[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21783-21812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07920]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0153; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE76
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Streaked Horned Lark With Section 4(d) Rule
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), affirm the
listing of the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), a
bird subspecies from Washington and Oregon, as a threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also
revise the rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule'')
for this bird. This final rule maintains this species as a threatened
species on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and continues
to extend the protections of the Act to the species.
DATES: This rule is effective May 13, 2022.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0153 and at https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/. Comments and materials we received, as well as
supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R1-ES-2020-0153.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE
98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone 503-231-6179.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. On February 28, 2018, the Center for
Biological Diversity filed suit against the Department of the Interior
and the Service on the 2013 listing and 4(d) rules for the streaked
horned lark (78 FR 61452; October 3, 2013). The plaintiff challenged
the adequacy of our significant portion of the range analysis, and the
4(d) rule's exception to the take prohibition for agricultural
activities in the Willamette Valley. The court did not vacate the rules
but remanded them to us for reconsideration. On April 13, 2021, we
published a proposed rule (86 FR 19186) that reflected an updated
assessment of the status of the subspecies and proposed revisions to
the current 4(d) rule. Under the Act, we are required to make a final
determination on our proposal within 1 year.
What this document does. With this final rule, we affirm the
listing of the streaked horned lark as a threatened species, and we
revise the 4(d) rule for the species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the streaked horned lark
faces threats from the ongoing loss and degradation of suitable habitat
(Factor A), as well as land management activities and related effects,
and recreation (Factor E), combined with the synergistic effects of
small population size and climate change (Factor E), such that it is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.
Peer review and public comment. The purpose of peer review is to
ensure that our listing determinations and 4(d) rules are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The Service
prepared the Species Status Assessment for the Streaked Horned Lark
(SSA report) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2021a, entire) and sought
peer review on the report in accordance with our joint policy on peer
review published in
[[Page 21784]]
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act. We solicited expert opinions of five
appropriate specialists with expertise in ornithology and streaked
horned lark biology and habitat, and we received three responses. These
peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions,
and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to
improve the SSA report. Additionally, we sent the SSA report to six
agency partners for review and received responses from three partners.
We also considered all comments and information we received from the
public during the comment period for the April 13, 2021, proposed rule
(86 FR 19186).
Previous Federal Actions
On October 3, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR
61452) a final rule listing the streaked horned lark as a threatened
species under the Act; that rule was accompanied by a 4(d) rule to
except certain activities from the take prohibitions of the Act and our
regulations in order to provide for the conservation of the streaked
horned lark.
In addition, on October 3, 2013, we published in the Federal
Register (78 FR 61506) a final rule designating critical habitat for
the streaked horned lark in Washington and Oregon.
On February 28, 2018, the Center for Biological Diversity filed
suit against the Department of the Interior and the Service on the
listing and 4(d) rules for the streaked horned lark. The court did not
vacate the rules but remanded the rules to us for reconsideration and
ordered us to submit a revised proposed listing determination to the
Federal Register no later than March 31, 2021. To facilitate
consideration of new information, the Service conducted a new species
status assessment (SSA) analysis informed by our SSA framework (Service
2016a, entire).
On April 13, 2021, we published a proposed rule (86 FR 19186) that
reflected an updated assessment of the status of the subspecies
(including an updated analysis of any significant portions of the
range) based on the SSA report, and proposed revisions to the current
4(d) rule.
Supporting Documents
A team of Service biologists, in consultation with other species
experts, prepared the SSA report for the streaked horned lark (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2021a, entire). The SSA report represents a
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past,
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting
the species. This final rule is based on the scientific information
compiled in the SSA report.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered
comments from the public on the April 13, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR
19186). We made many small, nonsubstantive clarifications and
corrections throughout the SSA report and this rule, including under
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, below, in order to ensure
better consistency, clarify some information, and update or add new
references. We considered whether this additional information altered
our analysis of the magnitude or severity of threats facing the
species.
We updated the SSA report (to version 2.0) and the final rule based
on comments and additional information provided as follows:
(a) We include updated survey information provided to the Service
and other reports of additional occurrences we received.
(b) We use an updated definition of suitable habitat throughout the
final rule; wherein suitable habitat is defined as early seral stage
communities with low-statured vegetation and substantive amounts of
bare ground or sparsely vegetated conditions.
(c) We update Table 3 in the SSA and present an updated Table 1 in
this final rule.
(d) We omit the proposed rule's Figure 1 from this final rule and
instead present a new Table 3 where mean number of pairs are detected
across all sites per region. Subsequent tables are renumbered to remain
in sequence.
(e) We add text to the exception of take in the 4(d) rule for
habitat restoration activities (Sec. 17.41(a)(2)(iv)(E)) to clarify
that the Service will determine whether these activities are consistent
with this final rule on a case-by-case basis.
(f) We update the numbers reporting acreage of agriculture in the
Willamette Valley, and specifically the amount of land used in
production of grass seed.
We conclude that the information we received during the comment
period for the proposed rule did not change our previous analysis of
the magnitude or severity of threats facing the species or our
determination that streaked horned lark is a threatened species.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In our April 13, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 19186), we requested
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by
June 14, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. Newspaper
notices inviting general public comment were published in The Oregonian
on April 18, 2021, The News Tribune on April 19, 2021, and The Olympian
on April 19, 2021. We did not receive any requests for a public
hearing. All substantive information provided during the comment period
either has been incorporated directly into the final rule or is
addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of five
appropriate specialists regarding the 2021 SSA report. The peer
reviewers have expertise that includes familiarity with streaked horned
lark and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We received
responses from three specialists, which informed the SSA report and our
April 13, 2021, proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determinations and 4(d) rules are based on
scientifically sound data, conclusions, and analyses. We reviewed all
peer review comments we received from the specialists for substantive
issues and new information regarding streaked horned lark and
incorporated into the final SSA report (Service 2021a) as appropriate.
Public Comments
We received seven submissions during the comment period for the
proposed rule. We reviewed all submissions for substantive comments and
new information regarding the proposed rule. Four submissions included
substantive comments or new information concerning the April 13, 2021,
proposed rule and the SSA report (Service 2021a). Updated information
received was incorporated into the final SSA report and our final rule
as appropriate. Below, we provide a summary of the substantive comments
raised in the public submissions we received; however, comments outside
the scope of the proposed rule, and those without supporting
information,
[[Page 21785]]
did not warrant an explicit response and, thus, are not presented here.
Identical or similar comments have been consolidated.
(1) Comment: Several commenters argued that the subspecies should
be listed as endangered in all or a significant portion of the range
due to small population sizes, ongoing loss of habitat, and lack of
protection across most of its range.
Response: The streaked horned lark has been listed since 2013 and
since that time the Service has been coordinating with partners to
implement recovery actions throughout the range. The subspecies
continues to be affected by a variety of stressors including
agriculture, airport management, military operations, dredged material
placement, and recreation. Despite the ongoing influence of stressors,
the subspecies is not currently in danger of extinction, because the
species retains multiple populations in high and moderate condition
across all representative regions and those populations occur in a
variety of habitat types. While the subspecies has shown variable
abundance across the range, both from location-to-location and year-to-
year, each representative region has at least 8 redundant populations.
Negative influence factors on the subspecies have not fluctuated much
for the last 20 years and are not of a scope or magnitude such that the
subspecies is currently in danger of extinction.
As noted in the Background and Summary of Biological Status and
Threats sections, abundance of larks across the Willamette Valley
appears relatively high, but many of these local populations cannot be
surveyed due to lack of access. Although the current abundance of local
populations along the Pacific Coast is lower than other areas, it has
been low for many years, and we see no apparent declining trend in this
regional population based on survey data from 2013 to 2019. Recent
detections of birds at Clatsop Spit, as well as sites with restored
habitat on private lands in the Willamette Valley, indicate that
individuals can move between sites, and there are a few instances of
detections at previously unoccupied locations, but recolonization
appears low and difficult to predict.
(2) Comment: One commenter stated we should have coordinated with
outside entities to quantify our assessment of streaked horned larks
and evaluate specific threats or issues.
Response: The streaked horned lark has been listed since 2013, with
recovery actions coordinated by the Streaked Horned Lark Recovery
Working Group (Working Group). The Streaked Horned Lark Recovery
Working Group consists of several entities outside of the Service,
including state biologists from both Oregon and Washington as well as
species experts from American Bird Conservancy, Oregon State
University, Center for Natural Lands, and other private individuals.
Species status assessments (SSAs) are typically led by Service
biologists and can include biologists from other agencies (state,
Tribes and Federal). However, regardless of membership on an SSA core
team, we call upon species experts and technical experts from other
agencies to help us fill information gaps or check our analytical
approach and did so with the streaked horned lark SSA. We drafted the
SSA internally in response to the litigation remand and provided the
draft SSA report for peer and partner review to a variety of people for
external coordination, including the members of the Working Group. We
took their comments into consideration when finalizing the SSA report
and drafting the April 13, 2021, proposed rule. We also sent notice of
the availability of the proposed rule to the members of the Working
Group and took their comments into consideration when finalizing the
rule. The 60-day public comment period on the April 13, 2021, proposed
rule (86 FR 19186) provided interested parties an opportunity to
comment and provide information on the proposed rule.
(3) Comment: We received comments stating the analysis of the
current resiliency, redundancy, and representation of streaked horned
lark in the SSA report, which provided the basis for the reaffirmed
status determination for the subspecies, is not in alignment with
population targets in the draft recovery plan.
Response: Recovery plans provide important guidance to the Service,
States, Tribes, and other partners on methods of enhancing conservation
and minimizing threats to listed species, as well as criteria against
which to measure progress towards recovery, but they are not regulatory
documents and cannot substitute for the determinations and promulgation
of regulations required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For this
status determination, we analyzed the best available scientific and
commercial data through the SSA framework to inform current and
projected future resiliency of regional populations, and redundancy and
representation of the subspecies. The SSA framework is currently the
standard approach the Service is using for status assessments, and it
may not always be in perfect alignment with a previously developed
recovery plan.
Recovery plans identify metrics that describe what recovery of the
species may look like; the SSA is used to analyze the current status of
the species and project future conditions under a suite of plausible
scenarios to support management decisions. The streaked horned lark
draft recovery plan is supported by two supplementary documents: A
Species Biological Report, which served as the basis for the SSA; and a
Recovery Implementation Strategy, which details specific near-term
activities identified in the draft recovery plan (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 2019b, entire). For the streaked horned lark SSA, we
incorporated information from the draft recovery plan into our analysis
when appropriate and consistent with the SSA framework and, in response
to peer review on the SSA, we revised our demographic metrics for
current condition to be more in line with population targets in the
draft recovery plan. As described under Determination of Streaked
Horned Lark's Status, below, our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information (which we analyzed in the SSA
process) indicates that the streaked horned lark meets the Act's
definition of a threatened species.
(4) Comment: We received several comments stating the methods of
analysis used for interpreting changes in local and regional
populations were flawed due to variability in survey efforts (both
between years and between regions) and noting a lack of statistical
analysis incorporated into our SSA and proposed rule. One commenter
recommended we account for this variability in assessing population
status and reference results presented in Keren and Pearson (2019).
Another commenter stated that trends were based on data where
conservation actions are implemented or land management activities are
regulated through the section 7 consultation process and that this
basis skews any apparent increase in population status over time toward
the positive (which is not representative of the majority of the
population that occurs on lands in the Willamette Valley, where no
regulations protect the species from potential threats).
Response: We incorporated information from Keren and Pearson (2019)
where appropriate in the SSA report and in this final rule, and in our
discussion of variability in survey efforts (both between years and
between regions) in both documents. In this rule, to incorporate the
best available science,
[[Page 21786]]
we update Table 1 to show corrected population estimates, add Tables 2
and 3 to show mean number of pairs detected across all sites per
region, and include additional information on our characterization of
trends to reflect the variability in survey effort between regions and
the uncertainty regarding trends (see additional explanation as
population estimates as a function of survey effort in Tables 1-3). If
information relating to the status of the species on private lands in
the Willamette Valley becomes available after publication of this final
rule, we will take that information into consideration and can reassess
status at that time.
(5) Comment: One commenter stated that the process for evaluating
connectivity between local populations and habitat conditions needs to
be better described in the SSA report to account for how these metrics
were evaluated with regards to the current condition.
Response: In the SSA report and this final rule, we revised our
description of the metrics used to evaluate current condition,
including connectivity of local populations during the breeding season
and between years based on evidence from color-banded individuals, as
well as general habitat conditions at sites in the Willamette Valley
where lark populations are monitored regularly and where land
management activities maintain suitable habitat.
Our assessment and conclusions regarding connectivity were based on
seasonal and intra-annual observations of larks moving between sites
(within a breeding season, based on color-banded or tagged birds, and
observations of birds returning to alternate breeding sites relative to
where they were banded) (see Figure 1 for additional information).
(6) Comment: We received comments stating that the availability of
suitable habitat in the Willamette Valley may not be the primary driver
of the subspecies' status and distribution, as evidenced by the
abundance of suitable habitat where larks are not detected.
Response: In response to this comment, we clarified our definition
of suitable habitat throughout this final rule as early seral stage
communities with low-statured vegetation and substantive amounts of
bare ground or sparsely vegetated conditions. This definition is
consistent with that of suitable habitat in the draft recovery plan,
the SSA, and scientific literature describing preferred habitats used
by larks. We further acknowledge that there are other factors (in
addition to the availability of suitable habitat) that drive the status
of larks in the Willamette Valley. These include vegetation succession,
land usage, crop conversion, the timing and method of equipment
operation, the loss of natural disturbance processes, and any other
habitat perturbations during the breeding season. We updated the SSA to
clarify that the primary driver of the subspecies' status and
distribution is a combination of habitat availability and disturbance
activities during the breeding season.
(7) Comment: One commenter stated we need to better describe how
the benefits of land management activities used to replicate or mimic
suitable habitat conditions in the Willamette Valley outweigh the
potential risks to breeding streaked horned larks.
Response: Early spring conditions in recently established grass
seed fields in the Willamette Valley attract streaked horned lark by
providing suitable habitat (i.e., the areas between rows of grass that
contain very little or no vegetation) for breeding. Streaked horned
lark adults, nestling, and eggs can be negatively affected by mowing of
these fields. Although streaked horned lark breeding can extend until
late summer, that time period covers additional nest attempts, and the
peak of breeding (first nest attempts) occurs in late May to mid-June
before peak mowing (which typically occurs from mid-June to mid-July)
in the Willamette Valley. Additional nesting attempts can occur from
late June into August and may occur whether the first nest attempt
failed or was successful (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11). See also this
discussion in the Summary of Biological Status and Threats section
below.
(8) Comment: One commenter stated that although agricultural
practices maintain habitat for larks, the industry is declining, and
replacement crops are not suitable for larks. They note that if
suitable crop types are declining, it would be logically consistent
that lark populations would decline based on loss of habitat, but the
proposed rule describes the current condition for the Willamette Valley
population as increasing.
Response: As noted in our response to Comment (6), above, we
acknowledge that there are drivers of population status other than
grass seed production. In this rule, we present updated population
survey numbers for the Willamette Valley population; however, there was
variability in survey efforts and corresponding variability in mean
number of birds detected during surveys across all regions. The
increases at some local sites are balanced by fluctuations in lark
detections during surveys and variability in survey effort across all
years.
(9) Comment: One commenter stated that the timing of agricultural
activities in the Willamette Valley is mischaracterized in the SSA
report and the potential effects to nesting larks are greater than
portrayed in the SSA report.
Response: Larks arrive on breeding sites in February (Pearson et
al. 2016, p. 5), and the occupancy survey window extends from mid-April
to mid-July. The nesting season (i.e. clutch initiation to fledging)
for streaked horned larks begins in mid-April and ends in late August,
with peaks in May and June (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11; Moore 2011,
p. 32; Wolf 2011, p. 5; Wolf and Anderson, 2014, p. 19). Harvest of
grass seed usually commences in late June after the typical first nest
attempt. While peak breeding occurs early in the summer, streaked
horned larks can nest until August, and can re-nest throughout the
summer, so they have multiple chances to breed even if a first nest
attempt fails. Second and third breeding attempts typically occur
during or after harvest practices have occurred. Nest success in
general is highly variable. While there is potential for streaked
horned lark nesting success to be impacted by grass seed harvest
activities, the best available information does not indicate that those
harvest activities are negatively affecting the current resiliency of
streaked horned lark populations.
(10) Comment: One commenter stated that prairie restoration in the
Willamette Valley does not substantially contribute to long-term
conservation of streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley. The
commenter stated that because birds that breed in these locations are
displaced from nearby sites and nests, they are at risk of lethal
effects from land management activities, such as mowing or pesticide
application, that are used to maintain vegetation at the restoration
site. Another commenter said restoration success is likely based on
soil structure (in general, glacial outwash in Puget Lowlands compared
to fertile organic soil in Willamette Valley) and the likelihood of
plant growth occurring following restoration.
Response: Larks at restoration sites throughout the subspecies'
range are potentially affected by mowing and other land management
activities similar to excepted activities at airports and in
agricultural fields, but the results of prairie restoration in
Willamette Valley indicate that restoration sites may provide short-
term benefits to larks. Activities associated with streaked horned lark
habitat restoration (e.g.,
[[Page 21787]]
removing nonnative plants and planting native plants, creating open
areas, and maintaining sparse vegetation through vegetation removal or
suppression via controlled burns) would be very beneficial to the
subspecies; any adverse effects to the subspecies from these activities
would likely be only short-term or temporary, especially with respect
to harassment or disturbance of individual larks. In the long term, the
risk of adverse effects to both individuals and populations is expected
to be mitigated, as these types of land management activities will
likely benefit the subspecies by helping to preserve and enhance the
habitat of existing local populations over time.
(11) Comment: We received several comments stating that the success
of most existing conservation efforts results from section 7
consultation with Federal agencies, leaving streaked horned lark on
private lands mostly unprotected. We received other comments stating
that private landowners should receive protection via safe harbor
agreements or other programs to incentivize them to promote
conservation for the species.
Response: It is well documented that listed species benefit from a
higher level of protection on Federal lands when compared to privately
owned lands, due in part to the requirement for section 7 consultation
under the Act and other Federal programs. In contrast, protections for
listed species on non-Federal lands rely more on section 9 take
prohibitions and voluntary or discretionary conservation measures.
Since we listed the streaked horned lark as threatened under the Act in
2013, numerous conservation measures resulting from section 7
consultation under the Act in the range of the streaked horned lark
have helped reduce the effects of threats on the subspecies.
Conservation of listed species in many parts of the United States
is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of entities,
including the voluntary cooperation of non-Federal landowners. Building
partnerships and promoting cooperation of landowners are essential to
understanding the status of species on non-Federal lands and may be
necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing listed
species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection. We encourage any
landowners with a listed species such as streaked horned lark present
on their property and who want to help conserve the species or think
they carry out activities that may negatively impact that listed
species to work with the Service to promote conservation. We promote
these private sector efforts through the Department of the Interior's
cooperative conservation philosophy (see https://www.fws.gov/services
for more information). Once a species is listed, for private or other
non-Federal property owners we offer voluntary safe harbor agreements
that can contribute to the recovery of species, habitat conservation
plans that allow activities (e.g., grazing) to proceed while minimizing
effects to species, funding through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program to help promote conservation actions, and grants to the States
under section 6 of the Act. We recently completed a Safe Harbor
Agreement with a private landowner in the Willamette Valley to create
and maintain habitat conditions that support larks and increase the
distribution and abundance of larks in this region (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2021b, entire).
(12) Comment: We received several comments stating that despite the
joint effort to evaluate voluntary lark conservation in the Willamette
Valley (funded by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service,
the Service, the American Bird Conservancy, and other partners), there
was no incentive for agricultural producers (who are excepted under the
4(d) rule) to engage with the Federal government for conservation, even
when financial incentives were available. One commenter stated that the
assumption that the proposed 4(d) rule provides an incentive to
landowners that results in creation or maintenance of habitat is
erroneous and suggests producers do not make decisions based on market
economics.
Response: We determined that the specific provisions in the 4(d)
rule adequately protect streaked horned lark while facilitating the
conservation and management of the species where individuals currently
occur and may occur in the future. There are a variety of factors that
understandably drive the type of crop that agricultural producers
choose to grow and why they might change to a different crop over time.
On farms where larks utilize crops such as perennial rye grass seed
after the first few years of planting, the 4(d) is intended to remove
possible disincentive to farmers to continue growing this crop--and not
change the crop to something that will exclude use by larks or to keep
it longer in non-suitable habitat status. Section 4(d) of the Act
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems
necessary and advisable to provide for conservation of species listed
as threatened. Section 4(d) of the Act provides the Secretary with
broad discretion to select and promulgate appropriate regulations
tailored to the specific conservation needs of the threatened species.
As described below under II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of
the Act, the provisions of our 4(d) rule will promote conservation of
the streaked horned lark by encouraging management of the landscape in
ways that can meet both land management considerations and the
conservation needs of the streaked horned lark. The prohibitions
identified in the 4(d) rule, however, are considered necessary and
advisable for the conservation of the streaked horned lark (see next
comment and response).
(13) Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed 4(d) rule
leaves the streaked horned lark unprotected, and that existing
regulations are insufficient to protect extant populations. One
commenter stated that our rationale assumes that regulating
agricultural practices would result in producers changing their
practices or crops to avoid said regulations, but that the rise of the
grass seed industry occurred in the same timeframe that larks began to
decline. The commenter described the Willamette Valley as an ecological
sink, where birds are attracted to habitat conditions, but management
activities compromise reproductive success and survival. Commenters
also note that the 4(d) rule excepts the agricultural industry as a
whole, in spite of known effects on mortality, disturbance, and habitat
alteration (shift in crop types based on market demands), for reasons
other than conservation of the species, leaving the majority of the
population in unregulated land use circumstances.
Response: With the loss of historical habitats during the last
century, alternative breeding and wintering sites, including active
agricultural lands, have become critical for the continued survival and
recovery of the streaked horned lark. The largest area of potential
habitat for streaked horned larks is the agricultural land base in the
Willamette Valley. Larks are attracted to the wide, open landscape
context and low vegetation structure in agricultural fields, especially
in grass seed fields, probably because those working landscapes
resemble the historical habitats formerly used by the subspecies when
the historical disturbances associated with floods and fires maintained
a mosaic of suitable habitats. In any year, some portion of the 920,000
ac (372,311 ha) of agricultural lands in the Willamette Valley will
contain patches of suitable streaked horned lark habitat, but the
geographic location of those areas may
[[Page 21788]]
not be consistent from year to year, nor can we predict their
occurrence due to variable agricultural practices (crop rotation,
fallow fields, etc.), and we cannot predict the changing and dynamic
locations of those areas.
While agricultural activities also have the potential to harm or
kill individual streaked horned larks or destroy their nests,
maintenance of extensive agricultural lands (primarily grass seed
farms) in the Willamette Valley is crucial to maintaining the
population of streaked horned larks in the valley and aiding in the
recovery of the subspecies in Oregon, and our revised 4(d) rule
provides landowners some incentive to continue operating and
maintaining their lands in a manner that is consistent with current
operations which provide habitats that the birds currently rely on. As
discussed in the response to Comment 12, we acknowledge that there are
a number of reasons why a landowner may change their practices or
convert their crop to a different commodity, however, and our revised
4(d) rule will promote conservation of the streaked horned lark in that
it recognizes and supports management of the landscape in ways that
meet both land management considerations and the conservation needs of
the streaked horned lark.
Currently in the Willamette Valley, there are approximately 360,000
ac (145,000 ha) of grass seed fields in production. In any year, some
portion of these lands will have suitable streaked horned lark habitat,
but the geographic location of those areas may not be consistent from
year to year, nor can we predict their occurrence due to variable
agricultural practices (crop rotation, fallow fields, etc.), and we
cannot predict the changing and dynamic locations of those areas.
Maintenance of extensive agricultural lands (primarily grass seed
farms) is crucial to maintaining the population of streaked horned
larks. The beneficial effects to the subspecies from maintaining these
agricultural activities outweighs the negative effects from injuries to
particular individual larks from these same activities. The exception
for incidental take for certain agricultural activities on non-Federal
lands in the revised 4(d) rule applies to the entire range of the
subspecies, to encourage management actions that would facilitate the
use of areas other than civilian and military airports by streaked
horned larks within the range of the subspecies in Oregon and
Washington.
Because landowners are free to allow vegetation growth that results
in the conversion of lands into habitats unsuitable for the streaked
horned lark, conservation of the species will benefit from the support
of agricultural practices that result in the creation and maintenance
of habitat that is suitable for the subspecies. Excepting routine
agricultural activities on non-Federal lands throughout the range of
the streaked horned lark from the prohibition on take will provide an
overall benefit to the subspecies by maintaining suitable habitat.
(14) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our rationale for
including restoration in the proposed 4(d) exceptions, stating the
potentially lethal effects to larks resulting from restoration
activities such as mowing, spraying pesticides, and tilling compromise
the overall justification for excepting these activities. They also
state that inclusion of prairie restoration in the proposed 4(d) rule
eliminates opportunities for partnerships to address impacts with
successful tools (nest protection).
Response: We acknowledge that the effects from habitat restoration
activities (mowing, spraying, tilling, etc.) on larks are similar to
the effects of disturbance mechanisms that occur at airports (mowing)
and on agricultural fields (mowing, tilling, harvesting, etc.), which
maintain habitat for larks through semi-regular disturbance. However,
we continue to support restoration of native habitats throughout the
subspecies' range because these sites may provide additional temporary
habitat for larks. Furthermore, while there are potential effects to
larks from habitat management activities on restoration sites, if these
activities were discontinued, plant growth and vegetation succession
would occur, which would result in habitats no longer supporting the
low-stature vegetation with areas of bare ground or sparsely vegetated
ground that larks prefer. In parallel to our excepting of routine
agricultural activities, excepting habitat restoration actions (that
may include adverse effects to lark in the short-term), will provide an
overall benefit by maintaining and/or adding to suitable habitat for
the subspecies. While the loss of individuals is never welcome, the
continuation of land management activities that create replacement
habitat is very important for conservation of the subspecies, and the
benefits to the subspecies as a whole appear to outweigh the associated
cost of the loss of individuals.
(15) Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that the 4(d) rule
precludes actions necessary for the lark's survival and recovery,
namely nest protection for the brief incubation period for larks
nesting on privately owned agricultural land. The commenters did not
provide suggestions for how such a nest protection program may be
designed or administered on those private lands other than referencing
application of section 9 take prohibitions. They did reference positive
nest conservation efforts for the lark at Joint Base Lewis McChord
(JBLM) in Washington, and for the western snowy plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus) as examples of what they believe should be
implemented in Oregon's private agricultural lands.
Response: Some amount of nest mortality may occur as a consequence
of excepted agricultural activities. The Service is sensitive to this
concern and has taken reasonable steps to minimize the risk to nesting
streaked horned larks while also supporting these same activities that
maintain habitat the subspecies depends on for nesting.
The commenters cite to lark nest protection on Federal lands at
JBLM and to nest protection buffers applied for western snowy plover on
Federal and state lands in Oregon, calling for similar protections for
lark nests on private agricultural lands in Oregon. However, there are
significant problems with this recommendation that serve to underscore
and highlight the reasonable justifications for the 4(d) exceptions.
First, the examples cited by the commenters involve conservation
occurring completely on public lands: U.S. Department of Defense lands
at JBLM for lark conservation and, for the snowy plover, lands owned by
the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Oregon
Parks and Recreation Department. The requirements and opportunities for
conservation on these Federal and state lands are significantly
different than those for privately owned lands. Under the Act, the
Federal agencies have a section 7 obligation to provide for the
conservation of the streaked horned lark and western snowy plover.
Likewise, on State Park lands, conservation of listed species is an
explicit component of the State's land management goals, and the State
voluntarily sought and received a section 10 permit from the Service
for western snowy plover conservation on their park lands. These
examples stand in sharp contrast to the conservation measures that are
legally required of private landowners under the Act. The commenters'
use of these examples does not recognize the important distinction
between landownership and associated conservation obligations.
Secondly, the commenters' recommendation that we locate, identify,
buffer, and protect streaked
[[Page 21789]]
horned lark nests on private agricultural lands presents several
problems. The recommendation presupposes that we know where nests are
across this vast landscape, or that we have a reliable mechanism for
locating and accessing them. Unfortunately, we have very little
detailed information about where streaked horned larks are nesting
within this expansive agricultural private landscape of grass seed
farms in the Willamette Valley (approximately 360,000 ac (145,000 ha)).
As explained earlier, nesting sites shift over time and space, and
larks are likely only using a very small subset of these areas in any
given year, making nest site prediction and detection difficult. In
addition, we do not have legal access to the majority of this privately
owned landscape to survey and locate nests; this greatly limits our
ability to identify and determine if and where any lark nests may be
impacted. In the Willamette Valley, other than surveying for larks
along the gravel margins of public roads or other public access points,
we are reliant on private landowners to voluntarily share information
about the presence of larks on their land as it becomes available to
them. It is well documented in the scientific literature that most
private landowners will not voluntarily share such information if they
are concerned about adverse regulatory impacts to their economic
livelihood, cultural practices, and private property rights (Raymond
and Olive 2008, p. 485; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-47; Mir and Dick
2012, entire). This dynamic makes conserving species on private lands
one of the most difficult challenges of implementing the Act, both in
Oregon and across the country (see, e.g., Epanchin-Niell and Boyd 2020,
p. 410). Therefore, under this very specific set of circumstances
regarding private agricultural lands (and in contrast to the
commenters' examples regarding western snowy plovers and streaked
horned larks on public lands), the tradeoffs contained in this section
4(d) rule represent the best conservation approach to a very difficult
situation.
I. Final Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
streaked horned lark is presented in the SSA report (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2021a, pp. 4-19).
The streaked horned lark, a small songbird endemic to the Pacific
Northwest, is one of 42 subspecies of horned lark worldwide and one of
five breeding subspecies of horned larks in Washington and Oregon
(Beason 1995, p. 2). Adults are pale brown, but shades of brown vary
geographically among the subspecies. The male's face has a yellow wash
in most subspecies. Adults have a black bib, black whisker marks, black
``horns'' (feather tufts that can be raised or lowered), and black tail
feathers with white margins (Beason 1995, p. 2). Adults feed mainly on
grass and forb seeds, but feed insects to their young (Beason 1995, p.
6). At coastal sites, streaked horned larks forage in the wrack line
(the area where kelp, seagrass, shells, etc. are deposited at high
tide) and in intertidal habitats (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 8), and
streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley eat seeds of introduced
weedy grasses and forbs, focusing on the seed source that is most
abundant (Moore 2008a, p. 9).
Streaked horned larks historically selected habitat in relatively
flat, open areas that were maintained by flooding, fire, and sediment
transport dynamics. The interruption of these historical processes due
to flood control dams, fire suppression, and reduction of sediment
transport by dams resulted in a steep decline in the extent of
historical habitat available for the lark. Currently, streaked horned
larks are found in open areas free from visual obstructions like
grasslands, prairies, wetlands, beaches, dunes, and modified or
temporarily disturbed habitats such as agricultural or grass seed
fields, airports, dredged material placement sites, and gravel roads.
Streaked horned larks need relatively flat landscapes with sparse
vegetation, preferring habitats with an average of 17 percent bare
ground for foraging and 31 percent of bare ground for nesting (Altman
1999, p. 18). Typically, preferred habitats contain short vegetation,
contain forbs and grasses that are less than 13 inches (in) (33
centimeters (cm)) in height, and have few or no trees or shrubs (Altman
1999, p. 18; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). The large, open areas used
by populations of larks are regularly disturbed via burning, mowing,
herbicide application, crop rotation, dredging material placement, and/
or other anthropogenic regimes.
Habitat characteristics of agricultural lands used by streaked
horned larks include: (1) Bare or sparsely vegetated areas within or
adjacent to grass seed fields, pastures, or fallow fields; (2) recently
planted (0 to 3 years) conifer farms with extensive bare ground; and
(3) wetland mudflats or ``drown outs'' (i.e., washed out and poorly
performing areas within grass seed or row crop fields). Currently,
there are approximately 420,000 acres (ac) (169,968 hectares (ha)) of
grass seed fields and 500,000 ac (202,343 ha) of other agriculture in
Oregon. Of the 420,000 ac, approximately 360,000 ac (145,000 ha) are
located in the Willamette Valley (Oregon Seed Council 2018, p. 1). In
any year, some portion of these areas will have suitable streaked
horned lark habitat, but the geographic location of those areas may not
be consistent from year to year due to variable agricultural practices
(fallow fields, crop rotation, etc.), and we cannot predict the
changing and dynamic locations of those areas.
Horned larks form breeding pairs in the spring (Beason 1995, p.
11), and territory size is variable. Territory size can range from 1.5
to 2.5 ac (0.61 to 1.0 ha) (Altman 1999, p. 11), and varies widely
between sites and across years. For example, for 16 pairs of larks,
territories ranged in size from 4.0 to 20.6 ac (1.6 to 8.3 ha) (Wolf et
al. 2017, p. 12). Territories overlap substantially, and represent the
semi-colonial breeding behavior of the species, where breeding
territories are adjacent to other pairs at the same site but nests are
not in extremely close proximity (Wolf et al. 2017, p. 12). The nesting
season (i.e., clutch initiation to fledging) for streaked horned larks
begins in mid-April and ends in late August, with peaks in May and
early June (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11; Moore 2011, p. 32; Wolf
2011, p. 5; Wolf and Anderson, 2014, p. 19). After the first nesting
attempt in April, streaked horned larks will often re-nest in late June
or early July (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11). Nests are positioned
adjacent to vegetation or other structural elements and are lined with
soft vegetation (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 23; Moore and Kotaich 2010,
p. 18). Streaked horned lark nesting success (i.e., the proportion of
nests that result in at least one fledged chick) is highly variable,
which is consistent with other ground-nesting passerines (Best 1978,
pp. 16-20; Johnson and Temple 1990, p. 6).
The average minimum viable population (MVP) for the groups Aves and
Passerines has been identified as 5,269 and 6,415 individuals,
respectively. This number was determined using methodology described in
a meta-analysis of multiple taxa (birds, fish, mammals, reptiles and
amphibians, plants, insects, and marine invertebrates) (Anderson 2015,
p. 2). Although we do not know what the historical abundance was for
streaked horned lark rangewide (historical abundance estimates
throughout the lark's range are largely anecdotal in nature), based on
the MVPs for similar species, it was most likely larger than the
current abundance. The draft
[[Page 21790]]
recovery plan for streaked horned lark (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2019, entire) has a rangewide population goal of 5,725 individuals. The
most recent rangewide population estimate for streaked horned larks is
1,170 to 1,610 individuals. This estimate is based on data compiled
from multiple survey efforts, plus extrapolation to areas of potential
suitable habitat not surveyed (e.g., inaccessible private lands),
particularly in the Willamette Valley (Altman 2011, p. 213).
The streaked horned lark currently occurs in local populations
(defined here as scattered breeding sites or areas of habitat to which
individuals return each year) in three regions across the range: The
South Puget Lowlands in Washington, the Pacific Coast and Lower
Columbia River in Washington and Oregon, and the Willamette Valley in
Oregon.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AP22.003
[[Page 21791]]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Regional abundance estimates based on survey data from local
populations between 2013 and 2019 are provided in Table 1. Based on
2013 to 2019 survey data from regularly monitored sites across the
range of the subspecies, the number, distribution, and size of streaked
horned lark local populations appear to have increased since our
publication of the final rule in 2013.
Table 1--Regional Summaries of Breeding Pairs, With Number of Local Populations, Based on Records From 2013 to 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional population (with number of local populations) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Puget Lowlands (8)..................................... 75-76 97-101 119 129 139 130 121-127
Pacific Coast and Lower Columbia River (24).................. 81 89 77 85 77 86 97
Pacific Coast (5)............................................ 10 12 11 9 13 13 10
Lower Columbia River (19).................................... 71 77 66 76 64 73 87
Willamette Valley (10)....................................... 96 23 109 127 92 133 165
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rangewide total.......................................... 252-253 * 209-213 305 341 308 349 383-389
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Several of the locations were not surveyed in 2014; other sites have no data available.
We acknowledge there is a high degree of variability in annual
survey efforts in the three regions and the resulting number of birds
detected at each local population in any given year. Some local
populations are regularly monitored and abundance estimates are
regularly provided; other populations are irregularly monitored and
survey efforts are infrequent. To account for this variability, we
calculated the number of sites surveyed for each year per region (see
Table 2).
Table 2--Annual Survey Effort for Regional Populations Between 2013 and 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of sites surveyed per year
Regional population -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Puget Lowlands........ 6 8 8 7 7 8 7
Pacific Coast and Lower 16 23 24 20 20 22 21
Columbia River.............
Willamette Valley........... 2 1 9 7 9 11 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 2, there is annual variability in the level of
effort in which surveys are conducted in a region each year. For
example, survey efforts in the Willamette Valley ranged between 1
survey at the Corvallis Airport in 2014 to 11 surveys at 5 airports, 3
refuges, and 3 private sites in 2018. In addition, there is a high
degree of annual variability in survey effort that occurs among the
regional populations relative to the number of local populations in
each region. Of particular interest is the survey effort that occurs in
the Willamette Valley compared to the other two regions. The Willamette
Valley is believed to support the majority of the rangewide population,
and yet there are relatively few surveys conducted, and we believe the
number of birds detected are a fraction of the number residing in this
region. Conversely, in the South Puget Lowlands and Pacific Coast and
Lower Columbia River regions, we believe the number of local
populations surveyed detect the majority of the birds occupying these
regions.
To assess for relative change in regional populations over time, we
calculated the mean number of pairs that were detected across all local
sites in a region per year relative to survey effort (see Table 3).
Similar to the variability in survey effort, there is variability in
the mean number of birds detected in each region, as well as between
regions in all years. For example, 96 pairs were detected at two local
sites in the Willamette Valley in 2013, resulting in a mean estimate of
48 pairs per site (see Tables 1 and 3). Comparatively, 92 pairs were
detected at 9 local sites in the Willamette Valley in 2017 (see Tables
1 and 2). These results show a high degree of annual variability within
a region due to level of survey effort and between regions due to
number of sites surveyed.
Table 3--Mean Number of Pairs Detected Across All Sites per Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year and mean number of pairs detected
Regional population -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Puget Lowlands........ 12.5 12.1 14.5 17.7 20.3 15.1 17.3
Pacific Coast and Lower 4.4 3.4 2.8 3.8 3.2 3.3 4.1
Columbia River.............
Willamette Valley........... 48.0 26.0 12.1 18.1 10.2 12.1 18.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also high variability in the mean number of birds detected
between regions and years. For example, more surveys were conducted in
the Pacific Coast and Lower Columbia River region than the South Puget
Lowlands and Willamette Valley combined, but the total number of pairs
detected in the Pacific Coast and Lower Columbia River region was much
lower in all years. The consistent and high degree of survey effort in
this region is due, in part, to
[[Page 21792]]
regular monitoring by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) at all
sites used for dredged material placement along the Columbia River. The
coastal sites are not regularly monitored and surveys frequently result
in no detections. The majority of the birds detected in the Pacific
Coast and Lower Columbia River region are found on only a few sites
along the Columbia River. Many of remaining sites in the Pacific Coast
and Lower Columbia River region support less than 5 pairs. As a result,
the high level of survey effort in this region has not corresponded
with an increased number of birds detected.
In reviewing the annual variability in survey efforts for each
region across all years and the high degree of variability in mean
abundance estimates within and between regions, we acknowledge there
are no clear trends to indicate if the current regional and rangewide
population is increasing or decreasing.
The South Puget Lowlands region consists of eight local populations
at three municipal airports and five sites at Joint Base Lewis McChord
(JBLM). Since the streaked horned lark was listed in 2013, the five
local populations at JBLM have increased in size and two of the
municipal airport populations have experienced declining trends (Keren
and Pearson 2019, p. 4). Recent analysis indicates a declining female
population at the Olympia and Shelton airports, resulting in declining
abundance trends at these local populations (Keren and Pearson 2019, p.
3). Despite these declines, the overall regional population has
stabilized to some degree based on increases of the local populations
at JBLM which are likely the result of conservation measures
implemented as part of section 7 consultations.
The Pacific Coast and Lower Columbia River region currently
consists of 24 local populations, including the new population recently
detected at Clatsop Spit in Oregon. The region currently appears stable
(Keren and Pearson 2019, p. 3), although local population surveys are
inconsistent and do not occur at each site every year. Two of the sites
on the coast of Washington (Oyhut Spit and Johns River) have no
positive records since the 2013 listing and appear to be extirpated.
There are few historical records of lark detections on the Washington
and Oregon coast and those records indicate larks were only considered
uncommon summer residents and never reported to occur in large numbers
(Altman 2011, p. 200-202). Although the current abundance of local
populations on the Pacific Coast is low compared to other areas, it has
been low for many years. The physical size of the coastal sites is
relatively small compared to the sites for other local populations (and
therefore naturally limits the number of breeding pairs), and there is
no consistent trend in this area based on survey data between 2013 and
2019. Despite recent observations of individual larks at Clatsop Spit
(i.e., not breeding pairs), the number, distribution, and size of local
breeding populations along the Pacific Coast appears to have remained
relatively constant.
The Willamette Valley regional population was previously estimated
at 900 to 1,300 individuals, based on data compiled and extrapolated
from multiple survey efforts between 2008 and 2010 (Altman 2011, p.
213), including estimates from the many known occupied but inaccessible
sites on private lands in the region. The data used for the 2011
analysis is based on detections during roadside point counts in 2008
which detected 168 individuals, and surveys are occupied sites in 2009
and 2010 which detected approximately 250 breeding pairs at seven sites
(Altman 2011, p. 213). Surveys from the 10 regularly monitored,
accessible, occupied sites in the Willamette Valley counted 165
breeding pairs in 2019. These monitored sites include four municipal
airports, three National Wildlife Refuges, two natural areas, and one
survey on private land. One historical site for a local population in
this region (Salem Municipal Airport) has had no positive records since
2013, and appears to be extirpated. As discussed above, there is a high
degree of variability in abundance estimates based on total survey
effort in a given year, which is inconsistent from year to year and
site to site (see Table 2). The Willamette Valley regional population
appears to be well distributed and stable, but the limited surveys of
accessible sites may not accurately reflect the trend in the whole
region. Streaked horned larks appear to be more abundant in the
southern end of the valley where there is more suitable habitat.
Across the range of the subspecies, the number and distribution of
local populations throughout the range have increased since 2013. The
number of breeding pairs detected at regularly monitored sites
increased from 252-253 in 2013, to 383-389 in 2019, including increases
at JBLM and at two additional sites in the Lower Columbia River area
(Clatsop Spit and Howard Island) and two additional sites in the
Willamette Valley (Herbert Farms and Coyote Creek). As discussed above,
there is variability in survey efforts and corresponding variability in
mean number of birds detected during surveys across all regions between
2013 and 2019. In addition, we have evidence of local population
variability with some local populations increasing and others
decreasing, as well as regional analysis that shows some declines in
the Puget Lowlands and the Willamette Valley. Due to this variability
and because a rangewide population estimate has not been reanalyzed
since 2011, we are unable to state conclusively that the rangewide
population has increased. However, we have regularly monitored several
sites throughout the range since 2013 and while there is variability in
the abundance of local populations, we believe that is no evidence to
support that there are precipitous declines across any of the regions
or across the range as a whole.
The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) analyzes regional
data to provide a trend for rangewide breeding populations. In contrast
to the data from site-specific surveys for the streaked horned lark
from 2013-2019, the most recent BBS analysis for the region
encompassing streaked horned larks indicates a 6.52 percent decline for
the subspecies between 2005 and 2015 (95 percent confidence interval: -
12.66 to -2.26 percent) (Sauer et al. 2017, p. 3). The streaked horned
lark was listed as a threatened species under the Act in 2013, only 2
years before the last data set that was included in the most recent BBS
analysis. When a species is listed and recovery actions begin, it may
still be many years before the abundance recovers to the point where
the species demonstrates a rangewide increasing population trend.
Recovery actions require funding, staff, and time to implement.
Documenting the subsequent species response to those actions takes
additional time.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that
is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened
[[Page 21793]]
species'' because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effects of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effects of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by
the Service on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does, however,
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA
report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0153 on https://www.regulations.gov.
To assess streaked horned lark viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences in the future. Throughout
all of these stages, we used the best available information to
characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain
populations in the wild over time. We use this information to inform
our regulatory decision.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Factors Influencing the Species
In our October 3, 2013, listing rule (78 FR 61452), we found that
the streaked horned lark was a threatened species due to loss and
degradation of habitat from development, fire suppression, and invasive
(native and nonnative) plants; dredge spoil deposition timing and
placement on Columbia River islands; incompatibly timed burning and
mowing regimes; activities associated with military training;
conversion of large grass seed production fields to incompatible
agricultural commodities; predation; small population effects;
activities associated with airports; and recreation.
[[Page 21794]]
Stressors Considered but Determined Not To Be Influencing Condition
In our SSA, we carefully analyzed these previously identified
threats, as well as additional potential threats and conservation
measures, to determine if they operate at a scope and magnitude as to
influence the condition, or resiliency, of populations rather than only
some individuals (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2021a, pp. 19-38).
Based on our assessment, disease and pesticides do not rise to the
level of affecting the condition of local or regional populations.
Although the 2013 listing rule stated that predation was likely to be a
significant and ongoing threat to the subspecies (particularly in the
South Puget Lowlands region), our SSA did not find evidence of effects
to the subspecies from predation beyond effects to individuals in any
local population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2021a, p. 20).
Predation (typically by coyotes and corvids) does occur and primarily
influences eggs, nestling, and juvenile survival; however, we did not
find that it occurred at a level beyond regular life-history dynamics.
We acknowledge, however, that predation combined with the effects of
small population size may reduce the resiliency of some local
populations, as noted below under ``Synergistic Effects.'' In 2013, a
predator control program under the Wildlife Services Predator Damage
Management Program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), was initiated at Leadbetter
Point and Midway Beach on the Washington coast (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2011). Data show that western snowy plovers have shown improved
nesting success since the program was implemented; however, monitoring
data for streaked horned larks are inconclusive, and we cannot reliably
determine if predator control has improved nesting success for larks at
these sites.
Stressors Influencing Current and Future Condition
The primary driver of the status of streaked horned lark has been
the scarcity of large, open spaces with very early seral stage plant
communities with low-statured vegetation and substantive amounts of
bare or sparsely vegetated ground. Historically, habitat was created
and maintained by natural ecological processes of flooding, fire, and
coastal sediment transport dynamics, as well as prairies maintained by
Native American burning. The loss of regular disturbance regimes that
created these open spaces impacted the abundance and distribution of
historical streaked horned lark populations. Although this loss of
historical disturbance led to displacement of lark into less suitable
alternative habitat and subsequent population declines, it is not
considered a significant influence on the condition of current
populations because the impact occurred decades ago and is not ongoing.
Furthermore, our current and future condition analyses take into
consideration the quality of habitat, so the condition ranking of any
populations that were displaced into lower quality habitat due to loss
of historical disturbance is reflective of that displacement.
The primary factors currently influencing the condition of streaked
horned lark populations are the ongoing loss and conversion of suitable
habitat, land management activities and related effects, and
recreation. Since we listed the streaked horned lark as threatened
under the Act in 2013, multiple entities have implemented a series of
regulatory and voluntary conservation measures (section 7 consultations
due to the listing of the subspecies under the Act) to offset negative
impacts to larks and lark habitat, reducing the overall impact of
stressors influencing local populations. We discuss these primary
influence factors and associated conservation actions below.
Ongoing Loss and Conversion of Suitable Habitat
Following Euro-American settlement of the Pacific Northwest in the
mid-19th century, fire was actively suppressed on grasslands in the
Willamette Valley, allowing encroachment by woody vegetation into
prairie habitat and oak woodlands (Franklin and Dyrness 1973, p. 122;
Boyd 1986, entire; Kruckeberg 1991, p. 286; Agee 1993, p. 360; Altman
et al. 2001, p. 262). Native and nonnative species that have encroached
on these habitats throughout the lark's range include native Douglas
fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), nonnative Scotch broom (Cytisus
scoparius), and nonnative grasses such as tall oatgrass (Arrhenatherum
elatius) and false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum) (Dunn and Ewing
1997, p. v; Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 146). This expansion of woody
vegetation and nonnative plant species, including noxious weeds, has
reduced the quantity and quality and overall suitability of prairie
habitats for larks (Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 155; Pearson and Hopey
2005, pp. 2, 27). On JBLM alone, over 16,000 ac (6,600 ha) of prairie
has been converted to Douglas fir forest since the mid-19th century
(Foster and Shaff 2003, p. 284). Trees and/or other woody vegetation
infiltrate open areas with formerly low vegetation and long sight lines
preferred by streaked horned larks.
The introduction of Eurasian beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) and
American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata) in the late 1800s,
currently found in high and increasing densities in most of coastal
Washington and Oregon, has dramatically altered the structure of dunes
on the coast (Wiedemann and Pickart 1996, p. 289). Beachgrass creates
areas of dense vegetation unsuitable for larks (MacLaren 2000, p. 5).
The spread of beachgrass has reduced the available nesting habitat for
streaked horned larks in Washington at Damon Point and at Grays Harbor
and Leadbetter Point on Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995, p. 19; Stinson 2005,
p. 65; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011, p. 4-2). On the Oregon
coast, the low abundance of streaked horned lark is attributed to the
invasion of exotic beachgrasses and resultant dune stabilization
(Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205). Without management (mechanical and
chemical) to maintain the open landscape at sites like these, invasive
beachgrasses will continue to influence current and future local
populations of streaked horned larks and reduce suitability of these
habitats, particularly in the Pacific Coast and Lower Columbia River
regions.
Habitat restoration work on Leadbetter Point by the Service's
Willapa NWR has successfully reduced the cover of encroaching
beachgrasses into streaked horned lark habitat. In 2007, the area of
open habitat measured 84 ac (34 ha). However, after mechanical and
chemical treatment to clear beachgrass (mostly American beachgrass),
including spreading oyster shells across 45 ac (18 ha), there is now
121 ac (50 ha) of sparsely vegetated habitat available, increasing the
extent of open habitat (Pearson et al. 2009b, p. 23). The main target
of the Leadbetter Point restoration project was the federally listed
western snowy plover, but the restoration actions also benefited
streaked horned larks. Before the restoration project, this area had
just 2 streaked horned lark territories (Stinson 2005, p. 63); after
the project, an estimated 7 to 10 territories were located in and
adjacent to the restoration area (Pearson in litt. 2012b).
Human activity has converted native prairie and grassland habitats
to residential and commercial development, reducing habitat
availability for streaked horned larks throughout their range. About 96
percent of the Willamette Valley is
[[Page 21795]]
privately owned, and it is home to almost three-fourths of Oregon's
human population, which is anticipated to nearly double in the next 50
years (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2016, p. 17). The
Willamette Valley provides about half of the State's agricultural sales
and is the location of 16 of the top 17 private-sector employers
(manufacturing, technology, forestry, agriculture, and other services).
In the South Puget Lowlands, prairie habitat continues to be lost,
particularly via the removal of native vegetation and the excavation
and conversion to non-habitat surfaces in the process of residential
development (i.e., buildings, pavement, residential development, and
other infrastructure) (Stinson 2005, p. 70; Watts et al. 2007, p. 736).
The region also contains glacial outwash soils and deep layers of
gravels underlying the prairies that are valuable for use in
construction and road building.
Industrial development has also reduced habitat available to
breeding and wintering streaked horned larks. Rivergate Industrial
Park, owned by the Port of Portland, is a large industrial site in
north Portland near the Columbia River that was developed on a dredge
disposal site. Rivergate has long been an important breeding site for
streaked horned larks and a wintering site for large flocks of mixed
lark subspecies. In 1990, the field used by streaked horned larks at
Rivergate measured more than 650 ac (260 ha) of open sandy habitat
(Dillon in litt. 2012). In the years since, the Port of Portland has
constructed numerous industrial buildings on the site, subsequently
reducing habitat availability for larks and likely displacing all
breeding and wintering larks from the area (Port of Portland 2019,
entire).
As part of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit associated with the
development of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) under the Act, the
Port of Portland mitigated for the loss of streaked horned lark habitat
by securing a long-term easement on a 32-ac (13-ha) parcel at Sandy
Island. Sandy Island is an occupied breeding site on the Columbia River
about 30 miles (mi) (50 kilometers (km)) north of the Rivergate
industrial site and is designated as critical habitat for the streaked
horned lark (Port of Portland 2017, p. 4). The Port's 30-year
commitment to manage the site and protect breeding streaked horned
larks helps to offset impacts to the regional population from the loss
of available habitat at the Rivergate site.
Roughly half of all the agricultural land in Oregon, approximately
360,000 ac (145,000 ha), is devoted to grass seed production in the
Willamette Valley (Oregon Seed Council 2018, p. 1). Grasslands, both
native prairies and grass seed fields, are important habitats for
streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley, as they are used as
both breeding and wintering habitat (Altman 1999, p. 18; Moore and
Kotaich 2010, p. 11; Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 9). Demand for grass
seed and the overall acreage of grass seed harvested in Oregon has
declined since 2005 (Oregon State University 2005 and 2019, entire). In
2019, approximately 364,355 ac (147,450 ha) were planted for forage and
turf grass seed crops in the Willamette Valley compared to
approximately 484,080 ac (195,900 ha) in 2005 (Oregon State University
2005 and 2019, entire). The reduction in grass seed production has
resulted in growers switching to other commodities, such as wheat,
stock for nurseries and greenhouses, grapes, blueberries, and hazelnuts
(U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics
Service 2009, p. 3; Oregon Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1; U.S.
Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service
2017, pp. 34, 55, 101). These other crop types do not have the low-
statured vegetation and bare ground preferred by the streaked horned
lark.
The continued decline of the grass seed industry in the Willamette
Valley due to the variable economics of agricultural markets will
likely result in a continued conversion from grass seed fields to other
agricultural types, and fewer acres of suitable habitat for streaked
horned larks. Across the range, the conversion of streaked horned lark
habitat into agricultural, industrial, residential, or urban
development will continue to influence current and future streaked
horned lark local or regional populations to some degree throughout the
range of the species, although the Pacific Coast is less affected than
other areas.
Land Management Activities and Related Effects
Streaked horned larks evolved in a landscape of ephemeral habitat
with regular historical disturbance regimes that maintained the large,
open spaces with very early seral stage plant communities with low-
statured vegetation and substantive amounts of bare or sparsely
vegetated ground relied upon by the subspecies. Human activity led to
the stabilization of these historical disturbance regimes, as well as
the unintentional creation of ``replacement'' habitat for streaked
horned larks that mimics their preferred large, open spaces.
Replacement habitat occurs in a variety of settings across the range of
the streaked horned lark, including agricultural fields, at airports,
and on dredge spoil islands. Open habitat is maintained in these areas
by way of frequent human disturbance, including burning, mowing,
cropping, chemical treatments (herbicide and pesticide application), or
placement of dredged materials (Altman 1999, p. 19). Without regular
large-scale, human-caused disturbance, the quantity of suitable habitat
available to larks would decrease rapidly. These land management
activities are key to providing and maintaining habitat for the
streaked horned lark; without replacement habitat, the status of the
subspecies would likely be much worse.
However, when these same activities are conducted during the most
active breeding season (mid-April to mid-June) for streaked horned
larks, they have the potential to result in destruction of nests,
crushing of eggs or nestlings, or flushing of fledglings or adults
(Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson 2005, p. 72). During the
nesting seasons from 2002 to 2004, monitoring at Gray Army Airfield,
McChord Airfield, and Olympia Airport in the South Puget Lowlands
region documented nest failure at 8 percent of nests due to mowing over
nests, forcing young to fledge early (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 18).
Additionally, although dredge deposits can mimic sandy beach habitat
typically used by larks, they have also been documented to destroy
breeding sites and active nests when deposition occurs during the
nesting season (Pearson in litt. 2012a; Pearson et al. 2008a, p. 21;
MacLaren 2000, p. 3; Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 10). In 2013 and 2014,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers collaborated with the Service and
initiated a strategic multi-year dredging program for the lower
Columbia River. The placement of dredge spoils was coordinated to
minimize impacts to streaked horned larks by prioritizing placement of
material on unsuitable lark habitat during the breeding season and
where placement on suitable lark habitat was necessary it occurred
outside of the breeding season. Over time, the placement of dredged
materials reinitiated habitat succession and the development of
suitable lark habitat, supporting long-term availability of suitable
lark habitat throughout the lower Columbia River with minimal impacts
to larks.
In the Willamette Valley, some habitats in agricultural areas are
consistently maintained and therefore available throughout the year
(e.g., on the margins of gravel roads), while other patches of suitable
habitat shift as areas
[[Page 21796]]
such as large fields are mowed, harvested, sprayed, or burned. In 2017,
the Willamette Valley NWR entered into a 4-year programmatic section 7
consultation with the Service for its farming and pesticide use program
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016b, entire). This programmatic
consultation documents the National Wildlife Refuge System's commitment
to adapting its farming activities to improve the status of the
streaked horned lark on the William L. Finley, Ankeny, and Baskett
Slough units of the Willamette Valley NWR complex. Conservation
measures include ensuring that farming activities minimize disturbance
to larks, and that pesticides used in agricultural fields have a low
risk of adverse effects to larks and their food sources.
Vegetation Management Activities at Airports
Airports implement hazardous wildlife management programs that
include vegetation management around roads and runways, to discourage
the presence of wildlife near the runways and thereby promote human
safety for flights. Streaked horned lark are very attracted to the
wide, open spaces created by vegetation management, and several
airports in the range are now sites for local populations of the
subspecies. In the South Puget Lowlands, the streaked horned lark might
have been extirpated if not for mowing at airports to maintain large
areas of short grass (Stinson 2005, p. 70). Five of the eight streaked
horned lark nesting sites in the South Puget Lowlands are located on or
adjacent to airports and military airfields (Rogers 2000, p. 37;
Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 15). At least five breeding sites are found
at airports in the Willamette Valley, including the largest known local
population at Corvallis Municipal Airport (Moore 2008b, pp. 14-17). The
Corvallis Municipal Airport implements some conservation measures to
reduce impacts to larks during airshow and other events at the airport,
as well as conservation measures associated with construction
activities as described and implemented as part of a programmatic
section 7 consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2020, entire). The Port of Olympia's Updated
Master Plan includes recommendations to minimize impacts to larks at
the Olympia airport by avoiding mowing during the breeding season;
however, mowing still occurs during the breeding season (Port of
Olympia/Olympia Regional Airport 2013, pp. 10-11) and the local
population at the airport has fluctuated (both increased and decreased)
in surveys from 2013 to 2019 (Wolf et al. 2020, p. 16). The overall
count of 30 breeding pairs in 2013 at the Port decreased to 21 pairs in
2018, but then increased to 27 pairs in 2019.
In 2017, the JBLM finalized a programmatic section 7 consultation
with the Service that covered multiple activities affecting streaked
horned lark, including mowing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017,
entire), which is allowed during the breeding season only under
emergency circumstances (Wolf et al. 2017, p. 34). The programmatic
consultation also covered military training activities, requiring JBLM
to schedule training events as late in the breeding season as possible
and restricting the use of vehicles or structures within active nest
buffers during these events (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017, p.
26). As part of the consultation, the JBLM proposed to carry out new
conservation measures that have resulted in a significant reduction in
adverse effects to larks from mowing and military training activities,
as well as additional activities to restore prairie habitats.
Additional conservation measures implemented as part of the
consultation include an intensive monitoring and research program which
informs long-term management goals for the base. As a result of this
consultation, the breeding population of larks on JBLM increased from
fewer than 100 pairs when the streaked horned lark was listed in 2013
(Wolf and Anderson 2014, p. 12), to over 120 pairs in 2019 (Wolf et al.
2020, p. 6). Similar conservation measures are not implemented at the
municipal airports in the Puget Lowlands region or at the airports in
the Willamette Valley region to reduce effects to streaked horned larks
from operations and maintenance activities, including mowing.
Aircraft Strikes
Individual larks in these local populations near runways are at
increased risk of aircraft strikes and collisions. Horned lark strikes
are frequently reported at military and civilian airports throughout
the country, but because of the bird's small size, few strikes result
in significant damage to aircraft (Dolbeer et al. 2011, p. 48; Air
Force Safety Center 2012, p. 2). Juvenile males seem to be struck most
often, perhaps because they are trying to establish new territories in
unoccupied but risky areas on runway margins (Wolf et al. 2017, p. 31).
With respect to streaked horned larks in particular, in the 5-year
period from 2013 to 2017, McChord Airfield had seven confirmed strikes,
and Gray Army Airfield recorded one confirmed streaked horned lark
strike (Wolf in litt. 2018). Since January 2017, 16 adults have been
killed by strikes on JBLM, including 10 adults and 2 juveniles killed
by strikes at McChord Airfield in 2020 (Wolf in litt. 2020).
The increased number of strikes in 2020 were a direct result of
construction activities that redirected aircraft traffic to the
northern half of the runway where lark density is highest and lark
abundance was relatively high; this led to a higher than normal
mortality rate from aircraft strikes. Aside from the 12 strikes in
2020, JBLM recorded a total of 12 strikes in the 7 years between 2013
and 2019, for a rate of 1.7 strikes per year. While aircraft strikes do
occur in several local populations at airports throughout the range of
the species (particularly in the South Puget Lowlands), the rate
appears relatively low and the vegetation management conducted by these
airports also maintains replacement habitat that supports breeding
pairs (Pearson et al. 2008a, p. 13; Camfield et al. 2011, p. 10; FAA
2020, entire).
Dredge Material Deposition on the Columbia River
The streaked horned lark uses islands in the Lower Columbia River
for both breeding and wintering habitat. The river channel is regularly
dredged by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and dredge
deposits can both benefit and harm streaked horned larks, depending on
the location and timing of deposition. In 2014, the Corps entered into
a programmatic section 7 consultation with the Service for the Corps'
navigation channel dredging and dredge materials placement program in
the Lower Columbia River (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014, entire).
In this consultation, the Corps committed to planning for the placement
of dredge material to minimize adverse effects to the lark on the
Corps' network of placement sites and to maintain enough habitat in
suitable condition to maintain the current regional population of
breeding larks and allow for additional population growth. The 5-year
program has been successful; from 2014 to 2019, numbers in the Lower
Columbia River increased from an estimate of 77 pairs to 87 pairs, with
the increases occurring at dredge deposition sites (Center for Natural
Lands Management 2019, pp. 3-4). The original 5-year consultation was
extended through 2022. The Corps is currently working on a 20-year
dredge material management plan, which will build on the success of the
previous consultation.
[[Page 21797]]
Military Training and Associated Activities
Military training activities at the 13th Division Prairie at JBLM,
including bombardment with explosive ordnance and hot downdraft from
aircraft, as well as civilian events, have caused nest failure and
abandonment at JBLM's Gray Army and McChord Airfields (Stinson 2005,
pp. 71-72). JBLM is also used for helicopter operations (paratrooper
practices, touch-and-go landings, and load drop and retrievals) and
troop training activities. Artillery training, off-road use of
vehicles, and troop maneuvers at the 13th and 91st Division Prairies
have been conducted in areas used by streaked horned larks during the
nesting season, contributing to nest failure and low nest success. In
addition to military training activities, McChord Airfield hosts an
international military training event known as the Air Mobility Rodeo,
which is held in odd-numbered years. In even-numbered years, McChord
Airfield hosts a public air show known as the Air Expo; this event
incorporates simulated bombing and fire-bombing, including explosives
and pyrotechnics launched from an area adjacent to one of JBLM's most
densely populated streaked horned lark nesting sites. The Expo and
Rodeo can affect the streaked horned lark through disturbance from
aircraft; temporary infrastructure; and spectator-related nest
abandonment, nest failure, and adverse effects to fledglings (Pearson
et al. 2005, p. 18; Stinson 2005, p. 27).
Recreation
Recreation at coastal sites can cause the degradation of streaked
horned lark habitat, as well as disturbance to adults and juveniles,
and direct mortality to eggs, nestlings, and fledglings. Activities
such as the annual spring razor clam digs, dog walking, beachcombing,
off-road vehicle use, camping, fishing, and horseback riding in coastal
habitats may directly or indirectly increase predation (primarily by
corvids), resulting in nest abandonment and nest failure for streaked
horned larks (Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 19, 26, 29). Streaked horned
larks nest in the same areas as western snowy plovers along the
Washington coast, and it is highly likely that recreation has caused
nest failures for larks at sites that have documented nest failure for
plovers; both species are ground nesters and, therefore, similarly at
risk of effects of recreation. During western snowy plover surveys
conducted between 2006 and 2010 at coastal sites in Washington, human-
caused nest failures of between 1 and 2 nests per year were reported in
4 of the 5 years (2 in both 2006 and 2008, 1 in both 2009 and 2010)
(Pearson et al. 2007, p. 16; Pearson et al. 2008b, p. 17; Pearson et
al. 2009a, p. 18; Pearson et al. 2010, p. 16), and one of 16 monitored
nests at Midway Beach on the Washington coast was crushed by a horse in
2004 (Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 18-19).
In 2002, JBLM began restricting recreational activity at the 13th
Division Prairie to protect lark nesting sites; JBLM prohibited model
airplane flying, dog walking, and vehicle traffic in the area used by
streaked horned larks (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 29). JBLM continues
to restrict recreational activities during the lark breeding season at
the 13th Division Prairie, although enforcement, especially on
weekends, is intermittent (Wolf et al. 2016, p. 43). In addition, the
2017 programmatic section 7 consultation JBLM entered into with the
Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017, entire) included numerous
positive conservation measures for the streaked horned lark, including
prairie habitat restoration, monitoring and research program, and
limits on military activities as well as recreational activities.
Summary of Threats
Table 4, below, summarizes the scope and magnitude of factors
influencing the viability of streaked horned lark.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 21798]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AP22.004
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Climate Change
The effects of climate change have already been observed in the
Pacific Northwest. Temperatures have risen 1.5 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F) (0.83 to 1.1 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) over the past century,
and the past three decades have been warmer than any other historical
period (Frankson et al. 2017a, p. 1; Frankson et al. 2017b, p. 1).
Climate change is widely expected to affect wildlife and their habitats
in the Pacific Northwest by increasing summer temperatures, reducing
soil moisture, increasing wildfires, reducing mountain snowpack, and
causing more extreme weather events (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 414).
Climate change may increase the frequency and severity of stochastic
weather events, which may have severe negative effects on small local
populations throughout the range of the streaked horned lark. During
the breeding season, small local populations of larks are distributed
across the range; in the winter, however, streaked horned larks
congregate mainly in the Willamette Valley and on islands in the Lower
Columbia River. Such concentration exposes the wintering populations to
potentially disastrous stochastic events such as ice storms or
flooding, which could kill individuals, destroy limited habitat and
food availability, or skew sex ratios. Severe winter weather could
potentially impact one or more regional populations when birds
congregate as larger flocks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 13).
Despite the climate projections for the region, the effects of
climate change specific to prairie ecosystems are not anticipated to
decrease the resiliency of regional streaked horned lark populations in
the South Puget Lowlands, Lower Columbia River, and Willamette Valley
regions. The grasslands and prairies of Washington and Oregon span a
wide geographic and climatic range, encompassing a rich variety of soil
types, vegetation cover, elevations, and weather patterns. The rich
diversity of all of these factors will likely provide substantial
buffering to streaked horned lark habitat from the effects of changing
weather and climate (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 412). It is
[[Page 21799]]
possible that increased summer droughts may affect less drought-
tolerant trees and other forest species adjacent to prairies, possibly
resulting in prairie expansion that could benefit the streaked horned
lark (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 417). Prairie and grassland ecosystems
are well adapted to warm and dry conditions--periodic soil drought and
future increases in temperature and drought for the region ``are
unlikely to disadvantage (and may benefit) these systems'' (Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015, pp. 5-31).
The outlook for streaked horned larks along the Pacific Coast is
less encouraging due to the effects of climate change. Sea-level rise,
increased coastal erosion, and more severe weather events will cause
significant effects to lark habitats on the coast. Projected sea-level
rise could increase erosion or landward shift of dunes; similarly,
increased severe weather events with greater wave and wind action from
storms could magnify disturbance of dune habitats (Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015, pp. 5-31) and imperil nesting
larks. Given these stressors, we expect that climate change may limit
the resiliency of some local populations on the coast primarily by
amplifying the negative effects from habitat loss due to the spread of
invasive species, such as Eurasian beachgrass, where not managed. A
conservation measure that may help reduce effects from climate change
in one area of the coast in the range of the streaked horned lark is
the Shoalwater Bay Shoreline Erosion Control Project (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2018, entire), which is a long-term commitment by the
Corps and the Shoalwater Bay Tribe to protect the reservation from
coastal erosion. It has created and is maintaining habitat for both
western snowy plovers and streaked horned larks, and provides secure
nesting area on the coast for both species.
Small Population Size
Most species' populations fluctuate naturally, responding to
various factors such as weather events, disease, and predation. These
factors have a relatively minor impact on a species with large, stable
local populations and a wide and continuous distribution. However,
populations that are small, isolated by habitat loss or fragmentation,
or impacted by other factors are more vulnerable to extirpation by
natural, randomly occurring events (such as predation or stochastic
weather events), and to genetic effects that plague small populations,
collectively known as small population effects (Purvis et al. 2000, p.
3). These effects can include genetic drift, founder effects (over
time, an increasing percentage of the population inheriting a narrow
range of traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading to increasingly lower
genetic diversity, with consequent negative effects on adaptive
capacity and reproductive success (Keller and Waller 2002, p. 235).
Various effects of small population size, including low
reproductive success, loss of genetic diversity, and male skewed sex-
ratio, have been noted in the range of the streaked horned lark,
particularly at some local populations in the South Puget Lowlands
region and the Lower Columbia River (Anderson 2010, p. 15; Camfield et
al. 2010, p. 277; Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881; Keren and Pearson
2019, Figures 1 and 2; Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881; Wolf et al. 2017,
p. 27). Any local population of streaked horned larks with very low
abundance that does not interbreed with other local populations will be
at more risk in the future due to small population effects.
Current Condition
To maintain adequate resiliency, populations of streaked horned
larks need large open spaces with suitable habitat structure--
specifically, low-stature vegetation and scattered patches of bare
ground--and an appropriate disturbance regime sufficient to maintain
habitat and support increased numbers of breeding birds. The size of
populations with high resiliency varies among regions, depending on the
extent and quality of available habitat. Needs of the streaked horned
lark in relation to degree of estimated population resiliency are
summarized below in Table 4; to evaluate current condition, we assigned
each condition category a number as shown.
Table 5--Matrix for Evaluating Current Condition of the Streaked Horned Lark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographic and habitat High condition [larr]----------------------------------------------------------
parameters ------------------------------------------[rarr] Low condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abundance:
South Puget Lowlands........ Regular surveys Regular surveys Regular surveys Extirpated: Larks
detect >=20 detect 10-20 detect <=10 no longer occupy
breeding pairs breeding pairs breeding pairs site or region
(3). (2). (1). (0).
Pacific Coast and Lower Regular surveys Regular surveys Regular surveys
Columbia River. detect >=15 detect 7-15 detect <=7
breeding pairs on breeding pairs on breeding pairs on
coast (3). coast (2). coast (1).
Regular surveys Regular surveys Regular surveys
detect >=20 detect 10-20 detect <=10
breeding pairs on breeding pairs on breeding pairs on
river (3). river (2). river (1).
Willamette Valley........... Regular surveys Regular surveys Regular surveys
detect >=25 detect 15-25 detect <=15
breeding pairs breeding pairs breeding pairs
(3). (2). (1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Trend................ Increasing Stable populations Declining or insufficient data to
population trend (1). assess trends (0).
(2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connectivity.................... Movement between local populations/
regions (1).
No movement between local populations/
regions (0).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat......................... Large, open areas Open areas with Small patches of Extirpated:
with low-stature low-stature suitable grasses Habitat to
grasses, 17 grasses, some surrounded by support larks no
percent bare shrubs and trees dense vegetation longer exists at
ground (3). (2). and trees (1). a site (0).
[[Page 21800]]
Beneficial Disturbance Regime... Regular Semi-regular Infrequent Extirpated:
disturbance disturbance, disturbance, Disturbance does
occurs to habitat is habitat may be not occur to
maintain habitat available but not temporarily maintain habitat
for nesting, no ideal for unavailable; high for larks; high
adverse effects nesting, some adverse effects adverse effects
during breeding adverse effects during breeding during breeding
season (3). during breeding season (1). season (0).
season (2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameters that are in high condition support adequate population
resiliency, whereas parameters that are in low condition reduce
resiliency and increase the risk from stochastic events. Each of the
five parameters were given equal weight, and the resulting resiliency
scores were averaged to come up with an overall condition score for
each local population unit as follows: High (>=1.7), Moderate (1.6 to
1.1), Low (1.0 to 0.2), and Extirpated (<=0.1). The overall condition
score thresholds were based on the difference between the highest and
lowest possible actual scores (2.4 and 0.2, respectively) for extant
populations. If survey data showed a site had no detections of streaked
horned larks, then the entire site is categorized as extirpated,
regardless of the condition category assigned to the habitat or
disturbance factors (e.g., Oyhut Spit and Johns River Island in the
Pacific Coast region).
The resulting current condition rankings of extant local population
resiliency varied between high to low condition. Some local populations
ranked high (those that scored 1.7 or greater) as a result of abundant
populations and high-quality habitat; other populations ranked lower
(those that scored 1.0 or less) in part because of a combination of low
abundance, declining population trends between 2013 and 2019, poor
quality habitat, and effects of land management activities.
The current range is a reduction compared to the historical range,
where larks were detected on coastal and shoreline habitats as far
north as British Columbia and the San Juan Islands in northwest
Washington and in prairie habitats as far south as the Umpqua and Rogue
Valleys in southwest Oregon. While the overall number of occupied sites
represent a reduction from its historical range, of the 42 extant local
populations across the three representational regions, there are 8 in
high condition, 15 in moderate condition, and 19 in low condition
(Table 6). Three sites that were occupied in years prior to the 2013
listing are currently considered extirpated.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 21801]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AP22.005
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
In general, the local populations with low condition have low
abundance that has declined since 2013 and occur in locations that have
less habitat
[[Page 21802]]
availability and therefore limited capacity to support high numbers of
birds. In addition, certain land management activities at these
locations, such as construction and development or sand-borrow
activities on the Columbia River, would not support long-term
resiliency even if population abundance stabilized and increased. Use
of these sites is opportunistic based on habitat availability, and most
of these sites are not anticipated to meaningfully contribute to
subspecies viability or support high numbers of birds.
The South Puget Lowlands region has an overall increasing
population trend (based on the 2013-2019 survey data). The region
contains four local populations with high condition, one local
population with moderate condition, and three local populations with
low condition. Those local populations with low condition have small,
declining populations and occur in areas where management activities
have negative impacts on adult and juvenile birds, currently limiting
resiliency. The populations at the JBLM airfields and 13th Division
increased between 2013 and 2019, and movement between sites and habitat
quality in these areas supports high resiliency. The Shelton Airport
has a declining population trend. The Olympia Airport has good
connectivity, and its condition is moderate, but the condition of the
Shelton and Tacoma airports are low due to loss of habitat and/or size
limitations.
The Pacific Coast and Lower Columbia River region has an overall
stable population trend (based on the 2013-2019 survey data). It has 2
local populations in high condition (including Sandy Island, which is
managed for the conservation of streaked horned lark), 9 local
populations in moderate condition, 13 local populations with low
condition, and 2 locations that have no breeding pairs and are assumed
extirpated (Oyhut Spit and Johns River Island). While Leadbetter Point
is managed to improve habitat quality for larks and reduce corvid
predation, the local population has fluctuated in the last several
years (between 6 in some years and 11 in other years) and abundance is
inconsistent from year to year with no clear trend toward either an
increasing or decreasing population that is demonstrated by the data.
With more data from more survey years, as well as a more recent
metapopulation analysis, we may be able to know more about the general
trend of the data over time. A number of coastal sites and several
Columbia River sites have low resiliency due to low abundance, small
patches of high-quality habitat that currently limit potential
abundance, limited connectivity, and/or management activities that are
not optimal for successful breeding. While the Pacific Coast area
currently has low numbers of breeding pairs, recent detections at
Clatsop Spit (a previously unoccupied site) indicate the species could
recolonize areas with suitable habitat. Streaked horned larks, however,
have not recolonized new sites in the South Puget Lowlands despite 20
years of prairie restoration and intensive monitoring, suggesting
recolonization is site-specific and difficult to predict.
The number of breeding pairs in the Willamette Valley region
appears to have increased for 10 local populations (based on the 2013-
2019 survey data), and the region supports two local populations in
high condition, five in moderate condition, and three in low condition.
One historical location at Salem Airport had no breeding pairs in
surveys from 2013-2019 and is assumed extirpated. The three sites with
low resiliency are municipal airports where abundance has declined
since 2013, or where survey effort is inconsistent and abundance
estimates are variable between years. The survey results reported in
Table 1, above, may represent a small portion of the total number of
streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley due to lack of access on
private lands, and there is no information to infer the condition of
these potential populations.
Overall, we consider the streaked horned lark to have moderate-to-
low redundancy based on few highly resilient populations throughout the
range, low incidence of movement between local populations, and fewer
incidences of movement between regions. The current redundancy of larks
is characterized by 42 local populations across the range of the
subspecies, of which 8 are considered to have high resiliency (4 in the
South Puget Lowlands, 2 in the Pacific Coast and Lower Columbia River,
and 2 in the Willamette Valley region). The draft recovery plan for
streaked horned lark (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2019, entire)
provides a preliminary description of potential adequate redundancy and
representation for the subspecies. The plan recommends that 38
resilient sites be managed for long-term conservation: 8 sites in the
South Puget Lowlands; 3 sites along the Pacific Coast and 6 sites in
the Lower Columbia River; and 21 sites in the Willamette Valley. The
rangewide distribution of 42 local populations confers some measure of
protection against catastrophic events, particularly in the Willamette
Valley, where relatively large numbers of birds move about in response
to changing habitat conditions. Recent detections of birds at sites
previously unoccupied (i.e., Clatsop Spit) suggest individuals are
actively moving between sites, adapting to new areas, and potentially
recolonizing areas with suitable habitat. However, incidences of
movement and colonization of new areas occurs infrequently, reducing
overall redundancy for larks.
The streaked horned lark has been extirpated from the northernmost
extent of its historical range in the northern Georgia Basin and north
Puget Lowlands and from the Rogue and Umpqua Valleys in the south.
These losses from the northernmost (i.e., cooler and wetter) and
southernmost (i.e., warmer and drier) extremes of the lark's known
historical range demonstrate a substantial loss of ecological
diversity. Within their current range, larks are found on native
prairies; military and civilian airfields; coastal beaches, dunes, and
sandy islands; restored native prairies; agricultural areas; road
margins; and industrial sites. Occupied sites differ markedly within
and among regions, which suggest that larks experience a broad range of
ecological diversity. The South Puget Lowlands and Willamette Valley
regional populations occur mainly in prairie, wetland, airport and road
margins, and agricultural habitats; the Pacific Coast and Lower
Columbia River regional population occurs primarily on coastal dune,
shorelines, and sandy islands in the Columbia River. There are at least
two local populations with high resiliency in each region, suggesting
relatively good representation across the habitats within the species
current range. Additional local populations in high and moderate
condition throughout the range would benefit the overall level of
redundancy and representation for the subspecies.
Future Condition
The main factors influencing the future viability of the streaked
horned lark include ongoing and sustained habitat loss, continued land
management activities and related effects, recreation, and the
synergistic effects of climate change and small population size. When
we assessed the future condition of the local populations in response
to projected land use changes and climate conditions, we used the same
habitat and population metrics that we applied in our current condition
assessment. We forecasted the condition of local populations over time
under three scenarios and used this
[[Page 21803]]
information to forecast the viability of the streaked horned lark over
the next 30 years. We chose 30 years because it is within the range of
the available hydrological and climate change model forecasts,
encompasses approximately five generations of streaked horned lark, and
represents a biologically meaningful timeframe (time period long enough
to encompass multiple generations so that species' responses can be
predicted). We evaluated land use trends by looking at data on the
quantity and type of agricultural crops in production throughout Oregon
every 5 years from the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service.
In Oregon, where larks largely occur on private agricultural lands, we
evaluated trends in land use and crop type over the past 20 years to
inform future trends (U.S. Department of Agriculture National
Agricultural Statistics Service 2007 and 2017b, Tables 26, and 31-34).
Specifically, we used these data to evaluate trends in the overall
quantity of grass and other seed farms, and we compared the changes to
trends in the quantity of crop types that do not provide suitable
habitat for larks, such as hazelnut orchards, blueberry farms, and wine
grapes for viticulture.
To assess effects to the streaked horned lark from climate change,
we relied on projections to mid-century from the U.S. Geological
Survey, Land Change Science Program National Climate Change Viewer
(Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire). The Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project 5 provides a range of variability in climate projections for
the time period 2025 to 2049. We used the combined range of the
projection from two model scenarios, representative concentration
pathways (RCP) 4.5 and RCP 8.5, to evaluate a range of potential future
conditions. RCP 4.5 predicts that greenhouse gas emissions stabilize by
the end of the century; RCP 8.5 predicts emissions continue to rise
unchecked through the end of the century.
For this analysis, we evaluated possible future conditions using
these climate scenarios and the resulting impacts on species and
habitat through the year 2050. Climate change is not expected to
decrease the resiliency of any local populations in the prairie
ecosystem because prairie and grassland ecosystems are well adapted to
warm and dry conditions like the periodic soil drought and future
increases in temperature and drought forecasted for those areas.
Despite the projected changes affecting wildlife in the Pacific
Northwest overall, the effects of climate change specific to prairie
ecosystems are not anticipated to decrease the resiliency of regional
populations in the South Puget Lowlands, Pacific Coast and Lower
Columbia River, and Willamette Valley regions. The grasslands and
prairies of Washington and Oregon span a wide geographic and climatic
range, encompassing a rich variety of soil types, vegetation cover,
elevations, and weather patterns. This heterogeneity will likely buffer
the effects of changing weather and climate (Bachelet et al. 2011, p.
412). It is possible that increased summer droughts may affect less
drought-tolerant trees and other forest species adjacent to prairies,
possibly resulting in prairie expansion (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 417).
Prairie and grassland ecosystems are well-adapted to warm and dry
conditions and periodic soil drought, and future increases in
temperature and drought for the region, ``are unlikely to disadvantage
(and may benefit) these systems'' (Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife 2015, p. 5-31).
With respect to coastal populations, the current primary threat to
habitat for the subspecies is the spread of invasive beachgrass,
particularly Eurasian beachgrass, because it anchors dune habitats and
thereby prevents natural, dynamic processes that form suitable habitat
for the lark from occurring. The cumulative impact of projected sea-
level rise, increased coastal erosion, and more severe weather events
will limit the potential creation of suitable habitat in the remaining
natural areas not affected by beachgrass. These synergistic threats may
limit the resiliency of some local populations on the coast.
The degree to which some factors affecting larks will change in the
future is uncertain. For this reason, we forecasted what the streaked
horned lark may experience in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation under three plausible future scenarios over the next 30
years:
Scenario 1--Status Quo: The adverse effects of habitat
loss, climate change, and management activities and related effects at
existing sites are consistent with current levels (including current
levels of conservation); recreation increases, and act on current
population sizes.
Scenario 2--Improved Conditions: The adverse effects of
habitat loss and climate change are reduced compared to current
conditions; management actions continue at existing sites with
additional conservation measures implemented to protect larks,
including conservation of additional sites; recreation increases, and
act on larger populations with reduced impact to overall population
status.
Scenario 3--Degraded Conditions: The adverse effects of
habitat loss and climate change are increased; management activities
continue at existing sites with no additional or reduced voluntary or
regulatory conservation measures due to funding restrictions;
recreation increases, and acts on smaller population sizes with
increased impact to overall population status.
Based on the increase in abundance we have seen as a result of
conservation measures for streaked horned lark (particularly at JBLM
and on the Columbia River), we project that under Scenario 2/Improved
Conditions populations would be larger, and, therefore, the overall
combined impacts from both recreation and improved management
activities and related effects would be limited. Under Scenario 3/
Degraded Conditions however, populations would be smaller, and,
therefore, the overall combined impacts from both recreation and
management activities and related effects would increase.
Changes in the number and size of extant populations in response to
assumed habitat conditions and changes in management activities at
individual sites would result in changes to redundancy and
representation for the subspecies. Under the status quo scenario, one
population in the South Puget Lowlands drops from high to moderate
condition, four local populations in the Pacific Coast and Lower
Columbia River region drop from moderate to low condition, and all five
moderate populations in the Willamette Valley drop to low condition.
Even though the rate of change of the influence factors was not
different than current levels under this scenario, the synergistic
effects of small population size would amplify the effect of negative
influence factors in some local populations over time. Under this
scenario, the subspecies would continue to occupy roughly an equal
number of habitat types and distribution of 42 local populations across
the range, but some small, isolated populations may be at risk of
eventual extirpation without intentional habitat management or
conservation measures.
Under the improved conditions scenario, careful management and
conservation actions are implemented to increase the quantity, quality,
and distribution of suitable habitats for streaked horned larks. One
local population in the South Puget Lowlands and three in the Pacific
Coast and Lower Columbia River region improve from moderate to high
condition, and one population in each of the South Puget
[[Page 21804]]
Lowlands and Willamette Valley regions move from low to moderate. As
local populations become more resilient under this scenario, the
species' ability to move between sites in response to changing
environmental conditions and re-establish breeding populations would
increase overall redundancy, buffering against adverse effects of
catastrophic events. With respect to ecological representation, it is
unlikely that birds would occupy new or different habitat types
relative to current patterns of occupancy in the Pacific Coast and
Lower Columbia River region under this scenario, due to the limited
availability of alternative habitats that provide the structural
habitat features preferred by larks. In the South Puget Lowlands and
Willamette Valley regions, the number of local populations in high
condition would increase; however, it is unlikely that larks would
disperse into the north Puget Lowlands region, or south into the Umpqua
and Rogue Valley areas without substantial recovery efforts to support
habitat development in these areas.
Under the degraded conditions scenario, further habitat loss and
increased instability would lead to reduced condition in many local
populations with only one local population remaining in high condition
in the range of the subspecies (Rice Island). Eighteen local
populations would decrease in condition across the range of the
streaked horned lark, leaving 10 moderate condition and 30 low
condition populations distributed across the three regions. Under this
scenario, Shelton Airport would become extirpated, reducing redundancy.
Many other local populations would decrease in resiliency and be at
higher risk of extirpation, putting the subspecies at risk of further
reduction in redundancy. If local populations become less resilient,
larks would be less able to move between sites in response to changing
environmental conditions or re-establish local populations following a
catastrophic event. Furthermore, the loss of local populations would
decrease the species' representation and overall ability to adapt to
changing environmental conditions.
Because the streaked horned lark is dependent on land management
activities that create and maintain suitable replacement habitat
throughout the species' range, the future viability of the species
relies upon the continuation of these actions. The synergistic effects
of both small population size and the effects of climate change will
likely amplify the negative effects of influence factors and reduce
resiliency of some local populations, particularly along the Pacific
Coast, the South Puget Lowlands, and the Lower Columbia River.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts.
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
We considered all potential influence factors resulting from
habitat fragmentation degradation and loss; land management activities
and related effects; recreation; and aircraft strikes. We analyzed
their level of effect in the various regional populations as noted in
Table 4. The small size of these local populations may amplify the
effects of stressors influencing individuals, but small population size
does not influence populations on its own. The impact of the stressors
summarized in Table 4 and the conservation measures implemented to
minimize or mitigate impacts to larks and lark habitat is factored into
our resiliency, redundancy, and representation (3R) assessment of
populations for our current condition analysis. We anticipate habitat
loss, changes in land use and agricultural practices, recreation on the
Pacific Coast and Lower Columbia River, and aircraft strikes will
continue to influence the condition of the streaked horned lark in the
future to a degree that may affect the resiliency of populations. The
projected future impact of these stressors is factored into the 3R
assessment of populations in our future condition analysis.
Determination of Streaked Horned Lark's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as a species
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species'' because of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
We evaluated threats to the streaked horned lark and assessed the
cumulative effects of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors. The primary driver of the status of streaked horned lark has
been the scarcity of large, open spaces with very early seral stage
plant communities with low-statured vegetation and substantive amounts
of bare or sparsely vegetated ground. Historically, these open spaces
were primarily created by natural disturbance regimes such as seasonal
flooding of river systems, but the construction of dams and subsequent
flood control negatively impacted creation of this open space habitat
and thereby the abundance and distribution of historical lark
populations. The loss of streaked horned lark habitat due to large-
scale water management occurred decades ago and is not ongoing. The
best available information indicates that overutilization (Factor B),
predation or disease (Factor C), pesticides (Factor E), or loss of
historical disturbance regimes (Factor A) are not current or imminent
threats to the viability of the subspecies. The streaked horned lark
has been affected through loss of preferred habitats (Factor A) as a
result of successional changes in plant species composition and
encroachment of woody vegetation; invasion of beach grasses; conversion
of suitable habitat into unsuitable habitat through changes in land
use; and changes in agricultural practices from crops that mimic
preferred habitats (i.e., grass seed farms) to crops that diminish
habitat suitability (i.e., hazelnut orchards and blueberry farms). The
streaked horned lark is also affected by land management activities and
related effects (Factor A), as well as other human activities (Factor
E), including agricultural activities, airport
[[Page 21805]]
management activities and related airstrikes, military training and
related activities, the placement of dredged materials, and recreation.
Despite the ongoing influence of these factors, the subspecies is
not currently in danger of extinction, because the species retains
multiple populations in high and moderate condition across all
representative regions, those populations occur in a variety of habitat
types, and no threat at its existing or imminent level could plausibly
change that state of affairs. Each representative region has at least 8
redundant populations. Survey data from some regularly monitored sites
across the range of the subspecies show an increase from 252-253
breeding pairs in 2013 at the time of listing to 383-389 breeding pairs
in 2019. The subspecies has shown relative stability for the last 7
years based on survey data from known populations, with 42 populations
across the range. Of the 42 populations, 23 are considered to be in
high or moderate condition. The Pacific Coast and Lower Columbia River
and the Willamette Valley region each have two populations that are in
high condition; the South Puget Lowlands has four populations in high
condition. Across the range, 15 local populations are considered in
moderate condition. Negative influence factors on the subspecies have
not fluctuated much for the last 20 years and are not of a scope or
magnitude, either currently or imminently, such that the subspecies is
currently in danger of extinction. Local populations in South Puget
Lowlands and Lower Columbia River populations have benefited from
conservation efforts implemented as part of section 7 consultations
under the Act.
Abundance of larks across the Willamette Valley appears relatively
high, but many of these local populations cannot be surveyed due to
lack of access. Although the current abundance of local populations
along the Pacific Coast is lower than other areas, it has been low for
many years, and we see no apparent declining trend in this regional
population based on survey data from 2013 to 2019. Recent detections of
birds at Clatsop Spit, as well as sites with restored habitat on
private lands in the Willamette Valley, indicate that individuals can
move between sites, and there are a few instances of detections at
previously unoccupied locations, but recolonization appears very low
and difficult to predict.
In the foreseeable future, however, there is potential for a
decline in resiliency of local populations across the range. The loss
of preferred habitat will continue from plant succession and
encroachment of woody vegetation, invasion of beach grasses, changes in
land use, and changes in beneficial agricultural practices. The regular
large-scale, human-caused disturbance (burning, mowing, cropping,
chemical treatments, or placement of dredged materials) that now
creates and maintains replacement habitat for the streaked horned lark
will continue, as will the related effects of these activities that can
negatively impact individual larks (nest destruction, mortality,
disturbance, and aircraft strikes). Recreation will also continue. Any
negative effects from these factors will likely be amplified in some
local populations due to the synergistic effects related to small
population size and the increased effects of climate change in the
range over the next 30 years, particularly along the Pacific Coast, the
South Puget Lowlands, and the Lower Columbia River. As climate change
and small population size increase in influence, the realized benefit
of these replacement habitats to the subspecies may decrease.
Additionally, any future changes in the maintenance of these
landscapes will affect the resiliency of larks in the area. Agriculture
remains the primary influence on land use in the Willamette Valley, and
the resilience of larks in that area is tied to practices that can
change given market demands. This uncertainty regarding future land use
and anthropogenic effects to habitat increases the potential risk of
extinction in the foreseeable future. Numerous conservation measures
resulting from section 7 consultation under the Act in the range of the
streaked horned lark have helped reduce effects of threats on the
subspecies, but the continued effects of habitat loss (Factor A), land
management activities and related effects, and recreation, in
combination with small population size and the effects of climate
change (Factor E), are expected to continue to affect the viability of
the subspecies over the next 30 years.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude
that the streaked horned lark is not currently in danger of extinction
but is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Center for Biological
Diversity), vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on Interpretation of
the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered
Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened
Species'' (Final Policy; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014) that provided that
the Service does not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a
species' range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout
all of its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the
species is endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is,
whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1)
the portion is significant and (2) the species is in danger of
extinction in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more
efficient for us to address the ``significance'' question or the
``status'' question first. We can choose to address either question
first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a
negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we
do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the
species' range.
Following the court's holding in Center for Biological Diversity,
we now consider whether there are any significant portions of the
species' range where the species is in danger of extinction now (i.e.,
endangered). In undertaking this analysis for the streaked horned lark,
we choose to address the status question first--we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range
where the species is endangered. The statutory difference between an
endangered species and a threatened species is the time horizon in
which the species becomes in danger of extinction; an endangered
species is in danger of extinction now while a threatened species is
not in danger of extinction now but is likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. Thus, for streaked horned larks, we considered
whether the threats are geographically concentrated in any portion of
the species' range such that the threats presently affect enough
individuals in an area to influence the resiliency of a population.
We examined the following influence factors: Loss of preferred
habitats as a result of successional changes in plant species
composition and encroachment of woody vegetation; invasion of beach
grasses; conversion of suitable habitat into unsuitable habitat through
changes
[[Page 21806]]
in land use; changes in agricultural practices from crops that mimic
preferred habitats to crops that diminish habitat suitability; land
management activities and related effects, including airport management
activities, military training, and the placement of dredged materials;
recreation; and, the cumulative effects associated with climate change
and small population size. While the influence of these factors varies
somewhat across the range, there is no portion of the range where there
is currently a concentration of threats relative to other areas in the
range. The available information does not indicate that the effects of
climate change, such as sea level rise, are currently decreasing the
resiliency of streaked horned lark populations. In the future, the
synergistic effects of climate change and small population size are
likely to compound the negative effects of dune stabilization from
beach grass invasion. This will likely limit the availability and
distribution of habitat for streaked horned larks along the Pacific
Coast, which could influence the resiliency of these local populations
over the next 30 years such that they may be at risk of future
extirpation. We have similar concerns that the synergistic effects of
climate change and small populations size will also influence the
future resiliency of local populations in the Columbia River and South
Puget Lowlands. Overall, potential future reductions in resiliency of
local populations across the range of the subspecies will limit
redundancy and representation, and therefore could affect the future
viability of the streaked horned lark.
Although the current abundance of local populations along the
Pacific Coast is low compared to other areas, it has been low for many
years. The size of those coastal sites is relatively small compared to
other local populations and therefore naturally limits the number of
breeding pairs, and we see no apparent declining trend in this regional
population based on survey data between 2013 and 2019. Based on our
review of the best available information, the population in the Pacific
Coast region is not currently at risk of extirpation. As noted above,
these populations are at risk of extirpation in the future.
The concentrated wintering populations of streaked horned lark in
the Willamette Valley and on islands in the Columbia River could be
exposed to stochastic events such as ice storms or severe flooding that
could kill individuals, destroy limited habitat and food availability,
or skew sex ratios. Severe winter weather could potentially impact one
or more regional populations when birds congregate as larger flocks.
However, available information does not indicate that winter storms are
currently a threat that decreases the resiliency of streaked horned
lark populations in these regions, and climate change projections
specific to prairie ecosystems do not indicate a greater future threat
from winter storms to streaked horned lark populations in these
regions. The time horizon for the species' response to these ongoing
and synergistic threats is not more immediate in any portions of the
species' range.
Because there are no portions of the species' range where the
species has a different status from its rangewide status, no portion of
the species' range provides a basis for determining that the species is
in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we determine that the streaked horned lark is not in danger
of extinction now in any portion of its range, but that the species is
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range. This does not conflict with the courts'
holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F.
Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for Biological
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017), because,
in reaching this conclusion, we did not need to consider whether any
portions are significant and, therefore, did not apply the aspects of
the Final Policy's definition of ``significant'' that those court
decisions held were invalid.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the streaked horned lark meets the
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we affirm the current
listing of the streaked horned lark as a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. A notice announcing availability of the draft recovery
plan for streaked horned lark was published in the Federal Register on
October 30, 2019 (84 FR 58170); the draft plan is available on our
website (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of
[[Page 21807]]
native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction,
and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot
be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur
primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these
species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State,
and Tribal lands.
Funding for recovery actions is available from a variety of
sources, including Federal and State funding, including cost-share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of
the Act, the States of Oregon and Washington are eligible for Federal
funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or
recovery of the streaked horned lark. Information on our grant programs
that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to
submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the streaked horned lark's habitat
that may require consultation include management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the
Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.) permits by the Corps; and road construction by the Federal
Highway Administration in cooperation with the Service at Baskett
Slough NWR.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species. The
discussion below regarding protective regulations under section 4(d) of
the Act complies with our policy.
II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)).
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened
species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act
are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence of section
4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit
with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section
9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the
case of plants. Thus, the combination of the two sentences of section
4(d) provides the Secretary with a wide latitude of discretion to
select and promulgate appropriate regulations tailored to the specific
conservation needs of a threatened species. The second sentence grants
particularly broad discretion to the Secretary when adopting some or
all of the prohibitions under section 9 for any particular threatened
species.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife, or included a
limited taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental
Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis
5432 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not
address all of the threats that a species faces (see State of Louisiana
v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative
history when the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the
threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options
available to [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those
species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of
such species, or [she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation
but allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
On October 3, 2013, we issued a rule under the authority of section
4(d) of the Act to provide for the conservation of the streaked horned
lark (78 FR 61452) (see 50 CFR 17.41(a)). That rule applies all of the
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act to the streaked horned lark, with
the following exceptions for incidental take: (1) Certain activities on
airports on non-Federal lands; (2) certain agricultural activities on
non-Federal land in the range of the subspecies in Oregon and (3)
certain noxious weed control activities on non-Federal lands.
The provisions of this revised 4(d) rule will promote conservation
of the streaked horned lark by encouraging management of the landscape
in ways that meet the conservation needs of the subspecies. The
provisions of this revised 4(d) rule are one of many tools that we will
use to promote the conservation of the streaked horned lark. For these
reasons, we find the revised 4(d) rule as a whole is necessary and
advisable to provide for conservation of the streaked horned lark.
Provisions of the Revised 4(d) Rule
The provisions of the revised 4(d) rule for the streaked horned
lark are discussed in more detail below, but we note here that the
substantive differences between the current 4(d) rule for the streaked
horned lark at 50 CFR 17.41(a) and this revised 4(d) rule are limited
to the following: The exception for incidental take for certain
agricultural activities on non-Federal lands applies throughout the
range of the subspecies in Oregon and Washington, rather than only the
Willamette Valley of Oregon; and the inclusion of an additional
exception to the take prohibition for incidental take associated with
habitat restoration activities that benefit streaked horned lark.
The primary driver of the status of streaked horned lark has been
the scarcity of large, open spaces with very early seral stage plant
communities with low-statured vegetation and substantive amounts of
bare or sparsely vegetated
[[Page 21808]]
ground. Such areas occur sporadically within the larger agricultural
landscape, depending on local soil and topographic conditions.
Therefore, this revised 4(d) rule is designed to support the
continuation of activities taking place in the range of the subspecies
that lead to these features, and to encourage the development of these
features in new areas in the range of the subspecies in the future. The
revised 4(d) rule provides for the conservation of the streaked horned
lark by prohibiting take, except as otherwise authorized, permitted, or
incidental to the following activities: Wildlife hazard management at
airports and accidental strikes by aircraft, normal agricultural
practices in Oregon and Washington, noxious weed control on non-Federal
lands, and habitat restoration activities beneficial to streaked horned
lark. All take not included in those exceptions (for example, take of
lark that is intentional and not incidental to the excepted activities,
remains prohibited) will continue to be prohibited in order to support
existing populations of the streaked horned lark.
Some management actions taken at airports are generally beneficial
to streaked horned larks and have led to the creation of replacement
habitat the subspecies relies upon. Streaked horned larks breed
successfully and maintain populations at airports in the South Puget
Sound and Willamette Valley. Airports maintain safe conditions for
aviation, in part by routinely implementing programs to minimize the
presence of hazardous wildlife on airfields. These activities
unintentionally create suitable habitat for streaked horned larks.
Activities involved in wildlife hazard management at airports that
benefit streaked horned lark include hazing of hazardous wildlife
(geese and other large birds and mammals) and modification and
management of forage, water, and shelter to be less attractive to these
hazardous wildlife, including vegetation management to maintain desired
grass height on or adjacent to airports through mowing, discing,
herbicide use, or burning.
As with other land management activities, vegetation management
during the nesting season has the potential to destroy streaked horned
lark nests and young. However, despite concerns over potential adverse
effects of vegetation management during the breeding season at
airports, this activity is very important to the maintenance of the
low-statured vegetation required by nesting and wintering larks in the
area. We believe that the beneficial effects of these actions outweigh
the negative effects that occur from these actions during the nesting
season. Therefore, excepting hazardous wildlife management from the
Act's prohibitions of take, when conducted by airport staff or
employees contracted by the airport to perform hazardous wildlife
management activities, furthers the conservation of the subspecies by
helping to prevent the spread of those noxious weeds that may render
existing habitat unsuitable for the streaked horned lark.
The listing of the streaked horned lark imposes a requirement on
airport managers where the subspecies occurs to consider the effects of
their management activities on this subspecies when actions are funded
or approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. Excepting hazardous
wildlife management and accidental aircraft strikes from prohibitions
on take eliminates the incentive for airports to reduce or eliminate
replacement habitat that supports populations of streaked horned larks
from the airfields, and therefore provides for the conservation of the
species by allowing current beneficial management activities to
continue. Accidental aircraft strikes are an unavoidable consequence of
the vegetation management that also maintains habitat that supports
breeding pairs. While aircraft strikes do occur in several local
populations at airports throughout the range of the species
(particularly in the South Puget Lowlands), the rate appears relatively
low. Additionally, the potential take of streaked horned lark
associated with the routine management, repair, and maintenance of
roads and runways is minimal. Therefore, in order to support activities
involved in wildlife hazard management that maintain habitat features
beneficial to streaked horned lark, incidental take associated with
wildlife hazard management activities, as well as aircraft strikes and
routine maintenance of existing roads and runways at airports, is
excepted from the prohibition on take. We recommend that airport
operators follow the guidance provided in Federal Aviation
Administration advisory circular 150/5200-33C, ``Hazardous Wildlife
Attractants on or near Airports'' (FAA 2020, entire), and all other
applicable related guidance.
In Oregon's Willamette Valley, large expanses of burned prairie or
the scour plains of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers likely provided
suitable habitat for streaked horned larks in the past. With the loss
of these historical habitats during the last century, alternative
breeding and wintering sites, including active agricultural lands, have
become critical for the continued survival and recovery of the streaked
horned lark. One of the largest areas of potential habitat for streaked
horned larks is the agricultural land base in the Willamette Valley.
Larks are attracted to the wide, open landscapes and low vegetation
structure in agricultural fields, especially in grass seed fields,
probably because those working landscapes resemble the historical
habitats formerly used by the subspecies when the historical
disturbances associated with floods and fires maintained a mosaic of
suitable habitats. Habitat characteristics of agricultural lands used
by streaked horned larks include: (1) Bare or sparsely vegetated areas
within or adjacent to grass seed fields, pastures, or fallow fields;
(2) recently planted (0 to 3 years) conifer farms with extensive bare
ground; and (3) wetland mudflats or ``drown outs'' (i.e., washed out
and poorly performing areas within grass seed or row crop fields).
Currently in the Willamette Valley, there are approximately 360,000
ac (145,000 ha) of grass seed fields in production. In any year, some
portion of these lands will have suitable streaked horned lark habitat,
but the geographic location of those areas is not consistent from year
to year, nor can we predict their occurrence due to variable
agricultural practices (crop rotation, fallow fields, etc.), and we
cannot predict the changing and dynamic locations of those areas.
These conditions make conservation of streaked horned larks a
significant challenge on these large, intensively managed and privately
owned agricultural landscapes. On the one hand, agricultural activities
can harm or kill individual streaked horned larks or destroy their
nests in some localized fields. However, maintenance and continued
farming of these private agricultural lands (primarily grass seed
farms) in the Willamette Valley creates and provides suitable habitat
conditions throughout the Valley, and is therefore crucial to
maintaining the overall population of streaked horned larks in the
Valley and aiding in the recovery of the subspecies in Oregon. Streaked
horned lark conservation in the Willamette Valley is challenging due to
these conflicting factors: (1) Enabling and supporting the ongoing
agricultural practices that maintain favorable habitat conditions on
private lands; and, (2) minimizing the potential for impacting some
nesting birds when these farming practices (e.g., grass seed harvest)
occur on those lands.
Achieving net conservation of listed species on privately-owned
working lands (i.e., farmland, rangeland, tree
[[Page 21809]]
farms, etc.) is one of the most difficult challenges in implementation
of the Act (Baur et al. 2009, p. 3; Ciuzio et al. 2013, entire; Henson
et al. 2018, p. 863). Under certain circumstances and for highly
visible species, the prohibitions of the Act under section 9 can
discourage local impacts to listed species where individuals of such
species are known to occur, and harmful activities can be effectively
investigated and addressed. However, using the regulatory functions of
section 9 of the Act to achieve effective conservation on private lands
is often limited due to a variety of reasons, such as the following:
The species is not currently known to be present in otherwise suitable
or historic habitat; access to such lands is restricted by the
landowner; restoration or maintenance of a species' habitat requires
the voluntary support or participation of the landowner; and
conservation measures may conflict with a landowner's traditional
economic use of their land. As a result, listed species are often
viewed as a legal or economic liability by landowners, resulting in
disincentives to conservation on these lands (Raymond and Olive 2008,
p. 485; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-47; Mir and Dick 2012, entire).
This problem is especially acute where public lands are lacking and the
species is dependent on private lands for its conservation (Eichenwald
et al., p. 443), as is largely the case for the streaked horned lark.
These factors are part of the conservation challenge for this
subspecies in the Willamette Valley, and we find that the beneficial
effects from maintaining these agricultural practices to facilitate
suitable habitat outweigh the negative effects from injuries to
individual birds from these same activities.
Although we are unaware of any current breeding populations of
streaked horned larks on agricultural lands in Washington, use of these
habitats by streaked horned larks would aid in recovery of the
subspecies in Washington as in Oregon and is therefore encouraged. The
exception for incidental take for certain agricultural activities on
non-Federal lands in the revised 4(d) rule applies to the entire range
of the subspecies, to encourage management actions that would
facilitate the use of areas other than civilian and military airports
by streaked horned larks within the range of the subspecies in Oregon
and Washington.
Because landowners are free to allow vegetation growth that results
in the conversion of lands into habitats unsuitable for the streaked
horned lark, conservation of the species will benefit from the support
of agricultural practices that result in the creation and maintenance
of habitat that is suitable for the subspecies. In general, private
landowners, out of concern for being subjected to regulation associated
with the Act, may alter land management practices or restrict
conservation activities to discourage attracting listed species to
their lands (Brook et al. 2003, pp 1644-1648; Mir and Dick 2012, p.
192; Cuizio et al. 2013, p. 271). In case of the streaked horned lark,
given the importance of human-created habitat through ordinary
agricultural management activities, this risk aversion would be
detrimental to the conservation of the species. With this revised 4(d)
rule, we remove the negative incentive for private landowners in Oregon
to discontinue activities resulting in suitable habitat for larks based
on such concerns, and we provide positive incentives for them to
voluntarily report and conserve species on their property.
Additionally, the rule reduces the liability concerns of private
landowners in Washington who may be considering the implementation of
agricultural practices that result in the creation and maintenance of
habitat that is suitable for the lark, something we seek to encourage.
The primary crop type that results in habitat features preferred by
lark is grass seed, and the typical harvest (combining) period for
grass seed fields occurs in late June or early July, after the most
active part of the breeding season for larks is done. Because the
timing of ground disturbance for grass seed farms is after the primary
part of the nesting season is over, it does not put the reproductive
success of the subspecies at great risk, and the benefits of
encouraging the continuation of the inadvertent creation of lark
habitat through normal grass seed farming practices outweigh the
benefit of restricting the timing of this exception to take. Excepting
routine agricultural activities on non-Federal lands throughout the
range of the streaked horned lark from the prohibition on take will
provide an overall benefit to the subspecies by maintaining suitable
habitat and removing incentives to decrease that suitable habitat to
avoid liability under the Act. This exception to the prohibition on
take for agricultural activities is rangewide in Oregon and Washington,
and we find that the definition of ``normal farming practices'' in both
the 2013 4(d) rule and this revised 4(d) rule is consistent with
relevant Oregon and Washington State laws (Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS), chapter 30, section 30.930, and Revised Code of Washington
(RCW), title 7, chapter 7.48, section 7.48.310, respectively).
Streaked horned larks nest, forage, and winter on extensive areas
of bare ground with low-statured vegetation. These areas include native
prairies, coastal dunes, fallow and active agricultural fields, wetland
mudflats, sparsely vegetated edges of grass fields, recently planted
conifer farms with extensive bare ground, moderately to heavily grazed
pastures, gravel roads or gravel shoulders of lightly traveled roads,
airports, and dredge deposition sites in the Lower Columbia River. The
suppression and loss of ecological disturbance regimes such as fire and
flooding across vast portions of the landscape have resulted in altered
vegetation structure and facilitated invasion by nonnative grasses and
woody vegetation, including noxious weeds, rendering habitat unsuitable
for streaked horned larks. By their nature, noxious weeds grow
aggressively and multiply quickly, negatively affecting all types of
habitats, including those used by larks. Some species of noxious weeds
spread across long distances through wind, water, and animals, as well
as via humans and vehicles, thereby affecting habitats far away from
the source plants.
Because noxious weed control maintains the low-statured vegetation
and the open landscape that streaked horned lark relies upon, this
activity is essential to the retention of suitable nesting, wintering,
and foraging habitat. As with other land management activities, noxious
weed control during the nesting season has the potential to destroy
streaked horned lark nests and young. On the other hand, streaked
horned larks can benefit from weeds, as they eat the seeds of weedy
forbs and grasses. However, the benefit provided to nesting and
wintering larks from the eradication (or removal) of noxious weeds
wherever they may occur outweighs any potential benefit from weeds or
concerns over timing of control. Therefore, excepting the routine
mechanical or chemical management of noxious weeds from the prohibition
of take furthers the conservation of the subspecies by helping to
prevent the spread of those noxious weeds that may render habitat
unsuitable for the streaked horned lark. It also encourages landowners
to manage their lands in ways that meet their property management needs
and also help to prevent degradation or loss of suitable habitat for
the streaked horned lark. Noxious weed control targets those species
included on County, State, and Federal noxious weed lists (see the
[[Page 21810]]
Federal list at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdf; Washington State counties
each have a noxious weed control website, and selected Oregon State
counties maintain noxious weed lists).
Finally, activities associated with streaked horned lark habitat
restoration (e.g., removing nonnative plants and planting native
plants, creating open areas, and maintaining sparse vegetation through
vegetation removal or suppression via controlled burns) will be very
beneficial to the subspecies; any adverse effects to the subspecies
from these activities will likely be only short-term or temporary,
especially with respect to harassment or disturbance of individual
lark. In the long term, the risk of adverse effects to both individuals
and populations is expected to be mitigated as these types of
activities will likely benefit the subspecies by helping to preserve
and enhance the habitat of existing local populations over time.
Reasonable care for habitat management may include, but will not be
limited to, procuring and implementing technical assistance from a
qualified biologist on habitat management activities, and best efforts
to minimize streaked horned lark exposure to hazards (e.g., predation,
habituation to feeding, entanglement, etc.). Therefore, we include in
the 4(d) rule an exception to the prohibition on take for any habitat
restoration actions that would create or enhance streaked horned lark
habitat, provided that reasonable care is taken to minimize such take.
We acknowledge that all of these activities excepted from
incidental take in this rule have the potential to result in
destruction of nests, crushing of eggs or nestlings, or flushing of
fledglings or adults when conducted during the active breeding season
for streaked horned larks. The 2013 listing rule (78 FR 61452; October
3, 2013) included dredge spoil deposition timing and placement on
Columbia River islands; incompatibly timed burning and mowing regimes;
activities associated with military training; and activities associated
with airports as threats to the subspecies. Despite these threats noted
at the time of listing, the Service determined that timing restrictions
on these activities were not appropriate, stating in the rule: ``Our
purpose in promulgating a special rule to exempt take associated with
activities that inadvertently create habitat for the streaked horned
lark is to allow landowners to continue those activities without
additional regulation. We believe that imposing a timing restriction
would likely reduce the utility of the special rule for land managers,
and could have the unintended side effect of causing landowners to
discontinue their habitat creation activities'' (78 FR 61452, October
3, 2013, p. 78 FR 61464). No timing restrictions were included in the
4(d) rule in 2013, and these land management activities have continued
across the range since 2013. Survey data from regularly monitored sites
throughout the range of the subspecies now show an increase from 252-
253 breeding pairs in 2013, to 383-389 breeding pairs in 2019, despite
the lack of timing restrictions on land management activities. While
the loss of individuals is never welcome, the continuation of land
management activities that create replacement habitat is very important
to the conservation of the subspecies, and the benefits to the
subspecies as a whole appear to outweigh the associated cost of the
loss of individuals. This revised 4(d) rule provides for the
conservation of the subspecies by including provisions that support the
continuation of land management activities that create replacement
habitat.
As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
multiple factors are affecting the status of the streaked horned lark.
A range of activities have the potential to affect the streaked horned
lark, including the management of hazardous wildlife at airports and
associated airstrikes, routine agricultural activities, and the routine
removal or other management of noxious weeds. Prohibiting take of
streaked horned lark rangewide under section 9 of the Act will help
preserve the subspecies' remaining populations, slow their rate of
decline, and allow for the maintenance of suitable habitat for the
species. However, these same activities also benefit streaked horned
lark through the creation of the very habitat features (large open
spaces with very early seral stage plant communities with low-statured
vegetation and substantive amounts of bare or sparsely vegetated
ground) that streaked horned larks prefer; without these replacement
habitats throughout the range, the status of the subspecies would
likely be much worse. Therefore, while we are extending the take
prohibition for the streaked horned lark, we are excepting from this
prohibition take that is incidental to the management of hazardous
wildlife at airports, accidental airstrikes by aircraft, routine
agricultural activities, the routine removal or other management of
noxious weeds, and habitat restoration activities for streaked horned
lark. As discussed above, we believe that that these exceptions will
provide for the conservation of the species by supporting the
maintenance and creation of habitat features that the streaked horned
lark relies upon.
The Service is fully aware of, and sensitive to, the potential for
some individual birds to be harmed in the application of these land
management practices. We encourage land managers who, in the course of
carrying out these excepted activities, observe streaked horned larks
nesting in the area of activity to temporarily suspend operations in
those areas and to contact the local Service field office or their
local State fish and wildlife agency for technical assistance. Possible
measures that land managers and the agencies could then consider
include temporarily avoiding these areas until fledging has occurred,
hazing birds away from active farm or airport safety areas to avoid
direct mortality, and seeking direct participation in Federal or state
conservation reserve-type incentive programs to manage newly identified
areas for longer term lark conservation.
When considering all reasonable measures and likely outcomes, we
believe this approach will result in the best net conservation benefit
for the subspecies. As discussed above, the vast majority of these
lands are privately owned. Supporting landowners' ongoing activities
that create or maintain lark habitat, while also encouraging the
voluntary conservation of the species on these private lands, is likely
to result in more net positive conservation outcomes at the population
level when compared to an approach that does not include this section
4(d) take exception. An approach that relies primarily on section 9
take prohibitions and enforcement, for the reasons cited earlier and
documented in the scientific literature regarding conservation of
species on private lands, would likely result in the following: The
loss of suitable habitat on agricultural lands; an increase in
landowners actively managing their lands to not attract streaked horned
larks; and, an overall reluctance of private landowners to report lark
occurrence or support lark conservation. Therefore, we believe the 4(d)
rule best promotes the recovery of the species when compared to all
alternative approaches. These approaches are becoming increasingly
necessary when attempting to conserve species on private lands
(Epanchin-Neill and Boyd 2020, p. 415).
Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
[[Page 21811]]
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating
take will help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow their
rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other
threats.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits for threatened species are codified at 50 CFR 17.32.
With regard to threatened wildlife, we may issue a permit for the
following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or
survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for
educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes
consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain
statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections
9 and 10 of the Act.
We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State
natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of
listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered,
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist the Service in implementing all aspects of the Act.
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Service shall
cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying
out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee
or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c)
of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes,
will be able to conduct activities designed to conserve streaked horned
lark that may result in otherwise prohibited take without additional
authorization.
As a subspecies of the horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), the
streaked horned lark is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). The MBTA makes it unlawful, at any time,
by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill,
attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer
to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment,
ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported,
deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry
or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation,
carriage, or export, any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of
any such bird included in the terms of four specific conventions
between the United States and certain foreign countries (16 U.S.C.
703). See 50 CFR 10.13 for the list of migratory birds protected by the
MBTA.
Like the previous 4(d) rule for the subspecies, this revised 4(d)
rule adopts existing requirements under the MBTA as appropriate
regulatory provisions for the streaked horned lark. Accordingly, under
the revised 4(d) rule, take is not prohibited if the activity is
authorized or exempted under the MBTA, such as activities under a
migratory bird rehabilitation permit necessary to aid a sick, injured,
or orphaned bird. Thus, if a permit is issued for activities resulting
in take of streaked horned larks under the MBTA, it will not be
necessary to have an additional permit under the Act.
Nothing in this revised 4(d) rule will change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and
protection of the streaked horned lark. However, interagency
cooperation may be further streamlined through planned programmatic
consultations for the species between Federal agencies and the Service,
where appropriate.
III. Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations adopted
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October
25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We do not expect any effects on Tribes
as a result of the promulgation of this rule.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rule is available on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the
Service's Species Assessment Team and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.41 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.41 Special rules--birds.
(a) Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata).
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to
endangered wildlife also apply to streaked horned
[[Page 21812]]
lark. Except as provided under paragraph (a)(2) of this section and
Sec. Sec. 17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to
solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any of the
following acts in regard to this species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(b) for endangered
wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(1) for endangered
wildlife.
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as
set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(f) for
endangered wildlife.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you
may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec. 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(2) through (4) for
endangered wildlife, and (c)(6) and (7) for endangered migratory birds.
(iii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.31(b).
(iv) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
(A) The management of hazardous wildlife at airport facilities by
airport staff or employees contracted by the airport to perform
hazardous wildlife management activities. Hazardous wildlife is defined
by the Federal Aviation Administration as species of wildlife,
including feral animals and domesticated animals not under control,
that are associated with aircraft strike problems, are capable of
causing structural damage to airport facilities, or act as attractants
to other wildlife that pose a strike hazard. Routine management
activities include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Hazing of hazardous wildlife;
(2) Habitat modification and management of sources of forage,
water, and shelter to reduce the attractiveness of the area around the
airport for hazardous wildlife. This exception for habitat modification
and management includes control and management of vegetation (grass,
weeds, shrubs, and trees) through mowing, discing, herbicide
application, or burning; and
(3) Routine management, repair, and maintenance of roads and
runways (does not include upgrades or construction of new roads or
runways).
(B) Accidental aircraft strikes at airports on non-Federal lands.
(C) Agricultural (farming) practices implemented on farms in
accordance with State laws on non-Federal lands in Washington and
Oregon.
(1) For the purposes of this rule, farm means any facility,
including land, buildings, watercourses and appurtenances, used in the
commercial production of crops, nursery stock, livestock, poultry,
livestock products, poultry products, vermiculture products, or the
propagation and raising of nursery stock.
(2) For the purposes of this rule, an agricultural (farming)
practice means a mode of operation on a farm that is or may be used on
a farm of a similar nature; is a generally accepted, reasonable, and
prudent method for the operation of the farm to obtain a profit in
money; is or may become a generally accepted, reasonable, and prudent
method in conjunction with farm use; complies with applicable State
laws; and is done in a reasonable and prudent manner. Common
agricultural (farming) practices include, but are not limited to, the
following activities:
(i) Planting, harvesting, rotation, mowing, tilling, discing,
burning, and herbicide application to crops;
(ii) Normal transportation activities, and repair and maintenance
of unimproved farm roads (this exception does not include improvement
or construction of new roads) and graveled margins of rural roads;
(iii) Livestock grazing according to normally acceptable and
established levels;
(iv) Hazing of geese or predators; and
(v) Maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems.
(D) Removal or other management of noxious weeds. Routine removal
or other management of noxious weeds are limited to the following, and
must be conducted in such a way that impacts to non-target plants are
avoided to the maximum extent practicable:
(1) Mowing;
(2) Herbicide and fungicide application;
(3) Fumigation; and
(4) Burning.
(E) Habitat restoration actions. Habitat restoration and
enhancement activities for the conservation of streaked horned lark may
include activities consistent with formal approved conservation plans
or strategies, such as Federal, Tribal, or State plans that include
streaked horned lark conservation prescriptions or compliance, which
the Service has determined (on a case-by-case basis) would be
consistent with this rule.
(v) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken
wildlife, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(2) through (d)(4).
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-07920 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P