration
activities to improve habitat and the
planting of larval host and adult nectar
plant species. The guidelines also
include adaptive management
provisions to assess the success of the
enacted management as well as
population monitoring.
State of Washington
Washington State Department of Natural
Resources State Lands Habitat
Conservation Plan
We are proposing to exclude lands
managed under the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) State Lands HCP in multiple
critical habitat units in Washington
from the final critical habitat
designation for Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly. The WDNR State Trust Lands
HCP covers approximately 1.6 million
ac (730,000 ha) of State forest lands. The
majority of the area covered by the HCP
is west of the Cascade Crest including
the Olympic Peninsula. The permit
associated with this HCP, issued
January 30, 1997, was published in the
Federal Register on April 5, 1996 (61 FR
15297), has a term of 70 to 100 years,
and covers activities primarily
associated with commercial forest
management, but also includes limited,
non-timber activities such as some
recreational activities. The HCP covers
all federally listed species in
Washington that use the types of
habitats provided by covered lands at
the time the HCP was approved, and
those species that have similar habitat
affinities and become listed after the
HCP was approved and an incidental
take permit (ITP) was issued. If listed,
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly would
be added to the WDNR ITP per Section
7 and 12.6 of the Implementing
Agreement (Appendix B of the HCP).
The HCP addressed multiple species
through a combination of strategies. The
main focus of these strategies is the
riparian ecosystems (salmonids),
northern spotted owl, and the marbled
murrelet. The main objective of these
strategies was to maintain and promote
late successional forest habitats along
riparian corridors and in uplands
locations that would benefit spotted
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
owls and marbled murrelets. It was
envisioned that the conservation
strategies for salmonids, spotted owls,
and marbled murrelets would serve to
reduce the risk of extinction for the
other wildlife species covered by the
HCP. In addition, a fourth emphasis of
the HCP was to provide protection for
species that relied on uncommon or
unique habitats. For these species,
additional measures were developed to
meet the conservation objectives of the
HCP. These measures specifically
address the protection of talus, caves,
cliffs, balds, oak woodlands, mineral
springs, large snags, and large,
structurally unique trees because these
features are difficult to restore or
recreate. In addition, as noted in the
HCP, at the time a new species is
proposed for listing, DNR provides a
written request to add that species to its
ITP and evaluates and considers
additional protection measures such as
seasonal restrictions and protection of
nesting/denning sites.
The WDNR has developed a site
specific management plan for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly for DNR managed
lands located in the Olympic Region.
This management plan, which is a
voluntary plan for landowners, is based
on ‘‘Guidelines for Protecting Taylor’s
Checkerspot and its Habitat’’ (WDFW
2008 entire), and would fulfill the
motion approved by the Forestry
Practices Board on September 11, 2007.
This plan, and all plans developed to
protect Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies,
will allow maximum flexibility to plan
and implement activities that minimize
and mitigate impacts to the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly.
The WDNR also manages
approximately 66,000 ac (26,710 ha) of
non-trust lands as Natural Area
Preserves (NAP). While not specifically
a part of the HCP, the Service recognizes
the habitat contributions provided by
these lands in terms of meeting the
conservation goals and objectives of the
HCP. NAPs provide the highest level of
protection for excellent examples of
unique or typical land features in
Washington State. Some of these
protected lands currently provide
habitat in areas identified as ‘‘critical’’
for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, the
Bald Hills, Mima Mounds NAPs, and
the Rocky Prairie NAP. Details of the
WDNR HCP are available at https://
www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/
topics/trustlandshcp/Pages/Home.aspx.
Federal Lands
As noted above, Federal agencies have
an independent responsibility under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act to use their
programs in furtherance of the Act and
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
to utilize their authorities to carry out
programs for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species. We
consider the development and
implementation of land management
plans by Federal agencies to be
consistent with this statutory obligation
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act.
Therefore, Federal land management
plans, in and of themselves, are
generally not an appropriate basis for
exclusion from critical habitat. The
Secretary is not intending to exercise his
discretion to exclude any Federal lands
from the designation of critical habitat.
Consideration of Indian Lands
In accordance with the Secretarial
Order 3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997); the
President’s memorandum of April 29,
1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive
Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments’’ (November 6, 2000, and
as reaffirmed November 5, 2009); and
the relevant provision of the
Departmental Manual of the Department
of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe
that fish, wildlife, and other natural
resources on Indian lands may be better
managed under Indian authorities,
policies, and programs than through
Federal regulation where Indian
management addresses the conservation
needs of listed species. In addition, such
designation may be viewed by tribes as
unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion
into Indian self-governance, thus
compromising the government-togovernment relationship essential to
achieving our mutual goals of managing
for healthy ecosystems upon which the
viability of threatened and endangered
species populations depend.
In developing proposed critical
habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark, we
considered inclusion of some Indian
lands as essential. Indian lands are
those defined in Secretarial Order 3206
‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act’’ (June
5, 1997), as: (1) Lands held in trust by
the United States for the benefit of any
Indian tribe or individual; and (2) lands
held by any Indian Tribe or individual
subject to restrictions by the United
States against alienation. In evaluating
Indian lands under consideration as
potential critical habitat for the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark, we further considered the
directive of Secretarial Order 3206 that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
stipulates ‘‘Critical habitat shall not be
designated in such areas unless it is
determined essential to conserve a listed
species. In designating critical habitat,
the Services shall evaluate and
document the extent to which the
conservation needs of the listed species
can be achieved by limiting the
designation to other lands.’’
The Shoalwater Bay Tribe in
Washington is the only Tribe with lands
identified as critical habitat in this
proposed rule. Approximately 182 ac
(73 ha) of Tribal lands within subunit 3–
C of the Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands Unit (Unit 3) is
proposed as critical habitat for the
streaked horned lark. We are
considering the exclusion of these lands
from the final designation of critical
habitat for the streaked horned lark. The
Service has entered into discussion with
the Tribe regarding the proposed
designation in preparation of this rule.
The Shoalwater Bay Tribe is working
with the Service on the development of
a formal agreement for management and
protection of habitat for the western
snowy plover, streaked horned lark, and
other native coastal species of cultural
significance on lands under Tribal
ownership and management.
The Tribe has stated that they are
committed to continue with their efforts
to manage their lands to benefit the
western snowy plover and streaked
horned lark, and are asking that their
lands be excluded from the final
designation. Existing tribal regulations,
including the 2001 Tribal
Environmental Codes that protect the
saltmarsh and sand spit as natural areas,
will ensure any land use actions,
including those funded, authorized, or
carried out by Federal agencies, are not
likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of all lands
considered for exclusion. The Service is
also coordinating with the Tribe and the
USACE on the planting/vegetation
management plan. We are currently
working on a memorandum of
understanding with the Tribe regarding
protection or shorebirds on reservation
lands. Any potential impacts to the
streaked horned lark from future
proposed activities on the tribal lands
will be addressed through a section 7
consultation using the jeopardy
standard, and such activities would also
be subject to the take prohibitions in
section 9 of the Act.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
we will seek the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate and independent
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62003
specialists regarding this proposed rule.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is
based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We have
invited these peer reviewers to comment
during this public comment period on
our specific assumptions and
conclusions regarding the proposal to
list Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
the streaked horned lark, and our
proposed critical habitat for these
subspecies as well as our other
determinations.
We will consider all comments and
information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule
during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be
received within 45 days after the date of
publication of this proposed rule in the
Federal Register. Such requests must be
sent to the address shown in the
ADDRESSES section. We will schedule
public hearings on this proposal, if any
are requested, and announce the dates,
times, and places of those hearings, as
well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant
rules. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
62004
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an
agency must publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final
rule, it must prepare and make available
for public comment a regulatory
flexibility analysis that describes the
effects of the rule on small entities
(small businesses, small organizations,
and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of the
agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include such businesses as
manufacturing and mining concerns
with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than
100 employees, retail and service
businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy
construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
forestry and logging operations with
fewer than 500 employees and annual
business less than $7 million. To
determine whether small entities may
be affected, we will consider the types
of activities that might trigger regulatory
impacts under this designation as well
as types of project modifications that
may result. In general, the term
‘‘significant economic impact’’ is meant
to apply to a typical small business
firm’s business operations.
Importantly, the incremental impacts
of a rule must be both significant and
substantial to prevent certification of the
rule under the RFA and to require the
preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. If a substantial
number of small entities are affected by
the proposed critical habitat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
designation, but the per-entity economic
impact is not significant, the Service
may certify. Likewise, if the per-entity
economic impact is likely to be
significant, but the number of affected
entities is not substantial, the Service
may also certify.
Under the RFA, as amended, and
following recent court decisions,
Federal agencies are only required to
evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities
directly regulated by the rulemaking
itself, and not the potential impacts to
indirectly affected entities. The
regulatory mechanism through which
critical habitat protections are realized
is section 7 of the Act, which requires
Federal agencies, in consultation with
the Service, to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried by the
Agency is not likely to adversely modify
critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Under these
circumstances, it is our position that
only Federal action agencies will be
directly regulated by this designation.
Therefore, because Federal agencies are
not small entities, the Service may
certify that the proposed critical habitat
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
We acknowledge, however, that in
some cases, third-party proponents of
the action subject to permitting or
funding may participate in a section 7
consultation, and thus may be indirectly
affected. We believe it is good policy to
assess these impacts if we have
sufficient data before us to complete the
necessary analysis, whether or not this
analysis is strictly required by the RFA.
While this regulation does not directly
regulate these entities, in our draft
economic analysis we will conduct a
brief evaluation of the potential number
of third parties participating in
consultations on an annual basis in
order to ensure a more complete
examination of the incremental effects
of this proposed rule in the context of
the RFA.
In conclusion, we believe that, based
on our interpretation of directly
regulated entities under the RFA and
relevant case law, this designation of
critical habitat will only directly
regulate Federal agencies which are not
by definition small business entities.
And as such, certify that, if
promulgated, this designation of critical
habitat would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small business entities.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
However, though not necessarily
required by the RFA, in our draft
economic analysis for this proposal we
will consider and evaluate the potential
effects to third parties that may be
involved with consultations with
Federal action agencies related to this
action.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) requires agencies
to prepare Statements of Energy Effects
when undertaking certain actions. We
do not expect the designation of this
proposed critical habitat to significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use as these species and proposed
critical habitat do not appear to overlap
with these areas. Therefore, this action
is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
However, we will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic
analysis, and review and revise this
assessment as warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector,
and includes both ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandates’’ and
‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or tribal governments’’
with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a
condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also
excludes ‘‘a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates
to a then-existing Federal program
under which $500,000,000 or more is
provided annually to State, local, and
tribal governments under entitlement
authority,’’ if the provision would
‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or
otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Medicaid; Aid to Families with
Dependent Children work programs;
Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social
Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent
Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal Government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Government lands
being proposed for critical habitat
designation are owned by Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Department of Defense
(Army), the U.S. Forest Service, and
Thurston County Parks and Recreation,
in Washington, None of these
government entities fit the definition of
‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’
Therefore, a Small Government Agency
Plan is not required. However, we will
further evaluate this issue as we
conduct our economic analysis, and
review and revise this assessment as
warranted. Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not
required. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our
economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment if appropriate.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order
12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Private Property Rights), we
have analyzed the potential takings
implications of designating critical
habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark in a
takings implications assessment. Critical
habitat designation does not affect
landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it
preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of
incidental take permits to permit actions
that do require Federal funding or
permits to go forward. The takings
implications assessment concludes that
this designation of critical habitat for
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark does not pose
significant takings implications for
lands within or affected by the
designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order
13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule
does not have significant Federalism
effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of
the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested
information from, and coordinated
development of, this proposed critical
habitat designation with appropriate
State resource agencies in Washington
and Oregon. The designation of critical
habitat in areas currently occupied by
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark imposes no
additional restrictions to those currently
in place and, therefore, has little
incremental impact on State and local
governments and their activities. The
designation may have some benefit to
these governments because the areas
that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined,
and the elements of the features of the
habitat necessary to the conservation of
the species are specifically identified.
This information does not alter where
and what federally sponsored activities
may occur. However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning
(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) would be required.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62005
or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed
designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This proposed rule uses standard
property descriptions and identifies the
elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark within the
proposed designated areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat
needs of the species.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with listing
a species as endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to NEPA in connection with
designating critical habitat under the
Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
62006
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v.
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995),
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).]
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
We have determined that there are no
tribal lands occupied by the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly that contain the
physical or biological features essential
to conservation of the species, and no
tribal lands unoccupied by the species
that are essential for the conservation of
the species. Therefore, we are not
proposing to designate critical habitat
for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly on
tribal lands. The Shoalwater Bay Tribe
in Washington is the only Tribe with
lands proposed for designation in this
proposed critical habitat rule.
Approximately 182 ac (74 ha) of Tribal
lands within subunit 3–C, of the
Washington Coast and Columbia River
Islands Unit could be designated as
critical habitat for the streaked horned
lark. The Service has entered into
discussion with the Tribe regarding the
proposed designation in preparation of
this rule. The Shoalwater Bay Tribe is
providing information regarding the
status of streaked horned lark on lands
under tribal ownership and
management. The Tribe has stated that
they are committed to continue with
their efforts to manage their lands to
benefit the streaked horned lark, and is
asking that their lands be excluded from
designation.
Species
Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
Historic range
Common name
*
BIRDS
*
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
Lark, streaked
horned.
*
*
Butterfly, Taylor’s
checkerspot.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
Eremophila alpestris
strigata.
*
INSECTS
*
Scientific name
*
U.S.A. (BC, WA,
OR).
*
*
*
U.S.A. (WA, OR) ....
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Authors
The primary authors of this package
are the staff members of the Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey,
Washington, and the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 17.11(h), the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, as
follows:
a. By adding an entry for ‘‘Lark,
streaked horned (Eremophila alpestris
strigata)’’ in alphabetical order under
Birds, to read as set forth below; and
b. By adding an entry for ‘‘Butterfly,
Taylor’s checkerspot (Euphydryas
editha taylori)’’ in alphabetical order
under Insects, to read as set forth below:
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
Status
When listed
*
T ..........
*
E .........
*
....................
*
....................
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
*
11OCP3
Special
rules
*
*
17.95(b)
*
*
Sfmt 4702
Critical
habitat
*
*
*
U.S.A. (WA) ............
*
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
*
*
U.S.A. (WA) ............
*
*
Euphydryas editha
taylori.
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
*
References Cited
17.41(a)
*
*
17.95(i)
NA
*
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
3. Amend § 17.41 by adding
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 17.41
Special rules—birds.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(a) Streaked horned lark (Eremophila
alpestris strigata).
(1) Which populations of the streaked
horned lark are covered by this special
rule? This rule covers the rangewide
distribution of this bird.
(2) What activities are prohibited?
Except as noted in paragraphs (a)(3) and
(a)(4) of this section, all prohibitions of
§ 17.31 apply to the streaked horned
lark.
(3) What agricultural activities are
allowed on non-Federal land? Incidental
take of the streaked horned lark will not
be a violation of section 9 of the Act, if
the incidental take results from routine
agricultural or ranching activities
located on non-Federal lands. Routine
agricultural and ranching activities are
limited to the following:
(i) Planting, harvesting, rotation,
mowing, tilling, discing, and herbicide
application of crops;
(ii) Repair and maintenance of
unimproved farm roads (this exemption
does not include improvement or
construction of new roads) and graveled
margins of rural roads;
(iii) Livestock grazing according to
normally acceptable and established
levels of intensity in terms of the
number of head of livestock per acre of
rangeland;
(iv) Routine management and
maintenance of stock ponds and berms
to maintain livestock water supplies;
(v) Routine maintenance or
construction of fences for grazing
management;
(vi) Placement of mineral
supplements; and
(vii) Irrigation of agricultural crops,
fields, and livestock pastures.
(4) What activities are allowed on
airports on non-Federal lands?
Incidental take of the streaked horned
lark will not be a violation of section 9
of the Act, if the incidental take results
from routine management activities
associated with airport operations to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
minimize hazardous wildlife.
Hazardous wildlife is defined by the
Federal Aviation Administration as
species of wildlife, including feral
animals and domesticated animals not
under control, that are associated with
aircraft strike problems, are capable of
causing structural damage to airport
facilities, or act as attractants to other
wildlife that pose a strike hazard.
Routine management activities include,
but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Routine management, repair, and
maintenance of roads and runways
(does not include upgrades or
construction of new roads or runways);
(ii) Control and management of
vegetation (grass, weeds, shrubs, and
trees) through mowing, discing,
herbicide application, or burning
consistent with State Agency
recommendations;
(iii) Hazing of hazardous wildlife; and
(iv) Management of sources of forage,
water, and shelter to reduce the
attractiveness of the area around the
airport for hazardous wildlife.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Amend § 17.95 by:
(a) In paragraph (b), adding an entry
for ‘‘Streaked horned lark (Eremophila
alpestris strigata)’’ in the same order
that this species appears in the table in
§ 17.11(h) to read as follows; and
(b) In paragraph (i), by adding an
entry for ‘‘Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas editha taylori)’’ in the
same order that this species appears in
the table in § 17.11(h) to read as follows:
§ 17.95
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
*
(b) Birds.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila
alpestris strigata)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Mason, Pierce, Thurson, Grays
Harbor, Pacific Wahkiakum, and
Cowlitz Counties in Washington and
Clatsop, Columbia, Multhomah,
Yamhill, Polk, Marion, Linn, and Lane
Counties in Oregon, on the maps below.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62007
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark
consist of areas having a minimum of 16
percent bare ground that have sparse,
low-stature vegetation comprising
primarily grasses and forbs less than 13
in (33 cm) in height found in:
(i) Large (300-ac (120-ha)), flat (0–5
percent slope) areas within a landscape
context that provides visual access to
open areas such as open water or fields,
or
(ii) Areas smaller than described in
paragraph (2)(i) of this entry, but that
provide visual access to open areas such
as open water or fields.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal
boundaries on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER
THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE].
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data
layers defining the map unit were
created on 2010 aerial photography from
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
National Agriculture Imagery Program
base maps using ArcMap
(Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a computer geographic
information system (GIS) program. The
maps in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish
the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is
based are available to the public at the
Service’s internet site, (https://
www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov
(https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R1–ES–2012–0080) and at the
field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:35 Oct 10, 2012
(6) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
A: Sanderson Field, Mason County,
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
A, follows:
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.023</GPH>
62008
(7) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
B: McChord Field, Pierce County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62009
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
B: follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.024</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(8) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
C: Gray Army Airfield, Pierce County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
C follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.025</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62010
(9) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
D: 91st Division Prairie, Pierce County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62011
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
D follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.026</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(10) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit
1–E: 13th Division Prairie, Pierce
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1,
Subunit 1–E follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.027</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62012
(11) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit
1–F: Olympia Airport, Thurston County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62013
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
F follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.028</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(12) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–A:
Damon Point, Grays Harbor County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–
A follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.029</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62014
(13) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–B:
Midway Beach, Pacific County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62015
Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–
B follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.030</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(14) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–C:
Shoalwater, Pacific County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–
C follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.031</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62016
(15) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–D:
Leadbetter Point, Pacific County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62017
Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–
D follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.032</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(16) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–E:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Rice Island, Clatsop County, Oregon.
Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–E follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.033</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62018
(17) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–F:
Miller Sands Spit, Clatsop County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62019
Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–F
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.034</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(18) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–G:
Pillar Rock/Jim Crow Sands, Clatsop
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
County, Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit
3–G follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.035</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62020
(19) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–H:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62021
Welch Island, Clatsop County, Oregon.
Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–H follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.036</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(20) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–I:
Tenasillahe Island, Columbia County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–I
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.037</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62022
(21) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–J:
Coffeepot Island, Wahkiakum County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62023
Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–
J follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.038</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(22) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–K:
Whites/Brown Island, Wahkiakum
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
County, Washington. Map of Unit 3,
Subunit 3–K follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.039</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62024
(23) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–L:
Wallace Island, Columbia County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62025
Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–L
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.040</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(24) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–M:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Crims Island, Columbia County, Oregon.
Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–M follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.041</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62026
(25) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–N:
Sandy Island, Columbia County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62027
Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–N
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.042</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(26) Unit 3—Washington Coast and
Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–O:
Portland International Airport,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Multnomah County, Washington. Map
of Unit 3, Subunit 3–O follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.043</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62028
(27) Unit 4—Willamette Valley,
Subunit 4–A: McMinnville Municipal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62029
Airport, Yamhill County, Oregon. Map
of Unit 4, Subunit 4–A follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.044</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(28) Unit 4—Willamette Valley,
Subunit 4–B: Basket Slough National
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Wildlife Refuge, Polk County, Oregon.
Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4–B follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.045</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62030
(29) Unit 4—Willamette Valley,
Subunit 4–C: Salem Municipal Airport,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62031
Marion County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4,
Subunit 4–C follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.046</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(30) Unit 4—Willamette Valley,
Subunit 4–D: Ankeny National Wildlife
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Refuge, Marion County, Oregon. Map of
Unit 4, Subunit 4–D follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.047</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62032
(31) Unit 4—Willamette Valley,
Subunit 4–E: Corvallis Municipal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62033
Airport, Benton County, Oregon. Map of
Unit 4, Subunit 4–E follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.048</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(32) Unit 4—Willamette Valley,
Subunit 4–F: William L. Finley National
Wildlife Refuge, Benton County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4–F
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.049</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62034
(33) Unit 4—Willamette Valley,
Subunit 4–G: M–DAC Farms, Linn
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62035
County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit
4–G follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.050</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(34) Unit 4—Willamette Valley,
Subunit 4–H: Eugene Airport, Lane
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit
4–H follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.051</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62036
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Insects.
*
*
*
*
*
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas editha taylori)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Thurston, Pierce, Island, Clallam
Counties in Washington, and Benton
County, Oregon, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements of the physical or
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62037
biological features essential to the
conservation of Euphydryas editha
taylori consist of:
(i) Patches of early seral, shortstatured, perennial bunchgrass plant
communities composed of native grass
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.052</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
62038
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
and forb species in a diverse
topographic landscape ranging in size
from less than 1 ac up to 100 ac (0.4 to
40 ha) with little or no overstory forest
vegetation that have areas of bare soil
for basking that contain:
(A) In Washington and Oregon,
common bunchgrass species found on
northwest grasslands include Festuca
roemeri (Roemer’s fescue), Danthonia
californica (California oat grass),
Koeleria cristata (prairie Junegrass),
Elymus glaucus (blue wild rye), Agrostis
scabra (rough bentgrass), and on cooler,
high-elevation sites typical of coastal
bluffs and balds, Festuca rubra (red
fescue).
(B) On moist grasslands found near
the coast and in the Willamette Valley,
there may be Bromus sitchensis (Sitka
brome) and Deschampsia cespitosa
(tufted hairgrass) in the mix of prairie
grasses. Less abundant forbs found on
the grasslands include, but are not
limited to, Trifolium spp. (true clovers),
narrow-leaved plantain, harsh
paintbrush, Puget balsam root, woolly
sunshine, nine-leaved desert parsley,
fine-leaved desert parsley, common
camas, showy fleabane, Canada thistle,
common yarrow, prairie lupine, and
sickle-keeled lupine.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
(ii) Primary larval host plants
(narrow-leaved plantain and harsh
paintbrush) and at least one of the
secondary annual larval host plants
(blue-eyed Mary, sea blush, or dwarf
owl-clover) or one of several species of
speedwell (marsh speedwell, American
speedwell, or thymeleaf speedwell).
(iii) Adult nectar sources for feeding
that include several species found as
part of the native (and one nonnative)
species mix on northwest grasslands,
including: narrow-leaved plantain;
harsh paintbrush; Puget balsam root;
wooly sunshine; nine-leaved desert
parsley; fine-leaved desert parsley or
spring gold; common camas; showy
fleabane; Canada thistle; common
yarrow; prairie lupine; and sickle-keeled
lupine.
(iv) Aquatic features such as
wetlands, springs, seeps, streams,
ponds, lakes, and puddles that provide
moisture during periods of drought,
particularly late in the spring and early
summer. These features can be
permanent, seasonal, or ephemeral.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
boundaries on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER
THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE].
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data
layers defining the map unit were
created on 2010 aerial photography from
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
National Agriculture Imagery Program
base maps using ArcMap
(Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a computer geographic
information system (GIS) program. The
maps in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish
the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is
based are available to the public at the
Service’s internet site, (https://
www.fws.gov/wafwo/), the Federal
eRulemaking portal (https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R1–ES–2012–0080), and at the
field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
62039
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.053</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(6) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
A: TA7S, Pierce County, Washington.
Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–A follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(7) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
B: 91st Division Prairie, Pierce County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
B follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.054</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62040
(8) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
C: 13th Division Prairie, Pierce County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62041
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
C follows.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.055</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(9) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
D: Rocky Prairie, Thurston County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
D follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.056</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62042
(10) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
E; Tenalquot, Thurston County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62043
Washington. Map of Unit 1, South
Sound, Subunit 1–E follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.057</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(11) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
F: Mima Mounds/Glacial Heritage,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Thurston County, Washington. Map of
Unit 1, Subunit 1–F follows.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.058</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62044
(12) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
G: West Rocky Prairie, Thurston County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62045
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
G follows.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.059</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(13) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
H: Scatter Creek, Thurston County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
H follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.060</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62046
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
I follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.061</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(14) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
I: Rock Prairie, Thurston County,
62047
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(15) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
J: Bald Hills, Thurston County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
J follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.062</GPH>
62048
(16) Unit 2—Strait of Juan DeFuca,
Subunit 2–A: Deception Pass, Island
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62049
County, Washington. Map of Unit 2,
Subunit 2–A, follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.063</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(17) Unit 2—Strait of Juan DeFuca,
Subunit 2–B: Central Whidbey, Island
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
County, Washington. Map of Unit 2,
Subunit 2–B follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.064</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62050
(18) Unit 2—Strait of Juan DeFuca,
Subunit 2–C: Elwha, Clallam County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62051
Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2–
C follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.065</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(19) Unit 2—Strait of Juan DeFuca,
Subunit 2–D: Sequim, Clallam County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2–
D follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.066</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62052
(20) Unit 2—Strait of Juan DeFuca,
Subunit 2–E: Upper Dungeness, Clallam
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62053
County, Washington. Map of Unit 2,
Subunit 2- E, follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.067</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(21) Unit 4—Willamette Valley,
Subunit 4–A: Fort Hoskins Historic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Park, Benton County, Oregon. Map of
Unit 4, Subunit 4–A follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.068</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62054
(22) Unit 4—Willamette Valley,
Subunit 4–B: Beazell Memorial Forest,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
62055
Benton County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4,
Subunit 4–B follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.069</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(23) Unit 4: Willamette Valley,
Subunit 4–C: Fitton Green, Benton
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit
4–C, follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
EP11OC12.070</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
62056
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
62057
EP11OC12.071</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
62058
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
*
*
Dated: September 27, 2012.
Eileen Sobeck,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
*
[FR Doc. 2012–24465 Filed 10–10–12; 8:45 am]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM
11OCP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61937-62058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24465]
[[Page 61937]]
Vol. 77
Thursday,
No. 197
October 11, 2012
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Taylor's
Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked Horned Lark and Designation of
Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 61938]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R1-ES-2012-0080; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY18
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Taylor's
Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked Horned Lark and Designation of
Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly as an endangered species, and to list
the streaked horned lark as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We additionally propose to
designate critical habitat for these species. These determinations
fulfill our obligations under a settlement agreement. These are
proposed regulations, and if finalized, the effect of these regulations
will be to add these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species
Act.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 10, 2012. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by
November 26, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2012-0080, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2012-0080; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical
habitat maps are generated are included in the administrative record
for this rulemaking and are available at https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/,
www.regulations.gov at Docket No. [FWS-R1-ES-2012-0080], and at the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information that we may
develop for this rulemaking will also be available at the Fish and
Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and may also
be included in the preamble and/or at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken S. Berg, Manager, Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503, by telephone
(360) 753-9440, or by facsimile (360) 534-9331. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act
(Act), a species may warrant protection through listing if it is an
endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The species addressed in these proposed rules are
candidates for listing and, by virtue of a settlement agreement, we
must make a determination as to their present status under the Act.
These status changes can only be done by issuing a rulemaking. The
table below summarizes our determination for each of these candidate
species:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Present range Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, British Columbia, Canada; Proposed Endangered.
Euphydryas editha taylori. Clallam, Pierce, and Thurston
Counties, WA; and Benton
County, OR.
Streaked horned lark, Eremophila Grays Harbor, Mason, Pacific, Proposed Threatened.
alpestris strigata. Pierce, Thurston, Cowlitz,
and Wahkiakum Counties, WA;
Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop,
Columbia, Lane, Linn, Marion,
Multnomah, Polk, Washington,
and Yamhill Counties, OR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we may
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based
on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
For those species for which we are proposing listing, we have
determined that these species are impacted by one or more of the
following factors to the extent that the species meets the definition
of an endangered or threatened species under the Act:
Habitat loss through conversion and degradation of
habitat, particularly from agricultural and urban development,
successional changes to grassland habitat, military training, and the
spread of invasive plants;
Predation;
Inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms that allow
significant threats such as habitat loss;
Other natural or manmade factors, including low genetic
diversity, small or isolated populations, low reproductive success, and
declining population sizes;
Aircraft strikes and training at airports; and
Pesticide use or control as a pest species.
In this rule we propose to designate critical habitat for these
species. We are proposing to designate critical habitat for the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark in Washington
and Oregon as follows:
Approximately 6,875 acres (ac) (2,782 hectares (ha)) are
proposed for designation as critical habitat for the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly.
Approximately 12,159 ac (4,920 ha) are proposed for
designation as critical habitat for the streaked horned lark.
The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we are
required to designate critical habitat for any species that is
determined to be endangered or threatened. We are required to base the
designation on the best available scientific data after taking into
consideration economic, national security, and other relevant impacts.
An area may be excluded from the final designation of critical habitat
if the
[[Page 61939]]
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species.
We are proposing to promulgate special rules. We are considering
whether to exempt from the Act's take prohibitions (at section 9),
existing maintenance activities and agricultural practices located on
private and Tribal lands where the streaked horned lark occurs. The
intent of this special rule would be to increase support for the
conservation of the streaked horned lark and provide an incentive for
continued management activities that benefit this species and its
habitat.
We are preparing an economic analysis. To ensure that we fully
consider the economic impacts, we are preparing a draft economic
analysis of the proposed designations of critical habitat. We will
publish an announcement and seek public comments on the draft economic
analysis when it is completed.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
technical assumptions, analysis of the best available science, and
application of that science or to provide any additional scientific
information to improve these proposed rules. Because we will consider
all comments and information received during the comment period, our
final determinations may differ from this proposal.
We are seeking public comment on this proposed rule. Anyone is
welcome to comment on our proposal or provide additional information on
the proposal that we can use in making a final determination on the
status of this species. Please submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. Within 1 year following the publication of this
proposal, we will publish in the Federal Register a final determination
concerning the listing of the species and the designation of its
critical habitat or withdraw the proposal if new information is
provided that supports that decision.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats;
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its
habitat;
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate areas as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to any of these species from
human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to
the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the
benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat
may not be prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark;
(b) What areas that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species should be included in the designation and
why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark, and on proposed critical habitat.
(10) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families,
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(12) Additional information pertaining to the promulgation of a
special rule to exempt take of the streaked horned lark on civilian
airports, agricultural fields, and tribal lands under section 4(d) of
the Act.
(13) Whether any populations of the streaked horned lark should be
considered separately for listing as a distinct population segment
(DPS), and if so, the justification for how that population meets the
criteria for a DPS under the Service's Policy Regarding the Recognition
of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species
Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996).
(14) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you
[[Page 61940]]
send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
Candidate History
We first identified the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the
streaked horned lark as candidates for listing in the 2001 Notice of
Review of Native Species that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered
or Threatened (CNOR) (USFWS 2001). All candidate species are assigned
listing priority numbers (LPN) that are based on the immediacy and
magnitude of threats and taxonomic status. In 2001, both of these
species were assigned an LPN of 6, which reflects threats of a high
magnitude that are not considered imminent.
In 2004, based on new information, we determined that the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly faced imminent threats of a high magnitude and
reassigned it an LPN of 3 (69 FR 24876; May 4, 2004). In 2006, the
streaked horned lark was also reassigned an LPN of 3. During our review
we determined that the continued loss of suitable lark habitat, risks
to the wintering populations; and plans for development, hazing, and
military training activities (71 FR 53755; September 12, 2006) were
imminent threats to the subspecies. The candidate status for Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark was most recently
reaffirmed in the October 26, 2011, CNOR (USFWS 2011). The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) completed action plans for Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark and set conservation
targets and identified actions to achieve those targets over the next 5
years. These plans can be found on the Service's Web site at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/action_plans/doc3089.pdf (Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly) and https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/STHL_Action%20Plan_Sept2009.pdf (streaked horned lark).
Petition History
In 2001, we developed internal, discretionary candidate assessment
documents for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned
lark. These candidate assessments were published in the Federal
Register on October 30, 2001 (USFWS 2001). On December 10, 2002, we
received two separate petitions for these species. The first was from
the Xerces Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Natural
Resources Council, Friends of the San Juans, and Northwest Ecosystem
Alliance to list the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly (also known as
``whulge checkerspot'') (Euphydryas editha taylori) as endangered. The
petitioners requested that critical habitat be designated. We also
received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends
of the San Juans, Oregon Natural Resources Council, and Northwest
Ecosystem Alliance requesting that we list the streaked horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris strigata) as endangered and designate critical
habitat concurrent with the listing. Because the Service had already
determined that these species warranted listing and placed them on the
candidate list in 2001, we have been evaluating these species as
resubmitted petition findings on an annual basis. On July 12, 2011, the
Service filed a multiyear work plan as part of a proposed settlement
agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity and others, in a
consolidated case in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. The settlement agreement was approved by the court on
September 9, 2011, and will enable the Service to systematically review
and address the conservation needs of more than 250 candidate species,
over a period of 6 years, including the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
and streaked horned lark. These proposed rules fulfill, in part, the
terms of that settlement agreement.
Background
We discuss below only those topics directly relevant to the
proposed listing of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked
horned lark in this section of the proposed rule.
Species Information--Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies are medium-sized, colorfully
marked butterflies with a checkerboard pattern on the upper (dorsal)
side of the wings (Pyle 2002, p. 310). They are orange with black and
yellowish (or white) spot bands, giving a checkered appearance (Pyle
1981, p. 607; Pyle 2002, p. 310). Taylor's checkerspot butterflies were
historically known to occur in British Columbia, Washington, and
Oregon, and current distribution has been reduced from over 80
locations rangewide to 14. Taylor's checkerspot butterflies produce one
brood per year. They overwinter (diapause) in the fourth or fifth
larval instar (developmental) phase and have a flight period as adults
of 10 to 14 days, usually in May, although depending on local site and
climatic conditions, the flight period begins in late April and extends
into early July, as in Oregon, where the flight season may last for up
to 45 days (Ross 2008, p. 2).
Taxonomy
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is a subspecies of Edith's
checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha). The Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly was originally described by W.H. Edwards (1888) from
specimens collected from Beacon Hill Park in Victoria, British Columbia
(BC). Euphydryas editha taylori is recognized as a valid subspecies by
the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2012a). It is one of
several rare and threatened subspecies, including the Bay checkerspot
(E. e. bayensis) from the San Francisco Bay area and the Quino
checkerspot (E. e. quino) from the San Diego, California, region; both
are federally listed as endangered species. Several other subspecies of
Euphydryas editha are known to occur in Washington and Oregon,
including Bean's checkerspot (E. e. beani) known from the north
Cascades of Washington; Strand's checkerspot (E. e. edithana) in the
foothills of the Columbia Basin, including the low hills of the Blue
Mountains in Washington and the Wallowa Mountains in Oregon, primarily
east of where other subspecies are known; and Colonia checkerspot (E.
e. colonia) known from high-elevation sites of the Olympic Peninsula
and the Cascades of Washington and Oregon from the Wenatchee Mountains
in Washington to the Siskiyou Mountains in Oregon.
Habitat and Life History
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies occupy open habitat dominated by
[[Page 61941]]
grassland vegetation throughout their range. In Washington, Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies inhabit glacial outwash prairies in the south
Puget Sound region; shallow-soil balds (a bald is a small opening on
slopes in a treeless area, dominated by herbaceous vegetation)
(Chappell 2006 p. 1) and grasses, within a forested landscape,
roadsides, and former clear-cut areas within a forested matrix on the
northeast Olympic Peninsula, and a coastal stabilized dune site near
the Straits of Juan de Fuca (Stinson 2005, pp. 93-96). The two Oregon
sites are found in the vicinity of Corvallis, Benton County, on
grassland hills in the Willamette Valley (Vaughan and Black 2002, p. 7;
Ross 2008, p. 1; Benton County 2010, Appendix N, p. 5). The recently
discovered population on Denman Island in Canada (for details, see
Current Range and Distribution, below), discovered in May 2005,
occupies an area that had been clear-cut harvested, and is now
dominated by, and maintained as, grass and forb vegetation. This is the
first record for the species in British Columbia since 1998 (Heron
2008, pers. comm.; Page et al. 2009, p. 1). In British Columbia,
Canada, Taylor's checkerspot butterflies were historically known to
occupy coastal grassland habitat, not forests that were converted to
early successional conditions by clear-cutting, on Vancouver Island and
nearby islands.
Female Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and their larvae utilize
plants that contain defensive chemicals known as iridoid glycosides,
which have been recognized to influence the selection of oviposition
sites by adult nymphalid butterflies (butterflies in the family
Nymphalidae) (Murphy et al. 2004, p. 22; Page et al. 2009, p. 2), and
function as a feeding stimulant for some checkerspot larvae (Kuussaari
et al. 2004, p. 147). As maturing larvae feed, they accumulate these
defensive chemical compounds from their larval host plants into their
bodies. According to the work of Bowers (1981, pp. 373-374), this
accumulation appears to deter predation. These larval host plants
include members of the Broomrape family (Orobanchaceae), such as
Castilleja (paintbrushes) and Orthocarpus = Tryphysaria (owl's clover),
and native and nonnative Plantago species, which are members of the
Plantain family (Plantaginaceae) (Pyle 2002, p. 311; Vaughan and Black
2002, p. 8). The recent rediscovery in 2005 of Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies in Canada indicated that additional food plants (Veronica
serpyllifolia (thymeleaf speedwell) and V. beccabunga ssp. Americana
(American speedwell)) were being utilized by Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly larvae (Heron 2008, pers. comm.; Page et al. 2009, p. 2).
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly larvae had previously been confirmed
feeding on Plantago lanceolata (narrow-leaf plantain) and P. maritime
(sea plantain) in British Columbia (Guppy and Shepard 2001, p. 311),
narrow-leaf plantain and Castilleja hispida (harsh paintbrush) in
Washington (Char and Boersma 1995, p. 29; Pyle 2002, p. 311; Severns
and Grosboll 2011, p. 4), and feed exclusively on narrow-leaf plantain
in Oregon (Dornfeld 1980, p. 73; Ross 2008, pers. comm.; Severns and
Warren 2008, p. 476). Dr. Robert Michael Pyle has speculated that
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly larvae likely fed upon the threatened
Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) in historical times when both
species were more widespread and sympatric (overlapped) in their
distribution (Pyle 2002, p. 311; Pyle 2007, pers. comm.).
Historical Range and Distribution
Historically, Taylor's checkerspot butterfly was likely distributed
throughout grassland habitat found on prairies, shallow-soil balds,
grassland bluffs, and grassland openings within a forested matrix in
south Vancouver Island, northern Olympic Peninsula, the Puget Sound,
and the Willamette Valley. The historical range and abundance of the
species are not precisely known because extensive searches for Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly did not occur until recently. Northwest prairies
were formerly more common, larger, and interconnected, and would likely
have supported a greater distribution and abundance of Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies than prairie habitat does today. According to
Pyle (2012, in litt.):
``Euphydryas editha taylori was previously more widely
distributed and much denser in occurrence than is presently the case
on the Puget Prairies. The checkerspot was abundant on the Mima
Mounds National Area Preserve (NAP) and surrounding prairies in
1970. In the mid-eighties, the butterflies flew by the thousands on
Rock Prairie, a private farm property west of Tenino. All of these
sites have since been rendered unsuitable for E. e. taylori through
management changes, and the butterfly has dropped out of them;
meanwhile, many other colonies have disappeared in their vicinity
through outright development or conversion of the habitat. The same
is true for bluff-top colonies I knew in the early '70s at
Dungeness. The ongoing loss and alteration of habitat in the western
Washington grasslands has without question led to the shrinkage of
Taylor's checkerspot occurrences from a regional constellation to a
few small clusters.''
Before recent declines over roughly the last 10 or 15 years the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly was known from an estimated 80
locations: 24 in British Columbia, 43 in Washington, and 13 in Oregon
(Hinchliff 1996, p. 115; Shepard 2000, pp. 25-26; Vaughan and Black
2002, p. 6; Stinson 2005, pp. 93-96, 123-124). These sites included
coastal and inland prairies on southern Vancouver Island and
surrounding islands in the Straits of Georgia, British Columbia and the
San Juan Island archipelago (Hinchliff 1996, p. 115; Pyle 2002, p.
311), as well as open prairies on post-glacial gravelly outwash and
shallow-soil balds in Washington's Puget Trough (Potter 2010, p. 1),
the north Olympic Peninsula (Holtrop 2010, p. 1), and grassland habitat
within a forested matrix in Oregon's Willamette Valley (Benton County
2010, Appendix N, p. 5).
The 1949 field season summary for North American lepidoptera
(Hopfinger 1949, p. 89) states that an abundant distribution of
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly was known from the south Puget Sound
prairies: ``Euphydryas editha (taylori), as usual, appeared by the
thousands on Tenino Prairie.'' By 1989, Pyle (p. 170) had reported that
there were fewer than 15 populations remaining rangewide. Surveys in
2001 and 2002 of the three historical locations on Hornby Island,
British Columbia, failed to detect any Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies; the last observation of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
from this location was 1995 (Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2011, p. 15). By fall 2002, only six
populations were known to occur rangewide, four from the south Puget
Sound region in Washington, one from San Juan County, Washington, and
one from the Willamette Valley of Oregon (USFWS 2002a).
Current Range and Distribution
Based on historical and current data, the distribution and
abundance of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies have declined
significantly rangewide with the majority of local extirpations
occurring from approximately the mid-1990s in Canada (COSEWIC 2011, p.
15), 1999-2004 in south Puget Sound, and around 2006 at the Bald Hills
location. Several new locations harboring Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies have been rediscovered on historical sites on Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) lands (USFWS 2004, pp. 3-4;
USFWS 2007, p. 5) and have also been found at new locations on natural
and manipulated balds within the upper
[[Page 61942]]
Dungeness River watershed in Washington. Currently 13 individual
populations of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies are known to occur;
these populations are distributed in British Columbia, Canada (1),
Washington (10), and Oregon (2).
Nearly all localities for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies in
British Columbia have been lost; the only location currently known from
British Columbia was discovered in 2005 (COSEWIC 2011, p. iv). In
Oregon, although many surveys have been conducted at a variety of
historical and potential locations within the Willamette Valley, many
of those have failed to detect the species; the number of locations
occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies has declined from 13 to 2
(Ross 2011, in litt., p. 1). In Washington State, more than 43
historical locales were documented for Taylor's. In 2012, we have 11
documented locations for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies with only 1
of the localities harboring more than 1,000 individuals, and the
majority of known sites have daily counts of fewer than 100 individual
butterflies.
Due to the limited distribution and few populations of Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly, surveys for this species are quite thorough,
generally consisting of a minimum of 3 days of visits during the flight
period, and occasionally numbering up to 10 or 12 days of counts.
Multiple days of counts during the annual flight period greatly
increases the reliability of abundance data for butterflies, thus we
believe the data on numbers of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies to be
highly reliable.
Canada
After years of surveys (2001 through 2004) at historical population
sites in British Columbia that failed to detect Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 15-16), a population was discovered on
Denman Island in 2005. Denman Island is located approximately 106 miles
(170 km) north of Victoria, British Columbia, along the eastern shores
of Vancouver Island in the Straits of Georgia. Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly records from British Columbia date from 1888 through 2011,
when the last survey was conducted. Surveys are regularly conducted on
Vancouver Island and other historical locations (Page et al. 2009, p.
iv). In 2008, a single Taylor's checkerspot butterfly was detected on
Vancouver Island in the Courtney-Comox area, where they had not been
observed since 1931 (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 15-16). Additional surveys were
conducted at this location and only the single butterfly was observed.
It is likely that this single adult had dispersed from the Denman
Island population located approximately 0.3 mi (0.5 km) away. As of
2012, the only existing known population for Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies in Canada is on Denman Island (Page et al. 2009, p. 2;
COSEWIC 2011, p. iv).
Washington
In Washington, surveys have been conducted annually for Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies in currently and historically occupied sites.
Surveys on south Puget Sound prairies have been conducted from 1997
through 2011 by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW),
WDNR, The Nature Conservancy of Washington (now the Center for Natural
Lands Management), and personnel from the Wildlife Branch of Joint Base
Lewis-McChord (JBLM; formerly known as Fort Lewis). In 1994, a report
from Char and Boersma (1995) indicated the presence of Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies on the 13th Division Prairie on JBLM; no
additional locations have been reported since 1999, when a handful of
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies were observed by WDFW (Hays et al.
2000, p. 13). Surveys have been conducted annually in this area since
2000; however, no Taylor's checkerspot butterflies have been detected
during the spring flight period (Ressa 2003, pp. 7, 14; Gilbert 2004,
p. 5; Linders 2012c, in litt.). Taylor's checkerspot butterflies are
believed to be extirpated from the 13th Division Prairie at JBLM
(Linders 2012c, in litt.).
Four other populations in Thurston County (Glacial Heritage,
Scatter Creek north and south units, and Rocky Prairie NAP) had
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies present in 1997. No adult Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies were observed during surveys conducted in 1998
and 1999 at these locations (Hays et al. 2000, p. 13; Stinson 2005, p.
95). Subsequent annual surveys at these four sites have not detected
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies (with the exception of two sites where
the butterfly has recently been translocated (Linders and Olson 2011,
p. 17; Bidwell 2012, pers. comm.)).
Four historical locales for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies were
permanently lost in the south Puget Sound region to development
(Dupont, JBLM Training Area 7S, Spanaway, and Lakewood in Pierce
County) or conversion to agriculture (Rock Prairie in Thurston County)
(Stinson 2005, pp. 93-96). In addition, several older Washington
specimens are labeled with general or imprecise locality names on their
collection labels (e.g., Olympia 1893; Tenino 1929; Shelton 1971,
Dungeness 1999) (Stinson 2005, pp. 94-95). Some of these site names may
refer to unknown or currently occupied locales but due to their
imprecise nature, the true location of these potential populations has
not been determined.
Surveys of 15 prairies within the south Puget Sound landscape in
2001 and 2002 located Taylor's checkerspot butterflies on only 4 sites
in Thurston and Pierce Counties (Stinson 2005, pp. 93-96). Three of the
four sites were found in the Bald Hill landscape in Southeast Thurston
County. Taylor's checkerspot butterflies were documented at the Bald
Hills through 2007, but there have been no detections since, despite
regular and thorough surveying from 2001 through 2011 (Potter 2011, p.
3). This number has declined substantially in recent years as habitat
has become increasingly shaded and modified by encroaching trees,
nonnative grasses, and the invasive, nonnative shrub Scot's broom
(Cytisus scoparius). Potter (2010, p. 1) reported multiple site visits
to conduct redundant surveys in formerly occupied bald habitats during
the 2008-2010 flight period with no Taylor's checkerspot butterflies
observed. The species is presumed to be extirpated from this location.
The 91st Division Prairie is located on JBLM on the eastern edge of
the approximately 6,000 acre (2,400 ha) prairie. The largest current
populations of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly within the south Puget
Sound have been observed here, and have served as the source
populations for the collection of larvae for captive breeding to
support translocation efforts. Several small, discrete patches of
habitat are occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies. The close
proximity of these patches indicates that a relatively robust
population (more than 1,000 butterflies surveyed in a single day in
2006) is likely present at JBLM.
In the course of conducting surveys for another rare grassland-
associated butterfly found in Washington, the island marble (Euchloe
ausonides insulanus), over 150 potential grassland locations were
surveyed for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in the north Puget Sound
region during spring of 2005 through the spring of 2011 (Miskelly 2005;
Potter et al. 2011) where historical locales for Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies exist (Pyle 1989, p. 170). Although the flight periods and
habitat of both butterflies overlap, no Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies were found during these surveys.
[[Page 61943]]
Several historical sites with potentially suitable habitat were
surveyed on the north Olympic Peninsula (Clallam County) during spring
2003. Taylor's checkerspot butterfly was found to occupy five locations
in this geographic area in 2003. At one historical site near the mouth
of the Dungeness River, only a few individuals were detected. However,
no Taylor's checkerspot butterflies were detected at this location
during surveys from 2005 through 2009 (McMillan 2007, pers. comm.;
Potter 2012, pers. comm.). The other four populations were found on
grassy openings on shallow-soiled bald habitat west of the Elwha River.
Two of these sites were estimated to support at least 50 to 100 adult
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies (Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley), and
just a few individuals were found at the two other bald sites (Striped
Peak and Highway 112) (Hays 2011, p. 1). Subsequent surveys at the
latter two sites, Striped Peak and Highway 112, from 2004-2011, have
failed to relocate or detect any Taylor's checkerspot butterflies.
In 2006 a population was discovered near the town of Sequim.
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies have since been detected annually at
this location from 2006-2011 (Hays 2009, pers. comm.; Hays 2011, p.
29). At this site, Taylor's checkerspot butterflies inhabit
approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of estuarine, deflation plain (or back
beach), a road with restricted use, and farm-edge habitat. In 2010, a
maximum count of 568 Taylor's checkerspot butterflies was recorded on a
single day (April 3, 2010); normally peak daily counts from this
location range from 50 to 240 individuals (Hays 2011, p. 29).
Since 2007, three new Taylor's checkerspot butterfly populations
have been found in Clallam County on Olympic National Forest lands. All
three sites are located in the Dungeness River watershed: Bear
Mountain, Three O'Clock Ridge, and Upper Dungeness (Holtrop 2009, p.
2). The Forest Service and WDFW are currently monitoring butterfly
numbers at these sites annually. As of 2012, a total of six occupied
sites are known from Clallam County: Sequim, Eden Valley, Bear
Mountain, Three O'Clock Ridge, and Upper Dungeness.
Oregon
All of the 13 historical locales within the Willamette Valley of
western Oregon have been surveyed regularly by local lepidopterists
(McCorkle 2008, pers. comm.; Ross 2005: Stinson 2005, p. 124; Benton
County 2010, p. 13; Potter 2012, pers. comm.). Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies were formerly reported to exist in large numbers (``swarms
on the meadows beside Oak Creek'') on the upland prairies of the
Willamette Valley in Lane, Benton, and Polk Counties (Dornfeld 1980, p.
73). Now only remnant populations exist in Oregon. In 1999, Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies were discovered along the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) right-of-way corridor in an area known as Fitton
Green in Benton County. In 2004 surveys for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly were expanded in the Willamette Valley where a second
population was discovered on grassland openings within the Beazell
Memorial Forest in Benton County. These two locations for Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly are currently the only occupied patches known
from Oregon.
Population Estimates/Status
There is little historical information on population estimates for
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and the survey techniques used for
monitoring have differed over time. Early surveys at most locations
were done using Pollard transect sampling methodology. Prior to
implementing distance sampling as the accepted survey method for
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies, population sizes were determined by
tallying the number of all butterflies observed in a day and this was
expressed as the maximum day count for a population at a specific site.
During the survey season from 2007 through 2011, WDFW implemented
distance sampling methods to estimate abundance at the site in
Washington on JBLM. Distance sampling involves establishing permanent
transects over a proportion of the survey area to determine the
probability of detecting the butterfly. This number is used to
calculate abundance (Marques 2009). Because Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly population numbers change daily due to emergence and
mortality of individuals, density estimates were computed by survey
date (Linders and Olson 2011, p. 11). Although the sampling methods
have changed over the years, we believe they are useful in providing a
general estimate of population trend information. Additionally, since
2007, a consistent survey method for distance sampling has been
implemented throughout most of the range, providing reliable annual
information.
Canada
The recently discovered population in British Columbia (BC) was
confirmed by the invertebrate specialist for the BC Ministry of the
Environment (Heron 2008, pers. comm.). A total of 12 adults were
observed on Denman Island during 2005 (Table 1) (Page et. al. 2009, p.
1). We have no reports regarding counts for 2006 surveys. However, in
2007, more than 600 butterflies were detected and tallied from this
location during the entire survey effort (Heron 2008, p. 5). Surveys at
this location in 2008 detected 324 Taylor's checkerspot butterflies
(Page et al. 2009, p. 17). In 2009, a mark-recapture study of Taylor's
was conducted on Denman Island. Over 1,200 butterflies were marked and
45 were recaptured. Based on this study the population was estimated at
13,000 individual butterflies; however, this estimate is likely
exaggerated and inaccurate since the survey efforts were not consistent
over the course of the study (COSEWIC 2011, p. 38). During the same
flight period in 2009, an additional 950 individuals were observed on
Denman Island (COSEWIC 2011, p. 38). Only 12 butterflies were observed
in 2011 by the same surveyors using identical methods at the same
location.
Washington
In Washington State, more than 43 historical locales were
documented as having Taylor's checkerspot butterfly populations. In
2012, there are only 11 documented populations, with only 1 of the
sites harboring more than 1,000 individuals at any time and the
majority of known sites yielding daily counts of fewer than 100
individual butterflies. These locations are as follows: Striped Peak,
Highway 112, Sequim, Eden Valley, Dan Kelly Ridge, Bear Mountain, Three
O'Clock Ridge, Upper Dungeness, 91st Division Prairie on JBLM, Scatter
Creek Wildlife Area, and the Bald Hills.
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies have been surveyed annually on the
northeastern Olympic peninsula since 2003. Striped Peak, located on
WNDR lands, supported Taylor's checkerspot butterflies as early as
1985. Between 2003 and 2005, only a few adult butterflies were observed
by WDFW personnel at Striped Peak and a second site known as Highway
112. No butterflies have been observed at the Striped Peak or Highway
112 locations since that time (McMillan 2009, pers. comm.; Hays 2011,
p. 1). Both sites are being encroached by Pseudotsuga menziesii
(Douglas-fir) native shrubs, and the invasive shrub Scot's broom
(Thomas 2011, pers. obs.).
In 2006, at the Sequim population, as many as 100 butterflies were
detected on a single day; however, on many days fewer butterflies were
observed (McMillan 2007, pers. comm.). In spring 2007, researchers
detected 100 to 200 butterflies on peak days. Both larvae and adults
were present at this site in
[[Page 61944]]
2007 and 2008 (Potter 2012b, in litt.). At Eden Valley, up to 60
butterflies had been detected on a single day survey prior to surveys
in 2006, but fewer than 30 were detected during the 2006 surveys.
During surveys conducted between 2007 and 2011, maximum daily counts
ranged between 50 and 538 individuals (Potter 2012b, in litt.).
On Dan Kelly Ridge, as many as 50 butterflies were detected during
surveys on a single day in 2006. This is a large, linear site with a
ridgeline road greater than 2 miles (3.2 km) long; grassland habitat
with larval food plants are found along the road margins and in forest
openings on steep south facing slopes where shallow-soil balds support
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies. Between 2007 and 2010, maximum daily
counts ranged from 60 to 100 butterflies. Surveys were not conducted at
this site in 2011.
In 2007, on Three O'Clock Ridge in the upper Dungeness watershed of
Olympic National Forest, a small number (two) of Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies were first detected (Holtrop 2010, p. 1). This site was
surveyed in 2008 by Forest Service and WDFW personnel who detected 12
adult butterflies (Holtrop 2010, p. 1). In 2009, approximately 300 ac
(121 ha) of suitable habitat were surveyed (Holtrop 2010, p. 5) and two
new populations were discovered, at Upper Dungeness and Bear Mountain.
Maximum single day counts ranged from 40 to 69 butterflies at the Three
O'Clock Ridge, Upper Dungeness, and Bear Mountain. These sites have
supported Taylor's checkerspot butterflies consistently since their
discovery (Holtrop 2010, p. 13).
The largest known population of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is
located on the 91st Division Prairie at JBLM where a high complement of
larval and nectar host plants exist. During the 2005 and 2006 flight
seasons (Combs 2005, p. 8; Wolford 2006, pp. 18-20), more than 1,000
individuals were detected on maximum single day counts and hundreds of
individuals were observed throughout the flight season (Combs 2005, p.
8; Wolford 2006, pp. 18 and 20). Surveys in spring 2007 detected
slightly lower numbers despite the high survey effort. In 2007, the
single-day maximum count for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies was 637
(Wolford et al. 2007, p. 8). This decrease in butterfly numbers was
observed elsewhere for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in Thurston
County during 2007, and is likely related to weather conditions that
year. In 2008, detections at 91st Division Prairie indicated a further
decline to 187 butterflies, a 37 percent decline from the 2007 surveys
(Linders 2012, in litt.).
During 10 surveys conducted in the spring of 2009 at 91st Division
Prairie, 77 individual butterflies were counted as a maximum daily
count (Linders 2009a, entire; Thomas 2009b, pers. obs.). Spring counts
in 2009, 2010, and in 2011 showed a general trend of increasing
observations at this site, apparently because of a rebound in larval
food plants along the roads margins used by military training vehicles,
and from repeated and frequent fires caused by military training
exercises. Oviposition on larval host plants (narrow-leaf plantain)
near road margins was observed at all known Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly locations in Washington State (Severns and Grosboll 2011, p.
66).
Experimental introductions of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies have
been attempted in the south Puget Sound region. In 2006, Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly larvae were placed out at four locations in
Thurston and Pierce County: (1) In March 2006, larvae were released at
Glacial Heritage Preserve, a Thurston County park; (2) in June 2006,
larvae were placed at two locations on JBLM (Training Area 7 South (TA
7S) and 13th Division Prairie); and (3) at the Scatter Creek Wildlife
area in Thurston County. None of these initial test releases resulted
in observations of adult butterflies at these locations during the
subsequent flight season (Linders 2007, p. vi). A subsequent release of
199 larvae in March 2007 at Scatter Creek Wildlife Area resulted in 11
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly observations there in May 2007 (Linders
2007, p. 18).
Based on this early success with captive rearing of larvae, an
additional 340 larvae were placed at Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in
March 2008. A peak daily count of 16 adult Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies were documented at this location in 2008 (Linders 2011c).
In 2009, Linders released approximately 2,250 post-diapause larvae onto
suitable habitat at Scatter Creek Wildlife Areas and 13th Division
Prairie on JBLM, which resulted in 48 observations of adult butterflies
and a peak day count of 36 adults at Scatter Creek South, two adults at
Scatter Creek North and 1 individual at 13th Division Prairie on JBLM
(Linders 2010, in litt., entire). In 2010, 155 adult butterflies were
detected at Scatter Creek Wildlife Area, and 207 adults were detected
(counted) at Range 50 on JBLM (Linders and Olson 2011, p. 23). During
late winter of 2010, a total of 2,036 post-diapause larvae were
released onto restored prairie habitat at Scatter Creek Wildlife Area
and Range 50 on the 91st Division Prairie on JBLM in the south Puget
Sound region (Linders and Olson 2011, p. 17. During distance survey
counts in 2011, 84 adult butterflies were counted at Scatter Creek
Wildlife Area, and 903 adults were counted at Range 50 on the 91st
Division Prairie on JBLM (Linders and Olson 2011, p. 23).
Surveys of private property and WDNR-managed land in the Bald Hill
area in 2006 detected only a few individual Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies during any given survey day on each of the primary balds.
Reports and personal observation indicate that the density and
composition of larval host plants have declined at the Bald Hills area
and portions of some of the balds have been invaded by Douglas-fir and
other shrub species, including Scot's broom, thus reducing the area and
suitability of habitat (Potter 2011, p. 1). Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies have not been detected in the Bald Hills area since 2007,
despite intensive survey efforts in 2008 and 2011 (Potter 2011, p. 1).
This population of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is presumed to be
extirpated.
Oregon
In Oregon, Taylor's checkerspot butterflies are known from two
locations in the Willamette Valley of Benton County, Beazell Memorial
Park (BMP) and Fitton Green Natural Area. Annually, population
estimates at these two sites have varied from greater than 1,200
butterflies at Fitton Green in 2005 to as few as 150 butterflies in
2006 at BMP (Ross, 2010, pp. 4, 6; Ross 2011, in litt.). During spring
of 2010, the flight period began later than normally, due to cool, wet
weather that persisted over much of the Pacific Northwest. In 2011, the
flight season for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in Oregon began later
than any year since surveys commenced (Ross 2012, p. 3). In 2010 and
2011, total population counts were 991 and 516 for Fitton Green (Ross
2012, p. 4), and 849 and 223 for the BMP location (Ross 2012, p. 6),
respectively.
Species Information--Streaked Horned Lark
The streaked horned lark is endemic to the Pacific Northwest
(British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon; Altman 2011, p. 196) and is
a subspecies of the wide-ranging horned lark (Eremophila alpestris).
Horned larks are small, ground-dwelling birds, approximately 16-20
centimeters (6-8 inches) in length (Beason 1995, p. 2). Adults are pale
brown, but shades of
[[Page 61945]]
brown vary geographically among the subspecies. The male's face has a
yellow wash in most subspecies. Adults have a black bib, black whisker
marks, black ``horns'' (feather tufts that can be raised or lowered),
and black tail feathers with white margins (Beason 1995, p. 2).
Juveniles lack the black face pattern and are varying shades of gray,
from almost white to almost black with a silver-speckled back (Beason
1995, p. 2). The streaked horned lark has a dark brown back, yellowish
underparts, a walnut brown nape and yellow eyebrow stripe and throat
(Beason 1995, p. 4). This subspecies is conspicuously more yellow
beneath and darker on the back than almost all other subspecies of
horned lark. The combination of small size, dark brown back, and yellow
underparts distinguishes this subspecies from all adjacent forms.
Taxonomy
The horned lark is found throughout the northern hemisphere (Beason
1995, p. 1); it is the only true lark (Family Alaudidae, Order
Passeriformes) native to North America (Beason 1995, p. 1). There are
42 subspecies of horned lark worldwide (Clements et al. 2011, entire).
Twenty-one subspecies of horned larks are found in North America; 15
subspecies occur in western North America (Beason 1995, p. 4).
Subspecies of horned larks are based primarily on differences in color,
body size, and wing length. Molecular analysis has further borne out
these morphological distinctions (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 875).
Western populations of horned larks are generally paler and smaller
than eastern and northern populations (Beason 1995, p. 3). The streaked
horned lark was first described as Otocorys alpestris strigata by
Henshaw (1884, pp. 261-264, 267-268); the type locality was Fort
Steilacoom, Washington (Henshaw 1884, p. 267). There are four other
breeding subspecies of horned larks in Washington and Oregon: Pallid
horned lark (E. a. alpina), dusky horned lark (E. a. merrilli), Warner
horned lark (E. a. lamprochroma), and arctic horned lark (E. a.
articola) (Marshall et al. 2003, p. 426; Wahl et al. 2005, p. 268).
None of these other subspecies breed within the range of the streaked
horned lark, but all four subspecies frequently overwinter in mixed
species flocks in the Willamette Valley (Marshall et al. 2003, pp. 425-
427).
Drovetski et al. (2005, p. 877) evaluated the genetic
distinctiveness, conservation status, and level of genetic diversity of
the streaked horned lark using the complete mitochondrial ND2 gene.
Samples from 32 streaked horned larks in western Washington and 66
horned larks from Alaska, alpine Washington, eastern Washington,
eastern Oregon, and California were analyzed. The 30 haplotypes
identified from the 98 horned larks formed three clades: Pacific
Northwest (alpine and eastern Washington, Alaska), Pacific Coast (Puget
Sound and Washington coast) and coastal California), and Great Basin
(Oregon) (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 880)).
Streaked horned larks were closely related to the California
samples and only distantly related to the three closest localities
(alpine Washington, eastern Washington, and Oregon); only one of the
eastern Washington individuals shared the streaked horned lark
haplotype, indicating a single example of gene flow from western
Washington to eastern Washington (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 880). There
was no evidence of immigration into the streaked horned lark range from
any of the sampled localities. Analyses indicate that the streaked
horned lark population is well-differentiated and isolated from all
other sampled localities, including coastal California, and has
``remarkably low genetic diversity'' (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 875).
All 32 streaked horned lark individuals shared the same haplotype with
no variation between sequences compared. All other localities had
multiple haplotypes despite smaller sample sizes (Drovetski et al.
2005, pp. 879-880).
The lack of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity exhibited by
streaked horned larks is consistent with a population bottleneck
(Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881). The streaked horned lark is
differentiated and isolated from all other sampled localities, and
although it was ``* * * historically a part of a larger Pacific Coast
lineage of horned larks, it has been evolving independently for some
time and can be considered a distinct evolutionary unit'' (Drovetski et
al. 2005, p. 880). Thus, genetic analyses support the subspecies
designation for the streaked horned lark (Drovetski et al. 2005, p.
880), which has been considered a relatively well-defined subspecies
based on physical (phenotypic) characteristics (Beason 1995, p. 4). The
streaked horned lark is recognized as a valid subspecies by the
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2012c).
Life History and Habitat
Horned larks forage on the ground in low vegetation or on bare
ground (Beason 1995, p. 6); adults feed mainly on grass and weed seeds,
but feed insects to their young (Beason 1995, p. 6). A study of winter
diet selection found that streaked horned larks in the Willamette
Valley eat seeds of introduced weedy grasses and forbs, focusing on the
seed source that is most abundant (Moore 2008b, p. 9). In this
Willamette Valley study, a variety of grasses (Digitaria sanguinalis
(large crabgrass), Panicum capillare (witchgrass), Sporobulum sp.
(dropseed)), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae) and forbs (Chenopodium
album (common lambsquarters), Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot pigweed),
Trifolium arvense (rabbitfoot clover) and Kickxia sp. (cancerweed))
were common in the winter diet of the streaked horned lark (Moore
2008b, p. 16).
Horned larks form pairs in the spring (Beason 1995, p. 11). Altman
(1999, p. 11) used a small sample (n=3) of streaked horned lark
territories in the Willamette Valley to give a mean territory size of
1.9 acres (0.77 ha) with a range of 1.5 to 2.5 acres (0.61 to 1.0 ha).
Horned larks create nests in shallow depressions in the ground and line
them with soft vegetation (Beason 1995, p. 12). Female horned larks
select the nest site and construct the nest without help from the male
(Beason 1995, p. 12). Streaked horned larks establish their nests in
areas of extensive bare ground, and nests are placed adjacent to clumps
of bunchgrass (Pearson and Hopey 2004, pp. 1-2). In the Willamette
Valley, nests are almost always placed on the north side of a clump of
vegetation or another object such as root balls or soil clumps (Moore
and Kotaich 2010, p. 18). Studies from Washington sites (the open
coast, Puget lowlands and the Columbia River islands) have found strong
natal fidelity to nesting sites--that is, streaked horned larks return
each year to the place they were born (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 11).
The nesting season for streaked horned larks begins in mid-April
and ends in the early part of August (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11;
Moore 2011, p. 32). Clutches range from 1 to 5 eggs, with a mean of 3
eggs (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 12). After the first nesting attempt
in April, streaked horned larks will often re-nest in late June or
early July (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11). Young streaked horned larks
leave the nest by the end of the first week after hatching, and are
cared for by the parents until they are about 4 weeks old when they
become independent (Beason 1995, p. 15).
Nest success studies (i.e., the proportion of nests that result in
at least one fledged chick) in streaked horned larks report highly
variable results. Nest success on the Puget lowlands of Washington is
low, with only 28 percent
[[Page 61946]]
of nests successfully fledging young (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 14,
Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16). According to reports from sites in the
Willamette Valley, Oregon, nest success has varied from 23 to 60
percent depending on the site (Altman 1999, p. 1; Moore and Kotaich
2010, p. 23). At one site in Portland, Oregon, Moore (2011, p. 11)
found 100 percent nest success.
Historically, nesting habitat was found on grasslands, estuaries,
and sandy beaches in British Columbia, in dune habitats along the coast
of Washington, in western Washington and western Oregon prairies, and
on the sandy beaches and spits along the Columbia and Willamette
Rivers. Today, the streaked horned lark nests in a broad range of
habitats, including native prairies, coastal dunes, fallow and active
agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, sparsely-vegetated edges of
grass fields, recently planted Christmas tree farms with extensive bare
ground, moderately- to heavily-grazed pastures, gravel roads or gravel
shoulders of lightly-traveled roads, airports, and dredge deposition
sites in the lower Columbia River (Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson and
Altman 2005, p. 5; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 15; Moore 2008, pp. 9-10,
12-14, 16). Wintering streaked horned larks use habitats that are very
similar to breeding habitats (Pearson et al. 2005b, p. 8).
Habitat used by larks is generally flat with substantial areas of
bare ground and sparse low-stature vegetation primarily comprised of
grasses and forbs (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). Suitable habitat is
generally 16-17 percent bare ground, and may be even more open at sites
selected for nesting (Altman 1999, p.18; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p.
27). Vegetation height is generally less than 13 in (33 cm) (Altman
1999, p.18; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). Larks eat a wide variety of
seeds and insects (Beason 1995, p. 6), and appear to select habitats
based on the structure of the vegetation rather than the presence of
any specific food plants (Moore 2008, p. 19). A key attribute of
habitat used by larks is open landscape context. Our data indicate that
sites used by larks are generally found in open (i.e., flat, treeless)
landscapes of 300 acres (120 ha) or more (Converse et al. 2010, p. 21).
Some patches with the appropriate characteristics (i.e., bare ground,
low stature vegetation) may be smaller in size if the adjacent areas
provide the required open landscape context; this situation is common
in agricultural habitats and on sites next to water. For example, many
of the sites used by larks on the islands in the Columbia River are
small (less than 100 ac (40 ha)), but are adjacent to open water, which
provides the open landscape context needed. Streaked horned lark
populations are found at nearly every airport within the range of the
subspecies, because airport maintenance requirements provide the
desired open landscape context and short vegetation structure.
Although streaked horned larks use a wide variety of habitats,
populations are vulnerable because the habitats used are often
ephemeral or subject to frequent human disturbance. Ephemeral habitats
include bare ground in agricultural fields and wetland mudflats;
habitats subject to frequent human disturbance include mowed fields at
airports, managed road margins, agricultural crop fields, and disposal
sites for dredge material (Altman 1999, p. 19).
Historical Range and Distribution
The streaked horned lark's breeding range historically extended
from southern British Columbia, Canada, south through the Puget
lowlands and outer coast of Washington, along the lower Columbia River,
through the Willamette Valley, the Oregon coast and into the Umpqua and
Rogue River Valleys of southwestern Oregon.
British Columbia. The streaked horned lark was never considered
common in British Columbia, but local breeding populations were known
on Vancouver Island, in the Fraser River Valley, and near Vancouver
International Airport (Campbell et al. 1997, p. 120; COSEWIC 2003, p.
5). The population declined throughout the 20th century (COSEWIC 2003,
pp. 13-14); breeding has not been confirmed since 1978, and the
subspecies is considered to be extirpated in British Columbia (COSEWIC
2003, p. 15). A single streaked horned lark was sighted on Vancouver
Island in 2002 (COSEWIC 2003, p. 16).
Washington. The first report of streaked horned lark in the San
Juan Islands, Washington, was in 1948 from Cattle Point (Goodge 1950,
p. 28). There are breeding season records of streaked horned larks from
San Juan and Lopez Islands in the 1950s and early 1960s (Retfalvi 1963,
p. 13; Lewis and Sharpe 1987, p. 148, 204), but the last record dates
from 1962, when seven individuals were seen in July on San Juan Island
at Cattle Point (Retfalvi 1963, p. 13). The WDFW conducted surveys in
1999 in the San Juan Islands (Rogers 1999, pp. 3-4). Suitable nesting
habitat was visually searched and a tape recording of streaked horned
lark calls was used to elicit responses and increase the chance of
detections (Rogers 1999, p. 4). In 2000, MacLaren and Cummins (in
Stinson 2005, p.63) surveyed several sites recommended by Rogers (1999)
including Cattle Point and Lime Kiln Point on San Juan Island. No larks
were detected in the San Juan Islands during either survey effort
(Rogers 1999, p. 4; Stinson 2005, p. 63).
There are a few historical records of streaked horned larks on the
outer coast of Washington near Lake Quinault, the Quinault River and
the Humptulips River in the 1890s (Jewett et al. 1953, p. 438; Rogers
2000, p. 26). More recent records reported larks at Leadbetter Point
and Graveyard Spit in Pacific County in the 1960s and 1970s (Rogers
2000, p. 26). But no larks were detected on the Outer Coast during
surveys conducted there in 1999 and 2000 (Stinson 2005, p. 63).
There are scattered records of streaked horned larks in the
northern Puget Trough, including sightings in Skagit and Whatcom
Counties in the mid-20th century (Altman 2011, p. 201). The last
recorded sighting of a streaked horned lark in the northern Puget
Trough was at the Bellingham Airport in 1962 (Stinson 2005, p. 52).
Over a century ago, the streaked horned lark was described as a
common summer resident in the prairies of the Puget Sound region in
Washington (Bowles 1898, p. 53; Altman 2011, p. 201). Larks were
considered common in the early 1950s ``in the prairie country south of
Tacoma'' and had been observed on the tide flats south of Seattle
(Jewett et al. 1953, p. 438). By the mid-1990s, only a few scattered
breeding populations existed on the south Puget Sound on remnant
prairies and near airports (Altman 2011, p. 201).
There are sporadic records of streaked horned larks along the
Columbia River. Sightings on islands near Portland, Oregon, date back
to the early 1900s (Rogers 2000, p. 27). A number of old reports of
streaked horned larks from the Columbia River east of the Cascade
Mountains have been re-examined, and have been recognized as the
subspecies Eremophila alpestris merrilli (Rogers 2000, p. 27; Stinson
2005, p. 51). On the lower Columbia River, it is probable that streaked
horned larks breed only as far east as Clark County, Washington, and
Multnomah County, Oregon (Roger 2000, p. 27; Stinson 2005, p. 51).
Oregon. The streaked horned lark's range extends south through the
Willamette Valley of Oregon where it was considered abundant and a
common summer resident over a hundred years ago (Johnson 1880, p. 636;
Anthony 1886, p. 166). In the 1940s, the subspecies was described as a
common permanent resident in the
[[Page 61947]]
southern Willamette Valley (Gullion 1951, p. 141). By the 1990s, the
streaked horned lark was called uncommon in the Willamette Valley,
nesting locally in small numbers in large open fields (Gilligan et al.
1994, p. 205; Altman 1999, p. 18). In the early 2000s, a population of
more than 75 breeding pairs was found at the Corvallis Municipal
Airport, making this the largest population of streaked horned larks
known (Moore 2008, p. 15).
The streaked horned lark, while occasionally present, was never
reported to be more than uncommon on the Oregon coast. The subspecies
was described as an uncommon and local summer resident all along the
coast on sand spits (Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205); a few nonbreeding
season records exist for the coastal counties of Clatsop, Tillamook,
Coos, and Curry (Gabrielson and Jewett 1940, p. 403). Small numbers of
larks were known to breed at the South Jetty of the Columbia River in
Clatsop County, but the site was abandoned in the 1980s (Gilligan et
al.1994, p. 205). There are no recent occurrence records from the
Oregon coast.
In the early 1900s, the streaked horned lark was considered a
common permanent resident of the Umpqua and Rogue River Valleys
(Gabrielson and Jewett 1940, p. 402). The last confirmed breeding
record in the Rogue Valley was in 1976 (Marshall et al. 2003, p. 425).
There are no recent reports of streaked horned larks in the Umpqua
Valley (Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205; Marshall et al. 2003, p. 425).
Current Range and Distribution
Breeding Range. The streaked horned lark has been extirpated as a
breeding species throughout much of its range, including all of its
former range in British Columbia, the San Juan Islands, the northern
Puget Trough, the Washington coast north of Grays Harbor, the Oregon
coast, and the Rogue and Umpqua Valleys in southwestern Oregon (Pearson
& Altman 2005, pp. 4-5).
The current range of the streaked horned lark can be divided into
three regions: (1) The south Puget Sound in Washington; (2) the
Washington coast and lower Columbia River islands (including dredge
spoil deposition sites near the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon);
and (3) the Willamette Valley in Oregon.
In the south Puget Sound, the streaked horned lark is found in
Mason, Pierce, and Thurston Counties, Washington (Rogers 2000, p. 37;
Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 23; Pearson et al. 2005a, p. 2; Anderson
2009, p. 4). Recent studies have found that streaked horned larks
currently breed on six sites in the south Puget Sound. Four of these
sites (13th Division Prairie, Gray Army Airfield, McChord Field, and
91st Division Prairie) are on JBLM. Small populations of larks also
breed at the Olympia Regional Airport and the Port of Shelton's
Sanderson Field (airport) (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 23; Pearson et
al. 2008, p. 3).
On the Washington coast, there are four known breeding sites: (1)
Damon Point; (2) Midway Beach; (3) Graveyard Spit; and (4) Leadbetter
Point in Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties. On the lower Columbia
River, streaked horned larks breed on several of the sandy islands
downstream of Portland, Oregon. Recent surveys have documented breeding
streaked horned larks on Rice, Miller Sands Spit, Pillar Rock, Welch,
Tenasillahe, Coffeepot, Whites/Browns, Wallace, Crims, and Sandy
Islands in Wahkiakum and Cowlitz Counties in Washington, and Columbia
and Clatsop Counties in Oregon (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 23;
Anderson 2009, p. 4; Lassen 2011, in litt.). The Columbia River forms
the border between Washington and Oregon; some of the islands occur
wholly in Oregon or Washington, and some are bisected by the State
line. Larks also breed in Portland (Multnomah County, Oregon) at
suitable sites near the Columbia River. These include an open field at
the Rivergate Industrial Complex and the Southwest Quad at Portland
International Airport; both sites are owned by the Port of Portland,
and are former dredge spoil deposition fields (Moore 2011, pp. 9-12).
In the Willamette Valley, streaked horned larks breed in Benton,
Clackamas, Lane, Linn, Marion, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill Counties.
Larks are most abundant in the southern part of the Willamette Valley.
The largest known population of larks is resident at Corvallis
Municipal Airport in Benton County (Moore 2008. p. 15); other resident
populations occur at the Baskett Slough, William L. Finley, and Ankeny
units of the Service's Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Complex (Moore 2008, pp. 8-9). Breeding populations also occur at
municipal airports in the valley (including McMinnville, Salem, and
Eugene) (Moore 2008, pp. 14-17). In 2008, a large population of
streaked horned larks colonized a wetland and prairie restoration site
on M-DAC Farms, a privately-owned parcel in Linn County; as the
vegetation at the site matured in the following 2 years, the site
became less suitable for larks, and the population declined (Moore and
Kotaich 2010, pp. 11-13). This is likely a common pattern, as breeding
streaked horned larks shift sites as habitat becomes available among
private agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley (Moore 2008, pp. 9-
11).
Wintering Range. Pearson et al. (2005b, p. 2) found that the
majority of streaked horned larks winter in the Willamette Valley (72
percent) and on the islands in the lower Columbia River (20 percent);
the rest winter on the Washington coast (8 percent) or in the south
Puget Sound (1 percent). In the winter, most of the streaked horned
larks that breed in the south Puget Sound migrate south to the
Willamette Valley or west to the Washington coast; streaked horned
larks that breed on the Washington coast either remain on the coast or
migrate south to the Willamette Valley; birds that breed on the lower
Columbia River islands remain on the islands or migrate to the
Washington coast; and birds that breed in the Willamette Valley remain
there over the winter (Pearson et al. 2005b, pp. 5-6). Streaked horned
larks spend the winter in large groups of mixed subspecies of horned
larks in the Willamette Valley, and in smaller flocks along the lower
Columbia River and Washington Coast (Pearson et al. 2005b, p. 7;
Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 7). During the winter of 2008, a mixed
flock of over 300 horned larks was detected at the Corvallis Municipal
Airport (Moore 2011a, pers. comm.).
Population Estimates and Current Status
Data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) indicate
that most grassland-associated birds, including the horned lark, have
declined across their ranges in the past three decades (Sauer et al.
2011, pp. 3-5). The BBS can provide population trend data only for
those species with sufficient sample sizes for analyses; there is
insufficient data in the BBS for a rangewide analysis of the streaked
horned lark's population trend (Altman 2011, p. 214). An analysis of
recent data from a variety of sources concludes that the streaked
horned lark has been extirpated from the Georgia Depression (British
Columbia, Canada), the Oregon coast, and the Rogue and Umpqua Valleys
(Altman 2011, p. 213); this analysis estimates the current rangewide
population of streaked horned larks to be about 1,170-1,610 individuals
(Altman 2011, p. 213).
In the south Puget Sound, approximately 150-170 streaked horned
larks breed at six sites (Altman 2011, p. 213). Recent studies have
found that larks have very low nest success in
[[Page 61948]]
Washington (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 8); comparisons with other ground-
nesting birds in the same prairie habitats in the south Puget Sound
showed that streaked horned larks had significantly lower values in all
measures of reproductive success (Anderson 2010, p. 16). Estimates of
population growth rate ([lambda], lambda) that include vital rates from
nesting areas in the south Puget Sound, Washington coast, and Whites
Island in the lower Columbia River indicate that the Washington
population is declining precipitously; one study estimated that the
population of streaked horned larks was declining by 40 percent per
year ([lambda] = 0.61 0.10 SD), apparently due to a
combination of low survival and fecundity rates (Pearson et al., 2008,
p. 12). More recent analyses of territory mapping at 4 sites in the
south Puget Sound found that the total number of breeding streaked
horned lark territories decreased from 77 territories in 2004 to 42
territories in 2007--a decline of over 45 percent in 3 years (Camfield
et al. 2011, p. 8). Pearson et al. (2008, p. 14) concluded that there
is a high probability of south Puget Sound population loss in the
future given the low estimates of fecundity and adult survival along
with high emigration out of the Puget Sound.
On the Washington coast and Columbia River islands, there are about
120-140 breeding larks (Altman 2011, p. 213). Data from the Washington
coast and Whites Islands were included in the population growth rate
study discussed above; populations at these sites appear to be
declining by 40 percent per year (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 12).
Conversely, nest success is very high at the Portland industrial sites
(Rivergate and the Southwest Quad). In 2010, nearly all nests
successfully fledged young (Moore 2011, p. 13); only 1 of 10 monitored
nests lost young to predation (Moore 2011, pp. 11-12).
There are about 900-1,300 breeding streaked horned larks in the
Willamette Valley (Altman 2011, p. 213). The largest known population
of streaked horned larks breeds at the Corvallis Municipal Airport;
depending on the management conducted at the airport and the
surrounding grass fields each year, the population has been as high as
100 breeding pairs (Moore and Kotaich 2010, pp. 13-15). In 2007, a
large (580-acre (235-ha)) wetland and native prairie restoration
project was initiated at M-DAC Farms on a former rye grass field in
Linn County (Cascade Pacific RC&D 2012, p. 1). Large semipermanent
wetlands were created at the site, and the prairie portions were burned
and treated with herbicides (Moore and Kotaich 2010, pp. 11-13). These
conditions created excellent quality ephemeral habitat for streaked
horned larks and the site was used by about 75 breeding pairs in 2008
(Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 12), making M-DAC the second-largest known
breeding population of streaked horned larks that year. M-DAC had high
use again in 2009, but as vegetation at the site matured, the number of
breeding larks has declined, likely shifting to other agricultural
habitats (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 13).
We do not have population trend data in Oregon that is comparable
to the study in Washington by Pearson et al. (2008, entire); however,
research on breeding streaked horned larks indicates that nest success
in the southern Willamette Valley is higher than in Washington (Moore
2011b, pers. comm.). The best information on trends in the Willamette
Valley comes from surveys by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW); the agency conducted surveys for grassland-associated birds,
including the streaked horned lark, in 1996 and again in 2008 (Altman
1999, p. 2; Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 2). Point count surveys were
conducted at 544 stations in the Willamette Valley (Myers and Kreager
2010, p. 2); over the 12-year period between the surveys, measures of
relative abundance of streaked horned larks increased slightly from
1996 to 2008 (Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 11). Population numbers
decreased slightly in the northern Willamette Valley and increased
slightly in the middle and southern portions of the valley (Myers and
Kreager 2010, p. 11).
We do not have conclusive data on population trends throughout the
lark's range, but the rapidly declining population on the south Puget
Sound suggests that the range of the streaked horned lark may still be
contracting.
Range Contraction
The streaked horned lark has experienced a substantial contraction
of its range; it has been extirpated from all formerly documented
locations at the northern end of its range (British Columbia, and the
San Juan Islands and northern Puget Trough of Washington), the Oregon
coast, and the southern edge of its range (Rogue and Umpqua Valleys of
Oregon). The lark's current range appears to have been reduced to less
than half the size of its historical range in the last 100 years. The
pattern of range contractions for other Pacific Northwest species
(e.g., western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)) shows a loss of
populations in the northern part of the range, with healthier
populations persisting in the southern part of the range (Altman 2011,
p. 214). The streaked horned lark is an exception to this pattern--its
range has contracted from both the north and the south simultaneously
(Altman 2011, p. 215).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
In making this finding, information pertaining to each of the
species in question in relation to the five factors provided in section
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In considering what factors
might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the
species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the
factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response,
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant,
it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened
species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not
necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of
exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely
impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could
impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that
listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the
Act.
We considered and evaluated the best available scientific and
commercial information in evaluating the factors
[[Page 61949]]
affecting each of the species under consideration in this proposed
rule.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Under this factor, the primary long term threats to Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark are the loss,
conversion, and degradation of habitat particularly to agricultural and
urban development, successional changes to grassland habitat, and the
spread of invasive plants.
The prairies of south Puget Sound and western Oregon are part of
one of the rarest ecosystems in the United States (Noss et al. 1995, p.
I-2; Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. v). Dramatic changes have occurred on the
landscape over the last 150 years, including a 90 to 95 percent
reduction in the prairie ecosystem. In the south Puget Sound region,
where most of western Washington's prairies historically occurred, less
than 10 percent of the original prairie persists, and only 3 percent
remains dominated by native vegetation (Crawford and Hall 1997, pp. 13-
14). In the remaining prairies, many of the native bunchgrass
communities have been replaced by nonnative pasture grasses (Rogers
2000, p. 41), which larks avoid using for territories and nest sites
(Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). In the Willamette Valley, Oregon,
native grassland has been reduced from the most common vegetation type
to scattered parcels intermingled with rural residential development
and farmland; it is estimated that less than one percent of the native
grassland and savanna remains in Oregon (Altman et al. 2001, p. 261).
Development
Native prairies and grasslands have been severely reduced
throughout the range of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the
streaked horned lark as a result of human activity due to conversion of
habitat to residential and commercial development and agriculture.
Prairie habitat continues to be lost, particularly to residential
development (Stinson 2005, p. 70) by removal of native vegetation and
the excavation and grading of surfaces and conversion to non-habitat
(buildings, pavement, other infrastructure). Residential development is
associated with increased infrastructure such as new road construction,
which is one of the primary causes of landscape fragmentation (Watts et
al. 2007, p. 736). Activities that accompany low-density development
are correlated with decreased levels of biodiversity, mortality to
wildlife, and facilitated introduction of nonnative invasive species
(Trombulak and Frissell 2000, entire; Watts et al. 2007, p. 736). In
the south Puget Sound lowlands, the glacial outwash soils and gravels
underlying the prairies are deep and valuable for use in construction
and road building, which leads to their degradation and destruction.
Since the 1850s, much of the Willamette Valley of Oregon has been
altered by development (agricultural and urban). About 96 percent of
the Willamette Valley is privately owned, and it is both the fastest
growing area in Oregon and the most densely populated. The Willamette
Valley provides about half of the state's agricultural sales, and 16 of
top 17 private sector employers (manufacturing, high technology, forest
products, agriculture, and services) are located there. The population
projected for 2050 is approximately four million, or nearly double the
current population (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2006, p.
237). The increase in population will result in increased building
construction and road development, further impacting the remaining
prairies and oak woodlands.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. The habitat of Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly is highly fragmented across the region due to agricultural
and low-density residential development. Fragmentation due to
residential and associated road development has led to a reduction of
native larval host plants and adult nectar plants as introduced
invasive plant species, primarily Mediterranean grasses and shrubs such
as Scot's broom, increasingly dominate the landscape and outcompete
native plant species (see discussion below, under Invasives).
Construction directly destroys habitat, as does conversion, and may
kill any sessile or slow-moving organism in the construction footprint
(Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 19). Unlike many other species of
butterflies, Taylor's checkerspot butterflies spend approximately 50
weeks of their life cycle as eggs, larvae, or pupae with only a brief
window of time (approximately 1-2 weeks) as winged adults (Stinson
2005, p. 78). Commercial and residential development, construction of
related infrastructure including roads, and conversion of habitat to
incompatible uses such as gravel mining directly affects Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly larvae by killing individuals and destroying
habitat.
When in flight, butterflies become subject to mortality from
collision with vehicles on roads associated with residential
development, which is commonly known to affect animals of all sizes,
but especially insects (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 20). Since the
short flight season of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies directly
corresponds with their reproductive period, death of gravid females
could lead to population level consequences such as failure of entire
populations. These sorts of traffic-collision related deaths may
disproportionately affect Taylor's checkerspot butterflies in
comparison with other butterflies, as many other kinds of butterflies
are in flight for periods much longer than just their reproductive
window.
Four historical locales for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies in the
south Puget Sound region were lost to development or conversion.
Dupont, Spanaway, and Lakewood were all converted to urban areas, and
JBLM Training Area 7S became a gravel pit (Stinson 2005, pp. 93-96).
Streaked Horned Lark. Horned larks need expansive areas of flat,
open ground to establish breeding territories. The large, flat,
treeless areas that airports necessarily require have become attractive
breeding sites for streaked horned larks as native prairies and scoured
river banks in the Pacific Northwest have declined. Five of the six
streaked horned lark nesting sites remaining in the Puget lowlands are
located on or adjacent to airports and military airfields (Rogers 2000,
p. 37; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 15). At least four breeding sites are
found at airports in the Willamette Valley, including the largest known
population at Corvallis Municipal Airport (Moore 2008, pp. 14-17).
Stinson (2005, p. 70) concluded that if large areas of grass had not
been maintained at airports, the streaked horned lark might have been
extirpated from the south Puget Sound area. Although routine mowing to
meet flight path regulations helps to maintain grassland habitat in
suitable condition for nesting larks, the timing of mowing is critical.
Mowing during the active breeding season (mid-April to late July)
can destroy nests or flush adults, which may result in nest failure
(Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson 2005, p. 72). Some of the
airports in the range of the streaked horned lark have adjusted the
frequency and timing of mowing in recent years to minimize impacts to
larks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 10). In 2011, McChord Air Field at
JBLM agreed to a mowing regime which would provide protections to the
lark during their nesting period. Unfortunately, recent unseasonably
wet weather hasn't allowed this strategy to be implemented. WDFW
coordinates mowing schedules at the Olympia Airport to reduce impacts
to larks.
[[Page 61950]]
In 2008, the Port of Olympia prepared an Interlocal Agreement with
the WDFW that outlines management recommendations and mitigation for
impacts to state-listed species from development at the airport. In
December, 2010, a white paper and supplemental planning memorandum was
developed as part of the Airport Master Plan Update (Port of Olympia
2010, entire). This document, which is outlined in Appendix 2 of the
Master Plan Update, outlines management recommendations for the
protection of critical areas and priority species, including the
streaked horned lark. The recommendations include minimizing
development, retaining open or bare ground, and avoiding mowing during
the nesting season (March 15 through August 15) in known or potential
lark nesting areas. Although the Port does not anticipate any
development to occur in the streaked horned lark nesting areas within
the next 20 years, the agreement is not a regulatory document that
would preclude future development, which is a primary source of revenue
for the Port.
Airport expansions could result in further losses of some
populations. At the Olympia Airport, hangars were built in 2005 on
habitat used by streaked horned larks for foraging, resulting in a loss
of grass and forb-dominated habitat, which could result in a smaller
local population due to reduced habitat availability for breeding and
wintering larks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 12). Based on discussions
with staff at Sanderson Field in Shelton, future development plans do
not include impacts to streaked horned lark habitat at this time. The
majority of the proposed development at Sanderson Field will occur in
areas already impacted (between existing buildings). The West Ramp at
Gray Army Air Field on JBLM was expanded in 2005 into areas previously
used by breeding larks, resulting in a loss of available breeding
habitat (Stinson 2005, p. 72).
At Portland International Airport, streaked horned larks nest in an
area called the Southwest Quad; this is an old dredge material
deposition site in a currently unused part of the airport. The Port of
Portland, which owns the airport, may propose to develop the Southwest
Quad to accommodate future expansion, though there is no current plan
in place (Green 2012, in litt.). The future development of the
Southwest Quad would result in the loss of at least 33 ac (13 ha) of
habitat and three breeding territories (Moore 2011, p. 12).
The 13th Division Prairie at JBLM is used for helicopter operations
(paratrooper practices, touch-and-go landings, and load drop and
retrievals) and troop training activities. Foot traffic and training
maneuvers that are conducted during the streaked horned lark breeding
season likely are a contributing factor to nest failure and low nest
success at 13th Division Prairie. Recently, a lark nest was destroyed
at 13th Division Prairie by a porta-potty service vehicle (Linders
2012b, in litt.). Artillery training, off-road use of vehicles and
troop maneuvers at the 91st Division Prairie are also conducted in
areas used by larks during the nesting season. Because access into this
training area is limited and streaked horned lark surveys are only
conducted opportunistically, we do not know if or how many lark nests
are lost due to military activities at 91st Division Prairie.
Industrial development has also reduced habitat available to
breeding and wintering larks. The Rivergate Industrial Park, owned by
the Port of Portland, is a large industrial site in north Portland near
the Columbia River; the site is developed on a dredge spoil field, and
still has some large areas of open space between the industrial
buildings. Rivergate has been an important breeding site for streaked
horned larks, and a wintering site for mixed flocks of up to five
horned lark subspecies (including the streaked horned lark). In 1990,
the field used by larks at Rivergate measured more than 260 ha (650
acres) of open sandy habitat (Dillon 2012, pers. comm.). In the years
since, new industrial buildings have been constructed on the site; now
only one patch of 32 ha (79 acres) of open dredge spoil field remains
(Moore 2011, p. 9) and the breeding population has dropped from 20
pairs to 5 pairs in this time (Moore 2011, p. 10).
Loss of Ecological Disturbance Processes, Invasive Species, and
Succession
The suppression and loss of ecological disturbance regimes, such as
fire and flooding, across vast portions of the landscape has resulted
in altered vegetation structure in the prairies and meadows and has
facilitated invasion by nonnative grasses and woody vegetation,
rendering habitat unusable for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and
streaked horned larks. The basic ecological processes that maintain
prairies, meadows, and scoured river banks have disappeared from, or
have been altered on, all but a few protected and managed sites.
Historically, the prairies and meadows of the south Puget Sound
region of Washington and western Oregon are thought to have been
actively maintained by the native peoples of the region, who lived here
for at least 10,000 years before the arrival of Euro-American settlers
(Boyd 1986, entire; Christy and Alverson 2011, p. 93). Frequent burning
reduced the encroachment and spread of shrubs and trees (Boyd 1986,
entire; Chappell and Kagan 2001, p. 42), favoring open grasslands with
a rich variety of native plants and animals. Following Euro-American
settlement of the region in the mid-19th century, fire was actively
suppressed on grasslands, allowing encroachment by woody vegetation
into the remaining prairie habitat and oak woodlands (Franklin and
Dyrness 1973 p. 122; Boyd 1986, entire; Kruckeberg 1991, p. 287; Agee
1993, p. 360; Altman et al. 2001, p. 262).
Fires on the prairie create a mosaic of vegetation conditions,
which serve to maintain native prairie forbs like Camassia quamash
(common camas) Achillea millefolium (yarrow) and Lomatium spp. (desert
parsley or biscuit root), which are adult nectar foods for Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly. Stands of native perennial grasses (Festuca
idahoensis ssp. roemeri (Roemer's fescue)) are also well adapted to
regular fires and produce habitat favorable to the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly. In some prairie patches fires will reset succession back to
bare ground, creating early successional vegetation conditions suitable
for both Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned larks
(Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 13). The historical fire frequency on
prairies has been estimated to be 3 to 5 years (Foster 2005, p. 8).
The result of fire suppression has been the invasion of the
prairies and oak woodlands by native and nonnative plant species (Dunn
and Ewing 1997, p. v; Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 146), notably woody
plants such as the native Douglas-fir and the nonnative Scot's broom,
and nonnative grasses such as Arrhenatherum elatus (tall oatgrass) in
Washington and Brachypodium sylvaticum (false brome) in the Willamette
Valley of Oregon. This increase in woody vegetation and nonnative plant
species has resulted in less available prairie habitat overall and
habitat that is avoided by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and
streaked horned larks (Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 155; Pearson and Hopey
2005, pp. 2, 27; Olson 2011a, pp. 12, 16).
Most butterflies avoid densely forested areas, as they are unable
to generate enough heat from their own metabolism to provide them with
the heat and energy they need to fly in shaded conditions. Streaked
horned larks prefer areas that afford long sight lines and have low
vegetation; both of
[[Page 61951]]
which are impeded by the presence of trees.
On tallgrass prairies in midwestern North America, fire suppression
has led to degradation and the loss of native grasslands (Curtis 1959,
pp. 296, 298; Panzer 2002, p. 1297). On northwestern prairies, fire
suppression has allowed Douglas-fir to encroach on and outcompete
native prairie vegetation for light, water, and nutrients (Stinson
2005, p. 7). On JBLM alone, over 16,000 acres (6,477 ha) of prairie has
converted to Douglas-fir forest since the mid-19th century (Foster and
Shaff 2003, p. 284). Where controlled burns or direct tree removal are
not used as a management tool, this encroachment will continue to cause
the loss of open grassland habitats for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
Restoration in some of the south Puget Sound grasslands in
Washington has resulted in temporary control of Scot's broom and other
invasive plants through the careful and judicious use of herbicides,
mowing, grazing, and fire. Fire has been used as a management tool to
maintain native prairie composition and structure and is generally
acknowledged to improve the health and composition of grassland habitat
by providing a short-term nitrogen addition, which results in a
fertilizer effect to vegetation, thus aiding grasses and forbs as they
resprout.
Unintentional fires ignited by military training burns patches of
prairie grasses and forbs on JBLM on an annual basis. These light
ground fires create a mosaic of conditions within the grassland,
maintaining a low vegetative structure of native and nonnative plant
composition, and patches of bare soil. Because of the topography of the
landscape, fires create a patchy mosaic of areas that burn completely,
some areas that do not burn, and areas where consumption of the
vegetation is mixed in its effects to the habitat. One of the benefits
to fire in grasslands is that it tends to kill regenerating conifers,
and reduces the cover of nonnative shrubs such as Scot's broom,
although Scot's broom seed stored in the soil can be stimulated by fire
(Agee 1993, p. 367). Fire also improves conditions for many native
bulb-forming plants, such as Camassia sp. (camas) (Agee and Dunwiddie
1984, p. 367). On sites where regular fires occur, such as on JBLM,
there is a high complement of native plants and fewer invasive species.
These types of fires promote the maintenance of the native short-
statured vegetation communities (Severns and Warren 2008, p. 476)
favored by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies for larval and nectar food
resources. Fire management to maintain or restore native vegetation is
essential to maintaining suitable habitat for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly, but the timing of the management activity is important, as
improperly-timed actions can destroy larvae, eggs, or adult
butterflies.
Management practices such as intentional burning and mowing require
expertise in timing and technique to achieve desired results. If
applied at the wrong season, frequency, or scale, fire and mowing can
be detrimental to the restoration of native prairie species. For
example, during a prescribed fire event that was implemented in an
adjacent training area on JBLM in late summer 2011, fire occurred in an
area containing Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat that was under a
protection agreement. This burn was inconsistent with the prescribed
burn plan and eliminated a large area of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly larval host and nectaring plants on the 91st Division
Prairie. Excessive and high intensity burning can result in a lack of
vegetation or encourage regrowth to nonnative grasses. Where such
burning has occurred over a period of more than 50 years on the
artillery ranges of the JBLM, prairies are covered by nonnative forbs
and grasses instead of native perennial bunchgrasses (Tveten and Fonda
1999, pp. 154-155).
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. On JBLM, the 91st Division Prairie
is frequently ignited through routine training exercises involving
ordnance, which prevents invasive shrubs and nonnative grasses and
native Douglas-fir from encroaching onto the prairie, and preserves the
high quality of habitat (larval and nectar food plants) for Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies and the generally good condition of the
prairie. Vegetation at this site remains in an early successional stage
that is dominated by native grasses and forbs, such as Balsamorhiza
deltoidea (deltoid balsamroot), which is an important Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly nectar plant. Fires on grassland (prairie)
habitat generally have low fuel content and produce regular, short
duration fires (Agee 1993, p. 354; Chappell and Kagan 2001, p. 43),
which restricts the establishment of invasive plants and encroaching
trees and helps to maintain native grasses and forbs. Swales and
overall topographic heterogeneity prevent the entire grassland
landscape from being consumed by fire, as grasslands fires tend to be
patchy in their distribution creating a mosaic of conditions. Nonnative
grasses have invaded many sites occupied by Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies (Severns and Warren 2008, p. 476). Several hundred acres
(more than 40 ha) of tall oatgrass is currently encroaching upon the
largest Taylor's checkerspot butterfly population in Washington (JBLM's
91st Division Prairie).
Bald habitats at the Forest Service and WDNR sites where Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies are found were formerly forested. These areas
appear to have been colonized by Taylor's checkerspot butterfly shortly
after they were cleared. At the time the trees were harvested from each
of these balds they were reforested with conifers to comply with the
Washington State Forest Practices rules. The establishment and growth
of the conifers, and the establishment and expansion of Acer
macrophyllum (bigleaf maple), Holodiscus discolor (oceanspray), and
other shrubs has resulted in shaded habitat which have replaced areas
that the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is currently using. Sites that
currently have Taylor's checkerspot butterflies present will quickly
become unsuitable if trees and shrubs are not removed and if the site
is not managed specifically for the long-term conservation of the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or the maintenance of bald habitat. This
is the case for several balds recently occupied by Taylor's but no
longer supporting the species, including Bald Hills NAP in south Puget
Sound, and Highway 112 and Striped Peak on the Olympic Peninsula.
A large portion of the existing Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
habitat on Denman Island in Canada resulted from timber harvest. After
the area was logged, Taylor's checkerspot butterflies colonized the
disturbed area from nearby suitable habitat. Currently, Alnus rubra
(red alder), bigleaf maple, and Douglas-fir trees are expanding onto
the site, which will directly threaten the butterfly habitat there
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 18). As the forest becomes reestablished on the
property, it will shade and outcompete the host plants for Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly for space, water, light, and nutrients. The
population of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is expected to decline
significantly within the next 10 years at the Canada site if the
habitat on Denman Island is not managed for the species (COSEWIC 2011,
p. 31).
Streaked Horned Lark. Prior to the construction of dams on the
Columbia River, annual flooding and scouring likely created nesting and
wintering habitat for streaked horned larks on sandy islands and
beaches along the river's edge (Stinson 2005, p. 67). Once the dams
were in place, Salix spp. (willows), Populus trichocarpa (black
cottonwood), and other vegetation established broadly on the sandbars
and
[[Page 61952]]
banks (Rogers 2000, pp. 41-42), resulting in unsuitable habitat for
larks. Loss of these habitats may have been partially ameliorated by
the formation of dredge spoil islands that have been established as
part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) shipping channel
maintenance (Stinson 2005, p. 67).
Streaked horned larks currently use sand islands in the lower
Columbia River for both breeding and wintering habitat; these islands
are a mosaic of Federal, State, and private lands, but there are no
management or conservation plans in place to protect larks or these
important habitats. The Corps has a dredging program to maintain the
navigation channel in the Columbia River. In 2002, the Corps
established a deeper navigation channel in the river, a regular
maintenance dredging program, and a plan for disposition of dredge
material on the islands in the lower Columbia River (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS 2002b, pp. 1-14). In this plan, the
Corps addressed the disposition of dredge material in the lower
Columbia River, which has the potential to both benefit and harm
streaked horned larks, depending on the location and timing of
deposition. Recent studies by Anderson (2010a, p. 29) on the islands in
the lower Columbia River have shown that fresh dredge material
stabilizes and develops sparse vegetation suitable for lark nesting
approximately 3 years after deposition, and can be expected to remain
suitable for approximately 2 years before vegetation becomes too dense.
Thus, deposition of dredge material can be both a tool for habitat
creation and a threat, as deposition of dredge material at the wrong
time (e.g., during the nesting season) can destroy nests and young or
degrade suitable habitat.
Destruction of occupied lark habitat through the deposition of
dredge materials has been documented several times on the lower
Columbia River islands (Stinson 2005, p. 67; Pearson and Altman 2005,
p. 11; Pearson et al. 2008, p. 14). In 2006, dredge spoils were
deposited on Whites Island while larks were actively nesting. All nests
at this site were apparently destroyed (Pearson 2012a, pers. comm.).
This site had at least 21 nests and 13 territories during the 2005
nesting season (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 21). In a similar situation on
Rice Island, singing males were observed on Rice Island in June 2000,
but dredge spoil was placed on the site in July 2000, which destroyed
nesting habitat during the breeding season (MacLaren 2000, p. 3). In
2004 on Miller Sands Spit, the Army Corps of Engineers deposited dredge
material on lark breeding habitat, which likely resulted in nest
failure (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 10). The Corps has recently began
working with the Center for Natural Lands Management to coordinate
dredge spoil depositions with timing of lark breeding season (Anderson
2011, in litt.).
Dredge spoil deposition also creates habitat for Caspian terns
(Sterna caspia), a native bird species that nests in very large numbers
in the lower Columbia River; these large terns have been shown to eat
substantial numbers of salmon smolts, and the reduction of predation by
terns on young salmon has been the focus of an interagency effort for
the past decade (Lyons et al. 2011, p. 2). One aspect of the effort to
reduce the numbers of terns in the lower Columbia River has been a
program to discourage tern nesting on Rice Island by planting
vegetation and placing barrier fencing on open sandy habitats; these
measures have also reduced habitat available to larks on the island and
are ongoing (Stinson 2005, p. 73; Roby et al. 2011, p. 14).
There is ample evidence that larks respond positively to habitat
management that simulates natural processes. From 2001 through 2004,
JBLM used nonbreeding season mowing and controlled burns to control
Scot's broom (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 30). The September 2004 burns
resulted in increased lark abundance and a dramatic vegetative response
on 13th Division Prairie; relative to the control sites, late summer
fire in 2006 resulted in increased use of the burned areas by larks
immediately after the fires, and in the breeding season following the
fires (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 30).
Throughout the year, streaked horned larks use areas of bare ground
or sparse vegetative cover in grasslands. These grasslands may be
native prairies in the Puget lowlands, perennial or annual grass seed
fields in the Willamette Valley, or the margins of airport runways
throughout the range of the species. All of these habitats receive
management to maintain desired structure: prairies require frequent
burning or mowing to prevent succession to woodlands; agricultural
fields are mowed at harvest or burned to reduce weed infestations;
airports mow to maintain low-stature grasses around airfields to
minimize attracting hazardous wildlife. Burning and mowing are
beneficial to larks in that they maintain the habitat structure
required by the bird, but these activities can also harm larks if the
activities occur during the breeding season when nests and young are
present (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 29). In the nesting seasons from
2002 to 2004, monitoring at the Puget lowlands sites (Gray Army
Airfield, McChord Field, and Olympia Airport) documented nest failure
of 8 percent of nests caused by mowing over the nests, young, and
adults (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 18). Habitat management to maintain
low-stature vegetation is essential to maintaining suitable habitat for
streaked horned larks, but the timing of the management is important,
as improperly-timed actions can destroy nests and young.
Military Training
Populations of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned
larks occurring on JBLM are exposed to differing levels of training
activities on the base. The DOD's proposed actions under `Grow the
Army' (GTA) include stationing 5,700 new soldiers, new combat service
support units, a combat aviation brigade, facility demolition and
construction to support the increased troop levels, additional
aviation, maneuver, and live fire training (75 FR 55313, September 10,
2010). The increased training activities will affect nearly all
training areas at JBLM resulting in an increased risk of accidental
fires, and habitat destruction and degradation through vehicle travel,
dismounted training, bivouac activities, and digging. While training
areas on the base have degraded habitat for these species, with
implementation of conservation measures, these areas still provide
habitat for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. Military training on JBLM has
resulted in direct mortality of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and
destruction of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat. Vehicle use and
soldier foot traffic can crush larvae and damage larval host plants.
These actions disrupt intact prairie plant communities by disturbing
vegetation and exposing soils, directly introducing invasive plant
seeds carried in on tires or boots, and accelerating the rate of
establishment of invasive grasses or other nonnative plants that are
light-seeded and easily blown onto a site from adjacent areas, like
Cirsium spp. (thistles), Senecio spp. (groundsel), Chrysanthemum
leucanthemum (oxeye daisy). For example, in January 2009 an exercise
occurred that did not follow the documented training plan, which would
have restricted vehicles to established roads in order to protect
sensitive habitat. Instead vehicles moved haphazardly across an area
known to be occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and streaked
horned larks.
[[Page 61953]]
Approximately 67 ac (27 ha) of prairie were repeatedly traversed by
eight wheeled armored personnel carriers known as Strykers. DOD staff
later estimated that up to 37.5 ac (15 ha) were highly disturbed (Gruhn
2009, pers. comm.), with much of this acreage scraped to bare soil
(Linders 2009b, entire). This impact would have directly affected
overwintering larvae by crushing larvae and destroying the larvae
plants used by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies.
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly counts were the lowest ever recorded
at this site during the following spring (Linders 2009a, entire;
Randolph 2009, p. 4; Thomas 2009, pers. obs). Prior to the butterfly
flight season in May 2009, the three brigades of Strykers were
dispatched away from JBLM and the prairies were not used for Stryker
training during the spring of 2009 or 2010, which corresponds to the
butterfly flight period. This training break allowed Range 74-76 of the
91st Division Prairie to regenerate or recover the vegetative qualities
associated with Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark
habitat. JBLM has subsequently coordinated with the Service to
establish specific conservation measures regarding vehicle use within
this training area. Military training also occurs on a specific portion
of the 91st Division Prairie called Training Area 50 where Taylor's
larvae have been translocated during spring 2009, 2010, and 2011, and
at the proposed checkerspot translocation site at 13th Division
Prairie.
Under the GTA initiative, more troops and vehicles will be
stationed at JBLM; this is likely to result in increased pressure on
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat and larvae, particularly if the
Army continues training on 91st Division Prairie. It is likely that a
higher number of troops will equate to a higher number of individuals
recreating on JBLM in places like Marion and Jackson prairies (this is
further discussed under recreational impacts below).
Streaked Horned Lark. Military training, including bombardment with
explosive ordnance and hot downdraft from aircraft has been documented
to cause nest failure and abandonment for streaked horned larks at Gray
Army Airfield and McChord Field at JBLM (Stinson 2005, pp. 71-72).
These activities harass and may kill some streaked horned larks, but
the frequent disturbance also helps to maintain sparse vegetation and
open ground needed for streaked horned lark nesting.
In the odd-numbered years since 2005, McChord Field has hosted a
military training event known as the Air Mobility Rodeo. This
international military training exercise is held at the end of July.
This event includes aircraft, vehicles, and tents staged on or near
lark nesting areas, although the majority of these activities take
place on concrete hardstand areas (Geil 2010, in litt.). In even-
numbered years, McChord Field hosts a public air show known as Air
Expo, which is scheduled in mid-July. At the Air Expo, aerial events
incorporate simulated bombing and fire-bombing, including explosives
and pyrotechnics launched from an area adjacent to the most densely
populated streaked horned lark nesting site at this location; these
disturbances likely have adverse effects to fledglings of late nests
(Stinson 2005, p. 72). Surveys in 2004 detected 31 pairs of streaked
horned larks at McChord Field (Anderson 2011, p. 14). In 2006, the
number of lark pairs at McChord Field had dropped by more than half to
14 pairs, and the number of lark pairs has remained low, with just 11
pairs detected in 2011 (Anderson 2011, p. 14). The Rodeo and Air Expo
events are scheduled to take advantage of the good weather that
typically occurs in the summer on the south Puget Sound; this timeframe
also coincides with the streaked horned lark nesting season, and the
disturbance may continue to cause nest failure and abandonment (Pearson
et al. 2005a, p. 18). During the airshows, tents, vehicles and
concession stands are set up in the grassy areas along the runways used
by streaked horned larks for nesting and thousands of visitors a day
line the runways for viewing the shows.
Airports routinely implement a variety of approaches to minimize
the presence of hazardous wildlife on or adjacent to airfields and to
prevent wildlife strikes by aircraft. McChord Field uses falcons to
scare geese and gulls off the airfield, and also uses two dogs for this
purpose; the falcons and dogs are part of McChord Field's Integrated
Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard program and are designed to
minimize aircraft and crew exposure to potentially hazardous bird and
wildlife strikes (Geil 2010, in litt.). The falcons and dogs cause
streaked horned larks to become alert and fly (Pearson and Altman 2005,
p. 12), which imposes an energetic cost to adults and could expose
nests to predation. Portland International Airport uses a variety of
hazing and habitat management tools to minimize wildlife hazards.
Raptors and waterfowl pose the greatest danger to aircraft operations,
but the airport's Wildlife Hazard Management Plan aims to reduce the
potential for any bird strikes (Port of Portland 2009, pp. 5-6).
Streaked horned larks are not known to nest near the runways at
Portland International Airport, but foraging individuals from the
nearby Southwest Quad could be harassed by the hazing program, which
could impose resulting energetic costs.
JBLM has committed to restrictions both seasonally and
operationally on military training areas, in order to avoid and
minimize potential affects to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark. These restrictions include identified non-
training areas, seasonally restricted areas during breeding, and the
adjustment of mowing schedules to protect these species. These
conservation management practices are outlined in an operational plan
that the Service has assisted the DOD in developing for JBLM (Thomas
2012, pers. comm.).
Restoration Activities
Management for invasive species and encroachment of conifers
requires control through equipment, herbicides, and other activities.
While restoration has conservation value for the species, management
activities to implement restoration may also have direct impacts to the
species that are the target of habitat restoration.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. On occupied sites, Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies are present throughout the year in some life
cycle form. Restoration activities (application of herbicides, use of
restoration equipment, and fire) can result in trampling, crushing and
destruction of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly larvae and larval host
plants. Mowing to reduce the cover and competition from woody species,
if done at the wrong time of year, can crush larval host plants and
nectar plants used by adult butterflies on a site.
Streaked Horned Lark. The introduction of Ammophila arenaria
(Eurasian beachgrass) and A. breviligulata (American beachgrass),
currently found in high and increasing densities in most of coastal
Washington and Oregon, has dramatically altered the structure of dunes
on the outer coast (Wiedemann and Pickart 1996, p. 289). The tall leaf
canopy of beachgrass creates areas of dense vegetation, which is
unsuitable habitat for streaked horned lark nesting (MacLaren 2000, p.
5). Streaked horned larks require sparse, low-stature vegetation with
at least 16-17 percent bare ground; areas invaded by beachgrass are too
dense for streaked horned larks. The area suitable for streaked horned
lark breeding on the Washington coast has decreased as a result of the
spread of beachgrasses (Stinson 2005, p. 65; USFWS 2011a, p.
[[Page 61954]]
4-2). In a 10-year period (from 1977 to 1987) at Leadbetter Point on
the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, spreading beachgrass reduced the
available nesting habitat for streaked horned larks by narrowing the
distance from vegetation to water by 112 feet (34 meters) (WDFW 1995,
p. 19). Since 1985, encroaching beachgrasses have spread to cover over
two-thirds of Damon Point at Grays Harbor, another lark breeding site
on the Washington coast (WDFW 1995, p. 19). At Damon Point, Scot's
broom is also encroaching on lark habitat, reducing the area available
for nesting (Pearson 2011, in litt.). On the Oregon coast, the
disappearance of the streaked horned lark has been attributed to the
invasion of exotic beachgrasses and the resultant dune stabilization
(Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205).
Some efforts have been successful in reducing the cover of
encroaching beachgrasses. The Service's Willapa National Wildlife
Refuge has restored habitat on Leadbetter Point. In 2007, the area of
open habitat measured 84 ac (34 ha); after mechanical and chemical
treatment to clear beachgrass (mostly American beachgrass) and
spreading oyster shell across 45 ac (18 ha), 121 ac (50 ha) of sparsely
vegetated open habitat suitable for lark nesting was created (Pearson
et al. 2009, p. 23). The main target of the Leadbetter Point
restoration project was the threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus), but the restoration actions also benefited the
streaked horned lark. Before the restoration project, this area had
just 2 streaked horned lark territories (Pearson et al. 2005a, p. 7);
after the project, an estimated 8 to 10 territories were located in and
adjacent to the restoration area (Pearson 2012b, pers. comm.).
Disease Impacts to Habitat
Disease is not known to be a threat to the habitats of the streaked
horned lark.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. Until recently disease was not
known to be a factor affecting the habitat of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly. We now have evidence of a plant pathogen (Pyrenopeziza
plantaginis) known to affect the leaf tissue of the narrow-leaf
plantain, the primary larval food for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly at
several locations, and the exclusive larval food plant at all sites
known from Oregon. At some locations on the north Olympic Peninsula,
the Taylor's checkerspot butterflies select harsh paintbrush as the
primary larval food plant and select narrow-leaf plantain as the
secondary larval host. Pyrenopeziza plantaginis is active in late
winter through early spring, and contributes to the mortality of leaf
tissue at a time when post-diapause larvae are feeding on narrow-leaf
plantain. Narrow-leaf plantain is an exotic but widely distributed
invasive European weed in North America (Wolff and Schaal 1992, pp.
326, 330). Although the pathogen is common in Europe it has only
recently been reported in North America (Severns 2011, in litt.; Stone
et al. 2011, p. 1). Severns and Warren (2008. p. 476) identified the
pathogen on leaves of narrow-leaf plantain from remnant prairies in
Benton County, Oregon, where Taylor's checkerspot butterflies are known
to occur and where they feed exclusively on narrow-leaf plantain.
Similar instances of leaf mortality were previously attributed to frost
damage on prairies of south Puget Sound, Washington. Recently, P.
plantaginis has been identified on narrow-leaf plantain at Scatter
Creek Wildlife Area in Thurston County, and at the 91st Division
Prairie on JBLM, in Pierce County; both sites are in Washington.
Uncertainty exists regarding how Pyrenopeziza plantaginis affects
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly larvae. The pathogen has been identified
locally in Washington at sites where Taylor's checkerspot larvae feed
on narrow-leaf plantain. The pathogen kills leaf tissue in late winter
and early spring, coinciding with the time post-diapause larvae are
feeding (Severns 2011, in litt.), which would lead to declining food
resource to support the butterfly's larvae. If the food resource is
killed by this pathogen it may affect the ability of Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly larvae to survive through the critical larval
feeding period prior to emergence as an adult butterfly. Therefore,
based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that disease may be a threat to the larval
foods utilized by Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, and, subsequently,
may indirectly affect the butterfly. At this time, we have evidence of
the presence of this pathogen at Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in
Washington, where the pathogen appears common and its effect to
Plantago is severe (Severns 2011, in litt.) This threat may affect
populations if the pathogen were to become widespread on sites occupied
by Taylor's checkerspots; however, because we are uncertain of its
potential as a population-level threat, we conclude that disease is a
relatively minor threat to Taylor's checkerspot at this time, and we
have no evidence to suggest that it is likely to become a significant
threat within the future.
Transient Agricultural Habitat
The Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is not affected by transient
agricultural habitat.
Streaked Horned Lark. Roughly half of all the agricultural land in
the Willamette Valley is devoted to grass seed production fields
(Oregon Seed Council 2012, p. 1). Grasslands--both rare native prairies
and grass seed fields--are important habitats for streaked horned larks
in the Willamette Valley; open areas within the grasslands are used for
both breeding and wintering habitat (Altman 1999, p. 18; Moore and
Kotaich 2010, p. 11; Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 9). About 420,000 ac
(170,000 ha) in the Willamette Valley are currently planted in grass
seed production fields. Demand for grass seed is declining in the
current economic climate (Oregon Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1);
this decreased demand for grass seed has resulted in farmers switching
to other agricultural commodities, such as wheat or nurseries and
greenhouses (U.S. Department of Agriculture--National Agricultural
Statistical Service Oregon Field Office 2009, p. 3; Oregon Department
of Agriculture 2011, p. 1). The continued decline of the grass seed
industry in the Willamette Valley will likely result in conversion from
grass seed fields to other agricultural types; this will result in
fewer acres of suitable breeding and wintering habitat for streaked
horned larks.
Another potential threat related to agricultural lands is the
streaked horned lark's use of ephemeral habitats. In the breeding
season, streaked horned larks will move into open habitats as they
become available, and as the vegetation grows taller over the course of
the season, will abandon the site to look for other open habitats later
in the season (Beason 1995, p. 6). This ability to shift locations in
response to habitat changes is a natural feature of the streaked horned
lark's life history strategies, as breeding in recently disturbed
habitats is part of their evolutionary history. In the Willamette
Valley, patches of suitable habitat in the agricultural fields shift
from place to place as fields are burned, mowed, or harvested. Other
suitable sites appear when portions of grass fields perform poorly,
inadvertently creating optimal habitat for larks. The shifting nature
of suitable habitat is not in itself a threat; the potential threat is
in the overall reduction of compatible agriculture, which would reduce
the area within which lark habitat could occur.
[[Page 61955]]
Summary of Factor A
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. Taylor's checkerspot butterflies
face threats from loss of habitat due to conversion of native
grasslands to agriculture, and permanent loss when prairies are
developed for residential or commercial purposes. Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies also face threats from changes in vegetation structure and
composition of native grassland-dominated plant communities. Changes to
vegetation structure and composition can occur through conversion to
agriculture, through natural succession processes, and invasion by
nonnative species (Agee 1993, p. 345; Chappell and Kagan 2001, p. 42).
In addition to the loss of grasslands from development, conversion to
agriculture, and other uses, as well as plant succession, these plant
communities are faced with degradation due to invasion of the grassland
habitat that remains by native conifers and nonnative pasture grasses,
shrubs, and forbs. As grasslands have been converted, the availability
of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly larval host plants and adult nectar
plants has declined.
In addition, we conclude that disease, specifically Pyrenopeziza
plantaginis, may pose a potential threat to the larval food plant of
the Taylor's checkerspot, and therefore a potential indirect threat to
the species. However, we have no information to suggest that it is
currently a threat to Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. Any threat of
disease to the larval food plant for this species has the potential to
become a threat in the future due to the small number of remaining
populations of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. However, based on our
review of the best available information, we have no data at this point
to suggest that it is likely to become a widespread threat in the
future.
The current threats to Taylor's checkerspot butterflies are similar
to those identified at the time the species was determined to be a
candidate for listing in 2001. Since then, the threat from invasive
species and their impacts on native vegetation has increased. Other
threats, particularly the pressure to develop Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly habitat, have increased on Denman Island, Canada, in south
Puget Sound, and in the Willamette Valley (IAE 2010, p. 1). Moreover,
prior to entering two wars in 2003, military training (DOD, Army, JBLM)
on occupied Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat was lower in
intensity and duration. The only remaining high-quality native habitat
occupied by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly within the south Puget
Sound region is found on the 91st Division Prairie of JBLM, a site of
highly active training that can inadvertently result in the destruction
of larval host plants and crushed larvae.
Based on current projected development and impacts to habitat, the
loss of historically occupied locations, military training, recreation,
the limited distribution of the species, existing and future habitat
fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and land use changes associated
with agriculture and long-term fire suppression, we conclude that there
are current and ongoing threats to Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
habitat which are expected to continue into the future.
Streaked Horned Lark. The streaked horned lark population decline
in the south Puget Sound of Washington indicates that the observed
range contraction for this subspecies may be continuing, and the
subspecies may disappear from that region in the near future. There are
many other ongoing threats to the streaked horned lark's habitat
throughout its range, including: (1) Conversion to agriculture and
industry; (2) loss of natural disturbance processes such as fire and
flooding; (3) encroachment of woody vegetation; (4) invasion of coastal
areas by nonnative beachgrasses; and (5) incompatible management
practices. The continued loss and degradation of streaked horned lark
habitat may result in smaller, more isolated habitats available to the
subspecies, which could further depress the rangewide population or
reduce the geographic distribution of the streaked horned lark. We
conclude that the current and ongoing threats to streaked horned lark
habitat are resulting in a significant impact to the species and its
habitat and will continue into the future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization of species results when the number of individuals
removed from the system exceeds the ability of the population of the
species to sustain its numbers or reduces populations of the species to
a level such that it is vulnerable to other influences (threats) upon
its survival. This overutilization can result from removal of
individuals from the wild for commercial, recreational, scientific or
educational purposes.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. Populations of Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies have declined dramatically during the past decade. We know
of no overutilization of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly for
commercial, recreational, or educational purposes. However, scientific
studies may have negatively affected Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
populations at the 13th Division Prairie on JBLM (Vaughan and Black
2002). Over 7,000 individuals were observed as recently as 1997, but
only 10 adults were observed during surveys in 2000, and no Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies have been observed since (Stinson 2005, p. 94;
Linders 2012c, in litt.). Mark-recapture studies were conducted at this
site for several years during this timeframe, and the study methods
involved capturing all adults and moving them to a single release
location. This action likely influenced the population demographics,
but because no simultaneous population monitoring was conducted, it is
impossible to know whether there was an effect. According to McGarrahan
(1997), mark, release, and recapture studies of the Bay Edith's
checkerspot (Euphydryas editha bayensis) were considered a contributing
factor in the extirpation of this population from Stanford's Jasper
Ridge Preserve. There are no current Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
``mark, release and recapture studies'' in progress. Collection of
butterflies and the threat of trampling associated with scientific
studies continue to be a threat to the species, although it is likely a
minor one.
Streaked Horned Lark. Overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes is not known to be a threat to the
streaked horned lark.
Summary of Factor B
In summary, although there is some evidence of historical mortality
from overutilization for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and there
may have been recent mortality from utilization of the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly, we have no reason to believe that current levels
of utilization impact the species alone or to a degree such that it is
vulnerable to other threats. We have no information to suggest that
overutilization will become a threat in the future. In addition, there
is no evidence that commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational use is occurring at a level that would pose a threat to the
streaked horned lark.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
Most healthy ecosystems include organisms such as viruses,
bacteria, fungi, and parasites that cause disease. Healthy wildlife and
ecosystems have evolved defenses to fend off most
[[Page 61956]]
diseases before they have devastating impacts. An ecosystem with high
levels of biodiversity (diversity of species and genetic diversity
within species) is more resilient to the impacts of disease because
there are greater possibilities that some species and individuals
within a species have evolved resistance, or if an entire species is
lost, that there will likely be another species to fill the empty
niche.
Where ecosystems are not healthy, due to a loss of biodiversity and
threats such as habitat loss, climate change, pollutants or invasive
species, wildlife and ecosystems are more vulnerable to emerging
diseases. Diseases caused by or carried by invasive species are
particularly severe threats, as native wildlife may have no natural
immunity to them (National Wildlife Federation 2012).
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial data
found no evidence to indicate that disease is a threat to the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned lark. We conclude that disease
is not a threat to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or streaked
horned lark now, nor do we anticipate it to become a threat in the
future.
Predation
Predation is a process of major importance in influencing the
distribution, abundance, and diversity of species in ecological
communities. Generally, predation leads to changes in both the
population size of the predator and that of the prey. In unfavorable
environments, prey species are stressed or living at low population
densities such that predation is likely to have negative effects on all
prey species, thus lowering species richness. In addition, when a
nonnative predator is introduced to the ecosystem, negative effects on
the prey population may be higher than those from co-evolved native
predators. The effect of predation may be magnified when populations
are small, and the disproportionate effect of predation on declining
populations has been shown to drive rare species even further towards
extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74-75).
Predation has an impact on populations of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark. The degree of threat to Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly from predation is not as pronounced as with the
streaked horned lark due to the concentration of defensive plant
compounds within the larvae and adults that make them distasteful to
predators.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. Generally, butterflies exhibit some
protective mechanisms to avoid predation, and this is true for the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. Larvae of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly sequester iridoid glycosides (plant defensive chemicals)
during consumption of their larval host plants, narrow-leaf plantain
and paintbrush species. These compounds are distasteful to predators
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 36) and generalist predators such as insects and
spiders avoid checkerspot larvae (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140).
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly larvae also tend to be brightly colored,
which makes them highly visible and signals the presence of noxious
compounds to predators, including birds and some invertebrate predators
that avoid Taylor's checkerspot butterfly larvae (Kuussaari et al.
2004, p. 139). However, birds are known to attack and consume adult
butterflies. Bowers et al. (1985, p. 101), found avian predation to be
a significant factor in mortality of adult variable checkerspot
butterflies (Euphydryas chalcedona) They also found sex bias in
selection of prey as the avian predator ate more female variable
butterflies (less bright red) than male variable checkerspot
butterflies, adding support to the idea that brightly colored insects
are avoided (Bowers 1985 p. 100). This is likely a naturally occurring
predation event and we conclude that at this time it is currently not a
threat, nor do we expect it to become a threat to Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly.
Streaked Horned Lark. Predation on adult streaked horned larks has
not been identified as a threat, but it is the most frequently
documented source of mortality for eggs and young larks. In most
studies of streaked horned lark nesting ecology, predation has been the
primary documented source of nest failure (Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson
and Hopey 2004, p. 15; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16; Pearson and Hopey
2008, p. 1; Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 32). Sixty-nine percent of nest
failures were caused by predation at four south Puget Sound study sites
(Gray Army Airfield, 13th Division Prairie, Olympia Airport, McChord
Field) in 2002-2004 (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 18). Anderson (2006, p.
19) concluded that the primary predators of streaked horned lark eggs
and young were avian, most likely American crows (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), although garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.) and western
meadowlarks have also been documented preying on eggs and young in the
region (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16; Pearson and Hopey 2008, p. 4).
On the Washington coast and lower Columbia River islands, 46 percent of
nest failures were caused by predation at three study sites (Midway
Beach, Damon Point, and Puget Island) in 2004 (Pearson and Hopey 2005,
p. 18). A study of five sites in the Willamette Valley (Corvallis
Airport, M-DAC Farms, William L. Finley, Baskett Slough, and Ankeny
National Wildlife Refuges) determined that 23 to 58 percent of all
streaked horned lark nests were lost to predation (Moore and Kotaich
2010, p. 32).
Video cameras were used to identify predators in this Willamette
Valley study; documented predators include: red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American kestrel
(Falco sparverius), great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and rats and
mice (Family Cricetidae) (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 36). Streaked
horned larks are ground-nesting birds and are vulnerable to many other
potential predators, including domestic cats and dogs, coyotes (Canis
latrans), raccoons (Procyon lotor), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis),
red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), long-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata),
opossums (Didelphis virginiana), meadow voles (Microtus
pennsylvanicus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and shrews (Sorex
spp.) (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson 2005, p. 59).
Predation is a natural part of the streaked horned lark's life
history, and in stable populations, the effect of predation would not
be considered a threat to the species. However, in the case of the
streaked horned lark, the effect of predation may be magnified when
populations are small, and the disproportionate effect of predation on
declining populations has been shown to drive rare species even further
towards extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74-75). We consider the effect
of predation on streaked horned lark populations, particularly on the
south Puget Sound, to be a threat to the subspecies.
The one area where predation does not appear to be a threat to
nesting streaked horned larks is in Portland at Rivergate Industrial
Complex and the Southwest Quad at Portland International Airport. In
2009 and 2010, nesting success was very high, and only a single
predation event was documented at these sites (Moore 2011, p. 11). The
reason for the unusually low predation pressure may be that the two
industrial sites have few predators since both sites are isolated from
other nearby natural habitats.
Predation may have contributed to the extirpation of streaked
horned larks on the San Juan Islands. The subspecies
[[Page 61957]]
was last documented on the islands in 1962 (Lewis and Sharpe 1987, p.
204). The introduction of several exotic animal species to the island
roughly coincides with the disappearance of the streaked horned lark,
including feral ferrets (Mustela outorius) and red foxes. These
introduced predators may have significantly affected ground nesting
birds and played a role in the eventual extirpation of streaked horned
larks (Rogers 2000, p. 42).
Summary of Factor C
Based on our review of the best available information, we conclude
that disease is not a threat to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or
streaked horned lark now, nor do we expect it to become a threat in the
future.
We found only one study with evidence to indicate that predation
from avian predators may be a threat to the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly. While predation does occur on the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly, it does not appear to be occurring beyond expected natural
levels; therefore, we do not consider it to be a threat now, and we
have no information to indicate that it will become a threat in the
future.
Because the populations of streaked horned larks are declining and
small, we find that effect of the threat of predation is resulting in a
significant impact on the species. Therefore, based on our review of
the best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude
that predation is currently a threat to the streaked horned lark now
and will continue to be in the future.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any,
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * *.'' In
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of
the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four
factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give
strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to
management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An
example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State
statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
The following section includes a discussion of Federal, State, or
local laws, regulations, or treaties that apply to the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly or the streaked horned lark. It includes
legislation for Federal land management agencies and State and Federal
regulatory authorities affecting land use or other relevant management.
Canadian Laws and Regulations
In British Columbia, Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the
streaked horned lark are on the Conservation Data Centre's Red List.
The Red List includes ecological communities, indigenous species and
subspecies that are extirpated, endangered, or threatened in British
Columbia; placing taxa on the Red List flags them as being at risk and
requiring investigation, but does not confer any protection (British
Columbia Ministry of Environment 2012, p. 1).
In 2003, the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and in 2005, the
streaked horned lark were determined to be endangered under the
Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Environment Canada 2007, p. iii).
SARA makes it an offense to kill, harm, harass, capture or take an
individual of a listed species that is endangered or threatened;
possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of a listed species
that is extirpated, endangered or threatened, or its part or
derivative; damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals
of a listed endangered or threatened species or of a listed extirpated
species if a recovery strategy has recommended its reintroduction.
For many of the species listed under SARA, the prohibitions on harm
to individuals and destruction of residences are limited to Federal
lands, but this limitation is inapplicable to migratory birds protected
under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, including the streaked horned
lark (Statutes of Canada (S.C). ch. 29, Sec. 34). Hence, SARA protects
streaked horned larks, where present, from harm and destruction of
their residences, not only on Federal lands, but also on provincial and
private lands, where most of the remaining habitat for the species
occurs. Moreover, SARA mandates development and implementation of a
recovery strategy and action plans (S.C. ch. 29, Sec. Sec. 37, 47).
Invertebrate species assessed by the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as endangered will be protected
by the British Columbia Wildlife Act and Wildlife Amendment Act, once
these regulations are finalized (COSEWIC 2011, p. 44).
The horned lark (all subspecies) is also protected under Canada's
Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA) (S.C. ch. 22),
which is their domestic legislation similar to the United States'
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). The MBCA and its implementing
regulations prohibit the hunting of migratory nongame birds and the
possession or sale of ``migratory birds, their nests, or eggs'' (S.C.
ch. 22 Sec. Sec. 5, 12).
Although British Columbia has no stand-alone endangered species
act, the provincial Wildlife Act protects virtually all vertebrate
animals from direct harm, except as allowed by regulation (e.g.,
hunting or trapping). Legal designation as endangered or threatened
under this act increases the penalties for harming a species, and also
enables the protection of habitat in a Critical Wildlife Management
Area (British Columbia Wildlife Act 1996, accessed online). The
streaked horned lark is not listed under Canada's provincial Wildlife
Act as an endangered or threatened species.
To date there is no finalized recovery strategy for Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly in Canada (COSEWIC 2011, p. 44). A majority (97
percent) of the known populations observed in Canada occur on private
land on Denman Island, which is not protected from development by
individual landowners; approximately 1,173 ac (475 ha) of this private
land has been officially transferred to the government and will become
a Provincial Park or Ecological Reserve (COSEWIC 2011, p. 45). A final
recovery strategy for the streaked horned lark was released in 2007
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 40); the streaked horned lark is essentially
extirpated in Canada, and the recovery goal for this species is to
reestablish a breeding population of at least 10 breeding pairs at a
minimum of 3 sites within its historical breeding range in Canada
(Environment Canada 2007, p. iv). Based on our evaluation, we have
determined that SARA provides protections for both the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark given their limited
occurrences in British Columbia, and, additionally, the streaked horned
lark is afforded protections under the MBCA.
United States Federal Laws and Regulations
There are no Federal laws in the United States that specifically
protect the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. The Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) is the only Federal
[[Page 61958]]
law in the United States currently providing specific protection for
the streaked horned lark due to its status as a migratory bird. The
MBTA prohibits the following actions, unless permitted by Federal
regulation:
To ``pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or
kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase,
deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for
transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause
to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment,
transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any
manner, any migratory bird * * * or any part, nest, or egg of any
such bird.''
There are no provisions in the MBTA that prevent habitat
destruction unless direct mortality or destruction of active nests
occurs (for example, as was described in Factor A, above, for dredge
spoil disposal in the breeding season), nor does the MBTA require any
planning to recover declining species or provide funding to protect
individuals or their habitats. Therefore, we conclude that the MBTA
does not address threats to the streaked horned lark from further
population declines associated with habitat loss or inappropriate
management.
The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the Secretary of Defense
to develop cooperative plans with the Secretaries of Agriculture and
the Interior for natural resources on public lands. The Sikes Act
Improvement Act of 1997 requires Department of Defense installations to
prepare Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) that
provide for the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on
military lands consistent with the use of military installations to
ensure the readiness of the Armed Forces. INRMPs incorporate, to the
maximum extent practicable, ecosystem management principles and provide
the landscape necessary to sustain military land uses. While INRMPs are
not technically regulatory mechanisms because their implementation is
subject to funding availability, they can be an added conservation tool
in promoting the recovery of endangered and threatened species on
military lands.
On JBLM in Washington, several policies and an INRMP are in place
to provide conservation measures to grassland-associated species that
occupy training lands on the military base. JBLM in partnership with
local agencies and nongovernmental organizations has provided funding
to conserve these species through the acquisition of new conservation
properties and management actions intended to improve the amount and
distribution of habitat for these species. JBLM has also provided
funding to reintroduce declining species (e.g., Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly) into suitable habitat on and off military lands. In June
2011, representatives from DOD (Washington, DC office) met with all
conservation partners to assess the success of this program and make
decisions as to future funding needs. Support from the Garrison
Commander of JBLM and all partners resulted in an increase in funding
for habitat management and acquisition projects for these species on
JBLM.
The Service has worked closely with the DOD to develop protection
areas within the primary habitat for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly on
JBLM. These include areas where no vehicles are permitted on occupied
habitat, where vehicles will remain on roads only, and where foot
traffic is allowed.
JBLM policies include Army Regulation 420-5, which covers the
INRMP, and AR-200-1. This is an agreement between each troop and DOD
management that actions taken by each soldier will comply with
restrictions placed on specific Training Areas, or range lands. Within
the INRMP, the wildlife branch of the DOD developed updated Endangered
Species Management Plans (ESMPs) that provide site specific management
and protection actions that are taken on military lands for the
conservation of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned
lark. The ESMPs provide assurances of available funding, and an
implementation schedule that determines when certain activities will
occur and who will accomplish these actions. ESMPs require regular
updates to account for dispersal of animals, or for activities to
enhance habitat for animals that may have been translocated to a new
habitat patch. INRMPs also have a monitoring component that would
require modifications, or adaptive management, to planning actions when
the result of that specific action may differ from the intent of the
planned action. Based on the military's efforts, we conclude that
although military actions may continue to harm individuals of the
species, through the Sikes Act, the JBLM INRMP protects the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark from further population
declines associated with habitat loss or inappropriate management on
JBLM properties.
The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended (39 Stat.
535, 16 U.S.C. 1), states that the National Park Service (NPS) ``shall
promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national
parks, monuments, and reservations * * * to conserve the scenery and
the national and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.'' The NPS Management Policies indicate that the Park
Service will ``meet its obligations under the National Park Service
Organic Act and the Endangered Species Act to both pro-actively
conserve listed species and prevent detrimental effects on these
species.'' This includes working with the Service and undertaking
active management programs to inventory, monitor, restore, and maintain
listed species habitats, among other actions.
The National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B) has
required the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Forest Service to
incorporate standards and guidelines into Land and Resource Management
Plans, including provisions to support and manage plant and animal
communities for diversity and for the long-term, rangewide viability of
native species. The final planning rule (2012 rule, 36 CFR part 219)
provides a framework to guide the collaborative and science-based
development, amendment and revision of land management plans. This
framework is designed to promote healthy, resilient, diverse, and
productive national forests and grasslands with a range of social,
economic, and ecological benefits now and for future generations. In
the face of changing environmental conditions and stressors, such as a
changing climate, the 2012 rule requires plans to include plan
components to: (1) Maintain and restore ecosystem and watershed health
and resilience (ecological integrity); (2) protect key resources on the
unit, including water, air, and soil; and (3) address water quality and
riparian area protection and restoration.
The 2012 rule contains a strong implementation approach to provide
for the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence
of native species in the plan area. This approach requires that plans
use a complementary ecosystem and species-specific approach to
maintaining the diversity of plant and animal communities and the
persistence of native species in the plan area. The intent is to
provide the ecological conditions (habitat) necessary to keep common
native species common, contribute to the recovery of threatened and
endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and
maintain viable populations of each
[[Page 61959]]
species of conservation concern within the plan area. The 2012 rule
requires that plans provide the ecological conditions necessary to
contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, and to
conserve candidate and proposed species. In addition, the requirements
for restoration and ecological sustainability are intended to reduce
the risk that species will become listed as an endangered or a
threatened species in the future.
On USDA Forest Service (FS) lands, management for listed and
candidate species, as well as species of concern, follow FS Sensitive
Species policy (Kerwin and Huff 2007, p. 6). For the FS, these policies
require the agency to maintain viable populations of all native and
desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats
distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System
lands. Management ``must not result in a loss of species viability or
create significant trends toward Federal listing'' for any identified
Sensitive Species (Kerwin and Huff 2007, p. 6).
The Olympic National Forest is in the process of developing site
management plans for each location where Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
is known to occur. This planning document will call for restoration
actions to remove encroaching conifers and shrubs, nonnative plant
removal and control, road management, and may possibly include planting
or seeding of larval host plants (Holtrop 2010, p. 7). Because this
planning process is not finished, however, we do not rely on it in our
assessment of the adequacy of Forest Service regulatory mechanisms. As
a Federal candidate species, the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
receives support from the Forest Service Interagency Special Status and
Sensitive Species Program (Huff, 2011, pers. comm.). Based on our
review, we conclude that the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark are protected from further population declines
associated with habitat loss or inappropriate management on FS lands,
and the inadequacy of existing regulations under the National Forest
Management Act is not a threat to these species.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16
U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) establishes the protection of biodiversity as the
primary purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) system. This has
led to various management actions to benefit the federally listed
species including development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP)
on NWRs. CCPs typically set goals and list needed actions to protect
and enhance populations of key wildlife species on refuge lands. The
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is not known to occur on any NWR.
However, streaked horned larks occur on the Willapa National Wildlife
Refuge on the Washington coast and in the Willamette Valley Complex on
the William L. Finley, Ankeny, and Baskett Slough Refuges. The CCPs for
the Willapa Refuge and all the units in the Willamette Valley Complex
contain habitat conservation measures to address threats such as
habitat degradation and benefit streaked horned larks; measures include
surveys, habitat enhancement, and removal of invasive plants (USFWS
2011a, p. 2-34; USFWS 2011b, pp. 2-47-2-48). The joint CCP for the
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen Refuges in the lower Columbia
River states that streaked horned larks do not occur on the refuges,
although they do occur on suitable habitats near the refuge parcels
(USFWS 2010, p. 4-37). The joint CCP identifies actions to benefit
streaked horned larks on off-refuge lands (but that are within the
refuge acquisition boundary), including working with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to manage the dredge spoil deposition program to
benefit larks (USFWS 2010, pp. 2-29-2-30).
CCPs detail program planning levels that are sometimes
substantially above current budget allocations, and as such, are
primarily used for strategic planning and priority setting; inclusion
of a project in a CCP does not guarantee that the project will be
implemented. The CCPs at the Willapa and Willamette Valley National
Wildlife Refuges specifically provides for the conservation of the
streaked horned lark, and implementation of the conservation measures
in the refuge CCPs could benefit as many as 10 nesting pairs of larks
at Willapa (USFWS 2011a, pp. 4-44-4-45) and likely more than 50 pairs
at the three Willamette Valley refuges (Moore 2009, pp. 5-9). These
actions may improve the status of streaked horned larks on the refuges.
Therefore based on our review, we conclude that the streaked horned
lark is protected from further population declines associated with
habitat loss or inappropriate management on NWR lands, and the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to the
species on NWR lands.
State Laws and Regulations
Although there is no State Endangered Species Act in Washington,
the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission has authority to list
species (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 77.12.020). State-listed
species are protected from direct take, but their habitat is not
protected (RCW 77.15.120). The Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark are listed by the WDFW and are listed as
critically imperiled (S1) by the Washington Natural Heritage Program.
State listings generally consider only the status of the species within
the State's borders, and do not depend upon the same considerations as
a potential Federal listing. Unoccupied or unsurveyed habitat is not
protected unless by County prairie ordinances or other similar rules or
laws.
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark are
Priority Species under WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species Program
(WDFW 2008, pp. 19, 80, 120). As Priority Species, the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark may benefit from some
protection of their habitats under environmental reviews of
applications for county or municipal development permits (Stinson 2005,
pp. 46, 70). For Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, WDFW has developed a
recommended approach to protect the species on private property. Their
approach is non-regulatory and encourages landowners to engage in
cooperative efforts to protect and conserve Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly habitat. However, State regulatory mechanisms appear to be
insufficient to protect these species in areas where permits are not
required or requested. We therefore conclude that Washington State
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark and do not protect
these species from further population declines associated with habitat
loss or inappropriate management.
Under the Washington State Forest Practices Act (RCW 76.09 accessed
online 2012), WDNR must approve certain activities related to growing,
harvesting or processing timber on all local government, State, and
privately owned forest lands. WDNR's mission is to protect public
resources while maintaining a viable timber industry. The primary goal
of the forest practices rules is to achieve protection of water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and capital improvements while
ensuring that harvested areas are reforested. Presently, the Washington
State Forest Practices Rules do not specifically protect Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies or streaked horned larks; only the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly actually occurs within areas where Forest
Practices Rules might apply. Landowners have the option to develop a
management plan for the species if it resides on their property, or if
[[Page 61960]]
landowners choose to not develop a management plan for the species with
WDFW, their forest practices application will be conditioned to protect
this public resource. If this approach does not provide the required
protections for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, then WDFW and WDNR
may request the Forest Practice Board to initiate rule making, and
possibly, an emergency rule would be developed (Whipple 2008, pers.
comm.).
The WDNR also manages approximately 66,000 ac (26,710 ha) of lands
as Natural Area Preserves (NAP). NAPs provide the highest level of
protection for excellent examples of unique or typical land features in
Washington State. These NAPs provide protection for the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and therefore, based on their proactive
management, we do not find Taylor's checkerspot butterfly to be
threatened by the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms on WDNR
lands.
Oregon has a State Endangered Species Act (ESA), which was last
updated in 1998. The streaked horned lark is not State-listed, and the
State does not protect invertebrates like the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly under the State ESA (Oregon ESA 2004, p. 3). The list of
threatened and endangered species tracked by the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife does not include insects, and does not classify the
streaked horned lark with any conservation status. However, once an
Oregon ``native wildlife'' species is federally listed as threatened or
endangered, it is included as a State-listed species and receives some
protection and management, primarily on State-owned or managed lands
(OAR 635-100-0100 to OAR 635-100-0180; ORS 496.171 to ORS 496.192).
The Oregon Forest Practices Act (ORS 527.610 to 527.992 and OAR
Chapter 629, Divisions 600 to 665) lists protection measures specific
to private and State-owned forested lands in Oregon. These measures
include specific rules for resource protection, including threatened
and endangered species, riparian areas along lakes, streams, springs
and seeps; and wetlands. Compliance of the forest practice rules does
not substitute for or ensure compliance with the Federal Endangered
Species Act. Landowners and operators are advised that Federal law
prohibits a person from taking certain threatened or endangered species
which are protected under the Endangered Species Act (OAR 629-605-
0105). Although neither the streaked horned lark nor the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly are forest-dependent species, protective measures
taken on forest lands in Oregon may provide benefits for these species.
Based on our review of State regulatory mechanisms for the States
of Washington and Oregon, we conclude that they do not protect the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark from
further population declines associated with habitat loss or
inappropriate management.
Local Laws and Regulations
The Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 requires all
jurisdictions in the state to designate and protect critical areas. The
state defines five broad categories of critical areas, including: (1)
Wetlands; (2) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used
for potable water; (3) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
(4) frequently flooded areas; and (5) geologically hazardous areas.
Quercus garryana (Oregon white oak) habitat and prairie both
predominantly fall into the category of fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, though due to the coarse nature of prairie soils
and the presence of wet prairie habitat across the landscape, critical
area protections for crucial aquifer recharge areas and wetlands may
also address prairie habitat protection.
Within counties, the CAO applies to all unincorporated areas, but
incorporated cities are required to independently address critical
areas within their Urban Growth Area. The incorporated cities within
the range of the streaked horned lark and the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly are: (1) Shelton (Mason County); and (2) Olympia, Lacey,
Tumwater, Tenino and Yelm (Thurston County), all in the State of
Washington.
In 2009, the Thurston County Board of Commissioners adopted Interim
Ordinance No. 14260, which strengthened protections for prairie and
Oregon white oak habitat in consideration of the best available
science. The County worked with the Service and WDFW to include an up-
to-date definition of prairie habitat and to delineate soils where
prairie habitat is likely to occur. In July 2010, the ordinance was
renewed and amended, including revisions to the prairie soils list and
changes to administrative language. Since July 2010, the interim
prairie ordinance has been renewed on a 6-month basis and is currently
in place. Several prairie species were also included as important
species subject to critical areas regulation, including the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark (Thurston County 2012,
p. 1).
County staff use the known presence or historical locations of the
Taylor's checkerspot or streaked horned lark to determine whether these
species may be present at a site and impacted by the land use activity.
After a field review, if one of these species is found on the site, the
County requires a habitat management plan (HMP) to be developed,
typically by a consultant for the landowner, in accordance with WDFW's
management recommendations. This HMP specifies how site development
should occur, and assists developers in achieving compliance with CAO
requirements to minimize impact to the prairie habitat and species. The
HMPs typically include onsite restoration and enhancement activities.
Mitigation for prairie impacts may also be required, on-site or off
(Thurston County 2012, p. 2).
In Clallam, Pierce, and Mason Counties, specific critical area
ordinances have not been identified for the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly or the streaked horned lark. However, prairie habitats and
species garner some protection under Fish (or Aquatic) and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas (Mason County 2009, p. 64; Clallam County
2012, Part Three, entire; Pierce County 2012, pp. 18E.40-1-3). All
developments within these areas are required to: preserve and protect
habitat adequate to support viable populations of native wildlife
(Clallam County 2012, Part Three, entire); to achieve ``no net loss''
of species and habitat where, if altered, the action may reduce the
likelihood that these species survive and reproduce over the long term
(Pierce County 2012, p. 18E.40-1); and support viable populations and
protect habitat for Federal or State listed * * * fish or wildlife
(Mason County 2009, p. 63). While these regulations are likely adequate
for the management of species with stable populations and large ranges,
the loss of individual animals can have a cumulative impact deleterious
to species facing a wide range of other threats and that already have
decreased numbers of individuals or populations.
County-level CAOs do not apply to incorporated cities within county
boundaries, thus the incorporated cities of Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater,
Yelm, and Tenino that overlap the range of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and the streaked horned lark do not provide the same
specificity of protection for these taxa as the Thurston County CAO.
Below we address the relevant city ordinances that overlap these
species' ranges. We conclude below with a summary of whether we deem
these city
[[Page 61961]]
ordinances adequate for the conservation of the Taylor's checkerspot
and the streaked horned lark.
The City of Olympia. The City of Olympia's municipal code states
that ``The Department [City] may restrict the uses and activities of a
development proposal which lie within one thousand feet of important
habitat or species location,'' defined by Washington State's Priority
Habitat and Species (PHS) Management Recommendations of 1991, as
amended.'' (Olympia Municipal Code (OMC) 18.32.315 B). When development
is proposed within 1,000 feet of habitat of a species designated as
important by Washington State, the Olympia CAO requires the preparation
of a formal ``Important Habitats and Species Management Plan'' unless
waived by the WDFW (OMC 18.32.320).
The City of Lacey. The City of Lacey CAO includes in its definition
of critical area any area identified as habitat for a Federal or State
endangered, threatened, or sensitive species or State listed priority
habitat and calls these Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs) (Lacey
Municipal Code (LMC) 14.33.060). These areas are defined through
individual contract with qualified professional biologists on a site by
site basis as development is proposed. The code further states that
``No development shall be allowed within a habitat conservation area or
buffer [for a habitat conservation area] with which state or federally
endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary
association'' (LMC 14.33.117).
The City of Tumwater. The City of Tumwater CAO outlines protections
for Habitat Critical Areas and for ``habitats and species of local
importance.'' Tumwater's Habitat Critical Areas are established on a
case-by-case basis by a ``qualified professional'' as development is
proposed and the Habitat Critical Areas are required to be consistent
with the ``recommendations issued by the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife'' (Tumwater Municipal Code (TMC) 16.32.60). Species
of local importance are defined as locally significant species that are
not State-listed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive, but live in
Tumwater and are of special importance to the citizens of Tumwater for
cultural or historical reasons, or if the city is a critically
significant portion of its range (TMC 16.32.055 A). Tumwater is
considered a ``critically significant portion of a species' range'' if
the species' population would be divided into nonviable populations if
it is eliminated from Tumwater'' (TMC 16.32.055 A2). Species of local
importance are further defined as State monitor or candidate species
where Tumwater is a significant portion of its range such that a
significant reduction or elimination of the species from Tumwater would
result in changing the status of the species to that of State
endangered, threatened, or sensitive (TMC 16.32.055 A3).
The City of Yelm. The municipal code of Yelm states that it will
``regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to,
or likely to affect one or more critical areas, consistent with the
best available science'' (Yelm Municipal Code/(YMC) 14.08.010E4f) and
mandates that ``all actions and developments shall be designed and
constructed to avoid, minimize, and restore all adverse impacts.''
Further, it states that, ``no activity or use shall be allowed that
results in a net loss of the functions or values of critical areas''
(YMC 14.08.010 G) and ``no development shall be allowed within a
habitat conservation area or buffer which state or federally
endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary
association, except that which is provided for by a management plan
established by WDFW or applicable state or federal agency'' (YMC
14.080.140 D1a). The City of Yelm municipal code states that by
``limiting development and alteration of critical areas'' it will
``maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems through the protection of
unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment, and * * *
conserve the biodiversity of plant and animal species'' (17.08.010 A4b)
.
The City of Tenino. The City of Tenino municipal code gives
Development Regulations for Critical Areas and Natural Resource Lands
that include fish and wildlife habitat areas (Tenino Municipal Code
(TMC) 18D.10.030 A) and further ``protects unique, fragile, and
valuable elements of the environment, including critical fish and
wildlife habitat'' (TMC 18D.10.030 D). The City of Tenino references
the DNR Critical Areas Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas-Stream Typing
Map and the WDFW PHS Program and PHS Maps as sources to identify fish
and wildlife habitat (TMC 18D.10.140 E1, 2). The City also defines
critical fish and wildlife species habitat areas as those areas known
to support or have ``a primary association with State or Federally
listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species of fish or wildlife
(specified in 50 CFR 17.11, 50 CFR 17.12, WAC 232-12-011) and which, if
altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will survive and
reproduce over the long term.'' (TMC 18D.40.020A, B).
The City of Shelton. The CAO for the city of Shelton (Mason County)
specifies compliance with the PHS through designation of habitat
conservation areas (HCAs) (Shelton Municipal Code (SMC) 21.64.300 B1),
indicating that where HCAs are designated, development will be
curtailed (SMC 21.64.010 B) except at the discretion of the director
(city), who may allow single-family development at such sites without a
critical areas assessment report if development is not believed to
directly disturb the components of the HCA (SMC 21.64.360 B).
Summary. Each city's CAO has been crafted to preserve the maximum
amount of biodiversity while at the same time encouraging high density
development within their respective Urban Growth Areas. Each city
requires that potential fish and wildlife habitat be surveyed by
qualified professional habitat biologists as development is proposed. A
Habitat Conservation Area (HCA) is determined according to the WDFW
Priority Habitat and Species list. If an HCA is identified at a site,
the development of the parcel is then subject to the CAO regulations.
Mitigation required by each city's CAO prioritizes reconsideration of
the proposed development action in order to avoid the impact to the
HCA.
For the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark,
only known or historical locations are considered prior to applying the
CAOs. There are currently no WDFW Priority Habitat and Species
Recommendations for these species and no surveys are completed for
these species in suitable habitats that may be affected by development
or site disturbance.
Connectivity of populations, abundance of resources (prey species
or food plants), and undisturbed habitat are three primary factors
affecting plant and animal populations. The piecemeal pattern that
development unavoidably exhibits is difficult to reconcile with the
needs of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark
within a given Urban Growth Area. Further, previously common species
may become uncommon due to disruption by development, and preservation
of small pockets of habitat is unlikely to prevent extirpation of some
species without intensive species management, which is beyond the scope
of these individual CAOs. The Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the
streaked horned lark have been affected by habitat loss through
development and conversion. Protective measures undertaken while
development of lands is taking place may provide benefits for these
species; however, based on our
[[Page 61962]]
review of the Washington County and State regulatory mechanisms, we
conclude that these measures are currently inadequate to protect the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, and the streaked horned lark from
further population declines associated with habitat loss, inappropriate
management and loss of connectivity.
In Oregon, the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1974
adopted ``Goal 5'' a broad Statewide planning goal that covers more
than a dozen resources, including wildlife habitats and natural areas.
Goal 5 and related Oregon Administrative Rules (Chapter 660, Divisions
16 and 23) describe how cities and counties are to plan and zone land
to conserve resources listed in the goal.
Goal 5 and its rules establish a five-step planning process for
Oregon's cities and counties: (1) Inventory local occurrences of
resources listed in Goal 5 and decide which ones are important; (2)
Identify potential land uses on or near each resource site and any
conflicts that might result; (3) Analyze economic, social,
environmental, and energy consequences of such conflicts; (4) Decide
whether the resource should be fully or partially protected, and
justify the decision; and, (5) Adopt measures such as zoning to put
that policy into effect. This five-step Goal 5 process was established
by rules adopted in 1982, and revised in 1996. The revisions tailored
the process to the individual resources covered by the Goal.
Local governments shall identify conflicting uses that exist, or
could occur, with regard to significant Goal 5 resource sites. A local
government may determine that one or more significant Goal 5 resource
sites are conflicting uses with another significant resource site.
Local governments shall analyze the consequences that could result from
decisions to allow, limit, or prohibit a conflicting use. The local
government shall determine the level of protection for each significant
site. Local governments shall determine whether to allow, limit, or
prohibit identified conflicting uses for significant resource sites. A
local government may decide that the conflicting use should be allowed
fully, notwithstanding the possible impacts on the resource site.
In summary, Goal 5 is a required planning process that allows local
governments to make decisions about land use regulations and whether to
protect the individual resources based upon potential conflicts
involving economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences. It
does not require minimum levels of protections for natural resources,
but does require weighing the various impacts to resources from land
use. Based on our review of Oregon State regulatory mechanisms, we
conclude that they are inadequate to protect the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly or streaked horned lark from further population declines
associated with habitat loss or inappropriate management.
Summary of Factor D
In summary, the existing regulatory mechanisms described above are
not sufficient to significantly reduce or remove the existing threats
to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark. The
Canadian recovery strategy is a positive forward step for the streaked
horned lark, although, as the species is thought to be extirpated from
Canada, it is unlikely to result in a change in the streaked horned
lark's downward trend across its range. Lack of essential habitat
protection under State laws leaves these species at continued risk of
habitat loss and degradation in Washington and Oregon. National
Wildlife Refuges provide important protections for streaked horned lark
habitat in Washington and Oregon.
On JBLM, regulations applying to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
and the streaked horned lark are covered by the current INRMP and ESMP.
We find that the military training, as it currently occurs, causes
direct mortality of individuals and impacts habitat for the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned larks in all areas where
training and the species overlap; however, these management plans
sufficiently provide for the long-term conservation of these species on
the military base. Therefore, we do not find existing regulatory
mechanisms to be inadequate on JBLM lands.
The Washington CAOs generally provide conservation measures to
minimize habitat removal and direct effects to the Taylors' checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark. However, habitat removal and
degradation, direct loss of individuals, increased fragmentation,
decreased connectivity, and the lack of consistent regulatory
mechanisms to address the threats associated with these effects
continues to occur.
Based upon our review of the best commercial and scientific data
available, we conclude that the existing regulatory mechanisms are not
adequate to reduce the threats to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
and streaked horned lark now or in the future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Low Genetic Diversity, Small or Isolated Populations, and Low
Reproductive Success
Most species' populations fluctuate naturally, responding to
various factors such as weather events, disease, and predation. Johnson
(1977, p.3), however, suggested that these factors have less impact on
a species with a wide and continuous distribution. Populations that are
small, fragmented, or isolated by habitat loss or modification of
naturally patchy habitat, and other human-related factors, are more
vulnerable to extirpation by natural randomly occurring events,
cumulative effects, and to genetic effects that plague small
populations, collectively known as small population effects. These
effects can include genetic drift (loss of recessive alleles), founder
effects (over time, an increasing percentage of the population
inheriting a narrow range of traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading
to increasingly lower genetic diversity, with consequent negative
effects on evolutionary potential.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. Although the genetic diversity and
population structure of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is unknown,
a loss of genetic diversity may have occurred as a result of geographic
isolation and fragmentation of habitat patches across the distribution
of the existing populations. Dispersal of individuals directly affects
the genetic composition of populations and possibly the abundance of
individuals in a population (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 59). For other
subspecies of Edith's checkerspot and their closely related European
relative Melitaea, small populations led to a high rate of inbreeding
(Boggs and Nieminen 2004, p. 98). The Service is currently partnering
with WDFW to explore questions of genetic relatedness in the
subpopulations of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies. Due to its small
population size and fragmented distribution, we conclude that these
negative factors associated with small population size, as well as the
potential historical loss of genetic diversity, may contribute to
further population declines for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
Streaked Horned Lark. Genetic analysis has shown that streaked
horned larks have suffered a loss of genetic diversity due to a
population bottleneck (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881), the effect of
which may be exacerbated by continued small total population size. In
general, decreased genetic diversity has
[[Page 61963]]
been linked to increased chances of inbreeding depression, reduced
disease resistance, and reduced adaptability to environmental change,
leading to reduced reproductive success (Keller and Waller 2002, p.
235).
Recent studies in Washington have found that streaked horned larks
have lower fecundity and nest success than other Northwestern horned
lark subspecies (Camfield et al. 2010, p. 277). In a study on the south
Puget Sound, all measures of reproductive success were lower for
streaked horned larks than for other ground-nesting birds at the same
prairie sites (Anderson 2010, p. 15). The streaked horned lark's egg
hatching rate at these sites is extremely low (i.e., 44 percent at 13th
Division Prairie) (Anderson 2010, p. 18). Comparisons with savannah
sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis), a bird with similar habitat
requirements that nests on the same prairies, found that streaked
horned lark fecundity was 70 percent lower (Anderson 2010, p. 18). If
the streaked horned lark's very low reproductive success was caused by
poor habitat quality, other ground-nesting birds at the study sites
would be expected to show similarly low nest success rates; that other
bird species have much higher nest success in the same habitat suggests
that inbreeding depression may be playing a role in the decline of
streaked horned larks in the south Puget Sound (Anderson 2010, p. 27).
Other factors consistent with hypothesized inbreeding depression in the
south Puget Sound population include two cases of observed mother-son
pairings (Pearson and Stinson 2011, p. 1), and no observations of
immigration from other sites into the Puget lowland breeding sites
(Pearson et al. 2008, p. 15).
Estimates of population growth rate ([lambda]) that include vital
rates from all of the nesting areas in Washington (south Puget Sound,
Washington Coast, and one lower Columbia River island) indicate that
streaked horned larks in Washington are declining by 40 percent per
year, apparently due to a combination of low survival and fecundity
rates (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 10, 13; Camfield et al. 2011, p. 7).
Territory mapping at 4 sites on the south Puget Sound found that the
total number of breeding streaked horned lark territories decreased
from 77 territories in 2004 to 42 territories in 2007--a decline of
over 45 percent in 3 years (Camfield et al. 2011, p. 8). The
combination of low genetic variability, small and rapidly declining
nesting populations, high breeding site fidelity, and no observed
migration into the Puget lowlands populations suggests that the south
Puget Sound population could become extirpated in the near future
(Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 1, 14, 15).
In 2011, a project was initiated to increase genetic diversity in
the south Puget Sound streaked horned lark population. Twelve eggs
(four three-egg clutches) were collected from streaked horned lark
nests in the southern Willamette Valley and were placed in nests at the
13th Division Prairie site at JBLM (Wolf 2011, p. 9). At least five
young successfully fledged at the receiving site; if even one of these
birds return to breed in future years, it will likely increase genetic
diversity in the receiving population, resulting in improved fitness
and reduced extinction risk for the south Puget Sound larks (Wolf 2011,
p. 9). Based on our consideration of these factors, we conclude that
the loss of genetic diversity, the current number of small and isolated
populations (particularly in Washington State), and the species' low
reproductive success are likely to combine to result in continued
population declines for the streaked horned lark.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and variability of
different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a
typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer
periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007a, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been
faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate
system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of
the world and decreases in other regions. (For these and other
examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; and IPCC 2007d, pp. 35-54, 82-85).
Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of
the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th
century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate, and is
``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher
probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC
2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; IPCC 2007d, pp. 21-35).
Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by Huber
and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely that
approximately 75 percent of global warming since 1950 has been caused
by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., IPCC 2007c, entire;
Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527,
529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield very
similar projections of increases in the most common measure of climate
change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as global
warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the extent and rate
of warming differ after about 2030, the overall trajectory of all the
projections is one of increased global warming through the end of this
century, even for the projections based on scenarios that assume that
GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong
scientific support for projections that warming will continue through
the 21st century, and that the scope and rate of change will be
influenced substantially by the extent of GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a,
pp. 44-45; IPCC 2007c, pp. 760-764 and 797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009,
pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). (See IPCC 2007b, p.
8, for a summary of other global projections of climate-related
changes, such as frequency of heat waves and changes in precipitation.
Also see IPCC 2011 (entire) for a summary of observations and
projections of extreme climate events.)
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables
(e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007e, pp. 214-246). Identifying
likely effects often involves aspects of climate change vulnerability
analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or
system) is
[[Page 61964]]
susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate
change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a
function of the type, scope, and rate of climate change and variation
to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive
capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22).
There is no single method for conducting such analyses that applies to
all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment
and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh relevant information,
including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of
climate change.
As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we
conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be
affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it
does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a
species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from,
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information available for us to use.
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections
when they are available and have been developed through appropriate
scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher
resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for
analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a
discussion of downscaling). With regard to our analysis for the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark, downscaled
projections are available.
The ranges of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked
horned lark extend from the southern edge of the Georgia Basin, down
through the Puget Sound trough, and south to the Willamette Valley.
Downscaled climate change projections for this ecoregion predict
consistently increasing annual mean temperatures from 2012 to 2095
using the IPCC's medium (A1B) emissions scenario (IPCC 2000, p. 245).
Using the General Circulation Model (GCM) that most accurately predicts
precipitation for the Pacific Northwest, the Third Generation Coupled
Global Climate Model (CGCM3.1) under the medium emissions scenario
(A1B), annual mean temperature is predicted to increase approximately
1.8 [deg]Fahrenheit (F) (1 [deg]Celsius (C)) by the year 2020, 3.6
[deg]F (2 [deg]C) by 2050, and 5.4 [deg]F (3 [deg]C) by 2090
(Climatewizardcustom 2012). This analysis was restricted to the
ecoregion encompassing the overlapping range of the species of interest
and is well supported by analyses focused only on the Pacific Northwest
by Mote and Salath[eacute] in their 2010 publication, Future Climate in
the Pacific Northwest (Mote and Salath[eacute] 2010, entire). Employing
the same GCM and medium emissions scenario, downscaled model runs for
precipitation in the ecoregion project a small (less than 5 percent)
increase in mean annual precipitation over approximately the next 80
years. Most months are projected to show an increase in mean annual
precipitation. May-August are projected to show a decrease in mean
annual precipitation, which corresponds with the reproductive season
for all species of interest in this proposed rule (Climatewizardcustom
2012).
The potential impacts of a changing global climate to Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark are presently unclear.
Projections localized to the Georgia Basin--Puget Sound Trough--
Willamette Valley Ecoregion suggest that temperatures are likely to
increase approximately 5 [deg]F (2.8 [deg]C) at the north end of the
region by the year 2080 based on an average of greenhouse gas emission
scenarios B1, A1B, and A2 and all Global Circulation Models employed by
Climatewizard (range = 2.6 [deg]F to 7.6 [deg]F; 1.4 [deg]C to 4.2
[deg]C). Similarly, the mid region projection predicts an increase an
average of 4.5 [deg]F (range = 2.1 [deg]F to 7.1 [deg]F) (average of
2.5 [deg]C with a range of 1.2 [deg]C to 3.9 [deg]C) and the southern
end to increase by 4.5 [deg]F (range = 2.2 [deg]F to 7.1 [deg]F)
(average of 2.5 [deg]C with a range of 1.2 [deg]C to 3.9 [deg]C).
Worldwide, the IPCC states it is very likely that extreme high
temperatures, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will increase
in frequency (IPCC 2007c, p. 783).
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. Because the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly occupies a relatively small area of specialized habitat, it
may be vulnerable to climatic changes that could decrease suitable
habitat or alter food plant seasonal growth patterns (phenology).
However, while it appears reasonable to assume that the butterfly may
be affected, as detailed below, we lack sufficient certainty to know
specifically how climate change will affect the subspecies.
The relationship between climate change and survival for the
Euphydryas editha complex is driven more by the indirect effects of the
interaction between seasonal growth patterns of host plants and the
life cycle of the checkerspot butterfly than by the direct effects of
temperature and precipitation (Guppy and Fischer 2001, p. 11; Parmesan
2007, p. 1868; Singer and Parmesan 2010, p. 3170).
Predicting seasonal growth patterns of butterfly host plants is
complicated, because these patterns are likely more sensitive to
moisture than temperature (Cushman et al. 1992, pp. 197-198; Bale et
al. 2002, p. 11), which is predicted to be highly variable and
uncertain in the Pacific Northwest (Mote and Salath[eacute] 2010, p.
31). Climate models for the Georgia Basin--Puget Sound Trough--
Willamette Valley Ecoregion consistently predict a deviation from the
historical monthly average precipitation, with the months of January-
April projected to show an increase in precipitation across the region
while June-September are predicted to be much drier than the historical
average (Climatewizard 2012).
During the active season of pre-diapause larvae (early spring), the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly feeds primarily on plants of the family
Scrophulariaceae (snapdragon family, including species of Castilleja
and Triphysaria) and Plantaginaceae (plaintain family) (Stinson 2005,
p. 88). Available information suggests that if climate change disrupts
seasonal growth patterns of food plants, it is conceivable that as an
adult the butterfly may be able to use alternative food plants that
occur within its range (Singer and Wee 2005, pp. 353-355; Singer et al.
1992, pp. 17-18). The larval stage of Taylor's checkerspot is more
limited in terms of potential host plant species. Nevertheless, we have
no information indicating that any of these changes (e.g., in
availability of food plants) is likely to occur in the near future.
It is likely that the overlap of seasonal growth patterns between
these primary larval host plants and the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
will display some level of stochasticity due to climatic shifts in
precipitation and increased frequency of extreme weather events. For
the Edith's checkerspot (Euphydryas editha), Parmesan (2007, p. 1869)
reported that a lifecycle mismatch can cause a shortening of the time
window available for larval feeding, causing the death of those
individuals unable to complete their larval development within the
shortened period, citing a study by Singer (1972, p. 75). In that
study, Singer documented routine
[[Page 61965]]
mortality of greater than 98 percent in the field due to phenological
mismatches between larval development and senescence of their annual
host plant Plantago erecta (California plantain). When mismatches such
as these form the `starting point,' insects may be highly vulnerable to
small changes in synchrony with their hosts (Parmesan 2007, p. 1869).
Predicting future population dynamics and distributions is complex
for animals such as butterflies that have two very different
physiological stages (larva and adult) (for example, see Bale et al.
2002, p. 5). Moreover, forecasting the responses of butterflies and
other insects to elevated temperatures or variable precipitation is
largely based on field and laboratory studies (Hellmann 2002, pp. 927-
929). However, the relationship between these changing environmental
conditions and the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly has not been
explicitly studied, though the extirpation of populations in British
Columbia is attributed to drought conditions and the encroachment of
woody vegetation into formerly suitable habitat (Guppy 2012, in litt.).
One of the two primary host plants for the butterfly is ubiquitous
across the entire range of the species and extends well beyond areas
where the butterfly populations persist. This suggests that there is
potential for range shifting, if the butterfly had the capacity to
disperse across the landscape.
Uncertainty about climate change impacts does not mean that impacts
may or may not occur; it means that the risks of a given impact are
difficult to quantify (Schneider and Kuntz-Duriseti 2002, p. 54;
Congressional Budget Office 2005, entire; Halsnaes et al. 2007, p.
129). The interplay between host plant distribution, larval and adult
butterfly dispersal, and female choice of where to lay eggs will
ultimately determine the population response to climate change (Singer
and Parmesan 2010, p. 3164). However, determining the long-term
responses to climate change from even well-studied butterflies in the
genus Euphydryas is difficult, given their ability to switch to
alternative larval food plants in some instances (Singer and Thomas
1996, pp. S33-34; Hellmann 2002, p. 933; Singer et al. 1992, pp. 17-
18). Attempts to analyze the interplay between climate and host plant
growth patterns using predictive models or general State-wide
assessments and to relate these to the butterfly are equally
complicated (Murphy and Weiss 1992, p. 8). Despite the potential for
future climate change in Western Washington, as discussed above, we
have not identified, nor are we aware of any data on, an appropriate
scale to evaluate habitat or populations trends for the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly or to make predictions about future trends and
whether the species will be significantly impacted.
Streaked horned lark. Sea level on the Pacific Coast of Washington
and Oregon is predicted to rise according to expected values generated
by an ensemble mean of models of relative sea level rise (Tebaldi 2012,
p. 4). At Toke Point, Willapa Bay, Washington, near occupied nesting
habitat for the streaked horned lark, sea level is predicted to rise
3.9 in (9.9 cm) by 2030 and 9.8 in (0.25 cm) by 2050 (Tebaldi 2012, p.
4). Streaked horned larks are attracted to breeding sites where there
are long sight lines and sparse vegetation, making sandy islands and
shorelines ideal habitats for nesting. Sea level rise is not currently
projected to reach the height of streaked horned lark nesting habitat
on the beaches. If these projections underestimate sea level rise and
nesting habitat is infringed upon by rising waters, streaked horned
larks will likely respond by moving to up shore or to other breeding
habitats.
The indirect effects of climate change are primarily associated
with changes in habitat, such as succession from a sparsely vegetated
condition to a shrubby or forested state, which would make habitat
unsuitable for nesting. These negative impacts may be offset by other,
potentially positive effects and continued management of occupied
habitats. On the ocean beaches an increase in the frequency of winter
storm surges may improve upshore nesting habitat for larks by
disturbing or killing encroaching vegetation. Many islands used for
nesting in the Columbia River are likely to continue receiving dredge
spoil deposits, perpetuating the conditions of early primary succession
that streaked horned larks seek for nesting. Primary management on most
of the currently occupied breeding sites on the mainland of Washington
and Oregon is for agricultural, industrial, or military uses. Such
management attracts streaked horned larks through the reduction of
standing vegetation, thus conversion to unsuitable habitat due to
shifts in climate is less likely in these areas. As a result, we have
not identified nor are we aware of any data on an appropriate scale to
evaluate habitat or populations trends for the streaked horned lark or
to make predictions about future trends and whether the species will be
significantly impacted. Habitat changes to streaked horned lark habitat
from climate change may provide some benefit to the species and as such
is not currently considered a threat.
Stochastic Weather Events
Stochasticity of extreme weather events may impact the ability of
threatened and endangered species to survive. Vulnerability to weather
events can be described as being composed of three elements; exposure,
sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.
The small, isolated nature of the remaining populations of Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark increases the species'
vulnerability to stochastic (random) natural events. When species are
limited to small, isolated habitats, they are more likely to become
extinct due to a local event that negatively affects the population.
While a population's small, isolated nature does not represent an
independent threat to the species, it does substantially increase the
risk of extirpation from the effects of all other threats, including
those addressed in this analysis, and those that could occur in the
future from unknown sources.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. Environmental threats exacerbated
by small population size and weather can be a factor in Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly breeding success. Poor weather conditions, such
as cool temperatures and rainy weather, reduce the number of days in
the flight period for several early spring flying butterflies,
including Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. A shorter flight season
reduces the number of opportunities for oviposition (egg laying) for
female butterflies, thus affecting the emergence of adult butterflies
in the future. Peterson (2010, in litt) provided climate and butterfly
abundance data that indicated cold winter temperature may affect the
timing of butterfly emergence and the size of populations in years when
winters are severe. Late emergence of adults may directly impact the
mortality of larval stages if larvae are unable to complete their life
cycle before their host plants senesce, or the larvae may return to
diapause.
Butterflies, including Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, may
experience increased mortality or reduced fecundity if the timing of
plant development does not match the timing of larval or adult
butterfly development (Peterson 1997, p. 167), and large fluctuations
in population sizes have been observed based on local weather patterns
(Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 45). During 2010 and 2011, the emergence of
Taylor's adults was approximately three weeks later than ``normal'' due
to wet and cool spring weather. In addition, it has been reported that
both drought and
[[Page 61966]]
deluge may interrupt the insect-plant interaction, resulting in
decreased populations (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 45). The effects of
drought have been shown to deleteriously affect populations of Edith
checkerspots in California (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 45). Based on our
review, we conclude that stochastic weather events are a threat to the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly due to the vulnerability of isolated,
small populations.
Streaked Horned Lark. There are estimated to be fewer than 1,600
streaked horned larks rangewide (Altman 2011, p. 213). During the
breeding season, small populations of larks are distributed across the
range; in the winter, however, streaked horned larks concentrate mainly
on the lower Columbia River sites and in the Willamette Valley. Such
concentration exposes the wintering populations to potentially
disastrous stochastic events such as ice storms or flooding that could
kill individuals or destroy limited habitat; a severe weather event
could wipe out a substantial percentage of the entire subspecies
(Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 13). We have not documented the occurrence
of these threats to date, but the small and declining population of
streaked horned larks is certainly at risk of random environmental
events that could have catastrophic consequences. Based on our review,
we conclude that the effects of stochastic weather events are a
potential threat to the streaked horned lark.
Aircraft Strikes and Activities at Civilian Airports
Streaked horned larks are attracted to the flat open habitats
around airports throughout their range. Horned lark strikes are
frequently reported at military and civilian airports throughout the
country, but because of the bird's small size, few strikes result in
significant damage to aircraft (Dolbeer et al. 2011, p. 48; Air Force
Safety Center 2012, p. 2). Most of the specific information available
for threats to streaked horned larks at airports comes from the
monitoring program at the Department of Defense's JBLM on the south
Puget Sound; similar threats to streaked horned larks likely exist at
other airports, but without focused monitoring, the threats to the
birds have not been documented. Information provided from monitoring at
McChord Field is used here as a surrogate for civilian airport
information which is not readily accessible. McChord Field has had
seven confirmed streaked horned lark strikes from 2002 through 2010;
the larks were killed in the strikes, but the strikes resulted in only
minimal cost or damage to the aircraft (Elliott 2011, pers. comm.).
Aircraft strikes are potentially a large source of adult mortality for
streaked horned larks at McChord Field. Surveys in 2010 at McChord
Field detected up to 26 individuals at the site (Linders 2011a, p. 3);
loss of even 1 adult (and possibly more, since some strikes may not be
noticeable given the small mass of a horned lark) per year could remove
up to 4 percent of the population each year. Recent modeling has shown
that adult survival has the greatest influence on population growth
rates for streaked horned larks (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 13; Camfield
et al. 2011, p. 10), so consistent loss of adult streaked horned larks
to aircraft strikes could be pushing this population closer to
extirpation.
The annual Olympic Air Show takes place in June at the Olympia
Regional Airport; the events at the air show include low-level
aerobatic flying (Olympic Flight Museum 2012, p. 1). The events do not
occur on lark habitat, but parking and staging for the event may occur
on the streaked horned lark's breeding grounds (Tirhi 2012b, in litt.).
As the air show occurs during the streaked horned lark's breeding
season, the level of human activity at the site could cause nest
abandonment, exposure of young to predators or actual nest destruction
(see discussion for similar military activities under Factor A).
The Corvallis Municipal Airport is the site of the largest known
streaked horned lark population. The airport hosts training exercises
for police departments on the airport grounds (Moore and Kotaich 2010,
p. 25); intensive training sessions have destroyed nests, and the
disturbance may also cause streaked horned larks to delay breeding
activity (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 25) (see discussion for similar
use at military sites under Factor A, military activities).
The Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is not known to be impacted by
aircraft strikes and aircraft activities at airports. Habitat
management activities at these sites are covered under Factor A.
Pesticides and Herbicides
In the south Puget Sound region, currently occupied Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly sites are found in a matrix of rural agricultural
lands and low-density development. In this context herbicide and
insecticide use may have direct effects on nontarget plants (butterfly
larval and nectar hosts) and arthropods like butterflies (Stark et al.
2012, p. 23).
The application of the pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis var.
kurstaki (Btk) for control of the Asian gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar)
likely contributed to the extirpation of three historical locales for
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies in Pierce County, Washington (Vaughan
and Black 2002, p. 13). Spraying of Btk is known to have adverse
effects to nontarget lepidopteran species (butterflies and moths)
(Severns 2002, p. 169). Severns (2002) sampled butterfly diversity,
richness, and abundance (density) for 2 years following a Btk
application at Schwarz Park in Lane County, Oregon. Diversity, richness
and density were found to be significantly reduced for 2 years
following spraying of Btk (Severns 2002, p. 168). Species like Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies, which have a single brood per year, are active
in the spring and their larvae are active during the spray application
period. Most lepidopterans are more susceptible to Btk than the target
species (Asian gypsy moth) (Haas and Scriber 1998). For nontarget
lepidoptera, the early instar stages of larvae are the most susceptible
stage (Wagner and Miller 1995, p. 21).
The application of pesticides is usually restricted to a short
period of the year. However, if the target species is active at the
same time as larvae and adult Taylor's checkerspot butterflies, the
effect could be significant. Spraying of Btk still occurs in Pierce
County for gypsy moths during the time of year when Taylor's
checkerspot larvae are active and the threat of pesticide drift onto
the prairies of Pierce County cannot be discounted. At this time,
however, we have no evidence that Btk has been sprayed in any locations
where Taylor's checkerspot butterflies are known to occur.
Organophosphate-based insecticides are used in a number of
agricultural applications including black fly and mosquito control,
spraying of vegetable, nut, and fruit crops, and treatment of seed,
though they are now banned from residential use. One of these
insecticides, Naled (Dibrom), has been determined to have broad impacts
on a wide array of butterfly families (Bargar 2011, p. 888) and direct
effects to the larvae and adults of a closely related species of a
federally listed threatened butterfly, the Bay checkerspot (Euphydyras
editha bayensis) (EPA 2010, p. 23), if exposed. The extent to which
these insecticides are used in the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly's
range is currently unknown and current data was not available from the
USDA.
The streaked horned lark is not known to be impacted by pesticides
or herbicides directly, but may be impacted by the equipment used to
dispense them. These impacts are covered under Factor A.
[[Page 61967]]
Recreation
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. Recreational foot traffic may be a
threat to Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, as trampling will crush
larvae if they are present underfoot. The incidence of trampling is
limited to the few locations where Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and
recreation overlap. For example, foot traffic is relatively common at
Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in Washington, where plants and butterfly
habitat have been trampled by horses during specialized dog
competitions in which dogs are followed by observers on horseback
(Stinson 2005, p. 6), and by foot traffic using the trail system to
access the meadows of Beazell Memorial Forest (Park) in Oregon.
Recreation by JBLM personnel and local individuals occurs on and near
the 13th Division Prairie. Trampling by humans and horses, as well as
people walking dogs on the 13th Division Prairie, is likely to crush
some larvae, and the larval and nectar prairie plant communities that
are restored and managed for in this area.
Larvae have been crushed on Dan Kelly Ridge, on the north Olympic
Peninsula by vehicles that access the site to maintain a cell tower on
the ridge. Also, recreational off-road vehicle (ORV) traffic on Dan
Kelly Ridge, and on Eden Valley, has damaged larval host plants. The
ORV damage on Dan Kelly Ridge occurs despite efforts by WDNR to block
access into the upper portions of the road system through gating of the
main road. Based on our review, we conclude that recreation is a threat
to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and where the population is
depressed may constitute a serious threat to the long-term conservation
of the species.
Streaked Horned Lark. There are documented occurrences of adverse
effects to larks from recreation. Recreation at coastal sites is a
common threat to rare species; activities such as dog walking,
beachcombing, ORV use, and horseback riding in coastal habitats may
indirectly increase predation, nest abandonment and nest success for
streaked horned larks (Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 19, 26, 29). One
nest (of 16 monitored) at Midway Beach on the Washington coast was
crushed by a horse in 2004 (Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 18-19). Open
sandy beaches (e.g. dredge spoil sites on the lower Columbia islands)
make good camping areas for kayakers and boaters, and nests could be
lost due to accidental crushing. During western snowy plover surveys
conducted between 2006 and 2010 at coastal sites in Washington, human-
caused nest failures were reported in 4 of the 5 years (Pearson et al.
annual reports, 2007, p. 16; 2008, p. 17; 2009, p. 18; 2010, p. 16).
Because streaked horned larks nest in the same areas as snowy plovers
along the Washington Coast, it is highly likely that human-caused nest
failures also occur due to recreational activities at these sites. Good
communication between researchers and landowners has resulted in some
positive actions to reduce the adverse effects of recreation. In 2002,
JBLM restricted recreational activity at the 13th Division Prairie to
protect lark nesting; prohibiting model airplane flying, dog walking,
and vehicle traffic in the area used by streaked horned larks (Pearson
and Hopey 2005, p. 29).
Although restrictions to recreational use were placed on the 13th
Division Prairie by JBLM, it is a difficult area to patrol and enforce
restrictions of this type. This area, adjacent to where streaked horned
larks nest, is scheduled for a release of captive bred and translocated
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly larvae during March 2012. Based on our
review, we conclude that activities associated with recreation are
threats to the streaked horned lark.
Nest Parasitism
Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) is a
potential, though little documented, threat to streaked horned larks.
Cowbirds are common in grasslands and urban areas throughout North
America; female cowbirds lay their eggs in the nests of other songbirds
(Lowther 1993, p. 1). Upon hatching, young cowbirds compete for food
with the young of the host species, and may result in lower
reproductive success for the host pair (Lowther 1993, p. 11). In a
study in Kansas, brown-headed cowbird parasitism of horned lark nests
reduced the larks' nest success by half in those nests that were
parasitized (from 1.4 young larks fledged per nest in non-parasitized
nests to 0.7 young larks produced per nest with cowbird parasitism
(Hill 1976, pp. 560-561)). Cowbirds are native to the open grasslands
of central North America, but apparently only expanded into Oregon and
Washington in the 1950's, as a result of human clearing of forested
habitats (Lowther 1993, p. 2). Brown-headed cowbirds have been noted at
all streaked horned lark study areas, and fledgling cowbirds have been
observed begging for food from adult streaked horned larks in the south
Puget Sound (Stinson 2005, p. 56). Extensive nest monitoring of
streaked horned nests in the Willamette Valley has not identified
cowbird brood parasitism as a threat in this area (Moore 2009, entire;
Moore and Kotaich 2010, entire). Streaked horned larks have had just 50
years of exposure to brown-headed cowbirds, and as such, have not
coevolved with this nest parasite. We, therefore, conclude that the
effect of cowbird brood parasitism may be considered a threat if it
further depresses nest success of the declining streaked horned lark
population on the south Puget Sound.
The Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is not known to be impacted by
nest parasitism.
Summary of Factor E
Based upon our review of the best commercial and scientific data
available, the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of prairies has
resulted in smaller population sizes, loss of genetic diversity,
reduced gene flow among populations, destruction of population
structure, and increased susceptibility to local population extirpation
for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark
from a series of threats including pesticide use, crushing and
trampling from recreational activities, aircraft strikes and
collisions, and nest parasitism, as summarized for each species below.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly. Based upon our review of the best
commercial and scientific data available, the degradation of habitat
from recreational trampling and crushing produced by humans, dogs, and
horses has killed larvae at several sites occupied by Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies. In addition, the use of the insecticide BtK is
suspected to be responsible for the extirpation of two sites in Pierce
County, WA in 1992. We have also determined that the loss of genetic
diversity through inbreeding depression due to habitat fragmentation
and the isolation of the species is likely an ongoing active threat. We
consider the impacts from recreation and pesticide use to pose
potential threats to Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, particularly given
its inherent vulnerability due to small population sizes and isolation
of small populations.
Streaked horned lark. Genetic analysis has shown that streaked
horned larks have suffered a loss of genetic diversity due to a
bottleneck in population size (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881), the
effect of which may be exacerbated by continued small total population
size.
Habitat changes to streaked horned lark habitat from climate change
may provide some benefit to the species and as such is not currently
considered a threat. However, recreation activities can cause the
degradation of streaked
[[Page 61968]]
horned lark habitat and direct mortality to nest and young.
We consider the impacts from recreation, the loss of genetic
diversity, and the species' low reproductive numbers to pose
potentially substantial threats to Taylor's checkerspot butterfly,
particularly given its inherent vulnerability due to small population
sizes and isolation of small populations.
Proposed Determination
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
The Taylor's checkerspot butterfly has been lost from most
locations in the Canadian portion of its range with just one known
population remaining. In Washington the species was once known from
seven Puget Sound counties, and is now known to occur naturally in just
two counties, Clallam and Pierce. In Oregon, the range of Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly has been reduced to two small relict grasslands
in the foothills of the coast range near Corvallis, in Benton County,
Oregon. The distribution of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies has been
reduced from greater than 70 populations to 10 populations rangewide
today; some of these populations have been extirpated in the past
decade, and many declined from robust population sizes with greater
than 5,000 individual butterflies to zero within a 3-year interval and
have not returned. Most remaining populations of Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies are very small; 5 of the 10 known populations have fewer
than 100 individuals. Only 1 population consistently has more than
1,000 individual butterflies, and this population has been severely
impacted due to habitat impacts from military training.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. We find that the threat of
development and adverse impacts to habitat from conversion to other
uses (agriculture), the loss of historically occupied locations
resulting in the present isolation and limited distribution of the
species, the impacts of military training and recreation, existing and
likely future habitat fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and land use
changes associated with agriculture, long-term fire suppression, the
and the threats associated with the present and threatened destruction,
modification, and curtailment of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat
are significant. These threats are currently ongoing and will continue
into the foreseeable future for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies.
We find that disease may be a threat, but is not currently at a
significant level to affect Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. The threat
of disease to the larval host plant of the species may become
substantial in the foreseeable future due to the prevalence of small
population sizes for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. Predation is
not a threat to Taylor's checkerspot butterflies at this time. We
conclude that the existing regulatory mechanisms do not address and
reduce the threats to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. The voluntary
protections from WDNR have not provided protection to the species on
DNR lands in north Olympic peninsula, and WDNR grassland properties in
south Puget Sound no longer support the subspecies.
The observed habitat fragmentation and the isolation of small
populations of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly suggests that the loss of
genetic diversity through inbreeding depression may be a threat. All
known locations where Taylor's checkerspots are found in Oregon and
Washington are sufficiently distant from each other such that exchange
of genetic material from a dispersing individual moving from population
to populations would be unlikely. The threat of extreme weather events
(drought and deluge, and overcast, cold springs) affect host plant
phenology and adult butterfly emergence, which influences whether the
larvae completes their annual life cycle, thus affecting the size of
annual populations. The effects of weather events are particularly a
threat when it affects one of the few small populations that remain.
There is a potential threat of continuing pesticide application, which
is suspected to be responsible for the extirpation of some populations
of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in Pierce County. Recreational
activities (off-road vehicles, trampling and crushing from hikers and
horses) have been shown to be a threat at several of the sites occupied
by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies.
In summary, the combination of several significant threats and the
ongoing nature of these threats to the few remaining small populations
of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly leads us to conclude that the species
is currently in danger of extinction throughout the species' range. The
threats to the survival of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly occur
throughout the species' range and are not restricted to any particular
significant portion of that range. Accordingly, our assessment and
proposed determination will apply to the species throughout its entire
range. The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' Because we find that the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly is presently in danger of extinction throughout
its entire range, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the
threats described above, and the fact that the range and population
size of the species has already been drastically reduced, a proposed
determination of threatened species status for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly is not appropriate. Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we determine that the
Taylors' checkerspot butterfly meets the definition of an endangered
species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
This proposal is based on current information about the location,
status and threats for these subspecies. If new information is found
which results in an expanded range of habitats used by the subspecies,
or a decreased level of threats, we will consider that information in
the final rule.
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly meets the
definition of an endangered species throughout its entire range, we
need not further evaluate any significant portion of the range for this
species.
Proposed Determination for the Streaked Horned Lark
The streaked horned lark has disappeared from all formerly
documented locations in the northern portions of its range (British
Columbia, the San Juan Islands, and the northern Puget trough), the
Oregon coast, and the southern edge of its range (Rogue and Umpqua
Valleys). There are currently estimated to be fewer than 1,600 streaked
horned larks rangewide.
The streaked horned lark's range may be continuing to contract. The
south Puget Sound breeding population is estimated to be 150-170
individuals; the Washington coast and Columbia River islands breeding
population is 120-140 individuals. Recent research estimates that the
number of streaked horned larks in Washington and on the Columbia River
islands is declining. This decline taken together with evidence of
inbreeding depression on the south Puget Sound indicates that the
streaked horned lark's range may contract further in the future.
[[Page 61969]]
Throughout the entirety of the streaked horned lark's range, its
habitat is threatened by loss of natural disturbance regimes,
succession of woody plants and the invasion of nonnative plants that
alter habitat structure, and incompatible management practices. In
winter, most of the subspecies congregates in the Willamette Valley,
putting it at risk of stochastic events in bad weather years. Most of
the sites used by streaked horned larks require management to maintain
the low vegetative structure and open landscape needed by streaked
horned larks, although few of the streaked horned lark's breeding or
wintering habitats are managed for the conservation of the subspecies.
The range of the streaked horned lark is small and shrinking; the
magnitude of threats is not uniform throughout the range since they
appear to be concentrated in Washington based on the more severe
population level effects observed there, but weighing the small overall
population size there against the relatively larger and stable
populations in Oregon, we conclude the subspecies as a whole is not in
danger of extinction now, but is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding past, present, and future threats to
the streaked horned lark. Threats exist throughout the range of the
subspecies, population numbers are declining, and there are few
regulatory protections in place that could reduce the threats to the
subspecies. Based on the threats to the subspecies throughout its
range, we have determined the streaked horned lark meets the definition
of a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1)
of the Act.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
After finding that the streaked horned lark is a threatened species
throughout its range, we next consider whether a distinct vertebrate
population segment (DPS) meets the definition of endangered, in
accordance with the Service's Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species
Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The policy identifies three
elements that are to be considered regarding the status of a possible
DPS. These elements include:
(1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the
remainder of the species to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the species to
which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing (i.e., does the population segment, when
treated as if it were a species, meet the Act's definition of
endangered or threatened?) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
The first two elements are used to determine if a population
segment constitutes a valid DPS. If it does, then the third element is
used to consider whether such DPS warrants listing. In this section, we
will consider the first two criteria (discreteness and significance) to
determine if any unit of the streaked horned lark's overall population
is a valid DPS (i.e., a valid listable entity). Our policy further
recognizes it may be appropriate to assign different classifications
(i.e., threatened or endangered) to different DPSs of the same
vertebrate taxon (61FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
Discreteness. Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a
vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either
one of the following two conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity (separation based on genetic or morphological characters)
may provide evidence of this separation;
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Marked Separation. In our evaluation of discreteness under the DPS
policy, we primarily considered the information indicating the
separation of streaked horned larks during the breeding season into
three regions (the south Puget Sound, Washington Coast and Columbia
River, and the Willamette Valley). Observation of banded streaked
horned larks has shown that the birds show strong site philopatry in
the breeding season (i.e., individuals tend to return to the same
location to breed each year), but birds from all regions mix in the
winter (Pearson et al. 2005, pp. 2-6). In the winter most of the
streaked horned larks that breed in the south Puget Sound migrate south
to the Willamette Valley or west to the Washington coast; larks that
breed on the Washington coast either remain on the coast or migrate
south to the Willamette Valley; birds that breed on the lower Columbia
River islands remain on the islands or migrate to the Washington coast;
and birds that breed in the Willamette Valley remain there over the
winter (Pearson et al. 2005b; pp. 5-6). Streaked horned larks spend the
winter in large mixed subspecies flocks of horned larks in the
Willamette Valley, and in smaller flocks along the lower Columbia River
and Washington Coast (Pearson et al. 2005b, p. 7; Pearson and Altman
2005, p. 7).
Possible evidence of inbreeding depression (Anderson 2010, p. 27,
Pearson and Stinson 2011, p. 1) may suggest that there is a discrete
population of streaked horned larks that breed in Washington. Estimates
of population growth rate with data from nesting areas in Washington
(south Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and one lower Columbia River
island) indicate that the number of streaked horned larks in Washington
is declining each year, apparently due to a combination of low survival
and fecundity rates (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 10, 13; Camfield et al.
2011, p. 7); this trend is not apparent in Oregon (Myers and Kreager
2010, p. 11). The combination of low genetic variability, small and
rapidly declining nesting populations, high breeding site fidelity, and
no observed migration into the south Puget Sound suggests that the
streaked horned lark in the south Puget Sound could become extirpated
in the near future (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 1, 14, 15). Efforts to
reduce this apparent isolation and concomitant genetic consequences
have been implemented within the last year.
A project was initiated in 2011 to counteract the apparent decline
in the south Puget Sound breeding birds. This genetic rescue effort is
aimed at increasing genetic diversity in the streaked horned larks
breeding in Washington, which could result in increased nest success
and an increase in the population. Twelve eggs (four three-egg
clutches) were collected from streaked horned lark nests in the
southern Willamette Valley and were placed in nests at the 13th
Division Prairie site at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (Wolf 2011, p. 9). At
least five young successfully fledged at the receiving site; if even
one of these birds returns to breed in future years, it will likely
increase genetic diversity in the receiving population, resulting in
improved fitness and reduced extinction risk for the south Puget Sound
larks (Wolf 2011, p. 9). This genetic rescue project will likely be
continued for the next several years.
With the evidence of extensive mixing that occurs in the winter,
and the genetic rescue project to bolster genetic diversity in
Washington, which has
[[Page 61970]]
resulted in genetic mixing between Oregon and Washington populations,
there does not appear to be marked separation among streaked horned
larks from the three regions. In addition, the evidence of deleterious
genetic consequences to the birds breeding in Washington suggests that
any possible isolation of this population is not the result of
adaptation or natural differentiation of this population, but rather is
symptomatic of drastic population declines and loss of connectivity
between potentially interbreeding subpopulations. Because we find the
potential ``regional populations'' are not markedly separate, we do not
consider them to be discrete under the DPS policy.
Evaluation of Discreteness. Our analysis of the apparent level of
isolation and evidence of inbreeding depression does not lead to a
finding that any subunit of streaked horned larks that nest in
Washington, in the south Puget Sound, the Washington coast or the
Columbia River islands, are discrete, therefore these populations
cannot be considered as a potential DPS. This does not mean that the
three breeding regions of the subspecies are unimportant and do not
have significant conservation value. It simply means that, per our
policy, the best available data at this time do not support a marked
separation between the breeding larks in the three regions, based on
information available to us, such that this population would meet the
discreteness criterion of our DPS policy.
Significance. Under our DPS Policy, a population must be discrete
and significant to qualify as a DPS. Since we have determined that no
populations of streaked horned larks are discrete, we will not consider
whether that population segment is significant.
Conclusion of DPS Analysis for the Streaked Horned Lark
On the basis of the best available information, we have determined
that there are no discrete populations of the streaked horned lark.
Since no population segments met the discreetness element, and
therefore, no populations qualify as a DPS under the Service's DPS
policy, we will not proceed with an evaluation of the status of the
population segment under the Act.
Significant Portion of the Range
As described above, we have determined that the streaked horned
lark is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, therefore the subspecies meets the
definition of a threatened species under the Act. In the course of this
rangewide determination, we considered whether some portion of the full
range of the subspecies may face threats or potential threats acting
individually or collectively on the streaked horned lark to such degree
that the subspecies as a whole should be considered endangered. We
detail our consideration of that question here.
Although the threats to streaked horned larks in Washington and
Oregon are apparently similar in nature (including loss of habitat to
development, poor habitat quality due to lack of adequate management to
maintain low-stature vegetation, predation, and human disturbance
during the breeding season), for reasons unknown, the population trend
for streaked horned larks in Washington appears to be markedly
different than the trend for the subspecies in Oregon.
Streaked horned larks in Washington occur on the south Puget Sound,
the Washington coast, and on islands and dredge disposal sites in the
lower Columbia River (including two sites in Portland, Oregon). The
total estimated population of streaked horned larks in these areas is
270-310 birds (Altman 2011, p. 213). Demographic modeling using data
from these sites uniformly show precipitous population declines.
Pearson et al. (2008, pp. 3, 12) examined population vital rates
(reproductive rates, juvenile survival and adult survival) at seven
sites (four in the south Puget Sound, two on the Washington Coast, and
one Columbia River island) over 4 years (2002-2005) and concluded that
the Washington population is declining by 40 percent per year.
Schapaugh (2009, pp. 9, 15, 18) used both deterministic and stochastic
models to analyze the data collected by Pearson et al. (2008, p. 3),
and projected that, in all cases, the streaked horned larks in
Washington would likely become extinct within 25 years.
Camfield et al. (2011, p. 4) analyzed the data from the same three
local populations considered by Pearson et al. (2008) and Schapaugh
(2009), described above (the data were collected from about 137 nests
over 4 years (2002-2005)). Camfield et al. (2011, p. 8) concluded that
these populations have reached a point where they are declining towards
extinction, and are not sustainable without immigration. The declining
trend is probably most pronounced in the south Puget Sound population,
where studies have identified apparent inbreeding depression, which is
likely a result of the small population size, high site fidelity, and
complete absence of breeding season immigration (i.e., no observed
immigration of breeding birds from any other sites) (Pearson et al.
2008, pp. 14-15).
The population of streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley of
Oregon appears to be more stable. The population in the Willamette
Valley is estimated at 900-1,300 birds (Altman 2011, p. 213); no
population modeling has been done using data from Oregon, but the
apparent trend of the species in the Willamette Valley is stable or
slightly increasing, based on the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife's 1996 and 2008 surveys for streaked horned larks at sites
throughout the Willamette Valley (Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 11).
Population monitoring at various sites in the Willamette show that
several large populations are fairly stable or increasing. Surveys
conducted at Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge from 2006 to 2009
showed a population increase from 18 pairs in 2006 to 35 pairs in 2009
(Moore 2008, p. 8; Moore 2012, in litt.). Surveys at William L. Finley
National Wildlife Refuge found the population increasing from 15 pairs
in 2006 to 40 pairs in 2010 (Moore 2008, p. 9; Moore 2012, in litt.).
The streaked horned lark population at Corvallis Municipal Airport, the
site of the largest known population of the subspecies, measured 75
pairs in 2006, 102 pairs in 2007, 80 pairs in 2008, and 85 pairs in
2011 (Moore 2008, p. 16; Moore 2012, in litt.).
Although streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley face many
of the same threats as populations in Washington, we have no
information to indicate that populations in the Willamette Valley are
experiencing declines, or to suggest that they are likely to experience
significant declines in the foreseeable future, to the degree that this
population would be considered in danger of extinction at the present
time. The threats in the Willamette Valley are relatively small
population size, and likely loss of habitat to future development and
incompatible management practices, which leads us to conclude that the
subspecies is threatened in the Willamette Valley.
The best available data therefore suggests that under current
conditions, streaked horned larks in Washington (south Puget Sound,
Washington coast, Columbia River islands) will likely continue to
decline towards extinction within this century. Having already
determined that the streaked horned lark is threatened throughout its
range, we considered whether threats may be so concentrated in some
portion of its range that, if that portion were lost, the entire
subspecies would be in danger of
[[Page 61971]]
extinction. In applying this test, we determined that even with the
potential loss of the Washington populations, the relatively larger,
more stable population in the Willamette Valley of Oregon would likely
persist, therefore the subspecies as a whole is not presently in danger
of extinction, and therefore does not meet the definition of an
endangered species under the Act.
Continued decline of the Washington populations is considered in
conjunction with the relatively more stable populations in the
Willamette Valley leads us to the conclusion that, on balance, the
subspecies is appropriately defined as a threatened species throughout
its range under the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Listing results in recognition and public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery
tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be
available on our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Washington and Oregon
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions
that promote the protection and recovery of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark. Information on our grant programs
that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned
lark are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please
let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts
for these species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new
information on these species whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include actions to manage or restore critical habitat,
actions that require collecting or handling the species for the purpose
of captive propagation and translocation to new habitat, actions that
may negatively affect the species through removal, conversion or
degradation of habitat. Examples of activities conducted, regulated or
funded by Federal agencies that may affect listed species or their
habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Military training activities and air operations conducted in or
adjacent to occupied or suitable habitat on DOD lands;
(2) Activities with a Federal nexus that include vegetation
management such as burning, mechanical treatment, and/or application of
herbicides/pesticides on Federal, State, private, or Tribal lands;
(3) Ground-disturbing activities regulated, funded or conducted by
Federal agencies in or adjacent to occupied and/or suitable habitat;
and
(4) import, export or trade of the species, to name a few.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
[[Page 61972]]
trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export,
ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed
species. Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it
is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship
any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions
apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned lark, such
as the introduction of competing, nonnative plants or animals to the
States of Washington and Oregon;
(3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that
attack any life stage of these species, for example, Btk release in the
range of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies;
(4) Unauthorized modification of the soil profiles or the
vegetation components on sites known to be occupied by Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned larks; and
(5) Deposition of dredge materials on occupied streaked horned lark
breeding habitats, intentional harassment of species at airports as
part of a wildlife hazard reduction program, mowing or burning of
occupied species habitats during the breeding season.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Eastside
Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181
(telephone 503-231-6158; facsimile 503-231-6243).
If the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned lark are
listed under the Act, the States of Washington and Oregon Endangered
Species Acts (WAC 232-12-297 and OAR 629-605-0105) are automatically
invoked, which would also prohibit take of these species and encourage
conservation by State government agencies. Further, the States may
enter into agreements with Federal agencies to administer and manage
any area required for the conservation, management, enhancement, or
protection of endangered species. Funds for these activities could be
made available under section 6 of the Act (Cooperation with the States)
or through competitive application to receive funding through our
Recovery Program under section 4 of the Act. Thus, the Federal
protection afforded to these species by listing them as endangered or
threatened species will be reinforced and supplemented by protection
under State law.
Special Rule
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may publish a special
rule that modifies the standard protections for threatened species in
the Service's regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, which implement section 9 of
the Act, with special measures that are determined to be necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. As a means to
promote conservation efforts on behalf of the streaked horned lark, we
are proposing a special rule for this species under section 4(d) of the
Act. In the case of a special rule, the general regulations (50 CFR
17.31 and 17.71) applying most prohibitions under section 9 of the Act
to threatened species do not apply to that species, and the special
rule contains the prohibitions necessary and appropriate to conserve
that species.
Under the proposed special rule, take of the streaked horned lark
caused by restoration and maintenance activities either through
agricultural operations or by airports on State, county, private, or
tribal lands would be exempt from section 9 of the Act. These
activities include mechanical weed and grass removal on airports. In
addition, we also propose to exempt certain normal farming or ranching
activities, including: grazing, routine fence and structure
maintenance, mowing, herbicide use, burning, and other routine
activities described under proposed Sec. 17.41 (Special Rules--Birds)
at the end of this document. The rule targets these activities to
encourage landowners to continue to maintain those areas that are not
only important for airport safety and agricultural use, but also
provide habitat for the streaked horned lark. Airport restoration and
maintenance activities on Federal lands will be addressed through the
section 7 process.
Justification
Airport Management. Some management actions taken at airports are
generally beneficial to streaked horned larks. Streaked horned larks
have been documented to breed successfully and to maintain stable
populations at airports in the south Puget Sound and Willamette Valley.
Although horned larks are one of the most commonly struck birds
according to the Federal Aviation Administration's bird strike
database, they rarely cause damage to airplanes due to their small
size. However, larger birds can cause significant damage and are a
danger to planes. The Service believes current management of these
areas provide for safe aircraft operations while simultaneously
providing for the conservation of streaked horned larks. Under the
proposed rule, covered actions would include vegetation management to
maintain desired grass height on or adjacent to airports through mowing
or herbicide use; hazing of hazardous wildlife (geese, and other large
birds and mammals), routine management, repair and maintenance of roads
and runways; and management of forage, water, and shelter to be less
attractive to these hazardous wildlife.
If finalized, the listing of the streaked horned lark would impose
a requirement of airport managers where the species occur to consider
the effects of their management activities on these species.
Additionally, airport managers would likely take actions to deter the
species from areas where they currently
[[Page 61973]]
occur in order to avoid the burden of the resulting take restrictions
that would accrue from the presence of a listed species. However,
special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for airports which exempts
activities, such as mowing or other management to deter hazardous
wildlife, that would result in take under section 9 of the Act, would
eliminate the incentive for airports to reduce or eliminate populations
of streaked horned larks from the airfields.
Agricultural Lands. Streaked horned larks use agricultural habitats
in the Willamette Valley each year, even though appropriate habitat
characteristics on these lands may shift from year to year. In the
agricultural fields of the Willamette Valley, the open habitats with
the desired combination of bare ground and low vegetation structure may
occur anywhere within the agricultural matrix of the valley floor.
Habitat characteristics of agricultural lands used by streaked horned
larks include: (1) Bare or sparsely vegetated areas within or adjacent
to grass seed fields, pastures, or fallow fields; (2) recently planted
(0-3 years) Christmas tree farms with extensive bare ground; and (3)
wetland mudflats or ``drown outs'' (i.e., washed-out and poorly
performing areas within grass seed or row crop fields). Currently,
there are approximately 420,000 ac (169,968 ha) of grass seed fields in
the Willamette Valley, and an additional approximately 500,000 ac
(202,343 ha) of other agriculture. In any year, some portion of these
roughly 1 million ac (404,685 ha) will have suitable streaked horned
lark habitat, but the geographic location of those areas will not be
consistent from year to year, nor can we predict their occurrence.
While some agricultural activities may harm or kill streaked horned
larks, maintenance of extensive agricultural lands in the Willamette
Valley is crucial to maintaining a large, stable population of streaked
horned larks in the valley. Section 9 of the Act provides general
prohibitions on activities that would result in take of a threatened
species; however, the Service recognizes that routine agricultural
activities, even those with the potential to inadvertently take
individual streaked horned larks, may be necessary components of
agricultural operations and may provide for the long-term conservation
needs of the streaked horned lark. The Service recognizes that in the
long term, it is a benefit to the streaked horned lark to maintain
those aspects of the Willamette Valley's agricultural landscape that
can aid in the recovery of the species. We believe this special rule
will further conservation of the species by discouraging conversions of
the agricultural landscape into habitats unsuitable for the streaked
horned lark and encouraging landowners to continue managing the
remaining landscape in ways that meet the needs of their operation as
well as providing suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. Under
the proposed rule, we propose to exempt normal farming activities such
as planting, harvest and rotation of crops, mowing and tilling,
herbicide use, and burning, which may result in take of the streaked
horned lark under section 9 of the Act.
In addition, we believe that, in certain instances, easing the
general take prohibitions on non-Federal agricultural lands may
encourage continued responsible land uses that provide an overall
benefit to the species. We also believe that such a special rule will
promote the conservation efforts and private lands partnerships
critical for species recovery (Bean and Wilcove 1997, pp. 1-2).
However, in easing the take prohibitions under section 9, the measures
developed in the special rule must also contain prohibitions necessary
and appropriate to conserve the species. As discussed elsewhere in this
proposed rule, the streaked horned lark faces many threats. Foremost
among these is the scarcity of large, open spaces with very early seral
stage vegetation. In the Willamette Valley, large expanses of burned
prairie or the scour plains of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers may
have provided suitable habitat for streaked horned larks in the past.
With the loss of these natural habitats during the last century,
alternative breeding and wintering sites, including active agricultural
lands, have become critical for the continued survival and recovery of
the streaked horned lark.
Provisions of the Proposed Special Rule
We believe these actions and activities, while they may have some
minimal level of harm to or disturbance of the streaked horned lark,
are not expected to adversely affect the species' conservation and
recovery efforts.
This proposal will not be finalized until we have reviewed comments
from the public and peer reviewers. Exempted activities include
existing routine airport practices as outlined above by non-Federal
entities on existing airports, and agricultural and ranching
activities.
Critical Habitat Designation for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and
Streaked Horned Lark
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark in this section of
the proposed rule.
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification
[[Page 61974]]
finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner
is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable
and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it
was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the
elements of physical or biological features that provide for a species'
life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For
example, an area currently occupied by the species, but that was not
occupied at the time of listing, may be determined to be essential to
the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical
habitat designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographic area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Methods
As required by Section 4 of the Act, we used the best scientific
data available in determining those areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of these species.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species (if available), articles in peer-reviewed journals,
conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished
materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge. In this case we
used existing occurrence data for each species and identified the
habitat and ecosystems upon which they depend. These sources of
information included, but were not limited to:
1. Data used to prepare the proposed rule to list the species;
2. Information from biological surveys;
3. Peer-reviewed articles, various agency reports, and databases;
4. Information from the U.S. Department of Defense--Joint Base
Lewis McChord and other cooperators;
5. Information from species experts;
6. Data and information presented in academic research theses; and
7. Regional Geographic Information System (GIS) data (such as
species occurrence data, land use, topography, aerial imagery, soil
data, and land ownership maps) for area calculations and mapping.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al.
2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas
in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al.
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p.
1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of
severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et
al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).
The information currently available on the effects of global
climate change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently
precise estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. Nor are
we currently aware of any climate change information specific to the
habitat of the species that would indicate what areas may become
important to the species in the future. Therefore, we are unable to
determine what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate to include
in the final critical habitat for this species to address the effects
of climate change.
We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation
of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
[[Page 61975]]
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at
the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other
activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to
increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) such designation
of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
Species Proposed for Listing
As we have discussed under the threats analysis for Factor B, there
is no documentation that the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or streaked
horned lark are currently significantly threatened by collection for
private or commercial purposes. We do have some evidence that the
historical collection of butterflies for scientific studies may have
contributed to the decline and extirpation of the 13th Division Prairie
population of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in the late 1990s. This is
consistent with the decline and extirpation of the Jasper Ridge
population of Edith's checkerspot in California reported by McGarrahan
(1977, p. 479), which was determined to have been caused, in part, by
scientific studies.
We reviewed the information available for the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark pertaining to their biological needs
and habitat characteristics. In the absence of finding that the
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if
there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a
prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits of critical
habitat to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark
include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new
areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would
not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become
unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation
activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing
educational benefits to State or county governments or private
entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to
the species.
The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section
7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any
action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. We find
that the designation of critical habitat for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark will benefit these subspecies by
serving to focus conservation efforts on the restoration and
maintenance of ecosystem functions that are essential for attaining
their recovery and long-term viability. In addition, the designation of
critical habitat serves to inform management and conservation decisions
by identifying any additional physical or biological features of the
ecosystem that may be essential for the conservation of these
subspecies. Therefore, because we have determined that the designation
of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to
the species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark, as critical habitat would be
beneficial and there is no evidence that the designation of critical
habitat would result in an increased threat from taking or other human
activity for these species.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the
species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the
following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark
and habitat characteristics where these subspecies are located. This
and other information represent the best scientific data available and
led us to conclude that the designation of critical habitat is
determinable for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned
lark.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we identify the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection.
These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features required for
each subspecies from studies of their habitat, ecology, and life
history as described above in this document. We have determined that
the physical and biological features described below are essential for
the conservation of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked
horned lark, and have further determined that these features may
require special management considerations or protection.
The designation of critical habitat is an authority restricted to
the boundaries of the United States; critical habitat cannot be
designated in a foreign country (50 CFR 424.12(h)). Thus for the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark, both
subspecies that range into Canada (or historically occurred there), we
discuss the population in Canada (in the listing portion of the
document) for the purpose of evaluating the viability of the species,
and to inform our determination of those areas within the United States
that are essential for the conservation of the species. We do not
propose to designate critical habitat in Canada.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
We have determined that the following physical or biological
features are essential for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Habitat for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is characterized by
open
[[Page 61976]]
grassland habitat with short-statured vegetation structure (Stinson
2005, p. 86; Severns and Warren 2008, p. 476) throughout their range in
British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. A diverse topography is a
feature that is essential to the conservation of other checkerspot
butterflies (Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. 122; Hellmann et al. 2004, p.
41) and strongly influences the distribution and abundance of larvae
and butterflies within a habitat patch (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 46).
Topographic diversity creates conditions where larval food plant
phenology (timing of bud development, bud break, and flowering) is
variable across different slopes angles. For example, plants on south
facing slopes may develop earlier in the season as compared to those on
north facing aspects. This difference in plant phenology, as influenced
by topography, allows larvae to move to areas with plentiful, mature
host plants, or to move away from hot exposed slopes when the larval
host plants begin to dry and wither, and no longer provides sufficient
amounts or quality nutrition for the larvae. Topography has been shown
to directly influence post-diapause larval growth (Hellmann 2004 p.
46), and topographically influenced microclimates affect the
distribution and abundance of larvae and butterflies within its habitat
(Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 46). Open grassland habitat dominated by
short statured native grasses and diverse native forbs, without the
presence of conifers, and shrubs such as the nonnative Scot's broom,
and native snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus), and rose (Rosa spp.)
facilitate the movement of butterflies for mating, egg-laying
(ovipositing), and adult nectaring (see below--Sites for Breeding,
Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring).
Areas of habitat with open bare soil may also be advantageous to
the butterfly as these areas warm more quickly than the surrounding
vegetation, and butterflies thermo-regulate by basking (Scott 1986, p.
296; Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140; Stinson 2005, p. 81). The presence
of tall, nonnative grasses creates a habitat structure that is
unsuitable to checkerspot butterflies, making it difficult for adults
to locate larval host plants for egg-laying (ovipositing). Given a
choice, Taylor's checkerspot butterflies oviposited on larval host
plants surrounded by short-statured native bunchgrasses and adult
nectar plants, indicating that females select egg-laying sites based on
habitat conditions (structure) rather than just the presence of the
host plant (Severn and Warren 2008, p. 476). Post-diapause larvae
forage singularly and are capable of moving much greater distances than
pre-diapause larvae (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140). Edith's
checkerspot larvae have been documented to move up to 10 m (33 ft) from
a release site, often moving within a habitat patch to different
exposures to raise their body temperature (Stinson 2005, p. 81), and
presumably to find suitable foraging conditions (Kuussaari et al. 2004,
p. 140). Dispersal within a habitat patch benefits the larvae because
they are able to elevate their body temperature to an optimal range for
foraging and development.
Large expanses of open grassland habitat are in limited abundance
throughout the range of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly; however,
using current occupation by the butterfly as an example, it appears the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly can use relatively small patches of
suitable habitat. At this time, only one area of open grassland habitat
that supports Taylor's checkerspot butterflies is larger than 50 ac (20
ha). This location is known as the Artillery Impact Area (91st Division
Prairie) on JBLM and it is approximately 6,000 ac (2,430 ha). Even on
this large expansive prairie the butterfly uses two distinct patches
that are less than 100 ac (40 ha) each in size, and they are separated
by several kilometers. The areas between the patches are not trained
upon, and are composed of grasslands, however, the abundance and
diversity of larval host and adult nectar plants in this intervening
area does not appear to be sufficient to attract and be used by
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies. In Oregon, the two locations where
Taylor's are found are composed of several distinct grassland patches
with no individual patch larger than 5 ac (2 ha) (Kaye et al. 2011, p.
10) and many of the numerous bald patches on the north Olympic
Peninsula in Washington are small as well. The WDNR balds on Dan Kelly
Ridge and Eden Valley are a series of small openings that are all less
than 1 ac (0.4 ha) (Hays 2011, pp. 8-9, 18); whereas the Taylor's
locations found on Forest Service lands on the Olympic Peninsula range
in size from 25 to 60 ac (10 to 24 ha) (Holtrop 2009, pp. 7-10). The
Oregon sites and the north Olympic Peninsula balds are both found in a
matrix of conifer forests (Kaye et al. 2011, pp. 19-20).
Based on information provided by an expert panel and predictions
from a Prairie Reserve Design model, Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
have the highest probability of survival on patches from approximately
20-50 ac (8-20 ha) in size (probability of survival range 0.8-0.98)
(Converse et al., 2010, p. 8). In the case of this model, survival is
defined as patch of habitat that is occupied in year y+1 if Taylor
checkerspot butterfly eggs were oviposited in the patch in year y. The
model was run annually for 50 years to predict the occupancy
probability in relation to patch size for the species. Beyond a patch
size of 50 ac (20 ha) there was no added probability of survival
(Converse et al. 2009, p. 8).
Little work has been carried out on the ability of this species to
disperse. However, a mark-recapture study conducted in Oregon (Kaye et
al. 2011, p. 15) showed that dispersal distance was short (less than
984 ft (300 m) (Kaye et al. 2011, p. 16) and that Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies tended to move to the nearest open patch, or from poor
resource patches to rich resource patches, although rates of recapture
were low (2 out of 100) (Kaye et al. 2011, p. 12). Mark-recapture
studies with checkerspot butterflies in Finland documented that they
generally flew less than 1,640 ft (500 m), and that long distance
migrations were clearly restricted (Nieminen et al. 2004, p. 73).
Research conducted in California on Edith's checkerspot butterfly
described the butterfly as sedentary (Murphy et al. 2004, p. 23) and
rarely undertaking long-distance movements (Singer and Hanski 2004, p.
184). Hellmann et al. (2004, p. 37) found evidence of limited dispersal
between closely situated populations even though the habitat provided
similar food resources and was well within dispersal distance (Hellmann
et al. 2004, p. 39). Based upon the current distribution of the known
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly populations, there is a lack of
opportunity for genetic interchange and a reduced likelihood that
populations that decline due to stochastic events are likely to be
repopulated by emigrating individuals.
While Taylor's checkerspot butterflies may not need large areas to
survive, they do require habitat patches composed of short-statured,
abundant, and diverse larval host and nectar species (described below).
These patches (separated by 984 ft (300 m) or less (Kaye et al, 2011.
p.16)) should be scattered throughout their range to allow for movement
within patches, dispersal to new habitat patches, and recolonization of
lost or nonviable sites both within and between patches due to habitat
or population changes. Although dispersal by Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies appears to be limited, in order to recover the species
there will need to be an ability to recolonize new
[[Page 61977]]
habitat and provide for genetic exchange, which is essential to the
long-term viability (survival) of the species. At this time, the
distance between habitat patches in Washington and Oregon is too great
for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies to disperse between patches. The
connections between patches are lacking throughout the species' range,
and only through protection and restoration using special management of
the intervening patches will genetic exchange be accomplished. High
quality reproductive habitat is currently relegated to relatively small
areas within a larger context of degraded prairie landscape (Severns
and Warren 2008, p. 476; Severns and Grossball 2011, p. 2).
Landscape and habitat diversity, or heterogeneity, are essential
elements for the conservation of Edith's checkerspot butterflies
(Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. 122; Hellman et al. 2004, p. 41), and
based on their similar habitat needs, we presume that habitat diversity
is also essential to the conservation of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly, even though the species may only require and use small areas
of suitable habitat. Patches of habitat where Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly populations are robust also tend to have high topographic
diversity including areas with mima mounds (low, domelike, mounds of
earth found in certain prairies) and areas composed of swales
(depressions) that produce ecotone habitat (Johnson and O'Neil 2001, p.
715) between dry upland habitat typical of south Puget Sound prairies,
and wet prairie habitat more typical of the Willamette Valley (Easterly
et al. 2005, p. 1). Swales may enhance the wildlife resources available
on the landscape (Easterly et al. 2005, p. 1) or improve the richness
of wildlife resources (biodiversity) of an area and as such are
important for wildlife conservation (Thomas et al. 1979, p. 48). Mima
mounds and swales are important because they may support plants not
found in the either the dry or wet portions of a grassland. Swales
formed on the prairies of south Puget Sound support a rich assemblage
of native plants because of the variation in aspect exposure found
there, with the south aspect being dry compared with more shaded
northern aspects. The north-facing portion of a swale is likely to
maintain moist conditions later into the growing season than the
surrounding level ground.
Moist, cool conditions of a swale or a mima mound may be similar to
the moist, cool, and overcast conditions experienced throughout most of
the species' range in 2011, which made for one of the longest flight
seasons on record for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in Washington (45
days; Linders 2011b, p. 17) and in Oregon (42 days; Ross 2011, in litt.
p. 3). In a study by Peterson (1997, p. 167), he demonstrated that
flowering phenology varied by aspect and elevation of plant patches,
which affects a butterfly's ability to complete its life cycle. The
timing of plant flowering directly affects whether a butterfly larva
finds the required plant patches during the period they have to
complete their larval development. If the food resource becomes
exhausted before the larvae complete their life cycle they will either
return to diapause, or die.
Based on the information above, we identified areas of open
grassland habitat with suitable habitat patches of short-statured
grasses from less than 1 acre to greater than 50 ac (roughly 0.4 ha to
more than 20 ha) in size within a large landscape context are essential
to the conservation of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. In the
Pacific Northwest, suitable occupied habitat patches may be found in a
large forested landscape with small grassland opening of suitable
habitat (such as in Oregon or at sites on the north Olympic Peninsula),
or the entire landscape may be a large relatively degraded grassland
with smaller suitable habitat patches occupied by the Taylor's
checkerspot. To allow for dispersal between suitable habitat patches
the occupied patches would ideally be located within approximately
1,640 ft (500 m) of other suitable habitat patches within the larger
landscape context.
In summary, a wide range of suitable habitat patch sizes, including
large to very small connected patches, appear to accommodate the
requisite needs of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, as the butterfly
is known to occupy areas in disjunct locations scattered across the
Pacific northwest grassland landscape from sea-level to as high as
4,000 ft (1,220 m) elevation.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Because checkerspots are cold-blooded (exothermic), they are
required to complete their life cycle in a short period of time in open
conditions where solar exposure is maximized. Larvae often seek and
disperse to warm, open slopes (James and Nunnallee 2011, p. 286). Adult
checkerspot butterflies often bask and remain in open grassland
conditions using the sunshine and warm air temperature to increase
their body temperature to the level required for normal activity (73 FR
3328, p. 3335; January 17, 2008).
The availability of abundant food resources for larval development
and adult nectaring is an essential factor to protecting populations of
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. Taylor's checkerspot butterflies
require open grassland habitat with specific host plants for larval
development, and nectar plants for adult feeding. Habitat quality may
range from relatively pristine to severely degraded (disturbed) as long
as the requisite larval host plants (Plantago lanceolata, (nonnative
narrow-leaf plantain) and Castilleja hispida (native harsh paintbrush),
and in Canada, nonnative and native species of Veronica (speedwell)
such as V. scutella (marsh speedwell), V. beccabunga var. americana
(American speedwell), and V. serpyllifolia (thymeleaf speedwell) are
present in sufficient abundance to support larval development,
chrysalis formation, and emergence as an adult.
Regardless of the quality of grassland habitat for Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies, conditions suitable to support Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly must have representatives of at least one, or
both, of the two food plant families utilized by the larvae (Pyle 2002,
p. 311; Erhlich and Hanski 2004, p. 17; Severns 2008, p. 2; Severns and
Warren 2008; p. 476). Specifically, larval food plants utilized by the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly are species from the Orobanchacae
(formerly Scrophulariacae; the snapdragon or figwort family) and
Plantanginacae (Plantain) family (Erlich and Hanski 2004, p. 22). These
plant families represent two of four plant families found within the
region that contain secondary chemicals called iridoid glycosides
(Erhlich and Hanski 2004, p. 22), which may make adult butterflies
distasteful to predators (van Nouhuys and Hanski 2004, p. 161; Murphy
et. al. 2004 p. 22). Although numerous plant families (up to 16) may be
utilized by checkerspot larvae (Murphy et. al. 2004, p. 22), the larvae
are known to preferentially select plant members of the plantain and
snapdragon (now broomrape) families in the Pacific Northwest.
Checkering on wings of adult butterflies and the sequestering of
chemical compounds that make adult butterflies distasteful are two of
many mechanisms used by butterflies as a signal and defense against
natural enemies (Van Nouhys and Hanski 2004, p. 161).
Adult Taylor's checkerspot butterflies are known to use a wide
diversity of nectar plants for feeding, including, but not limited to
several native plant
[[Page 61978]]
species including: Balsamorhiza deltoidea (balsamroot); Eriophyllum
lanatum (woolly sunshine); Lomatium triternatum (nine-leaved desert
parsley); Lomatium utriculatum (fine-leaved desert parsley, spring
gold); Camassia quamash (common camas); Erigeron speciosus (showy
fleabane); Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle); Achillea millefolium
(common yarrow); Lupinus lepidus (prairie lupine); and Lupinus
albicaulis (sickle-keeled lupine).
Adult butterflies obtain some moisture from nectar sources and the
need for actual water sources may only occur during years of extreme
drought (Stinson 2005, p. 81). There is evidence that points to
butterflies using puddles to obtain salts leached from soil (Stinson
2005, p. 81), or they may use mud, carrion, animal urine, or feces to
obtain salts, minerals, amino acids and proteins (Guppy and Shepard
2001, p. 69). The intake of amino acids by females results in larger
eggs, and consequently larger and healthier larvae (Murphy et al. 1983,
p. 259).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify open, short-
statured grassland structure with rich and diverse plant communities
containing one or both primary larval food plants, the narrow-leaved
plantain and harsh paintbrush, as a physical and biological feature
essential to the conservation of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
Habitat should include open bare soil with a background structure
composed of a bunchgrass community (Roemer's fescue or California oat-
grass). A source of water, or puddles, is used to avoid dehydration and
to acquire nutrients, particularly in drought years (Stinson 2005, p.
81; Guppy and Shepard 2001, p. 41). Other important larval food plants
include, but are not limited to, other members of the Orobanchaceae
(broomrape; formerly Scrophulariaceae (snapdragon or figwort)) family,
which are documented larval host plants (James and Nunnallee 2011, p.
286; Pyle 2001, p. 311; Hellmann et al., 2004, p. 35) and are essential
to the conservation of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. Other
species of the Plantaginaceae family have not been documented as a
favored larval host plant, except in Canada (COSEWIC 2011 p. 25), where
Taylor's have been observed utilizing the nonnative Plantago major
(common plantain). Plant community patches utilized by Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly, especially those within a highly degraded
prairie landscape context, must also include a diverse mix of native
forbs to provide nectar for adult butterflies.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Taylors's checkerspot butterflies require open grassland habitat
with specific host plants for larval and adult feeding as discussed
above. As plant communities become invaded by taller structure grass,
sites for breeding are reduced and the availability of larval and adult
butterfly resources is limited.
The encroachment of nonnative, invasive species reduces the quality
and size of habitat patches used for reproduction that are found in an
otherwise larger grassland landscape (Severns and Warren 2008, p. 478;
Severns and Grosboll 2011, p. 2). The quality of Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly habitat resources is quite variable across its distribution,
with Oregon sites being relatively depauperate (sparse vegetation and
low plant diversity) when compared with floristically abundant occupied
habitat in Washington (Severns and Grosboll 2011, p. 2).
Oviposition (egg deposition) by Taylor's checkerspot butterfly has
most often been documented on narrow-leaf plantain and harsh
paintbrush. Taylor's checkerspot butterfly larvae are known to also
utilize several species of speedwell in Canada (marsh speedwell,
American speedwell, and thyme-leaved speedwell) (COSEWIC 2011, p. 25).
In Washington, Collinsia parviflora (blue-eyed Mary), and potentially
Plectritis congesta (sea blush) may be used for egg-laying (James and
Nunnullee 2011, p. 286; Severns and Grossball 2011, p. 60).
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly larvae require sheltered sites out
of the wind and weather for diapause (Linders 2012, pers. comm.). Adult
butterflies tend to roost on nearby nectar plants (deltoid balsamroot,
sickle-keeled lupine, and nine-leaved desert parsley) in close
proximity to larval host plants (plantain and paintbrush) where eggs
are oviposited or larvae are developing by feeding on host plants. The
preferred or most suitable habitat for larval feeding is on sites with
topographic variation or exposure (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140). This
allows larvae to move from one host plant to another of the same
species, as host plants are ephemeral in nature and phenology of an
individual plant can differ within a habitat patch, depending on local
weather and host plant quality (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140). Because
of their limited ability to move, prediapause larvae must hatch from
eggs oviposited in a favorable site for locating the appropriate host
plant under the appropriate environmental condition (Kuussaari et al.
2004, p. 138). In the climate and local weather conditions of the
Pacific Northwest, larval development requires a site that is warm and
dry (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 138).
Therefore, based on the information above, we have determined that
areas within open grasslands with short-statured structure, that
contain larval host plants for egg laying and feeding, which are in
close proximity to host plants that provide protection from wind and
wet weather for larval rearing is a physical and biological feature
essential to the conservation of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
Disturbance serves an important function in restoring and
sustaining habitat composition and function for improving prairie
quality. As vegetation responds positively to disturbances, habitat
succession occurs, restoring the early seral species, including the
larval host plants narrow-leaved plantain and harsh paintbrush.
Typically, management is needed to improve prairie quality.
Management treatments disturb the land and soil, and may involve
prescribed fire, weed control using herbicides, the harvesting of
encroaching trees, or the simple process of planting grasses, forbs and
rare or uncommon plant species by hand or using mechanical means. Short
term and small scale disturbances range from a few square feet to
several acres (1 square meter to a few hectares). Larger scale
disturbances can range from ten to hundreds of acres (~2.5 to 40
hectares).
Occupied sites on the north Olympic Peninsula on Forest Service and
Washington Department of Natural Resources land receive regular
disturbance from off road vehicles (ORV), and service trucks using the
road weekly to access cell-phone towers at one site (Dan Kelly Ridge).
At the single private land location on the north Olympic Peninsula no
public access is permitted on the property. Disturbances generated from
the frontage road was reduced at this site by closing the road during
the spring and summer leading to the single most important management
action carried out at the site (Hays 2011 p. 32). The road closure was
implemented for the conservation of the species in 2009 and has
improved the habitat in the short-term, leading to increased numbers of
larval host plants (P. lanceolata) and pre-diapause larval masses
observed at the site (Severns and Grosboll 2011, p. 32).
[[Page 61979]]
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify areas with
early seral habitat that experience regular disturbance as essential to
the conservation of the species. Regular disturbance is necessary to
maintain early seral habitat conditions required to aid establishment
of the larval host and adult nectar plants. Because natural disturbance
regimes have largely been eliminated in areas occupied by Taylor's
checkerspot, active, planned management is generally required to
maintain habitats in the early seral condition required by the
butterfly. Between times of planned disturbance, sites should receive
protection from disturbance in a temporal context, as too much
disturbance too often will reduce numbers of Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies and the spatial extent of their habitat. Disturbance will
be beneficial and essential to resetting the habitat back to early
seral conditions approximately every 2-5 years, based on recovery from
disturbance history, and the resiliency of larval food plants as
documented from experience at JBLM and other south Puget Sound
locations that have received proactive management. The larval host
plants and adult nectar plants are resilient and can recover if the
habitat is provided sufficient time to rest (at least two growing
seasons) between episodes of use and disturbance.
Primary Constituent Elements for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in areas occupied at
the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent
elements. We consider primary constituent elements to be the elements
of physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly are:
(i) Patches of early seral, short-statured, perennial bunchgrass
plant communities composed of native grass and forb species in a
diverse topographic landscape ranging in size from less than 1 ac up to
100 ac (0.4 to 40 ha) with little or no overstory forest vegetation
that have areas of bare soil for basking that contain:
(a) In Washington and Oregon, common bunchgrass species found on
northwest grasslands include Festuca roemeri (Roemer's fescue),
Danthonia californica (California oat grass), Koeleria cristata
(prairie Junegrass), Elymus glaucus (blue wild rye), Agrostis scabra
(rough bentgrass), and on cooler, high-elevation sites typical of
coastal bluffs and balds, Festuca rubra (red fescue).
(b) On moist grasslands found near the coast and in the Willamette
Valley, there may be Bromus sitchensis (Sitka brome) and Deschampsia
cespitosa (tufted hairgrass) in the mix of prairie grasses. Less
abundant forbs found on the grasslands include, but are not limited to,
Trifolium spp. (true clovers), narrow-leaved plantain, harsh
paintbrush, Puget balsam root, woolly sunshine, nine-leaved desert
parsley, fine-leaved desert parsley, common camas, showy fleabane,
Canada thistle, common yarrow, prairie lupine, and sickle-keeled
lupine.
(ii) Primary larval host plants (narrow-leaved plantain and harsh
paintbrush) and at least one of the secondary annual larval host plants
(blue-eyed Mary, sea blush, or dwarf owl-clover) or one of several
species of speedwell (marsh speedwell, American speedwell, or thymeleaf
speedwell).
(iii) Adult nectar sources for feeding that include several species
found as part of the native (and one nonnative) species mix on
northwest grasslands, including: Narrow-leaved plantain; harsh
paintbrush; Puget balsam root; wooly sunshine; nine-leaved desert
parsley; fine-leaved desert parsley or spring gold; common camas; showy
fleabane; Canada thistle; common yarrow; prairie lupine; and sickle-
keeled lupine.
(iv) Aquatic features such as wetlands, springs, seeps, streams,
ponds, lakes, and puddles that provide moisture during periods of
drought, particularly late in the spring and early summer. These
features can be permanent, seasonal, or ephemeral.
With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we intend to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, through the identification of the primary
constituent elements essential to support the life-history processes of
the species. We are proposing to designate critical habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. In
addition, we are proposing to designate some specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that
were historically occupied, but are presently unoccupied, because we
have determined that these areas are essential for the conservation of
the species.
Streaked Horned Lark
We have determined that the following physical or biological
features are essential for the streaked horned lark:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
An open landscape context is an essential attribute of habitat used
by streaked horned larks. Open areas allow streaked horned larks to
detect predators while nesting and foraging on the ground and provide
the space needed during aerial courtship displays in the springtime.
Our data indicate that sites used by streaked horned larks are
generally found in open (i.e., flat, treeless) landscapes of 300 ac
(120 ha) or more. Sites used by streaked horned larks are usually flat,
with slopes between 0 and 5 percent, and generally not more than 10
percent, over the entire area. Some patches with the appropriate
characteristics (i.e., sand, bare ground, low stature vegetation) may
be smaller in size if the adjacent patches provide the required open
landscape context. This situation may occur in agricultural habitats
and on sites next to water. For example, some of the sites used by
streaked horned larks on the islands in the Columbia River are small,
but are adjacent to open water, which provides the open landscape
context needed. Streaked horned larks use the same habitats for all
life history processes, in both the breeding and wintering seasons.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify flat
(typically 0 to 5 percent slope), open sites (treeless, low vegetation
or bare ground), or smaller suitable habitat patches located in an open
landscape context (roughly 300 ac (120 ha) in size), as a physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the streaked horned
lark.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, Rearing of Offspring, Foraging and
Wintering
Streaked horned larks use habitats that have very early seral stage
vegetation for all life stages. Suitable streaked horned lark habitats
have substantial areas of bare ground, few or no shrubs, and sparse,
low stature vegetation, primarily short annual grasses, bunch grasses,
and forbs (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). Suitable habitat is
generally 16-17 percent bare ground (consisting of dirt, gravel, or
sand), and may be more open at sites selected for nesting (Altman
[[Page 61980]]
1999, p. 18; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). Vegetation height is
generally less than 13 inches (33 centimeters) (Altman 1999, p. 18;
Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27), with less than 15 percent shrub cover
(Pearson and Hopey, 2005 p. 2). Streaked horned larks apparently select
nesting sites based on the vegetation structure, and not on the
presence of any particular type of vegetation (Altman 1999, p. 18;
Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 19-20). Nests are generally placed on the
north side of a clump of grass or a forb (Moore and Kotaich, 2010, p.
18). These sites may be frequently disturbed in a way that resets
succession, eliminating dense grasses and forbs, and halting the
invasion of shrubs and trees.
These habitats may be native prairies, coastal dunes, fallow and
active agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, sparsely vegetated edges
of grass fields, recently planted Christmas tree farms with extensive
bare ground, moderately to heavily grazed pastures, gravel roads or
gravel shoulders of lightly traveled roads, graveled or grassy areas
adjacent to airport runways, idle industrial properties, and dredge
material deposition sites. These sites provide both breeding and
wintering habitat for streaked horned larks.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify sparse, low-
stature vegetation with areas of bare ground as a physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the streaked horned
lark.
Primary Constituent Elements for Streaked Horned Lark
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark in areas occupied at the time
of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We
consider primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical or
biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes
and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to the streaked horned lark are:
(i) Areas having a minimum of 16 percent bare ground that have
sparse, low stature vegetation composed primarily of grasses and forbs
less than 13 in (33 cm) in height found in:
a. Large (300-ac (120-ha)), flat (0-5 percent slope) areas within a
landscape context that provides visual access to open areas such as
open water or fields, or
b. Areas smaller than described in i(a), but that provide visual
access to open areas such as open water or fields.
With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we intend to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, through the identification of the primary
constituent elements sufficient to support the life-history processes
of the species. All but one of the units proposed to be designated as
critical habitat are currently occupied by the streaked horned lark and
contain the primary constituent elements to support the life-history
needs of the species. One subunit, Coffeepot Island in the Columbia
River, is not currently occupied by the streaked horned lark, but has
been determined to be essential to the conservation of the species, as
described below.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. Here we describe the type of special management
considerations or protections that may be required for the physical or
biological features identified as essential for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark. The specific critical habitat units
and subunits where these management considerations or protections apply
for each species are identified in Table 1.
All areas designated as critical habitat will require some level of
management to address the current and future threats to the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark and to maintain or
restore the PCEs. A detailed discussion of activities influencing the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark and their
habitats can be found in the preceding proposed listing rule. Threats
to the physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of these species and that may warrant special management
considerations or protection include, but are not limited to: (1) Loss
of habitat from conversion to other uses; (2) control of nonnative,
invasive species; (3) development; (4) construction and maintenance of
roads and utility corridors; and (5) habitat modifications brought on
by succession of vegetation from the lack of disturbance, both small
and large scale. These threats also have the potential to affect the
PCEs if they are conducted within or adjacent to designated units.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly may require special management
considerations or protection to improve the viability and distribution
of habitat suitable for the butterfly. These include preventing the
establishment of invasive, nonnative and native woody species, and
hastening restoration by actively managing sites to establish native
plant species and the structure of the plant community that is suitable
for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. Restoration and maintenance of
occupied Taylor's sites will require active management to plan,
restore, enhance and manage habitat using an approach that resets the
vegetation composition and structure to an early seral stage.
Management actions that produce suitable conditions for Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies and reset the ecological clock to early seral
conditions favored by the butterfly include prescribed fires,
mechanical harvesting of trees, activities such as hand planting or
mechanical planting of grasses and forbs, and the judicious use of
herbicides for nonnative invasive species control.
These early-seral conditions favor the production and maintenance
of plantain, paintbrush, and other larval host plants in a short-
structure vegetation community that allows utilization of the plants by
the butterfly. Areas where the butterfly occupies a site should have
limited soil and vegetation disturbance at times when the larvae are
active, which extends from late February when post-diapause larvae are
active to late June when pre-diapause larvae are on site. Other
activities that could cause trampling or impacts to the larvae and that
should be minimized, reduced or restricted during larval feeding
include use of the site by off-road vehicles, military training using
vehicles or impacts caused by large infantry (foot soldiers), or
activities that transport or spread nonnative plants, and the risk of
wildfire or prescribed fire.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the streaked horned lark may require special management
considerations or protection to ensure the provision of early seral
conditions and landscape context of sufficient quantity and quality for
long-term conservation and recovery of the species. Activities such as
mowing, burning, grazing, tilling, herbicide treatment, grading, beach
[[Page 61981]]
nourishment, or placement of dredge material can used to maintain or
restore nesting and wintering habitats. Regular disturbance is
necessary to create and maintain suitable habitat, but the timing of
management is important. The management actions should be conducted
outside of the breeding season to avoid the destruction of nests and
young, or if habitat management must be done during the breeding
season, it should be done in a way that minimizes destruction of nests
or harassment of individuals. Nesting success is highest in locations
with restricted public use or entry such as military facilities,
airports, islands, wildlife refuges, or sites that are remote or
difficult to access.
Table 1--Threats to the Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked
Horned Lark Identified in Specific Proposed Critical Habitat Units;
Threats Specific to the Physical or Biological Features, Which May
Require Special Management Considerations or Protection as Described in
the Text, Are Identified With an Asterisk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly Streaked horned lark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor A:
Development *........... Unit 1: 1-D, 1-E, 1- Unit 1: 1-A, 1-B, 1-
F, 1-G, 1-H (Pvt), C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-F; 1-
1-I, 1-J; Unit 2: 2- G; Unit 3: 3-Q;
C. Unit 4: 4-A, 4-C, 4-
E, 4-H.
Columbia River Dredge NA.................. Unit 3: 3-E, 3-F, 3-
Spoil Deposition *. G, 3-H, 3-I, 3-K, 3-
M, 3-N.
Loss of Natural Unit 1: all All units and
Disturbance Processes, subunits; Unit 2: subunits.
Invasive Species and all subunits; Unit
Succession.* 4: all subunits.
Military Training \*\... Unit 1: 1-A, 1-B, 1- Unit 1: 1-B, 1-C, 1-
C, 1-E. D, 1-E.
Restoration Activities All units and All units and
\**\. subunits. subunits.
Factor B:
Overutilization for NA.................. NA.
Commercial,
Recreational,
Scientific, or
Educational Purposes.
Factor C:
Disease *............... Unit 1: 1-A, 1-B, 1- NA.
C, 1-E, 1-H; Unit
4: All subunits.
Predation............... NA.................. All units and
subunits.
Factor D:
The Inadequacy of Unit 1: 1-E, 1-F, 1- NA.
Existing Regulatory G, 1-H, 1-I, 1-J;
Mechanisms.* Unit 2: 2-D.
Factor E:
Low Genetic Diversity, All units and Unit 1: All
Small or Isolated subunits. subunits.
Populations, and Low
Reproductive Success.
Stochastic Weather All units and NA.
Events. subunits.
Climate Change \*\...... All units and NA.
subunits.
Aircraft Strikes and NA.................. Unit 1: 1-A, 1-B, 1-
Activities at Civilian C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-F.
Airports. Unit 3: 3-Q.
Unit 4: 4-A, 4-C, 4-
E, 4-H.
Pesticides and All units and NA.
Herbicides. subunits.
Recreation.............. Unit 1: 1-C, 1-D, 1- Unit 3: 3-A, 3-B, 3-
E, 1-F, 1-H; Unit C, 3-D.
2: 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, 2-
E; Unit 4: 4-A.
Nest Parasitism......... NA.................. NA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\**\ Although restoration is necessary for the maintenance of suitable
habitat, the methods and timing of those restoration practices may
directly impact individual Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark if the life-histories of the species are not taken into
consideration during application of restoration techniques. Please see
the sections entitled Loss of Natural Disturbance Processes, Invasive
Species and Succession and Restoration Activities in the listing
portion of the document.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements
of the species, and begin by assessing the specific geographic areas
occupied by the species at the time of listing. If such areas are not
sufficient to provide for the conservation of the species, in
accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we then consider whether designating additional areas
outside the geographic areas occupied at the time of listing may be
essential to ensure the conservation of the species. We consider
unoccupied areas for critical habitat when a designation limited to the
present range of the species may be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species. In this case, since we are proposing
listing simultaneously with the proposed critical habitat, all areas
presently occupied by the subspecies are presumed to constitute those
areas occupied at the time of listing; those areas currently occupied
by the subspecies are identified as such in each of the unit or subunit
descriptions below. These descriptions similarly identify which of the
units or subunits are believed to be unoccupied at the time of listing.
Our determination of the areas occupied at the time of listing, and our
rationale for how we determined specific unoccupied areas to be
essential the conservation of the subspecies, are provided below.
We plotted the known locations of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark where they occur in Washington and
Oregon using 2011 NAIP digital imagery in ArcGIS, version 10
(Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer geographic
information system program.
To determine if the currently occupied areas contain the primary
constituent elements, we assessed the
[[Page 61982]]
life history components and the distribution of the subspecies through
element occurrence records in State natural heritage databases and
natural history information on each of the subspecies as they relate to
habitat. We first considered whether the presently occupied areas were
sufficient to conserve the species. If not, to determine if any
unoccupied sites met the criteria for critical habitat, we then
considered: (1) The importance of the site to the overall status of the
subspecies to prevent extinction and contribute to future recovery of
the subspecies; (2) whether the area presently provides the essential
physical or biological features, or could be managed and restored to
contain the necessary physical and biological features to support the
subspecies; and (3) whether individuals were likely to colonize the
site. We also considered the potential for reintroduction of the
subspecies, where anticipated to be necessary (for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly only).
Occupied Areas
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
For Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, we are proposing to designate
critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing, as well as in unoccupied areas that we have
determined to be essential to the conservation of the species
(described below). These presently occupied areas provide the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,
which may require special management considerations or protection. We
determined occupancy in these areas based on recent survey information.
All sites occupied by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly have survey
data as recently as 2011, except for the Forest Service sites on the
north Olympic Peninsula where data is as recent as 2010 (Potter, 2011;
Linders 2011; Ross 2011; Holtrop 2010, Severns and Grossboll 2011). In
addition, there have been some recent experimental translocations of
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly to sites where it had been extirpated
within its historical range. If translocated populations have been
documented as successfully reproducing, we considered those sites to be
presently occupied by the subspecies. Areas proposed as critical
habitat for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly are representative of
the known historical geographic distribution for the species, outside
of Canada.
In all cases, when determining proposed critical habitat
boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas
such as lands covered by buildings, pavement (such as airport runways
and roads), and other structures because such lands lack the essential
physical or biological features for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or
streaked horned lark, with the exception of graveled margins of the
airport runways and taxiways. The scale of the maps we prepared under
the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations
may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps
of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule
and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if
the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action
involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
We are proposing four units of critical habitat for designation
based on sufficient elements of physical and biological features being
present to support life-history processes for the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark. These 4 units are further divided
into 47, some of which contain proposed critical habitat for both
subspecies. Some subunits within the units contain all of the
identified elements of physical and biological features and support
multiple life-history processes. Some subunits contain only some
elements of the physical and biological features necessary to support
the subspecies' particular use of that habitat. Because we determined
that the areas presently occupied by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
and the streaked horned lark are not sufficient to provide for the
conservation of these subspecies, we have additionally identified some
subunits that are presently unoccupied, but that we have determined to
be essential to the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are also
proposing these unoccupied areas as critical habitat for the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark.
We invite public comment on our identification of those areas
presently occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned
lark and provide the physical or biological features that may require
special management considerations or protection, as well as areas that
are currently unoccupied but that we have determined to be essential to
the conservation of the subspecies.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing critical habitat for the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark in four units in the States of
Washington and Oregon, as follows:
(1) The South Sound Unit (Unit 1) has proposed critical habitat
subunits for both the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark.
(2) The Strait of Juan De Fuca Unit (Unit 2) has proposed critical
habitat subunits only for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
(3) The Washington Coast and Columbia River Unit (Unit 3) has
proposed critical habitat subunits only for the streaked horned lark.
(4) The Willamette Vally Unit (Unit 4) has proposed critical
habitat subunits for both the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the
streaked horned lark.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly--Units 1, 2, and 4
We are proposing three units as critical habitat for Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly. The critical habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the species. The three units we
propose as critical habitat are: Unit 1, South Sound--5,801 ac (2,348
ha) in Washington State (2,324 ac of Federal ownership; 1,444 ac of
State ownership; 1,325 ac of private ownership; 545 ac of County
ownership; and 163 ac of lands owned by a Port, local municipality, or
nonprofit conservation organization); Unit 2, Strait of Juan De Fuca--
923 ac (374 ha) in Washington State (160 ac of Federal ownership; 320
ac of State ownership; 253 ac of private ownership; and 190 ac of land
owned by a Port, local municipality, or nonprofit organization); and
Unit 4, Willamette Valley--the 151 ac (62 ha) in Oregon (151 ac of
lands owned by a Port, local municipality, or nonprofit conservation
organization). The approximate area of each proposed critical habitat
unit and its relevant subunits, as well as land ownership within each
unit is shown in table 2.
[[Page 61983]]
Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
[Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within proposed critical habitat unit boundaries.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State County Private Other *
Subunit name ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ac (ha) Ac (ha) Ac (ha) Ac (ha) Ac (ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 South Sound
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-A.................................. TA7S................... 78 (31) 0 0 0 0
1-B.................................. 91st Division Prairie.. 1,377 (557) 0 0 0 0
1-C.................................. 13th Division Prairie.. 647 (262) 0 ....................... 0 0
1-D.................................. Rocky Prairie.......... 0 54 (22) ....................... 385 (156) 28 (12)
1-E.................................. Tenalquot Prairie...... 222 (90) 0 0 0 135 (55)
1-F.................................. Mima Mounds/Glacial 0 406 (164) 545 (220) 0 0
Heritage.
1-G.................................. West Rocky Prairie..... 0 134 (54) 0 0
1-H.................................. Scatter Creek.......... 0 603 (255) 98 (40) 0
1-I.................................. Rock Prairie........... 0 0 621 (251) 0
1-J.................................. Bald Hills............. 0 246 (100) ....................... 221 (90) 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 Totals.......... 2,324 (941) 1,444 (595) 545 (220) 1,325 (537) 163 (66)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2 Strait of Juan De Fuca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-A.................................. Deception Pass State 0 149 (60) 0 0 0
Park.
2-B.................................. Central Whidbey........ 0 39 (16) 0 0 190 (77)
2-C.................................. Elwha.................. 0 132 (53) 102 (45) 0
2-D.................................. Sequim................. 0 0 151 (61) 0
2-E.................................. Upper Dungeness........ 160 (65) 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2 Totals.......... 160 (65) 320 (129) 0 253 (106) 190 (77)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4 Willamette Valley
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-1.................................. Fort Hoskins Historic 0 0 0 0 6 (3)
Park.
4-2.................................. Baezell Memorial Forest 0 0 0 0 61 (25)
4-3.................................. Fitton Green........... 0 0 0 0 84 (34)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4 Totals.......... 0 0 0 0 151 (62)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total--all Units. 2,484 (1,006) 1,764 (694) 545 (220) 1,578 (643) 504 (205)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Other = Ports, local municipalities and non-profit conservation organizations.
[[Page 61984]]
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly, below.
Unit 1: South Sound (or Puget Lowland)--Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
The South Sound Unit consists of 5,830 ac (2,359 ha) of land
proposed for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies in 10 subunits. This
critical habitat unit is located in the south Puget Sound region of
Washington State, within Pierce and Thurston County. This unit is owned
and managed by several State and Federal agencies, and includes the
Department of Defense (DOD), Washington Departments of Natural
Resources and Fish and Wildlife, Thurston County Parks and Recreation,
and a single private site at Tenalquot (Morgan) prairie. The subunits
proposed within the South Sound Unit for the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly are a mix of occupied and unoccupied areas; 3 subunits are
presently occupied, and 7 subunits are unoccupied but essential to the
conservation of the species, for the reasons described in the section
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat. Only one subunit (91st
Division Prairie; subunit 1-B) is occupied by a native population of
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, and two other subunits (I-B Range 50
and 1-H, Scatter Creek SW) are occupied by recently translocated
butterflies that now successfully breed, survive, and have populations
that are increasing in numbers. Subunit 1-B is owned and managed by the
DOD (Army) on JBLM. Subunit 1-H is located on the local Scatter Creek
Wildlife Area (south unit) owned and managed by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Four of these subunits are being
managed primarily for military training.
The DOD (Army) has written Endangered Species Management Plans for
these subunits for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly (under the DOD
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, or INRMP), and we are
proposing to exempt of these lands under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the
Act (see Exemptions, below). For those threats to the essential
physical or biological features that are common to all subunits,
special management considerations or protection may be required to
address direct or indirect habitat loss due to development, conifer and
shrub encroachment, invasive plant species, use of herbicides, and
restoration activities. For those threats that are unique to DOD lands,
special management considerations or protection may be required to
address uncontrolled fires due to deployment of explosive or incendiary
devices, military training involving heavy equipment (resulting in
trampling or crushing of burrows), digging or trenching, bombardment,
or use of live ammunition.
Subunit 1-A: Training Area (TA) 7s. This subunit contains 78 ac (32
ha) in Pierce County, Washington, on DOD lands. This unit is currently
unoccupied, but was previously occupied. We have determined it is
essential to the conservation of the species because it has the
potential for restoration of the physical or biological features
sufficient to enable the reintroduction and reestablishment of Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly. This subunit is an intensely managed prairie
located directly north of the Central Impact Area on JBLM. It is
bordered by a gravel pit to the west and Madigan Hospital Grounds to
north and west, and the Burlington Northern Railroad Right of Way to
the East. The gravel pit is no longer used and could be restored, and
is currently a site with extensive distribution of the Taylor's primary
host plant, narrow- leaved plantain. The southern border of this
subunit is formed by the conifer forest along its southern edge.
Landscape heterogeneity from the presence of swales and the gravel pit
are present at this subunit. This critical habitat subunit (1-A) is
being proposed for exemption from designation of critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, contingent on our approval of the DOD
INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1-B: The Artillery Impact Area (AIA), also known as the
91st Division Prairie. This subunit (east and west) totals 1,377 ac
(557 ha) and is located entirely within Pierce County, Washington, on
DOD lands. The eastern portion of this subunit is occupied by the only
remaining native population of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies in the
south Sound Unit. The west subunit is occupied by translocated Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies first released here in 2008 and now represents
an occupied ``small population'' center. This subunit provides the
essential physical or biological features for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly, which may require special management considerations or
protection. This subunit receives periodic, heavy military training,
which results in regular ground fires being ignited that serve a
surrogate function as the form of special management that would be
implemented during prescribed fires. Other forms of special management
will be required to control nonnative, invasive species that are found
within the eastern portion of the subunit. Some minimal management
takes place on the periphery of the AIA, creating conditions suitable
for maintaining the PCEs. The eastern portion of the subunit is
bordered by a military access road; the southeast corner of this unit
is King Hill and extends west for ~1 mile (1.6 km). This area includes
the north and south ``castles'' (structures used as target objectives
for live fire training) in TA 76 and is bordered to the north by the
main paved road (Story Road) north of the AIA. The second area is
located at Range 51 and is bordered by the oak/conifer forests to the
south. This area extends into the AIA approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) north
from the SE corner and extends due west to intersect with the south
boundary access road of the AIA. This critical habitat subunit (1-B) is
being proposed for exemption from designation of critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, contingent on our approval of the DOD
INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1-C: Training Area 15, is located in an area often referred
to as the 13th Division Prairie. This subunit is located entirely in
Pierce County, Washington, on DOD lands and totals 647 ac (262 ha). We
have determined it is essential to the conservation of the species
because it has the potential for restoration of the physical or
biological features sufficient to enable the reintroduction and
reestablishment of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. This site is
currently being enhanced to improve butterfly habitat and will be used
for release of captive bred and translocated Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly larvae, where larval releases are planned for the spring of
2013. This subunit includes grassland habitat and forest margins, and
already provides some of the PCEs in the form of large patches of
suitable habitat providing abundant, diverse larval host food resources
and adult nectar food plants for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. Water
sources are available in Muck and South Creek. This subunit is
topographically diverse, with swales and riparian habitat formed by
Muck and South Creek. The western and southern boundaries are formed by
military access roads. Formerly (prior to the year 2000), this unit was
known to harbor thousands of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies. This
critical habitat subunit (1-C) is being proposed for exemption from
designation of critical habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
contingent on our approval of the DOD INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1-D: Rocky Prairie. This subunit includes the Rocky Prairie
Natural Area Preserve (NAP;
[[Page 61985]]
Washington Department of Natural Resources), which includes 35 ac (14
ha) of high-quality habitat. The subunit also includes three privately
owned properties; the rail line that borders the NAP on the east side
(15 ac (6 ha)), and the adjoining grassland east of the railroad
property (388 ac (157 ha)), and Wolf Haven International (29 ac; 12
ha), which is south of the grassland. The entire subunit is located
within Thurston County, Washington. This subunit is currently
unoccupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies, although a small
population was detected as recently as 1989 (Pyle 1989, p. 170) at the
Rocky Prairie NAP. This population is no longer present and this
subunit is considered an historical site.
We have determined it is essential to the conservation of the
species because it has the potential for restoration of the physical or
biological features sufficient to enable the reintroduction and
reestablishment of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. Some of the
essential features are already present on the landscape in this area.
The proposed subunit is composed entirely of grasslands and includes
oak woodland margins, some transitional colonization (first growth)
Douglas-fir forest within the greater prairie landscape. Several other
PCEs, including landscape heterogeneity, and diverse, abundant larval
and adult plant resources are present. The north boundary is formed by
Waldrick Road and Highway 99 the west. Wolf Haven International is at
the southeastern extent. The Rocky Prairie Natural Area Preserve
portion makes up 35 ac (14 ha) of this critical habitat subunit (1-D)
and is being proposed for exclusion from designation of critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, due to the approved WDNR
State Trust Lands HCP (see Exclusions).
Subunit 1-E: Tenalquot Prairie. This subunit includes grassland and
oak woodland portions of JBLM Training Area 22 and the privately owned
Morgan property. The subunit is located in Thurston County, Washington,
and managed by the DOD (Johnson Prairie) and the nonprofit Center for
Natural Lands Management, respectively. The subunit designation for
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly on Tenalquot Prairie is made up of
Johnson Prairie (also known as ``El Guettar dropzone''), (222 ac (90
ha)) on JBLM lands, and the Morgan property (135 ac (55 ha)). Both
locations are presently unoccupied by Taylor's, although Johnson
Prairie is an historical site. We have determined it is essential to
the conservation of the subspecies because it would provide for the
reintroduction and reestablishment of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
Some of the essential features are already present on the landscape in
this area and as it would provide a metapopulation center within a
large landscape (more than 2,000 ac (810 ha) of managed prairie in the
south end of the County. In addition, this proposed subunit provides
several of the essential features to support Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly, including landscape heterogeneity, diverse and abundant
larval and adult plant resources, and bare ground. Each area within the
subunit is periodically managed using fire and mechanical methods to
remove Scot's broom and sustain early seral conditions. The portion of
this proposed critical habitat designation on JBLM (222 ac (90 ha)
located at Training Area 22 is being proposed for exemption from
designation of critical habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
contingent on our approval of the DOD INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1-F: Mima Mounds/Glacial Heritage. This subunit is located
in Thurston County, Washington. The Glacial Heritage Preserve is 545 ac
(220 ha) and is owned and managed by Thurston County. The Mima Mounds
NAP is roughly 406 ac (164 ha), and is owned and managed as a NAP by
the WDNR. Both sites were historically occupied by Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies but are currently unoccupied. We have determined it is
essential to the conservation of the subspecies because it has the
potential to provide for the reintroduction and reestablishment of
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly to support recovery. Many of the
essential features required to support a reintroduced population are
already present on the landscape in this area. This subunit provides
diverse topography, a water course, abundant and diverse larval and
adult food resources, and areas of bare soil due to active management.
Glacial Heritage Preserve had a robust population of Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly in the mid-1990s and is scheduled to receive
translocated Taylor's checkerspot larvae this year (2012). Both sites
contain landscape heterogeneity, abundant and diverse larval and adult
food resources, and areas of bare soil, and Glacial Heritage is bounded
on the east side by a water course. The Mima Mounds NAP portion (406 ac
(164 ha)) of this critical habitat subunit (1-F) is proposed for
exclusion from designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act, due to the approved WDNR State Trust Lands HCP (see
Exclusions).
Subunit 1-G: West Rocky Prairie. This subunit contains 134 ac (54
ha) and was historically occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterfly but
is currently unoccupied. It is located in Thurston County, Washington,
and owned and managed by WDFW. The subunit lies between 140th Avenue SE
to the south, an east-west running Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
railroad line to the north and a north-south BNSF railroad line to the
east and Tilley Road to the west. This subunit contains landscape
heterogeneity with topographic relief from mima mounds, small wetland
depressions, and an active creek and pond that contains a Federally
listed threatened plant (Howellia aquatilis; water howellia) and the
Federal candidate species Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). Distinct
areas of West Rocky Prairie have rich larval host and adult food
resources. We have determined this subunit is essential to the
conservation of the subspecies because it has the potential to provide
for the reintroduction and reestablishment of Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly to support recovery. In addition, this area has many of the
physical or biological features essential to support the long-term
conservation and recovery of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, providing
topographic diversity (including mima mounds), wetlands, ponds, and a
perennial creek. This area receives active management to sustain
suitable prairie habitat, and is specifically being enhanced for
butterflies and the Federally listed threatened plant Castilleja
levisecta (golden paintbrush), which has been reintroduced to the site.
Subunit 1-H: Scatter Creek. This subunit includes Scatter Creek
Wildlife Area (SCWA), a small private land parcel, and a power line
right-of-way managed by the Federal Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) in Thurston County, Washington. The north and south units of
Scatter Creek SCWA contain 730 ac (295 ha). The private land parcel
totals 98 ac (40 ha) and is managed by WDFW in the same way as the
Wildlife Area. This property was historically occupied by Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly, and is currently occupied by a population
established from larvae released between 2007-2011. This subunit
contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including landscape heterogeneity with
swales and mima mounds; rich, diverse larval and adult food resources;
bare ground (due to management practices); and a stream running through
the center of the property.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to maintain bare ground in
[[Page 61986]]
this subunit. The north subunit is bounded on the east by Case Road,
and on the south subunit is bordered by 183rd Avenue SW. Scatter Creek
runs through the property and forms the north boundary of the portions
subunit and the south boundary of the north subunit; this property is
bounded on the west by residential areas. The northern portion of the
Wildlife Area is bounded to the west by second growth conifer forests.
We are considering the exclusion of approximately 98 ac (40 ha) of
private property in this subunit under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, due
to the level of public benefits derived from encouraging collaborative
efforts and encouraging private and local conservation efforts; and the
effect designation would have on partnerships, as well as the existing
WDFW lease on this property, and the fact that this property is managed
in a manner consistent with the conservation of this species (see
Exclusions).
Subunit 1-I: Rock Prairie. This subunit is made up of two private
properties in south Thurston County, Washington. The acreage for the
subunit is 621 ac (251 ha). The southernmost private property is an
historical location for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, but it is
currently unoccupied. We have determined this subunit is essential to
the conservation of the subspecies because it has the potential to
provide for the reintroduction and reestablishment of Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly to support recovery. In addition, this area has
many of the features essential to support the long-term conservation
and recovery of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, including diverse
topography with terraces and swales, abundant and diverse larval and
adult food resources, and a water course formed by Scatter Creek along
the southern boundary of the property. It is managed under a Grassland
Reserve Program agreement and has a permanent conservation easement on
530 ac (215 ha) of the property.
The northern border for the southern property and the southern
border for the northern property is 183rd Avenue SW.; in other words,
183rd Avenue SW. bisects the two properties. The eastern border of the
southern portion of the subunit is an active gravel and sand mining
operation, and to the north of the northern portion of the subunit is
forest, and to the southwest of the southern property is forest. These
forested areas clearly delineate property and land use boundaries. The
entire acreage of the proposed critical habitat (379 ac (153 ha)) on
one private landowner's property is considered for exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, due to the conservation easement on
approximately 530 acres of their property and the Grassland Reserve
Program plan developed in partnership with the USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) for the long-term management of their
property, which is consistent with restoration and management needs for
sustaining prairies (see Exclusions).
Subunit 1-J: Bald Hills. This subunit is located in southeast
Thurston County, Washington, and is managed by WDNR and several timber
companies. The total area of this subunit is 468 ac (189 ha). This is
an historical location for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies but was
recently extirpated (2007); therefore, it is not believed to be
currently occupied. We have determined this subunit is essential to the
conservation of the subspecies because it has the potential for active
management to restore the physical or biological features essential to
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and to provide for the reintroduction
and reestablishment of the subspecies to support recovery. In addition,
this area already provides some of the features essential to support
the long-term conservation and recovery of Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly, including diverse topography of balds, steep slopes,
canyons, oak glades, a rich diversity of larval and adult food
resources, and areas of bare soil, which are used for basking and
resting by the butterfly. This area is the southeastern most
distribution of Taylor's checkerspot in Thurston County, and is the
only Thurston County site that is formed on bald habitat. The Bald
Hills NAP portion (247 ac (100 ha)) of this critical habitat subunit
(1-J) is proposed for exclusion from designation of critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, due to the approved WDNR State Trust
Lands HCP, which covers Natural Area Preserves (see Exclusions).
Unit 2: Strait of Juan de Fuca--Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
The Strait of Juan de Fuca Unit for Taylor's Checkerspot butterfly
consists of 924 ac (374 ha) of land in 5 subunits. The Strait of Juan
de Fuca Unit includes coastal bluff, dune, and bald habitat in Clallam
and Island Counties, Washington. Except for two coastal dune sites at
Sequim and Deception Pass State Park, the subunits in this location
contain bald habitat, surrounded by and found within a large forested
landscape. These balds are all found on south, or southwest facing,
steep, rocky, and thin-soil areas. The balds themselves and the road
margins (verges) are rich in larval and adult food resources, and in
this location Taylor's checkerspot butterflies lay eggs and larvae
subsist on harsh paintbrush, although plentiful plantain is also
available and the plantain is also utilized at this location. This unit
is within the historical range of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly,
and several designated subunits are presently occupied by the
subspecies.
In addition, some subunits are proposed for designation that are
currently unoccupied, but that we have determined to be essential to
the conservation and recovery of the subspecies, as described in the
section Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat. All subunits, both
occupied and unoccupied, contain several of the PCEs, and the coastal
sites have lagoons, fresh water lakes, wetlands. The bald locations
have the PCEs of topographic relief, abundant and diverse larval and
adult food plants, and bare soil areas associated with adjacent roads.
Management to expand the size of several balds as Douglas fir, Acer
macrphyllum, (bigleaf maple) A. circinatum (vine maple), Holodiscus
discolor (oceanspray), Arctostapholus columbiana (hairy manzanita, and
nonnative shrubs (such as Scot's broom) are quickly encroaching.
Landowners in this unit include WDNR, the U.S. Forest Service,
Washington State Parks, and a private landowner at Sequim. The physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats to the essential physical or biological features including the
general succession of vegetation at all sites, which reduces the
distribution and availability of native food resources. The subunits on
WDNR and Forest Service lands are threatened by ORV use and service
trucks accessing cell-phone towers (Dan Kelly Ridge). The owner of the
private subunit at Sequim is currently managing the dune and abandoned
road corridor for the conservation of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly.
Subunit 2-A: Deception Pass. This subunit is located on Island
County in Washington and managed by Washington State Parks. The subunit
contains sites found along low-lying beach areas (coastal dunes), and
include several balds on high points within the park. These open areas
are disjunct from each other and total 149 ac (60 ha). The State Park
is an historically occupied location for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly, but is currently unoccupied. We have determined this subunit
is essential to the conservation of the
[[Page 61987]]
subspecies because it has the potential to provide for the
reintroduction and reestablishment of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly to
support recovery. This was an historically occupied location in a
coastal area that is currently represented at just one occupied site.
In addition, this area has many of the features essential to support
the long-term conservation and recovery of Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly, including diverse topography on balds and protected beaches,
diverse and abundant larval and adult food plants, and areas of bare
soil for basking and resting.
Subunit 2-B: Central Whidbey. This subunit is located on Island
County in Washington and includes Ebey's Landing, the Naas Conservation
Area, and the former Smith Prairie. This subunit contains both State
and private lands. In total these areas comprise 230 ac (93 ha),
although the Smith Prairie is disjunct from the remaining contiguous
coastal grasslands bluffs. The subunit was historically occupied by
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly but is not currently occupied. The
subunit would require captive breeding and translocation of the species
to bring it back to this location. We have determined this subunit is
essential to the conservation of the subspecies because it has the
potential to provide for the reintroduction and reestablishment of
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly to support recovery. In addition, it
provides many of the features essential to supporting reintroduced
population of the subspecies, including diverse topography, abundant
larval and adult nectar food resources, areas of bare soil, some
freshwater wetlands, and saltwater along the coast. Some management is
ongoing at the site, and will be required to restore and maintain the
essential features to support a reintroduced population, including
management to restrict encroaching trees and to sustain larval food
resources.
Subunit 2-C: Elwha. This subunit includes sites on the northern
Olympic Peninsula in Clallam County, Washington, totaling 235 ac (95
ha) and is occupied by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly at the time
of listing. These lands are primarily owned and managed by WDNR (172 ac
(69 ha)), although small inholdings of private timber companies (Aloha
Lumber) have been included as the habitat continuity was found to
follow the topography. At Eden Valley, 23 ac (9 ha) of WDNR property
were included in the proposed subunit, as were 2 ac (approximately 1
ha) of private property. At the Dan Kelly Ridge location, 109 ac (44
ha) of WDNR land and 99 ac (40 ha) of private timber lands were
included in this subunit. The balds are presently occupied by Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies on WDNR lands, and the butterflies have been
observed flying up and down the steep slopes of the habitat onto
private lands. The location known as Eden Valley is composed of several
small connected and some isolated balds. This area contains several
PCEs including topographic heterogeneity, abundant and diverse larval
and adult food resources, and bare soil for basking. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species may
require special management considerations or protection to sustain the
open conditions that are needed to manage for and sustain the larval
and adult food resources. The subunit runs along the top of the ridge
including the north margin (road verge) of the road and extends down
the south slope to the 1,250 ft (381 m) contour interval. At Dan Kelly
Ridge, the entire ridgeline including the road and road verge on the
north margin of the road are part of the subunit. The subunit extends
down the south facing slope to include bald habitat recently exposed by
forest harvesting.
Subunit 2-D: Sequim. This subunit is located in Clallam County,
Washington, on private property that contains approximately 151 ac (61
ha) of low-lying stabilized dune habitat. This unit is presently
occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
The subunit includes stabilized dune and beach habitat adjacent to the
Strait of Juan de Fuca at approximately 20 ft (6 m) elevation. This
subunit contains several PCEs, including landscape heterogeneity with
fore dune, and back dune areas and terraces; rich and abundant larval
and adult food resources; a marsh; and bare soil for basking. The
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species may require special management considerations or protection to
address threats to the essential features. We are considering the
exclusion of private land subunit (2-D) located at Sequim under the
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This consideration of exclusion is due to
the ongoing conservation management for Taylor's checkerspot
butterflies of this subunit, and the long-term management plan that is
currently being developed in coordination with the WDFW. The landowner
has been working with WDFW for several years to manage for Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies and is in the process of formalizing their
management of the site in a Management Plan, developed in coordination
with WDFW (see Exclusions).
Subunit 2-E: Upper Dungeness. This subunit occurs in the Upper
Dungeness Watershed on U.S. Forest Service lands in Clallam County,
Washington. This subunit contains 160 ac (65 ha), is composed of bald
habitat, is currently occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, and
contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. Sites within the subunit are referred
to as Bear Mountain, 3 O'Clock Ridge, and Upper Dungeness. Bear
Mountain is disjunct from the 3 O'Clock Ridge and Upper Dungeness
units. All sites within this subunit are found within the Dungeness
watershed at three separate locations, with Bear Mountain at the lowest
elevation, 3 O'Clock Ridge found at mid-elevation and the Upper
Dungeness site at the highest elevation where we have detected the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. The features essential to the
conservation of the species may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats by encroachment of
several conifer species, maple, oceanspray, and sparse amounts of
Scot's broom, which all compete with native grasses and forbs for
space, water and nutrients. Early restoration work conducted by the
Forest Service has included tree harvesting and removal, and has
resulted in the larval and adult resources expanding on this habitat.
The subunit contains several PCEs, including landscape heterogeneity,
abundant larval and adult food resources, nearby streams, and plentiful
areas of bare ground for basking. We are considering the exclusion of
160 ac (65 ha) of subunit (2-E) under 4(b)(2) of the Act due to ongoing
management for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat, which is
consistent with the NW Forest Plan's allowance for small openings in
Late Successional Reserve allocations of federal forests (see
Exclusions).
Unit 4: Willamette Valley Unit--Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
The Willamette Valley Unit for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly is
made up of three subunits, all of which are located in Benton County,
Oregon, totaling 152 ac (61 ha). Two subunits are presently occupied by
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies (Beazell Memorial Forest and Fitton
Green Natural Area) and contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. The third subunit at Fort
Hoskins Historic Park is unoccupied, but we have determined it
[[Page 61988]]
is essential to the conservation of the subspecies for the reasons
detailed in the section Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat.
All areas within this subunit provide some physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly, whether presently occupied or unoccupied by the subspecies,
including abundant larval and adult food resources, and areas of bare
soil for basking and resting. The habitat for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly is confined to dispersed small meadow (grassland) openings
within a larger forested matrix. Areas proposed for critical habitat
for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in this unit constitute the only
known, currently or recently occupied habitat for the species in Oregon
with the capability to support the breeding and reproduction of the
subpsecies. The features essential to the conservation of the species
may require special management considerations or protection to address
direct or indirect habitat loss due to development, conifer and shrub
encroachment, invasive plant species, use of herbicides, and
restoration activities. In all subunits, disturbance will be needed to
sustain the early-seral conditions required by the butterfly larval and
adult lifestages. Two of the subunits (Beazell and Fort Hoskins
Historic Park) are owned and managed by Benton County. Approximately 45
percent of the third subunit (Fitton Green) is held in trust as a
permanent conservation easement.
All subunits are proposed for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act due to the Benton County HCP, and will be managed under the
HCP's Prairie Conservation Strategy (see Exclusions). The Benton County
HCP Prairie Management Plan meets the species need by conserving
occupied prairie habitat by implementing measures to restore, and
manage for the long-term conservation of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly. The plan's goals have been implemented by Benton County
Parks and Recreation department and they plan to continue these actions
in support of the butterfly. The plan meets the needs of the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly by controlling invasive, nonnative shrubs (Scot's
broom), reduces the cover of tall, invasive pasture grasses, reduces
the cover of encroaching trees, and to augment through planting and
seeding the larval and adult food resources and native grass species
that form the low-statured structure of the habitat required by the
butterfly.
Subunit 4-A: Fort Hoskins Historic Park. The Fort Hoskins Historic
Park subunit is composed of a southern and northern portion. Subunit 4-
A north consists of 1.4 ac (0.57 ha) and subunit 4-A south consists of
5 ac (2 ha). This subunit is located within Fort Hoskins Historic Park,
which is owned and managed by Benton County, Oregon. The Park is
located west of where Hoskins Road joins Oregon Route 223 and is about
12 mi (19 km) northwest of the City of Corvallis. The subunit consists
of open meadows on a southwest-facing hillside of Dunn Ridge, mostly
surrounded by Douglas-fir/Oregon white oak forest. The park is open to
the public for day use and contains hiking trails. The park is also
used for natural resource research that has included mowing and burning
of meadows. A single individual Taylor's checkerspot butterfly,
presumably a dispersing individual, was discovered there in 2005;
however, no butterflies have been observed there in subsequent surveys
and we consider Fort Hoskins Historic Park to be currently unoccupied.
We have determined this subunit is essential to the conservation of the
subspecies because it has the potential to provide for the
reintroduction and reestablishment of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly to
support recovery. In particular, since there are only two small extant
populations of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in the Willamette Valley,
an additional population at Fort Hoskins Historic Park would provide
essential redundancy in populations for the subspecies. In addition,
the subunit provides many of the features essential to supporting a
reintroduced population, including abundant and diverse larval and
adult food resources in the grassland parts of the park, diverse
topography, bare soil patches, and areas dominated by early
successional plant species. The site is located far enough away from
the other two occupied Oregon sites (greater than 2 mi (3.2 km)) to be
considered a separate population if it the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly is reestablished there.
We propose to exclude the 6.4 acres (2.57 ha) of this subunit (4-A)
from proposed critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, as the
Taylor's checkerspot and management for the species at Fort Hoskins
Historic Park is covered by the Benton County HCP (see Exclusions).
Subunit 4-B: Beazell Memorial Forest. The Beazell Memorial Forest
subunit is composed of five areas that total 61 ac (25 ha), all within
the Beazell Memorial Forest owned by Benton County. The Beazell
Memorial Forest is located approximately 9 mi (14.5 km) southwest of
the City of Corvallis, Oregon. The subunit is mostly open meadow, with
some forested components, surrounded by Douglas-fir/Oregon white oak
forest at about 1,000-1,300 ft (305-396 m) elevation. This subunit is
known to be currently occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies at
varying densities, and contains several PCEs including the presence of
perennial bunchgrass plant communities with the requisite larval and
adult food resources, landscape heterogeneity, and bare soil areas for
basking. The subunit is open to the public with hiking trails and
picnicking facilities, and is managed as a demonstration forest and
open space area, with management intended to protect, conserve, and
restore natural, scenic values.
Benton County was issued a section 10(a)1(B) permit on January 14,
2011, in conjunction with their Prairie Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP). Some of the meadow areas in the Beazell Memorial Forest
will be used for mitigation purposes under the HCP and will be
otherwise managed to maintain the meadow complexes under the HCP's
Prairie Conservation Strategy. Special management may be required
within this subunit to restore or maintain the essential features for
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. While some management is ongoing in the
form of mowing and encroaching tree removal, additional management is
needed to address invasion of nonnative grasses and woody vegetation,
and possibly to improve the diversity of food resources. We propose to
exclude the 61 ac (25 ha) in this subunit (4-B) from proposed critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, as the Taylor's checkerspot
and management for the species at Beazell Memorial Forest is covered by
the Benton County HCP (see Exclusions).
Subunit 4-C: Fitton Green Natural Area. This subunit is composed of
four areas totaling 83 ac (34 ha). This subunit is located 5 mi (8 km)
west of the City of Corvallis, Oregon. Portions of this subunit
(approximately 41 ac (17 ha)) are within property acquired by Benton
County for the purposes of demonstrating land stewardship practices on
mixed public and private ownership. The Benton County owned or managed
portions of this subunit are a recognized component of the County's
Prairie Species HCP and will be managed under their Prairie
Conservation Strategy as well as used as a mitigation site. The Fitton
Green Natural Area subunit is mostly composed of open meadows with
scattered trees, and bordered by Douglas-fir/Oregon white oak forest.
The subunit is currently occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies,
[[Page 61989]]
contains the features essential to the conservation of the species and
includes areas that function as a dispersal corridor. The subunit
contains several PCEs including the presence of perennial bunchgrass
plant communities with larval and adult food resources, little or no
overstory forest vegetation, landscape heterogeneity, and bare soil
areas for basking.
While some management to restore or maintain the features essential
to Taylor's checkerspot butterfly has already occurred in the form of
mowing and encroaching tree removal, the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species may require
special management considerations or protection to address invasion of
nonnative grasses and woody vegetation, and to improve the diversity of
food resources. A portion of the Fitton Green Natural Area subunit is
being conserved through a specialized Right of Way Management Plan for
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly developed and approved by the BPA and
Xerces Society in coordination with the Service's Oregon Fish and
Wildlife office in Portland in 2005.
We propose to exclude the 41 acres (17 ha) of County lands (noted
as South and BPA) in this subunit (4-C) from proposed critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, as the Taylor's checkerspot and
management for the species on County-owned lands is covered by the
Benton County HCP (see Exclusions).
Streaked horned lark--Units 1, 3, and 4
We are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we
have determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain
sufficient elements of physical or biological features to support life-
history processes essential for the conservation of the streaked horned
lark. In addition, we are proposing one subunit unoccupied at the time
of listing, but that we have determined is essential the conservation
of the subspecies, as detailed in the section Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat.
We are proposing to designate three units as critical habitat for
the streaked horned lark. The three units are: Unit 1--South Sound
(with 6 subunits), Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River (with 18
subunits), and Unit 4--Willamette Valley (with 8 subunits). The South
Sound Unit (Unit 1) totals 3,763 ac (1,523 ha) and comprises 2,813 ac
of Federal ownership and 950 ac of private land. The Washington Coast
and Columbia River Unit (Unit 3) totals 3,516 ac (1,423 ha) and
comprises 564 ac of Federal ownership, 2,597 ac of State-owned lands,
151 ac of private lands, 182 ac of Tribal lands, and 22 ac of lands
owned by a Port, local municipality, or nonprofit conservation
organization. The Willamette Valley Unit (4) totals 4,880 ac (1,975 ha)
and comprises 1,729 ac of Federal ownership and 3,151 ac of privately
owned land.
Streaked horned larks have been documented nesting on all but one
of the subunits within the last few years and all subunits are
therefore considered occupied at the time of listing, with the
exception of Subunit 3-J, Coffeepot Island in the Columbia River, which
has not been surveyed recently; streaked horned larks were last
detected there in 2004. We, therefore, evaluated Coffeepot Island as if
it were unoccupied, and have determined that it is essential for the
conservation of the subspecies to provide connectivity between the
streaked horned lark populations nesting on Columbia River islands. All
of the subunits, both occupied and unoccupied, currently have one or
more of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark, and which may require special
management considerations or protection.
The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for
the streaked horned lark. The approximate area and landownership of
each proposed critical habitat unit and associated subunit is shown in
Table 4.
[[Page 61990]]
Table 4--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Streaked Horned Lark
[Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within proposed critical habitat unit boundaries]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State Private Tribal Other \*\
Subunit name ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 South Sound
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-A.................................. Sanderson Field........ 0 0 0 0 376 (152)
1-B.................................. McChord Airforce Base.. 759 (307) 0 0 0 0
1-C.................................. Gray Army Airfield..... 347 (140) 0 0 0 0
1-D.................................. 91st Division Prairie.. 888 (359) 0 0 0 0
1-E.................................. 13th Division Prairie.. 819 (331) 0 0 0 0
1-F.................................. Olympia Airport........ 0 0 0 0 575 (233)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 Totals.......... 2,813 (1,138) 0 0 0 950 (385)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3 Washington Coast Columbia River Islands
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-A.................................. Damon Point............ 0 456 (185) 24 (10) 0 0
3-B.................................. Midway Beach........... 0 611 (247) 0 0 0
3-C.................................. Shoalwater Spit........ 0 377 (152) 102 (41) 182 (74) 0
3-D.................................. Leadbetter Point....... 564 (228) 101 (41) 0 0 0
3-E.................................. Rice Island............ 0 224 (91) 0 0 0
3-F.................................. Miller Sands........... 0 123 (50) 0 0 0
3-G.................................. Pillar Rock/Jim Crow... 0 44 (18) 0 0 0
3-H.................................. Welch Island........... 0 43 (18) 0 0 0
3-I.................................. Tenasillahe Island..... 0 23 (9) 0 0 0
3-J.................................. Coffeepot Island....... 0 0 25 (10) 0 0
3-K.................................. Whites/Brown........... 0 98 (39) 0 0 0
3-L.................................. Wallace Island......... 0 13 (5) 0 0 0
3-M.................................. Crims Island........... 0 60 (24) 0 0 0
3-N.................................. Sandy Island........... 0 37 (15) 0 0 0
3-O.................................. Portland International 0 388 (157) 0 0 22 (9)
Airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3 Totals.......... 564 (228) 2,597 (1,050) 151 (61) 182 (74) 22 (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4 Willamette Valley
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-A.................................. McMinnville Airport.... 0 0 0 0 600 (243)
4-B.................................. Basket Slough NWR...... 1,006 (407) 0 0 0 0
4-C.................................. Salem Airport.......... 0 0 0 0 534 (216)
4-D.................................. Ankeny NWR............. 264 (107) 0 0 0 0
4-E.................................. Corvallis Airport...... 0 0 0 0 1,103 (447)
4-F.................................. William L Finley NWR... 459 (186) 0 0 0 0
4-G.................................. M-DAC Farms............ 0 0 0 0 601 (243)
4-H.................................. Eugene Airport......... 0 0 0 0 313 (127)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4 Totals.......... 1,729 (700) 0 0 0 3,151 (1,275)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total--all Units 5,106 (2,066) 2,597 (1,050) 151 (61) 182 (74) 4,123 (1,669)
Streaked Horned Lark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Other = Ports, local municipalities, and nonprofit conservation organization.
[[Page 61991]]
Unit 1: South Sound--Streaked Horned Lark
In the South Sound Unit, streaked horned larks are found on flat,
open sites that are remnants of the original Puget lowland prairies.
All of the known currently occupied sites in the South Sound area are
associated with airfields or military training grounds. The areas used
by streaked horned larks for nesting at all of the airports consist of
grass and gravel margins of the runways and taxiways. We are proposing
six subunits for a total of 3,764 ac (1,523 ha) in the South Sound
Unit. All subunits are occupied and contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the streaked horned lark.
Ownership in this unit is by the Department of Defense and local
municipalities. The current threats to the essential features in the
South Sound Unit include mowing and disturbance from special training
events during the nesting season, and loss of habitat from commercial
and industrial development. The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or protection to maintain the early
seral vegetation on all of these subunits and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 1-A: Sanderson Field Airport (Mason County, Washington).
Sanderson Field Airport is in the town of Shelton and is owned by the
Port of Shelton; the subunit contains about 375 ac (152 ha). This
subunit is currently occupied and contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. The site is
bounded on the north and western edges by forest, on the eastern edge
by airport buildings (hangars, offices) and US 101 and includes the
grass perimeter along the runway on the southern side. Streaked horned
larks nest along the southern edge of the airport adjacent to an
abandoned or seldom-used runway. The Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife works with Sanderson Field to coordinate mowing schedules to
minimize threats to streaked horned larks however, a management plan
does not currently exist that specifically addresses conservation or
habitat protection for the streaked horned lark. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the streaked
horned lark may require special management considerations or protection
to maintain the early seral vegetation required by the subspecies and
to minimize nest destruction and disturbance during the breeding
season.
Subunit 1-B: McChord Field (Pierce County, Washington). McChord
Field is part of DOD's JBLM; the subunit is about 759 ac (307 ha) in
size. This airport is used by large military cargo planes; the subunit
includes areas adjacent to the main runway and taxiways. This subunit
is currently occupied and contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the subspecies, with most of the
documented nesting by streaked horned larks occurring in the northeast
portion of the airport. Soils on this site are gravelly and poor, with
sparse low grass and bare ground. The site has the both the landscape
context and the low vegetative structure that make up the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
streaked horned lark may require special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral vegetation required by the
subspecies and to minimize nest destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season. This critical habitat subunit (1-B) is being proposed
for exemption from designation of critical habitat under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, contingent on our approval of the DOD INRMP
for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1-C: Gray Army Airfield (Pierce County, Washington). Gray
Army Airfield is part of DOD's JBLM; the subunit is about 347 ac (140
ha) in size. This airport is predominantly used by military
helicopters, but also supports fixed-wing aircraft. This subunit is
currently occupied and contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Streaked horned larks
nest in the grassy medians and gravel shoulders along the edge of the
runway and taxiways throughout this airport, including gravel areas in
paved helicopter parking areas. The site has both the open landscape
context and sparse grassy vegetation that make up the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
streaked horned lark may require special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral vegetation required by the
subspecies and to minimize nest destruction and disturbance during the
breeding season. This critical habitat subunit (1-C) is being proposed
for exemption from designation of critical habitat under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, contingent on our approval of the DOD INRMP
for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1-D: 91st Division Prairie/Artillery Impact Area (Pierce
County, Washington). This site is also part of DOD's JBLM; the subunit
contains about 888 ac (359 ha). The boundaries of this subunit are
delineated by military access roads and forested areas. This subunit is
currently occupied and contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Streaked horned lark
nesting has been documented in the eastern half of this large prairie
in areas referred to by the army as Range 74-76 and Training Area 6. No
surveys are conducted in the center of the Artillery Impact Area. The
site has both the open landscape context and early seral vegetation
that make up the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species; both of the PCEs are maintained by regular
ground-disturbing activities such as fires, troop maneuvers and off-
road military training exercises. The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or protection to maintain the early-
seral vegetation required by the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the breeding season. In addition,
special management considerations or protection may be required to
address threats specific to the Artillery Impact Area (Range 74-76 and
Training Area 6), including explosives and live fire operations, off-
road vehicle operations, troop maneuvers, and military training
activities. This critical habitat subunit (1-D) is being proposed for
exemption from designation of critical habitat under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, contingent on our approval of the DOD INRMP
for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1-E: 13th Division Prairie (Pierce County, Washington).
This site is part of DOD's JBLM; the subunit is about 819 ac (331 ha)
in size. This subunit is currently occupied and provides the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
This subunit is largely prairie habitat and includes an infrequently
used runway. It is bordered on the northern and eastern edges by Muck
Creek and the western and southern edges by military access roads.
Streaked horned lark nests have been documented throughout the site,
and the site has the both the open landscape context and early seral
vegetation that make up the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the streaked horned lark may require
[[Page 61992]]
special management considerations or protection to maintain the early
seral vegetation required by the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the breeding season. Threats at 13th
Division Prairie are somewhat less intense than in the Artillery Impact
training areas because motorized vehicles are restricted to roads.
However, threats to the essential features specific to this site and
that may require additional special management considerations or
protection include foot traffic and helicopter operations (parachute
drops, touch-and-go landings) that are conducted during the summer
months. This critical habitat subunit (1-E) is being proposed for
exemption from designation of critical habitat under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, contingent on our approval of the DOD INRMP
for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1-F: Olympia Regional Airport (Thurston County,
Washington). This site is owned by the Port of Olympia. The airport is
enclosed by a perimeter fence, which restricts access and reduces human
disturbance. The subunit contains about 575 ac (233 ha), and is
delineated by airport taxiways, trees, buildings, and county roads.
This subunit is currently occupied and provides the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
Streaked horned lark nests have been documented throughout the airport
grounds, but most recently nests have been found in the central area.
The site has both the open landscape context and low vegetation that
make up the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or protection to maintain the early
seral vegetation required by the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the breeding season.
Unit 3: Washington Coast and Columbia River--Streaked Horned Lark Only
On the Washington coastal sites, streaked horned larks occur on
sandy beaches and breed in the sparsely vegetated low dune habitats of
the upper beach. We are proposing to designate four subunits and a
total of 1,753 ac (708 ha) as critical habitat on the Washington coast.
The coastal sites are owned and managed by Federal, State and tribal
entities. The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark may require special management
considerations or protection to reduce human disturbance during the
nesting season and continued encroachment of invasive nonnative plants
that requires special management to restore or retain the open habitat
preferred by streaked horned larks. Proposed subunits 3-A, 3-B, 3-C,
and 3-D overlap areas that are designated as critical habitat for the
western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). The snowy
plover nesting areas are posted and monitored during the spring and
summer to keep recreational beach users away from the nesting areas;
these management actions also benefit streaked horned larks.
In the lower Columbia River, we are proposing ten island subunits
and one mainland subunit adjacent to the river at Portland
International Airport for a total of 1,785 ac (724 ha). The island
subunits are owned by the States of Oregon and Washington and private
landowners. On the Columbia River island sites, only a small portion of
each island is proposed as critical habitat for the streaked horned
lark; most of the areas mapped are used by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for dredge material deposition in its channel maintenance
program. Within any deposition site, only a portion is likely to be
used by streaked horned larks in any year, as the area of habitat
shifts within the deposition site over time as new materials are
deposited and as older deposition sites become too heavily vegetated
for use by streaked horned larks. All of the island subunits are small,
but are adjacent to open water, which provides the open landscape
context needed by the streaked horned lark. The subunit at Portland
International Airport is adjacent to the runways, and on a small public
beach; the site is owned by Port of Portland and Metro, the Portland-
area regional government.
The main threats to the essential features in the critical habitat
subunits proposed on the Columbia River islands are invasive vegetation
and direct impacts associated with deposition of dredge material onto
streaked horned lark nests during the nesting season. In all subunits,
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
each subspecies may require special management considerations or
protection to restore, protect, and maintain the PCEs supported by the
subunits. For those threats that are common to all subunits, special
management considerations or protections may be required to address
direct or indirect habitat loss due to the location and timing of
dredge material placement to areas that have become unsuitable for
streaked horned lark nesting and wintering habitat. Special management
will be needed at Portland International Airport to address mowing
during the nesting season, human disturbance, and future development of
the site.
Subunit 3-A: Damon Point (Grays Harbor County, Washington). This
critical habitat subunit is about 481 ac (194 ha) in size. It extends
from the Ocean Shores wastewater treatment plant on the western edge
through the Oyhut wildlife management unit and Damon Point spit (also
called Protection Island). The area is managed by the State of
Washington (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Parks
and Department of Natural Resources). This subunit is currently
occupied and provides the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the subspecies. The site has the both the open
landscape context and sparse, low-growing vegetation that make up the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species. Streaked horned larks currently nest and winter on Damon Point
and have also been documented to nest along the beach just west of the
treatment plant. The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark may require special management
considerations or protection to reduce human disturbance during the
nesting season and encroachment by invasive nonnative plants that
render the habitat too dense for use by streaked horned larks.
Subunit 3-B: Midway Beach (Pacific County, Washington). This
subunit is about 611 ac (247 ha) in size. The northern edge of the
subunit starts at Grayland Beach State Park and extends south to the
Warrenton Cannery road. The landward extent is defined by the
vegetation line in the mid-dune area. This site is owned by the State
of Washington (Washington State Parks and Recreation Department). This
subunit is currently occupied and provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Both open
landscape context and the sparse, low-growing vegetation that make up
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species are present at the site, and Midway Beach is used by
streaked horned larks for nesting and wintering. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the streaked
horned lark may require special management considerations or protection
to reduce human disturbance during the nesting season and encroachment
by invasive nonnative plants that render the habitat too dense for use
by streaked horned larks.
[[Page 61993]]
Subunit 3-C: Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit (Pacific County,
Washington). This subunit is about 661 ac (267 ha). The central portion
of the proposed subunit (182 ac; 74 ha) is within the Shoalwater Bay
Indian Reservation. We are considering the exclusion of these tribal
lands from the designation due to the existing high level of protection
already provided on the Shoalwater Bay Indian reservation lands that
provides conservation, regulations, and management for the streaked
horned lark (see Exclusions).
Streaked horned larks have been documented off and on at this site
during the breeding season since 2000. Although the site has been
unoccupied for the past couple of years, singing male streaked horned
larks were documented at this site during early June surveys of 2012,
therefore we consider this site to be currently occupied. As with
Midway Beach, streaked horned larks use the area for nesting and
wintering. The subunit is a dynamic area and has a constantly changing
sand spit that supports the essential features for nesting and
wintering habitat. The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark may require special management
considerations or protection to reduce human disturbance during the
nesting season and encroachment by invasive nonnative plants that
render the habitat too dense for use by streaked horned larks.
Subunit 3-D: Leadbetter Point (Pacific County, Washington). This
subunit contains about 665 ac (269 ha) at the northern tip of the Long
Beach Peninsula. This subunit is on the Willapa National Wildlife
Refuge and the Seashore Conservation Area (managed by Washington
State). This site is occupied and provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Most of the
streaked horned larks at this site nest within the habitat restoration
area and in ponded swales landward of the restoration area that go dry
in the summer (Ritchie 2012, pers. comm.). The site has the open
landscape context and sparse, low-growing vegetation that make up the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species. The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge completed its
Comprehensive Conservation Plan in August 2011 and manages habitat at
the tip of Leadbetter Spit for western snowy plovers, streaked horned
larks, and other native coastal species. These management activities
are compatible with streaked horned lark conservation. As with the
other coastal sites, Leadbetter is used by streaked horned larks year-
round. The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain the early seral vegetation
required by the subspecies and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 3-E: Rice Island (Clatsop County, Oregon, and Wahkiakum
County, Washington). This subunit is about 224 ac (91 ha) in size. The
island is located at river mile (RM) 21, approximately 7 mi (11 km)
upstream of the Astoria-Megler Bridge near the mouth of the Columbia
River. Although the island is within the planning boundary of the Julia
Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuge, Rice Island is owned by the
Oregon Department of State Lands. A very small portion of the subunit
is in Wahkiakum County and on Washington State lands. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers uses this site for dredge material disposal as part
of its maintenance of the Columbia River shipping channel. This subunit
is occupied and provides the features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. Streaked horned larks currently nest and winter on Rice
Island. The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain the early seral vegetation
required by the subspecies and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 3-F: Miller Sands Spit (Clatsop County, Oregon). Miller
Sands Spit is across the shipping channel from Rice Island at River
Mile (RM) 24. The subunit is a 2-mi-long (1.2-km-long) sand spit about
123 ac (50 ha) in size on the northern shore of the island. The subunit
is currently occupied and provides the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the subspecies for nesting and
wintering habitat. The island is owned by the Oregon Department of
State Lands, but is also within the planning unit boundary for the
Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuge. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers uses this site for dredge material disposal as part of its
maintenance of the Columbia River shipping channel. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the streaked
horned lark may require special management considerations or protection
to maintain the early seral vegetation required by the subspecies and
to minimize nest destruction and disturbance during the breeding
season.
Subunit 3-G: Pillar Rock/Jim Crow Sands (Clatsop County, Oregon).
This island is located at about RM 27 on the Columbia River. The
subunit is about 44 ac (18 ha) in size. Pillar Rock is currently
occupied and provides the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the subspecies. Streaked horned larks nest and
winter at the site. The island is owned by the Oregon Department of
State Lands and is within the planning unit boundary for the Julia
Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuge. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers uses this site for dredge material disposal as part of its
maintenance of the Columbia River shipping channel. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the streaked
horned lark may require special management considerations or protection
to maintain the early seral vegetation required by the subspecies and
to minimize nest destruction and disturbance during the breeding
season.
Subunit 3-H: Welch Island (Clatsop County, Oregon). This island is
at RM 34 and is owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands. The
critical habitat subunit is about 43 ac (17 ha) on the northeastern
shore of the island. This site is currently occupied and provides the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uses this site for dredge
material disposal as part of its maintenance of the Columbia River
shipping channel. The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain the early seral vegetation
required by the subspecies and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 3-I: Tenasillahee Island (Columbia County, Oregon). This
island is at RM 38; the subunit is on a small unnamed spit at the
southern tip of Tenasillahee Island. The subunit is about 23 ac (9 ha)
in size. This site is currently occupied and provides the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
The site is owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers uses this site for dredge material disposal as
part of its maintenance of the Columbia River shipping channel. The
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
streaked horned lark may require special management considerations or
protection to maintain the early seral vegetation required by the
subspecies and to minimize nest
[[Page 61994]]
destruction and disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 3-J: Coffeepot Island (Wahkiakum County, Washington). This
small island is at RM 42 in the Columbia River and sits between Puget
Island and the Oregon shore; the subunit is 25 ac (10 ha) in size and
is privately-owned. There have been no recent detections of streaked
horned larks on the site; the most recent records of streaked horned
lark occupancy are from 2004. We presume that Coffeepot Island is still
occupied by nesting streaked horned larks, as we have no reason to
believe they have been extirpated since the last survey attempt.
However, as we acknowledge it is uncertain whether the site is
currently occupied by the species due to the lack of recent survey
effort, we have evaluated Coffeepot Island as if it is unoccupied, and
have determined that it is nonetheless essential to the conservation of
the species to provide connectivity between nesting populations of
streaked horned larks in the Columbia River to insure genetic
connectivity. This island is not currently used as a dredge disposal
site, although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is interested in using
it as such, and the island is presently too vegetated to provide the
sparse vegetation needed for streaked horned lark nesting. The site
will require future restoration management activities to restore and
maintain the low vegetative structure required by the streaked horned
lark.
Subunit 3-K: Whites/Browns Island (Wahkiakum County, Washington).
Whites/Browns Island is connected to the southern end of Puget Island
at RM 46 and is owned by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The subunit is a small spit at the southern end of Whites/
Browns Island and is about 98 ac (39 ha) in size. The site is used by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for dredge material disposal as part
of its maintenance of the Columbia River shipping channel. This site is
currently occupied and provides the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Whites/Browns Island
supports one of the largest populations of streaked horned larks in the
lower Columbia River islands. The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the streaked horned lark may require
special management considerations or protection to maintain the early
seral vegetation required by the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 3-L: Wallace Island (Columbia County, Oregon). Wallace
Island is located across the channel from Whites/Browns Island at RM
47. Streaked horned larks were detected at the site in 2012 in the
critical habitat subunit, which is about 13 ac (5 ha) in size. The area
is owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands. This site is not a
dredge material disposal site. This subunit currently contains the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species, but will require special management to maintain the low
vegetative structure required by the streaked horned lark.
Subunit 3-M: Crims Island (Columbia County, Oregon). This island is
located upstream of Wallace Island at RM 57. The subunit is about 60 ac
(24 ha) in size. The subunit is currently occupied and provides the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. The area is owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands,
but is also within the planning unit boundary for the Julia Butler
Hansen National Wildlife Refuge. Crims Island is an approved U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers dredge material disposal site. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the streaked
horned lark may require special management considerations or protection
to maintain the early seral vegetation required by the subspecies and
to minimize nest destruction and disturbance during the breeding
season.
Subunit 3-N: Sandy Island (Columbia County, Oregon). This island,
at RM 76, is the island farthest upstream that is known to be used by
streaked horned larks for nesting. The subunit is about 37 ac (15 ha)
in size on the southern end of Sandy Island and is owned by the Oregon
Department of State Lands. This subunit is currently occupied and
provides the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uses
this site for dredge material disposal as part of its maintenance of
the Columbia River shipping channel. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the streaked horned lark may
require special management considerations or protection to maintain the
early seral vegetation required by the subspecies and to minimize nest
destruction and disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 3-O: Portland International Airport (Multnomah County,
Oregon). This subunit is in the city of Portland and is bordered by the
Columbia River to the north, NE 33rd Drive to the west and the
Broadmoor Golf Course to the south and totals 410 ac (166 ha). This
subunit includes the airport's Southwest Quad, the grassy areas at the
western end of Runway 10R, and Broughton Beach. The Southwest Quad is
an old dredge spoil disposal field located just outside of the
perimeter fence at Portland International Airport, south of Runway 10R
and west of Runway 3/21. This subunit is currently occupied and
provides the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. The habitat is open with a sandy
substrate and low-stature vegetation; breeding at the site has been
documented. The area around the western end of Runway 10R is flat, low-
stature grass fields; streaked horned larks have been seen foraging in
this area. The Southwest Quad and Runway 10R are on the grounds of
Portland International Airport, which is owned by the Port of Portland.
Broughton Beach is a narrow, sandy beach on the Columbia River and
is not within the boundaries of Portland International Airport.
Streaked horned lark sightings at Broughton Beach are frequent, and
large mixed-subspecies flocks are seen there often during the fall and
winter; Broughton Beach is owned by Metro, the regional governing body
in the Portland area. Due to the proximity of these sites to active
runways, the sites are managed for air traffic safety; preventing the
development of dense vegetation and pooling water, which could attract
hazardous wildlife. These management activities unintentionally
maintain the appropriate habitat characteristics for streaked horned
larks. The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain the early seral vegetation
required by the subspecies and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Unit 4: Willamette Valley--Streaked Horned Lark
In the Willamette Valley, we are proposing to designate eight
subunits. Four subunits are on municipal airports, three subunits are
on the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, and one
subunit is a private habitat restoration site. The total acreage is
4,880 ac (1,975 ha). All of the subunits were occupied at the time of
listing and contain the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species that may require special management
considerations or protection.
The areas used by streaked horned larks for nesting at all of the
airports are grass and gravel margins of the runway
[[Page 61995]]
and taxiways. Special Management will be needed to address threats to
the essential features at the Willamette Valley airports including
development, mowing during the nesting season, and intermittent
training activities. All of the airports inadvertently maintain habitat
for streaked horned larks as a result of their management to minimize
attracting hazardous wildlife. None of the Willamette Valley airports
has developed a management plan to address conservation of the streaked
horned lark; special management of these sites would require avoidance
or minimization of mowing in the streaked horned lark nesting areas
during the breeding season.
The three subunits on the Willamette Valley National Wildlife
Refuge Complex are managed mainly to provide forage for wintering dusky
Canada geese (Branta canadensis occidentalis), which is compatible with
maintaining the essential features for streaked horned larks. The
refuge complex has incorporated management for streaked horned larks
into its recently completed Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and
streaked horned lark habitat conservation is being implemented in the
refuge units.
The one proposed subunit on private land is a large habitat
restoration site. Management for native prairies and vernal wetlands at
this site provide habitat for streaked horned larks.
Subunit 4-A: McMinnville Municipal Airport (Yamhill County,
Oregon). McMinnville Municipal Airport is just south of State Route 18
and west of SE Airport Road in the town of McMinnville. This subunit
includes the areas around the runways and an open field to the east.
The site is about 600 ac (243 ha). This subunit is currently occupied
and contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. It has both the open landscape context
and the sparse low-growing vegetation required by streaked horned
larks, and there have been observations of streaked horned larks along
the east runway and in the field to the east of the runways during the
breeding season. This small airport is owned by the City of
McMinnville. The primary threat to the essential features at this
subunit is mowing during the breeding season, which could destroy nests
and young; special management is needed to coordinate mowing to
minimize impacts to streaked horned larks during the breeding season.
Subunit 4-B: Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge (Polk County,
Oregon). There are two parts to this critical habitat subunit. Subunit
4-B North is 181 ac (73 ha) and is in the North Morgan Reservoir area
of the refuge. Subunit 4-B South is 825 ac (334 ha) and is the South
Baskett Slough Agricultural area of the refuge; State Route 22 forms
the southeast boundary of the south subunit. Both of the subunits are
agricultural fields that are heavily grazed by dusky Canada geese in
the winter. This subunit is currently occupied and contains the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge has large areas of
agricultural lands and restored native prairies, which provides the
landscape context and vegetation structure required by the streaked
horned lark. The Refuge manages primarily for wintering dusky Canada
geese, which also provides suitable management for streaked horned
larks. This subunit is consistently used by streaked horned larks in
the breeding season. The physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the streaked horned lark may require special
management considerations or protection to maintain the early seral
vegetation required by the subspecies and to minimize nest destruction
and disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 4-C: Salem Municipal Airport (Marion County, Oregon). Salem
Municipal Airport is south of State Route 99E and bordered on the east
by 25th Street SE in Salem. This subunit encompasses the area
surrounding the runways, and is approximately 534 ac (216 ha). The
subunit is currently occupied (streaked horned larks have been observed
at the south end of the runway during the breeding season), and
contains the essential features for the conservation of the subspecies,
including open landscape context and sparse, open vegetation present at
the site. This regional airport is owned by the City of Salem. The
primary threat to the essential features at this subunit is mowing
during the breeding season, which could destroy nests and young;
special management is needed to coordinate mowing to minimize impacts
to streaked horned larks during the breeding season.
Subunit 4-D: Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge (Marion County,
Oregon). This site is in the middle of the Ankeny Refuge, in the Field
6 Complex; the northeast boundary of the subunit is formed by the
Sydney Ditch. The critical habitat subunit is 264 ac (107 ha). The site
is composed of agricultural fields that are heavily grazed by dusky
Canada geese in the winter. The subunit is currently occupied and has
consistent use by streaked horned larks in the breeding season. This
subunit contains all of the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the subspecies. Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge
has both agricultural lands and restored native prairies, which provide
the landscape context and vegetation structure required by the streaked
horned lark. The Refuge manages primarily for wintering dusky Canada
geese, which also provides suitable management for streaked horned
larks. The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the streaked horned lark may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain the early seral vegetation
required by the subspecies and to minimize nest destruction and
disturbance during the breeding season.
Subunit 4-E: Corvallis Municipal Airport (Benton County, Oregon).
Corvallis Municipal Airport is west of State Route 99W and bordered on
the north by SW Airport Avenue, directly south of the City of
Corvallis. This subunit includes all the areas surrounding the runways
and in adjacent fields owned and managed by the airport. The unit is
about 1,103 ac (446 ha) and is owned by the City of Corvallis. This
subunit is currently occupied and contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. The Corvallis
Municipal Airport is home to the largest known breeding population of
streaked horned larks; streaked horned larks breed adjacent to runways
and in sparse grass fields throughout the airport. Large flocks of
mixed subspecies of horned larks also winter at the site. The site
provides the open landscape context and low-growing vegetation required
by streaked horned larks. As at other airports, the City of Corvallis
manages the site to minimize attraction of hazardous wildlife. The
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
streaked horned lark may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats from mowing during the breeding season
and police training activities that disrupt nesting behavior. Special
management is needed to coordinate mowing and training activities to
minimize impacts to streaked horned larks during the breeding season.
Subunit 4-F: William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge (Benton
County, Oregon). This critical habitat subunit is on Fields 11 and 12
in the South Finley Agricultural Lands area of the refuge; Bruce Road
bisects the subunit, and McFarland Road forms the southern boundary of
the site. The subunit is 459 ac (186 ha) in size. This subunit is
currently occupied and
[[Page 61996]]
contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. The site is composed of agricultural
fields that are heavily grazed by dusky Canada geese in the winter, and
it has consistent use by streaked horned larks in the breeding season;
streaked horned larks also winter at the refuge. Finley National
Wildlife Refuge has large areas of agricultural lands and restored
native prairies, which provide the landscape context and vegetation
structure required by the streaked horned lark. The Refuge manages
primarily for wintering dusky Canada geese, which also provides
suitable management for streaked horned larks. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the streaked
horned lark may require special management considerations or protection
to maintain the early seral vegetation required by the subspecies and
to minimize nest destruction and disturbance during the breeding
season.
Subunit 4-G: M-DAC Farms (Linn County, Oregon). This site is a
large prairie and wetland habitat restoration project; the subunit is
about 601 ac (243 ha) on former agricultural land. The site is located
east of the town of Harrisburg, and about a mile east of Interstate
Highway 5, and bordered on the south by Diamond Hill Drive. This
subunit is currently occupied and contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. The second
largest known population of streaked horned larks was observed at M-DAC
in 2008, the year following initial site preparation. As vegetation at
the site has matured, fewer streaked horned larks have used the site,
but the large wetlands will likely continue to provide suitable
breeding habitat as the mudflats dry in the early summer. Both PCEs are
present at the site, although their availability will shift over time
as the habitat is managed and the wetlands fill and recede each year.
The site is privately owned; the habitat restoration project has been
developed with assistance from the Cascade Pacific Resource
Conservation and Development Area, USDA's NRCS, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Partners for Wildlife Program, Oregon Watershed
Enhancement Board, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The
site will be managed to maintain native prairie and wetland habitats,
which will benefit the streaked horned lark; special management will be
needed to ensure that management activities are not implemented in the
breeding season when streaked horned lark nests and young are
vulnerable to destruction.
Subunit 4-H: Eugene Airport (Lane County, Oregon). Eugene Airport
is west of the City of Eugene, and about a mile west of State Route 99.
This subunit encompasses the grassy areas surrounding the runway, and
is approximately 313 ac (126 ha). This subunit is currently occupied
and contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. It provides the open landscape context
and low-growing vegetation required by streaked horned larks. Streaked
horned larks have been observed on the east side of the runway during
the breeding season. This regional airport is owned by the City of
Eugene. The primary threat to the essential features at this subunit is
mowing during the breeding season that disrupts nesting behavior. The
features essential to the conservation of the species may require
special management considerations or protection to coordinate mowing to
minimize impacts to streaked horned larks during the breeding season.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service (under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species or avoid the
likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
[[Page 61997]]
reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly or the streaked horned lark. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and
provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may affect the
physical or biological features of critical habitat, or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, activities that may affect
critical habitat for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or streaked
horned lark, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency, require consultation. These activities may include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that restore, alter, or degrade habitat features
through development, agricultural activities, burning, mowing,
herbicide use or other means in suitable habitat for Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned larks.
(2) Actions that would alter the physical or biological features of
critical habitat including modification of soil profiles or the
composition and structure of vegetation in suitable habitat for
Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned larks. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, construction, grading
or other development, mowing, conversion of habitat, or use of
herbicides to remove vegetation (military training on DOD lands,
recreational use, off road vehicles on Federal, State, private, or
Tribal lands). These activities may affect the physical or biological
features of critical habitat for the Taylor's checkerspot butterflies
and streaked horned larks, by removing sources of food, shelter,
nesting or oviposition sites, or otherwise impacting habitat essential
for completion of life history.
(3) Actions that would reduce the open landscape context required
by streaked horned larks, such as construction of buildings or planting
tall trees adjacent to a suitable site.
(4) Deposition of dredge materials on occupied streaked horned lark
habitats during the breeding season.
(5) Installation of shoreline stabilization structures or
modification of beaches and open shorelines in critical habitat.
(6) Activities (pedestrians, motor vehicles, people with pets,
etc.) within or adjacent to critical habitat that result in disturbance
of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned larks, that
affect or degrade the conservation value or function of the physical or
biological features of critical habitat.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resource management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
proposed critical habitat designation for Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark to determine if they are exempt
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of
Defense lands within the proposed critical habitat designation: (1)
91st Division Prairie, (2) Thirteenth Division Prairie. (3) TA7S, (4)
Marion Prairie, (5) portions of Tenalquot Prairie, (6) McChord AFB, and
(7) Gray Airfield. All of these areas are part of JBLM in Washington,
except for the portion of Tenalquot Prairie known as the Morgan
property.
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington
Joint Base Lewis-McChord (formerly known as Fort Lewis and McChord
Air Force Base) is an 86,000 ac (34,800 ha) military complex in western
Washington. JBLM has an approved Integrated Natural Resource Management
Plan (INRMP) in place, dated July 2006, that covers the years 2006
through 2010. This INRMP is being updated and a revision will be
submitted to the Service in 2012 (Steucke 2008, pers. comm.). JBLM is
composed of both native and degraded grasslands; shrub-dominated
vegetation; conifer, conifer-oak, oak-savannah, oak woodland and pine
woodland/savannah forests; riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine
wetlands; ponds and lakes; as well as other unique habitat, such as
mima mounds. Portions of JBLM are currently occupied by the streaked
horned lark and Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. Actions on this
property
[[Page 61998]]
include military training, recreation, transportation, utilities
(including dedicated corridors), and land use.
The mission of JBLM is to maintain trained and ready forces for
Army commanders worldwide, by providing them with training support and
infrastructure. This includes a land base capable of supporting current
and future training needs through good stewardship of the
Installation's natural and cultural resources, as directed by Federal
statutes, Department of Defense directives, directives and programs
such as ACUB (Area Compatible Use Buffer Program), and Army and JBLM
regulations.
Although only military actions occur on JBLM, several additional
actions could pose substantial threats to the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned larks, and are restricted to a few
grassland properties (e.g., dog trials, model airplanes, recreational
activities). Many of the avoidance measures for military training
action subgroups are implemented through environmental review and
permitting programs related to a specific action. Timing of actions and
education of users are important avoidance measures for the other
activities.
Joint Base Lewis-McChord actively manages prairie habitat as part
of Fort Lewis' Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP
2006). The purpose of the plan is to ``provide guidance for effective
and efficient management of the prairie landscape to meet military
training and ecological conservation goals.'' There are three overall
goals including: (1) No net loss of open landscapes for military
training; (2) no net reduction in the quantity or quality of moderate-
and high-quality grassland; and (3) viable populations of all prairie-
dependent and prairie-associated species.
Joint Base Lewis-McChord has a stewardship responsibility that
includes actions to help recover threatened and endangered species
under the Act. It is Army policy to consider candidate species when
making decisions that may affect them, to avoid taking actions that may
cause them to be listed, and to take affirmative actions that can
preclude the need to list (AR 200-3).
Under this mandate, JBLM is currently restoring and enhancing
habitat conditions for the Taylor's checkerspot in potential habitat.
JBLM has restored habitat on one Training Area and one Range (TA 14 and
Range 50) that have received captive-bred and translocated butterflies.
These actions are occurring primarily in areas in which the butterfly
could coexist with the existing land-use designations. Currently, the
only populations of this species on JBLM are within the Artillery
Impact Area (Range 76 and Range 50 on the 91st Division Prairie), and
at this time, we have JBLM's commitment (Garrison Commander Thomas
Brittain, Colonel, 13 May 2010) specifying ``no off road vehicle zone
and foot traffic zone'' only within TA 76.
The primary concern for streaked horned larks is to protect nesting
populations from disturbance and direct mortality due to human
activities. Currently, there are four areas on the installation that
have nesting populations of this species. Timing of mowing at McChord
and Gray Army Airfields are concerns, as are recreational activities
and military training on the 13th Division Prairie and military
training and wildfires in the Artillery Impact Area. Presently, there
are restrictions on mowing activities on the airfield: Minimum mowing
for airfield safety during the primary nesting period (April to July)
and no mowing at any time around known nest locations. In the training
areas, Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance does not mow during the
breeding season in occupied streaked horned lark habitat. There also
are restrictions on recreational activities in Thirteenth Division
Prairie during the streaked horned lark nesting period (April to
August).
Two regional programs managed under the INRMP and funded by the DOD
are currently underway on many of the lands where the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark occur. The Fort Lewis
Army Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) program is a proactive effort to
prevent ``encroachment'' at military installations. Encroachment
includes current or potential future restrictions on military training
associated with currently listed and candidate species under the
Endangered Species Act. The Fort Lewis ACUB program focuses on
management of non-Federal conservation lands in the vicinity of Fort
Lewis that contain, or can be restored to, native prairie. Some of the
ACUB efforts include improving the habitat on JBLM property, such as
the prescribed fire program, and the streaked horned lark genetic
rescue project. It is implemented by means of a cooperative agreement
between the Army and The Nature Conservancy (now Center for Natural
Lands Management), and includes WDFW and WDNR as partners. To date, a
total of $8.23 million has been allocated to this program (Anderson
2012, pers. comm). This funds conservation actions such as invasive
plant control, butterfly monitoring, butterfly habitat enhancement on
occupied sites and the restoration of unoccupied lands for butterflies.
Taylor's checkerspot and mardon skipper (Polites mardon) butterfly
captive rearing and translocation, native seed (forb and grass)
production and native plant establishment are several currently (2012)
ongoing projects (Foster 2005, entire; The Nature Conservancy 2007;
entire).
The JBLM Legacy program is dedicated to ``protecting, enhancing,
and conserving natural and cultural resources on DOD lands through
stewardship, leadership, and partnership.'' Legacy supports
conservation actions that have regional or DOD-wide significance, and
that support military training or fulfill legal obligations (DOD 2011,
p. 2). In recent years, substantial effort and funding have gone toward
projects, both on and off JBLM, related to the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly and streaked horned lark.
Although JBLM's INRMP has the potential to provide a conservation
benefit to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark,
it does not currently. Since their INRMP is currently undergoing
revision and is subject to change, we are reserving judgment on whether
management under the new INRMP will meet our criteria for exemption
from critical habitat at this time. In accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, if we determine prior to our final rulemaking
that conservation efforts identified in the newly revised INRMP will
provide a conservation benefit to the species identified previously, we
may at that time exempt the identified lands from the final designation
of critical habitat.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the
[[Page 61999]]
legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion
regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any
factor.
In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise his discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the species.
When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat.
When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would
provide.
The Secretary can consider the existence of conservation agreements
and other land management plans with Federal, private, State, and
Indian entities when making decisions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
The Secretary may also consider relationships with landowners,
voluntary partnerships, and conservation plans, and weigh the
implementation and effectiveness of these against that of designation
to determine which provides the greatest conservation value to the
listed species. Consideration of relevant impacts of designation or
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) may include, but is not limited to, any
of the following factors:
(1) Whether the plan provides specific information on how it
protects the species and the physical and biological features, and
whether the plan is at a geographical scope commensurate with the
species;
(2) Whether the plan is complete and will be effective at
conserving and protecting the physical and biological features;
(3) Whether a reasonable expectation exists that conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented, that those
responsible for implementing the plan are capable of achieving the
objectives, that an implementation schedule exists, and that adequate
funding exists;
(4) Whether the plan provides assurances that the conservation
strategies and measures will be effective (i.e., identifies biological
goals, has provisions for reporting progress, and is of a duration
sufficient to implement the plan);
(5) Whether the plan has a monitoring program or adaptive
management to ensure that the conservation measures are effective;
(6) The degree to which the record supports a conclusion that a
critical habitat designation would impair the benefits of the plan;
(7) The extent of public participation;
(8) Demonstrated track record of implementation success;
(9) Level of public benefits derived from encouraging collaborative
efforts and encouraging private and local conservation efforts; and
(10) The effect designation would have on partnerships.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as any additional public comments received, we will evaluate
whether certain lands in proposed critical habitat are appropriate for
exclusion from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of excluding lands from the
final designation outweigh the benefits of designating those lands as
critical habitat, then the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the lands from the final designation.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider all relevant
impacts of the designation of critical habitat, including economic
impacts. In addition to economic impacts (discussed in the Economics
Analysis section, below), we consider a number of factors in a 4(b)(2)
analysis. For example, we consider whether there are lands owned by the
Department of Defense (DoD) where a national security impact might
exist. We also consider whether Federal or private landowners or other
public agencies have developed management plans or habitat conservation
plans (HCPs) for the area or whether there are conservation
partnerships or other conservation benefits that would be encouraged or
discouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat in
an area. In addition, we look at the presence of Indian lands or Indian
trust resources that might be affected, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with Indian entities. We
also consider any other relevant impacts that might occur because of
the designation. To ensure that our final determination is based on the
best available information, we are inviting comments on any foreseeable
economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from
this proposed designation of critical habitat from governmental,
business, or private interests and, in particular, any potential
impacts on small businesses.
For the reasons discussed above, if the Secretary decides to
exercise his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have
identified certain areas that we are considering for exclusion from the
final critical habitat designation for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly,
and streaked horned lark. However, we solicit comments on the inclusion
or exclusion of such particular areas, as well as any other areas
identified in the proposed rule (see Public Comments section). During
the development of the final designation, we will consider economic
impacts, public comments, and other new information. However, the
Secretary's decision as to which, if any, areas may be excluded from
the final designation is not limited to these lands. Additional
particular areas, in addition to those identified below for potential
exclusion in this proposed rule, may be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In other
words, potential exclusions are not limited to those areas specifically
identified in this proposed rule.
However, we specifically solicit comments on the inclusion or
exclusion of such areas. In the paragraphs below, we provide a detailed
analysis of our exclusion of these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
[[Page 62000]]
factors. We will announce the availability of the draft economic
analysis as soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public
review and comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis
will be available for downloading from the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). During
the development of a final designation, we will consider economic
impacts, public comments, and other new information, and areas may be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a
national security impact might exist. The U.S. Army's Joint Base Lewis-
McChord Military Reservation (JBLM) is the only DOD land included
within the proposed designation of critical habitat. As described
above, in preparing this proposal, we are considering JBLM for
exemption from the designation of critical habitat under section
4(a)(3) of the Act, pending our evaluation of their revised INRMP,
scheduled for completion in 2012, to determine whether it provides a
conservation benefit to the species under consideration in this
proposed rule. We have determined that the remaining lands within the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the species are not owned
or managed by the Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate
no impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary is not
intending to exert his discretion to exclude any areas from the final
designation based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts to national
security, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We
consider a number of factors, including whether landowners have
developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether
there are conservation partnerships or relationships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any other relevant impacts that might occur because of
the designation. Our weighing of the benefits of inclusion versus
exclusion considers all relevant factors in making a final
determination as to what will result in the greatest conservation
benefit to the listed species. Depending on the specifics of each
situation, there may be cases where the designation of critical habitat
will not necessarily provide enhanced protection, and may actually lead
to a net loss of conservation benefit. Here we present a brief
description of three general areas considered for exclusion from the
final designations of critical habitat for the subspecies.
We are considering the exclusion of private lands associated with
the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area and Rock Prairie (Unit 1, subunits 1-H
and 1-I for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly), both within Thurston
County, and the private land site at Sequim (Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly subunit 2-D), in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, located in
Clallam County, Washington.
The first proposed exclusion is located in the south Puget Sound
region, in the Scatter Creek subunit of Unit 1, the South Sound Unit
(this is subunit 1-H for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly). We are
considering excluding the combined area of private lands in this unit
totaling 98 ac (40 ha) based on the benefits of partnerships and other
conservation agreements. The South Puget Sound Prairie Landscape
Working Group is an informal, voluntary group that meets regularly, and
discusses local conservation issues and planning. Members of the group
are tasked to implement prairie conservation and best management
practices (BMPs) with their landowner contacts. The Service and WDFW
are members of this working group. WDFW worked with the private
landowner in subunit 1-H to develop a management plan which includes a
commitment from the landowner that the parcel will be managed in such a
manner to support native prairie species (composition and structure),
consistent with the adjacent WDFW State wildlife area. This management
plan is currently active and in effect through 2014 with plans to renew
the management plan prior to the end in 2014.
The second area is located in the south Puget Sound, in the Rock
Prairie subunit also in Unit 1, the South Sound Unit. This is subunit
1-I for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. In this subunit, 379 ac (153
ha) is considered for exclusion as it is managed under a permanent
conservation easement and a Grassland Reserve Program Management Plan
agreement with NRCS; which is also an active member of the South Puget
Sound Prairie Landscape Working Group. The management plan is modified
regularly as new information becomes available regarding BMPs for
prairie ecosystems. The private landowner in subunit 1-I is committed
through the management plan to maintaining more than 300 ac (122 ha) of
native prairie.
The third location is a 150-ac (61-ha) active farm in Unit 2,
Strait of Juan de Fuca Unit, in subunit 2-D, the Sequim subunit. The
Service has worked with the landowner in this subunit, which has
restored Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat, and a portion of this
site is being managed for the long-term conservation of the species
which they are incorporating under a management plan developed in
coordination with the WDFW. The landowner has shown a track record of
conservation of coastal grassland species, including Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly. For instance, native plants have been planted on
the property for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the landowner has
stopped driving along one farm road to encourage the reestablishment of
native larval host plants for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. As a
result, larval host plants have become more abundant as a result of
this voluntary management action.
Each area contains one landholding that is under a conservation
easement for agriculture and open space protection, species
conservation, and/or prairie conservation. We are considering the
exclusion of these privately-owned lands (subunit 1-H, 1-I for the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, and subunit 2-D for Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly in the Strait of Juan de Fuca Unit) based on the
partnerships that have been developed for the conservation of the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly as evidenced by the management plan and
conservation easement on those private lands as well as the
conservation benefit to the subspecies from the management plan.
We request public comments on the relative benefits of inclusion or
exclusion of these areas from the designation of critical habitat. At
present, we seek public comment on the general benefits of including or
excluding private lands in this area (see Public Comments).
[[Page 62001]]
Table 5--Lands Proposed or That May Be Considered for Exclusion From the Final Rule To Designate Critical
Habitat for Several Puget Sound Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat Name of agreement/
Type of agreement unit name State entity Acres Hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat Conservation Plans-- Unit 1 -- South WA Washington 658 267
proposed for exclusion. Sound; Subunits Department of
TCB: 1-F & 1-J: 1- Natural Resources
D. State Lands
Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Unit 4 -- OR Benton County 108 44
Willamette Valley; Habitat
Subunits TCB: 4A,B Conservation Plan.
& C.
Conservation Agreements, Other Unit 1 -- South WA Scatter Creek 98 40
agreements or Partnerships-- Sound; Subunit Wildlife Area
proposed for exclusion. TCB: 1-H. Private Landowner
Management Plan.
Unit 1 -- South WA Rock Prairie 379 153
Sound; Subunit Grassland Easement
TCB: 1-I. and Private
Landowner
Partnership.
Unit 2 -- Strait of WA Sequim Private 151 61
Juan De Fuca; Landowner
Subunit TCB: 2-D. Partnership.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Proposed.............. ................... .......... ................... 1,394 565
Tribal.......................... Unit 3 -- WA Coast WA Shoalwater Tribal 182 73
and Columbia Management Plan.
River; Subunit
SHL: 3-C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits of Excluding Lands With Habitat Conservation Plans
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are planning documents required
as part of an application for an ``incidental take'' permit. They
describe the anticipated effects of the proposed taking; how those
impacts will be minimized, or mitigated; and how the HCP is to be
funded. HCPs can apply to both listed and nonlisted species, including
those that are candidates or have been proposed for listing. Anyone
whose otherwise-lawful activities will result in the ``incidental
take'' of a listed wildlife species needs a permit. The Act defines
``take'' as ``* * * to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.'' ``Harm'' includes significant habitat modification that
actually kills or injures a listed species through impairing essential
behavior such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Section 9 of the Act
prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species. The purpose of
the incidental take permit is to exempt non-Federal permit-holders--
such as States and private landowners--from the prohibitions of section
9, not to authorize the activities that result in take.
In developing HCPs, people applying for incidental take permits
describe measures designed to minimize and mitigate the effects of
their actions-- to ensure that species will be conserved and to
contribute to their recovery. Habitat Conservation Plans are required
to meet the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act:
Taking will be incidental;
The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable,
minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking;
The applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the
plan will be provided;
Taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and
Other measures, as required by the Secretary, will be met.
The benefits of excluding lands with approved HCPs from critical
habitat designation may include relieving landowners, communities, and
counties of any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed as a
result of the critical habitat designation. Many HCPs take years to
develop and, upon completion, are consistent with the recovery
objectives for listed species covered within the plan area. Many
conservation plans also provide conservation benefits to unlisted
sensitive species.
A related benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs from
critical habitat designation is that it can make it easier for us to
seek new partnerships with future plan participants, including States,
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. HCPs often cover a wide range
of species, including species that are not State and federally listed
and would otherwise receive little protection from development. By
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and
encourage additional future conservation actions.
We also note that permit issuance in association with HCP
applications requires consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
which would include the review of the effects of all HCP-covered
activities that might adversely impact the species under a jeopardy
standard, including possibly significant habitat modification (see
definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), even without the critical
habitat designation. In addition, all other Federal actions that may
affect the listed species would still require consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would review these actions for
possible significant habitat modification in accordance with the
definition of harm referenced above.
We consider a current HCP to be appropriate for consideration for
exclusion from a final critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act if:
(1) It provides for the conservation of the essential physical and
biological features or areas otherwise determined to be essential;
(2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will
be implemented into the future;
(3) The conservation strategies in the HCP are likely to be
effective; and
(4) The HCP contains a monitoring program or adaptive management to
ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be adapted
in the future in response to new information.
Below is a brief description of each HCP and the lands proposed as
critical habitat covered by each plan that we are proposing to exclude
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final designation of critical
habitat .
State of Oregon
Benton County HCP
The Service coordinated with Benton County, the Xerces Society, and
the Institute for Applied Ecology in Oregon to include the Taylor's
checkerspot
[[Page 62002]]
butterfly in the Benton County HCP (Benton County 2010, p. 24). In
addition to the Benton County HCP, a Prairie Conservation Strategy
(2010) was developed for all species covered by the HCP, including
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. The strategy is stratified by the level
of protection afforded to the various covered species, including
permanent protection, limited protection, and opportunity areas for
unoccupied but suitable habitat for species that may be conserved in
new areas through assisted migration, or translocation efforts. A draft
Management Plan for Taylor's checkerspot Butterfly was completed by
Ross (2008), and was finalized and incorporated into the HCP as
Appendix N (Benton County 2010). The guidelines set forth in the
management plan will assist Benton County in managing their lands in a
way that is consistent with protection and conservation of the species.
The Benton County HCP Prairie Management Plan meets the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly needs by conserving occupied prairie habitat by
implementing measures to restore, and manage for its long-term
conservation. The plan's goals have been implemented by Benton County
Parks and Recreation department and they plan to continue these actions
in support of the butterfly. The plan meets the needs of the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly by controlling invasive, nonnative shrubs (Scot's
broom), reduces the cover of tall, invasive pasture grasses, reduces
the cover of encroaching trees, and to augment through planting and
seeding the larval and adult food resources and native grass species
that form the low-statured structure of the habitat required by the
butterfly. The streaked horned lark was considered but not included in
the HCP (Benton County 2010, p. 142).
We propose to exclude lands managed under the Benton County Prairie
Species Habitat Conservation Plan from the final critical habitat
designation for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. The permit issued under
this HCP (notice October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60802), and issued January 14,
2011) has a term of 50 years and addresses 18,908 ac (7,652 ha) of
prairie habitat. The HCP includes over 500 ac (200 ha) of prairie
conservation areas to be managed for conservation purposes and where
habitat restoration and enhancement activities are planned to occur.
Specifically, they have identified 152 ac (61 ha) that will be managed
for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies. These lands are located in Fort
Hoskins Historic Park subunit 4-A, Beazell Memorial Forest (subunit 4-
B, and Fitton Green Natural Area (subunit 4-C). The HCP has guidelines
for management of sites currently with and currently without Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies. These guidelines are intended to both avoid
adverse impacts as well as to improve habitat conditions and increase
the distribution of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in Oregon. As
indicated above, among the management recommendations are restoration
activities to improve habitat and the planting of larval host and adult
nectar plant species. The guidelines also include adaptive management
provisions to assess the success of the enacted management as well as
population monitoring.
State of Washington
Washington State Department of Natural Resources State Lands Habitat
Conservation Plan
We are proposing to exclude lands managed under the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) State Lands HCP in
multiple critical habitat units in Washington from the final critical
habitat designation for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. The WDNR State
Trust Lands HCP covers approximately 1.6 million ac (730,000 ha) of
State forest lands. The majority of the area covered by the HCP is west
of the Cascade Crest including the Olympic Peninsula. The permit
associated with this HCP, issued January 30, 1997, was published in the
Federal Register on April 5, 1996 (61 FR 15297), has a term of 70 to
100 years, and covers activities primarily associated with commercial
forest management, but also includes limited, non-timber activities
such as some recreational activities. The HCP covers all federally
listed species in Washington that use the types of habitats provided by
covered lands at the time the HCP was approved, and those species that
have similar habitat affinities and become listed after the HCP was
approved and an incidental take permit (ITP) was issued. If listed, the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly would be added to the WDNR ITP per
Section 7 and 12.6 of the Implementing Agreement (Appendix B of the
HCP).
The HCP addressed multiple species through a combination of
strategies. The main focus of these strategies is the riparian
ecosystems (salmonids), northern spotted owl, and the marbled murrelet.
The main objective of these strategies was to maintain and promote late
successional forest habitats along riparian corridors and in uplands
locations that would benefit spotted owls and marbled murrelets. It was
envisioned that the conservation strategies for salmonids, spotted
owls, and marbled murrelets would serve to reduce the risk of
extinction for the other wildlife species covered by the HCP. In
addition, a fourth emphasis of the HCP was to provide protection for
species that relied on uncommon or unique habitats. For these species,
additional measures were developed to meet the conservation objectives
of the HCP. These measures specifically address the protection of
talus, caves, cliffs, balds, oak woodlands, mineral springs, large
snags, and large, structurally unique trees because these features are
difficult to restore or recreate. In addition, as noted in the HCP, at
the time a new species is proposed for listing, DNR provides a written
request to add that species to its ITP and evaluates and considers
additional protection measures such as seasonal restrictions and
protection of nesting/denning sites.
The WDNR has developed a site specific management plan for Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly for DNR managed lands located in the Olympic
Region. This management plan, which is a voluntary plan for landowners,
is based on ``Guidelines for Protecting Taylor's Checkerspot and its
Habitat'' (WDFW 2008 entire), and would fulfill the motion approved by
the Forestry Practices Board on September 11, 2007. This plan, and all
plans developed to protect Taylor's checkerspot butterflies, will allow
maximum flexibility to plan and implement activities that minimize and
mitigate impacts to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
The WDNR also manages approximately 66,000 ac (26,710 ha) of non-
trust lands as Natural Area Preserves (NAP). While not specifically a
part of the HCP, the Service recognizes the habitat contributions
provided by these lands in terms of meeting the conservation goals and
objectives of the HCP. NAPs provide the highest level of protection for
excellent examples of unique or typical land features in Washington
State. Some of these protected lands currently provide habitat in areas
identified as ``critical'' for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, the Bald
Hills, Mima Mounds NAPs, and the Rocky Prairie NAP. Details of the WDNR
HCP are available at https://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/trustlandshcp/Pages/Home.aspx.
Federal Lands
As noted above, Federal agencies have an independent responsibility
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act to use their programs in furtherance
of the Act and
[[Page 62003]]
to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation
of endangered and threatened species. We consider the development and
implementation of land management plans by Federal agencies to be
consistent with this statutory obligation under section 7(a)(1) of the
Act. Therefore, Federal land management plans, in and of themselves,
are generally not an appropriate basis for exclusion from critical
habitat. The Secretary is not intending to exercise his discretion to
exclude any Federal lands from the designation of critical habitat.
Consideration of Indian Lands
In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''
(November 6, 2000, and as reaffirmed November 5, 2009); and the
relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of the
Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, and other natural
resources on Indian lands may be better managed under Indian
authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation
where Indian management addresses the conservation needs of listed
species. In addition, such designation may be viewed by tribes as
unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion into Indian self-governance, thus
compromising the government-to-government relationship essential to
achieving our mutual goals of managing for healthy ecosystems upon
which the viability of threatened and endangered species populations
depend.
In developing proposed critical habitat for the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark, we considered inclusion
of some Indian lands as essential. Indian lands are those defined in
Secretarial Order 3206 ``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5,
1997), as: (1) Lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit
of any Indian tribe or individual; and (2) lands held by any Indian
Tribe or individual subject to restrictions by the United States
against alienation. In evaluating Indian lands under consideration as
potential critical habitat for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and
streaked horned lark, we further considered the directive of
Secretarial Order 3206 that stipulates ``Critical habitat shall not be
designated in such areas unless it is determined essential to conserve
a listed species. In designating critical habitat, the Services shall
evaluate and document the extent to which the conservation needs of the
listed species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other
lands.''
The Shoalwater Bay Tribe in Washington is the only Tribe with lands
identified as critical habitat in this proposed rule. Approximately 182
ac (73 ha) of Tribal lands within subunit 3-C of the Washington Coast
and Columbia River Islands Unit (Unit 3) is proposed as critical
habitat for the streaked horned lark. We are considering the exclusion
of these lands from the final designation of critical habitat for the
streaked horned lark. The Service has entered into discussion with the
Tribe regarding the proposed designation in preparation of this rule.
The Shoalwater Bay Tribe is working with the Service on the development
of a formal agreement for management and protection of habitat for the
western snowy plover, streaked horned lark, and other native coastal
species of cultural significance on lands under Tribal ownership and
management.
The Tribe has stated that they are committed to continue with their
efforts to manage their lands to benefit the western snowy plover and
streaked horned lark, and are asking that their lands be excluded from
the final designation. Existing tribal regulations, including the 2001
Tribal Environmental Codes that protect the saltmarsh and sand spit as
natural areas, will ensure any land use actions, including those
funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies, are not likely
to result in the destruction or adverse modification of all lands
considered for exclusion. The Service is also coordinating with the
Tribe and the USACE on the planting/vegetation management plan. We are
currently working on a memorandum of understanding with the Tribe
regarding protection or shorebirds on reservation lands. Any potential
impacts to the streaked horned lark from future proposed activities on
the tribal lands will be addressed through a section 7 consultation
using the jeopardy standard, and such activities would also be subject
to the take prohibitions in section 9 of the Act.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers
to comment during this public comment period on our specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposal to list Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark, and our proposed
critical habitat for these subspecies as well as our other
determinations.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the
ADDRESSES section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal,
if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
[[Page 62004]]
this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must publish
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include such businesses as manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer
than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100
employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less
than $11.5 million in annual business, and forestry and logging
operations with fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than
$7 million. To determine whether small entities may be affected, we
will consider the types of activities that might trigger regulatory
impacts under this designation as well as types of project
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant
economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's
business operations.
Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify.
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial,
the Service may also certify.
Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions,
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential
incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated
by the rulemaking itself, and not the potential impacts to indirectly
affected entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the Agency is not
likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory
requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by
critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our
position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated
by this designation. Therefore, because Federal agencies are not small
entities, the Service may certify that the proposed critical habitat
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
We acknowledge, however, that in some cases, third-party proponents
of the action subject to permitting or funding may participate in a
section 7 consultation, and thus may be indirectly affected. We believe
it is good policy to assess these impacts if we have sufficient data
before us to complete the necessary analysis, whether or not this
analysis is strictly required by the RFA. While this regulation does
not directly regulate these entities, in our draft economic analysis we
will conduct a brief evaluation of the potential number of third
parties participating in consultations on an annual basis in order to
ensure a more complete examination of the incremental effects of this
proposed rule in the context of the RFA.
In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this
designation of critical habitat will only directly regulate Federal
agencies which are not by definition small business entities. And as
such, certify that, if promulgated, this designation of critical
habitat would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required. However, though not necessarily
required by the RFA, in our draft economic analysis for this proposal
we will consider and evaluate the potential effects to third parties
that may be involved with consultations with Federal action agencies
related to this action.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. We do not expect the designation of this proposed
critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use as these species and proposed critical habitat do not appear to
overlap with these areas. Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However,
we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic
analysis, and review and revise this assessment as warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were:
[[Page 62005]]
Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and
Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation
that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except
(i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Government lands being proposed for critical
habitat designation are owned by Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Department of
Defense (Army), the U.S. Forest Service, and Thurston County Parks and
Recreation, in Washington, None of these government entities fit the
definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment as warranted. Therefore, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this
assessment if appropriate.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark in a takings implications assessment. Critical habitat
designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. The
takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of
critical habitat for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned
lark does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or
affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of
the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested
information from, and coordinated development of, this proposed
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies
in Washington and Oregon. The designation of critical habitat in areas
currently occupied by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked
horned lark imposes no additional restrictions to those currently in
place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on State and local
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit
to these governments because the areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species are
more clearly defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat
necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically
identified. This information does not alter where and what federally
sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for
case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
elements of physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned
lark within the proposed designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the species.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the
[[Page 62006]]
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1042 (1996)).]
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
We have determined that there are no tribal lands occupied by the
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly that contain the physical or biological
features essential to conservation of the species, and no tribal lands
unoccupied by the species that are essential for the conservation of
the species. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical
habitat for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly on tribal lands. The
Shoalwater Bay Tribe in Washington is the only Tribe with lands
proposed for designation in this proposed critical habitat rule.
Approximately 182 ac (74 ha) of Tribal lands within subunit 3-C, of the
Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands Unit could be designated as
critical habitat for the streaked horned lark. The Service has entered
into discussion with the Tribe regarding the proposed designation in
preparation of this rule. The Shoalwater Bay Tribe is providing
information regarding the status of streaked horned lark on lands under
tribal ownership and management. The Tribe has stated that they are
committed to continue with their efforts to manage their lands to
benefit the streaked horned lark, and is asking that their lands be
excluded from designation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington, and the Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, as follows:
a. By adding an entry for ``Lark, streaked horned (Eremophila
alpestris strigata)'' in alphabetical order under Birds, to read as set
forth below; and
b. By adding an entry for ``Butterfly, Taylor's checkerspot
(Euphydryas editha taylori)'' in alphabetical order under Insects, to
read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Lark, streaked horned............ Eremophila alpestris U.S.A. (BC, WA, OR) U.S.A. (WA)........ T............. ........... 17.95(b) 17.41(a)
strigata.
* * * * * * *
Insects
* * * * * * *
Butterfly, Taylor's checkerspot.. Euphydryas editha U.S.A. (WA, OR).... U.S.A. (WA)........ E............. ........... 17.95(i) NA
taylori.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62007]]
3. Amend Sec. 17.41 by adding paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.41 Special rules--birds.
(a) Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata).
(1) Which populations of the streaked horned lark are covered by
this special rule? This rule covers the rangewide distribution of this
bird.
(2) What activities are prohibited? Except as noted in paragraphs
(a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section, all prohibitions of Sec. 17.31
apply to the streaked horned lark.
(3) What agricultural activities are allowed on non-Federal land?
Incidental take of the streaked horned lark will not be a violation of
section 9 of the Act, if the incidental take results from routine
agricultural or ranching activities located on non-Federal lands.
Routine agricultural and ranching activities are limited to the
following:
(i) Planting, harvesting, rotation, mowing, tilling, discing, and
herbicide application of crops;
(ii) Repair and maintenance of unimproved farm roads (this
exemption does not include improvement or construction of new roads)
and graveled margins of rural roads;
(iii) Livestock grazing according to normally acceptable and
established levels of intensity in terms of the number of head of
livestock per acre of rangeland;
(iv) Routine management and maintenance of stock ponds and berms to
maintain livestock water supplies;
(v) Routine maintenance or construction of fences for grazing
management;
(vi) Placement of mineral supplements; and
(vii) Irrigation of agricultural crops, fields, and livestock
pastures.
(4) What activities are allowed on airports on non-Federal lands?
Incidental take of the streaked horned lark will not be a violation of
section 9 of the Act, if the incidental take results from routine
management activities associated with airport operations to minimize
hazardous wildlife. Hazardous wildlife is defined by the Federal
Aviation Administration as species of wildlife, including feral animals
and domesticated animals not under control, that are associated with
aircraft strike problems, are capable of causing structural damage to
airport facilities, or act as attractants to other wildlife that pose a
strike hazard. Routine management activities include, but are not
limited to, the following:
(i) Routine management, repair, and maintenance of roads and
runways (does not include upgrades or construction of new roads or
runways);
(ii) Control and management of vegetation (grass, weeds, shrubs,
and trees) through mowing, discing, herbicide application, or burning
consistent with State Agency recommendations;
(iii) Hazing of hazardous wildlife; and
(iv) Management of sources of forage, water, and shelter to reduce
the attractiveness of the area around the airport for hazardous
wildlife.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 17.95 by:
(a) In paragraph (b), adding an entry for ``Streaked horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris strigata)'' in the same order that this species
appears in the table in Sec. 17.11(h) to read as follows; and
(b) In paragraph (i), by adding an entry for ``Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori)'' in the same order that this
species appears in the table in Sec. 17.11(h) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(b) Birds.
* * * * *
Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Mason, Pierce, Thurson,
Grays Harbor, Pacific Wahkiakum, and Cowlitz Counties in Washington and
Clatsop, Columbia, Multhomah, Yamhill, Polk, Marion, Linn, and Lane
Counties in Oregon, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
streaked horned lark consist of areas having a minimum of 16 percent
bare ground that have sparse, low-stature vegetation comprising
primarily grasses and forbs less than 13 in (33 cm) in height found in:
(i) Large (300-ac (120-ha)), flat (0-5 percent slope) areas within
a landscape context that provides visual access to open areas such as
open water or fields, or
(ii) Areas smaller than described in paragraph (2)(i) of this
entry, but that provide visual access to open areas such as open water
or fields.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
[DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining the map unit
were created on 2010 aerial photography from U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Agriculture Imagery Program base maps using
ArcMap (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer
geographic information system (GIS) program. The maps in this entry, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries
of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or
both on which each map is based are available to the public at the
Service's internet site, (https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov
(https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0080) and at
the field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
[[Page 62008]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.023
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
(6) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-A: Sanderson Field, Mason
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-A, follows:
[[Page 62009]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.024
(7) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-B: McChord Field, Pierce County,
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-B: follows:
[[Page 62010]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.025
(8) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-C: Gray Army Airfield, Pierce
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-C follows:
[[Page 62011]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.026
(9) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-D: 91st Division Prairie,
Pierce County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-D follows:
[[Page 62012]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.027
(10) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-E: 13th Division Prairie,
Pierce County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-E follows:
[[Page 62013]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.028
(11) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-F: Olympia Airport, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-F follows:
[[Page 62014]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.029
(12) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-A: Damon Point, Grays Harbor County, Washington. Map of Unit 3,
Subunit 3-A follows:
[[Page 62015]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.030
(13) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-B: Midway Beach, Pacific County, Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit
3-B follows:
[[Page 62016]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.031
(14) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-C: Shoalwater, Pacific County, Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3-C
follows:
[[Page 62017]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.032
(15) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-D: Leadbetter Point, Pacific County, Washington. Map of Unit 3,
Subunit 3-D follows:
[[Page 62018]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.033
(16) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-E: Rice Island, Clatsop County, Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3-E
follows:
[[Page 62019]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.034
(17) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-F: Miller Sands Spit, Clatsop County, Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit
3-F follows:
[[Page 62020]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.035
(18) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-G: Pillar Rock/Jim Crow Sands, Clatsop County, Oregon. Map of Unit 3,
Subunit 3-G follows:
[[Page 62021]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.036
(19) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-H: Welch Island, Clatsop County, Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3-H
follows:
[[Page 62022]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.037
(20) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-I: Tenasillahe Island, Columbia County, Oregon. Map of Unit 3,
Subunit 3-I follows:
[[Page 62023]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.038
(21) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-J: Coffeepot Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington. Map of Unit 3,
Subunit 3-J follows:
[[Page 62024]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.039
(22) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-K: Whites/Brown Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington. Map of Unit 3,
Subunit 3-K follows:
[[Page 62025]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.040
(23) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-L: Wallace Island, Columbia County, Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3-
L follows:
[[Page 62026]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.041
(24) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-M: Crims Island, Columbia County, Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3-M
follows:
[[Page 62027]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.042
(25) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-N: Sandy Island, Columbia County, Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3-N
follows:
[[Page 62028]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.043
(26) Unit 3--Washington Coast and Columbia River Islands, Subunit
3-O: Portland International Airport, Multnomah County, Washington. Map
of Unit 3, Subunit 3-O follows:
[[Page 62029]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.044
(27) Unit 4--Willamette Valley, Subunit 4-A: McMinnville Municipal
Airport, Yamhill County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4-A follows:
[[Page 62030]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.045
(28) Unit 4--Willamette Valley, Subunit 4-B: Basket Slough National
Wildlife Refuge, Polk County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4-B
follows:
[[Page 62031]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.046
(29) Unit 4--Willamette Valley, Subunit 4-C: Salem Municipal
Airport, Marion County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4-C follows:
[[Page 62032]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.047
(30) Unit 4--Willamette Valley, Subunit 4-D: Ankeny National
Wildlife Refuge, Marion County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4-D
follows:
[[Page 62033]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.048
(31) Unit 4--Willamette Valley, Subunit 4-E: Corvallis Municipal
Airport, Benton County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4-E follows:
[[Page 62034]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.049
(32) Unit 4--Willamette Valley, Subunit 4-F: William L. Finley
National Wildlife Refuge, Benton County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit
4-F follows:
[[Page 62035]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.050
(33) Unit 4--Willamette Valley, Subunit 4-G: M-DAC Farms, Linn
County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4-G follows:
[[Page 62036]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.051
(34) Unit 4--Willamette Valley, Subunit 4-H: Eugene Airport, Lane
County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4-H follows:
[[Page 62037]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.052
* * * * *
(i) Insects.
* * * * *
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Thurston, Pierce,
Island, Clallam Counties in Washington, and Benton County, Oregon, on
the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Euphydryas editha taylori consist of:
(i) Patches of early seral, short-statured, perennial bunchgrass
plant communities composed of native grass
[[Page 62038]]
and forb species in a diverse topographic landscape ranging in size
from less than 1 ac up to 100 ac (0.4 to 40 ha) with little or no
overstory forest vegetation that have areas of bare soil for basking
that contain:
(A) In Washington and Oregon, common bunchgrass species found on
northwest grasslands include Festuca roemeri (Roemer's fescue),
Danthonia californica (California oat grass), Koeleria cristata
(prairie Junegrass), Elymus glaucus (blue wild rye), Agrostis scabra
(rough bentgrass), and on cooler, high-elevation sites typical of
coastal bluffs and balds, Festuca rubra (red fescue).
(B) On moist grasslands found near the coast and in the Willamette
Valley, there may be Bromus sitchensis (Sitka brome) and Deschampsia
cespitosa (tufted hairgrass) in the mix of prairie grasses. Less
abundant forbs found on the grasslands include, but are not limited to,
Trifolium spp. (true clovers), narrow-leaved plantain, harsh
paintbrush, Puget balsam root, woolly sunshine, nine-leaved desert
parsley, fine-leaved desert parsley, common camas, showy fleabane,
Canada thistle, common yarrow, prairie lupine, and sickle-keeled
lupine.
(ii) Primary larval host plants (narrow-leaved plantain and harsh
paintbrush) and at least one of the secondary annual larval host plants
(blue-eyed Mary, sea blush, or dwarf owl-clover) or one of several
species of speedwell (marsh speedwell, American speedwell, or thymeleaf
speedwell).
(iii) Adult nectar sources for feeding that include several species
found as part of the native (and one nonnative) species mix on
northwest grasslands, including: narrow-leaved plantain; harsh
paintbrush; Puget balsam root; wooly sunshine; nine-leaved desert
parsley; fine-leaved desert parsley or spring gold; common camas; showy
fleabane; Canada thistle; common yarrow; prairie lupine; and sickle-
keeled lupine.
(iv) Aquatic features such as wetlands, springs, seeps, streams,
ponds, lakes, and puddles that provide moisture during periods of
drought, particularly late in the spring and early summer. These
features can be permanent, seasonal, or ephemeral.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
[DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining the map unit
were created on 2010 aerial photography from U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Agriculture Imagery Program base maps using
ArcMap (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer
geographic information system (GIS) program. The maps in this entry, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries
of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or
both on which each map is based are available to the public at the
Service's internet site, (https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/), the Federal
eRulemaking portal (https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2012-0080), and at the field office responsible for this designation.
You may obtain field office location information by contacting one of
the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50
CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
[[Page 62039]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.053
(6) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-A: TA7S, Pierce County,
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-A follows:
[[Page 62040]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.054
(7) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-B: 91st Division Prairie, Pierce
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-B follows:
[[Page 62041]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.055
(8) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-C: 13th Division Prairie, Pierce
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-C follows.
[[Page 62042]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.056
(9) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-D: Rocky Prairie, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-D follows:
[[Page 62043]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.057
(10) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-E; Tenalquot, Thurston County,
Washington. Map of Unit 1, South Sound, Subunit 1-E follows:
[[Page 62044]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.058
(11) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-F: Mima Mounds/Glacial
Heritage, Thurston County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-F
follows.
[[Page 62045]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.059
(12) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-G: West Rocky Prairie, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-G follows.
[[Page 62046]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.060
(13) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-H: Scatter Creek, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-H follows:
[[Page 62047]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.061
(14) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-I: Rock Prairie, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-I follows:
[[Page 62048]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.062
(15) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-J: Bald Hills, Thurston County,
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-J follows:
[[Page 62049]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.063
(16) Unit 2--Strait of Juan DeFuca, Subunit 2-A: Deception Pass,
Island County, Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2-A, follows:
[[Page 62050]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.064
(17) Unit 2--Strait of Juan DeFuca, Subunit 2-B: Central Whidbey,
Island County, Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2-B follows:
[[Page 62051]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.065
(18) Unit 2--Strait of Juan DeFuca, Subunit 2-C: Elwha, Clallam
County, Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2-C follows:
[[Page 62052]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.066
(19) Unit 2--Strait of Juan DeFuca, Subunit 2-D: Sequim, Clallam
County, Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2-D follows:
[[Page 62053]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.067
(20) Unit 2--Strait of Juan DeFuca, Subunit 2-E: Upper Dungeness,
Clallam County, Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2- E, follows:
[[Page 62054]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.068
(21) Unit 4--Willamette Valley, Subunit 4-A: Fort Hoskins Historic
Park, Benton County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4-A follows:
[[Page 62055]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.069
(22) Unit 4--Willamette Valley, Subunit 4-B: Beazell Memorial
Forest, Benton County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4-B follows:
[[Page 62056]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.070
(23) Unit 4: Willamette Valley, Subunit 4-C: Fitton Green, Benton
County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4-C, follows:
[[Page 62057]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.071
[[Page 62058]]
* * * * *
Dated: September 27, 2012.
Eileen Sobeck,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-24465 Filed 10-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
