Vol. 77 Thursday, No. 197 October 11, 2012

Part IV

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked Horned Lark and Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR December 10, 2012. We must receive [FWS–R1–ES–2012–0080], and at the requests for public hearings, in writing, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Fish and Wildlife Service at the address shown in FOR FURTHER (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). INFORMATION CONTACT by November 26, Any additional tools or supporting 50 CFR Part 17 2012. information that we may develop for [FWS–R1–ES–2012–0080; 4500030113] ADDRESSES: You may submit comments this rulemaking will also be available at by one of the following methods: the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site RIN 1018–AY18 (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal and Field Office set out above, and may eRulemaking Portal: http:// also be included in the preamble and/ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or at www.regulations.gov. and Plants; Listing Taylor’s www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked enter Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2012– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Horned Lark and Designation of 0080, which is the docket number for S. Berg, Manager, Washington Fish and Critical Habitat this rulemaking. You may submit a Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment Lacey, WA 98503, by telephone (360) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Now!’’. 753–9440, or by facsimile (360) 534– Interior. (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 9331. Persons who use a ACTION: Proposed rule. or hand-delivery to: Public Comments telecommunications device for the deaf Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–ES–2012– (TDD) may call the Federal Information SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 0080; Division of Policy and Directives Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. Wildlife Service, propose to list the Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly as an Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS endangered species, and to list the 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. Executive Summary streaked horned lark as a threatened We request that you send comments Why we need to publish a rule. Under species under the Endangered Species only by the methods described above. the Endangered Species Act (Act), a Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We We will post all comments on http:// species may warrant protection through additionally propose to designate www.regulations.gov. This generally listing if it is an endangered or critical habitat for these species. These means that we will post any personal threatened species throughout all or a determinations fulfill our obligations information you provide us (see the significant portion of its range. The under a settlement agreement. These are Public Comments section below for species addressed in these proposed proposed regulations, and if finalized, more information). rules are candidates for listing and, by the effect of these regulations will be to The coordinates or plot points or both virtue of a settlement agreement, we add these species to the List of from which the critical habitat maps are must make a determination as to their Endangered and Threatened Wildlife generated are included in the present status under the Act. These and to designate critical habitat under administrative record for this status changes can only be done by the Endangered Species Act. rulemaking and are available at http:// issuing a rulemaking. The table below DATES: We will accept comments www.fws.gov/wafwo/, summarizes our determination for each received or postmarked on or before www.regulations.gov at Docket No. of these candidate species:

Species Present range Status

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, British Columbia, Canada; Clallam, Pierce, and Thurston Counties, WA; and Proposed Endangered. Euphydryas editha taylori. Benton County, OR. Streaked horned lark, Eremophila Grays Harbor, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, Thurston, Cowlitz, and Wahkiakum Proposed Threatened. alpestris strigata. Counties, WA; Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Lane, Linn, Mar- ion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill Counties, OR.

The basis for our action. Under the • Habitat loss through conversion and for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly Endangered Species Act, we may degradation of habitat, particularly from and streaked horned lark in Washington determine that a species is an agricultural and urban development, and Oregon as follows: endangered or threatened species based successional changes to grassland • Approximately 6,875 acres (ac) on any of five factors: (A) The present habitat, military training, and the spread (2,782 hectares (ha)) are proposed for or threatened destruction, modification, of invasive plants; designation as critical habitat for the or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) • Predation; Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. overutilization for commercial, • Inadequate existing regulatory • Approximately 12,159 ac (4,920 ha) recreational, scientific, or educational mechanisms that allow significant are proposed for designation as critical purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) threats such as habitat loss; habitat for the streaked horned lark. the inadequacy of existing regulatory • Other natural or manmade factors, The basis for our action. Under the mechanisms; or (E) other natural or including low genetic diversity, small or Endangered Species Act, we are manmade factors affecting its continued isolated populations, low reproductive required to designate critical habitat for existence. success, and declining population sizes; any species that is determined to be For those species for which we are • Aircraft strikes and training at endangered or threatened. We are proposing listing, we have determined airports; and required to base the designation on the that these species are impacted by one • Pesticide use or control as a pest best available scientific data after taking or more of the following factors to the species. into consideration economic, national extent that the species meets the In this rule we propose to designate security, and other relevant impacts. An definition of an endangered or critical habitat for these species. We are area may be excluded from the final threatened species under the Act: proposing to designate critical habitat designation of critical habitat if the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61939

benefits of exclusion outweigh the interested parties concerning this (d) What areas not occupied at the benefits of designation, unless the proposed rule. We particularly seek time of listing are essential for the exclusion will result in the extinction of comments concerning: conservation of the species and why. the species. (1) The species’ biology, range, and (8) Land use designations and current We are proposing to promulgate population trends, including: or planned activities in the subject areas special rules. We are considering (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, and their possible impacts on proposed whether to exempt from the Act’s take breeding, and sheltering; critical habitat. prohibitions (at section 9), existing (b) Genetics and taxonomy; (9) Information on the projected and maintenance activities and agricultural (c) Historical and current range reasonably likely impacts of climate practices located on private and Tribal including distribution patterns; change on the Taylor’s checkerspot (d) Historical and current population lands where the streaked horned lark butterfly and streaked horned lark, and levels, and current and projected trends; occurs. The intent of this special rule on proposed critical habitat. would be to increase support for the and (e) Past and ongoing conservation (10) Any probable economic, national conservation of the streaked horned lark security, or other relevant impacts of and provide an incentive for continued measures for the species, its habitat or both. designating any area that may be management activities that benefit this included in the final designation; in species and its habitat. (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a particular, any impacts on small entities We are preparing an economic or families, and the benefits of including analysis. To ensure that we fully species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: or excluding areas that exhibit these consider the economic impacts, we are impacts. preparing a draft economic analysis of (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or (11) Whether any specific areas we are the proposed designations of critical proposing for critical habitat habitat. We will publish an curtailment of its habitat or range; (b) Overutilization for commercial, designation should be considered for announcement and seek public recreational, scientific, or educational exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the comments on the draft economic purposes; Act, and whether the benefits of analysis when it is completed. (c) Disease or predation; We will seek peer review. We are potentially excluding any specific area (d) The inadequacy of existing outweigh the benefits of including that seeking comments from knowledgeable regulatory mechanisms; or individuals with scientific expertise to area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. (e) Other natural or manmade factors (12) Additional information review our technical assumptions, affecting its continued existence. analysis of the best available science, pertaining to the promulgation of a (3) Biological, commercial trade, or special rule to exempt take of the and application of that science or to other relevant data concerning any provide any additional scientific streaked horned lark on civilian threats (or lack thereof) to this species airports, agricultural fields, and tribal information to improve these proposed and existing regulations that may be rules. Because we will consider all lands under section 4(d) of the Act. addressing those threats; (13) Whether any populations of the comments and information received (4) Additional information concerning streaked horned lark should be during the comment period, our final the historical and current status, range, considered separately for listing as a determinations may differ from this distribution, and population size of this distinct population segment (DPS), and proposal. species, including the locations of any if so, the justification for how that We are seeking public comment on additional populations of this species; population meets the criteria for a DPS this proposed rule. Anyone is welcome (5) Any information on the biological under the Service’s Policy Regarding the to comment on our proposal or provide or ecological requirements of the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate additional information on the proposal species, and ongoing conservation Population Segments under the that we can use in making a final measures for the species and its habitat; determination on the status of this (6) The reasons why we should or Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, species. Please submit your comments should not designate areas as ‘‘critical February 7, 1996). and materials concerning this proposed habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 (14) Whether we could improve or rule by one of the methods listed in the U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether modify our approach to designating ADDRESSES section. Within 1 year there are threats to any of these species critical habitat in any way to provide for following the publication of this from human activity, the degree of greater public participation and proposal, we will publish in the Federal which can be expected to increase due understanding, or to better Register a final determination to the designation, and whether that accommodate public concerns and concerning the listing of the species and increase in threat outweighs the benefit comments. the designation of its critical habitat or of designation such that the designation Please note that submissions merely withdraw the proposal if new of critical habitat may not be prudent. stating support for or opposition to the information is provided that supports (7) Specific information on: action under consideration without that decision. (a) The amount and distribution of providing supporting information, habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot although noted, will not be considered Information Requested butterfly and streaked horned lark; in making a determination, as section We intend that any final action (b) What areas that were occupied at 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that resulting from this proposed rule will be the time of listing (or are currently determinations as to whether any based on the best scientific and occupied) and that contain features species is a threatened or endangered commercial data available and be as essential to the conservation of the species must be made ‘‘solely on the accurate and as effective as possible. species should be included in the basis of the best scientific and Therefore, we request comments or designation and why; commercial data available.’’ information from the public, other (c) Special management You may submit your comments and concerned governmental agencies, considerations or protection that may be materials concerning this proposed rule Native American tribes, the scientific needed in critical habitat areas we are by one of the methods listed in the community, industry, or any other proposing; and ADDRESSES section. We request that you

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

send comments only by the methods horned lark and set conservation targets Species Information—Taylor’s described in the ADDRESSES section. and identified actions to achieve those Checkerspot Butterfly If you submit information via http:// targets over the next 5 years. These Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies are www.regulations.gov, your entire plans can be found on the Service’s Web medium-sized, colorfully marked submission—including any personal site at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ _ butterflies with a checkerboard pattern identifying information—will be posted action plans/doc3089.pdf (Taylor’s on the upper (dorsal) side of the wings checkerspot butterfly) and http:// on the Web site. If your submission is (Pyle 2002, p. 310). They are orange www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/ made via a hardcopy that includes with black and yellowish (or white) spot STHL_Action%20Plan_Sept2009.pdf personal identifying information, you bands, giving a checkered appearance (streaked horned lark). may request at the top of your document (Pyle 1981, p. 607; Pyle 2002, p. 310). that we withhold this information from Petition History Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were public review. However, we cannot In 2001, we developed internal, historically known to occur in British guarantee that we will be able to do so. Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, and We will post all hardcopy submissions discretionary candidate assessment documents for the Taylor’s checkerspot current distribution has been reduced on http://www.regulations.gov. Please from over 80 locations rangewide to 14. include sufficient information with your butterfly and streaked horned lark. These candidate assessments were Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies produce comments to allow us to verify any one brood per year. They overwinter scientific or commercial information published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2001 (USFWS 2001). On (diapause) in the fourth or fifth larval you include. instar (developmental) phase and have a Comments and materials we receive, December 10, 2002, we received two flight period as adults of 10 to 14 days, as well as supporting documentation we separate petitions for these species. The usually in May, although depending on used in preparing this proposed rule, first was from the Xerces Society, Center local site and climatic conditions, the will be available for public inspection for Biological Diversity, Oregon Natural flight period begins in late April and on http://www.regulations.gov, or by Resources Council, Friends of the San extends into early July, as in Oregon, appointment, during normal business Juans, and Northwest Ecosystem where the flight season may last for up hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Alliance to list the Taylor’s checkerspot to 45 days (Ross 2008, p. 2). Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife butterfly (also known as ‘‘whulge Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION checkerspot’’) (Euphydryas editha Taxonomy CONTACT). taylori) as endangered. The petitioners requested that critical habitat be Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is a Previous Federal Actions designated. We also received a petition subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha). The Candidate History from the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the San Juans, Oregon Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was We first identified the Taylor’s Natural Resources Council, and originally described by W.H. Edwards checkerspot butterfly and the streaked Northwest Ecosystem Alliance (1888) from specimens collected from horned lark as candidates for listing in requesting that we list the streaked Beacon Hill Park in Victoria, British the 2001 Notice of Review of Native horned lark (Eremophila alpestris Columbia (BC). Euphydryas editha Species that are Candidates for Listing strigata) as endangered and designate taylori is recognized as a valid as Endangered or Threatened (CNOR) critical habitat concurrent with the subspecies by the Integrated Taxonomic (USFWS 2001). All candidate species listing. Because the Service had already Information System (ITIS 2012a). It is are assigned listing priority numbers determined that these species warranted one of several rare and threatened (LPN) that are based on the immediacy listing and placed them on the subspecies, including the Bay and magnitude of threats and taxonomic candidate list in 2001, we have been checkerspot (E. e. bayensis) from the status. In 2001, both of these species evaluating these species as resubmitted San Francisco Bay area and the Quino were assigned an LPN of 6, which petition findings on an annual basis. On checkerspot (E. e. quino) from the San reflects threats of a high magnitude that July 12, 2011, the Service filed a Diego, California, region; both are are not considered imminent. multiyear work plan as part of a federally listed as endangered species. In 2004, based on new information, proposed settlement agreement with the Several other subspecies of Euphydryas we determined that the Taylor’s Center for Biological Diversity and editha are known to occur in checkerspot butterfly faced imminent others, in a consolidated case in the U.S. Washington and Oregon, including threats of a high magnitude and District Court for the District of Bean’s checkerspot (E. e. beani) known reassigned it an LPN of 3 (69 FR 24876; Columbia. The settlement agreement from the north Cascades of Washington; May 4, 2004). In 2006, the streaked was approved by the court on Strand’s checkerspot (E. e. edithana) in horned lark was also reassigned an LPN September 9, 2011, and will enable the the foothills of the Columbia Basin, of 3. During our review we determined Service to systematically review and including the low hills of the Blue that the continued loss of suitable lark address the conservation needs of more Mountains in Washington and the habitat, risks to the wintering than 250 candidate species, over a Wallowa Mountains in Oregon, populations; and plans for development, period of 6 years, including the Taylor’s primarily east of where other subspecies hazing, and military training activities checkerspot butterfly and streaked are known; and Colonia checkerspot (E. (71 FR 53755; September 12, 2006) were horned lark. These proposed rules e. colonia) known from high-elevation imminent threats to the subspecies. The fulfill, in part, the terms of that sites of the Olympic Peninsula and the candidate status for Taylor’s settlement agreement. Cascades of Washington and Oregon checkerspot butterfly and streaked from the Wenatchee Mountains in horned lark was most recently Background Washington to the Siskiyou Mountains reaffirmed in the October 26, 2011, We discuss below only those topics in Oregon. CNOR (USFWS 2011). The U.S. Fish directly relevant to the proposed listing and Wildlife Service (Service) of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and Habitat and Life History completed action plans for Taylor’s the streaked horned lark in this section Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies checkerspot butterfly and streaked of the proposed rule. occupy open habitat dominated by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61941

grassland vegetation throughout their Americana (American speedwell)) were Before recent declines over roughly range. In Washington, Taylor’s being utilized by Taylor’s checkerspot the last 10 or 15 years the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies inhabit glacial butterfly larvae (Heron 2008, pers. checkerspot butterfly was known from outwash prairies in the south Puget comm.; Page et al. 2009, p. 2). Taylor’s an estimated 80 locations: 24 in British Sound region; shallow-soil balds (a bald checkerspot butterfly larvae had Columbia, 43 in Washington, and 13 in is a small opening on slopes in a treeless previously been confirmed feeding on Oregon (Hinchliff 1996, p. 115; Shepard area, dominated by herbaceous Plantago lanceolata (narrow-leaf 2000, pp. 25–26; Vaughan and Black vegetation) (Chappell 2006 p. 1) and plantain) and P. maritime (sea plantain) 2002, p. 6; Stinson 2005, pp. 93–96, grasses, within a forested landscape, in British Columbia (Guppy and 123–124). These sites included coastal roadsides, and former clear-cut areas Shepard 2001, p. 311), narrow-leaf and inland prairies on southern within a forested matrix on the plantain and Castilleja hispida (harsh Vancouver Island and surrounding northeast Olympic Peninsula, and a paintbrush) in Washington (Char and islands in the Straits of Georgia, British coastal stabilized dune site near the Boersma 1995, p. 29; Pyle 2002, p. 311; Columbia and the San Juan Island Straits of Juan de Fuca (Stinson 2005, Severns and Grosboll 2011, p. 4), and archipelago (Hinchliff 1996, p. 115; Pyle pp. 93–96). The two Oregon sites are feed exclusively on narrow-leaf plantain 2002, p. 311), as well as open prairies found in the vicinity of Corvallis, in Oregon (Dornfeld 1980, p. 73; Ross on post-glacial gravelly outwash and Benton County, on grassland hills in the 2008, pers. comm.; Severns and Warren shallow-soil balds in Washington’s Willamette Valley (Vaughan and Black 2008, p. 476). Dr. Robert Michael Pyle Puget Trough (Potter 2010, p. 1), the 2002, p. 7; Ross 2008, p. 1; Benton has speculated that Taylor’s checkerspot north Olympic Peninsula (Holtrop 2010, County 2010, Appendix N, p. 5). The butterfly larvae likely fed upon the p. 1), and grassland habitat within a recently discovered population on threatened Castilleja levisecta (golden forested matrix in Oregon’s Willamette Denman Island in Canada (for details, paintbrush) in historical times when Valley (Benton County 2010, Appendix see Current Range and Distribution, both species were more widespread and N, p. 5). below), discovered in May 2005, sympatric (overlapped) in their The 1949 field season summary for occupies an area that had been clear-cut distribution (Pyle 2002, p. 311; Pyle North American lepidoptera (Hopfinger harvested, and is now dominated by, 2007, pers. comm.). 1949, p. 89) states that an abundant and maintained as, grass and forb distribution of Taylor’s checkerspot Historical Range and Distribution vegetation. This is the first record for butterfly was known from the south the species in British Columbia since Historically, Taylor’s checkerspot Puget Sound prairies: ‘‘Euphydryas editha (taylori), as usual, appeared by 1998 (Heron 2008, pers. comm.; Page et butterfly was likely distributed the thousands on Tenino Prairie.’’ By al. 2009, p. 1). In British Columbia, throughout grassland habitat found on 1989, Pyle (p. 170) had reported that Canada, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies prairies, shallow-soil balds, grassland there were fewer than 15 populations were historically known to occupy bluffs, and grassland openings within a remaining rangewide. Surveys in 2001 coastal grassland habitat, not forests that forested matrix in south Vancouver and 2002 of the three historical were converted to early successional Island, northern Olympic Peninsula, the locations on Hornby Island, British conditions by clear-cutting, on Puget Sound, and the Willamette Valley. Columbia, failed to detect any Taylor’s Vancouver Island and nearby islands. The historical range and abundance of checkerspot butterflies; the last the species are not precisely known Female Taylor’s checkerspot observation of the Taylor’s checkerspot because extensive searches for Taylor’s butterflies and their larvae utilize plants butterfly from this location was 1995 that contain defensive chemicals known checkerspot butterfly did not occur until (Committee on the Status of Endangered as iridoid glycosides, which have been recently. Northwest prairies were Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2011, p. recognized to influence the selection of formerly more common, larger, and 15). By fall 2002, only six populations oviposition sites by adult nymphalid interconnected, and would likely have were known to occur rangewide, four butterflies (butterflies in the family supported a greater distribution and from the south Puget Sound region in Nymphalidae) (Murphy et al. 2004, p. abundance of Taylor’s checkerspot Washington, one from San Juan County, 22; Page et al. 2009, p. 2), and function butterflies than prairie habitat does Washington, and one from the as a feeding stimulant for some today. According to Pyle (2012, in litt.): Willamette Valley of Oregon (USFWS checkerspot larvae (Kuussaari et al. ‘‘Euphydryas editha taylori was previously 2002a). 2004, p. 147). As maturing larvae feed, more widely distributed and much denser in they accumulate these defensive occurrence than is presently the case on the Current Range and Distribution chemical compounds from their larval Puget Prairies. The checkerspot was Based on historical and current data, host plants into their bodies. According abundant on the Mima Mounds National the distribution and abundance of to the work of Bowers (1981, pp. 373– Area Preserve (NAP) and surrounding Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have 374), this accumulation appears to deter prairies in 1970. In the mid-eighties, the declined significantly rangewide with butterflies flew by the thousands on Rock predation. These larval host plants Prairie, a private farm property west of the majority of local extirpations include members of the Broomrape Tenino. All of these sites have since been occurring from approximately the mid- family (Orobanchaceae), such as rendered unsuitable for E. e. taylori through 1990s in Canada (COSEWIC 2011, p. Castilleja (paintbrushes) and management changes, and the butterfly has 15), 1999–2004 in south Puget Sound, Orthocarpus = Tryphysaria (owl’s dropped out of them; meanwhile, many other and around 2006 at the Bald Hills clover), and native and nonnative colonies have disappeared in their vicinity location. Several new locations Plantago species, which are members of through outright development or conversion harboring Taylor’s checkerspot the Plantain family (Plantaginaceae) of the habitat. The same is true for bluff-top butterflies have been rediscovered on (Pyle 2002, p. 311; Vaughan and Black colonies I knew in the early ’70s at historical sites on Washington Dungeness. The ongoing loss and alteration 2002, p. 8). The recent rediscovery in of habitat in the western Washington Department of Natural Resources 2005 of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies grasslands has without question led to the (WDNR) lands (USFWS 2004, pp. 3–4; in Canada indicated that additional food shrinkage of Taylor’s checkerspot USFWS 2007, p. 5) and have also been plants (Veronica serpyllifolia (thymeleaf occurrences from a regional constellation to found at new locations on natural and speedwell) and V. beccabunga ssp. a few small clusters.’’ manipulated balds within the upper

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61942 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Dungeness River watershed in single butterfly was observed. It is likely 1893; Tenino 1929; Shelton 1971, Washington. Currently 13 individual that this single adult had dispersed from Dungeness 1999) (Stinson 2005, pp. 94– populations of Taylor’s checkerspot the Denman Island population located 95). Some of these site names may refer butterflies are known to occur; these approximately 0.3 mi (0.5 km) away. As to unknown or currently occupied populations are distributed in British of 2012, the only existing known locales but due to their imprecise Columbia, Canada (1), Washington (10), population for Taylor’s checkerspot nature, the true location of these and Oregon (2). butterflies in Canada is on Denman potential populations has not been Nearly all localities for Taylor’s Island (Page et al. 2009, p. 2; COSEWIC determined. checkerspot butterflies in British 2011, p. iv). Surveys of 15 prairies within the Columbia have been lost; the only Washington south Puget Sound landscape in 2001 location currently known from British and 2002 located Taylor’s checkerspot Columbia was discovered in 2005 In Washington, surveys have been butterflies on only 4 sites in Thurston (COSEWIC 2011, p. iv). In Oregon, conducted annually for Taylor’s and Pierce Counties (Stinson 2005, pp. although many surveys have been checkerspot butterflies in currently and 93–96). Three of the four sites were conducted at a variety of historical and historically occupied sites. Surveys on found in the Bald Hill landscape in potential locations within the south Puget Sound prairies have been Southeast Thurston County. Taylor’s Willamette Valley, many of those have conducted from 1997 through 2011 by checkerspot butterflies were failed to detect the species; the number the Washington Department of Fish and documented at the Bald Hills through of locations occupied by Taylor’s Wildlife (WDFW), WDNR, The Nature 2007, but there have been no detections checkerspot butterflies has declined Conservancy of Washington (now the since, despite regular and thorough from 13 to 2 (Ross 2011, in litt., p. 1). Center for Natural Lands Management), surveying from 2001 through 2011 In Washington State, more than 43 and personnel from the Wildlife Branch (Potter 2011, p. 3). This number has of Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM; historical locales were documented for declined substantially in recent years as formerly known as Fort Lewis). In 1994, Taylor’s. In 2012, we have 11 habitat has become increasingly shaded a report from Char and Boersma (1995) documented locations for Taylor’s and modified by encroaching trees, indicated the presence of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies with only 1 of nonnative grasses, and the invasive, checkerspot butterflies on the 13th the localities harboring more than 1,000 nonnative shrub Scot’s broom (Cytisus Division Prairie on JBLM; no additional individuals, and the majority of known scoparius). Potter (2010, p. 1) reported locations have been reported since 1999, sites have daily counts of fewer than multiple site visits to conduct when a handful of Taylor’s checkerspot 100 individual butterflies. redundant surveys in formerly occupied Due to the limited distribution and butterflies were observed by WDFW bald habitats during the 2008–2010 few populations of Taylor’s checkerspot (Hays et al. 2000, p. 13). Surveys have flight period with no Taylor’s butterfly, surveys for this species are been conducted annually in this area checkerspot butterflies observed. The quite thorough, generally consisting of a since 2000; however, no Taylor’s species is presumed to be extirpated minimum of 3 days of visits during the checkerspot butterflies have been flight period, and occasionally detected during the spring flight period from this location. numbering up to 10 or 12 days of (Ressa 2003, pp. 7, 14; Gilbert 2004, p. The 91st Division Prairie is located on counts. Multiple days of counts during 5; Linders 2012c, in litt.). Taylor’s JBLM on the eastern edge of the the annual flight period greatly checkerspot butterflies are believed to approximately 6,000 acre (2,400 ha) increases the reliability of abundance be extirpated from the 13th Division prairie. The largest current populations data for butterflies, thus we believe the Prairie at JBLM (Linders 2012c, in litt.). of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly within data on numbers of Taylor’s checkerspot Four other populations in Thurston the south Puget Sound have been butterflies to be highly reliable. County (Glacial Heritage, Scatter Creek observed here, and have served as the north and south units, and Rocky Prairie source populations for the collection of Canada NAP) had Taylor’s checkerspot larvae for captive breeding to support After years of surveys (2001 through butterflies present in 1997. No adult translocation efforts. Several small, 2004) at historical population sites in Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were discrete patches of habitat are occupied British Columbia that failed to detect observed during surveys conducted in by Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. The Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies 1998 and 1999 at these locations (Hays close proximity of these patches (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 15–16), a et al. 2000, p. 13; Stinson 2005, p. 95). indicates that a relatively robust population was discovered on Denman Subsequent annual surveys at these four population (more than 1,000 butterflies Island in 2005. Denman Island is sites have not detected Taylor’s surveyed in a single day in 2006) is located approximately 106 miles (170 checkerspot butterflies (with the likely present at JBLM. km) north of Victoria, British Columbia, exception of two sites where the In the course of conducting surveys along the eastern shores of Vancouver butterfly has recently been translocated for another rare grassland-associated Island in the Straits of Georgia. Taylor’s (Linders and Olson 2011, p. 17; Bidwell butterfly found in Washington, the checkerspot butterfly records from 2012, pers. comm.)). island marble (Euchloe ausonides British Columbia date from 1888 Four historical locales for Taylor’s insulanus), over 150 potential grassland through 2011, when the last survey was checkerspot butterflies were locations were surveyed for Taylor’s conducted. Surveys are regularly permanently lost in the south Puget checkerspot butterfly in the north Puget conducted on Vancouver Island and Sound region to development (Dupont, Sound region during spring of 2005 other historical locations (Page et al. JBLM Training Area 7S, Spanaway, and through the spring of 2011 (Miskelly 2009, p. iv). In 2008, a single Taylor’s Lakewood in Pierce County) or 2005; Potter et al. 2011) where historical checkerspot butterfly was detected on conversion to agriculture (Rock Prairie locales for Taylor’s checkerspot Vancouver Island in the Courtney- in Thurston County) (Stinson 2005, pp. butterflies exist (Pyle 1989, p. 170). Comox area, where they had not been 93–96). In addition, several older Although the flight periods and habitat observed since 1931 (COSEWIC 2011, Washington specimens are labeled with of both butterflies overlap, no Taylor’s pp. 15–16). Additional surveys were general or imprecise locality names on checkerspot butterflies were found conducted at this location and only the their collection labels (e.g., Olympia during these surveys.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61943

Several historical sites with butterflies were formerly reported to 2005 (Table 1) (Page et. al. 2009, p. 1). potentially suitable habitat were exist in large numbers (‘‘swarms on the We have no reports regarding counts for surveyed on the north Olympic meadows beside Oak Creek’’) on the 2006 surveys. However, in 2007, more Peninsula (Clallam County) during upland prairies of the Willamette Valley than 600 butterflies were detected and spring 2003. Taylor’s checkerspot in Lane, Benton, and Polk Counties tallied from this location during the butterfly was found to occupy five (Dornfeld 1980, p. 73). Now only entire survey effort (Heron 2008, p. 5). locations in this geographic area in remnant populations exist in Oregon. In Surveys at this location in 2008 detected 2003. At one historical site near the 1999, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies 324 Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies mouth of the Dungeness River, only a were discovered along the Bonneville (Page et al. 2009, p. 17). In 2009, a mark- few individuals were detected. Power Administration (BPA) right-of- recapture study of Taylor’s was However, no Taylor’s checkerspot way corridor in an area known as Fitton conducted on Denman Island. Over butterflies were detected at this location Green in Benton County. In 2004 1,200 butterflies were marked and 45 during surveys from 2005 through 2009 surveys for Taylor’s checkerspot were recaptured. Based on this study (McMillan 2007, pers. comm.; Potter butterfly were expanded in the the population was estimated at 13,000 2012, pers. comm.). The other four Willamette Valley where a second individual butterflies; however, this populations were found on grassy population was discovered on grassland estimate is likely exaggerated and openings on shallow-soiled bald habitat openings within the Beazell Memorial inaccurate since the survey efforts were west of the Elwha River. Two of these Forest in Benton County. These two not consistent over the course of the sites were estimated to support at least locations for Taylor’s checkerspot study (COSEWIC 2011, p. 38). During 50 to 100 adult Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are currently the only occupied the same flight period in 2009, an butterflies (Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden patches known from Oregon. additional 950 individuals were Valley), and just a few individuals were observed on Denman Island (COSEWIC Population Estimates/Status found at the two other bald sites 2011, p. 38). Only 12 butterflies were (Striped Peak and Highway 112) (Hays There is little historical information observed in 2011 by the same surveyors 2011, p. 1). Subsequent surveys at the on population estimates for Taylor’s using identical methods at the same latter two sites, Striped Peak and checkerspot butterflies and the survey location. Highway 112, from 2004–2011, have techniques used for monitoring have Washington failed to relocate or detect any Taylor’s differed over time. Early surveys at most checkerspot butterflies. locations were done using Pollard In Washington State, more than 43 In 2006 a population was discovered transect sampling methodology. Prior to historical locales were documented as near the town of Sequim. Taylor’s implementing distance sampling as the having Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly checkerspot butterflies have since been accepted survey method for Taylor’s populations. In 2012, there are only 11 detected annually at this location from checkerspot butterflies, population sizes documented populations, with only 1 of 2006–2011 (Hays 2009, pers. comm.; were determined by tallying the number the sites harboring more than 1,000 Hays 2011, p. 29). At this site, Taylor’s of all butterflies observed in a day and individuals at any time and the majority checkerspot butterflies inhabit this was expressed as the maximum day of known sites yielding daily counts of approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of estuarine, count for a population at a specific site. fewer than 100 individual butterflies. deflation plain (or back beach), a road During the survey season from 2007 These locations are as follows: Striped with restricted use, and farm-edge through 2011, WDFW implemented Peak, Highway 112, Sequim, Eden habitat. In 2010, a maximum count of distance sampling methods to estimate Valley, Dan Kelly Ridge, Bear Mountain, 568 Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies was abundance at the site in Washington on Three O’Clock Ridge, Upper Dungeness, recorded on a single day (April 3, 2010); JBLM. Distance sampling involves 91st Division Prairie on JBLM, Scatter normally peak daily counts from this establishing permanent transects over a Creek Wildlife Area, and the Bald Hills. location range from 50 to 240 proportion of the survey area to Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have individuals (Hays 2011, p. 29). determine the probability of detecting been surveyed annually on the Since 2007, three new Taylor’s the butterfly. This number is used to northeastern Olympic peninsula since checkerspot butterfly populations have calculate abundance (Marques 2009). 2003. Striped Peak, located on WNDR been found in Clallam County on Because Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly lands, supported Taylor’s checkerspot Olympic National Forest lands. All population numbers change daily due to butterflies as early as 1985. Between three sites are located in the Dungeness emergence and mortality of individuals, 2003 and 2005, only a few adult River watershed: Bear Mountain, Three density estimates were computed by butterflies were observed by WDFW O’Clock Ridge, and Upper Dungeness survey date (Linders and Olson 2011, p. personnel at Striped Peak and a second (Holtrop 2009, p. 2). The Forest Service 11). Although the sampling methods site known as Highway 112. No and WDFW are currently monitoring have changed over the years, we believe butterflies have been observed at the butterfly numbers at these sites they are useful in providing a general Striped Peak or Highway 112 locations annually. As of 2012, a total of six estimate of population trend since that time (McMillan 2009, pers. occupied sites are known from Clallam information. Additionally, since 2007, a comm.; Hays 2011, p. 1). Both sites are County: Sequim, Eden Valley, Bear consistent survey method for distance being encroached by Pseudotsuga Mountain, Three O’Clock Ridge, and sampling has been implemented menziesii (Douglas-fir) native shrubs, Upper Dungeness. throughout most of the range, providing and the invasive shrub Scot’s broom reliable annual information. (Thomas 2011, pers. obs.). Oregon In 2006, at the Sequim population, as All of the 13 historical locales within Canada many as 100 butterflies were detected the Willamette Valley of western Oregon The recently discovered population in on a single day; however, on many days have been surveyed regularly by local British Columbia (BC) was confirmed by fewer butterflies were observed lepidopterists (McCorkle 2008, pers. the invertebrate specialist for the BC (McMillan 2007, pers. comm.). In spring comm.; Ross 2005: Stinson 2005, p. 124; Ministry of the Environment (Heron 2007, researchers detected 100 to 200 Benton County 2010, p. 13; Potter 2012, 2008, pers. comm.). A total of 12 adults butterflies on peak days. Both larvae pers. comm.). Taylor’s checkerspot were observed on Denman Island during and adults were present at this site in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61944 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

2007 and 2008 (Potter 2012b, in litt.). At percent decline from the 2007 surveys Scatter Creek Wildlife Area and Range Eden Valley, up to 60 butterflies had (Linders 2012, in litt.). 50 on the 91st Division Prairie on JBLM been detected on a single day survey During 10 surveys conducted in the in the south Puget Sound region prior to surveys in 2006, but fewer than spring of 2009 at 91st Division Prairie, (Linders and Olson 2011, p. 17. During 30 were detected during the 2006 77 individual butterflies were counted distance survey counts in 2011, 84 adult surveys. During surveys conducted as a maximum daily count (Linders butterflies were counted at Scatter Creek between 2007 and 2011, maximum daily 2009a, entire; Thomas 2009b, pers. Wildlife Area, and 903 adults were counts ranged between 50 and 538 obs.). Spring counts in 2009, 2010, and counted at Range 50 on the 91st individuals (Potter 2012b, in litt.). in 2011 showed a general trend of Division Prairie on JBLM (Linders and On Dan Kelly Ridge, as many as 50 increasing observations at this site, Olson 2011, p. 23). butterflies were detected during surveys apparently because of a rebound in Surveys of private property and on a single day in 2006. This is a large, larval food plants along the roads WDNR-managed land in the Bald Hill linear site with a ridgeline road greater margins used by military training area in 2006 detected only a few than 2 miles (3.2 km) long; grassland vehicles, and from repeated and individual Taylor’s checkerspot habitat with larval food plants are found frequent fires caused by military butterflies during any given survey day along the road margins and in forest training exercises. Oviposition on larval on each of the primary balds. Reports openings on steep south facing slopes host plants (narrow-leaf plantain) near and personal observation indicate that where shallow-soil balds support road margins was observed at all known the density and composition of larval Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly locations host plants have declined at the Bald Between 2007 and 2010, maximum in Washington State (Severns and Hills area and portions of some of the daily counts ranged from 60 to 100 Grosboll 2011, p. 66). balds have been invaded by Douglas-fir butterflies. Surveys were not conducted Experimental introductions of and other shrub species, including at this site in 2011. Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have Scot’s broom, thus reducing the area In 2007, on Three O’Clock Ridge in been attempted in the south Puget and suitability of habitat (Potter 2011, p. the upper Dungeness watershed of Sound region. In 2006, Taylor’s 1). Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have Olympic National Forest, a small checkerspot butterfly larvae were placed not been detected in the Bald Hills area number (two) of Taylor’s checkerspot out at four locations in Thurston and since 2007, despite intensive survey butterflies were first detected (Holtrop Pierce County: (1) In March 2006, larvae efforts in 2008 and 2011 (Potter 2011, p. 2010, p. 1). This site was surveyed in were released at Glacial Heritage 1). This population of Taylor’s 2008 by Forest Service and WDFW Preserve, a Thurston County park; (2) in checkerspot butterfly is presumed to be personnel who detected 12 adult June 2006, larvae were placed at two extirpated. butterflies (Holtrop 2010, p. 1). In 2009, locations on JBLM (Training Area 7 approximately 300 ac (121 ha) of South (TA 7S) and 13th Division Oregon suitable habitat were surveyed (Holtrop Prairie); and (3) at the Scatter Creek In Oregon, Taylor’s checkerspot 2010, p. 5) and two new populations Wildlife area in Thurston County. None butterflies are known from two locations were discovered, at Upper Dungeness of these initial test releases resulted in in the Willamette Valley of Benton and Bear Mountain. Maximum single observations of adult butterflies at these County, Beazell Memorial Park (BMP) day counts ranged from 40 to 69 locations during the subsequent flight and Fitton Green Natural Area. butterflies at the Three O’Clock Ridge, season (Linders 2007, p. vi). A Annually, population estimates at these Upper Dungeness, and Bear Mountain. subsequent release of 199 larvae in two sites have varied from greater than These sites have supported Taylor’s March 2007 at Scatter Creek Wildlife 1,200 butterflies at Fitton Green in 2005 checkerspot butterflies consistently Area resulted in 11 Taylor’s checkerspot to as few as 150 butterflies in 2006 at since their discovery (Holtrop 2010, butterfly observations there in May 2007 BMP (Ross, 2010, pp. 4, 6; Ross 2011, p. 13). (Linders 2007, p. 18). in litt.). During spring of 2010, the flight The largest known population of Based on this early success with period began later than normally, due to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is located captive rearing of larvae, an additional cool, wet weather that persisted over on the 91st Division Prairie at JBLM 340 larvae were placed at Scatter Creek much of the Pacific Northwest. In 2011, where a high complement of larval and Wildlife Area in March 2008. A peak the flight season for Taylor’s nectar host plants exist. During the 2005 daily count of 16 adult Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in Oregon began and 2006 flight seasons (Combs 2005, p. checkerspot butterflies were later than any year since surveys 8; Wolford 2006, pp. 18–20), more than documented at this location in 2008 commenced (Ross 2012, p. 3). In 2010 1,000 individuals were detected on (Linders 2011c). In 2009, Linders and 2011, total population counts were maximum single day counts and released approximately 2,250 post- 991 and 516 for Fitton Green (Ross hundreds of individuals were observed diapause larvae onto suitable habitat at 2012, p. 4), and 849 and 223 for the throughout the flight season (Combs Scatter Creek Wildlife Areas and 13th BMP location (Ross 2012, p. 6), 2005, p. 8; Wolford 2006, pp. 18 and Division Prairie on JBLM, which respectively. 20). Surveys in spring 2007 detected resulted in 48 observations of adult slightly lower numbers despite the high butterflies and a peak day count of 36 Species Information—Streaked Horned survey effort. In 2007, the single-day adults at Scatter Creek South, two adults Lark maximum count for Taylor’s at Scatter Creek North and 1 individual The streaked horned lark is endemic checkerspot butterflies was 637 at 13th Division Prairie on JBLM to the Pacific Northwest (British (Wolford et al. 2007, p. 8). This decrease (Linders 2010, in litt., entire). In 2010, Columbia, Washington, and Oregon; in butterfly numbers was observed 155 adult butterflies were detected at Altman 2011, p. 196) and is a elsewhere for Taylor’s checkerspot Scatter Creek Wildlife Area, and 207 subspecies of the wide-ranging horned butterfly in Thurston County during adults were detected (counted) at Range lark (Eremophila alpestris). Horned 2007, and is likely related to weather 50 on JBLM (Linders and Olson 2011, p. larks are small, ground-dwelling birds, conditions that year. In 2008, detections 23). During late winter of 2010, a total approximately 16–20 centimeters (6–8 at 91st Division Prairie indicated a of 2,036 post-diapause larvae were inches) in length (Beason 1995, p. 2). further decline to 187 butterflies, a 37 released onto restored prairie habitat at Adults are pale brown, but shades of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61945

brown vary geographically among the larks in western Washington and 66 found that streaked horned larks in the subspecies. The male’s face has a yellow horned larks from Alaska, alpine Willamette Valley eat seeds of wash in most subspecies. Adults have a Washington, eastern Washington, introduced weedy grasses and forbs, black bib, black whisker marks, black eastern Oregon, and California were focusing on the seed source that is most ‘‘horns’’ (feather tufts that can be raised analyzed. The 30 haplotypes identified abundant (Moore 2008b, p. 9). In this or lowered), and black tail feathers with from the 98 horned larks formed three Willamette Valley study, a variety of white margins (Beason 1995, p. 2). clades: Pacific Northwest (alpine and grasses (Digitaria sanguinalis (large Juveniles lack the black face pattern and eastern Washington, Alaska), Pacific crabgrass), Panicum capillare are varying shades of gray, from almost Coast (Puget Sound and Washington (witchgrass), Sporobulum sp. white to almost black with a silver- coast) and coastal California), and Great (dropseed)), and unidentified grasses speckled back (Beason 1995, p. 2). The Basin (Oregon) (Drovetski et al. 2005, (Poaceae) and forbs (Chenopodium streaked horned lark has a dark brown p. 880)). album (common lambsquarters), back, yellowish underparts, a walnut Streaked horned larks were closely Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot brown nape and yellow eyebrow stripe related to the California samples and pigweed), Trifolium arvense (rabbitfoot and throat (Beason 1995, p. 4). This only distantly related to the three clover) and Kickxia sp. (cancerweed)) subspecies is conspicuously more closest localities (alpine Washington, were common in the winter diet of the yellow beneath and darker on the back eastern Washington, and Oregon); only streaked horned lark (Moore 2008b, p. than almost all other subspecies of one of the eastern Washington 16). horned lark. The combination of small individuals shared the streaked horned Horned larks form pairs in the spring size, dark brown back, and yellow lark haplotype, indicating a single (Beason 1995, p. 11). Altman (1999, p. underparts distinguishes this subspecies example of gene flow from western 11) used a small sample (n=3) of from all adjacent forms. Washington to eastern Washington streaked horned lark territories in the (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 880). There Willamette Valley to give a mean Taxonomy was no evidence of immigration into the territory size of 1.9 acres (0.77 ha) with The horned lark is found throughout streaked horned lark range from any of a range of 1.5 to 2.5 acres (0.61 to 1.0 the northern hemisphere (Beason 1995, the sampled localities. Analyses ha). Horned larks create nests in shallow p. 1); it is the only true lark (Family indicate that the streaked horned lark depressions in the ground and line them Alaudidae, Order Passeriformes) native population is well-differentiated and with soft vegetation (Beason 1995, p. to North America (Beason 1995, p. 1). isolated from all other sampled 12). Female horned larks select the nest There are 42 subspecies of horned lark localities, including coastal California, site and construct the nest without help worldwide (Clements et al. 2011, and has ‘‘remarkably low genetic from the male (Beason 1995, p. 12). entire). Twenty-one subspecies of diversity’’ (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 875). Streaked horned larks establish their horned larks are found in North All 32 streaked horned lark individuals nests in areas of extensive bare ground, America; 15 subspecies occur in shared the same haplotype with no and nests are placed adjacent to clumps western North America (Beason 1995, p. variation between sequences compared. of bunchgrass (Pearson and Hopey 2004, 4). Subspecies of horned larks are based All other localities had multiple pp. 1–2). In the Willamette Valley, nests primarily on differences in color, body haplotypes despite smaller sample sizes are almost always placed on the north size, and wing length. Molecular (Drovetski et al. 2005, pp. 879–880). side of a clump of vegetation or another analysis has further borne out these The lack of mitochondrial DNA object such as root balls or soil clumps morphological distinctions (Drovetski et (mtDNA) diversity exhibited by streaked (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 18). al. 2005, p. 875). Western populations of horned larks is consistent with a Studies from Washington sites (the open horned larks are generally paler and population bottleneck (Drovetski et al. coast, Puget lowlands and the Columbia smaller than eastern and northern 2005, p. 881). The streaked horned lark River islands) have found strong natal populations (Beason 1995, p. 3). The is differentiated and isolated from all fidelity to nesting sites—that is, streaked streaked horned lark was first described other sampled localities, and although it horned larks return each year to the as Otocorys alpestris strigata by was ‘‘* * * historically a part of a larger place they were born (Pearson et al. Henshaw (1884, pp. 261–264, 267–268); Pacific Coast lineage of horned larks, it 2008, p. 11). the type locality was Fort Steilacoom, has been evolving independently for The nesting season for streaked Washington (Henshaw 1884, p. 267). some time and can be considered a horned larks begins in mid-April and There are four other breeding subspecies distinct evolutionary unit’’ (Drovetski et ends in the early part of August of horned larks in Washington and al. 2005, p. 880). Thus, genetic analyses (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11; Moore Oregon: Pallid horned lark (E. a. alpina), support the subspecies designation for 2011, p. 32). Clutches range from 1 to dusky horned lark (E. a. merrilli), the streaked horned lark (Drovetski et 5 eggs, with a mean of 3 eggs (Pearson Warner horned lark (E. a. al. 2005, p. 880), which has been and Hopey 2004, p. 12). After the first lamprochroma), and arctic horned lark considered a relatively well-defined nesting attempt in April, streaked (E. a. articola) (Marshall et al. 2003, p. subspecies based on physical horned larks will often re-nest in late 426; Wahl et al. 2005, p. 268). None of (phenotypic) characteristics (Beason June or early July (Pearson and Hopey these other subspecies breed within the 1995, p. 4). The streaked horned lark is 2004, p. 11). Young streaked horned range of the streaked horned lark, but all recognized as a valid subspecies by the larks leave the nest by the end of the four subspecies frequently overwinter in Integrated Taxonomic Information first week after hatching, and are cared mixed species flocks in the Willamette System (ITIS 2012c). for by the parents until they are about Valley (Marshall et al. 2003, pp. 425– 4 weeks old when they become 427). Life History and Habitat independent (Beason 1995, p. 15). Drovetski et al. (2005, p. 877) Horned larks forage on the ground in Nest success studies (i.e., the evaluated the genetic distinctiveness, low vegetation or on bare ground proportion of nests that result in at least conservation status, and level of genetic (Beason 1995, p. 6); adults feed mainly one fledged chick) in streaked horned diversity of the streaked horned lark on grass and weed seeds, but feed larks report highly variable results. Nest using the complete mitochondrial ND2 insects to their young (Beason 1995, p. success on the Puget lowlands of gene. Samples from 32 streaked horned 6). A study of winter diet selection Washington is low, with only 28 percent

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61946 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

of nests successfully fledging young on the islands in the Columbia River are (Rogers 1999, p. 4). In 2000, MacLaren (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 14, small (less than 100 ac (40 ha)), but are and Cummins (in Stinson 2005, p.63) Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16). adjacent to open water, which provides surveyed several sites recommended by According to reports from sites in the the open landscape context needed. Rogers (1999) including Cattle Point and Willamette Valley, Oregon, nest success Streaked horned lark populations are Lime Kiln Point on San Juan Island. No has varied from 23 to 60 percent found at nearly every airport within the larks were detected in the San Juan depending on the site (Altman 1999, p. range of the subspecies, because airport Islands during either survey effort 1; Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 23). At maintenance requirements provide the (Rogers 1999, p. 4; Stinson 2005, p. 63). one site in Portland, Oregon, Moore desired open landscape context and There are a few historical records of (2011, p. 11) found 100 percent nest short vegetation structure. streaked horned larks on the outer coast success. Although streaked horned larks use a of Washington near Lake Quinault, the Historically, nesting habitat was wide variety of habitats, populations are Quinault River and the Humptulips found on grasslands, estuaries, and vulnerable because the habitats used are River in the 1890s (Jewett et al. 1953, p. sandy beaches in British Columbia, in often ephemeral or subject to frequent 438; Rogers 2000, p. 26). More recent dune habitats along the coast of human disturbance. Ephemeral habitats records reported larks at Leadbetter Washington, in western Washington and include bare ground in agricultural Point and Graveyard Spit in Pacific western Oregon prairies, and on the fields and wetland mudflats; habitats County in the 1960s and 1970s (Rogers sandy beaches and spits along the subject to frequent human disturbance 2000, p. 26). But no larks were detected Columbia and Willamette Rivers. Today, include mowed fields at airports, on the Outer Coast during surveys the streaked horned lark nests in a broad managed road margins, agricultural crop conducted there in 1999 and 2000 range of habitats, including native fields, and disposal sites for dredge (Stinson 2005, p. 63). prairies, coastal dunes, fallow and material (Altman 1999, p. 19). There are scattered records of streaked active agricultural fields, wetland horned larks in the northern Puget Historical Range and Distribution mudflats, sparsely-vegetated edges of Trough, including sightings in Skagit grass fields, recently planted Christmas The streaked horned lark’s breeding and Whatcom Counties in the mid-20th tree farms with extensive bare ground, range historically extended from century (Altman 2011, p. 201). The last moderately- to heavily-grazed pastures, southern British Columbia, Canada, recorded sighting of a streaked horned gravel roads or gravel shoulders of south through the Puget lowlands and lark in the northern Puget Trough was lightly-traveled roads, airports, and outer coast of Washington, along the at the Bellingham Airport in 1962 dredge deposition sites in the lower lower Columbia River, through the (Stinson 2005, p. 52). Columbia River (Altman 1999, p. 18; Willamette Valley, the Oregon coast and Over a century ago, the streaked Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 5; Pearson into the Umpqua and Rogue River horned lark was described as a common and Hopey 2005, p. 15; Moore 2008, pp. Valleys of southwestern Oregon. summer resident in the prairies of the 9–10, 12–14, 16). Wintering streaked British Columbia. The streaked Puget Sound region in Washington horned larks use habitats that are very horned lark was never considered (Bowles 1898, p. 53; Altman 2011, p. similar to breeding habitats (Pearson et common in British Columbia, but local 201). Larks were considered common in al. 2005b, p. 8). breeding populations were known on the early 1950s ‘‘in the prairie country Habitat used by larks is generally flat Vancouver Island, in the Fraser River south of Tacoma’’ and had been with substantial areas of bare ground Valley, and near Vancouver observed on the tide flats south of and sparse low-stature vegetation International Airport (Campbell et al. Seattle (Jewett et al. 1953, p. 438). By primarily comprised of grasses and forbs 1997, p. 120; COSEWIC 2003, p. 5). The the mid-1990s, only a few scattered (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). population declined throughout the breeding populations existed on the Suitable habitat is generally 16–17 20th century (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 13– south Puget Sound on remnant prairies percent bare ground, and may be even 14); breeding has not been confirmed and near airports (Altman 2011, p. 201). more open at sites selected for nesting since 1978, and the subspecies is There are sporadic records of streaked (Altman 1999, p.18; Pearson and Hopey considered to be extirpated in British horned larks along the Columbia River. 2005, p. 27). Vegetation height is Columbia (COSEWIC 2003, p. 15). A Sightings on islands near Portland, generally less than 13 in (33 cm) single streaked horned lark was sighted Oregon, date back to the early 1900s (Altman 1999, p.18; Pearson and Hopey on Vancouver Island in 2002 (COSEWIC (Rogers 2000, p. 27). A number of old 2005, p. 27). Larks eat a wide variety of 2003, p. 16). reports of streaked horned larks from seeds and insects (Beason 1995, p. 6), Washington. The first report of the Columbia River east of the Cascade and appear to select habitats based on streaked horned lark in the San Juan Mountains have been re-examined, and the structure of the vegetation rather Islands, Washington, was in 1948 from have been recognized as the subspecies than the presence of any specific food Cattle Point (Goodge 1950, p. 28). There Eremophila alpestris merrilli (Rogers plants (Moore 2008, p. 19). A key are breeding season records of streaked 2000, p. 27; Stinson 2005, p. 51). On the attribute of habitat used by larks is open horned larks from San Juan and Lopez lower Columbia River, it is probable that landscape context. Our data indicate Islands in the 1950s and early 1960s streaked horned larks breed only as far that sites used by larks are generally (Retfalvi 1963, p. 13; Lewis and Sharpe east as Clark County, Washington, and found in open (i.e., flat, treeless) 1987, p. 148, 204), but the last record Multnomah County, Oregon (Roger landscapes of 300 acres (120 ha) or more dates from 1962, when seven 2000, p. 27; Stinson 2005, p. 51). (Converse et al. 2010, p. 21). Some individuals were seen in July on San Oregon. The streaked horned lark’s patches with the appropriate Juan Island at Cattle Point (Retfalvi range extends south through the characteristics (i.e., bare ground, low 1963, p. 13). The WDFW conducted Willamette Valley of Oregon where it stature vegetation) may be smaller in surveys in 1999 in the San Juan Islands was considered abundant and a size if the adjacent areas provide the (Rogers 1999, pp. 3–4). Suitable nesting common summer resident over a required open landscape context; this habitat was visually searched and a tape hundred years ago (Johnson 1880, p. situation is common in agricultural recording of streaked horned lark calls 636; Anthony 1886, p. 166). In the habitats and on sites next to water. For was used to elicit responses and 1940s, the subspecies was described as example, many of the sites used by larks increase the chance of detections a common permanent resident in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61947

southern Willamette Valley (Gullion Recent studies have found that streaked the population declined (Moore and 1951, p. 141). By the 1990s, the streaked horned larks currently breed on six sites Kotaich 2010, pp. 11–13). This is likely horned lark was called uncommon in in the south Puget Sound. Four of these a common pattern, as breeding streaked the Willamette Valley, nesting locally in sites (13th Division Prairie, Gray Army horned larks shift sites as habitat small numbers in large open fields Airfield, McChord Field, and 91st becomes available among private (Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205; Altman Division Prairie) are on JBLM. Small agricultural lands in the Willamette 1999, p. 18). In the early 2000s, a populations of larks also breed at the Valley (Moore 2008, pp. 9–11). population of more than 75 breeding Olympia Regional Airport and the Port Wintering Range. Pearson et al. pairs was found at the Corvallis of Shelton’s Sanderson Field (airport) (2005b, p. 2) found that the majority of Municipal Airport, making this the (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 23; streaked horned larks winter in the largest population of streaked horned Pearson et al. 2008, p. 3). Willamette Valley (72 percent) and on larks known (Moore 2008, p. 15). On the Washington coast, there are the islands in the lower Columbia River The streaked horned lark, while four known breeding sites: (1) Damon (20 percent); the rest winter on the occasionally present, was never Point; (2) Midway Beach; (3) Graveyard Washington coast (8 percent) or in the reported to be more than uncommon on Spit; and (4) Leadbetter Point in Grays south Puget Sound (1 percent). In the the Oregon coast. The subspecies was Harbor and Pacific Counties. On the winter, most of the streaked horned described as an uncommon and local lower Columbia River, streaked horned larks that breed in the south Puget summer resident all along the coast on larks breed on several of the sandy Sound migrate south to the Willamette sand spits (Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205); islands downstream of Portland, Valley or west to the Washington coast; a few nonbreeding season records exist Oregon. Recent surveys have streaked horned larks that breed on the for the coastal counties of Clatsop, documented breeding streaked horned Washington coast either remain on the Tillamook, Coos, and Curry (Gabrielson larks on Rice, Miller Sands Spit, Pillar coast or migrate south to the Willamette and Jewett 1940, p. 403). Small numbers Rock, Welch, Tenasillahe, Coffeepot, Valley; birds that breed on the lower of larks were known to breed at the Whites/Browns, Wallace, Crims, and Columbia River islands remain on the South Jetty of the Columbia River in Sandy Islands in Wahkiakum and islands or migrate to the Washington Clatsop County, but the site was Cowlitz Counties in Washington, and coast; and birds that breed in the abandoned in the 1980s (Gilligan et Columbia and Clatsop Counties in Willamette Valley remain there over the al.1994, p. 205). There are no recent Oregon (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. winter (Pearson et al. 2005b, pp. 5–6). occurrence records from the Oregon 23; Anderson 2009, p. 4; Lassen 2011, Streaked horned larks spend the winter coast. in litt.). The Columbia River forms the in large groups of mixed subspecies of In the early 1900s, the streaked border between Washington and horned larks in the Willamette Valley, horned lark was considered a common Oregon; some of the islands occur and in smaller flocks along the lower permanent resident of the Umpqua and wholly in Oregon or Washington, and Columbia River and Washington Coast Rogue River Valleys (Gabrielson and some are bisected by the State line. (Pearson et al. 2005b, p. 7; Pearson and Jewett 1940, p. 402). The last confirmed Larks also breed in Portland Altman 2005, p. 7). During the winter of breeding record in the Rogue Valley was (Multnomah County, Oregon) at suitable 2008, a mixed flock of over 300 horned in 1976 (Marshall et al. 2003, p. 425). sites near the Columbia River. These larks was detected at the Corvallis There are no recent reports of streaked include an open field at the Rivergate Municipal Airport (Moore 2011a, pers. horned larks in the Umpqua Valley Industrial Complex and the Southwest comm.). (Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205; Marshall et Quad at Portland International Airport; Population Estimates and Current Status al. 2003, p. 425). both sites are owned by the Port of Portland, and are former dredge spoil Data from the North American Current Range and Distribution deposition fields (Moore 2011, pp. 9– Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) indicate Breeding Range. The streaked horned 12). that most grassland-associated birds, lark has been extirpated as a breeding In the Willamette Valley, streaked including the horned lark, have species throughout much of its range, horned larks breed in Benton, declined across their ranges in the past including all of its former range in Clackamas, Lane, Linn, Marion, Polk, three decades (Sauer et al. 2011, pp. 3– British Columbia, the San Juan Islands, Washington, and Yamhill Counties. 5). The BBS can provide population the northern Puget Trough, the Larks are most abundant in the southern trend data only for those species with Washington coast north of Grays Harbor, part of the Willamette Valley. The sufficient sample sizes for analyses; the Oregon coast, and the Rogue and largest known population of larks is there is insufficient data in the BBS for Umpqua Valleys in southwestern resident at Corvallis Municipal Airport a rangewide analysis of the streaked Oregon (Pearson & Altman 2005, in Benton County (Moore 2008. p. 15); horned lark’s population trend (Altman pp. 4–5). other resident populations occur at the 2011, p. 214). An analysis of recent data The current range of the streaked Baskett Slough, William L. Finley, and from a variety of sources concludes that horned lark can be divided into three Ankeny units of the Service’s the streaked horned lark has been regions: (1) The south Puget Sound in Willamette Valley National Wildlife extirpated from the Georgia Depression Washington; (2) the Washington coast Refuge Complex (Moore 2008, pp. 8–9). (British Columbia, Canada), the Oregon and lower Columbia River islands Breeding populations also occur at coast, and the Rogue and Umpqua (including dredge spoil deposition sites municipal airports in the valley Valleys (Altman 2011, p. 213); this near the Columbia River in Portland, (including McMinnville, Salem, and analysis estimates the current rangewide Oregon); and (3) the Willamette Valley Eugene) (Moore 2008, pp. 14–17). In population of streaked horned larks to in Oregon. 2008, a large population of streaked be about 1,170–1,610 individuals In the south Puget Sound, the horned larks colonized a wetland and (Altman 2011, p. 213). streaked horned lark is found in Mason, prairie restoration site on M–DAC In the south Puget Sound, Pierce, and Thurston Counties, Farms, a privately-owned parcel in Linn approximately 150–170 streaked horned Washington (Rogers 2000, p. 37; Pearson County; as the vegetation at the site larks breed at six sites (Altman 2011, p. and Altman 2005, p. 23; Pearson et al. matured in the following 2 years, the 213). Recent studies have found that 2005a, p. 2; Anderson 2009, p. 4). site became less suitable for larks, and larks have very low nest success in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Washington (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 8); conditions created excellent quality part of the range (Altman 2011, p. 214). comparisons with other ground-nesting ephemeral habitat for streaked horned The streaked horned lark is an birds in the same prairie habitats in the larks and the site was used by about 75 exception to this pattern—its range has south Puget Sound showed that streaked breeding pairs in 2008 (Moore and contracted from both the north and the horned larks had significantly lower Kotaich 2010, p. 12), making M–DAC south simultaneously (Altman 2011, values in all measures of reproductive the second-largest known breeding p. 215). success (Anderson 2010, p. 16). population of streaked horned larks that Summary of Factors Affecting the Estimates of population growth rate (l, year. M–DAC had high use again in Species lambda) that include vital rates from 2009, but as vegetation at the site nesting areas in the south Puget Sound, matured, the number of breeding larks Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), Washington coast, and Whites Island in has declined, likely shifting to other and its implementing regulations at 50 the lower Columbia River indicate that agricultural habitats (Moore and Kotaich CFR part 424, set forth the procedures the Washington population is declining 2010, p. 13). for adding species to the Federal Lists precipitously; one study estimated that We do not have population trend data of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the population of streaked horned larks in Oregon that is comparable to the and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the was declining by 40 percent per year (l study in Washington by Pearson et al. Act, we may list a species based on any = 0.61 ± 0.10 SD), apparently due to a (2008, entire); however, research on of the following five factors: (A) The combination of low survival and breeding streaked horned larks indicates present or threatened destruction, fecundity rates (Pearson et al., 2008, p. that nest success in the southern modification, or curtailment of its 12). More recent analyses of territory Willamette Valley is higher than in habitat or range; (B) overutilization for mapping at 4 sites in the south Puget Washington (Moore 2011b, pers. commercial, recreational, scientific, or Sound found that the total number of comm.). The best information on trends educational purposes; (C) disease or breeding streaked horned lark territories in the Willamette Valley comes from predation; (D) the inadequacy of decreased from 77 territories in 2004 to surveys by the Oregon Department of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) 42 territories in 2007—a decline of over Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); the agency other natural or manmade factors 45 percent in 3 years (Camfield et al. conducted surveys for grassland- affecting its continued existence. Listing 2011, p. 8). Pearson et al. (2008, p. 14) associated birds, including the streaked actions may be warranted based on any concluded that there is a high horned lark, in 1996 and again in 2008 of the above threat factors, singly or in probability of south Puget Sound (Altman 1999, p. 2; Myers and Kreager combination. Each of these factors is population loss in the future given the 2010, p. 2). Point count surveys were discussed below. low estimates of fecundity and adult conducted at 544 stations in the In making this finding, information survival along with high emigration out Willamette Valley (Myers and Kreager pertaining to each of the species in of the Puget Sound. 2010, p. 2); over the 12-year period question in relation to the five factors On the Washington coast and between the surveys, measures of provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is Columbia River islands, there are about relative abundance of streaked horned discussed below. In considering what 120–140 breeding larks (Altman 2011, p. larks increased slightly from 1996 to factors might constitute threats, we must 213). Data from the Washington coast 2008 (Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 11). look beyond the mere exposure of the and Whites Islands were included in the Population numbers decreased slightly species to the factor to determine population growth rate study discussed in the northern Willamette Valley and whether the species responds to the above; populations at these sites appear increased slightly in the middle and factor in a way that causes actual to be declining by 40 percent per year southern portions of the valley (Myers impacts to the species. If there is (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 12). Conversely, and Kreager 2010, p. 11). exposure to a factor, but no response, or nest success is very high at the Portland We do not have conclusive data on only a positive response, that factor is industrial sites (Rivergate and the population trends throughout the lark’s not a threat. If there is exposure and the Southwest Quad). In 2010, nearly all range, but the rapidly declining species responds negatively, the factor nests successfully fledged young (Moore population on the south Puget Sound may be a threat and we then attempt to 2011, p. 13); only 1 of 10 monitored suggests that the range of the streaked determine how significant a threat it is. nests lost young to predation (Moore horned lark may still be contracting. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of 2011, pp. 11–12). Range Contraction There are about 900–1,300 breeding the species such that the species streaked horned larks in the Willamette The streaked horned lark has warrants listing as an endangered or Valley (Altman 2011, p. 213). The experienced a substantial contraction of threatened species as those terms are largest known population of streaked its range; it has been extirpated from all defined by the Act. This does not horned larks breeds at the Corvallis formerly documented locations at the necessarily require empirical proof of a Municipal Airport; depending on the northern end of its range (British threat. The combination of exposure and management conducted at the airport Columbia, and the San Juan Islands and some corroborating evidence of how the and the surrounding grass fields each northern Puget Trough of Washington), species is likely impacted could suffice. year, the population has been as high as the Oregon coast, and the southern edge The mere identification of factors that 100 breeding pairs (Moore and Kotaich of its range (Rogue and Umpqua Valleys could impact a species negatively is not 2010, pp. 13–15). In 2007, a large (580- of Oregon). The lark’s current range sufficient to compel a finding that acre (235-ha)) wetland and native appears to have been reduced to less listing is appropriate; we require prairie restoration project was initiated than half the size of its historical range evidence that these factors are operative at M–DAC Farms on a former rye grass in the last 100 years. The pattern of threats that act on the species to the field in Linn County (Cascade Pacific range contractions for other Pacific point that the species meets the RC&D 2012, p. 1). Large semipermanent Northwest species (e.g., western definition of an endangered or wetlands were created at the site, and meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)) shows threatened species under the Act. the prairie portions were burned and a loss of populations in the northern We considered and evaluated the best treated with herbicides (Moore and part of the range, with healthier available scientific and commercial Kotaich 2010, pp. 11–13). These populations persisting in the southern information in evaluating the factors

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61949

affecting each of the species under introduction of nonnative invasive (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 20). consideration in this proposed rule. species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Since the short flight season of Taylor’s entire; Watts et al. 2007, p. 736). In the checkerspot butterflies directly Factor A. The Present or Threatened south Puget Sound lowlands, the glacial corresponds with their reproductive Destruction, Modification, or outwash soils and gravels underlying period, death of gravid females could Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range the prairies are deep and valuable for lead to population level consequences Under this factor, the primary long use in construction and road building, such as failure of entire populations. term threats to Taylor’s checkerspot which leads to their degradation and These sorts of traffic-collision related butterfly and streaked horned lark are destruction. deaths may disproportionately affect the loss, conversion, and degradation of Since the 1850s, much of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in habitat particularly to agricultural and Willamette Valley of Oregon has been comparison with other butterflies, as urban development, successional altered by development (agricultural many other kinds of butterflies are in changes to grassland habitat, and the and urban). About 96 percent of the flight for periods much longer than just spread of invasive plants. Willamette Valley is privately owned, their reproductive window. The prairies of south Puget Sound and and it is both the fastest growing area in Four historical locales for Taylor’s western Oregon are part of one of the Oregon and the most densely populated. checkerspot butterflies in the south rarest ecosystems in the United States The Willamette Valley provides about Puget Sound region were lost to (Noss et al. 1995, p. I–2; Dunn and half of the state’s agricultural sales, and development or conversion. Dupont, Ewing 1997, p. v). Dramatic changes 16 of top 17 private sector employers Spanaway, and Lakewood were all have occurred on the landscape over the (manufacturing, high technology, forest converted to urban areas, and JBLM last 150 years, including a 90 to 95 products, agriculture, and services) are Training Area 7S became a gravel pit percent reduction in the prairie located there. The population projected (Stinson 2005, pp. 93–96). ecosystem. In the south Puget Sound for 2050 is approximately four million, Streaked Horned Lark. Horned larks region, where most of western or nearly double the current population need expansive areas of flat, open Washington’s prairies historically (Oregon Department of Fish and ground to establish breeding territories. occurred, less than 10 percent of the Wildlife 2006, p. 237). The increase in The large, flat, treeless areas that original prairie persists, and only 3 population will result in increased airports necessarily require have percent remains dominated by native building construction and road become attractive breeding sites for vegetation (Crawford and Hall 1997, pp. development, further impacting the streaked horned larks as native prairies 13–14). In the remaining prairies, many remaining prairies and oak woodlands. and scoured river banks in the Pacific of the native bunchgrass communities Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. The Northwest have declined. Five of the six have been replaced by nonnative habitat of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly streaked horned lark nesting sites pasture grasses (Rogers 2000, p. 41), is highly fragmented across the region remaining in the Puget lowlands are which larks avoid using for territories due to agricultural and low-density located on or adjacent to airports and and nest sites (Pearson and Hopey 2005, residential development. Fragmentation military airfields (Rogers 2000, p. 37; p. 27). In the Willamette Valley, Oregon, due to residential and associated road Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 15). At least native grassland has been reduced from development has led to a reduction of four breeding sites are found at airports the most common vegetation type to native larval host plants and adult in the Willamette Valley, including the scattered parcels intermingled with nectar plants as introduced invasive largest known population at Corvallis rural residential development and plant species, primarily Mediterranean Municipal Airport (Moore 2008, pp. 14– farmland; it is estimated that less than grasses and shrubs such as Scot’s 17). Stinson (2005, p. 70) concluded that one percent of the native grassland and broom, increasingly dominate the if large areas of grass had not been savanna remains in Oregon (Altman et landscape and outcompete native plant maintained at airports, the streaked al. 2001, p. 261). species (see discussion below, under horned lark might have been extirpated Invasives). Construction directly from the south Puget Sound area. Development destroys habitat, as does conversion, Although routine mowing to meet flight Native prairies and grasslands have and may kill any sessile or slow-moving path regulations helps to maintain been severely reduced throughout the organism in the construction footprint grassland habitat in suitable condition range of the Taylor’s checkerspot (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 19). for nesting larks, the timing of mowing butterfly and the streaked horned lark as Unlike many other species of butterflies, is critical. a result of human activity due to Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies spend Mowing during the active breeding conversion of habitat to residential and approximately 50 weeks of their life season (mid-April to late July) can commercial development and cycle as eggs, larvae, or pupae with only destroy nests or flush adults, which may agriculture. Prairie habitat continues to a brief window of time (approximately result in nest failure (Pearson and be lost, particularly to residential 1–2 weeks) as winged adults (Stinson Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson 2005, p. 72). development (Stinson 2005, p. 70) by 2005, p. 78). Commercial and residential Some of the airports in the range of the removal of native vegetation and the development, construction of related streaked horned lark have adjusted the excavation and grading of surfaces and infrastructure including roads, and frequency and timing of mowing in conversion to non-habitat (buildings, conversion of habitat to incompatible recent years to minimize impacts to pavement, other infrastructure). uses such as gravel mining directly larks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 10). Residential development is associated affects Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly In 2011, McChord Air Field at JBLM with increased infrastructure such as larvae by killing individuals and agreed to a mowing regime which new road construction, which is one of destroying habitat. would provide protections to the lark the primary causes of landscape When in flight, butterflies become during their nesting period. fragmentation (Watts et al. 2007, p. 736). subject to mortality from collision with Unfortunately, recent unseasonably wet Activities that accompany low-density vehicles on roads associated with weather hasn’t allowed this strategy to development are correlated with residential development, which is be implemented. WDFW coordinates decreased levels of biodiversity, commonly known to affect animals of mowing schedules at the Olympia mortality to wildlife, and facilitated all sizes, but especially insects Airport to reduce impacts to larks.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

In 2008, the Port of Olympia prepared and troop training activities. Foot traffic peoples of the region, who lived here for an Interlocal Agreement with the and training maneuvers that are at least 10,000 years before the arrival of WDFW that outlines management conducted during the streaked horned Euro-American settlers (Boyd 1986, recommendations and mitigation for lark breeding season likely are a entire; Christy and Alverson 2011, p. impacts to state-listed species from contributing factor to nest failure and 93). Frequent burning reduced the development at the airport. In low nest success at 13th Division encroachment and spread of shrubs and December, 2010, a white paper and Prairie. Recently, a lark nest was trees (Boyd 1986, entire; Chappell and supplemental planning memorandum destroyed at 13th Division Prairie by a Kagan 2001, p. 42), favoring open was developed as part of the Airport porta-potty service vehicle (Linders grasslands with a rich variety of native Master Plan Update (Port of Olympia 2012b, in litt.). Artillery training, off- plants and animals. Following Euro- 2010, entire). This document, which is road use of vehicles and troop American settlement of the region in the outlined in Appendix 2 of the Master maneuvers at the 91st Division Prairie mid-19th century, fire was actively Plan Update, outlines management are also conducted in areas used by suppressed on grasslands, allowing recommendations for the protection of larks during the nesting season. Because encroachment by woody vegetation into critical areas and priority species, access into this training area is limited the remaining prairie habitat and oak including the streaked horned lark. The and streaked horned lark surveys are woodlands (Franklin and Dyrness 1973 recommendations include minimizing only conducted opportunistically, we p. 122; Boyd 1986, entire; Kruckeberg development, retaining open or bare do not know if or how many lark nests 1991, p. 287; Agee 1993, p. 360; Altman ground, and avoiding mowing during are lost due to military activities at 91st et al. 2001, p. 262). the nesting season (March 15 through Division Prairie. Fires on the prairie create a mosaic of August 15) in known or potential lark Industrial development has also vegetation conditions, which serve to nesting areas. Although the Port does reduced habitat available to breeding maintain native prairie forbs like not anticipate any development to occur and wintering larks. The Rivergate Camassia quamash (common camas) in the streaked horned lark nesting areas Industrial Park, owned by the Port of Achillea millefolium (yarrow) and within the next 20 years, the agreement Portland, is a large industrial site in Lomatium spp. (desert parsley or biscuit is not a regulatory document that would north Portland near the Columbia River; root), which are adult nectar foods for preclude future development, which is the site is developed on a dredge spoil Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Stands of a primary source of revenue for the Port. field, and still has some large areas of native perennial grasses (Festuca Airport expansions could result in open space between the industrial idahoensis ssp. roemeri (Roemer’s further losses of some populations. At buildings. Rivergate has been an fescue)) are also well adapted to regular the Olympia Airport, hangars were built important breeding site for streaked fires and produce habitat favorable to in 2005 on habitat used by streaked horned larks, and a wintering site for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. In horned larks for foraging, resulting in a mixed flocks of up to five horned lark some prairie patches fires will reset loss of grass and forb-dominated habitat, subspecies (including the streaked succession back to bare ground, creating which could result in a smaller local horned lark). In 1990, the field used by early successional vegetation conditions population due to reduced habitat larks at Rivergate measured more than suitable for both Taylor’s checkerspot availability for breeding and wintering 260 ha (650 acres) of open sandy habitat butterflies and streaked horned larks larks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 12). (Dillon 2012, pers. comm.). In the years (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 13). The Based on discussions with staff at since, new industrial buildings have historical fire frequency on prairies has Sanderson Field in Shelton, future been constructed on the site; now only been estimated to be 3 to 5 years (Foster development plans do not include one patch of 32 ha (79 acres) of open 2005, p. 8). impacts to streaked horned lark habitat dredge spoil field remains (Moore 2011, The result of fire suppression has at this time. The majority of the p. 9) and the breeding population has been the invasion of the prairies and oak proposed development at Sanderson dropped from 20 pairs to 5 pairs in this woodlands by native and nonnative Field will occur in areas already time (Moore 2011, p. 10). plant species (Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. impacted (between existing buildings). v; Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 146), Loss of Ecological Disturbance The West Ramp at Gray Army Air Field notably woody plants such as the native Processes, Invasive Species, and on JBLM was expanded in 2005 into Douglas-fir and the nonnative Scot’s Succession areas previously used by breeding larks, broom, and nonnative grasses such as resulting in a loss of available breeding The suppression and loss of Arrhenatherum elatus (tall oatgrass) in habitat (Stinson 2005, p. 72). ecological disturbance regimes, such as Washington and Brachypodium At Portland International Airport, fire and flooding, across vast portions of sylvaticum (false brome) in the streaked horned larks nest in an area the landscape has resulted in altered Willamette Valley of Oregon. This called the Southwest Quad; this is an vegetation structure in the prairies and increase in woody vegetation and old dredge material deposition site in a meadows and has facilitated invasion by nonnative plant species has resulted in currently unused part of the airport. The nonnative grasses and woody less available prairie habitat overall and Port of Portland, which owns the vegetation, rendering habitat unusable habitat that is avoided by Taylor’s airport, may propose to develop the for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and checkerspot butterflies and streaked Southwest Quad to accommodate future streaked horned larks. The basic horned larks (Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. expansion, though there is no current ecological processes that maintain 155; Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 2, 27; plan in place (Green 2012, in litt.). The prairies, meadows, and scoured river Olson 2011a, pp. 12, 16). future development of the Southwest banks have disappeared from, or have Most butterflies avoid densely Quad would result in the loss of at least been altered on, all but a few protected forested areas, as they are unable to 33 ac (13 ha) of habitat and three and managed sites. generate enough heat from their own breeding territories (Moore 2011, p. 12). Historically, the prairies and metabolism to provide them with the The 13th Division Prairie at JBLM is meadows of the south Puget Sound heat and energy they need to fly in used for helicopter operations region of Washington and western shaded conditions. Streaked horned (paratrooper practices, touch-and-go Oregon are thought to have been larks prefer areas that afford long sight landings, and load drop and retrievals) actively maintained by the native lines and have low vegetation; both of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61951

which are impeded by the presence of native vegetation is essential to oatgrass is currently encroaching upon trees. maintaining suitable habitat for Taylor’s the largest Taylor’s checkerspot On tallgrass prairies in midwestern checkerspot butterfly, but the timing of butterfly population in Washington North America, fire suppression has led the management activity is important, as (JBLM’s 91st Division Prairie). to degradation and the loss of native improperly-timed actions can destroy Bald habitats at the Forest Service and grasslands (Curtis 1959, pp. 296, 298; larvae, eggs, or adult butterflies. WDNR sites where Taylor’s checkerspot Panzer 2002, p. 1297). On northwestern Management practices such as butterflies are found were formerly prairies, fire suppression has allowed intentional burning and mowing require forested. These areas appear to have Douglas-fir to encroach on and expertise in timing and technique to been colonized by Taylor’s checkerspot outcompete native prairie vegetation for achieve desired results. If applied at the butterfly shortly after they were cleared. light, water, and nutrients (Stinson wrong season, frequency, or scale, fire At the time the trees were harvested 2005, p. 7). On JBLM alone, over 16,000 and mowing can be detrimental to the from each of these balds they were acres (6,477 ha) of prairie has converted restoration of native prairie species. For reforested with conifers to comply with to Douglas-fir forest since the mid-19th example, during a prescribed fire event the Washington State Forest Practices century (Foster and Shaff 2003, p. 284). that was implemented in an adjacent rules. The establishment and growth of Where controlled burns or direct tree training area on JBLM in late summer the conifers, and the establishment and removal are not used as a management 2011, fire occurred in an area containing expansion of Acer macrophyllum tool, this encroachment will continue to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat (bigleaf maple), Holodiscus discolor cause the loss of open grassland habitats that was under a protection agreement. (oceanspray), and other shrubs has for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. This burn was inconsistent with the resulted in shaded habitat which have Restoration in some of the south Puget prescribed burn plan and eliminated a replaced areas that the Taylor’s Sound grasslands in Washington has large area of the Taylor’s checkerspot checkerspot butterfly is currently using. resulted in temporary control of Scot’s butterfly larval host and nectaring Sites that currently have Taylor’s broom and other invasive plants plants on the 91st Division Prairie. checkerspot butterflies present will through the careful and judicious use of Excessive and high intensity burning quickly become unsuitable if trees and herbicides, mowing, grazing, and fire. can result in a lack of vegetation or shrubs are not removed and if the site Fire has been used as a management encourage regrowth to nonnative is not managed specifically for the long- tool to maintain native prairie grasses. Where such burning has term conservation of the Taylor’s composition and structure and is occurred over a period of more than 50 checkerspot butterfly or the generally acknowledged to improve the years on the artillery ranges of the maintenance of bald habitat. This is the health and composition of grassland JBLM, prairies are covered by nonnative case for several balds recently occupied habitat by providing a short-term forbs and grasses instead of native by Taylor’s but no longer supporting the nitrogen addition, which results in a perennial bunchgrasses (Tveten and species, including Bald Hills NAP in fertilizer effect to vegetation, thus aiding Fonda 1999, pp. 154–155). south Puget Sound, and Highway 112 grasses and forbs as they resprout. Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. On and Striped Peak on the Olympic Unintentional fires ignited by military JBLM, the 91st Division Prairie is Peninsula. training burns patches of prairie grasses frequently ignited through routine A large portion of the existing and forbs on JBLM on an annual basis. training exercises involving ordnance, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat on These light ground fires create a mosaic which prevents invasive shrubs and Denman Island in Canada resulted from of conditions within the grassland, nonnative grasses and native Douglas-fir timber harvest. After the area was maintaining a low vegetative structure from encroaching onto the prairie, and logged, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies of native and nonnative plant preserves the high quality of habitat colonized the disturbed area from composition, and patches of bare soil. (larval and nectar food plants) for nearby suitable habitat. Currently, Alnus Because of the topography of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and the rubra (red alder), bigleaf maple, and landscape, fires create a patchy mosaic generally good condition of the prairie. Douglas-fir trees are expanding onto the of areas that burn completely, some Vegetation at this site remains in an site, which will directly threaten the areas that do not burn, and areas where early successional stage that is butterfly habitat there (COSEWIC 2011, consumption of the vegetation is mixed dominated by native grasses and forbs, p. 18). As the forest becomes in its effects to the habitat. One of the such as Balsamorhiza deltoidea (deltoid reestablished on the property, it will benefits to fire in grasslands is that it balsamroot), which is an important shade and outcompete the host plants tends to kill regenerating conifers, and Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly nectar for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly for reduces the cover of nonnative shrubs plant. Fires on grassland (prairie) space, water, light, and nutrients. The such as Scot’s broom, although Scot’s habitat generally have low fuel content population of Taylor’s checkerspot broom seed stored in the soil can be and produce regular, short duration fires butterfly is expected to decline stimulated by fire (Agee 1993, p. 367). (Agee 1993, p. 354; Chappell and Kagan significantly within the next 10 years at Fire also improves conditions for many 2001, p. 43), which restricts the the Canada site if the habitat on Denman native bulb-forming plants, such as establishment of invasive plants and Island is not managed for the species Camassia sp. (camas) (Agee and encroaching trees and helps to maintain (COSEWIC 2011, p. 31). Dunwiddie 1984, p. 367). On sites native grasses and forbs. Swales and Streaked Horned Lark. Prior to the where regular fires occur, such as on overall topographic heterogeneity construction of dams on the Columbia JBLM, there is a high complement of prevent the entire grassland landscape River, annual flooding and scouring native plants and fewer invasive from being consumed by fire, as likely created nesting and wintering species. These types of fires promote the grasslands fires tend to be patchy in habitat for streaked horned larks on maintenance of the native short-statured their distribution creating a mosaic of sandy islands and beaches along the vegetation communities (Severns and conditions. Nonnative grasses have river’s edge (Stinson 2005, p. 67). Once Warren 2008, p. 476) favored by invaded many sites occupied by the dams were in place, Salix spp. Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies (Severns (willows), Populus trichocarpa (black larval and nectar food resources. Fire and Warren 2008, p. 476). Several cottonwood), and other vegetation management to maintain or restore hundred acres (more than 40 ha) of tall established broadly on the sandbars and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

banks (Rogers 2000, pp. 41–42), Sands Spit, the Army Corps of nests and young are present (Pearson resulting in unsuitable habitat for larks. Engineers deposited dredge material on and Hopey 2005, p. 29). In the nesting Loss of these habitats may have been lark breeding habitat, which likely seasons from 2002 to 2004, monitoring partially ameliorated by the formation of resulted in nest failure (Pearson and at the Puget lowlands sites (Gray Army dredge spoil islands that have been Altman 2005, p. 10). The Corps has Airfield, McChord Field, and Olympia established as part of the U.S. Army recently began working with the Center Airport) documented nest failure of 8 Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) shipping for Natural Lands Management to percent of nests caused by mowing over channel maintenance (Stinson 2005, p. coordinate dredge spoil depositions the nests, young, and adults (Pearson 67). with timing of lark breeding season and Hopey 2005, p. 18). Habitat Streaked horned larks currently use (Anderson 2011, in litt.). management to maintain low-stature sand islands in the lower Columbia Dredge spoil deposition also creates vegetation is essential to maintaining River for both breeding and wintering habitat for Caspian terns (Sterna suitable habitat for streaked horned habitat; these islands are a mosaic of caspia), a native bird species that nests larks, but the timing of the management Federal, State, and private lands, but in very large numbers in the lower is important, as improperly-timed there are no management or Columbia River; these large terns have actions can destroy nests and young. conservation plans in place to protect been shown to eat substantial numbers larks or these important habitats. The of salmon smolts, and the reduction of Military Training Corps has a dredging program to predation by terns on young salmon has Populations of Taylor’s checkerspot maintain the navigation channel in the been the focus of an interagency effort butterflies and streaked horned larks Columbia River. In 2002, the Corps for the past decade (Lyons et al. 2011, occurring on JBLM are exposed to established a deeper navigation channel p. 2). One aspect of the effort to reduce differing levels of training activities on in the river, a regular maintenance the numbers of terns in the lower the base. The DOD’s proposed actions dredging program, and a plan for Columbia River has been a program to under ‘Grow the Army’ (GTA) include disposition of dredge material on the discourage tern nesting on Rice Island stationing 5,700 new soldiers, new islands in the lower Columbia River by planting vegetation and placing combat service support units, a combat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service barrier fencing on open sandy habitats; aviation brigade, facility demolition and (USFWS) (USFWS 2002b, pp. 1–14). In these measures have also reduced construction to support the increased this plan, the Corps addressed the habitat available to larks on the island troop levels, additional aviation, disposition of dredge material in the and are ongoing (Stinson 2005, p. 73; maneuver, and live fire training (75 FR lower Columbia River, which has the Roby et al. 2011, p. 14). 55313, September 10, 2010). The potential to both benefit and harm There is ample evidence that larks increased training activities will affect streaked horned larks, depending on the respond positively to habitat nearly all training areas at JBLM location and timing of deposition. management that simulates natural resulting in an increased risk of Recent studies by Anderson (2010a, p. processes. From 2001 through 2004, accidental fires, and habitat destruction 29) on the islands in the lower JBLM used nonbreeding season mowing and degradation through vehicle travel, Columbia River have shown that fresh and controlled burns to control Scot’s dismounted training, bivouac activities, dredge material stabilizes and develops broom (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 30). and digging. While training areas on the sparse vegetation suitable for lark The September 2004 burns resulted in base have degraded habitat for these nesting approximately 3 years after increased lark abundance and a species, with implementation of deposition, and can be expected to dramatic vegetative response on 13th conservation measures, these areas still remain suitable for approximately 2 Division Prairie; relative to the control provide habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot years before vegetation becomes too sites, late summer fire in 2006 resulted butterfly and streaked horned lark. dense. Thus, deposition of dredge in increased use of the burned areas by Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. material can be both a tool for habitat larks immediately after the fires, and in Military training on JBLM has resulted creation and a threat, as deposition of the breeding season following the fires in direct mortality of Taylor’s dredge material at the wrong time (e.g., (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 30). checkerspot butterflies and destruction during the nesting season) can destroy Throughout the year, streaked horned of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat. nests and young or degrade suitable larks use areas of bare ground or sparse Vehicle use and soldier foot traffic can habitat. vegetative cover in grasslands. These crush larvae and damage larval host Destruction of occupied lark habitat grasslands may be native prairies in the plants. These actions disrupt intact through the deposition of dredge Puget lowlands, perennial or annual prairie plant communities by disturbing materials has been documented several grass seed fields in the Willamette vegetation and exposing soils, directly times on the lower Columbia River Valley, or the margins of airport introducing invasive plant seeds carried islands (Stinson 2005, p. 67; Pearson runways throughout the range of the in on tires or boots, and accelerating the and Altman 2005, p. 11; Pearson et al. species. All of these habitats receive rate of establishment of invasive grasses 2008, p. 14). In 2006, dredge spoils were management to maintain desired or other nonnative plants that are light- deposited on Whites Island while larks structure: prairies require frequent seeded and easily blown onto a site were actively nesting. All nests at this burning or mowing to prevent from adjacent areas, like Cirsium spp. site were apparently destroyed (Pearson succession to woodlands; agricultural (thistles), Senecio spp. (groundsel), 2012a, pers. comm.). This site had at fields are mowed at harvest or burned Chrysanthemum leucanthemum (oxeye least 21 nests and 13 territories during to reduce weed infestations; airports daisy). For example, in January 2009 an the 2005 nesting season (Pearson et al. mow to maintain low-stature grasses exercise occurred that did not follow the 2008, p. 21). In a similar situation on around airfields to minimize attracting documented training plan, which would Rice Island, singing males were hazardous wildlife. Burning and have restricted vehicles to established observed on Rice Island in June 2000, mowing are beneficial to larks in that roads in order to protect sensitive but dredge spoil was placed on the site they maintain the habitat structure habitat. Instead vehicles moved in July 2000, which destroyed nesting required by the bird, but these activities haphazardly across an area known to be habitat during the breeding season can also harm larks if the activities occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot (MacLaren 2000, p. 3). In 2004 on Miller occur during the breeding season when butterflies and streaked horned larks.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61953

Approximately 67 ac (27 ha) of prairie Mobility Rodeo. This international Streaked horned larks are not known to were repeatedly traversed by eight military training exercise is held at the nest near the runways at Portland wheeled armored personnel carriers end of July. This event includes aircraft, International Airport, but foraging known as Strykers. DOD staff later vehicles, and tents staged on or near individuals from the nearby Southwest estimated that up to 37.5 ac (15 ha) were lark nesting areas, although the majority Quad could be harassed by the hazing highly disturbed (Gruhn 2009, pers. of these activities take place on concrete program, which could impose resulting comm.), with much of this acreage hardstand areas (Geil 2010, in litt.). In energetic costs. scraped to bare soil (Linders 2009b, even-numbered years, McChord Field JBLM has committed to restrictions entire). This impact would have directly hosts a public air show known as Air both seasonally and operationally on affected overwintering larvae by Expo, which is scheduled in mid-July. military training areas, in order to avoid crushing larvae and destroying the At the Air Expo, aerial events and minimize potential affects to the larvae plants used by Taylor’s incorporate simulated bombing and fire- Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and checkerspot butterflies. bombing, including explosives and streaked horned lark. These restrictions Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly counts pyrotechnics launched from an area include identified non-training areas, were the lowest ever recorded at this adjacent to the most densely populated seasonally restricted areas during site during the following spring (Linders streaked horned lark nesting site at this breeding, and the adjustment of mowing 2009a, entire; Randolph 2009, p. 4; location; these disturbances likely have schedules to protect these species. Thomas 2009, pers. obs). Prior to the adverse effects to fledglings of late nests These conservation management butterfly flight season in May 2009, the (Stinson 2005, p. 72). Surveys in 2004 practices are outlined in an operational three brigades of Strykers were detected 31 pairs of streaked horned plan that the Service has assisted the dispatched away from JBLM and the larks at McChord Field (Anderson 2011, DOD in developing for JBLM (Thomas prairies were not used for Stryker p. 14). In 2006, the number of lark pairs 2012, pers. comm.). training during the spring of 2009 or at McChord Field had dropped by more Restoration Activities 2010, which corresponds to the butterfly than half to 14 pairs, and the number of Management for invasive species and flight period. This training break lark pairs has remained low, with just encroachment of conifers requires allowed Range 74–76 of the 91st 11 pairs detected in 2011 (Anderson control through equipment, herbicides, Division Prairie to regenerate or recover 2011, p. 14). The Rodeo and Air Expo and other activities. While restoration the vegetative qualities associated with events are scheduled to take advantage has conservation value for the species, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and of the good weather that typically management activities to implement streaked horned lark habitat. JBLM has occurs in the summer on the south restoration may also have direct impacts subsequently coordinated with the Puget Sound; this timeframe also Service to establish specific to the species that are the target of coincides with the streaked horned lark habitat restoration. conservation measures regarding vehicle nesting season, and the disturbance may use within this training area. Military Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. On continue to cause nest failure and occupied sites, Taylor’s checkerspot training also occurs on a specific abandonment (Pearson et al. 2005a, p. portion of the 91st Division Prairie butterflies are present throughout the 18). During the airshows, tents, vehicles year in some life cycle form. Restoration called Training Area 50 where Taylor’s and concession stands are set up in the larvae have been translocated during activities (application of herbicides, use grassy areas along the runways used by of restoration equipment, and fire) can spring 2009, 2010, and 2011, and at the streaked horned larks for nesting and proposed checkerspot translocation site result in trampling, crushing and thousands of visitors a day line the at 13th Division Prairie. destruction of Taylor’s checkerspot runways for viewing the shows. Under the GTA initiative, more troops butterfly larvae and larval host plants. and vehicles will be stationed at JBLM; Airports routinely implement a Mowing to reduce the cover and this is likely to result in increased variety of approaches to minimize the competition from woody species, if pressure on Taylor’s checkerspot presence of hazardous wildlife on or done at the wrong time of year, can butterfly habitat and larvae, particularly adjacent to airfields and to prevent crush larval host plants and nectar if the Army continues training on 91st wildlife strikes by aircraft. McChord plants used by adult butterflies on a site. Division Prairie. It is likely that a higher Field uses falcons to scare geese and Streaked Horned Lark. The number of troops will equate to a higher gulls off the airfield, and also uses two introduction of Ammophila arenaria number of individuals recreating on dogs for this purpose; the falcons and (Eurasian beachgrass) and A. JBLM in places like Marion and Jackson dogs are part of McChord Field’s breviligulata (American beachgrass), prairies (this is further discussed under Integrated Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike currently found in high and increasing recreational impacts below). Hazard program and are designed to densities in most of coastal Washington Streaked Horned Lark. Military minimize aircraft and crew exposure to and Oregon, has dramatically altered the training, including bombardment with potentially hazardous bird and wildlife structure of dunes on the outer coast explosive ordnance and hot downdraft strikes (Geil 2010, in litt.). The falcons (Wiedemann and Pickart 1996, p. 289). from aircraft has been documented to and dogs cause streaked horned larks to The tall leaf canopy of beachgrass cause nest failure and abandonment for become alert and fly (Pearson and creates areas of dense vegetation, which streaked horned larks at Gray Army Altman 2005, p. 12), which imposes an is unsuitable habitat for streaked horned Airfield and McChord Field at JBLM energetic cost to adults and could lark nesting (MacLaren 2000, p. 5). (Stinson 2005, pp. 71–72). These expose nests to predation. Portland Streaked horned larks require sparse, activities harass and may kill some International Airport uses a variety of low-stature vegetation with at least 16– streaked horned larks, but the frequent hazing and habitat management tools to 17 percent bare ground; areas invaded disturbance also helps to maintain minimize wildlife hazards. Raptors and by beachgrass are too dense for streaked sparse vegetation and open ground waterfowl pose the greatest danger to horned larks. The area suitable for needed for streaked horned lark nesting. aircraft operations, but the airport’s streaked horned lark breeding on the In the odd-numbered years since Wildlife Hazard Management Plan aims Washington coast has decreased as a 2005, McChord Field has hosted a to reduce the potential for any bird result of the spread of beachgrasses military training event known as the Air strikes (Port of Portland 2009, pp. 5–6). (Stinson 2005, p. 65; USFWS 2011a, p.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61954 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

4–2). In a 10-year period (from 1977 to spring, and contributes to the mortality Transient Agricultural Habitat 1987) at Leadbetter Point on the Willapa of leaf tissue at a time when post- National Wildlife Refuge, spreading diapause larvae are feeding on narrow- The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is beachgrass reduced the available nesting leaf plantain. Narrow-leaf plantain is an not affected by transient agricultural habitat for streaked horned larks by exotic but widely distributed invasive habitat. narrowing the distance from vegetation European weed in North America (Wolff Streaked Horned Lark. Roughly half to water by 112 feet (34 meters) (WDFW and Schaal 1992, pp. 326, 330). of all the agricultural land in the 1995, p. 19). Since 1985, encroaching Although the pathogen is common in Willamette Valley is devoted to grass beachgrasses have spread to cover over Europe it has only recently been seed production fields (Oregon Seed two-thirds of Damon Point at Grays reported in North America (Severns Council 2012, p. 1). Grasslands—both Harbor, another lark breeding site on the 2011, in litt.; Stone et al. 2011, p. 1). rare native prairies and grass seed Washington coast (WDFW 1995, p. 19). Severns and Warren (2008. p. 476) fields—are important habitats for At Damon Point, Scot’s broom is also identified the pathogen on leaves of streaked horned larks in the Willamette encroaching on lark habitat, reducing narrow-leaf plantain from remnant Valley; open areas within the grasslands the area available for nesting (Pearson prairies in Benton County, Oregon, are used for both breeding and 2011, in litt.). On the Oregon coast, the where Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies wintering habitat (Altman 1999, p. 18; disappearance of the streaked horned are known to occur and where they feed Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 11; Myers lark has been attributed to the invasion exclusively on narrow-leaf plantain. and Kreager 2010, p. 9). About 420,000 of exotic beachgrasses and the resultant Similar instances of leaf mortality were ac (170,000 ha) in the Willamette Valley dune stabilization (Gilligan et al. 1994, previously attributed to frost damage on are currently planted in grass seed p. 205). prairies of south Puget Sound, production fields. Demand for grass Some efforts have been successful in Washington. Recently, P. plantaginis reducing the cover of encroaching seed is declining in the current has been identified on narrow-leaf economic climate (Oregon Department beachgrasses. The Service’s Willapa plantain at Scatter Creek Wildlife Area National Wildlife Refuge has restored of Agriculture 2011, p. 1); this decreased in Thurston County, and at the 91st demand for grass seed has resulted in habitat on Leadbetter Point. In 2007, the Division Prairie on JBLM, in Pierce farmers switching to other agricultural area of open habitat measured 84 ac (34 County; both sites are in Washington. ha); after mechanical and chemical commodities, such as wheat or nurseries Uncertainty exists regarding how treatment to clear beachgrass (mostly and greenhouses (U.S. Department of American beachgrass) and spreading Pyrenopeziza plantaginis affects Agriculture—National Agricultural oyster shell across 45 ac (18 ha), 121 ac Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae. Statistical Service Oregon Field Office (50 ha) of sparsely vegetated open The pathogen has been identified 2009, p. 3; Oregon Department of habitat suitable for lark nesting was locally in Washington at sites where Agriculture 2011, p. 1). The continued created (Pearson et al. 2009, p. 23). The Taylor’s checkerspot larvae feed on decline of the grass seed industry in the main target of the Leadbetter Point narrow-leaf plantain. The pathogen kills Willamette Valley will likely result in restoration project was the threatened leaf tissue in late winter and early conversion from grass seed fields to western snowy plover (Charadrius spring, coinciding with the time post- other agricultural types; this will result alexandrinus nivosus), but the diapause larvae are feeding (Severns in fewer acres of suitable breeding and restoration actions also benefited the 2011, in litt.), which would lead to wintering habitat for streaked horned streaked horned lark. Before the declining food resource to support the larks. restoration project, this area had just 2 butterfly’s larvae. If the food resource is killed by this pathogen it may affect the Another potential threat related to streaked horned lark territories (Pearson agricultural lands is the streaked horned et al. 2005a, p. 7); after the project, an ability of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae to survive through the critical lark’s use of ephemeral habitats. In the estimated 8 to 10 territories were breeding season, streaked horned larks located in and adjacent to the larval feeding period prior to emergence will move into open habitats as they restoration area (Pearson 2012b, pers. as an adult butterfly. Therefore, based become available, and as the vegetation comm.). on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, grows taller over the course of the Disease Impacts to Habitat we conclude that disease may be a season, will abandon the site to look for Disease is not known to be a threat to threat to the larval foods utilized by other open habitats later in the season the habitats of the streaked horned lark. Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and, (Beason 1995, p. 6). This ability to shift Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. Until subsequently, may indirectly affect the locations in response to habitat changes recently disease was not known to be a butterfly. At this time, we have evidence is a natural feature of the streaked factor affecting the habitat of the of the presence of this pathogen at horned lark’s life history strategies, as Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. We now Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in breeding in recently disturbed habitats have evidence of a plant pathogen Washington, where the pathogen is part of their evolutionary history. In (Pyrenopeziza plantaginis) known to appears common and its effect to the Willamette Valley, patches of affect the leaf tissue of the narrow-leaf Plantago is severe (Severns 2011, in litt.) suitable habitat in the agricultural fields plantain, the primary larval food for This threat may affect populations if the shift from place to place as fields are Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly at several pathogen were to become widespread burned, mowed, or harvested. Other locations, and the exclusive larval food on sites occupied by Taylor’s suitable sites appear when portions of plant at all sites known from Oregon. At checkerspots; however, because we are grass fields perform poorly, some locations on the north Olympic uncertain of its potential as a inadvertently creating optimal habitat Peninsula, the Taylor’s checkerspot population-level threat, we conclude for larks. The shifting nature of suitable butterflies select harsh paintbrush as the that disease is a relatively minor threat habitat is not in itself a threat; the primary larval food plant and select to Taylor’s checkerspot at this time, and potential threat is in the overall narrow-leaf plantain as the secondary we have no evidence to suggest that it reduction of compatible agriculture, larval host. Pyrenopeziza plantaginis is is likely to become a significant threat which would reduce the area within active in late winter through early within the future. which lark habitat could occur.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61955

Summary of Factor A Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly within checkerspot butterfly for commercial, Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. the south Puget Sound region is found recreational, or educational purposes. Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies face on the 91st Division Prairie of JBLM, a However, scientific studies may have threats from loss of habitat due to site of highly active training that can negatively affected Taylor’s checkerspot conversion of native grasslands to inadvertently result in the destruction of butterfly populations at the 13th agriculture, and permanent loss when larval host plants and crushed larvae. Division Prairie on JBLM (Vaughan and Based on current projected prairies are developed for residential or Black 2002). Over 7,000 individuals development and impacts to habitat, the commercial purposes. Taylor’s were observed as recently as 1997, but loss of historically occupied locations, checkerspot butterflies also face threats only 10 adults were observed during military training, recreation, the limited from changes in vegetation structure surveys in 2000, and no Taylor’s distribution of the species, existing and and composition of native grassland- checkerspot butterflies have been future habitat fragmentation, habitat dominated plant communities. Changes observed since (Stinson 2005, p. 94; disturbance, and land use changes to vegetation structure and composition Linders 2012c, in litt.). Mark-recapture associated with agriculture and long- can occur through conversion to studies were conducted at this site for term fire suppression, we conclude that agriculture, through natural succession several years during this timeframe, and there are current and ongoing threats to the study methods involved capturing processes, and invasion by nonnative Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat species (Agee 1993, p. 345; Chappell all adults and moving them to a single which are expected to continue into the release location. This action likely and Kagan 2001, p. 42). In addition to future. the loss of grasslands from influenced the population Streaked Horned Lark. The streaked demographics, but because no development, conversion to agriculture, horned lark population decline in the and other uses, as well as plant simultaneous population monitoring south Puget Sound of Washington was conducted, it is impossible to know succession, these plant communities are indicates that the observed range faced with degradation due to invasion whether there was an effect. According contraction for this subspecies may be to McGarrahan (1997), mark, release, of the grassland habitat that remains by continuing, and the subspecies may native conifers and nonnative pasture and recapture studies of the Bay Edith’s disappear from that region in the near checkerspot (Euphydryas editha grasses, shrubs, and forbs. As grasslands future. There are many other ongoing have been converted, the availability of bayensis) were considered a threats to the streaked horned lark’s contributing factor in the extirpation of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larval habitat throughout its range, including: host plants and adult nectar plants has this population from Stanford’s Jasper (1) Conversion to agriculture and Ridge Preserve. There are no current declined. industry; (2) loss of natural disturbance In addition, we conclude that disease, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly ‘‘mark, processes such as fire and flooding; (3) release and recapture studies’’ in specifically Pyrenopeziza plantaginis, encroachment of woody vegetation; (4) progress. Collection of butterflies and may pose a potential threat to the larval invasion of coastal areas by nonnative the threat of trampling associated with food plant of the Taylor’s checkerspot, beachgrasses; and (5) incompatible scientific studies continue to be a threat and therefore a potential indirect threat management practices. The continued to the species, although it is likely a to the species. However, we have no loss and degradation of streaked horned minor one. information to suggest that it is lark habitat may result in smaller, more Streaked Horned Lark. Overutilization currently a threat to Taylor’s isolated habitats available to the for commercial, recreational, scientific, checkerspot butterfly. Any threat of subspecies, which could further depress or educational purposes is not known to disease to the larval food plant for this the rangewide population or reduce the be a threat to the streaked horned lark. species has the potential to become a geographic distribution of the streaked threat in the future due to the small horned lark. We conclude that the Summary of Factor B number of remaining populations of current and ongoing threats to streaked Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. However, In summary, although there is some horned lark habitat are resulting in a evidence of historical mortality from based on our review of the best available significant impact to the species and its information, we have no data at this overutilization for the Taylor’s habitat and will continue into the checkerspot butterfly and there may point to suggest that it is likely to future. become a widespread threat in the have been recent mortality from future. Factor B. Overutilization for utilization of the Taylor’s checkerspot The current threats to Taylor’s Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or butterfly, we have no reason to believe checkerspot butterflies are similar to Educational Purposes that current levels of utilization impact the species alone or to a degree such those identified at the time the species Overutilization of species results that it is vulnerable to other threats. We was determined to be a candidate for when the number of individuals have no information to suggest that listing in 2001. Since then, the threat removed from the system exceeds the overutilization will become a threat in from invasive species and their impacts ability of the population of the species the future. In addition, there is no on native vegetation has increased. to sustain its numbers or reduces evidence that commercial, recreational, Other threats, particularly the pressure populations of the species to a level scientific, or educational use is to develop Taylor’s checkerspot such that it is vulnerable to other occurring at a level that would pose a butterfly habitat, have increased on influences (threats) upon its survival. threat to the streaked horned lark. Denman Island, Canada, in south Puget This overutilization can result from Sound, and in the Willamette Valley removal of individuals from the wild for Factor C. Disease or Predation (IAE 2010, p. 1). Moreover, prior to commercial, recreational, scientific or Disease entering two wars in 2003, military educational purposes. training (DOD, Army, JBLM) on Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. Most healthy ecosystems include occupied Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly Populations of Taylor’s checkerspot organisms such as viruses, bacteria, habitat was lower in intensity and butterflies have declined dramatically fungi, and parasites that cause disease. duration. The only remaining high- during the past decade. We know of no Healthy wildlife and ecosystems have quality native habitat occupied by the overutilization of the Taylor’s evolved defenses to fend off most

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

diseases before they have devastating protective mechanisms to avoid nest failures were caused by predation impacts. An ecosystem with high levels predation, and this is true for the at three study sites (Midway Beach, of biodiversity (diversity of species and Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Larvae of Damon Point, and Puget Island) in 2004 genetic diversity within species) is more the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 18). A resilient to the impacts of disease sequester iridoid glycosides (plant study of five sites in the Willamette because there are greater possibilities defensive chemicals) during Valley (Corvallis Airport, M–DAC that some species and individuals consumption of their larval host plants, Farms, William L. Finley, Baskett within a species have evolved narrow-leaf plantain and paintbrush Slough, and Ankeny National Wildlife resistance, or if an entire species is lost, species. These compounds are Refuges) determined that 23 to 58 that there will likely be another species distasteful to predators (COSEWIC 2011, percent of all streaked horned lark nests to fill the empty niche. p. 36) and generalist predators such as were lost to predation (Moore and Where ecosystems are not healthy, insects and spiders avoid checkerspot Kotaich 2010, p. 32). due to a loss of biodiversity and threats larvae (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140). Video cameras were used to identify such as habitat loss, climate change, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae predators in this Willamette Valley pollutants or invasive species, wildlife also tend to be brightly colored, which study; documented predators include: and ecosystems are more vulnerable to makes them highly visible and signals red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), emerging diseases. Diseases caused by the presence of noxious compounds to northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), or carried by invasive species are predators, including birds and some American kestrel (Falco sparverius), particularly severe threats, as native invertebrate predators that avoid great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), wildlife may have no natural immunity Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae and rats and mice (Family Cricetidae) to them (National Wildlife Federation (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 139). However, (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 36). 2012). birds are known to attack and consume Streaked horned larks are ground- Our review of the best available adult butterflies. Bowers et al. (1985, p. nesting birds and are vulnerable to scientific and commercial data found no 101), found avian predation to be a many other potential predators, evidence to indicate that disease is a significant factor in mortality of adult including domestic cats and dogs, threat to the Taylor’s checkerspot variable checkerspot butterflies coyotes (Canis latrans), raccoons butterfly or streaked horned lark. We (Euphydryas chalcedona) They also (Procyon lotor), striped skunks conclude that disease is not a threat to found sex bias in selection of prey as the (Mephitis mephitis), red foxes (Vulpes the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or avian predator ate more female variable vulpes), long-tailed weasels (Mustela streaked horned lark now, nor do we butterflies (less bright red) than male frenata), opossums (Didelphis anticipate it to become a threat in the variable checkerspot butterflies, adding virginiana), meadow voles (Microtus future. support to the idea that brightly colored pennsylvanicus), deer mice (Peromyscus Predation insects are avoided (Bowers 1985 p. maniculatus), and shrews (Sorex spp.) (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson Predation is a process of major 100). This is likely a naturally occurring predation event and we conclude that at 2005, p. 59). importance in influencing the Predation is a natural part of the this time it is currently not a threat, nor distribution, abundance, and diversity streaked horned lark’s life history, and do we expect it to become a threat to of species in ecological communities. in stable populations, the effect of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Generally, predation leads to changes in predation would not be considered a both the population size of the predator Streaked Horned Lark. Predation on threat to the species. However, in the and that of the prey. In unfavorable adult streaked horned larks has not been case of the streaked horned lark, the environments, prey species are stressed identified as a threat, but it is the most effect of predation may be magnified or living at low population densities frequently documented source of when populations are small, and the such that predation is likely to have mortality for eggs and young larks. In disproportionate effect of predation on negative effects on all prey species, thus most studies of streaked horned lark declining populations has been shown lowering species richness. In addition, nesting ecology, predation has been the to drive rare species even further when a nonnative predator is primary documented source of nest towards extinction (Woodworth 1999, introduced to the ecosystem, negative failure (Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson and pp. 74–75). We consider the effect of effects on the prey population may be Hopey 2004, p. 15; Pearson and Hopey predation on streaked horned lark higher than those from co-evolved 2005, p. 16; Pearson and Hopey 2008, p. populations, particularly on the south native predators. The effect of predation 1; Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 32). Puget Sound, to be a threat to the may be magnified when populations are Sixty-nine percent of nest failures were subspecies. small, and the disproportionate effect of caused by predation at four south Puget The one area where predation does predation on declining populations has Sound study sites (Gray Army Airfield, not appear to be a threat to nesting been shown to drive rare species even 13th Division Prairie, Olympia Airport, streaked horned larks is in Portland at further towards extinction (Woodworth McChord Field) in 2002–2004 (Pearson Rivergate Industrial Complex and the 1999, pp. 74–75). and Hopey 2005, p. 18). Anderson Southwest Quad at Portland Predation has an impact on (2006, p. 19) concluded that the primary International Airport. In 2009 and 2010, populations of the Taylor’s checkerspot predators of streaked horned lark eggs nesting success was very high, and only butterfly and streaked horned lark. The and young were avian, most likely a single predation event was degree of threat to Taylor’s checkerspot American crows (Corvus documented at these sites (Moore 2011, butterfly from predation is not as brachyrhynchos), although garter snakes p. 11). The reason for the unusually low pronounced as with the streaked horned (Thamnophis spp.) and western predation pressure may be that the two lark due to the concentration of meadowlarks have also been industrial sites have few predators since defensive plant compounds within the documented preying on eggs and young both sites are isolated from other nearby larvae and adults that make them in the region (Pearson and Hopey 2005, natural habitats. distasteful to predators. p. 16; Pearson and Hopey 2008, p. 4). Predation may have contributed to the Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. On the Washington coast and lower extirpation of streaked horned larks on Generally, butterflies exhibit some Columbia River islands, 46 percent of the San Juan Islands. The subspecies

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61957

was last documented on the islands in constitution, or Federal action under Act, once these regulations are finalized 1962 (Lewis and Sharpe 1987, p. 204). statute. (COSEWIC 2011, p. 44). The introduction of several exotic The following section includes a The horned lark (all subspecies) is animal species to the island roughly discussion of Federal, State, or local also protected under Canada’s Federal coincides with the disappearance of the laws, regulations, or treaties that apply Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 streaked horned lark, including feral to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or (MBCA) (S.C. ch. 22), which is their ferrets (Mustela outorius) and red foxes. the streaked horned lark. It includes domestic legislation similar to the These introduced predators may have legislation for Federal land management United States’ Migratory Bird Treaty Act significantly affected ground nesting agencies and State and Federal of 1918 (MBTA). The MBCA and its birds and played a role in the eventual regulatory authorities affecting land use implementing regulations prohibit the extirpation of streaked horned larks or other relevant management. hunting of migratory nongame birds and (Rogers 2000, p. 42). the possession or sale of ‘‘migratory Canadian Laws and Regulations birds, their nests, or eggs’’ (S.C. ch. 22 Summary of Factor C In British Columbia, Taylor’s §§ 5, 12). Based on our review of the best checkerspot butterfly and the streaked Although British Columbia has no available information, we conclude that horned lark are on the Conservation stand-alone endangered species act, the disease is not a threat to the Taylor’s Data Centre’s Red List. The Red List provincial Wildlife Act protects checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned includes ecological communities, virtually all vertebrate animals from lark now, nor do we expect it to become indigenous species and subspecies that direct harm, except as allowed by a threat in the future. are extirpated, endangered, or regulation (e.g., hunting or trapping). We found only one study with threatened in British Columbia; placing Legal designation as endangered or evidence to indicate that predation from taxa on the Red List flags them as being threatened under this act increases the avian predators may be a threat to the at risk and requiring investigation, but penalties for harming a species, and also Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. While does not confer any protection (British enables the protection of habitat in a predation does occur on the Taylor’s Columbia Ministry of Environment Critical Wildlife Management Area checkerspot butterfly, it does not appear (British Columbia Wildlife Act 1996, 2012, p. 1). to be occurring beyond expected natural accessed online). The streaked horned In 2003, the Taylor’s checkerspot levels; therefore, we do not consider it lark is not listed under Canada’s to be a threat now, and we have no butterfly and in 2005, the streaked provincial Wildlife Act as an information to indicate that it will horned lark were determined to be endangered or threatened species. become a threat in the future. endangered under the Canadian Species To date there is no finalized recovery Because the populations of streaked at Risk Act (SARA) (Environment strategy for Taylor’s checkerspot horned larks are declining and small, Canada 2007, p. iii). SARA makes it an butterfly in Canada (COSEWIC 2011, p. we find that effect of the threat of offense to kill, harm, harass, capture or 44). A majority (97 percent) of the predation is resulting in a significant take an individual of a listed species known populations observed in Canada impact on the species. Therefore, based that is endangered or threatened; occur on private land on Denman on our review of the best available possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an Island, which is not protected from scientific and commercial information, individual of a listed species that is development by individual landowners; we conclude that predation is currently extirpated, endangered or threatened, or approximately 1,173 ac (475 ha) of this a threat to the streaked horned lark now its part or derivative; damage or destroy private land has been officially and will continue to be in the future. the residence of one or more individuals transferred to the government and will of a listed endangered or threatened become a Provincial Park or Ecological Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing species or of a listed extirpated species Reserve (COSEWIC 2011, p. 45). A final Regulatory Mechanisms if a recovery strategy has recommended recovery strategy for the streaked Under this factor, we examine its reintroduction. horned lark was released in 2007 whether existing regulatory mechanisms For many of the species listed under (COSEWIC 2011, p. 40); the streaked are inadequate to address the threats to SARA, the prohibitions on harm to horned lark is essentially extirpated in the species discussed under the other individuals and destruction of Canada, and the recovery goal for this factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act residences are limited to Federal lands, species is to reestablish a breeding requires the Service to take into account but this limitation is inapplicable to population of at least 10 breeding pairs ‘‘those efforts, if any, being made by any migratory birds protected under the at a minimum of 3 sites within its State or foreign nation, or any political Migratory Birds Convention Act, historical breeding range in Canada subdivision of a State or foreign nation, including the streaked horned lark (Environment Canada 2007, p. iv). to protect such species * * *.’’ In (Statutes of Canada (S.C). ch. 29, § 34). Based on our evaluation, we have relation to Factor D under the Act, we Hence, SARA protects streaked horned determined that SARA provides interpret this language to require the larks, where present, from harm and protections for both the Taylor’s Service to consider relevant Federal, destruction of their residences, not only checkerspot butterfly and streaked State, and tribal laws, regulations, and on Federal lands, but also on provincial horned lark given their limited other such mechanisms that may and private lands, where most of the occurrences in British Columbia, and, minimize any of the threats we describe remaining habitat for the species occurs. additionally, the streaked horned lark is in threat analyses under the other four Moreover, SARA mandates afforded protections under the MBCA. factors, or otherwise enhance development and implementation of a conservation of the species. We give recovery strategy and action plans (S.C. United States Federal Laws and strongest weight to statutes and their ch. 29, §§ 37, 47). Invertebrate species Regulations implementing regulations and to assessed by the Committee on the Status There are no Federal laws in the management direction that stems from of Endangered Wildlife in Canada United States that specifically protect those laws and regulations. An example (COSEWIC) as endangered will be the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. The would be State governmental actions protected by the British Columbia Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 enforced under a State statute or Wildlife Act and Wildlife Amendment U.S.C. 703 et seq.) is the only Federal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

law in the United States currently improve the amount and distribution of known as national parks, monuments, providing specific protection for the habitat for these species. JBLM has also and reservations * * * to conserve the streaked horned lark due to its status as provided funding to reintroduce scenery and the national and historic a migratory bird. The MBTA prohibits declining species (e.g., Taylor’s objects and the wildlife therein and to the following actions, unless permitted checkerspot butterfly) into suitable provide for the enjoyment of the same by Federal regulation: habitat on and off military lands. In June in such manner and by such means as To ‘‘pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt 2011, representatives from DOD will leave them unimpaired for the to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, (Washington, DC office) met with all enjoyment of future generations.’’ The sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for conservation partners to assess the NPS Management Policies indicate that shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver success of this program and make the Park Service will ‘‘meet its for transportation, transport, cause to be decisions as to future funding needs. obligations under the National Park transported, carry, or cause to be carried by Support from the Garrison Commander Service Organic Act and the Endangered any means whatever, receive for shipment, of JBLM and all partners resulted in an Species Act to both pro-actively transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird increase in funding for habitat conserve listed species and prevent * * * or any part, nest, or egg of any such management and acquisition projects for detrimental effects on these species.’’ bird.’’ these species on JBLM. This includes working with the Service The Service has worked closely with and undertaking active management There are no provisions in the MBTA the DOD to develop protection areas programs to inventory, monitor, restore, that prevent habitat destruction unless within the primary habitat for Taylor’s and maintain listed species habitats, direct mortality or destruction of active checkerspot butterfly on JBLM. These among other actions. nests occurs (for example, as was include areas where no vehicles are The National Forest Management Act described in Factor A, above, for dredge permitted on occupied habitat, where (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B) has required the spoil disposal in the breeding season), vehicles will remain on roads only, and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s nor does the MBTA require any where foot traffic is allowed. (USDA) Forest Service to incorporate planning to recover declining species or JBLM policies include Army standards and guidelines into Land and provide funding to protect individuals Regulation 420–5, which covers the Resource Management Plans, including or their habitats. Therefore, we conclude INRMP, and AR–200–1. This is an provisions to support and manage plant that the MBTA does not address threats agreement between each troop and DOD and animal communities for diversity to the streaked horned lark from further management that actions taken by each and for the long-term, rangewide population declines associated with soldier will comply with restrictions viability of native species. The final habitat loss or inappropriate placed on specific Training Areas, or planning rule (2012 rule, 36 CFR part management. range lands. Within the INRMP, the 219) provides a framework to guide the The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670) wildlife branch of the DOD developed collaborative and science-based authorizes the Secretary of Defense to updated Endangered Species development, amendment and revision develop cooperative plans with the Management Plans (ESMPs) that of land management plans. This Secretaries of Agriculture and the provide site specific management and framework is designed to promote Interior for natural resources on public protection actions that are taken on healthy, resilient, diverse, and lands. The Sikes Act Improvement Act military lands for the conservation of productive national forests and of 1997 requires Department of Defense Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and grasslands with a range of social, installations to prepare Integrated streaked horned lark. The ESMPs economic, and ecological benefits now Natural Resource Management Plans provide assurances of available funding, and for future generations. In the face of (INRMPs) that provide for the and an implementation schedule that changing environmental conditions and conservation and rehabilitation of determines when certain activities will stressors, such as a changing climate, natural resources on military lands occur and who will accomplish these the 2012 rule requires plans to include consistent with the use of military actions. ESMPs require regular updates plan components to: (1) Maintain and installations to ensure the readiness of to account for dispersal of animals, or restore ecosystem and watershed health the Armed Forces. INRMPs incorporate, for activities to enhance habitat for and resilience (ecological integrity); (2) to the maximum extent practicable, animals that may have been translocated protect key resources on the unit, ecosystem management principles and to a new habitat patch. INRMPs also including water, air, and soil; and (3) provide the landscape necessary to have a monitoring component that address water quality and riparian area sustain military land uses. While would require modifications, or protection and restoration. INRMPs are not technically regulatory adaptive management, to planning The 2012 rule contains a strong mechanisms because their actions when the result of that specific implementation approach to provide for implementation is subject to funding action may differ from the intent of the the diversity of plant and animal availability, they can be an added planned action. Based on the military’s communities and the persistence of conservation tool in promoting the efforts, we conclude that although native species in the plan area. This recovery of endangered and threatened military actions may continue to harm approach requires that plans use a species on military lands. individuals of the species, through the complementary ecosystem and species- On JBLM in Washington, several Sikes Act, the JBLM INRMP protects the specific approach to maintaining the policies and an INRMP are in place to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and diversity of plant and animal provide conservation measures to streaked horned lark from further communities and the persistence of grassland-associated species that occupy population declines associated with native species in the plan area. The training lands on the military base. habitat loss or inappropriate intent is to provide the ecological JBLM in partnership with local agencies management on JBLM properties. conditions (habitat) necessary to keep and nongovernmental organizations has The National Park Service Organic common native species common, provided funding to conserve these Act of 1916, as amended (39 Stat. 535, contribute to the recovery of threatened species through the acquisition of new 16 U.S.C. 1), states that the National and endangered species, conserve conservation properties and Park Service (NPS) ‘‘shall promote and proposed and candidate species, and management actions intended to regulate the use of the Federal areas maintain viable populations of each

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61959

species of conservation concern within populations of key wildlife species on habitat is not protected (RCW the plan area. The 2012 rule requires refuge lands. The Taylor’s checkerspot 77.15.120). The Taylor’s checkerspot that plans provide the ecological butterfly is not known to occur on any butterfly and streaked horned lark are conditions necessary to contribute to the NWR. However, streaked horned larks listed by the WDFW and are listed as recovery of threatened and endangered occur on the Willapa National Wildlife critically imperiled (S1) by the species, and to conserve candidate and Refuge on the Washington coast and in Washington Natural Heritage Program. proposed species. In addition, the the Willamette Valley Complex on the State listings generally consider only the requirements for restoration and William L. Finley, Ankeny, and Baskett status of the species within the State’s ecological sustainability are intended to Slough Refuges. The CCPs for the borders, and do not depend upon the reduce the risk that species will become Willapa Refuge and all the units in the same considerations as a potential listed as an endangered or a threatened Willamette Valley Complex contain Federal listing. Unoccupied or species in the future. habitat conservation measures to unsurveyed habitat is not protected On USDA Forest Service (FS) lands, address threats such as habitat unless by County prairie ordinances or management for listed and candidate degradation and benefit streaked horned other similar rules or laws. species, as well as species of concern, larks; measures include surveys, habitat Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and follow FS Sensitive Species policy enhancement, and removal of invasive streaked horned lark are Priority Species (Kerwin and Huff 2007, p. 6). For the plants (USFWS 2011a, p. 2–34; USFWS under WDFW’s Priority Habitats and FS, these policies require the agency to 2011b, pp. 2-47–2-48). The joint CCP for Species Program (WDFW 2008, pp. 19, maintain viable populations of all native the Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler 80, 120). As Priority Species, the and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, Hansen Refuges in the lower Columbia Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and and plant species in habitats distributed River states that streaked horned larks streaked horned lark may benefit from throughout their geographic range on do not occur on the refuges, although some protection of their habitats under National Forest System lands. they do occur on suitable habitats near environmental reviews of applications Management ‘‘must not result in a loss the refuge parcels (USFWS 2010, p. 4– for county or municipal development of species viability or create significant 37). The joint CCP identifies actions to permits (Stinson 2005, pp. 46, 70). For trends toward Federal listing’’ for any benefit streaked horned larks on off- Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, WDFW identified Sensitive Species (Kerwin refuge lands (but that are within the has developed a recommended and Huff 2007, p. 6). refuge acquisition boundary), including approach to protect the species on The Olympic National Forest is in the working with the U.S. Army Corps of private property. Their approach is non- process of developing site management Engineers to manage the dredge spoil regulatory and encourages landowners plans for each location where Taylor’s deposition program to benefit larks to engage in cooperative efforts to checkerspot butterfly is known to occur. (USFWS 2010, pp. 2-29–2-30). protect and conserve Taylor’s This planning document will call for CCPs detail program planning levels checkerspot butterfly habitat. However, restoration actions to remove that are sometimes substantially above State regulatory mechanisms appear to encroaching conifers and shrubs, current budget allocations, and as such, be insufficient to protect these species nonnative plant removal and control, are primarily used for strategic planning in areas where permits are not required road management, and may possibly and priority setting; inclusion of a or requested. We therefore conclude that include planting or seeding of larval project in a CCP does not guarantee that Washington State regulatory host plants (Holtrop 2010, p. 7). Because the project will be implemented. The mechanisms are inadequate to protect this planning process is not finished, CCPs at the Willapa and Willamette the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and however, we do not rely on it in our Valley National Wildlife Refuges the streaked horned lark and do not assessment of the adequacy of Forest specifically provides for the protect these species from further Service regulatory mechanisms. As a conservation of the streaked horned population declines associated with Federal candidate species, the Taylor’s lark, and implementation of the habitat loss or inappropriate checkerspot butterfly receives support conservation measures in the refuge management. from the Forest Service Interagency CCPs could benefit as many as 10 Under the Washington State Forest Special Status and Sensitive Species nesting pairs of larks at Willapa Practices Act (RCW 76.09 accessed Program (Huff, 2011, pers. comm.). (USFWS 2011a, pp. 4-44–4-45) and online 2012), WDNR must approve Based on our review, we conclude that likely more than 50 pairs at the three certain activities related to growing, the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and Willamette Valley refuges (Moore 2009, harvesting or processing timber on all streaked horned lark are protected from pp. 5–9). These actions may improve the local government, State, and privately further population declines associated status of streaked horned larks on the owned forest lands. WDNR’s mission is with habitat loss or inappropriate refuges. Therefore based on our review, to protect public resources while management on FS lands, and the we conclude that the streaked horned maintaining a viable timber industry. inadequacy of existing regulations lark is protected from further population The primary goal of the forest practices under the National Forest Management declines associated with habitat loss or rules is to achieve protection of water Act is not a threat to these species. inappropriate management on NWR quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and The National Wildlife Refuge System lands, and the inadequacy of existing capital improvements while ensuring Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to that harvested areas are reforested. 668dd et seq.) establishes the protection the species on NWR lands. Presently, the Washington State Forest of biodiversity as the primary purpose Practices Rules do not specifically of the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) State Laws and Regulations protect Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies system. This has led to various Although there is no State or streaked horned larks; only the management actions to benefit the Endangered Species Act in Washington, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly actually federally listed species including the Washington Fish and Wildlife occurs within areas where Forest development of Comprehensive Commission has authority to list species Practices Rules might apply. Conservation Plans (CCP) on NWRs. (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Landowners have the option to develop CCPs typically set goals and list needed 77.12.020). State-listed species are a management plan for the species if it actions to protect and enhance protected from direct take, but their resides on their property, or if

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

landowners choose to not develop a lands in Oregon may provide benefits County staff use the known presence management plan for the species with for these species. or historical locations of the Taylor’s WDFW, their forest practices Based on our review of State checkerspot or streaked horned lark to application will be conditioned to regulatory mechanisms for the States of determine whether these species may be protect this public resource. If this Washington and Oregon, we conclude present at a site and impacted by the approach does not provide the required that they do not protect the Taylor’s land use activity. After a field review, if protections for the Taylor’s checkerspot checkerspot butterfly and the streaked one of these species is found on the site, butterfly, then WDFW and WDNR may horned lark from further population the County requires a habitat request the Forest Practice Board to declines associated with habitat loss or management plan (HMP) to be initiate rule making, and possibly, an inappropriate management. developed, typically by a consultant for emergency rule would be developed the landowner, in accordance with (Whipple 2008, pers. comm.). Local Laws and Regulations WDFW’s management The WDNR also manages The Washington State Growth recommendations. This HMP specifies approximately 66,000 ac (26,710 ha) of Management Act of 1990 requires all how site development should occur, lands as Natural Area Preserves (NAP). jurisdictions in the state to designate and assists developers in achieving NAPs provide the highest level of and protect critical areas. The state compliance with CAO requirements to protection for excellent examples of defines five broad categories of critical minimize impact to the prairie habitat unique or typical land features in areas, including: (1) Wetlands; (2) areas and species. The HMPs typically Washington State. These NAPs provide with a critical recharging effect on include onsite restoration and protection for the Taylor’s checkerspot aquifers used for potable water; (3) fish enhancement activities. Mitigation for butterfly and therefore, based on their and wildlife habitat conservation areas; prairie impacts may also be required, proactive management, we do not find (4) frequently flooded areas; and (5) on-site or off (Thurston County 2012, p. Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to be geologically hazardous areas. Quercus 2). threatened by the inadequacy of existing garryana (Oregon white oak) habitat and In Clallam, Pierce, and Mason regulatory mechanisms on WDNR lands. prairie both predominantly fall into the Counties, specific critical area Oregon has a State Endangered category of fish and wildlife habitat ordinances have not been identified for Species Act (ESA), which was last conservation areas, though due to the the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or the updated in 1998. The streaked horned coarse nature of prairie soils and the streaked horned lark. However, prairie lark is not State-listed, and the State presence of wet prairie habitat across habitats and species garner some does not protect invertebrates like the the landscape, critical area protections protection under Fish (or Aquatic) and Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly under the for crucial aquifer recharge areas and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas State ESA (Oregon ESA 2004, p. 3). The wetlands may also address prairie (Mason County 2009, p. 64; Clallam list of threatened and endangered County 2012, Part Three, entire; Pierce habitat protection. species tracked by the Oregon County 2012, pp. 18E.40–1–3). All Within counties, the CAO applies to Department of Fish and Wildlife does developments within these areas are not include insects, and does not all unincorporated areas, but required to: preserve and protect habitat classify the streaked horned lark with incorporated cities are required to adequate to support viable populations any conservation status. However, once independently address critical areas of native wildlife (Clallam County 2012, an Oregon ‘‘native wildlife’’ species is within their Urban Growth Area. The Part Three, entire); to achieve ‘‘no net federally listed as threatened or incorporated cities within the range of loss’’ of species and habitat where, if endangered, it is included as a State- the streaked horned lark and the altered, the action may reduce the listed species and receives some Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are: (1) likelihood that these species survive protection and management, primarily Shelton (Mason County); and (2) and reproduce over the long term on State-owned or managed lands (OAR Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, Tenino and (Pierce County 2012, p. 18E.40–1); and 635–100–0100 to OAR 635–100–0180; Yelm (Thurston County), all in the State support viable populations and protect ORS 496.171 to ORS 496.192). of Washington. habitat for Federal or State listed * * * The Oregon Forest Practices Act (ORS In 2009, the Thurston County Board fish or wildlife (Mason County 2009, p. 527.610 to 527.992 and OAR Chapter of Commissioners adopted Interim 63). While these regulations are likely 629, Divisions 600 to 665) lists Ordinance No. 14260, which adequate for the management of species protection measures specific to private strengthened protections for prairie and with stable populations and large and State-owned forested lands in Oregon white oak habitat in ranges, the loss of individual animals Oregon. These measures include consideration of the best available can have a cumulative impact specific rules for resource protection, science. The County worked with the deleterious to species facing a wide including threatened and endangered Service and WDFW to include an up-to- range of other threats and that already species, riparian areas along lakes, date definition of prairie habitat and to have decreased numbers of individuals streams, springs and seeps; and delineate soils where prairie habitat is or populations. wetlands. Compliance of the forest likely to occur. In July 2010, the County-level CAOs do not apply to practice rules does not substitute for or ordinance was renewed and amended, incorporated cities within county ensure compliance with the Federal including revisions to the prairie soils boundaries, thus the incorporated cities Endangered Species Act. Landowners list and changes to administrative of Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, Yelm, and operators are advised that Federal language. Since July 2010, the interim and Tenino that overlap the range of the law prohibits a person from taking prairie ordinance has been renewed on Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the certain threatened or endangered a 6-month basis and is currently in streaked horned lark do not provide the species which are protected under the place. Several prairie species were also same specificity of protection for these Endangered Species Act (OAR 629–605– included as important species subject to taxa as the Thurston County CAO. 0105). Although neither the streaked critical areas regulation, including the Below we address the relevant city horned lark nor the Taylor’s checkerspot Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and ordinances that overlap these species’ butterfly are forest-dependent species, streaked horned lark (Thurston County ranges. We conclude below with a protective measures taken on forest 2012, p. 1). summary of whether we deem these city

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61961

ordinances adequate for the defined as State monitor or candidate The City of Shelton. The CAO for the conservation of the Taylor’s checkerspot species where Tumwater is a significant city of Shelton (Mason County) specifies and the streaked horned lark. portion of its range such that a compliance with the PHS through The City of Olympia. The City of significant reduction or elimination of designation of habitat conservation Olympia’s municipal code states that the species from Tumwater would result areas (HCAs) (Shelton Municipal Code ‘‘The Department [City] may restrict the in changing the status of the species to (SMC) 21.64.300 B1), indicating that uses and activities of a development that of State endangered, threatened, or where HCAs are designated, proposal which lie within one thousand sensitive (TMC 16.32.055 A3). development will be curtailed (SMC feet of important habitat or species The City of Yelm. The municipal code 21.64.010 B) except at the discretion of location,’’ defined by Washington of Yelm states that it will ‘‘regulate all the director (city), who may allow State’s Priority Habitat and Species uses, activities, and developments single-family development at such sites (PHS) Management Recommendations within, adjacent to, or likely to affect without a critical areas assessment of 1991, as amended.’’ (Olympia one or more critical areas, consistent report if development is not believed to Municipal Code (OMC) 18.32.315 B). with the best available science’’ (Yelm directly disturb the components of the When development is proposed within Municipal Code/(YMC) 14.08.010E4f) HCA (SMC 21.64.360 B). 1,000 feet of habitat of a species and mandates that ‘‘all actions and Summary. Each city’s CAO has been designated as important by Washington developments shall be designed and crafted to preserve the maximum State, the Olympia CAO requires the constructed to avoid, minimize, and amount of biodiversity while at the preparation of a formal ‘‘Important restore all adverse impacts.’’ Further, it same time encouraging high density Habitats and Species Management Plan’’ states that, ‘‘no activity or use shall be development within their respective unless waived by the WDFW (OMC allowed that results in a net loss of the Urban Growth Areas. Each city requires 18.32.320). functions or values of critical areas’’ that potential fish and wildlife habitat The City of Lacey. The City of Lacey (YMC 14.08.010 G) and ‘‘no be surveyed by qualified professional CAO includes in its definition of critical development shall be allowed within a habitat biologists as development is area any area identified as habitat for a habitat conservation area or buffer proposed. A Habitat Conservation Area Federal or State endangered, threatened, which state or federally endangered, (HCA) is determined according to the or sensitive species or State listed threatened, or sensitive species have a WDFW Priority Habitat and Species list. priority habitat and calls these Habitat primary association, except that which If an HCA is identified at a site, the Conservation Areas (HCAs) (Lacey is provided for by a management plan development of the parcel is then Municipal Code (LMC) 14.33.060). established by WDFW or applicable subject to the CAO regulations. These areas are defined through state or federal agency’’ (YMC Mitigation required by each city’s CAO individual contract with qualified 14.080.140 D1a). The City of Yelm prioritizes reconsideration of the professional biologists on a site by site municipal code states that by ‘‘limiting proposed development action in order basis as development is proposed. The development and alteration of critical to avoid the impact to the HCA. code further states that ‘‘No areas’’ it will ‘‘maintain healthy, For the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly development shall be allowed within a functioning ecosystems through the and streaked horned lark, only known habitat conservation area or buffer [for protection of unique, fragile, and or historical locations are considered a habitat conservation area] with which valuable elements of the environment, prior to applying the CAOs. There are state or federally endangered, and * * * conserve the biodiversity of currently no WDFW Priority Habitat and threatened, or sensitive species have a plant and animal species’’ (17.08.010 Species Recommendations for these primary association’’ (LMC 14.33.117). A4b) . species and no surveys are completed The City of Tumwater. The City of The City of Tenino. The City of for these species in suitable habitats that Tumwater CAO outlines protections for Tenino municipal code gives may be affected by development or site Habitat Critical Areas and for ‘‘habitats Development Regulations for Critical disturbance. and species of local importance.’’ Areas and Natural Resource Lands that Connectivity of populations, Tumwater’s Habitat Critical Areas are include fish and wildlife habitat areas abundance of resources (prey species or established on a case-by-case basis by a (Tenino Municipal Code (TMC) food plants), and undisturbed habitat ‘‘qualified professional’’ as development 18D.10.030 A) and further ‘‘protects are three primary factors affecting plant is proposed and the Habitat Critical unique, fragile, and valuable elements of and animal populations. The piecemeal Areas are required to be consistent with the environment, including critical fish pattern that development unavoidably the ‘‘recommendations issued by the and wildlife habitat’’ (TMC 18D.10.030 exhibits is difficult to reconcile with the Washington State Department of Fish D). The City of Tenino references the needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot and Wildlife’’ (Tumwater Municipal DNR Critical Areas Fish and Wildlife butterfly and streaked horned lark Code (TMC) 16.32.60). Species of local Habitat Areas-Stream Typing Map and within a given Urban Growth Area. importance are defined as locally the WDFW PHS Program and PHS Maps Further, previously common species significant species that are not State- as sources to identify fish and wildlife may become uncommon due to listed as threatened, endangered, or habitat (TMC 18D.10.140 E1, 2). The disruption by development, and sensitive, but live in Tumwater and are City also defines critical fish and preservation of small pockets of habitat of special importance to the citizens of wildlife species habitat areas as those is unlikely to prevent extirpation of Tumwater for cultural or historical areas known to support or have ‘‘a some species without intensive species reasons, or if the city is a critically primary association with State or management, which is beyond the scope significant portion of its range (TMC Federally listed endangered, threatened, of these individual CAOs. The Taylor’s 16.32.055 A). Tumwater is considered a or sensitive species of fish or wildlife checkerspot butterfly and the streaked ‘‘critically significant portion of a (specified in 50 CFR 17.11, 50 CFR horned lark have been affected by species’ range’’ if the species’ 17.12, WAC 232–12–011) and which, if habitat loss through development and population would be divided into altered, may reduce the likelihood that conversion. Protective measures nonviable populations if it is eliminated the species will survive and reproduce undertaken while development of lands from Tumwater’’ (TMC 16.32.055 A2). over the long term.’’ (TMC 18D.40.020A, is taking place may provide benefits for Species of local importance are further B). these species; however, based on our

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

review of the Washington County and weighing the various impacts to Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade State regulatory mechanisms, we resources from land use. Based on our Factors Affecting Its Continued conclude that these measures are review of Oregon State regulatory Existence currently inadequate to protect the mechanisms, we conclude that they are Low Genetic Diversity, Small or Isolated Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and the inadequate to protect the Taylor’s Populations, and Low Reproductive streaked horned lark from further checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned Success population declines associated with lark from further population declines habitat loss, inappropriate management associated with habitat loss or Most species’ populations fluctuate and loss of connectivity. inappropriate management. naturally, responding to various factors In Oregon, the Land Conservation and such as weather events, disease, and Development Commission in 1974 Summary of Factor D predation. Johnson (1977, p.3), however, adopted ‘‘Goal 5’’ a broad Statewide suggested that these factors have less planning goal that covers more than a In summary, the existing regulatory impact on a species with a wide and dozen resources, including wildlife mechanisms described above are not continuous distribution. Populations habitats and natural areas. Goal 5 and sufficient to significantly reduce or that are small, fragmented, or isolated related Oregon Administrative Rules remove the existing threats to the by habitat loss or modification of (Chapter 660, Divisions 16 and 23) Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the naturally patchy habitat, and other describe how cities and counties are to streaked horned lark. The Canadian human-related factors, are more plan and zone land to conserve recovery strategy is a positive forward vulnerable to extirpation by natural resources listed in the goal. step for the streaked horned lark, randomly occurring events, cumulative Goal 5 and its rules establish a five- although, as the species is thought to be effects, and to genetic effects that plague step planning process for Oregon’s cities extirpated from Canada, it is unlikely to small populations, collectively known and counties: (1) Inventory local result in a change in the streaked as small population effects. These occurrences of resources listed in Goal horned lark’s downward trend across its effects can include genetic drift (loss of 5 and decide which ones are important; range. Lack of essential habitat recessive alleles), founder effects (over (2) Identify potential land uses on or protection under State laws leaves these time, an increasing percentage of the near each resource site and any conflicts species at continued risk of habitat loss population inheriting a narrow range of that might result; (3) Analyze economic, and degradation in Washington and traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading social, environmental, and energy Oregon. National Wildlife Refuges to increasingly lower genetic diversity, consequences of such conflicts; (4) provide important protections for with consequent negative effects on Decide whether the resource should be streaked horned lark habitat in evolutionary potential. fully or partially protected, and justify Washington and Oregon. Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. the decision; and, (5) Adopt measures Although the genetic diversity and such as zoning to put that policy into On JBLM, regulations applying to the population structure of the Taylor’s effect. This five-step Goal 5 process was Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the checkerspot butterfly is unknown, a loss established by rules adopted in 1982, streaked horned lark are covered by the of genetic diversity may have occurred and revised in 1996. The revisions current INRMP and ESMP. We find that as a result of geographic isolation and tailored the process to the individual the military training, as it currently fragmentation of habitat patches across resources covered by the Goal. occurs, causes direct mortality of the distribution of the existing Local governments shall identify individuals and impacts habitat for the populations. Dispersal of individuals conflicting uses that exist, or could Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and directly affects the genetic composition occur, with regard to significant Goal 5 streaked horned larks in all areas where of populations and possibly the resource sites. A local government may training and the species overlap; abundance of individuals in a determine that one or more significant however, these management plans population (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. Goal 5 resource sites are conflicting uses sufficiently provide for the long-term 59). For other subspecies of Edith’s with another significant resource site. conservation of these species on the checkerspot and their closely related Local governments shall analyze the military base. Therefore, we do not find European relative Melitaea, small consequences that could result from existing regulatory mechanisms to be populations led to a high rate of decisions to allow, limit, or prohibit a inadequate on JBLM lands. inbreeding (Boggs and Nieminen 2004, conflicting use. The local government The Washington CAOs generally p. 98). The Service is currently shall determine the level of protection provide conservation measures to partnering with WDFW to explore questions of genetic relatedness in the for each significant site. Local minimize habitat removal and direct subpopulations of Taylor’s checkerspot governments shall determine whether to effects to the Taylors’ checkerspot allow, limit, or prohibit identified butterflies. Due to its small population butterfly and streaked horned lark. conflicting uses for significant resource size and fragmented distribution, we However, habitat removal and sites. A local government may decide conclude that these negative factors degradation, direct loss of individuals, that the conflicting use should be associated with small population size, increased fragmentation, decreased allowed fully, notwithstanding the as well as the potential historical loss of connectivity, and the lack of consistent possible impacts on the resource site. genetic diversity, may contribute to regulatory mechanisms to address the In summary, Goal 5 is a required further population declines for the threats associated with these effects planning process that allows local Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. governments to make decisions about continues to occur. Streaked Horned Lark. Genetic land use regulations and whether to Based upon our review of the best analysis has shown that streaked horned protect the individual resources based commercial and scientific data larks have suffered a loss of genetic upon potential conflicts involving available, we conclude that the existing diversity due to a population bottleneck economic, social, environmental, and regulatory mechanisms are not adequate (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881), the effect energy consequences. It does not require to reduce the threats to the Taylor’s of which may be exacerbated by minimum levels of protections for checkerspot butterfly and streaked continued small total population size. In natural resources, but does require horned lark now or in the future. general, decreased genetic diversity has

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61963

been linked to increased chances of that the south Puget Sound population likely’’ (defined by the IPCC as 90 inbreeding depression, reduced disease could become extirpated in the near percent or higher probability) due to the resistance, and reduced adaptability to future (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 1, 14, observed increase in greenhouse gas environmental change, leading to 15). (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere reduced reproductive success (Keller In 2011, a project was initiated to as a result of human activities, and Waller 2002, p. 235). increase genetic diversity in the south particularly carbon dioxide emissions Recent studies in Washington have Puget Sound streaked horned lark from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007a, pp. found that streaked horned larks have population. Twelve eggs (four three-egg 5–6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; IPCC lower fecundity and nest success than clutches) were collected from streaked 2007d, pp. 21–35). Further confirmation other Northwestern horned lark horned lark nests in the southern of the role of GHGs comes from analyses subspecies (Camfield et al. 2010, p. Willamette Valley and were placed in by Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who 277). In a study on the south Puget nests at the 13th Division Prairie site at concluded it is extremely likely that Sound, all measures of reproductive JBLM (Wolf 2011, p. 9). At least five approximately 75 percent of global success were lower for streaked horned young successfully fledged at the warming since 1950 has been caused by larks than for other ground-nesting birds receiving site; if even one of these birds human activities. at the same prairie sites (Anderson return to breed in future years, it will Scientists use a variety of climate 2010, p. 15). The streaked horned lark’s likely increase genetic diversity in the models, which include consideration of egg hatching rate at these sites is receiving population, resulting in natural processes and variability, as extremely low (i.e., 44 percent at 13th improved fitness and reduced extinction well as various scenarios of potential Division Prairie) (Anderson 2010, p. 18). risk for the south Puget Sound larks levels and timing of GHG emissions, to Comparisons with savannah sparrows (Wolf 2011, p. 9). Based on our evaluate the causes of changes already (Passerculus sandwichensis), a bird consideration of these factors, we observed and to project future changes with similar habitat requirements that conclude that the loss of genetic in temperature and other climate nests on the same prairies, found that diversity, the current number of small conditions (e.g., IPCC 2007c, entire; streaked horned lark fecundity was 70 and isolated populations (particularly in Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; percent lower (Anderson 2010, p. 18). If Washington State), and the species’ low Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). All the streaked horned lark’s very low reproductive success are likely to combinations of models and emissions reproductive success was caused by combine to result in continued scenarios yield very similar projections poor habitat quality, other ground- population declines for the streaked of increases in the most common nesting birds at the study sites would be horned lark. measure of climate change, average expected to show similarly low nest global surface temperature (commonly Climate Change success rates; that other bird species known as global warming), until about have much higher nest success in the Our analyses under the Act include 2030. Although projections of the extent same habitat suggests that inbreeding consideration of ongoing and projected and rate of warming differ after about depression may be playing a role in the changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ 2030, the overall trajectory of all the decline of streaked horned larks in the and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the projections is one of increased global south Puget Sound (Anderson 2010, p. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate warming through the end of this 27). Other factors consistent with Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’ century, even for the projections based hypothesized inbreeding depression in refers to the mean and variability of on scenarios that assume that GHG the south Puget Sound population different types of weather conditions emissions will stabilize or decline. include two cases of observed mother- over time, with 30 years being a typical Thus, there is strong scientific support son pairings (Pearson and Stinson 2011, period for such measurements, although for projections that warming will p. 1), and no observations of shorter or longer periods also may be continue through the 21st century, and immigration from other sites into the used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term that the scope and rate of change will be Puget lowland breeding sites (Pearson et ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change influenced substantially by the extent of al. 2008, p. 15). in the mean or variability of one or more GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44–45; Estimates of population growth rate measures of climate (e.g., temperature or IPCC 2007c, pp. 760–764 and 797–811; (l) that include vital rates from all of the precipitation) that persists for an Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555–15558; nesting areas in Washington (south extended period, typically decades or Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). (See Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and longer, whether the change is due to IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other one lower Columbia River island) natural variability, human activity, or global projections of climate-related indicate that streaked horned larks in both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). changes, such as frequency of heat Washington are declining by 40 percent Scientific measurements spanning waves and changes in precipitation. per year, apparently due to a several decades demonstrate that Also see IPCC 2011 (entire) for a combination of low survival and changes in climate are occurring, and summary of observations and fecundity rates (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. that the rate of change has been faster projections of extreme climate events.) 10, 13; Camfield et al. 2011, p. 7). since the 1950s. Examples include Various changes in climate may have Territory mapping at 4 sites on the warming of the global climate system, direct or indirect effects on species. south Puget Sound found that the total and substantial increases in These effects may be positive, neutral, number of breeding streaked horned precipitation in some regions of the or negative, and they may change over lark territories decreased from 77 world and decreases in other regions. time, depending on the species and territories in 2004 to 42 territories in (For these and other examples, see IPCC other relevant considerations, such as 2007—a decline of over 45 percent in 3 2007a, p. 30; and IPCC 2007d, pp. 35– interactions of climate with other years (Camfield et al. 2011, p. 8). The 54, 82–85). Results of scientific analyses variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) combination of low genetic variability, presented by the IPCC show that most (IPCC 2007e, pp. 214–246). Identifying small and rapidly declining nesting of the observed increase in global likely effects often involves aspects of populations, high breeding site fidelity, average temperature since the mid-20th climate change vulnerability analysis. and no observed migration into the century cannot be explained by natural Vulnerability refers to the degree to Puget lowlands populations suggests variability in climate, and is ‘‘very which a species (or system) is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

susceptible to, and unable to cope with, Climate Model (CGCM3.1) under the The relationship between climate adverse effects of climate change, medium emissions scenario (A1B), change and survival for the Euphydryas including climate variability and annual mean temperature is predicted to editha complex is driven more by the extremes. Vulnerability is a function of increase approximately 1.8 °Fahrenheit indirect effects of the interaction the type, scope, and rate of climate (F) (1 °Celsius (C)) by the year 2020, 3.6 between seasonal growth patterns of change and variation to which a species °F (2 °C) by 2050, and 5.4 °F (3 °C) by host plants and the life cycle of the is exposed, its sensitivity, and its 2090 (Climatewizardcustom 2012). This checkerspot butterfly than by the direct adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; analysis was restricted to the ecoregion effects of temperature and precipitation see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19–22). encompassing the overlapping range of (Guppy and Fischer 2001, p. 11; There is no single method for the species of interest and is well Parmesan 2007, p. 1868; Singer and conducting such analyses that applies to supported by analyses focused only on Parmesan 2010, p. 3170). all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We the Pacific Northwest by Mote and Predicting seasonal growth patterns of use our expert judgment and Salathe´ in their 2010 publication, butterfly host plants is complicated, appropriate analytical approaches to Future Climate in the Pacific Northwest because these patterns are likely more weigh relevant information, including (Mote and Salathe´ 2010, entire). sensitive to moisture than temperature uncertainty, in our consideration of Employing the same GCM and medium (Cushman et al. 1992, pp. 197–198; Bale various aspects of climate change. emissions scenario, downscaled model et al. 2002, p. 11), which is predicted to As is the case with all stressors that runs for precipitation in the ecoregion be highly variable and uncertain in the we assess, even if we conclude that a project a small (less than 5 percent) Pacific Northwest (Mote and Salathe´ species is currently affected or is likely increase in mean annual precipitation 2010, p. 31). Climate models for the to be affected in a negative way by one over approximately the next 80 years. Georgia Basin—Puget Sound Trough— or more climate-related impacts, it does Most months are projected to show an Willamette Valley Ecoregion not necessarily follow that the species increase in mean annual precipitation. consistently predict a deviation from the meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered May–August are projected to show a historical monthly average species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ decrease in mean annual precipitation, precipitation, with the months of under the Act. If a species is listed as which corresponds with the January–April projected to show an endangered or threatened, knowledge reproductive season for all species of increase in precipitation across the regarding the vulnerability of the interest in this proposed rule region while June–September are species to, and known or anticipated (Climatewizardcustom 2012). predicted to be much drier than the impacts from, climate-associated historical average (Climatewizard 2012). The potential impacts of a changing changes in environmental conditions During the active season of pre- global climate to Taylor’s checkerspot can be used to help devise appropriate diapause larvae (early spring), the butterfly and streaked horned lark are strategies for its recovery. Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly feeds Global climate projections are presently unclear. Projections localized primarily on plants of the family informative, and, in some cases, the to the Georgia Basin—Puget Sound Scrophulariaceae (snapdragon family, only or the best scientific information Trough—Willamette Valley Ecoregion including species of Castilleja and suggest that temperatures are likely to available for us to use. However, ° ° Triphysaria) and Plantaginaceae projected changes in climate and related increase approximately 5 F (2.8 C) at (plaintain family) (Stinson 2005, p. 88). impacts can vary substantially across the north end of the region by the year Available information suggests that if and within different regions of the 2080 based on an average of greenhouse climate change disrupts seasonal growth world (e.g., IPCC 2007a, pp. 8–12). gas emission scenarios B1, A1B, and A2 patterns of food plants, it is conceivable Therefore, we use ‘‘downscaled’’ and all Global Circulation Models that as an adult the butterfly may be employed by Climatewizard (range = 2.6 projections when they are available and ° ° ° ° able to use alternative food plants that have been developed through F to 7.6 F; 1.4 C to 4.2 C). Similarly, occur within its range (Singer and Wee the mid region projection predicts an 2005, pp. 353–355; Singer et al. 1992, appropriate scientific procedures, ° because such projections provide higher increase an average of 4.5 F (range = 2.1 pp. 17–18). The larval stage of Taylor’s ° ° ° resolution information that is more F to 7.1 F) (average of 2.5 C with a checkerspot is more limited in terms of ° ° relevant to spatial scales used for range of 1.2 C to 3.9 C) and the potential host plant species. ° analyses of a given species (see Glick et southern end to increase by 4.5 F Nevertheless, we have no information ° ° al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of (range = 2.2 F to 7.1 F) (average of 2.5 indicating that any of these changes ° ° ° downscaling). With regard to our C with a range of 1.2 C to 3.9 C). (e.g., in availability of food plants) is analysis for the Taylor’s checkerspot Worldwide, the IPCC states it is very likely to occur in the near future. butterfly and the streaked horned lark, likely that extreme high temperatures, It is likely that the overlap of seasonal downscaled projections are available. heat waves, and heavy precipitation growth patterns between these primary The ranges of the Taylor’s checkerspot events will increase in frequency (IPCC larval host plants and the Taylor’s butterfly and the streaked horned lark 2007c, p. 783). checkerspot butterfly will display some extend from the southern edge of the Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. level of stochasticity due to climatic Georgia Basin, down through the Puget Because the Taylor’s checkerspot shifts in precipitation and increased Sound trough, and south to the butterfly occupies a relatively small area frequency of extreme weather events. Willamette Valley. Downscaled climate of specialized habitat, it may be For the Edith’s checkerspot (Euphydryas change projections for this ecoregion vulnerable to climatic changes that editha), Parmesan (2007, p. 1869) predict consistently increasing annual could decrease suitable habitat or alter reported that a lifecycle mismatch can mean temperatures from 2012 to 2095 food plant seasonal growth patterns cause a shortening of the time window using the IPCC’s medium (A1B) (phenology). However, while it appears available for larval feeding, causing the emissions scenario (IPCC 2000, p. 245). reasonable to assume that the butterfly death of those individuals unable to Using the General Circulation Model may be affected, as detailed below, we complete their larval development (GCM) that most accurately predicts lack sufficient certainty to know within the shortened period, citing a precipitation for the Pacific Northwest, specifically how climate change will study by Singer (1972, p. 75). In that the Third Generation Coupled Global affect the subspecies. study, Singer documented routine

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61965

mortality of greater than 98 percent in we aware of any data on, an appropriate as such is not currently considered a the field due to phenological scale to evaluate habitat or populations threat. mismatches between larval trends for the Taylor’s checkerspot Stochastic Weather Events development and senescence of their butterfly or to make predictions about annual host plant Plantago erecta future trends and whether the species Stochasticity of extreme weather (California plantain). When mismatches will be significantly impacted. events may impact the ability of such as these form the ‘starting point,’ Streaked horned lark. Sea level on the threatened and endangered species to insects may be highly vulnerable to Pacific Coast of Washington and Oregon survive. Vulnerability to weather events small changes in synchrony with their is predicted to rise according to can be described as being composed of hosts (Parmesan 2007, p. 1869). expected values generated by an three elements; exposure, sensitivity, Predicting future population ensemble mean of models of relative sea and adaptive capacity. The small, isolated nature of the dynamics and distributions is complex level rise (Tebaldi 2012, p. 4). At Toke remaining populations of Taylor’s for animals such as butterflies that have Point, Willapa Bay, Washington, near checkerspot butterfly and streaked two very different physiological stages occupied nesting habitat for the streaked horned lark increases the species’ (larva and adult) (for example, see Bale horned lark, sea level is predicted to rise vulnerability to stochastic (random) et al. 2002, p. 5). Moreover, forecasting 3.9 in (9.9 cm) by 2030 and 9.8 in (0.25 natural events. When species are limited the responses of butterflies and other cm) by 2050 (Tebaldi 2012, p. 4). to small, isolated habitats, they are more insects to elevated temperatures or Streaked horned larks are attracted to likely to become extinct due to a local variable precipitation is largely based on breeding sites where there are long sight event that negatively affects the field and laboratory studies (Hellmann lines and sparse vegetation, making population. While a population’s small, 2002, pp. 927–929). However, the sandy islands and shorelines ideal relationship between these changing isolated nature does not represent an habitats for nesting. Sea level rise is not independent threat to the species, it environmental conditions and the currently projected to reach the height Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has not does substantially increase the risk of of streaked horned lark nesting habitat extirpation from the effects of all other been explicitly studied, though the on the beaches. If these projections extirpation of populations in British threats, including those addressed in underestimate sea level rise and nesting this analysis, and those that could occur Columbia is attributed to drought habitat is infringed upon by rising conditions and the encroachment of in the future from unknown sources. waters, streaked horned larks will likely Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. woody vegetation into formerly suitable respond by moving to up shore or to habitat (Guppy 2012, in litt.). One of the Environmental threats exacerbated by other breeding habitats. two primary host plants for the butterfly small population size and weather can is ubiquitous across the entire range of The indirect effects of climate change be a factor in Taylor’s checkerspot the species and extends well beyond are primarily associated with changes in butterfly breeding success. Poor weather areas where the butterfly populations habitat, such as succession from a conditions, such as cool temperatures persist. This suggests that there is sparsely vegetated condition to a and rainy weather, reduce the number potential for range shifting, if the shrubby or forested state, which would of days in the flight period for several butterfly had the capacity to disperse make habitat unsuitable for nesting. early spring flying butterflies, including across the landscape. These negative impacts may be offset by Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. A shorter Uncertainty about climate change other, potentially positive effects and flight season reduces the number of impacts does not mean that impacts continued management of occupied opportunities for oviposition (egg may or may not occur; it means that the habitats. On the ocean beaches an laying) for female butterflies, thus risks of a given impact are difficult to increase in the frequency of winter affecting the emergence of adult quantify (Schneider and Kuntz-Duriseti storm surges may improve upshore butterflies in the future. Peterson (2010, 2002, p. 54; Congressional Budget Office nesting habitat for larks by disturbing or in litt) provided climate and butterfly 2005, entire; Halsnaes et al. 2007, p. killing encroaching vegetation. Many abundance data that indicated cold 129). The interplay between host plant islands used for nesting in the Columbia winter temperature may affect the distribution, larval and adult butterfly River are likely to continue receiving timing of butterfly emergence and the dispersal, and female choice of where to dredge spoil deposits, perpetuating the size of populations in years when lay eggs will ultimately determine the conditions of early primary succession winters are severe. Late emergence of population response to climate change that streaked horned larks seek for adults may directly impact the mortality (Singer and Parmesan 2010, p. 3164). nesting. Primary management on most of larval stages if larvae are unable to However, determining the long-term of the currently occupied breeding sites complete their life cycle before their responses to climate change from even on the mainland of Washington and host plants senesce, or the larvae may well-studied butterflies in the genus Oregon is for agricultural, industrial, or return to diapause. Euphydryas is difficult, given their military uses. Such management attracts Butterflies, including Taylor’s ability to switch to alternative larval streaked horned larks through the checkerspot butterfly, may experience food plants in some instances (Singer reduction of standing vegetation, thus increased mortality or reduced and Thomas 1996, pp. S33–34; conversion to unsuitable habitat due to fecundity if the timing of plant Hellmann 2002, p. 933; Singer et al. shifts in climate is less likely in these development does not match the timing 1992, pp. 17–18). Attempts to analyze areas. As a result, we have not identified of larval or adult butterfly development the interplay between climate and host nor are we aware of any data on an (Peterson 1997, p. 167), and large plant growth patterns using predictive appropriate scale to evaluate habitat or fluctuations in population sizes have models or general State-wide populations trends for the streaked been observed based on local weather assessments and to relate these to the horned lark or to make predictions patterns (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 45). butterfly are equally complicated about future trends and whether the During 2010 and 2011, the emergence of (Murphy and Weiss 1992, p. 8). Despite species will be significantly impacted. Taylor’s adults was approximately three the potential for future climate change Habitat changes to streaked horned lark weeks later than ‘‘normal’’ due to wet in Western Washington, as discussed habitat from climate change may and cool spring weather. In addition, it above, we have not identified, nor are provide some benefit to the species and has been reported that both drought and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

deluge may interrupt the insect-plant damage to the aircraft (Elliott 2011, pers. (Lymantria dispar) likely contributed to interaction, resulting in decreased comm.). Aircraft strikes are potentially a the extirpation of three historical locales populations (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. large source of adult mortality for for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in 45). The effects of drought have been streaked horned larks at McChord Field. Pierce County, Washington (Vaughan shown to deleteriously affect Surveys in 2010 at McChord Field and Black 2002, p. 13). Spraying of Btk populations of Edith checkerspots in detected up to 26 individuals at the site is known to have adverse effects to California (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 45). (Linders 2011a, p. 3); loss of even 1 nontarget lepidopteran species Based on our review, we conclude that adult (and possibly more, since some (butterflies and moths) (Severns 2002, p. stochastic weather events are a threat to strikes may not be noticeable given the 169). Severns (2002) sampled butterfly the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly due to small mass of a horned lark) per year diversity, richness, and abundance the vulnerability of isolated, small could remove up to 4 percent of the (density) for 2 years following a Btk populations. population each year. Recent modeling application at Schwarz Park in Lane Streaked Horned Lark. There are has shown that adult survival has the County, Oregon. Diversity, richness and estimated to be fewer than 1,600 greatest influence on population growth density were found to be significantly streaked horned larks rangewide rates for streaked horned larks (Pearson reduced for 2 years following spraying (Altman 2011, p. 213). During the et al. 2008, p. 13; Camfield et al. 2011, of Btk (Severns 2002, p. 168). Species breeding season, small populations of p. 10), so consistent loss of adult like Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies, larks are distributed across the range; in streaked horned larks to aircraft strikes which have a single brood per year, are the winter, however, streaked horned could be pushing this population closer active in the spring and their larvae are larks concentrate mainly on the lower to extirpation. active during the spray application Columbia River sites and in the The annual Olympic Air Show takes period. Most lepidopterans are more Willamette Valley. Such concentration place in June at the Olympia Regional susceptible to Btk than the target species exposes the wintering populations to Airport; the events at the air show (Asian gypsy moth) (Haas and Scriber potentially disastrous stochastic events include low-level aerobatic flying 1998). For nontarget lepidoptera, the such as ice storms or flooding that could (Olympic Flight Museum 2012, p. 1). early instar stages of larvae are the most kill individuals or destroy limited The events do not occur on lark habitat, susceptible stage (Wagner and Miller habitat; a severe weather event could but parking and staging for the event 1995, p. 21). wipe out a substantial percentage of the may occur on the streaked horned lark’s The application of pesticides is entire subspecies (Pearson and Altman breeding grounds (Tirhi 2012b, in litt.). usually restricted to a short period of 2005, p. 13). We have not documented As the air show occurs during the the year. However, if the target species the occurrence of these threats to date, streaked horned lark’s breeding season, is active at the same time as larvae and but the small and declining population the level of human activity at the site adult Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies, of streaked horned larks is certainly at could cause nest abandonment, the effect could be significant. Spraying risk of random environmental events exposure of young to predators or actual of Btk still occurs in Pierce County for that could have catastrophic nest destruction (see discussion for gypsy moths during the time of year consequences. Based on our review, we similar military activities under Factor when Taylor’s checkerspot larvae are conclude that the effects of stochastic A). active and the threat of pesticide drift weather events are a potential threat to The Corvallis Municipal Airport is the onto the prairies of Pierce County the streaked horned lark. site of the largest known streaked cannot be discounted. At this time, horned lark population. The airport however, we have no evidence that Btk Aircraft Strikes and Activities at hosts training exercises for police has been sprayed in any locations where Civilian Airports departments on the airport grounds Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies are Streaked horned larks are attracted to (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 25); known to occur. the flat open habitats around airports intensive training sessions have Organophosphate-based insecticides throughout their range. Horned lark destroyed nests, and the disturbance are used in a number of agricultural strikes are frequently reported at may also cause streaked horned larks to applications including black fly and military and civilian airports throughout delay breeding activity (Moore and mosquito control, spraying of vegetable, the country, but because of the bird’s Kotaich 2010, p. 25) (see discussion for nut, and fruit crops, and treatment of small size, few strikes result in similar use at military sites under Factor seed, though they are now banned from significant damage to aircraft (Dolbeer et A, military activities). residential use. One of these al. 2011, p. 48; Air Force Safety Center The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is insecticides, Naled (Dibrom), has been 2012, p. 2). Most of the specific not known to be impacted by aircraft determined to have broad impacts on a information available for threats to strikes and aircraft activities at airports. wide array of butterfly families (Bargar streaked horned larks at airports comes Habitat management activities at these 2011, p. 888) and direct effects to the from the monitoring program at the sites are covered under Factor A. larvae and adults of a closely related Department of Defense’s JBLM on the species of a federally listed threatened south Puget Sound; similar threats to Pesticides and Herbicides butterfly, the Bay checkerspot streaked horned larks likely exist at In the south Puget Sound region, (Euphydyras editha bayensis) (EPA other airports, but without focused currently occupied Taylor’s checkerspot 2010, p. 23), if exposed. The extent to monitoring, the threats to the birds have butterfly sites are found in a matrix of which these insecticides are used in the not been documented. Information rural agricultural lands and low-density Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly’s range is provided from monitoring at McChord development. In this context herbicide currently unknown and current data Field is used here as a surrogate for and insecticide use may have direct was not available from the USDA. civilian airport information which is not effects on nontarget plants (butterfly The streaked horned lark is not readily accessible. McChord Field has larval and nectar hosts) and arthropods known to be impacted by pesticides or had seven confirmed streaked horned like butterflies (Stark et al. 2012, p. 23). herbicides directly, but may be lark strikes from 2002 through 2010; the The application of the pesticide impacted by the equipment used to larks were killed in the strikes, but the Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk) dispense them. These impacts are strikes resulted in only minimal cost or for control of the Asian gypsy moth covered under Factor A.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61967

Recreation of the 5 years (Pearson et al. annual Kotaich 2010, entire). Streaked horned Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. reports, 2007, p. 16; 2008, p. 17; 2009, larks have had just 50 years of exposure Recreational foot traffic may be a threat p. 18; 2010, p. 16). Because streaked to brown-headed cowbirds, and as such, to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, as horned larks nest in the same areas as have not coevolved with this nest trampling will crush larvae if they are snowy plovers along the Washington parasite. We, therefore, conclude that present underfoot. The incidence of Coast, it is highly likely that human- the effect of cowbird brood parasitism trampling is limited to the few locations caused nest failures also occur due to may be considered a threat if it further where Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies recreational activities at these sites. depresses nest success of the declining and recreation overlap. For example, Good communication between streaked horned lark population on the foot traffic is relatively common at researchers and landowners has resulted south Puget Sound. Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in in some positive actions to reduce the The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is Washington, where plants and butterfly adverse effects of recreation. In 2002, not known to be impacted by nest JBLM restricted recreational activity at habitat have been trampled by horses parasitism. the 13th Division Prairie to protect lark during specialized dog competitions in nesting; prohibiting model airplane Summary of Factor E which dogs are followed by observers flying, dog walking, and vehicle traffic on horseback (Stinson 2005, p. 6), and Based upon our review of the best in the area used by streaked horned by foot traffic using the trail system to commercial and scientific data larks (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 29). access the meadows of Beazell available, the loss, degradation, and Although restrictions to recreational fragmentation of prairies has resulted in Memorial Forest (Park) in Oregon. use were placed on the 13th Division Recreation by JBLM personnel and local smaller population sizes, loss of genetic Prairie by JBLM, it is a difficult area to diversity, reduced gene flow among individuals occurs on and near the 13th patrol and enforce restrictions of this Division Prairie. Trampling by humans populations, destruction of population type. This area, adjacent to where structure, and increased susceptibility and horses, as well as people walking streaked horned larks nest, is scheduled dogs on the 13th Division Prairie, is to local population extirpation for the for a release of captive bred and Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the likely to crush some larvae, and the translocated Taylor’s checkerspot larval and nectar prairie plant streaked horned lark from a series of butterfly larvae during March 2012. threats including pesticide use, crushing communities that are restored and Based on our review, we conclude that managed for in this area. and trampling from recreational activities associated with recreation are activities, aircraft strikes and collisions, Larvae have been crushed on Dan threats to the streaked horned lark. Kelly Ridge, on the north Olympic and nest parasitism, as summarized for Peninsula by vehicles that access the Nest Parasitism each species below. site to maintain a cell tower on the Nest parasitism by brown-headed Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly. Based ridge. Also, recreational off-road vehicle cowbirds (Molothrus ater) is a potential, upon our review of the best commercial (ORV) traffic on Dan Kelly Ridge, and though little documented, threat to and scientific data available, the on Eden Valley, has damaged larval host streaked horned larks. Cowbirds are degradation of habitat from recreational plants. The ORV damage on Dan Kelly common in grasslands and urban areas trampling and crushing produced by Ridge occurs despite efforts by WDNR to throughout North America; female humans, dogs, and horses has killed block access into the upper portions of cowbirds lay their eggs in the nests of larvae at several sites occupied by the road system through gating of the other songbirds (Lowther 1993, p. 1). Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. In main road. Based on our review, we Upon hatching, young cowbirds addition, the use of the insecticide BtK conclude that recreation is a threat to compete for food with the young of the is suspected to be responsible for the the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and host species, and may result in lower extirpation of two sites in Pierce where the population is depressed may reproductive success for the host pair County, WA in 1992. We have also constitute a serious threat to the long- (Lowther 1993, p. 11). In a study in determined that the loss of genetic term conservation of the species. Kansas, brown-headed cowbird diversity through inbreeding depression Streaked Horned Lark. There are parasitism of horned lark nests reduced due to habitat fragmentation and the documented occurrences of adverse the larks’ nest success by half in those isolation of the species is likely an effects to larks from recreation. nests that were parasitized (from 1.4 ongoing active threat. We consider the Recreation at coastal sites is a common young larks fledged per nest in non- impacts from recreation and pesticide threat to rare species; activities such as parasitized nests to 0.7 young larks use to pose potential threats to Taylor’s dog walking, beachcombing, ORV use, produced per nest with cowbird checkerspot butterfly, particularly given and horseback riding in coastal habitats parasitism (Hill 1976, pp. 560–561)). its inherent vulnerability due to small may indirectly increase predation, nest Cowbirds are native to the open population sizes and isolation of small abandonment and nest success for grasslands of central North America, but populations. streaked horned larks (Pearson and apparently only expanded into Oregon Streaked horned lark. Genetic Hopey 2005, pp. 19, 26, 29). One nest and Washington in the 1950’s, as a analysis has shown that streaked horned (of 16 monitored) at Midway Beach on result of human clearing of forested larks have suffered a loss of genetic the Washington coast was crushed by a habitats (Lowther 1993, p. 2). Brown- diversity due to a bottleneck in horse in 2004 (Pearson and Hopey 2005, headed cowbirds have been noted at all population size (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. pp. 18–19). Open sandy beaches (e.g. streaked horned lark study areas, and 881), the effect of which may be dredge spoil sites on the lower fledgling cowbirds have been observed exacerbated by continued small total Columbia islands) make good camping begging for food from adult streaked population size. areas for kayakers and boaters, and nests horned larks in the south Puget Sound Habitat changes to streaked horned could be lost due to accidental crushing. (Stinson 2005, p. 56). Extensive nest lark habitat from climate change may During western snowy plover surveys monitoring of streaked horned nests in provide some benefit to the species and conducted between 2006 and 2010 at the Willamette Valley has not identified as such is not currently considered a coastal sites in Washington, human- cowbird brood parasitism as a threat in threat. However, recreation activities caused nest failures were reported in 4 this area (Moore 2009, entire; Moore and can cause the degradation of streaked

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

horned lark habitat and direct mortality into the foreseeable future for Taylor’s The Act defines an endangered species to nest and young. checkerspot butterflies. as any species that is ‘‘in danger of We consider the impacts from We find that disease may be a threat, extinction throughout all or a significant recreation, the loss of genetic diversity, but is not currently at a significant level portion of its range’’ and a threatened and the species’ low reproductive to affect Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. species as any species ‘‘that is likely to numbers to pose potentially substantial The threat of disease to the larval host become endangered throughout all or a threats to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, plant of the species may become significant portion of its range within particularly given its inherent substantial in the foreseeable future due the foreseeable future.’’ Because we find vulnerability due to small population to the prevalence of small population that the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is sizes and isolation of small populations. sizes for the Taylor’s checkerspot presently in danger of extinction butterfly. Predation is not a threat to throughout its entire range, based on the Proposed Determination Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies at this immediacy, severity, and scope of the time. We conclude that the existing Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly threats described above, and the fact regulatory mechanisms do not address that the range and population size of the The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has and reduce the threats to the Taylor’s species has already been drastically been lost from most locations in the checkerspot butterfly. The voluntary reduced, a proposed determination of Canadian portion of its range with just protections from WDNR have not threatened species status for Taylor’s one known population remaining. In provided protection to the species on checkerspot butterfly is not appropriate. Washington the species was once DNR lands in north Olympic peninsula, Therefore, on the basis of the best known from seven Puget Sound and WDNR grassland properties in available scientific and commercial counties, and is now known to occur south Puget Sound no longer support information, we determine that the naturally in just two counties, Clallam the subspecies. Taylors’ checkerspot butterfly meets the and Pierce. In Oregon, the range of The observed habitat fragmentation definition of an endangered species in Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has been and the isolation of small populations of accordance with sections 3(6) and reduced to two small relict grasslands in Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly suggests 4(a)(1) of the Act. the foothills of the coast range near that the loss of genetic diversity through This proposal is based on current Corvallis, in Benton County, Oregon. inbreeding depression may be a threat. information about the location, status The distribution of Taylor’s checkerspot All known locations where Taylor’s and threats for these subspecies. If new butterflies has been reduced from checkerspots are found in Oregon and information is found which results in an greater than 70 populations to 10 Washington are sufficiently distant from expanded range of habitats used by the populations rangewide today; some of each other such that exchange of genetic subspecies, or a decreased level of these populations have been extirpated material from a dispersing individual threats, we will consider that in the past decade, and many declined moving from population to populations information in the final rule. would be unlikely. The threat of from robust population sizes with Significant Portion of the Range greater than 5,000 individual butterflies extreme weather events (drought and Having determined that the Taylor’s to zero within a 3-year interval and have deluge, and overcast, cold springs) affect checkerspot butterfly meets the not returned. Most remaining host plant phenology and adult butterfly emergence, which influences whether definition of an endangered species populations of Taylor’s checkerspot the larvae completes their annual life throughout its entire range, we need not butterflies are very small; 5 of the 10 cycle, thus affecting the size of annual further evaluate any significant portion known populations have fewer than 100 populations. The effects of weather of the range for this species. individuals. Only 1 population events are particularly a threat when it consistently has more than 1,000 Proposed Determination for the affects one of the few small populations individual butterflies, and this Streaked Horned Lark that remain. There is a potential threat population has been severely impacted of continuing pesticide application, The streaked horned lark has due to habitat impacts from military which is suspected to be responsible for disappeared from all formerly training. the extirpation of some populations of documented locations in the northern We have carefully assessed the best Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in Pierce portions of its range (British Columbia, scientific and commercial information County. Recreational activities (off-road the San Juan Islands, and the northern available regarding the past, present, vehicles, trampling and crushing from Puget trough), the Oregon coast, and the and future threats to the Taylor’s hikers and horses) have been shown to southern edge of its range (Rogue and checkerspot butterfly. We find that the be a threat at several of the sites Umpqua Valleys). There are currently threat of development and adverse occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot estimated to be fewer than 1,600 impacts to habitat from conversion to butterflies. streaked horned larks rangewide. other uses (agriculture), the loss of In summary, the combination of The streaked horned lark’s range may historically occupied locations resulting several significant threats and the be continuing to contract. The south in the present isolation and limited ongoing nature of these threats to the Puget Sound breeding population is distribution of the species, the impacts few remaining small populations of estimated to be 150–170 individuals; the of military training and recreation, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly leads us Washington coast and Columbia River existing and likely future habitat to conclude that the species is currently islands breeding population is 120–140 fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and in danger of extinction throughout the individuals. Recent research estimates land use changes associated with species’ range. The threats to the that the number of streaked horned larks agriculture, long-term fire suppression, survival of the Taylor’s checkerspot in Washington and on the Columbia the and the threats associated with the butterfly occur throughout the species’ River islands is declining. This decline present and threatened destruction, range and are not restricted to any taken together with evidence of modification, and curtailment of particular significant portion of that inbreeding depression on the south Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat range. Accordingly, our assessment and Puget Sound indicates that the streaked are significant. These threats are proposed determination will apply to horned lark’s range may contract further currently ongoing and will continue the species throughout its entire range. in the future.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61969

Throughout the entirety of the (3) The population segment’s Washington coast; and birds that breed streaked horned lark’s range, its habitat conservation status in relation to the in the Willamette Valley remain there is threatened by loss of natural Act’s standards for listing (i.e., does the over the winter (Pearson et al. 2005b; disturbance regimes, succession of population segment, when treated as if pp. 5–6). Streaked horned larks spend woody plants and the invasion of it were a species, meet the Act’s the winter in large mixed subspecies nonnative plants that alter habitat definition of endangered or threatened?) flocks of horned larks in the Willamette structure, and incompatible (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Valley, and in smaller flocks along the management practices. In winter, most The first two elements are used to lower Columbia River and Washington of the subspecies congregates in the determine if a population segment Coast (Pearson et al. 2005b, p. 7; Willamette Valley, putting it at risk of constitutes a valid DPS. If it does, then Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 7). stochastic events in bad weather years. the third element is used to consider Possible evidence of inbreeding Most of the sites used by streaked whether such DPS warrants listing. In depression (Anderson 2010, p. 27, horned larks require management to this section, we will consider the first Pearson and Stinson 2011, p. 1) may maintain the low vegetative structure two criteria (discreteness and suggest that there is a discrete and open landscape needed by streaked significance) to determine if any unit of population of streaked horned larks that horned larks, although few of the the streaked horned lark’s overall breed in Washington. Estimates of streaked horned lark’s breeding or population is a valid DPS (i.e., a valid population growth rate with data from wintering habitats are managed for the listable entity). Our policy further nesting areas in Washington (south conservation of the subspecies. recognizes it may be appropriate to Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and The range of the streaked horned lark assign different classifications (i.e., one lower Columbia River island) is small and shrinking; the magnitude of threatened or endangered) to different indicate that the number of streaked threats is not uniform throughout the DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon (61FR horned larks in Washington is declining range since they appear to be 4722; February 7, 1996). each year, apparently due to a concentrated in Washington based on Discreteness. Under the DPS policy, a combination of low survival and the more severe population level effects population segment of a vertebrate fecundity rates (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. observed there, but weighing the small species may be considered discrete if it 10, 13; Camfield et al. 2011, p. 7); this overall population size there against the satisfies either one of the following two trend is not apparent in Oregon (Myers relatively larger and stable populations conditions: and Kreager 2010, p. 11). The in Oregon, we conclude the subspecies (1) It is markedly separated from other combination of low genetic variability, as a whole is not in danger of extinction populations of the same taxon as a small and rapidly declining nesting now, but is likely to become endangered consequence of physical, physiological, populations, high breeding site fidelity, within the foreseeable future. ecological, or behavioral factors. and no observed migration into the We have carefully assessed the best Quantitative measures of genetic or south Puget Sound suggests that the scientific and commercial information morphological discontinuity (separation streaked horned lark in the south Puget available regarding past, present, and based on genetic or morphological Sound could become extirpated in the future threats to the streaked horned characters) may provide evidence of this near future (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 1, lark. Threats exist throughout the range separation; 14, 15). Efforts to reduce this apparent of the subspecies, population numbers (2) It is delimited by international isolation and concomitant genetic are declining, and there are few governmental boundaries within which consequences have been implemented regulatory protections in place that differences in control of exploitation, within the last year. could reduce the threats to the management of habitat, conservation A project was initiated in 2011 to subspecies. Based on the threats to the status, or regulatory mechanisms exist counteract the apparent decline in the subspecies throughout its range, we that are significant in light of section south Puget Sound breeding birds. This have determined the streaked horned 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. genetic rescue effort is aimed at lark meets the definition of a threatened Marked Separation. In our evaluation increasing genetic diversity in the species in accordance with sections of discreteness under the DPS policy, streaked horned larks breeding in 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. we primarily considered the Washington, which could result in information indicating the separation of increased nest success and an increase Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment streaked horned larks during the in the population. Twelve eggs (four After finding that the streaked horned breeding season into three regions (the three-egg clutches) were collected from lark is a threatened species throughout south Puget Sound, Washington Coast streaked horned lark nests in the its range, we next consider whether a and Columbia River, and the Willamette southern Willamette Valley and were distinct vertebrate population segment Valley). Observation of banded streaked placed in nests at the 13th Division (DPS) meets the definition of horned larks has shown that the birds Prairie site at Joint Base Lewis-McChord endangered, in accordance with the show strong site philopatry in the (Wolf 2011, p. 9). At least five young Service’s Policy Regarding the breeding season (i.e., individuals tend to successfully fledged at the receiving Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate return to the same location to breed site; if even one of these birds returns Population Segments under the each year), but birds from all regions to breed in future years, it will likely Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, mix in the winter (Pearson et al. 2005, increase genetic diversity in the February 7, 1996). The policy identifies pp. 2–6). In the winter most of the receiving population, resulting in three elements that are to be considered streaked horned larks that breed in the improved fitness and reduced extinction regarding the status of a possible DPS. south Puget Sound migrate south to the risk for the south Puget Sound larks These elements include: Willamette Valley or west to the (Wolf 2011, p. 9). This genetic rescue (1) The discreteness of the population Washington coast; larks that breed on project will likely be continued for the segment in relation to the remainder of the Washington coast either remain on next several years. the species to which it belongs; the coast or migrate south to the With the evidence of extensive mixing (2) The significance of the population Willamette Valley; birds that breed on that occurs in the winter, and the segment to the species to which it the lower Columbia River islands genetic rescue project to bolster genetic belongs; and remain on the islands or migrate to the diversity in Washington, which has

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

resulted in genetic mixing between species under the Act. In the course of observed immigration of breeding birds Oregon and Washington populations, this rangewide determination, we from any other sites) (Pearson et al. there does not appear to be marked considered whether some portion of the 2008, pp. 14–15). separation among streaked horned larks full range of the subspecies may face The population of streaked horned from the three regions. In addition, the threats or potential threats acting larks in the Willamette Valley of Oregon evidence of deleterious genetic individually or collectively on the appears to be more stable. The consequences to the birds breeding in streaked horned lark to such degree that population in the Willamette Valley is Washington suggests that any possible the subspecies as a whole should be estimated at 900–1,300 birds (Altman isolation of this population is not the considered endangered. We detail our 2011, p. 213); no population modeling result of adaptation or natural consideration of that question here. has been done using data from Oregon, differentiation of this population, but Although the threats to streaked but the apparent trend of the species in rather is symptomatic of drastic horned larks in Washington and Oregon the Willamette Valley is stable or population declines and loss of are apparently similar in nature slightly increasing, based on the Oregon connectivity between potentially (including loss of habitat to Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 1996 interbreeding subpopulations. Because development, poor habitat quality due and 2008 surveys for streaked horned we find the potential ‘‘regional to lack of adequate management to larks at sites throughout the Willamette populations’’ are not markedly separate, maintain low-stature vegetation, Valley (Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 11). we do not consider them to be discrete predation, and human disturbance Population monitoring at various sites under the DPS policy. during the breeding season), for reasons in the Willamette show that several Evaluation of Discreteness. Our unknown, the population trend for large populations are fairly stable or analysis of the apparent level of streaked horned larks in Washington increasing. Surveys conducted at isolation and evidence of inbreeding appears to be markedly different than Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge depression does not lead to a finding the trend for the subspecies in Oregon. from 2006 to 2009 showed a population that any subunit of streaked horned Streaked horned larks in Washington increase from 18 pairs in 2006 to 35 larks that nest in Washington, in the occur on the south Puget Sound, the pairs in 2009 (Moore 2008, p. 8; Moore south Puget Sound, the Washington Washington coast, and on islands and 2012, in litt.). Surveys at William L. coast or the Columbia River islands, are dredge disposal sites in the lower Finley National Wildlife Refuge found discrete, therefore these populations Columbia River (including two sites in the population increasing from 15 pairs cannot be considered as a potential DPS. Portland, Oregon). The total estimated in 2006 to 40 pairs in 2010 (Moore 2008, This does not mean that the three population of streaked horned larks in p. 9; Moore 2012, in litt.). The streaked breeding regions of the subspecies are these areas is 270–310 birds (Altman horned lark population at Corvallis unimportant and do not have significant 2011, p. 213). Demographic modeling Municipal Airport, the site of the largest conservation value. It simply means using data from these sites uniformly known population of the subspecies, that, per our policy, the best available show precipitous population declines. measured 75 pairs in 2006, 102 pairs in data at this time do not support a Pearson et al. (2008, pp. 3, 12) examined 2007, 80 pairs in 2008, and 85 pairs in marked separation between the breeding population vital rates (reproductive 2011 (Moore 2008, p. 16; Moore 2012, larks in the three regions, based on rates, juvenile survival and adult in litt.). information available to us, such that survival) at seven sites (four in the south Although streaked horned larks in the this population would meet the Puget Sound, two on the Washington Willamette Valley face many of the discreteness criterion of our DPS policy. Coast, and one Columbia River island) same threats as populations in Significance. Under our DPS Policy, a over 4 years (2002–2005) and concluded Washington, we have no information to population must be discrete and that the Washington population is indicate that populations in the significant to qualify as a DPS. Since we declining by 40 percent per year. Willamette Valley are experiencing have determined that no populations of Schapaugh (2009, pp. 9, 15, 18) used declines, or to suggest that they are streaked horned larks are discrete, we both deterministic and stochastic likely to experience significant declines will not consider whether that models to analyze the data collected by in the foreseeable future, to the degree population segment is significant. Pearson et al. (2008, p. 3), and projected that this population would be that, in all cases, the streaked horned considered in danger of extinction at the Conclusion of DPS Analysis for the larks in Washington would likely present time. The threats in the Streaked Horned Lark become extinct within 25 years. Willamette Valley are relatively small On the basis of the best available Camfield et al. (2011, p. 4) analyzed population size, and likely loss of information, we have determined that the data from the same three local habitat to future development and there are no discrete populations of the populations considered by Pearson et al. incompatible management practices, streaked horned lark. Since no (2008) and Schapaugh (2009), described which leads us to conclude that the population segments met the above (the data were collected from subspecies is threatened in the discreetness element, and therefore, no about 137 nests over 4 years (2002– Willamette Valley. populations qualify as a DPS under the 2005)). Camfield et al. (2011, p. 8) The best available data therefore Service’s DPS policy, we will not concluded that these populations have suggests that under current conditions, proceed with an evaluation of the status reached a point where they are streaked horned larks in Washington of the population segment under the declining towards extinction, and are (south Puget Sound, Washington coast, Act. not sustainable without immigration. Columbia River islands) will likely The declining trend is probably most continue to decline towards extinction Significant Portion of the Range pronounced in the south Puget Sound within this century. Having already As described above, we have population, where studies have determined that the streaked horned determined that the streaked horned identified apparent inbreeding lark is threatened throughout its range, lark is likely to become endangered depression, which is likely a result of we considered whether threats may be within the foreseeable future throughout the small population size, high site so concentrated in some portion of its all of its range, therefore the subspecies fidelity, and complete absence of range that, if that portion were lost, the meets the definition of a threatened breeding season immigration (i.e., no entire subspecies would be in danger of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61971

extinction. In applying this test, we specific management actions that will Section 7(a) of the Act requires determined that even with the potential achieve recovery of the species, Federal agencies to evaluate their loss of the Washington populations, the measurable criteria that determine when actions with respect to any species that relatively larger, more stable population a species may be downlisted or delisted, is proposed or listed as endangered or in the Willamette Valley of Oregon and methods for monitoring recovery threatened and with respect to its would likely persist, therefore the progress. Recovery plans also establish critical habitat, if any is designated. subspecies as a whole is not presently a framework for agencies to coordinate Regulations implementing this in danger of extinction, and therefore their recovery efforts and provide interagency cooperation provision of the does not meet the definition of an estimates of the cost of implementing Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. endangered species under the Act. recovery tasks. Recovery teams Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Continued decline of the Washington (comprised of species experts, Federal Federal agencies to confer with the populations is considered in and State agencies, nongovernmental Service on any action that is likely to conjunction with the relatively more organizations, and stakeholders) are jeopardize the continued existence of a stable populations in the Willamette often established to develop recovery species proposed for listing or result in Valley leads us to the conclusion that, plans. When completed, the recovery destruction or adverse modification of on balance, the subspecies is outline, draft recovery plan, and the proposed critical habitat. If a species is appropriately defined as a threatened final recovery plan will be available on listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of species throughout its range under the our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ the Act requires Federal agencies to Act. endangered), or from our Washington ensure that activities they authorize, Available Conservation Measures Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR fund, or carry out are not likely to FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). jeopardize the continued existence of Conservation measures provided to Implementation of recovery actions the species or destroy or adversely species listed as endangered or generally requires the participation of a modify its critical habitat. If a Federal threatened under the Act include broad range of partners, including other action may affect a listed species or its recognition, recovery actions, critical habitat, the responsible Federal requirements for Federal protection, and Federal agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, agency must enter into formal prohibitions against certain practices. consultation with the Service. Listing results in recognition and public businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include Federal agency actions within the awareness and conservation by Federal, species habitat that may require State, Tribal, and local agencies, private habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive conference or consultation or both as organizations, and individuals. The Act described in the preceding paragraph encourages cooperation with the States propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of include actions to manage or restore and requires that recovery actions be critical habitat, actions that require many listed species cannot be carried out for all listed species. The collecting or handling the species for accomplished solely on Federal lands protection required by Federal agencies the purpose of captive propagation and because their range may occur primarily and the prohibitions against certain translocation to new habitat, actions or solely on non-Federal lands. To activities are discussed, in part, below. that may negatively affect the species achieve recovery of these species The primary purpose of the Act is the through removal, conversion or requires cooperative conservation efforts conservation of endangered and degradation of habitat. Examples of on private, State, and Tribal lands. threatened species and the ecosystems activities conducted, regulated or If these species are listed, funding for upon which they depend. The ultimate funded by Federal agencies that may recovery actions will be available from goal of such conservation efforts is the affect listed species or their habitat a variety of sources, including Federal recovery of these listed species, so that include, but are not limited to: they no longer need the protective budgets, State programs, and cost share (1) Military training activities and air measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of grants for non-Federal landowners, the operations conducted in or adjacent to the Act requires the Service to develop academic community, and occupied or suitable habitat on DOD and implement recovery plans for the nongovernmental organizations. In lands; conservation of endangered and addition, pursuant to section 6 of the (2) Activities with a Federal nexus threatened species. The recovery Act, the States of Washington and that include vegetation management planning process involves the Oregon would be eligible for Federal such as burning, mechanical treatment, identification of actions that are funds to implement management and/or application of herbicides/ necessary to halt or reverse the species’ actions that promote the protection and pesticides on Federal, State, private, or decline by addressing the threats to its recovery of the Taylor’s checkerspot Tribal lands; survival and recovery. The goal of this butterfly and streaked horned lark. (3) Ground-disturbing activities process is to restore listed species to a Information on our grant programs that regulated, funded or conducted by point where they are secure, self- are available to aid species recovery can Federal agencies in or adjacent to sustaining, and functioning components be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants. occupied and/or suitable habitat; and of their ecosystems. Although the Taylor’s checkerspot (4) import, export or trade of the Recovery planning includes the butterfly and streaked horned lark are species, to name a few. development of a recovery outline only proposed for listing under the Act The Act and its implementing shortly after a species is listed, at this time, please let us know if you regulations set forth a series of general preparation of a draft and final recovery are interested in participating in prohibitions and exceptions that apply plan, and revisions to the plan as recovery efforts for these species. to all endangered wildlife. The significant new information becomes Additionally, we invite you to submit prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, available. The recovery outline guides any new information on these species codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered the immediate implementation of urgent whenever it becomes available and any wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any recovery actions and describes the information you may have for recovery person subject to the jurisdiction of the process to be used to develop a recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER United States to take (includes harass, plan. The recovery plan identifies site- INFORMATION CONTACT). harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt (5) Deposition of dredge materials on prohibitions necessary and appropriate any of these), import, export, ship in occupied streaked horned lark breeding to conserve that species. interstate commerce in the course of habitats, intentional harassment of Under the proposed special rule, take commercial activity, or sell or offer for species at airports as part of a wildlife of the streaked horned lark caused by sale in interstate or foreign commerce hazard reduction program, mowing or restoration and maintenance activities any listed species. Under the Lacey Act burning of occupied species habitats either through agricultural operations or (18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), during the breeding season. by airports on State, county, private, or it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, Questions regarding whether specific tribal lands would be exempt from carry, transport, or ship any such activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. These activities wildlife that has been taken illegally. section 9 of the Act should be directed include mechanical weed and grass Certain exceptions apply to agents of the to the Washington Fish and Wildlife removal on airports. In addition, we also Service and State conservation agencies. Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION propose to exempt certain normal We may issue permits to carry out CONTACT). Requests for copies of the farming or ranching activities, otherwise prohibited activities regulations concerning listed animals including: grazing, routine fence and involving endangered and threatened and general inquiries regarding structure maintenance, mowing, wildlife species under certain prohibitions and permits may be herbicide use, burning, and other circumstances. Regulations governing addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife routine activities described under permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for Service, Ecological Services, Eastside proposed § 17.41 (Special Rules—Birds) endangered species, and at 17.32 for Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, at the end of this document. The rule threatened species. With regard to Portland, OR 97232–4181 (telephone targets these activities to encourage endangered wildlife, a permit must be 503–231–6158; facsimile 503–231– landowners to continue to maintain issued for the following purposes: for 6243). those areas that are not only important for airport safety and agricultural use, scientific purposes, to enhance the If the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or but also provide habitat for the streaked propagation or survival of the species, streaked horned lark are listed under the horned lark. Airport restoration and and for incidental take in connection Act, the States of Washington and maintenance activities on Federal lands with otherwise lawful activities. Oregon Endangered Species Acts (WAC will be addressed through the section 7 It is our policy, as published in the 232–12–297 and OAR 629–605–0105) process. Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR are automatically invoked, which would 34272), to identify to the maximum also prohibit take of these species and Justification extent practicable at the time a species encourage conservation by State Airport Management. Some is listed, those activities that would or government agencies. Further, the States management actions taken at airports would not constitute a violation of may enter into agreements with Federal are generally beneficial to streaked section 9 of the Act. The intent of this agencies to administer and manage any horned larks. Streaked horned larks policy is to increase public awareness of area required for the conservation, have been documented to breed the effect of a proposed listing on management, enhancement, or successfully and to maintain stable proposed and ongoing activities within protection of endangered species. Funds populations at airports in the south the range of species proposed for listing. for these activities could be made Puget Sound and Willamette Valley. The following activities could available under section 6 of the Act Although horned larks are one of the potentially result in a violation of (Cooperation with the States) or through most commonly struck birds according section 9 of the Act; this list is not competitive application to receive to the Federal Aviation Administration’s comprehensive: funding through our Recovery Program bird strike database, they rarely cause (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, under section 4 of the Act. Thus, the damage to airplanes due to their small possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, Federal protection afforded to these size. However, larger birds can cause or transporting of the species, including species by listing them as endangered or significant damage and are a danger to import or export across State lines and threatened species will be reinforced planes. The Service believes current international boundaries, except for and supplemented by protection under management of these areas provide for properly documented antique State law. safe aircraft operations while specimens of these taxa at least 100 Special Rule simultaneously providing for the years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) conservation of streaked horned larks. of the Act; Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Under the proposed rule, covered (2) Introduction of nonnative species Secretary may publish a special rule actions would include vegetation that compete with or prey upon the that modifies the standard protections management to maintain desired grass Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or for threatened species in the Service’s height on or adjacent to airports through streaked horned lark, such as the regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, which mowing or herbicide use; hazing of introduction of competing, nonnative implement section 9 of the Act, with hazardous wildlife (geese, and other plants or animals to the States of special measures that are determined to large birds and mammals), routine Washington and Oregon; be necessary and advisable to provide management, repair and maintenance of (3) The unauthorized release of for the conservation of the species. As roads and runways; and management of biological control agents that attack any a means to promote conservation efforts forage, water, and shelter to be less life stage of these species, for example, on behalf of the streaked horned lark, attractive to these hazardous wildlife. Btk release in the range of Taylor’s we are proposing a special rule for this If finalized, the listing of the streaked checkerspot butterflies; species under section 4(d) of the Act. In horned lark would impose a (4) Unauthorized modification of the the case of a special rule, the general requirement of airport managers where soil profiles or the vegetation regulations (50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71) the species occur to consider the effects components on sites known to be applying most prohibitions under of their management activities on these occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot section 9 of the Act to threatened species. Additionally, airport managers butterflies and streaked horned larks; species do not apply to that species, and would likely take actions to deter the and the special rule contains the species from areas where they currently

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61973

occur in order to avoid the burden of the discouraging conversions of the designation of critical habitat for the resulting take restrictions that would agricultural landscape into habitats Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the accrue from the presence of a listed unsuitable for the streaked horned lark streaked horned lark in this section of species. However, special rule under and encouraging landowners to the proposed rule. section 4(d) of the Act for airports continue managing the remaining Background which exempts activities, such as landscape in ways that meet the needs mowing or other management to deter of their operation as well as providing Critical habitat is defined in section 3 hazardous wildlife, that would result in suitable habitat for the streaked horned of the Act as: take under section 9 of the Act, would lark. Under the proposed rule, we (1) The specific areas within the eliminate the incentive for airports to propose to exempt normal farming geographical area occupied by the reduce or eliminate populations of activities such as planting, harvest and species, at the time it is listed in streaked horned larks from the airfields. rotation of crops, mowing and tilling, accordance with the Act, on which are Agricultural Lands. Streaked horned herbicide use, and burning, which may found those physical or biological larks use agricultural habitats in the result in take of the streaked horned lark features Willamette Valley each year, even under section 9 of the Act. (a) Essential to the conservation of the though appropriate habitat In addition, we believe that, in certain species, and characteristics on these lands may shift instances, easing the general take (b) Which may require special from year to year. In the agricultural prohibitions on non-Federal agricultural management considerations or fields of the Willamette Valley, the open lands may encourage continued protection; and habitats with the desired combination of responsible land uses that provide an (2) Specific areas outside the bare ground and low vegetation overall benefit to the species. We also geographical area occupied by the structure may occur anywhere within believe that such a special rule will species at the time it is listed, upon a the agricultural matrix of the valley promote the conservation efforts and determination that such areas are floor. Habitat characteristics of private lands partnerships critical for essential for the conservation of the agricultural lands used by streaked species recovery (Bean and Wilcove species. horned larks include: (1) Bare or 1997, pp. 1–2). However, in easing the Conservation, as defined under sparsely vegetated areas within or take prohibitions under section 9, the section 3 of the Act, means to use and adjacent to grass seed fields, pastures, or measures developed in the special rule the use of all methods and procedures fallow fields; (2) recently planted (0–3 must also contain prohibitions that are necessary to bring an years) Christmas tree farms with necessary and appropriate to conserve endangered or threatened species to the extensive bare ground; and (3) wetland the species. As discussed elsewhere in point at which the measures provided mudflats or ‘‘drown outs’’ (i.e., washed- this proposed rule, the streaked horned pursuant to the Act are no longer out and poorly performing areas within lark faces many threats. Foremost necessary. Such methods and grass seed or row crop fields). Currently, among these is the scarcity of large, procedures include, but are not limited there are approximately 420,000 ac open spaces with very early seral stage to, all activities associated with (169,968 ha) of grass seed fields in the vegetation. In the Willamette Valley, scientific resources management such as Willamette Valley, and an additional large expanses of burned prairie or the research, census, law enforcement, approximately 500,000 ac (202,343 ha) scour plains of the Willamette and habitat acquisition and maintenance, of other agriculture. In any year, some Columbia Rivers may have provided propagation, live trapping, and portion of these roughly 1 million ac suitable habitat for streaked horned transplantation, and, in the (404,685 ha) will have suitable streaked larks in the past. With the loss of these extraordinary case where population horned lark habitat, but the geographic natural habitats during the last century, pressures within a given ecosystem location of those areas will not be alternative breeding and wintering sites, cannot be otherwise relieved, may consistent from year to year, nor can we including active agricultural lands, have include regulated taking. Critical habitat receives protection predict their occurrence. become critical for the continued under section 7 of the Act through the While some agricultural activities survival and recovery of the streaked requirement that Federal agencies may harm or kill streaked horned larks, horned lark. maintenance of extensive agricultural ensure, in consultation with the Service, lands in the Willamette Valley is crucial Provisions of the Proposed Special Rule that any action they authorize, fund, or to maintaining a large, stable population We believe these actions and carry out is not likely to result in the of streaked horned larks in the valley. activities, while they may have some destruction or adverse modification of Section 9 of the Act provides general minimal level of harm to or disturbance critical habitat. The designation of prohibitions on activities that would of the streaked horned lark, are not critical habitat does not affect land result in take of a threatened species; expected to adversely affect the species’ ownership or establish a refuge, however, the Service recognizes that conservation and recovery efforts. wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other routine agricultural activities, even This proposal will not be finalized conservation area. Such designation those with the potential to inadvertently until we have reviewed comments from does not allow the government or public take individual streaked horned larks, the public and peer reviewers. to access private lands. Such may be necessary components of Exempted activities include existing designation does not require agricultural operations and may provide routine airport practices as outlined implementation of restoration, recovery, for the long-term conservation needs of above by non-Federal entities on or enhancement measures by non- the streaked horned lark. The Service existing airports, and agricultural and Federal landowners. Where a landowner recognizes that in the long term, it is a ranching activities. seeks or requests Federal agency benefit to the streaked horned lark to funding or authorization for an action maintain those aspects of the Willamette Critical Habitat Designation for that may affect a listed species or Valley’s agricultural landscape that can Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and critical habitat, the consultation aid in the recovery of the species. We Streaked Horned Lark requirements of section 7(a)(2) would believe this special rule will further It is our intent to discuss below only apply, but even in the event of a conservation of the species by those topics directly relevant to the destruction or adverse modification

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

finding, the obligation of the Federal Government Appropriations Act for precipitation events, and increased action agency and the landowner is not Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. summer continental drying (Field et al. to restore or recover the species, but to 5658)), and our associated Information 1999, pp. 1–3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. implement reasonable and prudent Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6; alternatives to avoid destruction or establish procedures, and provide Intergovernmental Panel on Climate adverse modification of critical habitat. guidance to ensure that our decisions Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181). Climate Under the first prong of the Act’s are based on the best scientific data change may lead to increased frequency definition of critical habitat, areas available. They require our biologists, to and duration of severe storms and within the geographic area occupied by the extent consistent with the Act and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; the species at the time it was listed are with the use of the best scientific data McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook included in a critical habitat designation available, to use primary and original et al. 2004, p. 1015). if they contain physical or biological sources of information as the basis for The information currently available features (1) which are essential to the recommendations to designate critical on the effects of global climate change conservation of the species and (2) habitat. and increasing temperatures does not which may require special management When we are determining which areas make sufficiently precise estimates of considerations or protection. For these should be designated as critical habitat, the location and magnitude of the areas, critical habitat designations our primary source of information is effects. Nor are we currently aware of identify, to the extent known using the generally the information developed any climate change information specific best scientific and commercial data during the listing process for the to the habitat of the species that would available, those physical or biological species. Additional information sources indicate what areas may become features that are essential to the may include the recovery plan for the important to the species in the future. conservation of the species (such as species (if available), articles in peer- Therefore, we are unable to determine space, food, cover, and protected reviewed journals, conservation plans what additional areas, if any, may be habitat). In identifying those physical developed by States and counties, appropriate to include in the final and biological features within an area, scientific status surveys and studies, critical habitat for this species to we focus on the principal biological or biological assessments, other address the effects of climate change. physical constituent elements (primary unpublished materials, or experts’ We recognize that critical habitat constituent elements such as roost sites, opinions or personal knowledge. In this designated at a particular point in time nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, case we used existing occurrence data may not include all of the habitat areas water quality, tide, soil type) that are for each species and identified the that we may later determine are essential to the conservation of the habitat and ecosystems upon which species. Primary constituent elements necessary for the recovery of the they depend. These sources of species. For these reasons, a critical are the elements of physical or information included, but were not biological features that provide for a habitat designation does not signal that limited to: habitat outside the designated area is species’ life-history processes and are 1. Data used to prepare the proposed essential to the conservation of the unimportant or may not be needed for rule to list the species; recovery of the species. Areas that are species. 2. Information from biological important to the conservation of the Under the second prong of the Act’s surveys; definition of critical habitat, we can 3. Peer-reviewed articles, various species, both inside and outside the designate critical habitat in areas agency reports, and databases; critical habitat designation, will outside the geographic area occupied by 4. Information from the U.S. continue to be subject to: (1) the species at the time it is listed, upon Department of Defense—Joint Base Conservation actions implemented a determination that such areas are Lewis McChord and other cooperators; under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) essential for the conservation of the 5. Information from species experts; regulatory protections afforded by the species. For example, an area currently 6. Data and information presented in requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act occupied by the species, but that was academic research theses; and for Federal agencies to ensure their not occupied at the time of listing, may 7. Regional Geographic Information actions are not likely to jeopardize the be determined to be essential to the System (GIS) data (such as species continued existence of any endangered conservation of the species and may be occurrence data, land use, topography, or threatened species, and (3) the included in the critical habitat aerial imagery, soil data, and land prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if designation. We designate critical ownership maps) for area calculations actions occurring in these areas may habitat in areas outside the geographic and mapping. affect the species. Federally funded or area occupied by a species only when a Habitat is dynamic, and species may permitted projects affecting listed designation limited to its range would move from one area to another over species outside their designated critical be inadequate to ensure the time. Climate change will be a particular habitat areas may still result in jeopardy conservation of the species. challenge for biodiversity because the findings in some cases. These interaction of additional stressors protections and conservation tools will Methods associated with climate change and continue to contribute to recovery of As required by Section 4 of the Act, current stressors may push species this species. Similarly, critical habitat we used the best scientific data beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy designations made on the basis of the available in determining those areas that 2005, pp. 325–326). The synergistic best available information at the time of contain the physical or biological implications of climate change and designation will not control the features essential to the conservation of habitat fragmentation are the most direction and substance of future these species. Further, our Policy on threatening facet of climate change for recovery plans, habitat conservation Information Standards under the biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p. 4). plans (HCPs), or other species Endangered Species Act (published in Current climate change predictions for conservation planning efforts if new the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 terrestrial areas in the Northern information available at the time of FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act Hemisphere indicate warmer air these planning efforts calls for a (section 515 of the Treasury and General temperatures, more intense different outcome.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61975

Prudency Determination The primary regulatory effect of Physical or Biological Features critical habitat is the section 7(a)(2) In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as requirement that Federal agencies amended, and implementing regulations and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations refrain from taking any action that at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the destroys or adversely modifies critical maximum extent prudent and areas within the geographical area habitat. We find that the designation of occupied by the species at the time of determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot critical habitat at the time the species is listing to designate as critical habitat, butterfly and streaked horned lark will we identify the physical or biological determined to be endangered or benefit these subspecies by serving to features that are essential to the threatened. Our regulations at 50 CFR focus conservation efforts on the conservation of the species and which 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of restoration and maintenance of may require special management critical habitat is not prudent when one ecosystem functions that are essential considerations or protection. These or both of the following situations exist: for attaining their recovery and long- include, but are not limited to: (1) The species is threatened by taking term viability. In addition, the (1) Space for individual and or other activity and the identification designation of critical habitat serves to population growth and for normal of critical habitat can be expected to inform management and conservation behavior; increase the degree of threat to the decisions by identifying any additional (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or species; or (2) such designation of physical or biological features of the other nutritional or physiological critical habitat would not be beneficial ecosystem that may be essential for the requirements; to the species. conservation of these subspecies. (3) Cover or shelter; Species Proposed for Listing Therefore, because we have determined (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or that the designation of critical habitat rearing (or development) of offspring; As we have discussed under the will not likely increase the degree of and threats analysis for Factor B, there is no threat to the species and may provide (5) Habitats that are protected from documentation that the Taylor’s some measure of benefit, we find that disturbance or are representative of the checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned designation of critical habitat is prudent historical, geographical, and ecological lark are currently significantly for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly distributions of a species. threatened by collection for private or and streaked horned lark, as critical We derive the specific physical or commercial purposes. We do have some habitat would be beneficial and there is biological features required for each evidence that the historical collection of no evidence that the designation of subspecies from studies of their habitat, butterflies for scientific studies may critical habitat would result in an ecology, and life history as described have contributed to the decline and increased threat from taking or other above in this document. We have extirpation of the 13th Division Prairie human activity for these species. determined that the physical and population of Taylor’s checkerspot biological features described below are butterfly in the late 1990s. This is Critical Habitat Determinability essential for the conservation of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked consistent with the decline and Having determined that designation is horned lark, and have further extirpation of the Jasper Ridge prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act determined that these features may population of Edith’s checkerspot in we must find whether critical habitat for require special management California reported by McGarrahan the species is determinable. Our (1977, p. 479), which was determined to considerations or protection. regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state The designation of critical habitat is have been caused, in part, by scientific that critical habitat is not determinable studies. an authority restricted to the boundaries when one or both of the following of the United States; critical habitat We reviewed the information situations exist: cannot be designated in a foreign available for the Taylor’s checkerspot (i) Information sufficient to perform country (50 CFR 424.12(h)). Thus for the butterfly and streaked horned lark required analyses of the impacts of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and pertaining to their biological needs and designation is lacking, or streaked horned lark, both subspecies habitat characteristics. In the absence of (ii) The biological needs of the species that range into Canada (or historically finding that the designation of critical are not sufficiently well known to occurred there), we discuss the habitat would increase threats to a permit identification of an area as population in Canada (in the listing species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat. portion of the document) for the critical habitat designation, then a When critical habitat is not purpose of evaluating the viability of the prudent finding is warranted. The species, and to inform our potential benefits of critical habitat to determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical determination of those areas within the the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and United States that are essential for the streaked horned lark include: (1) habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). conservation of the species. We do not Triggering consultation under section 7 propose to designate critical habitat in of the Act, in new areas for actions in We reviewed the available Canada. which there may be a Federal nexus information pertaining to the biological where it would not otherwise occur needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly because, for example, it is or has butterfly and streaked horned lark and We have determined that the become unoccupied or the occupancy is habitat characteristics where these following physical or biological features in question; (2) focusing conservation subspecies are located. This and other are essential for the Taylor’s activities on the most essential features information represent the best scientific checkerspot butterfly. and areas; (3) providing educational data available and led us to conclude benefits to State or county governments that the designation of critical habitat is Space for Individual and Population or private entities; and (4) preventing determinable for the Taylor’s Growth and for Normal Behavior people from causing inadvertent harm checkerspot butterfly and streaked Habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot to the species. horned lark. butterfly is characterized by open

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61976 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

grassland habitat with short-statured the presence of the host plant (Severn size (probability of survival range 0.8– vegetation structure (Stinson 2005, p. and Warren 2008, p. 476). Post-diapause 0.98) (Converse et al., 2010, p. 8). In the 86; Severns and Warren 2008, p. 476) larvae forage singularly and are capable case of this model, survival is defined throughout their range in British of moving much greater distances than as patch of habitat that is occupied in Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. A pre-diapause larvae (Kuussaari et al. year y+1 if Taylor checkerspot butterfly diverse topography is a feature that is 2004, p. 140). Edith’s checkerspot larvae eggs were oviposited in the patch in essential to the conservation of other have been documented to move up to 10 year y. The model was run annually for checkerspot butterflies (Ehrlich and m (33 ft) from a release site, often 50 years to predict the occupancy Murphy 1987, p. 122; Hellmann et al. moving within a habitat patch to probability in relation to patch size for 2004, p. 41) and strongly influences the different exposures to raise their body the species. Beyond a patch size of 50 distribution and abundance of larvae temperature (Stinson 2005, p. 81), and ac (20 ha) there was no added and butterflies within a habitat patch presumably to find suitable foraging probability of survival (Converse et al. (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 46). conditions (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 2009, p. 8). Topographic diversity creates 140). Dispersal within a habitat patch Little work has been carried out on conditions where larval food plant benefits the larvae because they are able the ability of this species to disperse. phenology (timing of bud development, to elevate their body temperature to an However, a mark-recapture study bud break, and flowering) is variable optimal range for foraging and conducted in Oregon (Kaye et al. 2011, across different slopes angles. For development. p. 15) showed that dispersal distance example, plants on south facing slopes Large expanses of open grassland was short (less than 984 ft (300 m) (Kaye may develop earlier in the season as habitat are in limited abundance et al. 2011, p. 16) and that Taylor’s compared to those on north facing throughout the range of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies tended to move aspects. This difference in plant checkerspot butterfly; however, using to the nearest open patch, or from poor phenology, as influenced by current occupation by the butterfly as an resource patches to rich resource topography, allows larvae to move to example, it appears the Taylor’s patches, although rates of recapture areas with plentiful, mature host plants, checkerspot butterfly can use relatively were low (2 out of 100) (Kaye et al. or to move away from hot exposed small patches of suitable habitat. At this 2011, p. 12). Mark-recapture studies slopes when the larval host plants begin time, only one area of open grassland with checkerspot butterflies in Finland to dry and wither, and no longer habitat that supports Taylor’s documented that they generally flew provides sufficient amounts or quality checkerspot butterflies is larger than 50 less than 1,640 ft (500 m), and that long nutrition for the larvae. Topography has ac (20 ha). This location is known as the distance migrations were clearly been shown to directly influence post- Artillery Impact Area (91st Division restricted (Nieminen et al. 2004, p. 73). diapause larval growth (Hellmann 2004 Prairie) on JBLM and it is approximately Research conducted in California on p. 46), and topographically influenced 6,000 ac (2,430 ha). Even on this large Edith’s checkerspot butterfly described microclimates affect the distribution expansive prairie the butterfly uses two the butterfly as sedentary (Murphy et al. and abundance of larvae and butterflies distinct patches that are less than 100 ac 2004, p. 23) and rarely undertaking within its habitat (Hellmann et al. 2004, (40 ha) each in size, and they are long-distance movements (Singer and p. 46). Open grassland habitat separated by several kilometers. The Hanski 2004, p. 184). Hellmann et al. dominated by short statured native areas between the patches are not (2004, p. 37) found evidence of limited trained upon, and are composed of dispersal between closely situated grasses and diverse native forbs, without grasslands, however, the abundance and populations even though the habitat the presence of conifers, and shrubs diversity of larval host and adult nectar provided similar food resources and was such as the nonnative Scot’s broom, and plants in this intervening area does not well within dispersal distance native snowberry (Symphoricarpus appear to be sufficient to attract and be (Hellmann et al. 2004, p. 39). Based albus), and rose (Rosa spp.) facilitate the used by Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. upon the current distribution of the movement of butterflies for mating, egg- In Oregon, the two locations where known Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly laying (ovipositing), and adult nectaring Taylor’s are found are composed of populations, there is a lack of (see below—Sites for Breeding, several distinct grassland patches with opportunity for genetic interchange and Reproduction, or Rearing (or no individual patch larger than 5 ac (2 a reduced likelihood that populations Development) of Offspring). ha) (Kaye et al. 2011, p. 10) and many that decline due to stochastic events are Areas of habitat with open bare soil of the numerous bald patches on the likely to be repopulated by emigrating may also be advantageous to the north Olympic Peninsula in Washington individuals. butterfly as these areas warm more are small as well. The WDNR balds on While Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies quickly than the surrounding Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley are a may not need large areas to survive, vegetation, and butterflies thermo- series of small openings that are all less they do require habitat patches regulate by basking (Scott 1986, p. 296; than 1 ac (0.4 ha) (Hays 2011, pp. 8–9, composed of short-statured, abundant, Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140; Stinson 18); whereas the Taylor’s locations and diverse larval host and nectar 2005, p. 81). The presence of tall, found on Forest Service lands on the species (described below). These nonnative grasses creates a habitat Olympic Peninsula range in size from patches (separated by 984 ft (300 m) or structure that is unsuitable to 25 to 60 ac (10 to 24 ha) (Holtrop 2009, less (Kaye et al, 2011. p.16)) should be checkerspot butterflies, making it pp. 7–10). The Oregon sites and the scattered throughout their range to difficult for adults to locate larval host north Olympic Peninsula balds are both allow for movement within patches, plants for egg-laying (ovipositing). found in a matrix of conifer forests dispersal to new habitat patches, and Given a choice, Taylor’s checkerspot (Kaye et al. 2011, pp. 19–20). recolonization of lost or nonviable sites butterflies oviposited on larval host Based on information provided by an both within and between patches due to plants surrounded by short-statured expert panel and predictions from a habitat or population changes. Although native bunchgrasses and adult nectar Prairie Reserve Design model, Taylor’s dispersal by Taylor’s checkerspot plants, indicating that females select checkerspot butterfly have the highest butterflies appears to be limited, in egg-laying sites based on habitat probability of survival on patches from order to recover the species there will conditions (structure) rather than just approximately 20–50 ac (8–20 ha) in need to be an ability to recolonize new

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61977

habitat and provide for genetic one of the longest flight seasons on for normal activity (73 FR 3328, p. 3335; exchange, which is essential to the long- record for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly January 17, 2008). term viability (survival) of the species. in Washington (45 days; Linders 2011b, The availability of abundant food At this time, the distance between p. 17) and in Oregon (42 days; Ross resources for larval development and habitat patches in Washington and 2011, in litt. p. 3). In a study by Peterson adult nectaring is an essential factor to Oregon is too great for Taylor’s (1997, p. 167), he demonstrated that protecting populations of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies to disperse flowering phenology varied by aspect checkerspot butterfly. Taylor’s between patches. The connections and elevation of plant patches, which checkerspot butterflies require open between patches are lacking throughout affects a butterfly’s ability to complete grassland habitat with specific host the species’ range, and only through its life cycle. The timing of plant plants for larval development, and protection and restoration using special flowering directly affects whether a nectar plants for adult feeding. Habitat management of the intervening patches butterfly larva finds the required plant quality may range from relatively will genetic exchange be accomplished. patches during the period they have to pristine to severely degraded (disturbed) High quality reproductive habitat is complete their larval development. If as long as the requisite larval host plants currently relegated to relatively small the food resource becomes exhausted (Plantago lanceolata, (nonnative areas within a larger context of degraded before the larvae complete their life narrow-leaf plantain) and Castilleja prairie landscape (Severns and Warren cycle they will either return to diapause, hispida (native harsh paintbrush), and 2008, p. 476; Severns and Grossball or die. in Canada, nonnative and native species 2011, p. 2). Based on the information above, we of Veronica (speedwell) such as V. Landscape and habitat diversity, or identified areas of open grassland scutella (marsh speedwell), V. heterogeneity, are essential elements for habitat with suitable habitat patches of beccabunga var. americana (American the conservation of Edith’s checkerspot short-statured grasses from less than 1 speedwell), and V. serpyllifolia butterflies (Ehrlich and Murphy 1987, p. acre to greater than 50 ac (roughly 0.4 (thymeleaf speedwell) are present in 122; Hellman et al. 2004, p. 41), and ha to more than 20 ha) in size within a sufficient abundance to support larval based on their similar habitat needs, we large landscape context are essential to development, chrysalis formation, and presume that habitat diversity is also the conservation of the Taylor’s emergence as an adult. Regardless of the quality of grassland essential to the conservation of the checkerspot butterfly. In the Pacific habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, even Northwest, suitable occupied habitat butterflies, conditions suitable to though the species may only require and patches may be found in a large forested use small areas of suitable habitat. support Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly landscape with small grassland opening Patches of habitat where Taylor’s must have representatives of at least of suitable habitat (such as in Oregon or checkerspot butterfly populations are one, or both, of the two food plant at sites on the north Olympic robust also tend to have high families utilized by the larvae (Pyle Peninsula), or the entire landscape may topographic diversity including areas 2002, p. 311; Erhlich and Hanski 2004, be a large relatively degraded grassland with mima mounds (low, domelike, p. 17; Severns 2008, p. 2; Severns and with smaller suitable habitat patches mounds of earth found in certain Warren 2008; p. 476). Specifically, occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot. prairies) and areas composed of swales larval food plants utilized by the To allow for dispersal between suitable (depressions) that produce ecotone Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are habitat patches the occupied patches habitat (Johnson and O’Neil 2001, p. species from the Orobanchacae 715) between dry upland habitat typical would ideally be located within (formerly Scrophulariacae; the of south Puget Sound prairies, and wet approximately 1,640 ft (500 m) of other snapdragon or figwort family) and prairie habitat more typical of the suitable habitat patches within the Plantanginacae (Plantain) family (Erlich Willamette Valley (Easterly et al. 2005, larger landscape context. and Hanski 2004, p. 22). These plant p. 1). Swales may enhance the wildlife In summary, a wide range of suitable families represent two of four plant resources available on the landscape habitat patch sizes, including large to families found within the region that (Easterly et al. 2005, p. 1) or improve the very small connected patches, appear to contain secondary chemicals called richness of wildlife resources accommodate the requisite needs of the iridoid glycosides (Erhlich and Hanski (biodiversity) of an area and as such are Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, as the 2004, p. 22), which may make adult important for wildlife conservation butterfly is known to occupy areas in butterflies distasteful to predators (van (Thomas et al. 1979, p. 48). Mima disjunct locations scattered across the Nouhuys and Hanski 2004, p. 161; mounds and swales are important Pacific northwest grassland landscape Murphy et. al. 2004 p. 22). Although because they may support plants not from sea-level to as high as 4,000 ft numerous plant families (up to 16) may found in the either the dry or wet (1,220 m) elevation. be utilized by checkerspot larvae portions of a grassland. Swales formed Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or (Murphy et. al. 2004, p. 22), the larvae on the prairies of south Puget Sound Other Nutritional or Physiological are known to preferentially select plant support a rich assemblage of native Requirements members of the plantain and plants because of the variation in aspect snapdragon (now broomrape) families in exposure found there, with the south Because checkerspots are cold- the Pacific Northwest. Checkering on aspect being dry compared with more blooded (exothermic), they are required wings of adult butterflies and the shaded northern aspects. The north- to complete their life cycle in a short sequestering of chemical compounds facing portion of a swale is likely to period of time in open conditions where that make adult butterflies distasteful maintain moist conditions later into the solar exposure is maximized. Larvae are two of many mechanisms used by growing season than the surrounding often seek and disperse to warm, open butterflies as a signal and defense level ground. slopes (James and Nunnallee 2011, p. against natural enemies (Van Nouhys Moist, cool conditions of a swale or a 286). Adult checkerspot butterflies often and Hanski 2004, p. 161). mima mound may be similar to the bask and remain in open grassland Adult Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies moist, cool, and overcast conditions conditions using the sunshine and are known to use a wide diversity of experienced throughout most of the warm air temperature to increase their nectar plants for feeding, including, but species’ range in 2011, which made for body temperature to the level required not limited to several native plant

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61978 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

species including: Balsamorhiza Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or In the climate and local weather deltoidea (balsamroot); Eriophyllum Rearing (or Development) of Offspring conditions of the Pacific Northwest, lanatum (woolly sunshine); Lomatium Taylors’s checkerspot butterflies larval development requires a site that triternatum (nine-leaved desert parsley); require open grassland habitat with is warm and dry (Kuussaari et al. 2004, Lomatium utriculatum (fine-leaved specific host plants for larval and adult p. 138). Therefore, based on the information desert parsley, spring gold); Camassia feeding as discussed above. As plant above, we have determined that areas quamash (common camas); Erigeron communities become invaded by taller within open grasslands with short- speciosus (showy fleabane); Cirsium structure grass, sites for breeding are statured structure, that contain larval arvense (Canada thistle); Achillea reduced and the availability of larval host plants for egg laying and feeding, millefolium (common yarrow); Lupinus and adult butterfly resources is limited. which are in close proximity to host lepidus (prairie lupine); and Lupinus The encroachment of nonnative, plants that provide protection from albicaulis (sickle-keeled lupine). invasive species reduces the quality and wind and wet weather for larval rearing size of habitat patches used for Adult butterflies obtain some is a physical and biological feature reproduction that are found in an moisture from nectar sources and the essential to the conservation of the otherwise larger grassland landscape need for actual water sources may only Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. occur during years of extreme drought (Severns and Warren 2008, p. 478; (Stinson 2005, p. 81). There is evidence Severns and Grosboll 2011, p. 2). The Habitats Protected From Disturbance or that points to butterflies using puddles quality of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly Representative of the Historical, to obtain salts leached from soil habitat resources is quite variable across Geographical, and Ecological (Stinson 2005, p. 81), or they may use its distribution, with Oregon sites being Distributions of the Species mud, carrion, animal urine, or feces to relatively depauperate (sparse Disturbance serves an important obtain salts, minerals, amino acids and vegetation and low plant diversity) function in restoring and sustaining proteins (Guppy and Shepard 2001, p. when compared with floristically habitat composition and function for 69). The intake of amino acids by abundant occupied habitat in improving prairie quality. As vegetation females results in larger eggs, and Washington (Severns and Grosboll 2011, responds positively to disturbances, consequently larger and healthier larvae p. 2). habitat succession occurs, restoring the (Murphy et al. 1983, p. 259). Oviposition (egg deposition) by early seral species, including the larval Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has most host plants narrow-leaved plantain and Therefore, based on the information often been documented on narrow-leaf above, we identify open, short-statured harsh paintbrush. plantain and harsh paintbrush. Taylor’s Typically, management is needed to grassland structure with rich and checkerspot butterfly larvae are known improve prairie quality. Management diverse plant communities containing to also utilize several species of treatments disturb the land and soil, and one or both primary larval food plants, speedwell in Canada (marsh speedwell, may involve prescribed fire, weed the narrow-leaved plantain and harsh American speedwell, and thyme-leaved control using herbicides, the harvesting paintbrush, as a physical and biological speedwell) (COSEWIC 2011, p. 25). In of encroaching trees, or the simple feature essential to the conservation of Washington, Collinsia parviflora (blue- process of planting grasses, forbs and the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. eyed Mary), and potentially Plectritis rare or uncommon plant species by Habitat should include open bare soil congesta (sea blush) may be used for hand or using mechanical means. Short with a background structure composed egg-laying (James and Nunnullee 2011, term and small scale disturbances range of a bunchgrass community (Roemer’s p. 286; Severns and Grossball 2011, p. from a few square feet to several acres fescue or California oat-grass). A source 60). (1 square meter to a few hectares). of water, or puddles, is used to avoid Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae Larger scale disturbances can range from dehydration and to acquire nutrients, require sheltered sites out of the wind ten to hundreds of acres (∼2.5 to 40 particularly in drought years (Stinson and weather for diapause (Linders 2012, hectares). 2005, p. 81; Guppy and Shepard 2001, pers. comm.). Adult butterflies tend to Occupied sites on the north Olympic p. 41). Other important larval food roost on nearby nectar plants (deltoid Peninsula on Forest Service and plants include, but are not limited to, balsamroot, sickle-keeled lupine, and Washington Department of Natural other members of the Orobanchaceae nine-leaved desert parsley) in close Resources land receive regular (broomrape; formerly Scrophulariaceae proximity to larval host plants (plantain disturbance from off road vehicles (snapdragon or figwort)) family, which and paintbrush) where eggs are (ORV), and service trucks using the road are documented larval host plants oviposited or larvae are developing by weekly to access cell-phone towers at (James and Nunnallee 2011, p. 286; Pyle feeding on host plants. The preferred or one site (Dan Kelly Ridge). At the single 2001, p. 311; Hellmann et al., 2004, p. most suitable habitat for larval feeding private land location on the north 35) and are essential to the conservation is on sites with topographic variation or Olympic Peninsula no public access is of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. exposure (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 140). permitted on the property. Disturbances Other species of the Plantaginaceae This allows larvae to move from one generated from the frontage road was family have not been documented as a host plant to another of the same reduced at this site by closing the road favored larval host plant, except in species, as host plants are ephemeral in during the spring and summer leading Canada (COSEWIC 2011 p. 25), where nature and phenology of an individual to the single most important Taylor’s have been observed utilizing plant can differ within a habitat patch, management action carried out at the the nonnative Plantago major (common depending on local weather and host site (Hays 2011 p. 32). The road closure plantain). Plant community patches plant quality (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. was implemented for the conservation utilized by Taylor’s checkerspot 140). Because of their limited ability to of the species in 2009 and has improved butterfly, especially those within a move, prediapause larvae must hatch the habitat in the short-term, leading to highly degraded prairie landscape from eggs oviposited in a favorable site increased numbers of larval host plants context, must also include a diverse mix for locating the appropriate host plant (P. lanceolata) and pre-diapause larval of native forbs to provide nectar for under the appropriate environmental masses observed at the site (Severns and adult butterflies. condition (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 138). Grosboll 2011, p. 32).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61979

Therefore, based on the information (a) In Washington and Oregon, determined that these areas are essential above, we identify areas with early seral common bunchgrass species found on for the conservation of the species. habitat that experience regular northwest grasslands include Festuca Streaked Horned Lark disturbance as essential to the roemeri (Roemer’s fescue), Danthonia conservation of the species. Regular californica (California oat grass), We have determined that the disturbance is necessary to maintain Koeleria cristata (prairie Junegrass), following physical or biological features early seral habitat conditions required to Elymus glaucus (blue wild rye), Agrostis are essential for the streaked horned aid establishment of the larval host and scabra (rough bentgrass), and on cooler, lark: adult nectar plants. Because natural high-elevation sites typical of coastal Space for Individual and Population disturbance regimes have largely been bluffs and balds, Festuca rubra (red Growth and for Normal Behavior eliminated in areas occupied by Taylor’s fescue). An open landscape context is an checkerspot, active, planned (b) On moist grasslands found near essential attribute of habitat used by management is generally required to the coast and in the Willamette Valley, streaked horned larks. Open areas allow maintain habitats in the early seral there may be Bromus sitchensis (Sitka streaked horned larks to detect condition required by the butterfly. brome) and Deschampsia cespitosa predators while nesting and foraging on Between times of planned disturbance, (tufted hairgrass) in the mix of prairie the ground and provide the space sites should receive protection from grasses. Less abundant forbs found on needed during aerial courtship displays disturbance in a temporal context, as too the grasslands include, but are not in the springtime. Our data indicate that much disturbance too often will reduce limited to, Trifolium spp. (true clovers), sites used by streaked horned larks are numbers of Taylor’s checkerspot narrow-leaved plantain, harsh generally found in open (i.e., flat, butterflies and the spatial extent of their paintbrush, Puget balsam root, woolly treeless) landscapes of 300 ac (120 ha) habitat. Disturbance will be beneficial sunshine, nine-leaved desert parsley, or more. Sites used by streaked horned and essential to resetting the habitat fine-leaved desert parsley, common larks are usually flat, with slopes back to early seral conditions camas, showy fleabane, Canada thistle, between 0 and 5 percent, and generally approximately every 2–5 years, based on common yarrow, prairie lupine, and not more than 10 percent, over the recovery from disturbance history, and sickle-keeled lupine. entire area. Some patches with the the resiliency of larval food plants as (ii) Primary larval host plants appropriate characteristics (i.e., sand, documented from experience at JBLM (narrow-leaved plantain and harsh bare ground, low stature vegetation) and other south Puget Sound locations paintbrush) and at least one of the may be smaller in size if the adjacent that have received proactive secondary annual larval host plants patches provide the required open management. The larval host plants and (blue-eyed Mary, sea blush, or dwarf owl-clover) or one of several species of landscape context. This situation may adult nectar plants are resilient and can speedwell (marsh speedwell, American occur in agricultural habitats and on recover if the habitat is provided speedwell, or thymeleaf speedwell). sites next to water. For example, some sufficient time to rest (at least two (iii) Adult nectar sources for feeding of the sites used by streaked horned growing seasons) between episodes of that include several species found as larks on the islands in the Columbia use and disturbance. part of the native (and one nonnative) River are small, but are adjacent to open Primary Constituent Elements for species mix on northwest grasslands, water, which provides the open Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly including: Narrow-leaved plantain; landscape context needed. Streaked harsh paintbrush; Puget balsam root; horned larks use the same habitats for Under the Act and its implementing wooly sunshine; nine-leaved desert all life history processes, in both the regulations, we are required to identify parsley; fine-leaved desert parsley or breeding and wintering seasons. the physical or biological features spring gold; common camas; showy Therefore, based on the information essential to the conservation of the fleabane; Canada thistle; common above, we identify flat (typically 0 to 5 Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in areas yarrow; prairie lupine; and sickle-keeled percent slope), open sites (treeless, low occupied at the time of listing, focusing lupine. vegetation or bare ground), or smaller on the features’ primary constituent (iv) Aquatic features such as suitable habitat patches located in an elements. We consider primary wetlands, springs, seeps, streams, open landscape context (roughly 300 ac constituent elements to be the elements ponds, lakes, and puddles that provide (120 ha) in size), as a physical or of physical or biological features that moisture during periods of drought, biological feature essential to the provide for a species’ life-history particularly late in the spring and early conservation of the streaked horned processes and are essential to the summer. These features can be lark. conservation of the species. permanent, seasonal, or ephemeral. Based on our current knowledge of With this proposed designation of Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, the physical or biological features and critical habitat, we intend to identify the Rearing of Offspring, Foraging and habitat characteristics required to physical or biological features essential Wintering sustain the species’ life-history to the conservation of the species, Streaked horned larks use habitats processes, we determine that the through the identification of the primary that have very early seral stage primary constituent elements specific to constituent elements essential to vegetation for all life stages. Suitable the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are: support the life-history processes of the streaked horned lark habitats have (i) Patches of early seral, short- species. We are proposing to designate substantial areas of bare ground, few or statured, perennial bunchgrass plant critical habitat within the geographical no shrubs, and sparse, low stature communities composed of native grass area occupied by the species at the time vegetation, primarily short annual and forb species in a diverse of listing. In addition, we are proposing grasses, bunch grasses, and forbs topographic landscape ranging in size to designate some specific areas outside (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). from less than 1 ac up to 100 ac (0.4 to the geographical area occupied by the Suitable habitat is generally 16–17 40 ha) with little or no overstory forest species at the time of listing that were percent bare ground (consisting of dirt, vegetation that have areas of bare soil historically occupied, but are presently gravel, or sand), and may be more open for basking that contain: unoccupied, because we have at sites selected for nesting (Altman

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61980 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

1999, p. 18; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. context that provides visual access to and large scale. These threats also have 27). Vegetation height is generally less open areas such as open water or fields, the potential to affect the PCEs if they than 13 inches (33 centimeters) (Altman or are conducted within or adjacent to 1999, p. 18; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. b. Areas smaller than described in designated units. 27), with less than 15 percent shrub i(a), but that provide visual access to The physical or biological features cover (Pearson and Hopey, 2005 p. 2). open areas such as open water or fields. essential to the conservation of Taylor’s Streaked horned larks apparently select With this proposed designation of checkerspot butterfly may require nesting sites based on the vegetation critical habitat, we intend to identify the special management considerations or structure, and not on the presence of physical or biological features essential protection to improve the viability and any particular type of vegetation to the conservation of the species, distribution of habitat suitable for the (Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson and Hopey through the identification of the primary butterfly. These include preventing the 2005, pp. 19–20). Nests are generally constituent elements sufficient to establishment of invasive, nonnative placed on the north side of a clump of support the life-history processes of the and native woody species, and grass or a forb (Moore and Kotaich, species. All but one of the units hastening restoration by actively 2010, p. 18). These sites may be proposed to be designated as critical managing sites to establish native plant frequently disturbed in a way that resets habitat are currently occupied by the species and the structure of the plant succession, eliminating dense grasses streaked horned lark and contain the community that is suitable for the and forbs, and halting the invasion of primary constituent elements to support Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. shrubs and trees. the life-history needs of the species. One Restoration and maintenance of These habitats may be native prairies, subunit, Coffeepot Island in the occupied Taylor’s sites will require coastal dunes, fallow and active Columbia River, is not currently active management to plan, restore, agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, occupied by the streaked horned lark, enhance and manage habitat using an sparsely vegetated edges of grass fields, but has been determined to be essential approach that resets the vegetation recently planted Christmas tree farms to the conservation of the species, as composition and structure to an early with extensive bare ground, moderately described below. seral stage. Management actions that to heavily grazed pastures, gravel roads Special Management Considerations or produce suitable conditions for Taylor’s or gravel shoulders of lightly traveled Protection checkerspot butterflies and reset the roads, graveled or grassy areas adjacent ecological clock to early seral conditions to airport runways, idle industrial When designating critical habitat, we favored by the butterfly include properties, and dredge material assess whether the specific areas within prescribed fires, mechanical harvesting deposition sites. These sites provide the geographical area occupied by the of trees, activities such as hand planting both breeding and wintering habitat for species at the time of listing contain or mechanical planting of grasses and streaked horned larks. features which are essential to the forbs, and the judicious use of Therefore, based on the information conservation of the species and which herbicides for nonnative invasive above, we identify sparse, low-stature may require special management species control. vegetation with areas of bare ground as considerations or protection. Here we These early-seral conditions favor the a physical or biological feature essential describe the type of special management production and maintenance of to the conservation of the streaked considerations or protections that may plantain, paintbrush, and other larval horned lark. be required for the physical or biological host plants in a short-structure features identified as essential for vegetation community that allows Primary Constituent Elements for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and utilization of the plants by the butterfly. Streaked Horned Lark streaked horned lark. The specific Areas where the butterfly occupies a site Under the Act and its implementing critical habitat units and subunits where should have limited soil and vegetation regulations, we are required to identify these management considerations or disturbance at times when the larvae are the physical or biological features protections apply for each species are active, which extends from late essential to the conservation of the identified in Table 1. February when post-diapause larvae are streaked horned lark in areas occupied All areas designated as critical habitat active to late June when pre-diapause at the time of listing, focusing on the will require some level of management larvae are on site. Other activities that features’ primary constituent elements. to address the current and future threats could cause trampling or impacts to the We consider primary constituent to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and larvae and that should be minimized, elements to be the elements of physical streaked horned lark and to maintain or reduced or restricted during larval or biological features that provide for a restore the PCEs. A detailed discussion feeding include use of the site by off- species’ life-history processes and are of activities influencing the Taylor’s road vehicles, military training using essential to the conservation of the checkerspot butterfly and streaked vehicles or impacts caused by large species. horned lark and their habitats can be infantry (foot soldiers), or activities that Based on our current knowledge of found in the preceding proposed listing transport or spread nonnative plants, the physical or biological features and rule. Threats to the physical or and the risk of wildfire or prescribed habitat characteristics required to biological features that are essential to fire. sustain the species’ life-history the conservation of these species and The physical or biological features processes, we determine that the that may warrant special management essential to the conservation of the primary constituent elements specific to considerations or protection include, streaked horned lark may require the streaked horned lark are: but are not limited to: (1) Loss of habitat special management considerations or (i) Areas having a minimum of 16 from conversion to other uses; (2) protection to ensure the provision of percent bare ground that have sparse, control of nonnative, invasive species; early seral conditions and landscape low stature vegetation composed (3) development; (4) construction and context of sufficient quantity and primarily of grasses and forbs less than maintenance of roads and utility quality for long-term conservation and 13 in (33 cm) in height found in: corridors; and (5) habitat modifications recovery of the species. Activities such a. Large (300-ac (120-ha)), flat (0–5 brought on by succession of vegetation as mowing, burning, grazing, tilling, percent slope) areas within a landscape from the lack of disturbance, both small herbicide treatment, grading, beach

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61981

nourishment, or placement of dredge conducted outside of the breeding success is highest in locations with material can used to maintain or restore season to avoid the destruction of nests restricted public use or entry such as nesting and wintering habitats. Regular and young, or if habitat management military facilities, airports, islands, disturbance is necessary to create and must be done during the breeding wildlife refuges, or sites that are remote maintain suitable habitat, but the timing season, it should be done in a way that or difficult to access. of management is important. The minimizes destruction of nests or management actions should be harassment of individuals. Nesting

TABLE 1—THREATS TO THE TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY AND STREAKED HORNED LARK IDENTIFIED IN SPECIFIC PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS; THREATS SPECIFIC TO THE PHYSICAL OR BIOLOGICAL FEATURES, WHICH MAY REQUIRE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS OR PROTECTION AS DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT, ARE IDENTIFIED WITH AN ASTERISK

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly Streaked horned lark

Factor A: Development * ...... Unit 1: 1–D, 1–E, 1–F, 1–G, 1–H (Pvt), 1–I, Unit 1: 1–A, 1–B, 1–C, 1–D, 1–E, 1–F; 1–G; 1–J; Unit 2: 2–C. Unit 3: 3–Q; Unit 4: 4–A, 4–C, 4–E, 4–H. Columbia River Dredge Spoil Deposition * NA ...... Unit 3: 3–E, 3–F, 3–G, 3–H, 3–I, 3–K, 3–M, 3–N. Loss of Natural Disturbance Processes, Unit 1: all subunits; Unit 2: all subunits; Unit All units and subunits. Invasive Species and Succession.* 4: all subunits. Military Training * ...... Unit 1: 1–A, 1–B, 1–C, 1–E ...... Unit 1: 1–B, 1–C, 1–D, 1–E. Restoration Activities ** ...... All units and subunits ...... All units and subunits. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Rec- NA ...... NA. reational, Scientific, or Educational Pur- poses. Factor C: Disease * ...... Unit 1: 1–A, 1–B, 1–C, 1–E, 1–H; Unit 4: All NA. subunits. Predation ...... NA ...... All units and subunits. Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Unit 1: 1–E, 1–F, 1–G, 1–H, 1–I, 1–J; Unit 2: NA. Mechanisms.* 2–D. Factor E: Low Genetic Diversity, Small or Isolated All units and subunits ...... Unit 1: All subunits. Populations, and Low Reproductive Suc- cess. Stochastic Weather Events ...... All units and subunits ...... NA. Climate Change * ...... All units and subunits ...... NA. Aircraft Strikes and Activities at Civilian Air- NA ...... Unit 1: 1–A, 1–B, 1–C, 1–D, 1–E, 1–F. ports. Unit 3: 3–Q. Unit 4: 4–A, 4–C, 4–E, 4–H. Pesticides and Herbicides ...... All units and subunits ...... NA. Recreation ...... Unit 1: 1–C, 1–D, 1–E, 1–F, 1–H; Unit 2: 2–A, Unit 3: 3–A, 3–B, 3–C, 3–D. 2–B, 2–C, 2–E; Unit 4: 4–A. Nest Parasitism ...... NA ...... NA. ** Although restoration is necessary for the maintenance of suitable habitat, the methods and timing of those restoration practices may directly impact individual Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark if the life-histories of the species are not taken into consideration during application of restoration techniques. Please see the sections entitled Loss of Natural Disturbance Processes, Invasive Species and Succession and Restoration Activities in the listing portion of the document.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical geographic areas occupied at the time of are believed to be unoccupied at the Habitat listing may be essential to ensure the time of listing. Our determination of the conservation of the species. We consider areas occupied at the time of listing, and As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of unoccupied areas for critical habitat our rationale for how we determined the Act, we use the best scientific and when a designation limited to the specific unoccupied areas to be essential commercial data available to designate present range of the species may be the conservation of the subspecies, are critical habitat. We review available inadequate to ensure the conservation of provided below. information pertaining to the habitat the species. In this case, since we are We plotted the known locations of the requirements of the species, and begin proposing listing simultaneously with Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and by assessing the specific geographic the proposed critical habitat, all areas streaked horned lark where they occur areas occupied by the species at the presently occupied by the subspecies in Washington and Oregon using 2011 time of listing. If such areas are not are presumed to constitute those areas NAIP digital imagery in ArcGIS, version sufficient to provide for the occupied at the time of listing; those 10 (Environmental Systems Research conservation of the species, in areas currently occupied by the Institute, Inc.), a computer geographic accordance with the Act and its subspecies are identified as such in each information system program. implementing regulation at 50 CFR of the unit or subunit descriptions To determine if the currently 424.12(e), we then consider whether below. These descriptions similarly occupied areas contain the primary designating additional areas outside the identify which of the units or subunits constituent elements, we assessed the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:31 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61982 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

life history components and the distribution for the species, outside of occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot distribution of the subspecies through Canada. butterfly or streaked horned lark and element occurrence records in State In all cases, when determining provide the physical or biological natural heritage databases and natural proposed critical habitat boundaries, we features that may require special history information on each of the made every effort to avoid including management considerations or subspecies as they relate to habitat. We developed areas such as lands covered protection, as well as areas that are first considered whether the presently by buildings, pavement (such as airport currently unoccupied but that we have occupied areas were sufficient to runways and roads), and other determined to be essential to the conserve the species. If not, to structures because such lands lack the conservation of the subspecies. determine if any unoccupied sites met essential physical or biological features Proposed Critical Habitat Designation the criteria for critical habitat, we then for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or considered: (1) The importance of the streaked horned lark, with the exception We are proposing critical habitat for site to the overall status of the of graveled margins of the airport the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and subspecies to prevent extinction and runways and taxiways. The scale of the streaked horned lark in four units in the contribute to future recovery of the maps we prepared under the parameters States of Washington and Oregon, as subspecies; (2) whether the area for publication within the Code of follows: presently provides the essential Federal Regulations may not reflect the (1) The South Sound Unit (Unit 1) has physical or biological features, or could exclusion of such developed lands. Any proposed critical habitat subunits for be managed and restored to contain the such lands inadvertently left inside both the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly necessary physical and biological critical habitat boundaries shown on the and streaked horned lark. maps of this proposed rule have been features to support the subspecies; and (2) The Strait of Juan De Fuca Unit excluded by text in the proposed rule (3) whether individuals were likely to (Unit 2) has proposed critical habitat and are not proposed for designation as colonize the site. We also considered subunits only for the Taylor’s critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical the potential for reintroduction of the checkerspot butterfly. subspecies, where anticipated to be habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands (3) The Washington Coast and necessary (for Taylor’s checkerspot Columbia River Unit (Unit 3) has butterfly only). would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the proposed critical habitat subunits only Occupied Areas requirement of no adverse modification for the streaked horned lark. (4) The Willamette Vally Unit (Unit 4) Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the has proposed critical habitat subunits For Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, we adjacent critical habitat. for both the Taylor’s checkerspot are proposing to designate critical We are proposing four units of critical butterfly and the streaked horned lark. habitat within the geographical area habitat for designation based on Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Units occupied by the species at the time of sufficient elements of physical and 1, 2, and 4 listing, as well as in unoccupied areas biological features being present to that we have determined to be essential support life-history processes for the We are proposing three units as to the conservation of the species Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and critical habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot (described below). These presently streaked horned lark. These 4 units are butterfly. The critical habitat areas we occupied areas provide the physical or further divided into 47, some of which describe below constitute our current biological features essential to the contain proposed critical habitat for best assessment of areas that meet the conservation of the species, which may both subspecies. Some subunits within definition of critical habitat for the require special management the units contain all of the identified species. The three units we propose as considerations or protection. We elements of physical and biological critical habitat are: Unit 1, South determined occupancy in these areas features and support multiple life- Sound—5,801 ac (2,348 ha) in based on recent survey information. All history processes. Some subunits Washington State (2,324 ac of Federal sites occupied by the Taylor’s contain only some elements of the ownership; 1,444 ac of State ownership; checkerspot butterfly have survey data physical and biological features 1,325 ac of private ownership; 545 ac of as recently as 2011, except for the Forest necessary to support the subspecies’ County ownership; and 163 ac of lands Service sites on the north Olympic particular use of that habitat. Because owned by a Port, local municipality, or Peninsula where data is as recent as we determined that the areas presently nonprofit conservation organization); 2010 (Potter, 2011; Linders 2011; Ross occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot Unit 2, Strait of Juan De Fuca—923 ac 2011; Holtrop 2010, Severns and butterfly and the streaked horned lark (374 ha) in Washington State (160 ac of Grossboll 2011). In addition, there have are not sufficient to provide for the Federal ownership; 320 ac of State been some recent experimental conservation of these subspecies, we ownership; 253 ac of private ownership; translocations of Taylor’s checkerspot have additionally identified some and 190 ac of land owned by a Port, butterfly to sites where it had been subunits that are presently unoccupied, local municipality, or nonprofit extirpated within its historical range. If but that we have determined to be organization); and Unit 4, Willamette translocated populations have been essential to the conservation of the Valley—the 151 ac (62 ha) in Oregon documented as successfully species. Therefore, we are also (151 ac of lands owned by a Port, local reproducing, we considered those sites proposing these unoccupied areas as municipality, or nonprofit conservation to be presently occupied by the critical habitat for the Taylor’s organization). The approximate area of subspecies. Areas proposed as critical checkerspot butterfly and streaked each proposed critical habitat unit and habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot horned lark. its relevant subunits, as well as land butterfly are representative of the We invite public comment on our ownership within each unit is shown in known historical geographic identification of those areas presently table 2.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (34) 28 (12) 135 (55) 190 (77) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (61) 0 .] 98 (40) 221 (90) 102 (45) 151 385 (156) 621 (251)

UTTERFLY B 0 0 0 0 0 HECKERSPOT C S ’ AYLOR T 0 0 0 ...... 0 0 0 54 (22) ...... 39 (16) 132 (53) 134 (54) 603 (255) 246 (100) ...... NITS FOR THE U 0 0 0 84 0 0 (60) 406 (164) 0 0 0 149 0 545 (220) 0 0 0 0 0 (3) (25) 0 0 6 61 0 0 ABITAT H 78 (31) 222 (90) 160 (65) 647 (262) 1,377 (557) RITICAL 2,484 (1,006) 1,764 (694) 545 (220) 1,578 (643) 504 (205) C Ac (ha) Ac (ha) Ac (ha) Ac (ha) Ac (ha) Federal State County Private Other* Private County Federal State ROPOSED 2—P ABLE T ...... 2,324 (941) ...... 1,444 (595) (62) 160 (65) ...... 545 (220) 1,325 (537) 320 (129) 151 0 163 (66) 0 253 (106) 190 (77) [Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. estimates reflect all land within proposed critical habitat unit boundaries Green ...... Subunit name Heritage. Park. Park. est. Unit 1 Totals Unit 2 Totals Unit 4 Totals Grand Total—all Units * Other = Ports, local municipalities and non-profit conservation organizations. Unit 1 South Sound 1–A ...... 1–B TA7S ...... 1–C 91st Division Prairie ...... 1–D 13th Division Prairie ...... 1–E Rocky Prairie ...... 1–F ...... Tenalquot Prairie ...... Mima Mounds/Glacial 1–G ...... 1–H West Rocky Prairie ...... 1–I Scatter Creek ...... 1–J Rock Prairie ...... Bald Hills ...... Unit 2 Strait of Juan De Fuca 2–A ...... Deception Pass State 2–B ...... 2–C Central Whidbey ...... 2–D Elwha ...... 2–E Sequim ...... Upper Dungeness ...... Unit 4 Willamette Valley 4–1 ...... Fort Hoskins Historic 4–2 ...... Baezell Memorial For- 4–3 ...... Fitton

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:35 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61984 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

We present brief descriptions of all uncontrolled fires due to deployment of the eastern portion of the subunit. Some units, and reasons why they meet the explosive or incendiary devices, minimal management takes place on the definition of critical habitat for Taylor’s military training involving heavy periphery of the AIA, creating checkerspot butterfly, below. equipment (resulting in trampling or conditions suitable for maintaining the crushing of burrows), digging or PCEs. The eastern portion of the subunit Unit 1: South Sound (or Puget trenching, bombardment, or use of live is bordered by a military access road; Lowland)—Taylor’s Checkerspot ammunition. the southeast corner of this unit is King Butterfly Subunit 1–A: Training Area (TA) 7s. Hill and extends west for ∼1 mile (1.6 The South Sound Unit consists of This subunit contains 78 ac (32 ha) in km). This area includes the north and 5,830 ac (2,359 ha) of land proposed for Pierce County, Washington, on DOD south ‘‘castles’’ (structures used as target Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in 10 lands. This unit is currently objectives for live fire training) in TA 76 subunits. This critical habitat unit is unoccupied, but was previously and is bordered to the north by the main located in the south Puget Sound region occupied. We have determined it is paved road (Story Road) north of the of Washington State, within Pierce and essential to the conservation of the AIA. The second area is located at Thurston County. This unit is owned species because it has the potential for Range 51 and is bordered by the oak/ and managed by several State and restoration of the physical or biological conifer forests to the south. This area Federal agencies, and includes the features sufficient to enable the extends into the AIA approximately 1 Department of Defense (DOD), reintroduction and reestablishment of mi (1.6 km) north from the SE corner Washington Departments of Natural Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. This and extends due west to intersect with Resources and Fish and Wildlife, subunit is an intensely managed prairie the south boundary access road of the Thurston County Parks and Recreation, located directly north of the Central AIA. This critical habitat subunit (1–B) and a single private site at Tenalquot Impact Area on JBLM. It is bordered by is being proposed for exemption from (Morgan) prairie. The subunits proposed a gravel pit to the west and Madigan designation of critical habitat under within the South Sound Unit for the Hospital Grounds to north and west, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are a mix and the Burlington Northern Railroad contingent on our approval of the DOD of occupied and unoccupied areas; 3 Right of Way to the East. The gravel pit INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions). subunits are presently occupied, and 7 is no longer used and could be restored, Subunit 1–C: Training Area 15, is subunits are unoccupied but essential to and is currently a site with extensive located in an area often referred to as the conservation of the species, for the distribution of the Taylor’s primary host the 13th Division Prairie. This subunit reasons described in the section Criteria plant, narrow- leaved plantain. The is located entirely in Pierce County, Used to Identify Critical Habitat. Only southern border of this subunit is Washington, on DOD lands and totals one subunit (91st Division Prairie; formed by the conifer forest along its 647 ac (262 ha). We have determined it subunit 1–B) is occupied by a native southern edge. Landscape heterogeneity is essential to the conservation of the population of Taylor’s checkerspot from the presence of swales and the species because it has the potential for butterfly, and two other subunits (I–B gravel pit are present at this subunit. restoration of the physical or biological Range 50 and 1–H, Scatter Creek SW) This critical habitat subunit (1–A) is features sufficient to enable the are occupied by recently translocated being proposed for exemption from reintroduction and reestablishment of butterflies that now successfully breed, designation of critical habitat under Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. This site survive, and have populations that are section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, is currently being enhanced to improve increasing in numbers. Subunit 1–B is contingent on our approval of the DOD butterfly habitat and will be used for owned and managed by the DOD (Army) INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions). release of captive bred and translocated on JBLM. Subunit 1–H is located on the Subunit 1–B: The Artillery Impact Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly larvae, local Scatter Creek Wildlife Area (south Area (AIA), also known as the 91st where larval releases are planned for the unit) owned and managed by the Division Prairie. This subunit (east and spring of 2013. This subunit includes Washington Department of Fish and west) totals 1,377 ac (557 ha) and is grassland habitat and forest margins, Wildlife. Four of these subunits are located entirely within Pierce County, and already provides some of the PCEs being managed primarily for military Washington, on DOD lands. The eastern in the form of large patches of suitable training. portion of this subunit is occupied by habitat providing abundant, diverse The DOD (Army) has written the only remaining native population of larval host food resources and adult Endangered Species Management Plans Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies in the nectar food plants for Taylor’s for these subunits for Taylor’s south Sound Unit. The west subunit is checkerspot butterfly. Water sources are checkerspot butterfly (under the DOD occupied by translocated Taylor’s available in Muck and South Creek. Integrated Natural Resources checkerspot butterflies first released This subunit is topographically diverse, Management Plan, or INRMP), and we here in 2008 and now represents an with swales and riparian habitat formed are proposing to exempt of these lands occupied ‘‘small population’’ center. by Muck and South Creek. The western under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (see This subunit provides the essential and southern boundaries are formed by Exemptions, below). For those threats to physical or biological features for military access roads. Formerly (prior to the essential physical or biological Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, which the year 2000), this unit was known to features that are common to all may require special management harbor thousands of Taylor’s subunits, special management considerations or protection. This checkerspot butterflies. This critical considerations or protection may be subunit receives periodic, heavy habitat subunit (1–C) is being proposed required to address direct or indirect military training, which results in for exemption from designation of habitat loss due to development, conifer regular ground fires being ignited that critical habitat under section and shrub encroachment, invasive plant serve a surrogate function as the form of 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, contingent on species, use of herbicides, and special management that would be our approval of the DOD INRMP for restoration activities. For those threats implemented during prescribed fires. JBLM (see Exemptions). that are unique to DOD lands, special Other forms of special management will Subunit 1–D: Rocky Prairie. This management considerations or be required to control nonnative, subunit includes the Rocky Prairie protection may be required to address invasive species that are found within Natural Area Preserve (NAP;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61985

Washington Department of Natural of the essential features are already unoccupied. It is located in Thurston Resources), which includes 35 ac (14 present on the landscape in this area County, Washington, and owned and ha) of high-quality habitat. The subunit and as it would provide a managed by WDFW. The subunit lies also includes three privately owned metapopulation center within a large between 140th Avenue SE to the south, properties; the rail line that borders the landscape (more than 2,000 ac (810 ha) an east-west running Burlington NAP on the east side (15 ac (6 ha)), and of managed prairie in the south end of Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad line the adjoining grassland east of the the County. In addition, this proposed to the north and a north-south BNSF railroad property (388 ac (157 ha)), and subunit provides several of the essential railroad line to the east and Tilley Road Wolf Haven International (29 ac; 12 ha), features to support Taylor’s checkerspot to the west. This subunit contains which is south of the grassland. The butterfly, including landscape landscape heterogeneity with entire subunit is located within heterogeneity, diverse and abundant topographic relief from mima mounds, Thurston County, Washington. This larval and adult plant resources, and small wetland depressions, and an subunit is currently unoccupied by bare ground. Each area within the active creek and pond that contains a Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies, subunit is periodically managed using Federally listed threatened plant although a small population was fire and mechanical methods to remove (Howellia aquatilis; water howellia) and detected as recently as 1989 (Pyle 1989, Scot’s broom and sustain early seral the Federal candidate species Oregon p. 170) at the Rocky Prairie NAP. This conditions. The portion of this proposed spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). Distinct population is no longer present and this critical habitat designation on JBLM areas of West Rocky Prairie have rich subunit is considered an historical site. (222 ac (90 ha) located at Training Area larval host and adult food resources. We We have determined it is essential to 22 is being proposed for exemption from have determined this subunit is the conservation of the species because designation of critical habitat under essential to the conservation of the it has the potential for restoration of the section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, subspecies because it has the potential physical or biological features sufficient contingent on our approval of the DOD to provide for the reintroduction and to enable the reintroduction and INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions). reestablishment of Taylor’s checkerspot reestablishment of Taylor’s checkerspot Subunit 1–F: Mima Mounds/Glacial butterfly to support recovery. In butterfly. Some of the essential features Heritage. This subunit is located in addition, this area has many of the are already present on the landscape in Thurston County, Washington. The physical or biological features essential this area. The proposed subunit is Glacial Heritage Preserve is 545 ac (220 to support the long-term conservation composed entirely of grasslands and ha) and is owned and managed by and recovery of Taylor’s checkerspot includes oak woodland margins, some Thurston County. The Mima Mounds butterfly, providing topographic transitional colonization (first growth) NAP is roughly 406 ac (164 ha), and is diversity (including mima mounds), Douglas-fir forest within the greater owned and managed as a NAP by the wetlands, ponds, and a perennial creek. prairie landscape. Several other PCEs, WDNR. Both sites were historically This area receives active management to including landscape heterogeneity, and occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot sustain suitable prairie habitat, and is diverse, abundant larval and adult plant butterflies but are currently unoccupied. specifically being enhanced for resources are present. The north We have determined it is essential to the butterflies and the Federally listed boundary is formed by Waldrick Road conservation of the subspecies because threatened plant Castilleja levisecta and Highway 99 the west. Wolf Haven it has the potential to provide for the (golden paintbrush), which has been International is at the southeastern reintroduction and reestablishment of reintroduced to the site. extent. The Rocky Prairie Natural Area Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to Subunit 1–H: Scatter Creek. This Preserve portion makes up 35 ac (14 ha) support recovery. Many of the essential subunit includes Scatter Creek Wildlife of this critical habitat subunit (1–D) and features required to support a Area (SCWA), a small private land is being proposed for exclusion from reintroduced population are already parcel, and a power line right-of-way designation of critical habitat under present on the landscape in this area. managed by the Federal Bonneville section 4(b)(2) of the Act, due to the This subunit provides diverse Power Administration (BPA) in approved WDNR State Trust Lands HCP topography, a water course, abundant Thurston County, Washington. The (see Exclusions). and diverse larval and adult food north and south units of Scatter Creek Subunit 1–E: Tenalquot Prairie. This resources, and areas of bare soil due to SCWA contain 730 ac (295 ha). The subunit includes grassland and oak active management. Glacial Heritage private land parcel totals 98 ac (40 ha) woodland portions of JBLM Training Preserve had a robust population of and is managed by WDFW in the same Area 22 and the privately owned Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in the way as the Wildlife Area. This property Morgan property. The subunit is located mid-1990s and is scheduled to receive was historically occupied by Taylor’s in Thurston County, Washington, and translocated Taylor’s checkerspot larvae checkerspot butterfly, and is currently managed by the DOD (Johnson Prairie) this year (2012). Both sites contain occupied by a population established and the nonprofit Center for Natural landscape heterogeneity, abundant and from larvae released between 2007– Lands Management, respectively. The diverse larval and adult food resources, 2011. This subunit contains the physical subunit designation for Taylor’s and areas of bare soil, and Glacial or biological features essential to the checkerspot butterfly on Tenalquot Heritage is bounded on the east side by conservation of the species, including Prairie is made up of Johnson Prairie a water course. The Mima Mounds NAP landscape heterogeneity with swales (also known as ‘‘El Guettar dropzone’’), portion (406 ac (164 ha)) of this critical and mima mounds; rich, diverse larval (222 ac (90 ha)) on JBLM lands, and the habitat subunit (1–F) is proposed for and adult food resources; bare ground Morgan property (135 ac (55 ha)). Both exclusion from designation of critical (due to management practices); and a locations are presently unoccupied by habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, stream running through the center of the Taylor’s, although Johnson Prairie is an due to the approved WDNR State Trust property. historical site. We have determined it is Lands HCP (see Exclusions). The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Subunit 1–G: West Rocky Prairie. This essential to the conservation of the subspecies because it would provide for subunit contains 134 ac (54 ha) and was species may require special the reintroduction and reestablishment historically occupied by Taylor’s management considerations or of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Some checkerspot butterfly but is currently protection to maintain bare ground in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61986 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

this subunit. The north subunit is landowner’s property is considered for (verges) are rich in larval and adult food bounded on the east by Case Road, and exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the resources, and in this location Taylor’s on the south subunit is bordered by Act, due to the conservation easement checkerspot butterflies lay eggs and 183rd Avenue SW. Scatter Creek runs on approximately 530 acres of their larvae subsist on harsh paintbrush, through the property and forms the property and the Grassland Reserve although plentiful plantain is also north boundary of the portions subunit Program plan developed in partnership available and the plantain is also and the south boundary of the north with the USDA’s Natural Resources utilized at this location. This unit is subunit; this property is bounded on the Conservation Service (NRCS) for the within the historical range of the west by residential areas. The northern long-term management of their property, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and portion of the Wildlife Area is bounded which is consistent with restoration and several designated subunits are to the west by second growth conifer management needs for sustaining presently occupied by the subspecies. forests. We are considering the prairies (see Exclusions). In addition, some subunits are exclusion of approximately 98 ac (40 ha) Subunit 1–J: Bald Hills. This subunit proposed for designation that are of private property in this subunit under is located in southeast Thurston County, currently unoccupied, but that we have section 4(b)(2) of the Act, due to the Washington, and is managed by WDNR determined to be essential to the level of public benefits derived from and several timber companies. The total conservation and recovery of the encouraging collaborative efforts and area of this subunit is 468 ac (189 ha). subspecies, as described in the section encouraging private and local This is an historical location for Taylor’s Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat. conservation efforts; and the effect checkerspot butterflies but was recently All subunits, both occupied and designation would have on extirpated (2007); therefore, it is not unoccupied, contain several of the partnerships, as well as the existing believed to be currently occupied. We PCEs, and the coastal sites have lagoons, WDFW lease on this property, and the have determined this subunit is fresh water lakes, wetlands. The bald fact that this property is managed in a essential to the conservation of the locations have the PCEs of topographic manner consistent with the subspecies because it has the potential relief, abundant and diverse larval and conservation of this species (see for active management to restore the adult food plants, and bare soil areas Exclusions). physical or biological features essential associated with adjacent roads. Subunit 1–I: Rock Prairie. This to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and to Management to expand the size of subunit is made up of two private provide for the reintroduction and several balds as Douglas fir, Acer properties in south Thurston County, reestablishment of the subspecies to macrphyllum, (bigleaf maple) A. Washington. The acreage for the subunit support recovery. In addition, this area circinatum (vine maple), Holodiscus is 621 ac (251 ha). The southernmost already provides some of the features discolor (oceanspray), Arctostapholus private property is an historical location essential to support the long-term columbiana (hairy manzanita, and for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, conservation and recovery of Taylor’s nonnative shrubs (such as Scot’s broom) but it is currently unoccupied. We have checkerspot butterfly, including diverse are quickly encroaching. Landowners in determined this subunit is essential to topography of balds, steep slopes, this unit include WDNR, the U.S. Forest the conservation of the subspecies canyons, oak glades, a rich diversity of Service, Washington State Parks, and a because it has the potential to provide larval and adult food resources, and private landowner at Sequim. The for the reintroduction and areas of bare soil, which are used for physical or biological features essential reestablishment of Taylor’s checkerspot basking and resting by the butterfly. to the conservation of the species may butterfly to support recovery. In This area is the southeastern most require special management addition, this area has many of the distribution of Taylor’s checkerspot in considerations or protection to address features essential to support the long- Thurston County, and is the only threats to the essential physical or term conservation and recovery of Thurston County site that is formed on biological features including the general Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, bald habitat. The Bald Hills NAP succession of vegetation at all sites, including diverse topography with portion (247 ac (100 ha)) of this critical which reduces the distribution and terraces and swales, abundant and habitat subunit (1–J) is proposed for availability of native food resources. diverse larval and adult food resources, exclusion from designation of critical The subunits on WDNR and Forest and a water course formed by Scatter habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, Service lands are threatened by ORV use Creek along the southern boundary of due to the approved WDNR State Trust and service trucks accessing cell-phone the property. It is managed under a Lands HCP, which covers Natural Area towers (Dan Kelly Ridge). The owner of Grassland Reserve Program agreement Preserves (see Exclusions). the private subunit at Sequim is and has a permanent conservation currently managing the dune and Unit 2: Strait of Juan de Fuca—Taylor’s easement on 530 ac (215 ha) of the abandoned road corridor for the Checkerspot Butterfly property. conservation of the Taylor’s checkerspot The northern border for the southern The Strait of Juan de Fuca Unit for butterfly. property and the southern border for the Taylor’s Checkerspot butterfly consists Subunit 2–A: Deception Pass. This northern property is 183rd Avenue SW.; of 924 ac (374 ha) of land in 5 subunits. subunit is located on Island County in in other words, 183rd Avenue SW. The Strait of Juan de Fuca Unit includes Washington and managed by bisects the two properties. The eastern coastal bluff, dune, and bald habitat in Washington State Parks. The subunit border of the southern portion of the Clallam and Island Counties, contains sites found along low-lying subunit is an active gravel and sand Washington. Except for two coastal beach areas (coastal dunes), and include mining operation, and to the north of dune sites at Sequim and Deception several balds on high points within the the northern portion of the subunit is Pass State Park, the subunits in this park. These open areas are disjunct from forest, and to the southwest of the location contain bald habitat, each other and total 149 ac (60 ha). The southern property is forest. These surrounded by and found within a large State Park is an historically occupied forested areas clearly delineate property forested landscape. These balds are all location for Taylor’s checkerspot and land use boundaries. The entire found on south, or southwest facing, butterfly, but is currently unoccupied. acreage of the proposed critical habitat steep, rocky, and thin-soil areas. The We have determined this subunit is (379 ac (153 ha)) on one private balds themselves and the road margins essential to the conservation of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61987

subspecies because it has the potential were included in this subunit. The balds management of the site in a to provide for the reintroduction and are presently occupied by Taylor’s Management Plan, developed in reestablishment of Taylor’s checkerspot checkerspot butterflies on WDNR lands, coordination with WDFW (see butterfly to support recovery. This was and the butterflies have been observed Exclusions). an historically occupied location in a flying up and down the steep slopes of Subunit 2–E: Upper Dungeness. This coastal area that is currently represented the habitat onto private lands. The subunit occurs in the Upper Dungeness at just one occupied site. In addition, location known as Eden Valley is Watershed on U.S. Forest Service lands this area has many of the features composed of several small connected in Clallam County, Washington. This essential to support the long-term and some isolated balds. This area subunit contains 160 ac (65 ha), is conservation and recovery of Taylor’s contains several PCEs including composed of bald habitat, is currently checkerspot butterfly, including diverse topographic heterogeneity, abundant occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot topography on balds and protected and diverse larval and adult food butterfly, and contains the physical or beaches, diverse and abundant larval resources, and bare soil for basking. The biological features essential to the and adult food plants, and areas of bare physical or biological features essential conservation of the subspecies. Sites soil for basking and resting. to the conservation of the species may within the subunit are referred to as Subunit 2–B: Central Whidbey. This require special management Bear Mountain, 3 O’Clock Ridge, and subunit is located on Island County in considerations or protection to sustain Upper Dungeness. Bear Mountain is Washington and includes Ebey’s the open conditions that are needed to disjunct from the 3 O’Clock Ridge and Landing, the Naas Conservation Area, manage for and sustain the larval and Upper Dungeness units. All sites within and the former Smith Prairie. This adult food resources. The subunit runs this subunit are found within the subunit contains both State and private along the top of the ridge including the Dungeness watershed at three separate lands. In total these areas comprise 230 north margin (road verge) of the road locations, with Bear Mountain at the ac (93 ha), although the Smith Prairie is and extends down the south slope to the lowest elevation, 3 O’Clock Ridge found disjunct from the remaining contiguous 1,250 ft (381 m) contour interval. At Dan at mid-elevation and the Upper coastal grasslands bluffs. The subunit Kelly Ridge, the entire ridgeline Dungeness site at the highest elevation was historically occupied by Taylor’s including the road and road verge on where we have detected the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly but is not the north margin of the road are part of checkerspot butterfly. The features currently occupied. The subunit would the subunit. The subunit extends down essential to the conservation of the require captive breeding and the south facing slope to include bald species may require special translocation of the species to bring it habitat recently exposed by forest management considerations or back to this location. We have harvesting. protection to address threats by determined this subunit is essential to encroachment of several conifer species, the conservation of the subspecies Subunit 2–D: Sequim. This subunit is maple, oceanspray, and sparse amounts because it has the potential to provide located in Clallam County, Washington, of Scot’s broom, which all compete with for the reintroduction and on private property that contains native grasses and forbs for space, water reestablishment of Taylor’s checkerspot approximately 151 ac (61 ha) of low- and nutrients. Early restoration work butterfly to support recovery. In lying stabilized dune habitat. This unit conducted by the Forest Service has addition, it provides many of the is presently occupied by Taylor’s included tree harvesting and removal, features essential to supporting checkerspot butterfly and contains the and has resulted in the larval and adult reintroduced population of the physical or biological features essential resources expanding on this habitat. The subspecies, including diverse to the conservation of the subspecies. subunit contains several PCEs, topography, abundant larval and adult The subunit includes stabilized dune including landscape heterogeneity, nectar food resources, areas of bare soil, and beach habitat adjacent to the Strait abundant larval and adult food some freshwater wetlands, and saltwater of Juan de Fuca at approximately 20 ft resources, nearby streams, and plentiful along the coast. Some management is (6 m) elevation. This subunit contains areas of bare ground for basking. We are ongoing at the site, and will be required several PCEs, including landscape considering the exclusion of 160 ac (65 to restore and maintain the essential heterogeneity with fore dune, and back ha) of subunit (2–E) under 4(b)(2) of the features to support a reintroduced dune areas and terraces; rich and Act due to ongoing management for population, including management to abundant larval and adult food Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat, restrict encroaching trees and to sustain resources; a marsh; and bare soil for which is consistent with the NW Forest larval food resources. basking. The physical or biological Plan’s allowance for small openings in Subunit 2–C: Elwha. This subunit features essential to the conservation of Late Successional Reserve allocations of includes sites on the northern Olympic the species may require special federal forests (see Exclusions). Peninsula in Clallam County, management considerations or Washington, totaling 235 ac (95 ha) and protection to address threats to the Unit 4: Willamette Valley Unit—Taylor’s is occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot essential features. We are considering Checkerspot Butterfly butterfly at the time of listing. These the exclusion of private land subunit (2– The Willamette Valley Unit for lands are primarily owned and managed D) located at Sequim under the section Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly is made by WDNR (172 ac (69 ha)), although 4(b)(2) of the Act. This consideration of up of three subunits, all of which are small inholdings of private timber exclusion is due to the ongoing located in Benton County, Oregon, companies (Aloha Lumber) have been conservation management for Taylor’s totaling 152 ac (61 ha). Two subunits are included as the habitat continuity was checkerspot butterflies of this subunit, presently occupied by Taylor’s found to follow the topography. At Eden and the long-term management plan that checkerspot butterflies (Beazell Valley, 23 ac (9 ha) of WDNR property is currently being developed in Memorial Forest and Fitton Green were included in the proposed subunit, coordination with the WDFW. The Natural Area) and contain the physical as were 2 ac (approximately 1 ha) of landowner has been working with or biological features essential to the private property. At the Dan Kelly Ridge WDFW for several years to manage for conservation of the species. The third location, 109 ac (44 ha) of WDNR land Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and is subunit at Fort Hoskins Historic Park is and 99 ac (40 ha) of private timber lands in the process of formalizing their unoccupied, but we have determined it

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61988 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

is essential to the conservation of the northern portion. Subunit 4–A north subunit is mostly open meadow, with subspecies for the reasons detailed in consists of 1.4 ac (0.57 ha) and subunit some forested components, surrounded the section Criteria Used to Identify 4–A south consists of 5 ac (2 ha). This by Douglas-fir/Oregon white oak forest Critical Habitat. subunit is located within Fort Hoskins at about 1,000–1,300 ft (305–396 m) All areas within this subunit provide Historic Park, which is owned and elevation. This subunit is known to be some physical or biological features managed by Benton County, Oregon. currently occupied by Taylor’s essential to the conservation of Taylor’s The Park is located west of where checkerspot butterflies at varying checkerspot butterfly, whether presently Hoskins Road joins Oregon Route 223 densities, and contains several PCEs occupied or unoccupied by the and is about 12 mi (19 km) northwest including the presence of perennial subspecies, including abundant larval of the City of Corvallis. The subunit bunchgrass plant communities with the and adult food resources, and areas of consists of open meadows on a requisite larval and adult food bare soil for basking and resting. The southwest-facing hillside of Dunn resources, landscape heterogeneity, and habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot Ridge, mostly surrounded by Douglas- bare soil areas for basking. The subunit butterfly is confined to dispersed small fir/Oregon white oak forest. The park is is open to the public with hiking trails meadow (grassland) openings within a open to the public for day use and and picnicking facilities, and is larger forested matrix. Areas proposed contains hiking trails. The park is also managed as a demonstration forest and for critical habitat for the Taylor’s used for natural resource research that open space area, with management checkerspot butterfly in this unit has included mowing and burning of intended to protect, conserve, and constitute the only known, currently or meadows. A single individual Taylor’s restore natural, scenic values. recently occupied habitat for the species checkerspot butterfly, presumably a Benton County was issued a section in Oregon with the capability to support dispersing individual, was discovered 10(a)1(B) permit on January 14, 2011, in the breeding and reproduction of the there in 2005; however, no butterflies conjunction with their Prairie Species subpsecies. The features essential to the have been observed there in subsequent Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Some conservation of the species may require surveys and we consider Fort Hoskins of the meadow areas in the Beazell special management considerations or Historic Park to be currently Memorial Forest will be used for protection to address direct or indirect unoccupied. We have determined this mitigation purposes under the HCP and habitat loss due to development, conifer subunit is essential to the conservation will be otherwise managed to maintain and shrub encroachment, invasive plant of the subspecies because it has the the meadow complexes under the HCP’s species, use of herbicides, and potential to provide for the Prairie Conservation Strategy. Special restoration activities. In all subunits, reintroduction and reestablishment of management may be required within disturbance will be needed to sustain Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to this subunit to restore or maintain the the early-seral conditions required by support recovery. In particular, since essential features for Taylor’s the butterfly larval and adult lifestages. there are only two small extant checkerspot butterfly. While some Two of the subunits (Beazell and Fort populations of Taylor’s checkerspot management is ongoing in the form of Hoskins Historic Park) are owned and butterfly in the Willamette Valley, an mowing and encroaching tree removal, managed by Benton County. additional population at Fort Hoskins additional management is needed to Approximately 45 percent of the third Historic Park would provide essential address invasion of nonnative grasses subunit (Fitton Green) is held in trust as redundancy in populations for the and woody vegetation, and possibly to a permanent conservation easement. subspecies. In addition, the subunit improve the diversity of food resources. All subunits are proposed for provides many of the features essential We propose to exclude the 61 ac (25 ha) exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the to supporting a reintroduced in this subunit (4–B) from proposed Act due to the Benton County HCP, and population, including abundant and critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of will be managed under the HCP’s Prairie diverse larval and adult food resources the Act, as the Taylor’s checkerspot and Conservation Strategy (see Exclusions). in the grassland parts of the park, management for the species at Beazell The Benton County HCP Prairie diverse topography, bare soil patches, Memorial Forest is covered by the Management Plan meets the species and areas dominated by early Benton County HCP (see Exclusions). need by conserving occupied prairie successional plant species. The site is Subunit 4–C: Fitton Green Natural habitat by implementing measures to located far enough away from the other Area. This subunit is composed of four restore, and manage for the long-term two occupied Oregon sites (greater than areas totaling 83 ac (34 ha). This subunit conservation of the Taylor’s checkerspot 2 mi (3.2 km)) to be considered a is located 5 mi (8 km) west of the City butterfly. The plan’s goals have been separate population if it the Taylor’s of Corvallis, Oregon. Portions of this implemented by Benton County Parks checkerspot butterfly is reestablished subunit (approximately 41 ac (17 ha)) and Recreation department and they there. are within property acquired by Benton plan to continue these actions in We propose to exclude the 6.4 acres County for the purposes of support of the butterfly. The plan meets (2.57 ha) of this subunit (4–A) from demonstrating land stewardship the needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot proposed critical habitat under section practices on mixed public and private butterfly by controlling invasive, 4(b)(2) of the Act, as the Taylor’s ownership. The Benton County owned nonnative shrubs (Scot’s broom), checkerspot and management for the or managed portions of this subunit are reduces the cover of tall, invasive species at Fort Hoskins Historic Park is a recognized component of the County’s pasture grasses, reduces the cover of covered by the Benton County HCP (see Prairie Species HCP and will be encroaching trees, and to augment Exclusions). managed under their Prairie through planting and seeding the larval Subunit 4–B: Beazell Memorial Forest. Conservation Strategy as well as used as and adult food resources and native The Beazell Memorial Forest subunit is a mitigation site. The Fitton Green grass species that form the low-statured composed of five areas that total 61 ac Natural Area subunit is mostly structure of the habitat required by the (25 ha), all within the Beazell Memorial composed of open meadows with butterfly. Forest owned by Benton County. The scattered trees, and bordered by Subunit 4–A: Fort Hoskins Historic Beazell Memorial Forest is located Douglas-fir/Oregon white oak forest. Park. The Fort Hoskins Historic Park approximately 9 mi (14.5 km) southwest The subunit is currently occupied by subunit is composed of a southern and of the City of Corvallis, Oregon. The Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61989

contains the features essential to the covered by the Benton County HCP (see organization. The Willamette Valley conservation of the species and includes Exclusions). Unit (4) totals 4,880 ac (1,975 ha) and areas that function as a dispersal comprises 1,729 ac of Federal Streaked horned lark—Units 1, 3, and corridor. The subunit contains several 4 ownership and 3,151 ac of privately PCEs including the presence of owned land. We are proposing for designation of perennial bunchgrass plant Streaked horned larks have been communities with larval and adult food critical habitat lands that we have determined are occupied at the time of documented nesting on all but one of resources, little or no overstory forest the subunits within the last few years vegetation, landscape heterogeneity, and listing and contain sufficient elements of physical or biological features to and all subunits are therefore bare soil areas for basking. considered occupied at the time of While some management to restore or support life-history processes essential listing, with the exception of Subunit 3– maintain the features essential to for the conservation of the streaked J, Coffeepot Island in the Columbia Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has horned lark. In addition, we are River, which has not been surveyed already occurred in the form of mowing proposing one subunit unoccupied at recently; streaked horned larks were last and encroaching tree removal, the the time of listing, but that we have physical or biological features essential determined is essential the conservation detected there in 2004. We, therefore, to the conservation of the species may of the subspecies, as detailed in the evaluated Coffeepot Island as if it were require special management section Criteria Used to Identify Critical unoccupied, and have determined that considerations or protection to address Habitat. it is essential for the conservation of the invasion of nonnative grasses and We are proposing to designate three subspecies to provide connectivity woody vegetation, and to improve the units as critical habitat for the streaked between the streaked horned lark diversity of food resources. A portion of horned lark. The three units are: Unit populations nesting on Columbia River the Fitton Green Natural Area subunit is 1—South Sound (with 6 subunits), Unit islands. All of the subunits, both being conserved through a specialized 3—Washington Coast and Columbia occupied and unoccupied, currently Right of Way Management Plan for River (with 18 subunits), and Unit 4— have one or more of the physical or Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly Willamette Valley (with 8 subunits). biological features essential to the developed and approved by the BPA The South Sound Unit (Unit 1) totals conservation of the streaked horned and Xerces Society in coordination with 3,763 ac (1,523 ha) and comprises 2,813 lark, and which may require special the Service’s Oregon Fish and Wildlife ac of Federal ownership and 950 ac of management considerations or office in Portland in 2005. private land. The Washington Coast and protection. We propose to exclude the 41 acres Columbia River Unit (Unit 3) totals The critical habitat areas described (17 ha) of County lands (noted as South 3,516 ac (1,423 ha) and comprises 564 below constitute our best assessment of and BPA) in this subunit (4–C) from ac of Federal ownership, 2,597 ac of areas that meet the definition of critical proposed critical habitat under section State-owned lands, 151 ac of private habitat for the streaked horned lark. The 4(b)(2) of the Act, as the Taylor’s lands, 182 ac of Tribal lands, and 22 ac approximate area and landownership of checkerspot and management for the of lands owned by a Port, local each proposed critical habitat unit and species on County-owned lands is municipality, or nonprofit conservation associated subunit is shown in Table 4.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61990 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (216) (243) 22 (9)

376 (152) 575 (233) 600 (243) 313 (127) * 1,103 (447) 4,123 (1,669) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] 182 (74) 182 (74)

ARK L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ORNED 24 (10) 25 (10) H 102 (41) 151 (61) TREAKED S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (39) 0 0 0 23 (9) 13 (5) 44 (18) 43 (18) 37 (15) 60 (24) 123 (50) 101 (41) 224 (91) 611 (247) 388 (157) 456 (185) 377 (152) NITS FOR THE 2,597 (1,050) U ABITAT H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 534 0 601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 RITICAL C 759 (307) 347 (140) 888 (359) 819 (331) 564 (228) 264 (107) 459 (186) 1,006 (407) 5,106 (2,066) Federal State Private Tribal Other Tribal Private Federal State Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) ROPOSED 4—P ABLE T [Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. estimates reflect all land within proposed critical habitat unit boundaries ...... 2,813 (1,138) 0 ...... 0 564 (228) ...... 2,597 (1,050) 0 151 (61) 1,729 (700) 950 (385) 182 (74) 0 22 (9) 0 0 3,151 (1,275) Farms ...... Subunit name Airport ...... Streaked Horned Lark . Unit 1 Totals Unit 3 Totals Unit 4 Totals Grand Total—all Units Other = Ports, local municipalities, and nonprofit conservation organization. * Unit 1 South Sound 1–A ...... 1–B Sanderson Field ...... 1–C McChord Airforce Base ...... 1–D Gray Army Airfield ...... 1–E ...... 91st Division Prairie ...... 1–F 13th Division Prairie ...... Olympia Airport ...... Unit 3 Washington Coast Columbia River Islands 3–A ...... 3–B Damon Point ...... 3–C Midway Beach ...... 3–D Shoalwater Spit ...... 3–E ...... Leadbetter Point ...... 3–F Rice Island ...... 3–G Miller Sands ...... 3–H Pillar Rock/Jim Crow ...... 3–I Welch Island ...... 3–J Tenasillahe Island ...... 3–K Coffeepot Island ...... 3–L Whites/Brown ...... 3–M Wallace Island ...... 3–N Crims Island ...... 3–O Sandy Island ...... Portland International Airport Unit 4 Willamette Valley 4–A ...... 4–B McMinnville Airport ...... 4–C Basket Slough NWR ...... 4–D Salem ...... 4–E ...... Ankeny NWR ...... 4–F Corvallis Airport ...... 4–G William L Finley NWR ...... 4–H M–DAC ...... Eugene Airport ......

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:35 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61991

Unit 1: South Sound—Streaked Horned Subunit 1–B: McChord Field (Pierce Subunit 1–D: 91st Division Prairie/ Lark County, Washington). McChord Field is Artillery Impact Area (Pierce County, In the South Sound Unit, streaked part of DOD’s JBLM; the subunit is Washington). This site is also part of horned larks are found on flat, open about 759 ac (307 ha) in size. This DOD’s JBLM; the subunit contains about sites that are remnants of the original airport is used by large military cargo 888 ac (359 ha). The boundaries of this Puget lowland prairies. All of the planes; the subunit includes areas subunit are delineated by military known currently occupied sites in the adjacent to the main runway and access roads and forested areas. This South Sound area are associated with taxiways. This subunit is currently subunit is currently occupied and airfields or military training grounds. occupied and contains the physical or contains the physical or biological The areas used by streaked horned larks biological features essential to the features essential to the conservation of for nesting at all of the airports consist conservation of the subspecies, with the subspecies. Streaked horned lark of grass and gravel margins of the most of the documented nesting by nesting has been documented in the runways and taxiways. We are streaked horned larks occurring in the eastern half of this large prairie in areas proposing six subunits for a total of northeast portion of the airport. Soils on referred to by the army as Range 74–76 3,764 ac (1,523 ha) in the South Sound this site are gravelly and poor, with and Training Area 6. No surveys are Unit. All subunits are occupied and sparse low grass and bare ground. The conducted in the center of the Artillery contain the physical or biological site has the both the landscape context Impact Area. The site has both the open features essential to the conservation of and the low vegetative structure that landscape context and early seral the streaked horned lark. Ownership in make up the physical or biological vegetation that make up the physical or this unit is by the Department of features essential to the conservation of biological features essential to the Defense and local municipalities. The the species. The physical or biological conservation of the species; both of the current threats to the essential features features essential to the conservation of PCEs are maintained by regular ground- in the South Sound Unit include the streaked horned lark may require disturbing activities such as fires, troop mowing and disturbance from special special management considerations or maneuvers and off-road military training events during the nesting protection to maintain the early seral training exercises. The physical or season, and loss of habitat from vegetation required by the subspecies biological features essential to the commercial and industrial and to minimize nest destruction and conservation of the streaked horned lark development. The physical or biological disturbance during the breeding season. may require special management features essential to the conservation of This critical habitat subunit (1–B) is considerations or protection to maintain the streaked horned lark may require being proposed for exemption from the early-seral vegetation required by special management considerations or designation of critical habitat under the subspecies and to minimize nest protection to maintain the early seral section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, destruction and disturbance during the vegetation on all of these subunits and contingent on our approval of the DOD breeding season. In addition, special to minimize nest destruction and INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions). management considerations or disturbance during the breeding season. Subunit 1–C: Gray Army Airfield protection may be required to address Subunit 1–A: Sanderson Field Airport (Pierce County, Washington). Gray threats specific to the Artillery Impact (Mason County, Washington). Army Airfield is part of DOD’s JBLM; Area (Range 74–76 and Training Area Sanderson Field Airport is in the town the subunit is about 347 ac (140 ha) in 6), including explosives and live fire of Shelton and is owned by the Port of size. This airport is predominantly used operations, off-road vehicle operations, Shelton; the subunit contains about 375 by military helicopters, but also troop maneuvers, and military training ac (152 ha). This subunit is currently supports fixed-wing aircraft. This activities. This critical habitat subunit occupied and contains the physical or subunit is currently occupied and (1–D) is being proposed for exemption biological features essential to the contains the physical or biological from designation of critical habitat conservation of the subspecies. The site features essential to the conservation of under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, is bounded on the north and western the subspecies. Streaked horned larks contingent on our approval of the DOD edges by forest, on the eastern edge by nest in the grassy medians and gravel INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions). airport buildings (hangars, offices) and shoulders along the edge of the runway Subunit 1–E: 13th Division Prairie US 101 and includes the grass perimeter and taxiways throughout this airport, (Pierce County, Washington). This site is along the runway on the southern side. including gravel areas in paved part of DOD’s JBLM; the subunit is Streaked horned larks nest along the helicopter parking areas. The site has about 819 ac (331 ha) in size. This southern edge of the airport adjacent to both the open landscape context and subunit is currently occupied and an abandoned or seldom-used runway. sparse grassy vegetation that make up provides the physical or biological The Washington Department of Fish and the physical or biological features features essential to the conservation of Wildlife works with Sanderson Field to essential to the conservation of the the subspecies. This subunit is largely coordinate mowing schedules to species. The physical or biological prairie habitat and includes an minimize threats to streaked horned features essential to the conservation of infrequently used runway. It is bordered larks however, a management plan does the streaked horned lark may require on the northern and eastern edges by not currently exist that specifically special management considerations or Muck Creek and the western and addresses conservation or habitat protection to maintain the early seral southern edges by military access roads. protection for the streaked horned lark. vegetation required by the subspecies Streaked horned lark nests have been The physical or biological features and to minimize nest destruction and documented throughout the site, and essential to the conservation of the disturbance during the breeding season. the site has the both the open landscape streaked horned lark may require This critical habitat subunit (1–C) is context and early seral vegetation that special management considerations or being proposed for exemption from make up the physical or biological protection to maintain the early seral designation of critical habitat under features essential to the conservation of vegetation required by the subspecies section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, the species. The physical or biological and to minimize nest destruction and contingent on our approval of the DOD features essential to the conservation of disturbance during the breeding season. INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions). the streaked horned lark may require

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61992 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

special management considerations or season and continued encroachment of management will be needed at Portland protection to maintain the early seral invasive nonnative plants that requires International Airport to address mowing vegetation required by the subspecies special management to restore or retain during the nesting season, human and to minimize nest destruction and the open habitat preferred by streaked disturbance, and future development of disturbance during the breeding season. horned larks. Proposed subunits 3–A, 3– the site. Threats at 13th Division Prairie are B, 3–C, and 3–D overlap areas that are Subunit 3–A: Damon Point (Grays somewhat less intense than in the designated as critical habitat for the Harbor County, Washington). This Artillery Impact training areas because western snowy plover (Charadrius critical habitat subunit is about 481 ac motorized vehicles are restricted to alexandrinus nivosus). The snowy (194 ha) in size. It extends from the roads. However, threats to the essential plover nesting areas are posted and Ocean Shores wastewater treatment features specific to this site and that monitored during the spring and plant on the western edge through the may require additional special summer to keep recreational beach users Oyhut wildlife management unit and management considerations or away from the nesting areas; these Damon Point spit (also called Protection protection include foot traffic and management actions also benefit Island). The area is managed by the helicopter operations (parachute drops, streaked horned larks. State of Washington (Washington State touch-and-go landings) that are In the lower Columbia River, we are Department of Fish and Wildlife and conducted during the summer months. proposing ten island subunits and one Parks and Department of Natural This critical habitat subunit (1–E) is mainland subunit adjacent to the river Resources). This subunit is currently being proposed for exemption from at Portland International Airport for a occupied and provides the physical or designation of critical habitat under total of 1,785 ac (724 ha). The island biological features essential to the section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, subunits are owned by the States of conservation of the subspecies. The site contingent on our approval of the DOD Oregon and Washington and private has the both the open landscape context INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions). landowners. On the Columbia River and sparse, low-growing vegetation that Subunit 1–F: Olympia Regional island sites, only a small portion of each make up the physical or biological Airport (Thurston County, Washington). island is proposed as critical habitat for features essential to the conservation of This site is owned by the Port of the streaked horned lark; most of the the species. Streaked horned larks Olympia. The airport is enclosed by a areas mapped are used by the U.S. Army currently nest and winter on Damon perimeter fence, which restricts access Corps of Engineers for dredge material Point and have also been documented to and reduces human disturbance. The deposition in its channel maintenance nest along the beach just west of the subunit contains about 575 ac (233 ha), program. Within any deposition site, treatment plant. The physical or and is delineated by airport taxiways, only a portion is likely to be used by biological features essential to the trees, buildings, and county roads. This streaked horned larks in any year, as the conservation of the streaked horned lark subunit is currently occupied and area of habitat shifts within the may require special management provides the physical or biological deposition site over time as new considerations or protection to reduce features essential to the conservation of materials are deposited and as older human disturbance during the nesting the subspecies. Streaked horned lark deposition sites become too heavily season and encroachment by invasive nests have been documented throughout vegetated for use by streaked horned nonnative plants that render the habitat the airport grounds, but most recently larks. All of the island subunits are too dense for use by streaked horned nests have been found in the central small, but are adjacent to open water, larks. area. The site has both the open which provides the open landscape Subunit 3–B: Midway Beach (Pacific landscape context and low vegetation context needed by the streaked horned County, Washington). This subunit is that make up the physical or biological lark. The subunit at Portland about 611 ac (247 ha) in size. The features essential to the conservation of International Airport is adjacent to the northern edge of the subunit starts at the species. The physical or biological runways, and on a small public beach; Grayland Beach State Park and extends features essential to the conservation of the site is owned by Port of Portland south to the Warrenton Cannery road. the streaked horned lark may require and Metro, the Portland-area regional The landward extent is defined by the special management considerations or government. vegetation line in the mid-dune area. protection to maintain the early seral The main threats to the essential This site is owned by the State of vegetation required by the subspecies features in the critical habitat subunits Washington (Washington State Parks and to minimize nest destruction and proposed on the Columbia River islands and Recreation Department). This disturbance during the breeding season. are invasive vegetation and direct subunit is currently occupied and impacts associated with deposition of provides the physical or biological Unit 3: Washington Coast and Columbia dredge material onto streaked horned features essential to the conservation of River—Streaked Horned Lark Only lark nests during the nesting season. In the subspecies. Both open landscape On the Washington coastal sites, all subunits, the physical or biological context and the sparse, low-growing streaked horned larks occur on sandy features essential to the conservation of vegetation that make up the physical or beaches and breed in the sparsely each subspecies may require special biological features essential to the vegetated low dune habitats of the management considerations or conservation of the species are present upper beach. We are proposing to protection to restore, protect, and at the site, and Midway Beach is used designate four subunits and a total of maintain the PCEs supported by the by streaked horned larks for nesting and 1,753 ac (708 ha) as critical habitat on subunits. For those threats that are wintering. The physical or biological the Washington coast. The coastal sites common to all subunits, special features essential to the conservation of are owned and managed by Federal, management considerations or the streaked horned lark may require State and tribal entities. The physical or protections may be required to address special management considerations or biological features essential to the direct or indirect habitat loss due to the protection to reduce human disturbance conservation of the streaked horned lark location and timing of dredge material during the nesting season and may require special management placement to areas that have become encroachment by invasive nonnative considerations or protection to reduce unsuitable for streaked horned lark plants that render the habitat too dense human disturbance during the nesting nesting and wintering habitat. Special for use by streaked horned larks.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61993

Subunit 3–C: Shoalwater/Graveyard Leadbetter is used by streaked horned Subunit 3–G: Pillar Rock/Jim Crow Spit (Pacific County, Washington). This larks year-round. The physical or Sands (Clatsop County, Oregon). This subunit is about 661 ac (267 ha). The biological features essential to the island is located at about RM 27 on the central portion of the proposed subunit conservation of the streaked horned lark Columbia River. The subunit is about 44 (182 ac; 74 ha) is within the Shoalwater may require special management ac (18 ha) in size. Pillar Rock is Bay Indian Reservation. We are considerations or protection to maintain currently occupied and provides the considering the exclusion of these tribal the early seral vegetation required by physical or biological features essential lands from the designation due to the the subspecies and to minimize nest to the conservation of the subspecies. existing high level of protection already destruction and disturbance during the Streaked horned larks nest and winter at provided on the Shoalwater Bay Indian breeding season. the site. The island is owned by the reservation lands that provides Subunit 3–E: Rice Island (Clatsop Oregon Department of State Lands and conservation, regulations, and County, Oregon, and Wahkiakum is within the planning unit boundary for management for the streaked horned County, Washington). This subunit is the Julia Butler Hansen National lark (see Exclusions). about 224 ac (91 ha) in size. The island Wildlife Refuge. The U.S. Army Corps Streaked horned larks have been is located at river mile (RM) 21, of Engineers uses this site for dredge documented off and on at this site approximately 7 mi (11 km) upstream of material disposal as part of its during the breeding season since 2000. the Astoria-Megler Bridge near the maintenance of the Columbia River Although the site has been unoccupied mouth of the Columbia River. Although shipping channel. The physical or for the past couple of years, singing the island is within the planning biological features essential to the male streaked horned larks were boundary of the Julia Butler Hansen conservation of the streaked horned lark documented at this site during early National Wildlife Refuge, Rice Island is may require special management June surveys of 2012, therefore we owned by the Oregon Department of considerations or protection to maintain consider this site to be currently State Lands. A very small portion of the the early seral vegetation required by occupied. As with Midway Beach, subunit is in Wahkiakum County and on the subspecies and to minimize nest streaked horned larks use the area for Washington State lands. The U.S. Army destruction and disturbance during the nesting and wintering. The subunit is a Corps of Engineers uses this site for breeding season. dynamic area and has a constantly dredge material disposal as part of its Subunit 3–H: Welch Island (Clatsop changing sand spit that supports the maintenance of the Columbia River County, Oregon). This island is at RM essential features for nesting and shipping channel. This subunit is 34 and is owned by the Oregon wintering habitat. The physical or occupied and provides the features Department of State Lands. The critical biological features essential to the essential to the conservation of the habitat subunit is about 43 ac (17 ha) on conservation of the streaked horned lark subspecies. Streaked horned larks the northeastern shore of the island. may require special management currently nest and winter on Rice This site is currently occupied and considerations or protection to reduce Island. The physical or biological provides the physical or biological human disturbance during the nesting features essential to the conservation of features essential to the conservation of season and encroachment by invasive the streaked horned lark may require the subspecies. The U.S. Army Corps of nonnative plants that render the habitat special management considerations or Engineers uses this site for dredge too dense for use by streaked horned protection to maintain the early seral material disposal as part of its larks. vegetation required by the subspecies maintenance of the Columbia River Subunit 3–D: Leadbetter Point (Pacific and to minimize nest destruction and shipping channel. The physical or County, Washington). This subunit disturbance during the breeding season. biological features essential to the contains about 665 ac (269 ha) at the Subunit 3–F: Miller Sands Spit conservation of the streaked horned lark northern tip of the Long Beach (Clatsop County, Oregon). Miller Sands may require special management Peninsula. This subunit is on the Spit is across the shipping channel from considerations or protection to maintain Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and Rice Island at River Mile (RM) 24. The the early seral vegetation required by the Seashore Conservation Area subunit is a 2-mi-long (1.2-km-long) the subspecies and to minimize nest (managed by Washington State). This sand spit about 123 ac (50 ha) in size on destruction and disturbance during the site is occupied and provides the the northern shore of the island. The breeding season. physical or biological features essential subunit is currently occupied and Subunit 3–I: Tenasillahee Island to the conservation of the subspecies. provides the physical or biological (Columbia County, Oregon). This island Most of the streaked horned larks at this features essential to the conservation of is at RM 38; the subunit is on a small site nest within the habitat restoration the subspecies for nesting and wintering unnamed spit at the southern tip of area and in ponded swales landward of habitat. The island is owned by the Tenasillahee Island. The subunit is the restoration area that go dry in the Oregon Department of State Lands, but about 23 ac (9 ha) in size. This site is summer (Ritchie 2012, pers. comm.). is also within the planning unit currently occupied and provides the The site has the open landscape context boundary for the Julia Butler Hansen physical or biological features essential and sparse, low-growing vegetation that National Wildlife Refuge. The U.S. to the conservation of the subspecies. make up the physical or biological Army Corps of Engineers uses this site The site is owned by the Oregon features essential to the conservation of for dredge material disposal as part of Department of State Lands. The U.S. the species. The Willapa National its maintenance of the Columbia River Army Corps of Engineers uses this site Wildlife Refuge completed its shipping channel. The physical or for dredge material disposal as part of Comprehensive Conservation Plan in biological features essential to the its maintenance of the Columbia River August 2011 and manages habitat at the conservation of the streaked horned lark shipping channel. The physical or tip of Leadbetter Spit for western snowy may require special management biological features essential to the plovers, streaked horned larks, and considerations or protection to maintain conservation of the streaked horned lark other native coastal species. These the early seral vegetation required by may require special management management activities are compatible the subspecies and to minimize nest considerations or protection to maintain with streaked horned lark conservation. destruction and disturbance during the the early seral vegetation required by As with the other coastal sites, breeding season. the subspecies and to minimize nest

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61994 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

destruction and disturbance during the Subunit 3–L: Wallace Island subunit includes the airport’s Southwest breeding season. (Columbia County, Oregon). Wallace Quad, the grassy areas at the western Subunit 3–J: Coffeepot Island Island is located across the channel end of Runway 10R, and Broughton (Wahkiakum County, Washington). This from Whites/Browns Island at RM 47. Beach. The Southwest Quad is an old small island is at RM 42 in the Streaked horned larks were detected at dredge spoil disposal field located just Columbia River and sits between Puget the site in 2012 in the critical habitat outside of the perimeter fence at Island and the Oregon shore; the subunit, which is about 13 ac (5 ha) in Portland International Airport, south of subunit is 25 ac (10 ha) in size and is size. The area is owned by the Oregon Runway 10R and west of Runway 3/21. privately-owned. There have been no Department of State Lands. This site is This subunit is currently occupied and recent detections of streaked horned not a dredge material disposal site. This provides the physical or biological larks on the site; the most recent records subunit currently contains the physical features essential to the conservation of of streaked horned lark occupancy are or biological features essential to the the subspecies. The habitat is open with from 2004. We presume that Coffeepot conservation of the species, but will a sandy substrate and low-stature Island is still occupied by nesting require special management to maintain vegetation; breeding at the site has been streaked horned larks, as we have no the low vegetative structure required by documented. The area around the reason to believe they have been the streaked horned lark. western end of Runway 10R is flat, low- extirpated since the last survey attempt. Subunit 3–M: Crims Island (Columbia stature grass fields; streaked horned However, as we acknowledge it is County, Oregon). This island is located larks have been seen foraging in this uncertain whether the site is currently upstream of Wallace Island at RM 57. area. The Southwest Quad and Runway occupied by the species due to the lack The subunit is about 60 ac (24 ha) in 10R are on the grounds of Portland of recent survey effort, we have size. The subunit is currently occupied International Airport, which is owned evaluated Coffeepot Island as if it is and provides the physical or biological by the Port of Portland. unoccupied, and have determined that features essential to the conservation of Broughton Beach is a narrow, sandy it is nonetheless essential to the the subspecies. The area is owned by beach on the Columbia River and is not conservation of the species to provide the Oregon Department of State Lands, within the boundaries of Portland connectivity between nesting but is also within the planning unit International Airport. Streaked horned populations of streaked horned larks in boundary for the Julia Butler Hansen lark sightings at Broughton Beach are the Columbia River to insure genetic National Wildlife Refuge. Crims Island frequent, and large mixed-subspecies is an approved U.S. Army Corps of flocks are seen there often during the connectivity. This island is not Engineers dredge material disposal site. fall and winter; Broughton Beach is currently used as a dredge disposal site, The physical or biological features owned by Metro, the regional governing although the U.S. Army Corps of essential to the conservation of the body in the Portland area. Due to the Engineers is interested in using it as streaked horned lark may require proximity of these sites to active such, and the island is presently too special management considerations or runways, the sites are managed for air vegetated to provide the sparse protection to maintain the early seral traffic safety; preventing the vegetation needed for streaked horned vegetation required by the subspecies development of dense vegetation and lark nesting. The site will require future and to minimize nest destruction and pooling water, which could attract restoration management activities to disturbance during the breeding season. hazardous wildlife. These management restore and maintain the low vegetative Subunit 3–N: Sandy Island (Columbia activities unintentionally maintain the structure required by the streaked County, Oregon). This island, at RM 76, appropriate habitat characteristics for horned lark. is the island farthest upstream that is streaked horned larks. The physical or Subunit 3–K: Whites/Browns Island known to be used by streaked horned biological features essential to the (Wahkiakum County, Washington). larks for nesting. The subunit is about conservation of the streaked horned lark Whites/Browns Island is connected to 37 ac (15 ha) in size on the southern end may require special management the southern end of Puget Island at RM of Sandy Island and is owned by the considerations or protection to maintain 46 and is owned by the Washington Oregon Department of State Lands. This the early seral vegetation required by Department of Fish and Wildlife. The subunit is currently occupied and the subspecies and to minimize nest subunit is a small spit at the southern provides the physical or biological destruction and disturbance during the end of Whites/Browns Island and is features essential to the conservation of breeding season. about 98 ac (39 ha) in size. The site is the subspecies. The U.S. Army Corps of used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uses this site for dredge Unit 4: Willamette Valley—Streaked Engineers for dredge material disposal material disposal as part of its Horned Lark as part of its maintenance of the maintenance of the Columbia River In the Willamette Valley, we are Columbia River shipping channel. This shipping channel. The physical or proposing to designate eight subunits. site is currently occupied and provides biological features essential to the Four subunits are on municipal airports, the physical or biological features conservation of the streaked horned lark three subunits are on the Willamette essential to the conservation of the may require special management Valley National Wildlife Refuge subspecies. Whites/Browns Island considerations or protection to maintain Complex, and one subunit is a private supports one of the largest populations the early seral vegetation required by habitat restoration site. The total acreage of streaked horned larks in the lower the subspecies and to minimize nest is 4,880 ac (1,975 ha). All of the Columbia River islands. The physical or destruction and disturbance during the subunits were occupied at the time of biological features essential to the breeding season. listing and contain the physical or conservation of the streaked horned lark Subunit 3–O: Portland International biological features essential to the may require special management Airport (Multnomah County, Oregon). conservation of the species that may considerations or protection to maintain This subunit is in the city of Portland require special management the early seral vegetation required by and is bordered by the Columbia River considerations or protection. the subspecies and to minimize nest to the north, NE 33rd Drive to the west The areas used by streaked horned destruction and disturbance during the and the Broadmoor Golf Course to the larks for nesting at all of the airports are breeding season. south and totals 410 ac (166 ha). This grass and gravel margins of the runway

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61995

and taxiways. Special Management will 181 ac (73 ha) and is in the North all of the physical or biological features be needed to address threats to the Morgan Reservoir area of the refuge. essential to the conservation of the essential features at the Willamette Subunit 4–B South is 825 ac (334 ha) subspecies. Ankeny National Wildlife Valley airports including development, and is the South Baskett Slough Refuge has both agricultural lands and mowing during the nesting season, and Agricultural area of the refuge; State restored native prairies, which provide intermittent training activities. All of Route 22 forms the southeast boundary the landscape context and vegetation the airports inadvertently maintain of the south subunit. Both of the structure required by the streaked habitat for streaked horned larks as a subunits are agricultural fields that are horned lark. The Refuge manages result of their management to minimize heavily grazed by dusky Canada geese primarily for wintering dusky Canada attracting hazardous wildlife. None of in the winter. This subunit is currently geese, which also provides suitable the Willamette Valley airports has occupied and contains the physical or management for streaked horned larks. developed a management plan to biological features essential to the The physical or biological features address conservation of the streaked conservation of the subspecies. Baskett essential to the conservation of the horned lark; special management of Slough National Wildlife Refuge has streaked horned lark may require these sites would require avoidance or large areas of agricultural lands and special management considerations or minimization of mowing in the streaked restored native prairies, which provides protection to maintain the early seral horned lark nesting areas during the the landscape context and vegetation vegetation required by the subspecies breeding season. structure required by the streaked and to minimize nest destruction and The three subunits on the Willamette horned lark. The Refuge manages disturbance during the breeding season. Valley National Wildlife Refuge primarily for wintering dusky Canada Subunit 4–E: Corvallis Municipal Complex are managed mainly to provide geese, which also provides suitable Airport (Benton County, Oregon). forage for wintering dusky Canada geese management for streaked horned larks. Corvallis Municipal Airport is west of (Branta canadensis occidentalis), which This subunit is consistently used by State Route 99W and bordered on the is compatible with maintaining the streaked horned larks in the breeding north by SW Airport Avenue, directly essential features for streaked horned season. The physical or biological south of the City of Corvallis. This larks. The refuge complex has features essential to the conservation of subunit includes all the areas incorporated management for streaked the streaked horned lark may require surrounding the runways and in horned larks into its recently completed special management considerations or adjacent fields owned and managed by Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and protection to maintain the early seral the airport. The unit is about 1,103 ac streaked horned lark habitat vegetation required by the subspecies (446 ha) and is owned by the City of conservation is being implemented in and to minimize nest destruction and Corvallis. This subunit is currently the refuge units. disturbance during the breeding season. occupied and contains the physical or The one proposed subunit on private Subunit 4–C: Salem Municipal biological features essential to the land is a large habitat restoration site. Airport (Marion County, Oregon). Salem conservation of the subspecies. The Management for native prairies and Municipal Airport is south of State Corvallis Municipal Airport is home to vernal wetlands at this site provide Route 99E and bordered on the east by the largest known breeding population habitat for streaked horned larks. 25th Street SE in Salem. This subunit of streaked horned larks; streaked Subunit 4–A: McMinnville Municipal encompasses the area surrounding the horned larks breed adjacent to runways Airport (Yamhill County, Oregon). runways, and is approximately 534 ac and in sparse grass fields throughout the McMinnville Municipal Airport is just (216 ha). The subunit is currently airport. Large flocks of mixed south of State Route 18 and west of SE occupied (streaked horned larks have subspecies of horned larks also winter at Airport Road in the town of been observed at the south end of the the site. The site provides the open McMinnville. This subunit includes the runway during the breeding season), landscape context and low-growing areas around the runways and an open and contains the essential features for vegetation required by streaked horned field to the east. The site is about 600 the conservation of the subspecies, larks. As at other airports, the City of ac (243 ha). This subunit is currently including open landscape context and Corvallis manages the site to minimize occupied and contains the physical or sparse, open vegetation present at the attraction of hazardous wildlife. The biological features essential to the site. This regional airport is owned by physical or biological features essential conservation of the subspecies. It has the City of Salem. The primary threat to to the conservation of the streaked both the open landscape context and the the essential features at this subunit is horned lark may require special sparse low-growing vegetation required mowing during the breeding season, management considerations or by streaked horned larks, and there have which could destroy nests and young; protection to address threats from been observations of streaked horned special management is needed to mowing during the breeding season and larks along the east runway and in the coordinate mowing to minimize impacts police training activities that disrupt field to the east of the runways during to streaked horned larks during the nesting behavior. Special management the breeding season. This small airport breeding season. is needed to coordinate mowing and is owned by the City of McMinnville. Subunit 4–D: Ankeny National training activities to minimize impacts The primary threat to the essential Wildlife Refuge (Marion County, to streaked horned larks during the features at this subunit is mowing Oregon). This site is in the middle of the breeding season. during the breeding season, which Ankeny Refuge, in the Field 6 Complex; Subunit 4–F: William L. Finley could destroy nests and young; special the northeast boundary of the subunit is National Wildlife Refuge (Benton management is needed to coordinate formed by the Sydney Ditch. The County, Oregon). This critical habitat mowing to minimize impacts to critical habitat subunit is 264 ac (107 subunit is on Fields 11 and 12 in the streaked horned larks during the ha). The site is composed of agricultural South Finley Agricultural Lands area of breeding season. fields that are heavily grazed by dusky the refuge; Bruce Road bisects the Subunit 4–B: Baskett Slough National Canada geese in the winter. The subunit subunit, and McFarland Road forms the Wildlife Refuge (Polk County, Oregon). is currently occupied and has consistent southern boundary of the site. The There are two parts to this critical use by streaked horned larks in the subunit is 459 ac (186 ha) in size. This habitat subunit. Subunit 4–B North is breeding season. This subunit contains subunit is currently occupied and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61996 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

contains the physical or biological lark nests and young are vulnerable to would continue to serve its intended features essential to the conservation of destruction. conservation role for the species. the subspecies. The site is composed of Subunit 4–H: Eugene Airport (Lane If a Federal action may affect a listed agricultural fields that are heavily County, Oregon). Eugene Airport is west species or its critical habitat, the grazed by dusky Canada geese in the of the City of Eugene, and about a mile responsible Federal agency (action winter, and it has consistent use by west of State Route 99. This subunit agency) must enter into consultation streaked horned larks in the breeding encompasses the grassy areas with us. Examples of actions that are season; streaked horned larks also surrounding the runway, and is subject to the section 7 consultation winter at the refuge. Finley National approximately 313 ac (126 ha). This process are actions on State, tribal, Wildlife Refuge has large areas of subunit is currently occupied and local, or private lands that require a agricultural lands and restored native contains the physical or biological Federal permit (such as a permit from prairies, which provide the landscape features essential to the conservation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under context and vegetation structure the subspecies. It provides the open section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 required by the streaked horned lark. landscape context and low-growing U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the The Refuge manages primarily for vegetation required by streaked horned Service (under section 10 of the Act) or wintering dusky Canada geese, which larks. Streaked horned larks have been that involve some other Federal action also provides suitable management for observed on the east side of the runway (such as funding from the Federal streaked horned larks. The physical or during the breeding season. This Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal biological features essential to the regional airport is owned by the City of Emergency Management Agency). conservation of the streaked horned lark Eugene. The primary threat to the Federal actions not affecting listed may require special management essential features at this subunit is species or critical habitat, and actions considerations or protection to maintain mowing during the breeding season that on State, tribal, local, or private lands the early seral vegetation required by disrupts nesting behavior. The features that are not federally funded or the subspecies and to minimize nest essential to the conservation of the species may require special authorized, do not require section 7 destruction and disturbance during the consultation. breeding season. management considerations or protection to coordinate mowing to As a result of section 7 consultation, Subunit 4–G: M–DAC Farms (Linn minimize impacts to streaked horned we document compliance with the County, Oregon). This site is a large larks during the breeding season. requirements of section 7(a)(2) through prairie and wetland habitat restoration our issuance of: project; the subunit is about 601 ac (243 Effects of Critical Habitat Designation (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not ha) on former agricultural land. The site Section 7 Consultation is located east of the town of Harrisburg, likely to adversely affect, listed species and about a mile east of Interstate Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires or critical habitat; or Highway 5, and bordered on the south Federal agencies, including the Service, (2) A biological opinion for Federal by Diamond Hill Drive. This subunit is to ensure that any action they fund, actions that may affect, or are likely to currently occupied and contains the authorize, or carry out is not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical physical or biological features essential jeopardize the continued existence of habitat. to the conservation of the subspecies. any endangered species or threatened When we issue a biological opinion The second largest known population of species or result in the destruction or concluding that a project is likely to streaked horned larks was observed at adverse modification of designated jeopardize the continued existence of a M–DAC in 2008, the year following critical habitat of such species. In listed species or destroy or adversely initial site preparation. As vegetation at addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act modify critical habitat, we provide the site has matured, fewer streaked requires Federal agencies to confer with reasonable and prudent alternatives to horned larks have used the site, but the the Service on any agency action which the project, if any are identifiable, that large wetlands will likely continue to is likely to jeopardize the continued would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy provide suitable breeding habitat as the existence of any species proposed to be or destruction or adverse modification mudflats dry in the early summer. Both listed under the Act or result in the of critical habitat. We define PCEs are present at the site, although destruction or adverse modification of ‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ their availability will shift over time as proposed critical habitat. (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions the habitat is managed and the wetlands identified during consultation that: Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit (1) Can be implemented in a manner fill and recede each year. The site is Courts of Appeals have invalidated our consistent with the intended purpose of privately owned; the habitat restoration regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or the action, project has been developed with adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) (2) Can be implemented consistent assistance from the Cascade Pacific (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. with the scope of the Federal agency’s Resource Conservation and Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d legal authority and jurisdiction, Development Area, USDA’s NRCS, the 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. (3) Are economically and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 technologically feasible, and Partners for Wildlife Program, Oregon F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we (4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, Watershed Enhancement Board, and the do not rely on this regulatory definition avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the Oregon Department of Fish and when analyzing whether an action is continued existence of the listed species Wildlife. The site will be managed to likely to destroy or adversely modify or avoid the likelihood of destroying or maintain native prairie and wetland critical habitat. Under the statutory adversely modifying critical habitat. habitats, which will benefit the streaked provisions of the Act, we determine Reasonable and prudent alternatives horned lark; special management will be destruction or adverse modification on can vary from slight project needed to ensure that management the basis of whether, with modifications to extensive redesign or activities are not implemented in the implementation of the proposed Federal relocation of the project. Costs breeding season when streaked horned action, the affected critical habitat associated with implementing a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61997

reasonable and prudent alternative are habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot enhancement or modification; wetland similarly variable. butterflies and streaked horned larks. protection, enhancement, and Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Such activities could include, but are restoration where necessary to support Federal agencies to reinitiate not limited to, construction, grading or fish and wildlife; and enforcement of consultation on previously reviewed other development, mowing, conversion applicable natural resource laws. actions in instances where we have of habitat, or use of herbicides to The National Defense Authorization listed a new species or subsequently remove vegetation (military training on Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– designated critical habitat that may be DOD lands, recreational use, off road 136) amended the Act to limit areas affected and the Federal agency has vehicles on Federal, State, private, or eligible for designation as critical retained discretionary involvement or Tribal lands). These activities may affect habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) control over the action (or the agency’s the physical or biological features of of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) discretionary involvement or control is critical habitat for the Taylor’s now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not authorized by law). Consequently, checkerspot butterflies and streaked designate as critical habitat any lands or Federal agencies sometimes may need to horned larks, by removing sources of other geographical areas owned or request reinitiation of consultation with food, shelter, nesting or oviposition controlled by the Department of us on actions for which formal sites, or otherwise impacting habitat Defense, or designated for its use, that consultation has been completed, if essential for completion of life history. are subject to an integrated natural those actions with discretionary (3) Actions that would reduce the resources management plan prepared involvement or control may affect open landscape context required by under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 subsequently listed species or streaked horned larks, such as U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines designated critical habitat. construction of buildings or planting tall in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical Application of the ‘‘Adverse trees adjacent to a suitable site. habitat is proposed for designation.’’ Modification’’ Standard (4) Deposition of dredge materials on occupied streaked horned lark habitats We consult with the military on the The key factor related to the adverse during the breeding season. development and implementation of modification determination is whether, (5) Installation of shoreline INRMPs for installations with listed with implementation of the proposed stabilization structures or modification species. We analyzed INRMPs Federal action, the affected critical of beaches and open shorelines in developed by military installations habitat would continue to serve its critical habitat. located within the range of the proposed intended conservation role for the (6) Activities (pedestrians, motor critical habitat designation for Taylor’s species. Activities that may destroy or vehicles, people with pets, etc.) within checkerspot butterfly and streaked adversely modify critical habitat are or adjacent to critical habitat that result horned lark to determine if they are those that alter the physical or in disturbance of Taylor’s checkerspot exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. biological features to an extent that butterflies and streaked horned larks, The following areas are Department of appreciably reduces the conservation that affect or degrade the conservation Defense lands within the proposed value of critical habitat for Taylor’s value or function of the physical or critical habitat designation: (1) 91st checkerspot butterfly or the streaked biological features of critical habitat. Division Prairie, (2) Thirteenth Division horned lark. As discussed above, the Prairie. (3) TA7S, (4) Marion Prairie, (5) role of critical habitat is to support life- Exemptions portions of Tenalquot Prairie, (6) McChord AFB, and (7) Gray Airfield. history needs of the species and provide Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act for the conservation of the species. All of these areas are part of JBLM in Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us The Sikes Act Improvement Act of Washington, except for the portion of to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) Tenalquot Prairie known as the Morgan proposed or final regulation that required each military installation that property. designates critical habitat, activities includes land and water suitable for the Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington involving a Federal action that may conservation and management of affect the physical or biological features natural resources to complete an Joint Base Lewis-McChord (formerly of critical habitat, or destroy or integrated natural resource management known as Fort Lewis and McChord Air adversely modify critical habitat. plan (INRMP) by November 17, 2001. Force Base) is an 86,000 ac (34,800 ha) Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, An INRMP integrates implementation of military complex in western activities that may affect critical habitat the military mission of the installation Washington. JBLM has an approved for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or with stewardship of the natural Integrated Natural Resource streaked horned lark, when carried out, resources found on the base. Each Management Plan (INRMP) in place, funded, or authorized by a Federal INRMP includes: dated July 2006, that covers the years agency, require consultation. These (1) An assessment of the ecological 2006 through 2010. This INRMP is being activities may include, but are not needs on the installation, including the updated and a revision will be limited to: need to provide for the conservation of submitted to the Service in 2012 (1) Actions that restore, alter, or listed species; (Steucke 2008, pers. comm.). JBLM is degrade habitat features through (2) A statement of goals and priorities; composed of both native and degraded development, agricultural activities, (3) A detailed description of grasslands; shrub-dominated vegetation; burning, mowing, herbicide use or other management actions to be implemented conifer, conifer-oak, oak-savannah, oak means in suitable habitat for Taylor’s to provide for these ecological needs; woodland and pine woodland/savannah checkerspot butterflies and streaked and forests; riverine, lacustrine, and horned larks. (4) A monitoring and adaptive palustrine wetlands; ponds and lakes; as (2) Actions that would alter the management plan. well as other unique habitat, such as physical or biological features of critical Among other things, each INRMP mima mounds. Portions of JBLM are habitat including modification of soil must, to the extent appropriate and currently occupied by the streaked profiles or the composition and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife horned lark and Taylor’s checkerspot structure of vegetation in suitable management; fish and wildlife habitat butterfly. Actions on this property

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61998 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

include military training, recreation, Currently, the only populations of this monitoring, butterfly habitat transportation, utilities (including species on JBLM are within the Artillery enhancement on occupied sites and the dedicated corridors), and land use. Impact Area (Range 76 and Range 50 on restoration of unoccupied lands for The mission of JBLM is to maintain the 91st Division Prairie), and at this butterflies. Taylor’s checkerspot and trained and ready forces for Army time, we have JBLM’s commitment mardon skipper (Polites mardon) commanders worldwide, by providing (Garrison Commander Thomas Brittain, butterfly captive rearing and them with training support and Colonel, 13 May 2010) specifying ‘‘no translocation, native seed (forb and infrastructure. This includes a land base off road vehicle zone and foot traffic grass) production and native plant capable of supporting current and future zone’’ only within TA 76. establishment are several currently training needs through good The primary concern for streaked (2012) ongoing projects (Foster 2005, stewardship of the Installation’s natural horned larks is to protect nesting entire; The Nature Conservancy 2007; and cultural resources, as directed by populations from disturbance and direct entire). Federal statutes, Department of Defense mortality due to human activities. The JBLM Legacy program is directives, directives and programs such Currently, there are four areas on the dedicated to ‘‘protecting, enhancing, as ACUB (Area Compatible Use Buffer installation that have nesting and conserving natural and cultural Program), and Army and JBLM populations of this species. Timing of resources on DOD lands through regulations. mowing at McChord and Gray Army stewardship, leadership, and Although only military actions occur Airfields are concerns, as are partnership.’’ Legacy supports on JBLM, several additional actions recreational activities and military conservation actions that have regional could pose substantial threats to the training on the 13th Division Prairie and or DOD-wide significance, and that Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and military training and wildfires in the support military training or fulfill legal streaked horned larks, and are restricted Artillery Impact Area. Presently, there obligations (DOD 2011, p. 2). In recent to a few grassland properties (e.g., dog are restrictions on mowing activities on years, substantial effort and funding trials, model airplanes, recreational the airfield: Minimum mowing for have gone toward projects, both on and activities). Many of the avoidance airfield safety during the primary off JBLM, related to the Taylor’s measures for military training action nesting period (April to July) and no checkerspot butterfly and streaked subgroups are implemented through mowing at any time around known nest horned lark. environmental review and permitting locations. In the training areas, Land Although JBLM’s INRMP has the programs related to a specific action. Rehabilitation and Maintenance does potential to provide a conservation Timing of actions and education of not mow during the breeding season in benefit to the Taylor’s checkerspot users are important avoidance measures occupied streaked horned lark habitat. butterfly and streaked horned lark, it for the other activities. There also are restrictions on does not currently. Since their INRMP is Joint Base Lewis-McChord actively recreational activities in Thirteenth currently undergoing revision and is manages prairie habitat as part of Fort Division Prairie during the streaked subject to change, we are reserving Lewis’ Integrated Natural Resources horned lark nesting period (April to judgment on whether management Management Plan (INRMP 2006). The August). under the new INRMP will meet our purpose of the plan is to ‘‘provide Two regional programs managed criteria for exemption from critical guidance for effective and efficient under the INRMP and funded by the habitat at this time. In accordance with management of the prairie landscape to DOD are currently underway on many section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, if we meet military training and ecological of the lands where the Taylor’s determine prior to our final rulemaking conservation goals.’’ There are three checkerspot butterfly and streaked that conservation efforts identified in overall goals including: (1) No net loss horned lark occur. The Fort Lewis Army the newly revised INRMP will provide of open landscapes for military training; Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) program a conservation benefit to the species (2) no net reduction in the quantity or is a proactive effort to prevent identified previously, we may at that quality of moderate- and high-quality ‘‘encroachment’’ at military time exempt the identified lands from grassland; and (3) viable populations of installations. Encroachment includes the final designation of critical habitat. all prairie-dependent and prairie- current or potential future restrictions associated species. on military training associated with Exclusions Joint Base Lewis-McChord has a currently listed and candidate species Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act stewardship responsibility that includes under the Endangered Species Act. The actions to help recover threatened and Fort Lewis ACUB program focuses on Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that endangered species under the Act. It is management of non-Federal the Secretary shall designate and make Army policy to consider candidate conservation lands in the vicinity of revisions to critical habitat on the basis species when making decisions that Fort Lewis that contain, or can be of the best available scientific data after may affect them, to avoid taking actions restored to, native prairie. Some of the taking into consideration the economic that may cause them to be listed, and to ACUB efforts include improving the impact, national security impact, and take affirmative actions that can habitat on JBLM property, such as the any other relevant impact of specifying preclude the need to list (AR 200–3). prescribed fire program, and the any particular area as critical habitat. Under this mandate, JBLM is streaked horned lark genetic rescue The Secretary may exclude an area from currently restoring and enhancing project. It is implemented by means of critical habitat if he determines that the habitat conditions for the Taylor’s a cooperative agreement between the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the checkerspot in potential habitat. JBLM Army and The Nature Conservancy benefits of specifying such area as part has restored habitat on one Training (now Center for Natural Lands of the critical habitat, unless he Area and one Range (TA 14 and Range Management), and includes WDFW and determines, based on the best scientific 50) that have received captive-bred and WDNR as partners. To date, a total of data available, that the failure to translocated butterflies. These actions $8.23 million has been allocated to this designate such area as critical habitat are occurring primarily in areas in program (Anderson 2012, pers. comm). will result in the extinction of the which the butterfly could coexist with This funds conservation actions such as species. In making that determination, the existing land-use designations. invasive plant control, butterfly the statute on its face, as well as the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61999

legislative history are clear that the strategies and actions will be or other public agencies have developed Secretary has broad discretion regarding implemented, that those responsible for management plans or habitat which factor(s) to use and how much implementing the plan are capable of conservation plans (HCPs) for the area weight to give to any factor. achieving the objectives, that an or whether there are conservation In considering whether to exclude a implementation schedule exists, and partnerships or other conservation particular area from the designation, we that adequate funding exists; benefits that would be encouraged or identify the benefits of including the (4) Whether the plan provides discouraged by designation of, or area in the designation, identify the assurances that the conservation exclusion from, critical habitat in an benefits of excluding the area from the strategies and measures will be effective area. In addition, we look at the designation, and evaluate whether the (i.e., identifies biological goals, has presence of Indian lands or Indian trust benefits of exclusion outweigh the provisions for reporting progress, and is resources that might be affected, and benefits of inclusion. If the analysis of a duration sufficient to implement the consider the government-to-government indicates that the benefits of exclusion plan); relationship of the United States with outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the (5) Whether the plan has a monitoring Indian entities. We also consider any Secretary may exercise his discretion to program or adaptive management to other relevant impacts that might occur exclude the area only if such exclusion ensure that the conservation measures because of the designation. To ensure would not result in the extinction of the are effective; that our final determination is based on species. (6) The degree to which the record the best available information, we are When identifying the benefits of supports a conclusion that a critical inviting comments on any foreseeable inclusion for an area, we consider the habitat designation would impair the economic, national security, or other additional regulatory benefits that area benefits of the plan; potential impacts resulting from this would receive from the protection from (7) The extent of public participation; proposed designation of critical habitat adverse modification or destruction as a (8) Demonstrated track record of from governmental, business, or private result of actions with a Federal nexus; implementation success; interests and, in particular, any the educational benefits of mapping (9) Level of public benefits derived potential impacts on small businesses. essential habitat for recovery of the from encouraging collaborative efforts For the reasons discussed above, if the listed species; and any benefits that may and encouraging private and local Secretary decides to exercise his result from a designation due to State or conservation efforts; and discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Federal laws that may apply to critical (10) The effect designation would Act, we have identified certain areas habitat. have on partnerships. that we are considering for exclusion When identifying the benefits of After identifying the benefits of from the final critical habitat exclusion, we consider, among other inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, designation for Taylor’s checkerspot things, whether exclusion of a specific we carefully weigh the two sides to butterfly, and streaked horned lark. area is likely to result in conservation; evaluate whether the benefits of However, we solicit comments on the the continuation, strengthening, or exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. inclusion or exclusion of such particular encouragement of partnerships; or If our analysis indicates that the benefits areas, as well as any other areas implementation of a management plan of exclusion outweigh the benefits of identified in the proposed rule (see that provides equal to or more inclusion, we then determine whether Public Comments section). During the conservation than a critical habitat exclusion would result in extinction. If development of the final designation, designation would provide. exclusion of an area from critical habitat we will consider economic impacts, The Secretary can consider the will result in extinction, we will not public comments, and other new existence of conservation agreements exclude it from the designation. information. However, the Secretary’s and other land management plans with Based on the information provided by decision as to which, if any, areas may Federal, private, State, and Indian entities seeking exclusion, as well as be excluded from the final designation entities when making decisions under any additional public comments is not limited to these lands. Additional section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Secretary received, we will evaluate whether particular areas, in addition to those may also consider relationships with certain lands in proposed critical habitat identified below for potential exclusion landowners, voluntary partnerships, are appropriate for exclusion from the in this proposed rule, may be excluded and conservation plans, and weigh the final designation under section 4(b)(2) from the final critical habitat implementation and effectiveness of of the Act. If the analysis indicates that designation under section 4(b)(2) of the these against that of designation to the benefits of excluding lands from the Act. In other words, potential determine which provides the greatest final designation outweigh the benefits exclusions are not limited to those areas conservation value to the listed species. of designating those lands as critical specifically identified in this proposed Consideration of relevant impacts of habitat, then the Secretary may exercise rule. designation or exclusion under section his discretion to exclude the lands from However, we specifically solicit 4(b)(2) may include, but is not limited the final designation. comments on the inclusion or exclusion to, any of the following factors: Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we of such areas. In the paragraphs below, (1) Whether the plan provides specific must consider all relevant impacts of we provide a detailed analysis of our information on how it protects the the designation of critical habitat, exclusion of these lands under section species and the physical and biological including economic impacts. In 4(b)(2) of the Act. features, and whether the plan is at a addition to economic impacts Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts geographical scope commensurate with (discussed in the Economics Analysis the species; section, below), we consider a number Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we (2) Whether the plan is complete and of factors in a 4(b)(2) analysis. For consider the economic impacts of will be effective at conserving and example, we consider whether there are specifying any particular area as critical protecting the physical and biological lands owned by the Department of habitat. In order to consider economic features; Defense (DoD) where a national security impacts, we are preparing an analysis of (3) Whether a reasonable expectation impact might exist. We also consider the economic impacts of the proposed exists that conservation management whether Federal or private landowners critical habitat designation and related

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 62000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

factors. We will announce the addition, we look at any tribal issues, checkerspot butterfly. In this subunit, availability of the draft economic and consider the government-to- 379 ac (153 ha) is considered for analysis as soon as it is completed, at government relationship of the United exclusion as it is managed under a which time we will seek public review States with tribal entities. We also permanent conservation easement and a and comment. At that time, copies of consider any other relevant impacts that Grassland Reserve Program Management the draft economic analysis will be might occur because of the designation. Plan agreement with NRCS; which is available for downloading from the Our weighing of the benefits of also an active member of the South Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, inclusion versus exclusion considers all Puget Sound Prairie Landscape Working or by contacting the Washington Fish relevant factors in making a final Group. The management plan is and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR determination as to what will result in modified regularly as new information FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). the greatest conservation benefit to the becomes available regarding BMPs for During the development of a final listed species. Depending on the prairie ecosystems. The private designation, we will consider economic specifics of each situation, there may be landowner in subunit 1–I is committed impacts, public comments, and other cases where the designation of critical through the management plan to new information, and areas may be habitat will not necessarily provide maintaining more than 300 ac (122 ha) excluded from the final critical habitat enhanced protection, and may actually of native prairie. designation under section 4(b)(2) of the lead to a net loss of conservation The third location is a 150-ac (61-ha) Act and our implementing regulations at benefit. Here we present a brief 50 CFR 424.19. active farm in Unit 2, Strait of Juan de description of three general areas Fuca Unit, in subunit 2–D, the Sequim Exclusions Based on National Security considered for exclusion from the final subunit. The Service has worked with Impacts designations of critical habitat for the the landowner in this subunit, which subspecies. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we has restored Taylor’s checkerspot We are considering the exclusion of butterfly habitat, and a portion of this consider whether there are lands owned private lands associated with the Scatter or managed by the Department of site is being managed for the long-term Creek Wildlife Area and Rock Prairie conservation of the species which they Defense (DOD) where a national security (Unit 1, subunits 1–H and 1–I for impact might exist. The U.S. Army’s are incorporating under a management Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly), both plan developed in coordination with the Joint Base Lewis-McChord Military within Thurston County, and the private Reservation (JBLM) is the only DOD WDFW. The landowner has shown a land site at Sequim (Taylor’s land included within the proposed track record of conservation of coastal checkerspot butterfly subunit 2–D), in designation of critical habitat. As grassland species, including Taylor’s the Strait of Juan de Fuca, located in described above, in preparing this checkerspot butterfly. For instance, Clallam County, Washington. proposal, we are considering JBLM for native plants have been planted on the The first proposed exclusion is exemption from the designation of property for Taylor’s checkerspot located in the south Puget Sound region, critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of butterfly and the landowner has stopped in the Scatter Creek subunit of Unit 1, the Act, pending our evaluation of their driving along one farm road to the South Sound Unit (this is subunit 1– revised INRMP, scheduled for encourage the reestablishment of native completion in 2012, to determine H for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly). larval host plants for the Taylor’s whether it provides a conservation We are considering excluding the checkerspot butterfly. As a result, larval benefit to the species under combined area of private lands in this host plants have become more abundant consideration in this proposed rule. We unit totaling 98 ac (40 ha) based on the as a result of this voluntary management have determined that the remaining benefits of partnerships and other action. conservation agreements. The South lands within the proposed designation Each area contains one landholding of critical habitat for the species are not Puget Sound Prairie Landscape Working Group is an informal, voluntary group that is under a conservation easement owned or managed by the Department of for agriculture and open space Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate that meets regularly, and discusses local conservation issues and planning. protection, species conservation, and/or no impact on national security. prairie conservation. We are considering Consequently, the Secretary is not Members of the group are tasked to implement prairie conservation and best the exclusion of these privately-owned intending to exert his discretion to lands (subunit 1–H, 1–I for the Taylor’s exclude any areas from the final management practices (BMPs) with their landowner contacts. The Service and checkerspot butterfly, and subunit 2–D designation based on impacts on for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in the national security. WDFW are members of this working group. WDFW worked with the private Strait of Juan de Fuca Unit) based on the Exclusions Based on Other Relevant landowner in subunit 1–H to develop a partnerships that have been developed Impacts management plan which includes a for the conservation of the Taylor’s Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we commitment from the landowner that checkerspot butterfly as evidenced by consider any other relevant impacts, in the parcel will be managed in such a the management plan and conservation addition to economic impacts and manner to support native prairie species easement on those private lands as well impacts to national security, of (composition and structure), consistent as the conservation benefit to the specifying any particular area as critical with the adjacent WDFW State wildlife subspecies from the management plan. habitat. We consider a number of area. This management plan is currently We request public comments on the factors, including whether landowners active and in effect through 2014 with relative benefits of inclusion or have developed any HCPs or other plans to renew the management plan exclusion of these areas from the management plans for the area, or prior to the end in 2014. designation of critical habitat. At whether there are conservation The second area is located in the present, we seek public comment on the partnerships or relationships that would south Puget Sound, in the Rock Prairie general benefits of including or be encouraged by designation of, or subunit also in Unit 1, the South Sound excluding private lands in this area (see exclusion from, critical habitat. In Unit. This is subunit 1–I for Taylor’s Public Comments).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62001

TABLE 5—LANDS PROPOSED OR THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE FINAL RULE TO DESIGNATE CRITICAL HABITAT FOR SEVERAL PUGET SOUND SPECIES

Type of agreement Critical habitat unit name State Name of agreement/entity Acres Hectares

Habitat Conservation Plans—pro- Unit 1 — South Sound; Subunits WA Washington Department of Nat- 658 267 posed for exclusion. TCB: 1–F & 1–J: 1–D. ural Resources State Lands Habitat Conservation Plan. Unit 4 — Willamette Valley; OR Benton County Habitat Conserva- 108 44 Subunits TCB: 4A,B & C. tion Plan. Conservation Agreements, Other Unit 1 — South Sound; Subunit WA Scatter Creek Wildlife Area Pri- 98 40 agreements or Partnerships— TCB: 1–H. vate Landowner Management proposed for exclusion. Plan. Unit 1 — South Sound; Subunit WA Rock Prairie Grassland Easement 379 153 TCB: 1–I. and Private Landowner Part- nership. Unit 2 — Strait of Juan De Fuca; WA Sequim Private Landowner Part- 151 61 Subunit TCB: 2–D. nership.

Total Proposed ...... 1,394 565 Tribal ...... Unit 3 — WA Coast and Columbia WA Shoalwater Tribal Management 182 73 River; Subunit SHL: 3–C. Plan.

Benefits of Excluding Lands With • The applicant will ensure that impact the species under a jeopardy Habitat Conservation Plans adequate funding for the plan will be standard, including possibly significant provided; habitat modification (see definition of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are • planning documents required as part of Taking will not appreciably reduce ‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 17.3), even without an application for an ‘‘incidental take’’ the likelihood of the survival and the critical habitat designation. In recovery of the species in the wild; and addition, all other Federal actions that permit. They describe the anticipated • effects of the proposed taking; how Other measures, as required by the may affect the listed species would still those impacts will be minimized, or Secretary, will be met. require consultation under section mitigated; and how the HCP is to be The benefits of excluding lands with 7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would review funded. HCPs can apply to both listed approved HCPs from critical habitat these actions for possible significant and nonlisted species, including those designation may include relieving habitat modification in accordance with that are candidates or have been landowners, communities, and counties the definition of harm referenced above. proposed for listing. Anyone whose of any additional regulatory burden that We consider a current HCP to be otherwise-lawful activities will result in might be imposed as a result of the appropriate for consideration for the ‘‘incidental take’’ of a listed wildlife critical habitat designation. Many HCPs exclusion from a final critical habitat species needs a permit. The Act defines take years to develop and, upon designation under section 4(b)(2) of the ‘‘take’’ as ‘‘* * * to harass, harm, completion, are consistent with the Act if: pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, recovery objectives for listed species (1) It provides for the conservation of capture, or collect, or to attempt to covered within the plan area. Many the essential physical and biological engage in any such conduct.’’ ‘‘Harm’’ conservation plans also provide features or areas otherwise determined includes significant habitat modification conservation benefits to unlisted to be essential; that actually kills or injures a listed sensitive species. (2) There is a reasonable expectation species through impairing essential A related benefit of excluding lands that the conservation management behavior such as breeding, feeding, or covered by approved HCPs from critical strategies and actions contained in a sheltering. Section 9 of the Act prohibits habitat designation is that it can make management plan will be implemented the take of endangered and threatened it easier for us to seek new partnerships into the future; (3) The conservation strategies in the species. The purpose of the incidental with future plan participants, including take permit is to exempt non-Federal States, counties, local jurisdictions, HCP are likely to be effective; and (4) The HCP contains a monitoring permit-holders—such as States and conservation organizations, and private program or adaptive management to private landowners—from the landowners, which together can ensure that the conservation measures prohibitions of section 9, not to implement conservation actions that we are effective and can be adapted in the authorize the activities that result in would be unable to accomplish otherwise. HCPs often cover a wide future in response to new information. take. Below is a brief description of each In developing HCPs, people applying range of species, including species that HCP and the lands proposed as critical for incidental take permits describe are not State and federally listed and habitat covered by each plan that we are measures designed to minimize and would otherwise receive little mitigate the effects of their actions— to protection from development. By proposing to exclude under section ensure that species will be conserved excluding these lands, we preserve our 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final and to contribute to their recovery. current partnerships and encourage designation of critical habitat . Habitat Conservation Plans are required additional future conservation actions. State of Oregon to meet the permit issuance criteria of We also note that permit issuance in Benton County HCP section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act: association with HCP applications • Taking will be incidental; requires consultation under section The Service coordinated with Benton • The applicant will, to the maximum 7(a)(2) of the Act, which would include County, the Xerces Society, and the extent practicable, minimize and the review of the effects of all HCP- Institute for Applied Ecology in Oregon mitigate the impacts of the taking; covered activities that might adversely to include the Taylor’s checkerspot

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:35 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 62002 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

butterfly in the Benton County HCP (subunit 4–B, and Fitton Green Natural owls and marbled murrelets. It was (Benton County 2010, p. 24). In addition Area (subunit 4–C). The HCP has envisioned that the conservation to the Benton County HCP, a Prairie guidelines for management of sites strategies for salmonids, spotted owls, Conservation Strategy (2010) was currently with and currently without and marbled murrelets would serve to developed for all species covered by the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. These reduce the risk of extinction for the HCP, including Taylor’s checkerspot guidelines are intended to both avoid other wildlife species covered by the butterfly. The strategy is stratified by the adverse impacts as well as to improve HCP. In addition, a fourth emphasis of level of protection afforded to the habitat conditions and increase the the HCP was to provide protection for various covered species, including distribution of the Taylor’s checkerspot species that relied on uncommon or permanent protection, limited butterfly in Oregon. As indicated above, unique habitats. For these species, protection, and opportunity areas for among the management additional measures were developed to unoccupied but suitable habitat for recommendations are restoration meet the conservation objectives of the species that may be conserved in new activities to improve habitat and the HCP. These measures specifically areas through assisted migration, or planting of larval host and adult nectar address the protection of talus, caves, translocation efforts. A draft plant species. The guidelines also cliffs, balds, oak woodlands, mineral Management Plan for Taylor’s include adaptive management springs, large snags, and large, checkerspot Butterfly was completed by provisions to assess the success of the structurally unique trees because these Ross (2008), and was finalized and enacted management as well as features are difficult to restore or incorporated into the HCP as Appendix population monitoring. recreate. In addition, as noted in the N (Benton County 2010). The guidelines HCP, at the time a new species is State of Washington set forth in the management plan will proposed for listing, DNR provides a assist Benton County in managing their Washington State Department of Natural written request to add that species to its lands in a way that is consistent with Resources State Lands Habitat ITP and evaluates and considers protection and conservation of the Conservation Plan additional protection measures such as seasonal restrictions and protection of species. The Benton County HCP Prairie We are proposing to exclude lands nesting/denning sites. Management Plan meets the Taylor’s managed under the Washington State checkerspot butterfly needs by The WDNR has developed a site Department of Natural Resources specific management plan for Taylor’s conserving occupied prairie habitat by (WDNR) State Lands HCP in multiple implementing measures to restore, and checkerspot butterfly for DNR managed critical habitat units in Washington lands located in the Olympic Region. manage for its long-term conservation. from the final critical habitat The plan’s goals have been This management plan, which is a designation for Taylor’s checkerspot voluntary plan for landowners, is based implemented by Benton County Parks butterfly. The WDNR State Trust Lands and Recreation department and they on ‘‘Guidelines for Protecting Taylor’s HCP covers approximately 1.6 million Checkerspot and its Habitat’’ (WDFW plan to continue these actions in ac (730,000 ha) of State forest lands. The support of the butterfly. The plan meets 2008 entire), and would fulfill the majority of the area covered by the HCP motion approved by the Forestry the needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot is west of the Cascade Crest including butterfly by controlling invasive, Practices Board on September 11, 2007. the Olympic Peninsula. The permit This plan, and all plans developed to nonnative shrubs (Scot’s broom), associated with this HCP, issued protect Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies, reduces the cover of tall, invasive January 30, 1997, was published in the will allow maximum flexibility to plan pasture grasses, reduces the cover of Federal Register on April 5, 1996 (61 FR and implement activities that minimize encroaching trees, and to augment 15297), has a term of 70 to 100 years, and mitigate impacts to the Taylor’s through planting and seeding the larval and covers activities primarily checkerspot butterfly. and adult food resources and native associated with commercial forest The WDNR also manages grass species that form the low-statured management, but also includes limited, approximately 66,000 ac (26,710 ha) of structure of the habitat required by the non-timber activities such as some non-trust lands as Natural Area butterfly. The streaked horned lark was recreational activities. The HCP covers Preserves (NAP). While not specifically considered but not included in the HCP all federally listed species in a part of the HCP, the Service recognizes (Benton County 2010, p. 142). Washington that use the types of the habitat contributions provided by We propose to exclude lands managed habitats provided by covered lands at these lands in terms of meeting the under the Benton County Prairie the time the HCP was approved, and conservation goals and objectives of the Species Habitat Conservation Plan from those species that have similar habitat HCP. NAPs provide the highest level of the final critical habitat designation for affinities and become listed after the protection for excellent examples of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. The HCP was approved and an incidental unique or typical land features in permit issued under this HCP (notice take permit (ITP) was issued. If listed, Washington State. Some of these October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60802), and the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly would protected lands currently provide issued January 14, 2011) has a term of be added to the WDNR ITP per Section habitat in areas identified as ‘‘critical’’ 50 years and addresses 18,908 ac (7,652 7 and 12.6 of the Implementing for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, the ha) of prairie habitat. The HCP includes Agreement (Appendix B of the HCP). Bald Hills, Mima Mounds NAPs, and over 500 ac (200 ha) of prairie The HCP addressed multiple species the Rocky Prairie NAP. Details of the conservation areas to be managed for through a combination of strategies. The WDNR HCP are available at http:// conservation purposes and where main focus of these strategies is the www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/ habitat restoration and enhancement riparian ecosystems (salmonids), topics/trustlandshcp/Pages/Home.aspx. activities are planned to occur. northern spotted owl, and the marbled Specifically, they have identified 152 ac murrelet. The main objective of these Federal Lands (61 ha) that will be managed for Taylor’s strategies was to maintain and promote As noted above, Federal agencies have checkerspot butterflies. These lands are late successional forest habitats along an independent responsibility under located in Fort Hoskins Historic Park riparian corridors and in uplands section 7(a)(1) of the Act to use their subunit 4–A, Beazell Memorial Forest locations that would benefit spotted programs in furtherance of the Act and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62003

to utilize their authorities to carry out stipulates ‘‘Critical habitat shall not be specialists regarding this proposed rule. programs for the conservation of designated in such areas unless it is The purpose of peer review is to ensure endangered and threatened species. We determined essential to conserve a listed that our critical habitat designation is consider the development and species. In designating critical habitat, based on scientifically sound data, implementation of land management the Services shall evaluate and assumptions, and analyses. We have plans by Federal agencies to be document the extent to which the invited these peer reviewers to comment consistent with this statutory obligation conservation needs of the listed species during this public comment period on under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. can be achieved by limiting the our specific assumptions and Therefore, Federal land management designation to other lands.’’ conclusions regarding the proposal to plans, in and of themselves, are The Shoalwater Bay Tribe in list Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and generally not an appropriate basis for Washington is the only Tribe with lands the streaked horned lark, and our exclusion from critical habitat. The identified as critical habitat in this proposed critical habitat for these Secretary is not intending to exercise his proposed rule. Approximately 182 ac subspecies as well as our other discretion to exclude any Federal lands (73 ha) of Tribal lands within subunit 3– determinations. from the designation of critical habitat. C of the Washington Coast and We will consider all comments and Columbia River Islands Unit (Unit 3) is information received during this Consideration of Indian Lands proposed as critical habitat for the comment period on this proposed rule In accordance with the Secretarial streaked horned lark. We are during our preparation of a final Order 3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal considering the exclusion of these lands determination. Accordingly, the final Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust from the final designation of critical decision may differ from this proposal. Responsibilities, and the Endangered habitat for the streaked horned lark. The Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997); the Service has entered into discussion with Public Hearings President’s memorandum of April 29, the Tribe regarding the proposed 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government designation in preparation of this rule. Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for Relations with Native American Tribal The Shoalwater Bay Tribe is working one or more public hearings on this Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive with the Service on the development of proposal, if requested. Requests must be Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and a formal agreement for management and received within 45 days after the date of Coordination with Indian Tribal protection of habitat for the western publication of this proposed rule in the Governments’’ (November 6, 2000, and snowy plover, streaked horned lark, and Federal Register. Such requests must be as reaffirmed November 5, 2009); and other native coastal species of cultural sent to the address shown in the the relevant provision of the significance on lands under Tribal ADDRESSES section. We will schedule Departmental Manual of the Department ownership and management. public hearings on this proposal, if any of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe The Tribe has stated that they are are requested, and announce the dates, that fish, wildlife, and other natural committed to continue with their efforts times, and places of those hearings, as resources on Indian lands may be better to manage their lands to benefit the well as how to obtain reasonable managed under Indian authorities, western snowy plover and streaked accommodations, in the Federal policies, and programs than through horned lark, and are asking that their Register and local newspapers at least Federal regulation where Indian lands be excluded from the final 15 days before the hearing. management addresses the conservation designation. Existing tribal regulations, Required Determinations needs of listed species. In addition, such including the 2001 Tribal designation may be viewed by tribes as Environmental Codes that protect the Regulatory Planning and Review— unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion saltmarsh and sand spit as natural areas, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 into Indian self-governance, thus will ensure any land use actions, compromising the government-to- including those funded, authorized, or Executive Order 12866 provides that government relationship essential to carried out by Federal agencies, are not the Office of Information and Regulatory achieving our mutual goals of managing likely to result in the destruction or Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant for healthy ecosystems upon which the adverse modification of all lands rules. The Office of Information and viability of threatened and endangered considered for exclusion. The Service is Regulatory Affairs has determined that species populations depend. also coordinating with the Tribe and the this rule is not significant. In developing proposed critical USACE on the planting/vegetation Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot management plan. We are currently principles of E.O. 12866 while calling butterfly and streaked horned lark, we working on a memorandum of for improvements in the nation’s considered inclusion of some Indian understanding with the Tribe regarding regulatory system to promote lands as essential. Indian lands are protection or shorebirds on reservation predictability, to reduce uncertainty, those defined in Secretarial Order 3206 lands. Any potential impacts to the and to use the best, most innovative, ‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights, streaked horned lark from future and least burdensome tools for Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, proposed activities on the tribal lands achieving regulatory ends. The and the Endangered Species Act’’ (June will be addressed through a section 7 executive order directs agencies to 5, 1997), as: (1) Lands held in trust by consultation using the jeopardy consider regulatory approaches that the United States for the benefit of any standard, and such activities would also reduce burdens and maintain flexibility Indian tribe or individual; and (2) lands be subject to the take prohibitions in and freedom of choice for the public held by any Indian Tribe or individual section 9 of the Act. where these approaches are relevant, subject to restrictions by the United feasible, and consistent with regulatory States against alienation. In evaluating Peer Review objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes Indian lands under consideration as In accordance with our joint policy on further that regulations must be based potential critical habitat for the Taylor’s peer review published in the Federal on the best available science and that checkerspot butterfly and streaked Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), the rulemaking process must allow for horned lark, we further considered the we will seek the expert opinions of at public participation and an open directive of Secretarial Order 3206 that least three appropriate and independent exchange of ideas. We have developed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 62004 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

this rule in a manner consistent with designation, but the per-entity economic Therefore, an initial regulatory these requirements. impact is not significant, the Service flexibility analysis is not required. may certify. Likewise, if the per-entity However, though not necessarily Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 economic impact is likely to be required by the RFA, in our draft et seq.) significant, but the number of affected economic analysis for this proposal we Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act entities is not substantial, the Service will consider and evaluate the potential (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended may also certify. effects to third parties that may be by the Small Business Regulatory Under the RFA, as amended, and involved with consultations with Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of following recent court decisions, Federal action agencies related to this 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an Federal agencies are only required to action. agency must publish a notice of evaluate the potential incremental rulemaking for any proposed or final impacts of rulemaking on those entities Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— rule, it must prepare and make available directly regulated by the rulemaking Executive Order 13211 for public comment a regulatory itself, and not the potential impacts to Executive Order 13211 (Actions flexibility analysis that describes the indirectly affected entities. The Concerning Regulations That effects of the rule on small entities regulatory mechanism through which Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (small businesses, small organizations, critical habitat protections are realized Distribution, or Use) requires agencies and small government jurisdictions). is section 7 of the Act, which requires to prepare Statements of Energy Effects However, no regulatory flexibility Federal agencies, in consultation with when undertaking certain actions. We analysis is required if the head of the the Service, to ensure that any action do not expect the designation of this agency certifies the rule will not have a authorized, funded, or carried by the proposed critical habitat to significantly significant economic impact on a Agency is not likely to adversely modify affect energy supplies, distribution, or substantial number of small entities. critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal use as these species and proposed The SBREFA amended the RFA to action agencies are directly subject to critical habitat do not appear to overlap require Federal agencies to provide a the specific regulatory requirement with these areas. Therefore, this action certification statement of the factual (avoiding destruction and adverse is not a significant energy action, and no basis for certifying that the rule will not modification) imposed by critical Statement of Energy Effects is required. have a significant economic impact on habitat designation. Under these However, we will further evaluate this a substantial number of small entities. circumstances, it is our position that issue as we conduct our economic According to the Small Business only Federal action agencies will be analysis, and review and revise this Administration, small entities include directly regulated by this designation. assessment as warranted. small organizations such as Therefore, because Federal agencies are independent nonprofit organizations; Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 not small entities, the Service may U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) small governmental jurisdictions, certify that the proposed critical habitat including school boards and city and rule will not have a significant In accordance with the Unfunded town governments that serve fewer than economic impact on a substantial Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 50,000 residents; and small businesses number of small entities. seq.), we make the following findings: (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses We acknowledge, however, that in (1) This rule will not produce a include such businesses as some cases, third-party proponents of Federal mandate. In general, a Federal manufacturing and mining concerns the action subject to permitting or mandate is a provision in legislation, with fewer than 500 employees, funding may participate in a section 7 statute, or regulation that would impose wholesale trade entities with fewer than consultation, and thus may be indirectly an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 100 employees, retail and service affected. We believe it is good policy to tribal governments, or the private sector, businesses with less than $5 million in assess these impacts if we have and includes both ‘‘Federal annual sales, general and heavy sufficient data before us to complete the intergovernmental mandates’’ and construction businesses with less than necessary analysis, whether or not this ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ $27.5 million in annual business, analysis is strictly required by the RFA. These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. special trade contractors doing less than While this regulation does not directly 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental $11.5 million in annual business, and regulate these entities, in our draft mandate’’ includes a regulation that forestry and logging operations with economic analysis we will conduct a ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty fewer than 500 employees and annual brief evaluation of the potential number upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ business less than $7 million. To of third parties participating in with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a determine whether small entities may consultations on an annual basis in condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also be affected, we will consider the types order to ensure a more complete excludes ‘‘a duty arising from of activities that might trigger regulatory examination of the incremental effects participation in a voluntary Federal impacts under this designation as well of this proposed rule in the context of program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates as types of project modifications that the RFA. to a then-existing Federal program may result. In general, the term In conclusion, we believe that, based under which $500,000,000 or more is ‘‘significant economic impact’’ is meant on our interpretation of directly provided annually to State, local, and to apply to a typical small business regulated entities under the RFA and tribal governments under entitlement firm’s business operations. relevant case law, this designation of authority,’’ if the provision would Importantly, the incremental impacts critical habitat will only directly ‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of of a rule must be both significant and regulate Federal agencies which are not assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or substantial to prevent certification of the by definition small business entities. otherwise decrease, the Federal rule under the RFA and to require the And as such, certify that, if Government’s responsibility to provide preparation of an initial regulatory promulgated, this designation of critical funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal flexibility analysis. If a substantial habitat would not have a significant governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust number of small entities are affected by economic impact on a substantial accordingly. At the time of enactment, the proposed critical habitat number of small business entities. these entitlement programs were:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62005

Medicaid; Aid to Families with Takings—Executive Order 12630 or that otherwise require approval or Dependent Children work programs; In accordance with Executive Order authorization from a Federal agency for Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 12630 (Government Actions and an action, may be indirectly impacted Services Block Grants; Vocational Interference with Constitutionally by the designation of critical habitat, the Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Protected Private Property Rights), we legally binding duty to avoid Adoption Assistance, and Independent have analyzed the potential takings destruction or adverse modification of Living; Family Support Welfare implications of designating critical critical habitat rests squarely on the Services; and Child Support habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot Federal agency. Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector butterfly and streaked horned lark in a Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order mandate’’ includes a regulation that takings implications assessment. Critical 12988 ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty habitat designation does not affect In accordance with Executive Order upon the private sector, except (i) a landowner actions that do not require 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a Federal funding or permits, nor does it of the Solicitor has determined that the duty arising from participation in a preclude development of habitat rule does not unduly burden the judicial voluntary Federal program.’’ conservation programs or issuance of system and that it meets the The designation of critical habitat incidental take permits to permit actions requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) does not impose a legally binding duty that do require Federal funding or of the Order. We have proposed permits to go forward. The takings on non-Federal Government entities or designating critical habitat in implications assessment concludes that private parties. Under the Act, the only accordance with the provisions of the this designation of critical habitat for regulatory effect is that Federal agencies Act. This proposed rule uses standard Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and must ensure that their actions do not property descriptions and identifies the streaked horned lark does not pose elements of physical or biological destroy or adversely modify critical significant takings implications for habitat under section 7. While non- features essential to the conservation of lands within or affected by the the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and Federal entities that receive Federal designation. funding, assistance, or permits, or that streaked horned lark within the otherwise require approval or Federalism—Executive Order 13132 proposed designated areas to assist the authorization from a Federal agency for public in understanding the habitat In accordance with Executive Order needs of the species. an action, may be indirectly impacted 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule by the designation of critical habitat, the does not have significant Federalism Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 legally binding duty to avoid effects. A Federalism assessment is not U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) destruction or adverse modification of required. In keeping with Department of This rule does not contain any new critical habitat rests squarely on the the Interior and Department of collections of information that require Federal agency. Furthermore, to the Commerce policy, we requested approval by OMB under the Paperwork extent that non-Federal entities are information from, and coordinated Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 indirectly impacted because they development of, this proposed critical et seq.). This rule will not impose receive Federal assistance or participate habitat designation with appropriate recordkeeping or reporting requirements in a voluntary Federal aid program, the State resource agencies in Washington on State or local governments, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would and Oregon. The designation of critical individuals, businesses, or not apply, nor would critical habitat habitat in areas currently occupied by organizations. An agency may not shift the costs of the large entitlement the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and conduct or sponsor, and a person is not programs listed above onto State streaked horned lark imposes no required to respond to, a collection of governments. additional restrictions to those currently information unless it displays a in place and, therefore, has little (2) We do not believe that this rule currently valid OMB control number. incremental impact on State and local will significantly or uniquely affect governments and their activities. The National Environmental Policy Act (42 small governments. Government lands designation may have some benefit to U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) being proposed for critical habitat these governments because the areas We have determined that designation are owned by Washington that contain the physical or biological environmental assessments and State Department of Fish and Wildlife, features essential to the conservation of environmental impact statements, as Washington Department of Natural the species are more clearly defined, defined under the authority of the Resources, Department of Defense and the elements of the features of the National Environmental Policy Act (Army), the U.S. Forest Service, and habitat necessary to the conservation of (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not Thurston County Parks and Recreation, the species are specifically identified. be prepared in connection with listing in Washington, None of these This information does not alter where a species as endangered or threatened government entities fit the definition of and what federally sponsored activities under the Endangered Species Act. We ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ may occur. However, it may assist local published a notice outlining our reasons Therefore, a Small Government Agency governments in long-range planning for this determination in the Federal Plan is not required. However, we will (rather than having them wait for case- Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR further evaluate this issue as we by-case section 7 consultations to 49244). conduct our economic analysis, and occur). It is our position that, outside the review and revise this assessment as Where State and local governments jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals warranted. Therefore, a Small require approval or authorization from a for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to Government Agency Plan is not Federal agency for actions that may prepare environmental analyses required. However, we will further affect critical habitat, consultation pursuant to NEPA in connection with evaluate this issue as we conduct our under section 7(a)(2) would be required. designating critical habitat under the economic analysis, and review and While non-Federal entities that receive Act. We published a notice outlining revise this assessment if appropriate. Federal funding, assistance, or permits, our reasons for this determination in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 62006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 recognized Federal Tribes on a References Cited (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld government-to-government basis. In A complete list of references cited in by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 this rulemaking is available on the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Internet at http://www.regulations.gov Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust and upon request from the Washington cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).] Responsibilities, and the Endangered Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR Clarity of the Rule Species Act), we readily acknowledge FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). our responsibilities to work directly We are required by Executive Orders with tribes in developing programs for Authors 12866 and 12988 and by the healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that The primary authors of this package Presidential Memorandum of June 1, tribal lands are not subject to the same are the staff members of the Washington 1998, to write all rules in plain controls as Federal public lands, to Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, language. This means that each rule we remain sensitive to Indian culture, and Washington, and the Oregon Fish and publish must: to make information available to tribes. Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon. (1) Be logically organized; (2) Use the active voice to address We have determined that there are no List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 tribal lands occupied by the Taylor’s readers directly; Endangered and threatened species, (3) Use clear language rather than checkerspot butterfly that contain the Exports, Imports, Reporting and jargon; physical or biological features essential recordkeeping requirements, (4) Be divided into short sections and to conservation of the species, and no Transportation. sentences; and tribal lands unoccupied by the species (5) Use lists and tables wherever that are essential for the conservation of Proposed Regulation Promulgation possible. the species. Therefore, we are not Accordingly, we propose to amend If you feel that we have not met these proposing to designate critical habitat part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title requirements, send us comments by one for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly on 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES tribal lands. The Shoalwater Bay Tribe as set forth below: section. To better help us revise the in Washington is the only Tribe with rule, your comments should be as lands proposed for designation in this PART 17—[AMENDED] specific as possible. For example, you proposed critical habitat rule. 1. The authority citation for part 17 should tell us the numbers of the Approximately 182 ac (74 ha) of Tribal sections or paragraphs that are unclearly continues to read as follows: lands within subunit 3–C, of the written, which sections or sentences are Washington Coast and Columbia River Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. too long, the sections where you feel Islands Unit could be designated as 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– lists or tables would be useful, etc. 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. critical habitat for the streaked horned Government-to-Government lark. The Service has entered into 2. Amend § 17.11(h), the List of Relationship With Tribes discussion with the Tribe regarding the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, as follows: In accordance with the President’s proposed designation in preparation of a. By adding an entry for ‘‘Lark, memorandum of April 29, 1994 this rule. The Shoalwater Bay Tribe is streaked horned (Eremophila alpestris (Government-to-Government Relations providing information regarding the strigata)’’ in alphabetical order under with Native American Tribal status of streaked horned lark on lands Birds, to read as set forth below; and Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive under tribal ownership and b. By adding an entry for ‘‘Butterfly, Order 13175 (Consultation and management. The Tribe has stated that Taylor’s checkerspot (Euphydryas Coordination With Indian Tribal they are committed to continue with editha taylori)’’ in alphabetical order Governments), and the Department of their efforts to manage their lands to under Insects, to read as set forth below: the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we benefit the streaked horned lark, and is readily acknowledge our responsibility asking that their lands be excluded from § 17.11 Endangered and threatened to communicate meaningfully with designation. wildlife.

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

******* BIRDS

******* Lark, streaked Eremophila alpestris U.S.A. (BC, WA, U.S.A. (WA) ...... T ...... 17.95(b) 17.41(a) horned. strigata. OR).

******* INSECTS

******* Butterfly, Taylor’s Euphydryas editha U.S.A. (WA, OR) .... U.S.A. (WA) ...... E ...... 17.95(i) NA checkerspot. taylori.

*******

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62007

3. Amend § 17.41 by adding minimize hazardous wildlife. (2) Within these areas, the primary paragraph (a) to read as follows: Hazardous wildlife is defined by the constituent elements of the physical or Federal Aviation Administration as biological features essential to the § 17.41 Special rules—birds. species of wildlife, including feral conservation of the streaked horned lark (a) Streaked horned lark (Eremophila animals and domesticated animals not consist of areas having a minimum of 16 alpestris strigata). under control, that are associated with percent bare ground that have sparse, (1) Which populations of the streaked aircraft strike problems, are capable of low-stature vegetation comprising horned lark are covered by this special causing structural damage to airport primarily grasses and forbs less than 13 rule? This rule covers the rangewide facilities, or act as attractants to other in (33 cm) in height found in: distribution of this bird. wildlife that pose a strike hazard. (i) Large (300-ac (120-ha)), flat (0–5 (2) What activities are prohibited? Routine management activities include, Except as noted in paragraphs (a)(3) and percent slope) areas within a landscape but are not limited to, the following: context that provides visual access to (a)(4) of this section, all prohibitions of (i) Routine management, repair, and § 17.31 apply to the streaked horned open areas such as open water or fields, maintenance of roads and runways or lark. (does not include upgrades or (3) What agricultural activities are construction of new roads or runways); (ii) Areas smaller than described in allowed on non-Federal land? Incidental (ii) Control and management of paragraph (2)(i) of this entry, but that take of the streaked horned lark will not vegetation (grass, weeds, shrubs, and provide visual access to open areas such be a violation of section 9 of the Act, if trees) through mowing, discing, as open water or fields. the incidental take results from routine herbicide application, or burning (3) Critical habitat does not include agricultural or ranching activities consistent with State Agency manmade structures (such as buildings, located on non-Federal lands. Routine recommendations; aqueducts, runways, roads, and other agricultural and ranching activities are (iii) Hazing of hazardous wildlife; and paved areas) and the land on which they limited to the following: (iv) Management of sources of forage, are located existing within the legal (i) Planting, harvesting, rotation, water, and shelter to reduce the boundaries on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER mowing, tilling, discing, and herbicide attractiveness of the area around the THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE application of crops; airport for hazardous wildlife. FINAL RULE]. (ii) Repair and maintenance of * * * * * (4) Critical habitat map units. Data unimproved farm roads (this exemption 3. Amend § 17.95 by: layers defining the map unit were does not include improvement or (a) In paragraph (b), adding an entry created on 2010 aerial photography from construction of new roads) and graveled for ‘‘Streaked horned lark (Eremophila U.S. Department of Agriculture, margins of rural roads; alpestris strigata)’’ in the same order National Agriculture Imagery Program (iii) Livestock grazing according to that this species appears in the table in base maps using ArcMap normally acceptable and established § 17.11(h) to read as follows; and (Environmental Systems Research levels of intensity in terms of the (b) In paragraph (i), by adding an Institute, Inc.), a computer geographic number of head of livestock per acre of entry for ‘‘Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly information system (GIS) program. The rangeland; (Euphydryas editha taylori)’’ in the (iv) Routine management and maps in this entry, as modified by any same order that this species appears in accompanying regulatory text, establish maintenance of stock ponds and berms the table in § 17.11(h) to read as follows: to maintain livestock water supplies; the boundaries of the critical habitat (v) Routine maintenance or § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. designation. The coordinates or plot construction of fences for grazing * * * * * points or both on which each map is management; (b) Birds. based are available to the public at the Service’s internet site, (http:// (vi) Placement of mineral * * * * * supplements; and www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov (vii) Irrigation of agricultural crops, Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila (http://www.regulations.gov at Docket fields, and livestock pastures. alpestris strigata) No. FWS–R1–ES–2012–0080) and at the (4) What activities are allowed on (1) Critical habitat units are depicted field office responsible for this airports on non-Federal lands? for Mason, Pierce, Thurson, Grays designation. You may obtain field office Incidental take of the streaked horned Harbor, Pacific Wahkiakum, and location information by contacting one lark will not be a violation of section 9 Cowlitz Counties in Washington and of the Service regional offices, the of the Act, if the incidental take results Clatsop, Columbia, Multhomah, addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR from routine management activities Yamhill, Polk, Marion, Linn, and Lane 2.2. associated with airport operations to Counties in Oregon, on the maps below. (5) Note: Index map follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 62008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P (6) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– A: Sanderson Field, Mason County, A, follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:35 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.023 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62009

(7) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– B: McChord Field, Pierce County, B: follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.024 62010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(8) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– C: Gray Army Airfield, Pierce County, C follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.025 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62011

(9) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– D: 91st Division Prairie, Pierce County, D follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.026 62012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(10) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, 1–E: 13th Division Prairie, Pierce Subunit 1–E follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.027 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62013

(11) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– 1–F: Olympia Airport, Thurston County, F follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.028 62014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(12) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3– Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–A: A follows: Damon Point, Grays Harbor County,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.029 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62015

(13) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3– Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–B: B follows: Midway Beach, Pacific County,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.030 62016 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(14) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3– Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–C: C follows: Shoalwater, Pacific County,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.031 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62017

(15) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3– Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–D: D follows: Leadbetter Point, Pacific County,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.032 62018 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(16) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Rice Island, Clatsop County, Oregon. Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–E: Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–E follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.033 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62019

(17) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–F Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–F: follows: Miller Sands Spit, Clatsop County,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.034 62020 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(18) Unit 3—Washington Coast and County, Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–G: 3–G follows: Pillar Rock/Jim Crow Sands, Clatsop

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.035 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62021

(19) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Welch Island, Clatsop County, Oregon. Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–H: Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–H follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.036 62022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(20) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–I Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–I: follows: Tenasillahe Island, Columbia County,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.037 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62023

(21) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Washington. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3– Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–J: J follows: Coffeepot Island, Wahkiakum County,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.038 62024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(22) Unit 3—Washington Coast and County, Washington. Map of Unit 3, Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–K: Subunit 3–K follows: Whites/Brown Island, Wahkiakum

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.039 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62025

(23) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–L Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–L: follows: Wallace Island, Columbia County,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.040 62026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(24) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Crims Island, Columbia County, Oregon. Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–M: Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–M follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.041 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62027

(25) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Oregon. Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3–N Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–N: follows: Sandy Island, Columbia County,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.042 62028 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(26) Unit 3—Washington Coast and Multnomah County, Washington. Map Columbia River Islands, Subunit 3–O: of Unit 3, Subunit 3–O follows: Portland International Airport,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.043 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62029

(27) Unit 4—Willamette Valley, Airport, Yamhill County, Oregon. Map Subunit 4–A: McMinnville Municipal of Unit 4, Subunit 4–A follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.044 62030 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(28) Unit 4—Willamette Valley, Wildlife Refuge, Polk County, Oregon. Subunit 4–B: Basket Slough National Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4–B follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.045 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62031

(29) Unit 4—Willamette Valley, Marion County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4–C: Salem Municipal Airport, Subunit 4–C follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.046 62032 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(30) Unit 4—Willamette Valley, Refuge, Marion County, Oregon. Map of Subunit 4–D: Ankeny National Wildlife Unit 4, Subunit 4–D follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.047 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62033

(31) Unit 4—Willamette Valley, Airport, Benton County, Oregon. Map of Subunit 4–E: Corvallis Municipal Unit 4, Subunit 4–E follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.048 62034 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(32) Unit 4—Willamette Valley, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4–F Subunit 4–F: William L. Finley National follows: Wildlife Refuge, Benton County,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.049 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62035

(33) Unit 4—Willamette Valley, County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit Subunit 4–G: M–DAC Farms, Linn 4–G follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.050 62036 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(34) Unit 4—Willamette Valley, County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit Subunit 4–H: Eugene Airport, Lane 4–H follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.051 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62037

* * * * * (1) Critical habitat units are depicted biological features essential to the (i) Insects. for Thurston, Pierce, Island, Clallam conservation of Euphydryas editha Counties in Washington, and Benton taylori consist of: * * * * * County, Oregon, on the maps below. (i) Patches of early seral, short- Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (2) Within these areas, the primary statured, perennial bunchgrass plant (Euphydryas editha taylori) constituent elements of the physical or communities composed of native grass

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.052 62038 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

and forb species in a diverse (ii) Primary larval host plants boundaries on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER topographic landscape ranging in size (narrow-leaved plantain and harsh THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE from less than 1 ac up to 100 ac (0.4 to paintbrush) and at least one of the FINAL RULE]. 40 ha) with little or no overstory forest secondary annual larval host plants (4) Critical habitat map units. Data vegetation that have areas of bare soil (blue-eyed Mary, sea blush, or dwarf layers defining the map unit were for basking that contain: owl-clover) or one of several species of created on 2010 aerial photography from (A) In Washington and Oregon, speedwell (marsh speedwell, American common bunchgrass species found on speedwell, or thymeleaf speedwell). U.S. Department of Agriculture, northwest grasslands include Festuca (iii) Adult nectar sources for feeding National Agriculture Imagery Program roemeri (Roemer’s fescue), Danthonia that include several species found as base maps using ArcMap californica (California oat grass), part of the native (and one nonnative) (Environmental Systems Research Koeleria cristata (prairie Junegrass), species mix on northwest grasslands, Institute, Inc.), a computer geographic Elymus glaucus (blue wild rye), Agrostis including: narrow-leaved plantain; information system (GIS) program. The scabra (rough bentgrass), and on cooler, harsh paintbrush; Puget balsam root; maps in this entry, as modified by any high-elevation sites typical of coastal wooly sunshine; nine-leaved desert accompanying regulatory text, establish bluffs and balds, Festuca rubra (red parsley; fine-leaved desert parsley or the boundaries of the critical habitat fescue). spring gold; common camas; showy designation. The coordinates or plot (B) On moist grasslands found near fleabane; Canada thistle; common points or both on which each map is the coast and in the Willamette Valley, yarrow; prairie lupine; and sickle-keeled based are available to the public at the there may be Bromus sitchensis (Sitka lupine. Service’s internet site, (http:// brome) and Deschampsia cespitosa (iv) Aquatic features such as www.fws.gov/wafwo/), the Federal (tufted hairgrass) in the mix of prairie wetlands, springs, seeps, streams, eRulemaking portal (http:// grasses. Less abundant forbs found on ponds, lakes, and puddles that provide www.regulations.gov at Docket No. the grasslands include, but are not moisture during periods of drought, FWS–R1–ES–2012–0080), and at the limited to, Trifolium spp. (true clovers), particularly late in the spring and early field office responsible for this narrow-leaved plantain, harsh summer. These features can be designation. You may obtain field office paintbrush, Puget balsam root, woolly permanent, seasonal, or ephemeral. sunshine, nine-leaved desert parsley, (3) Critical habitat does not include location information by contacting one fine-leaved desert parsley, common manmade structures (such as buildings, of the Service regional offices, the camas, showy fleabane, Canada thistle, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR common yarrow, prairie lupine, and paved areas) and the land on which they 2.2. sickle-keeled lupine. are located existing within the legal (5) Note: Index map follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62039

(6) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– A: TA7S, Pierce County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–A follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.053 62040 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(7) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– B: 91st Division Prairie, Pierce County, B follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.054 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62041

(8) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– C: 13th Division Prairie, Pierce County, C follows.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.055 62042 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(9) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– D: Rocky Prairie, Thurston County, D follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.056 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62043

(10) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, South E; Tenalquot, Thurston County, Sound, Subunit 1–E follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.057 62044 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(11) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Thurston County, Washington. Map of F: Mima Mounds/Glacial Heritage, Unit 1, Subunit 1–F follows.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.058 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62045

(12) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– G: West Rocky Prairie, Thurston County, G follows.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.059 62046 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(13) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– H: Scatter Creek, Thurston County, H follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.060 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62047

(14) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– I: Rock Prairie, Thurston County, I follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.061 62048 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(15) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1– Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1– J: Bald Hills, Thurston County, J follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.062 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62049

(16) Unit 2—Strait of Juan DeFuca, County, Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2–A: Deception Pass, Island Subunit 2–A, follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.063 62050 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(17) Unit 2—Strait of Juan DeFuca, County, Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2–B: Central Whidbey, Island Subunit 2–B follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.064 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62051

(18) Unit 2—Strait of Juan DeFuca, Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2– Subunit 2–C: Elwha, Clallam County, C follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.065 62052 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(19) Unit 2—Strait of Juan DeFuca, Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2– Subunit 2–D: Sequim, Clallam County, D follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.066 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62053

(20) Unit 2—Strait of Juan DeFuca, County, Washington. Map of Unit 2, Subunit 2–E: Upper Dungeness, Clallam Subunit 2- E, follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.067 62054 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(21) Unit 4—Willamette Valley, Park, Benton County, Oregon. Map of Subunit 4–A: Fort Hoskins Historic Unit 4, Subunit 4–A follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.068 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62055

(22) Unit 4—Willamette Valley, Benton County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4–B: Beazell Memorial Forest, Subunit 4–B follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.069 62056 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(23) Unit 4: Willamette Valley, County, Oregon. Map of Unit 4, Subunit Subunit 4–C: Fitton Green, Benton 4–C, follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.070 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 62057

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP11OC12.071 62058 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

* * * * * Dated: September 27, 2012. Eileen Sobeck, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 2012–24465 Filed 10–10–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\11OCP3.SGM 11OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3