Team 1

Amberly Holcomb

Arlynnell Dickson

Darien Pusey

2

Executive Summary

Introduction

The monarch butterfly, one of North America’s most notorious invertebrates, is currently in the

midst of a major population decline. Over time, the monarch butterfly has coevolved with the milkweed

family, using the plants for consumption, habitat, and other biological processes. However, due to

increased use of the herbicide glyphosate within the Corn Belt agricultural region, milkweed plant

populations have reached an all-time low. Given the major decline in the monarch’s population and

critical habitat (i.e. milkweed), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS] must determine whether or not

to list the monarch butterfly as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. In order to help

the FWS make the best listing and regulatory decision, this report will analyze the biology of the monarch

butterfly, the legal implications of the listing process, and the opinions of central stakeholders.

Key Findings

Monarch Butterfly Biology and Milkweed Importance

After analyzing general biology of the species, it is clear that the monarch butterfly depends on

milkweed plants for survival. The best available science shows that the decline of milkweed in the Corn

Belt contributed to a significant reduction in the monarch’s population. Additionally, a lack of concrete

data between the Corn Belt and Mexico may interfere with the implementation of conservation methods.

The Legal Perspective of Listing the Monarch Butterfly

Although the ESA mandates that the FWS consider only the best available science in its listing

decisions, listing a species under the ESA is usually a long, difficult, and bureaucratic process. Politics

and the opinions of stakeholders tend to influence regulatory decisions and cause various legal disputes.

The FWS stands to benefit from understanding the current legal atmosphere and potential consequences

of protecting the monarch butterfly before issuing its final regulatory decision.

Stakeholder Analysis for the Monarch Butterfly

Many stakeholders groups heavily invested in glyphosate use (e.g., pesticide companies and

farmers) want a balance between conservation efforts for the monarch and the use of glyphosate to

3

maintain agricultural yields. On the other hand, conservationist groups stress that private efforts, such as

the expansion of milkweed habitats, are not sufficient to protect the species, and listing the monarch under

the ESA is necessary for its survival.

Recommendations

First, in order to effectively protect the monarch butterfly, the FWS should list the species as

“threatened” under the ESA. After considering the best available science, the monarch butterfly meets the

statutory definition and deserves federal protection. The FWS should also designate milkweed as critical

habitat for the monarch butterfly. Second, given that critical habitat designation involves the

consideration of other impacts in addition to the best available science, the FWS should facilitate a

compromise by developing a Special 4(d) Rule for agriculture; thus, allowing the use of glyphosate on

certain agricultural fields but banning usage near habitat conservation areas and roadsides. Third, in order

to ensure the monarch butterfly has the proper habitat to sustain a robust population, milkweed needs to

be conserved outside of cultivated fields. Stakeholders need to agree on a plan of action to promote

healthy milkweed populations and discourage the use of glyphosate in targeted habitat zones. Fourth,

there is a lack of data contributing to absolute confidence that milkweed decline is the main factor causing

monarch decline. Proper conservations methods cannot be conducted until more research is conducted

across the Corn Belt region through overwintering sites in Mexico. Additional threats to the monarch’s

survival need to be quantified in order to determine the overall impacts on the population.

Limitations

This report stands to benefit from a further analysis of: (1) the effects of glyphosate use on

agricultural fields, milkweed, and the monarch, (2) local initiatives to protect the monarch in the Corn

Belt region, and (3) climate change and its predicted effects on the monarch population.

Conclusion

In order to protect the monarch, comply with the law, and balance the interests of all stakeholders,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should list the monarch as a threatened species under the ESA.

4

Introduction

One of the most well-known butterflies in North America today is the monarch butterfly. This

magnificent species is notorious for its striking orange and black colors, as well as its remarkable

migration across thousands of miles to connecting the monarch to and from its overwintering and

breeding areas (The Xerces Society et. al, 2015). Often called the “milkweed butterfly,” the monarch has

co-evolved with several plants from the milkweed family, a subset of plants named for the milky sap

found within the stem (Singh, 1970). The milkweed family or, Asclepias spp., acts as a food source for

monarch butterfly larvae and contributes to the poisonous nature of mature monarchs (Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources, n.d.). Over the past two decades, however, the monarch butterfly

population has experienced a decline in total population size. According to a study conducted by the

Center for Food Safety (2015), in less than 20 years, the monarch butterfly population has fallen by

approximately 90%. As a result, many entomologists fear that the species’ spectacular migration from

Canada to Mexico will soon come to an abrupt end. Threats along the migratory path, breeding grounds,

and overwintering habitats continue to exacerbate the perils of the monarch’s journey (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Midwest Region, 2014).

Many experienced scientists attribute the monarch’s decline to several factors, including but not

limited to, logging, development, and extreme weather conditions due to climate change (Center for Food

Safety, 2015). For example, in 2002, an estimated 468-500 million monarchs were killed by the effects of

a heavy winter storm (2015). According to the Center for Food Safety (2015), due to global climate

change, a similar seasonal weather event could possibly wipe out the entire current overwintering

population.

However, the primary cause of the monarch’s decline is the overall reduction in milkweed

populations and increased dependence on herbicides. In order to increase crop yields over the past 20

years, farmers have sprayed herbicides on agricultural fields to eliminate weeds and other undesirable

plants. In the Corn Belt region, farmers primarily grow genetically engineered herbicide-resistant soybean

and corn crops (Center for Food Safety, 2015). As a result, farmers can freely apply herbicides to kill

5

unwanted plants without hindering their final crop yields. Although the Corn Belt’s cropland remains the

heart of the monarch’s breeding grounds, stakeholders in the agricultural sector still consider milkweed a

serious nuisance (Schultz, 2015). Glyphosate, one of the most commonly used herbicides, has decimated

most of the Corn Belt’s milkweed population (Center for Food Safety, 2015). Because the monarch

butterfly depends on milkweed for habitat, reproduction, and other biological processes, the plant’s

decrease has significantly contributed to the monarch’s overall decline.

The massive reduction in the monarch’s population led the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service to

conduct a status review in order to determine whether or not it should be listed under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973 [ESA]. As one of the most powerful environmental statutes, the ESA protects

numerous endangered and threatened species from the irrevocable effects of extinction by preserving

essential ecosystems and developing conservation programs (16 U.S.C. § 1531(b)). In order for a species

to receive federal protection, certain legal steps must be taken. However, there are a lot of stakeholders

involved, particularly in the Corn Belt, which will be greatly affected by the species’ potential listing.

Various stakeholders include pesticide companies, conservationists, and farmers; although some may

benefit from the listing, others may face significant costs.

First, this report will discuss monarch butterfly biology, explain the importance of milkweed to

the monarch’s survival, and explore the best available science published in regards to the monarch

butterfly’s decline. Second, the report will explain the necessary steps for listing a species under the ESA

and the legal implications of listing the monarch butterfly as a threatened species. Third, this report will

analyze the specific effects of listing the monarch butterfly under the ESA on each of the aforementioned

stakeholders. Finally, this report will present specific recommendations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, discuss the limitations of the report, and ultimately determine if the monarch should be listed as a

threatened species under the ESA and how a decision to list will affect the Corn Belt region.

6

Key Findings

Monarch Butterfly Biology and Milkweed Importance

Introduction

The monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus plexippus, is an easily recognizable butterfly; however,

due to recent population declines, Danaus plexippus plexippus, is sometimes seldom seen in natural

landscapes. Often called the “Milkweed Butterfly,” the monarch butterfly has co-evolved with plants

from the milkweed family, which are named for the milky sap found within their plant parts (Singh,

1970). The milkweed family or, Asclepias spp., act as a food source for monarch butterfly larvae and help

contribute to the poisonous nature of mature monarch butterflies (Wisconsin Department Of Natural

Resources). Monarch butterflies, specifically those in the Corn Belt region, are facing several threats to

their persistence as a species. As a migrating species, many of the monarch’s migratory resting sites are

facing damage, decreasing the number of resting sites available (Wisconsin Department Of Natural

Resources). Herbicides reduce the number of viable milkweed plants necessary for monarch larvae usage,

which threatens the long-term persistence of a species that relies solely on the existence of milkweed

plants (Wisconsin Department Of Natural Resources). These causes, among others, have led to a decline

of more than eighty-percent of population estimates since 1997 (Jewell, 2014). However, monitoring the

true population size of such a small species can be difficult, and statistical estimates may not fully capture

the true decline of the monarch butterfly. Despite this possible estimation error, it is clear that the status of

this unique species is facing a large number of threats in the Corn Belt region. This paper will discuss

monarch butterfly biology, the importance of milkweed to the monarch’s survival and explore the best

available science published about the monarch butterfly population decline.

Research Findings

The Monarch Butterfly

Monarch butterflies are known for their vivid black, orange and white coloration, which allows

the species to be easily identified by people of all ages (Wisconsin Department Of Natural Resources).

7

Living across the United States and southern Canada, monarch butterflies prefer to reside in prairies,

meadows, along roadsides and in grasslands (Jewell, 2014). Since monarch butterflies have co-evolved

with milkweed, an area with high milkweed abundance is pertinent to the survival of monarch butterflies.

Additionally, long-range migration of monarch butterflies is essential to the species’ survival. Monarchs

migrate to different portions of Southern United States, Mexico, Cuba or Caribbean Islands, depending

where they originated (Rodrigues, 2010).

Unlike other butterfly species, monarchs have a varied life span. Most monarchs only live to be a

few weeks old; however, monarchs born in late summer survive and migrate towards warmer weather

during winter (Wisconsin Department Of Natural Resources). Cooler weather and shorter days typical of

northern temperatures in autumn allow monarchs to delay maturation long enough to migrate south for

reproduction (Wisconsin Department Of Natural Resources). Monarch butterflies migrate thousands of

miles south to central Mexico, California or Florida, where the butterflies overwinter in warmer weather

(Jewell, 2014). The following spring, monarchs migrate back north to reproduce and lay singular eggs on

a suitable, young milkweed leaf or flower (Jewell, 2014). Female monarch butterflies can lay as many as

four hundred eggs but they must lay each egg shortly after reproduction (Jewell, 2014). Monarch eggs

take three to eight days to hatch and develop into larvae, or caterpillars, that are only able to feed on

milkweed leaves (Jewell, 2014).

Monarch larvae must go through five instar stages in the matter of nine to fourteen days (Jewell,

2014). Each instar stage is identified or distinguished by larvae coloration, tentacle length, size of the

head capsule and several other characteristics (Jewell, 2014). In order to grow at such a quick rate, larvae

must constantly ingest enough milkweed to mature from two-six millimeters in length, to twenty-five to

forty-five millimeters in length (Jewell, 2014). After reaching acceptable size, larvae stop feeding and

search for a twig to attach to and form a pupa, which is the last stage of development before

metamorphosing into an adult butterfly (Jewell, 2014). The monarch pupa is waxy and jade-green color;

the caterpillar metamorphoses into an adult inside the pupa within a two week time period (Wisconsin

Department Of Natural Resources). At the end of metamorphosis, the adult monarch butterfly emerges

8

and must mate within a few days since the majority of adult monarchs only survive for two to five weeks

(Jewell, 2014). Despite their short survival time, several generations of breeding monarch butterflies are

produced each summer; at the end of August, surviving monarchs begin to migrate south to overwinter

and provide the next generation of monarchs the following summer (Jewell, 2014).

Milkweed – Monarch Relationship

Monarch butterflies are given a competitive advantage because of their co-evolutionary

relationship with milkweed plants. Species from the Asclepias genus, specifically common milkweed

(Asclepias syriaca), are the singular host plant for monarch butterfly larvae (Pleasants 2012). Native to

states east of the Rocky Mountains, common milkweed produces a white latex sappy material when it’s

plant parts are broken (Pleasants 2012). The sap contains alkaloids and cardenolides, which accumulate

and remain permanently within the monarch as it grows through all five instar stages; giving rise to toxin

accumulation in adult monarchs (Jewell, 2014). When accumulated in monarch larvae, alkaloids and

cardenolides become toxic to wildlife species that eat mature monarch butterflies (Wisconsin Department

Of Natural Resources). As a result, monarch butterfly predation rates are low compared to other survival

threats because predators learn to stay away from the distasteful butterfly (Wisconsin Department Of

Natural Resources). Additionally, monarchs convert sugar from milkweed nectar into lipids that provide a

stored energy source for migration (Jewell, 2014). Therefore, milkweed is important to the monarch

butterfly in more than one life stage, proving necessary to the survival and persistence of monarch

butterflies in all life cycles.

In 2002, a study was conducted to determine if monarch larvae could feed upon other plants, or if

the butterfly fed upon milkweed plants because of familiarity to the plant (Vickerman, 2002). When

feeding upon plants other than milkweed, continued feeding, development and survival of first and fifth-

instar monarch larvae was not supported (Vickerman, 2002). Researchers also studied larval response to

chemicals in host plants; they found that monarch larvae were stimulated and deterred by chemical

presence in plants when feeding (Vickerman, 2002). Chemicals such as, caffeine, deterred larvae from

feeding on host plants and chemicals such as, cardenolides, encouraged larvae to feed (Vickerman, 2002).

9

When presented with cardenolide-containing host plants other than milkweed, monarch larvae were able

to feed on that plant, but did not function as successfully as the larvae feeding on milkweed (Vickerman,

2002). Consequently, monarch larvae show a strong presence to the chemical concentrations found in the

white latex of milkweed plants and preform strongest when able to feed on milkweed.

The monarch butterfly does, however, utilize plants other than milkweed as adults (Jewell, 2014).

Monarchs will feed on nectar from other plants, as well as, perch on branches from other plants (Jewell,

2014). A study conducted in 2015 concluded that flower color and shape are important stimuli to foraging

monarch butterflies (Cepero, 2015). Plant flowers are used to attract pollinators from a distance and may

stimulate a wide range of senses: color, odor, and texture are often manipulated to guide pollinators to a

plant’s flower (Cepero, 2015). Past studies have shown that butterflies are often drawn in by one visual

stimulus component such as, color, but monarch butterflies have evolved the ability to associate two

visual stimuli together (Cepero, 2015). Foraging monarchs learn color more graciously than they do

shape, however, monarchs are still able to associate shape with a nectar reward (Cepero, 2015). Although

applied in a foraging context, the 2015 study concluded that color is most relevant to a nectar-foraging

butterfly; however, shape is the characteristic that stimulates a butterfly that is searching for a location to

lay it’s eggs (Cepero, 2015). The conclusion can then be drawn that monarchs have evolved the ability to

be attracted by both milkweed shape and color when searching for a location to lay their eggs and nectar

to feed on.

Monarch butterflies also have the ability to respond to aversive stimuli, just like they are able to

respond to appetizing or appealing stimuli (Rodrigues, 2010). A 2010 study found that monarchs are able

to avoid floral resources that do not give rise to high rewards (Rodrigues, 2010). Using a reversal-learning

model, Daniela Rodrigues and her team observed monarchs avoid artificial flowers with a displeasing

taste or of a displeasing color (Rodrigues, 2010). Monarchs landed on displeasing flowers for a shorter

amount of time and a smaller number of times as they learned to associate these flowers with displeasing

rewards (Rodrigues, 2010). Additionally, Rodrigues’s team observed monarch butterflies visiting flowers

with higher nectar volume, regardless of color, in comparison to flowers with low nectar reward

10

(Rodrigues, 2010). Thus, monarch butterflies have shown the capability to respond to both aversive and

appetizing stimuli and adjust their foraging behaviors accordingly (Rodrigues, 2010).

As a result of the co-evolutionary and beneficial relationship between the monarch butterfly and

milkweed plants, there is a strong correlation between high monarch population densities and high

milkweed densities in agricultural fields of the Corn Belt states (Oberhauser, 2001). Milkweed plants

prefer sandy soil conditions characteristic of Midwest agricultural fields (Oberhauser, 2001). Since

Midwest states rely heavily on agricultural production, the majority of prairies and other open areas has

been converted to or are defined as agricultural fields; as a result, monarchs produced in the Corn Belt

will most likely originate in agricultural fields (Oberhauser, 2001). Additionally, milkweed tends to be

common in areas with moderate disturbance like, agricultural fields (Pleasants 2012). Scientists have

compared milkweed density and land use data published by state governments; and, several studies have

noticed a high rate of milkweed abundance in agricultural fields (Pleasants 2012). Accordingly,

predictions showing that milkweed plants favor agricultural field conditions are justified and careless

milkweed management can be taken into account for causes of monarch butterfly decline (Pleasants

2012). According to Dr. Leslie Ries from Georgetown University, herbicide-based management of

milkweed may be the culprit of monarch butterfly decline (Ries, 2015). However, Dr. Ries recognizes

that until we have discovered the true culprit of milkweed decline, we cannot be certain what is leading to

the decline of the monarch butterfly (Ries, 2015).

Monarch Migration & Population Decline

Monarch butterflies depend on migration towards warmer overwintering sites to guarantee

enough individuals survive into future generations. Figure one, found in the Appendix at the end of this

paper, displays monarch butterfly migration routes across North America. During migration, monarchs

originating west of the Rocky Mountains travel to south-central California, and monarchs from the east of

the Rocky Mountains travel to Mexico (Jewell, 2014). Monarchs originating from the east coast migrate

to Florida and some east cost monarch butterflies have been known to migrate as far as the Caribbean

Islands (Jewell, 2014). A significant portion of monarch butterflies originate in the Corn Belt region of

11

the United States since milkweed abundance is high those states; thus, a large portion of monarch

butterflies migrate to Mexico each year (Wisconsin Department Of Natural Resources).

Population decline of the monarch butterfly is evident in several parts of the species migration

route. In the Corn Belt region, the annual reproductive production rate of monarch butterflies is assessed

by obtaining a count of the number of eggs found on each milkweed plant (Pleasants, 2012). When

monarch production is compared amongst different habitat types, and the density and area of milkweed

per habitat type is compared, it is evident that annual production rates are declining (Pleasants, 2012).

John Pleasant’s research found a fifty-eight percent decline in milkweed in the Corn Belt region and an

eighty-one percent decline of monarch production from 1999 to 2010 (Pleasants, 2012). The decline of

these production rates is outlined in Figure two in the Appendix; this figure shows an eighty-percent

decline in monarch production in just a nine-year period. A reduction in monarch production in the Corn

Belt region is significant because population loss on a smaller scale will contribute to a more vulnerable

population on a broader scale (Pleasants, 2012). The reduction of monarchs in this smaller region can

have a substantial effect on the overall population of monarch butterflies.

A study conducted in 1999 found that common milkweed was found in seventy-one percent of

roadsides and fifty-percent of corn and soybean fields; although these numbers are likely to have changed,

it in evident that milkweed once inhabited a significant portion of agricultural fields and roadsides at one

point (Hartzler, 2000). Further, from 1999 to 2009, there was a large reduction in milkweed found in

agricultural fields (Pleasants, 2012). Viable habitat reduction in the Corn Belt region will have a direct

affect on the number of butterflies migrating to Mexico each year. Monarch butterfly counts at Mexican

overwintering sites have also shown a significant decrease over the last ten-years (Pleasants 2012). The

decline of milkweed correlates with the decline of monarch butterflies; since the two have co-evolved,

and population decreases are seen in Mexico, the conclusion can drawn that milkweed decline in the Corn

Belt has had a direct impact on the monarch butterfly population as a whole. Since most monarchs that

overwinter in Mexico originate in the Midwest, it is evident that the monarchs migrating to and from the

Midwest are decreasing.

12

It is clear that several conclusions have been drawn about the decline of monarch populations

based on overwintering sites in Mexico; however, there is not much data based out of Central Mexico

(Rivera-Flores, 2015). Essentially, few records are available for several Mexican states over the past

couple of years and the complete migration route of the monarch butterfly cannot be confirmed with a

high degree of confidence (Rivera-Flores, 2015). If the proper migratory route of the monarch cannot be

determined, appropriate conservation efforts cannot be practiced and other threats to the monarch’s

survival like, logging, cannot be discouraged. The monarch butterfly is small species that flies over a very

extensive distance and the main methods of study, citizen science, are not enough to provide accurate

migration observations (Rivera-Flores, 2015). Citizen science has, nonetheless, proved effective in

Mexico is some ways; it is impossible for scientists to track butterflies across their entire migration route

so citizen science has helped fill that gap (Rivera-Flores, 2015). Dr. Leslie Reis noted that science needs

to proved if the declines in Mexico mean that monarch numbers will just simply be reduced or it the

decline ultimately threatens migration patterns themselves (Reis, 2015). While it is clear that there is a

reduction in milkweed abundance, and that there is a reduction in monarch butterfly production in the

Corn Belt region, the direct link between Corn Belt monarch reduction and Mexican overwintering

abundance of monarchs is still not as clear as biologists would hope.

Conclusion

The monarch butterfly is a unique species of butterfly that is recognized and loved by many.

Although the monarch is quite small and hard to track, there has been a great deal of research and citizen

science focused on finding the true cause of monarch butterfly decline. The Corn Belt Region is home to

a large proportion of the monarch population because of the high abundance of milkweed found in

agricultural fields, prairies, grasslands and roadsides. Monarch butterflies specialize on the chemical

components found in milkweed sap and need to feed upon milkweed to be successful. There has been a

recent decline of milkweed in the Corn Belt region in recent years and monarch reproductive production

has decreased as a result. Monarch butterflies originating in the Midwest migrate to Mexico each year to

overwinter; and, a decline in monarchs at Mexican overwintering sites has also seen a decline in recent

13

years. Scientists assume that a decline in monarchs at Mexican overwintering sites is due to a decline of

monarchs in the Midwest, but since it is difficult to study the species over such a far range, research has

not proven this hypothesis. Other treats such as, logging and habitat destruction, exist throughout the

monarch’s migration route and there has been little research conducted on these treats. Clearly the

monarch butterfly population deserves attention from conservationists but the scientific research

conducted at this time is not strong enough to point conservationists in the right direction.

14

Appendix

Figure 1. Fall and spring migration patterns of the monarch butterfly. Populations originating in different

regions of the United States overwinter in different regions of North America. Monarchs originating in

Corn Belt States migrate to Mexico to overwinter.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Save the Monarch Butterfly. Conserving the Nature of

America.

15

Figure 2. Monarch butterfly production decline in the Midwest from 1999-2010, P = 0.004, r2 = 0.58,

values indicate statistical significance.

Pleasants, J.M., and K.S. Oberhauser. 2012. Milkweed loss in agricultural field because of herbicide use:

effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity. 6:135-144.

16

Listing the Monarch Butterfly: A Legal Perspective

Introduction As one of the most powerful environmental statutes, the Endangered Species Act [ESA] protects

numerous species from the irrevocable effects of extinction. In 1973, Congress passed the ESA to

preserve essential ecosystems and develop conservation programs for endangered and threatened species

(16 U.S.C. § 1531(b)). In order for a species to receive federal protection, certain legal steps must be

taken. This section will focus on the legal procedures and consequences of listing the monarch butterfly

as a threatened species under the ESA. This section will also analyze the steps of the listing process, the

legal history of the monarch butterfly, the role of judicial review, the criteria for listing and designation of

critical habitat, and the implications of Section 9 prohibited actions and Section 7 inter-agency

cooperation on stakeholders and government agencies. Understanding the listing process, judicial

precedent, and the potential legal arguments for and against listing will help the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service decide whether or not the monarch butterfly should be listed under the ESA.

The ESA Listing Process

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS] holds the regulatory power to list endangered or

threatened terrestrial species under the ESA. While the agency may initiate a status review of a potential

species, any person has the right to petition the FWS for a listing. Figure 1 shows a flow chart illustrating

the steps of the listing process, including the legal history of the monarch. On August 26, 2014, the

Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate

Conservation filed a joint petition requesting that the FWS list the monarch butterfly as a threatened

species (Center for Biological Diversity, et al., 2014). In order to qualify for listing under the ESA, a

species must be threatened by the destruction or modification of its habitat, overutilization, disease or

predation, lack of regulation, or other factors that affect its continued existence (16 U.S.C. § 1533 (a)(1)).

The organizations’ petition addresses each of the five factors for listing and provides sufficient evidence

indicating that the monarch is likely to become endangered throughout a significant portion of its range

17

(Center for Biological Diversity, et al., 2014). As subsequent sections of this report will discuss, the

monarch’s primary habitat and critical food source, common milkweed, has been eviscerated in the Corn

Belt region by glyphosate, a Roundup Ready herbicide. In order to protect the monarch from extinction,

the petitioners recommend that the FWS classify the species as “threatened,” (see Figure 2) designate

critical habitat, and initiate conservation efforts to protect the milkweed plant (2014).

After a person or organization files a petition with the FWS, the agency determines whether or

not the petition meets the “substantial information” standard (NMFS, 2015). If the petition presents

enough substantial scientific and commercial information that would “lead a reasonable person to believe

that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted,” then the agency issues a 90-day Finding (50

C.F.R. § 424 (14)(b)). According to Justin Augustine (2015), Senior Attorney at the Center for Biological

Diversity, the legal burden at this stage is relatively low; in terms of the law, “may” is considered a more

lenient standard. As long as the petitioners effectively show that there is a cause for concern, then the

species should be advanced through to the 90-day Finding (2015). If the FWS publishes a positive 90-day

Finding, stating that the “petitioned actions may be warranted,” then the agency conducts a status review

of the candidate species (Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 2014).

After receiving the monarch butterfly petition, the FWS issued a positive 90-day Finding on

December 31, 2014 (Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 2014). The FWS found that the petition

presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the listing of the monarch

butterfly may be warranted (2014). With the publication of the notice, the agency agreed to initiate a

status review of the species, moving the monarch butterfly into the 12-month finding stage, as indicated in

Figure 1. At this time, the monarch butterfly is only a candidate for listing. The FWS must complete a

status review and 12-month finding before the monarch can be officially listed.

During the 12-month status review, the FWS collects the best available science, considers

ongoing conservation efforts, and determines whether or not the listing of the species is warranted

(NMFS, 2015). Although the ESA mandates that the FWS consider only the “best available science”

when listing a species, scientific uncertainty and incomplete data tend to complicate the agency’s decision

18

(Augustine, 2015). Generally, the FWS relies on published, peer-reviewed scientific data. However, the

law does not define “best available science,” leaving a wide range of interpretation available to the

agency.

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines that listing the species is warranted, then the

agency publishes a 12-month Finding in the form of a proposed rule. Although the agency may decide

that a listing is warranted, the species only receives a proposed listing (NMFS, 2015). Over the next 12

months, the agency reserves the right to recant its decision. Sometimes the FWS’s judgment changes

based on new information, e.g., public comments, partisan politics, state conservation efforts, and private

initiatives (Augustine, 2015). While the prospects of listing the monarch may seem optimistic now, the

FWS reserves the right to reject the monarch’s application at any time. Finally, if the FWS agrees to

pursue the listing, the agency publishes the final rule in the Federal Register, which grants the species

protection as threatened or endangered under the ESA 30 days after announcement (NMFS, 2015).

Judicial Review

If at any point during the listing process the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues a negative

finding, then anyone may challenge the agency in court under the “arbitrary and capricious” legal

standard. According to the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, the “reviewing court shall hold

unlawful . . . [any] agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)). Essentially, this law gives the

court the power to strike down any irrational agency decision. In terms of the ESA, the court generally

asks, did the FWS make a rational decision when it decided not to list the species? (Augustine, 2015).

However, due to the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court in Chevron v. NRDC (1984),

executive agencies’ opinions are entitled to deference as long as they are reasonable. According to Justin

Augustine (2015), the agency’s legal burden in court is relatively low; as long as the FWS demonstrates

that it made a rational choice using the best available science and information, the court generally rules in

the agency’s favor. As a result, plaintiffs challenging the FWS must present a strong legal case to prove

that the agency made an arbitrary and capricious choice when deciding not to list a species.

19

Criteria for Listing – Best Available Science

Throughout the current status review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will examine the best

available science on monarch butterflies. When listing a species, the Endangered Species Act requires that

the FWS “make determinations . . . solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data

available” (16 U.S.C. § 1533 (3)(b)). In addition to the listing process, the ESA explicitly requires that the

agency use the best scientific data available when accepting citizen petitions, designating critical habitat,

consulting with other government agencies, and soliciting information from scientific organizations

(Doremus, 2004). Congress created the best available science mandate to “ensure objective, value-neutral

decision making by specially trained experts” (2004). Although politics and values may inevitably

influence the listing process, clearly, the high standard of objective, peer-reviewed science plays an

integral role in the protection of species under the ESA. However, the law does not clearly define “best

available science,” which causes major controversy in the field of environmental law.

Since the passage of the ESA in 1973, advocates of endangered species and anti-regulation

groups have challenged the science used in FWS decisions. According to Holly Doremus (2004),

plaintiffs on both sides of the issue have challenged the best available science standard in court over 50

times. The debate surrounding the listing of the polar bear as a threatened species serves as a prime

example. On one side, environmentalists argued that the climate change models used to predict habitat

loss indicated that the bear was imperiled now, and it should be listed as endangered (Feldman, 2014).

Conversely, other stakeholders contended that the FWS listing went too far because it relied solely on the

uncertainty of forecasted future climate change conditions (2014). Ultimately, the court upheld the FWS’s

decision to list the polar bear as threatened and approved the agency’s use of the best available science (In

re Polar Bear, 2011).

In regard to the monarch butterfly, the best available science consists of interdisciplinary, peer-

reviewed, and published scientific resources. The monarch petition presents a vast array of biological and

environmental studies supporting the species’ imminent need for listing (Center for Biological Diversity,

et al., 2014). One notable journal article by Pleasants & Oberhauser (2013), documents the relationship

20

between increased glyphosate use, the loss of milkweed in agricultural fields, and the declining monarch

population. After studying the number of monarch eggs per milkweed plant, the authors estimated that

glyphosate use contributed to the “58% decline in milkweeds on the Midwest landscape and an 81%

decline in monarch production in the Midwest from 1999 to 2010” (2013). If other studies continue to

replicate these findings, then the monarch could pass through the status review. Given the scientific

uncertainty surrounding the polar bear listing, the monarch butterfly’s case might be easier to prove.

Nevertheless, regulatory opponents may try to emphasize the inevitable scientific uncertainties associated

with monarch butterfly research. On the other hand, endangered species advocates may argue that the

FWS did not consider enough of the best available science in its decision. Ultimately, gathering more

high quality research will help the FWS comply with its legal burden for the best available science

mandate.

Harm & Critical Habitat

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opts to list the monarch as a threatened species under the

ESA, many stakeholders in the government and agricultural sector may wonder how the new regulation

will impact them legally. Although the monarch butterfly may not be listed for several years, or at all, this

subsection will attempt to analyze the potential effects of a monarch listing on herbicide use and the

responsibilities of government agencies. First and foremost, Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take” of

any endangered or threatened species by any person. As noted in Figure 2, the definition of “take”

encompasses the action of “harm,” which involves “significant habitat modification or degradation” that

kills or injures wildlife (50 C.F.R. § 17.3). In the case of Babbitt v. Sweet Home (1995), the Supreme

Court upheld the FWS’s broad interpretation of “harm” to include significant habitat destruction. In a

concurrence, Justice O’Connor (1995) asserts that “harm” should include habitat modification that results

in the actual death or injury of a species, or impairs the species’ ability to breed.

Given the Supreme Court’s binding interpretation of the statutory language, the use of certain

herbicides (e.g., glyphosate) could be considered “harm” under the ESA. The use of glyphosate in

agricultural fields is virtually eliminating the monarch butterfly’s most crucial habitat, common

21

milkweed. Because monarchs rely exclusively on milkweed for consumption and reproduction during

metamorphosis, the plant is essential to the population’s survival (Center for Food Safety, 2015). If the

monarch passes through the listing process, then the FWS will designate critical habitat (see Figure 2)

essential to the species’ survival, which may include the Corn Belt’s agricultural fields. In addition to the

best available science, the ESA requires that the FWS also take into consideration the “economic

impacts” of designating critical habitat (16 U.S.C. § 1533 (b)(2)). Because critical habitat decisions allow

for the analysis of other impacts, this opens up the debate to factors other than the best available science,

including the economic and political effects of restricting glyphosate use. Thus, major stakeholders,

including herbicide manufacturers and farmers, may try to maintain the status quo by arguing that the

designation of agricultural fields as critical habitat will have an adverse economic impact on the Corn Belt

region. For instance, they might assert that restricting glyphosate use will allow milkweed to grow

unrestrictedly, which could hinder agricultural yields and hurt the soy bean and corn farmers financially

(Center for Food Safety, 2015). In order to fully understand the impact of glyphosate on milkweed and

monarch butterflies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] needs to conduct a biological

assessment.

EPA & Inter-agency Cooperation

If the monarch butterfly is listed as threatened, the EPA must legally consider glyphosate’s effect

on the butterfly. Section 7 of the ESA requires each federal agency to consult with the FWS to “insure

that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of habitat” (16 U.S.C. § 1536 (a)(2)). EPA approval of the herbicide glyphosate falls under

this category. On February 27, 2015, the Natural Resources Defense Council [NRDC] sued the EPA for

not responding to its petition to investigate the environmental effects of pesticides containing glyphosate

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA] (NRDC v. EPA, 2015). The

NRDC argued that the delay in assessing the impacts of glyphosate on the monarch butterfly is

“unreasonable and violates FIFRA and the Administrative Procedure Act” (2015). Since the monarch has

22

not been officially listed as a threatened species, the NRDC could not sue using Section 7 of the ESA, so

it filed under FIFRA instead. If the monarch butterfly receives protection under the ESA, then the EPA

must legally consider the effects of glyphosate on monarchs by conducting a biological assessment.

Figure 3 illustrates the complete consultation process for action agencies under Section 7 of the ESA.

Due to limited resources and tremendous backlog, the EPA refuses to conduct biological

assessments for many endangered species affected by herbicides and pesticides. In 2002, the Center for

Biological Diversity pressured the EPA to conduct a biological assessment investigating the use of

several pesticides on the California red-legged frog (Augustine, 2015). Similar to the monarch butterfly,

agricultural pesticides degraded the frog’s necessary aquatic habitat and essential plants (2015). After

over a decade of litigation, the CBD, EPA, and FWS finally agreed to a settlement, in which, the

government will conduct biological assessments on the effects of glyphosate, atrazine, and other

notoriously detrimental EPA-approved chemicals by 2020 (Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. FWS,

2015). However, the EPA has yet to find a feasible way to examine the chemicals’ consequences on over

1,500 endangered species (Augustine, 2015). Although the EPA continues to search for a practical

solution, the monarch butterfly may remain in regulatory limbo with the other species until 2020. Even if

the monarch is listed as threatened, government inaction may not protect the butterfly until it is too late.

Although glyphosate use could be considered “harm” of monarch butterfly habitat under the ESA, the

consideration of economic impacts in critical habitat designation and the complications of inter-agency

cooperation may create legal disputes and hinder the species’ overall conservation.

Conclusion

Attempting to list a species as endangered or threatened under the ESA is a massive undertaking.

Although the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, and Xerces Society successfully

initiated the petition process, the monarch’s application must survive several other bureaucratic obstacles

before it officially receives threatened status. If the FWS chooses to move forward after the status review,

the listing process may take years to complete. The best available science indicates that continued

glyphosate use will not only harm the monarch’s critical habitat, but also threaten the entire population.

23

Even if the FWS protects the monarch and classifies glyphosate use as harm, the EPA’s proven inaction

and other political considerations may hinder the species’ protection under the law. Ultimately, the FWS

holds the regulatory power to make the final listing decision. Even though the monarch’s application

process recently started, the FWS needs to understand the current legal atmosphere and potential

consequences of protecting the monarch butterfly before issuing its final regulatory decision.

24

Figure 1: The Petition and Listing Process

This flow chart illustrates the petition and listing process for species under the Endangered Species

Act. The orange arrow is added to show the monarch’s legal history and current location in the

process. The FWS received and reviewed the initial monarch petition in 2014. At this time, the

monarch’s application is in the 12-month status review stage, which is indicated by the butterfly.

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015).

25

•Provide a means whereby ecosystems upon which endangered species andthreatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for theconservation of such endangered species and threatened species - 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b)

Purpose of the ESA

•The term "endangered species" means any species which is in danger of extinctionthroughout all or a significant portion of its range - 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (6)

Definition of Endangered

•The term “threatened species” means any species which is likely to become anendangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portionof its range - 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (20)

Definition of Threatened

•Whenever any species is listed as a threatened . . . the Secretary shall issue suchregulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation ofsuch species - 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (7)(d)

Regulatory Power

•The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct - 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (19)

Definition of Take

•An act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitatmodification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantlyimpairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering - 50C.F.R. § 17.3

Definition of Harm

•The Secretary shall make determinations . . . solely on the basis of the best scientificand commercial data available - 16 U.S.C. § 1535 (b)

Criteria for Listing

•The Secretary shall designate critical habitat . . . on the basis of the best scientific dataavailable and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact onnational security, and any other relevant impact - 16 U.S.C. § 1535 (2)

Designation of Critical Habitat

Figure 2: Applicable Statutes

The Endangered Species Act of 1973

This figure highlights specific definitions and sections of the Endangered Species Act relevant to the

listing process. The citation for each concept is listed inside the box next to the text.

26

Figure 3: Endangered Species Consultation Process

This flow chart illustrates the inter-agency consultation process as defined by Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act. The key differentiates between formal and informal consultations among

the agencies. BA stands for Biological Assessment. EA/EIS stands for Environmental

Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement. (Mitchnik, 2014).

27

Stakeholder Analysis for ESA Monarch Listing

Introduction

Over the past two decades, the monarch butterfly population has seen a major decline in numbers.

According to statistic done in February 2014 by the Center for Food Safety, Monarch butterfly

populations have fallen by approximately 90% in less than 20 years, with many entomologists fearing

their remarkable migration from Canada down to Mexico will soon come to an abrupt end (Center for

Food Safety, 2015). “Journey has become more perilous for many monarchs because of threats along their

migratory paths and on their breeding and wintering grounds” (US Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest

Region, 2014). Scientists have studied this decline, attributing it to several factors such as the decrease of

milkweed populations, which is the monarch larvae’s only source of food, due to the increased use of

herbicides. This significant decline in population has led the U.S Fish and Wildlife service to conduct a

review of the species in order to determine whether or not the species should be listed under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). However, listing the monarch butterfly under the ESA, brings with it

many implications. There are a lot of stakeholders involved, in the Midwestern Corn Belt in particular,

that will be greatly affected by the species being listed, such as Pesticide Companies, Conservationists,

and Farming groups. Some will benefit, while others will be facing significant costs. This report will

focus on the specific effects that listing the Monarch butterfly under the ESA will have on each of these

stakeholders.

Research Findings, Discussion and Analysis

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) discusses the issue of declining monarch populations in their

report, Monarchs in Peril: Herbicide-Resistant Crops and the Decline of Monarch Butterflies in North

America. In the report, CFS acknowledges that farming isn’t exactly the cause per se, and state that

herbicides are to blame. “A critical driver of monarch decline is loss of larval host plants in their main

breeding habitat, the Midwestern Corn Belt” (Center for Food Safety, 2015). The Midwestern Corn belt

(shown in Figure 1 below) has also seen a dramatic decrease in milkweed population, which are essential

for Monarch larvae to survive, has been attributed to many factors; one of which is the growing use of

28

genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready corn and soybeans (shown in figure 1

below). “Monarch Butterflies have long coexisted with agriculture, but the proliferation of Monsanto’s

genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready corn and soybeans has radically altered

farming practices” (Center for Food Safety, 2015).

Figure 1. Increased use of Glyphosate from 1992-2012

As stated above, this decline has influenced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to perform a review on the

Monarch butterfly to determine whether or not the species should be listed under the ESA.

Pesticide Using Companies

Monsanto Company

One of the primary stakeholders that will be affected by the listing of the monarch butterfly under

the ESA is Monsanto Company. This company was created with the focus of “empowering farmers –

large and small—to produce more from their land while conserving more of our world’s natural resources

such as water and energy” (Monsanto, 2015). Monsanto is also responsible for the discovering and

patenting of the original molecule glyphosate in 1969, which they would hold the patent for until 2000.

29

Presently, Monsanto is one of the leading producers of Roundup, which is a glyphosate-based herbicide.

In fact, they sold more than $5 billion worth of Roundup herbicide in 2014 alone (Gillam, 2015). As

shown in figure 2 below, net sales of Monsanto have also increased over the last couple years, and will

continue to do so without any regulation.

Figure 2 Monsanto Financial Highlights

Monsanto acknowledges the dramatic decline of the Monarch butterfly, and also identifies the

decreasing populations of milkweed plants as a definite factor in the decline of the species. “Many

scientists studying monarchs think a number of factors are contributing to the decline, including logging,

weather and loss of habitat. The declining availability of milkweed plants for butterfly habitat is one

contributing factor” (Monsanto, 2015). However, in regards to listing the species under the ESA,

Monsanto believes that the proper action is to instead focus on conservation programs and that listing the

species is not necessary. This is seen from a statement on the Monsanto website, which states, “Saying a

species is closing in on extinction when most disagree or calling on government to list monarchs as

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act makes for a great news headline. It doesn’t do

anything to help solve the problem. We believe new projects, partnerships and public education

initiatives are needed” (Monsanto, 2015).

30

Additionally, although not explicitly stated, Monsanto will also experience a significant loss in

profit if the use of Roundup herbicides are limited. This could also weigh in heavily on their opposition to

listing the Monarch under the ESA.

CropLife America

Another primary pesticide stakeholder that will be affected by the listing of the Monarch

Butterfly is CropLife America. Croplife represents the “developers, manufacturers, formulators and

distributors of crop protection chemicals and plant science solutions for agriculture and pest management

in the United States” (CropLife America, 2015). Member companies of CropLife also work to produce,

sell and distribute most of the crop protection products that are currently being used by American farmers.

In regards to the declining populations of the monarch, CropLife recognizes the important role that the

Monarch plays as a pollinator in agriculture and ecology, however, they also recognize the important role

herbicides play in weed management in agriculture. In fact, according to the CropLife website, Herbicide

use allows for conservation tillage, which in fact offers energy savings of 9 percent as compared with

conventional tilling methods (CropLife America, 2015). As a result of this dilemma CropLife, similar to

Monsanto Company, is seeking to find a balance between the conservation efforts of the monarch

butterfly and the use of herbicides. They are also demanding that the EPA remain consistent with the

Canada/Mexico/U.S Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management, an

effort with Canada and Mexico to make natural resource conservation a top priority. Additionally they are

hoping that the proposed action also remain consistent to President Obama’s memorandum on pollinator

protection.

Croplife’s stance on the listing of the butterfly is also similar to that of Monsanto’s, because they

also belief that the focus should not be on listing the species under the ESA, but should be on conserving

the species through habitat expansion. This is seen in their public comment of the EPA’s review of the

Monarch, when they say, “The most impactful action that can be taken now to increase the size of

monarch butterfly populations is to develop robust, multi-state programs to expand habitat.” Croplife also

stresses the importance of careful consideration going forward, and that without it, new herbicides

31

restrictions could “inadvertently result in land management changes that would be more detrimental to

milkweed and monarch butterfly populations than current practices” (EPA, 2015).

Farming

American Farm Bureau Federation

Another major stakeholder group that will be affected by the monarch listing are farmers and

farming organizations. Many of the members in this stakeholder group have very similar positions to that

of the pesticide producing companies mentioned above. One example is with the American Farm Bureau

Federation (AFBF). Robert Giblin, a member of the Federation, brings up the dilemma faced by many

pesticide organizations of protect the monarch vs using herbicides to protect crops. “Monarch habitat

restoration is the first step. It poses many unique challenges, however, especially for farmers. Monarchs

need common milkweed to breed, and it is the only food source for their caterpillars. Yet, milkweed is a

deep-rooted, perennial weed that can cause severe yield losses in many crops, with historic economic

losses totaling millions of dollars annually. Milkweed is classified as a noxious weed in many counties,

where failure to control such weeds can bring fines” (Giblin, 2015). As seen from this quote, Giblin

expresses the need of a balance to be reached between weed management and conservation efforts.

Saltzgiver Family Farm

One example of a local/community stakeholder farming group, who is more of a proponent to the

ESA listing of the monarch as opposed to the AFBF and other pesticides producing companies, is the

Saltzgiver Family Farm. This Family Farm is a small-scale market garden in Ontario, Ohio, that grows a

variety of fruits and vegetables without the use of herbicides and pesticides and strives to produce fresh

food that will benefit the community. Like AFBF, the Saltzgiver Farm acknowledges the importance of

protecting the Monarch and expanding its habitat, however, they are a lot more open to the consideration

of alternative methods of weed management that will both protect crops as well as the monarch butterfly.

“The typical home owner can put a few milkweed plants in their gardens. This alone would help the

female monarchs quite a bit as they migrate from Mexico back to northern parts of the United States”

(Saltzgiver Family Farm, 2015). This Farm’s operating methods, although small scale, can serve as an

32

interesting model for organizations such as the American Farming Bureau Federation, in order for them to

better comply with the Monarch being listed under the ESA.

Conservation Groups

Xerces Society

A strong proponent for Monarch listing under the ESA is The Xerces Society, whose mission is

to “protect wildlife through the conservation of invertebrates and their habitat” The (Xerces Society,

2015). This organization is also currently at the forefront of the protection of invertebrates around the

world and seek to create whatever conservation program necessary to protect these species, such as

programs of advocacy, education and applied research. The Xerces society has also stated that broad

collaboration with other stakeholders would also be a great option in order to “truly recover these

butterflies” (The Xerces Society, 2015). However, unlike the pesticide using companies mentioned above,

Xerces does not believe that conservation efforts and the expansion of the monarch butterfly habitats

alone will save the declining species. Although they acknowledge the importance of federal strategies that

will promote the health of monarchs and other pollinators, such as President Obama’s memorandum on

pollinator protection, the Xerces Society still believes that a regulatory mechanism that will protect

monarchs from the “landscape level threats that they face” is still needed (The Xerces Society, 2015). In

addition, Xerces along with other conservationist groups, state that protecting this iconic species under the

ESA is a step that should be immediately taken to safeguard and recover the monarch.

Center for Food Safety

Another petitioner for the listing of the Monarch Butterfly under the ESA, is the Center for Food

Safety (CFS). This organization is a non-profit interest organization whose mission “centers on protecting

public health and the environment by curbing the adverse impacts of industrial agriculture and food

production systems on public health, the environment, and animal welfare, and by instead promoting

sustainable forms of agriculture” (Monarch ESA Petition, 2014). In relation to the monarch butterfly, CFS

is also one of the leading nonprofit organizations working on improving the negative effects of GE’s and

33

pesticides. Additionally, they also have a “multifaceted pollinator protection program” which works

actively to reduce the effects these pesticides have on pollinators such as the Monarch butterfly.

In a petition to protect the Monarch Butterfly under the ESA, CFS along with the Center for

Biological Diversity and the Xerces Society also expose another issue that won’t be fixed unless the

Monarch is listed. This issue is the lack of mandates or policy that will enforce monarch protection. One

example of this explained in the petition is the U.S. Forest Service. “The Forest Services’ efforts at

protecting monarchs are inadequate regulatory mechanisms because the majority of the agency’s efforts

are voluntary, the policies that protect animals such as monarchs provide only minor benefits, and the

agency cannot utilize its authority to address significant threats across the range of monarchs” (Monarch

ESA Petition, 2014). This is in turn shows that listing is necessary in order to properly save the species.

Conclusion

In closing, to determine if the Monarch butterfly should be listed, each stakeholder that will

potentially be affected by its listing must be taken into account. From the Pesticide using companies,

Monsanto and Croplife America, it is evident that conservation efforts to protect the monarch and its

habitat will be implemented in order to fix the declining populations. However with a large portion of

their economy based on the production and profit from herbicide use, and many farmers dependent on

herbicides to protect their crops, what other steps can be taken to ensure a smooth transition to limited

herbicide use should the Monarchs be listed? From the given information above, it is also evident that

most of the various stakeholders groups mentioned view protection of the Monarch as a top priority, but

have different views on whether or not listing the species under the ESA will actually help. With all these

views and questions taken into account, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and in turn the EPA, will have

the information necessary in order to make clear, unbiased, and effective policy that will truly protect the

Monarch Butterfly.

34

Figure 1

Increased use of Glyphosate from 1992-2012

Figure 2

Monsanto Financial Highlights (2014). Retrieved November 2, 2015, from

http://www.monsanto.com/investors/pages/financial-highlights.aspx

35

Recommendations

List the Monarch Butterfly as a Threatened Species with a Special 4(d) Rule

In order to effectively protect the monarch butterfly, the FWS should list the species as

“threatened” under the ESA. As previously mentioned in the legal section of this report, by law, the FWS

must consider only the best available science in its decision to list a species (16 U.S.C. § 1535 (b)). The

monarch petitioners have collected the best available science from numerous peer-reviewed scientific

studies, which, clearly demonstrate that the butterfly is likely to become an “endangered species within

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. § 1532 (20)).

Although the wildlife section of this report mentions that the cause of the monarch’s decline may be

somewhat uncertain, the best available science indicates that without federal intervention, the monarch’s

overall population will continue to dwindle (Pleasants & Oberhauser, 2013). It should be noted that all

studies contain some degree of scientific uncertainty. Given the various limitations, the agency may never

find one specific cause of the monarch’s decline; thus, action must be taken now to ensure that the best

available science is used to protect the monarch as a threatened species.

Pursuant to the ESA, the FWS must take several steps to list the monarch butterfly and protect its

critical habitat. First, the FWS should issue a positive status review and 12-month finding. Although it

may be difficult, the FWS needs to focus on the science, disregard other political concerns, and move the

monarch through the listing process as quickly as possible. Once the monarch officially receives

threatened status under the ESA, by law, the FWS must designate critical habitat. Given the vast body of

research documenting the monarch butterfly’s dependence on milkweed (Jewell, et al., 2014; Vickerman

& de Boer, 2002; Capero, et al., 2015; Oberhauser, et al., 2001), the FWS should consider the plant

critical habitat. However, in addition to the best available science, the FWS must consider other relevant

economic, political, and social impacts, which allows other stakeholders’ opinions to enter the discussion

(16 U.S.C. § 1535 (2)). As previously mentioned in the policy section of this report, anti-regulatory

stakeholders (e.g., Monsanto, Croplife America, American Farm Bureau Federation) want to continue

36

using glyphosate on agricultural fields, although it may be considered “harm” of the monarch’s habitat

under the ESA.

In order to facilitate a compromise, the FWS should issue a Special 4(d) Rule for the monarch as

a threatened species limiting the use of glyphosate. According to the FWS (2014), 4(d) Rules “incentivize

proactive conservation efforts, by streamlining ESA compliance for actions that have long-term benefits

but might result in ‘take’ in the short term.” Ideally, the monarch’s 4(d) Rule will allow glyphosate use on

certain agricultural fields, but prohibit herbicide applications (1) within a specific distance of milkweed

conservation areas, and (2) in roadside maintenance. After the EPA completes its biological assessments

on glyphosate and the affected endangered species, the FWS may decide that the 4(d) Rule is not

protective enough and choose to ban glyphosate use on all agricultural fields. Moreover, the endangered

species advocates may challenge the 4(d) Rule in court under the arbitrary and capricious standard,

forcing the courts to evaluate the decision. However, given the best available scientific information and

other relevant impacts, the monarch butterfly should be listed as a threatened species under the ESA with

a 4(d) Rule exemption for agriculture.

Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan & Further Research

A Habitat Conservation Plan needs to be developed to ensure further milkweed decline does not

continue. The plan should outline the necessary tools and techniques to properly preserve and control

milkweed plants, as well as, discourage the continued decline of the plant species. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service should work in conjunction with various interest groups to decide upon an agreeable and

realistic Habitat Conservation Plan. The monarch butterfly utilizes milkweed plants found along roadsides

and other grassland areas; thus, these milkweed plants should be given special conservation attention. As

outlined by the Special 4(d) Rule, milkweed found outside agricultural fields should not be controlled

using glyphosate, but instead be managed using manual removal methods. Additionally, interest groups

and volunteers should plant new milkweed plants in parks and other areas to promote healthy milkweed

populations and monarch butterfly foraging.

37

The lack of data throughout the entirety of the monarch’s range, however, will limit the Habitat

Conservation Plan’s success since not much is known about the species as it migrates between the Corn

Belt and Mexico. Several other threats are known to endanger monarch butterflies as they migrate south,

and more research is needed to determine the quantitative effect that these threats have on the species.

Otherwise, appropriate conservation recommendations throughout the entirety of the monarch’s range

will not be possible to identify. Once this data is no longer lacking, the gaps present in the monarch’s

Habitat Conservation Plan may be filled and appropriate decisions can be made to control for threats that

exist along the monarch’s migration route. The Habitat Conservation Plan can then be finalized and the

plan will need to be reevaluated in five years to determine if the current plan has been successful or if new

conservation decisions are necessary. After this period of time, scientists can determine if the Special 4(d)

Rule has been effective in promoting healthy milkweed abundance and if a glyphosate ban is needed.

Limitations

Although this report thoroughly analyzes the best available wildlife science, legal obligations, and

various stakeholders surrounding the listing of the monarch butterfly, there are some limitations to the

overall project. First, this report stands to benefit from a thorough scientific analysis of the effects of

glyphosate use on agricultural fields, milkweed, and the monarch butterfly. Given more time and

resources, another section of the report would be added to explore the evolving history of land use in the

Corn Belt region, the increased dependence on herbicides, and the effects of genetically engineered

herbicide-resistant crops on soybean and corn farming. All of these factors have an indirect impact on the

monarch butterfly’s population, and learning more about the agricultural sector might help inform more

policy recommendations for the FWS. Second, this report could also be improved by investigating other

grassroots efforts to protect the monarch in the Corn Belt states. There may be other local initiatives

designed to save the monarch that are not highly publicized on the internet. Given more financial

resources, ideally, a future research team would interview stakeholders in the Corn Belt region and track

both private and public monarch conservations efforts. Third, an in-depth analysis of climate change and

38

its effect on the monarch would also strengthen this report. Although the Center for Food Safety’s report

(2015) claims that one extreme weather event could wipe out the entire over-wintering monarch

population, this report needs to collect more information on climate change as an additional factor.

Conclusion

After considering the biological connection between milkweed and the monarch, the legal process

of listing, and the opinions of stakeholders dependent on the Corn Belt region, this report concludes that

the listing of the monarch butterfly as a threatened species under the ESA is warranted. Although the best

available science indicates that the monarch’s declining population needs protection, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service should create a Special 4(d) rule for glyphosate use in agriculture and develop a

comprehensive Habitat Conservation Plan until more research on the monarch butterfly’s decline is

conducted. In order to protect the monarch, comply with the law, and balance the interests of all

stakeholders, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should list the monarch as a threatened species under the

ESA.

39

Annotated Bibliography

Cepero, L.C., Rosenwald, L.C., M.R. Weiss. (2015). The relative importance of flower color and

shape for the foraging monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of Insect Behavior

28:499-511. Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10905-015-9519-

z/fulltext.html

This peer-reviewed source notes that the monarch butterfly is attracted by both shape and color of

flowers similar to milkweed when foraging. I used this article to show the learned evolutionary

behaviors of monarch butterflies when searching for milkweed plants.

Jewell, S., Ashe, D., and D. Krofta. (2014). Petition to protect the Monarch Butterfly (Danus

plexippus plexippus) under the Endangered Species Act. Secretary of the Interior.

This source is the official petition to the Secretary of the Interior to list the monarch under the

Endangered Species Act. This source was used for background information about the monarch

butterfly and helped find additional scientific research.

Oberhauser, K.S., Prysby, M.D., Mattila, H.R., Stanley-Horn, D.E., Sears, M.K., Dively, G.,

Olson, E., Pleasants, J.M., Lam, W.F. & Hellmich, R. (2001). Temporal and spatial overlap

between monarch larvae and corn pollen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

98:11913–11918.

This peer-reviewed source outlined the relationship of monarch butterfly and milkweed plants, as

well as, threats to milkweed by corn pollen in the Corn Belt region. I used this source to

demonstrate the evolutionary relationship between milkweed and the monarch, as well as, and

population affects to the monarch.

Ries, Leslie. (2015, October 26). Personal Communication

Dr. Leslie Ries is associated with Georgetown University in Washington D.C. Ries has worked on

several projects studying the foraging habitats of monarch butterfly and acted as my personal

communication source.

Rivera-Flores, M.A., Gonzalez-Gomez, R., Luna-Soria, H., and O.R. Garcia-Rubio. (2015).

Using citizen-monitoring to define the migration route of monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus

(L.)1, in the state of Guanajuato. Southwestern Entomologist Scientific Note 40: 223-236. Retrieved

from: http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.3958/059.040.0123

This peer-reviewed source outlined the decline of monarch butterflies in overwintering sites in

Mexico. I used this source to outline the use of citizen science in studying a conspicuous species

and to note some gaps in population observations.

Rodrigues, D., Goodner, B.W., and M.R. Weiss. (2010). Reversal learning and risk-averse

40

foraging behavior in the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae).

Ethology 116:270-280. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-

0310.2009.01737.x/abstract

This peer-reviewed source outlines the ability of the monarch to learn from foraging behaviors

that are both rewarding and unsatisfactory nectar rewards. I used this source to outline the ability

of monarchs to choose nectar rewards most beneficial to their survival.

Singh, B. and Rastogi, R.P. (1970). Cardenolides-glycosides and genins. Phytochemistry 9: 315-

331

This peer-reviewed source described the chemical components of milkweed plants and made note

of which species of milkweed monarchs preferred most. I used this source as background

knowledge for milkweed plant parts and chemical components.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2015). Save the Monarch Butterfly. Conserving the

Nature of America. Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/

This source was used to obtain a map of monarch migration across North America. The image

was found by navigating through various Fish and Wildlife Service links.

Vickerman, D.B., and G. de Boer. (2003). Maintenance of narrow diet breadth in the monarch

butterfly caterpillar: response to various plant species and chemicals 104:255-269. Retrieved from:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2002.01012.x/abstract

This research paper outlines the monarch caterpillar’s feeding preference on plants, both native and

non-native. All insects respond to plant chemicals and this source confirms what has been

previously thought: monarchs prefer to feed on plants that have favorable chemical components.

The findings outlined in this paper support the need for plants supporting monarchs such as

milkweed.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (n.d.). Monarch Butterfly Fact Sheet. Milkweed

Monitoring. Retrieved from:

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/ce/eek/teacher/milkweedmonitoring/monarchfacts.pdf

This fact sheet will provide general information about the biology of the monarch butterfly, which

will serve to guide more specific research into monarch life history. Background information about

the monarch butterfly is important to note when determining if other scientific information will be

applicable to the species at hand.

Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. 5 U.S.C. § 706.

This section of the Administrative Procedure Act describes the judiciary branch’s scope of review

for agency decisions. It allows the court to strike down arbitrary and capricious actions made by

41

the executive branch. I primarily cite this source in the Judicial Review section of my paper to

explain the legal process of challenging a negative FWS finding.

Augustine, Justin. (2015, October 23). Personal communication.

Justin Augustine is a Senior Attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity specializing in

endangered species law. He provided valuable insight into ESA listing process, potential legal

arguments, policy impacts of the monarch listing, inaction of the EPA, and other helpful topics.

He had interesting and perceptive comments about each section of my report. I use my interview

with Mr. Augustine throughout my entire paper.

Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, & Xerces Society. (2014, August 26).

Petition to protect the monarch butterfly under the Endangered Species Act.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/invertebrates/pdfs/Monarch_ESA_Petition.pdf

This is the original petition submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Center for

Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, & Xerces Society. The petition addresses the five

threats outlined in the ESA that are negatively impacting the monarch butterfly. The

organizations argue that the listing of the monarch butterfly is warranted, and that the FWS

should list the species as threatened under the ESA. I primarily use this source to summarize the

legal history of the monarch butterfly. However, I also reference this source to discuss the best

available science used to petition the listing of the monarch.

Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serve et al. (2014, July 28)

No. 3:11-cv-5108-JSW. ((N.D. Cal.)

This case is a settlement between the Center for Biological Diversity, FWS, and EPA. The

agencies agreed to conduct biological assessments investigating the effects of pesticides and

herbicides on over 1,500 endangered species. I reference this settlement in the inter-agency

cooperation section of my paper to show that the EPA has not entirely fulfilled its legal duties

under Section 7 of the EPA.

Center for Food Safety. (2015, February 5). Monarchs in peril: Herbicide-resistant crops and the

decline of monarch butterflies in North America. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/

files/cfs-monarch-report_4-2-15_design_87904.pdf

This document is a report researched and written by the Center for Food Safety regarding the

current legal, scientific, economic, and policy issues surrounding the monarch butterfly. The

report uses peer-reviewed journal articles to analyze the decline of milkweed, the history of

glyphosate and mono-crop farming, and the future of genetically engineered crops. I use this

report to provide scientific background information on the monarch butterfly.

Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778,

81 L. Ed. 2d 694, 21 ERC 1049.

42

This Supreme Court case sets a legal precedent for judicial deference of rational agency decisions

under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. I use this case to explain judicial review of

agency decisions and the “arbitrary and capricious” legal standard.

Definitions. 50 C.F.R. § 17.3.

This rule, published in the Federal Register and written by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

defines the word “harm” under the ESA. The FWS’s definition encompasses the killing or injury

of a species, including habitat modification. I use this rule to explain how glyphosate use could be

considered “harm” of the monarch butterfly under the ESA in the Harm & Critical Habitat section

of my paper.

Doremus, H. (2004). The purposes, effects, and future of the Endangered Species Act's best

available science mandate. Environmental Law, 34(2), 397-450.

This peer-reviewed journal article thoroughly analyzes the best available science mandate and

other legal issues surrounding the ESA. I use this journal article in the Criteria for Listing section

of my paper to describe the legal implications and interpretations of “best available science.”

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-Day Findings on Two Petitions, 50 CFR §

17. (2014, December 31). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R3-ES-

2014-0056-0001

This is a proposed rule document posted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announcing a

petition to list the monarch butterfly under the ESA. The FWS uses this post to announce that it

will be reviewing the status of the monarch to see if it should be listed, which may take up to a

year. Although this document lists the FWS’s intentions, it also provides the original petition,

over 600 public comments, and other relevant files in the docket. I use this source to discuss the

ESA listing process and the legal history of the monarch butterfly.

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544.

This is the full text of the Endangered Species Act. The ESA provides the legal framework for the

listing process, essential definitions, inter-agency cooperation, criteria for listing, critical habitat

designation, prohibited actions, and much more. Without the ESA, there would be no federal

protection of endangered or threatened species. I provide specific block quotes of the law in the

list of applicable statutes (Figure 2). I also reference the ESA in nearly every section of my paper.

Feldman, M. (2014). Integrating climate change consideration in Endangered Species Act

processes. Aspatore.

43

This peer-reviewed journal article describes how climate change has impacted the ESA and

endangered species law. I use this author’s analysis of the polar bear case to discuss how

stakeholders formulate legal arguments using the best available science mandate.

In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing & §4(d) Rule Litig. (2011). 794 F. Supp. 2d 65,

108. (D.D.C.).

In this case, the court upheld the FWS’s interpretation of threatened and use of the best available

science when listing the polar bear. I use this source in the Criteria for Listing section of my

paper as an example to demonstrate the controversy surrounding the interpretation and usage of

the best available science mandate. I compare the polar bear’s case to that of the monarch

butterfly.

Mitchnik, A. (2014, April 23). Endangered species consultation: why does it take so long?

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/hr/print/volume-33/issue-3/cover-story/endangered-species-

consultation-why-does-it-take-so-long.html

This online publication explains the inter-agency consultation process for endangered species. I

use one of the flow charts as a diagram of the consultation process in Figure 3. Integrating this

diagram allowed me to focus mainly on biological assessments without having to explain the

entire consultation process.

National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. (2015, April 15). Listing under the Endangered

Species Act. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/listing/

This website reference page created by the National Marine Fisheries Service, a subdivision of

NOAA, provides a detailed overview of the species listing process. NMFS breaks the listing

process into several easy to follow steps and includes the essential terminology. I use this source

in the ESA Listing Process section of my paper to clearly explain each phase of the listing

process from filing the petition to publishing the final listing.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015,

February 27). (S.D.N.Y.).

This document is a complaint filed by the NRDC in the Southern District Court of New York to

compel the EPA to consider the effect of pesticides containing glyphosate. The NRDC discusses

how increased glyphosate use continues to eliminate milkweed and destroy critical monarch

butterfly habitat. The NRDC argues that this is a violation of FIFRA and the APA, and asks the

court to compel EPA to respond and complete a review. I use this source to discuss the impacts of

listing the monarch on inter-agency cooperation with the EPA.

Petitions. 50 CFR § 424.14 (b).

44

This rule posted in the Federal Register describes the “substantial information” standard required

for petitions. As long as the information is able to convince a reasonable person that the petition

may be warranted, the FWS conducts a 90-day Finding on the species. I use this source in the

Listing Process section of my paper to describe the legal burden of filing a petition.

Pleasants, J. M., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2013). Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of

herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation & Diversity, 6(2),

135-144.

This peer-reviewed scientific journal article examines the connection between increased

glyphosate use and the decline of milkweed and the monarch. I use this source in my paper as an

example of the best available science presented in the petition to list the monarch.

Sweet Home Chapter Of Communities for a Great Oregon et al.. (1995). 515 U.S. 687. (D.C.

Cir.).

This Supreme Court case sets a legal precedent for the interpretations of “take” and “harm” under

the ESA. I use this case to explain how habitat modification could be considered harm under the

law. I also cite this case when discussing Justice O’Connor’s concurrence.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2015, February 3). The petition process.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/listing-petition-process.html

This webpage, written by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, describes the petition process and

listing procedure for endangered and threatened species under the ESA. I used this source to

create Figure 1. The original source did not have the orange arrow illustrating the procedural

history of the monarch. I added in the arrow and monarch sticker for clarification.

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (2015). Comments Regarding Pesticides; Risk

Management Approach To Identifying Options for Protecting the Monarch Butterfly; 80 FR

36338; June 24, 2015. Retrieved from

http://www.croplifeamerica.org/files/CLA%20EPA%20Monarch%20Comments.pdf

This is a link to some of the comments during the public comment period of the Monarch

butterfly by CropLife America (CLA) regarding the “Risk management approach to identifying

option for protecting the monarch butterfly.” Since my section of the paper goes over the

stakeholders that will be affected by the ESA listing of the monarch, I feel that this will be very

helpful in that it would give me CLA’s perspective/opinion on the policy decision. This article

also gives me CLA’s stance on the use of herbicides.

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (2015). Risk Management approach to identifying

options for protecting the butterfly (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0389)

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/24/2015-15405/pesticides-risk-management-

approach-to-identifying-options-for-protecting-the-monarch-butterfly

45

I found this source in the federal register through regulations.gov. I was able to use this in order

to get context as well as background on the EPA’s thoughts so far on the listing of the Monarch

Butterfly. It also allowed me to see the current status of the review process.

Giblin, R. (2015, August 25). Farmer involvement critical to preserving Monarch butterflies.

Retrieved October 4, 2015, from http://www.fb.org/newsroom/focus/220/

This article, written Robert Giblin with The Voice of Agriculture, a department of the American

Farm Bureau Federation, talks about how important farmer involvement will be in preserving

Monarch butterflies. This article like the couple above will also be very useful because it gives

another stakeholder group’s perspective on the Monarch listing. This article however, gives more

of the farming perspective and states that farmers actually benefit from Monarchs because they

are natural pollinators.

Help save the monarch butterfly. (2015, August 21). Retrieved November 3, 2015, from

http://saltzgiverfamilyfarm.com/2015/08/22/help-save-the-monarch-butterfly/

This article is from the Saltzgiver Family Farm website. I use this organization in order to get a

sense of how farmers are reacting to the listing of the Monarch Butterfly under the ESA. It was

also very useful because it gave examples of what could be done at the local level to protect the

monarch butterfly.

Monica Echeverria, personal communication, October 8, 2015

Monica works with Media and External Affairs for the World Wildlife Fund. She gave me a lot of

useful information on the monarch in general as well as information on what is being done to

protect the species (in Mexico in particular). This will be useful when doing a recommendation

for the final group paper.

Monsanto announces multi-year commitment to help monarch butterflies. (2015). Corn and

Soybean Digest, Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1680927203?accountid=14696

I used this source in order to see how Monsanto plans to protect the Monarch butterfly. I also

wanted to get more background information on the company as a whole.

What We Do | CropLife America. (2015). Retrieved (October 13, 2015). from

http://www.croplifeamerica.org/what-we-do/

I used this source to get some background information on CropLife America since I wanted to use

them as one of my sources. I was also able to get specific statistics from the site on how much

herbicide CropLife uses.

46

Who We Are: Monsanto at a Glance. (2015). Retrieved November 1, 2015, from

http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/default.aspx

This source was pulled from the Monsanto website. I used this site to also get background

information as well as learn what the website says about conservations efforts of the Monarch

Butterfly

Xerces Society. Monarch Butterflies. (2015). Retrieved October 5, 2015, from

http://www.xerces.org/monarchs/

The Xerces Society is another stakeholder group that focuses on insect conservation and has had

specific studies done on the declining population of monarch butterfly. This source could be very

for useful because it is giving me the species conservationist perspective which will be helpful in

my stakeholder section of the paper. This specific site also gives useful information on what is

currently being done to help improve the monarch population.

Schultz, D. (2015, January 01). Monarch Butterfly potential candidate for Endangered Species

Act listing. Bloomberg BNA: Environmental Reporter. http://news.bna.com.proxy-

um.researchport.umd.edu/erln/ERLNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=60962708&vname=ernotalliss

ues&wsn=504726000&searchid=26405120&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm

=ERLNWB&pg=0

I use this news article to discuss the opinions of pesticide companies in the group introduction.

The article has a quote from CropLife America, claiming that milkweed is a nuisance and needs

to be eradicated.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2014). Endangered Species Act special rules: questions and

answers. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/factsheets/ESA%20SpecialRules%20

Factsheet_020714.pdf

This is a fact sheet written by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I use this source in the group

recommendations to explain the purpose of a threatened species’ Special 4(d) Rule.

Monarch Butterfly Cover Photo. (2015). http://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/survey-shows-69-increase-

in-area-occupied-by-monarch-butterflies

I used this photo of the monarch butterfly for the title page of the report.