Vol. 78 Thursday, No. 192 October 3, 2013

Part III

Department of the Interior

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61506 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR by appointment, at the Washington Fish Washington; and in Benton County in and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER Oregon. Fish and Wildlife Service INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional • Approximately 4,629 ac (1,873 ha) tools or supporting information that we in two units for the streaked horned lark 50 CFR Part 17 developed for this critical habitat in Grays Harbor, Pierce, Pacific, and [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES2013–0009; designation will also be available at the Wahkiakum Counties in Washington; 4500030114] Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and and in Clatsop, Columbia, Marion, Polk, field office set out above, and may also and Benton Counties in Oregon. RIN 1081–AZ36 be included at http:// We have prepared an economic www.regulations.gov. analysis of the designation of critical Endangered and Threatened Wildlife habitat. We have prepared an analysis FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken and Plants; Designation of Critical of the probable economic impacts of the Berg, Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for Taylor’s Checkerspot critical habitat designations and related Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Butterfly and Streaked Horned Lark factors. We announced the availability Office, 510 Desmond Drive, Suite 102, of the draft economic analysis (DEA) in AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA 98503–1263; by telephone the Federal Register on April 3, 2012 Interior. 360–753–9440; or by facsimile 360– (78 FR 20074), allowing the public to ACTION: Final rule. 753–9405. Persons who use a provide comments on our analysis. We telecommunications device for the deaf SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and have incorporated the comments and (TDD) may call the Federal Information Wildlife Service, designate critical have completed the final economic Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot analysis (FEA) concurrently with this butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: final determination. and streaked horned lark (Eremophila Executive Summary Peer review and public comment. We alpestris strigata) under the Endangered sought comments from independent Why We Need to Publish a Rule. Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). specialists to ensure that our Under the Endangered Species Act In total, approximately 1,941 acres (786 designation is based on scientifically (Act), any species that is determined to hectares) in Island, Clallam, and sound data and analyses. We obtained be an endangered or threatened species Thurston Counties in Washington, and opinions from two knowledgeable requires critical habitat to be designated, in Benton County in Oregon, fall within individuals with scientific expertise to to the maximum extent prudent and the boundaries of the critical habitat review our technical assumptions and determinable. Elsewhere in today’s designation for Taylor’s checkerspot analysis, and to determine whether or issue of the Federal Register, we list the butterfly. Approximately 4,629 acres not we had used the best available Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly as an (1,873 hectares) in Grays Harbor, information. These peer reviewers endangered species and the streaked Pacific, and Wahkiakum Counties in concurred with our methods and horned lark as a threatened species. Washington, and in Clatsop, Columbia, conclusions, and provided additional Designations and revisions of critical Marion, Polk, and Benton Counties in information, clarifications, and habitat can only be completed by Oregon, fall within the boundaries of suggestions to improve this final rule. issuing a rule. Information we received from peer the critical habitat designation for Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that review is incorporated in this final streaked horned lark. The effect of this the Secretary shall designate critical designation. We also considered all regulation is to designate critical habitat habitat on the basis of the best available comments and information we received for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly scientific data after taking into from the public during the comment and streaked horned lark under the Act consideration the economic impact, period. for the conservation of the species. national security impact, and any other DATES: This rule is effective on relevant impact of specifying any Previous Federal Actions November 4, 2013. particular area as critical habitat. All previous Federal actions are ADDRESSES: This final rule is available Additionally, the Act sets forth the described in the listing determination on the Internet at http:// requirement to finalize rules within 1 for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly www.regulations.gov and at the year of proposal. and streaked horned lark, which is Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. This rule designates critical habitat for published elsewhere in today’s Federal Comments and materials we received, as the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and Register. well as supporting documentation used streaked horned lark. On October 11, in preparing this final rule, are available 2012, we published in the Federal Background for public inspection, by appointment, Register (77 FR 61937) a proposed rule For information related to the listing during normal business hours, at: U.S. to list the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly of the species, see the final rule listing Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington and streaked horned lark and to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly as an Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond designate critical habitat for these endangered species and the streaked Drive SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503– subspecies. The critical habitat areas we horned lark as a threatened species, 1263. The office can be reached by are designating in this final rule which is published elsewhere in today’s telephone at 360–753–9440 or by constitute our current best assessment of Federal Register. facsimile at 360–753–9008. the areas that meet the definition of The coordinates or plot points or both critical habitat for the Taylor’s Summary of Comments and from which the maps are generated are checkerspot butterfly and streaked Recommendations included in the administrative record horned lark. We are designating as We requested written comments from for this critical habitat designation and critical habitat: the public on the proposed designation are available at http:// • Approximately 1,941 acres (ac) (786 of critical habitat for the Taylor’s www.regulations.gov at Docket No. hectares (ha)) in three units for the checkerspot butterfly and streaked FWS–R1–ES–2013–0009 and at http:// Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in Island, horned lark during two comment www.fws.gov/wafwo/TCBSHL.html, or, Clallam, and Thurston Counties in periods. The first comment period,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61507

associated with the publication of the incorporated into the final rule as our documents. In this case the peer proposed rule (77 FR 61937; October 11, appropriate. reviewer has offered his opinion on a 2012), opened on October 11, 2012, and non-scientific issue; however, Comments From Peer Reviewers closed on December 10, 2012. We then management agreements are not a made available the draft economic In accordance with our peer review requirement for critical habitat analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR designation. We will seek agreements habitat designation and reopened the 34270), we solicited expert opinion with land owners and managers on comment period on the proposed rule from four knowledgeable individuals lands designated as critical habitat and for an additional 30 days from April 3, with scientific expertise that included on other lands that are important to 2013, to May 3, 2013 (78 FR 20074; familiarity with the Taylor’s conservation of the streaked horned lark April 3, 2013). We also contacted checkerspot butterfly and its habitats, as we initiate a recovery program for the appropriate Federal, State, tribal, biological needs, and threats, and from bird, but such agreements are not county, and local agencies; scientific three knowledgeable individuals with relevant to the designation of critical organizations; and other interested scientific expertise that included habitat unless we are considering parties and invited them to comment on familiarity with the streaked horned lark whether to exclude an area from the the proposed rule and the draft and its habitats, biological needs, and designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) economic analysis. We held three public threats. We received responses from two of the Act. We did consider the information workshops and a public of the peer reviewers for the Taylor’s additional sites the peer reviewer hearing in April 2013, on the proposed checkerspot butterfly. Both peer suggested should have been proposed as rule to list the subspecies and the reviewers felt that the proposed rule critical habitat; however, we concluded associated critical habitat designations. was a thorough description of the status that the areas suggested did not meet of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Both During the two public comment our definition of critical habitat for the reviewers commented that they periods, we received close to 100 streaked horned lark. considered the proposed rule well comment letters and emails from (2) Comment: One peer reviewer researched and well written, and one individuals and organizations, as well commented on our lack of discussion of commenter found the rule as speaker testimony at the public wintering habitat requirements for the comprehensively represented the hearing held on April 18, 2013. These streaked horned lark. The peer reviewer current scientific knowledge for the comments addressed the proposed suggested that if wintering habitats are taxon. The two peer reviewers made no critical habitat or proposed listing (or the same as habitats used for breeding, substantive comments relevant to the both) for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly we should state that explicitly. The peer critical habitat designation for the and streaked horned lark. We received reviewer also commented on the fact Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. that all of the proposed critical habitat comment letters from two peer We received responses from three of sites were identified as either breeding reviewers for Taylor’s checkerspot the peer reviewers for the streaked habitats or breeding and wintering butterfly and three peer reviewers for horned lark. Two of the peer reviewers habitats, but there were no sites streaked horned lark, and also received felt that the proposed rule was a identified as solely wintering sites. comment letters from three State thorough description of the status of the Our Response: Our current knowledge agencies, one Native American tribe, streaked horned lark, and that our of habitat use by the streaked horned and seven Federal agencies, including assessment of the primary constituent lark indicates that there are no sites that the Department of the Army and elements of critical habitat was correct. are used solely for wintering habitat. Department of the Air Force. We Two peer reviewers made several There are sites in Washington that have coordinated the proposed critical substantive comments relevant to the breeding populations in the spring and habitat with the federally recognized proposed critical habitat designation for summer, but that are then abandoned by Shoalwater Bay Tribe on a government- the streaked horned lark, which we the streaked horned lark in the fall and to-government basis in accordance with respond to below and also in the winter. Other breeding sites on the the President’s memorandum of April Comments from the Public section in Washington coast, in the Columbia 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government cases where we received a similar River, and in the Willamette Valley are Relations with Native American Tribal comment from the public. Our requests also used as wintering habitats. We have Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive for peer review are limited to a request amended the description of critical Order 13175; and the relevant provision for review of the merits of the scientific habitat selection criteria to be clearer, as of the Departmental Manual of the information in our documents; if peer requested by the peer reviewer. Department of the Interior (512 DM 2). reviewers have volunteered their (3) Comment: Two peer reviewers and We contacted the only tribe personal opinions on matters not several commenters expressed concern potentially affected by the proposed directly relevant to the science of our about relying on airports for streaked designation (the Shoalwater Bay Tribe) designation, we do not respond to those horned lark recovery because although and coordinated with them to discuss comments here. airports harbor populations of larks, the their ongoing or future management sites may act as ‘‘population sinks’’ due strategies for the Taylor’s checkerspot Streaked Horned Lark to the constant habitat disturbance, butterfly and streaked horned lark. (1) Comment: One peer reviewer hazing, and threat of aircraft strikes. All substantive information provided stated that the proposed designation of Our Response: We share this concern. during comment periods has either been critical habitat was lacking formal Streaked horned larks occur on airports incorporated directly into this final agreements for lark conservation with because management to control designation or is addressed below. land owners and managers of sites hazardous wildlife and to maintain safe Comments we received are grouped into proposed for critical habitat, or at sites conditions for aviation has incidentally general issues specifically relating to the the peer reviewer believes should have created suitable habitat for the proposed critical habitat designation for been proposed as critical habitat. subspecies; however, airports are not the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and Our Response: Our requests for peer ideal locations for focusing recovery streaked horned lark, and are addressed review are limited to a request for efforts for the streaked horned lark. in the following summary and review of the scientific information in First, the birds are at risk of mortality

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61508 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

from plane collisions, and have believed this provided it with special approach, initially implemented by frequently been documented in bird recognition not warranted relative to Metro (the Portland, Oregon, area strikes at airports (Cleary and Dolbeer many other sites where the streaked regional government body) and later 2005, p. 101). Secondly, Federal horned lark has occurred in the past or joined by the Center for Natural Lands Aviation Administration (FAA) could occur in the future, or even more Management (CNLM), a regulations require airports to take importantly, many other sites not being nongovernmental organization, has immediate action to alleviate wildlife proposed as critical habitat where the attempted to create habitat and attract hazards whenever they are detected (14 streaked horned lark currently does streaked horned larks to the St. Johns CFR 139.337). This requirement to occur. Landfill in North Portland, Oregon, and maintain airfields free of wildlife Our Response: We proposed critical to two sites at Joint Base Lewis- hazards would severely limit the habitat on a portion of Coffeepot Island McChord (JBLM) in Washington; the potential to increase streaked horned based on indications that the U.S. Army effort at St. Johns Landfill began in lark populations on airports. Streaked Corps of Engineers (Corps) might add 2009, and at JBLM in 2012. These efforts horned larks at airports are therefore this area to their list of authorized have combined habitat creation and the subject to the combined threats of plane dredge deposit sites (thus potentially use of conspecific attraction techniques strikes and constant management to creating suitable habitat for the streaked (streaked horned lark decoys and audio minimize bird populations; although horned lark) and its proximity to other playback of recorded calls). The concept airports currently support some occupied deposit sites on the Columbia holds great promise, but so far has not relatively large populations of the River. As such, we believed that even been successful in establishing a new subspecies, airports are clearly not ideal though it may be currently unoccupied, population of streaked horned larks at for conservation and recovery efforts it could play an essential role in the any of the three experimental sites. As aimed at further increasing abundance conservation of the subspecies in the we embark on recovery efforts for the of the bird. Airports will continue to be future. However, to date we have no streaked horned lark, we intend to important for the consistent habitats indications that the Corps is actively continue to refine this approach and to they provide for some populations of pursuing inclusion of this island into work to create new habitats in areas the streaked horned lark, and we will their dredging and navigation channel with the proper landscape context, but work with airports to maintain stable maintenance program. Therefore, the it is clear that we do not yet know populations of the subspecies. Our main site is unlikely to support streaked which sites will succeed in attracting recovery efforts for the streaked horned horned larks anytime within the and supporting new populations of lark, however, will need to focus on foreseeable future. Based upon this streaked horned larks. Designating establishing new populations and information and input from peer critical habitat at this time on sites that managing for the subspecies at locations reviewers, we have determined this do not yet support use by streaked where population growth is an unoccupied area is not essential to the horned larks would be premature, since acceptable management goal for the site. conservation of the subspecies, and thus we cannot be sure that streaked horned (4) Comment: One peer reviewer does not meet the definition of critical larks will colonize sites that have been asked if industrial lands may be habitat. Coffeepot Island is not included recommended as potential critical population sinks (i.e., they provide in the final designation of critical habitat, and the designation of attractive locations for breeding but do habitat for the streaked horned lark. unoccupied areas requires a not contribute to population growth), (6) Comment: One peer reviewer and determination that such areas are given their frequent disturbance without several commenters recommended that essential to the conservation of the regard to the effect on the streaked we designate critical habitat on sites subspecies. We may revisit the issue of horned lark, and further inquired if we that are not known to be currently critical habitat designation when we had considered the possible long-term occupied by streaked horned lark, but have better information about how to effects of the activities exempted in the could be managed to provide suitable attract streaked horned larks to special rule. The peer reviewer habitat. These sites include privately currently unoccupied sites. In addition, suggested that perhaps we should not owned agricultural lands in the we will look to the guidance provided encourage maintenance of sink habitats. Willamette Valley, industrial and by the recovery plan that will be Our Response: At this point, we do restoration sites in the Portland area, developed for the streaked horned lark not know whether industrial lands and islands and mainland sites along to make future determinations regarding function as sink habitats for breeding the lower Columbia River. those unoccupied areas, if any, that may streaked horned larks; we will focus on Our Response: Recovery of the be essential for the conservation of the gaining a better understanding of lark streaked horned lark will likely require subspecies. population dynamics in these habitats the restoration or creation of new in the recovery program for the bird. We habitat on some currently unoccupied Comments From States agree that this will be an important sites. As described in the proposed rule, Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the issue as we identify habitats that have streaked horned larks require habitat Secretary shall submit to the State the potential for contributing to the with both a specific landscape context agency a written justification for his long-term conservation of the (flat and wide-open) and structure (low- failure to adopt regulations consistent subspecies. We acknowledged this stature vegetation with abundant bare with the agency’s comments or concern in response to another ground). Given the appropriate petition.’’ Comments we received from comment as well (see our response to landscape context, the structure is easy State agencies regarding the proposal to Comment 3, above). to create, which has fostered the hope designate critical habitat for the Taylor’s (5) Comment: One peer reviewer and of establishing new habitats for streaked checkerspot butterfly and streaked one commenter stated the designation of horned larks at sites with conservation horned lark are addressed below. We Coffeepot Island as critical habitat for management as their main objective. received comments from the the streaked horned lark is inconsistent There have recently been some attempts Washington Department of Fish and with the rationale for other habitats to create habitat for and to attract Wildlife (WDFW) and Washington proposed for designation (i.e., it is streaked horned larks to suitable but Department of Natural Resources currently an unoccupied site), and unoccupied habitats. An experimental (WDNR) related to biological

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61509

information, threats, critical habitat discussed under the section Exemptions impact the Taylor’s checkerspot exclusions, the inadequacy of regulatory in this final rule, the Secretary has butterfly and streaked horned lark, and mechanisms, and recommendations for determined, in writing as required by we are in negotiations on ways to the management of habitat. We did not the Act, that JBLM’s INRMP provides further reduce impacts to these two receive any comments regarding critical such a benefit for Taylor’s checkerspot subspecies specifically at this location. habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark under JBLM is aware that they will need to butterfly or streaked horned lark from the endangered species management implement timing restrictions and avoid agencies in the State of Oregon. plans (ESMPs) developed specifically conducting training activities in certain Both agencies (WDFW and WDNR) for these subspecies under their INRMP; locations or during the most sensitive provided a number of recommended therefore JBLM lands are not included time of year to minimize or avoid take technical corrections or edits to the in this final designation of critical of the subspecies after they are listed. proposed critical habitat designation for habitat. Our experience with JBLM is This will include the areas adjacent to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and that, when they commit to conservation the Pacemaker runway and other streaked horned lark. We have evaluated actions, they have the funding required portions of the 13th Division Prairie and incorporated this information into to ensure that implementation of the where the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly this final rule where appropriate to action will occur. and streaked horned lark occur. clarify the final critical habitat When deciding whether to exclude an (10) Comment: WDNR was concerned designation. In instances where the area from designation of critical habitat that the safe use of pesticides to control Service may have disagreed with an under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the nonnative, invasive insects, such as interpretation of the technical Service needs to assess not only the gypsy moth, may be impacted by the information that was provided, we have conservation measures outlined within listing and designation of critical habitat responded in separate communication management plans regardless of agency with the agency. or organization, but also the level of for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. (7) Comment: WDFW noted that the assurance an agency can provide of Our Response: We do not see critical habitat designation for Taylor’s actually funding and implementing the pesticide use in general to pose an checkerspot butterfly in the Bald Hill conservation measures identified within adverse impact to Taylor’s checkerspot area did not appear to include some the plan. The same process would hold butterflies unless individuals are historical Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly true when evaluating the WDFW directly exposed to the pesticides. The locations with suitable habitat. WDFW wildlife area HCP. As described in the Service does not anticipate the need for believes both Fossil Rock and Bald Hill Exclusions section of this document, we pesticide spraying on habitat occupied 1176 Spur A Bald should have been have excluded the Wildlife Areas by Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies, as included in proposed critical habitat. owned and managed by WDFW because the subspecies does not occupy forested Our Response: We considered the of the management plans in place for areas where such pesticides are WDFW’s suggestion, but concluded the these State Wildlife Areas (Scatter Creek generally applied. However, if pesticide contiguous area proposed for and West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Areas) were to be sprayed in areas where designation as critical habitat in this The exclusion of these Wildlife Areas pesticide drift would expose Taylor’s area for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was not based on WDFW’s draft HCP checkerspot butterflies to the would provide better management because we have not received a pesticide(s), then we would be opportunities for the subspecies than complete draft HCP document to concerned with their application in would designating multiple, isolated review, and furthermore, the HCP in these situations. The Service patches. The focus of conservation work question is not finalized. We would not acknowledges the use of pesticides as in the Bald Hill area has been in the be able to exclude the areas in question harmful to Taylor’s checkerspot vicinity of the State’s Natural Area based on assurances for funding and butterfly at all life stages. We Preserve, and not on disjunct patches implementation that may be provided specifically discourage the use of that are likely inaccessible to Taylor’s through a future HCP process. insecticides such as Bacillus checkerspot butterflies unless they were (9) Comment: WDFW was concerned thuringiensis var. kurstaki (BtK) in introduced (translocated) specifically that, with the new helicopter brigade forested areas adjacent to Taylor’s into these isolated habitat patches. stationed at JBLM, the airstrip on TA 14 checkerspot butterfly habitat. This (8) Comment: WDFW encouraged the on 13th Division Prairie is now used insecticide, which is used for harmful Service to not only ensure that the almost daily during streaked horned defoliators like gypsy moth and spruce conservation measures provided for in lark breeding season, with many low- budworm, has been implicated in the the integrated natural resources elevation flights and ‘‘touch-and-go’’ loss of three populations of Taylor’s management plan (INRMP) for JBLM are exercises occurring in the highest checkerspot butterfly in Pierce County, sufficient to preclude the need to density occupied habitat. This is also a Washington, during the early 1990s, designate critical habitat for the Taylor’s concern for adult Taylor’s checkerspot when it was applied adjacent to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and streaked butterflies at this site. They were also checkerspot butterfly habitat. horned lark, but also that concerned with impacts associated with implementation of the plan can be off-road training conducted in the 13th Comments From Federal Agencies assured. WDFW also requested we Division Prairie. Department of Energy, Bonneville consider excluding WDFW properties Our Response: Activities conducted Power Administration addressed by their draft wildlife area on JBLM, including air operations at habitat conservation plan (HCP). 13th Division Prairie, the military (11) Comment: The Service should Our Response: Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of airfields, and other areas, will be remove those portions of the Bonneville the Act specifically states that the addressed in section 7 consultations Power Administration’s (BPA) rights-of- Secretary shall not designate critical after the subspecies are listed. The way that are composed of access roads habitat on Department of Defense lands Service is currently coordinating with and transmission towers and their if the area is subject to an INRMP that the Environmental and Natural related infrastructure from the critical provides a benefit to the species for Resource Division and staff from Range habitat proposal, as the roads and which critical habitat is proposed. As Control on training activities that structures do not exhibit the biological

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61510 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

features required for recovery of Department of Transportation, Federal or biological features for the subspecies. Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Aviation Administration It is our understanding that these Our Response: We agree that some (13) Comment: The Federal Aviation maintenance activities would take place portions of the BPA rights-of-way in Administration (FAA) does not believe regardless of the presence of the streaked horned lark. We are aware that areas formerly occupied by Taylor’s habitat on airports should be considered FAA regulations required for public checkerspot butterfly do not contain critical for the recovery of either the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or safety are in direct conflict with biological features that are important for increasing bird populations on airports, streaked horned lark given that airport the subspecies; therefore we have made and as discussed in our 4(b)(2) property encompasses only 2,948 ac minor changes to the critical habitat exclusion analysis for civilian airports, (1,193 ha) out of 21,393 ac (8,657 ha) boundaries to remove those areas that we do not intend to focus on airfields proposed for critical habitat designation, do not meet our definition of critical as part of the recovery efforts for the or approximately 14 percent of the total habitat. Furthermore, as explicitly streaked horned lark (see Exclusions). proposed acreage. described in this rule, critical habitat Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act Our Response: The Act defines does not include manmade structures specifically states that the Secretary critical habitat as those specific areas (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, shall not designate critical habitat on within the geographical area occupied roads, and other paved areas) and the Department of Defense lands if the area by the species, at the time it is listed, is subject to an INRMP that provides a land on which they are located existing on which are found those physical or within the legal boundaries on the benefit to the species for which critical biological features essential to the habitat is proposed for designation. As effective date of this rule (see DATES). conservation of the species, and which Therefore, access roads and discussed in the Exemptions section may require special management below, the Secretary has determined transmission towers and their related considerations or protection. The test infrastructure are not considered critical that the endangered species for whether an area is essential to the management plan for the streaked habitat. Powerline rights-of-way are conservation of the species is applied to excellent areas to manage and support horned lark developed under JBLM’s areas that are not occupied by the INRMP provides adequate protection for butterflies as the structure and species at the time of listing. All airport the subspecies on the military airfields. composition of vegetation for the lands proposed for critical habitat Therefore, the military airfields are not Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is designation for the streaked horned lark included in the final critical habitat compatible with right-of-way are currently occupied by the designation. management. subspecies and provide the essential (15) Comment: The Department of the (12) Comment: BPA believes the physical or biological features, which Air Force and several other commenters geographic footprints of access roads may require special management were concerned that critical habitat and transmission structures do not considerations or protection. Therefore, designations at airports would restrict all airport lands proposed meet the contain the biological features essential essential activities, including military Act’s definition of critical habitat for the for the conservation of Taylor’s training and hazardous wildlife control. streaked horned lark. However, our checkerspot butterfly, since they differ Our Response: As described above in analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act our responses to Comments 13 and 14, in character from the open meadow indicates that the benefits of including we have excluded airports from the final space more generally located within the airport lands in critical habitat are critical habitat designation for the rights-of-way that provide high-quality outweighed by the benefits of excluding streaked horned lark under section habitat for the butterfly. Therefore, they these areas. Therefore, all airport lands 4(b)(2) of the Act and exempted all DOD should not be designated as critical are excluded from this final designation lands at Joint Base Lewis-McChord habitat. of critical habitat for the streaked (JBLM) under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, Our Response: The critical habitat horned lark. Please see additional so the potential effects of critical habitat unit referred to by BPA (Unit 4–D) is discussion under Exclusions. designation are moot. However, any currently occupied by Taylor’s We did not propose any critical activity by a Federal agency that may checkerspot butterfly and provides habitat on airport lands for the Taylor’s affect the streaked horned lark or any several of the physical or biological checkerspot butterfly. other listed species at an airport would features essential to the conservation of Department of the Air Force be subject to consultation under section the species. Open areas that provide 7 of the Act. Under section 7(a)(2) of the (14) Comment: The Department of the flight corridors between patches of Act, it is the duty of all Federal agencies Air Force believes the designation of suitable habitat are important for to ensure that any actions they fund, streaked horned lark critical habitat on authorize, or carry out are not likely to Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. In military airfields is counter to Air Force addition to the relative quality of jeopardize the continued existence of a instructions and could increase the risk listed species. Review under section 7 habitat, there needs to be an avenue for to aircrews, aircraft, and the streaked may result in some changes to an movement, including movement horned lark; therefore, they requested agency’s proposed action, consistent between areas that may not provide that military airfields be excluded from with their mandates, to advance the high-quality habitat features. Access critical habitat designation for the lark. conservation of listed species. roads and other areas cleared of woody Our Response: The military airfields vegetation can provide important flight proposed for critical habitat designation Department of the Army, Joint Base corridors used by Taylor’s checkerspot for the streaked horned lark are Lewis-McChord butterflies, although roads and other currently occupied by the species. (16) Comment: The Department of the structures are not consistent with Ongoing airfield maintenance activities Army believes the northern portion of critical habitat and are specifically not that are conducted at both the military the Range 72–79 unit for Taylor’s included in critical habitat by text, as and non-federal airports have created checkerspot butterfly on JBLM should described in our response to Comment suitable habitat for the streaked horned be excluded due to the fact that this area 11, above. lark that provides the essential physical is of lower quality than the remainder

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61511

of the proposed unit and is used that continuation of the current level of We have removed M–DAC Farms extensively for off-road vehicle grazing management by the Colvin from the final designation of critical maneuvers. Ranch has resulted in healthy native habitat based on information we Our Response: As described in the prairie populations and will continue to received during the public comment Exemptions section of this document, provide benefits to the native prairie period indicating that it does not meet all JBLM lands have been removed from populations, which exceed benefits the definition of critical habitat for the the final designation of critical habitat provided by a critical habitat streaked horned lark. The site does not for both species under section 4(a)(3) of designation. Therefore, NRCS supports provide the requisite physical or the Act. the request by the Colvin Ranch to biological features, and therefore does (17) Comment: The Range 50 subunit exclude their property from critical not meet our criteria for designation. extends beyond the current and habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. previous areas occupied by Taylor’s U.S. Forest Service, Olympic National Our Response: We considered the Forest checkerspot butterfly. potential exclusion of Colvin Ranch Our Response: Range 50 is a site from the final designation of critical (21) Comment: The U.S. Forest where introduced (translocated) habitat. Our evaluation under section Service believes that areas within Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have 4(b)(2) of the Act led us to the Olympic National Forest proposed for been placed since 2009. The conclusion that this private land should critical habitat designation should be translocation has taken hold, the be excluded from the final designation excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the population is increasing, and individual of critical habitat, as the benefits of Act due to ongoing management for butterflies are dispersing to new food exclusion outweigh the benefits of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat. plants east and west of Range 50; Our Response: We have worked inclusion in critical habitat. Please see therefore we consider this area to be closely with the U.S. Forest Service, and Exclusions for more information. currently occupied by the subspecies. Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly has Where the butterfly becomes (20) Comment: NRCS and another benefitted immensely from the established, it will be critical to provide commenter recommended that we conservation actions that have been areas of suitable habitat for dispersing withdraw the proposed designation of implemented on the Olympic National individuals, and to allow for the critical habitat for the streaked horned Forest. We inadvertently indicated that establishment of meta-population lark at M–DAC Farms in Oregon because we may exclude Olympic National structure that takes place on areas the site no longer provides the primary Forest lands from the final designation sufficiently large to allow for some local constituent elements (PCEs) identified of critical habitat. However, such an populations to ‘‘blink on’’ and ‘‘blink for critical habitat. M–DAC Farms is a exclusion would run counter to the off’’ over time. This shift is typical and privately owned property with a Congressional intent of the Act (stated follows changes to habitat as the Wetlands Reserve Program easement, in sections 2(c)(1) and 7(a)(1)) that vegetation suitability (structure and which is held by NRCS. NRCS Federal agencies have obligations to composition) shifts between periods of expressed concern that M–DAC’s conserve endangered and threatened restoration, or in the case of JBLM, designation as critical habitat could species and to carry out programs for inadvertent fires that periodically affect the agency’s ability to accomplish the conservation of endangered and disturb the habitat, returning it to the the wetland restoration goals for which threatened species. In consideration of early seral condition that provides the conservation easement was the explicit congressional direction that suitable habitat for the Taylor’s originally purchased on the site. Federal agencies exercise their checkerspot butterfly. Our Response: Prior to NRCS’s authorities to conserve listed species, (18) Comment: The Department of the purchase of a conservation easement at we expect Federal agencies to contribute Army requests that the Service exempt M–DAC, the site was a perennial rye to conservation through the designation those portions of the proposed critical grass farm. The goals for the site include of critical habitat. Therefore, we have habitat designations for the Taylor’s restoration of 100 (40 ha) acres of not excluded any Federal lands from checkerspot butterfly and streaked seasonal wetland, over 100 (40 ha) acres critical habitat. Please see the section horned lark on JBLM. of bottomland hardwood forest, and Federal Lands for more information. Our Response: Under section 4(a)(3) over 300 acres (120 ha) of wet prairie Comments From Native American of the Act, we are required to not habitat. Though streaked horned larks Tribes designate any lands or other used the site in large numbers when the geographical areas owned or controlled ground was originally cleared to prepare (22) Comment: The Shoalwater Bay by the Department of Defense, or for habitat restoration, we agree with the Tribe requested that habitat on their designated for its use, that are subject to commenter that the vegetation at the site reservation be excluded from the final a current INRMP, if the Secretary has since matured and no longer critical habitat designation for the determines that such plan provides a provides suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. The Tribe is benefit to the species for which critical streaked horned lark, with the exception currently working with the Service and habitat is proposed for designation. We of limited areas along a road and the Corps to develop an ecological have reviewed and approved the JBLM’s perhaps in the seasonal mudflats restoration plan for the Tribal tidelands. endangered species management plans adjacent to the wetlands. The site may This restoration plan will focus on (ESMP) under their INRMP for the continue to provide habitat for a few maintaining and protecting habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and breeding pairs of streaked horned larks; listed species (including the streaked streaked horned lark, and accordingly however, the long-term goals for the site horned lark and western snowy plover have exempted JBLM lands from our do not include increasing the area of (Charadrius nivosus nivosus)) and final critical habitat designations. Please suitable habitat for streaked horned coastal resources important to the Tribe. see Exemptions for more information. larks. The site will not be a focus of Our Response: Based on our ongoing active recovery for the streaked horned partnership with the Tribe and Natural Resources Conservation Service lark, and very little of the 601 acres (240 assurance that habitat will be protected (19) Comment: The Natural Resources ha) will provide suitable habitat for the at this site, we have excluded the Conservation Service (NRCS) believes subspecies. Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation from

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61512 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

the final critical habitat designation critical habitat under the second part of this where the area in question is not based on our discretionary 4(b)(2) the definition of critical habitat in the occupied by the species at the time of exclusion analysis. Based on our Act, which adds that critical habitat listing. In this case, we had proposed evaluation, we found that the benefits of includes, ‘‘specific areas outside the the lands in question as critical habitat exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. geographical area occupied by the believing they were essential to the See the Exclusions section of this species at the time it is listed in conservation of the subspecies, based on document for details. accordance with the provisions of similar habitats known to support section 4 of this Act, upon a Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly found at Comments From the Public determination by the Secretary [of the other locations and from evidence of Several commenters provided minor Interior] that such areas are essential for these habitat conditions being present technical corrections or edits to the the conservation of the species.’’ We on similar adjacent properties; the proposed critical habitat designation for therefore re-evaluated the unoccupied Service is particularly limited in Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and private property in question. We specifying locations of the necessary streaked horned lark. We have evaluated evaluated its context in relation to other habitat features on private property, and incorporated this information into occupied areas supporting the Taylor’s where access is often not freely granted. this final rule where appropriate to checkerspot butterfly, and other Upon further examination, however, clarify the final critical habitat protected areas where habitat has been and in response to the information designation. In instances where the improved sufficiently to support provided by the commenter, we Service may have disagreed with an translocated Taylor’s checkerspot determined that this property (located interpretation of the technical butterflies. Based upon our analysis, we in subunit 1–D in the proposed rule, information that was provided, we have have determined the unoccupied subunit 1–A Rocky Prairie in this responded under separate comments. property in question is not essential to document) is not essential to the (23) Comment: One property owner in the conservation of Taylor’s checkerspot conservation of the subspecies, and it is Subunit 1–D disputed the Service’s butterfly; therefore it is not included in not included in the final designation. authority to designate critical habitat on the final designation. (25) Comment: One commenter their lands for Taylor’s checkerspot (24) Comment: One landowner stated suggested we remove the gravel pit in butterfly, arguing that the PCEs must be that the designation of their property as TA 7S, subunit 1–A, currently in use on found on an area as a prerequisite to critical habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot JBLM, from the critical habitat designation, and that the Act leaves no butterfly is improper because the record delineated for Taylor’s checkerspot room for designation of land that may in does not contain evidence that shows butterfly. They state the gravel pit does the future contain the physical or specifically where the PCEs are located. not currently provide suitable habitat biological features. The owner To the contrary, they believe there is and would take enormous effort to acknowledges that the property is evidence that the property contains restore to quality habitat, while the currently unoccupied by the subspecies, physical features that the proposed rule remaining extent of TA 7S prairie is but disagrees with the Service’s identifies as rendering habitat unusable relatively intact and could more easily conclusion that the available evidence for the butterfly. The commenter states be restored to create suitable habitat. indicates it was likely historically that any designation of critical habitat Our Response: It is our understanding occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot by the Service must be limited to those that, in the past, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. The owner further claims that areas that actually contain the physical butterfly was observed utilizing the their property does not contain any of or biological features essential to the puddles in the gravel pit. We the specific physical or biological conservation of the Taylor’s checkerspot understand the gravel pit is marginal features that the Service has identified butterfly. habitat at best, but as a formerly for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly at any Our Response: The property in occupied site containing some of the stage of its development. question was proposed as unoccupied PCEs for the subspecies (Plantago and Our Response: The Act provides two but essential critical habitat for the topographic diversity) and its location definitions for critical habitat: one Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. As noted adjacent to TA 7S, we considered that applies to areas occupied by the species in various responses above, the the area could potentially be restored to at the time of listing, the other applies standards for designation of critical support Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to areas not occupied by the species at habitat differ depending on whether the (although critical habitat does not the time of listing. In the first case, the area in question is occupied at the time specifically require restoration). Act specifies that critical habitat means, of listing or not. If the area is occupied However, since the area in question is ‘‘the specific areas within the at the time of listing, the PCEs for the on JBLM, it has been exempted from the geographical area occupied by the species must be found on that area final designation. Under section 4(a)(3) species, at the time it is listed in (however, the Service is not required to of the Act, we are required to not accordance with the provisions of detail all the specific locations where designate any lands or other section 4 of this Act, on which are each PCE may exist on an area proposed geographical areas owned or controlled found those physical or biological for designation). If the area is not by the Department of Defense, or features (I) essential to the conservation occupied at the time of listing, it may be designated for its use, that are subject to of the species and (II) which may designated as critical habitat upon a a current INRMP, if the Secretary require special management determination by the Secretary that such determines that such plan provides a considerations or protection.’’ This area is essential for the conservation of benefit to the species for which critical requirement that the physical or the species. The reference to the habitat is proposed for designation. We biological features be found does not presence of the essential physical or have reviewed and approved the JBLM apply in this particular situation, biological features does not appear in ESMP for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly because the property in question is not the definition of unoccupied areas, thus under the INRMP and accordingly have presently occupied by Taylor’s the commenter is incorrect in stating exempted any proposed critical habitat checkerspot butterfly. The lands in that the designation of critical habitat areas on JBLM from our final critical question were initially identified in the must be limited to those areas that habitat designations under section proposed rule as meeting our criteria for contain such features in cases such as 4(3)(a) of the Act. Please see the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61513

Exemptions section of this document for private landowners and others from Our Response: We appreciate the more information. cooperative, voluntary conservation suggestion, and we will consider this (26) Comment: One commenter asked efforts. Some commenters suggested that and other creative ideas for achieving the Service to consider excluding the Service pursue alternative forms of the conservation of the subspecies as we subunit 1–J Bald Hills, since they conservation, such as safe harbor develop the recovery plan for the believe the Taylor’s checkerspot agreements or habitat conservation streaked horned lark. Such conservation butterfly is likely extirpated at the site plans. WDNR and WDFW encouraged measures are outside of the scope of the and the landowner has committed to the Service to fully consider the present rulemaking, however, which is implementing a wildlife management advantages and disadvantages of restricted to the identification of those plan at that site. designating critical habitat where areas that meet the definition of critical Our Response: We do not disagree cooperative, nonregulatory approaches habitat for the streaked horned lark. that the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are in place to conserve the species and (30) Comment: One commenter stated may have been extirpated from this site. its habitat. the proposal fails to address private Subunit 1–J Bald Hill was identified in Our Response: Section 4(a)(3)(A) of lands, which are likely to be key habitat the proposed rule as meeting our criteria the Act requires us to designate critical for the persistence of the streaked for critical habitat under the second part habitat to the maximum extent prudent horned lark. Positive incentives need to of the definition of critical habitat in the and determinable. The Act permits us to be proposed that will lead to recovery Act, which states that critical habitat exclude areas that meet the definition of of the streaked horned lark. includes, ‘‘specific areas outside the critical habitat only where we determine Our Response: In our proposed rule, geographical area occupied by the that the benefits of exclusion outweigh we recognize the importance that species at the time it is listed in the benefits of designation. The private agricultural lands will play in the conservation and recovery of accordance with the provisions of regulatory consequence of critical section 4 of this Act, upon a streaked horned lark, particularly in the habitat designation is the requirement determination by the Secretary [of the Willamette Valley of Oregon (April 3, that Federal agencies consult on actions Interior] that such areas are essential for 2013; 78 FR 20074). However, we that they may fund, authorize, or carry the conservation of the species.’’ We additionally explain that we cannot out to ensure that such actions do not were unable to consider these lands for designate critical habitat in the result in the destruction or adverse exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the agricultural fields in the Willamette modification of critical habitat. We Act because the Service had not Valley, most of which are privately recognize that in many cases there may received a management plan for this owned, because we are unable to not be a Federal nexus that invokes the property; therefore, we were unable to determine which areas within the large protections afforded to designated assess the value of the conservation agricultural matrix in the valley will planning efforts being proposed or critical habitat on non-Federal lands, meet the definition of critical habitat at implemented on this private property. and that other instruments such as safe any time. Critical habitat, once Without a management plan for harbor agreements or habitat designated, is static on the landscape evaluation, we have no potential basis conservation plans have the potential to until such time as it may be revised for exclusion; therefore this property is provide conservation measures that through an additional rulemaking included in the final designation of effect positive results for the species and process. Agricultural habitats on private critical habitat. its habitat. The conservation and lands can provide appropriate habitat (27) Comment: One commenter recovery of endangered and threatened conditions for streaked horned lark, but recommended the Army Aviation species, and the ecosystems upon which these conditions (large, open landscape Support Facility #1 (AASF1) in Salem they depend, is the ultimate objective of context; low-stature vegetation; bare be excluded from critical habitat the Act, and the Service recognizes the ground) occur unpredictably and vary in because of the national security vital importance of voluntary, location from year to year. Because of importance of the installation. nonregulatory conservation measures in the unpredictable and ephemeral nature Our Response: The AASF1, while it achieving that objective. To that end, we of streaked horned lark habitat on contributes to maintaining troop fully support and encourage the private agricultural lands, we have no readiness for the National Guard, is not development of voluntary conservation basis for concluding that any specific a Federal entity. This facility is a agreements such as safe harbor areas are essential for conservation, private/State holding with a military agreements or habitat conservation because we have no way of knowing lease. The Secretary weighed the plans with non-Federal landowners. where or how long the appropriate benefits of including versus excluding Furthermore, where cooperative conditions will persist. Therefore, we non-Federal airports from critical agreements are in place for the have not designated critical habitat for habitat for the streaked horned lark, and conservation of the species and its the streaked horned lark on private concluded that the benefits of exclusion habitat, the Secretary gives full lands in the Willamette Valley. outweighed the benefits of inclusion; consideration to the relative benefits of As noted earlier, the consideration of thus all non-Federal airport lands are excluding those lands from the final recovery instruments such as incentive excluded from the final designation of critical habitat designation, provided programs is outside of the scope of the critical habitat (see the Exclusions such exclusion would not result in the present rulemaking, which is limited to section of this document). AASF1, being extinction of the species, in accordance the identification of those areas that a non-Federal entity, is already with section 4(b)(2) of the Act. meet the definition of critical habitat for excluded from critical habitat based on (29) Comment: One commenter the streaked horned lark. this analysis; therefore we did not suggested that the Service pursue (31) Comment: One commenter stated consider the potential national security conservation programs to provide that the Service failed to designate implications of the designation. economic incentives to private critical habitat on private agricultural (28) Comment: Several commenters landowners to create or maintain lands in the Willamette Valley, despite suggested that the designation of critical suitable habitat for the streaked horned the fact that a majority of breeding and habitat may act as a regulatory lark on agricultural lands, especially wintering streaked horned larks rely on disincentive, and may discourage grass seed farms. those areas. The commenter disagreed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61514 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

with the Service’s position that it was occupancy in any season during any life in instances where there is a Federal unable to determine which areas within stage be the basis for determining action (i.e., a Federal agency funds, the large agricultural matrix in the critical habitat for the streaked horned authorizes, or carries out an action) that valley will meet the definition of critical lark. They believe the Service’s may affect designated critical habitat; habitat at any time. The commenter definition of occupancy as occurrence this action is then reviewed through pointed to the Service’s designation of only during the breeding season is too interagency consultation under section large areas of critical habitat for the narrow. Occupancy should include 7 of the Act between the Federal action northern spotted owl and marbled documented presence of the subspecies agency and the Service. Designation of murrelet across millions of acres of outside of the breeding season as well. critical habitat on private lands will forest even though only a portion of the Uses of non-breeding areas are have no effect on a private landowner’s habitat is suitable for either bird at any important to the subspecies’ survival, ability to convert to another crop or to time. The commenter recommended such as areas used for foraging and sell out completely if there is no Federal that the Service take a similar approach overwintering, as these sites may also action involved. Contrary to the for streaked horned larks on agricultural become breeding sites in the future. commenter’s perception, critical habitat lands in the Willamette Valley, Our Response: We do not know of any designation does not create a wildlife recognizing that only a portion of those areas that are used only for wintering preserve or require any sort of response lands will be suitable at any given time. (most sites that are used during the or management from a private Our Response: The commenter’s winter are also used during the breeding landowner. comparison to the critical habitat season); however, we have modified our (36) Comment: We received multiple designations for the northern spotted definition of occupancy to include conflicting comments suggesting that owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) and usage by streaked horned larks during connectivity both is and is not a marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus any season. necessary consideration when marmoratus) is not an apt one. The (34) Comment: One commenter stated designating critical habitat for the northern spotted owl and marbled the economic and social factors driving streaked horned lark. murrelet rely primarily on Federal lands conversion of Willamette Valley Our Response: We rely on the for their conservation, and their old- farmland to vineyards are likely to expertise of our Service staff biologists, growth habitat takes decades to develop continue in the foreseeable future, and as well as the peer review of our on those lands. In contrast, the habitat may accelerate as large California proposed rule by species experts who of the streaked horned lark can develop wineries are reportedly investing in either support or refute our assertions. and disappear on farm lands in the Willamette Valley farmlands as a hedge In this instance, both our staff biologists space of a few weeks, and its against global climate change. As a and our peer reviewers support the need appearance typically depends on human result, the likelihood of a changing for connectivity of critical habitat units intervention, not natural processes. agricultural landscape should be to ensure the potential for genetic Designating large swaths of the recognized in the listing and critical exchange and colonization by streaked Willamette Valley as critical habitat habitat designation for the streaked horned larks. would not provide any useful horned lark. (37) Comment: Several commenters information regarding the presence of Our Response: The Service does not expressed great concern about the the streaked horned lark or its habitat to consider the acquisition of lands by the implications to public safety from landowners. We maintain that our viticulture industry to be a significant designating critical habitat for the concern about the ability to identify factor in the reduction of breeding and streaked horned lark at airports, and critical habitat for the streaked horned nesting habitat for the streaked horned requested that we exclude airports from lark on private farm lands is valid, and lark. We contacted Dr. William Boggess the critical habitat designation due to the situation is not analogous to the at Oregon State University’s Oregon safety concerns. critical habitat designations of other Wine Research Institute, and he Our Response: Although we do not listed species found in old-growth described the ideal lands for viticulture see a direct connection between the forests. as being 300 to 800 feet (ft) (91 to 244 designation of critical habitat, which (32) Comment: One commenter stated meters (m)) in elevation, on a slope with results in the requirement that Federal the primary constituent elements (PCEs) a southern or western aspect. These action agencies consult with us on and characteristics for habitat suitability optimal viticulture soils are shallow and activities that involve Federal funding, for the streaked horned lark are fairly nutrient poor, above the flood plain or authorization, or implementation, and specific, yet noted habitat will change on eroded rocky soils. These ideal public safety, all airport lands have been over time, and perhaps be suitable for conditions for grapes are not similar in excluded from our designation under only a limited period of time due to characteristic to the primary constituent section 4(b)(2) of the Act for other vegetation growth. Therefore, they asked elements for streaked horned lark reasons. Please see additional if critical habitat designations will be habitat. As such, we do not consider discussion under Exclusions. time-limited or adjusted periodically. viticulture a factor affecting habitat loss (38) Comment: Several commenters Our Response: Critical habitat is a for the streaked horned lark. stated that critical habitat should not be designation that does not vary (35) Comment: One commenter stated designated for the streaked horned lark seasonally or over time, and is only that it is important to designate critical at airports, because airports are not subject to change through a rulemaking habitat on Willamette Valley suitable as sites for recovery of the process to revise the designation. This agricultural lands to ‘‘ensure that habitat subspecies. relatively static nature of critical habitat is not converted to uses that will never Our Response: We concur with these is the very reason that we find we be suitable for streaked horned lark, commenters that airports should not be cannot identify critical habitat on the such as row crops or urban focal points for streaked horned lark unpredictable and ephemeral habitats development, but rather are maintained recovery. In section 3 of the Act, used by streaked horned larks in the as agriculture that at least part of the ‘‘critical habitat’’ is defined, in part, as agricultural areas of Oregon. time supports streaked horned lark.’’ the specific areas within the (33) Comment: One commenter Our Response: Critical habitat geographical area occupied by the recommended that documented designation only has a regulatory effect species at the time it is listed on which

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61515

are found those physical and biological have a clear conservation mandate and lark on the three units of the Willamette features essential to the conservation of are already working to conserve Valley National Wildlife Refuge the species. ‘‘Conservation’’ is further streaked horned lark populations on Complex. These refuges were originally defined in the Act as the use of all those sites. Many other sites will likely established as habitat for wintering methods and procedures which are be needed to achieve recovery, but dusky Canada geese (Branta canadensis necessary to bring any endangered or again, we do not yet know where those occidentalis), and the commenter stated threatened species to the point at which sites will be. As we begin to develop a that the refuges cannot successfully the measures provided pursuant to the recovery plan, and identify goals for manage for the two bird species at once. Act are no longer necessary. These population numbers and distribution of Our Response: Research at the three definitions clearly demonstrate that the the streaked horned lark, we will refuge units has shown that streaked purpose of critical habitat designation is identify areas to focus on for recovery. horned larks breed successfully in fields to identify locations for recovery efforts These areas will undoubtedly include that have been heavily grazed by for listed species. Airport managers many areas on private agricultural wintering geese (Moore 2009, p. 12). have expressed great concern about the lands, for which we will seek The WVNWRC has a long history of implied recovery purpose of critical partnerships with willing landowners to managing for wintering geese, and has habitat units; management to encourage manage for streaked horned lark recently updated its comprehensive increasing populations of birds at conservation. Finally, we note that the conservation plan to integrate streaked airports is untenable to airport regulatory effect of critical habitat is horned lark conservation into the goals managers. Airports unquestionably limited to actions with a Federal nexus– for the three refuge units. We believe provide important habitat for streaked activities that are funded, authorized, or that the WVNWRC provides excellent horned larks, and some of these sites carried out by a Federal agency. The habitat for streaked horned larks, and have demonstrated the ability to sustain conservation value of critical habitat is adaptive management of the sites will small, persistent populations of streaked thus often the greatest on Federal lands, likely increase the numbers of streaked horned larks; indeed, without airports which always have a Federal nexus. The horned larks breeding at each of the there would be very few sites designation of critical habitat has no refuge units. consistently managed to maintain the regulatory effect on private lands (42) Comment: Several commenters habitat conditions used by the streaked lacking a Federal connection. Critical criticized the Service’s failure to horned lark within the needed habitat designation itself does not designate critical habitat on many sites landscape context. Therefore, although prevent development or alteration of the that have had recent detections of airports clearly provide a benefit to the land, create a wildlife preserve, or streaked horned larks, primarily on subspecies, and will likely continue to require any sort of response or privately owned agricultural lands in provide important habitat for small management from a private landowner. the Willamette Valley, and a few populations, recovery will require (40) Comment: One commenter stated locations in the lower Columbia River. restoration and management of new that Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge in The commenters are concerned that the sites that can sustain increasing the Willamette Valley is not an current critical habitat designation will populations of streaked horned larks in appropriate site for designation of not be adequate to recover the the long term, in more natural locations critical habitat for the streaked horned subspecies. appropriate for conservation and that do lark. The commenter asserted that, ‘‘. . . Our Response: Streaked horned larks not pose a heightened risk of mortality Ankeny is not recognized among evolved to use a shifting mosaic of very to the streaked horned lark from knowledgeable local birders as having early successional habitats, for which airstrikes. We have excluded civilian any significant population’’ of streaked the primary requirement was the (non-Federal) airports from critical horned larks, and is unlikely to serve as appropriate landscape context (large, habitat designation for the reasons an ‘‘anchor site’’ for the bird’s recovery. relatively flat, and wide open). The outlined in the Exclusions section of Our Response: Recent surveys have streaked horned lark is unusual among this document. found up to five breeding pairs of species in that it does not now occur on (39) Comment: One commenter streaked horned larks at Ankeny; remnants of its native habitats; indeed, expressed concern that our proposed therefore the site is occupied at the time most of the streaked horned lark’s designation of critical habitat for the of listing, and the refuge clearly naturally occurring habitats no longer streaked horned lark relied almost provides the essential physical or exist because the natural processes that exclusively on public lands. This biological features for the subspecies. historically created those early commenter believes that private lands Therefore, it meets the definition of successional habitats, such as flooding in the Willamette Valley will hold the critical habitat for the streaked horned and wildfire, no longer operate on the key to the streaked horned lark’s lark. The WVNWRC included landscape. With the exception of sites survival. conservation measures in its on the Washington coast, where natural Our Response: As we stated above, we comprehensive conservation plan for disturbance processes still operate to do not yet know which unoccupied sites the streaked horned lark at each of the create habitat, nearly all of the sites will be essential for the recovery of the three refuge units, including Ankeny. currently used by streaked horned larks streaked horned lark, and the We believe that Ankeny provides have been inadvertently created by unpredictable and highly variable consistently available habitat for a small humans and are industrial in nature. occurrence of PCEs for streaked horned population of breeding streaked horned These sites are agricultural landscapes, larks on private lands in the Willamette larks, and future management may dredge spoil deposition sites, and Valley precludes our ability to designate increase the population. The WVNWRC airports. These ‘‘working landscapes’’ critical habitat in that area. The public is Federal land and has a clear are managed with little or no lands included in the critical habitat conservation mandate, and so makes a consideration for streaked horned lark designation (State Parks and the Willapa good choice for critical habitat conservation, and lark use of these sites National Wildlife Refuge on the designation. seems to be highly opportunistic. Washington coast; three units of the (41) Comment: One commenter Although streaked horned larks Willamette Valley National Wildlife questioned our proposed designation of currently occur on these sites, given Refuge Complex in Oregon (WVNWRC)) critical habitat for the streaked horned their intensive industrial uses, these

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61516 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

locations may have limited potential to effective if we can focus our resources owners to manage sites for streaked support increased populations of on larger, more permanent sites. horned larks to criteria that represent streaked horned larks in the future, and Therefore, it is these larger, more the minimum observed in the field. may be inappropriate sites on which to permanent occupied sites that we (45) Comment: One commenter establish a recovery program for the consider to provide the physical or suggested the limited number of subspecies. For the streaked horned biological features that are truly territories and nesting pairs observed lark, we do not have obvious core sites essential to the conservation of the annually at Sanderson Field indicates of pristine, natural habitats on which to subspecies, and these are the areas that this area provides only marginal habitat focus recovery efforts. In essence, the we are designating as critical habitat at for the streaked horned lark and should streaked horned lark persists in the this time. We do not contend that these not be designated as critical habitat. Pacific Northwest, even though its sites will necessarily be sufficient to Our Response: The fact that streaked natural habitats are all but gone. recover the subspecies, nor does the Act horned larks have consistently nested at The sites that streaked horned larks require that they do so. In the future, Sanderson Field is an indication that currently use are highly fragmented and when we have better information on the airport does provide suitable habitat. scattered. Developing a recovery sites that will attract and support large, There are many occupied sites in program for the streaked horned lark stable populations of streaked horned Washington and throughout the range of will require identifying areas that have larks, and that can be managed for the the subspecies where the number of the essential landscape characteristics long-term conservation of the nesting territories is low (fewer than 10), and which can be managed for subspecies, we may revisit this critical and this is not considered an indication conservation and recovery of the habitat designation, as appropriate. of marginal habitat. The smaller size of subspecies. Few of these areas have (43) Comment: One commenter Sanderson Field, compared to the been determined thus far. In the recommended re-drawing the Olympia Airport, and the rapidly Willamette Valley, large landscapes boundaries of proposed streaked horned declining population of streaked horned managed for native prairies will be lark critical habitat at Portland larks in Washington are contributing needed, although it is very likely that International Airport to exclude paved factors to the number of territories at the some ‘‘working lands’’ in agricultural runways, taxiways, and runway safety Shelton Airport and other locations. It production will also be identified as areas. should be noted that Sanderson Field is interested landowners step up to Our Response: All non-Federal airport the northernmost location within the implement practices to protect the lands are excluded under section 4(b)(2) current range of the subspecies where streaked horned lark on their lands. of the Act from this final designation of the streaked horned lark nests. As such, Critical habitat is defined in section 3 critical habitat for the streaked horned this particular airport serves an of the Act as: (1) The specific areas lark; please see additional discussion important role in maintaining the within the geographical area occupied under Exclusions. For the lands that we distribution of the subspecies. However, by the species, at the time it is listed in are designating as critical habitat, when as described in the Exclusions section of accordance with the Act, on which are determining critical habitat boundaries, this document, airport lands have been found those physical or biological we make every effort to avoid including excluded from critical habitat for the features (a) Essential to the conservation developed areas such as lands covered streaked horned lark. of the species, and (b) Which may by buildings, pavement (such as roads), (46) Comment: One commenter was require special management and other structures because such lands concerned that the designation of considerations or protection; and (2) lack the essential physical or biological critical habitat for the streaked horned Specific areas outside the geographical features for streaked horned larks. Any lark at certain locations within the area occupied by the species at the time such lands have been excluded by the Columbia River would attract streaked it is listed, upon a determination that text of this rule and are not included in horned larks to adjacent or nearby areas such areas are essential for the critical habitat. not proposed for designation and could conservation of the species. We are not (44) Comment: One commenter stated limit operational and development designating critical habitat on every the PCE requiring only a minimum of 16 activities of the Port of Kalama in these small and fragmented location recently percent open ground would not support areas. known to be occupied or potentially occupation of the known nesting sites Our Response: Sandy Island is occupied by streaked horned larks, for streaked horned larks on dredge currently occupied habitat, and the because we do not consider all of these sand islands in the Columbia River and streaked horned lark has already been sites to meet the definition of critical may only be relevant for other sites documented at the Port of Kalama’s habitat for the streaked horned lark. (such as the Puget Prairie or Willamette upland dredge deposit site. The That is, we do not consider all of these Valley). designation of critical habitat on Sandy sites to provide physical or biological Our Response: The PCE identifying 16 Island, or other islands in the Columbia features essential to the conservation of percent minimum open ground is a River, will not affect existing streaked the species, because not all of these sites description of the habitat conditions, or horned lark movements or limit have the potential to make a substantial physical or biological features, essential operational and development activities contribution to the recovery of the to the conservation of the streaked on port property. The fact that the species. In addition, section 3(5)(C) of horned lark, not a management streaked horned lark has been the Act specifically mandates that, requirement. Based on research studies, documented on the Port of Kalama is an except in those circumstances streaked horned larks need areas with a indication that the upland dredge determined by the Secretary of the minimum of 16 percent bare ground. deposit site is currently suitable habitat. Interior, critical habitat shall not Most of the currently occupied sites Under the listing (see the final rule to include the entire geographical area have much more bare ground than this, list the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly which can be occupied by the listed and many of the dredge deposit sites and streaked horned lark published species. We are not suggesting that the have more than 60 percent bare ground. elsewhere in today’s Federal Register), sites currently used by streaked horned The habitat description is based on the port will be subject to take larks are unimportant; rather, recovery research studies across the range of the prohibitions under section 9 of the Act is more likely to be successful and cost- subspecies. We do not expect land for activities conducted by the port that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61517

adversely impact streaked horned larks, therefore recognizes that the streaked report. In the final economic analysis regardless of whether critical habitat is horned lark will be subject to a variety (FEA), we added clarification designated on Sandy Island. We of Federal, State, and local protections concerning the USDOT FAA-funded recommend that the Port of Kalama throughout most of its ranges, due to its source and fixed the unit numbering work with the Service on the listed status under the Act and error. In addition, further detail development of a habitat conservation regardless of the designation of critical concerning the number of consultations plan under section 10 of the Act for habitat. and analytic timeframe for the Port of activities that affect the subspecies or We note that significant debate has Portland has been added to the FEA. suitable habitat, including upland occurred regarding whether assessing (50) Comment: One submission disposal and use of dredge material. the impact of critical habitat expressed concern that critical habitat designations using this baseline designation will constrain dredging Comments on Economic Analysis approach is appropriate, with several activities and alter placement sites Please note that the draft economic courts issuing divergent opinions. related to the Port of Kalama. analysis (DEA) for the proposed Courts in several parts of the country, Our Response: The DEA discusses designation addressed multiple species including the U.S. Court of Appeals for potential effects of critical habitat proposed for listing that occupy prairie the Ninth Circuit, which has designation on dredging activities, habitats of Oregon and Washington, and jurisdiction in Washington, Oregon, and including those related to the Port of included an analysis of the potential California, have ruled that the decision Kalama and Sandy Island. As noted in economic impacts stemming from the about whether to exclude areas from chapter 3 of the DEA, dredging activities proposed critical habitat designation for critical habitat should be based on the occur on 8 of the 10 islands proposed Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, streaked incremental impacts of the rule. The for streaked horned lark critical habitat horned lark, and four subspecies of the Ninth Circuit cases were appealed to the in the Columbia River. Deposition of Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys Supreme Court, which declined to hear dredge materials can create flat, open mazama ssp.). The proposed listing and them. habitat that streaked horned larks prefer, critical habitat for the Mazama pocket (48) Comment: Several commenters but dredging activities that occur during gophers are addressed in separate asserted that the DEA does not fully the nesting season have the potential to rulemakings. account for, or sufficiently increase individual mortality and cause (47) Comment: Several commenters acknowledge, potential impacts to nest failure. Based on the review of took issue with the characterization of airport development activities, historical and projected conservation the baseline in the DEA concerning revenues, and related opportunity costs. actions for the streaked horned lark airport operations. For example, one Our Response: During the preparation concerning dredging activities, and commenter asserted that critical habitat of the DEA, its authors reached out to given that these areas are considered may engender incremental impacts even management officials at each of the occupied by the subspecies, the analysis when the streaked horned lark is seven airports affected by the proposed concluded that critical habitat will not present. In addition, the comment notes designations and collected available result in incremental economic impacts that favorable habitat at airports, planning documents. Chapter 3 of the to dredging activities, beyond the containing the PCEs, is the result of DEA discusses a variety of airport- administrative costs associated with voluntary activities by airport managers, related projects and maintenance consultation with the Service. which could be discontinued (i.e., as a activities that would result in section 7 (51) Comment: Two commenters result of lost Federal funding), in which consultation, and considers how these expressed concern that the listing and case the PCEs could disappear, the sites consultations might be affected by the designation of critical habitat for the would become unoccupied, and any presence of critical habitat. Based on the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and subsequent consultation would result best available information and the Mazama pocket gophers (which will be solely from critical habitat. incremental effects memorandum addressed in separate rules) may Our Response: The U.S. Office of prepared by the Service, the DEA constrain gravel mining activities in Management and Budget’s (OMB) concludes that, for areas that are Pierce and Thurston Counties, guidelines for best practices concerning occupied by the subspecies, critical Washington. One comment expressed the conduct of economic analysis of habitat designation will not result in specific concern about impacts to Federal regulations direct agencies to incremental impacts beyond planned gravel extraction in Subunit 1– measure the costs of a regulatory action administrative costs incurred to D Rocky Prairie. against a baseline, which it defines as consider adverse modification during Our Response: The proposed critical the ‘‘best assessment of the way the consultation. habitat acreage in these areas is world would look absent the proposed (49) Comment: The Port of Portland considered to be occupied by at least action.’’ The baseline utilized in the states that their economic assessment one of the prairie species noted. As DEA is the existing state of regulation, concerning this proposed designation noted in the DEA and related prior to the designation of critical was not included in the DEA, and notes incremental effects memorandum, habitat, which provides protection to certain other issues, including: a should the six subspecies be formally the species under the Act, as well as clarification concerning airport listed under final rules, their presence under other Federal, State, and local development activities that receive within critical habitat will require laws and guidelines. To characterize the funding through the U.S. Department of implementation of certain conservation ‘‘world without critical habitat,’’ the Transportation (USDOT) FAA; a efforts to avoid jeopardy concerns. In DEA also endeavors to forecast these typographical error regarding unit occupied critical habitat, consultation conditions into the future over the time labeling; and an assertion that the would therefore consider not only the frame of the analysis, recognizing that estimated number of consultations is potential for jeopardy to the continued such projections are subject to inaccurate. existence of the species, but also the uncertainty. This baseline projection Our Response: The identified potential for destruction or adverse presumes that the species will be listed economic assessment was reviewed and modification of critical habitat. Because (as critical habitat would not be utilized during the development of the the ability of these subspecies to exist is designated absent a listing) and DEA, and is cited in chapter 3 of the very closely tied to the quality of their

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61518 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

habitats, significant alterations of their ‘‘benefits’’ of the designation, however, received a number of site-specific occupied habitat may result in jeopardy the benefits component focuses on the comments related to critical habitat for as well as adverse modification. primary ‘‘biological’’ benefit related to these two subspecies; completed our Therefore, we anticipate that section 7 species conservation, and puts less analysis of areas considered for consultation analyses will likely result emphasis on ancillary, or secondary, exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the in no difference between benefits flowing from species Act or for exemption under section recommendations to avoid jeopardy or conservation (e.g., improved 4(a)(3) of the Act; reviewed the adverse modification in occupied areas environmental quality yielding human application of our criteria for identifying of habitat. The analysis concludes that health or recreational use benefits). critical habitat across the range of these incremental economic impacts of (54) Comment: One commenter noted two subspecies to refine our critical habitat designation will be that, concerning potential ancillary designations; and completed the final limited to additional administrative benefits of the designation, airports are economic analysis of the designation as costs of additionally considering critical secure facilities with limited and proposed. We fully considered all habitat as part of section 7 consultation controlled public access. Thus, none of comments from the public and peer to the Service, other Federal agencies, the potential ancillary benefits cited in reviewers on the proposed rule and the and private third parties. Note, however, the DEA, such as recreational associated economic analysis to develop that additional detail concerning opportunities, is relevant to the airport this final designation of critical habitat potential gravel mining activities in environment. for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly proposed critical habitat, along with Our Response: We agree that, given and streaked horned lark. This final rule related consultation requirements, has the security environment at airports, incorporates changes to our proposed been added to the FEA. human use benefits are limited at critical habitat based on the comments In addition, the specifically identified airports. We note, however, that the that we received and have responded to subunit, Subunit 1–D Rocky Prairie, was direct biological benefit of species in this document, and considers proposed as unoccupied critical habitat conservation may still be attributable to completed final management plans to for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. This airport locations, and that certain conserve the subspecies under subunit has been removed from the final ancillary benefits (improved consideration. Although we received designation upon a determination that environmental quality due to landscape additional distribution data for the this area is not essential to the management) may also still accrue. As streaked horned lark on agricultural conservation of the species. previously mentioned, all non-Federal lands in the Willamette Valley, this (52) Comment: One commenter stated airport lands are excluded from this information did not necessitate the that, in the DEA, economic costs are final designation of critical habitat for designation of additional critical overstated and that many economic the streaked horned lark. Please see habitat. Because of the fragmented and benefits have not been included in the additional discussion under Exclusions. ephemeral nature of those areas on analysis. Specifically, the comment (55) Comment: One commenter private lands, we determined they do asserted that there is no basis to expressed concern that, even when care not meet our definition of critical determine that the designation of is taken in the review of projects and habitat for the streaked horned lark. critical habitat for the streaked horned actions that are unlikely to harm the We have made some technical lark will have an additional economic long-term viability of the Taylor’s corrections to the document, and our impact beyond the listing itself, and checkerspot butterfly, streaked horned final designation of critical habitat notes that birdwatching and related lark, and Mazama pocket gopher, reflects the following changes from the livability amenities due to outdoor allowance of new development could proposed rule: opportunities are important to leave the community subject to (1) We added one additional adult Portland’s social vitality. potential lawsuits. nectar resource to the list of plants in Our Response: A primary conclusion Our Response: Chapter 2 of the DEA the primary constituent elements for of the economic analysis is that, in areas discusses the issue of indirect impacts Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly: wild of proposed designation occupied by the potentially related to critical habitat, strawberry (Fragaria virginiana). species, limited incremental impacts including the triggering of other State (2) Based on our analysis of the total will occur beyond those administrative and local laws, time delays, regulatory area necessary for the conservation of costs associated with consultation. uncertainty, and stigma. Within this Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in Further, in chapter 3, the DEA does context, the effect of third-party Washington and Oregon, we determined provide a qualitative discussion of litigation can represent an indirect that approximately 447 ac (181 ha) of potential ancillary benefits (including effect. We note, however, that the unoccupied critical habitat that we recreational use) attributable to the forecasting the likelihood of third-party proposed are not essential for the conservation of these species. litigation and related project delays or conservation of the subspecies based on (53) Comment: One commenter stated other constraints is considered too comments and information received. that the DEA dismisses the need to speculative for the economic analysis. This finding of ‘‘not essential’’ did not describe impacts in economic terms and In addition, the DEA attributes most result in the removal of entire subunits instead focuses on biological benefits economic effects to the presence of the for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, as only, citing paragraph 4 in the Executive species and jeopardy concerns, as it did for the streaked horned lark (see Summary of the DEA as an example. opposed to the designation of critical below), but did reduce the area of Our Response: This comment habitat. several subunits for the subspecies, both misconstrues the language of this in Washington and Oregon. paragraph. The DEA endeavors to Summary of Changes From Proposed Our analysis of the proposed critical provide a full rendering of the Rule habitat for the streaked horned lark designation’s potential economic We are designating a total of 1,941 ac determined that two of proposed critical impacts, including defining a baseline (786 ha) of critical habitat for the habitat subunits (in their entirety) do and assessing incremental effects, both Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and a not meet the definition of critical direct and indirect. In the context of total of 4,629 ac (1,873 ha) of critical habitat; therefore these subunits were weighing these costs against the habitat for the streaked horned lark. We removed from the final designation. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61519

first of these two critical habitat proposed as critical habitat for the Due to these changes in our final subunits was identified as subunit 3–J streaked horned lark. For Taylor’s critical habitat designation, we have in the proposed critical habitat rule and checkerspot butterfly, the exemption of updated our subunit numbering, is commonly known as Coffeepot Island. military lands from critical habitat descriptions, and critical habitat maps, This small island of approximately 25 resulted in the removal of three critical all of which can be found later in this ac (10 ha) in the Columbia River is not habitat subunits within Unit 1 and document. This final designation of occupied by the streaked horned lark, sequential renumbering of the critical habitat represents a reduction of and although it presently supports some remaining subunits designated in this 4,934 ac (1,996 ha) from our proposed of the physical or biological features final rule (see Table 1). Training Area 7 critical habitat for the Taylor’s utilized by the lark, without ongoing South (TA7S), 91st Division Prairie, and checkerspot butterfly and 7,530 ac management it will not maintain these 13th Division Prairie were numbered 1– (3,047 ha) for the streaked horned lark, characteristics into the foreseeable A, 1–B, and 1–C in the proposed rule, for the reasons detailed above. future. (Please note, in this final rule, respectively. For the streaked horned Additional minor differences between the critical habitat units have been lark, the exemption of military lands proposed and final critical habitat for renumbered sequentially and the combined with the exclusion under both subspecies on the order of roughly designation of critical habitat subunit 3– section 4(b)(2) of the Act for non- 20 ac (8 ha) beyond those detailed above J is now assigned to Whites/Brown Federal airports (see below) resulted in are due to minor boundary adjustments Island (see Table 2)). As we find it the removal of Unit 1 in its entirety. and simple rounding error. unlikely that Coffeepot Island will Subunits in Unit 4 for the streaked provide suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark were sequentially Critical Habitat horned lark in the future, we renumbered due to the exclusion of It is our intent to discuss below only determined that this subunit is not non-Federal airports in Oregon (see those topics directly relevant to the essential to the conservation of the Table 2 and Exclusions section of this designation of critical habitat for the subspecies, and does not meet our document). Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and definition of critical habitat. (4) We carefully considered the streaked horned lark in this section of In the second case, we determined benefits of inclusion and the benefits of the rule. that the subunit identified as 4–G in the exclusion of specific areas in proposed proposed critical habitat rule, M–DAC critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of Background Farms in Oregon, does not meet our the Act, particularly in areas where Critical habitat is defined in section 3 definition of critical habitat for the management plans specific to the of the Act as: streaked horned lark. Although Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and (1) The specific areas within the occupied at the time of listing, the PCEs streaked horned lark are in place, and geographical area occupied by the at this site are in a state of steady where the maintenance and fostering of species, at the time it is listed in decline due to a conservation agreement important conservation partnerships accordance with the Act, on which are that focuses on restoring the landscape were a consideration. Based on the found those physical or biological to wetland, a vegetative structure results of our analysis, we are excluding features: unsuitable to maintaining habitat for the approximately 2,184 ac (885 ha) from (a) essential to the conservation of the streaked horned lark. This site is our final critical habitat designation for species, and therefore unlikely to contribute to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and 4,114 (b) which may require special recovery of the streaked horned lark, ac (1,664 ha) for the streaked horned management considerations or and as it lacks the PCEs for the streaked lark (see Exclusions, below). For protection; and horned lark, it does not meet our Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, two (2) Specific areas outside the definition of critical habitat for the entire subunits of proposed critical geographical area occupied by the subspecies. M–DAC Farms (601 ac (243 habitat in Oregon were excluded based species at the time it is listed, upon a ha) was therefore removed from the on the Benton County Prairie Species determination that such areas are final designation of critical habitat for HCP; these include Fort Hoskins essential for the conservation of the the streaked horned lark. Historic Park (proposed critical habitat species. (3) The Service approved the DOD’s subunit number 4–1) and Beazell Conservation, as defined under endangered species management plans Memorial Forest (proposed critical section 3 of the Act, means to use and (ESMPs) under the INRMP for military habitat subunit number 4–2). The area the use of all methods and procedures installation JBLM for the Taylor’s excluded represents approximately 32 that are necessary to bring an checkerspot butterfly and streaked percent of the area proposed as critical endangered or threatened species to the horned lark. The ESMPs are species- habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot point at which the measures provided specific, and contain site-specific butterfly and 32 percent of the area pursuant to the Act are no longer conservation actions that will be proposed as critical habitat for the necessary. Such methods and implemented as a component of the streaked horned lark. procedures include, but are not limited larger INRMP for the installation. The Exclusion from critical habitat should to, all activities associated with Secretary has exempted lands at JBLM not be interpreted as a determination scientific resources management such as from critical habitat under section that these areas are unimportant, that research, census, law enforcement, 4(a)(3) of the Act, based on the approval they do not provide physical or habitat acquisition and maintenance, of these ESMPs. Lands exempted biological features essential to the propagation, live trapping, and include approximately 2,324 ac (940 ha) conservation of the species (for transplantation, and, in the for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly occupied areas), or are not otherwise extraordinary case where population and 2,813 ac (1,138 ha) for the streaked essential for conservation (for pressures within a given ecosystem horned lark on JBLM. The area unoccupied areas); exclusion merely cannot be otherwise relieved, may exempted represents approximately 34 reflects the Secretary’s determination include regulated taking. percent of the area proposed as critical that the benefits of excluding those Critical habitat receives protection habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot particular areas outweigh the benefits of under section 7 of the Act through the butterfly and 23 percent of the area including them in the designation. requirement that Federal agencies

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61520 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

ensure, in consultation with the Service, by a species only when a designation designation will not control the that any action they authorize, fund, or limited to its range would be inadequate direction and substance of future carry out is not likely to result in the to ensure the conservation of the recovery plans, habitat conservation destruction or adverse modification of species. Furthermore, except in certain plans (HCPs), or other species critical habitat. The designation of circumstances determined by the conservation planning efforts if new critical habitat does not affect land Secretary, critical habitat is not to information available at the time of ownership or establish a refuge, include the entire geographical area these planning efforts calls for a wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other which can be occupied by the listed different outcome. conservation area. Such designation species. Physical or Biological Features does not allow the government or public Section 4 of the Act requires that we to access private lands. Such designate critical habitat on the basis of In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) designation does not require the best scientific and commercial data and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations implementation of restoration, recovery, available. Further, our Policy on at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which or enhancement measures by non- Information Standards Under the areas within the geographical area Federal landowners. Where a landowner Endangered Species Act (published in occupied by the species at the time of requests Federal agency funding or the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 listing to designate as critical habitat, authorization for an action that may FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act we consider the physical or biological affect a listed species or critical habitat, (section 515 of the Treasury and General features essential to the conservation of the consultation requirements of section Government Appropriations Act for the species and which may require 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. special management considerations or in the event of a destruction or adverse 5658)), and our associated Information protection. These include, but are not modification finding, the obligation of Quality Guidelines provide criteria, limited to: the Federal action agency and the establish procedures, and provide (1) Space for individual and landowner is not to restore or recover guidance to ensure that our decisions population growth and for normal the species, but to implement are based on the best scientific data behavior; reasonable and prudent alternatives to available. They require our biologists, to (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or avoid destruction or adverse the extent consistent with the Act and other nutritional or physiological modification of critical habitat. with the use of the best scientific data requirements; Under the first prong of the Act’s available, to use primary and original (3) Cover or shelter; definition of critical habitat, areas sources of information as the basis for (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or within the geographical area occupied recommendations to designate critical rearing (or development) of offspring; by the species at the time it was listed habitat. and are included in a critical habitat Habitat is dynamic, and species may (5) Habitats that are protected from designation if they contain physical or move from one area to another over disturbance or are representative of the biological features (1) which are time. We recognize that critical habitat historical, geographical, and ecological essential to the conservation of the designated at a particular point in time distributions of a species. species and (2) which may require may not include all of the habitat areas We derived the specific physical or special management considerations or that we may later determine are biological features essential for the protection. For these areas, critical necessary for the recovery of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and habitat designations identify, to the species. For these reasons, a critical streaked horned lark from studies of extent known using the best scientific habitat designation does not signal that each subspecies’ habitat, ecology, and and commercial data available, those habitat outside the designated area is life history as described in detail in the physical or biological features that are unimportant or may not be needed for Critical Habitat section of the proposed essential to the conservation of the recovery of the species. Areas that are rule to designate critical habitat species (such as space, food, cover, and important to the conservation of the published in the Federal Register on protected habitat). In identifying those species, both inside and outside the October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61937). physical or biological features within an critical habitat designation, will Additional information can also be area, we focus on the principal continue to be subject to: (1) found in the final listing rule for the biological or physical constituent Conservation actions implemented Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and elements (primary constituent elements under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) streaked horned lark, which is such as roost sites, nesting grounds, regulatory protections afforded by the published elsewhere in today’s Federal seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act Register. We have determined that the soil type) that are essential to the for Federal agencies to insure their physical and or biological features conservation of the species. Primary actions are not likely to jeopardize the described in the proposed rule (October constituent elements are those specific continued existence of any endangered 11, 2012; 77 FR 61937) are essential to elements of the physical or biological or threatened species, and (3) section 9 the conservation of the Taylor’s features that provide for a species’ life- of the Act’s prohibitions on taking any checkerspot butterfly and streaked history processes and are essential to individual of the species, including horned lark, and have further the conservation of the species. taking caused by actions that affect determined that these features may Under the second prong of the Act’s habitat. Federally funded or permitted require special management definition of critical habitat, we can projects affecting listed species outside considerations or protection. designate critical habitat in areas their designated critical habitat areas The designation of critical habitat is outside the geographical area occupied may still result in jeopardy findings in an authority restricted to the boundaries by the species at the time it is listed, some cases. These protections and of the United States; critical habitat upon a determination that such areas conservation tools will continue to cannot be designated in a foreign are essential for the conservation of the contribute to recovery of this listed country (50 CFR 424.12(h)). Both species. Our regulations direct us to species. Similarly, critical habitat Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and designate critical habitat in areas designations made on the basis of the streaked horned lark range into Canada outside the geographical area occupied best available information at the time of or historically occurred there. In the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61521

final listing rule, published elsewhere in (Lomatium utriculatum), common elements of physical or biological the Federal Register today, we discuss camas (Camassia quamash), showy features that provide for the subpecies’ the population in Canada for the fleabane (Erigeron speciosus), Canada life-history processes and are essential purpose of evaluating the viability of the thistle (Cirsium arvense), common to the conservation of the subspecies. species and to inform our determination yarrow (Achillea millefolium), prairie Based on our current knowledge of of those areas within the United States lupine (Lupinus lepidus), and sickle- the physical or biological features and that are essential for the conservation of keeled lupine (Lupinus albicaulis). habitat characteristics required to the subspecies. We do not have the (ii) Primary larval host plants sustain the subspecies’ life-history authority to designate critical habitat in (narrow-leaved plantain and harsh processes, we determine that the Canada. paintbrush) and at least one of the primary constituent elements specific to secondary annual larval host plants Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly the streaked horned lark are areas (blue-eyed Mary (Collinsia parviflora), having a minimum of 16 percent bare Primary Constituent Elements for the sea blush (Plectritis congesta), or dwarf ground that have sparse, low-stature Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Under owl-clover (Triphysaria pusilla) or one vegetation composed primarily of the Act and its implementing of several species of speedwell (marsh grasses and forbs less than 13 in (33 cm) regulations, we are required to identify speedwell (Veronica scutella), American in height found in: the physical or biological features speedwell (V. beccabunga var. essential to the conservation of Taylor’s americana), or thymeleaf speedwell (V. (1) Large (300-ac (120-ha)), flat (0–5 checkerspot butterfly in areas occupied serpyllifolia). percent slope) areas within a landscape at the time of listing, focusing on the (iii) Adult nectar sources for feeding context that provides visual access to features’ primary constituent elements. that include several species found as open areas such as open water or fields, We consider primary constituent part of the native (and one nonnative) or elements to be the elements of physical species mix on northwest grasslands, (2) Areas smaller than described in or biological features that provide for including, but not limited to: narrow- (1), but that provide visual access to the subspecies’ life-history processes leaved plantain; harsh paintbrush; Puget open areas such as open water or fields. and are essential to the conservation of balsam root; woolly sunshine; nine- With this designation of critical the subspecies. leaved desert parsley; fine-leaved desert habitat, we intend to identify the Based on our current knowledge of parsley or spring gold; common camas; physical or biological features essential the physical or biological features and showy fleabane; Canada thistle; to the conservation of the subspecies, habitat characteristics required to common yarrow; prairie lupine; sickle- through the identification of the primary sustain the subspecies’ life-history keeled lupine, and wild strawberry constituent elements sufficient to processes, we determine that the (Fragaria virginiana). support the life-history processes of the primary constituent elements specific to (iv) Aquatic features such as subspecies. All of the units designated the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are: wetlands, springs, seeps, streams, as critical habitat are currently occupied (i) Patches of early seral, short- ponds, lakes, and puddles that provide by the streaked horned lark and contain statured, perennial bunchgrass plant moisture during periods of drought, the primary constituent elements to communities composed of native grass particularly late in the spring and early support the life-history needs of the and forb species in a diverse summer. These features can be subspecies. topographic landscape ranging in size permanent, seasonal, or ephemeral. from less than 1 ac up to 100 ac (0.4 to With this designation of critical Special Management Considerations 40 ha) with little or no overstory forest habitat, we intend to identify the or Protections—All areas we are vegetation that have areas of bare soil physical or biological features essential designating as critical habitat will for basking that contain: to the conservation of the subspecies, require some level of management to (a) In Washington and Oregon, through the identification of the primary address the current and future threats to common bunchgrass species found on constituent elements essential to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and northwest grasslands include Festuca support the life-history processes of the streaked horned lark and to maintain or roemeri (Roemer’s fescue), Danthonia subspecies. We are designating critical restore the PCEs. A detailed discussion californica (California oat grass), habitat within the geographical area of activities influencing the Taylor’s Koeleria cristata (prairie Junegrass), occupied by the subspecies at the time checkerspot butterfly and streaked Elymus glaucus (blue wild rye), Agrostis of listing. In addition, we are horned lark and their habitats can be scabra (rough bentgrass), and on cooler, designating some specific areas outside found in the final listing rule published high-elevation sites typical of coastal the geographical area occupied by the elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. bluffs and balds, Festuca rubra (red subspecies at the time of listing that Threats to the physical or biological fescue). were historically occupied, but are features that are essential to the (b) On moist grasslands found near presently unoccupied, because we have conservation of these subspecies and the coast and in the Willamette Valley, determined that these areas are essential that may warrant special management there may be Bromus sitchensis (Sitka for the conservation of the subspecies. considerations or protection include, brome) and Deschampsia cespitosa but are not limited to: (1) Loss of habitat (tufted hairgrass) in the mix of prairie Streaked Horned Lark from conversion to other uses; (2) grasses. Less abundant forbs found on Primary Constituent Elements for the control of nonnative, invasive species; the grasslands include, but are not Streaked Horned Lark—Under the Act (3) development; (4) construction and limited to, Trifolium spp. (true clovers), and its implementing regulations, we maintenance of roads and utility narrow-leaved plantain (Plantago are required to identify the physical or corridors; and (5) habitat modifications lanceolata), harsh paintbrush (Castilleja biological features essential to the brought on by succession of vegetation hispida), Puget balsamroot conservation of the streaked horned lark from the lack of disturbance, both small (Balsamorhiza deltoidea), woolly in areas occupied at the time of listing, and large scale. These threats also have sunshine (Eriophyllum lanatum), nine- focusing on the features’ primary the potential to affect the PCEs if they leaved desert parsley (Lomatium constituent elements. We consider are conducted within or adjacent to triternatum), fine-leaved desert parsley primary constituent elements to be the designated units.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61522 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly special management considerations or specific unoccupied areas to be essential The physical or biological features protection to ensure the provision of the conservation of the subspecies are essential to the conservation of the early seral conditions and landscape provided below. We plotted the known locations of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly may context of sufficient quantity and Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and require special management quality for long-term conservation and streaked horned lark where they occur considerations or protection to improve recovery of the subspecies. Activities in Washington and Oregon using 2011 the viability and distribution of habitat such as mowing, burning, grazing, National Agriculture Imagery Program suitable for the subspecies. These tilling, herbicide treatment, grading, (NAIP) digital imagery in ArcGIS, include preventing the establishment of beach nourishment, or placement of dredge material can be used to maintain version 10 (Environmental Systems invasive, nonnative and native woody or restore nesting and wintering Research Institute, Inc.), a computer species, and hastening restoration by habitats. Regular disturbance is geographic information system program. actively managing sites to establish necessary to create and maintain To determine if the currently native plant species and the structure of suitable habitat, but the timing of occupied areas contain the primary the plant community that is suitable for management is important. The constituent elements, we assessed the the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. management actions should be life-history components and the Restoration and maintenance of conducted outside of the breeding distribution of the subspecies through occupied Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly season to avoid the destruction of nests element occurrence records in State sites will require active management to and young, or if habitat management natural heritage databases and natural plan, restore, enhance, and manage must be done during the breeding history information on each of the habitat using an approach that resets the season, it should be done in a way that subspecies as they relate to habitat. We vegetation composition and structure to minimizes destruction of nests or first considered whether the presently an early seral stage. Management actions harassment of individuals. Nesting occupied areas were sufficient to that produce suitable conditions for success is highest in locations with conserve the subspecies. If not, to Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and restricted public use or entry such as determine if any unoccupied sites met reset the ecological clock to early seral military facilities, airports, islands, the criteria for critical habitat, we then conditions favored by the butterfly wildlife refuges, or sites that are remote considered: (1) The importance of the include prescribed fires, mechanical or difficult to access. site to the overall status of the harvesting of trees, activities such as subspecies to prevent extinction and hand planting or mechanical planting of Criteria Used To Identify Critical contribute to future recovery of the grasses and forbs, and the judicious use Habitat subspecies; (2) whether the area of herbicides for nonnative, invasive As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of presently provides the essential species control. the Act, we use the best scientific and physical or biological features, or could These early-seral conditions favor the commercial data available to designate be managed and restored to contain the production and maintenance of critical habitat. We review available necessary physical or biological features plantain, paintbrush, and other larval information pertaining to the habitat to support the subspecies; and (3) host plants in a short-structure requirements of the species, and begin whether individuals were likely to vegetation community that allows by assessing the specific geographic colonize the site. We also considered utilization of the plants by the Taylor’s areas occupied by the species at the the potential for reintroduction of the checkerspot butterfly. Areas where the time of listing. If such areas are not subspecies, where anticipated to be Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly occupies sufficient to provide for the necessary (for Taylor’s checkerspot a site should have limited soil and conservation of the species, in butterfly only). vegetation disturbance at times when accordance with the Act and its As required by section 4(b)(2) of the the larvae are active, which extends implementing regulation at 50 CFR Act, we used the best scientific data from late February when post-diapause 424.12(e), we then consider whether available to designate critical habitat. larvae are active to late June when pre- designating additional areas outside the We reviewed available information diapause larvae are on site. Other geographic areas occupied at the time of pertaining to the habitat requirements of activities that could cause trampling or listing may be essential to ensure the these subspecies. In accordance with the impacts to the larvae and that should be conservation of the species. We consider Act and its implementing regulation at minimized, reduced, or restricted unoccupied areas for critical habitat 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered during larval feeding include use of the when a designation limited to the whether designating additional areas— site by off-road vehicles, military present range of the species may be outside those currently occupied as well training using vehicles or impacts inadequate to ensure the conservation of as those occupied at the time of listing— caused by large infantry (foot soldiers), the species. In this case, since we are are necessary to ensure the conservation or activities that transport or spread listing simultaneously with the of the subspecies. We are designating nonnative plants, and the risk of designation of critical habitat, all areas critical habitat in areas within the wildfire or prescribed fire. We presently occupied by Taylor’s geographical area occupied by the reemphasize here the acknowledgement checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned subspecies at the time of listing in 2013. that Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, lark are presumed to constitute those For Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly only, while most obvious during the flight areas occupied at the time of listing; we also are designating specific areas period and when larvae are active, are those areas currently occupied by the outside the geographical area occupied year-round residents and may be subspecies are identified as such in each by the subspecies at the time of listing vulnerable to most types of direct of the unit or subunit descriptions that were historically occupied, but may disturbance throughout the year. below. These descriptions similarly be presently unoccupied, based on the identify which of the units or subunits Secretary’s determination that these Streaked Horned Lark are believed to be unoccupied at the areas are essential for the conservation The physical or biological features time of listing. Our determination of the of the subspecies. essential to the conservation of the areas occupied at the time of listing and When we are determining which areas streaked horned lark may require our rationale for how we determined should be designated as critical habitat,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61523

our primary source of information is inside critical habitat boundaries shown conservation of the subspecies, we have generally the information developed on the maps of this rule have been additionally identified some subunits during the listing process for the excluded by text in the rule and are not that are presently unoccupied, but that species. Additional information sources designated as critical habitat. Therefore, the Secretary has determined to be may include the recovery plan for the a Federal action involving these lands essential to the conservation of the species, articles in peer-reviewed would not trigger section 7 consultation subspecies. Therefore, we are also journals, conservation plans developed with respect to critical habitat and the designating these unoccupied areas as by States and counties, scientific status requirement of no adverse modification critical habitat for the Taylor’s surveys and studies, biological unless the specific action would affect checkerspot butterfly, as explained assessments, other unpublished the physical or biological features in the below. materials, or experts’ opinions or adjacent critical habitat. Unoccupied Areas—We are personal knowledge. In this case we designating six subunits as critical Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly used existing occurrence data for each habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot subspecies and identified the habitat Occupied Areas—For the Taylor’s butterfly that are not presently occupied and ecosystems upon which they checkerspot butterfly, we are by the subspecies, but that the Secretary depend. These sources of information designating critical habitat within the has determined essential for the included, but were not limited to: geographical area occupied by the conservation of the subspecies. There (1) Data used to prepare the proposed subspecies at the time of listing, as well has been a rapid decline in the spatial and final rules to list the subspecies; as in unoccupied areas that we have distribution of prairies (grassland (2) Information from biological determined to be essential for the habitat) throughout the range of the surveys; conservation of the subspecies Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly; as a (3) Peer-reviewed articles, various (described below). These presently result, the present distribution of agency reports, and databases; occupied areas provide the physical or Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is (4) Information from the U.S. biological features essential to the disjunct and isolated throughout the Department of Defense—Joint Base conservation of the subspecies, which subspecies’ historical range. If the Lewis-McChord (JBLM) and other may require special management Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is to cooperators; considerations or protection. We recover, there must be sufficient suitable (5) Information from species experts; determined occupancy in these areas habitat available for population (6) Data and information presented in based on recent survey information. All expansion and growth that is potentially academic research theses; and sites occupied by Taylor’s checkerspot connected in such a way as to allow for (7) Regional Geographic Information butterfly have survey data as recently as dispersal, and these sites must receive System (GIS) data (such as species 2011, except for the U.S. Forest Service routine and sustained management to occurrence data, land use, topography, sites on the north Olympic Peninsula maintain the early seral conditions aerial imagery, soil data, and land where data are as recent as 2010 (Potter essential to the conservation of the ownership maps) for area calculations 2011; Linders 2011; Ross 2011; Holtrop subspecies. We therefore evaluated and mapping. 2010; Severns and Grossboll 2011). In areas outside the presently occupied The critical habitat designation is addition, there have been some recent patches to identify unoccupied habitat defined by the maps, as modified by any experimental translocations of Taylor’s areas essential for the conservation of accompanying regulatory text, presented checkerspot butterflies to sites where it the subspecies. We are designating as at the end of this document in the had been extirpated within its historical critical habitat some areas adjacent to Regulation Promulgation section. We range. If translocated populations have known occurrences of the Taylor’s include more detailed information on been documented as successfully checkerspot butterfly but that may the boundaries of the critical habitat reproducing, we considered those sites currently be unoccupied to provide for designation in the preamble of this to be presently occupied by the population expansion and growth, document. We will make the subspecies. Areas designated as critical which is essential for the conservation coordinates or plot points or both on habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot of the subspecies. which each map is based available to butterfly are representative of the We have identified these unoccupied the public on http:// known historical geographic areas as essential for the conservation of www.regulations.gov at Docket No. distribution for the subspecies, outside the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly FWS–R1–ES–2013–0009, on our Web of Canada. because they are located strategically site at http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/ We are designating three units of between, and in some cases, adjacent to, TCBSHL.html/, and, by appointment, at critical habitat based on sufficient occupied areas from which the butterfly the Service’s Washington Fish and elements of physical or biological may disperse; these areas contain one or Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER features being present to support life- more of the PCEs for the Taylor’s INFORMATION CONTACT, above). history processes for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (although the In all cases, when determining critical checkerspot butterfly. These 3 units are presence of one or more PCEs is not a habitat boundaries, we made every further divided into 11 subunits. Some statutory requirement for unoccupied effort to avoid including developed subunits within the units contain all of critical habitat), and are all receiving or areas such as lands covered by the identified elements of physical and are slated to receive restoration buildings, pavement (such as roads), biological features and support multiple treatments that will increase the amount and other structures because such lands life-history processes; some subunits of suitable habitat available. lack the essential physical or biological contain at least one or more elements of features for the Taylor’s checkerspot the physical and biological features Streaked Horned Lark butterfly and streaked horned lark. The necessary to support the Taylor’s Occupied Areas—We are designating scale of the maps we prepared under the checkerspot butterfly’s particular use of two units of critical habitat for the parameters for publication within the that habitat. Because we determined streaked horned lark based on sufficient Code of Federal Regulations may not that the areas presently occupied by elements of physical or biological reflect the exclusion of such developed Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are not features being present to support life- lands. Any such lands inadvertently left sufficient to provide for the history processes during the breeding or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61524 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

winter seasons. These 2 units are further assessment at this time of areas that constitute our current best assessment of divided into 16 subunits. All of the meet the definition of critical habitat for areas that meet the definition of critical units designated as critical habitat are these subspecies. Those four units are: habitat for the subspecies. The three presently occupied by the streaked (1) The South Sound Unit (Unit 1), units we designate as critical habitat are: horned lark. Some subunits within the which has critical habitat subunits for Unit 1, South Sound—1,143 ac (462 ha) units contain all of the identified only the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. in Washington State (545 ac (220 ha) of elements of physical or biological (2) The Strait of Juan de Fuca Unit County ownership, 420 ac (170 ha) of features and support multiple life- (Unit 2), which has critical habitat private ownership, and 178 ac (72 ha) of history processes; some subunits subunits for only the Taylor’s lands owned by a Port, local contain at least one or more elements of checkerspot butterfly. municipality, or nonprofit conservation (3) The Washington Coast and the physical or biological features organization); Unit 2, Strait of Juan de Columbia River Unit (Unit 3), which has necessary to support the streaked Fuca—779 ac (315 ha) in Washington critical habitat subunits for only the horned lark’s particular use of that State (160 ac (65 ha) of Federal streaked horned lark. habitat. ownership, 188 ac (76 ha) of State Unoccupied Areas—There are no (4) The Willamette Valley Unit (Unit unoccupied subunits designated as 4), which has critical habitat subunits ownership, 201 ac (81) of private critical habitat for the streaked horned for both the Taylor’s checkerspot ownership, and 229 ac (93 ha) of land lark. butterfly and streaked horned lark. owned by a Port, local municipality, or nonprofit organization); and Unit 4–D, Final Critical Habitat Designation Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly—Units Willamette Valley—20 ac (8 ha) of We are designating four units total as 1, 2, and 4 privately owned lands in Oregon. The critical habitat for the Taylor’s We are designating three units as approximate area of each critical habitat checkerspot butterfly and streaked critical habitat for the Taylor’s unit and its relevant subunits, as well as horned lark. The critical habitat areas checkerspot butterfly. The critical land ownership within each unit, is described below constitute our best habitat areas we describe below shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY. NOTE: AREA SIZES MAY NOT SUM DUE TO ROUNDING. AREA ESTIMATES REFLECT ALL LAND WITHIN CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT BOUNDARIES

Unit 1: South Sound Federal State County Private Other * Currently occupied Subunit Name Ac(Ha) Ac-(Ha) Ac(Ha) Ac(Ha) Ac(Ha) Y/N

1–A ...... Rocky Prairie ...... 0 0 0 0 43 (17) N 1–B ...... Tenalquot Prairie ...... 0 0 0 0 135 (55) N 1–C ...... Glacial Heritage ...... 0 0 545 (220) 0 0 Y 1–D ...... Rock Prairie ...... 0 0 0 244 (99) 0 N 1–E ...... Bald Hill ...... 0 0 0 176 (71) 0 N Unit 1 Totals ...... 0 (0) 0 (0) 545 (220) 420 (170) 178 (72) ......

Unit 2: Strait of Juan De Fuca:

2–A ...... Deception Pass State Park ...... 0 149 (60) 0 0 0 N 2–B ...... Central Whidbey ...... 0 39 (16) 0 0 190 (77) N 2–C ...... Elwha ...... 0 0 0 51 (20) 39 (16) Y 2–D ...... Sequim ...... 0 0 0 151 (61) 0 Y 2–E ...... Dungeness ...... 160 (65) 0 0 0 0 Y ...... Unit 2 Totals ...... 160 (65) 188 (76) 0 201 (81) 229 (93) ......

Unit 4: Willamette Valley:

4–D ...... Fitton Green-Cardwell Hill ...... 0 0 0 20 (8) 0 (0) Y Unit 4 Totals ...... 0 0 0 20 (8) 0 (0) ......

Grand Total—all Units ...... 160 (65) 188 (76) 545 (220) 642 (259) 407 (166) ......

GRAND TOTAL ALL UNITS, ...... 1,941 (786) ...... ALL OWNERSHIP. * Other = Ports, local municipalities, and nonprofit conservation organizations.

We present brief descriptions of all entirely in Thurston County, residential homes, on the east by the units, and reasons why they meet the Washington. Burlington Northern railroad line, the definition of critical habitat for the Subunit Descriptions south by forest (approximately 443 ft Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, below. (135 m) north of where the Burlington 1–A Rocky Prairie—(Thurston Northern rail line intersects Old Hwy Unit 1: South Sound—Taylor’s County, Washington). The Rocky Prairie 99), and on the west by the Washington Checkerspot Butterfly critical habitat subunit is composed of Department of Natural Resources Rocky two disjunct habitat patches comprising Prairie Natural Area Preserve (NAP). The South Sound Unit consists of a total of 43 ac (17 ha). The first patch 1,143 acres (462 ha) of land designated is a linear strip of prairie under private The second prairie patch of this subunit for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies ownership. It is approximately 15 ac (6 is 29 ac (12 ha) of property owned by in five subunits. This unit is found ha) in size and bounded on the north by a conservation organization known as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:09 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61525

Wolf Haven International. It is located County. The physical or biological property in south Thurston County. The southeast of the Burlington Northern features present at this site include subunit has diverse landscape features habitat patch. Wolf Haven is bounded landscape heterogeneity, bare ground with mounded prairie, old field pasture, on the north by Offut Lake Road, and for basking, and diverse and abundant oak woodland, and conifer forest. The bounded by a service road in all but the larval and adult plant resources. This northern boundary is delineated by extreme northeastern corner of the subunit is periodically managed using dense conifer forests, the southern property. The landscape on the east, prescribed burning as well as with border is State Highway 99 (referred to west, and south boundaries of the mechanical methods to remove Scot’s as old 99), the western boundary is prairie at Wolf Haven is delineated by broom (Cytisus scoparius) and to sustain clearly delineated by rural residential mixed Garry oak and conifer forest early seral conditions. lots, and the eastern border is the urban (east), or conifer forest (west and south). 1–C Glacial Heritage—(Thurston growth boundary for the town of Both habitat patches within this subunit County, Washington). Glacial Heritage is Tenino, Washington. This subunit is are unoccupied at the time of listing. a large, County-owned property unoccupied at the time of listing. This subunit is within a matrix of managed with conservation, research, This historically occupied subunit is historically occupied patches from and education as its primary objectives. essential for the conservation of the which Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly The property consists of more than Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly as it has been completely extirpated. We 1,200 acres, with approximately 545 ac presently provides many of the features have determined this subunit is (220 ha) designated as critical habitat. necessary to support long-term essential for the conservation of the The northwestern boundary is an conservation and recovery of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly because it abandoned railroad line, and to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. These has the potential for restoration of the direct north are rural residential include diverse topography with swales physical or biological features sufficient properties; the eastern boundary of the and terraces, abundant and diverse to enable the reintroduction of Taylor’s preserve is the Black River, and the larval and adult food resources, and a checkerspot butterfly. In addition, southern boundary is owned by two location close to a water course formed although currently unoccupied, this private landowners: one is a large by Scatter Creek. area presently provides many of the industrial tree farm where conifer 1–E Bald Hill—(Thurston County, essential features to support long-term seedlings are grown, and the other is Washington). The Bald Hill subunit is a conservation and recovery of the dominated by pasture grown for haying. collection of balds (shallow-soil areas Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. The The southern border is clearly defined without typical conifer vegetation) and subunit is composed of grasslands and by the land use change along the former clearcut areas that have not includes oak woodland margins, and fenceline. This subunit is occupied at regenerated and now maintain features some transitional, colonization (first the time of listing, and provides the of open habitat that produce larval and growth) Douglas-fir forest within the essential physical or biological features adult food resources that can be utilized greater prairie landscape. Several PCEs, for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, by the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. including landscape heterogeneity and including diverse topography, abundant All independent, isolated habitat diverse and abundant larval and adult and diverse larval and adult nectar plant patches are surrounded by conifer plants resources, are present. resources, a water course, and areas of forests on all sides. Some patches are 1–B Tenalquot Prairie—(Thurston bare ground for basking due to ongoing, bordered by WDNR roads, and others County, Washington). The Tenalquot active management. are bordered by private roads used for Prairie subunit is a privately owned Threats to the physical or biological fire control and to access the forested conservation area of approximately 135 features that are essential to the property. The Bald Hill subunit ac (55 ha) in size and part of the larger, conservation of this species and may comprises a total of 176 ac (71 ha) historically contiguous Tenalquot warrant special management (rounded up). The western habitat patch Prairie, the majority of which occurs on considerations or protections include, of this subunit is approximately 110 ac JBLM. The northern boundary of this but are not limited to, the inadvertent (45 ha), and the eastern patch is subunit is a fenceline boundary, which short-term negative impacts of approximately 65 ac (26 ha); both are separates South Weir prairie on JBLM restoration activities, such as burning, unoccupied at the time of listing. from the adjacent private land. The mowing, and the use of herbicides; The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly western boundary of this subunit is a control of native and nonnative invasive was recently extirpated from this large pasture clearly delineated by a woody species such as Scot’s broom and historically occupied subunit. We have fence line, and it is bordered on the Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), as determined it is essential for the southeast by Military Road. This well as control of invasive conservation of the Taylor’s checkerspot subunit is unoccupied at the time of Mediterranean grasses; habitat butterfly because it has the potential to listing. modifications brought on by succession provide for the reintroduction and We have determined this subunit is of vegetation from the lack of reestablishment of Taylor’s checkerspot essential for the conservation of the disturbance, at a small and large scale; butterfly and to support recovery of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly because it disease affecting larval host plants; and subspecies. This area presently contains would provide for the reintroduction the effects of climate change. Special many of the features to support long- and reestablishment of Taylor’s management considerations may be term conservation and recovery of the checkerspot butterfly. Although required to provide protection to larval Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, currently unoccupied, this area and adult food resources by reducing including a diverse topography of balds, presently provides many of the physical human disturbance during the flight steep slopes, canyons, oak glades, a rich or biological features necessary to season, and when eggs and early instar diversity of larval and adult food support the long-term conservation and larvae are present. resources, and patches of bare soil for recovery of Taylor’s checkerspot 1–D Rock Prairie—(Thurston County, basking and resting. This particular butterfly and has the potential to serve Washington). We are designating critical habitat subunit is unique in that as metapopulation center within a larger approximately 244 ac (99 ha) of critical it provides the only bald habitat for prairie landscape context (∼2,000 ac habitat on the northern portion of Rock Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly at low (810 ha) in the south region of Thurston Prairie, a large, privately owned elevation within Thurston County.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61526 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Unit 2: Strait of Juan de Fuca—Taylor’s Parker Road runs along the western succession of vegetation from lack of Checkerspot Butterfly border of the property, and Morse Road disturbance, at a small and large scale; The Strait of Juan de Fuca Unit is is found along the south boundary. This disease affecting larval host plants; and composed of 779 acres (315 ha) made up subunit was historically occupied but is the effects of climate change. The of balds, former clearcuts, coastal bluffs, currently unoccupied. physical or biological features essential We have determined this subunit is coastal back dunes, and prairie in five to the conservation of the species may essential for the conservation of the subunits located in Clallam County and require special management subspecies because it has the potential Island County, Washington. considerations or protection to sustain for reintroduction and reestablishment the open conditions that are needed to Subunit descriptions of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to manage for and sustain the larval and 2–A Deception Pass State Park— support recovery. In addition, although adult food resources. Special (Island County, Washington). Deception currently unoccupied, this area management considerations may be Pass State Park is owned and managed presently provides many of the features required to provide protection to larval by Washington State Parks. The subunit to support a reintroduced population of and adult food resources by reducing Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, contains approximately 149 ac (60 ha) of human disturbance during the flight including diverse topography with designated critical habitat found along season, and when eggs and early instar coastal bluffs and beaches, abundant low-lying beaches (coastal dunes) and larvae are present. larval and adult food resources, areas of 2–D Sequim—(Clallam County, on balds along high, south-facing slopes bare soil, and water sources made up of Washington). Sequim is a private within the park. These areas include the a freshwater wetland, and saltwater property estate and farm of low-lying shoreline along Bowman Bay, Bowman along the western shoreline. stabilized dune habitat of approximately Hill and Beach, Reservation Head, Pass 2–C Elwha—(Clallam County, 151 ac (61 ha). The subunit includes Island, Goose Rock, and West Beach, all Washington). The Elwha critical habitat stabilized dunes and beach habitat within the park. Deception Pass State subunit is composed of private lands in adjacent to the Strait of Juan de Fuca; it Park is divided by Highway State 20, Clallam County made up of balds, and is approximately 20 ft (6 m) above sea and bordered by the portion of Puget former clear cut areas within a level. The landowner has been working Sound that forms Deception Pass to the landscape of conifer forests. The subunit cooperatively with the WDFW to north, and to the south by private rural polygons adjoin occupied patches manage their property for multiple uses, residential properties. This park was owned and managed by the WDNR, one including the conservation of Taylor’s historically occupied by Taylor’s is owned and managed by a checkerspot butterfly. The subunit is checkerspot butterfly, but at this time nongovernmental conservation occupied at the time of listing. the subunit is unoccupied. organization, the Center for Natural The Sequim subunit contains several We have determined this subunit is Lands Management, and the other small essential physical or biological features, essential for the conservation of the parcel is owned by a private timber including landscape heterogeneity with subspecies because it has the potential company. These two patches are found fore and back dune areas and terraces; for reintroduction and reestablishment primarily on the south slope of Dan rich and abundant larval and adult food of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to Kelly Ridge, and they are separated by resources; a marsh; and bare soil for support recovery. In addition, although essential habitat owned by WDNR that basking and resting. currently unoccupied, this area has been excluded due to an HCP Threats to the physical or biological presently provides many of the features providing for species-specific habitat features that are essential to the to support a reintroduced population of management. conservation of this species and may Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, The habitat patches at both locations warrant special management including diverse topography with balds are bounded by conifer forests. The considerations or protections include, and beaches, abundant larval and adult balds at each of these locations are but are not limited to, development; the food resources, areas of bare soil for presently occupied by the Taylor’s inadvertent short-term negative impacts basking of larvae and adults, and water checkerspot butterfly, which has been of restoration activities; habitat sources made up of saltwater along the observed flying up and down the steep modifications brought on by succession western shoreline and a freshwater slopes and onto private lands. Both of of vegetation from lack of disturbance, wetland. these locations contain essential at a small and large scale; disease 2–B Central Whidbey—(Island physical or biological features, affecting larval host plants; and the County, Washington). This subunit is including topographic heterogeneity, effects of climate change. The physical located on Whidbey Island in abundant and diverse larval and adult or biological features essential to the Washington, and comprises a total of food resources, and bare soil for basking conservation of the species may require 229 ac (92 ha), and includes Ebey’s and resting. Puddles on the road special management considerations or Landing (∼87 ac (35 ha)), the Naas- provide a water source during the adult protection to sustain the open Admiralty Inlet Conservation Area (∼8 flight season. conditions that are needed to manage ac (3 ha)), and the former Smith Prairie Threats to the physical or biological for and sustain the larval and adult food (∼134 ac (54 ha)). The Central Whidbey features that are essential to the resources. Special management subunit is made up of two distinct conservation of this species and may considerations may be required to patches: one is located along the central- warrant special management provide protection to larval and adult west coast on coastal bluffs of the island considerations or protections include, food resources by reducing human (Ebey), and the second (Smith Prairie) is but are not limited to, development; the disturbance during the flight season, located on relatively flat prairie located inadvertent short-term negative impacts and when eggs and early instar larvae centrally-north on the island. The of restoration activities, such as control are present. coastal area is bordered by Puget Sound of native and nonnative, invasive, 2–E Dungeness—(Clallam County, to the west, and rural residential woody species such as Scot’s broom, Washington). The Dungeness subunit is property and farmland to the east. The snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and found entirely on U.S. Forest Service Smith Prairie is surrounded by rural Douglas fir; the use of herbicides; (USFS) land on the northeast Olympic residential properties on all sides; habitat modifications brought on by Peninsula. This subunit comprises a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61527

total of 160 ac (65 ha) and is composed adult food resources. Special physical or biological features essential of bald habitat, and former clearcuts that management considerations may be to the conservation of Taylor’s function similarly to balds. The three required to provide protection to larval checkerspot butterfly may require occupied areas within this subunit and and adult food resources by reducing special management considerations or are known as Bear Mountain (low human disturbance during the flight protection to sustain short-statured elevation), 3 O’Clock Ridge (middle season, and when eggs and early instar vegetation structure and to reduce elevation) (which is composed of two larvae are present. human disturbance during the flight habitat patches), and the upper Unit 4: Willamette Valley—Taylor’s season or when eggs and early instar Dungeness (highest elevation). These Checkerspot Butterfly larvae are present. The physical or locations on USFS lands are the highest biological features of this site may be elevations known to be occupied by Unit 4, located in the Willamette particularly vulnerable to the effects of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. The Valley, is the only critical habitat unit recreational use, such as trampling of Bear Mountain location is entirely that includes critical habitat for both the vegetation. surrounded by conifer forests and streaked horned lark and Taylor’s Streaked Horned Lark—Units 3 and 4 originated as a small harvest unit that checkerspot butterfly. Unit 4 includes functions similar to a bald. 3 O’Clock four subunits in the State of Oregon; We are designating as critical habitat ridge is bounded by the upper three for the streaked horned lark (4–A, areas that we have determined are Dungeness Road on the northwest 4–B, and 4–C; described below), and a occupied at the time of listing and boundary, Cougar Creek to the single subunit (4–D) for the Taylor’s contain sufficient elements of physical northeast, Bungalow creek to the checkerspot butterfly in Benton County. or biological features to support life- southwest, and conifer forests to the Unit 4–D Fitton Green-Cardwell Hill— history processes essential to the (Benton County, Oregon). Fitton Green- southeast of the occupied unit. Upper conservation of the streaked horned Cardwell Hill is located in the eastern Dungeness is bounded by an unnamed lark. We are designating two units as foothills of the Coastal Range on the creek to the northeast and Mueller Creek critical habitat for the streaked horned western edge of the Willamette Valley. to the southwest, and by conifer forests lark. The critical habitat areas we The habitat is composed of multiple to the southeast of the occupied unit. describe below constitute our current small natural openings of approximately All habitat patches within this subunit best assessment of areas that meet the 3 ac (1 ha) in size within a conifer-oak are presently occupied by the Taylor’s definition of critical habitat for the forest landscape. These habitat patches checkerspot butterfly. subspecies. The two units we designate collectively comprise the 20 ac (8 ha) as critical habitat are: Unit 3— The subunit contains several essential that constitute Subunit 4–D. The Washington Coast and Columbia River physical or biological features, northern patch of this subunit is a BPA (with 13 subunits), and Unit 4— including landscape heterogeneity, right-of-way that passes through a large Willamette Valley (with 3 subunits). abundant larval and adult food occupied patch of county-owned habitat The Washington Coast and Columbia resources, nearby streams, and plentiful that provides conservation benefit to the River Unit (Unit 3) totals 2,900 ac (1,173 areas of bare ground for basking and Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly through ha) and includes 564 ac (228 ha) of resting. Early restoration work the Benton County Prairie Species HCP. conducted by USFS has included tree This subunit is currently occupied by Federal ownership, 2,209 ac (894 ha) of harvesting and removal, which has the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. State-owned lands, and 126 ac (51 ha) resulted in the expansion of larval and This subunit contains several of the of private lands. The Willamette Valley adult food resources in this habitat. essential physical or biological features Unit (Unit 4) totals 1,729 ac (700 ha) Threats to the physical or biological for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and is entirely composed of Federal features that are essential to the including native perennial bunchgrass lands. We are designating a total of conservation of this species and may plant communities with abundant larval 4,629 ac (1,873 ha) of critical habitat for warrant special management and adult food resources, landscape the streaked horned lark rangewide. considerations or protections include, heterogeneity, and bare soil for basking The streaked horned lark has been but are not limited to, the inadvertent and resting. documented nesting on all of the short-term negative impacts of Threats to the physical or biological subunits within the last few years, and restoration activities and control of features that are essential to the all subunits are therefore considered native and nonnative, woody species; conservation of this species and may occupied at the time of listing. All of the the use of herbicides that my impact warrant special management subunits currently have one or more of larval and adult nectar resources; considerations or protections include, the physical or biological features habitat modification brought on by but are not limited to, the inadvertent essential to the conservation of the succession of vegetation from lack of short-term negative impacts of streaked horned lark, and which may disturbance, at a small and large scale; restoration activities such as control of require special management disease affecting larval host plants; and native and nonnative, invasive, woody considerations or protection. the effects of climate change. The species and invasive Mediterranean The critical habitat areas described physical or biological features essential grasses through mechanical means and below constitute our best assessment of to the conservation of the species may with herbicide; habitat modification due areas that meet the definition of critical require special management to succession of vegetation in the habitat for the streaked horned lark. The considerations or protection to sustain absence of disturbance, at a small and approximate area and landownership of the open conditions that are needed to large scale; impacts of disease on larval each critical habitat unit and associated manage for and sustain the larval and food plants; and climate change. The subunit is shown in Table 2.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61528 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2—Critical Habitat Units for Streaked Horned Lark. NOTE: AREA SIZES MAY NOT SUM DUE TO ROUNDING. AREA ESTIMATES REFLECT ALL LAND WITHIN CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT BOUNDARIES

Unit 3: Washington Coast and Columbia River Federal State Private Tribal Other* Currently Islands occupied Subunit name Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Y/N

3–A ...... Damon Point ...... 0 456 (185) 24 (10) 0 0 Y 3–B ...... Midway Beach ...... 0 611 (247) 0 0 0 Y 3–C ...... Shoalwater Spit ...... 0 377 (152) 102 (41) 0 0 Y 3–D ...... Leadbetter Point ...... 564 (228) 101 (41) 0 0 0 Y 3–E ...... Rice Island ...... 0 224 (91) 0 0 0 Y 3–F ...... Miller Sands ...... 0 123 (50) 0 0 0 Y 3–G ...... Pillar Rock/Jim Crow ...... 0 44 (18) 0 0 0 Y 3–H ...... Welch Island ...... 0 43 (18) 0 0 0 Y 3–I ...... Tenasillahe Island ...... 0 23 (9) 0 0 0 Y 3–J ...... Whites/Brown ...... 0 98 (39) 0 0 0 Y 3–K ...... Wallace Island ...... 0 13 (5) 0 0 0 Y 3–L ...... Crims Island ...... 0 60 (24) 0 0 0 Y 3–M ...... Sandy Island ...... 0 37 (15) 0 0 0 Y

Unit 3 Totals ...... 564 (228) 2,209 (894) 126 (51) 0 0

Unit 4: Willamette Valley:

4–A ...... Baskett Slough NWR ...... 1,006 (407) 0 0 0 0 Y 4–B ...... Ankeny NWR ...... 264 (107) 0 0 0 0 Y 4–C ...... William L Finley NWR ...... 459 (186) 0 0 0 0 Y

Unit 4 Totals ...... 1,729 (700) 0 0 0 0 Y Grand Total—all Units ...... 2,293 (928) 2,209 (894) 126 (51) 0 0 ......

GRAND TOTAL OF ALL ...... 4,629 (1,873) ...... UNITS, ALL OWNERSHIP. * Other = Ports, local municipalities, and nonprofit conservation organizations.

Unit 3: Washington Coast and Columbia of 665 ac (269 ha). The island subunits threats that are common to all subunits, River—Streaked Horned Lark are owned by the States of Oregon and special management considerations or On the Washington coastal sites, the Washington. On the Columbia River protections may be required to address streaked horned lark occurs on sandy island sites, only a small portion of each direct or indirect habitat loss due to the beaches and breeds in the sparsely island is designated as critical habitat location and timing of dredge material vegetated, low dune habitats of the for the streaked horned lark; most of the placement to areas that have become upper beach. We are designating four areas mapped are used by the Corps for unsuitable for streaked horned lark subunits (Subunits 3–A, 3–B, 3–C, and dredge material deposition in its nesting and wintering habitat. 3–D) and a total of 2,235 ac (904 ha) as channel maintenance program. Within Subunit 3–A: Damon Point—(Grays critical habitat on the Washington coast. any deposition site, only a portion is Harbor County, Washington). This The coastal sites are owned and likely to be used by the streaked horned critical habitat subunit is about 481 ac managed by Federal, State, and private lark in any year, as the area of habitat (194 ha) in size; of this, 456 ac (185 ha) entities. The physical or biological shifts within the deposition site over are owned by the State, and 24 ac (10 features essential to the conservation of time as new materials are deposited and ha) are under private ownership. It the streaked horned lark may require as older deposition sites become too extends from the Ocean Shores special management considerations or heavily vegetated for use by streaked wastewater treatment plant on the protection to reduce human disturbance horned larks. All of the island subunits western edge through the Oyhut wildlife during the nesting season, and the are small, but are adjacent to open management unit and Damon Point spit continued encroachment of invasive, water, which provides the open (also called Protection Island). The vast nonnative plants requires special landscape context needed by streaked majority of this area (∼95 percent) is management to restore or retain the horned larks. managed by the State of Washington open habitat preferred by the streaked The main threats to the essential (WDFW, WDNR, and Washington State horned lark. Subunits 3–A, 3–B, 3–C, features in the critical habitat subunits Parks). This subunit is currently and 3–D overlap areas that are designated on the Columbia River occupied and provides the physical or designated as critical habitat for the islands are invasive vegetation and biological features essential to the western snowy plover. The snowy direct impacts associated with conservation of the subspecies. The site plover nesting areas are posted and deposition of dredge material onto has both the open landscape context monitored during the spring and streaked horned lark nests during the and sparse, low-growing vegetation that summer to keep recreational beach users nesting season. In all subunits, the make up the physical or biological away from the nesting areas; these physical or biological features essential features essential to the conservation of management actions also benefit the to the conservation of each subspecies the subspecies. Streaked horned larks streaked horned lark. may require special management currently nest and winter on Damon In the lower Columbia River, we are considerations or protection to manage, Point and have also been documented designating nine island subunits protect, and maintain the PCEs nesting along the beach just west of the (Subunits 3–E through 3–M) for a total supported by the subunits. For those treatment plant. The physical or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:09 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61529

biological features essential to the horned lark may require special Island. The physical or biological conservation of the streaked horned lark management considerations or features essential to the conservation of may require special management protection to reduce human disturbance the streaked horned lark may require considerations or protection to reduce during the nesting season and special management considerations or human disturbance during the nesting encroachment by invasive, nonnative protection to maintain the early seral season and encroachment by invasive, plants that render the habitat too dense vegetation required by the subspecies nonnative plants that render the habitat for use by streaked horned larks. and to minimize nest destruction and too dense for use by streaked horned Subunit 3–D: Leadbetter Point— disturbance during the breeding season. larks. (Pacific County, Washington). This Subunit 3–F: Miller Sands Spit— Subunit 3–B: Midway Beach—(Pacific subunit contains about 665 ac (269 ha) (Clatsop County, Oregon). Miller Sands County, Washington). This subunit is at the northern tip of the Long Beach Spit is across the shipping channel from about 611 ac (247 ha) in size. The Peninsula. This subunit is on the Rice Island at RM 24. The subunit is a northern edge of the subunit starts at Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and sand spit 2 mi (1.2 km) long and about Grayland Beach State Park and extends the Seashore Conservation Area 123 ac (50 ha) in size on the northern south to the Warrenton Cannery road. (managed by Washington State). This shore of the island. The subunit is The landward extent is defined by the site is occupied and provides the currently occupied and provides the vegetation and ownership line in the physical or biological features essential physical or biological features essential mid-dune area. This site is owned by to the conservation of the subspecies. to the conservation of the subspecies for the State of Washington (Washington Most of the streaked horned larks at this nesting and wintering habitat. The State Parks and Recreation Department). site nest within the habitat restoration island is owned by the Oregon This subunit is currently occupied and area and in ponded swales landward of Department of State Lands, but is also provides the physical or biological the restoration area that go dry in the within the planning unit boundary for features essential to the conservation of summer (Ritchie 2012, pers. comm.). the Julia Butler Hansen National the subspecies. Both open landscape The site has the open landscape context Wildlife Refuge. The Corps uses this site context and the sparse, low-growing and sparse, low-growing vegetation that for dredge material disposal as part of vegetation that make up the physical or make up the physical or biological its maintenance of the Columbia River biological features essential to the features essential to the conservation of shipping channel. The physical or conservation of the subspecies are the subspecies. The Willapa National biological features essential to the present at the site, and Midway Beach Wildlife Refuge completed its conservation of the streaked horned lark is used by streaked horned larks for both comprehensive conservation plan in may require special management nesting and wintering. The physical or August 2011, and manages habitat at the considerations or protection to maintain biological features essential to the tip of Leadbetter Spit for the western the early seral vegetation required by conservation of the streaked horned lark snowy plover, streaked horned lark, and the subspecies and to minimize nest may require special management other native coastal species. These destruction and disturbance during the considerations or protection to reduce management activities are compatible breeding season. human disturbance during the nesting with streaked horned lark conservation. Subunit 3–G: Pillar Rock/Jim Crow season and encroachment by invasive, As with the other coastal sites, Sands—(Clatsop County, Oregon). This nonnative plants that render the habitat Leadbetter is used by streaked horned island is located at about RM 27 on the too dense for use by streaked horned larks year-round. The physical or Columbia River. The subunit is about 44 larks. biological features essential to the ac (18 ha) in size. Pillar Rock is Subunit 3–C: Shoalwater/Graveyard conservation of the streaked horned lark currently occupied and provides the Spit—(Pacific County, Washington). may require special management physical or biological features essential This subunit is about 479 ac (194 ha); considerations or protection to maintain to the conservation of the subspecies. of this, 377 ac (152 ha) are owned by the the early seral vegetation required by Streaked horned larks nest and winter at State, and 102 ac (41 ha) are under the subspecies and to minimize nest the site. The island is owned by the private ownership. The central portion destruction and disturbance during the Oregon Department of State Lands and of the subunit (182 ac; 74 ha) is within breeding season. is within the planning unit boundary for the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation Subunit 3–E: Rice Island—(Clatsop the Julia Butler Hansen National and has been excluded under section County, Oregon, and Wahkiakum Wildlife Refuge. The Corps uses this site 4(b)(2) (see Exclusions), dividing the County, Washington). This subunit is for dredge material disposal as part of subunit into northwest and southeast about 224 ac (91 ha) in size. The island its maintenance of the Columbia River sections. Streaked horned larks have is located at river mile (RM) 21, shipping channel. The physical or been documented off and on at this site approximately 7 mi (11 km) upstream of biological features essential to the during the breeding season since 2000. the Astoria-Megler Bridge near the conservation of the streaked horned lark Although the site has been unoccupied mouth of the Columbia River. Although may require special management for the past couple of years, singing the island is within the planning considerations or protection to maintain male streaked horned larks were boundary of the Julia Butler Hansen the early seral vegetation required by documented at this site during surveys National Wildlife Refuge, Rice Island is the subspecies and to minimize nest in June 2012; therefore, we consider this owned by the Oregon Department of destruction and disturbance during the site to be currently occupied. As with State Lands. A very small portion of the breeding season. the other areas along the Washington subunit is in Wahkiakum County and on Subunit 3–H: Welch Island—(Clatsop coast, streaked horned larks use this site Washington State lands. The Corps uses County, Oregon). This island is at RM for both nesting and wintering. The this site for dredge material disposal as 34 and is owned by the Oregon subunit is a dynamic area and has a part of its maintenance of the Columbia Department of State Lands. The critical constantly changing sand spit that River shipping channel. This subunit is habitat subunit is about 43 ac (18 ha) on supports the essential features for occupied and provides the features the northeastern shore of the island. nesting and wintering habitat. The essential to the conservation of the This site is currently occupied and physical or biological features essential subspecies. Streaked horned larks provides the physical or biological to the conservation of the streaked currently nest and winter on Rice features essential to the conservation of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61530 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

the subspecies. The Corps uses this site material disposal site. This subunit management considerations or for dredge material disposal as part of currently contains the physical or protection. These subunits are managed its maintenance of the Columbia River biological features essential to the mainly to provide forage for wintering shipping channel. The physical or conservation of the species, but may dusky Canada geese, and this biological features essential to the require special management to maintain management is compatible with conservation of the streaked horned lark the low vegetative structure required by maintaining the essential features for may require special management streaked horned larks. the streaked horned lark. The refuge considerations or protection to maintain Subunit 3–L: Crims Island— complex has incorporated management the early seral vegetation required by (Columbia County, Oregon). This island for streaked horned lark into its recently the subspecies and to minimize nest is located upstream of Wallace Island at completed comprehensive conservation destruction and disturbance during the RM 57. The subunit is about 60 ac (24 plan, and streaked horned lark habitat breeding season. ha) in size. The subunit is currently conservation is being implemented in Subunit 3–I: Tenasillahe Island— occupied and provides the physical or the refuge units. (Columbia County, Oregon). This island biological features essential to the Subunit 4–A: Baskett Slough National is at RM 38; the subunit is on a small conservation of the subspecies. The area Wildlife Refuge—(Polk County, Oregon). unnamed spit at the southern tip of is owned by the Oregon Department of There are two parts to this critical Tenasillahee Island. The subunit is State Lands, but is also within the habitat subunit, the area of which totals about 23 ac (9 ha) in size. This site is planning unit boundary for the Julia 1,006 ac (407 ha). Subunit 4–A North is currently occupied and provides the Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuge. 181 ac (73 ha) and is in the North physical or biological features essential Crims Island is an approved Corps Morgan Reservoir area of the refuge. to the conservation of the subspecies. dredge material disposal site. The Subunit 4–A South is 825 ac (334 ha) The site is owned by the Oregon physical or biological features essential and is the South Baskett Slough Department of State Lands. The Corps to the conservation of the streaked Agricultural area of the refuge; State uses this site for dredge material horned lark may require special Route 22 forms the southeast boundary disposal as part of its maintenance of management considerations or of the south subunit. Both of the the Columbia River shipping channel. protection to maintain the early seral subunits are agricultural fields that are The physical or biological features vegetation required by the subspecies heavily grazed by dusky Canada geese essential to the conservation of the and to minimize nest destruction and in the winter. This subunit is currently streaked horned lark may require disturbance during the breeding season. occupied and contains the physical or special management considerations or Subunit 3–M: Sandy Island— biological features essential to the protection to maintain the early seral (Columbia County, Oregon). This island, conservation of the subspecies. Baskett vegetation required by the subspecies at RM 76, is the island farthest upstream Slough National Wildlife Refuge has and to minimize nest destruction and that is known to be used by streaked large areas of agricultural lands and disturbance during the breeding season. horned lark for nesting. The subunit is restored native prairies, which provide Subunit 3–J: Whites/Brown Island— about 37 ac (15 ha) in size on the the landscape context and vegetation (Wahkiakum County, Washington). southern end of Sandy Island and is structure required by streaked horned Whites/Brown Island is connected to owned by the Oregon Department of larks. The refuge manages primarily for the southern end of Puget Island at RM State Lands. This subunit is currently wintering dusky Canada geese, which 46 and is owned by WDFW. The subunit occupied and provides the physical or also provides suitable management for is a small spit at the southern end of biological features essential to the streaked horned larks. This subunit is Whites/Brown Island and is about 98 ac conservation of the subspecies. The consistently used by streaked horned (39 ha) in size. The site is used by the Corps uses this site for dredge material larks in the breeding season. The Corps for dredge material disposal as disposal as part of its maintenance of physical or biological features essential part of its maintenance of the Columbia the Columbia River shipping channel. to the conservation of the streaked River shipping channel. This site is The physical or biological features horned lark may require special currently occupied and provides the essential to the conservation of the management considerations or physical or biological features essential streaked horned lark may require protection to maintain the early seral to the conservation of the subspecies. special management considerations or vegetation required by the subspecies Whites/Brown Island supports one of protection to maintain the early seral and to minimize nest destruction and the largest populations of streaked vegetation required by the subspecies disturbance during the breeding season. horned larks in the lower Columbia and to minimize nest destruction and Subunit 4–B: Ankeny National River islands. The physical or biological disturbance during the breeding season. Wildlife Refuge—(Marion County, features essential to the conservation of Oregon). This site is in the middle of the Unit 4: Willamette Valley—Streaked the streaked horned lark may require Ankeny Refuge, in the Field 6 Complex; special management considerations or Horned Lark the northeast boundary of the subunit is protection to maintain the early seral Unit 4 (Willamette Valley) includes formed by the Sydney Ditch. The vegetation required by the subspecies critical habitat subunits for both the critical habitat subunit is 264 ac (107 and to minimize nest destruction and Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and ha). The site is composed of agricultural disturbance during the breeding season. streaked horned lark, all in the State of fields that are heavily grazed by dusky Subunit 3–K: Wallace Island— Oregon. We are designating three Canada geese in the winter. The subunit (Columbia County, Oregon). Wallace subunits for the streaked horned lark in is currently occupied and has consistent Island is located across the channel the Willamette Valley, all on the use by streaked horned larks in the from Whites/Brown Island at RM 47. Willamette Valley National Wildlife breeding season. This subunit contains Streaked horned larks were detected at Refuge Complex. The total acreage is all of the physical or biological features the site in 2012, which is about 13 ac 1,729 ac (700 ha). All of the subunits are essential to the conservation of the (5 ha) in size; therefore we consider the occupied at the time of listing and subspecies. Ankeny National Wildlife subunit presently occupied. The area is contain the physical or biological Refuge has both agricultural lands and owned by the Oregon Department of features essential to the conservation of restored native prairies, which provide State Lands. This site is not a dredge the subspecies that may require special the landscape context and vegetation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61531

structure required by streaked horned destruction or adverse modification of and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR larks. The refuge manages primarily for proposed critical habitat. 402.02) as alternative actions identified wintering dusky Canada geese, which Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit during consultation that: also provides suitable management for Courts of Appeals have invalidated our (1) Can be implemented in a manner streaked horned larks. The physical or regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or consistent with the intended purpose of biological features essential to the adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) the action, conservation of the streaked horned lark (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. (2) Can be implemented consistent may require special management Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d with the scope of the Federal agency’s considerations or protection to maintain 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. legal authority and jurisdiction, the early seral vegetation required by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 (3) Are economically and the subspecies and to minimize nest F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we technologically feasible, and destruction and disturbance during the do not rely on this regulatory definition (4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, breeding season. when analyzing whether an action is avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the likely to destroy or adversely modify continued existence of the listed species Subunit 4–C: William L. Finley critical habitat. Under the statutory and/or avoid the likelihood of National Wildlife Refuge—(Benton provisions of the Act, we determine destroying or adversely modifying County, Oregon). This critical habitat destruction or adverse modification on critical habitat. subunit is on Fields 11 and 12 in the the basis of whether, with Reasonable and prudent alternatives South Finley Agricultural Lands area of implementation of the proposed Federal can vary from slight project the refuge; Bruce Road bisects the action, the affected critical habitat modifications to extensive redesign or subunit, and McFarland Road forms the would continue to serve its intended relocation of the project. Costs southern boundary of the site. The conservation role for the species. associated with implementing a subunit is 459 ac (186 ha) in size. This If a Federal action may affect a listed reasonable and prudent alternative are subunit is currently occupied and species or its critical habitat, the similarly variable. contains the physical or biological responsible Federal agency (action Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require features essential to the conservation of agency) must enter into consultation Federal agencies to reinitiate the subspecies. The site is composed of with us. Examples of actions that are consultation on previously reviewed agricultural fields that are heavily subject to the section 7 consultation actions in instances where we have grazed by dusky Canada geese in the process are actions on State, tribal, listed a new species or subsequently winter, and it has consistent use by local, or private lands that require a designated critical habitat that may be streaked horned larks in the breeding Federal permit (such as a permit from affected and the Federal agency has season; streaked horned larks also the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under retained discretionary involvement or winter at the refuge. Finley National section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 control over the action (or the agency’s Wildlife Refuge has large areas of U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the discretionary involvement or control is agricultural lands and restored native Service under section 10 of the Act) or authorized by law). Consequently, prairies, which provide the landscape that involve some other Federal action Federal agencies sometimes may need to context and vegetation structure (such as funding from the Federal request reinitiation of consultation with required by streaked horned larks. The Highway Administration, Federal us on actions for which formal refuge manages primarily for wintering Aviation Administration, or the Federal consultation has been completed, if dusky Canada geese, which also Emergency Management Agency). those actions with discretionary provides suitable management for Federal actions not affecting listed involvement or control may affect streaked horned larks. The physical or species or critical habitat, and actions subsequently listed species or biological features essential to the on State, tribal, local, or private lands designated critical habitat. conservation of the streaked horned lark that are not federally funded or may require special management Application of the ‘‘Adverse authorized, do not require section 7 Modification’’ Standard considerations or protection to maintain consultation. the early seral vegetation required by As a result of section 7 consultation, The key factor related to the adverse the subspecies and to minimize nest we document compliance with the modification determination is whether, destruction and disturbance during the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through with implementation of the proposed breeding season. our issuance of: Federal action, the affected critical (1) A concurrence letter for Federal habitat would continue to serve its Effects of Critical Habitat Designation actions that may affect, but are not intended conservation role for the Section 7 Consultation likely to adversely affect, listed species species. Activities that may destroy or or critical habitat; or adversely modify critical habitat are Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires (2) A biological opinion for Federal those that alter the physical or Federal agencies, including the Service, actions that may affect and are likely to biological features to an extent that to ensure that any action they fund, adversely affect, listed species or critical appreciably reduces the conservation authorize, or carry out is not likely to habitat. value of critical habitat for the Taylor’s jeopardize the continued existence of When we issue a biological opinion checkerspot butterfly or the streaked any endangered species or threatened concluding that a project is likely to horned lark. As discussed above, the species or result in the destruction or jeopardize the continued existence of a role of critical habitat is to support life- adverse modification of designated listed species and/or destroy or history needs of the species and provide critical habitat of such species. In adversely modify critical habitat, we for the conservation of the species. addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act provide reasonable and prudent Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us requires Federal agencies to confer with alternatives to the project, if any are to briefly evaluate and describe, in any the Service on any agency action which identifiable, that would avoid the proposed or final regulation that is likely to jeopardize the continued likelihood of jeopardy and/or designates critical habitat, activities existence of any species proposed to be destruction or adverse modification of involving a Federal action that may listed under the Act or result in the critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable destroy or adversely modify such

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61532 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

habitat, or that may be affected by such (1) An assessment of the ecological managed the prairies located on the base designation. needs on the installation, including the according to their Prairie Management Activities that may affect critical need to provide for the conservation of Plan, which was collaboratively habitat, when carried out, funded, or listed species; prepared by Robert Altman of the authorized by a Federal agency, should (2) A statement of goals and priorities; American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the result in consultation for the Taylor’s (3) A detailed description of Environmental and Natural Resources checkerspot butterfly or streaked horned management actions to be implemented Division of JBLM’s Wildlife Branch, and lark. These activities include, but are to provide for these ecological needs; The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of not limited to: and Washington. The prairies found on (1) Actions that restore, alter, or (4) A monitoring and adaptive JBLM are currently managed by JBLM’s degrade habitat features through management plan. Fish and Wildlife Program and the development, agricultural activities, Among other things, each INRMP primary mission for the JBLM prairies is burning, mowing, herbicide use or other must, to the extent appropriate and to provide an open environment for means in suitable habitat for the applicable, provide for fish and wildlife military training. JBLM has a history of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or the management; fish and wildlife habitat applying an ecosystem management streaked horned lark. enhancement or modification; wetland strategy to their prairies to provide for (2) Actions that would alter the protection, enhancement, and multiple conservation goals, which have physical or biological features of critical restoration where necessary to support included promoting native biological habitat including modification of the fish and wildlife; and enforcement of diversity, maintaining and restoring composition and structure of vegetation applicable natural resource laws. unique plant communities, and in suitable habitat for the Taylor’s The National Defense Authorization providing habitat for several rare prairie checkerspot butterfly or the streaked Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– species. There are 2,324 ac (941 ha) of horned lark. Such activities could 136) amended the Act to limit areas lands within the boundary of JBLM that include, but are not limited to, eligible for designation as critical were identified in the proposed critical construction, grading or other habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) habitat designation for the Taylor’s development, mowing, conversion of of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) checkerspot butterfly; these lands habitat, or use of herbicides to remove now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not included all of subunits 1–A, 1–B, 1–C, vegetation (recreational use, off-road designate as critical habitat any lands or and 1–E in the proposed rule (77 FR vehicles on Federal, State, private, or other geographical areas owned or 61937; October 11, 2012). JBLM has the Tribal lands). These activities may affect controlled by the Department of largest naturally occurring population of the physical or biological features of Defense, or designated for its use, that the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly critical habitat for the Taylor’s are subject to an integrated natural anywhere in its range. This significant checkerspot butterfly and streaked resources management plan prepared Federal landholding provides the largest horned lark, by removing sources of under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 contiguous block of prairie in food, shelter, nesting or oviposition U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines Washington as well. sites, or otherwise impacting habitat in writing that such plan provides a JBLM has an INRMP in place that was essential for completion of life history. benefit to the species for which critical approved in 2006, which JBLM is in the (3) Actions that would reduce the habitat is proposed for designation.’’ process of updating. In 2012, JBLM We consult with the military on the open landscape context required by the amended their existing INRMP with development and implementation of streaked horned lark, such as specific regard to the Taylor’s INRMPs for installations with listed construction of buildings or planting tall checkerspot butterfly by completing an species. We analyzed INRMPs trees adjacent to a suitable site. ESMP that includes guidelines for developed by military installations (4) Deposition of dredge materials on protecting, maintaining, and enhancing located within the range of the critical occupied streaked horned lark habitats habitat essential to support the Taylor’s habitat designation for the Taylor’s during the breeding season. checkerspot butterfly on JBLM. The (5) Installation of shoreline checkerspot butterfly and streaked Service has found, in writing, that the stabilization structures or modification horned lark to determine if they meet ESMP under the JBLM INRMP provides of beaches and open shorelines where the criteria for exemption from critical a conservation benefit to the Taylor’s occupied by the streaked horned lark or habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. checkerspot butterfly. JBLM’s ESMPs identify management where critical habitat occurs for the The following areas are Department of objectives for the conservation of streaked horned lark. Defense lands with completed, Service- approved INRMPs within the critical Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and Exemptions habitat designation. streaked horned lark. For the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, the ESMP Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act Approved INRMPs specifically includes nine proposed The Sikes Act Improvement Act of U.S. Army Joint Base Lewis- ‘‘priority habitat’’ focus areas on JBLM 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) McChord—JBLM, formerly known as for management of the Taylor’s required each military installation that Fort Lewis, is an 86,500-ac (35,000-ha) checkerspot butterfly and its associated includes land and water suitable for the U.S. Army military reservation in habitat. The management objective is to conservation and management of western Washington, south of Tacoma improve the populations of Taylor’s natural resources to complete an and east of the Puget Sound. JBLM checkerspot butterflies both on and off integrated natural resources contains some of the largest remaining JBLM. JBLM’s Fish and Wildlife management plan (INRMP) by intact prairies in the south Puget Sound Program proposes several management November 17, 2001. An INRMP basin, with approximately 20,352 ac objectives to attain this goal: (1) They integrates implementation of the (8,236 ha) of prairies, one of the rarest will coordinate with the Service and military mission of the installation with ecosystems in the United States, which WDFW on increasing the number of stewardship of the natural resources also supports both the Taylor’s populations and expand their found on the base. Each INRMP checkerspot butterfly and streaked distribution on and off the base; (2) the includes: horned lark. Since 2003, JBLM has JBLM Fish and Wildlife Program will

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61533

monitor occupied Taylor’s checkerspot identified in the proposed critical these areas; and (4) evaluating the butterfly populations to detect habitat habitat designation for the streaked efficacy of their ESMP, and adapt their degradation, weather, and climate horned lark; these lands included all of management if required. As described factors that influence populations subunits 1–B, 1–C, 1–D, and 1–E in the above, JBLM maintains and restores the dynamics; and (3) they will evaluate the proposed rule (77 FR 61937; October 11, prairie areas on base, including areas efficacy of their ESMP, and adapt their 2012). The ESMP for the streaked used by the streaked horned lark. The management if required. JBLM has also horned lark identifies management Service has found, in writing, that the committed to restore and sustain objectives that are applied in specific ESMP under the JBLM INRMP provides priority habitat areas through a number locations on JBLM where this a conservation benefit to the streaked of management efforts. This will be subspecies nests, including McChord horned lark. accomplished by controlling invasive, Airfield, Gray Army Airfield, 13th Based on the above considerations, nonnative plant species and Division Prairie (Training Area 14), and and in accordance with section encroaching conifers, and as land is the eastern portion of the 91st Division 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have cleared they will replant with the larval Prairie. The management objectives that determined that the identified host and adult nectar plants for Taylor’s are applied for the protection of Department of Defense lands are subject checkerspot butterfly. Restoration streaked horned larks include: (1) to the JBLM INRMP and that actions to enhance and maintain Scheduled mowing regimes to minimize conservation efforts identified in the suitable habitat conditions includes impacts to streaked horned lark at the ESMPs under the INRMP will provide a ecological prescribed burning, mowing, military airfields during the nesting conservation benefit to the Taylor’s application of herbicides where needed, season. The mowing restrictions are checkerspot butterfly and streaked girdling of encroaching conifers, manual done in coordination with the FAA to horned lark. Therefore, lands within removal, and biological control using meet airport safety requirements for this installation are exempt from critical integrated pest management. Another vegetation management; (2) limiting off- habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) objective is to purchase lands off JBLM road vehicle use in areas where streaked of the Act. We are not including for the express purpose of managing the horned larks are nesting; (3) annual approximately 2,324 ac (941 ha) of locations for Taylor’s checkerspot surveys for streaked horned larks in habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat and translocation. To coordination with the CNLM and the butterfly and 2,813 ac (1,138 ha) for the date, over 4,000 ac (1,620 ha) have been WDFW at all of the known occupied streaked horned lark in this final critical acquired using Area Compatible Use sites. Protection buffers will be applied habitat designation because of this Buffer (ACUB) program funding. around the nesting areas at 13th exemption. The lands exempted under There are 2,813 ac (1,138 ha) of lands Division Prairie and all training section 4(a)(3) are identified in Tables 3 within the boundary of JBLM that were activities will be seasonally restricted in and 4.

TABLE 3—AREAS EXEMPTED FROM THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY UNDER SECTION 4(a)(3) OF THE ACT BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT

Areas meeting the defi- Unit Specific area nition of critical habitat in Areas exempted in acres (hectares) acres (hectares)

1 ...... TA7S ...... 78 (32) 78 (32) 1 ...... 91st Division Prairie ...... 1,377 (557) 1,377 (557) 1 ...... 13th Division Prairie ...... 647 (262) 647 (262) 1 ...... Tenalquot Prairie ...... 222 (90) 222 (90)

Total ...... 2,324 (941) 2,324 (941)

TABLE 4—AREAS EXEMPTED FROM THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE STREAKED HORNED LARK UNDER SECTION 4(a)(3) OF THE ACT BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT

Areas meeting the defi- Unit Specific area nition of critical habitat in Areas exempted in acres (hectares) acres (hectares)

1 ...... McChord Airforce Base ...... 759 (307) 759 (307) 1 ...... Gray Army Airfield ...... 347 (140) 347 (140) 1 ...... 91st Division Prairie ...... 888 (359) 888 (359) 1 ...... 13th Division Prairie ...... 819 (331) 819 (331)

Total ...... 2,813 (1,138) 2,813 (1,138)

Exclusions impact, national security impact, and determines, based on the best scientific any other relevant impact of specifying data available, that the failure to Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act any particular area as critical habitat. designate such area as critical habitat Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that The Secretary may exclude an area from will result in the extinction of the the Secretary shall designate and make critical habitat if s/he determines that species. In making that determination, revisions to critical habitat on the basis the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the statute on its face, as well as the of the best available scientific data after the benefits of specifying such area as legislative history, are clear that the taking into consideration the economic part of the critical habitat, unless s/he Secretary has broad discretion regarding

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61534 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

which factor(s) to use and how much conservation than a critical habitat evaluate whether the benefits of weight to give to any factor. designation would provide. exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. In considering whether to exclude a In the case of the Taylor’s checkerspot If our analysis indicates that the benefits particular area from the designation, we butterfly and streaked horned lark, the of exclusion outweigh the benefits of identify the benefits of including the benefits of critical habitat include inclusion, we then determine whether area in the designation, identify the public awareness of the presence of exclusion would result in extinction. If benefits of excluding the area from the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies and exclusion of an area from critical habitat designation, and evaluate whether the streaked horned larks and the will result in extinction, we will not benefits of exclusion outweigh the importance of habitat protection, and, in exclude it from the designation. benefits of inclusion. If the analysis cases where a Federal nexus exists, Based on the information provided by indicates that the benefits of exclusion increased habitat protection for these entities seeking exclusion, as well as outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the species due to the protection from any additional public comments Secretary may exercise her discretion to adverse modification or destruction of received and information in our files, exclude the area only if such exclusion critical habitat. we evaluated whether certain lands in would not result in the extinction of the When we evaluate the existence of a the proposed critical habitat were species. conservation or management plan when appropriate for exclusion from this final considering the benefits of exclusion, designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) When identifying the benefits of we consider a variety of factors, of the Act. We considered the areas inclusion for an area, we consider the including but not limited to, whether discussed below for exclusion under additional regulatory benefits that area the plan is finalized; how it provides for section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and present would receive from the protection from the conservation of the essential our detailed analysis below. For those adverse modification or destruction as a physical or biological features; whether areas in which the Secretary has result of actions with a Federal nexus; there is a reasonable expectation that exercised her discretion to exclude, we the educational benefits of mapping the conservation management strategies conclude that: essential habitat for recovery of the and actions contained in a management (1) Their value for conservation will listed species; and any benefits that may plan will be implemented into the be preserved in the near future by result from a designation due to State or future; whether the conservation existing protective actions; or Federal laws that may apply to critical strategies in the plan are likely to be (2) The benefits of excluding the habitat. effective; and whether the plan contains particular area outweigh the benefits of When identifying the benefits of a monitoring program or adaptive their inclusion, based on the ‘‘other exclusion, we consider, among other management to ensure that the relevant factor’’ provisions of section things, whether exclusion of a specific conservation measures are effective and 4(b)(2) of the Act. area is likely to result in conservation; can be adapted in the future in response the continuation, strengthening, or to new information. Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly encouragement of partnerships; or After identifying the benefits of Table 5 shows the areas we are implementation of a management plan inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, excluding from critical habitat for the that provides equal to or more we carefully weigh the two sides to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.

TABLE 5—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OF THE ACT BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT

Areas meeting the definition of critical Areas excluded Unit Specific area habitat in in acres acres (hectares) (hectares)

1 ...... Rocky Prairie NAP ...... 38 (16) 38 (16) 1 ...... Mima Mounds NAP ...... 406 (164) 406 (164) 1 ...... Scatter Creek ...... 731 (296) 731 (296) 1 ...... Rock Prairie ...... 621 (251) 378 (153) 1 ...... Bald Hill ...... 422 (171) 247 (100) 1 ...... West Rocky Prairie ...... 134 (54) 134 (54) 2 ...... Elwha ...... 235 (95) 143 (58) 4 ...... Fort Hoskins ...... 6 (3) 6 (3) 4 ...... Beazell Memorial Forest ...... 61 (25) 61 (25) 4 ...... Fitton Green—Cardwell Hill ...... 59 (24) 40 (16)

Total ...... 2,713 (1,098) 2,184 (885)

Streaked Horned Lark Table 6 shows the areas we are excluding from critical habitat for the streaked horned lark.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61535

TABLE 6—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE STREAKED HORNED LARK UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OF THE ACT BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT

Areas meeting the definition Areas excluded Unit Specific area of critical in acres habitat in acres (hectares) (hectares)

1 ...... Sanderson Field ...... 376 (152) 376 (152) 1 ...... Olympia Airport ...... 575 (233) 575 (233) 3 ...... Shoalwater Spit ...... 661 (267) 182 (74) 3 ...... Portland International Airport ...... 431 (174) 431 (174) 4 ...... McMinnville Municipal Airport ...... 600 (243) 600 (243) 4 ...... Salem Municipal Airport ...... 534 (216) 534 (216) 4 ...... Corvallis Municipal Airport ...... 1,103 (446) 1,103 (446) 4 ...... Eugene Airport ...... 313 (126) 313 (126)

Total ...... 4,593 (1,857) 4,114 (1,664)

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts costs are those attributable solely to the taxa: Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we designation of critical habitat above and streaked horned lark, as well as four consider the economic impacts of beyond the baseline costs; these are the subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher specifying any particular area as critical costs we consider in the final (the Roy Prairie, Olympia, Tenino, and habitat. In order to consider economic designation of critical habitat. Yelm pocket gophers). The Mazama impacts, we prepared an economic The FEA also addresses how potential pocket gopher subspecies are addressed analysis of the proposed critical habitat economic impacts are likely to be in separate rulemakings. All estimates designation and related factors (April 3, distributed, including an assessment of in the FEA are for all six taxa; therefore, 2013; 78 FR 20074). This economic any local or regional impacts of habitat estimates for individual taxa are less analysis addressed a total of six prairie conservation and the potential effects of than the totals estimated in the FEA and taxa proposed for listing under the Act. conservation activities on government summarized here. agencies, private businesses, and In addition to the Taylor’s checkerspot The total present value impact butterfly and streaked horned lark, the individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with anticipated to result from the economic analysis included four designation of all areas proposed as subspecies of the Mazama pocket residential and commercial development and public projects and critical habitat for the Taylor’s gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.). The checkerspot butterfly, streaked horned Mazama pocket gophers are being activities, such as economic impacts on water management and transportation lark, and the four subspecies of Mazama addressed in separate rulemakings. pocket gophers is $800,000 over the The intent of the final economic projects, Federal lands, small entities, next 20 years, assuming a 7 percent analysis (FEA) (IEc 2013) is to quantify and the energy industry. Decision- discount rate, or $70,000 on an the economic impacts of all potential makers can use this information to annualized basis. The greatest conservation efforts for the six prairie assess whether the effects of the incremental impacts of critical habitat taxa, including the Taylor’s checkerspot designation might unduly burden a apply to airports and agricultural butterfly and streaked horned lark; some particular group or economic sector. of these costs will likely be incurred The FEA considers those costs that may activities at $600,000 over the next 20 regardless of whether we designate occur in the 20 years following the years, followed by recreation and critical habitat (we consider such costs designation of critical habitat, which habitat management at $100,000, to be ‘‘baseline’’ costs). The economic was determined to be the appropriate military activities at $55,000, impact of the final critical habitat period for analysis because limited transportation at $34,000, and electricity designation is analyzed by comparing planning information was available for distribution and forestry activities at scenarios both ‘‘with critical habitat’’ most activities to reasonably forecast $9,300 (present values over 20 years and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ The activity levels for projects beyond a 20- assuming a 7 percent discount rate). For ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario year timeframe. The FEA quantifies the the most part, the incremental impacts represents the baseline for the analysis, economic impacts of Taylor’s of the critical habitat designation are considering protections already in place checkerspot butterfly, streaked horned limited to the additional administrative for the species (e.g., under the Federal lark, and Mazama pocket gopher costs of consultations within occupied listing and other Federal, State, and conservation efforts associated with the areas. In addition, some incremental local regulations). The baseline, following categories of activity: military project modifications may occur on therefore, represents the costs incurred activities; recreation and habitat unoccupied subunits for the Taylor’s regardless of whether critical habitat is management; airports and agricultural checkerspot butterfly on JBLM; these designated. The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ activities; transportation; electricity costs are expected to be relatively small. scenario describes the incremental distribution and forestry activities; and Of the total costs, the analysis estimates impacts associated specifically with the dredging and other activities, including that approximately 51 percent will be designation of critical habitat for the private gravel mining operations and incurred by the Service, 31 percent by species. The incremental conservation development. Federal action agencies, and 18 percent efforts and associated impacts are those As noted above, the FEA identifies by third parties. The impacts estimated not expected to occur absent the and analyzes the potential economic in the FEA apply to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the impacts associated with critical habitat critical habitat in its entirety, and do not species. In other words, the incremental designations proposed for six prairie reflect final exclusions or exemptions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61536 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

We have not excluded any areas from (2) There is a reasonable expectation The HCP addresses multiple species the final designation of critical habitat that the conservation management through a combination of strategies. The based on economic impacts. A copy of strategies and actions will be HCP includes a series of NAPs and the FEA with supporting documents implemented for the foreseeable future, Natural Resource Conservation Areas may be obtained by contacting the based on past practices, written (NRCAs), including Rocky Prairie NAP, Service’s Washington Fish and Wildlife guidance, or regulations; and Mima Mounds NAP, and Bald Hill NAP. Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION (3) The plan provides conservation These preserves are managed consistent CONTACT) or by downloading from strategies and measures consistent with with the Natural Areas Preserve Act, http://www.regulations.gov at docket currently accepted principles of forever protecting the highest quality number FWS–R1–ES–2013–0009. conservation biology. examples of native ecosystems and rare We find that the Rocky Prairie, Mima plant and animal species, in addition to Exclusions Based on National Security Mounds, and Bald Hill Natural Area other natural features of State, regional Impacts Preserves (NAPs), as well as WDNR- or national significance. These preserves In preparing this final rule, we have owned parcels on Dan Kelly Ridge and are used for education, scientific exempted from the designation of in Eden Valley (all of which are covered research, and to maintain Washington’s critical habitat those DOD lands with under the WDNR State Trust Lands native biological diversity. This network completed INRMPS that have been HCP); the WDFW Scatter Creek Wildlife of preserves includes nearly 31,000 ac determined to provide a benefit to the Area Management Plan (which also (12,550 ha) throughout the State, which Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and covers the adjacent private land); the range in size from 8 ac (3.2 ha) to 3,500 streaked horned lark. We have WDFW West Rocky Prairie Wildlife ac (1,416 ha). Management plans are subsequently determined that the Area Management Plan; the Merrill and developed for each NAP, which guide remaining lands within the designation Ring Voluntary Habitat Conservation the actions necessary to protect each of critical habitat for the Taylor’s Plan; the NRCS Colvin Ranch Grassland area’s natural features, including checkerspot butterfly and streaked Reserve Program Management Plan; and research, monitoring, restoration, and horned lark are not owned or managed the Benton County Prairie Species HCP, other active management. In addition, by the Department of Defense; therefore all fulfill the above criteria. We are there are approximately 132 ac (23 ha) we anticipate no impact on national excluding these non-Federal lands in the Elwha drainage at Dan Kelly security. Consequently, the Secretary is covered by these plans because the Ridge and Eden Valley that are also plans adequately provide for the long- not exercising her discretion to exclude owned by WDNR and managed for term conservation of the Taylor’s any areas from this final designation Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly under a checkerspot butterfly and the Secretary based on impacts on national security. separate plan. WDNR actively manages has determined that the benefits of these three NAPs and the two additional Exclusions Based on Other Relevant excluding such areas outweigh the sites (Dan Kelly and Eden Valley) to Impacts benefits of including them in critical maintain high-quality prairie and bald habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we As a result of considering other habitats. All of these locations contain consider any other relevant impacts, in relevant impacts, we have additionally many of the essential physical or addition to economic impacts and excluded non-Federal airports from biological features to support the impacts on national security. We final critical habitat for the streaked Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Although consider a number of factors, including horned lark, based upon the Secretary’s these sites are not currently occupied by whether the landowners have developed determination that the benefit of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, they any HCPs or other species specific excluding such areas outweighs the have the potential to serve as the site of management plans for the area that benefit of including them in critical future translocations to re-establish the would benefit the Taylor’s checkerspot habitat, as described below. subspecies. butterfly or streaked horned lark, or The NAP properties at Rocky Prairie, whether there are conservation Washington Department of Natural Mima Mounds, and Bald Hill, and the partnerships that would be encouraged Resources State Trust Lands HCP sites at Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden by designation of, or exclusion from, The WDNR State Trust Lands HCP Valley (these last two are managed critical habitat. In addition, we look at covers approximately 1.7 million under a single plan), each have species- any tribal issues, and consider the (730,000 ha) of State lands in specific management plans that provide government-to-government relationship Washington. The permit associated with for the conservation of the Taylor’s of the United States with tribal entities. this HCP, issued January 30, 1997, was checkerspot butterfly, and these sites We also consider any social impacts that announced in the Federal Register on have been managed for the conservation might occur because of the designation. April 5, 1996 (61 FR 15297), has a term of prairie species, including Taylor’s Land and Resource Management Plans, of 70 to 100 years, and covers activities checkerspot butterfly specifically. This Conservation Plans, or Agreements primarily associated with commercial ongoing practice of habitat management Based on Conservation Partnerships forest management, but also includes and conservation has fostered a diverse limited nontimber activities such as variety of larval and adult nectar We consider a current land some recreational activities. The HCP resources for Taylor’s checkerspot management or conservation plan (HCPs covers all species, including the butterfly that complement the wide as well as other types) to provide Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and other range of topographic variation within adequate management or protection if it listed and unlisted species. We are and between sites. The management meets the following criteria: excluding Washington State lands planning for each of these areas has (1) The plan is complete and provides totaling approximately 823 ac (334 ha) established a decades-long track record the same or better level of protection that are covered and managed by the of activity focused on enhancing prairie from adverse modification or WDNR under their State Trust Lands composition and structure at each destruction than that provided through HCP from Units 1 and 2 of this critical location: Rocky Prairie NAP a consultation under section 7 of the habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) Management Plan (WDNR 1989b), Mima Act; of the Act. Mounds NAP Management Plan (WDNR

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61537

1989a), Bald Hill NAP Management designated critical habitat. Absent butterfly from the small amount of Plan (WDNR 1988), and WDNR Olympic critical habitat designation in occupied resultant section 7 consultation required Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly areas, Federal agencies remain obligated by this habitat management funding is Management Plan (Horton, 2010). The under section 7 of the Act to consult likely minimal, especially considering conservation measures applied at the with us on actions that may affect a that the action being consulted on is three NAPs have more recently been federally listed species to ensure such itself intended to benefit prairie- refocused through the development of actions do not jeopardize the species’ associated species. site-specific restoration plans for each continued existence. All three of the The Service has coordinated with location to benefit the Taylor’s NAPs are currently unoccupied by the WDNR on conservation actions to be checkerspot butterfly and other rare Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly; therefore, implemented for the Taylor’s prairie butterflies. These restoration a jeopardy analysis would not be checkerspot butterfly at the three NAPs plans (Wilderman and Davenport 2011a, triggered by a Federal agency action for located in Thurston County, 2011b, 2011c) provide for the needs of Rocky Prairie, Mima Mounds, or Bald Washington, as well as the two sites at Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly by Hill NAPs. If the NAPs were designated Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley in protecting and managing all the WDNR as critical habitat, such an action would Clallam County, Washington. An NAP is NAPs in Thurston County, and trigger consultation solely under the a land designation used by the State of implementing species-specific adverse modification standard of section Washington to protect the best examples conservation measures designed to 7. The WDNR-owned Dan Kelly Ridge of rare and vanishing flora, fauna, plant avoid and minimize impacts to the and Eden Valley sites are both occupied and animal communities, geological, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. The and have been undergoing restoration and natural historical value, consistent management guidelines were developed through a federally-funded program with the Washington Natural Areas for areas that are currently occupied as (Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Preserves Act of 1972 (RCW 79.70). The well as areas that have suitable habitat Program), thus any proposed actions for two other sites (Dan Kelly Ridge and but that are not known to be currently habitat restoration would trigger section Eden Valley) are managed separately occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot 7 consultation for both the subspecies under their own plan, but are not butterfly. Because of the high success and the designated critical habitat. The designated as NAPs. Management of the rate of recent Taylor’s checkerspot benefits of inclusion in critical habitat at NAPs in Thurston County is guided in butterfly translocations, the planning these sites would be minimized since large part by the South Puget Sound group that oversees the schedule for they are occupied by Taylor’s Prairie Landscape Working Group. The translocation would give weighted checkerspot butterfly, as any potential Service is a charter member of this consideration to each of these high- consultation under section 7 of the Act partnership group, which was quality prairie locations for future will evaluate the effects of the action on established in 1994, to promote and introductions of the Taylor’s the conservation or functionality of the improve the management and planning checkerspot butterfly. habitat for the subspecies regardless of of conservation actions on south Puget Although both Dan Kelly Ridge and whether critical habitat is designated for Eden Valley lack established, long-term, Sound prairies and associated habitats. these lands. The analytical requirements The Working Group includes WDNR, site-specific restoration plans, they are to support a jeopardy determination on subject to an adaptive management JBLM, NRCS, WDFW, CNLM, the excluded land are similar, but not Washington Department of restoration strategy implemented by identical, to the requirements in an WDFW rare species experts who are Transportation (WSDOT), as well as analysis for an adverse modification focused on the maintenance and other Federal, State, county, city, determination on included land. The expansion of appropriate habitat at and nongovernmental, and private group additional benefit of consultation under around the occupied areas. These entities, each with knowledge and the adverse modification standard at restoration efforts at Dan Kelly Ridge expertise in prairie ecosystem these occupied sites would therefore be and Eden Valley have been supported management. The Working Group reduced. through a number of funding streams, coordinates regularly, meeting twice- including monies from the Service and The inclusion of these areas as critical yearly to share information and discuss DOD. Additionally, WDNR provides habitat could therefore provide some priorities, and making significant work crews to conduct tree and shrub additional Federal regulatory benefits improvements on the ground in prairies removal which reflects an ongoing and for the species consistent with the and oak woodlands. At one of our south increasing investment on the part of the conservation standard based on the Puget Sound locations, volunteers land owner. Support provided in crew Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in Gifford implement restoration and recovery hours totaled $5,000 in years past and Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish actions for prairie species every has more than doubled that amount in and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Tuesday throughout the year. This is a 2013, indicating a significant Cir. 2004). As noted above, a potential well-established group that is expected investment in and commitment to the benefit of inclusion would be the to continue its coordination efforts into ongoing stewardship of these occupied requirement of a Federal agency to the foreseeable future, regardless of the properties. ensure that their actions on these non- designation of critical habitat. Benefits of Inclusion—Rocky Prairie, Federal lands would not likely result in Management of the Dan Kelly Ridge and Mima Mounds, and Bald Hill Natural the destruction or adverse modification Eden Valley sites receive oversight from Area Preserves, and the Dan Kelly Ridge of critical habitat. Any Federal nexus on the Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and Eden Valley sites under the WDNR these lands would likely result from Working Group, a multi-agency working State Trust Lands HCP—The primary actions to restore or maintain favorable group that has been in existence since effect of designating any particular area habitat conditions, carried out under the 2004. Participants in the working group as critical habitat is the requirement for HCP or granting of Federal funds for include JBLM, NRCS, USFS, WDNR, Federal agencies to consult with us beneficial management of prairie- WDFW, WSDOT, University of under section 7 of the Act to ensure associated species, such as Taylor’s Washington researchers, CNLM, and actions they carry out, authorize, or checkerspot butterfly. The incremental other Federal, State, county, city, fund do not adversely modify benefit to the Taylor’s checkerspot nongovernmental, private entities and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61538 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

individuals, each with knowledge and The incremental benefit of inclusion accomplish these land-ownership expertise on the Taylor’s checkerspot is reduced because of the long-standing adjustments because of a reluctance to butterfly, its conservation, habitat, and management planning and acquire lands designated as critical restoration needs. Designation of these implementation efforts for each site, as habitat as well as a reduced willingness areas as critical habitat would therefore discussed above. In addition, the NAP on the part of WDNR to accommodate likely yield no additional benefit to the restoration plans provide greater the Service’s goals. This HCP is located outputs of the working groups, their protection to Taylor’s checkerspot in key landscapes across the State, and members, or their ease of coordination. butterfly habitat than would the the NAPs at Rocky Prairie, Mima The active, long-term restoration efforts designation of critical habitat, since the Mounds, and Bald Hill, as well as the already in place at these sites thus planning effort is intended to actively two sites at Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden reduce the potential benefit of critical improve the structure and composition Valley—which are covered by the habitat. of the habitat (critical habitat does not HCP—contribute meaningfully to the Another potential benefit of including carry any requirement for habitat recovery of the Taylor’s checkerspot lands in a critical habitat designation is restoration or improvement). Although butterfly. that it serves to educate landowners, both Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley If lands within the WDNR HCP plan State and local governments, and the lack established, long-term, site-specific area are designated as critical habitat, it public regarding the potential restoration plans, they are subject to an would also likely have a negative effect conservation value of an area. This adaptive management restoration on our ability to establish new helps focus and promote conservation strategy implemented by WDFW rare partnerships to develop HCPs, efforts by identifying areas of high species experts focused on the particularly large, regional HCPs that conservation value for the Taylor’s maintenance and expansion of involve numerous participants or checkerspot butterfly. The designation appropriate habitat at and around the address landscape-level conservation of of critical habitat informs State agencies occupied areas. These restoration efforts species and habitats. This HCP has and local governments about areas that at Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley served as a model for several completed could be conserved under State laws or have been supported through a number and ongoing HCP efforts, including the local ordinances. Any additional of funding streams, including monies Washington State Forest Practices HCP. information about the needs of the from the Service. Therefore, designation By excluding these lands, we preserve Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or its of critical habitat on these areas would our current private and local habitat that reaches a wider audience not provide any additional management conservation partnerships and can be of benefit to future conservation focus that is not already occurring at encourage additional conservation efforts. During the spring of 2013 alone, these locations under Washington State actions in the future because other the Service hosted two prairie management authority, through plans parties see our exclusion as a sign that workshops, one public hearing, and two developed through our recovery the Service will not impose duplicative local Thurston County events attended program, or through the DOD ACUB regulatory burdens on landowners who by nearly 1,000 people to publicize and funding authority, which has provided have developed an HCP. educate local community members of funding support for many of our local HCPs typically provide for greater the subspecies’ declining distribution, protected prairies, including the NAPs, conservation benefits to a covered and the threat to the native flora and Dan Kelly Ridge, and Eden Valley sites. species than section 7 consultations fauna found on western Washington Benefits of Exclusion—Rocky Prairie, because HCPs ensure the long-term prairies. An important conservation Mima Mounds, Bald Hill Natural Area protection and management of a covered measure that is gained through these Preserves, and the Dan Kelly Ridge and species and its habitat. In addition, outreach networks is the ability to Eden Valley sites under the WDNR State funding for such management is educate the public about the historical Trust Lands HCP—The benefits of ensured through the Implementation role and current importance of prairies excluding these areas from critical Agreement. Such assurances are to our local community and economy. habitat are relatively greater. A benefit typically not provided by section 7 Included among the outreach measures of excluding lands within this HCP from consultations, which, in contrast to is the distribution of educational critical habitat designation is that it HCPs, often do not commit the project material, and encouraging landowners would encourage the State and other proponent to long-term, special to conduct prairie restoration activities parties to continue to work toward management practices or protections. on their properties. At least two Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly Thus, a section 7 consultation typically presentations resulting from research conservation. Since issuance of this does not afford the lands it covers conducted at the Dan Kelly Ridge and HCP, a number of land transactions and similar extensive benefits as an HCP. Eden Valley sites have been given and land exchanges within the HCP area The development and implementation additional work for these two sites is have occurred. These transactions have of HCPs provide other important expected to be concluded in the near included creation of additional NRCAs conservation benefits, including the future that may further elevate public and NAPs (land designations with high development of biological information awareness in Clallam County about the degree of protection), and have also to guide the conservation efforts and conservation needs of the Taylor’s included large land exchanges and assist in species conservation, and the checkerspot butterfly on the north purchases that have changed the creation of innovative solutions to Olympic Peninsula. Additional events footprint of the HCP. These land-based conserve species while meeting the are expected to occur in the future, and adjustments have facilitated better needs of the applicant. In this case, designation of the NAPs or the WDNR- management on many important parcels substantial information has been owned Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley and across larger landscapes than would developed from the research, sites as critical habitat is not expected otherwise have been possible. If lands monitoring, and surveys conducted by to increase the number of such meetings within HCP plan areas are designated as WDNR. Therefore, exclusion is a benefit or improve their outcomes; the critical habitat, it would likely have a because it maintains and fosters the additional educational value of critical negative effect on the willingness of development of biological information habitat is therefore minimized. various groups and funding sources to and innovative solutions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61539

Exclusion of these areas will will continue to yield positive Bald Hill NAP (Unit 1–Bald Hills), 109 additionally help us maintain an conservation outcomes for the Taylor’s ac (44 ha) for the Dan Kelly Ridge site important and successful partnership checkerspot butterfly on south Puget (Unit 2–Elwha), and 23 ac (9 ha) for the with other Washington State Sound prairies and the north Olympic Eden Valley site (Unit 2–Elwha), all of conservation partners (via the South Peninsula, including these sites, which are covered under the WDNR Puget Sound Prairie Landscape Working regardless of the designation of critical State Trust Lands HCP, will not result Group and the Taylor’s Checkerspot habitat. The conservation strategies of in the extinction of Taylor’s checkerspot Butterfly Working Group) who made a each NAP restoration plan and the butterfly. Actions covered by the HCP commitment more than a decade ago to ongoing adaptive habitat restoration will not result in extinction of Taylor’s include the Taylor’s checkerspot strategies for are designed to protect and checkerspot butterfly because: (1) the butterfly in their management and enhance habitat for the Taylor’s NAPs are not currently occupied by the restoration plans, as well as encouraging checkerspot butterfly. These strategies subspecies, and; (2) and the occupied others to join in this and other include species-specific management sites (Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley) conservation partnerships. actions to support Taylor’s checkerspot both have special dispensation from site Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh butterflies, avoidance and minimization designation as a source of merchantable Benefits of Inclusion—Rocky Prairie, measures, and monitoring requirements timber, which allows for the removal of Mima Mounds, Bald Hill Natural Area to ensure proper implementation, which otherwise merchantable trees in favor of Preserves, and the Dan Kelly Ridge and further minimizes the benefits of enhancing Taylor’s checkerspot Eden Valley sites under the WDNR State including these areas in a designation of butterfly habitat. In all of these areas the Trust Lands HCP—The Secretary has critical habitat. State Trust Lands HCP provides for the determined that the benefits of The WDNR State Trust Lands HCP future needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot excluding the WDNR-managed Rocky provides for significant conservation butterfly by restoring, maintaining, and Prairie, Mima Mounds, and Bald Hill and management within geographical creating habitat within these areas, and NAPs found in Thurston County, and areas that contain the physical or supporting management of Taylor’s the Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley biological features essential to the checkerspot butterfly habitat and that of sites in Clallam County, from the conservation of Taylor’s checkerspot other rare species through HCP designation of critical habitat for butterfly, and helps achieve recovery of compliance. Additionally, each of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly outweigh this subspecies through the areas operates under a specific the benefits of including these areas in conservation measures of the HCP. management plan to guide long-term critical habitat. Any Federal nexus on Exclusion of these lands from critical site management, and more recently these lands would likely result from habitat will help foster the partnership developed restoration plans to direct the actions to restore or maintain favorable we have developed with WDNR, habitat enhancement activities at each habitat conditions, undertaken under through the development and location. For these reasons, we find that the HCP or granting of Federal funds for continuing implementation of the HCP exclusion of these lands covered by the beneficial management of prairie- and the area management plans. It will WNDR State Trust Lands HCP will not associated species, such as Taylor’s also help us maintain and foster an result in extinction of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. If one were to important and successful partnership checkerspot butterfly. Based on the occur, it would most likely be with the with our Washington State conservation above discussion, the Secretary is Service or DOD, and their actions will partners in the South Puget Sound exercising her discretion under section be geared toward the conservation Prairie Landscape Working Group as 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this benefits of restoring and enhancing well as with the species-specific final critical habitat designation habitat specifically for the Taylor’s Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly Working portions of the proposed critical habitat checkerspot butterfly, or other rare Group, which shares significant overlap units or subunits that are within the butterflies. This type of management with the South Puget Sound Prairie WDNR State Trust Lands HCP-covered would benefit Taylor’s checkerspot Landscape Working Group and, by lands as identified above, totaling about butterfly if focused on the maintenance doing so, bridges between ecosystem 823 ac (334 ha). of open, short-statured vegetative management strategies and species- conditions that Taylor’s checkerspot specific conservation actions. Both Scatter Creek Wildlife Area and butterfly typically occupies. The WDNR and the working groups have Adjacent Private Land, and the West incremental benefit to the Taylor’s encouraged others to join in Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area checkerspot butterfly from the small conservation partnerships as well, and We are excluding 767 ac (310 ha) of amount of resultant section 7 exclusion of these lands will encourage Washington State lands designated as consultation required by this habitat the future development of such Wildlife Areas, and 98 ac (40 ha) of management funding is likely minimal, beneficial conservation partnerships. private land inholding from this critical especially considering that the action For these reasons, we have determined habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) being consulted on is itself intended to that the benefits of exclusion outweigh of the Act. These Wildlife Areas are benefit prairie-associated species. the benefits of inclusion in this case. known as the Scatter Creek Wildlife The South Puget Sound Prairie Exclusion Will Not Result in the Area (633 ac (256 ha)) (Unit 1–Scatter Landscape Working Group partnership, Extinction of the Species—Rocky Creek) and West Rocky Prairie Wildlife which contributes to management Prairie, Mima Mounds, Bald Hill Area (134 ac (54 ha)) (Unit 1–West planning on the NAPs, and the Taylor’s Natural Area Preserves, and the Dan Rocky Prairie), both owned and Checkerspot Butterfly Working Group, Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley sites under managed by WDFW. The private which provides guidance for the sites at the WDNR State Trust Lands HCP—We inholding is associated with the Scatter Dan Kelly Ridge and Eden Valley, have determined that exclusion of Creek Wildlife Area (Unit 1–Scatter would not be additionally benefitted approximately 38 ac (16 ha) for the Creek) and is managed by WDFW due to inclusion of these areas in critical Rocky Prairie NAP (Unit 1–Rocky identically to the Wildlife Area itself. habitat, as these working groups are Prairie), 406 ac (164 ha) for the Mima Wildlife Areas provide a variety of well-established, cohesive, and Mounds NAP (Unit 1–Mima Mounds/ habitat for endangered and threatened productive groups that have yielded and Glacial Heritage), 247 ac (100 ha) for the species, including the Taylor’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61540 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

checkerspot butterfly, and are managed outcomes of these two analyses benefit to the species, as one of the for that purpose, among others. Each represents the regulatory benefit of primary threats to the Taylor’s Wildlife Area operates under a Wildlife critical habitat. The regulatory standard checkerspot butterfly is the loss and Area Management Plan specific to the is different, as the jeopardy analysis degradation of its habitat, therefore unique management needs of that area. investigates the action’s impact on the habitat considerations will already play Species-specific management plans survival and recovery of the species, into the jeopardy determination for the have been written for a subset of the while the adverse modification analysis subspecies in the currently occupied Wildlife Areas, including Scatter Creek focuses on the action’s effects on the area at Scatter Creek, and the additional and West Rocky Prairie. WDFW’s land designated habitat’s contribution to consideration of adverse modification of acquisition strategy for Wildlife Areas conservation. This will, in many critical habitat is unlikely to result in a requires their purchases provide the instances, lead to different results and different outcome. In addition, for both highest benefit to fish, wildlife, and the different regulatory requirements. Thus, Scatter Creek and West Rocky Prairie, public. In addition, WDFW is currently critical habitat designations have the the action most likely to be consulted on developing an HCP for lands in Wildlife potential to provide greater benefit to is itself intended to benefit prairie- Areas with the help of the Service, the recovery of a species than would associated species, therefore the which will incorporate a landscape- listing alone. outcome of consultation is unlikely to level approach to managing at-risk The inclusion of these covered lands provide a significant additional benefit species, including Taylor’s checkerspot as critical habitat could provide some to the species as a result of critical butterfly. additional Federal regulatory benefits habitat designation. WDFW developed a management plan for the species consistent with the The Service has coordinated with for the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area and conservation standard based on the WDFW on conservation actions to be adjacent private land in 2010 that Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in Gifford implemented for the Taylor’s specifically details the habitat needs of Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish checkerspot butterfly at the Scatter Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Creek Wildlife Area and West Rocky continues to refine habitat conservation Cir. 2004). As noted above, a potential Prairie Wildlife Area in south Thurston measures through collaboration with benefit of inclusion would be the County, Washington. As with the NAPs local conservation partners from the requirement of a Federal agency to in Thurston County, management of the Service, WDNR, the University of ensure that their actions on these non- prairie Wildlife Areas in Thurston Washington, and CNLM (Hays 2010). County is guided in large part by the WDFW also has a draft management Federal lands would not likely result in plan to guide prairie management at the the destruction or adverse modification South Puget Sound Prairie Landscape West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area of critical habitat. However, this Working Group, which was established (WDFW 2011), which will be this area’s additional analysis to determine in 1994, to promote and improve the guiding document until finalized. Prior whether a Federal action is likely to management and planning of to the management plan being result in destruction or adverse conservation actions on south Puget developed, the site was managed for an modification of critical habitat is not Sound prairies and associated habitats. array of species and recreational likely to be significant because these This is a well-established group that is activities, including restoration actions covered lands are not under Federal expected to continue its coordination designed to improve the prairie ownership, making the application of efforts into the foreseeable future. conditions for the Taylor’s checkerspot section 7 less likely. As often as not, any Designation of these Wildlife Areas as butterfly, mardon skipper butterfly actions required to restore or maintain critical habitat would yield no (Polites mardon), and Mazama pocket favorable habitat conditions are not additional benefit to the outputs of the gopher. The Scatter Creek Wildlife Area associated with a Federal action, and Working Group, its members, or their and adjacent private lands are currently thus would not trigger any protections ease of coordination, as the active, long- occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot afforded by the designation of critical term efforts of this group are expected butterfly; the West Rocky Prairie habitat. The granting of Federal funds to continue regardless of the designation Wildlife Area is not known to be for beneficial management of prairie- of critical habitat. The incremental occupied by the subspecies. associated species such as Taylor’s benefit from designating critical habitat Benefits of Inclusion—Scatter Creek checkerspot butterfly would provide the for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in Wildlife Area and Adjacent Private only foreseeable Federal nexus for these these areas is further minimized because Land; West Rocky Prairie Wildlife non-Federal lands. WDFW has received of the long-standing management Area—The primary effect of designating funding specifically to improve habitat planning efforts that have been any particular area as critical habitat is features such as vegetation composition, implemented and planned for the two the requirement for Federal agencies to and structure to support rare and Wildlife Areas and the associated consult with us under section 7 of the threatened butterflies, including the private land inholding, which is Act to ensure actions they carry out, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, mardon managed using the same management authorize, or fund do not adversely skipper butterfly, and valley silverspot methods as the Wildlife Areas. These modify designated critical habitat. butterfly (Speyeria zerene bremnerii). properties have implemented Absent critical habitat designation in This funding will support activities management for the conservation of occupied areas, Federal agencies remain through 2017. Funding is also provided prairie habitat and prairie associated obligated under section 7 of the Act to to WDFW from the DOD ACUB species. Each Wildlife Area focuses consult with us on actions that may program, which is a high priority their management to promote the affect a federally listed species to ensure program for DOD. Leadership at DOD production of larval host and adult such actions do not jeopardize the has confirmed that the program will nectar food resources for the Taylor’s species’ continued existence. continue into the future (Jeff Foster, checkerspot butterfly, and these areas The analysis of effects to critical pers. comm. 2013). The small amount of contain several of the essential physical habitat is a separate and different resultant section 7 consultation required or biological features to support the analysis from that of the effects to the by this habitat management funding is subspecies. Management planning for species. Therefore, the difference in not likely to provide much added each of the Wildlife Areas has

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61541

established a track record of activity critical habitat is not expected to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. We focused on enhancing prairie increase the number of such meetings or consider this voluntary partnership in composition and structure. The improve their outcomes. Therefore, the conservation vital to our understanding conservation measures regularly incremental benefit of critical habitat in of the status of Taylor’s checkerspot implemented at the Wildlife Areas have terms of education value is negligible. butterfly on WDFW lands and recently been refocused through the The incremental benefit of inclusion throughout western Washington, and development of site specific restoration is minimized because of the long- necessary for us to implement recovery plans for each location to benefit the standing management planning efforts actions such as habitat protection, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and other for each Wildlife Area, and the restoration, and beneficial management rare prairie butterflies (Hays 2013). The associated private inholding, as actions for the subspecies. Furthermore, restoration being implemented and the discussed above. In addition, the exclusion from critical habitat could guidance from the management plan restoration plans provide greater have the benefit of encouraging other provides greater protection to Taylor’s protection to Taylor’s checkerspot landowners to engage in similar checkerspot butterfly habitat than the butterfly habitat than the designation of conservation partnerships and efforts, designation of critical habitat, since the critical habitat, since the planning effort with positive outcomes for the planning effort is intended to actively is intended to actively improve the conservation of listed species. improve the structure and composition structure and composition of the The designation of critical habitat of the habitat (the designation of critical habitat. Therefore, designation of could have an unintended negative habitat does not require any active critical habitat on these areas would not effect on our relationship with non- management). Therefore, the existing provide any additional management Federal landowners due to the management at this site will provide focus that is not already occurring at perceived imposition of redundant greater benefit than the regulatory these locations under Washington State government regulation. If lands within designation of critical habitat, which management authority, through plans the area managed by WDFW for the only requires the avoidance of adverse developed through the Service’s benefit of the Taylor’s checkerspot modification and does not require the recovery program, or through the DOD butterfly are designated as critical creation, improvement, or restoration of ACUB funding authority which has habitat, it could have a dampening habitat. provided funding support for many of effect on our continued ability to seek our local protected prairies, including new partnerships with future Another potential benefit of including these Wildlife Areas. participants including States, counties, Wildlife Area lands in a critical habitat Benefits of Exclusion—Scatter Creek local jurisdictions, conservation designation is that it serves to educate Wildlife Area and Adjacent Private organizations, and private landowners, landowners, State and local Land; West Rocky Prairie Wildlife which together can implement various governments, and the public regarding Area—The benefits of excluding these conservation actions (such as safe the potential conservation value of an two Wildlife Areas and the associated harbor agreements (SHAs), HCPs, and area. This helps focus and promote private inholding from designated other conservation plans, particularly conservation efforts by other parties by critical habitat are substantial. We have large, regional conservation plans that identifying areas of high conservation worked to sustain a close partnership involve numerous participants or value for the Taylor’s checkerspot with WDFW through regular address landscape-level conservation of butterfly. The designation of critical coordination and the development of species and habitats) that we would be habitat informs State agencies and local the Wildlife Area management plans. unable to accomplish otherwise. Our governments about areas that could be The management plans contain WDFW conservation partners made a conserved under State laws or local provisions that will improve the commitment more than a decade ago to ordinances. Any additional information conservation status of the Taylor’s include the Taylor’s checkerspot about the needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Measures butterfly in their Wildlife Area checkerspot butterfly or its habitat that contained in the management plans are implementation plan, and they have reaches a wider audience can be of consistent with recommendations from engaged with and encouraged others to benefit to future conservation efforts. the Service for the conservation of the join in conservation partnerships, such During the spring of 2013 alone, the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and will as the South Puget Sound Prairie Service hosted two prairie workshops, afford benefits to the subspecies and its Landscape Working Group. In addition, one public hearing, and two local habitat. the private landowner serves as a model Thurston County events attended by Excluding these Wildlife Areas and of voluntary conservation and may aid nearly 1,000 people to publicize and associated private inholding from in fostering future voluntary educate local community members of critical habitat designation will provide conservation efforts by other private the species’ declining distribution, and significant benefits in terms of parties in other locations for the benefit the threat to the native flora and fauna sustaining and enhancing the excellent of listed species; this is a significant found on western Washington prairies. partnership between the Service, benefit, since the majority of listed An important conservation measure that WDFW, and the private landowner, as species occur on private lands. We is gained through these outreach well as other partners who participate in consider the positive effect of excluding networks is the ability to educate the prairie management decision-making, proven conservation partners from public about the historical role and with positive consequences for critical habitat to be a significant benefit current importance of prairies to our conservation. The willingness of WDFW of exclusion. local community and economy. and the private landowner to undertake Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Included among the outreach measures conservation efforts for the benefit of the Benefits of Inclusion—Scatter Creek is the distribution of educational Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and to Wildlife Area and Adjacent Private material, and encouraging landowners work with the Service to develop new Land; West Rocky Prairie Wildlife to conduct prairie restoration activities management plans for the species will Area—We have determined that the on their properties. Additional events continue to reinforce those conservation benefits of excluding these prairie are expected to occur in the future, and efforts and our partnership, which will Wildlife Areas (Scatter Creek and designation of the Wildlife Areas as support the recovery process for adjacent private land, and West Rocky

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61542 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Prairie) from the designation of critical maintain and foster an important and designation. Additionally, each of the habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot successful partnership with our Wildlife Areas has a specific butterfly outweigh the benefits of Washington State conservation partners management plan to guide long-term including these areas in critical habitat. who made a decision to include the management to direct the habitat The regulatory and informational Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in their enhancement activities at each location. benefits of inclusion will be minimal. Wildlife Area implementation plan in The subspecies is also protected from As noted above, a potential benefit of 2007, when it was a State endangered take under section 9 of the Act on all inclusion would be the requirement of species (and a Federal candidate properties where the subspecies is a Federal agency to ensure that their species). They have encouraged others found. Federal agencies would be actions on these non-Federal lands to join in conservation partnerships as required to minimize the effects of would not likely result in the well. Recognizing the important incidental take, and would be destruction or adverse modification of contributions of our conservation encouraged to avoid incidental take critical habitat. However, this additional partners through exclusion from critical through the section 7 consultation analysis to determine whether a Federal habitat helps to preserve these process. For these reasons, we find that action is likely to result in destruction partnerships, and helps foster future exclusion of these lands covered by or adverse modification of critical partnerships for the benefit of listed these specific Wildlife Area habitat is not likely to be significant species, the majority of which do not management plans will not result in because these covered lands are not occur on Federal lands; we consider this extinction of the Taylor’s checkerspot under Federal ownership, making the to be a substantial benefit of exclusion. butterfly. Based on the above application of section 7 less likely. Any For these reasons, we have determined discussion, the Secretary is exercising additional benefits of inclusion on the that the benefits of exclusion outweigh her discretion under section 4(b)(2) of section 7 process are therefore relatively the benefits of inclusion in this case. the Act to exclude from this final unlikely because a Federal nexus on Exclusion Will Not Result in the critical habitat designation portions of these lands would rarely occur. If a Extinction of the Species—Scatter Creek the proposed critical habitat units or Federal nexus were to occur, it would Wildlife Area and Adjacent Private subunits that are owned or managed by WDFW, totaling about 865 ac (350 ha). most likely be with the Service or DOD, Land; West Rocky Prairie Wildlife and the proposed actions would be Area—We have determined that Merrill and Ring Company Voluntary geared toward the conservation benefits exclusion of approximately 633 ac (256 Habitat Conservation Plan of restoring and enhancing habitat ha) in the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area specifically for the Taylor’s checkerspot Private lands totaling 10 ac (4 ha) in owned by WDFW, 98 ac (40 ha) of butterfly, or other rare butterflies. This Unit 2 (Elwha) and covered under the private land that is managed by WDFW type of proactive management, if Merrill and Ring Company voluntary in the same way as Scatter Creek focused on the maintenance of open, habitat conservation plan are excluded Wildlife Area, and 134 ac (54 ha) of the short-statured vegetative conditions that from this critical habitat designation West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area, lands the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Merrill covered by management plans vetted by typically occupies, will outweigh any and Ring Company is a private forest benefit from the regulatory designation several conservation partners working landowner whose property abuts of critical habitat, which only requires in south Puget Sound, will not result in occupied Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly the avoidance of adverse modification the extinction of Taylor’s checkerspot habitat. Merrill and Ring Company has and does not require the creation, butterfly. Actions covered by the collaboratively developed a voluntary improvement, or restoration of habitat. Wildlife Area management plans will habitat conservation plan for the The South Puget Sound Prairie not result in extinction of Taylor’s Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Schaaf Landscape Working Group partnership, checkerspot butterfly because the plans and Davis 2010) in partnership with which assists with guiding management provide for the needs of the species by WDFW, which was approved and on the Wildlife Areas, would not be protecting, restoring, and enhancing all signed by WDFW and Merrill and Ring additionally benefitted due to inclusion the known occupied and potentially Company on February 10, 2010, and of the Wildlife Areas in critical habitat, suitable Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was recently extended from an as this is a well-established, cohesive, habitat under the jurisdiction of the expiration date of December 31, 2014, to and productive group that has and will State; committing to the enhancement December 31, 2020 (Schaff and Carlson continue to yield positive conservation and recruitment of additional habitat 2013). The portion of WDFW’s Taylor’s outcomes for Taylor’s checkerspot through management on each Wildlife checkerspot butterfly management site butterfly on south Sound prairies, Area to support meta-population on Merrill and Ring Company property including these Wildlife Areas, structure within the Wildlife Areas; and is approximately 7 ac (3 ha) in size and regardless of critical habitat. The implementing species-specific is situated on the south side of the ridge conservation strategies of each Wildlife conservation measures designed to which separates Eden Valley from Area management plan are crafted to avoid and minimize impacts to the Indian Creek Valley. Despite the small protect and enhance habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. Further, actual acreage of the management area Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. These for projects having a Federal nexus and for Taylor’s checkerspot owned by plans includes species-specific potentially affecting the Taylor’s Merrill and Ring, the voluntary habitat management actions to support Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in occupied areas, conservation plan covers 100 ac (40 ha) checkerspot butterfly, avoidance and the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the of their property and acknowledges the minimization measures, and monitoring Act, coupled with protection provided potential for Taylor’s checkerspot requirements to ensure proper by the voluntary Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat to change in extent and implementation, which further butterfly conservation plans that are quality over time. The management plan minimizes the benefits of including available to landowners if they so commits to actions focused on these areas in a designation of critical choose, would provide a level of protecting available habitat from various habitat. assurance that this subspecies will not types of traffic and ground disturbance, A significant benefit of excluding go extinct as a result of excluding these and the corporation has no plan to these lands is that it will help us lands from the critical habitat implement any logging within the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61543

occupied Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly benefit of inclusion would be the notice on April 3, 2013 (78 FR 20074). management area at any time. Merrill requirement of a Federal agency to Our outreach measures included the and Ring’s voluntary habitat ensure that their actions on these non- distribution of educational material, and conservation plan defers all logging Federal lands would not likely result in encouragement of landowners to actions through 2020, and at that time, the destruction or adverse modification conduct Taylor’s checkerspot habitat tree harvesting will only be of critical habitat. However, this restoration activities on their own implemented in the adjacent additional analysis to determine properties. Additional events are commercial forests, where a thinning whether a Federal action is likely to expected to occur in the future, and operation may be considered. The result in destruction or adverse designation of this property as critical voluntary habitat conservation plan modification of critical habitat is not habitat is not expected to increase the provides assurances for the restriction of likely to be significant because these number of such meetings or improve pesticides (which will not be applied covered lands are not under Federal their outcomes, therefore the potential aerially within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of ownership, making the application of educational value of critical habitat is the site) and herbicides (which will be section 7 less likely. The granting of minimized. applied through ground-based methods Federal funds for beneficial The incremental benefit from only and provides greater selectivity in management of Taylor’s checkerspot designating critical habitat for Taylor’s the application process). Merrill and butterfly habitat would provide the only checkerspot butterfly is further reduced Ring Company has cooperated with possibility for a Federal nexus covering due to the long-standing management WDFW to allow ongoing surveys of these lands. Although this forest planning efforts for the adjacent WDNR Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies, which landowner may apply for a Forest land and the recently acquired will serve as the foundation for the Practices permit from the State of conservation property managed by monitoring of populations and habitat Washington to harvest timber, it is CNLM. These properties have been conditions. unlikely to trigger a section 7 managed for the conservation of bald- Benefits of Inclusion—Merrill and consultation, as they would not require associated species and each property Ring Company Voluntary Habitat Federal funding or authorization for this provides larval host plants and adult Conservation Plan—The primary effect operation. Merrill and Ring’s proposed nectar resources for Taylor’s of designating any particular area as management actions that may be slated checkerspot butterflies. For this reason, critical habitat is the requirement for for this location are expected to involve they contain many of the PCEs to Federal agencies to consult with us tree removal, which would not likely support the butterfly. The management under section 7 of the Act to ensure expose Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to planning for each of these properties has actions they carry out, authorize, or actions that would cause harm or take established a track record of positive fund do not adversely modify of the species. The action of removing conservation actions focused on designated critical habitat. Absent trees has the potential to improve enhancing grassland bald composition critical habitat designation in occupied conditions that would be favorable to and structure at each location. All of areas, Federal agencies remain obligated Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies by these lands have benefited from the under section 7 of the Act to consult reducing shade, increasing open areas, conservation measures implemented by with us on actions that may affect a and stimulating the establishment and WDFW (Hays 2011 p. 53), the planning federally listed species to ensure such growth of host plant seeds stored in the efforts for WDNR managed lands, and the voluntary habitat conservation plan actions do not jeopardize the species’ soil (e.g., Castilleja hispida, Plantago continued existence. for Merrill and Ring Company. These lanceolata), thereby providing a benefit The analysis of effects to critical conservation plans provide greater to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. habitat is a separate and different protection to Taylor’s checkerspot analysis from that of the effects to the Another benefit of including lands in butterfly habitat than the designation of species. Therefore, the difference in a critical habitat designation is that it critical habitat since the planning effort outcomes of these two analyses serves to educate landowners, State and is intended to improve the structure and represents the regulatory benefit of local governments, private landowners, composition of the habitat, and as often critical habitat. The regulatory standard and the public regarding the potential as not this work may not be associated is different, as the jeopardy analysis conservation value of an area. This with a Federal action. investigates the action’s impact on the helps focus and promote conservation The voluntary habitat conservation survival and recovery of the species, efforts by all parties by identifying areas plan from Merrill and Ring provides for while the adverse modification analysis of high conservation value for the the needs of Taylor’s checkerspot focuses on the action’s effects on the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. The butterfly by protecting and managing designated habitat’s contribution to designation of critical habitat informs the grassland balds and implements conservation. This will, in many State agencies and local governments species-specific conservation measures instances, lead to different results and about areas that could be conserved designed to avoid and minimize impacts different regulatory requirements. Thus, under State laws or local ordinances. to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. critical habitat designations have the Any additional information about the The voluntary habitat conservation potential to provide greater benefit to needs of the Taylor’s checkerspot plan developed by Merrill and Ring the recovery of a species than would butterfly or its habitat that reaches a Company specifies that no roads would listing alone. wider audience can be of benefit to be constructed within 400 feet (ft) (122 The inclusion of these private lands future conservation efforts and the meters (m)) of currently occupied balds as critical habitat could provide some designation of critical habitat increases and access to the property is restricted additional Federal regulatory benefits our ability to educate private by a gate. Merrill and Ring Company has for the species consistent with the landowners and the public during committed to no timber harvest on the conservation standard addressed in the outreach events concerning the lands covered by the voluntary habitat Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in Gifford historical role and current importance of conservation plan through the year Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish grassland balds. We notified the general 2020, at which time they may consider and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th public about outreach events and a thinning operation. There are plans to Cir. 2004). As noted above, a potential hearings through a Federal Register conduct a regeneration harvest of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61544 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

forested stands in 2033, and Merrill and us to implement recovery actions such enhance habitat for the subspecies. This Ring Company agrees to buffer their as habitat protection and restoration, plan includes species-specific managed lands from Taylor’s and beneficial management actions for management actions to support the checkerspot butterfly habitat after this subspecies. Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, consultation with WDFW and the The designation of critical habitat avoidance and minimization measures, Service. could have an unintended negative and annual monitoring requirements to Because of the recent success of effect on our relationship with non- ensure proper implementation, which Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly Federal landowners due to the further minimizes the benefits that translocations, the planning group who perceived imposition of redundant would be provided as a result of a oversees the schedule for translocations government regulation. If these private critical habitat designation. would give priority consideration to this lands, which have been managed under The benefit of excluding this private location for future introductions of preexisting conservation plans for the land parcel is that it will help us Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly onto high benefit of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, maintain an important and successful quality bald habitat. Therefore, are designated as critical habitat, it conservation partnership with private designation of critical habitat would not could have a dampening effect on our and non-governmental partners, as well provide any additional management continued ability to seek new as with our State conservation partners, planning effort that is not already partnerships with future participants WDFW, and WDNR, all of whom have occurring at these locations under including States, counties, local made a commitment to manage for this WDFW management authority, jurisdictions, conservation subspecies and work cooperatively and voluntary conservation planning efforts, organizations, and private landowners, collaboratively with the Service. We or restoration actions developed through which together can implement various further believe that by recognizing the our recovery program, or through DOD conservation actions (such as SHAs, voluntary habitat conservation plan ACUB funding authority, which HCPs, and other conservation plans, negotiated by WDFW and Merrill and provided the funding support for CNLM particularly large, regional conservation Ring Company, this voluntary plan can to purchase the adjacent property plans that involve numerous serve as a model for other landowners located at Dan Kelly Ridge. participants and address landscape- in developing conservation partnerships Benefits of Exclusion—Merrill and level conservation of species and for the benefit of endangered or Ring Company Voluntary Habitat habitats) that we would be unable to threatened species, whether that Conservation Plan—The benefits of accomplish otherwise. This private partnership is with the Service, the excluding this private property from landowner made a commitment to State, or another entity. As the majority designated critical habitat are conserve Taylor’s checkerspot of listed species occur on private lands, substantial. We have worked to sustain butterflies and their habitat in their we consider these partnerships with a close partnership with WDFW and the voluntary habitat conservation plan. private landowners to be a significant landowner through regular coordination This private landowner serves as a benefit for conservation. For these and the development of the Merrill and model of voluntary conservation and reasons, we have determined that the Ring Company voluntary habitat may aid in fostering future voluntary benefits of exclusion outweigh the conservation plan. The voluntary conservation efforts by other parties in benefits of inclusion in this case. habitat conservation plan contains other locations for the benefit of listed Exclusion Will Not Result in the provisions that will improve the species. We consider the positive effect Extinction of the Species—Merrill and conservation status of the Taylor’s of excluding proven conservation Ring Company Voluntary Habitat checkerspot butterfly. Measures partners from critical habitat to be a Conservation Plan—We have contained in the plan are consistent significant benefit of exclusion. determined that exclusion of with recommendations from the Service Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh approximately 10 ac (4 ha) of private for the conservation of the Taylor’s Benefits of Inclusion—Merrill and Ring timber lands covered by a voluntary checkerspot butterfly, and will afford Company Voluntary Habitat habitat conservation plan by Merrill and benefits to the subspecies and its Conservation Plan—In summary, we Ring Company will not result in the habitat. determine that the benefits of excluding extinction of the Taylor’s checkerspot Excluding this private property from the private land parcel owned and butterfly. Although Taylor’s checkerspot critical habitat designation will provide managed by Merrill and Ring Company, butterfly is known to occupy an significant benefit in terms of sustaining situated adjacent to lands conserved for adjacent property, it is not known to and enhancing the ongoing partnership Taylor’s checkerspot managed by the occur at present on the Merrill and Ring between the Service, WDFW, and the WDNR and the CNLM, outweigh the lands in question. Actions covered by private landowner, with positive benefits of including this property in the voluntary habitat conservation plan consequences for conservation. The critical habitat. As described above, the will not result in extinction of the willingness of the private landowner to regulatory and informational benefits of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly because undertake conservation efforts for the inclusion will be minimal, as these the voluntary habitat conservation plan benefit of the Taylor’s checkerspot lands are already being managed for the provides for the needs of the butterfly butterfly and to work with WDFW and conservation of Taylor’s checkerspot primarily by avoiding any actions that the Service to develop and employ butterfly under a voluntary habitat may perpetuate take of the species or its species conservation actions will conservation plan. Any additional habitat by deferring any actions in the continue to reinforce those conservation benefits of inclusion in critical habitat vicinity of Taylor’s checkerspot efforts and our partnership, which based on the section 7 process are butterfly habitat for the next decade. contribute toward achieving recovery of unlikely because a Federal nexus on Any action taken at that time would be the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. We these lands is not expected to occur. in the form of forest thinning (e.g., tree consider this voluntary partnership in In addition, the conservation removal on the margins of the bald conservation vital to our understanding strategies of Merrill and Ring Company habitat), which could contribute to the of the status of the Taylor’s checkerspot voluntary habitat conservation plan for restoration and enhancement of the butterfly on agricultural lands in the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are currently known occupied and western Washington, and necessary for designed to protect, restore, and potentially suitable Taylor’s checkerspot

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61545

butterfly habitat under the jurisdiction the process of restoring prairie During the spring of 2013 alone, the of the State. There is little likelihood of composition, structure and function. All Service hosted four prairie focused this timber company project having a of these practices provide a positive workshops and one public hearing Federal nexus and therefore having an conservation benefit for the Taylor’s specifically related to the proposed adverse effect to Taylor’s checkerspot checkerspot butterfly and its habitat. listing and designation of critical butterfly in occupied areas, which The Service has been coordinating with habitat. We also participated in two would trigger the jeopardy standard of the landowners regarding the potential local prairie education events in section 7 of the Act. Additionally, the use of Colvin Ranch for the Thurston County attended by nearly voluntary habitat conservation plan for reintroduction of the Taylor’s 1,000 people to publicize and educate Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly entered checkerspot butterfly to Rock Prairie. local community members of the into by the company would provide a Benefits of Inclusion–Colvin Ranch declining distributions and threats to level of assurance that this subspecies Grassland Reserve Program the native flora and fauna found on the will not go extinct as a result of Management Plan—The primary effect west-side prairies. One of these events excluding these lands from the critical of designating any particular area as was hosted and held at Colvin Ranch. habitat designation. The subspecies is critical habitat is the requirement for An important conservation measure protected from take under section 9 of Federal agencies to consult with us gained through these outreach networks the Act on all properties where the under section 7 of the Act to ensure is our ability to educate the public about subspecies is found. For these reasons, actions they carry out, authorize, or the historical role and current we find that exclusion of these private fund do not adversely modify importance of prairies to our local lands covered by the voluntary habitat designated critical habitat. Absent community and economy. Included conservation plan for the Taylor’s critical habitat designation in occupied among the outreach measures is the checkerspot butterfly will not result in areas, Federal agencies remain obligated distribution of educational material and extinction of the Taylor’s checkerspot under section 7 of the Act to consult the benefit derived from encouraging butterfly. Based on the above with us on actions that may affect a landowners to conduct prairie discussion, the Secretary is exercising federally listed species to ensure such restoration activities on their own her discretion under section 4(b)(2) of actions do not jeopardize the species’ properties. Additional events are the Act to exclude from this final continued existence. Colvin Ranch is expected to occur in the future, and critical habitat designation portions of not currently occupied by the Taylor’s designation of Colvin Ranch as critical the proposed critical habitat unit or checkerspot butterfly; therefore a habitat is not expected to increase the subunit that are owned and managed by Federal action would not trigger a number of such meetings or improve the private timber company, Merrill and jeopardy analysis, but would only their outcomes. As Colvin Ranch is Ring. trigger an analysis of adverse already serving as a center of Colvin Ranch Grassland Reserve modification should critical habitat be educational information regarding the Program Management Plan designated. The benefits derived from conservation of prairie habitats and their associated species, including Private lands totaling 378 ac (153 ha) including critical habitat for this Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, any that are covered under an NRCS property would most likely be derived potential additional benefit stemming Grassland Reserve Program Management from the potential Federal nexus from the designation of critical habitat Plan are excluded from Unit 1–Rock resulting from the granting of Federal on this property is negligible. Prairie in this critical habitat funds intended to manage the lands to designation under section 4(b)(2) of the benefit prairie associated species, such The incremental benefit from Act. The Service has coordinated as the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. designating critical habitat for the directly with NRCS regarding However, we anticipate that section 7 Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is further conservation actions that are being consultation related to habitat minimized due to the long-standing implemented on the portion of Rock management funding is not likely to management planning efforts Prairie that lies south of Old Hwy 99 provide much added benefit to the implemented on Colvin Ranch. The (hereafter known as Colvin Ranch). species, since the action being consulted property owner has implemented Colvin Ranch has been managed for on is itself intended to benefit prairie- management for the conservation of approximately 10 years under a long- associated species, including the prairie habitat that provides larval host term Grassland Reserve Program Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. and adult nectar foods for the Taylor’s Management Plan (GRP plan), and 530 Another benefit of including lands in checkerspot butterfly, and the land itself ac (215 ha) of the property is conserved a critical habitat designation is that it contains many of the essential physical in perpetuity by a conservation serves to educate landowners, State and or biological features to support the easement held by NRCS, of which a local governments, and the public butterfly. The implementation of the portion (378 ac (153 ha)) is excluded regarding the potential conservation GRP plan for Colvin Ranch has from critical habitat. Under the GRP value of an area. This helps focus and established a track record of activity plan, the landowners manage their land promote conservation efforts by other focused on enhancing prairie plant using a livestock grazing guideline for parties by identifying areas of high composition and structure. The western Washington prairies developed conservation value for Taylor’s conservation measures applied at Colvin in partnership with NRCS. The GRP checkerspot butterfly. Designation of Ranch have more recently been plan uses intensive livestock grazing as critical habitat informs State agencies refocused through the development of the primary tool to minimize the and local governments about areas that site-specific implementation plans for invasion of prairies by Douglas fir and could be conserved under State laws or each location to benefit Taylor’s other woody native and nonnative shrub local ordinances. Any additional checkerspot butterflies and other rare species. Additionally, pasture grasses information about the needs of the prairie butterflies. The implementation that are often in competition for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or its of Colvin Ranch GRP plan provides resources with the native prairie species habitat that reaches a wider audience greater protection to Taylor’s are consumed by the livestock, which can be of benefit to future conservation checkerspot butterfly habitat than the makes room for native prairie species in efforts. designation of critical habitat since the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61546 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

management is intended to improve the Excluding this private property from Ranch would be less likely to habitat structure and composition of the critical habitat designation will provide participate in the reintroduction of the several native prairie dominated a significant benefit in terms of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to Rock paddocks on Colvin Ranch (critical sustaining and enhancing the excellent Prairie or to encourage others to habitat designation does not require partnership between the Service, NRCS, participate in similar grazing intensive active management). In many cases, this and the private landowner, as well as ranching practices that restore Taylor’s work is accomplished without Federal other partners who participate in prairie checkerspot butterfly habitat if critical funding, which highlights the management decision-making, with habitat were to be designated on this landowner’s willingness to continue the positive consequences for conservation. property. This private landowner serves partnership. The willingness of the private as a model of voluntary conservation Colvin Ranch has been an active landowner to undertake conservation and may aid in fostering future working ranch in Thurston County since efforts for the benefit of the Taylor’s voluntary conservation efforts by other 1865. Originally over 3,000 ac (1,214 ha) checkerspot butterfly and work with parties in other locations for the benefit in size, it is now approximately 1,000 ac NRCS and the Service to develop and of listed species. Most endangered or (405 ha) and located in southern employ conservation actions, will threatened species do not occur on Thurston County. Grazing systems have continue to reinforce those conservation Federal lands. As the recovery of these been modified dramatically during this efforts and our partnership, which species will therefore depend on the time period. Colvin Ranch required an contribute toward achieving recovery of willingness of non-Federal landowners improvement to the infrastructure in the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. We to partner with us to engage in order to accomplish the goal of consider this voluntary partnership in conservation efforts, we consider the improving native prairie composition on conservation vital to the development of positive effect of excluding proven the ranch through intensive grazing, a our understanding of the status of conservation partners from critical practice of grazing greater numbers of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly on habitat to be a significant benefit of cows on specific pastures (paddocks) for agricultural lands in western exclusion. shorter time periods. Miles of fencing Washington, and necessary for us to Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh were erected to partition the fields into implement recovery actions such as Benefits of Inclusion—Colvin Ranch intensively managed paddocks, and in habitat protection, restoration, and Grassland Reserve Program each paddock a water source was made beneficial management actions for this Management Plan—In summary, we available. The intensive management subspecies. determine that the benefits of excluding regime requires that livestock be moved often according to vegetation height or The designation of critical habitat the NRCS GRP managed prairies at soil condition changes specified in the could have an unintended negative Colvin Ranch from the designation of GRP management plan. The Colvin effect on our relationship with non- critical habitat for the Taylor’s Ranch has been partitioned into 35 Federal landowners due to the checkerspot butterfly outweigh the paddocks, with nearly 300 ac (120 ha) perceived imposition of government benefits of including these areas in managed for the production of native redundant regulation. Designation of critical habitat. The regulatory and prairie plant composition. Colvin Ranch critical habitat on private lands that are informational benefits of inclusion will is presently being managed for the managed for the benefit of prairie be minimal. Furthermore, any potential benefit of the Taylor’s checkerspot species, including the Taylor’s additional benefits of inclusion on the butterfly and its habitat; we have no checkerspot butterfly, could have a section 7 process are relatively unlikely information to suggest that the dampening effect on our continued because a Federal nexus on these lands designation of critical habitat on this ability to seek new partnerships with would rarely occur. If one were to occur, property would generate any added future participants including States, it would most likely be with the Service benefit to the already positive counties, local jurisdictions, or NRCS, and their actions will be management efforts being implemented. conservation organizations, and private geared toward the conservation benefits Benefits of Exclusion—Colvin Ranch landowners. Together, these parties can of restoring and enhancing habitat Grassland Reserve Program implement various cooperative specifically for the Taylor’s checkerspot Management Plan—The benefits of conservation actions (such as SHAs, butterfly, or other rare butterflies. This excluding this private property from HCPs, and other conservation plans, type of management is focused on the designated critical habitat are particularly large, regional conservation maintenance of open, short statured substantial. We have developed a close plans that involve numerous vegetative conditions that Taylor’s partnership with the landowner and participants and/or address landscape- checkerspot butterflies typically occupy. NRCS through regular coordination and level conservation of species and Since any action likely to be the subject outreach activities, using Colvin Ranch habitats) that we would be unable to of consultation under the adverse as an example of land uses that are accomplish otherwise. This private modification standard on this compatible with prairie conservation. landowner made a commitment almost unoccupied area would be focused on The GRP plan provisions that will a decade ago to develop and implement providing positive habitat benefits for improve the conservation status of the this GRP management plan, which has the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, we Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly include restored much of Rock Prairie to habitat find it unlikely that critical habitat novel grazing practices which have favorable to the reintroduction of the would result in any significant resulted in the dramatic increase and Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and they additional benefit to the subspecies. maintenance of diverse larval and adult have engaged with and encouraged Furthermore, the benefits of including food resources for the subspecies. other parties, both public and private, to this area in critical habitat are reduced Measures contained in the GRP plan are join in conservation partnerships. since significant management actions consistent with recommendations from Further, we have been coordinating are already underway to restore the the Service for the conservation of the with this landowner about the potential prairie habitat in this area for the benefit Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and will for using Rock Prairie as a of rare butterflies, including Taylor’s afford benefits to the subspecies and its reintroduction site for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. In this instance, habitat. checkerspot butterfly. We believe Colvin the GRP plan for Colvin Ranch contains

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61547

provisions for protecting and restoring prairie habitat in Benton County. This Benefits of Inclusion–Benton County prairie habitat for the Taylor’s HCP includes provisions for long-term Prairie Species HCP—We find that there checkerspot butterfly on Rock Prairie planning, avoiding and minimizing is minimal benefit from designating that exceed the conservation benefits impacts to habitat for the species that critical habitat for the Taylor’s that would be afforded through section are covered under the HCP, and checkerspot butterfly within the area 7 consultation. mitigating for habitat losses when it is covered by the Benton County Prairie A significant benefit of excluding unavoidable. The Benton County Prairie Species HCP because, as explained these lands is that it will help us Species HCP covers a total of roughly above, these covered lands are already maintain and foster an important and 11,700 ac (4,734 ha) of lands and rights- managed for the conservation of the successful partnership with this private of-way within Benton County with subspecies over the term of the HCP. landowner partner and NRCS. They prairie habitat, of which Benton County The Benton County Prairie Species HCP have consistently supported owns approximately 1,182 ac (478 ha). includes a species-specific management stewardship of prairie habitat beneficial On January 14, 2011, a section plan for the Taylor’s checkerspot to the conservation of the Taylor’s 10(a)(1)(B) permit was issued to the butterfly; avoidance and minimization checkerspot butterfly and have County under the Act. The seven measures; and monitoring requirements consistently encouraged others to join in species covered under this HCP to ensure proper implementation. The conservation partnerships as well. The exclusively occupy prairie and prairie- Benton County Prairie Species HCP exclusion of Colvin Ranch will serve as like habitats and include the Taylor’s provides for the needs of the Taylor’s a positive conservation model, and checkerspot butterfly, Fender’s blue checkerspot butterfly by protecting and encourage other private landowners to butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), managing all current and former known partner with the Service for the purpose Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium habitat areas on County owned lands of conserving listed species. For these bradshawii), Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus and implementing conservation reasons, we have determined that the oreganus), peacock larkspur measures designed to avoid and benefits of exclusion outweigh the (Delphinium pavonaceum), Nelson’s minimize impacts to individual Taylor’s benefits of inclusion in this case. checkermallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana), checkerspot butterflies. Management Exclusion Will Not Result in the and Willamette daisy (Erigeron guidelines were developed for areas Extinction of the Species—Colvin Ranch decumbens). currently occupied by the subspecies as Grassland Reserve Program Covered activities include ground- well as areas that have suitable habitat Management Plan—We have disturbing construction activities conditions but that are not known to be determined that exclusion of associated with home building, farming, currently occupied. The conservation approximately 378 ac (153 ha) for the and forestry practices; management of measures provided by the HCP will portion of Rock Prairie managed under public lands and lands owned or provide greater protection to Taylor’s the GRP management plan implemented managed by conservation organizations; checkerspot butterfly habitat than the at Colvin Ranch will not result in and activities providing essential public designation of critical habitat since they extinction of the Taylor’s checkerspot services in the County (e.g., are intended to improve habitat butterfly. Presently, Rock Prairie is transportation and water system conditions (critical habitat only requires unoccupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot management, and utilities construction the avoidance of adverse modification; butterfly, but it was previously known and maintenance). Cooperators under it does not require actions to improve to fly in great abundance on Rock the HCP include: the City of Corvallis, habitat). Therefore, the HCP contains Prairie. Actions covered by the GRP Oregon Department of Transportation, provisions for protecting and management plan will not result in the Oregon State University, Greenbelt Land maintaining Taylor’s checkerspot extinction of the Taylor’s checkerspot Trust, Pioneer Telephone Cooperative, butterfly habitat that exceed the butterfly because: (i) The butterfly is not and NorthWest Natural Gas. present on Colvin Ranch at this time; (ii) The overall biological goal of this HCP conservation benefits that would be the management implemented on is to achieve sustainable populations of afforded through section 7 consultation. Colvin Ranch has continually improved covered species, while maintaining The inclusion of these covered lands the prairie habitat during the 9 years it local populations and fostering habitat as critical habitat could provide some has been practiced; and (iii) connectivity. The County and additional Federal regulatory benefits management of the prairie paddocks cooperators will support sustainable for the species consistent with the will continue and be modified over time population numbers through conservation standard based on the as new information is gained through conservation measures designed to Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in Gifford systematically monitoring the results of enhance existing populations of covered Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish their intensive grazing system. species, support their habitat, and and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th increase the distribution and Cir. 2004). Because one of the primary Benton County Prairie Species HCP, connectivity of their populations in threats to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly Oregon Benton County. is habitat loss and degradation, the Approximately 106 ac (43 ha) of lands The Benton County Prairie Species consultation process under section 7 of owned by Benton County (Oregon) and HCP has management goals and the Act for projects in occupied areas proposed as critical habitat for the objectives for sites that currently (Beazell Forest and Fitton Green) with a Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly are support Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies Federal nexus will, in evaluating effects covered under the Benton County (Fitton Green and Beazell Memorial to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly under Prairie Species HCP and are excluded Forest), and Fort Hoskins, which has the jeopardy standard, evaluate the from Unit 4 of this critical habitat suitable habitat but has not had a effects of the action on the conservation designation under section 4(b)(2) of the documented occurrence of Taylor’s or functionality of the habitat for the Act. The Benton County Prairie Species checkerspot butterfly for several years. subspecies regardless of whether critical HCP has a 50-year term and addresses The Benton County Prairie Species HCP habitat is designated on these lands. The lands owned or managed by Benton will undertake prairie habitat analytical requirements to support a County and any private lands in the restoration and enhancement in the jeopardy determination on excluded County that contain wet or upland above locations. land are similar, but not identical, to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61548 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

requirements in an analysis for an can be of benefit to future conservation Prairie Species HCP—In summary, we adverse modification determination on efforts. However, the Benton County determine that the benefits of excluding included land. In unoccupied areas Prairie Species HCP has already gone areas covered by the Benton County (Fort Hoskins), a potential benefit of through public review and included Prairie Species HCP from the inclusion would be the requirement of public meetings about the prairie designation of critical habitat for the a Federal agency to ensure that their conservation strategy. An important Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly outweigh actions on these non-Federal lands conservation measure that is the benefits of including this area in would not likely result in the implemented under the HCP is public critical habitat. The regulatory and destruction or adverse modification of outreach. Included among the outreach informational benefits of inclusion will critical habitat. The Bonneville Power measures is the distribution of be minimal. In areas occupied by the Administration (BPA) does have a educational materials, holding prairie Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, any transmission line corridor right-of-way conservation workshops, and potential consultation under section 7 of across the northern portion of Fitton encouraging landowners to conduct the Act will evaluate the effects of the Green that falls within the boundaries of prairie restoration activities on their action on the conservation or County-owned lands covered under the own properties. Additional educational functionality of the habitat for the Benton County Prairie Species HCP. and informational benefits that might species regardless of whether critical BPA conducts limited activities within arise from critical habitat designation habitat is designated for these lands. the right-of-way that are intended to have already largely occurred through The analytical requirements to support maintain the integrity of the powerlines public meetings and review of the draft a jeopardy determination on excluded to deliver electrical power. Routine HCP and are going to continue to occur land are similar, but not identical, to the maintenance activities are mostly through implementation of the requirements in an analysis for an related to removing trees that may come conservation measures of the final HCP. adverse modification determination on in contact with the powerlines. Tree The potential educational value of included land. The most likely Federal removal is likely to assist in maintaining critical habitat in this instance is nexus would be with BPA, and their the open, short-statured vegetation therefore further reduced. actions are generally limited to communities that Taylor’s checkerspot Benefits of Exclusion–Benton County maintaining the right-of-way to be free butterflies require, and most often use. Prairie Species HCP—Compared to the of encroaching trees that may eventually Section 7 consultation related to BPA minimal benefits of inclusion of this come in contact with the powerlines. right-of-way maintenance is not likely to area in critical habitat, the benefits of This type of right-of-way maintenance provide much benefit in reducing excluding from designated critical should also maintain the open, short impacts to critical habitat since the habitat the approximately 106 ac (43 ha) statured vegetative conditions that the nature of routine maintenance activities of lands currently managed under the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly typically that would be consulted on should be HCP are considerable. occupies, and so benefits the HCP conservation measures that beneficial to the long-term maintenance subspecies. The additional benefit of provide a benefit to the Taylor’s of suitable habitat for the Taylor’s consultation under the adverse checkerspot butterfly and its habitat checkerspot butterfly. In addition, as modification standard is therefore have been implemented since its noted above, as this area is occupied by minimal. approval in 2011. Excluding the lands the subspecies, the effects of any In addition, the conservation managed under the Benton County strategies of the Benton County Prairie Federal action will already be analyzed Prairie Species HCP from critical habitat Species HCP are designed to protect and under the jeopardy standard in section designation will sustain and enhance enhance habitat for the Taylor’s 7 consultation, including effects to the the working relationship between the checkerspot butterfly. The HCP includes conservation value of the habitat. In Service and the County. a species-specific management plan for general, any Federal agency authorizing, Excluding lands within HCPs from the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, funding, or carrying out an action on critical habitat designation can also avoidance and minimization measures, these HCP-covered lands would have to facilitate our ability to seek new and monitoring requirements to ensure consider the conservation restrictions partnerships with future HCP proper implementation, which further on these lands and incorporate participants including States, counties, minimizes the benefits that would be measures necessary to ensure the local jurisdictions, non-governmental provided as a result of a critical habitat conservation of these resources, thereby conservation organizations, and private designation. reducing any incremental benefit landowners, which together can The benefit of excluding these lands critical habitat may have. implement conservation actions that we is that it will help us maintain an Another benefit of including lands in would be unable to accomplish important and successful conservation a critical habitat designation is that it otherwise. If lands within the HCP plan partnership with a county government serves to educate landowners, State and areas are designated as critical habitat, that voluntarily included the Taylor’s local governments, and the public it would likely have a negative effect on checkerspot butterfly in its HCP when it regarding the potential conservation our ability to establish new partnerships was a Federal candidate species, and value of an area. This helps focus and to develop HCPs, particularly larger exclusion of these areas may encourage promote conservation efforts by other HCPs that involve numerous others to join in conservation parties by identifying areas of high participants and address the necessary partnerships as well. For these reasons, conservation value for the Taylor’s landscape-level conservation of species we have determined that the benefits of checkerspot butterfly. Designation of and habitats. By excluding these lands, exclusion outweigh the benefits of critical habitat informs State agencies we preserve and enhance our current inclusion in this case. and local governments about areas that partnerships and encourage additional Exclusion Will Not Result in could be conserved under State laws or conservation actions in the future for Extinction of the Species–Benton local ordinances. Any additional the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and County Prairie Species HCP—We have information about the needs of the other listed species. determined that exclusion of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly or its Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the approximately 106 ac (43 ha) of lands habitat that reaches a wider audience Benefits of Inclusion–Benton County covered under the Benton County

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61549

Prairie Species HCP will not result in whenever they are detected (14 CFR the Act for projects with a Federal nexus extinction of the Taylor’s checkerspot 139.337). This requirement to maintain will, in evaluating effects to the streaked butterfly because the HCP provides for airfields free of wildlife hazards would horned lark, evaluate the effects of the the needs of the butterfly by: protecting, severely limit the potential to increase action on the conservation or restoring, and enhancing all the known streaked horned lark populations on functionality of the habitat for the occupied and potentially suitable airports. Given the combined threats of subspecies regardless of whether critical Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly habitat aircraft strikes and constant habitat is designated for these lands. under the jurisdiction of the County; management to minimize bird The analytical requirements to support committing to the enhancement and populations, airports do not provide a jeopardy determination on excluded recruitment of additional habitat over ideal conditions for the long-term lands are similar, but not identical, to the term of the HCP; and, implementing conservation of the streaked horned the requirements in an analysis for an species-specific conservation measures lark. adverse modification determination on designed to avoid and minimize impacts We received comments from the FAA, lands designated as critical habitat. to the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. airports, and airport operators However, the additional conservation Further, for projects having a Federal associations expressing concern that value that could be attained through the nexus and affecting Taylor’s designating critical habitat for the adverse modification analysis for checkerspot butterfly in occupied areas, streaked horned lark on airports implies critical habitat under section 7 would the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the that airports are desired locations to likely not be significant, and would be Act, coupled with protection provided provide for conservation and recovery of triggered only in the event of a Federal by the Benton County Prairie Species the streaked horned lark, which is in action. HCP, would provide a level of assurance conflict with their requirements to Another benefit of including lands in that this species will not go extinct as provide safe conditions for aviation. a critical habitat designation is that it a result of excluding these lands from Several commenters recommended that serves to educate landowners, State and the critical habitat designation. The airports should be excluded from local governments, and the public species is also protected from take critical habitat in favor of sites with the regarding the potential conservation under section 9 of the Act on all potential for long-term conservation value of an area. This helps focus and properties where the species is found. management. This is also consistent promote conservation efforts by other Federal agencies would be required to with comments received from one of the parties by identifying areas of high minimize the effects of incidental take, proposed rule’s peer reviewers: ‘‘… bird conservation value for the streaked and would be encouraged to avoid conservation is not and should not be a horned lark. The designation of critical incidental take through the section 7 desired component of airport habitat at airports would highlight the consultation process. For these reasons, management’’ (Altman 2013, p. 6). We stable habitats that have been we find that exclusion of these lands agree. Although airports currently unintentionally created on non-Federal covered by the Benton County Prairie support some of the largest populations airport lands, and which are known to Species HCP will not result in of streaked horned larks, we consider be used by streaked horned larks as extinction of the Taylor’s checkerspot airports to provide transitory suitable breeding and wintering habitats. butterfly. Based on the above habitat for the subspecies, and we have However, airport managers are already discussion, the Secretary is exercising no intention of encouraging an increase aware of the presence of the streaked her discretion under section 4(b)(2) of in populations of streaked horned larks horned lark, and some airports have the Act to exclude from this final on airports as part of our long-term already incorporated management for critical habitat designation portions of recovery strategy. Although the the streaked horned lark into their the proposed critical habitat units or development of a recovery plan will operating plans (for example, Olympia subunits that are within the Benton come subsequent to the listing of the Regional Airport; see Benefits of County Prairie Species HCP covered streaked horned lark, it is our intention Exclusion–Non-Federal Airports, lands totaling about 106 ac (43 ha). that the conservation and recovery of below); this existing knowledge reduces the subspecies will rely on the the benefits of including these non- Non-Federal Airports restoration and maintenance of more Federal airport lands in the critical The streaked horned lark occurs on suitable natural habitats or habitats with habitat designation. Since airport airports because management to control more compatible land uses for the managers are already aware of the hazardous wildlife has incidentally streaked horned lark. presence of the streaked horned lark on created suitable habitat for the Benefits of Inclusion–Non-Federal their lands, and in some cases existing subspecies. Airports create the large, Airports—We find there are minimal management already benefits the open landscape context preferred by benefits to including non-Federal streaked horned lark and would not be streaked horned larks, and mowing and airport lands in critical habitat for the altered by the designation of critical other management practices to maintain streaked horned lark. As discussed habitat, we believe the potential short-statured vegetation for aviation above, the designation of critical habitat educational benefit of critical on non- safety similarly inadvertently provides invokes the provisions of section 7. Federal airports will be extremely the type of vegetation utilized by the Since the non-Federal airport lands in limited. subspecies. However, airports are not question are all occupied by the The Service has no intention of ideal locations for focusing recovery streaked horned lark, if a Federal nexus promoting increased populations of efforts for the streaked horned lark. were to occur, section 7 consultation streaked horned larks on airports as part First, larks are at risk of mortality from would be triggered by the presence of of the long-term recovery and aircraft collisions, and have been the listed subspecies and the Federal conservation strategy for the subspecies. documented as a hazardous species at agency would consider the effects of its Although non-Federal airports airports (Cleary and Dolbeer 2005, p. actions on the subspecies through a inadvertently provide suitable habitat 101). Secondly, Federal Aviation jeopardy analysis. Because one of the for streaked horned larks, we consider Administration (FAA) regulations primary threats to the streaked horned airport habitats to be of relatively low require airports to take immediate lark is habitat loss and degradation, the conservation value over the long term. action to alleviate wildlife hazards consultation process under section 7 of Our conservation strategy for the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61550 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

streaked horned lark will focus on the prairie-dependent species. For example, cooperatively with the State on annual restoration and management of natural the Olympia Regional Airport Master streaked horned lark surveys; and (5) habitats for the subspecies, free of the Plan (Airport Master Plan) and Sensitive avoiding development or construction risks and disturbance associated with Species and Priority Habitats Inventory of permanent buildings within air traffic; the designation of critical and Management Plan that the Olympia approximately 330 ft (100 m) of streaked habitat on airports would thus run Regional Airport is implementing will horned lark nesting areas (Port of counter to our overall conservation provide long-term protection for the Olympia 2013, pp. 15–17). The sensitive strategy for the streaked horned lark. streaked horned lark, and serves as a species management plan that the Therefore, while we find some benefits model that the Service will use in the Olympia Regional Airport is of including non-Federal airport lands development of partnership agreements implementing will provide long-term in the designation of critical habitat for with other airports after the subspecies protection for the streaked horned lark the streaked horned lark, we find these is listed. Fostering these positive and can serve as an example that other benefits are reduced due to the known conservation partnerships is a airports could use or follow in the presence of streaked horned larks on significant benefit of exclusion from development of partnership agreements their lands and existing management critical habitat. Below we present with the Service after the subspecies is already benefiting the streaked horned specific details of the conservation listed. Designating critical habitat on lark. As described above, we believe the partnership with the Olympia Regional airports could negatively impact our potential educational benefit of critical Airport as a model that we will use in ability to pursue and develop such habitat on non-Federal airports will discussions with other non-Federal beneficial conservation partnerships therefore be extremely limited. In airports in partnering for the with other airports and would not addition, the benefits of including non- conservation of the streaked horned provide any additional conservation Federal airport lands are further lark. benefits to the subspecies; therefore we reduced because all of these lands are The conservation partnership have determined that fostering these presently occupied by the streaked developed between the Service, WDFW, positive conservation partnerships is a horned lark, therefore should a project and the Olympia Regional Airport over significant benefit of exclusion from having a Federal nexus take place, many years has resulted in positive critical habitat. section 7 consultation would occur actions to address and minimize An additional benefit of exclusion is under the jeopardy standard— impacts or potential conflicts to prairie- signaling that we intend to direct the including the consideration of potential dependent species, including the focus of recovery efforts for the streaked effects to habitat for the streaked horned streaked horned lark, from activities horned lark on other, more natural lark—regardless of the designation of conducted on airport property. As prairie or grassland habitats or habitats critical habitat. Finally, the benefits to evidence of the positive benefits that with more compatible uses with greater the streaked horned lark of designating have accrued from this partnership, and long-term conservation value, and non-Federal airport lands as critical that could be gained from the pursuit of avoiding the misperception that the habitat are relatively minimal because, other similar partnerships, the Port of Service wishes to concentrate on for reasons described above, we do not airports as sites essential for the intend to focus conservation and Olympia has agreed to protect the recovery efforts on these lands over the streaked horned lark at the Olympia recovery of the streaked horned lark. long term. Regional Airport and to inventory, Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines Benefits of Exclusion–Non-Federal manage and maintain habitat for the ‘‘critical habitat’’ as the specific areas Airports— Compared to the minimal streaked horned lark and other prairie- within the geographical area occupied benefits of including non-Federal dependent species on the airport. The by the species at the time it is listed on airport lands in critical habitat, the Airport Master Plan outlines State, which are found those physical or benefits of excluding non-Federal county, and city regulations and biological features essential to the airport lands from designated critical ordinances related to critical areas, as conservation of the species. habitat are more substantial. well as FAA safety regulations and ‘‘Conservation’’ is further defined in As mentioned above, managers of compliance responsibilities, and section 3(3) of the Act as the use of all non-Federal airport lands occupied by strategies for the protection of State- methods and procedures which are streaked horned larks are generally listed and sensitive species while necessary to bring any endangered or aware of the presence of the subspecies, meeting the needs of the airport as an threatened species to the point at which and in some cases airport managers Essential Public Facility (Port Of the measures provided pursuant to the have already developed management Olympia 2013, pp. 7–12). The June 2013 Act are no longer necessary. These plans that provide benefits to the Update to the Airport Master Plan definitions clearly demonstrate that the streaked horned lark. The exclusion of includes commitments to follow purpose of critical habitat designation is non-Federal airport lands from the recommendations provided by WDFW to serve as locations of recovery efforts designation of critical habitat would for the protection of State-listed and for listed species. However, as noted allow us to foster a positive sensitive species present on the airport, above, streaked horned larks face a risk conservation partnership with airport including: (1) Minimizing the amount of of mortality from airstrikes as a result of entities in the future, and encourage the impervious surfaces; (2) maintaining occupying airport lands. Although development of beneficial management and/or creating suitable habitat airports currently support some plans such as that developed for the (sparsely vegetated areas with annual relatively large populations of the Olympia Regional Airport in and native grasses, less than 10 percent subspecies, airports are clearly not ideal Washington. These conservation woody shrubs, and high percent of bare for conservation and recovery efforts partnerships have the potential to ground); (3) avoiding activities such as aimed at further increasing the produce tangible conservation results mowing, special events, and off-road abundance of streaked horned larks. for the streaked horned lark as driving and recreational activities in or Recovery efforts would be more evidenced by the development of near the areas used by streaked horned effectively concentrated on areas management plans that consider the larks during the nesting season (March capable of supporting long-term viable needs of streaked horned larks and other 15 to August 15); (4) working populations of streaked horned larks

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61551

with the potential for increases in of the presence of the subspecies and its may serve as interim habitat for the population size. Although airports habitat needs. In fact, in some cases, streaked horned lark, the inclusion of clearly provide an interim benefit to the airport managers have already airports in critical habitat would be subspecies (and will likely continue to incorporated conservation provisions contrary to our long-term conservation provide habitat for small populations), for streaked horned larks and other strategy for the subspecies. As we do not recovery will require restoration and prairie species into their management wish to create the impression that we management of new sites that can plans. Importantly, it is not the Service’s consider airport lands as sites essential sustain increasing populations of intention to focus on airport lands as for the recovery and conservation of streaked horned larks in the long term, essential sites for recovery; although streaked horned larks, exclusion of in locations that do not pose a airports provide important interim these lands would benefit the heightened risk of mortality to streaked habitat, they also carry an associated subspecies by directing recovery efforts horned larks. The Service does not risk of mortality to the birds through to other natural areas with greater long- intend to focus on increasing airstrikes, and regulations requiring the term conservation value. populations of the streaked horned lark minimization of wildlife hazards at Based on our evaluation of the on airport lands as part of the airports are not compatible with efforts benefits of inclusion versus the benefits subspecies’ long-term recovery strategy. to increase populations of birds in these of exclusion, we determine that the The exclusion of non-Federal airport areas. The Service intends to focus long- benefits of excluding non-Federal lands would thus align with our long- term recovery efforts for the streaked airport lands from the designation of term conservation strategy that we are horned lark on other, more natural areas critical habitat for the streaked horned likely to develop for the streaked horned of prairie or grassland habitat or habitat lark outweigh the benefits of including lark, and more appropriately signal our with more compatible land uses of these areas in critical habitat. The intention to direct recovery efforts to the higher conservation value. The Secretary is therefore exercising her restoration and maintenance of more designation of non-Federal airport lands discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the natural habitats for the subspecies; we as critical habitat would be at odds with Act to exclude the following airports consider this to be a significant benefit our long-term recovery strategy that we from critical habitat for the streaked of exclusion as well. are likely to develop for the streaked horned lark: Benefits of Exclusion outweigh the horned lark, thereby further reducing (1) Sanderson Field in Unit 1—376 ac Benefits of Inclusion–Non-Federal any benefit from including these lands (152 ha). Airports—The benefits of including in critical habitat. (2) Olympia Airport in Unit 1— 575 non-Federal airport lands in the On the other hand, the benefits of ac (233 ha). designation are small. Because one of exclusion are relatively substantial. (3) Portland International Airport and the primary threats to the streaked Excluding airports would allow the Broughton Beach in Unit 3—431 ac (174 horned lark is habitat loss and Service to develop conservation ha). degradation, the consultation process partnerships with airport managers, and (4) McMinnville Municipal Airport in under section 7 of the Act for projects potentially result in the implementation Unit 4—600 ac (243 ha). with a Federal nexus will, in evaluating of management plans at airports (5) Salem Municipal Airport in Unit effects to the streaked horned lark, designed to benefit the conservation of evaluate the effects of the action on the the streaked horned lark. As we have 4—534 ac (216 ha). conservation or functionality of the seen through the example set at the (6) Corvallis Municipal Airport in habitat for the subspecies regardless of Olympia Regional Airport, airport Unit 4—1,103 ac (446 ha). whether critical habitat is designated for management plans have the potential to (7) Eugene Airport in Unit 4—313 ac these lands. The analytical requirements provide for significant conservation and (126 ha). to support a jeopardy determination on management of streaked horned larks, to A small portion of land proposed for excluded land are similar, but not help maintain populations of this critical habitat is adjacent to Portland identical, to the requirements in an subspecies in the interim pending International Airport at Broughton analysis for an adverse modification restoration of more natural habitats with Beach on the Columbia River; this determination on lands designated as compatible uses to achieve recovery of parcel is owned by Metro (the regional critical habitat. Although not this subspecies. Exclusion of these lands government). The concerns discussed specifically intended to provide for the from critical habitat will help foster above also apply to this portion of the conservation of the streaked horned partnerships we have developed with Portland International Airport; lark, management for aviation safety at airport entities such as the Port of therefore, we are also excluding airports already inadvertently results in Olympia, which has developed an Broughton Beach from critical habitat actions that create and maintain impressive management plan for the designation. The total acreage of the streaked horned lark habitat, benefits benefit of the streaked horned lark and exclusions described above is that exceed the conservation benefits other prairie species. Furthermore, this approximately 3,932 ac (1,590 ha). afforded through section 7 consultation. partnership may aid in fostering future Occupied lands excluded under Since designation as critical habitat cooperative relationships with other section 4(b)(2) of the Act are still would not change these already positive airport entities in other locations for the considered essential to the conservation management efforts, the benefits of benefit of streaked horned larks. of the species. Such areas were including these lands in critical habitat Another significant benefit of proposed as critical habitat because they are small, and are reduced by other exclusion is signaling our intention to provide the essential physical or considerations, as described below. focus recovery efforts more biological features to support the life The educational benefit of critical appropriately on the restoration and history of the streaked horned lark. habitat is minimal in this case; since all management of other, more natural Exclusion should never be interpreted non-Federal airport lands in question habitats with compatible uses for as meaning that such areas are are occupied by streaked horned larks, increasing populations of the streaked unimportant to the conservation of the any potential educational benefit of horned lark over the long term. Streaked species. Exclusion is based upon a critical habitat is reduced by the fact horned larks are at risk of mortality from determination by the Secretary that the that airport managers are already aware airstrikes at airports. Although airports benefit of excluding these essential

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61552 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

areas outweighs the benefit of including and to maintain connectivity between decision with regard to the designation them in critical habitat. occupied breeding sites on the of critical habitat for the streaked Exclusion Will Not Result in the Washington Coast. The longstanding horned lark on these tribal lands, we Extinction of the Species—Non-Federal and distinctive relationship between considered several factors, including Airports—Exclusion will not result in Federal and tribal governments is Secretarial Order 3206, Executive Order extinction of the streaked horned lark defined by treaties, statutes, executive 13175, the President’s memorandum on because each of the airports proposed as orders, judicial decisions, and ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations critical habitat is occupied by the agreements, which differentiate tribal with Native American Tribal subspecies; therefore Federal agency governments from the other entities that Governments’’ (59 FR 22951; April 29, actions that require section 7 deal with, or are affected by, the Federal 1994), conservation measures in place consultation will be required to meet government. on these lands that may benefit the the jeopardy standard for any actions This relationship has given rise to a streaked horned lark, economic impacts that may affect the streaked horned lark special Federal trust responsibility to tribes, our relationship with the at those sites. This consultation involving the legal responsibilities and Tribe, and impacts to current and future requirement will safeguard the streaked obligations of the United States toward partnerships with the Shoalwater Bay horned lark from extinction, regardless Native American tribes and the Tribe and other tribes we coordinate of the area’s designation as critical application of fiduciary standards of with on endangered and threatened habitat. due care with respect to Indian lands, species issues. Under section 4(b)(2) of tribal trust resources, and the exercise of Tribal Lands—Exclusions Under the Act, the Secretary is exercising her tribal rights. Accordingly, we are Section 4(b)(2) of the Act discretion to exclude approximately 182 obligated to consult with tribes based on ac (74 ha) of land composed entirely of In accordance with the President’s their unique relationship with the reservation lands. We further exclude memorandum of April 29, 1994, Federal government. In addition, we from this final critical habitat ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations evaluate tribes’ past and ongoing efforts designation lands that develop by with Native American Tribal for species conservation and the benefits accretion, which we anticipate may Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive of including or excluding tribal lands in become reservation lands in the near Order 13175; and the relevant provision the designation under section 4(b)(2) of future. As described in our analysis of the Departmental Manual of the the Act. below, this conclusion was reached after Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), We contacted the Shoalwater Bay considering the relevant impacts of we coordinate with federally-recognized Tribe and discussed their ongoing and specifying this area as critical habitat. tribes on a government-to-government future management strategies for the basis. Further, Secretarial Order 3206, streaked horned lark. During the Shoalwater Bay Tribe ‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights, revision of critical habitat for the Pacific The Shoalwater Bay Tribe (Tribe) is a Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, Coast population of the western snowy Federally-recognized Native American and the Endangered Species Act’’ (1997) plover, we received a letter from the tribe with a relatively small states that (1) critical habitat shall not be Tribe describing ongoing tribal (approximately one square mile) designated in areas that may impact management, conservation efforts, and reservation in Pacific County, tribal trust resources, may impact coordination with the Corps, WDFW, Washington. Lands within the tribally-owned fee lands, or are used to and the Service to protect habitat for Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation exercise tribal rights unless it is snowy plover and other coastal species boundary include upland forested determined essential to conserve a listed important to the Tribe, including the terrestrial habitats, a small residential species; and (2) in designating critical streaked horned lark. The Tribe and commercial area, and coastal habitat, the Service shall evaluate and coordinates closely with the Service, marine habitats. Critical habitat for the document the extent to which the Corps, and WDFW on western snowy streaked horned lark was proposed in conservation needs of the listed species plover and streaked horned lark surveys the portion of the reservation with can be achieved by limiting the in conjunction with their coastal coastal beaches. Through our ongoing designation to other lands. restoration project. In April, 2013, the coordination with the Tribe, we have We proposed 182 ac (74 ha) of critical Shoalwater Bay Tribe submitted a established a partnership that has habitat in an area currently occupied by comment letter stating that they wish to benefitted natural resource management the streaked horned lark and that be excluded from critical habitat on tribal lands. For our section 4(b)(2) provides one or more of the essential designation for the streaked horned lark balancing analysis we considered our physical or biological features for the (or any other species). The Tribe is partnership with the Tribe in our subspecies on lands reserved for the working with their legal counsel and analysis of the benefits of including and Shoalwater Bay Tribe (included in Unit State and Federal agencies (Corps, excluding those lands under the 3—Shoalwater Spit); these lands are WDFW, Service) in partnership on the sovereign control of the Tribe that met directly adjacent to other occupied development of an Ecological the definition of critical habitat. streaked horned lark habitat along the Restoration Plan for the coastal beaches Benefits of Inclusion—Shoalwater Bay Washington Coast. Because the streaked and tidelands on the reservation. Tribe—The principal benefit of any horned lark moves between coastal sites We determined that approximately designated critical habitat is that and sites on the Columbia River Islands, 182 ac (74 ha) of lands owned by, or Federal activities will require section 7 based on site condition and season, under the jurisdiction of, the Tribe consultations to ensure that adequate connectivity among and within these contained biological features essential to protection is provided to avoid adverse habitats is essential for long-term the conservation of the streaked horned modification or destruction of critical persistence and recovery of streaked lark, and therefore meet the definition of habitat. This would provide an horned larks. Beach and intertidal critical habitat under the Act. These additional benefit beyond that provided habitat on and adjacent to the tribal lands are located in the subunit under the jeopardy standard. In Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation were identified as Shoalwater Spit of Unit 3 evaluating project effects on critical determined to be important to maintain (the Washington Coast and Columbia habitat, the Service must be satisfied nesting, foraging, and wintering habitat, River Islands). In making our final that the PCEs and, therefore, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61553

essential features of the critical habitat represents the regulatory benefit of Title 23 of the Tribe’s Environmental likely will not be altered or destroyed by critical habitat. This will, in many Ordinances that protect natural proposed activities to the extent that the instances, lead to different results and resources on the reservation. conservation of the affected species different regulatory requirements. Thus, We believe existing tribal regulations, would be appreciably reduced. If critical critical habitat designations may including the 2001 Tribal habitat were designated in areas of provide greater benefits to the recovery Environmental Codes that protect the unoccupied habitat or currently of a species than listing alone would do. saltmarsh and sand spit as natural areas, occupied areas subsequently become However, for some species, and in some will ensure that any land use actions, unoccupied, different outcomes or locations, the outcome of these analyses including those funded, authorized, or requirements are also likely because will be similar, because effects to habitat carried out by Federal agencies, are not effects to unoccupied areas of critical will often also result in effects to the likely to result in the destruction or habitat are not likely to trigger the need species. The tribal lands considered for adverse modification of all lands for a jeopardy analysis. exclusion are occupied by the streaked considered for exclusion. The Tribe In Sierra Club v. Fish and Wildlife horned lark and will be subject to the coordinates with the Service on all Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001), consultation requirements of the Act in actions that have the potential to affect the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated the future. Although a jeopardy and habitat for listed species on the that the identification of habitat adverse modification analysis must reservation, including the streaked essential to the conservation of the satisfy two different standards, because horned lark. In 2003, the Service species can provide informational any modifications to proposed actions completed a Planning Aid Letter, and in benefits to the public, State and local resulting from a section 7 consultation 2006, we wrote a Fish and Wildlife governments, scientific organizations, to minimize or avoid impacts to the Coordination Act Report for the Corps and Federal agencies. The court also streaked horned lark will be habitat- (Shoalwater Bay Tribe is the project noted that critical habitat designation based, it is not possible to differentiate sponsor) on the Shoalwater Coastal may focus and heighten public any measures implemented solely to Erosion Project, which entails beach awareness of the plight of listed species minimize impacts to the critical habitat nourishment along the sand spit used by and their habitats. Designation of from those implemented to minimize the streaked horned lark. We completed critical habitat may contribute to impacts to the streaked horned lark. a section 7 consultation for this project conservation efforts by other parties by Therefore, in the case of the streaked in 2012, which covered effects to both delineating areas of high conservation horned lark, we believe the benefits of the streaked horned lark and western value for streaked horned lark. While critical habitat designation are very snowy plover. Due to construction we believe this educational outcome is similar to the benefits of listing, and in delays, the project was not completed important for streaked horned lark some respects would be and is still ongoing. We are currently conservation, we believe it has already indistinguishable from the benefits of completing formal conferencing for been achieved to some extent through listing. potential effects to the streaked horned the existing management, education, lark and proposed critical habitat and public outreach efforts carried out Public education is often cited as related to this project. The Service by the Tribe. Designation of critical another possible benefit of including coordinated with the Tribe and the habitat on the aforementioned tribal lands in critical habitat as it may help Corps on the project design and will lands would simply affirm the focus conservation efforts on areas of provided technical input and recognized conservation value of these high value for certain species. recommendations on the planting plan lands, which is already widely accepted Partnership efforts with the Shoalwater and long-term vegetation management by conservationists, public agencies, Bay Tribe to conserve the streaked on the dune. The Tribe is actively and most of the public. horned lark and other coastal species of working with the State and Federal The principal benefit of including an concern have resulted in heightened agencies in implementation of the area in a critical habitat designation is awareness about the subspecies. project to avoid impacts to the streaked the requirement for Federal agencies to However, we believe there is little, if horned lark and its nesting habitat. The ensure that actions they fund, authorize, any, educational benefit attributable to project is designed to restore the barrier or carry out are not likely to result in the critical habitat beyond those achieved spit that has been actively eroding over destruction or adverse modification of from listing of the streaked horned lark the decades. The spit provides any designated critical habitat, the under the Act, and the Tribe’s efforts. protection from coastal storms and high regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of The Shoalwater Bay Tribe coordinates winter waves for the Shoalwater Bay the Act under which consultation is regularly with the WDFW on annual Indian Reservation. completed. Federal agencies must also surveys for the streaked horned lark and Surveys for both the western snowy consult with us on actions that may has partnered with the Service (Willapa plover and streaked horned lark have affect a listed species and refrain from National Wildlife Refuge and Ecological been conducted by WDFW and the undertaking actions that are likely to Services) to control nonnative or Tribe on the reservation and adjacent jeopardize the continued existence of invasive species and restore habitat for lands since 2000. Surveys became more such species. The analysis of effects of the streaked horned lark and other intensive in 2004 and later years (to a proposed project on critical habitat is coastal species on the reservation. present) when both the western snowy separate and different from that of the Service coordination includes attending plover and streaked horned lark were effects of a proposed project on the meetings with tribal resource staff to documented nesting on tribal lands on species itself. The jeopardy analysis discuss ongoing projects, management Shoalwater spit. Although they may not evaluates the action’s impact to survival plans, and other issues that arise. We nest there every year, male streaked and recovery of the species, while the believe our continuing coordination horned larks were heard singing or have destruction or adverse modification with the Shoalwater Bay Tribe will been seen on Shoalwater Spit during the analysis evaluates the action’s effects to further promote awareness of the nesting seasons of 2004, 2008, 2009, the designated habitat’s contribution to subspecies and its conservation needs, 2012, and 2013. The Tribe has played an conservation. Therefore, the difference and will facilitate refinements to the active role in surveying for and in outcomes of these two analyses existing Fish and Wildlife Codes and protecting habitat for the streaked

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61554 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

horned lark. In emails and comments Service (regardless of critical habitat species and their habitat’’ on tribal sent to the Service on August 31, 2011, designation) where the habitat is lands. In their comments submitted and April 3, 2013, the Tribe confirmed occupied or the species may otherwise during revisions of critical habitat for that they will continue to use their be affected. Furthermore, a high level of the western snowy plover, the Tribe existing regulatory structure to provide protection is already provided on ‘‘continues to demonstrate its desire to habitat protection for coastal species Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation protect threatened and/or endangered (including the streaked horned lark) and lands that meet the definition of critical species through its management and ‘‘keep trespassers off those areas habitat by existing conservation, stewardship capabilities’’ without considered most important to the regulations, and management. Ongoing ‘‘externally defined designated critical species.’’ The Corps worked closely coordination between the Service and habitat designations.’’ The Tribe stated with the WDFW and the Service in the the Tribe has already raised the level of that they wish to make ‘‘their own development and implementation of a awareness about the subspecies, and we determinations regarding the species protection plan for the western believe our continued coordination with Reservation and tribal trust resources’’ snowy plover and streaked horned lark the Tribe will facilitate development of and we note that the Tribe has been able habitat as part of the erosion control species-specific management actions for to provide for the streaked horned lark project. The Tribe, WDFW, and Service these lands to address the conservation and steps are being taken to continue are coordinating with the Corps on the of the streaked horned lark. that effort in the most effective way development of an Ecological Benefits of Exclusion—Shoalwater possible. The Tribe has been working Restoration Plan for the Shoalwater Bay Bay Tribe—Under Secretarial Order closely with the Willapa National Tribe which will include a planting and 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Wildlife Refuge for several years on long-term vegetation management plan Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, collection, propagation, and for the dune and restoration of the and the Act, we recognize that we must reintroduction of the native pink sand adjacent tidelands. carry out our responsibilities under the verbena (Abronia umbellata) and is Any potential impacts to the streaked Act in a manner that harmonizes the propagating this species at their horned lark from future proposed Federal trust responsibility to tribes and greenhouse on the reservation. This activities on tribal trust reservation tribal sovereignty while striving to native plant has been extirpated in lands will be addressed through a ensure that tribes do not bear a Washington and was recently section 7 consultation using the disproportionate burden for the rediscovered on the refuge. Efforts to jeopardy standard, and such activities conservation of listed species, so as to reintroduce this species along coastal would also be subject to the take avoid or minimize the potential for beaches that are currently occupied by prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. conflict and confrontation. In the streaked horned lark (including the As a result, we believe the regulatory accordance with the Presidential refuge and tribal lands) have been benefits of critical habitat designation memoranda of April 29, 1994, and successful and are ongoing projects. The on tribal trust reservation land would November 9, 2009, we believe that, to commitment by the Tribe to restore largely be redundant with the combined the maximum extent possible, tribes are habitat for this native plant and efforts benefits of listing and existing tribal the appropriate governmental entities to to control invasive species such as regulations. manage their lands and tribal trust smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) The designation of critical habitat for resources, and that we are responsible supports their commitment to protect the streaked horned lark may strengthen for strengthening government-to- habitat for streaked horned lark and or reinforce some Federal laws, such as government relationships with tribes. strengthens the ongoing partnership the National Environmental Policy Act Federal regulation through critical with the Service. In their comments to (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or the habitat designation will adversely affect the Service on the proposed rule, the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). the tribal working relationships we now Tribe indicated they would use their These laws analyze the potential for have and which we are strengthening existing regulations to protect streaked projects to significantly affect the throughout the United States. horned lark and its habitat. These environment. Critical habitat may signal Maintaining positive working communications clearly indicate that the presence of sensitive habitat that relationships with tribes is key to designation of tribal trust reservation could otherwise be missed in the review implementing natural resource lands as critical habitat for the streaked process for these other environmental programs of mutual interest, including law; however, the listing process and habitat conservation planning efforts. In horned lark would impact future consultations (which includes light of the above-mentioned orders and conservation partnership opportunities conferencing on effects to critical for a variety of other reasons described with the Tribe. Therefore, a critical habitat for the streaked horned lark off in their comment letters and habitat designation could potentially reservation lands) that have already communications, critical habitat damage our relationship with the occurred and/or are ongoing will designation is typically viewed by tribes Shoalwater Bay Tribe. provide this benefit. Therefore, in this as an unwarranted and unwanted We believe significant benefits would case we view this benefit as redundant intrusion into tribal self-governance. be realized by excluding lands managed with the benefit the species will receive In the case of proposed critical habitat by the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe from listing under the Act. for the streaked horned lark (77 FR from critical habitat. These benefits In summary, we believe that 61937; October 11, 2012), the include: designating critical habitat on the Shoalwater Bay Tribe has requested to (1) Continuing and strengthening of Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation will ‘‘remain excluded from any critical our effective relationship with the tribe provide only minimal additional habitat designation.’’ In their comments to promote conservation of the streaked benefits for the streaked horned lark. sent to the Service on April 3, 2013, the horned lark and its habitat; and Projects on these lands with a Federal Tribe stated that it is their goal to ‘‘not (2) Allowing continued meaningful nexus (e.g., funded, authorized, or only protect existing habitat for native collaboration and cooperation in carried out by Federal agencies, such as (coastal) species but to also increase and working toward recovering this the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) will improve habitat’’ and to ‘‘develop subspecies, including conservation require section 7 consultation with the strategies for addressing threatened actions that might not otherwise occur.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61555

Because the Tribe is the entity that tribal governments is defined by Bay Tribe through a variety of forums, enforces protective regulations on tribal treaties, statutes, executive orders, we find the benefits of these trust reservation land, and we have a judicial decisions, and agreements, coordination efforts to be greater than working relationship with them, we which differentiate tribal governments the benefits of applying the Act’s believe exclusion of these lands will from the other entities that deal with, or section 7 consultations for critical yield a significant partnership benefit. are affected by, the Federal government. habitat to Federal activities on tribal We will continue to work cooperatively This relationship has given rise to a lands. Based upon our consultations with the Tribe on efforts to conserve the special Federal trust responsibility with the Tribes, we believe that streaked horned lark. Therefore, involving the legal responsibilities and designation of Indian lands as critical excluding these lands from critical obligations of the United States toward habitat would adversely impact our habitat provides the significant benefit Indian Tribes and the application of working relationship and the benefits of maintaining and strengthening our fiduciary standards of due care with resulting from this relationship. existing conservation partnerships and respect to Indian lands, tribal trust In contrast, although the benefits of the potential of fostering new tribal resources, and the exercise of tribal encouraging participation in tribal partnerships. rights. Under these authorities, Indian management plans, and, more broadly, Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh lands are recognized as unique and have helping to foster cooperative Benefits of Inclusion—Shoalwater Bay been retained by Indian Tribes or have conservation are indirect, enthusiastic Indian Tribe—Based on the above been set aside for tribal use. These lands tribal participation and an atmosphere considerations and consistent with the are managed by Indian Tribes in of cooperation are crucial to the long- direction provided in section 4(b)(2) of accordance with tribal goals and term effectiveness of the endangered the Act, the Service has determined that objectives within the framework of species program. Also, we have the benefits of excluding the above applicable treaties and laws. concluded that the Tribe’s voluntary tribal lands outweigh the benefits of Tribal lands are currently being conservation efforts will provide including them as critical habitat. This managed on a voluntary basis in tangible conservation benefits that will conclusion is based on the following cooperation with the Service and others reduce the likelihood of extinction and factors. It is possible, although unlikely, to conserve the streaked horned lark and increase the likelihood for streaked that Federal actions will be proposed achieve important conservation goals. horned lark recovery. Therefore, we that would be likely to destroy or We believe the streaked horned lark assign great weight to these benefits of adversely modify the habitat proposed benefits from the Tribe’s voluntary exclusion. To the extent that there are as critical within the area governed by management actions due to their long- regulatory benefits of including tribal the Tribe. If such a project were standing and broad application to tribal lands in critical habitat, there would be proposed, due to the specific way in management decisions. Tribal associated costs that could be avoided which jeopardy and adverse cooperation and support is required to by excluding the area from designation. modification are analyzed for the continue cooperative scientific efforts, As we expect the regulatory benefits to streaked horned lark, discussed in detail to promote the recovery of the streaked be low, we likewise give weight to earlier in this document, it would likely horned lark, and to implement proactive avoidance of those associated costs, as also jeopardize the continued existence conservation actions. This need for the well as the additional transaction costs of the subspecies. Few additional tribal cooperation is especially acute related to section 7 compliance. benefits are provided by including these because, in some cases, populations We reviewed and evaluated the tribal lands in this critical habitat exist only on areas of tribal management benefits of inclusion and the benefits of designation beyond what will be or only on tribal lands. Future exclusion of Shoalwater Bay Tribe tribal achieved through the implementation of conservation efforts in this area require trust reservation lands as critical habitat the existing tribal management or the continued cooperation and support for the streaked horned lark. We believe conservation plans. In addition, we of the Tribe. Exclusion of tribal lands past, present, and future coordination expect that the benefit of informing the from the critical habitat designation will with the Shoalwater Bay Tribe has public of the importance of this area to help us maintain and improve our provided and will continue to provide streaked horned lark conservation partnership with the Tribe by formally streaked horned lark habitat would be low. recognizing their positive contributions conservation needs on tribal lands, such We do not believe that inclusion of to streaked horned lark recovery, and by that there would be no additional tribal lands will significantly improve streamlining or reducing unnecessary benefit from designation of critical habitat protections for the streaked regulatory oversight. habitat. Further, because any potential horned lark beyond what is already Given the cooperative relationship impacts to the streaked horned lark from provided for in the Tribe’s own between the Shoalwater Bay Tribe and future projects will be addressed protective policies and practices, the Service, and all of the conservation through a section 7 consultation with us discussed below. benefits taken together, we believe the under the jeopardy standard, we believe The Tribe is working closely with the additional regulatory and educational critical habitat designation on the Corps and the Federal and State benefits of including the tribal lands as Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation resource agencies on the development of critical habitat are relatively small. The would largely be redundant with the an Ecological Restoration Plan for the designation of critical habitat can serve combined benefits of listing and existing Shoalwater Bay Tribe and have to educate the public regarding the tribal regulations and management. provided information detailing how potential conservation value of an area, Therefore, the benefits of designating they are addressing the habitat needs of but this goal is already being critical habitat on tribal trust reservation the streaked horned lark on their lands accomplished through the identification lands are not significant. and they are fully aware of the of these areas in the tribal management On the other hand, the benefits of conservation value of their lands for planning, development of tribal Fish excluding the Shoalwater Bay Indian many coastal species of concern. There and Wildlife Codes, and through their Reservation from critical habitat are are several benefits to excluding tribal outreach efforts. significant. Exclusion of these lands lands. The long-standing and distinctive Because of the ongoing relationship from critical habitat will help preserve relationship between the Federal and between the Service and the Shoalwater and strengthen the conservation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61556 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

partnership we have developed with the Required Determinations small organizations, such as Tribe and will foster future partnerships independent nonprofit organizations; Regulatory Planning and Review and development of management plans; small governmental jurisdictions, (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) whereas inclusion will negatively including school boards and city and impact our relationships with the Tribe Executive Order 12866 provides that town governments that serve fewer than and other tribes. We are committed to the Office of Information and Regulatory 50,000 residents; as well as small working with the Shoalwater Bay Tribe Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant businesses. Small businesses include to further the conservation of the rules. The Office of Information and manufacturing and mining concerns streaked horned lark and other Regulatory Affairs has determined that with fewer than 500 employees, endangered and threatened species on this rule is not significant. wholesale trade entities with fewer than the reservation. The Tribe will continue Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 100 employees, retail and service to use their existing regulatory structure principles of E.O. 12866 while calling businesses with less than $5 million in to protect the streaked horned lark and for improvements in the nation’s annual sales, general and heavy its habitat. The Tribe continues to regulatory system to promote construction businesses with less than provide for indirect conservation of predictability, to reduce uncertainty, $27.5 million in annual business, streaked horned lark habitat by and to use the best, most innovative, special trade contractors doing less than implementing conservation measures and least burdensome tools for $11.5 million in annual business, and for other coastal species (such as, the achieving regulatory ends. The agricultural businesses with annual pink sand verbena) that have the same executive order directs agencies to sales less than $750,000. To determine habitat requirements. Therefore, in consider regulatory approaches that if potential economic impacts on these consideration of the relevant impact to reduce burdens and maintain flexibility small entities are significant, we and freedom of choice for the public our partnership and our government-to- consider the types of activities that where these approaches are relevant, government relationship with the might trigger regulatory impacts under feasible, and consistent with regulatory Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, and the this rule, as well as the types of project objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes ongoing conservation management modifications that may result. In further that regulations must be based practices of the Tribe and our current general, the term ‘‘significant economic on the best available science and that and future conservation partnerships impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical the rulemaking process must allow for with them, we determined the small business firm’s business public participation and an open significant benefits of exclusion operations. exchange of ideas. We have developed outweigh the benefits of inclusion in the To determine if the rule could this rule in a manner consistent with critical habitat designation. significantly affect a substantial number these requirements. of small entities, we consider the In summary, we find that excluding number of small entities affected within the Shoalwater Bay Tribe tribal trust Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 particular types of economic activities reservation lands from this revised final et seq.) (e.g., airports, agriculture, recreation, critical habitat will preserve our Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and habitat management). We apply the partnership and may foster future (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended ‘‘substantial number’’ test individually habitat management and species by the Small Business Regulatory to each industry to determine if conservation plans with the Tribe now Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of certification is appropriate. However, and in the future. These partnership 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an the SBREFA does not explicitly define benefits are significant and outweigh the agency must publish a notice of ‘‘substantial number’’ or ‘‘significant minimal additional regulatory benefits rulemaking for any proposed or final economic impact.’’ Consequently, to of including these lands in final critical rule, it must prepare and make available assess whether a ‘‘substantial number’’ habitat for the streaked horned lark. for public comment a regulatory of small entities is affected by this Exclusion Will Not Result in flexibility analysis that describes the designation, this analysis considers the Extinction of the Species—Shoalwater effects of the rule on small entities relative number of small entities likely Bay Tribe—We determined that the (small businesses, small organizations, to be impacted in an area. In some exclusion of 182 ac (74 ha) of tribal trust and small government jurisdictions). circumstances, especially with critical reservation lands from the designation However, no regulatory flexibility habitat designations of limited extent, of streaked horned lark critical habitat analysis is required if the head of an we may aggregate across all industries will not result in extinction of the agency certifies the rule will not have a and consider whether the total number subspecies. The jeopardy standard of significant economic impact on a of small entities affected is substantial. section 7 of the Act and routine substantial number of small entities. In estimating the number of small implementation of conservation The SBREFA amended the RFA to entities potentially affected, we also measures through the section 7 process require Federal agencies to provide a consider whether their activities have due to streaked horned lark occupancy certification statement of the factual any Federal involvement. and protection provided by under Title basis for certifying that the rule will not Designation of critical habitat only 23 of the Tribal Environmental have a significant economic impact on affects activities authorized, funded, or Ordinances and their Ecosystem a substantial number of small entities. carried out by Federal agencies. Some Restoration Plan provide assurances that In this final rule, we are certifying that kinds of activities are unlikely to have this subspecies will not go extinct as a the critical habitat designation for any Federal involvement and so will not result of excluding these lands from the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and be affected by critical habitat critical habitat designation. Therefore, streaked horned lark will not have a designation. In areas where the species based on the above discussion the significant economic impact on a is present, Federal agencies already are Secretary is exercising her discretion to substantial number of small entities. required to consult with us under exclude approximately 182 ac (74 ha) of The following discussion explains our section 7 of the Act on activities they tribal trust reservation lands managed rationale. authorize, fund, or carry out that may by the Shoalwater Bay Tribe from this According to the Small Business affect Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and final critical habitat designation. Administration, small entities include streaked horned lark. Federal agencies

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61557

also must consult with us if their Potential impacts on these sectors are Recreators at JBLM may incur activities may affect critical habitat. evaluated here: unquantified losses in economic surplus Designation of critical habitat, therefore, Airport Operations and Agriculture. in the form of reduced or restricted could result in an additional economic Chapter 3 of the FEA discuss the recreational use of JBLM lands proposed impact on small entities due to the potential for the critical habitat as critical habitat. However, because the requirement to reinitiate consultation designations to affect airports and recreators leasing JBLM lands are for ongoing Federal activities (see agricultural activities. Overall, 214 individuals, not entities, we do not Application of the ‘‘Adverse consultations would be expected in address these impacts in this analysis. Modification’’ Standard). relation to operations at 7 airports over In summary, we considered whether In our final economic analysis (FEA) the next 20 years. Information on this designation will result in a of the critical habitat designation, we whether airports are large or small significant economic effect on a evaluated the potential economic effects entities was available for some airports substantial number of small entities (IEc on small business entities resulting from and not for others. For the purposes of 2013, p. A–7). Based on the above conservation actions related to the the analysis, we made the conservative reasoning and currently available listings of Taylor’s checkerspot assumption that all airports within the information, we conclude that this rule butterfly, streaked horned lark, and four proposed critical habitat are small will not result in a significant economic subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher entities. These seven entities represent 3 impact on a substantial number of small and the designation of critical habitat. percent of the total small Other Airport entities. Therefore, we are certifying that The analysis is based on the estimated Operations (NAICS code 488119) the designation of critical habitat for the impacts associated with the rulemaking entities within the proposed critical Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and as described in Appendix A of the FEA habitat. The cost per entity, per streaked horned lark will not have a (IEc 2013, pp. A–1–A–11) and evaluates consultation, to participate in forecast significant economic impact on a the potential for economic impacts consultation is approximately $875 to substantial number of small entities, related to: Military activities; recreation $8,750 in any given year. The full cost and a regulatory flexibility analysis is and habitat management; airport to a third party of a single consultation not required. operations and agricultural activities; is $875. If we assume that a single entity Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— transportation, electricity distribution participates in multiple consultations in Executive Order 13211 and forestry activities; and dredging, a single year, the administrative costs of Executive Order 13211 (Actions gravel mining, development, and other such activity are likely to be less than Concerning Regulations That activities. The FEA determined that 1 percent of annual revenues (IEc 2013, Significantly Affect Energy Supply, critical habitat designation will not p. A–5). Distribution, or Use) requires agencies result in impacts to small entities for the We forecast two projects related to to prepare Statements of Energy Effects following activities (IEc 2013, p. A–4): agriculture, one at Rock Prairie and one when undertaking certain actions. OMB (1) Military activities. As the affected on M–DAC farms, which may involve has provided guidance for base, JBLM is a Federal entity and it is, small entities. Assuming that all implementing this Executive Order that by definition, not small, and thus no agriculture and grazing impacts are outlines nine outcomes that may impacts to small entities are expected. borne by these two small entities, this constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ (2) Transportation. The impacts are amounts to less than one affected entity when compared to not taking the limited to Washington State Department per year. The per entity impact, ranging regulatory action under consideration. of Transportation. As State agencies are, from approximately $875 to $1,750, The economic analysis finds that by definition, not small, no impacts to represents less than 2 percent of annual none of these criteria is relevant to this small entities are expected related to revenues (IEc 2013, p. A–5). analysis. Thus, based on information in transportation. Recreation and Habitat Management. the economic analysis, energy-related (3) Electricity Distribution and A diverse group of Federal and State impacts associated with Taylor’s Forestry Activities. The only electricity agencies, county-level governments, and checkerspot butterfly and streaked distribution activity within the private nonprofit organizations may be horned lark conservation activities proposed critical habitat is carried out subject to the administrative burden of within critical habitat are not expected. by the Bonneville Power Administration consultations associated with recreation As such, the designation of critical (BPA), which is a Federal entity and, and habitat management. However, of habitat is not expected to significantly therefore, is not considered small. As these, the Federal, State, and county- affect energy supplies, distribution, or such, there are no anticipated impacts to level governments are not considered use. Therefore, this action is not a small entities related to BPA’s small entities. Therefore, there are three significant energy action, and no electricity distribution activities. No projects within the proposed critical Statement of Energy Effects is required. incremental costs are anticipated for habitat that may involve private forestry activities and thus no impact to nonprofit organizations that qualify as Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 small entities related to forestry is small entities—Wolf Haven U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) anticipated. International, Whidbey/Camano Land In accordance with the Unfunded (4) Dredging. Dredging is conducted Trust, and the Pacific Rim Institute for Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Stewardship. Assuming seq.), we make the following findings: which is a Federal entity and is, by that all recreation and habitat (1) This rule will not produce a definition, not small, and thus no restoration impacts are borne by these Federal mandate. In general, a Federal impacts to small entities are expected. small private entities, this amounts to mandate is a provision in legislation, Estimated incremental impacts that less than one affected entity per year. statute, or regulation that would impose may be borne by small entities are The per entity impact, ranging from an enforceable duty upon State, local, or limited to the administrative costs of approximately $875 to $2,625 in any tribal governments, or the private sector, section 7 consultation related to airport given year, represents less than 1 and includes both ‘‘Federal operations and agriculture as well as by percent of annual revenues (IEc 2013, p. intergovernmental mandates’’ and recreation and habitat restoration. A–6). ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61558 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. binding duty on non-Federal not required. In keeping with 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental Government entities or private parties. Department of the Interior and mandate’’ includes a regulation that Under the Act, the only regulatory effect Department of Commerce policy, we ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty is that Federal agencies must ensure that requested information from, and upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ their actions do not destroy or adversely coordinated development of, this with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a modify critical habitat under section 7. critical habitat designation with condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also While non-Federal entities that receive appropriate State resource agencies in excludes ‘‘a duty arising from Federal funding, assistance, or permits, Washington and Oregon. We received participation in a voluntary Federal or that otherwise require approval or comments from WDFW and solicited, program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates authorization from a Federal agency for but did not receive, comments from to a then-existing Federal program an action, may be indirectly impacted ODFW. We addressed the comments under which $500,000,000 or more is by the designation of critical habitat, the from WDFW in the Summary of provided annually to State, local, and legally binding duty to avoid Comments and Recommendations tribal governments under entitlement destruction or adverse modification of section of this rule, and we have authority,’’ if the provision would critical habitat rests squarely on the incorporated informal comments and ‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of Federal agency. Therefore, this rule does feedback from ODFW into this rule. The assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or not place an enforceable duty upon designation of critical habitat in areas otherwise decrease, the Federal State, local, or Tribal governments, or currently occupied by Taylor’s Government’s responsibility to provide on the private sector. checkerspot butterfly and streaked funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal Consequently, we do not believe that horned lark imposes no additional governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust the critical habitat designation will restrictions to those put in place by the accordingly. At the time of enactment, significantly or uniquely affect small subspecies’ listings and, therefore, has these entitlement programs were: government entities. As such, a Small little incremental impact on State and Medicaid; Aid to Families with Government Agency Plan is not local governments and their activities. Dependent Children work programs; required. The designation of critical habitat in Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Takings—Executive Order 12630 areas currently unoccupied by Taylor’s Services Block Grants; Vocational checkerspot butterfly may impose Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, In accordance with Executive Order nominal additional regulatory Adoption Assistance, and Independent 12630 (Government Actions and restrictions to those currently in place Living; Family Support Welfare Interference with Constitutionally and, therefore, may have little Services; and Child Support Protected Private Property Rights), we incremental impact on State and local Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector have analyzed the potential takings governments and their activities. The mandate’’ includes a regulation that implications of designating critical designation may have some benefit to ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot these governments in that the areas that upon the private sector, except (i) a butterfly and streaked horned lark in contain the physical or biological condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a separate takings implications features essential to the conservation of duty arising from participation in a assessments. As discussed above, the the species are more clearly defined, voluntary Federal program.’’ designation of critical habitat affects and the elements of the features of the The designation of critical habitat only Federal actions. Although private habitat necessary to the conservation of does not impose a legally binding duty parties that receive Federal funding, the species are specifically identified. on non-Federal Government entities or assistance, or require approval or This information does not alter where private parties. Under the Act, the only authorization from a Federal agency for and what federally sponsored activities regulatory effect is that Federal agencies an action may be indirectly impacted by may occur. However, it may assist local must ensure that their actions do not the designation of critical habitat, the governments in long-range planning destroy or adversely modify critical legally binding duty to avoid (rather than having them wait for case- habitat under section 7. While non- destruction or adverse modification of by-case section 7 consultations to Federal entities that receive Federal critical habitat rests squarely on the occur). funding, assistance, or permits, or that Federal agency. Critical habitat Where State and local governments otherwise require approval or designation does not affect landowner require approval or authorization from a authorization from a Federal agency for actions that do not require Federal Federal agency for actions that may an action, may be indirectly impacted funding or permits, nor does it preclude affect critical habitat, consultation by the designation of critical habitat, the development of habitat conservation under section 7(a)(2) will be required. legally binding duty to avoid programs or issuance of incidental take While non-Federal entities that receive destruction or adverse modification of permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding, assistance, or permits, critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal funding or permits to go or that otherwise require approval or Federal agency. Furthermore, to the forward. The takings implications authorization from a Federal agency for extent that non-Federal entities are assessment concludes that this an action, may be indirectly impacted indirectly impacted because they designation of critical habitat for by the designation of critical habitat, the receive Federal assistance or participate Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and legally binding duty to avoid in a voluntary Federal aid program, the streaked horned lark does not pose destruction or adverse modification of Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would significant takings implications for critical habitat rests squarely on the not apply, nor would critical habitat lands within or affected by the Federal agency. shift the costs of the large entitlement designation. programs listed above onto State Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order governments. Federalism—Executive Order 13132 12988 (2) We do not believe that this rule In accordance with Executive Order In accordance with Executive Order will significantly or uniquely affect 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office small governments. The designation of have significant Federalism effects. A of the Solicitor has determined that the critical habitat does not impose a legally federalism impact summary statement is rule does not unduly burden the judicial

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61559

system and that it meets the applicable Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Regulation Promulgation standards set forth in sections 3(a) and Responsibilities, and the Endangered Accordingly, we amend part 17, 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating Species Act), we readily acknowledge subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the critical habitat in accordance with the our responsibilities to work directly Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth provisions of the Act. To assist the with tribes in developing programs for below: public in understanding the habitat healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that needs of the species, the rule identifies tribal lands are not subject to the same PART 17—[AMENDED] the elements of physical or biological controls as Federal public lands, to features essential to the conservation of remain sensitive to Indian culture, and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and to make information available to tribes. continues to read as follows: streaked horned lark. The designated Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– areas of critical habitat are presented on In the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the Federal 1544; 4201–4245, 100 Stat. 3500; unless maps, and the rule provides several otherwise noted. options for the interested public to Register on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938), we proposed to designate about ■ 2. Amend § 17.95 by: obtain more detailed location ■ (a) In paragraph (b), adding an entry information, if desired. 661 ac (267 ha) of critical habitat for the streaked horned lark in subunit 3–C for ‘‘Streaked horned lark (Eremophila Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit, of which alpestris strigata)’’ in the same order U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) about 182 ac (74 ha) was identified as that this species appears in the table in This rule does not contain any new within the Shoalwater Bay Indian § 17.11(h); and ■ collections of information that require Reservation. These lands are occupied (b) In paragraph (i), by adding an entry approval by OMB under the Paperwork by the streaked horned lark and meet for ‘‘Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori)’’ in the Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 our definition of critical habitat for the same order that this species appears in et seq.). This rule will not impose subspecies. We indicated that we were the table in § 17.11(h). recordkeeping or reporting requirements considering exclusion of the Shoalwater The additions read as follows: on State or local governments, Bay tribal lands from the designation, individuals, businesses, or due to the high degree of protection § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. organizations. An agency may not already provided by the Tribe. We * * * * * conduct or sponsor, and a person is not coordinated with the Tribe to better (b) Birds. required to respond to, a collection of understand their conservation * * * * * information unless it displays a management plans for this area, and currently valid OMB control number. Streaked horned lark (Eremophila specifically for the streaked horned lark. alpestris strigata) After further review and additional National Environmental Policy Act (42 (1) Critical habitat units are depicted information provided by the Shoalwater U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Bay Tribe, the Secretary determined that It is our position that, outside the Wahkiakum Counties in Washington, the benefits of excluding these tribal jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals and Clatsop, Columbia, Marion, Polk, lands outweigh the benefits of including for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to and Benton Counties in Oregon, on the prepare environmental analyses them in critical habitat for the streaked maps below. pursuant to the National Environmental horned lark, and further concluded that (2) Within these areas, the primary Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et such exclusion will not result in the constituent elements of the physical or seq.) in connection with designating extinction of the subspecies. As a result, biological features essential to the critical habitat under the Act. We the Secretary is exercising her discretion conservation of the streaked horned lark published a notice outlining our reasons to exclude the 182 ac (74 ac) of consist of areas having a minimum of 16 for this determination in the Federal Shoalwater Bay Tribal lands from the percent bare ground that have sparse, Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR final designation under section 4(b)(2) low-stature vegetation composed 49244). This position was upheld by the of the Act (for details, see the Exclusions primarily of grasses and forbs less than U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth section of this document, above). 13 inches (33 centimeters) in height Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 References Cited found in: F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied (i) Large (300-acre (120-hectare)), flat 516 U.S. 1042 (1996) A complete list of all references cited (0–5 percent slope) areas within a landscape context that provides visual Government-to-Government is available on the Internet at http:// access to open areas such as open water Relationship With Tribes www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Service’s Washington Fish and or fields; or In accordance with the President’s Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER (ii) Areas smaller than described in memorandum of April 29, 1994 INFORMATION CONTACT). paragraph (2)(i) of this entry, but that (Government-to-Government Relations provide visual access to open areas such with Native American Tribal Authors as open water or fields. Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive (3) Critical habitat does not include Order 13175 (Consultation and The primary authors of this manmade structures (such as buildings, Coordination With Indian Tribal rulemaking are the staff members of the aqueducts, runways, roads, and other Governments), and the Department of Washington and Oregon Fish and paved areas) and the land on which they the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we Wildlife Offices. are located existing within the legal readily acknowledge our responsibility List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 boundaries on November 4, 2013. to communicate meaningfully with (4) Critical habitat map units. Data recognized Federal Tribes on a Endangered and threatened species, layers defining map units were created government-to-government basis. In Exports, Imports, Reporting and on 2010 aerial photography from U.S. accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 recordkeeping requirements, Department of Agriculture, National of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Transportation. Agriculture Imagery Program base maps

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61560 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

using ArcMap (Environmental Systems which each map is based are available information by contacting one of the Research Institute, Inc.), a computer to the public at the Service’s Internet Service regional offices, the addresses of geographic information system (GIS) site (http://www.fws.gov/wafwo), at which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2. program. The maps in this entry, as http://www.regulations.gov at Docket (5) Index map of critical habitat units modified by any accompanying No. FWS–R1–ES–2013–0009, and by for the streaked horned lark follows: regulatory text, establish the boundaries appointment at the Service’s of the critical habitat designation. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P coordinates or plot points or both on You may obtain field office location

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark in Washington and Oregon

N A LEGEND o Criticat Habitat Unils • Ccitital Habitat SUbu., /VHighwaifs; Otegon OCdunIM CJSI3tei; • MajDfC~

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.000 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61561

(6) Unit 3—Washington Coast and (i) Subunit 3–A: Damon Point/Oyhut, Columbia River Islands, Washington Washington. Map of Subunit 3–A and Oregon. follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (cremophila alpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, SUbunit 3-A: Damon Point I Oyhut, Washington 1:U~OO'W 124-OVW

z b P "

Grays Harbor

Padlic Oce31

VIA SHINGTON z b z B b ~ ~------'-~~".-U~------~------,-~~~------j-~

N A M Crtlical Habitat I

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.001 61562 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Subunit 3–B: Midway Beach, Washington. Map of Subunit 3–B follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (cremophila alpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, SUbunit 3--8: Midway Beach, washinglon 1U'VU'W 17.3'"93'O"'tf

Grays H artIOf

Padlic

WilipaBay

Padfic Ocean

Wt.SHINGTON

1:zA.'"(J'Q'W

N A M Critical Habitat 1Ii-. II 2 4 6 8 • City I I I I I I /'../ Road 0 2 3 4 ll/ileo LJ COUnty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.002 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61563

(iii) Subunit 3–C: Shoalwater, Washington. Map of Subunit 3–C follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (cremophila alpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, SUbunit 3--C: Shoalwater. Washinljon tu'VO'W 12J-sJtJ'W ~ ~------~------v---~------~------~ ~ i Grays H arIIor !i/

WilIipaBay

Pacific Ocean VlASHINGTON

1:z4-mrW

N A I

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.003 61564 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(iv) Subunit 3–D: Leadbetter Point, Washington. Map of Subunit 3–D follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (cremophila alpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, Subunit 3-D: Leadletter Point, Washington e~ ~------~------r--~------L------~ i Grays Harbor !i/

WilIipaBay

Pacilic Ocean VlASHINGTON ,......

N A 1<;_. M Critical Habitat a 2 4 6 8 • City /'\./ Road a 2 3 4 ""Ie LJ COunty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.004 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61565

(v) Subunit 3–E: Rice Island, Oregon/ Washington. Map of Subunit 3–E follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, Subunit 3-E: Rice Island, Or~n I Washington

VII\. SHINGTON

z .. ..z C C wahlllakum

."", J.E ~ ~ D ~\) Columbia RIvEN" ~ & -• Q . " KnIwkIn b z Sl • ..Sl !!I S'II!nsen !!I

Oalsop

1%3"3Ot1"W

N A 1Il_. M Critical Habitat 0 2 4 6 8 • City /'../ Road 0 2 3 4 lllle! [] County

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.005 61566 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(vi) Subunit 3–F: Miller Sands, Oregon. Map of Subunit 3–F follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, Subunit 3-F: Miller Sands, Oregon 123'".uJ.'O"W

Vll\SHINGTON

z b C Wahkiakum

~~ ~ D ~\)

CokImIlia River

& ~• GuftJn II C) . ~

c2- z b b !2 • !2 !i S.R!iII!n !i

Oalsop

OREGON

N A WisfJington '" Critical Ii abilat IGbmeErs o 246 8 • City /'../ Road o 2 3 4 ""'" LJ COunty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.006 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61567

(vii) Subunit 3–G: Pillar Rock/Jim Crow Sands, Oregon. Map of Subunit 3– G follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, Subunit 3-G: Pillar Rock I Jim Crow Sands, Oregon 123'"m'O'W

VII\. SHINGTON

z b z b C C

~~ ~ D ~\) CoImlIJta RiVer s:J & -• Q . " Kniwlon

z b b Sl • Sl !!I S.R!iII!n !!I

Oalsop

123-:50'O"W

N A !

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 er03oc13.007 61568 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(viii) Subunit 3–H: Welch Island, Oregon. Map of Subunit 3–H follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, Subunit 3-H: Welch Island, Or~n

w\SHINGTON

Wahkiakum

\§\) ~~ ~ D Columbia llNer s:J & • - II C) . KnIwkIn c2- z b b !2 • !2 ill S'leI1!ilE!:D iI

Oalsop

OREGON

1%3"3Ot1"W

N A VlltslJingtOll ro_. .. Critical Habitat • City (l 2 4 6 8 /\,/ Road 0 2 3 4 Mlei LJ COunty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 er03oc13.008 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61569

(ix) Subunit 3–I: Tenasillahe Island, Oregon. Map of Subunit 3–I follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, Subunit 3-1: Tenasillahe Island, Oregon 123'"40'O'W

VII\. SHINGTON

z b z b ~ ~ Wahkiakum

~~ ~ D ~\)

ColUmbia Rver

& ewa":~ , 34 C) . c:;;z ~ z b b S! • S! ill S.nsen ill

OREGON

1%3'"3011'''''

N A !

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 er03oc13.009 61570 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(x) Subunit 3–J: Whites/Brown Island, Washington. Map of Subunit 3–J follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (EremophiJa aJpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, Subunits 3-J: Whites/BrONn Island, Washington 123"20tI"W

Wl.SHINGTON

OREGON

N A. M Critical Habitat w-. II 2 4 II 8 • city /'../ Road o 2 3 4 MIes LJ COunty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 er03oc13.010 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61571

(xi) Subunit 3–K: Wallace Island, Oregon. Map of Subunit 3–K follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (EremophiJa aJpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, Subunits 3-K Wallace Island, Oregon

WI. SHINGTON

OREGON

''"''WW

N A. III Critical Habitat 1Ii-. o 246 8 • City /'../ Road o 2 3 4 MIes LJ COunty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 er03oc13.011 61572 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(xii) Subunit 3–L: Crims Island, Oregon. Map of Subunit 3–L follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (EremophiJa aJpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, Subunits 3--l: Crims Island, Or~n

Wl.SHINGTON

OREGON

''''''O'

N A M Critical Habitat I

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 er03oc13.012 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61573

(xiii) Subunit 3–M: Sandy Island, Oregon. Map of Subunit 3–M follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) Unit 3: Wa Coast & Columbia River, SUbunits 3-M: Sandy, Oregon

~SHINGTON

z b ~

•

OREGON i i ~ ~------~~------~~------~--~------~ ~

N A Wlshington M Critical Habitat I

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 er03oc13.013 61574 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(7) Unit 4—Willamette Valley, (i) Subunit 4–A: Baskett Slough NWR, Oregon. Oregon. Map of Subunit 4–A follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (Etemophila alpestris strigata) Unit 4: Valley, Slough

Yamhil

McCoy-

1~-

N A "Criti¢al Habitat 1I\IomII_ o ~ 4 $ 8 • City I ! , , I Iii I /\/ Road 01234 MIn [] County

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.014 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61575

(ii) Subunit 4–B: Ankeny NWR, Oregon. Map of Subunit 4–B follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (Etemophila alpestris strigata) Unit 4: Wlbamette Valley. Subunit 4-8: Ankeny ~gregQn ,23'1_ 123'1_.~ ~

lJ>ooty•

~.. ~ • • ...... -•

I I ~----~------~------~~~------~------~~

N A " CritiCal Habitat tIiIDInlloOnI 0 2 4 II II -City I I I i I i I i I /"'\/ Road 0 , 2 3 4 -. CJ COunty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.015 61576 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(iii) Subunit 4–C: William L. Finley NWR, Oregon. Map of Subunit 4–C follows:

Critical Habitat for Streaked Homed Lark (Eremophila atpestris sttfgata) Unit 4: VVillamltte valley, Subunit 4-C: WUliam L Finlev N.WRV. Oregon ~ ~ 123'2I!G'W WmI'W 10'1_

Benton

N A iii CriticaL Habitat Gregon ~ • City 0 2' .. Ii & I , , J i i I I I /'V Road 0 1 2' 3 ...... ~ [J County

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.016 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61577

communities composed of native grass fleabane (Erigeron speciosus), Canada summer. These features can be and forb species in a diverse thistle (Cirsium arvense), common permanent, seasonal, or ephemeral. topographic landscape ranging in size yarrow (Achillea millefolium), prairie (3) Critical habitat does not include from less than 1 ac up to 100 ac (0.4 to lupine (Lupinus lepidus), and sickle- manmade structures (such as buildings, 40 ha) with little or no overstory forest keeled lupine (Lupinus albicaulis). aqueducts, runways, roads, railroad (ii) Primary larval host plants vegetation that have areas of bare soil tracks, and other paved areas) and the (narrow-leaved plantain and harsh for basking that contain: land on which they are located existing (A) In Washington and Oregon, paintbrush) and at least one of the within the legal boundaries on common bunchgrass species found on secondary annual larval host plants November 4, 2013. northwest grasslands include Festuca (blue-eyed Mary (Collinsia parviflora), roemeri (Roemer’s fescue), Danthonia sea blush (Plectritis congesta), or dwarf (4) Critical habitat map units. Data californica (California oat grass), owl-clover (Triphysaria pusilla) or one layers defining the map unit were Koeleria cristata (prairie Junegrass), of several species of speedwell (marsh created on 2010 aerial photography from Elymus glaucus (blue wild rye), Agrostis speedwell (Veronica scutella), American U.S. Department of Agriculture, scabra (rough bentgrass), and on cooler, speedwell (V. beccabunga var. National Agriculture Imagery Program high-elevation sites typical of coastal americana), or thymeleaf speedwell (V. base maps using ArcMap bluffs and balds, Festuca rubra (red serpyllifolia). (Environmental Systems Research fescue). (iii) Adult nectar sources for feeding Institute, Inc.), a computer geographic (B) On moist grasslands found near that include several species found as information system (GIS) program. The the coast and in the Willamette Valley, part of the native (and one nonnative) maps in this entry, as modified by any there may be Bromus sitchensis (Sitka species mix on northwest grasslands, accompanying regulatory text, establish brome) and Deschampsia cespitosa including: narrow-leaved plantain; the boundaries of the critical habitat (tufted hairgrass) in the mix of prairie harsh paintbrush; Puget balsam root; designation. The coordinates or plot grasses. Less abundant forbs found on woolly sunshine; nine-leaved desert points or both on which each map is the grasslands include, but are not parsley; fine-leaved desert parsley or based are available to the public at the limited to, Trifolium spp. (true clovers), spring gold; common camas; showy Service’s Internet site (http:// narrow-leaved plantain (Plantago fleabane; Canada thistle; common www.fws.gov/wafwo/), at http:// lanceolata), harsh paintbrush (Castilleja yarrow; prairie lupine; sickle-keeled www.regulations.gov at Docket No. hispida), Puget balsamroot lupine; and wild strawberry (Fragaria FWS–R1–ES–2013–0009), and by (Balsamorhiza deltoidea), woolly virginiana). appointment at the Service’s sunshine (Eriophyllum lanatum), nine- (iv) Aquatic features such as Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. leaved desert parsley (Lomatium wetlands, springs, seeps, streams, You may obtain field office location triternatum), fine-leaved desert parsley ponds, lakes, and puddles that provide information by contacting one of the (Lomatium utriculatum), common moisture during periods of drought, Service regional offices, the addresses of camas (Camassia quamash), showy particularly late in the spring and early which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 61578 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(5) Index map of critical habitat units for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly follows:

Critical Habitat for Taylor's CheckerspotBlltterfly in Washington .and Oregon

l1~W

lEGEND

Ohmad Habitat Uriits

• critiCal Ha~itltSUbu~

I

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.017 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61579

(6) Unit 1: South Sound, Washington. (i) Subunit 1–A: Rocky Prairie, Washington. Map of Subunit 1–A follows:

Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydl)'as editha taylonl Unit 1: South Sound, Subun~:t...~: Rocky Prairie, Washington

Thurston

'~A I1-A (Wei Haten)

VlltSHINGTON

122"'5:1'O"W

N A !

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.018 61580 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Subunit 1–B: Tenalquot Prairie, Washington. Map of Subunit 1–B follows:

Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydl)'as editha taylonl Unit 1: South Sound, Subunit 1-B: Tenalquot Prairie, Washington 1Z!-s:t'O"W 1Z!'"«l-t1'W 1Z!'"OO'O'W

Piel'ce

z b !> "

1-8 (ReselVe) •

Tenino

z b &l MSHINGTON !II

122"f.1(1t1'W 1ZZ'"40'tI-'W

N A M Critical Habitat I

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.019 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61581

(iii) Subunit 1–C: Glacial Heritage, Washington. Map of Subunit 1–C follows:

Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydl)'as editha taylonl Unit 1: South Sound, Subunit 1-C: Glacial Herita~, Washington

Tenino

z b Ii! !!I

IJI.I\SHINGTON

"...... 122'"S1't}''W

N A M Critical Habitat VIIlsIJington w_. • City II 2 " 6 8 ./'../ Road 0 2 3 - " LJ COUnty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.020 61582 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(iv) Subunit 1–D: Rock Prairie, Washington. Map of Subunit 1–D follows:

Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydl)'as editha taylonl Unit 1: South Sou~~Subunit 1-D: Rock Prairie, Washington ,..... " ...

Wl.SHINGTON ,......

N A M Critical Habitat IIIbsIJingtOll !

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.021 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61583

(v) Subunit 1–E: Bald Hill, Washington. Map of Subunit 1–E follows:

Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylonl Unit 1: South Sound, Subunit 1-E: Bald Hill, Washington 1Z!"'31V'W 122-:MV'W

ThII"slcn

z b

1-£ (W) e

.' ..1-£ (E)

MSHINGTON

N A III Critical Habitat I'l-' 0 2 4 6 8 • City /'../ Road 0 2 3 4 Mia LJ COunty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.022 61584 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(7) Unit 2: Strait of Juan de Fuca, (i) Subunit 2–A: Deception Pass, Washington. Washington. Map of Subunit 2–A follows:

Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydl}la5 editha taylonl Unit 2: Strait of Juan DeFuca, Subunit 2-A: Deception Pass, Washington

z b Re

Rosario Slral

2-A (West Beam)

VlASHINGTON

1ZZ-«i'Q"W

N A • Critical Habitat IQ-' Q 2 4 6 8 • City /'V Road 0 2 3 4 lilIEs tJ COUnty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.023 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61585

(ii) Subunit 2–B: Central Whidbey, Washington. Map of Subunit 2–B follows:

Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydl}la5 editha taylonl Unit 2: Strait of Juan DeFuca. Subunit 2-B: Central Whidbey. Washington

SIraiI d Juan DeFuca

z ..b ~

Jefferson

w\SHINGTON Pugel Sound

122"3J'O'W

N A. .. Critical Habitat

Ili~ Q 246 8 • City /'V Road o 2 3 4 I\IiIes LJ COunty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.024 61586 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(iii) Subunit 2–C: Elwha, Washington. Map of Subunit 2–C follows:

Critical Habitat for Taylor"sCheckerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylonl Unit 2: strait of Juan DeFuca, Subunit 2-C: Bwha, Washington

~ 2-C (Dan Kelly... Ridge)

Oailam

MSHINGTON

123"'JQ'O"'W

N A Vlltshiogton III Critical Habitat Ki-. 0 2 4 6 8 • City /"v'Road 0 2 3 4 Mlei LJ COUnty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.025 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61587

(iv) Subunit 2–D: Sequim, Washington. Map of Subunit 2–D follows:

Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydl}la5 editha taylonl Unit 2: Strait of Juan DeFuca, SUbunit 2-D: Sequim, washington

Oalam Jelferson

\Al.l.SHINGTON

N A M Critical Habitat 1«-. o 2 4 6 8 • City /'V Road o 2 3 4 Mle LJ COunty

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.026 61588 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(v) Subunit 2–E: Dungeness, Washington. Map of Subunit 2–E follows:

Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydl}la5 editha taylonl Unit 2: Strait of Juan DeFuca, Subunit 2-E: Dungeness, Washington

SIlai of Juan Deruca

• Sequm

z z b ..b t 9

...2.£ (Bear Min)

.".. 2.£ (3 Odod< Ridge)

Qalam ~.£ (Upper Dungen"",,)

SHINGTON WI. Jelferson

,...... 1Z!"SI'Q'W

N A I

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.027 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61589

(8) Unit 4: Willamette Valley, Oregon. (i) Subunit 4–D: Fitton Green– (ii) Map of Subunit 4–D follows: Cardwell Hill, Oregon.

Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot butterfly (Euphtl".. edith. teylorl) Unit 4.; Willamette Valley. SubUnit 4-0: FittOn Green - cardwell Hill. Oreaon 1~'OW !2$':IZ'O'W ~•..

I'IIItcmIiII 10

!2$':IZ'O'W

N A

kiD..... '" (j 0.115 1.3 1.115 2.8 critical Habitat ! I I I .. Gily I I I i I 0 0.45 o.e US 1,8 • MIIU ~·Road

* * * * * Dated: September 19, 2013. Rachel Jacobson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 2013–23552 Filed 10–2–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:36 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03OCR3.SGM 03OCR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER03OC13.028