DOCSLIB.ORG

Protected” Sites (William L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protected” Sites (William L <RULE> <PREAMB> DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0080; 4500030113] RIN 1018–AY18 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and Threatened Status for the Streaked Horned Lark AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. 1 SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine endangered status for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) and threatened status for the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. This final rule adds these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and implements the Federal protections provided by the Act for these species. This rule also establishes a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act to exempt certain activities from the take prohibitions of the Act and our regulations in order to provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark. DATES: This rule is effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/TCBSHL.html . Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503–1263; 360–753–9440 (telephone); 360–753–9008 (facsimile). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Berg, Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503-1263; by telephone 360–753–9440; or by facsimile 360–753–9405. 2 Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary Why we need to publish a rule On October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938), we published a proposed rule to list the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) as an endangered species, and the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) as a threatened species. In this final rule, we are finalizing our proposed determinations for these species under the Act. The Act requires that a final rule be published in order to add species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to provide protections under the Act. Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, we are finalizing designation of critical habitat for these species under the Act. The final critical habitat designations and supporting documents are published under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0009. The table below summarizes our determination for each of these species: Table 1. Summary of the status and range of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark. Species Present range Status Taylor’s Euphydryas editha British Columbia, Endangered checkerspot taylori Canada; 3 butterfly Clallam, Pierce, and Thurston Counties, WA; and Benton County, OR. Streaked Eremophila Grays Harbor, Mason, Threatened horned lark alpestris strigata Pacific, Pierce, Thurston, Cowlitz, and Wahkiakum Counties, WA; Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Lane, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill Counties, OR. This rule: • Lists the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly as an endangered species under the Act because it is currently in danger of extinction throughout the species’ range. • Lists the streaked horned lark as a threatened species under the Act because it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout the species’ range due to continued threats. • Establishes a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act to exempt certain airport maintenance activities and operations, agricultural activities, and noxious weed 4 control activities from the take prohibitions of the Act and our regulations in order to provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark. The basis for our action Under the Act, we can determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that these species are impacted by one or more of the following factors to the extent that the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act: • Habitat loss through conversion and degradation of habitat, particularly from agricultural and urban development, successional changes to grassland habitat, military training, and the spread of invasive plants; • Predation (streaked horned lark); • Inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms that allow significant threats such as habitat loss; • Other natural or manmade factors, including low genetic diversity, small or isolated populations, low reproductive success, and declining population sizes; • Aircraft strikes and training at airports (streaked horned lark); and • Pesticide use (potential threat for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly). 5 Peer review and public comment We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all comments and information we received during the comment periods and the public hearing. Background It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the listing determinations for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark in this final rule. A summary of topics relevant to this final rule is provided below. Additional information on both species may be found in the proposed rule, which was published October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61938). Previous Federal Action Candidate History We first identified the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark as candidates for listing in our 2001 candidate notice of review (CNOR) (66 FR 54808; October 30, 2001). Each candidate species is assigned a listing priority number (LPN) that is based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats and taxonomic status. In 2001, 6 both of these species were assigned an LPN of 6, which reflects threats of a high magnitude that are not considered imminent. In 2004, based on new information, we determined that the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly faced imminent threats of a high magnitude, and we assigned it an LPN of 3 (69 FR 24876; May 4, 2004). In 2006, the streaked horned lark was also assigned an LPN of 3, based on a review indicating that the continued loss of suitable lark habitat, risks to the wintering populations, and plans for development, hazing, and military training activities were imminent threats to the species (71 FR 53756; September 12, 2006). The candidate status, with an LPN of 3 for each species, for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark was most recently reaffirmed in the November 21, 2012, CNOR (77 FR 69994). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) completed action plans for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark and set conservation targets and identified actions to achieve those targets over the next 5 years. These plans can be found on the Service’s website at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/action_plans/doc3089.pdf (Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly) and http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/STHL_Action%20Plan_Sept2009.pdf (streaked horned lark). On October 11, 2012, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to list the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly as endangered and the streaked horned lark as threatened, and to designate critical habitat for these two species (77 FR 61938). This proposed rule also contained a proposed special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for the 7 streaked horned lark. The 60-day comment period on that proposed rule closed on December 10, 2012. On April 3, 2013, we published a document making available the draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designations for the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark, and an amended required determinations section of the proposed designations (78 FR 20074). We additionally announced three public information workshops and a public hearing, held in April 2013, on the proposed rule to list the species and the associated critical habitat designations. The public comment period was reopened for 30 days, ending on May 3, 2013. The final rule designating critical habitat for these two species is published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. Species Information—Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is a medium-sized, colorfully marked butterfly with a checkerboard pattern on the upper (dorsal) side of the wings (Pyle 2002, p. 310). Their wings are orange with black and yellowish (or white) spot bands, giving them a checkered appearance (Pyle 1981, p. 607; Pyle 2002, p. 310). The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was historically known to occur in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, and its current distribution represents a reduction from over 80 locations rangewide to 14. Taxonomy and Species Description Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is a subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha). The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was originally described by 8 W.H. Edwards (1888) from specimens collected from Beacon Hill Park in Victoria, British Columbia (BC). Euphydryas editha taylori is recognized as a valid subspecies by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2012a). It is one of several rare and threatened subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot butterfly, including the Bay checkerspot (E. e. bayensis) from the San Francisco Bay area and the Quino checkerspot (E.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2017-18 Olympic Peninsula Travel Planner
    Welcome! Photo: John Gussman Photo: Explore Olympic National Park, hiking trails & scenic drives Connect Wildlife, local cuisine, art & native culture Relax Ocean beaches, waterfalls, hot springs & spas Play Kayak, hike, bicycle, fish, surf & beachcomb Learn Interpretive programs & museums Enjoy Local festivals, wine & cider tasting, Twilight BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER ISLAND BRITISH COLUMBIA IDAHO 5 Discover Olympic Peninsula magic 101 WASHINGTON from lush Olympic rain forests, wild ocean beaches, snow-capped 101 mountains, pristine lakes, salmon-spawning rivers and friendly 90 towns along the way. Explore this magical area and all it has to offer! 5 82 This planner contains highlights of the region. E R PACIFIC OCEAN PACIFIC I V A R U M B I Go to OlympicPeninsula.org to find more O L C OREGON details and to plan your itinerary. 84 1 Table of Contents Welcome .........................................................1 Table of Contents .............................................2 This is Olympic National Park ............................2 Olympic National Park ......................................4 Olympic National Forest ...................................5 Quinault Rain Forest & Kalaloch Beaches ...........6 Forks, La Push & Hoh Rain Forest .......................8 Twilight ..........................................................9 Strait of Juan de Fuca Nat’l Scenic Byway ........ 10 Joyce, Clallam Bay/Sekiu ................................ 10 Neah Bay/Cape Flattery .................................. 11 Port Angeles, Lake Crescent
    [Show full text]
  • JBLM Lark Monitoring Final Report 2015 W911S8-14-2-0026 W911S8-15-2-0001 CNLM Task Orders #G1108, G1118 April 2016
    Habitat and Species Cooperative Restoration Program Joint Base Lewis-McChord Center for Natural Lands Management JBLM Lark Monitoring Final Report 2015 W911S8-14-2-0026 W911S8-15-2-0001 CNLM Task Orders #G1108, G1118 April 2016 Submitted to: Joint Base Lewis-McChord Fish and Wildlife Program Submitted by: Adrian Wolf, Gary Slater and Hannah Anderson Center for Natural Lands Management 120 Union Avenue Southeast Olympia WA, 98501 Phone: 360-584-2538 Joint Base Lewis-McChord is a key military installation and the most important conservation area in the Puget Trough region. The Center for Natural Lands Management strives to assist Joint Base Lewis-McChord in the conservation of its natural resources within the framework of the military training mandate. Joint Base Lewis- McChord and its conservation partners have shared interests because: Healthy natural ecosystems are essential for realistic and sustainable training lands. Rare species recovery throughout the region reduces the burden of recovery on any single landowner or site. Pest plants harm natural areas and reduce their suitability for military training. Page 2 Table of Contents Project Highlights ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Goals and Objectives ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Specifications and Contract Documents
    SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Killeen, Texas Robert Gray Army Airfield (RGAAF) Security Surveillance Improvements at Robert Gray Army Airfield City of Killeen RFP No. 19-10 ISSUED FOR RFP Garver Project No. 17181082 Project Sponsors: Prepared For: City of Killeen November 6, 2018 This page intentionally left blank Security Surveillance Improvements at RGAAF Project No. 17181082 Issued for RFP November 6, 2018 SECTION I. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Security Surveillance Improvements at RGAAF Project No. 17181082 Issued for RFP November 6, 2018 This page intentionally left blank Security Surveillance Improvements at RGAAF Project No. 17181082 Issued for RFP November 6, 2018 SECTION 000001 CERTIFICATIONS SECURITY SURVEILLANCE IMPROVEMENTS AT ROBERT GRAY ARMY AIRFIELD PROJECT GARVER PROJECT NO. 17181082 CITY OF KILLEEN RFP NO. 19-10 I hereby certify that the applicable portions of this project plans and specifications were prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Engineer under the laws of the State of Texas. APPLICABLE DIVISION OR SEAL AND SIGNATURE PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY Derek Mayo, P.E. General Plans and Specifications Digitally Signed: Matthew LeMay, P.E. Electrical Plans and Specifications Digitally Signed: Security Surveillance Improvements at RGAAF Project No. 17181082 Issued for RFP 000001-1 November 6, 2018 SECTION 000001 CERTIFICATIONS APPLICABLE DIVISION OR SEAL AND SIGNATURE PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY Michael A. Guzik, P.E. CTI Telecom Plans and Specifications Digitally Signed GARVER, LLC CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: TX ENGINEERING REGISTRATION NO. F-5713 TX ARCHITECTURAL REGISTRATION NO. 21507 CTI CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: TX REGISTERED CONSULTING FIRM B-17368 Security Surveillance Improvements at RGAAF Project No.
    [Show full text]
  • JBLM Streaked Horned Lark Surveys and Monitoring 2016
    Habitat and Species Cooperative Restoration Program Joint Base Lewis-McChord Center for Natural Lands Management JBLM Lark Monitoring Final Report 2016 W911S8-15-2-0001 W911S8-15-2-0004 W911S8-15-2-0012 W911S8-16-2-0010 CNLM Task Orders #G1117, G1118, G1131, G1155 March 2017 Submitted to: Joint Base Lewis-McChord Fish and Wildlife Program Submitted by: Adrian Wolf, Gary Slater and Jerrmaine Treadwell Center for Natural Lands Management 120 Union Avenue Southeast Olympia WA, 98501 Phone: 360-584-2538 Joint Base Lewis-McChord is a key military installation and the most important conservation area in the Puget Trough region. The Center for Natural Lands Management strives to assist Joint Base Lewis-McChord in the conservation of its natural resources within the framework of the military training mandate. Joint Base Lewis- McChord and its conservation partners have shared interests because: Healthy natural ecosystems are essential for realistic and sustainable training lands. Rare species recovery throughout the region reduces the burden of recovery on any single landowner or site. Pest plants harm natural areas and reduce their suitability for military training. Page i Table of Contents Project Highlights ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Goals and Objectives ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Market Overview
    Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Market Overview July 18, 2012 Contents . Definitions . Facts & Figures . UAS Budgets and Spending . Trends and Challenges . Future of Unmanned Aerial Systems . Summary and Recommendations . Appendix A: DoD UAS Acquisition Costs . Appendix B: DoD Current and Future Domestic UAS Locations 2 7/18/2012 ©2012 Deltek, Inc. All Rights Reserved Definitions . Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) . Refers to systems whose components include the necessary equipment, network, and personnel to control an unmanned aircraft . UAS is a broader term that includes equipment, networks, and personnel in addition to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) . Refers to a powered aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operation, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle life, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload . Commonly known as “drones”. In practice, the terms UAS and UAV are often used interchangeably Source: CRS Report R41284, “Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Acquisition: Issues for Congress,” December 27, 2011. 3 7/18/2012 ©2012 Deltek, Inc. All Rights Reserved Facts & Figures . Dept. of Defense (DoD) spending on UAS has increased from $284 million in FY00 to $3.9 billion in FY12 . DoD’s unmanned aircraft inventory increased more than 40-fold from 167 aircraft in 2002 to nearly 7,500 in 2010 . In 2009, DoD completed almost 500,000 UAS flight hours just in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom . In May 2010, unmanned systems surpassed one million flight hours . In November 2010 unmanned systems achieved one million combat hours Sources: CRS Report R41284, “Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Acquisition: Issues for Congress,” December 27, 2011; CRS Report R42136, “Unmanned Aerial Systems,” January 3, 2012; Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Host Suitability Studies of Douglas-Fir and White Alder to the Gypsy Moth Abstract Redacted for Privacy Approved: / F /Jeffrey C.Miller
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Gladwin Joseph for the degree of Master of Science in Entomology presented on August 29 1989. Title: Host Suitability Studies of Douglas-fir and White Alder to the Gypsy Moth Abstract Redacted for privacy approved: / f /Jeffrey C.Miller Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii and white alder, Alnus rhombifolia, species that are prevalent in the Pacific Northwest, were fed to larvae of the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar L. Gypsy moth larvae from different familial lines (egg masses) from a single geographic population were evaluated on these hosts. The larvae were fed leaves from the two tree species characterized by different foliar levels of either nitrogen, moisture, phenols, or terpenes. Of the two tree species evaluated as hosts of the gypsy moth, white alder appeared to be a highly suitable host, whereas Douglas-fir was a sub-optimal host. Nitrogen and the allelochemics in the foliage affected larval development. On white alder, foliage from trees that had the higher phenolic levels resulted in increased larval survival and higher fecundity. On Douglas-fir, foliage high in nitrogen had lower phenolics and this resulted in increased larval survival and heavier pupae when compared to foliage with low nitrogen and high phenols. Performance of the gypsy moth on these hosts was affected by unknown intrinsic variation among familial lines. Larval survival and duration varied more than other developmental variables among larval familial lines. The variation in larval survival among familial lines was more pronounced in larvae fed Douglas-fir than those fed white alder. A developmental index involving developmental rate and pupal weight differed more for females among familial lines than for males, suggesting a differential sex response.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Hood Noise Study
    130 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1312 Fort Hood Noise Study RICHARD M. LETTY At the request' of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineer , Fort WortJ1 measuring airfield noise and impulsive weapon-firing blast District Office, an in tallation compatible-use zone (ICUZ) noise noise, it was decided that the noise monitoring would be study was prepared for Fort Hood, Texa . The purpose f this performed in two phases. The Phase I noise measurements study was to addres the n i e impact from military training ac­ focused on airfield noise. A total of nine noise measurement tivity conducted at Fort Hood. The major component of this Fort Hood I UZ noise study wa a comprehensive long-term noise locations were selected: two in the vicinity of RGAAF, four monitoring program and the use of computer modeling to develop around HAAF, and three along the various flight corridors noi e contour to iden tify noise-impacted areas. Noise measure­ leading to and from the Fort Hood Army Installation. The ments were obtained at a total of 17 noise measurement locations: Phase II noise measurements focused on the blast noise from 9 airfield noi e monitoring ·itc , and 8 weapon-fi ring blast noise artillery and weapon-firing activity on the various ranges at monitoring site . Because of the day-to-day variations in military Fort Hood. The purpose of the noise monitoring program was training activity, it was determined that 60 days of noise data at ach of the 17 noise-m nitoring sites would be useful in under­ not only to define the actual noise levels from airfield and standing long-term airfield and weapon-firing blast noise levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Post Newspaper
    FREE RECYCLED an edition of the Recycled material is used in the making of our ALASKA POST newsprint The Interior Military News Connection Vol. 8, No. 37 Fort Wainwright, Alaska September 15, 2017 Alaska, California rescue squadrons unite to save lives in Southeast Texas Staff Sgt. Balinda O’Neal Dresel 249th Airlift Squadron bound for Alaska National Guard Public Moffett Federal Airfield, Calif., Affairs to pick up two HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters and aircrews from the Air National Guardsmen from 129th Rescue Squadron. They Alaska’s Chugach Mountains and the arrived in Fort Hood in the early- heart of California’s Silicon Valley morning hours of Aug. 29 and spent last week in the flooded cities of began moving equipment to a Southeast Texas, with one mission— staging area on Gray Army Airfield to save lives. where they were later paired Aircrews, combat rescue officers, with search and rescue personnel pararescuemen and support personnel from California’s 131st Rescue from the Alaska Air National Guard’s Squadron. 176th Wing and members of the “One of the greatest aspects California Air National Guard’s of working with other pararescue 129th Rescue Wing joined more than teams is that we can come together 18,000 National Guard personnel under a common thread and who responded to the call to assist train and work as a joint force,” with Hurricane Harvey humanitarian explained Senior Master Sgt. disaster relief operations. The Airmen Brandon Stuemke, a pararescueman left home Aug. 28 to help their with the 212th Rescue Squadron. neighbors in Texas still needing relief “It allowed for us to seamlessly Air National Guard search and rescue personnel from Alaska and California conduct water and evacuation.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Human Environment Appendices
    Human Environment Chapter 5 © Dow Lambert Chapter 5 Chapter 4 Chapter 3 Chapter 2 Chapter 1 Human Biological Physical Management Introduction and Appendices Environment Environment Environment Direction Background Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Chapter 5. Human Environment 5.1 Cultural Resources 5.1.1 Native American Overview Prehistory Jeanne M. Welch and R.D. Daugherty prepared a compilation of the prehistoric era on the Olympic Peninsula as part of their background information for a 1988 survey project on Dungeness NWR (Welch and Daugherty 1988). The following information is paraphrased from their report. The five periods of occupation for the region proposed by Eric Bergland (Bergland 1984) cover approximately 12,000 years and include: Early Prehistoric, Middle Prehistoric Early Maritime, Prehistoric, Northwest Coast Pattern, and Historic. On the Olympic Peninsula, the prehistoric people are characterized as small groups of hunters and gatherers who moved around to utilize both terrestrial and maritime resources. This period on the peninsula is represented by the Manis Mastodon site (45CA218) which attests to the hunting of large game animals. It is likely that the onset of the Middle Prehistoric saw an increase in the use of maritime resources such as anadromous fish. By the Early Maritime period, proposed to have begun around 3,000 years before present (BP), the use of maritime resources was well established. It is likely that the cultural manifestations of these later prehistoric periods resembled those of the ethnographic period, but details such as the existence of villages with large, cedar plankhouses are uncertain. During the Prehistoric Northwest Coast Pattern period, which began 1,000 years BP, chipped stone assemblages virtually disappeared while large plankhouse villages became prominent.
    [Show full text]
  • National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) (2011-2015)
    NPIAS 2011-2015 Illustrated by GRA, Incorporated Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) (2011-2015) Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the United States Congress Pursuant to Section 47103 of Title 49, United States Code The NPIAS 2011-2015 report is available online at http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/npias/reports Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. VI Development Estimates .......................................................................................................... vii Estimates by Airport Type......................................................................................... viii Estimates by Type of Development...............................................................................x Status of the Industry .............................................................................................................. xii CHAPTER 1: SYSTEM COMPOSITION.......................................................................................1 Overview....................................................................................................................................1 U.S. Department of Transportation................................................................................2 Federal Aviation Administration ...................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Z!Jfj1jjtis/(I __ Pontia Occidentalis Western White Jt I>Ei>R.1U :I Zaii As __ Pieris Napi Mustard White (Incl.Angelika)-Unspecified Subsp
    (ff;) 2002 Count Name, S~~te iJfiL/,k/Ll R.I '/IE.fl #wt Imminent threats to habitat: ______________ AIW J?f.R,£,:_Y , ___ Year count held & subm!tted for publication (1 st,2nd ~tc.): 3 llo 0 1 CENl'ERAT (1atitude)_:ll__ ..Jil...'N, (lo ~itude)_17_0 .Y._•w CF.NTERAT (describe in words) iJtl7 Cof#/1'/ /?.?J6S Changes noticed since last year:------------ suS:f tX) N - 7 includes {in circle - 1st year count only)--------- ***Alll!!J'BU1TERFLIE.S*** ifa species is not listed, write it in on a blank line. -----------(Send a map with first year counts.) To indicate a subspecies, write it in after the species name. Elevation: (low) £00 to {high)~ ft I m (circle unit of measure) PAPIL!ONIDAE- Swallowtails Habitat (of area counted - 1st year count only):------- __ Parnassius clodius Clodius Pamassian __ Parnassius phoebus Phoebus Parnassian-unspecified subsp. (P. p. phoebus) 'Phoebus' Phoebus Parnassian DATE: 11/ib.oo~ TIME: 2.·11A1Y to ct.--1.fp/'f __ (P. p. smintheus) 'Rocky Mountain' Ph. Pamassian AM: (circle appropriate words:) clear~ some fog __ (P. p. behri) 'Sierra Nevada' Phoebus Pamassian partly cloudy mostly cloudy inte~ moderate heavy __ Battus philenor Pipevine Swallowtail drizzle rain hail; % time in AM sun was shining:__ % __ Battus polydamas Polydamas Swallowtail PM: (circle a ropriate words:) clear mostly clear hazy some fog __ Eurytides marce/lus Zebra Swallowtail a y c oud mostly cloudy intermittent light moderate heavy U Papilio polyxenes (includes kahli) Black Swallowtail drizz e rain hail; % time in PM sun was shining: __% __ Papilio joanae Ozark Swallowtail TEMPERATIJRE: _]L_0 to ~° F °F = {°C x 1.8) + 32 __ Papi/io machaon Old World Swallowtail-unspecified subsp.
    [Show full text]
  • EXHIBIT 2 Recovery Outline for the Streaked Horned Lark
    EXHIBIT 2 Recovery Outline for the Streaked Horned Lark U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Outline for the Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) Photo: D. Leonard, USFWS Common Name Streaked horned lark Scientific Name Eremophila alpestris strigata Listing Status and Date Threatened; October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61452) Critical Habitat and Date Designated; October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61506) Lead Agency/Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 Lead Field Office Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97266 (503) 231-6179 Lead Biologist Cat Brown (503) 231-6179, [email protected] Purpose of the Recovery Outline: This document lays out a preliminary course of action for the survival and recovery of the streaked horned lark. It is meant to serve as interim guidance to direct recovery efforts and inform consultation and permitting activities until a comprehensive draft recovery plan has been completed. Recovery outlines are intended primarily for internal use by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), and formal public participation will be invited upon the release of the draft recovery plan. However, we will consider any new information or comments that members of the public may wish to offer in response to this outline during the recovery planning process. For more information on Federal survival and recovery efforts for the streaked horned lark, or to provide additional comments, interested parties may contact 1 Recovery Outline for the Streaked Horned Lark the lead biologist for this species, Cat Brown, at the above address, telephone number, or e-mail.
    [Show full text]