Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and Threatened Status for the Streaked Horned Lark
Federal RegisterOct 3, 2013
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0080; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY18
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and Threatened Status for the Streaked Horned Lark
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine endangered status for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly (
Euphydryas editha taylori
) and threatened status for the streaked horned lark (
Eremophila alpestris strigata
) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. This final rule adds these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and implements the Federal protections provided by the Act for these species. This rule also establishes a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act to exempt certain activities from the take prohibitions of the Act and our regulations in order to provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark.
DATES:
This rule is effective November 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES:
This final rule is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
and
http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/TCBSHL.html
. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503-1263; 360-753-9440 (telephone); 360-753-9008 (facsimile).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ken Berg, Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503-1263; by telephone 360-753-9440; or by facsimile 360-753-9405. 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
On October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938), we published a proposed rule to list the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly (
Euphydryas editha taylori
) as an endangered species, and the streaked horned lark (
Eremophila alpestris strigata
) as a threatened species. In this final rule, we are finalizing our proposed determinations for these species under the Act. The Act requires that a final rule be published in order to add species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to provide protections under the Act. Elsewhere in today's
Federal Register
, we are finalizing designation of critical habitat for these species under the Act. The final critical habitat designations and supporting documents are published under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0009. The table below summarizes our determination for each of these species:
Table 1—Summary of the Status and Range of the Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and the Streaked Horned Lark
Species
Present range
Status
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly—
Euphydryas editha taylori
British Columbia, Canada; Clallam, Pierce, and Thurston Counties, WA; and Benton County, OR
Endangered.
Streaked horned lark—
Eremophila alpestris strigata
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
Threatened.
This rule:
• Lists the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly as an endangered species under the Act because it is currently in danger of extinction throughout the species' range.
• Lists the streaked horned lark as a threatened species under the Act because it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout the species' range due to continued threats.
• Establishes a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act to exempt certain airport maintenance activities and operations, agricultural activities, and noxious weed control activities from the take prohibitions of the Act and our regulations in order to provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark.
The Basis for Our Action
Under the Act, we can determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
We have determined 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 (streaked horned lark);
• 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 (streaked horned lark); and
• Pesticide use (potential threat for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly).
Peer Review and Public Comment
We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all comments and information we received during the comment periods and the public hearing.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the listing determinations for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark in this final rule. A summary of topics relevant to this final rule is provided below. Additional information on both species may be found in the proposed rule, which was published October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938).
Previous Federal Action
Candidate History
We first identified the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark as candidates for listing in our 2001 candidate notice of review (CNOR) (66 FR 54808; October 30, 2001). Each candidate species is assigned a listing priority number (LPN) that is 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 we assigned it an LPN of 3 (69 FR 24876; May 4, 2004). In 2006, the streaked horned lark was also assigned an LPN of 3, based on a review indicating that the continued loss of suitable lark habitat, risks to the wintering populations, and plans for development, hazing, and military training activities were imminent threats to the species (71 FR 53756; September 12, 2006). The candidate status, with an LPN of 3 for each species, for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark was most recently reaffirmed in the November 21, 2012, CNOR (77 FR 69994). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) completed action plans for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the 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:
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/action_plans/doc3089.pdf
(Taylor's checkerspot butterfly) and
http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/STHL_Action%20Plan_Sept2009.pdf
(streaked horned lark).
On October 11, 2012, we published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register
to list the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly as endangered and the streaked horned lark as threatened, and to designate critical habitat for these two species (77 FR 61938). This proposed rule also contained a proposed special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for the streaked horned lark. The 60-day comment period on that proposed rule closed on December 10, 2012. On April 3, 2013, we published a document making available the draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designations for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark, and an amended required determinations section of the proposed designations (78 FR 20074). We additionally announced three public information workshops and a public hearing, held in April 2013, on the proposed rule to list the species and the associated critical habitat designations. The public comment period was reopened for 30 days, ending on May 3, 2013. The final rule designating critical habitat for these two species is published elsewhere in today's
Federal Register
.
Species Information—Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is a medium-sized, colorfully marked butterfly with a checkerboard pattern on the upper (dorsal) side of the wings (Pyle 2002, p. 310). Their wings are orange with black and yellowish (or white) spot bands, giving them a checkered appearance (Pyle 1981, p. 607; Pyle 2002, p. 310). The Taylor's checkerspot butterfly was historically known to occur in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, and its current distribution represents a reduction from over 80 locations rangewide to 14.
Taxonomy and Species Description
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 of Edith's checkerspot butterfly, 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 under the Act. For further information, see the proposed rule published on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938).
Distribution
Historically, the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly was likely distributed throughout grassland habitat found on prairies, shallow-soil balds (a bald is a small opening on slopes in a treeless area, dominated by herbaceous vegetation), grassland bluffs, and grassland openings within a forested matrix in south Vancouver Island, northern Olympic Peninsula, the south Puget Sound, and the Willamette Valley. The historical range and abundance of the subspecies are not precisely known because extensive searches for the 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 the Taylor's checkerspot butterflies than prairie habitat does today. According to Dr. Robert 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 Natural Area Preserve (NAP) and surrounding prairies in 1970. In the mid-eighties, Taylor's checkerspot butterfly 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 Taylor's checkerspot 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 the recent declines observed 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 the 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 the 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
Nearly all localities for the 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 in Oregon has declined from 13 to 2 (Ross 2011,
in litt.,
p. 1). In Washington State, more than 43 historical locales were documented for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. In 2012, there were 11 documented locations for the 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 the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, surveys for this subspecies 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 increase the reliability of abundance data for butterflies; thus, we believe the data on numbers of the 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 the 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. The 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 currently known occurrence of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly 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), Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Center for Natural Lands Management (previously The Nature Conservancy of Washington), and personnel from the Wildlife Branch of Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM; formerly known as Fort Lewis Army Base and McChord Air Force Base, respectively). 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 on the 13th Division Prairie 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 sites in Thurston County (Glacial Heritage, Scatter Creek north and south units, and Rocky Prairie NAP) had Taylor's checkerspot butterflies present in 1997. No 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 Glacial Heritage and Scatter Creek, south unit, have not detected Taylor's checkerspot butterflies until reintroduction through translocation to these sites resulted in occupation (Linders and Olson 2011, slide number 17; Bidwell 2012, pers. comm.). We did not count these sites as occupied in 2012, but after 3 years of positive survey data, we tentatively consider them occupied.
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 the imprecise nature of their collection data, the actual location of these collection sites 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 habitat during the 2008-2010 flight period with no Taylor's checkerspot butterflies observed. The subspecies is presumed to be extirpated from this location.
The 91st Division Prairie is located on JBLM and encompasses approximately 7,600 acres (ac) (3,075 hectares (ha)) of native grassland. Taylor's checkerspot butterflies are documented at two locations within 91st Division Prairie, Range 50-51, and Range 72-76. The only extant, naturally occurring population of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly within the south Puget Sound is located here, and has served as the source population for the collection of eggs and adult butterflies for captive propagation for reintroduction efforts. This is the largest population of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, and it occurs in several small, discrete patches of habitat. Maximum daily counts from surveys conducted at this site between 2005-2012 ranged from 70 to 2,070 (Randolph, unpub. data, p. 79; Wolford 2006; Olson and Linders 2010; Linders 2011b; Linders 2012d, p. 27).
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 where historical locales for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies exist (Pyle 1989, p. 170) were surveyed for the 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). Although the flight periods and habitat of both butterflies overlap, no Taylor's checkerspot butterflies were found during these surveys.
Several historical sites with potentially suitable habitat were surveyed on the north Olympic Peninsula (Clallam County) during spring 2003. The 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 U.S. Forest Service (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, Dan Kelly Ridge, 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-Cardwell Hill in Benton County. In 2004, surveys for the 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 the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly are currently the only occupied patches known from Oregon.
Summary
—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 2007 at the Bald Hills location in Washington. Several new locations harboring Taylor's checkerspot butterflies have been rediscovered on historical sites on 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 Dungeness River watershed on the north Olympic Peninsula in Washington. Currently 14 individual locations are considered occupied by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly rangewide: Denman Island (British Columbia, Canada); Eden Valley, Dan Kelly Ridge, Sequim, Bear Mountain, Three O'Clock Ridge, and Upper Dungeness (north Olympic Peninsula, Washington); Range 72-76, Range 50-51, Pacemaker Training Area 14 (JBLM, Washington); Scatter Creek, and Glacial Heritage (south Puget Sound, Washington); and Beazell Memorial Forest, and Fitton Green-Cardwell Hill (Oregon).
Habitat
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly occupies open grassland habitat found on prairies, shallow-soil balds (Chappell 2006, p. 1), grassland bluffs, and grassland openings within a forested matrix in south Vancouver Island, British Columbia; the north Olympic Peninsula and the south Puget Sound, Washington; and the Willamette Valley, Oregon. The recently discovered population on Denman Island in Canada, 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 (for details, see 77 FR 61938; October 11, 2012). In British Columbia, Canada, Taylor's checkerspot butterflies were historically known to occupy coastal grassland habitat on Vancouver Island and nearby islands, not forests that were converted to early successional conditions by clear-cutting. In Washington, Taylor's checkerspot butterflies inhabit glacial outwash prairies in the south Puget Sound region. 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 (Pyle 2012,
in litt.
). On the northeast Olympic Peninsula they use shallow-soil balds and grasses within a forested landscape, as well as roadsides, former clear-cut areas within a forested matrix, and a coastal stabilized dune site near the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Stinson 2005, pp. 93-96). The two Oregon sites are on grassland hills in the Willamette Valley within a forested matrix (Vaughan and Black 2002, p. 7; Ross 2008, p. 1; Benton County 2010, Appendix N, p. 5).
Biology
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 has been documented as lasting up to 45 days (Ross 2008, p. 2). All nontropical checkerspot butterflies, including the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, have the capability to reenter diapause prior to metamorphosis during years that weather is extremely inhospitable or when the larval food resources are restricted (Ehrlich and Hanski 2004, p. 22). It is important to note that while Taylor's checkerspot butterflies are obvious while on the wing during the flight period, they are present and relatively sedentary throughout the rest of the year while in their larval form; we consider them a resident subspecies year-round and especially vulnerable to many forms of disturbance while in the life-history stages prior to metamorphosis.
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,
which is now known as
Triphysaria
(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 led to the observation 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. maritima
(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 exclusively on narrow-leaf plantain in Oregon (Dornfeld 1980, p. 73; Ross 2008, pers. comm.; Severns and Warren 2008, p. 476). In 2012, the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly was documented preferentially ovipositing on the threatened
Castilleja levisecta
(golden paintbrush) in studies conducted in Washington, and in 2013,
Castilleja levisecta
was subsequently observed being utilized as a larval host plant in both Washington and Oregon (Kaye 2013; Aubrey 2013,
in litt.
), as originally hypothesized by Dr. Robert Pyle (Pyle 2002, p. 311; Pyle 2007, pers. comm.).
Species Information—Streaked Horned Lark
Streaked horned lark is endemic to the Pacific Northwest (historically found in 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 6-8 inches (in) (16-20 centimeters (cm)) in length (Beason 1995, p. 2). Adults are pale brown, but shades of 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 and Species Description
The horned lark is a bird 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. 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). There was no evidence of immigration into the streaked horned lark's 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).
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). For more information on taxonomy, see the proposed rule published on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938).
Distribution
Historical Range and Distribution
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—
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 streaked horned lark 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 the 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, pp. 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). Surveys conducted between 1999 and 2004 found larks at Leadbetter Point, Graveyard Spit, Damon Point and Midway Beach on the Outer Coast (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
—Streaked horned lark's historical 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 streaked horned lark was described as a common permanent resident in the 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).
Streaked horned lark, while occasionally present, was never reported to be more than uncommon on the Oregon coast. The streaked horned lark 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 streaked horned 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—
Streaked horned lark has been extirpated as a breeding subspecies 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, 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 were created with dredged materials (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) and on Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's (ODFW's) E.E. Wilson Wildlife Area (ODFW 2008, p. 18). Breeding populations also occur at municipal airports in the valley (including McMinnville, Salem, and Eugene) (Moore 2008, pp. 14-17). Much of the Willamette Valley is private agricultural land, and has not been surveyed for streaked horned larks, except along public road margins. There are numerous other locations on private and municipal lands on which streaked horned larks have been observed in the Willamette Valley, particularly in the southern valley (Linn, Polk, and Benton Counties) (eBird 2013, ebird.org). 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 opportunistically 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 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.
2012, pp. 7-9). 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 population trend (Altman 2011, p. 214); however, see below for additional analysis of the BBS data for the Willamette Valley. 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 6 sites (Altman 2011, p. 213). Recent studies have found that larks have very low nest success in 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 (λ, lambda) that include vital rates from nesting areas in the south Puget Sound, Washington coast, and Whites Island in the lower Columbia River indicate streaked horned larks have abnormally low vital rates, which are significantly lower than the vital rates of the arctic horned lark (Camfield
et al.
2010, p. 276). One study estimated that the population of streaked horned larks in Washington was declining by 40 percent per year (λ = 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 appears to be 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-ac (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, according to this report. Both detections at point count stations and within regions showed moderate increases (3 percent and 6 percent, respectively) (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).
Data from the BBS may provide additional insight into the trend of the streaked horned lark population in the Willamette Valley. Although the BBS does not track bird counts by subspecies, the streaked horned lark is the only subspecies of horned lark that breeds in the Oregon portion of the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR); therefore it is reasonable to assume that counts of horned larks from the breeding season in the Willamette Valley are actually counts of the streaked horned lark. The BBS data regularly detect horned larks on several routes in the Willamette Valley, and counts from these routes show that horned larks in this BCR have been declining since 1960s, with an estimated annual trend of −4.6 percent (95 percent confidence intervals −6.9, −2.4) (Sauer
et al.
2012, p. 4). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which manages the BBS data, recommends caution when analyzing these data due to the small sample size, high variance, and potential for observer bias in the raw BBS data.
The BBS data from the Willamette Valley indicate that horned larks (as mentioned above, the BBS tracks only the full species) have been declining for decades, which is coincident with the restrictions on grass seed field burning imposed by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1). Prior to 1990, about 250,000 ac (101,170 ha) of grass seed fields in the Willamette Valley were burned each year. Public health and safety issues led the Oregon legislature to order gradual reductions in field burning beginning in 1991. By 2009, field burning was essentially banned in the Willamette Valley (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1). We believe that some of the observed declines lark detections in the BBS data are attributable to the reduction of highly suitable burned habitats due to the field burning ban. Since the ban is now fully in effect, the decline in BBS observations of streaked horned larks is not expected to continue at the previously noted rate.
We do not have conclusive data on population trends throughout the streaked horned 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
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 streaked horned 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).
Habitat
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, fields denuded by overwintering Canada geese, 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 ac (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 streaked horned 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 many airports within the subspecies'
range, 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). It is important to note the key role of anthropogenically maintained landscapes in the process of creating and maintaining habitat for the streaked horned lark; without large-scale, manmade disturbance (e.g., burning, mowing, cropping, and deposition of dredge spoils), available habitat would decrease rapidly, but these same activities can threaten individuals when they are at sensitive life-history stages.
Biology
Horned larks forage on the ground in low vegetation or on bare ground (Beason 1995, p. 6); adults feed mainly on grass and forb seeds, but feed insects to their young (Beason 1995, p. 6). In the Puget lowlands in Washington, streaked horned larks have been observed selectively foraging on the spore capsules of
Polytrichum juniperinum
(juniper haircap moss) during the time before grasses and forbs have set seed and insects become plentiful (Martin 2013, in litt.; Wolf 2013, in litt.). 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), and
Sporobulus
sp. (dropseed)), 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).
Streaked horned larks have a strong affinity for recently burned habitats. An experimental study at JBLM found that larks had a highly significant preference for burned versus unburned fields, and in the breeding season following a fire, lark abundance was significantly higher on the burned plots (Pearson
et al.
2005a, p. 14). The decline of the streaked horned lark population in the Willamette Valley is correlated with the reduction in agricultural field burning. Prior to the mid-1980s, as much as 250,000 ac (101,000 ha) of grass seed fields were burned each year in the Willamette Valley; in the 1990s, the State imposed progressive reductions in field burning, until in 2012, virtually no burning was allowed (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1).
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 ac (0.77 ha) with a range of 1.5 to 2.5 ac (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). Nest sites are selected from suitable locations within male mating territories, which are typically sparsely vegetated, are rockier, and have more annual grasses than nearby areas (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 19). Female horned larks 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 almost always placed on the north side of a clump of vegetation or another object such as root balls or soil clumps (Pearson and Hopey 2005 p. 23; Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 18). Studies from Washington sites (the open coast, Puget lowlands, and 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 late August (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11; Moore 2011, p. 32; Wolf 2011, p. 5). 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 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.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by December 10, 2012. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Olympian in Washington and in the Statesman Journal in Oregon during the reopening of the public comment period following our
Federal Register
publication that made available the draft economic analysis for the proposed critical habitat designations (April 3, 2013; 78 FR 20074). As also announced in that April 3, 2013, document, we held a public hearing in Olympia, Washington, on April 18, 2013, and held public informational workshops in Lacey, Washington, on April 16, 2013 (two workshops), and in Salem, Oregon, on April 17, 2013.
During the two comment periods for the proposed rule, we received nearly 100 comment letters addressing either the proposed listing or the proposed critical habitat (or both) for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark. During the April 18, 2013, public hearing, 34 individuals or organizations made comments on the proposed rule. All substantive information provided during comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from four knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and its habitats, biological needs, and threats, and from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the streaked horned lark and its habitats, biological needs, and threats. We received responses from two of the peer reviewers on the proposed listing of the Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly. Both peer reviewers felt that the proposed rule was a thorough description of the status of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and commented that they considered the proposed rule well researched and well written, and one commenter stated that the rule comprehensively represented the current scientific knowledge for the taxon. Both peer reviewers had several substantive comments on the proposed listing of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, which we address below. We received responses from three of the peer reviewers on the proposed listing of the streaked horned lark. Two of the peer reviewers felt that the proposed rule was a thorough description of the status of the streaked horned lark, and stated that we had used the best available science in reaching our conclusions; one peer reviewer felt that we had failed to use available information on the trend in population numbers of the streaked horned lark in the Willamette Valley (available from the Breeding Bird Survey database), and provided that data for our consideration. Two peer reviewers had several substantive comments on the proposed listing of the streaked horned lark, which we address below. Our requests for peer review are limited to a request for review of the merits of the scientific information in our documents; if peer reviewers have volunteered their personal opinions on matters not directly relevant to the science of our status assessment, we do not respond to those comments here.
Comments From Peer Reviewers
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
(1)
Comment:
One peer reviewer stated that the taxonomy section of the proposed rule was incomplete with regard to its description of the full species
Euphydryas editha
(Edith's checkerspot butterfly). He states the taxonomy of the full species
E. editha
is more complicated than we summarized. However, the peer reviewer added that despite the incomplete taxonomic treatment for the full species
E. editha,
the taxonomic treatment of
E. editha taylori
in the proposed rule is consistent with the most recent literature.
Our response:
For the purpose of a listing document, we provide a non-technical physical and biological description of the species, and a taxonomic description of the entity we intend to list, which is subspecies
Euphydryas editha taylori
in this case. We typically do not describe the full species from which the subspecies was derived.
(2)
Comment:
One peer reviewer stated that, because of the discontinuous distribution of
E. editha taylori,
further taxonomic evaluation utilizing molecular genetics techniques would better determine the amount of genetic divergence within and between known populations.
Our response:
The Service agrees that having a complete genetic evaluation is beneficial when determining differences within and between broadly distributed species. We are currently collaborating with U.S. Forest Service geneticists and their Genetics Laboratory (Placerville, California), and other conservation partners on collecting tissues and using established genetic markers to analyze the genetic structure of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and its closely related subspecies. The objective is to determine the genetic identity of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. At this time, the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is a declining taxon found only on a few declining habitat patches throughout the subspecies' range, and the statute directs us to make our listing determination based upon the best scientific data available at the time of our evaluation.
(3)
Comment:
One peer reviewer mentioned that during mild winters the adult flight season for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly can begin as early as March 31 (as in 2005, although this was an early season outlier). For example, the peer reviewer states that he personally observed an adult on March 31, and that adults were still in flight in late April in Oregon that year (2005).
Our response:
We agree and consider the adult flight period for the subspecies to be variable from year to year, primarily dependent upon the local annual weather patterns during the late winter, and early spring of the specific flight year. We discuss in this final rule an example of adult Taylor's checkerspot butterflies in flight as late as the first week of July at the Olympic Peninsula sites, which are located at higher elevation than any other location within the subspecies' range.
(4)
Comment:
One peer reviewer commented that the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly most likely exhibited and persisted as a metapopulation composed of large and small populations that interacted within a larger landscape context, with frequent extinction and colonization events.
Our response:
We agree with the concept of a metapopulation structure for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. Small populations known only from small habitat patches may become extirpated; however, in a metapopulation structure, other closely situated populations may expand at the same time others are failing. By allowing recolonization of habitat patches where extirpation has taken place, metapopulation structure supports the presence of the (sub)species on a larger landscape, while they are still found in distinct separate patches of habitat. Without metapopulation structure, the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly will likely become extirpated at several of the locations where it is currently is found.
(5)
Comment:
One peer reviewer supports our ideas about active management to maintain early seral conditions in occupied habitats and about the maintenance of dispersal corridors between areas having the most dense populations of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. The peer reviewer cautions that management treatments to remove encroaching tree, shrubs, and nonnative grasses still does not guarantee the persistence of the subspecies on areas designated as critical habitat. He states that populations of
E. editha
are well known to appear and disappear over large areas without any obvious explanation.
Our response:
We agree with the importance of active management, and that without regular management activities to sustain ecosystem processes, we would quickly lose small populations where we are working to enhance and maintain Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat. As noted in this rule, the lack of active management, or the ecosystem processes to maintain early seral conditions, is a threat to the subspecies through the loss of habitat, which is quickly rendered unsuitable and becomes unavailable for the butterfly's use, leading to extirpation.
(6)
Comment:
One peer reviewer took issue with our use of the word “collection” of butterflies for scientific studies. He suggests there is no evidence that collection of specimens has contributed to the decline of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
Our response:
We agree that we inappropriately used this term when we meant to discuss “capture” as it is directly related to “mark, release, and recapture” studies. We have made this change in this final rule, and replaced any mention of the term “collection” with “capture,” except where we are discussing a collection of specimens.
(7)
Comment:
One peer reviewer expressed concern about the violations of section 9 of the Act that prohibit, “Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying or transporting of the species, including
export and import 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.” Given the need for genetic and molecular phylogenetic studies of
E. editha taylori,
he disagreed with the idea of restricting the movement of specimens that are less than 100 years old. He questions how specimens that have been legally collected as vouchers and preserved for the purpose of future genetic, molecular, and morphological studies would become illegal if the species were to be listed as endangered. He strongly encourages the Service to allow the act of possessing and transporting specimens legally obtained prior to the listing of the species in 2013, in order to facilitate and contribute to the scientific study of the subspecies.
Our response:
The proposed rule overstated the prohibitions in section 9 of the Act. After listing takes effect, mere possession of a specimen, provided the specimen was not collected in violation of the Act, is not prohibited, and interstate transportation of such a specimen for the purpose of genetic testing is not prohibited as long as it does not occur in the course of a commercial activity. This description of the prohibitions has been corrected in this final rule.
(8)
Comment:
One peer reviewer suggested that we include additional information in our section on the nectar foods used in Oregon by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. However, the peer reviewer incorrectly stated we should better describe the use of
Fraxinus
(Oregon ash), as the primary nectar source available to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in Oregon. We believe the reviewer mistakenly used the term
Fraxinus,
when meaning to describe
Fragaria virginiana
(wild strawberry). Another commenter pointed out that Taylor's checkerspot butterflies have been observed using dandelion (
Taraxacum officinale
) as a nectar source, which he believes is an indicator of more general habitat requirements of this subspecies.
Our response:
We did correctly discuss the use of
Fragaria virginiana,
not
Fraxinus,
as it is the most widespread of nectar resources in Oregon, and
Fragaria virginiana
is readily used by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly at all locations in Oregon. We have added
Plectritis congesta, Amelanchier alnifolia,
and
Calochortus tolmiei
as nectar resources at sites where each are found, with
C. tolmiei
found only in Oregon. Not all nectar sources potentially used by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly are equal. Although some adult butterflies may be observed using what appears to be a general nectar source (e.g., dandelion), it may not be the optimal resource, only what is available. Individual butterflies may be relegated to using a less-than-optimal nectar source because that source now dominates a particular site. It is unknown whether the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly could survive solely on dandelion as a nectar source. Additionally, nectar sources are only one determinant in characterizing the overall habitat requirements for this subspecies.
(9)
Comment:
One peer reviewer commented that the Service should consider the increased disease pressure on populations of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly during overwintering due to the predicted increase in winter precipitation. The reviewer stated that increased precipitation as a general rule may have deleterious impacts to lepidopteran (butterfly) larvae. The commenter also stated that there appears to be no information available on the incidence of disease and its impacts to phenology among
E. e. taylori
larvae.
Our response:
We agree with both of these comments. We did not consider increased pressure, or an increase in the incidence of disease due to the predicted increase in winter precipitation, in our threats analysis. We observed examples of the impacts of late winter inundation or frost events in occupied Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat as having a direct mortality effect to some populations, and how anecdotally, the population counts during those years (2009, 2010) at those population centers were lower.
(10)
Comment:
One peer reviewer commented on how larvae of
Euphydryas
spp. are known to be able to respond to adverse environmental conditions by delaying development when host plants are limited or of poor quality, as the larvae may re-enter diapause for an additional 12 months. The reviewer stated that this is an adaptation to surviving in unreliable environments and will serve to mitigate against “phenological mismatch” of the larvae and host plants.
Our response:
We agree that during poor weather years, populations of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly appear lower compared to other years, and we presume that
E. e. taylori
larvae have likely re-entered diapause. We have addressed re-entering diapause in the section of this final rule discussing the biology of the subspecies.
Streaked Horned Lark
(11)
Comment:
One peer reviewer and several other commenters disagreed with our assessment of the status of the streaked horned lark as threatened rather than endangered. In our proposed rule, we stated that there was insufficient data in the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data to estimate a rangewide trend for the streaked horned lark. The peer reviewer referenced the trend analysis that is available via the BBS Web site for the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR) for the horned lark; although data are not available at the subspecies level, he makes the assumption that as the streaked horned lark is the only breeding subspecies of the horned lark in western Oregon, and that horned lark counts from that BCR can be reasonably interpreted as counts of the streaked horned lark. From his analysis of the BBS data, he concludes that the Willamette Valley population of the streaked horned lark is declining at a rate of about 5 percent per year.
In addition, the peer reviewer conducted his own analysis of five individual BBS routes in the Willamette Valley. He found that two routes had increasing trends (Scio and Salem), and three had declining trends (Adair, Dayton, and McMinnville). He states that larks were first detected on BBS routes in the Willamette Valley in 1971, and their numbers began declining in 1989. He used a 5-year moving average to show a “smoothed out” presentation of the data. He particularly focused on the Adair BBS route, which had the most significant declining trend; in three 5-year periods in the Adair BBS route data, the route had high numbers of larks in the 1970s, lower numbers in the late 1980s through early 1990s, and then substantially lower numbers in the 2000s. The peer reviewer concluded that the streaked horned lark population in the Willamette Valley has been declining steadily since the early 1990s.
The peer reviewer asserted that our failure to examine the BBS data is highly relevant because one of the key factors used in the determination of threatened rather than endangered status was the perceived stability of lark populations in the Willamette Valley, based on the repeated ODFW roadside surveys in 1996 and 2008, and studies of lark populations at “protected” sites (William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge and Corvallis Municipal Airport).
Our response:
In order to evaluate this new analysis of the Breeding Bird Survey data, we requested assistance from scientists at the USGS Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center, which manages the BBS data. USGS agreed with the assertion that the BBS analysis includes all subspecies of horned larks in the Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR, and consequently, with no other horned larks breeding in the area, that the trends for this BCR are equivalent to the trends for the streaked horned lark. However, in general, USGS indicated that the peer reviewer failed to acknowledge the high level of uncertainty of his conclusions given the small sample sizes, high variance, and potential for observer bias in the raw BBS data. USGS noted that the peer reviewer correctly described the patterns of population change shown in the BBS data, but USGS urges caution in the interpretation of trends with small sample sizes such as that available for the Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR. The BBS Web site guidelines for credibility indicate that this should be noted as a deficiency. USGS also pointed out that there is an indication of observer bias in the Adair route data, which the peer reviewer used as the strongest indicator of declining population. USGS notes that there is indeed a decline in numbers, but that the most dramatic declines occurred during the transition between the second and third observer on the route; when observer #3 took over after a gap of 14 years (1992-2006), markedly fewer streaked horned larks were observed. Given this information, it is difficult to ascertain how much of the observed decline is real, and how much of the apparent decline may be biased by a change in observers. Therefore, although the peer reviewer has provided us with an analysis that raises some questions about the population trend of the streaked horned lark in the Willamette Valley, we do not feel these data are sufficiently reliable to alter our conclusion regarding the status of the subspecies.
We also note that the peer reviewer's analysis of the steady decline in streaked horned lark detections since the early 1990s correlates with the beginning of the field burning restrictions implemented by the Oregon Department of Agriculture, which we noted earlier in this document. Prior to 1990, about 250,000 ac (101,170 ha) of grass seed fields in the Willamette Valley were burned each year. Public health and safety issues (triggered by a catastrophic traffic accident on Interstate 5 caused by smoke from field burning that obscured the road, resulting in 7 deaths and 38 injuries) resulted in a decision by the Oregon legislature to order gradual reductions in field burning beginning in 1991. By 2009, field burning was essentially banned in the Willamette Valley, with the exception of a limited area in the northeastern portion of the valley, where the practice is allowed only for specific types of perennial grasses, or fields on highly erodible steep lands (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1). Another peer reviewer commented on the affinity of larks for burned areas, as evidenced by use of recently burned habitats at JBLM. We will pursue this issue in recovery planning for the streaked horned lark. We believe that some of the observed declines lark detections in the BBS data are attributable to the reduction of highly suitable burned habitats due to the field burning ban. As the ban is now fully in effect, the rate of decline as noted in BBS observations of streaked horned larks is not expected to continue at the previously noted rate.
In summary, the peer reviewer presented new information about the declining population of streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley, and we appreciate the reviewer's efforts to present us with an alternative analysis of the available data. This information provides a more complete picture of the status of the subspecies, but based upon our evaluation, with assistance from scientists at USGS who are expert in analysis of BBS data, we believe the streaked horned lark still meets the definition of threatened rather than endangered. The Act defines a threatened species as one which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An endangered species is defined as any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Given that streaked horned larks still occur in many locations across a large area of the Willamette Valley, and that some of these sites harbor large populations, we agree that the streaked horned lark has declined and may be continuing to decline, but listing as threatened remains appropriate, as the best available scientific and commercial data do not indicate that extinction of the species is imminent.
(12)
Comment:
One peer reviewer suggested that it would be useful to discuss the potential reasons that the Washington population of streaked horned larks appears to be declining and the Oregon population appears more stable. The peer reviewer noticed that three of the areas proposed as critical habitat in Oregon are on National Wildlife Refuges where they benefit from active management, and asked if there might also be some other sites in Oregon that are being managed for other species in a way that benefits streaked horned larks.
Our response:
We have augmented the discussion of the population trends in Oregon and Washington in the text of this final rule. As to the issue of why there are more streaked horned larks, or if the population trend is different in Oregon versus Washington, we do not have any additional information at this time to answer those questions. It may be that there is simply more open land in the Willamette Valley in Oregon, and the valley's large agricultural industry provides the frequent disturbance regime that creates the habitat structure needed by larks. We will evaluate these issues during the recovery planning process for the streaked horned lark.
(13)
Comment:
One peer reviewer and one other commenter believed our approach to listing the streaked horned lark would not result in sufficient protections to acheive recovery. In particular, the peer reviewer believed that the combination of threatened status, our promulgation of a special rule for agricultural activities and wildlife hazard management at airports, and a somewhat limited critical habitat designation would result in inadequate protection for the streaked horned lark. The commenter stated that he believes we put too much effort put into alleviating potential conflicts with land managers rather than focusing on measures to ensure conservation of the streaked horned lark, and that this approach will be inadequate to move the species on a trajectory away from the need for listing.
Our response:
Our determination that the streaked horned lark is threatened rests on our application of the scientific data to the Act's definition of a threatened species, and not on our expectations about the best means to conserve the species. Regarding the reviewer's comment with respect to the proposed 4(d) special rule and proposed critical habitat, we believe it is important to recognize that listing, critical habitat designation, and section 4(d) of the Act are part of the suite of tools that the Service has available to conserve listed species, but do not in and of themselves conserve the species. Once a species is listed as either endangered or threatened, the Act provides many tools to advance the conservation of listed species; available tools include recovery planning under section 4 of the Act, interagency cooperation and consultation under section 7, grants to the states under section 6, and safe harbor agreements
and habitat conservation plans under section 10. The streaked horned lark is an unusual case in that nearly all of its existing habitats have been created by industrial land uses (
e.g.,
agriculture, airport maintenance, dredge spoil disposal), in which creation of lark habitat is not the intended purpose. Long experience in working with commercial and industrial partners have shown us that a more collaborative approach, rather than a strictly regulatory one, will be more effective in recovering streaked horned larks on private lands. We expect that the conservation program for the streaked horned lark will take advantage of all of the creativity and flexibility offered by the Act.
(14)
Comment:
One peer reviewer and several other commenters stated that the proposed 4(d) rule for streaked horned lark is too broad, particularly the portion that exempts take associated with routine agricultural activities on non-federal lands in the Willamette Valley. The commenters felt that this exemption is inappropriate and does not contribute to conservation of the species. The commenters suggested that we should eliminate the special rule, and instead use other regulatory mechanisms (
e.g.,
candidate conservation agreements with assurances, habitat conservation plans, and safe harbor agreements) to ensure the creation of habitat for larks on agricultural lands.
Our response:
The purpose of the 4(d) special rule is to recognize the larger conservation value of maintaining existing farmland habitats that support streaked horned larks, even though some farming activities may adversely affect the species. Activities likely to occur in those landscapes, should ongoing agricultural activities cease, such as suburban development or transition to orchards and nursery stock, would permanently remove habitat essential to the streaked horned lark. We believe that exempting take as the result of agricultural activities described in the special rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of streaked horned larks by helping to ensure the maintenance of those beneficial land uses that provide habitat used by the subspecies.
In the 40 years since the passage of the Act, the Service has learned that relying on regulation alone is not an effective means for engaging private landowners in endangered species conservation. On the agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley, habitat for streaked horned larks would not exist but for the activities of private landowners. We believe that, in certain instances, easing the general take prohibitions on non-federal agricultural lands may encourage continued 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). We believe that it is appropriate to use the flexibility offered by the Act to recognize the important contributions made by the agricultural community to the creation of suitable habitat for streaked horned larks, and to encourage them to continue to do so, rather than to see them switch to other crops or land uses to avoid the real or perceived burden of the regulations associated with listed species. We acknowledge that the agricultural activities covered in the 4(d) rule are broad. We modeled this special rule on the similar special rules promulgated for the California tiger salamander (
Ambystoma californiense
) (69 FR 47212; August 4, 2004) and California red-legged frog (
Rana aurora draytonii
) (71 FR 19244; April 13, 2006), two species which also depend on the availability of agricultural lands for habitat in large portions of their ranges. As we stated in the proposed rule, we believe 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 the special rule will further conservation of the species by discouraging conversions of the agricultural landscape into crops or other land uses unsuitable for the streaked horned lark; our objective is to allow landowners to continue managing the landscape in ways that meet the needs of their operations while simultaneously providing suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. It is important to note, however, that the 4(d) special rule is just one tool we will use to maintain habitat for larks on agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley. We hope to engage the agricultural community in education and outreach efforts; we will also use a variety of other incentive programs to engage private landowners who are willing to do more to conserve streaked horned larks on their lands.
(15)
Comment:
One peer reviewer asked us to modify the proposed 4(d) special rule to include timing restrictions on covered activities to minimize disturbances to nesting streaked horned larks.
Our response:
Our purpose in promulgating a special rule to exempt take associated with activities that inadvertently create habitat for the streaked horned lark is to allow landowners to continue those activities without additional regulation. We believe that imposing a timing restriction would likely reduce the utility of the special rule for land managers, and could have the unintended side effect of causing landowners to discontinue their habitat creation activities. Accordingly, we have not modified the special rule to include timing restrictions; however, we intend to offer education and assistance to landowners to help them protect and increase the populations of larks on their lands, if they are amenable.
Comments From States
Comments we received from States regarding the proposal to list the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark are addressed below. We received comments from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) related to biological information, threats, critical habitat exclusions, the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and recommendations for the management of habitat.
The agencies provided a number of recommended technical corrections or edits to the proposed listing of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark. We have evaluated and incorporated this information into this final rule when and where appropriate to clarify this final listing rule. In instances where the Service may have disagreed with an interpretation of the technical information that was provided, we have responded to the State directly.
(16)
Comment:
WDFW encouraged the Service to assist the State with alternative methods of achieving the conservation and recovery of the species, including programmatic safe harbor agreements, habitat conservation plans, conservation banks, or other incentive-based partnerships.
Our response:
The Service appreciates our strong conservation partnership with the State of Washington, and will give full consideration to these ideas as we develop the recovery plans for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark. Such conservation measures are outside of the scope of the present rulemaking, however, which is restricted to the question of whether the species meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species, and should be listed under the authority of the Act.
(17)
Comment:
WDFW was concerned that allowing any timeframe for mowing in Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat could crush butterfly larvae as well as their host plants.
Our response:
It is our understanding that when larvae are in diapause they are usually deep in the vegetation, or within the soil itself. At the time larvae are in diapause, most of the host plant (except narrow-leaf plantain) and nectar food resources are dormant. It is possible to do considerable management on prairies without harm to the target conservation species. Our recommendation for habitat management in occupied Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat is to mow high during diapause to avoid harm to larvae and to avoid destruction to larval host plants, including
Plantago.
For more information on recommended best prairie management practices, please contact the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a copy of the Prairie Landowner Guide for Western Washington (see
ADDRESSES
).
(18)
Comment:
WDNR recommended that we consider promulgating a 4(d) special rule to exempt take of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly associated with habitat restoration and maintenance activities.
Our response:
Under section 4(d) of the Act, a special rule may be promulgated only for threatened species. Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available indicates that the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is in danger of extinction throughout its range, and we are listing the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly as endangered; therefore, a 4(d) special rule is not an available option for this subspecies. There are many other tools provided by the Act that we can use to work with landowners interested in habitat restoration for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, including safe harbor agreements, section 7 consultation, and habitat conservation plans. We will work with WDNR and other partners to assess the full array of conservation tools available and determine those that may be most appropriate for the particular circumstance under consideration.
(19)
Comment:
WDNR expressed concern that the safe use of pesticides to control nonnative, invasive insects, such as gypsy moths, may be impacted by the listing of and designation of critical habitat for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
Our response:
We do not see the use of pesticides use in general to be an adverse impact to Taylor's checkerspot butterflies unless the subspecies is directly exposed to the pesticides. The Service does not anticipate the need for pesticide spraying on habitat occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies. However, if pesticide were to be sprayed in areas where pesticide drift would expose Taylor's checkerspot butterflies to the pesticide(s), then we would be concerned with their application in these situations. The Service acknowledges the use of pesticides as harmful to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly at all life stages. We specifically discourage the use of insecticides such as
Bacillus thuringiensis
var.
kurstaki
(BtK) in forested areas adjacent to Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat. This insecticide, which is used for harmful defoliators like gypsy moth and spruce budworm, has been implicated in the loss of three populations of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in Pierce County, Washington, during the early 1990s, when it was applied adjacent to Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat.
(20)
Comment:
WSDOT requested that we expand the coverage offered by the special rule for the streaked horned lark to include roadside management activities that are similar to those proposed for airports and agricultural operations. They specifically requested coverage for vegetation management of roadside rights-of-way, including mechanical mowing, weed control, and woody vegetation control; the commenter stated that these vegetation management activities are consistent with the activities covered on airports and agricultural lands, and would provide suitable streaked horned lark habitat along highways and roadside rights-of-way.
Our response:
We are currently unaware of any substantial lark use along road right-of-ways with the exception of those bordering agricultural areas. Roadside management activities present a variety of site-specific issues, which are better addressed at the individual site level. For actions with a Federal nexus, we believe review and coverage of incidental take under section 7 is more appropriate. For activities along State highways that could cause take of streaked horned larks, other programs would be appropriate to provide incidental take coverage, such as a habitat conservation plan (HCP) under section 10 of the Act. While encouraging the utilization of conservation programs such as development of HCPs, the final rule includes a provision for coverage of incidental take under the 4(d) special rule during activities aimed at the control of noxious weeds (See:
Noxious Weed Control on Non-Federal Lands
).
Comments From Federal Agencies
(21)
Comment:
The Natural Resources Conservation Service asked how the special rule would affect farmers who are already implementing conservation practices on their lands. In addition, the Oregon Farm Bureau asked for more specific information on the agricultural activities covered in the special rule, and requested that we make the rule more consistent with Oregon farming practices as described by the Oregon State Legislature. These commenters asked for definitions of the terms used in the draft special rule, including: (1) “routine” as it applies to seasonal farming and ranching activities, (2) “normally acceptable and established levels of livestock grazing,” and (3) the scope of the term “irrigation.”
Our response:
The special rule for routine agricultural practices is intended to promote land uses that are compatible with the conservation of streaked horned larks on private lands with no Federal agency involvement. If a landowner wishes to participate in any of the wildlife conservation incentive programs, such as those offered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, then those activities would need to be reviewed in interagency consultation under section 7 of the Act between the Service and the Federal action agency involved in the conservation program if the action may affect streaked horned larks. If a private landowner wishes to implement conservation actions for streaked horned larks without Federal agency involvement, and if those activities have a net benefit to the streaked horned lark, then incidental take associated with the action may be authorized through a safe harbor agreement.
The special rule to exempt common agricultural activities is intended to promote land use practices that are compatible with the creation of suitable habitat for streaked horned larks. We recognize that farming is a dynamic process, which requires the ability to adapt to changing environmental and economic conditions. We have revised the language in the special rule to conform to farming standards established by the Oregon State Legislature in the Oregon Revised Statutes dealing with agricultural practices (ORS section 30.930). We have clarified the language in the special rule, and revised the list of covered activities. Activities covered include, but are not limited to: Planting, harvesting, rotation, mowing, tilling, discing, burning, and herbicide application to crops; normal transportation activities, and repair and
maintenance of unimproved farm roads and graveled margins of rural roads; livestock grazing according to normally acceptable and established levels; hazing of geese or predators; and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems. These activities are those that are routinely implemented on farm lands in the Willamette Valley, and inadvertently provide conservation benefits to the streaked horned lark. The agricultural activities listed in this document are merely examples of practices that we consider to be routine to managing an active farming operation. Our intention is not to limit activities that may be necessary to the operation of a farm, but to clarify that “take” of the listed species is not prohibited when engaging in the identified activities. For further discussion, see the Special Rule section below.
Comments From the Public
(22)
Comment:
Several commenters provided minor technical corrections or edits to the proposal, and in some cases additional or updated information regarding the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark.
Our response:
We have evaluated and incorporated this information into this final rule when and where appropriate to clarify the final rule. In instances where the Service may have disagreed with an interpretation of the technical information that was provided, we have responded under separate comments.
(23)
Comment:
One commenter disagreed with our description of the flight period for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. We state that the flight period extends into early July and the commenter believes it should only be into June.
Our response:
The flight period for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly varies widely over its occupied range. On occupied sites located on the north Olympic Peninsula the observed adult flight period for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly extends into July (Severns and Grossball 2011, p. 71).
(24)
Comment:
One commenter stated that just because habitat is suitable for the species of concern does not mean that the entire prairie was historically occupied. Another commenter asked whether we should even try to reverse the loss of historical prairie habitat available for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark given that the ecosystem is now changed and implementing restoration efforts would potentially impact other species that now occupy these habitats.
Our response:
The proportion of prairie habitat lost (greater than 90 percent) and the fragmentation of what remains has created the necessity for the conservation of lands that can presently support the recovery of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark. The goal of the Service is to conserve suitable habitat in a landscape context that will lead to the recovery of the listed species. As discussed in our response to Comment 13, the Act provides a suite of various conservation tools to achieve this goal. It is not a reasonable assumption to consider the entire prairie landscape at any given prairie would be completely occupied by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or by the streaked horned lark. In the case of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, because of their sedentary nature and their ability to form metapopulation structure on large landscapes, we would be inclined to believe that, even on large landscapes, available habitat would be used disproportionately, leading to a patchy distribution of the subspecies. We employ a comprehensive approach to recovery planning, and do consider the needs of other species beyond the subject listed species in the process of crafting recovery strategies.
(25)
Comment:
One commenter suggested the Service should provide blanket, enduring authorization for incidental take for the streaked horned lark on non-federal land, such as through a safe harbor agreement between the Service and State field offices, with zero baseline and no requirements for participation.
Our response:
The 4(d) special rule addresses those categories of activities for which the Service believes a broad exemption from the take prohibitions under the Act is necessary and advisable for the conservation of the streaked horned lark. Any other incidental take authorizations will be addressed through future permitting processes under section 10 of the Act. As noted in earlier responses, we encourage our conservation partners to take advantage of the full suite of conservation tools available to aid in the recovery of listed species.
(26)
Comment:
One commenter argued that the observed contraction of the streaked horned lark's range justifies listing as endangered. Another commenter suggested the streaked horned lark should not be listed because we should consider the full range of potential habitat for the subspecies.
Our response:
Consideration of the current and historical range of a species is only one aspect that is considered in the analysis to determine if a species should be listed as an endangered or a threatened species; the imminence and magnitude of threats acting on the species are more important to the assessment of a species' status. We acknowledge that the streaked horned lark's range has contracted substantially over the last century. However, although we consider the loss of historical range to be informative to our determination, we base our conclusion on whether a species is presently in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future on the status of the species at the time of our determination. We have good information that the streaked horned lark population is declining in Washington, but the population in Oregon is relatively large, has abundant habitat, and appears to be either relatively stable or declining far more slowly than the population in Washington, indicating that listing as threatened is most appropriate. Many species occupy only a portion of their historical ranges, but the Act does not require that species be restored to their entire historical ranges to be considered secure or recovered; delisting requires only that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species under the Act.
(27)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the streaked horned lark meets the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) standard for endangered (fewer than 2,500 mature individuals, and either a decline of at least 20 percent within 5 years or continuing decline, and no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 250 mature individuals). The commenter pointed out that the population in Washington is clearly declining and the largest known subpopulation at the Corvallis Municipal Airport consists of fewer than 250 individuals.
Our response:
The Service does not use a one-size-fits-all standard for determination of endangered or threatened status, and the IUCN standard of endangered does not pertain to the definition provided under the Act. The Act directs us to consider the range of threats a species faces, and to make a determination of status based on the total impact of those threats. Based upon our evaluation of the threats to the streaked horned lark, we have determined it is a threatened species as defined by the Act.
(28)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the streaked horned lark does not deserve special protections in Oregon, and listing as threatened is not warranted, citing our statements about the apparent stability of the population in the Willamette Valley. The commenter believes we failed to
demonstrate that the streaked horned lark is declining or that such declines are likely to occur.
Our response:
Our analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available indicates that the streaked horned lark is declining throughout its range. The decline is most apparent in the Puget lowlands of Washington, but the population in Oregon is also declining, though at a less pronounced rate. In this final rule, we have clarified the information regarding the status of the streaked horned lark in the Willamette Valley, and why we believe the subspecies warrants listing as a threatened species under the Act across its range.
(29)
Comment:
One commenter stated that we should have been clearer regarding the limits of the recent surveys for streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley. The commenter suggested that most of the suitable habitat on private lands in the Willamette Valley has been surveyed only from public rights-of-way, and that few, if any, large blocks of private farmland have been adequately surveyed for larks.
Our response:
We acknowledge in this final rule that most surveys for streaked horned larks on private lands in the Willamette Valley have been conducted from roadsides. The sites that have been well surveyed are those in public ownership or private lands with conservation easements. We have clearly stated that we do not have a complete picture of the streaked horned lark's distribution or habitat use. However, the Act requires us to use the best scientific and commercial data available, and we have used the best available data to support our determination that the streaked horned lark meets the definition of a threatened species under the Act.
(30)
Comment:
One commenter suggested that the Service needs to evaluate recreation and its associated effects (attraction of potential predators) as a threat to the streaked horned lark.
Our response:
As discussed in the proposed rule, recreational activities can pose both direct and indirect threats to streaked horned larks. Activities such as horseback riding, boating, biking, dog walking, ATV use, and model airplane flying can result in the loss of nests through crushing of chicks or eggs and nest abandonment associated with disturbance of adults. Indirect effects of recreational activities include increased risk of nest failure when incubating or when brooding adults are flushed from nests and human activities (such as leaving trash and food on site) attract corvids to nesting areas. Corvids have been routinely documented depredating nests of streaked horned larks and are considered significant nest predators. The Service is working with resource staff at JBLM to reduce recreational impacts to the streaked horned lark at several prairies on base by limiting civilian access during the nesting season and by posting signs restricting public access at several prairies and nesting areas along the Washington Coast. Because enforcement of seasonal closures and monitoring of recreational activities at sites that are not posted (e.g., boating and camping on the Columbia River islands, ATV use on port properties, and dispersed recreational activities in open areas) is difficult and often ineffective, recreational activities are a potential threat to the streaked horned lark.
(31)
Comment:
One commenter stated that we failed to show that Oregon's regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the streaked horned lark. The commenter believes that the threat of loss of suitable habitats is not likely to be realized because Goals 3 and 5 of Oregon's Statewide Planning Program protect agricultural lands and open spaces, and these mechanisms will be sufficient to provide adequate habitat for streaked horned larks on agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley.
Our response:
Oregon has a strong Statewide program for land use planning, which established 19 goals to protect various aspects of Oregon's environment. Goal 3 addresses preservation of agricultural lands; Goal 5 directs local governments to adopt programs to protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic, and open space resources. Most of the goals are accompanied by guidelines, which are suggestions about how a goal may be applied; however, these guidelines are purely voluntary and not mandatory. Goal 3 has been effective in preserving agriculture in the Willamette Valley, but the guidelines merely direct counties to preserve farmland and open space, but do not specifically call for the maintenance of existing agricultural crops. Transition from grass seed fields to other agricultural types, such as nursery stock or wheat, would be consistent with Goal 3, and yet would result in habitat loss for the streaked horned lark. Similarly, Goal 5 promotes the protection and conservation of open space and wildlife habitats, but does not specifically require the maintenance of existing land use types that support the streaked horned lark. We conclude that Oregon's Statewide planning goals and guidelines contribute to protecting habitats for larks in the Willamette Valley, but are not sufficient to protect or maintain habitat on agricultural lands for the long-term sustainability of streaked horned lark populations.
(32)
Comment:
One commenter stated that our analysis of Factor E (other natural and manmade factors affecting the subspecies' existence), particularly the status of the small population of streaked horned larks on the Puget prairies, supports an endangered listing.
Our response:
As we acknowledge in this final rule, populations of the streaked horned lark in the State of Washington are small and declining at a faster rate than those in Oregon. However, we evaluated the status of the streaked horned lark at the scale of the subspecies as a whole, and as we stated in our analysis, the population of the streaked horned lark in the Willamette Valley is larger, has more habitat available, and appears to be more secure than the small population in Washington. Thus, although the status of the subspecies is not stable and secure, we do not consider the subspecies in its entirety to be in danger of extinction at this time, as we anticipate the persistence of the streaked horned lark in some portions of its range, at least for the foreseeable future. Threats acting upon the subspecies across its range are, however, such that if they were to continue unabated, we anticipate the streaked horned lark would become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Given that the subspecies is not presently in danger of extinction (endangered), but is likely to become so with the foreseeable future, we conclude that consideration of all of these factors together with the data that show a declining population on the Puget prairies warrants a threatened determination for the streaked horned lark. In addition, as described in this final rule, we considered whether the Washington population of the streaked horned lark may constitute a separate distinct population segment (DPS) or a significant portion of the range. We concluded that the Washington population does not constitute a valid DPS under our DPS policy, and furthermore that the Washington population does not represent a significant portion of the range of the subspecies. Based on these analyses, we conclude that threatened status is most appropriate for the streaked horned lark.
(33)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the economic and social factors driving conversion of Willamette Valley farmland to vineyards are likely to continue in the foreseeable future, and may accelerate as large California wineries are reportedly investing in Willamette Valley farmlands as a hedge
against global climate change. As a result, the likelihood of a changing agricultural landscape should be recognized in the listing and critical habitat designation for the streaked horned lark.
Our response:
The Service does not consider the acquisition of lands by the viticulture industry to be a threat to streaked horned lark breeding and nesting habitat. We contacted Dr. William Boggess at Oregon State University's Oregon Wine Research Institute who described the ideal lands for viticulture as being 300-800 feet (90-240 m) in elevation, on a slope with a southern or western aspect. These optimal viticulture soils are shallow and nutrient poor, above the flood plain or on eroded rocky soils. These ideal conditions for grapes are not similar in characteristic to habitats preferred by the streaked horned lark. As such, we do not consider viticulture a current or future threat to the streaked horned lark.
(34)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the streaked horned lark faces continued threats to habitats and populations, including conversion of prairie and grassland, continued dumping of dredged spoils, military operations, airport development, and off-road vehicle recreation.
Our response:
As we discussed in the text of this final rule, many of these activities have the potential to both benefit and pose a threat to the streaked horned lark. Many of the issues the commenter cites as threats to the streaked horned lark's habitat may actually be essential to the continued creation of habitat for the bird, depending on how they are conducted; the natural processes that formerly created habitat for the streaked horned lark no longer operate, and so these industrial activities create almost the only usable habitats available to the bird. Without the presence of dredge spoil islands, military reserves, agriculture, and airports, there would be virtually no habitat left for the streaked horned lark. The challenge will be to work with landowners to ensure these activities are implemented in ways that benefit the subspecies as well as work for the landowner as we work to recover the streaked horned lark. See also our response to Comment 13.
(35)
Comment:
Several commenters asked that the Service fully consider the effect of the 20-year old Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) with respect to both direction and growth into urban areas while protecting rural areas. Commenters believed the GMA protects threatened species and habitat through comprehensive regulations and planning that are integrated with the other mandates of the law. One commenter suggested that listings under the Act compel counties to identify critical areas and conserve habitat for listed species in order to receive monetary incentives, and work against existing local and State requirements such as the GMA.
Our response:
The Service fully considered the effect of the Washington State GMA in reviewing the potential inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The GMA provides landscape-scale planning and conservation policies and tools, while the Act focuses on protection for species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Each authority plays an important role in achieving our shared goals for prairie habitat and species conservation; however, in this case, implementation to date of the GMA alone has not provided enough certainty of future conservation for the species to fully address the threats identified in the proposed rule, and this final rule, to list the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark under the Act. The application of the GMA is not uniform across the State and as such does not supply protection adequate to preclude the listing of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or the streaked horned lark. The Service works with not only counties, but a broad range of entities, using a wide variety of incentive-based programs to balance the conservation needs of listed species with the objectives of entities that voluntarily choose to work with us. We work with these partners to meet the conservation needs for federally listed species while striving to be consistent with existing State or local requirements, such as Washington State's GMA.
(36)
Comment:
One commenter said that streaked horned larks are insufficiently protected by existing regulatory mechanisms, and the proposed 4(d) special rule substantially weakens protections for the streaked horned lark.
Our response:
In our analysis of Factor D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms), we found that existing regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to protect the streaked horned lark. However, we believe that promulgation of a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act is necessary and advisable to provide for conservation of the subspecies because its habitat is inadvertently created by airport managers and agricultural landowners. One of our goals for recovering listed species on private lands is to find ways to help landowners view these species on their lands as an asset rather than a legal or economic liability. This is especially important when dealing with an early-successional dependent (sub)species such as the streaked horned lark that exhibits a temporary or intermittent presence on those lands, and when those lands require discretionary management treatments by the landowner to maintain their suitability or attractiveness for the streaked horned lark. The continued availability of these habitats on private lands is essential to the persistence of the streaked horned lark. With the special rule, we are seeking to encourage private landowners to be willing to accommodate or attract streaked horned larks, and to discourage any landowner's desire to avoid having streaked horned larks on their property, and managing the property for the benefit of the streaked horned lark.
(37)
Comment:
One commenter expressed concern that some activities covered under the proposed special rule for airports and agricultural lands could be carried to the point that they eliminate streaked horned larks on a site, for example, intensive mowing or hazing by falcons.
Our response:
Our purpose in developing the special rule for airports and agricultural lands is to encourage the continuation of practices that inadvertently create habitat for the streaked horned lark. We acknowledge that some of those activities may take larks, which is why a special rule is needed, but the availability of the 4(d) special rule should eliminate the incentive to remove larks from airports or agricultural lands to avoid violation of the Act. However, the concern that land managers could inadvertently eliminate streaked horned larks from a site is valid, and we will work with land managers to identify opportunities to conserve larks on sites and for activities that are covered by the special rule.
(38)
Comment:
One commenter recommended that the proposed special rule for the streaked horned lark be expanded to cover the actions of non-federal entities engaged in dredging operations that deposit materials that create upland lark habitat on the lower Columbia River.
Our Response:
Under the 4(d) special rule, take of the streaked horned lark caused by routine agricultural activities, wildlife hazard management programs at civilian airports, and noxious weed control activities is exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. The purpose of exempting these activities is to encourage activities by non-Federal entities that inadvertently create lark habitat. Dredge disposal clearly has the
potential to create habitat for larks, but any action that involves dredging in the Columbia River would have a Federal nexus because it requires authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, it is the responsibility of all Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Since the Corps will be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act for dredging operations that may affect the streaked horned lark, those activities and any associated take of streaked horned larks will be appropriately addressed in section 7 consultation between the Corps and the Service.
(39)
Comment:
Some commenters asked for a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for restoration actions, including landfill closure and maintenance. The commenters stated that without a 4(d) special rule allowing active habitat management, agencies and land stewards would not be able to maintain needed habitat conditions at sites that could support streaked horned larks. The commenters requested coverage in a special rule for activities including, but not limited to: Seeding and planting, haying, mowing, tilling, disking, harrowing, and herbicide application; prescribed burning; hydrologic management; livestock grazing; routine management and maintenance of infrastructure, such as gates, fences, water control structures, property boundary markers, and property surveys; monitoring of vegetation and animals; and applied or other research, such as vocal attraction experiments, vegetation manipulations, predator surveys, and other work.
Our response:
The purpose of the 4(d) special rule for agriculture, airports, and noxious weed control is to allow take of streaked horned larks for activities that inadvertently create habitat for the birds. Our logic in developing this special rule is that, without the exemption from take offered by the 4(d) special rule, these landowners might decide not to take actions that create or maintain important habitat for streaked horned larks, in order to avoid the potential violation of the Act. The restoration and habitat creation activities discussed in the comment above would be implemented specifically to enhance habitat for streaked horned larks or other prairie species. We believe it is appropriate to work with these agencies and land stewards using other programs offered by the Act (section 7 consultation, safe harbor agreements, and section 10(a)(1)(B) habitat conservation plans) to maximize the conservation efforts in these programs, and to offer exemptions from incidental take through options other than a special rule.
(40)
Comment:
One commenter requested a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for park management activities at M. James Gleason Memorial Boat Ramp and Broughton Beach in Portland; the special rule would include coverage for any take of streaked horned larks resulting from repair and maintenance of existing infrastructure, and facility improvements that are underway now. The commenter also asked for a special rule that allows take associated with recreational use of the site by the public, including events such as the Polar Bear Plunge, fishing from boats and from shore, picnicking, hiking, dog walking, bird watching, and other customary passive recreation.
Our response:
As we stated earlier, we have used the option to promulgate a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act specifically for activities that inadvertently create habitat for streaked horned larks (i.e., wildlife hazard management at airports, activities on agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley, and noxious weed control on non-federal lands). The activities listed in the comment do not create habitat for the streaked horned lark or otherwise benefit the species, and are more appropriately covered under other programs of the Act that result in exemptions from incidental take of a listed species, including consultation pursuant to section 7 or permitting pursuant to section 10, if take of larks as a result of these activities is anticipated.
(41)
Comment:
One commenter asked us to include an offer of landowner assistance and education in the special rule.
Our response:
These activities (landowner assistance and education) do not cause take, and so are not included in the special rule exempting certain activities from the prohibitions on taking; we have therefore not amended the special rule to include them. We acknowledge, however, that outreach to landowners will be an important component of streaked horned lark conservation and recovery, and we will offer landowner assistance and education to airport managers and agricultural landowners through the various conservation tools and incentive programs offered by the Act.
(42)
Comment:
Numerous commenters asked us to add to the activities covered under the 4(d) special rule for airports on non-federal lands, or to allow more flexibility in the activities covered. Commenters essentially asked for coverage for all routine activities at airports, and specifically asked for the 4(d) special rule to cover the following activities: Low-level military training operations; pest and invasive species control; stockpiling and staging areas for construction projects; vehicle access routes; management and operations of storm water conveyance, treatment facilities, and flow-control facilities, including grass seeding, irrigation, mowing, soil augmentation, and drainage control; spill and other environmental emergency response and associated remediation, including equipment deployment, product recovery, and soil removal; anti-icing and de-icing of aircraft and pavements, including chemical and physical methods; application of herbicides, pesticides, insecticides and other chemical treatment methods; noxious weed control; airport rescue and fire-fighting activities; control and removal of foreign object debris; airfield taxiway and services; road maintenance, including pavement repair and replacement, and paint or rubber removal; management of all marking, signs, and lighting; maintenance of meteorological instruments; management of obstructions to aircraft operations; and protection and maintenance of navigational aids.
Our response:
Airports provide important habitat for streaked horned larks throughout their range. We developed the 4(d) special rule specifically to cover routine actions that inadvertently create suitable conditions for larks at airports. The purpose of the special rule is to encourage the continuation of the practices that have created suitable habitats for the species. The activities in the list above may be essential for safe airport operations, but do not generally create habitat for the streaked horned lark. We understand that airports must perform many of these activities, and some of them may affect larks; however, the Act provides other appropriate mechanisms for addressing those activities, and exempting any associated take. For activities at airports with a Federal nexus (
e.g.,
drainage projects requiring a permit from the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
)), section 7 consultation can provide the needed coverage for incidental take. For activities without a Federal nexus that may result in incidental take of the streaked horned lark, we will work with the airports to
cover the activities under section 10 of the Act.
We also note here that we have amended the 4(d) special rule to include noxious weed control on non-Federal lands. We added this activity to the 4(d) special rule in response to public comments requesting an exemption from take prohibitions for actions that restore habitats used by the streaked horned lark, but this component of the 4(d) special rule may also be applicable to some activities at non-Federal airports. The specific weed control activities covered in the 4(d) special rule are: mowing, herbicide and fungicide application, fumigation and burning. See the 4(d) special rule at the end of this document for a complete description of the take exemptions for noxious weed control.
(43)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the proposed 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark is unlawful because it does not provide for the conservation of the species. The commenter stated that the Service's authority to promulgate a 4(d) special rule is constrained by the requirement that the measures in the special rule be “necessary and advisable” to provide for the survival and recovery of the species. The commenter also argued that, for more than 30 years, it has been the policy and practice of the Service to extend the full protections against take in section 9 to threatened species. Any departure from this long-standing position must have a valid conservation purpose.
Our response:
We developed the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark consistent with the Act's requirements that any special rule be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a species. The rationale for promulgating the special rule is that, throughout most of its range, streaked horned lark habitat has been inadvertently created and maintained by industrial land uses. The purpose of the 4(d) special rule is to encourage landowners to continue to manage lands in a way that creates or maintains habitat for the streaked horned lark, rather than switch to other land uses or practices that will not support the subspecies. The 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark is consistent with the Service's long-standing practice to use all the flexibility offered by the Act under section 4(d) for threatened species.
(44)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the 4(d) special rule appears to be geared more toward airport safety than streaked horned lark conservation; the commenter said, “At its core, the [4(d)] rule has nothing to do with streaked horned lark conservation.”
Our response:
We disagree. The reality is that airports' wildlife hazard management programs (which are implemented to create a safe conditions for aviation) inadvertently create suitable habitat for streaked horned larks. The safe operation of aircraft requires the same wide-open landscape context needed by streaked horned larks; the wildlife hazard management practices at airports create the specific habitat characteristics (low-stature vegetation) desired by larks, as well as a reduced level of predatory species. We believe that development of a 4(d) special rule to allow the practices that create or maintain suitable habitat for larks is necessary and advisable to provide for streaked horned lark conservation.
(45)
Comment:
One commenter stated that, in the special rule, the Service acknowledges that some management actions taken at airports are generally beneficial to larks, but noted that this implies that some activities are not beneficial, and should not be covered in the rule. For example, the Service fails to explain how “management, repair, and maintenance of roads and runways” benefits larks, or how hazing hazardous wildlife benefits larks.
Our response:
Certain activities covered in the 4(d) special rule are likely neutral with respect to impacts to streaked horned larks, and these include maintenance and repair of roads and runways. We included these activities in the list of covered activities in the special rule so that airport managers would not be confused about their ability to implement routine maintenance activities and which activities are exempted from the take prohibitions of the Act. Other activities, such as habitat management and hazing of hazardous wildlife, clearly benefit the streaked horned lark. Hazing is often directed at larger, more hazardous wildlife, such as hawks and geese; hazing these species away from airfields benefits the streaked horned lark by reducing the abundance of predators (such as hawks) that would otherwise prey on eggs and nestlings.
(46)
Comment:
One commenter believes the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark is not an appropriate application of that section of the Act. The commenter stated that the Act requires section 4(d) to be used to issue regulations to conserve threatened species; the commenter further points out that the Act defines conservation as all activities associated with scientific resource management, including research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisitions and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation. The commenter does not believe that the special rule fits within the rubric of scientific resource management activities.
Our response:
When Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973, it provided no prohibitions on take of threatened species. However, section 4(d) of the Act applies to threatened species and was included in the Act to set prohibitions for these species that are necessary and advisable to provide for their conservation. Such regulations are intended to encourage activities that will promote conservation of species and prohibit take as a result of those actions that are not conducive to species conservation. Our promulgation of a special rule for the streaked horned lark is consistent with this aspect of the Act, and is necessary to conserve the streaked horned lark given the unique situation of its dependence on actively managed, industrial landscapes.
(47)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the 4(d) special rule for activities at airports would not benefit the streaked horned lark, because even control and management of vegetation at airports can harm larks if the activities occur during the breeding season.
Our response:
We agree that some of these activities can harm larks, and will result in take, which is why a special rule to exempt take as the result of certain activities is appropriate. These activities (i.e., control and management of vegetation) clearly benefit the streaked horned lark by creating the appropriate habitat conditions for breeding. The best evidence of this fact is that, with their existing management practices, airports currently support larks. Maintenance of these conditions, which must be done during the bird's breeding season to ensure aircraft safety, will entail some take of the species; thus the 4(d) special rule allows take in the act of creating and maintaining suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark.
(48)
Comment:
One commenter asked us to amend the 4(d) special rule to include a re-evaluation of the special rule after 5 years to ensure that it is not contributing to the decline of the streaked horned lark.
Our response:
All of our rulemakings are subject to revision, if necessary and appropriate. In the recovery program for the streaked horned lark, we will track the population trend, and if the data suggest that the special rule is not benefitting the species, we would re-evaluate it at that time. In addition, as required by section 4(c)(2) of the Act, we conduct a review of the status of listed species every 5 years. The reviews
assess each endangered and threatened species to determine whether its status has changed since the time of its listing or its last status review and whether it should be classified differently or delisted.
(49)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the proposed listing of the streaked horned lark could potentially have adverse impacts on aviation safety, and therefore should be subjected to a formal safety risk assessment in accordance with established FAA policies and procedures, notably those outlined in FAA Order 5200.11, FAA Airports (ARP) Safety Management System. They further stated a risk assessment should consider both the direct hazard posed to aircraft operations at and near airports by the streaked horned lark and the induced hazards associated with larger predatory wildlife species that the streaked horned lark may attract to the vicinity of the airport, as well as airfield maintenance activities that could be limited due to a listing.
Our response:
FAA policies, including FAA Order 5200.11, do not apply to our administration of the Act. FAA Order 5200.11, by its own terms, applies only to airports and FAA personnel. We have no authority under the Act to choose not to list a bird species that otherwise warrants listing on the grounds that the species poses a threat to aviation safety. In any event, streaked horned larks are already present on many of the airports within the range of the species and have been there for some time. The subspecies occurs on airports largely because management to control hazardous wildlife has incidentally created and maintains suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. FAA regulations require airports to take immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are detected (14 CFR 139.337). This requirement to maintain airfields free of wildlife hazards will limit the potential for populations of all birds, including streaked horned larks, to increase to levels that pose a risk to aviation. The 4(d) special rule for wildlife hazard management at airports will ensure that airports are not in violation of the Act when implementing appropriate safety measures. The FAA Order referenced went into effect on June 1, 2011, and provides guidance for airports to complete safety risk management plans or approaches by certain timelines. The Service is willing to assist the FAA and individual airports in determining what, if any, adjustments need to be made to the safety risk assessments as a result of the listing of the subspecies.
(50)
Comment:
One commenter stated that larks do not harm airplanes when they are struck.
Our response:
The commenter's assumption is not supported by the facts. A recent report verified that an F-15C military aircraft at Portland International Airport struck a streaked horned lark and the plane sustained damage to an engine (Dove
et al.
2013, p. 1). The bird also died, of course.
(51)
Comment:
One commenter argued that the special rule for airports and agriculture would not advance the conservation of the streaked horned lark, but is designed to allow airports and agricultural landowners to continue to operate without obtaining a permit for take under section 10. The commenter stated that the provisions in the special rule should be used for section 10 permits, and that the Service should work with airports throughout the range of the streaked horned lark to create a regional habitat conservation plan for airports, and work with farmers to develop safe harbor agreements.
Our response:
We developed the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark consistent with the Act's requirements that any special rule be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a species. We believe that the special rule appropriately uses the flexibility of section 4(d) of the Act to allow take of a threatened species. The foundation of the special rule is that, throughout most of the subspecies' range, streaked horned lark habitat is inadvertently created by industrial or agricultural land uses. The purpose of the 4(d) special rule is to encourage landowners to continue to manage lands in ways that create habitat for the streaked horned lark, rather than switch to other land uses practices that will not support the subspecies. The safety issue at airports is unique, and airport managers likely have little room to maneuver in terms of the management they do; negotiating a section 10 permit with a regional habitat conservation plan is unlikely to result in greater conservation of larks at airports than can be achieved through the special rule. In regard to the recommendation to develop safe harbor agreements with farmers, those agreements are entirely voluntary, and are likely to benefit fewer streaked horned larks than the 4(d) special rule that would apply to all agricultural activities automatically. Furthermore, the 4(d) special rule does not preempt the Service from working with landowners interested in pursuing safe harbor agreements addressing activities either directly or indirectly associated with agricultural pursuits, especially any activities intended to attract streaked horned larks to their properties.
(52)
Comment:
One commenter said that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.
) review is required to evaluate alternatives to the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark.
Our response:
The courts have ruled that NEPA does not apply to listing decisions under section 4(a) of the Act, nor to 4(d) special rules issued concurrent with listing. See
Pacific Legal Foundation
v.
Andrus,
657 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981); and
Center for Biological Diversity
v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
No. 04-4324, 2005 WL 2000928, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005).
(53)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the Service must consult under section 7 of the Act on the effects of the 4(d) special rule on the streaked horned lark to ensure that the special rule will not jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies. The commenter pointed out that the National Marine Fisheries Service has conducted formal section 7 consultations on the issuance of 4(d) special rules for listed fish.
Our response:
The Service believes that section 7 does not apply to the promulgation of 4(d) special rules. The Service's determination that a 4(d) special rule is necessary and advisable to provide for conservation of the species necessarily subsumes a determination that the rule will not jeopardize the species or adversely modify its critical habitat. Hence, applying the section 7 consultation procedures to such rulemaking would be a redundant exercise in paperwork. See
Cf. Pacific Legal Foundation
v.
Andrus,
657 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981) (NEPA inapplicable to listing decision under section 4 of the Act, because listing action furthered purposes of NEPA);
Douglas County
v.
Babbitt,
48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (NEPA inapplicable to designation of critical habitat under section 4 of the Act, because designation furthers goals of NEPA). Moreover, even if section 7 did apply to the promulgation of a 4(d) special rule, in this case the subspecies is not yet listed, so the only relevant provision would be section 7(a)(4), which requires an action agency to confer on any action that is likely to jeopardize, or destroy or adversely modify the proposed critical habitat of, a species proposed for listing. The Service has determined that this 4(d) special rule is not likely to jeopardize the streaked horned lark, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify its proposed critical habitat, so a
conference under section 7(a)(4) of the Act is not required.
(54)
Comment:
One commenter noted dredge material placement sites are human-made or managed features and not “naturally occurring habitat,” and these sites are specifically created and managed for the placement of dredge materials. The commenter further raised concern about the presence of streak horned larks limiting full access to dredge material sites. Another commenter said that placement of dredge materials should not be considered a threat given the long-term benefit of creation and maintenance of dredge islands.
Our response:
Streaked horned larks commonly use human-made or managed areas that provide the right conditions and are not limited to “naturally occurring habitats.” Upland dredge spoil deposit sites, agricultural fields, gravel roads/shoulders, undeveloped industrial sites, and areas where vegetation is sparse or maintained (such as at airports) provide suitable conditions and the landscape context that larks need. The presence of a listed species on these sites does not preclude entities such as airports from doing business or continuing operations. One option may be for potentially affected entities to work with the Service on the development of a habitat conservation plan under section 10 of the Act. A habitat conservation plan authorizes incidental take and provides landowners long-term assurances from activities that could affect the species or suitable habitat.
In the absence of trend data, we cannot know whether unmanaged dredge spoils deposition has had a net positive or negative effect on streaked horned lark population numbers. While creation and maintenance of these dredge islands is critical to the perpetuation of the subspecies, streaked horned lark population numbers are in decline, and nest failure due to unregulated dredge deposition is a threat to the subspecies.
(55)
Comment:
The Port of Olympia asserted that the listing overstates the threats posed by potential airport development to the streaked horned lark. An interlocal agreement with WDFW required the airport to set aside areas to be preserved as lark habitat, and also includes measures to minimize development, retain open space, and avoid mowing in lark nesting areas and during lark breeding seasons. The airport does not anticipate development in lark nesting areas over the next 20 years.
Our response:
We recognize and appreciate the cooperative effort on the part of the Port of Olympia to craft the interlocal agreement with WDFW. The interlocal agreement provides a framework for how development impacts will be addressed and offset, but it does not address the pace and extent of future development at the Olympia Airport and does not necessarily provide protection from development in the foreseeable future.
(56)
Comment:
One commenter said that we should acknowledge the threats to streaked horned larks and their habitats from government programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, that encourage tree planting in open areas.
Our response:
We do not currently have information to suggest that government tree planting programs pose a threat to the streaked horned lark. However, the purpose of section 7 of the Act is to ensure that Federal agencies do not fund, authorize, or carry out activities that that could jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. After this rule is effective (see
DATES
), we will work with the Farm Service Agency (the Federal agency that implements the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the streaked horned lark.
(57)
Comment:
One commenter stated that Corvallis Municipal Airport has been declared as “shovel-ready” for commercial development, and that the analysis of listing factors should include an assessment of the extent to which the proposed commercial development at Corvallis Airport will impinge upon critical habitat for the streaked horned lark.
Our response:
As we discuss in the final critical habitat designation for the streaked horned lark, published elsewhere in the
Federal Register
today, we have excluded non-Federal airport lands from the designation. However, we agree that future development at the Corvallis Airport could affect the population of streaked horned larks that breed at the site. We have added a brief discussion of the issue under Factor A, below.
(58)
Comment:
Several commenters asked us to amend the special rule to include take of streaked horned larks resulting from aircraft strikes.
Our response:
The fundamental purpose of wildlife hazard mitigation programs at airports is the minimization of wildlife-aircraft strikes. Streaked horned larks are paradoxically attracted to the habitat that has been created and maintained at airports as a result of those management activities to deter other more dangerous wildlife; some aircraft strikes of larks are probably unavoidable. This take of larks from routine aviation activities at airports is appropriately exempted under the 4(d) special rule, and we have therefore modified this final rule accordingly.
(59)
Comment:
One commenter requested that, under the proposed 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark, we consider covering comparable municipal government activities. In particular, consideration should be given to the continuing operation and maintenance, and to (if necessary due to fire or other unforeseen events) the reconstruction and restoration of, public facilities such as stormwater facilities, water supply sites (wellheads and springs), and active recreation parks (including athletic fields utilized by cities but owned by school districts). Such operation and maintenance should encompass sporting events, planting and mowing, fence and security maintenance, herbicide and fertilizer application, and similar activities.
Our response:
We are not aware of any streaked horned larks nesting on lands owned and managed by the Cities of Olympia, Lacey, or Tumwater, or on school properties, stormwater facilities, water supply sites, or active recreational parks. These types of areas do not provide suitable habitat (size, landscape context, and vegetation do not meet habitat definition) for this subspecies. The 4(d) special rule for streaked horned lark exempts take under section 9 of the Act associated with routine maintenance conducted at airports, farming on agricultural lands, and noxious weed control activities to provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
We fully considered comments from the public and the peer reviewers on the proposed rule to develop this final listing of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark. This final rule incorporates changes to our proposed listing based on the comments that we received that are discussed above. We received additional distribution and trend data for the streaked horned lark, but this information did not alter the conclusion of our analysis. We made some technical corrections and reevaluated threats to both subspecies from vehicular mortality. Although our analysis of these potential threats is different from that in our proposed rule, none of the information changed our determination that the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly meets the
definition of an endangered species and the streaked horned lark meets the definition of a threatened species under the Act.
We revised the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark based on public comments and information we received. The Service has determined that exempting specified agricultural operations in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, rather than rangewide, as proposed, from the prohibition of take under section 9 of the Act encourages landowners to continue managing the remaining landscape in ways that meet the needs of their operation while simultaneously providing for the conservation of the streaked horned lark. The application of the 4(d) special rule exempting specific agricultural operations applies only to the Willamette Valley in Oregon because there is no record of the streaked horned lark utilizing agricultural lands in Washington State, despite thorough surveys by WDFW.
We revised the 4(d) special rule in response to comments from the public, which helped us refine the covered farming activities. We have clarified the definition of “normal farming practices” and “normal transportation activities” to be consistent with relevant Oregon State laws. We also amended the list of covered activities to address specific agricultural practices in the Willamette Valley that may affect the streaked horned lark. Based on feedback from agricultural interests, we deleted several activities from the 4(d) special rule (i.e., routine management and maintenance of stock ponds and berms to maintain livestock water supplies; routine maintenance or construction of fences for grazing management; placement of mineral supplements; and irrigation of agricultural crops, fields, and livestock pastures) and added others (i.e., hazing of geese and predators; and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems).
In response to comments from the FAA and airport operators, we revised the 4(d) special rule for airports on non-Federal lands by referencing applicable FAA regulations and circulars addressing safety, and by including a take exemption for streaked horned lark airstrikes at airports, which are an occasional unavoidable result of continuing aviation operations.
We also amended the 4(d) special rule to include some management of noxious weeds on non-Federal lands, as these actions facilitate the preservation of streaked horned lark habitat on the landscape.
In addition, we found some typographical
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.