Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and Threatened Status for…
| Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the
Final rule.
CFR Part: "50 CFR Part 17"
RIN Number: "RIN 1018-AY18"
Citation: "78 FR 61452"
Document Number: "Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0080; 4500030113"
"Rules and Regulations"
SUMMARY: We, the
   DATES: This rule is effective
   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:
   FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
   SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why We Need To Publish a Rule
   On
Table 1--Summary of the Status and Range of theTaylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and the Streaked Horned Lark Species Present range Status Taylor's checkerspot British Columbia, Canada; Endangered. butterfly--Euphydryas Clallam, Pierce, and editha taylori Thurston Counties, WA; and Benton County, OR Streaked horned Grays Harbor, Mason, Threatened. lark--Eremophila Pacific, Pierce, alpestris strigata Thurston, Cowlitz, and Wahkiakum Counties, WA; Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Lane, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill Counties, OR
   This rule:
    * Lists the
    * Lists the streaked horned lark as a threatened species under the Act because it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout the species' range due to continued threats.
    * Establishes a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act to exempt certain airport maintenance activities and operations, agricultural activities, and noxious weed control activities from the take prohibitions of the Act and our regulations in order to provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark.
The Basis for Our Action
   Under the Act, we can determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
   We have determined that these species are impacted by one or more of the following factors to the extent that the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act:
    * Habitat loss through conversion and degradation of habitat, particularly from agricultural and urban development, successional changes to grassland habitat, military training, and the spread of invasive plants;
    * Predation (streaked horned lark);
    * Inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms that allow significant threats such as habitat loss;
    * Other natural or manmade factors, including low genetic diversity, small or isolated populations, low reproductive success, and declining population sizes;
    * Aircraft strikes and training at airports (streaked horned lark); and
    * Pesticide use (potential threat for the
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
Previous Federal Action
Candidate History
   We first identified the
   In 2004, based on new information, we determined that the
   On
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
Taxonomy and Species Description
   Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is a subspecies of Edith's checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha). The
Distribution
   Historically, the
   " Euphydryas editha taylori was previously more widely distributed and much denser in occurrence than is presently the case on the Puget Prairies. The checkerspot was abundant on the
   Before the recent declines observed over roughly the last 10 or 15 years, the
   The 1949 field season summary for North American lepidoptera (Hopfinger 1949, p. 89) states that an abundant distribution of the
   Nearly all localities for the
   Due to the limited distribution and few populations of the
   Canada-- After years of surveys (2001 through 2004) at historical population sites in
   Washington-- In
   Four other sites in
   Four historical locales for
   Surveys of 15 prairies within the south
   The 91st Division Prairie is located on JBLM and encompasses approximately 7,600 acres (ac) (3,075 hectares (ha)) of native grassland.
   In the course of conducting surveys for another rare grassland-associated butterfly found in
   Several historical sites with potentially suitable habitat were surveyed on the north
   In 2006, a population was discovered near the town of
   Since 2007, three new
   Oregon-- All of the 13 historical locales within the
   Summary --Based on historical and current data, the distribution and abundance of
Habitat
   Taylor's checkerspot butterfly occupies open grassland habitat found on prairies, shallow-soil balds (Chappell 2006, p. 1), grassland bluffs, and grassland openings within a forested matrix in south
Biology
   Taylor's checkerspot butterflies produce one brood per year. They overwinter (diapause) in the fourth or fifth larval instar (developmental) phase and have a flight period as adults of 10 to 14 days, usually in May, although depending on local site and climatic conditions, the flight period begins in late April and extends into early July, as in
   Female Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and their larvae utilize plants that contain defensive chemicals known as iridoid glycosides, which have been recognized to influence the selection of oviposition sites by adult nymphalid butterflies (butterflies in the family Nymphalidae) (Murphy et al. 2004, p. 22; Page et al. 2009, p. 2), and function as a feeding stimulant for some checkerspot larvae (Kuussaari et al. 2004, p. 147). As maturing larvae feed, they accumulate these defensive chemical compounds from their larval host plants into their bodies. According to the work of Bowers (1981, pp. 373-374), this accumulation appears to deter predation. These larval host plants include members of the Broomrape family (Orobanchaceae), such as Castilleja (paintbrushes) and Orthocarpus, which is now known as Triphysaria (owl's clover), and native and nonnative Plantago species, which are members of the Plantain family (Plantaginaceae) (Pyle 2002, p. 311;
Species Information--Streaked Horned Lark
   Streaked horned lark is endemic to the
Taxonomy and Species Description
   The horned lark is a bird found throughout the northern hemisphere (Beason 1995, p. 1); it is the only true lark (Family Alaudidae, Order Passeriformes) native to
   Drovetski et al. (2005, p. 877) evaluated the genetic distinctiveness, conservation status, and level of genetic diversity of the streaked horned lark using the complete mitochondrial ND2 gene. Streaked horned larks were closely related to the
   Streaked horned lark is differentiated and isolated from all other sampled localities, and although it was ". . . historically a part of a larger
Distribution
   Streaked horned lark's breeding range historically extended from southern
   British Columbia-- Streaked horned lark was never considered common in
   Washington-- The first report of the streaked horned lark in the San Juan Islands,
   There are a few historical records of streaked horned larks on the outer coast of
   There are scattered records of streaked horned larks in the northern Puget Trough, including sightings in
   Over a century ago, the streaked horned lark was described as a common summer resident in the prairies of the
   There are sporadic records of streaked horned larks along the
   Oregon --Streaked horned lark's historical range extends south through the
   Streaked horned lark, while occasionally present, was never reported to be more than uncommon on the
   In the early 1900s, the streaked horned lark was considered a common permanent resident of the
   Breeding Range-- Streaked horned lark has been extirpated as a breeding subspecies throughout much of its range, including all of its former range in
   The current range of the streaked horned lark can be divided into three regions: (1) The south
   In the south
   On the
   In the
   Wintering Range--
Population Estimates and Current Status
   Data from the
   In the south
   On the
   There are about 900-1,300 breeding streaked horned larks in the
   We do not have population trend data in
   Data from the BBS may provide additional insight into the trend of the streaked horned lark population in the
   The BBS data from the
   We do not have conclusive data on population trends throughout the streaked horned lark's range, but the rapidly declining population on the south
Range Contraction
   Streaked horned lark has experienced a substantial contraction of its range; it has been extirpated from all formerly documented locations at the northern end of its range (
Habitat
   Historically, nesting habitat was found on grasslands, estuaries, and sandy beaches in
   Habitat used by larks is generally flat with substantial areas of bare ground and sparse low-stature vegetation primarily comprised of grasses and forbs (
   Although streaked horned larks use a wide variety of habitats, populations are vulnerable because the habitats used are often ephemeral or subject to frequent human disturbance. Ephemeral habitats include bare ground in agricultural fields and wetland mudflats; habitats subject to frequent human disturbance include mowed fields at airports, managed road margins, agricultural crop fields, and disposal sites for dredge material (Altman 1999, p. 19). It is important to note the key role of anthropogenically maintained landscapes in the process of creating and maintaining habitat for the streaked horned lark; without large-scale, manmade disturbance (e.g., burning, mowing, cropping, and deposition of dredge spoils), available habitat would decrease rapidly, but these same activities can threaten individuals when they are at sensitive life-history stages.
Biology
   Horned larks forage on the ground in low vegetation or on bare ground (Beason 1995, p. 6); adults feed mainly on grass and forb seeds, but feed insects to their young (Beason 1995, p. 6). In the
   Streaked horned larks have a strong affinity for recently burned habitats. An experimental study at JBLM found that larks had a highly significant preference for burned versus unburned fields, and in the breeding season following a fire, lark abundance was significantly higher on the burned plots (
   Horned larks form pairs in the spring (Beason 1995, p. 11). Altman (1999, p. 11) used a small sample (n=3) of streaked horned lark territories in the
   The nesting season for streaked horned larks begins in mid-April and ends in late August (
   Nest success studies (i.e., the proportion of nests that result in at least one fledged chick) in streaked horned larks report highly variable results. Nest success on the
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
   In the proposed rule published on
   During the two comment periods for the proposed rule, we received nearly 100 comment letters addressing either the proposed listing or the proposed critical habitat (or both) for the
Peer Review
   In accordance with our peer review policy published on
Comments From
   (1) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the taxonomy section of the proposed rule was incomplete with regard to its description of the full species Euphydryas editha (Edith's checkerspot butterfly). He states the taxonomy of the full species E. editha is more complicated than we summarized. However, the peer reviewer added that despite the incomplete taxonomic treatment for the full species E. editha, the taxonomic treatment of E. editha taylori in the proposed rule is consistent with the most recent literature.
   Our response: For the purpose of a listing document, we provide a non-technical physical and biological description of the species, and a taxonomic description of the entity we intend to list, which is subspecies Euphydryas editha taylori in this case. We typically do not describe the full species from which the subspecies was derived.
   (2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that, because of the discontinuous distribution of E. editha taylori, further taxonomic evaluation utilizing molecular genetics techniques would better determine the amount of genetic divergence within and between known populations.
   Our response: The Service agrees that having a complete genetic evaluation is beneficial when determining differences within and between broadly distributed species. We are currently collaborating with
   (3) Comment: One peer reviewer mentioned that during mild winters the adult flight season for the
   Our response: We agree and consider the adult flight period for the subspecies to be variable from year to year, primarily dependent upon the local annual weather patterns during the late winter, and early spring of the specific flight year. We discuss in this final rule an example of adult
   (4) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the
   Our response: We agree with the concept of a metapopulation structure for
   (5) Comment: One peer reviewer supports our ideas about active management to maintain early seral conditions in occupied habitats and about the maintenance of dispersal corridors between areas having the most dense populations of the
   Our response: We agree with the importance of active management, and that without regular management activities to sustain ecosystem processes, we would quickly lose small populations where we are working to enhance and maintain
   (6) Comment: One peer reviewer took issue with our use of the word "collection" of butterflies for scientific studies. He suggests there is no evidence that collection of specimens has contributed to the decline of the
   Our response: We agree that we inappropriately used this term when we meant to discuss "capture" as it is directly related to "mark, release, and recapture" studies. We have made this change in this final rule, and replaced any mention of the term "collection" with "capture," except where we are discussing a collection of specimens.
   (7) Comment: One peer reviewer expressed concern about the violations of section 9 of the Act that prohibit, "Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying or transporting of the species, including export and import across state lines and international boundaries, except for properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act." Given the need for genetic and molecular phylogenetic studies of E. editha taylori, he disagreed with the idea of restricting the movement of specimens that are less than 100 years old. He questions how specimens that have been legally collected as vouchers and preserved for the purpose of future genetic, molecular, and morphological studies would become illegal if the species were to be listed as endangered. He strongly encourages the Service to allow the act of possessing and transporting specimens legally obtained prior to the listing of the species in 2013, in order to facilitate and contribute to the scientific study of the subspecies.
   Our response: The proposed rule overstated the prohibitions in section 9 of the Act. After listing takes effect, mere possession of a specimen, provided the specimen was not collected in violation of the Act, is not prohibited, and interstate transportation of such a specimen for the purpose of genetic testing is not prohibited as long as it does not occur in the course of a commercial activity. This description of the prohibitions has been corrected in this final rule.
   (8) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we include additional information in our section on the nectar foods used in
   Our response: We did correctly discuss the use of Fragaria virginiana, not Fraxinus, as it is the most widespread of nectar resources in
   (9) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the Service should consider the increased disease pressure on populations of the
   Our response: We agree with both of these comments. We did not consider increased pressure, or an increase in the incidence of disease due to the predicted increase in winter precipitation, in our threats analysis. We observed examples of the impacts of late winter inundation or frost events in occupied
   (10) Comment: One peer reviewer commented on how larvae of Euphydryas spp. are known to be able to respond to adverse environmental conditions by delaying development when host plants are limited or of poor quality, as the larvae may re-enter diapause for an additional 12 months. The reviewer stated that this is an adaptation to surviving in unreliable environments and will serve to mitigate against "phenological mismatch" of the larvae and host plants.
   Our response: We agree that during poor weather years, populations of the
Streaked Horned Lark
   (11) Comment: One peer reviewer and several other commenters disagreed with our assessment of the status of the streaked horned lark as threatened rather than endangered. In our proposed rule, we stated that there was insufficient data in the
   In addition, the peer reviewer conducted his own analysis of five individual BBS routes in the
   The peer reviewer asserted that our failure to examine the BBS data is highly relevant because one of the key factors used in the determination of threatened rather than endangered status was the perceived stability of lark populations in the
   Our response: In order to evaluate this new analysis of the
   We also note that the peer reviewer's analysis of the steady decline in streaked horned lark detections since the early 1990s correlates with the beginning of the field burning restrictions implemented by the
   In summary, the peer reviewer presented new information about the declining population of streaked horned larks in the
   (12) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that it would be useful to discuss the potential reasons that the
   Our response: We have augmented the discussion of the population trends in
   (13) Comment: One peer reviewer and one other commenter believed our approach to listing the streaked horned lark would not result in sufficient protections to acheive recovery. In particular, the peer reviewer believed that the combination of threatened status, our promulgation of a special rule for agricultural activities and wildlife hazard management at airports, and a somewhat limited critical habitat designation would result in inadequate protection for the streaked horned lark. The commenter stated that he believes we put too much effort put into alleviating potential conflicts with land managers rather than focusing on measures to ensure conservation of the streaked horned lark, and that this approach will be inadequate to move the species on a trajectory away from the need for listing.
   Our response: Our determination that the streaked horned lark is threatened rests on our application of the scientific data to the Act's definition of a threatened species, and not on our expectations about the best means to conserve the species. Regarding the reviewer's comment with respect to the proposed 4(d) special rule and proposed critical habitat, we believe it is important to recognize that listing, critical habitat designation, and section 4(d) of the Act are part of the suite of tools that the Service has available to conserve listed species, but do not in and of themselves conserve the species. Once a species is listed as either endangered or threatened, the Act provides many tools to advance the conservation of listed species; available tools include recovery planning under section 4 of the Act, interagency cooperation and consultation under section 7, grants to the states under section 6, and safe harbor agreements and habitat conservation plans under section 10. The streaked horned lark is an unusual case in that nearly all of its existing habitats have been created by industrial land uses (e.g., agriculture, airport maintenance, dredge spoil disposal), in which creation of lark habitat is not the intended purpose. Long experience in working with commercial and industrial partners have shown us that a more collaborative approach, rather than a strictly regulatory one, will be more effective in recovering streaked horned larks on private lands. We expect that the conservation program for the streaked horned lark will take advantage of all of the creativity and flexibility offered by the Act.
   (14) Comment: One peer reviewer and several other commenters stated that the proposed 4(d) rule for streaked horned lark is too broad, particularly the portion that exempts take associated with routine agricultural activities on non-federal lands in the
   Our response: The purpose of the 4(d) special rule is to recognize the larger conservation value of maintaining existing farmland habitats that support streaked horned larks, even though some farming activities may adversely affect the species. Activities likely to occur in those landscapes, should ongoing agricultural activities cease, such as suburban development or transition to orchards and nursery stock, would permanently remove habitat essential to the streaked horned lark. We believe that exempting take as the result of agricultural activities described in the special rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of streaked horned larks by helping to ensure the maintenance of those beneficial land uses that provide habitat used by the subspecies.
   In the 40 years since the passage of the Act, the Service has learned that relying on regulation alone is not an effective means for engaging private landowners in endangered species conservation. On the agricultural lands in the
   (15) Comment: One peer reviewer asked us to modify the proposed 4(d) special rule to include timing restrictions on covered activities to minimize disturbances to nesting streaked horned larks.
   Our response: Our purpose in promulgating a special rule to exempt take associated with activities that inadvertently create habitat for the streaked horned lark is to allow landowners to continue those activities without additional regulation. We believe that imposing a timing restriction would likely reduce the utility of the special rule for land managers, and could have the unintended side effect of causing landowners to discontinue their habitat creation activities. Accordingly, we have not modified the special rule to include timing restrictions; however, we intend to offer education and assistance to landowners to help them protect and increase the populations of larks on their lands, if they are amenable.
Comments From States
   Comments we received from States regarding the proposal to list the
   The agencies provided a number of recommended technical corrections or edits to the proposed listing of the
   (16) Comment: WDFW encouraged the Service to assist the State with alternative methods of achieving the conservation and recovery of the species, including programmatic safe harbor agreements, habitat conservation plans, conservation banks, or other incentive-based partnerships.
   Our response: The Service appreciates our strong conservation partnership with the
   (17) Comment: WDFW was concerned that allowing any timeframe for mowing in
   Our response: It is our understanding that when larvae are in diapause they are usually deep in the vegetation, or within the soil itself. At the time larvae are in diapause, most of the host plant (except narrow-leaf plantain) and nectar food resources are dormant. It is possible to do considerable management on prairies without harm to the target conservation species. Our recommendation for habitat management in occupied
   (18) Comment: WDNR recommended that we consider promulgating a 4(d) special rule to exempt take of the
   Our response: Under section 4(d) of the Act, a special rule may be promulgated only for threatened species. Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available indicates that the
   (19) Comment: WDNR expressed concern that the safe use of pesticides to control nonnative, invasive insects, such as gypsy moths, may be impacted by the listing of and designation of critical habitat for the
   Our response: We do not see the use of pesticides use in general to be an adverse impact to
   (20) Comment: WSDOT requested that we expand the coverage offered by the special rule for the streaked horned lark to include roadside management activities that are similar to those proposed for airports and agricultural operations. They specifically requested coverage for vegetation management of roadside rights-of-way, including mechanical mowing, weed control, and woody vegetation control; the commenter stated that these vegetation management activities are consistent with the activities covered on airports and agricultural lands, and would provide suitable streaked horned lark habitat along highways and roadside rights-of-way.
   Our response: We are currently unaware of any substantial lark use along road right-of-ways with the exception of those bordering agricultural areas. Roadside management activities present a variety of site-specific issues, which are better addressed at the individual site level. For actions with a Federal nexus, we believe review and coverage of incidental take under section 7 is more appropriate. For activities along State highways that could cause take of streaked horned larks, other programs would be appropriate to provide incidental take coverage, such as a habitat conservation plan (HCP) under section 10 of the Act. While encouraging the utilization of conservation programs such as development of HCPs, the final rule includes a provision for coverage of incidental take under the 4(d) special rule during activities aimed at the control of noxious weeds (See: Noxious Weed Control on Non-Federal Lands).
Comments From Federal Agencies
   (21) Comment: The
   Our response: The special rule for routine agricultural practices is intended to promote land uses that are compatible with the conservation of streaked horned larks on private lands with no Federal agency involvement. If a landowner wishes to participate in any of the wildlife conservation incentive programs, such as those offered by the
   The special rule to exempt common agricultural activities is intended to promote land use practices that are compatible with the creation of suitable habitat for streaked horned larks. We recognize that farming is a dynamic process, which requires the ability to adapt to changing environmental and economic conditions. We have revised the language in the special rule to conform to farming standards established by the
Comments From the Public
   (22) Comment: Several commenters provided minor technical corrections or edits to the proposal, and in some cases additional or updated information regarding the
   Our response: We have evaluated and incorporated this information into this final rule when and where appropriate to clarify the final rule. In instances where the Service may have disagreed with an interpretation of the technical information that was provided, we have responded under separate comments.
   (23) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our description of the flight period for the
   Our response: The flight period for the
   (24) Comment: One commenter stated that just because habitat is suitable for the species of concern does not mean that the entire prairie was historically occupied. Another commenter asked whether we should even try to reverse the loss of historical prairie habitat available for the
   Our response: The proportion of prairie habitat lost (greater than 90 percent) and the fragmentation of what remains has created the necessity for the conservation of lands that can presently support the recovery of the
   (25) Comment: One commenter suggested the Service should provide blanket, enduring authorization for incidental take for the streaked horned lark on non-federal land, such as through a safe harbor agreement between the Service and State field offices, with zero baseline and no requirements for participation.
   Our response: The 4(d) special rule addresses those categories of activities for which the Service believes a broad exemption from the take prohibitions under the Act is necessary and advisable for the conservation of the streaked horned lark. Any other incidental take authorizations will be addressed through future permitting processes under section 10 of the Act. As noted in earlier responses, we encourage our conservation partners to take advantage of the full suite of conservation tools available to aid in the recovery of listed species.
   (26) Comment: One commenter argued that the observed contraction of the streaked horned lark's range justifies listing as endangered. Another commenter suggested the streaked horned lark should not be listed because we should consider the full range of potential habitat for the subspecies.
   Our response: Consideration of the current and historical range of a species is only one aspect that is considered in the analysis to determine if a species should be listed as an endangered or a threatened species; the imminence and magnitude of threats acting on the species are more important to the assessment of a species' status. We acknowledge that the streaked horned lark's range has contracted substantially over the last century. However, although we consider the loss of historical range to be informative to our determination, we base our conclusion on whether a species is presently in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future on the status of the species at the time of our determination. We have good information that the streaked horned lark population is declining in
   (27) Comment: One commenter stated that the streaked horned lark meets the
   Our response: The Service does not use a one-size-fits-all standard for determination of endangered or threatened status, and the IUCN standard of endangered does not pertain to the definition provided under the Act. The Act directs us to consider the range of threats a species faces, and to make a determination of status based on the total impact of those threats. Based upon our evaluation of the threats to the streaked horned lark, we have determined it is a threatened species as defined by the Act.
   (28) Comment: One commenter stated that the streaked horned lark does not deserve special protections in
   Our response: Our analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available indicates that the streaked horned lark is declining throughout its range. The decline is most apparent in the
   (29) Comment: One commenter stated that we should have been clearer regarding the limits of the recent surveys for streaked horned larks in the
   Our response: We acknowledge in this final rule that most surveys for streaked horned larks on private lands in the
   (30) Comment: One commenter suggested that the Service needs to evaluate recreation and its associated effects (attraction of potential predators) as a threat to the streaked horned lark.
   Our response: As discussed in the proposed rule, recreational activities can pose both direct and indirect threats to streaked horned larks. Activities such as horseback riding, boating, biking, dog walking, ATV use, and model airplane flying can result in the loss of nests through crushing of chicks or eggs and nest abandonment associated with disturbance of adults. Indirect effects of recreational activities include increased risk of nest failure when incubating or when brooding adults are flushed from nests and human activities (such as leaving trash and food on site) attract corvids to nesting areas. Corvids have been routinely documented depredating nests of streaked horned larks and are considered significant nest predators. The Service is working with resource staff at JBLM to reduce recreational impacts to the streaked horned lark at several prairies on base by limiting civilian access during the nesting season and by posting signs restricting public access at several prairies and nesting areas along the
   (31) Comment: One commenter stated that we failed to show that
   Our response:
   (32) Comment: One commenter stated that our analysis of Factor E (other natural and manmade factors affecting the subspecies' existence), particularly the status of the small population of streaked horned larks on the
   Our response: As we acknowledge in this final rule, populations of the streaked horned lark in the
   (33) Comment: One commenter stated that the economic and social factors driving conversion of
   Our response: The Service does not consider the acquisition of lands by the viticulture industry to be a threat to streaked horned lark breeding and nesting habitat. We contacted Dr.
   (34) Comment: One commenter stated that the streaked horned lark faces continued threats to habitats and populations, including conversion of prairie and grassland, continued dumping of dredged spoils, military operations, airport development, and off-road vehicle recreation.
   Our response: As we discussed in the text of this final rule, many of these activities have the potential to both benefit and pose a threat to the streaked horned lark. Many of the issues the commenter cites as threats to the streaked horned lark's habitat may actually be essential to the continued creation of habitat for the bird, depending on how they are conducted; the natural processes that formerly created habitat for the streaked horned lark no longer operate, and so these industrial activities create almost the only usable habitats available to the bird. Without the presence of dredge spoil islands, military reserves, agriculture, and airports, there would be virtually no habitat left for the streaked horned lark. The challenge will be to work with landowners to ensure these activities are implemented in ways that benefit the subspecies as well as work for the landowner as we work to recover the streaked horned lark. See also our response to Comment 13.
   (35) Comment: Several commenters asked that the Service fully consider the effect of the 20-year old
   Our response: The Service fully considered the effect of the
   (36) Comment: One commenter said that streaked horned larks are insufficiently protected by existing regulatory mechanisms, and the proposed 4(d) special rule substantially weakens protections for the streaked horned lark.
   Our response: In our analysis of Factor D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms), we found that existing regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to protect the streaked horned lark. However, we believe that promulgation of a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act is necessary and advisable to provide for conservation of the subspecies because its habitat is inadvertently created by airport managers and agricultural landowners. One of our goals for recovering listed species on private lands is to find ways to help landowners view these species on their lands as an asset rather than a legal or economic liability. This is especially important when dealing with an early-successional dependent (sub)species such as the streaked horned lark that exhibits a temporary or intermittent presence on those lands, and when those lands require discretionary management treatments by the landowner to maintain their suitability or attractiveness for the streaked horned lark. The continued availability of these habitats on private lands is essential to the persistence of the streaked horned lark. With the special rule, we are seeking to encourage private landowners to be willing to accommodate or attract streaked horned larks, and to discourage any landowner's desire to avoid having streaked horned larks on their property, and managing the property for the benefit of the streaked horned lark.
   (37) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that some activities covered under the proposed special rule for airports and agricultural lands could be carried to the point that they eliminate streaked horned larks on a site, for example, intensive mowing or hazing by falcons.
   Our response: Our purpose in developing the special rule for airports and agricultural lands is to encourage the continuation of practices that inadvertently create habitat for the streaked horned lark. We acknowledge that some of those activities may take larks, which is why a special rule is needed, but the availability of the 4(d) special rule should eliminate the incentive to remove larks from airports or agricultural lands to avoid violation of the Act. However, the concern that land managers could inadvertently eliminate streaked horned larks from a site is valid, and we will work with land managers to identify opportunities to conserve larks on sites and for activities that are covered by the special rule.
   (38) Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed special rule for the streaked horned lark be expanded to cover the actions of non-federal entities engaged in dredging operations that deposit materials that create upland lark habitat on the lower
   Our Response: Under the 4(d) special rule, take of the streaked horned lark caused by routine agricultural activities, wildlife hazard management programs at civilian airports, and noxious weed control activities is exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. The purpose of exempting these activities is to encourage activities by non-Federal entities that inadvertently create lark habitat. Dredge disposal clearly has the potential to create habitat for larks, but any action that involves dredging in the
   (39) Comment: Some commenters asked for a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for restoration actions, including landfill closure and maintenance. The commenters stated that without a 4(d) special rule allowing active habitat management, agencies and land stewards would not be able to maintain needed habitat conditions at sites that could support streaked horned larks. The commenters requested coverage in a special rule for activities including, but not limited to: Seeding and planting, haying, mowing, tilling, disking, harrowing, and herbicide application; prescribed burning; hydrologic management; livestock grazing; routine management and maintenance of infrastructure, such as gates, fences, water control structures, property boundary markers, and property surveys; monitoring of vegetation and animals; and applied or other research, such as vocal attraction experiments, vegetation manipulations, predator surveys, and other work.
   Our response: The purpose of the 4(d) special rule for agriculture, airports, and noxious weed control is to allow take of streaked horned larks for activities that inadvertently create habitat for the birds. Our logic in developing this special rule is that, without the exemption from take offered by the 4(d) special rule, these landowners might decide not to take actions that create or maintain important habitat for streaked horned larks, in order to avoid the potential violation of the Act. The restoration and habitat creation activities discussed in the comment above would be implemented specifically to enhance habitat for streaked horned larks or other prairie species. We believe it is appropriate to work with these agencies and land stewards using other programs offered by the Act (section 7 consultation, safe harbor agreements, and section 10(a)(1)(B) habitat conservation plans) to maximize the conservation efforts in these programs, and to offer exemptions from incidental take through options other than a special rule.
   (40) Comment: One commenter requested a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for park management activities at M. James Gleason Memorial Boat Ramp and
   Our response: As we stated earlier, we have used the option to promulgate a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act specifically for activities that inadvertently create habitat for streaked horned larks (i.e., wildlife hazard management at airports, activities on agricultural lands in the
   (41) Comment: One commenter asked us to include an offer of landowner assistance and education in the special rule.
   Our response: These activities (landowner assistance and education) do not cause take, and so are not included in the special rule exempting certain activities from the prohibitions on taking; we have therefore not amended the special rule to include them. We acknowledge, however, that outreach to landowners will be an important component of streaked horned lark conservation and recovery, and we will offer landowner assistance and education to airport managers and agricultural landowners through the various conservation tools and incentive programs offered by the Act.
   (42) Comment: Numerous commenters asked us to add to the activities covered under the 4(d) special rule for airports on non-federal lands, or to allow more flexibility in the activities covered. Commenters essentially asked for coverage for all routine activities at airports, and specifically asked for the 4(d) special rule to cover the following activities: Low-level military training operations; pest and invasive species control; stockpiling and staging areas for construction projects; vehicle access routes; management and operations of storm water conveyance, treatment facilities, and flow-control facilities, including grass seeding, irrigation, mowing, soil augmentation, and drainage control; spill and other environmental emergency response and associated remediation, including equipment deployment, product recovery, and soil removal; anti-icing and de-icing of aircraft and pavements, including chemical and physical methods; application of herbicides, pesticides, insecticides and other chemical treatment methods; noxious weed control; airport rescue and fire-fighting activities; control and removal of foreign object debris; airfield taxiway and services; road maintenance, including pavement repair and replacement, and paint or rubber removal; management of all marking, signs, and lighting; maintenance of meteorological instruments; management of obstructions to aircraft operations; and protection and maintenance of navigational aids.
   Our response: Airports provide important habitat for streaked horned larks throughout their range. We developed the 4(d) special rule specifically to cover routine actions that inadvertently create suitable conditions for larks at airports. The purpose of the special rule is to encourage the continuation of the practices that have created suitable habitats for the species. The activities in the list above may be essential for safe airport operations, but do not generally create habitat for the streaked horned lark. We understand that airports must perform many of these activities, and some of them may affect larks; however, the Act provides other appropriate mechanisms for addressing those activities, and exempting any associated take. For activities at airports with a Federal nexus (e.g., drainage projects requiring a permit from the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
   We also note here that we have amended the 4(d) special rule to include noxious weed control on non-Federal lands. We added this activity to the 4(d) special rule in response to public comments requesting an exemption from take prohibitions for actions that restore habitats used by the streaked horned lark, but this component of the 4(d) special rule may also be applicable to some activities at non-Federal airports. The specific weed control activities covered in the 4(d) special rule are: mowing, herbicide and fungicide application, fumigation and burning. See the 4(d) special rule at the end of this document for a complete description of the take exemptions for noxious weed control.
   (43) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark is unlawful because it does not provide for the conservation of the species. The commenter stated that the Service's authority to promulgate a 4(d) special rule is constrained by the requirement that the measures in the special rule be "necessary and advisable" to provide for the survival and recovery of the species. The commenter also argued that, for more than 30 years, it has been the policy and practice of the Service to extend the full protections against take in section 9 to threatened species. Any departure from this long-standing position must have a valid conservation purpose.
   Our response: We developed the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark consistent with the Act's requirements that any special rule be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a species. The rationale for promulgating the special rule is that, throughout most of its range, streaked horned lark habitat has been inadvertently created and maintained by industrial land uses. The purpose of the 4(d) special rule is to encourage landowners to continue to manage lands in a way that creates or maintains habitat for the streaked horned lark, rather than switch to other land uses or practices that will not support the subspecies. The 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark is consistent with the Service's long-standing practice to use all the flexibility offered by the Act under section 4(d) for threatened species.
   (44) Comment: One commenter stated that the 4(d) special rule appears to be geared more toward airport safety than streaked horned lark conservation; the commenter said, "At its core, the [4(d)] rule has nothing to do with streaked horned lark conservation."
   Our response: We disagree. The reality is that airports' wildlife hazard management programs (which are implemented to create a safe conditions for aviation) inadvertently create suitable habitat for streaked horned larks. The safe operation of aircraft requires the same wide-open landscape context needed by streaked horned larks; the wildlife hazard management practices at airports create the specific habitat characteristics (low-stature vegetation) desired by larks, as well as a reduced level of predatory species. We believe that development of a 4(d) special rule to allow the practices that create or maintain suitable habitat for larks is necessary and advisable to provide for streaked horned lark conservation.
   (45) Comment: One commenter stated that, in the special rule, the Service acknowledges that some management actions taken at airports are generally beneficial to larks, but noted that this implies that some activities are not beneficial, and should not be covered in the rule. For example, the Service fails to explain how "management, repair, and maintenance of roads and runways" benefits larks, or how hazing hazardous wildlife benefits larks.
   Our response: Certain activities covered in the 4(d) special rule are likely neutral with respect to impacts to streaked horned larks, and these include maintenance and repair of roads and runways. We included these activities in the list of covered activities in the special rule so that airport managers would not be confused about their ability to implement routine maintenance activities and which activities are exempted from the take prohibitions of the Act. Other activities, such as habitat management and hazing of hazardous wildlife, clearly benefit the streaked horned lark. Hazing is often directed at larger, more hazardous wildlife, such as hawks and geese; hazing these species away from airfields benefits the streaked horned lark by reducing the abundance of predators (such as hawks) that would otherwise prey on eggs and nestlings.
   (46) Comment: One commenter believes the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark is not an appropriate application of that section of the Act. The commenter stated that the Act requires section 4(d) to be used to issue regulations to conserve threatened species; the commenter further points out that the Act defines conservation as all activities associated with scientific resource management, including research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisitions and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation. The commenter does not believe that the special rule fits within the rubric of scientific resource management activities.
   Our response: When Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973, it provided no prohibitions on take of threatened species. However, section 4(d) of the Act applies to threatened species and was included in the Act to set prohibitions for these species that are necessary and advisable to provide for their conservation. Such regulations are intended to encourage activities that will promote conservation of species and prohibit take as a result of those actions that are not conducive to species conservation. Our promulgation of a special rule for the streaked horned lark is consistent with this aspect of the Act, and is necessary to conserve the streaked horned lark given the unique situation of its dependence on actively managed, industrial landscapes.
   (47) Comment: One commenter stated that the 4(d) special rule for activities at airports would not benefit the streaked horned lark, because even control and management of vegetation at airports can harm larks if the activities occur during the breeding season.
   Our response: We agree that some of these activities can harm larks, and will result in take, which is why a special rule to exempt take as the result of certain activities is appropriate. These activities (i.e., control and management of vegetation) clearly benefit the streaked horned lark by creating the appropriate habitat conditions for breeding. The best evidence of this fact is that, with their existing management practices, airports currently support larks. Maintenance of these conditions, which must be done during the bird's breeding season to ensure aircraft safety, will entail some take of the species; thus the 4(d) special rule allows take in the act of creating and maintaining suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark.
   (48) Comment: One commenter asked us to amend the 4(d) special rule to include a re-evaluation of the special rule after 5 years to ensure that it is not contributing to the decline of the streaked horned lark.
   Our response: All of our rulemakings are subject to revision, if necessary and appropriate. In the recovery program for the streaked horned lark, we will track the population trend, and if the data suggest that the special rule is not benefitting the species, we would re-evaluate it at that time. In addition, as required by section 4(c)(2) of the Act, we conduct a review of the status of listed species every 5 years. The reviews assess each endangered and threatened species to determine whether its status has changed since the time of its listing or its last status review and whether it should be classified differently or delisted.
   (49) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed listing of the streaked horned lark could potentially have adverse impacts on aviation safety, and therefore should be subjected to a formal safety risk assessment in accordance with established
   Our response:
   (50) Comment: One commenter stated that larks do not harm airplanes when they are struck.
   Our response: The commenter's assumption is not supported by the facts. A recent report verified that an F-15C military aircraft at
   (51) Comment: One commenter argued that the special rule for airports and agriculture would not advance the conservation of the streaked horned lark, but is designed to allow airports and agricultural landowners to continue to operate without obtaining a permit for take under section 10. The commenter stated that the provisions in the special rule should be used for section 10 permits, and that the Service should work with airports throughout the range of the streaked horned lark to create a regional habitat conservation plan for airports, and work with farmers to develop safe harbor agreements.
   Our response: We developed the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark consistent with the Act's requirements that any special rule be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a species. We believe that the special rule appropriately uses the flexibility of section 4(d) of the Act to allow take of a threatened species. The foundation of the special rule is that, throughout most of the subspecies' range, streaked horned lark habitat is inadvertently created by industrial or agricultural land uses. The purpose of the 4(d) special rule is to encourage landowners to continue to manage lands in ways that create habitat for the streaked horned lark, rather than switch to other land uses practices that will not support the subspecies. The safety issue at airports is unique, and airport managers likely have little room to maneuver in terms of the management they do; negotiating a section 10 permit with a regional habitat conservation plan is unlikely to result in greater conservation of larks at airports than can be achieved through the special rule. In regard to the recommendation to develop safe harbor agreements with farmers, those agreements are entirely voluntary, and are likely to benefit fewer streaked horned larks than the 4(d) special rule that would apply to all agricultural activities automatically. Furthermore, the 4(d) special rule does not preempt the Service from working with landowners interested in pursuing safe harbor agreements addressing activities either directly or indirectly associated with agricultural pursuits, especially any activities intended to attract streaked horned larks to their properties.
   (52) Comment: One commenter said that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) review is required to evaluate alternatives to the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark.
   Our response: The courts have ruled that NEPA does not apply to listing decisions under section 4(a) of the Act, nor to 4(d) special rules issued concurrent with listing. See
   (53) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service must consult under section 7 of the Act on the effects of the 4(d) special rule on the streaked horned lark to ensure that the special rule will not jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies. The commenter pointed out that the
   Our response: The Service believes that section 7 does not apply to the promulgation of 4(d) special rules. The Service's determination that a 4(d) special rule is necessary and advisable to provide for conservation of the species necessarily subsumes a determination that the rule will not jeopardize the species or adversely modify its critical habitat. Hence, applying the section 7 consultation procedures to such rulemaking would be a redundant exercise in paperwork. See Cf.
   (54) Comment: One commenter noted dredge material placement sites are human-made or managed features and not "naturally occurring habitat," and these sites are specifically created and managed for the placement of dredge materials. The commenter further raised concern about the presence of streak horned larks limiting full access to dredge material sites. Another commenter said that placement of dredge materials should not be considered a threat given the long-term benefit of creation and maintenance of dredge islands.
   Our response: Streaked horned larks commonly use human-made or managed areas that provide the right conditions and are not limited to "naturally occurring habitats."
   In the absence of trend data, we cannot know whether unmanaged dredge spoils deposition has had a net positive or negative effect on streaked horned lark population numbers. While creation and maintenance of these dredge islands is critical to the perpetuation of the subspecies, streaked horned lark population numbers are in decline, and nest failure due to unregulated dredge deposition is a threat to the subspecies.
   (55) Comment: The
   Our response: We recognize and appreciate the cooperative effort on the part of the
   (56) Comment: One commenter said that we should acknowledge the threats to streaked horned larks and their habitats from government programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, that encourage tree planting in open areas.
   Our response: We do not currently have information to suggest that government tree planting programs pose a threat to the streaked horned lark. However, the purpose of section 7 of the Act is to ensure that Federal agencies do not fund, authorize, or carry out activities that that could jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. After this rule is effective (see DATES), we will work with the
   (57) Comment: One commenter stated that
   Our response: As we discuss in the final critical habitat designation for the streaked horned lark, published elsewhere in the
   (58) Comment: Several commenters asked us to amend the special rule to include take of streaked horned larks resulting from aircraft strikes.
   Our response: The fundamental purpose of wildlife hazard mitigation programs at airports is the minimization of wildlife-aircraft strikes. Streaked horned larks are paradoxically attracted to the habitat that has been created and maintained at airports as a result of those management activities to deter other more dangerous wildlife; some aircraft strikes of larks are probably unavoidable. This take of larks from routine aviation activities at airports is appropriately exempted under the 4(d) special rule, and we have therefore modified this final rule accordingly.
   (59) Comment: One commenter requested that, under the proposed 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark, we consider covering comparable municipal government activities. In particular, consideration should be given to the continuing operation and maintenance, and to (if necessary due to fire or other unforeseen events) the reconstruction and restoration of, public facilities such as stormwater facilities, water supply sites (wellheads and springs), and active recreation parks (including athletic fields utilized by cities but owned by school districts). Such operation and maintenance should encompass sporting events, planting and mowing, fence and security maintenance, herbicide and fertilizer application, and similar activities.
   Our response: We are not aware of any streaked horned larks nesting on lands owned and managed by the Cities of
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
   We fully considered comments from the public and the peer reviewers on the proposed rule to develop this final listing of the
   We revised the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark based on public comments and information we received. The Service has determined that exempting specified agricultural operations in the
   We revised the 4(d) special rule in response to comments from the public, which helped us refine the covered farming activities. We have clarified the definition of "normal farming practices" and "normal transportation activities" to be consistent with relevant
   In response to comments from the
   We also amended the 4(d) special rule to include some management of noxious weeds on non-Federal lands, as these actions facilitate the preservation of streaked horned lark habitat on the landscape.
   In addition, we found some typographical errors in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section of our proposed rule (
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
   Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (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. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
   In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
   We considered and evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information in evaluating the factors affecting each of the species under consideration in this rule.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
   Under this factor, the primary long-term threats to the
   The prairies of south
Development
   Native prairies and grasslands have been severely reduced throughout the range of the
   Since the 1850s, much of the
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- The habitat of the
   When in flight, butterflies become subject to mortality from collision with vehicles on roads associated with residential development, which is commonly known to affect animals of all sizes, but especially insects (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 20). Since the short flight season of
   Four historical locales for
   In summary, the threat of development and conversion of the prairie ecosystem to other uses has a significant impact on
   Streaked Horned Lark-- Horned larks need expansive areas of flat, open ground to establish breeding territories. The large, flat, treeless areas that airports necessarily require and maintain have become attractive alternative breeding sites for streaked horned larks as native prairies and scoured river banks in the
   Although routine mowing to meet flight path regulations helps to maintain grassland habitat in suitable condition for nesting streaked horned larks, the timing of mowing is critical to determining whether this activity is harmful or beneficial to larks. Mowing during the active breeding season (mid-April to late July) can destroy nests or flush adults, which may result in nest failure (
   In 2008, the
   Airport expansions could result in further losses of some populations. At the
   At
   The 13th Division Prairie at JBLM is used for helicopter operations (paratrooper practices, touch-and-go landings, and load drop and retrievals) and troop training activities. Foot traffic and training maneuvers that are conducted during streaked horned lark breeding season likely are a contributing factor to nest failure and low nest success at 13th Division Prairie. Recently, a streaked horned lark nest was destroyed at 13th Division Prairie by a porta-potty service vehicle (Linders 2012b, in litt.). Artillery training, off-road use of vehicles, and troop maneuvers at the 91st Division Prairie are also conducted in areas used by streaked horned larks during the nesting season. Because access into this training area is limited and streaked horned lark surveys are only conducted opportunistically, we do not know if or how many lark nests are lost due to military activities at 91st Division Prairie.
   Industrial development has also reduced habitat available to breeding and wintering streaked horned larks.
   For the reasons described here, we find that encroaching development and conversion to incompatible uses of occupied and potentially suitable areas contributes to the ongoing reduction of nesting and overwintering habitat for the streaked horned lark and, as such, is a threat to the subspecies.
Loss of Ecological Disturbance Processes, Invasive Species, and Succession
   The suppression and loss of natural and anthropogenic disturbance regimes, such as fire and flooding, across vast portions of the landscape has resulted in altered vegetation structure in the prairies and meadows and has facilitated invasion by nonnative grasses and woody vegetation, rendering habitat unusable for
   Historically, the prairies and meadows of the south
   Fires on the prairie create a mosaic of vegetation conditions, which serve to maintain native prairie forbs like Camassia quamash (common camas), Achillea millefolium (yarrow), and Lomatium spp. (desert parsley or biscuit root), which are adult nectar foods for the
   The result of fire suppression has been the invasion of the prairies and oak woodlands by native and nonnative plant species (
   On tallgrass prairies in midwestern
   Restoration in some of the south
   Unintentional fires ignited by military training burns patches of prairie grasses and forbs on JBLM on an annual basis. These light ground fires create a mosaic of conditions within the grassland, maintaining a low vegetative structure of native and nonnative plant composition, and patches of bare soil. Because of the topography of the landscape, fires create a patchy mosaic of areas that burn completely, some areas that do not burn, and areas where consumption of the vegetation is mixed in its effects to the habitat. One of the benefits to fire in grasslands is that it tends to kill regenerating conifers, and reduces the cover of nonnative shrubs such as Scot's broom, although Scot's broom seed stored in the soil can be stimulated by fire (Agee 1993, p. 367). Fire also improves conditions for many native bulb-forming plants, such as Camassia sp. (camas) (Agee and Dunwiddie 1984, p. 367). On sites where regular fires occur, such as on JBLM, there is a high complement of native plants and fewer invasive species. These types of fires promote the maintenance of the native, short-statured vegetation communities (Severns and Warren 2008, p. 476) favored by the
   Management practices such as intentional burning and mowing require expertise in timing and technique to achieve desired results. If applied at the wrong season, frequency, or scale, fire and mowing can be detrimental to the restoration of native prairie species. For example, during a prescribed fire event that was implemented in an adjacent training area on JBLM in late summer 2011, fire occurred in an area containing
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- On JBLM, the 91st Division Prairie is frequently ignited through routine training exercises involving ordnance, which prevents invasive shrubs and nonnative grasses and native
   Bald habitat at
   A large portion of the existing, occupied
   We conclude that the loss of ecological disturbance processes; the occurrence of invasive, nonnative species; and the natural succession of vegetation communities separately and collectively continue to be a threat to
   Streaked Horned Lark-- Prior to the construction of dams on the
   The streaked horned lark currently uses sand islands in the lower
   Destruction of occupied lark habitat through the deposition of dredge materials has been documented several times on the lower
   Dredge spoil deposition also creates habitat for
   There is ample evidence that larks respond positively to habitat management that simulates natural processes. From 2001 through 2004, JBLM used nonbreeding season mowing and controlled burns to control Scot's broom (
   Throughout the year, the streaked horned lark uses areas of bare ground or sparse vegetative cover in grasslands. These grasslands may be native prairies in the
   We conclude that the loss of natural disturbance that historically created habitat for the streaked horned lark continues to be a threat to the subspecies due to encroachment of plant species (e.g., trees and beach grasses) that reduce available habitat. The Service has developed timing recommendations for other forms of manmade disturbance including burning, mowing, and dredge spoil deposition. Where a Federal nexus exists, the Service has partnered with other agencies to implement avoidance strategies for occupied streaked horned lark nesting areas. When the recommended timing restrictions are observed, we consider the benefit of habitat creation through burning, mowing, and dredge spoil deposit outweighs the negative impact of these activities, such that, if implemented appropriately, we do not consider such manmade disturbance to pose a threat to the subspecies.
Military Training and Associated Activities
   Populations of
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- Military training on JBLM has resulted in direct mortality of
   Taylor's checkerspot butterfly counts were the lowest ever recorded at this site during the following spring (Linders 2009a, entire; Randolph 2009, p. 4; Thomas 2009, pers. obs). Prior to the
   Under the GTA initiative, more troops and vehicles will be stationed at JBLM; this is likely to result in increased pressure on
   We conclude that the threat of military training continues to have significant, habitat-altering impacts on the
   Streaked Horned Lark-- Military training, including bombardment with explosive ordnance and hot downdraft from aircraft, has been documented to cause nest failure and abandonment for streaked horned larks at
   In the odd-numbered years since 2005, McChord Field has hosted a military training event known as the Air Mobility Rodeo. This international military training exercise is held at the end of July. This event includes aircraft, vehicles, and tents staged on or near lark nesting areas, although the majority of these activities take place on concrete hardstand areas (
   JBLM has committed to restrictions both seasonally and operationally on military training areas, in order to avoid and minimize potential affects to the
Restoration Activities
   Management for invasive species and encroachment of conifers requires control through equipment, herbicides, and other activities. While restoration has conservation value for the
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- On occupied sites,
   We conclude that restoration actions to improve Taylors' checkerspot butterfly habitat or increase the number of checkerspots on specific prairie patches may have short-term adverse impacts to the subspecies and could potentially pose a threat to this resident subspecies because it is present in some life form stage on relatively small habitat patches throughout the entire year. However, any short-term threat posed by restoration actions is outweighed by the positive contributions to the subspecies and its habitat from these actions, such that as currently implemented, we do not consider restoration actions to rise to the level of posing a threat to the subspecies.
   Streaked Horned Lark-- The introduction of Ammophila arenaria (Eurasian beachgrass) and A. breviligulata (American beachgrass), currently found in high and increasing densities in most of coastal
   Some efforts have been successful in reducing the cover of encroaching beachgrasses. The Service's
Disease Impacts to Habitat
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- Until recently disease was not known to be a factor affecting the habitat of the
   Uncertainty exists regarding how Pyrenopeziza plantaginis affects
   Pyrenopeziza plantaginis may be a threat to the larval foods utilized by the
   Streaked Horned Lark-- Disease is not known to be a threat to the habitats of the streaked horned lark.
Transient Agricultural Habitat
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- The
   Streaked Horned Lark-- Roughly half of all the agricultural land in the Willamette Valley is devoted to grass seed production fields (
   Another potential threat related to agricultural lands is the streaked horned lark's use of ephemeral habitats. In the breeding season, streaked horned larks will move into open habitats as they become available, and as the vegetation grows taller over the course of the season, larks will abandon the site to look for other open habitats later in the season (Beason 1995, p. 6). This ability to shift locations in response to habitat changes is a natural feature of the streaked horned lark's life-history strategies, as breeding in recently disturbed habitats is part of their evolutionary history. In the Willamette Valley, some habitats in agricultural fields are consistently available (e.g., on the margins of gravel roads), while other patches of suitable habitat shift from place to place as fields are burned, mowed, or harvested. Other suitable sites appear when portions of grass fields perform poorly, inadvertently creating optimal habitat for larks. The shifting nature of suitable habitat is not in itself a threat; the potential threat is in the overall reduction of compatible agriculture, which would reduce the area within which streaked horned lark habitat could occur.
Summary of Factor A
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly--
   We conclude that disease, specifically Pyrenopeziza plantaginis, may pose a potential threat to the larval food plant of the
   The current threats to
   Based on negative impacts to the
   Streaked Horned Lark-- The streaked horned lark population decline in
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
   Overutilization of species results when the number of individuals removed from the system exceeds the ability of the population of the species to sustain its numbers or reduces populations of the species to a level such that it is vulnerable to other influences (threats) upon its survival. This overutilization can result from removal of individuals from the wild for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- Populations of
   Streaked Horned Lark-- Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not known to be a threat to the streaked horned lark.
Summary of Factor B
   In summary, although there is some evidence of historical mortality from overutilization for the
   In addition, there is no evidence that commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational use is now a threat or will become a threat to the streaked horned lark in the future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
   Most healthy ecosystems include organisms such as viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites that cause disease. Healthy wildlife and ecosystems have evolved defenses to fend off most diseases before they have devastating impacts. An ecosystem with high levels of biodiversity (diversity of species and genetic diversity within species) is more resilient to the impacts of disease because there are greater possibilities that some species and individuals within a species have evolved resistance, or if an entire species is lost, that there will likely be another species to fill the empty niche.
   Where ecosystems are not healthy, due to a loss of biodiversity and threats such as habitat loss, climate change, pollutants, or invasive species, wildlife and ecosystems are more vulnerable to emerging diseases. Diseases caused by or carried by invasive species are particularly severe threats, as native wildlife may have no natural immunity to them (
   Our review of the best available scientific and commercial data found no evidence to indicate that disease is a threat to the
Predation
   Predation is a process of major importance in influencing the distribution, abundance, and diversity of species in ecological communities. Generally, predation leads to changes in both the population size of the predator and that of the prey. In unfavorable environments, prey species are stressed or living at low population densities such that predation is likely to have negative effects on all prey species, thus lowering species richness. In addition, when a nonnative predator is introduced to the ecosystem, negative effects on the prey population may be higher than those from co-evolved native predators. The effect of predation may be magnified when populations are small, and the disproportionate effect of predation on declining populations has been shown to drive rare species even further towards extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74-75).
   Predation has an impact on populations of the
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- Generally, butterflies exhibit some protective mechanisms to avoid predation, and this is true for the
   Streaked Horned Lark-- Predation on adult streaked horned larks has not been identified as a threat, but it is the most frequently documented source of mortality for eggs and young larks. In most studies of streaked horned lark nesting ecology, predation has been the primary documented source of nest failure (Altman 1999, p. 18;
   Video cameras were used to identify predators in this Willamette Valley study; documented predators include: Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and rats and mice (Family Cricetidae) (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 36). Streaked horned larks are ground-nesting birds and are vulnerable to a many other potential predators, including domestic cats and dogs, coyotes (Canis latrans), raccoons (Procyon lotor), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), long-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and shrews (Sorex spp.) (
   Predation is a natural part of the streaked horned lark's life history, and in stable populations, the effect of predation would not be considered a threat to the subspecies. However, in the case of the streaked horned lark, the effect of predation may be magnified when populations are small, and the disproportionate effect of predation on declining populations has been shown to drive rare species even further towards extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74-75). It is also possible that predation rates are higher now than in the past, due to the proximity of human developments and their associated predator attractions near lark habitats. We consider the effect of predation on streaked horned lark populations, particularly in the south
   The one area where predation does not appear to be a threat to nesting streaked horned larks is in
   Predation may have contributed to the extirpation of streaked horned larks on the San Juan Islands. Streaked horned larks were last documented on the islands in 1962 (Lewis and
Summary of Factor C
   Disease-- Based on our review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that disease is not a threat to the
   Predation-- We found only one study with evidence to indicate that predation from avian predators may be a threat to the
   Because the populations of streaked horned larks are declining and small, we find that effect of the threat of predation is likely magnified and resulting in a significant impact on the subspecies. Therefore, based on our review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that predation is a threat to the streaked horned lark now and will continue to be a threat into the future.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
   Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into account "those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species. . . ." In relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
   The following section includes a discussion of Federal, State, or local laws, regulations, or treaties that apply to the
Canadian Laws and Regulations
   In British Columbia, the
   In 2003, the
   For many of the species listed under SARA, the prohibitions on harm to individuals and destruction of residences are limited to Federal lands, but this limitation is inapplicable to migratory birds protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, including streaked horned lark (Statutes of
   The horned lark (all subspecies) is also protected under
   Although British Columbia has no stand-alone endangered species act, the provincial Wildlife Act protects virtually all vertebrate animals from direct harm, except as allowed by regulation (e.g., hunting or trapping). Legal designation as endangered or threatened under the Wildlife Act increases the penalties for harming a species, and also enables the protection of habitat in a Critical Wildlife Management Area (British Columbia Wildlife Act 1996, accessed online). The streaked horned lark is not listed under
   To date, there is no finalized recovery strategy for the
U.S. Federal Laws and Regulations
   There are no Federal laws in
to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured."
   There are no provisions in the MBTA that prevent habitat destruction unless direct mortality or destruction of active nests occurs (for example, as was described in Factor A, above, for dredge spoil disposal in the breeding season), nor does the MBTA require any planning to recover declining species or provide funding to protect individuals or their habitats. Therefore, we conclude that the MBTA does not address threats to the streaked horned lark from further population declines associated with habitat loss or inappropriate management.
   The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the Secretary of Defense to develop cooperative plans with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior for natural resources on public lands. The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 requires
   On JBLM in
   The Service has worked closely with the
<p>   JBLM policies include Army Regulation 420-5, which covers the INRMP, and AR-200-1. This is an agreement between each troop and
   The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), states that the
   The National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C.
   The regulations at 36 CFR 219 contain a strong implementation approach to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of native species in the plan area. This approach requires that plans use a complementary ecosystem and species-specific approach to maintaining the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of native species in the plan area. The intent is to provide the ecological conditions (habitat) necessary to keep common native species common, contribute to the recovery of endangered and threatened species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain viable populations of each species of conservation concern within the plan area. The regulations require that plans provide the ecological conditions necessary to contribute to the recovery of endangered and threatened species, and to conserve candidate and proposed species. In addition, the requirements for restoration and ecological sustainability are intended to reduce the risk that species will become listed as endangered or threatened in the future.
   On
   
   The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) establishes the protection of biodiversity as the primary purpose of the
   CCPs detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations, and as such, are primarily used for strategic planning and priority setting; inclusion of a project in a CCP does not guarantee that the project will be implemented. The CCPs at the
State Laws and Regulations
   Although there is no State endangered species act in
   The Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark are Priority Species under WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species Program (WDFW 2008, pp. 19, 80, 120). As Priority Species, the
   Under the
   The WDNR also manages approximately 66,000 ac (26,710 ha) of lands as Natural Area Preserves (NAP). NAPs provide the highest level of protection for excellent examples of unique or typical land features in
   Oregon has a State Endangered Species Act (ESA), which was last updated in 1998. The streaked horned lark is not State-listed, and the State does not protect invertebrates like the
   The Oregon Forest Practices Act (ORS 527.610 to 527.992 and
Local Laws and Regulations
   The Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA) requires all jurisdictions in the State to designate and protect critical areas. The State defines five broad categories of critical areas, including: (1) Wetlands; (2) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (3) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (4) frequently flooded areas; and (5) geologically hazardous areas. Quercus garryana (
   Within counties, the County Areas Ordinance (CAO) applies to all unincorporated areas, but incorporated cities are required to independently address critical areas within their urban growth area. The incorporated cities within the range of the
   In 2009, the
   County staff use the known presence or historical locations of the
   In Clallam,
   County-level CAOs do not apply to incorporated cities within county boundaries; thus, the incorporated cities of
   The City of Olympia-- The
   The City of Lacey --The City of Lacey CAO includes in its definition of critical area any area identified as habitat for a Federal or State endangered, threatened, or sensitive species or State-listed priority habitat and calls these "habitat conservation areas" (HCAs) (Lacey Municipal Code (LMC) 14.33.060). These areas are defined through individual contract with qualified professional biologists on a site-by-site basis as development is proposed. The code further states that "No development shall be allowed within a habitat conservation area or buffer [for a habitat conservation area] with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association" (LMC 14.33.117).
   The City of Tumwater-- The City of Tumwater CAO outlines protections for "habitat critical areas" and for "habitats and species of local importance."
   The City of Yelm-- The municipal code of
   The City of Tenino-- The
   The City of Shelton-- The CAO for the city of
Summary of Local Laws and Regulations
   Each city's CAO has been crafted to preserve the maximum amount of biodiversity while at the same time encouraging high-density development within their respective urban growth areas. Each city requires that potential fish and wildlife habitat be surveyed by qualified professional habitat biologists as development is proposed. A habitat conservation area (HCA) is determined according to the WDFW priority habitat and species list. If an HCA is identified at a site, the development of the parcel is then subject to the CAO regulations. Mitigation required by each city's CAO prioritizes reconsideration of the proposed development action in order to avoid the impact to the HCA.
   For the
   Connectivity of populations, abundance of resources (prey species or food plants), and undisturbed habitat are three primary factors affecting plant and animal populations. The piecemeal pattern that development unavoidably exhibits is difficult to reconcile with the needs of the
   In Oregon, the
   Goal 5 and its rules establish a five-step planning process for
   Local governments identify conflicting uses that exist, or could occur, with regard to significant Goal 5 resource sites. A local government may determine that one or more significant Goal 5 resource sites are conflicting uses with another significant resource site. Local governments analyze the consequences that could result from decisions to allow, limit, or prohibit a conflicting use. The local government determines the level of protection for each significant site. Local governments determine whether to allow, limit, or prohibit identified conflicting uses for significant resource sites. A local government may decide that the conflicting use should be allowed fully, notwithstanding the possible impacts on the resource site.
   In summary, Goal 5 is a required planning process that allows local governments to make decisions about land use regulations and whether to protect the individual resources based upon potential conflicts involving economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences. It does not require minimum levels of protections for natural resources, but does require weighing the various impacts to resources from land use. Based on our review of
Summary of Factor D
   In summary, the existing regulatory mechanisms described above are not sufficient to significantly reduce or remove the existing threats to the
   On JBLM, regulations and recently developed "training range standard operating procedures" applying to the
   The Washington CAOs and
   Based upon our review of the best commercial and scientific data available, we conclude that the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to reduce the threats to the
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Low Genetic Diversity, Small or Isolated Populations, and Low Reproductive Success
   Most species' populations fluctuate naturally, responding to various factors such as weather events, disease, and predation. Purvis (2000, p. 3), however, suggested that these factors have less impact on a species with a wide and continuous distribution. Populations that are small, fragmented, or isolated by habitat loss or modification of naturally patchy habitat, and other human-related factors, are more vulnerable to extirpation by natural, randomly occurring events, to cumulative effects, and to genetic effects that plague small populations, collectively known as small population effects. These effects can include genetic drift (loss of recessive alleles), founder effects (over time, an increasing percentage of the population inheriting a narrow range of traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading to increasingly lower genetic diversity, with consequent negative effects on evolutionary potential.
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly --Although the genetic diversity and population structure of the
   Streaked Horned Lark-- Genetic analysis has shown that streaked horned larks have suffered a loss of genetic diversity due to a population bottleneck (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881), the effect of which may be exacerbated by continued small total population size. In general, decreased genetic diversity has been linked to increased chances of inbreeding depression, reduced disease resistance, and reduced adaptability to environmental change, leading to reduced reproductive success (
   Recent studies in
   Estimates of population growth rate ([lambda]) that include vital rates from all of the nesting areas in
   In 2011, a project was initiated to increase genetic diversity in the south
Climate Change
   Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms "climate" and "climate change" are defined by the
   Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases in other regions. (For these and other examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; and IPCC 2007d, pp. 35-54, 82-85). Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate, and is "very likely" (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; IPCC 2007d, pp. 21-35). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by
   Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., IPCC 2007c, entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield very similar projections of increases in the most common measure of climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as global warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the extent and rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall trajectory of all the projections is one of increased global warming through the end of this century, even for the projections based on scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong scientific support for projections that warming will continue through the 21st century, and that the scope and rate of change will be influenced substantially by the extent of GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44-45; IPCC 2007c, pp. 760-764 and 797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). (See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other global projections of climate-related changes, such as frequency of heat waves and changes in precipitation. Also see IPCC 2011(entire) for a summary of observations and projections of extreme climate events.)
   Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007e, pp. 214-246). Identifying likely effects often involves aspects of climate change vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the type, scope, and rate of climate change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also
   As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an "endangered species" or a "threatened species" under the Act. If a species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from, climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
   Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the only or the best scientific information available for us to use. However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g., IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use "downscaled" projections when they are available and have been developed through appropriate scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for analyses of a given species (see
   The ranges of the
   The potential impacts of a changing global climate to the
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- Because the
   The relationship between climate change and survival for the Euphydryas editha complex is driven more by the indirect effects of the interaction between seasonal growth patterns of host plants and the life cycle of the checkerspot butterfly than by the direct effects of temperature and precipitation (Guppy and Fischer 2001, p. 11; Parmesan 2007, p. 1868; Singer and Parmesan 2010, p. 3170).
   Predicting seasonal growth patterns of butterfly host plants is complicated, because these patterns are likely more sensitive to moisture than temperature (Cushman et al 1992, pp. 197-198; Bale et al. 2002, p. 11), which is predicted to be highly variable and uncertain in the
   During the active season of pre-diapause larvae (early spring), the
   It is likely that the overlap of seasonal growth patterns between these primary larval host plants and the
   Predicting future population dynamics and distributions is complex for animals such as butterflies that have two very different physiological stages (larva and adult) (for example, see Bale et al. 2002, p. 5). Moreover, forecasting the responses of butterflies and other insects to elevated temperatures or variable precipitation is largely based on field and laboratory studies (Hellmann 2002, pp. 927-929). However, the relationship between these changing environmental conditions and the
   Uncertainty about climate change impacts does not mean that impacts may or may not occur; it means that the risks of a given impact are difficult to quantify (Schneider and Kuntz-Duriseti 2002, p. 54;
   Streaked Horned Lark-- Sea level on the
   The indirect effects of climate change are primarily associated with changes in habitat, such as succession from a sparsely vegetated condition to a shrubby or forested state, which would make habitat unsuitable for nesting. These negative impacts may be offset by other, potentially positive effects and continued management of occupied habitats. On the ocean beaches, an increase in the frequency of winter storm surges may improve upshore nesting habitat for larks by disturbing or killing encroaching vegetation. Many islands used for nesting in the
Stochastic Weather Events
   Stochasticity of extreme weather events may impact the ability of endangered and threatened species to survive. Vulnerability to weather events can be described as being composed of three elements: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.
   The small, isolated nature of the remaining populations of the
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly --Environmental threats exacerbated by small population size and weather can be a factor in the
   Butterflies, including the
   Streaked Horned Lark-- There are estimated to be fewer than 1,600 streaked horned larks rangewide (Altman 2011, p. 213). During the breeding season, small populations of larks are distributed across the range; in the winter, however, streaked horned larks concentrate mainly on the lower
Aircraft Strikes and Activities at Civilian Airports
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- The
   Streaked Horned Larks-- Streaked horned larks are attracted to the flat, open habitats around airports throughout their range. Horned lark strikes are frequently reported at military and civilian airports throughout the country, but because of the bird's small size, few strikes result in significant damage to aircraft (Dolbeer et al. 2011, p. 48; Air Force Safety Center 2012, p. 2). A recent report, however, used mtDNA analysis to document that a streaked horned lark was struck by an F-15C military aircraft at
   The annual Olympic Air Show takes place in June at the
   
   Both military and civilian airports routinely implement a variety of approaches to minimize the presence of hazardous wildlife on or adjacent to airfields and to prevent wildlife strikes by aircraft. McChord Field uses falcons to scare geese and gulls off the airfield, and also uses two dogs for this purpose; the falcons and dogs are part of McChord Field's integrated bird/wildlife aircraft strike hazard program and are designed to minimize aircraft and crew exposure to potentially hazardous bird and wildlife strikes (
   Given the small size of streaked horned lark populations, we conclude that disturbance associated with training and other activities at airports are threats to the subspecies that may have significant population impacts. Although aircraft strikes can remove individual birds from streaked horned lark populations at airports, there is currently only limited information on one airport (McChord Field) to suggest aircraft strikes may be a potential population level threat at some sites. However, the overall impact of the loss of individual birds from aircraft strikes to the status of populations on other (non-military) airports is believed to be low, as indicated by the continued presence of populations under the current habitat conditions maintained at these airports.
Pesticides and Herbicides
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- In the south
   The application of the pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk) for control of the Asian gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) likely contributed to the extirpation of three historical locales for
   The application of pesticides is usually restricted to a short period of the year. However, if the target species is active at the same time as larvae and adult
   Organophosphate-based insecticides are used in a number of agricultural applications including black fly and mosquito control; spraying of vegetable, nut, and fruit crops; and treatment of seed, although they are now banned from residential use. One of these insecticides, Naled (Dibrom), has been determined to have broad impacts on a wide array of butterfly families (Bargar 2011, p. 888) and direct effects to the larvae and adults of a closely related species of a federally listed threatened butterfly, the Bay checkerspot (Euphydryas editha bayensis) (EPA 2010, p. 23), if exposed. The extent to which these insecticides are used in the
   In conclusion, we recognize that the use of pesticides would kill all life stages of the
   Streaked Horned Lark-- The streaked horned lark is not known to be impacted by pesticides or herbicides directly, but may be impacted by the equipment used to dispense them. These impacts are covered under Factor A.
Recreation
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly --Recreational foot traffic may be a threat to the
   Larvae have been crushed on
   Streaked Horned Lark-- There are documented occurrences of adverse effects to larks from recreation. Recreation at coastal sites is a common threat to rare species; activities such as dog walking, beachcombing, ORV use, and horseback riding in coastal habitats may indirectly increase predation, nest abandonment, and nest failure for streaked horned larks (
   Although restrictions to recreational use were placed on the 13th Division Prairie by JBLM, it is a difficult area to patrol and enforce restrictions of this type. This area, adjacent to where streaked horned larks nest, is scheduled for a release of captive-bred and translocated Taylor's checkerspot butterfly larvae during
Nest Parasitism
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly --The Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is not known to be impacted by nest parasitism.
   Streaked Horned Lark --Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) is a potential, though little documented, threat to streaked horned larks. Cowbirds are common in grasslands and urban areas throughout North America; female cowbirds lay their eggs in the nests of other songbirds (Lowther 1993, p. 1). Upon hatching, young cowbirds compete for food with the young of the host species, and may result in lower reproductive success for the host pair (Lowther 1993, p. 11). In a study in Kansas, brown-headed cowbird parasitism of horned lark nests reduced the larks' nest success by half in those nests that were parasitized (from 1.4 young larks fledged per nest in non-parasitized nests to 0.7 young larks produced per nest with cowbird parasitism (Hill 1976, pp. 560-561)). Cowbirds are native to the open grasslands of central North America, but apparently only expanded into Oregon and Washington in the 1950s, as a result of human clearing of forested habitats (Lowther 1993, p. 2). Brown-headed cowbirds have been noted at all streaked horned lark study areas, and fledgling cowbirds have been observed begging for food from adult streaked horned larks on the
Vehicle Mortality
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly --See discussion under Factor A, Development.
   Streaked Horned Lark --There is some evidence that streaked horned larks are killed by cars on rural roads (Moore 2010b, p. 6). In the Willamette Valley, larks often breed on the margins of gravel roads, and, as they flush in response to passing cars, they may be killed. The magnitude of this threat is unknown, but we have no data to suggest that mortality from vehicle strikes is resulting in population-level impacts to the subspecies. We do not consider vehicle mortality to currently be a threat to the streaked horned lark.
Summary of Factor E
   Based upon our review of the best commercial and scientific data available, the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of prairies has resulted in smaller population sizes, loss of genetic diversity, reduced gene flow among populations, destruction of population structure, and increased susceptibility to local population extirpation for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the streaked horned lark from a series of threats including pesticide use, crushing and trampling from recreational activities, and aircraft strikes and collisions, as summarized for each subspecies below.
   Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly-- The degradation of habitat from recreational trampling and crushing produced by humans, dogs, and horses has killed larvae at several sites occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies. In addition, the use of the insecticide BtK is suspected to be responsible for the extirpation of three historical populations in Pierce County, Washington, in 1992 (Stinson 2005). We have also determined that the loss of genetic diversity through inbreeding depression due to habitat fragmentation and the isolation of the subspecies is likely an ongoing active threat. We consider the negative impacts from recreation and pesticide use to pose potential threat to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, particularly given its inherent vulnerability due to small population sizes and isolation of small populations.
   Streaked Horned Lark-- Genetic analysis has shown that streaked horned larks have suffered a loss of genetic diversity due to a bottleneck in population size (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881), the effect of which may be exacerbated by continued small total population size. The loss of genetic diversity in small populations has been linked to increased chances of inbreeding depression, reduced disease resistance, and reduced adaptability to environmental change, leading to reduced reproductive success. These effects may be apparent in the small breeding population in the south Puget Sound, which exhibits low reproductive success.
   Habitat changes to streaked horned lark habitat from climate change may provide some benefit to the subspecies, and as such climate change is not currently considered a threat; however, stochastic weather events may pose a threat to wintering flocks in the Willamette Valley. Death of individual larks caused by aircraft strikes is a threat to the small populations at airports, as the loss of even a single breeding individual can have an adverse effect on the population. Recreation activities can cause the degradation of streaked horned lark habitat and direct mortality to nests and young.
   We consider the impacts from the loss of genetic diversity, low reproductive success, stochastic weather events, aircraft strikes, and recreation to pose a threat to the streaked horned lark in combination with the other threat factors identified here, particularly given the inherent vulnerability of streaked horned lark due to small population sizes and isolation of small populations.
Determination
   Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on: (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. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
   We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. The Taylor's checkerspot butterfly has been lost from most locations in the Canadian portion of its range with just one known population remaining. In Washington, the subspecies was once known from seven Puget Sound counties, and is now known to occur naturally in just two counties, Clallam and Pierce. In Oregon, the range of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly has been reduced to two small relict grasslands in the foothills of the coast range near Corvallis, in Benton County, Oregon. The distribution of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly has been reduced from more than 80 populations to the 14 occupied locations with small populations that are known rangewide today. Some of the populations that have been extirpated have disappeared in the past decade, and many declined from robust population sizes of more than 5,000 individual butterflies to zero within a 3-year interval and have not returned. Most remaining populations of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies are very small; 5 of the 14 known populations are estimated to have fewer than 100 individuals. Only 1 population consistently has been estimated to have more than 1,000 individual butterflies, and this population has been severely impacted due to habitat degradation associated with military training.
   We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. We find that the threat of development and adverse impacts to habitat from conversion to other uses (agriculture); the loss of historically occupied locations resulting in the present isolation and limited distribution of the subspecies; the impacts of military training and recreation; existing and likely future habitat fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and land use changes associated with agriculture; long-term fire suppression; and the threats associated with the present and threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly habitat are significant. These threats are currently ongoing and will continue into the foreseeable future for Taylor's checkerspot butterflies.
   We find that disease may be a threat, but is not currently at a significant level to affect the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. The threat of disease to the larval host plant of the subspecies may become substantial in the foreseeable future due to the prevalence of small population sizes for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. Predation is not a threat to Taylor's checkerspot butterflies at this time. We conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms do not address and reduce the threats to the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. In contrast, the voluntary protections that have been exercised for private landowners in lieu of rulemaking under Washington State's forest practices regulations have provided protection to the subspecies on private lands adjacent to DNR lands on the north
   The observed habitat fragmentation and the isolation of small populations of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly suggest that the loss of genetic diversity through inbreeding depression may be a threat. All known locations where the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is found in Oregon and Washington are sufficiently distant from each other such that exchange of genetic material from a dispersing individual moving from population to population would be unlikely. The threat of extreme weather events (drought and deluge, and overcast, cold springs) affect host plant phenology and adult butterfly emergence, which influences whether the larvae complete their annual life cycle, thus affecting the size of annual populations. The effects of weather events are particularly a threat when they affect one of the few small populations that remain. There is a potential threat of continuing pesticide application, which is suspected to be responsible for the extirpation of some populations of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in Pierce County. Recreational activities (off-road vehicles, trampling and crushing from hikers and horses) have been shown to be a threat at several of the sites occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies.
   In summary, the combination of several threats that have significant impacts on populations and the ongoing nature of these threats to the few remaining small populations of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly leads us to conclude that the subspecies is currently in danger of extinction throughout its range. The threats to the survival of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly occur throughout the subspecies' range and are not restricted to any particular significant portion of that range. Accordingly, our assessment and determination will apply to the subspecies throughout its entire range. The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range" and a threatened species as any species "that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future." Because we find that the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats described above, and the fact that the range and population size of the species has already been drastically reduced, a determination of threatened species status for the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is not appropriate. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we determine that the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly meets the definition of an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Significant Portion of the Range
   Having determined that the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly meets the definition of an endangered species throughout its entire range, we need not further evaluate any significant portion of the range for this subspecies.
Streaked Horned Lark
   We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the streaked horned lark. The subspecies has disappeared from all formerly documented locations in the northern portions of its range (British Columbia, the San Juan Islands, and the northern Puget trough), the Oregon coast, and the southern edge of its range (Rogue and Umpqua Valleys). The streaked horned lark's range may be continuing to contract, and the number of streaked horned larks in Washington and on the
   We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to streaked horned lark. We find that the threat of development and adverse impacts to habitat from conversion to other uses (residential or commercial development, agriculture), loss and degradation of habitat due to fire suppression and subsequent invasion of habitat by undesirable native and nonnative plants, dredge spoil deposition timing and placement on
   We find that there are likely to be significant, ongoing threats to the subspecies due to predation, which is the most frequently documented source of mortality for eggs and young, and the primary source of nest failure. This is especially a concern in the south Puget Sound area, although streaked horned larks in other areas are also susceptible. In addition, we conclude that significant, ongoing threats to the streaked horned lark may occur due to small population effects (for this subspecies, this includes loss of genetic diversity, low survival, and reduced fecundity and nest success). This is of particular concern in the south Puget Sound area, where such threats in combination with a lack of immigration into that area and high breeding site fidelity could lead to local population extirpations. Other significant, ongoing threats to the streaked horned lark include existing regulatory mechanisms, which are not adequate to address or reduce threats to streaked horned lark; other activities associated with airports (development and aircraft strikes); and recreation (including but not limited to pedestrians, model airplane flying, dog walking, beachcombing, vehicle or ORV use, camping, and horseback riding in areas occupied by streaked horned lark). These threats are expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Potential threats include stochastic weather events, nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds, and vehicle mortality, but magnitude and severity of these threats are unknown at this time.
   Streaked horned larks face a combination of several high-magnitude threats; the threats are immediate, occur throughout the subspecies' range, and are not restricted to any particular significant portion of the range. Therefore, we assessed the status of streaked horned lark throughout its entire range, and our assessment and determination apply to the subspecies throughout its entire range. For the reasons provided in this rule, we are listing streaked horned lark as threatened throughout its range. The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range" and a threatened species as any species "that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future." We find that streaked horned lark is likely to become an endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats described above. We do not have information to suggest that the present threats are of such great magnitude that streaked horned lark is in immediate danger of extinction, but we conclude that it is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we determine that streaked horned lark meets the definition of threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
   After finding that streaked horned lark is a threatened species throughout its range, we next consider whether there may be a distinct vertebrate population segment (DPS) that meets the definition of endangered, in accordance with the Service's Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722;
   (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs;
   (2) The significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs; and
   (3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing (i.e., does the population segment, when treated as if it were a species, meet the Act's definition of endangered or threatened?) (61 FR 4722;
   The first two elements are used to determine if a population segment constitutes a valid DPS. If it does, then the third element is used to consider whether such DPS warrants listing. In this section, we will consider the first two criteria (discreteness and significance) to determine if any unit of the streaked horned lark's overall population is a valid DPS (i.e., a valid listable entity). Our policy further recognizes that it may be appropriate to assign different classifications (i.e., endangered or threatened) to different DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon (61FR 4722;
Discreteness
   Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following two conditions:
   (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity (separation based on genetic or morphological characters) may provide evidence of this separation;
   (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
   In our evaluation of discreteness under the DPS policy, we primarily considered the information indicating the separation of streaked horned larks during the breeding season into three regions (the south Puget Sound,
   Possible evidence of inbreeding depression (Anderson 2010, p. 27; Pearson and Stinson 2011, p. 1) may suggest that there is a discrete population of streaked horned larks that breed in Washington. Estimates of population growth rate with data from nesting areas in Washington (south Puget Sound,
   A project was initiated in 2011 to counteract the apparent decline in the south Puget Sound breeding birds. This genetic rescue effort is aimed at increasing genetic diversity in streaked horned larks breeding in Washington, which could result in increased nest success and an increase in the population. Twelve eggs (four three-egg clutches) were collected from streaked horned lark nests in the southern Willamette Valley and were placed in nests at the 13th Division Prairie site at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (Wolf 2011, p. 9). At least five young successfully fledged at the receiving site; if even one of these birds returns to breed in future years, it will likely increase genetic diversity in the receiving population, resulting in improved fitness and reduced extinction risk for the south Puget Sound streaked horned larks (Wolf 2011, p. 9). This genetic rescue project will likely be continued for the next several years.
   With the evidence of extensive mixing that occurs in the winter, and the genetic rescue project to bolster genetic diversity in Washington, which has resulted in genetic mixing between Oregon and Washington populations, there does not appear to be marked separation among streaked horned larks from the three regions. In addition, the evidence of deleterious genetic consequences to the birds breeding in Washington suggests that any possible isolation of this population is not the result of adaptation or natural differentiation of this population, but rather is symptomatic of drastic population declines and loss of connectivity between potentially interbreeding subpopulations. Because we find the potential "regional populations" are not markedly separate, we do not consider them to be discrete under the DPS policy.
Evaluation of Discreteness
   Our analysis of the apparent level of isolation and evidence of inbreeding depression does not lead to a finding that any subunit of streaked horned larks that nest in Washington, in the south Puget Sound, on the Washington coast, or on the
Significance
   Under our DPS Policy, a population must be discrete and significant to qualify as a DPS. Since we have determined that no populations of streaked horned larks are discrete, we will not consider whether that population segment is significant.
Conclusion of DPS Analysis for Streaked Horned Lark
   On the basis of the best available information, we have determined that there are no discrete populations of the streaked horned lark. As no population segments met the discreteness element, and, therefore, no populations qualify as a DPS under the Service's DPS policy, we will not proceed with an evaluation of the status of the population segment under the Act.
Significant Portion of the Range
   In determining whether a species is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be both (1) significant and (2) endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be significant, and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the species' range that are not significant, such portions will not warrant further consideration.
   If we identify portions that warrant further consideration, we then determine whether the species is endangered or threatened in these portions of its range. Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, the Service may address either the significance question or the status question first. Thus, if the Service considers significance first and determines that a portion of the range is not significant, the Service need not determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there. Likewise, if the Service considers status first and determines that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is significant. However, if the Service determines that both a portion of the range of a species is significant and the species is endangered or threatened there, the Service will specify that portion of the range as endangered or threatened under section 4(c)(1) of the Act.
   As described above, we have determined that streaked horned lark is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range; therefore the subspecies meets the definition of a threatened species under the Act. In the course of this rangewide determination, we considered whether some portion of the full range of the subspecies may face threats or potential threats acting individually or collectively on streaked horned lark to such degree that the subspecies as a whole should be considered endangered. We detail our consideration of that question here.
   Although the threats to streaked horned larks in Washington and Oregon are apparently similar in nature (including loss of habitat to development, poor habitat quality due to lack of adequate management to maintain low-stature vegetation, predation, and human disturbance during the breeding season), for reasons unknown, the population trend for streaked horned larks in Washington appears to be markedly different than the trend for the subspecies in Oregon.
&#160;  Streaked horned larks in Washington occur on the south Puget Sound, on the Washington coast, and on islands and dredge disposal sites in the lower
   Camfield et al. (2011, p. 4) analyzed the data from the same three local populations considered by Pearson et al. (2008) and Schapaugh (2009), described above (the data were collected from about 137 nests over 4 years (2002-2005)). Camfield et al. (2011, p. 8) concluded that these populations have reached a point where they are declining towards extinction, and are not sustainable without immigration. The declining trend is probably most pronounced in the south Puget Sound population, where studies have identified apparent inbreeding depression, which is likely a result of the small population size, high site fidelity, and complete absence of breeding season immigration (i.e., no observed immigration of breeding birds from any other sites) (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 14-15).
   The population of streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley of Oregon appears to be more stable. The population in the Willamette Valley is estimated at 900-1,300 birds (Altman 2011, p. 213); no population modeling has been done using data from Oregon, but the apparent trend of the subspecies in the Willamette Valley is stable, based on the
   Although streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley face many of the same threats as populations in Washington, the data suggest that streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley are declining at a slower place and have abundant potential habitat on the agricultural lands in the valley. The best available information does not suggest that they are likely to experience significant declines in the foreseeable future, to the degree that this population would be considered in danger of extinction at the present time. The threats in the Willamette Valley are relatively small population size, and likely loss of habitat to future development and incompatible management practices, which leads us to conclude that the subspecies is threatened in the Willamette Valley.
   The best available data therefore suggest that, under current conditions, streaked horned larks in Washington (south Puget Sound, Washington coast,
   Continued decline of the Washington populations considered in conjunction with the larger populations in the Willamette Valley leads us to the conclusion that, on balance, the subspecies is appropriately defined as a threatened species throughout its range under the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
   Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
   The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
   Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernment organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
   Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
   Upon listing, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Washington and Oregon will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and streaked horned lark. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
   Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
   Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include actions to manage or restore critical habitat, actions that require collecting or handling the species for the purpose of captive propagation and translocation to new habitat, actions that may negatively affect the species through removal and conversion or degradation of habitat. Examples of activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies that may affect listed species or their habitat include, but are not limited to:
   (1) Military training activities and air operations conducted in or adjacent to occupied or suitable habitat on DOD lands;
   (2) Activities with a Federal nexus that include vegetation management such as burning, mechanical treatment, and/or application of herbicides/pesticides on Federal, State, private, or Tribal lands;
   (3) Ground-disturbing activities regulated, funded, or conducted by Federal agencies in or adjacent to occupied and/or suitable habitat; and
   (4) Import, export, or trade of the species.
   The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
   We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife, and at 17.32 for threatened wildlife. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
   It is our policy, as published in the
   (1) Unauthorized collecting; sale or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce; and delivery, receipt, or transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity of the species.
   (2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey upon the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly or the streaked horned lark, such as the introduction of competing, nonnative plants or animals to the States of Washington and Oregon;
   (3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that attack any life stage of these subspecies, for example, Btk release in the range of Taylor's checkerspot butterflies;
   (4) Unauthorized modification of the soil profiles or the vegetation components on sites known to be occupied by Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned larks; and
   (5) Deposition of dredge materials on occupied streaked horned lark breeding habitats, intentional harassment of the subspecies at airports as part of a wildlife hazard reduction program, and mowing or burning of the subspecies' occupied habitats during the breeding season.
   Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the
   Listing the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly as endangered and the streaked horned lark as threatened under the Act does not automatically invoke the endangered species acts of the State of Oregon (OAR 629-605-0105). In Washington, although there is no endangered species act per se, there is a prohibition against take of any species listed by the State regulatory agency (WDFW); however, there is no restriction to loss or modification of habitat. Further, the States may enter into agreements with Federal agencies to administer and manage any area required for the conservation, management, enhancement, or protection of endangered species. Funds for these activities could be made available under section 6 of the Act (Cooperation with the States) or through competitive application to receive funding through our Recovery Program under section 4 of the Act. Thus, the Federal protection afforded to these subspecies by listing them as endangered or threatened species is reinforced and supplemented by protection under State law.
Special Rule
   Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may publish a special rule that modifies the standard protections for threatened species in the Service's regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, which implement section 9 of the Act, with special measures that are determined to be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. As a means to promote conservation efforts by encouraging activities that inadvertently create needed habitat for streaked horned lark, we are issuing a special rule for this species under section 4(d) of the Act. In the case of a special rule, the general regulations (50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71) applying most prohibitions under section 9 of the Act to threatened species do not apply to that species, and the special rule contains the prohibitions necessary and appropriate to conserve that species. Under the special rule, take of streaked horned lark caused by certain common practices by agricultural operations; by wildlife hazard management at airports on State, county, private, or tribal lands; and by noxious weed control conducted on non-federal lands would be exempt from section 9 of the Act. Activities on Federal lands or with any Federal agency involvement will still need to be addressed through consultation under section 7 of the Act.
   Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports. Some management actions taken at airports are generally beneficial to streaked horned larks. Streaked horned larks have been documented to breed successfully and to maintain populations at airports in the south Puget Sound and Willamette Valley. Airports routinely implement programs to minimize the presence of hazardous wildlife on airfields, and these activities unintentionally create suitable habitat for streaked horned larks. The special rule for airport management acknowledges the benefits to larks from these activities; covered actions include vegetation management to maintain desired grass height on or adjacent to airports through mowing, discing, herbicide use, or burning; hazing of hazardous wildlife (geese, and other large birds and mammals); routine management, repair, and maintenance of roads and runways; and modification and management of forage, water, and shelter to be less attractive to these hazardous wildlife, as described under the Regulation Promulgation section, below. Many of the activities that benefit the streaked horned lark on non-Federal airports are a result of practices to maintain safe conditions for aviation; we recommend that airport operators follow the guidance provided in
   The listing of the streaked horned lark imposes a requirement on airport managers where the subspecies occurs to consider the effects of their management activities on this subspecies. It is likely that airport managers would take actions to deter the subspecies from areas where it currently occurs in order to avoid the burden of the resulting take restrictions that would accrue from the presence of a listed species. However, this special rule, which exempts the non-Federal airport activities listed above, and which may otherwise result in take under section 9 of the Act, eliminates the incentive for airports to reduce or eliminate populations of streaked horned larks from the airfields.
   Agricultural Practices. The largest area of potential habitat for streaked horned larks is the agricultural land base in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. The wide open landscape context and low vegetation structure in agricultural fields, especially in grass seed fields, attract larks, probably because those working landscapes resemble the natural habitats formerly used by the subspecies when the natural disturbances associated with floods and fires maintained a mosaic of suitable habitats for the subspecies. Habitat characteristics of agricultural lands used by streaked horned larks include: (1) Bare or sparsely vegetated areas within or adjacent to grass seed fields, pastures, or fallow fields; (2) recently planted (0-3 years) Christmas tree farms with extensive bare ground; and (3) wetland mudflats or "drown outs" (i.e., washed out and poorly performing areas within grass seed or row crop fields). Currently, there are approximately 420,000 acres (169,968 ha) of grass seed fields in the Willamette Valley, and an additional approximately 500,000 acres (202,343 ha) of other agriculture. In any year, some portion of these roughly 1 million acres (404,685 ha) will have suitable streaked horned lark habitat, but the geographic location of those areas may not be consistent from year to year, nor can we predict their occurrence.
   While some agricultural activities may harm or kill individual streaked horned larks, maintenance of extensive agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley is crucial to maintaining the population of streaked horned larks in the valley. Section 9 of the Act provides general prohibitions on activities that would result in take of a threatened species; however, the Service recognizes that routine agricultural activities, even those with the potential to inadvertently take individual streaked horned larks, are necessary components of agricultural operations and create habitat that may provide for the long-term conservation needs of the subspecies. The Service recognizes that in the long term, it is a benefit to streaked horned larks to maintain those aspects of the Willamette Valley's agricultural landscape that can aid in the recovery of the subspecies. We believe this special rule will further conservation of the subspecies by discouraging conversions of the agricultural landscape into habitats unsuitable for the streaked horned lark and encouraging landowners to continue managing the remaining landscape in ways that meet the needs of their operation and provide suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark.
   In addition, we believe that, in certain instances, easing the general take prohibitions on non-federal agricultural lands may encourage continued responsible land uses that provide an overall benefit to the subspecies. We also believe that such a special rule will promote the conservation efforts and private lands partnerships critical for species recovery (Bean and Wilcove 1997, pp. 1-2). However, in easing the take prohibitions under section 9, the measures developed in the special rule must also contain prohibitions necessary and appropriate to conserve the species. As discussed elsewhere in this rule, streaked horned larks face many threats. Foremost among these is the scarcity of large, open spaces with very early seral stage vegetation. In the Willamette Valley, large expanses of burned prairie or the scour plains of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers may have provided suitable habitat for streaked horned larks in the past. With the loss of these natural habitats during the last century, alternative breeding and wintering sites, including active agricultural lands, have become critical for the continued survival and recovery of the streaked horned lark. The unique challenge for conservation of the streaked horned lark on agricultural lands will be to find a way to work with private landowners to voluntarily create habitat for the subspecies rather than allow the habitats on their lands to become unsuitable through inaction. Section 9 of the Act prohibits a range of actions that would take a listed species, including actions that destroy habitats essential to individuals of the species. However, section 9 of the Act does not prohibit inaction; thus, a landowner's failure to disturb habitat on a regular basis to maintain the vegetation structure needed by streaked horned larks would not be a violation of section 9 of the Act. If recovery of the streaked horned lark requires the availability of agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley, and we believe it does, then we need to give landowners reasons and incentives to manage their lands in ways that allow larks to thrive on those lands.
   While it appears that streaked horned larks may be benefiting from agricultural practices in the Willamette Valley, much remains to be learned about the effects of agricultural activities on the streaked horned lark. We have concluded that developing a conservation partnership with the agricultural community will allow us to answer important questions about the impact of various agricultural practices, and will provide valuable information to assist in the recovery of the subspecies. We further believe that, where consistent with the discretion provided by the Act, implementing policies that promote such partnerships is an essential component for the recovery of listed species, particularly where species occur on private lands. Conservation partnerships can provide positive incentives to private landowners to voluntarily conserve natural resources, and can remove or reduce disincentives to conservation (Knight 1999, p. 224; Brook at al. 2003, p. 1644; Sorice et al. 2011, p. 594). The Service will work closely with the farming community in the Willamette Valley to develop ways to monitor impacts on streaked horned larks from routine agricultural activities. We conclude that this commitment is necessary and appropriate, and will provide further insights into land stewardship practices that foster the continued use of the Willamette Valley farm land in ways beneficial to both streaked horned larks and the agricultural community.
   In response to public comments received on the proposed rule, we have revised the 4(d) special rule for the streaked horned lark. We have determined that exempting specified agricultural operations in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, rather than rangewide, as originally proposed, from the take prohibitions under section 9 of the Act, is the appropriate scope for the 4(d) special rule for agricultural activities. We are limiting the application of the 4(d) special rule for agricultural activities to the Willamette Valley in Oregon because we have no information to suggest that the streaked horned lark uses agricultural lands in Washington State.
   We have also revised the list of agricultural activities that are exempt from the take prohibitions under section 9 of the Act based on feedback from agricultural interests. We are aligning the definition of "normal farming practices" and "normal transportation activities" to be consistent with relevant Oregon state laws (ORS SEC 30.930 and SEC 30.931, respectively). We have also amended the list of covered activities to address specific agricultural practices in the Willamette Valley that may affect the streaked horned lark. Based on feedback from agricultural interests, we deleted several activities from the 4(d) special rule (i.e., routine management and maintenance of stock ponds and berms to maintain livestock water supplies; routine maintenance or construction of fences for grazing management; placement of mineral supplements; and irrigation of agricultural crops, fields, and livestock pastures) and added others (i.e., hazing of geese and predators; and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems). Please see the Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule section of this document for a complete list of changes to the 4(d) special rule between the proposed and final rule stages.
   We believe that a 4(d) rule for agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of streaked horned lark. We therefore exempt take of streaked horned larks resulting from normal farming activities, which are specified below in the Regulation Promulgation section, under section 9 of the Act.
   Noxious Weed Control on Non-Federal Lands. Based on public comments, we are adding noxious weed control activities on non-federal lands to the list of activities in the 4(d) special rule that are exempt from take under section 9 of the Act.
   Streaked horned larks nest, forage, and winter on extensive areas of bare ground with low-statured vegetation. These areas include native prairies, coastal dunes, fallow and active agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, sparsely vegetated edges of grass fields, recently planted Christmas tree farms with extensive bare ground, moderately to heavily grazed pastures, gravel roads or gravel shoulders of lightly traveled roads, airports, and dredge deposition sites in the lower
   Habitat management to maintain low-statured vegetation is essential to maintaining suitable nesting, wintering, and foraging habitat for streaked horned larks. Although streaked horned larks are known to eat the seeds of weedy forbs and grasses, and while improperly timed actions can destroy nests and young, removal of noxious weeds wherever they may occur will help to maintain the low-statured vegetation required by nesting and wintering larks. Targeted plants include those on County, State, and Federal noxious weed lists (see State and Federal lists via links at http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver; Washington State counties each have a noxious weed control Web site, and selected Oregon State counties maintain noxious weed lists). By their nature, noxious weeds grow aggressively and multiply quickly, negatively affecting all types of habitats, including those used by larks. Some species of noxious weeds spread across long distances through wind, water, and animals, as well as via humans and vehicles, thereby affecting habitats far away from the source plants.
   Section 9 of the Act provides general prohibitions on activities that would result in take of a threatened species; however, the Service recognizes that removal of noxious weeds, even those with the potential to inadvertently take individual streaked horned larks, is necessary and may in part provide for the long-term conservation needs of the streaked horned lark. The Service recognizes that in the long term, it is a benefit to streaked horned lark to remove noxious weeds wherever they may occur. We believe this special rule will further the conservation of the species by helping to prevent spread of those noxious weeds that may render habitat unsuitable for the streaked horned lark, and by encouraging landowners to manage their lands in ways that meet their property management needs as well as helping to prevent degradation or loss of suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. We therefore exempt take of the streaked horned lark under section 9 of the Act resulting from routine removal or other management of noxious weeds, as described under the Regulation Promulgation section, below.
Provisions of the Special Rule
   We determine that issuance of this special rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the streaked horned lark. We believe the actions and activities discussed above, while they may cause some level of harm to or disturbance of the streaked horned lark, create and improve habitat for the subspecies, and are important elements in the subspecies' conservation and recovery efforts. Exempted activities include existing routine airport practices as outlined above by non-Federal entities on existing airports, agricultural activities, and control of noxious weeds on non-Federal lands.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
   We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
References Cited
   A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0080 or upon request from the Field Supervisor, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
   The primary authors of this document are staff of the Washington and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Offices.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
   Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
   Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
   1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
   Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
   2. Amend SEC 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, as follows:
   a. By adding an entry for "Lark, streaked horned" in alphabetical order under BIRDS; and
   b. By adding an entry for "Butterfly, Taylor's checkerspot" in alphabetical order under INSECTS.
   The additions read as follows:
SEC 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
   (h) * * *
Species Historic range Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened Common name Scientific name * * * * * * * Birds * * * * * * * Lark, streaked Eremophila U.S.A. (WA, OR), Entire horned alpestris strigata Canada (BC) * * * * * * * Insects * * * * * * * Butterfly, Euphydryas editha U.S.A. (WA, OR), NA Taylor's taylori Canada (BC) checkerspot * * * * * * *
Species Status When listed Critical Special rules habitat Common name * * * * * * * Birds %#! * * * * * * * Lark, streaked T 824 17.95(b) 17.41(a) horned * * * * * * * Insects %#! * * * * * * * Butterfly, E 824 17.95(i) NA Taylor's checkerspot * * * * * * *
   3. Amend SEC 17.41 by adding paragraph (a) to read as follows:
SEC 17.41 Special rules--birds.
   (a) Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata). (1) Which populations of the streaked horned lark are covered by this special rule? The components of this special rule that apply to airport management and noxious weed control cover the rangewide distribution of this bird; the agricultural component applies only to the Willamette Valley in Oregon.
   (2) What activities are prohibited? Except as noted in paragraphs (a)(3), (4), and (5) of this section, all prohibitions of SEC 17.31 apply to the streaked horned lark.
   (3) What activities are allowed on airports on non-Federal lands? (i) Incidental take of the streaked horned lark will not be a violation of section 9 of the Act, if the incidental take results from routine management activities associated with airport operations to minimize hazardous wildlife, consistent with regulations at 14 CFR 139.337.
   (ii) Hazardous wildlife is defined by the
   (A) Routine management, repair, and maintenance of roads and runways (does not include upgrades or construction of new roads or runways);
   (B) Control and management of vegetation (grass, weeds, shrubs, and trees) through mowing, discing, herbicide application, or burning;
   (C) Hazing of hazardous wildlife; and
   (D) Habitat modification and management of sources of forage, water, and shelter to reduce the attractiveness of the area around the airport for hazardous wildlife.
   (iii) Incidental take of larks caused by accidental aircraft strikes at airports on non-Federal lands is also exempted from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act.
   (4) What agricultural activities are allowed on non-Federal land in the Willamette Valley in Oregon? Incidental take of streaked horned lark will not be a violation of section 9 of the Act, if the incidental take results from accepted agricultural (farming) practices implemented on farms consistent with State laws on non-Federal lands.
   (i) For the purposes of this special rule, farm means any facility, including land, buildings, watercourses and appurtenances, used in the commercial production of crops, nursery stock, livestock, poultry, livestock products, poultry products, vermiculture products, or the propagation and raising of nursery stock.
   (ii) For the purposes of this special rule, an agricultural (farming) practice means a mode of operation on a farm that:
   (A) Is or may be used on a farm of a similar nature;
   (B) Is a generally accepted, reasonable, and prudent method for the operation of the farm to obtain a profit in money;
   (C) Is or may become a generally accepted, reasonable, and prudent method in conjunction with farm use;
   (D) Complies with applicable State laws; and
   (E) Is done in a reasonable and prudent manner.
   (iii) Accepted agricultural (farming) practices include, but are not limited to, the following activities:
   (A) Planting, harvesting, rotation, mowing, tilling, discing, burning, and herbicide application to crops;
   (B) Normal transportation activities, and repair and maintenance of unimproved farm roads (this exemption does not include improvement or construction of new roads) and graveled margins of rural roads;
   (C) Livestock grazing according to normally acceptable and established levels;
   (D) Hazing of geese or predators; and
   (E) Maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems.
   (5) What noxious weed control activities are allowed on non-Federal lands? Incidental take of streaked horned lark will not be a violation of section 9 of the Act, if the incidental take results from routine removal or other management of noxious weeds. Routine removal or other management of noxious weeds are limited to the following, and must be conducted in such a way that impacts to non-target plants are avoided to the maximum extent practicable:
   (i) Mowing;
   (ii) Herbicide and fungicide application;
   (iii) Fumigation; and
   (iv) Burning.
* * * * *
   Dated:
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director,
[FR Doc. 2013-23567 Filed 10-2-13;
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
| Copyright: | (c) 2013 Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
| Wordcount: | 58739 |
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked Horned Lark
Advisor News
- What to discuss during the first retirement planning meeting
- Inflation, competing priorities and uncertainty erode retirement security
- As health premiums rise, 1 in 8 workers cut retirement savings
- CT governor’s candidates claims: What’s true, and what’s misleading
- Retaining clients by giving them a memorable experience
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- National Life Group expands annuity portfolio
- AM Best to Join Life/Annuity Insurance-Focused Panel Discussion at Capitol Forum Event
- USAA Earns No. 1 Ranking in JD Power Individual Annuity Study for the Third Consecutive Year
- How flexible annuities fit today’s retirement portfolios
- Foresters Financial appoints Tom Ross as chief distribution officer for U.S. annuity sales
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
- OVERVIEW OF RURAL HOSPITALS IN CALIFORNIA
- PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR LOVED ONES THIS HOLIDAY SEASON WITH VACCINATIONS
- Les Rubin: What does 'free' Democratic Socialism really cost?
- Indiana Medicaid chief warns changes needed to avoid ‘catastrophic situation’
- Lawton native leads ‘Operation Independence’ at Norman Regional Health System
More Health/Employee Benefits NewsLife Insurance News