Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 21783 

257. The total bidding credit discount 

that may be awarded to an eligible small 

business is capped at $25 million and 

there is a $10 million cap on the total 

bidding credit discount that may be 

awarded to an eligible rural service 

provider. In addition, to create parity 

among eligible small businesses and 

rural service providers competing 

against each other in smaller markets, 

the Commission adopts a $10 million 

cap on the overall amount of bidding 

credits that any winning designated 

entity may apply to winning licenses in 

markets with a population of 500,000 or 

less. Based on the technical 

characteristics of the 2.5 GHz band and 

their analysis of past auction data, the 

Commission anticipates that the caps 

will allow the majority of small 

businesses to take full advantage of the 

bidding credit program, thereby 

lowering the relative costs of 

participation for small businesses. 

While eligible entities will have the 

opportunity to compete at auction 

without being unduly constrained, the 

caps are reasonable enough to ensure 

that ineligible entities are not 

encouraged to undercut the 

Commission’s rules, thereby achieving 

the Commission’s dual statutory goals of 

benefitting designated entities and at the 

same time preventing unjust 

enrichment. 

258. A Tribal lands bidding credit 

will also be available to winning bidders 

that intend to deploy facilities and 

provide services to qualifying Tribal 

lands that have a wireline penetration 

rate equal to or below 85 percent. The 

Tribal lands bidding credit is in 

addition to, and separate from, any 

other bidding credit winning bidders 

may qualify to claim. Therefore, small 

entities that are eligible for the small or 

rural bidding credit can also claim the 

Tribal lands bidding credit, provided 

they meet the requirements of 47 CFR 

1.2107 and 1.2110(f). 

259. These procedures for the conduct 

of Auction 108 constitute the more 

specific implementation of the 

competitive bidding rules contemplated 

by parts 1 and 27 of the Commission’s 

rules and the underlying rulemaking 

orders, including the 2.5 GHz Report 

and Order and relevant competitive 

bidding orders, and are fully consistent 

therewith. 

260. Report to Congress. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Auction 108 Procedures Public Notice, 

in a report to Congress pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act. In addition, 

the Commission will send a copy of the 

Auction 108 Procedures Public Notice, 

including the Supplemental FRFA to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

SBA. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07602 Filed 4–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

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-ofcontact 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21784 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

(§ 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, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 nearterm 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, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21786 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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., 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 shortterm 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 nonFederal 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 nonsuitable 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21788 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 semiregular 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21790 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER13AP22.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 

Regional population 

Number of sites surveyed per year 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

South Puget Lowlands ........................................... 6 8 8 7 7 8 7 

Pacific Coast and Lower Columbia River .............. 16 23 24 20 20 22 21 

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

Regional population 

Year and mean number of pairs detected 

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 Columbia River .............. 4.4 3.4 2.8 3.8 3.2 3.3 4.1 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21792 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 speciesspecific 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21794 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 lifehistory 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonhabitat 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, humancaused 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21796 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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, offroad 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 oddnumbered 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, offroad 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, humancaused 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21798 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (°F) (0.83 to 1.1 

degrees Celsius (°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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER13AP22.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 21799 

possible that increased summer 

droughts may affect less droughttolerant 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 longterm 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, lowstature 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 

parameters 

High condition ←----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------→ Low condition 

Abundance: 

South Puget Lowlands Regular surveys detect 

≥20 breeding pairs (3).

Regular surveys detect 

10–20 breeding pairs (2).

Regular surveys detect 

≤10 breeding pairs (1).

Extirpated: Larks no longer 

occupy site or region 

(0). 

Pacific Coast and 

Lower Columbia 

River.

Regular surveys detect 

≥15 breeding pairs on 

coast (3).

Regular surveys detect 7– 

15 breeding pairs on 

coast (2).

Regular surveys detect ≤7 

breeding pairs on coast 

(1).

Regular surveys detect 

≥20 breeding pairs on 

river (3).

Regular surveys detect 

10–20 breeding pairs on 

river (2).

Regular surveys detect 

≤10 breeding pairs on 

river (1).

Willamette Valley ........ Regular surveys detect 

≥25 breeding pairs (3).

Regular surveys detect 

15–25 breeding pairs (2).

Regular surveys detect 

≤15 breeding pairs (1).

Population Trend ............... Increasing population trend 

(2).

Stable populations (1) ....... Declining or insufficient data to assess trends (0). 

Connectivity ....................... Movement between local populations/regions (1). No movement between local populations/regions (0). 

Habitat ............................... Large, open areas with 

low-stature grasses, 17 

percent bare ground (3).

Open areas with low-stature grasses, some 

shrubs and trees (2).

Small patches of suitable 

grasses surrounded by 

dense vegetation and 

trees (1).

Extirpated: Habitat to support larks no longer exists at a site (0). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21800 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5—MATRIX FOR EVALUATING CURRENT CONDITION OF THE STREAKED HORNED LARK—Continued 

Demographic and habitat 

parameters 

Beneficial Disturbance Regime.Regular disturbance occurs to maintain habitat 

for nesting, no adverse 

effects during breeding 

season (3).

Semi-regular disturbance, 

habitat is available but 

not ideal for nesting, 

some adverse effects 

during breeding season 

(2).

Infrequent disturbance, 

habitat may be temporarily unavailable; high 

adverse effects during 

breeding season (1).

Extirpated: Disturbance 

does not occur to maintain habitat for larks; 

high adverse effects during breeding season (0). 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 21801 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER13AP22.005</GPH>
21802 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 longterm 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 droughttolerant 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21804 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 largescale, 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21806 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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, selfsustaining, 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonFederal 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 landscapealtering 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 nonFederal 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21808 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21810 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 shortterm 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, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.41 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
21812 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

lark. Except as provided under 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 

§§ 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 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) 

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth 

at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. 

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of commercial activity, as set 

forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 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 § 17.32. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) 

through (4) for endangered wildlife, and 

(c)(6) and (7) for endangered migratory 

birds. 

(iii) Take, as set forth at § 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-bycase basis) would be consistent with 

this rule. 

(v) Possess and engage in other acts 

with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set 

forth at § 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 210603–0121;RTID 0648– 

XB905] 

International Fisheries; Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly 

Migratory Species; Extension of 

Emergency Decisions of the Western 

and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary specifications. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is extending the 

effective date of temporary 

specifications that implement two shortnotice decisions of the Commission on 

the Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean 

(Commission or WCPFC). NMFS issued 

temporary specifications on June 11, 

2021, to implement short-notice WCPFC 

decisions regarding purse seine observer 

coverage, purse seine transshipments at 

sea, and transshipment observer 

coverage. NMFS is extending the 

effective date of the temporary 

specifications on purse seine observer 

coverage and transshipment observer 

coverage until June 10, 2022. NMFS is 

also revoking the temporary 

specification on purse seine 

transshipment at sea. NMFS is 

undertaking this action under the 

authority of the Western and Central 

Pacific Fisheries Convention 

Implementation Act (WCPFC 

Implementation Act) to satisfy the 

obligations of the United States as a 

Contracting Party to the Convention on 

the Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean 

(Convention). 

DATES: The temporary specifications on 

purse seine observer coverage and 

transshipment observer coverage are in 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1