19186 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR We request that you send comments status assessment (SSA) report for the only by the methods described above. streaked horned lark (U.S. Fish and Fish and Wildlife Service We will post all comments on http:// Wildlife Service 2021, entire). The SSA www.regulations.gov. This generally report represents a compilation of the 50 CFR Part 17 means that we will post any personal best scientific and commercial data [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020–0153; information you provide us (see available concerning the status of the FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] Information Requested, below, for more species, including the impacts of past, information). present, and future factors (both RIN 1018–BE76 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul negative and beneficial) affecting the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Henson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and species. In accordance with our joint and Plants; Threatened Species Status Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and policy on peer review published in the for Streaked Horned Lark With Section Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 4(d) Rule Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; 34270), and our August 22, 2016, telephone 503–231–6179. Persons who memorandum updating and clarifying AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, use a telecommunications device for the the role of peer review of listing actions Interior. deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay under the Act, we sought the expert ACTION: Proposed rule. Service at 800–877–8339. opinions of five appropriate specialists SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regarding the SSA report; we received SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and three responses. We also sent the SSA Wildlife Service (Service), propose to Executive Summary report to six partners, including affirm the listing of the streaked horned Why we need to publish a rule. Under scientists with expertise in ornithology lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), a the Act, if we determine that a species and streaked horned lark biology and bird species from Washington and is an endangered or threatened species habitat, for review. We received review Oregon, as a threatened species under throughout all or a significant portion of from three partners. The purpose of peer the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as its range, we are required to promptly review is to ensure that our listing amended (Act). After a review of the publish a proposal in the Federal determinations and 4(d) rules are based best available scientific and commercial Register and make a determination on on scientifically sound data, information, we again conclude that our proposal within 1 year. To the assumptions, and analyses. listing the species as threatened is maximum extent prudent and Information Requested warranted. We also propose to revise the determinable, we must designate critical rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act habitat for any species that we We intend that any final action (‘‘4(d) rule’’) for this bird. If we finalize determine to be an endangered or resulting from this proposed rule will be this rule as proposed, it will maintain threatened species under the Act. based on the best scientific and this species as a threatened species on Listing a species as an endangered or commercial data available and be as the List of Endangered and Threatened threatened species and designation of accurate and as effective as possible. Wildlife and continue to extend the critical habitat can only be completed Therefore, we request comments or Act’s protections to the species. by issuing a rule. information from other concerned DATES: We will accept comments What this document does. We governmental agencies, Native received or postmarked on or before propose to affirm the listing of the American Tribes, the scientific June 14, 2021. Comments submitted streaked horned lark as a threatened community, industry, or any other electronically using the Federal species, and we propose to revise the interested parties concerning this eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 4(d) rule for the species. proposed rule. We particularly seek comments below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. The basis for our action. Under the concerning: Eastern Time on the closing date. We Act, we may determine that a species is (1) The species’ biology, range, and must receive requests for a public an endangered or threatened species hearing, in writing, at the address population trends, including: because of any of five factors: (A) The (a) Biological or ecological shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION present or threatened destruction, requirements of the species, including CONTACT by May 28, 2021. modification, or curtailment of its habitat requirements for feeding, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments habitat or range; (B) overutilization for breeding, and sheltering; by one of the following methods: commercial, recreational, scientific, or (b) Genetics and taxonomy; (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal educational purposes; (C) disease or (c) Historical and current range, eRulemaking Portal: http:// predation; (D) the inadequacy of including distribution patterns; www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) (d) Historical and current population enter FWS–R1–ES–2020–0153, which is other natural or manmade factors levels, and current and projected trends; the docket number for this rulemaking. affecting its continued existence. We and Then, click on the Search button. On the have determined that the streaked (e) Past and ongoing conservation resulting page, in the Search panel on horned lark is threatened due to the measures for the species, its habitat, or the left side of the screen, under the ongoing loss and degradation of suitable both. Document Type heading, check the habitat (Factor A), as well as land (2) Factors that may affect the Proposed Rule box to locate this management activities and related continued existence of the species, document. You may submit a comment effects, and recreation (Factor E), which may include habitat modification by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ combined with the synergistic effects of or destruction, overutilization, disease, (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail small population size and climate predation, the inadequacy of existing to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: change (Factor E), such that it is likely regulatory mechanisms, or other natural FWS–R1–ES–2020–0153, U.S. Fish and to become an endangered species within or manmade factors. Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 the foreseeable future. (3) Biological, commercial trade, or Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– Supporting documents and peer other relevant data concerning any 3803. review. The Service prepared a species threats (or lack thereof) to this species

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19187

and existing regulations that may be an endangered species or a threatened us for reconsideration. In July 2019, the addressing those threats. species. In addition, we may change the Service was ordered, upon agreement of (4) Additional information concerning parameters of the prohibitions or the the parties, to submit a new proposed the historical and current status, range, exceptions to those prohibitions in our listing rule (and, as applicable, a new distribution, and population size of this proposed 4(d) rule if we conclude it is 4(d) rule) to the Federal Register by species, including the locations of any appropriate in light of comments and March 31, 2021. To facilitate additional populations of this species. new information received. For example, reconsideration of new information and (5) Information on regulations that are we may expand the incidental take the proposed rule in general, the Service necessary and advisable to provide for prohibitions to include prohibiting determined that a full, new analysis of the conservation of the streaked horned additional activities if we conclude that the best available scientific information lark and that the Service can consider in those additional activities are not according to our now standard SSA revising the 4(d) rule for the species. In compatible with conservation of the framework (Service 2016a, entire) was particular, information concerning the species. Conversely, we may establish appropriate. This proposed rule reflects extent to which we should include any additional exceptions to the incidental an updated assessment of the status of of the Act’s section 9 prohibitions in the take prohibitions in the final rule if we the subspecies (including an updated 4(d) rule or whether any other forms of conclude that the activities would analysis of any significant portions of take should be excepted from the facilitate or are compatible with the the range) based on the 2021 SSA for the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. conservation and recovery of the Streaked Horned Lark, and proposed Please include sufficient information species. revisions to the current 4(d) rule. with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to Public Hearing I. Proposed Listing Determination allow us to verify any scientific or Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for Background commercial information you include. a public hearing on this proposal, if Please note that submissions merely requested. Requests must be received by A thorough review of the taxonomy, stating support for, or opposition to, the the date specified in DATES. Such life history, and ecology of the streaked action under consideration without requests must be sent to the address horned lark is presented in the SSA providing supporting information, shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service although noted, will not be considered CONTACT. We will schedule a public 2021, pp. 4–19). in making a determination, as section hearing on this proposal, if requested, The streaked horned lark, a small 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that and announce the date, time, and place songbird endemic to the Pacific determinations as to whether any of the hearing, as well as how to obtain Northwest, is one of 42 subspecies of species is an endangered or a threatened reasonable accommodations, in the horned lark worldwide and one of five species must be made ‘‘solely on the Federal Register and local newspapers breeding subspecies of horned larks in basis of the best scientific and at least 15 days before the hearing. For Washington and Oregon (Beason 1995, commercial data available.’’ the immediate future, we will provide p. 2). Adults are pale brown, but shades You may submit your comments and these public hearings using webinars of brown vary geographically among the materials concerning this proposed rule that will be announced on the Service’s subspecies. The male’s face has a yellow by one of the methods listed in website, in addition to the Federal wash in most subspecies. Adults have a ADDRESSES. We request that you send Register. The use of these virtual public black bib, black whisker marks, black comments only by the methods hearings is consistent with our ‘‘horns’’ (feather tufts that can be raised described in ADDRESSES. regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). or lowered), and black tail feathers with If you submit information via http:// white margins (Beason 1995, p. 2). www.regulations.gov, your entire Previous Federal Actions Adults feed mainly on grass and forb submission—including any personal On October 3, 2013, we published in seeds, but feed insects to their young identifying information—will be posted the Federal Register (78 FR 61452) a (Beason 1995, p. 6). At coastal sites, on the website. If your submission is final rule listing the streaked horned streaked horned larks forage in the made via a hardcopy that includes lark as a threatened species under the wrack line and in intertidal habitats personal identifying information, you Act; that rule includes a 4(d) rule to (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 8), and may request at the top of your document exempt certain activities from the take streaked horned larks in the Willamette that we withhold this information from prohibitions of the Act and our Valley eat seeds of introduced weedy public review. However, we cannot regulations in order to provide for the grasses and forbs, focusing on the seed guarantee that we will be able to do so. conservation of the streaked horned source that is most abundant (Moore We will post all hardcopy submissions lark. 2008a, p. 9). on http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, on October 3, 2013, we Streaked horned larks historically Comments and materials we receive, published in the Federal Register (78 selected habitat in relatively flat, open as well as supporting documentation we FR 61506) a final rule designating areas maintained by flooding, fire, and used in preparing this proposed rule, critical habitat for the streaked horned sediment transport dynamics. The will be available for public inspection lark in Washington and Oregon. interruption of these historical on http://www.regulations.gov. On February 28, 2018, the Center for processes due to flood control dams, fire Because we will consider all Biological Diversity filed suit against the suppression, and reduction of sediment comments and information we receive Department of the Interior and the transport by dams resulted in a steep during the comment period, our final Service on the listing and 4(d) rules for decline in the extent of historical habitat determinations may differ from this the streaked horned lark. The plaintiff for the lark. Currently, larks are found proposal. Based on the new information challenged the adequacy of our in open areas free from visual we receive (and any comments on that significant portion of the range analysis, obstructions like grasslands, prairies, new information), we may conclude that and the 4(d) rule’s exception to the take wetlands, beaches, dunes, and modified the species is endangered instead of prohibition for agricultural activities in or temporarily disturbed habitats (such threatened, or we may conclude that the the Willamette Valley. The court did not as agricultural or grass seed fields, species does not warrant listing as either vacate the rules but remanded them to airports, dredged material placement

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 19188 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules

sites, and gravel roads). Streaked horned changing and dynamic locations of 5,269 and 6,415 individuals larks need relatively flat landscapes those areas. respectively; this number was with sparse vegetation, preferring Horned larks form breeding pairs in determined using methodology habitats with an average of 17 percent the spring (Beason 1995, p. 11), and described in a meta-analysis of multiple bare ground for foraging and 31 percent territory size is variable. Territory size taxa (birds, fish, mammals, reptiles and of bare ground for nesting (Altman 1999, can range from 1.5 to 2.5 ac (0.61 to 1.0 amphibians, plants, insects, and marine p. 18). Typically, preferred habitats ha) (Altman 1999, p. 11), and varies invertebrates) (Anderson 2015, p. 2). contain short vegetation, contain forbs widely between sites and across years; Though we don’t know what the and grasses that are less than 13 inches for 16 pairs of larks, territories ranged in historical abundance was for streaked (in) (33 centimeters (cm)) in height, and size from 4.0 to 20.6 ac (1.6 to 8.3 ha) horned lark rangewide, based on the have few or no trees or shrubs (Altman (Wolf et al. 2017, p. 12). Territories MVPs for similar species, it was most 1999, p. 18; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. overlap substantially, which is not likely larger than the current 27). The large, open areas used by surprising given the semi-colonial abundance. The most recent rangewide populations of larks are regularly breeding behavior of the species population estimate for streaked horned disturbed via burning, mowing, (breeding territories are adjacent to larks is 1,170 to 1,610 individuals; this herbicide application, crop rotation, other pairs at the same site but nests are estimate is based on data compiled from dredging material placement, and/or not in extremely close proximity) (Wolf multiple survey efforts, plus other anthropogenic regimes. et al. 2017, p. 12). The nesting season extrapolation to areas of potential (i.e., clutch initiation to fledging) for Habitat characteristics of agricultural suitable habitat not surveyed (e.g., streaked horned larks begins in mid- inaccessible private lands), particularly lands used by streaked horned larks April and ends in late August, with include: (1) Bare or sparsely vegetated in the Willamette Valley (Altman 2011, peaks in May and early June (Pearson p. 213). areas within or adjacent to grass seed and Hopey 2004, p. 11; Moore 2011, p. fields, pastures, or fallow fields; (2) 32; Wolf 2011, p. 5; Wolf and Anderson, The streaked horned lark currently recently planted (0 to 3 years) conifer 2014, p. 19). After the first nesting occurs at local populations (defined farms with extensive bare ground; and attempt in April, streaked horned larks here as scattered breeding sites or areas (3) wetland mudflats or ‘‘drown outs’’ will often re-nest in late June or early of habitat to which individuals return (i.e., washed out and poorly performing July (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11). each year) in three regions across the areas within grass seed or row crop Nests are positioned adjacent to range: The South Puget Lowlands in fields). Currently, in the Willamette vegetation or other structural elements Washington, the Pacific Coast and Valley, there are approximately 420,000 and are lined with soft vegetation Lower Columbia River in Washington acres (ac) (169,968 hectares (ha)) of grass (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 23; Moore and Oregon, and the Willamette Valley seed fields and an additional and Kotaich 2010, p. 18). Streaked in Oregon. Based on 2013 to 2019 approximately 500,000 ac (202,343 ha) horned lark nesting success (i.e., the survey data from some regularly of other agriculture. In any year, some proportion of nests that result in at least monitored sites across the range of the portion of these 920,000 ac (372,311 ha) one fledged chick) is highly variable, subspecies, the number, distribution, will have suitable streaked horned lark consistent with ground-nesting and size of streaked horned lark local habitat, but the geographic location of passerines (Best 1978, pp. 16–20; populations appear to have increased. those areas may not be consistent from Johnson and Temple 1990, p. 6). Regional population breeding pair year to year due to variable agricultural The average minimum viable counts and the rangewide total are practices (fallow fields, crop rotation, population (MVP) for the groups Aves summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1, etc.), and we cannot predict the and Passerines has been identified as below.

TABLE 1—REGIONAL SUMMARIES OF BREEDING PAIRS, WITH NUMBER OF LOCAL POPULATIONS, BASED ON SITES REGULARLY MONITORED FROM 2013 TO 2019

Regional population (with number of local populations) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

South Puget Lowlands (8) ...... 75 97 116 124 142 121 121 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) ...... 42 * incomplete 109 127 92 133 165

Rangewide total...... 198 *186 302 336 311 340 383 * Several of the locations were not surveyed in 2014; other sites have no data available.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19189

Streaked Horned Lark Regional Population Trends (2013-2019) 350 • 300 ·-····-·--·····--·,•---·-···· .~-~~~ --··--··· •--·----~~----········----

...Ill 250 n:J C. DO 200 C: "C Qj ...Qj 150 .c..... ~ 100 .cQj ~ 50 z

0 1 2 3 Year 4 5 6 7

•••♦••• Seriesl - ...-. Series2 -a-- Series3 .....Series4

Figure 1. Regional population trends based on 2013–2019 survey data

The South Puget Lowlands region including estimates from the many regularly monitored sites increased from consists of eight local populations at known occupied but inaccessible sites 198 in 2013, to 383 in 2019. However, three municipal airports and five sites at on private lands in the region. Surveys because a rangewide population Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM). from the ten regularly monitored estimate has not been reanalyzed since Since streaked horned larks were listed accessible occupied sites in the 2011, we are unable to state in 2013, this regional population has Willamette Valley counted 165 breeding conclusively that the rangewide stabilized to some degree, but two of its pairs in 2019. These monitored sites population has increased. The North local populations continue to include four at municipal airports, three American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) experience declining trends (Keren and at National Wildlife Refuges, two at analyzes regional data to provide a trend Pearson 2019, p. 4). natural areas, and one on private land. for rangewide breeding populations. In The Pacific Coast and Lower One historical site for a local population contrast to the data from site-specific Columbia River region currently in this region (Salem Municipal Airport) surveys for the streaked horned lark consists of twenty-four local has no positive records since 2013 and from 2013–2019, the most recent BBS populations, including the new appears to be extirpated. The Willamette analysis for the region encompassing population recently detected at Clatsop Valley regional population appears to be streaked horned larks indicates a 6.52 Spit in Oregon. The region currently well distributed and increasing, but the percent decline for the subspecies appears stable (Keren and Pearson 2019, limited surveys of accessible sites may between 2005 and 2015 (95 percent p. 3), although local population surveys not accurately reflect the trend in the confidence interval: –12.66 to –2.26 are inconsistent and do not occur at whole region. The subspecies appears to percent) (Sauer et al. 2017, p. 3). It is each site every year. Two of the sites on be more abundant in the southern end important to keep in mind however, that the coast of Washington (Oyhut Spit and of the valley where there is more when a species is listed and recovery Johns River) have no positive records suitable habitat. actions begin, it may still be many years since the 2013 listing and appear to be While the number of local before the abundance recovers to the extirpated. Although the current populations in the South Puget point where the species demonstrates a abundance of local populations on the Lowlands has not increased, the local rangewide increasing population trend. Pacific Coast is low compared to other populations at JBLM have increased in The streaked horned lark was listed in areas, it has been low for many years, size. Furthermore, two additional sites 2013, only two years before the last data the size of those coastal sites is in the Lower Columbia River area, and set that was included in the most recent relatively small compared to other local at least two additional sites in the BBS analysis. populations (and therefore naturally Willamette Valley, have increased the limits the number of breeding pairs), number and distribution of local Regulatory and Analytical Framework and there is no apparent declining trend populations throughout the range since Regulatory Framework in this area based on survey data 2013. Despite recent observations of between 2013 and 2019. individual larks at Clatsop Spit (i.e., not Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) The Willamette Valley regional breeding pairs), the number, and its implementing regulations (50 population was previously estimated at distribution, and size of local breeding CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 900 to 1,300 individuals based on data populations along the Pacific Coast has for determining whether a species is an compiled and extrapolated from remained relatively constant. ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened multiple survey efforts between 2008 Across the range of the subspecies, species.’’ The Act defines an and 2010 (Altman 2011, p. 213), the number of breeding pairs at some ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:33 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS EP13AP21.028 19190 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules

is in danger of extinction throughout all conservation efforts. The Secretary redundancy, and representation (Shaffer or a significant portion of its range, and determines whether the species meets and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that the definition of an ‘‘endangered resiliency supports the ability of the is likely to become an endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only species to withstand environmental and species within the foreseeable future after conducting this cumulative demographic stochasticity (for example, throughout all or a significant portion of analysis and describing the expected wet or dry, warm or cold years), its range. The Act requires that we effect on the species now and in the redundancy supports the ability of the determine whether any species is an foreseeable future. species to withstand catastrophic events ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened The Act does not define the term (for example, droughts, large pollution species’’ because of any of the following ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in events), and representation supports the factors: the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened ability of the species to adapt over time (A) The present or threatened species.’’ Our implementing regulations to long-term changes in the environment destruction, modification, or at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a (for example, climate changes). In curtailment of its habitat or range; framework for evaluating the foreseeable general, the more resilient and (B) Overutilization for commercial, future on a case-by-case basis. The term redundant a species is and the more recreational, scientific, or educational ‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far representation it has, the more likely it purposes; into the future as the Services can is to sustain populations over time, even (C) Disease or predation; reasonably determine that both the under changing environmental (D) The inadequacy of existing future threats and the species’ responses conditions. Using these principles, we regulatory mechanisms; or to those threats are likely. In other identified the species’ ecological (E) Other natural or manmade factors words, the foreseeable future is the requirements for survival and affecting its continued existence. period of time in which we can make reproduction at the individual, These factors represent broad reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not population, and species levels, and categories of natural or human-caused mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to described the beneficial and risk factors actions or conditions that could have an provide a reasonable degree of influencing the species’ viability. effect on a species’ continued existence. confidence in the prediction. Thus, a The SSA process can be categorized In evaluating these actions and prediction is reliable if it is reasonable into three sequential stages. During the conditions, we look for those that may to depend on it when making decisions. first stage, we evaluated the individual have a negative effect on individuals of It is not always possible or necessary species’ life-history needs. The next the species, as well as other actions or to define foreseeable future as a stage involved an assessment of the conditions that may ameliorate any particular number of years. Analysis of historical and current condition of the negative effects or may have positive the foreseeable future uses the best species’ demographics and habitat effects. scientific and commercial data available characteristics, including an We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in and should consider the timeframes explanation of how the species arrived general to actions or conditions that are applicable to the relevant threats and to at its current condition. The final stage known to or are reasonably likely to the species’ likely responses to those of the SSA involved making predictions negatively affect individuals of a threats in view of its life-history about the species’ responses to positive species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes characteristics. Data that are typically and negative environmental and actions or conditions that have a direct relevant to assessing the species’ anthropogenic influences in the future. impact on individuals (direct impacts), biological response include species- Throughout all of these stages, we used as well as those that affect individuals specific factors such as lifespan, the best available information to through alteration of their habitat or reproductive rates or productivity, characterize viability as the ability of a required resources (stressors). The term certain behaviors, and other species to sustain populations in the ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either demographic factors. wild over time. We use this information together or separately—the source of the to inform our regulatory decision. action or condition or the action or Analytical Framework condition itself. The SSA report documents the results Summary of Biological Status and However, the mere identification of of our comprehensive biological review Threats any threat(s) does not necessarily mean of the best scientific and commercial In this discussion, we review the that the species meets the statutory data regarding the status of the species, biological condition of the species and definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or including an assessment of the potential its resources, and the threats that a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining threats to the species. The SSA report influence the species’ current and future whether a species meets either does not represent a decision by the condition, in order to assess the species’ definition, we must evaluate all Service on whether the species should overall viability and the risks to that identified threats by considering the be proposed for listing as an endangered viability. expected response by the species, and or threatened species under the Act. It the effects of the threats—in light of does, however, provide the scientific Factors Influencing the Species those actions and conditions that will basis that informs our regulatory In our October 3, 2013, listing rule (78 ameliorate the threats—on an decisions, which involve the further FR 61452), we found that the streaked individual, population, and species application of standards within the Act horned lark was a threatened species level. We evaluate each threat and its and its implementing regulations and due to loss and degradation of habitat expected effects on the species, then policies. The following is a summary of from development, fire suppression, and analyze the cumulative effect of all of the key results and conclusions from the invasive (native and nonnative) plants; the threats on the species as a whole. SSA report; the full SSA report can be dredge spoil deposition timing and We also consider the cumulative effect found at Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020– placement on Columbia River islands; of the threats in light of those actions 0153 on http://www.regulations.gov. incompatibly timed burning and and conditions that will have positive To assess streaked horned lark mowing regimes; activities associated effects on the species, such as any viability, we used the three conservation with military training; conversion of existing regulatory mechanisms or biology principles of resiliency, large grass seed production fields to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19191

incompatible agricultural commodities; a significant influence on the condition densities in most of coastal Washington predation; small population effects; of current populations. Furthermore, and Oregon, has dramatically altered the activities associated with airports; and our current and future condition structure of dunes on the coast recreation. analyses take into consideration the (Wiedemann and Pickart 1996, p. 289). In our SSA, we carefully analyzed quality of habitat, so the condition Beachgrass creates areas of dense these previously identified threats, as ranking of any populations that were vegetation unsuitable for larks well as additional potential threats and displaced into lower quality habitat due (MacLaren 2000, p. 5). The spread of positive conservation measures, to to loss of historical disturbance is beachgrass has reduced the available determine if they operate at a scope and reflective of that displacement. nesting habitat for streaked horned larks magnitude as to influence the condition, The primary factors currently in Washington at Damon Point and at or resiliency, of populations rather than influencing the condition of streaked Grays Harbor and Leadbetter Point on only some individuals (U.S. Fish and horned lark populations are the ongoing Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Wildlife Service 2021, pp. 19–38). Based loss and conversion of suitable habitat, (Washington Department of Fish and on our assessment, disease and land management activities and related Wildlife 1995, p. 19; Stinson 2005, p. pesticides do not rise to the level of effects, and recreation. Since we listed 65; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011, affecting the condition of local or the streaked horned lark as threatened p. 4–2). On the Oregon coast, the low regional populations. Although the 2013 under the Act in 2013, multiple entities abundance of streaked horned lark is listing rule stated that predation was have implemented a series of regulatory attributed to the invasion of exotic likely to be a significant and ongoing and voluntary conservation measures beachgrasses and resultant dune threat to the subspecies (particularly in (section 7 consultations due to the stabilization (Gilligan et al. 1994, p. the South Puget Lowlands region), our listing of the subspecies under the Act) 205). Without management (mechanical SSA did not find evidence of effects to to offset negative impacts to larks and and chemical) to maintain the open the subspecies from predation beyond lark habitat, reducing the overall impact landscape at sites like these, invasive effects to individuals in any local of stressors influencing local beachgrasses will continue to influence population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife populations. We discuss these primary current and future local populations of Service 2021, p. 20). Although predation influence factors and associated streaked horned larks and reduce does occur, we did not find that it conservation actions below. suitability of these habitats, particularly occurred at a level beyond regular life- Ongoing Loss and Conversion of in the Pacific Coast and Lower history dynamics. We acknowledge, Suitable Habitat Columbia River region. however, that predation combined with Habitat restoration work on the effects of small population size may Following Euro-American settlement Leadbetter Point by the Service’s reduce the resiliency of some local of the Pacific Northwest in the mid-19th Willapa NWR has successfully reduced populations, as noted below under century, fire was actively suppressed on the cover of encroaching beachgrasses ‘‘Synergistic Effects.’’ In 2013, a grasslands in the Willamette Valley, into streaked horned lark habitat. In predator control program under the allowing encroachment by woody 2007, the area of open habitat measured Wildlife Services Predator Damage vegetation into prairie habitat and oak 84 ac (34 ha). However, after mechanical Management Program of the Animal and woodlands (Franklin and Dyrness 1973, and chemical treatment to clear Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. p. 122; Boyd 1986, entire; Kruckeberg beachgrass (mostly American Department of Agriculture was initiated 1991, p. 286; Agee 1993, p. 360; Altman beachgrass) and spreading oyster shells at Leadbetter Point and Midway Beach et al. 2001, p. 262). Native and across 45 ac (18 ha), there is now 121 on the Washington coast (U.S. Fish and nonnative species that have encroached ac (50 ha) of sparsely vegetated habitat Wildlife Service 2011). Data shows that on these habitats throughout the lark’s available, increasing the extent of open western snowy plovers have shown range include native Douglas fir habitat (Pearson et al. 2009b, p. 23). The improved nesting success since the (Pseudotsuga menziesii), nonnative main target of the Leadbetter Point program was implemented; however, Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and restoration project was the federally monitoring data for streaked horned nonnative grasses such as tall oatgrass listed western snowy plover larks are inconclusive, and we cannot (Arrhenatherum elatius) and false (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), but reliably determine if predator control brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum) the restoration actions also benefited has improved nesting success for larks (Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. v; Tveten and streaked horned larks. Before the at these sites. Fonda 1999, p. 146). This expansion of restoration project, this area had just 2 The primary driver of the status of woody vegetation and nonnative plant streaked horned lark territories (Stinson streaked horned lark has been the species, including noxious weeds, has 2005, p. 63); after the project, an scarcity of large, open spaces with very reduced the quantity and quality and estimated 7 to 10 territories were early seral stage vegetation. Historically, overall suitability of prairie habitats for located in and adjacent to the habitat was created and maintained by larks (Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 155; restoration area (Pearson in litt. 2012b). natural ecological processes of flooding, Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 2, 27). On Human activity has converted native fire, and coastal sediment transport JBLM alone, over 16,000 ac (6,600 ha) of prairie and grassland habitats to dynamics, as well as prairies prairie has been converted to Douglas fir residential and commercial maintained by Native American forest since the mid-19th century (Foster development, reducing habitat burning. The loss of regular disturbance and Shaff 2003, p. 284). Trees and/or availability for streaked horned larks regimes that created these open spaces other woody vegetation infiltrate open throughout their range. About 96 impacted the abundance and areas with formerly low vegetation and percent of the Willamette Valley is distribution of historical populations, long sight lines preferred by streaked privately owned, and it is home to but the impact occurred decades ago horned larks. almost three-fourths of Oregon’s human and is not ongoing. Though this loss of The introduction of Eurasian population, which is anticipated to historical disturbance led to beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) and nearly double in the next 50 years displacement of lark into less suitable American beachgrass (Ammophila (Oregon Department of Fish and alternative habitat and subsequent breviligulata) in the late 1800s, Wildlife 2016, p. 17). The Willamette population declines, it is not considered currently found in high and increasing Valley provides about half of the State’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 19192 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules

agricultural sales and is the location of 2010, p. 11; Myers and Kreager 2010, p. disturbance, the quantity of suitable 16 of the top 17 private-sector 9). Demand for grass seed and the habitat available to larks would decrease employers (manufacturing, technology, overall acreage of grass seed harvested rapidly. These land management forestry, agriculture, and other services). in Oregon has declined since 2005 activities are key to providing and In the South Puget Lowlands, prairie (Oregon State University 2005 and 2019, maintaining habitat for the streaked habitat continues to be lost, particularly entire). In 2019, approximately 364,355 horned lark; without replacement via the removal of native vegetation and ac (147,450 ha) were planted for forage habitat, the status of the subspecies the excavation and conversion to non- and turf grass seed crops in the would likely be much worse. habitat surfaces in the process of Willamette Valley compared to However, when these same activities residential development (i.e., buildings, approximately 484,080 ac (195,900 ha) are conducted during the most active pavement, residential development, and in 2005 (Oregon State University 2005 breeding season (mid-April to mid-June) other infrastructure) (Stinson 2005, p. and 2019, entire). The reduction in grass for streaked horned larks, they have the 70; Watts et al. 2007, p. 736). The region seed production has resulted in growers potential to result in destruction of also contains glacial outwash soils and switching to other commodities, such as nests, crushing of eggs or nestlings, or deep layers of gravels underlying the wheat, stock for nurseries and flushing of fledglings or adults (Pearson prairies that are valuable for use in greenhouses, grapes, blueberries, and and Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson 2005, p. construction and road building. hazelnuts (U.S. Department of 72). During the nesting seasons from Industrial development has also Agriculture National Agricultural 2002 to 2004, monitoring at Gray Army reduced habitat available to breeding Statistics Service 2009, p. 3; Oregon Airfield, McChord Airfield, and and wintering streaked horned larks. Department of Agriculture 2011, p. 1; Olympia Airport in the South Puget Rivergate Industrial Park, owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Lowlands region documented nest Port of Portland, is a large industrial site Agricultural Statistics Service 2017, pp. failure at 8 percent of nests due to in north Portland near the Columbia 34, 55, 101). These other crop types do mowing over nests, forcing young to River that was developed on a dredge not have the low-statured vegetation fledge early (Pearson and Hopey 2005, disposal site. Rivergate has long been an and bare ground preferred by the p. 18). Additionally, though dredge important breeding site for streaked streaked horned lark. deposits can mimic sandy beach habitat horned larks and a wintering site for The continued decline of the grass typically used by larks, they have also large flocks of mixed lark subspecies. In seed industry in the Willamette Valley been documented to destroy breeding 1990, the field used by streaked horned due to the variable economics of sites and active nests (Pearson in litt. larks at Rivergate measured more than agricultural markets will likely result in 2012a; Pearson et al. 2008a, p. 21; 650 ac (260 ha) of open sandy habitat a continued conversion from grass seed MacLaren 2000, p. 3; Pearson and (Dillon in litt. 2012). In the years since, fields to other agricultural types, and Altman 2005, p. 10). the Port of Portland has constructed fewer acres of suitable habitat for The list of threats to the subspecies in numerous industrial buildings on the streaked horned larks. Across the range, the 2013 listing rule (78 FR 61452) site, subsequently reducing habitat the conversion of streaked horned lark included dredge spoil deposition timing availability for larks and likely habitat into agricultural, industrial, and placement on Columbia River displacing all breeding and wintering residential, or urban development will islands, incompatibly timed burning larks from the area (Port of Portland continue to influence current and future and mowing regimes, activities 2019, entire). streaked horned lark local or regional associated with military training, and As part of the section 10(a)(1)(B) populations to some degrees throughout activities associated with airports. permit associated with the development the range of the species, though the Despite these threats noted at the time of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) Pacific Coast is less affected than other of listing, the Service determined that under the Act, the Port of Portland areas. timing restrictions on these activities mitigated for the loss of streaked horned were not appropriate, stating in the rule: lark habitat by securing a long-term Land Management Activities and ‘‘Our purpose in promulgating a special easement on a 32-ac (13-ha) parcel at Related Effects rule to exempt take associated with Sandy Island. Sandy Island is an Streaked horned larks evolved in a activities that inadvertently create occupied breeding site on the Columbia landscape of ephemeral habitat with habitat for the streaked horned lark is to River about 30 miles (mi) (50 kilometers regular historical disturbance regimes allow landowners to continue those (km)) north of the Rivergate industrial that maintained the large, open spaces activities without additional regulation. site and is designated as critical habitat with very early seral stage vegetation We believe that imposing a timing for the streaked horned lark (Port of relied upon by the subspecies. Human restriction would likely reduce the Portland 2017, p. 4). The Port’s 30-year activity led to the stabilization of these utility of the special rule for land commitment to manage the site and historical disturbance regimes, as well managers and could have the protect breeding streaked horned larks as the unintentional creation of unintended side effect of causing helps to offset impacts to the regional ‘‘replacement’’ habitat for streaked landowners to discontinue their habitat population from the loss of available horned larks that mimics their preferred creation activities’’ (78 FR 61464). No habitat at the Rivergate site. large, open spaces. Replacement habitat timing restrictions were included in the Roughly half of all the agricultural occurs in a variety of settings across the 2013 4(d) rule and these land land in the Willamette Valley, range of the subspecies, including management activities continued across approximately 360,000 ac (145,000 ha), agricultural fields, at airports, and on the range since that time. Since 2013, is devoted to grass seed production dredge spoil islands. Open habitat is survey data from some regularly (Oregon Seed Council 2018, p. 1). maintained in these areas by way of monitored sites across the range of the Grasslands, both native prairies and frequent human disturbance, including subspecies show an increase from 198 grass seed fields, are important habitats burning, mowing, cropping, chemical breeding pairs in 2013, to 383 breeding for streaked horned larks in the treatments (herbicide and pesticide pairs in 2019, despite a lack of timing Willamette Valley, as they are used as application), or placement of dredged restrictions on land management both breeding and wintering habitat materials (Altman 1999, p. 19). Without activities. While the loss of individuals (Altman 1999, p. 18; Moore and Kotaich regular large-scale, human-caused is never welcome, the continuation of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19193

land management activities that create that the count in 2013 (30), however, in Lowlands), the rate appears relatively replacement habitat is very important to 2019 there were six more breeding pairs low and the vegetation management the conservation of the subspecies, and than were counted in 2018. conducted by these airports also the benefits appear to outweigh the cost In 2017, the JBLM finalized a maintains replacement habitat that of any loss of individuals. programmatic consultation with the supports breeding pairs (Pearson et al. In the Willamette Valley, some Service that covered multiple activities 2008a, p. 13; Camfield et al. 2011, p. 10; habitats in agricultural areas are affecting streaked horned lark including FAA 2020, entire). consistently maintained and therefore mowing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The streaked horned lark uses islands available throughout the year (e.g., on 2017) (although mowing is allowed in the Lower Columbia River for both the margins of gravel roads), while other during the breeding season under breeding and wintering habitat. The patches of suitable habitat shift as areas emergency circumstances (Wolf et al. river channel is regularly dredged by the such as large fields are mowed, 2017, p. 34)). The consultation has U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), harvested, sprayed, or burned. In 2017, resulted in a significant reduction in and dredge deposits can both benefit the Willamette Valley NWR entered into adverse effects to larks from mowing at and harm streaked horned larks a 4-year programmatic consultation with military airfields. The breeding depending on the location and timing of the Service for its farming and pesticide population of larks on JBLM increased deposition. In 2014, the Corps entered use program (U.S. Fish and Wildlife from fewer than 100 pairs when the into a programmatic consultation with Service 2016b, entire). This streaked horned lark was listed in 2013 the Service for the Corps’ navigation programmatic consultation documents (Wolf and Anderson 2014, p. 12), to channel dredging and dredge materials the Refuge program’s commitment to over 120 pairs in 2019 (Wolf et al. 2020, placement program in the Lower adapting its farming activities to p. 6). However, there are no Columbia River (U.S. Fish and Wildlife improve the status of the streaked conservation measures at several Service 2014, entire). In this horned lark on the William L. Finley, municipal airports in the Puget consultation, the Corps committed to Ankeny, and Baskett Slough units of the Lowlands region and none of the planning for the placement of dredge complex. Conservation measures airports in the Willamette Valley region material to minimize adverse effects to include ensuring that farming activities to reduce effects to streaked horned the lark on the Corps’ network of minimize disturbance to larks, and that larks from operations and maintenance placement sites and to maintain enough pesticides used in agricultural fields activities, including mowing. habitat in suitable condition to maintain have a low risk of adverse effects to Individual lark in these local the current regional population of larks and their food sources. populations near runways are at breeding larks and allow for additional Airports implement hazardous increased risk of aircraft strikes and population growth. The 5-year program wildlife management programs that collisions. Horned lark strikes are has been successful; from 2014 to 2019, include vegetation management around frequently reported at military and numbers in the Lower Columbia River roads and runways, to discourage the civilian airports throughout the country, increased from an estimate of 77 pairs presence of wildlife near the runways but because of the bird’s small size, few to 87 pairs, with the increases occurring and thereby promote human safety for strikes result in significant damage to at dredge deposition sites (Center for flights. Streaked horned lark are very aircraft (Dolbeer et al. 2011, p. 48; Air Natural Lands Management 2019, pp. 3– attracted to the wide-open spaces Force Safety Center 2012, p. 2). Juvenile 4). The original 5-year consultation was created by vegetation management, and males seem to be struck most often, extended through 2022. The Corps is several airports in the range are now perhaps because they are trying to currently working on a 20-year dredge sites for local populations of the establish new territories in unoccupied material management plan, which will subspecies. In the South Puget but risky areas on runway margins (Wolf build on the success of the previous Lowlands, the streaked horned lark et al. 2017, p. 31). With respect to consultation. might have been extirpated if not for streaked horned larks in particular, in Military training activities at the 13th mowing at airports to maintain large the 5-year period from 2013 to 2017, Division Prairie at JBLM, including areas of short grass (Stinson 2005, p. McChord Airfield had seven confirmed bombardment with explosive ordnance 70). Five of the eight streaked horned strikes, and Gray Army Airfield and hot downdraft from aircraft, as well lark nesting sites in the South Puget recorded one confirmed streaked horned as civilian events, have caused nest Lowlands are located on or adjacent to lark strike (Wolf in litt. 2018). Since failure and abandonment at JBLM’s Gray airports and military airfields (Rogers January 2017, 16 adults have been killed Army Airfield and McChord Airfield 2000, p. 37; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. by strikes on JBLM, including 10 adults (Stinson 2005, pp. 71–72). JBLM is also 15). At least five breeding sites are and 2 juveniles killed by strikes at used for helicopter operations found at airports in the Willamette McChord Airfield in 2020 (Wolf in litt. (paratrooper practices, touch-and-go Valley, including the largest known 2020). landings, and load drop and retrievals) local population at Corvallis Municipal The increased number of strikes in and troop training activities. Artillery Airport (Moore 2008b, pp. 14–17). The 2020 were a direct result of construction training, off-road use of vehicles, and Port of Olympia’s Updated Master Plan activities that redirected aircraft traffic troop maneuvers at the 13th and 91st includes recommendations to minimize to the northern half of the runway Division Prairies have been conducted impacts to larks at the airport by where lark density is highest and lark in areas used by streaked horned larks avoiding mowing during the breeding abundance was relatively high; this led during the nesting season, contributing season; however, mowing still occurs to a higher than normal mortality rate to nest failure and low nest success. In during the breeding season (Port of from aircraft strikes. Aside from the 12 addition to military training activities, Olympia/Olympia Regional Airport strikes in 2020, JBLM recorded a total of McChord Airfield hosts an international 2013, pp. 10–11) and the local 12 strikes in the seven years between military training event known as the Air population at the airport has fluctuated 2013 and 2019, for a rate of 1.7 strikes Mobility Rodeo, which is held in odd- (both increased and decreased) in per year. While aircraft strikes do occur numbered years. In even-numbered surveys from 2013 to 2019 (Wolf et al. in several local populations at airports years, McChord Airfield hosts a public 2020, p. 16). The overall count in 2019 throughout the range of the species air show known as the Air Expo; this of 27 breeding pairs was slightly lower (particularly in the South Puget event incorporates simulated bombing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 19194 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules

and fire-bombing, including explosives eggs, nestlings, and fledglings. Activities In 2002, JBLM began restricting and pyrotechnics launched from an area such as the annual spring razor clam recreational activity at the 13th Division adjacent to one of JBLM’s most densely digs, dog walking, beachcombing, off- Prairie to protect lark nesting sites; populated streaked horned lark nesting road vehicle use, camping, fishing, and JBLM prohibited model airplane flying, sites. The Expo and Rodeo can affect the horseback riding in coastal habitats may dog walking, and vehicle traffic in the streaked horned lark through directly or indirectly increase predation area used by streaked horned larks disturbance from aircraft, temporary (primarily by corvids), resulting in nest (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 29). JBLM infrastructure, and spectator-related nest abandonment and nest failure for continues to restrict recreational abandonment, nest failure, and adverse streaked horned larks (Pearson and activities during the lark breeding effects to fledglings (Pearson et al. 2005, Hopey 2005, pp. 19, 26, 29). Streaked season at the 13th Division Prairie, p. 18; Stinson 2005, p. 27). The 2017 horned larks nest in the same areas as although enforcement, especially on programmatic consultation JBLM western snowy plovers along the entered into with the Service covers weekends, is intermittent (Wolf et al. Washington coast, and it is highly likely 2016, p. 43). In addition, the 2017 military training and these other regular that recreation has caused nest failures activities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife programmatic consultation JBLM for larks at sites that have documented entered into with the Service (U.S. Fish Service 2017, entire). The consultation nest failure for plovers; both species are has significantly reduced adverse effects and Wildlife Service 2017) included ground nesters and, therefore, similarly to larks from military activities recreation. The programmatic at risk of effects of recreation. During (including training at military airfields), consultation has resulted in a marked western snowy plover surveys and resulted in an increase in the increase in the breeding population of breeding population of larks on JBLM conducted between 2006 and 2010 at larks on JBLM from fewer than 100 pairs from fewer than 100 pairs in 2013 (Wolf coastal sites in Washington, human- in 2013 (Wolf and Anderson 2014, p. and Anderson 2014, p. 12), to over 120 caused nest failures were reported in 4 12), to over 120 pairs in 2019 (Wolf et pairs in 2019 (Wolf et al. 2020, p. 6). of the 5 years (Pearson et al. 2007, p. 16; al. 2020, p. 6). Pearson et al. 2008b, p. 17; Pearson et Recreation al. 2009a, p. 18; Pearson et al. 2010, p. Summary of Threats Recreation at coastal sites can cause 16), and one of 16 monitored nests at the degradation of streaked horned lark Midway Beach on the Washington coast Table 2, below, summarizes the scope habitat, as well as disturbance to adults was crushed by a horse in 2004 (Pearson and magnitude of factors influencing the and juveniles, and direct mortality to and Hopey 2005, pp. 18–19). viability of streaked horned lark.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19195

T a bl e 2 Summarv o fF actors In fl uencmg R eg1ona . IP oou 1 at1ons . Re2ional Populations Pacific Coast Factors Influencing Populations South Puget and Lower Willamette Lowlands Columbia Valley River

~ rfJ Vegetation succession xx xx XXX § rfJ Encroachment of woody ·-~ ~0 1::--0 vegetation or grasses, invasive X XXX X (I) § s ~ species Land use changes or W§ X X XXX i:.i..;... ·-~ convers10n ~ "g .t= ~ Crop conversion -- -- XXX {! ~ ::i:: 0 Loss of natural disturbance processes xx xx xx

E Vegetation management (I) '"O rfJ xx -- xx s § t> activities (I) ~ w_~ ~ § .t:: '"O Military training and associated ::E :>- (I) ·+:1 &J X -- -- '"O u - activities § < ~ ~ Dredged material placement -- X -- Recreation -- xx -- Aircraft Strikes xx -- X Note: XXX indicates relatively frequent influence to the regional population; XX indicates moderate influence on the regional population; X indicates occasional influence on the regional population; no entry (--) indicates no influence on the regional population.

Synergistic Effects Lower Columbia River. Such forest species adjacent to prairies, Climate Change—The effects of concentration exposes the wintering possibly resulting in prairie expansion climate change have already been populations to potentially disastrous that could benefit the streaked horned observed in the Pacific Northwest. stochastic events such as ice storms or lark (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 417). Prairie Temperatures have risen 1.5 to 2 flooding, which could kill individuals, and grassland ecosystems are well degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (0.83 to 1.1 destroy limited habitat and food adapted to warm and dry conditions— degrees Celsius (°C)) over the past availability, or skew sex ratios. Severe periodic soil drought and future century, and the past three decades have winter weather could potentially impact increases in temperature and drought been warmer than any other historical one or more regional populations when for the region ‘‘are unlikely to period (Frankson et al. 2017a, p. 1; birds congregate as larger flocks disadvantage (and may benefit) these Frankson et al. 2017b, p. 1). Climate (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 13). systems’’ (Washington Department of change is widely expected to affect Despite the climate projections for the Fish and Wildlife 2015, p. 5–31). wildlife and their habitats in the Pacific region, the effects of climate change The outlook for streaked horned larks Northwest by increasing summer specific to prairie ecosystems are not along the Pacific Coast is less temperatures, reducing soil moisture, anticipated to decrease the resiliency of encouraging due to the effects of climate increasing wildfires, reducing mountain regional populations in the South Puget change. Sea level rise, increased coastal snowpack, and causing more extreme Lowlands, Lower Columbia River, and erosion, and more severe weather events weather events (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. Willamette Valley regions. The will cause significant effects to lark 414). Climate change may increase the grasslands and prairies of Washington habitats on the coast. Projected sea level frequency and severity of stochastic and Oregon span a wide geographic and rise could increase erosion or landward weather events, which may have severe climatic range, encompassing a rich shift of dunes; similarly, increased negative effects on small local variety of soil types, vegetation cover, severe weather events with greater wave populations throughout the range of the elevations, and weather patterns. This and wind action from storms could streaked horned lark. During the heterogeneity will likely provide magnify disturbance of dune habitats breeding season, small local populations substantial buffering from the effects of (Washington Department of Fish and of larks are distributed across the range; changing weather and climate (Bachelet Wildlife 2015, p. 5–31) and imperil in the winter, however, streaked horned et al. 2011, p. 412). It is possible that nesting larks. Given these stressors, we larks congregate mainly in the increased summer droughts may affect expect that climate change may limit the Willamette Valley and on islands in the less drought-tolerant trees and other resiliency of some local populations on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS EP13AP21.029 19196 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules

the coast by amplifying the negative impacted by other factors are more 2005, p. 881; Wolf et al. 2017, p. 27). effects from habitat loss or the spread of vulnerable to extirpation by natural, Any local population of streaked horned invasive species where not managed. A randomly occurring events (such as larks with very low abundance that does conservation measure that may help predation or stochastic weather events), not interbreed with other local reduce effects from climate change in and to genetic effects that plague small populations will be at more risk in the one area of the coast in the range of the populations, collectively known as future due to small population effects. streaked horned lark is the Shoalwater small population effects (Purvis et al. Bay Shoreline Erosion Control Project 2000, p. 3). These effects can include Current Condition (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018), genetic drift, founder effects (over time, To maintain adequate resiliency, which is a long-term commitment by the an increasing percentage of the populations of streaked horned larks Corps and the Shoalwater Bay Tribe to population inheriting a narrow range of protect the reservation from coastal traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading need large open spaces with suitable erosion. It has created and is to increasingly lower genetic diversity, habitat structure—specifically, low- maintaining habitat for both western with consequent negative effects on stature vegetation and scattered patches snowy plovers and streaked horned adaptive capacity and reproductive of bare ground—and an appropriate larks and provides secure nesting area success (Keller and Waller 2002, p. 235). disturbance regime sufficient to on the coast for both species. Various effects of small population maintain habitat and support increased Small Population Size—Most species’ size, including low reproductive numbers of breeding birds. The size of populations fluctuate naturally, success, loss of genetic diversity, and populations with high resiliency varies responding to various factors such as male skewed sex-ratio, have been noted among regions, depending on the extent weather events, disease, and predation. in the range of the streaked horned lark, and quality of available habitat. Needs These factors have a relatively minor particularly at some local populations in of the streaked horned lark in relation impact on a species with large, stable the South Puget Lowlands region and to degree of estimated population local populations and a wide and the Lower Columbia River (Anderson resiliency are summarized below in continuous distribution. However, 2010, p. 15; Camfield et al. 2010, p. 277; Table 3; to evaluate current condition, populations that are small, isolated by Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881; Pearson we assigned each condition category a habitat loss or fragmentation, or 2019, Figures 1 and 2; Drovetski et al. number as shown.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19197

T a bl e 3 . M anx t . fior E va1 uamg f C urrentC on d"f110n ofth e Strea k e dHome dL ar k Demographic and Habitat High Condition Low Condition Parameters Regular surveys Regular surveys Regular surveys South Puget detect2:20 detect 10-20 detect :SlO Lowlands breeding pairs, (3) breeding pairs (2) breeding pairs (1) Regular surveys Regular surveys Regular surveys detect2:15 detect 7-15 detect g breeding Pacific Coast breeding pairs on breeding pairs on pairs on coast, (1) Extirpated: and Lower coast, (3) coast, (2) larks no longer Abundance Columbia Regular surveys Regular surveys Regular surveys occupy site or River detect2:20 detect 10-20 detect :SlO region (0) breeding pairs on breeding pairs on breeding pairs on river, (3) river, (2) river, (1) Regular surveys Regular surveys Regular surveys Willamette detect2:25 detect 15-25 detect:s15 Valley breeding pairs, (3) breeding pairs (2) breeding pairs (1) Increasing population Declining or insufficient data to Population Trend I Stable populations I trend (2) (1) assess trends (0) Movement between local No movement between local Connectivity populations/regions (1) populations/regions 0) Large, open areas Small patches of Extirpated: Open areas with with low-stature suitable grasses habitat to low-stature grasses, Habitat grasses, 17 surrounded by support larks no some shrubs and percent bare dense vegetation longer exists at trees (2) ground (3) and trees (1) a site (0) Extirpated: Regular Semi-regular Infrequent distmbance distmbance occurs distmbance, habitat distmbance, habitat does not occur to maintain is available but not may be temporarily to maintain Beneficial Disturbance habitat for ideal for nesting, unavailable; high habitat for Regime nesting, no some adverse adverse effects larks; high adverse effects effects during during breeding adverse effects during breeding breeding season (2) season (1) during breeding season (3) season (0)

Parameters that are in high condition The resulting current condition since 2013, and occur in locations that support adequate population resiliency, rankings of extant local populations have less habitat availability and whereas parameters that are in low varied between high to low condition. therefore limited capacity to support condition reduce resiliency and increase Some local populations ranked high high numbers of birds. In addition, the risk from stochastic events. Each of (those that scored 1.7 or greater) as a certain land management activities at the five parameters were given equal result of abundant populations and these locations, such as construction weight, and the resulting scores were high-quality habitat; other populations and development or sand-borrow averaged to come up with an overall ranked lower (those that scored 1.0 or activities on the Columbia River, would condition score for each local less) in part because of a combination of not support long-term resiliency even if population unit as follows: High (≥1.7), low abundance, declining population population abundance stabilized and Moderate (1.6 to 1.1), Low (1.0 to 0.2), trends between 2013 and 2019, poor increased. Use of these sites is and Extirpated (≤0.1). The overall quality habitat, and effects of land opportunistic based on habitat condition score thresholds were based management activities. availability, and most of these sites are on the difference between the highest While the overall number of occupied not anticipated to meaningfully contribute to subspecies viability or and lowest possible actual scores (2.4 sites represent a reduction from its support high numbers of birds. and 0.2, respectively) for extant historical range, of the 42 extant local populations. If survey data showed a populations across the three The South Puget Lowlands region has site had no detections of streaked representational regions, there are eight an overall increasing population trend horned larks, then the entire site is in high condition, 15 in moderate (based on the 2013–2019 survey data). categorized as extirpated, regardless of condition, and 19 in low condition. The region contains four local the condition category assigned to the Three sites that were occupied in years populations with high condition, one habitat or disturbance factors (e.g., prior to the 2013 listing are currently local population with moderate considered extirpated. In general, the condition, and three local populations Oyhut Spit and Johns River Island in the local populations with low condition with low condition. Those local Pacific Coast region). have low abundance that has declined populations with low condition have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS EP13AP21.030 19198 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules

small, declining populations and occur The draft recovery plan for streaked generations, and represents a in areas where management activities horned lark (U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologically meaningful timeframe in have negative impacts on adult and Service 2019, entire) provides some which we could expect to observe any juvenile birds, currently limiting thoughts on potential adequate plausible changes in the status of the resiliency. The populations at the JBLM redundancy and representation for the streaked horned lark. airfields and 13th Division increased subspecies. The plan recommends that We evaluated land use trends by between 2013 and 2019 and movement 38 resilient sites be managed for long- looking at data on the quantity and type between sites and habitat quality term conservation: Eight sites in the of agricultural crops in production supports high resiliency. The Shelton South Puget Lowlands; three sites along throughout the State every 5 years from Airport has a declining population the Pacific Coast and six sites in the the U.S. Department of Agriculture, trend. The Olympia Airport has good Lower Columbia River; and, 21 sites in National Agricultural Statistics Service. connectivity and its condition is the Willamette Valley. The current In the State of Oregon, where larks moderate, but the condition of the redundancy of streaked horned lark is largely occur on private agricultural Shelton and Tacoma airports are low. characterized by 42 local populations lands, we evaluated trends in land use The Pacific Coast and Lower across the range of the subspecies (eight and crop type over the past 20 years to Columbia region has an overall stable in the South Puget Lowlands, five along inform future trends. Specifically, we population trend (based on the 2013– the Pacific Coast and 19 in the Lower used these data to evaluate trends in the 2019 survey data). It has two local Columbia River, and 10 (accessible sites overall quantity of grass and other seed populations in high condition for surveys) in the Willamette Valley). farms, and compared the changes to (including Sandy Island which is Across the range, eight sites are trends in the quantity of crop types that managed for the conservation of considered high condition, 15 are do not provide suitable habitat for larks, streaked horned lark), nine local ranked moderate, and 19 ranked low. such as hazelnut orchards, blueberry populations in moderate condition, 13 There are at least two local populations farms, and wine grapes for viticulture. local populations with low condition, ranked high in each regional To assess effects to the streaked and two locations that have no breeding population, suggesting relatively good horned lark from climate change, we pairs and are assumed extirpated (Oyhut representation in varying habitats, relied on projections to mid-century Spit and Johns River Island). While including prairies, wetlands, coastal from the U.S. Geological Survey, Land Leadbetter Point is managed to improve dunes, sandy islands, airports and road Change Science Program National habitat quality for larks and reduce margins, and agricultural fields. The Climate Change Viewer (Alder and corvid predation, the local population rangewide distribution of 42 local Hostetler 2013, entire). The Coupled has fluctuated in the last several years populations confers some measure of Model Intercomparison Project 5 and is currently considered unstable. A protection against catastrophic events, provides a range of variability in climate number of coastal sites and several particularly in the Willamette Valley projections for the time period 2025 to Columbia River sites have low where relatively large numbers of birds 2049. We used the combined range of resiliency due to low abundance, small move about in response to changing the projection from two model patches of high-quality habitat that habitat conditions. Recent detections of scenarios, representative concentration currently limit potential abundance, birds at sites previously unoccupied pathways (RCP) 4.5 and RCP 8.5, to limited connectivity, and/or (i.e., Clatsop Spit) suggest individuals evaluate a range of potential future management activities that are not are actively moving between sites, conditions. RCP 4.5 predicts that optimal for successful breeding. While adapting to new areas and potentially greenhouse gas emissions stabilize by the Pacific Coast area currently has low recolonizing areas with suitable habitat. the end of the century; RCP 8.5 predicts numbers of breeding pairs, recent Additional local populations in high emissions continue to rise unchecked detections at Clatsop Spit (a previously and moderate condition throughout the through the end of the century. Climate unoccupied site) indicate the species range would benefit the overall level of model results largely follow the same could recolonize areas with suitable redundancy and representation for the trajectory until mid-century (e.g., 2040s habitat. Streaked horned larks, however, subspecies. to 2050s) and diverge beyond that point, have not recolonized new sites in the resulting in greater uncertainty beyond South Puget Lowlands despite 20 years Future Condition 2050. For this analysis, we evaluated of prairie restoration and intensive The main factors influencing the possible future conditions using these monitoring, suggesting recolonization is future viability of the streaked horned climate scenarios and the resulting site-specific and difficult to predict. lark include ongoing and sustained impacts on species and habitat through The number of breeding pairs in habitat loss; continued land the year 2050. Climate change is not Willamette Valley region appears to management activities and related expected to decrease the resiliency of have increased for 10 local populations effects; recreation; and, the synergistic any local populations in the prairie (based on the 2013–2019 survey data), effects of climate change and small ecosystem because prairie and grassland and the region supports two local population size. We used the same ecosystems are well adapted to warm populations in high condition, five in habitat and population metrics to assess and dry conditions like the periodic soil moderate condition, and three in low future condition of the local populations drought and future increases in condition. One historical location at in response to projected land use temperature and drought forecasted for Salem Airport had no breeding pairs in changes and climate conditions. We those areas. With respect to coastal surveys from 2013–2019 and is assumed forecasted the condition of local populations however, sea level rise, extirpated. The survey results reported populations over time under three increased coastal erosion, and more in Table 1, above, may represent a small scenarios and use this information to severe weather events will cause portion of the total number of streaked forecast the viability of the streaked significant effects to lark habitats. horned larks in the Willamette Valley horned lark over the next 30 years. We Climate change may limit the resiliency due to lack of access on private lands, chose 30 years because it is within the of some local populations on the coast and there is no information to infer the range of the available hydrological and by amplifying the negative effects from condition of these potential climate change model forecasts, habitat loss or the spread of invasive populations. encompasses approximately five species where not managed.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19199

We forecasted what the streaked without intentional habitat management ability to adapt to changing horned lark may experience in terms of or conservation measures. environmental conditions. resiliency, redundancy, and Under the improved conditions Because the streaked horned lark is representation under three plausible scenario, careful management and dependent on land management future scenarios over the next 30 years: conservation actions are implemented to activities that create and maintain Status quo, improved conditions, and increase the quantity, quality, and suitable replacement habitat throughout degraded conditions. Under the status distribution of suitable habitats for the species’ range, the future viability of quo, the adverse effects of habitat loss, streaked horned larks. One local the species relies upon the continuation climate change, and management population in the South Puget Lowlands of these actions. The synergistic effects activities and related effects are and three in the Pacific Coast and of both small population size and the consistent with current levels (including Columbia River region improve from effects of climate change will likely current levels of conservation); the level moderate to high condition, and one amplify the negative effects of influence of recreation increases in accordance population in each of the South Puget factors and reduce resiliency of some with human population growth. Under lowlands and Willamette Valley regions local populations, particularly along the improved conditions, the adverse effects move from low to moderate. As local Pacific Coast, the South Puget of habitat loss and climate change are populations become more resilient Lowlands, and the Lower Columbia reduced compared to current under this scenario, the species’ ability River. conditions; management activities and to move between sites in response to We note that, by using the SSA related effects are consistent with changing environmental conditions and framework to guide our analysis of the current levels with additional re-establish breeding populations would scientific information documented in conservation measures to protect larks; increase overall redundancy, buffering the SSA report, we have not only analyzed individual effects on the and the level of recreation increases in against adverse effects of catastrophic species, but we have also analyzed their accordance with human population events. With respect to ecological potential cumulative effects. We growth. However, both recreation and representation, it is unlikely that birds incorporate the cumulative effects into management activities and related would occupy new or different habitat our SSA analysis when we characterize effects act on larger lark populations, types relative to current patterns of the current and future condition of the resulting in reduced impact to overall occupancy in the Pacific Coast and species. To assess the current and future population status. Under degraded Lower Columbia region under this condition of the species, we undertake conditions, the adverse effects of habitat scenario, due to the limited availability an iterative analysis that encompasses loss and climate change are increased; of alternative habitats that provide the and incorporates the threats management activities and related structural habitat features preferred by individually and then accumulates and effects continue with no additional larks. In the South Puget Lowlands and evaluates the effects of all the factors conservation measures; and the level of Willamette Valley regions, the number that may be influencing the species, recreation increases in accordance with of resilient local populations would including threats and conservation human population growth. However, increase; however it is unlikely that efforts. Because the SSA framework both recreation and management larks would disperse into the north considers not just the presence of the activities and related effects act on Puget Lowlands region, or south into the factors, but to what degree they smaller population sizes, resulting in Umpqua and Rogue Valley regions collectively influence risk to the entire increased impact to overall population without substantial recovery efforts to species, our assessment integrates the status. support habitat development in these cumulative effects of the factors and Under the three future scenarios areas. replaces a standalone cumulative effects selected for this analysis, the number Under the degraded conditions analysis. and size of extant populations change in scenario, further habitat loss and response to assumed habitat conditions increased instability would lead to Determination of Streaked Horned and changes in management activities at reduced condition in many local Lark’s Status individual sites. Changes in population populations with only one local Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) condition impact the overall species’ population remaining in high condition and its implementing regulations (50 redundancy and representation. Under in the range of the subspecies (Rice CFR part 424) set forth the procedures the status quo scenario, one population Island). Eighteen local populations for determining whether a species meets in the South Puget Lowlands drops from would decrease in condition across the the definition of an endangered species high to moderate condition, four local range of the streaked horned lark, or a threatened species. The Act defines populations in the Pacific Coast and leaving 10 moderate condition and 30 ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in Columbia River region drop from low condition populations distributed danger of extinction throughout all or a moderate to low condition, and all five across the three regions. Under this significant portion of its range, and moderate populations in the Willamette scenario, Shelton Airport would become ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely Valley drop to low condition. Even extirpated, reducing redundancy. Many to become an endangered species within though influence factors don’t change in other local populations would decrease the foreseeable future throughout all or magnitude from current levels under in resiliency and be at higher risk of a significant portion of its range. The this scenario, the synergistic effects of extirpation, putting the subspecies at Act requires that we determine whether small population size would amplify the risk of further reduction in redundancy. a species meets the definition of effect of negative influence factors in If local populations become less ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened some local populations overtime. Under resilient, larks would be less able to species’’ because of any of the following this scenario, the subspecies would move between sites in response to factors: (A) The present or threatened continue to occupy roughly an equal changing environmental conditions or destruction, modification, or number of habitat types and distribution re-establish local populations following curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) of 42 local populations across the range, a catastrophic event. Furthermore, the overutilization for commercial, but some small, isolated populations loss of local populations would decrease recreational, scientific, or educational may be at risk of eventual extirpation the species’ representation and overall purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 19200 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules

the inadequacy of existing regulatory not fluctuated much for the last 20 years easily given market demands. This mechanisms; or (E) other natural or and are not of a scope or magnitude uncertainty regarding future land use manmade factors affecting its continued such that the subspecies is currently in and anthropogenic effects to habitat existence. danger of extinction. Local populations increases the potential risk of extinction in South Puget Lowlands and Lower in the foreseeable future. Numerous Status Throughout All of Its Range Columbia River populations have conservation measures resulting from We evaluated threats to the streaked benefited from conservation efforts section 7 consultation under the Act in horned lark and assessed the cumulative implemented as part of section 7 the range of the streaked horned lark effect of the threats under the Act’s consultations under the Act. have helped reduce effects of threats on section 4(a)(1) factors. The primary Abundance of larks across the the subspecies (Factor D), but the driver of the status of streaked horned Willamette Valley appears relatively continued effects of habitat loss (Factor lark has been the scarcity of large, open high, but many of these local A), land management activities and spaces with very early seral stage populations cannot be surveyed due to related effects, and recreation, in vegetation. The loss of historical lack of access. Although the current combination with small population size disturbance regimes that created these abundance of local populations along and the effects of climate change (Factor open spaces impacted the abundance the Pacific Coast is lower than other E), are expected to reduce viability of and distribution of historical areas, it has been low for many years, the subspecies over the next 30 years. populations, but the impact occurred and we see no apparent declining trend Thus, after assessing the best available decades ago and is not ongoing. The in this regional population based on information, we conclude that the best available information does not survey data from 2013 to 2019. Recent streaked horned lark is not currently in indicate that overutilization (Factor B), detections of birds at Clatsop Spit, as danger of extinction but is likely to predation or disease (Factor C), well as sites with restored habitat on become in danger of extinction within pesticides, or loss of historical private lands in the Willamette Valley, the foreseeable future throughout all of disturbance regimes (Factor A) are indicate that individuals can move its range. threats to the viability of the subspecies. between sites, and there are a few Status Throughout a Significant Portion The streaked horned lark has been instances of detections at previously of Its Range affected through loss of preferred unoccupied locations, but habitats (Factor A) as a result of recolonization appears very low and Under the Act and our implementing successional changes in plant species difficult to predict. regulations, a species may warrant composition and encroachment of In the foreseeable future, however, listing if it is in danger of extinction or woody vegetation; invasion of beach there is potential for a decline in likely to become so in the foreseeable grasses; conversion of suitable habitat resiliency of local populations across future throughout all or a significant into unsuitable habitat through changes the range. The loss of preferred habitat portion of its range. The court in Center in land use; and changes in agricultural will continue from plant succession and for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 practices from crops that mimic encroachment of woody vegetation, WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) preferred habitats (i.e., grass seed farms) invasion of beach grasses, changes in (Center for Biological Diversity), vacated to crops that diminish habitat suitability land use, and changes in beneficial the aspect of the Final Policy on (i.e., hazelnut orchards and blueberry agricultural practices. The regular large- Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant farms). The streaked horned lark is also scale, human-caused disturbance Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered affected by land management activities (burning, mowing, cropping, chemical Species Act’s Definitions of and related affects, as well as other treatments, or placement of dredged ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened human activities (Factor E) including materials) that now creates and Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) agricultural activities, airport maintains replacement habitat for the that provided that the Service does not management activities and related streaked horned lark will continue, as undertake an analysis of significant airstrikes, military training and related will the related effects of these activities portions of a species’ range if the activities, the placement of dredged that can negatively impact individual species warrants listing as threatened materials, and recreation. lark (nest destruction, mortality, throughout all of its range. Therefore, Despite the ongoing influence of these disturbance, and aircraft strikes). we proceed to evaluating whether the factors, however, the subspecies does Recreation will also continue. Any species is endangered in a significant not appear to be currently in danger of negative effects from these factors will portion of its range—that is, whether extinction as none of these factors likely be amplified in some local there is any portion of the species’ range influence populations of the streaked populations due to the synergistic for which both (1) the portion is horned lark or its habitat at a level that effects related to small population size significant; and (2) the species is in is currently impacting the viability of and the increased effects of climate danger of extinction in that portion. the subspecies. Survey data from some change in the range over the next 30 Depending on the case, it might be more regularly monitored sites across the years, particularly along the Pacific efficient for us to address the range of the subspecies show an Coast, the South Puget Lowlands, and ‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ increase from 198 breeding pairs in Lower Columbia River. As climate question first. We can choose to address 2013 to 383 breeding pairs in 2019. The change and small population size either question first. Regardless of subspecies has shown relative stability increase in influence, the realized which question we address first, if we for the last 7 years based on survey data benefit of these replacement habitats to reach a negative answer with respect to from known populations, with 42 the subspecies may decrease. the first question that we address, we do redundant local populations across the Additionally, any future changes in not need to evaluate the other question range. Several local populations in all the maintenance of these landscapes for that portion of the species’ range. three representative regions have high will affect the resiliency of larks in the Following the court’s holding in condition, and a total of 23 local area. Agriculture remains the primary Center for Biological Diversity, we now populations across the range have high influence on land use in the Willamette consider whether there are any or moderate condition. Negative Valley, and the resilience of larks in that significant portions of the species’ range influence factors on the subspecies have area is tied to practices that can change where the species is in danger of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19201

extinction now (i.e., endangered). In consistent with the courts’ holdings in address continuing or new threats to the undertaking this analysis for the Desert Survivors v. Department of the species, as new substantive information streaked horned lark, we choose to Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 becomes available. The recovery plan address the status question first—we WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), also identifies recovery criteria for consider information pertaining to the and Center for Biological Diversity v. review of when a species may be ready geographic distribution of both the Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. for reclassification from endangered to species and the threats that the species Ariz. 2017). threatened (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal faces to identify any portions of the Determination of Status from protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and range where the species is endangered. methods for monitoring recovery For the streaked horned lark, we Our review of the best available progress. Recovery plans also establish considered whether the threats are scientific and commercial information a framework for agencies to coordinate geographically concentrated in any indicates that the streaked horned lark their recovery efforts and provide portion of the species’ range at a meets the definition of a threatened estimates of the cost of implementing biologically meaningful scale. We species. Therefore, we propose to affirm recovery tasks. Recovery teams examined the following influence the current listing of the streaked (composed of species experts, Federal factors (including cumulative effects): horned lark as a threatened species in and State agencies, nongovernmental Loss of preferred habitats as a result of accordance with sections 3(20) and organizations, and stakeholders) are successional changes in plant species 4(a)(1) of the Act. often established to develop recovery composition and encroachment of Available Conservation Measures plans. A notice of the draft recovery woody vegetation; invasion of beach plan for streaked horned lark was Conservation measures provided to grasses; conversion of suitable habitat published in the Federal Register on species listed as endangered or into unsuitable habitat through changes October 30, 2019 (84 FR 58170); the in land use; changes in agricultural threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, draft plan is available on our website practices from crops that mimic (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or preferred habitats to crops that diminish requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. from our Oregon Fish and Wildlife habitat suitability; land management Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION activities and related effects including Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by CONTACT). airport management activities, military Implementation of recovery actions training, and the placement of dredged Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and generally requires the participation of a materials; and recreation. The influence broad range of partners, including other of these factors vary somewhat across individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, the range, and there is no portion of the nongovernmental organizations, range where there is currently a countries and calls for recovery actions businesses, and private landowners. biologically meaningful concentration of to be carried out for listed species. The Examples of recovery actions include threats relative to other areas in the protection required by Federal agencies habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of range. Although the current abundance and the prohibitions against certain native vegetation), research, captive of local populations along the Pacific activities are discussed, in part, below. propagation and reintroduction, and Coast is low compared to other areas, it The primary purpose of the Act is the outreach and education. The recovery of has been low for many years, the size of conservation of endangered and many listed species cannot be those coastal sites is relatively small threatened species and the ecosystems accomplished solely on Federal lands compared to other local populations and upon which they depend. The ultimate because their range may occur primarily therefore naturally limits the number of goal of such conservation efforts is the breeding pairs, and we see no apparent recovery of these listed species, so that or solely on non-Federal lands. To declining trend in this regional they no longer need the protective achieve recovery of these species population based on survey data measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the requires cooperative conservation efforts between 2013 and 2019. However, in Act calls for the Service to develop and on private, State, and Tribal lands. the foreseeable future, the synergistic implement recovery plans for the Funding for recovery actions is effects of small population size and conservation of endangered and available from a variety of sources, climate change will likely amplify the threatened species. The recovery including Federal budgets, State effects of any ongoing threats on some planning process involves the programs, and cost-share grants for non- local populations in the range of the identification of actions that are Federal landowners, the academic subspecies, particularly along the necessary to halt or reverse the species’ community, and nongovernmental Pacific Coast, in the South Puget decline by addressing the threats to its organizations. In addition, pursuant to Lowlands, and along the Lower survival and recovery. The goal of this section 6 of the Act, the State(s) of Columbia River. process is to restore listed species to a Oregon and Washington are eligible for We found no concentration of threats point where they are secure, self- Federal funds to implement in any portion of the streaked horned sustaining, and functioning components management actions that promote the lark’s range at a biologically meaningful of their ecosystems. protection or recovery of the streaked scale. Thus, there are no portions of the Recovery planning consists of horned lark. Information on our grant species’ range where the species has a preparing draft and final recovery plans, programs that are available to aid different status from its rangewide beginning with the development of a species recovery can be found at: http:// status. Therefore, no portion of the recovery outline and making it available www.fws.gov/grants. species’ range provides a basis for to the public within 30 days of a final Please let us know if you are determining that the species is in danger listing determination. The recovery interested in participating in recovery of extinction in a significant portion of outline guides the immediate efforts for this species. Additionally, we its range, and we determine that the implementation of urgent recovery invite you to submit any new species is likely to become in danger of actions and describes the process to be information on this species whenever it extinction within the foreseeable future used to develop a recovery plan. becomes available and any information throughout all of its range. This is Revisions of the plan may be done to you may have for recovery planning

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 19202 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules

purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates range of the subspecies in Oregon and CONTACT). a large degree of deference to the agency Washington; (3) certain noxious weed Section 7(a) of the Act requires (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 control activities on non-Federal lands; Federal agencies to evaluate their (1988)). Conservation is defined in the and (4) habitat restoration activities that actions with respect to any species that Act to mean the use of all methods and benefit the conservation of streaked is proposed or listed as an endangered procedures which are necessary to bring horned lark. or threatened species and with respect any endangered species or threatened Exercising authority under section to its critical habitat, if any is species to the point at which the 4(d), we developed a proposed revised designated. Regulations implementing measures provided pursuant to the Act 4(d) rule that is designed to address the this interagency cooperation provision are no longer necessary. Additionally, streaked horned lark’s specific threats of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part the second sentence of section 4(d) of and conservation needs. Although the 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires the Act states that the Secretary may by statute does not require us to make a Federal agencies to confer with the regulation prohibit with respect to any ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ finding with Service on any action that is likely to threatened species any act prohibited respect to the adoption of specific jeopardize the continued existence of a under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish prohibitions under section 9, for the species proposed for listing or result in or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case reasons stated below we find that this destruction or adverse modification of of plants. Thus, the combination of the rule as a whole satisfies the requirement proposed critical habitat. If a species is two sentences of section 4(d) provides in section 4(d) of the Act to issue listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Secretary with wide latitude of regulations deemed necessary and the Act requires Federal agencies to discretion to select and promulgate advisable to provide for the ensure that activities they authorize, appropriate regulations tailored to the conservation of the streaked horned fund, or carry out are not likely to specific conservation needs of the lark. As discussed above under jeopardize the continued existence of threatened species. The second sentence Summary of Biological Status and the species or destroy or adversely grants particularly broad discretion to Threats, we have concluded that the modify its critical habitat. If a Federal the Service when adopting some or all streaked horned lark is likely to become action may affect a listed species or its of the prohibitions under section 9. in danger of extinction within the critical habitat, the responsible Federal The courts have recognized the extent foreseeable future primarily due to the agency must enter into consultation of the Secretary’s discretion under this synergistic effects of small population with the Service. standard to develop rules that are size and climate change on continued Federal agency actions within the appropriate for the conservation of a loss and degradation of habitat, land species’ habitat that may require species. For example, courts have management activities and related conference or consultation or both as upheld rules developed under section effects, and recreation. The influence of described in the preceding paragraph 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency these factors is expected to continue include management and any other authority where they prohibited take of into the foreseeable future. landscape-altering activities on Federal threatened wildlife, or include a limited The provisions of this proposed lands administered by the Service; taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley revised 4(d) rule would promote issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. conservation of the streaked horned lark by encouraging management of the (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); landscape in ways that meet both land Corps; and road construction by the Washington Environmental Council v. management considerations and the Federal Highway Administration in National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 conservation needs of the streaked cooperation with the Service at Baskett U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. horned lark. The provisions of this Slough NWR. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) proposed revised 4(d) rule are one of It is our policy, as published in the rules that do not address all of the many tools that we would use to Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR threats a species faces (see State of promote the conservation of the 34272), to identify to the maximum Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th streaked horned lark. For these reasons, extent practicable at the time a species Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when the Act was initially we find the proposed revised 4(d) rule is listed, those activities that would or enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the as a whole is necessary and advisable to would not constitute a violation of threatened list, the Secretary has an provide for conservation of the streaked section 9 of the Act. The intent of this almost infinite number of options horned lark. policy is to increase public awareness of available to him with regard to the the effect of a listing on proposed and Provisions of the Proposed Revised 4(d) permitted activities for those species. He ongoing activities within the range of Rule may, for example, permit taking, but not the species. The discussion below importation of such species, or he may The provisions of the proposed regarding protective regulations under choose to forbid both taking and revised 4(d) rule for the streaked horned section 4(d) of the Act complies with importation but allow the transportation lark are discussed in more detail below, our policy. of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, but we note here that the substantive II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). differences between the current 4(d) 4(d) of the Act On October 3, 2013, we issued a rule rule for the streaked horned lark at 50 under the authority of section 4(d) of the CFR 17.41(a) and this proposed revised Background Act to provide for the conservation of 4(d) rule are limited to the following: Section 4(d) of the Act contains two the streaked horned lark (78 FR 61452) The expansion of the exception for sentences. The first sentence states that (see 50 CFR 17.41(a)). That rule applies incidental take for certain agricultural the Secretary shall issue such all of the prohibitions of section 9 of the activities on non-Federal lands regulations as he deems necessary and Act to the streaked horned lark, with the throughout the range of the subspecies advisable to provide for the following exceptions for incidental take: in Oregon and Washington; and, the conservation of species listed as (1) Certain activities on airports on non- addition of an exception to the take threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has Federal lands; (2) certain agricultural prohibition for incidental take noted that statutory language like activities on non-Federal land in the associated with habitat restoration

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19203

activities that benefit streaked horned wintering larks in the area. Therefore, survival and recovery of the streaked lark. The primary driver of the status of excepting hazardous wildlife horned lark. The largest area of potential streaked horned lark has been the management from the Act’s prohibitions habitat for streaked horned larks is the scarcity of large, open spaces with very of take when conducted by airport staff agricultural land base in the Willamette early seral stage vegetation. Therefore, or employees contracted by the airport Valley. Larks are attracted to the wide this 4(d) rule is designed to support the to perform hazardous wildlife open landscape context and low continuation of activities taking place in management activities, furthers the vegetation structure in agricultural the range of the subspecies that lead to conservation of the subspecies by fields, especially in grass seed fields, these features, and to encourage the helping to prevent the spread of those probably because those working development of these features in new noxious weeds that may render existing landscapes resemble the historical areas in the range of the subspecies in habitat unsuitable for the streaked habitats formerly used by the subspecies the future. The proposed revised 4(d) horned lark. when the historical disturbances rule would provide for the conservation The listing of the streaked horned lark associated with floods and fires of the streaked horned lark by imposes a requirement on airport maintained a mosaic of suitable prohibiting take, except as otherwise managers where the subspecies occurs habitats. Habitat characteristics of authorized, permitted, or incidental to to consider the effects of their agricultural lands used by streaked the following activities: Wildlife hazard management activities on this horned larks include: (1) Bare or management at airports and accidental subspecies when actions are funded or sparsely vegetated areas within or strikes by aircraft, normal agricultural approved by the Federal Aviation adjacent to grass seed fields, pastures, or practices in Oregon and Washington, Administration. Excepting hazardous fallow fields; (2) recently planted (0 to noxious weed control on non-Federal wildlife management and accidental 3 years) conifer farms with extensive lands, and habitat restoration activities aircraft strikes from prohibitions on take bare ground; and (3) wetland mudflats beneficial to streaked horned lark. The eliminates the incentive for airports to or ‘‘drown outs’’ (i.e., washed out and prohibition, and the exceptions, are, for reduce or eliminate replacement habitat poorly performing areas within grass the most part, already included in the that supports populations of streaked seed or row crop fields). Currently in current 4(d) rule for the streaked horned horned larks from the airfields, and the Willamette Valley, there are lark at 50 CFR 17.41(a). All take not therefore provides for the conservation approximately 420,000 ac (169,968 ha) included in the exceptions would of the species by allowing current of grass seed fields and approximately continue to be prohibited in order to beneficial management activities to 500,000 ac (202,343 ha) of other support existing populations of the continue. Accidental aircraft strikes are agriculture. In any year, some portion of streaked horned lark. an unavoidable consequence of the these 920,000 ac (372,311 ha) will have vegetation management that also suitable streaked horned lark habitat, Some management actions taken at maintains habitat that supports breeding but the geographic location of those airports are generally beneficial to pairs. While aircraft strikes do occur in areas may not be consistent from year to streaked horned larks and have led to several local populations at airports year, nor can we predict their the creation of replacement habitat the throughout the range of the species occurrence due to variable agricultural subspecies relies upon. Streaked horned (particularly in the South Puget practices (crop rotation, fallow fields, larks breed successfully and maintain Lowlands), the rate appears relatively etc.), and we cannot predict the populations at airports in the South low. Additionally, the potential take of changing and dynamic locations of Puget Sound and Willamette Valley. streaked horned lark associated with the those areas. Airports maintain safe conditions for routine management, repair, and While agricultural activities also have aviation in part by routinely maintenance of roads and runways is the potential to harm or kill individual implementing programs to minimize the minimal. Therefore, in order to support streaked horned larks or destroy their presence of hazardous wildlife on activities involved in wildlife hazard nests, maintenance of extensive airfields; these activities unintentionally management that maintain habitat agricultural lands (primarily grass seed create suitable habitat for streaked features beneficial to streaked horned farms) in the Willamette Valley is horned larks. Activities involved in lark, incidental take associated with crucial to maintaining the population of wildlife hazard management at airports wildlife hazard management activities, streaked horned larks in the valley and that benefit streaked horned lark as well as aircraft strikes and routine aiding in the recovery of the subspecies include hazing of hazardous wildlife maintenance of existing roads and in Oregon. Although we are unaware of (geese and other large birds and runways at airports is excepted from the any current breeding populations of mammals) and modification and prohibition on take. We recommend that streaked horned larks on agricultural management of forage, water, and airport operators follow the guidance lands in Washington, use of these shelter to be less attractive to these provided in Federal Aviation habitats by streaked horned larks would hazardous wildlife, including vegetation Administration advisory circular 150/ aid in recovery of the subspecies in management to maintain desired grass 5200–33C, ‘‘Hazardous Wildlife Washington and is therefore height on or adjacent to airports through Attractants on or near Airports’’ (FAA encouraged. We propose to expand the mowing, discing, herbicide use, or 2020, entire), and all other applicable exception for incidental take for certain burning. As with other land related guidance. agricultural activities on non-Federal management activities, vegetation In the Willamette Valley, large lands in the proposed revised 4(d) rule management during the nesting season expanses of burned prairie or the scour to the entire range of the subspecies, to has the potential to destroy streaked plains of the Willamette and Columbia encourage management actions that horned lark nests and young. However, Rivers may have provided suitable would facilitate the use of areas other despite concerns over potential adverse habitat for streaked horned larks in the than civilian and military airports by effect of vegetation management during past. With the loss of these historical streaked horned within the range of the the breeding season at airports, this habitats during the last century, subspecies in Oregon and Washington. activity is very important to the alternative breeding and wintering sites, Because landowners are free to allow maintenance of the low-statured including active agricultural lands, have vegetation growth that results in the vegetation required by nesting and become critical for the continued conversion of lands into habitats

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 19204 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules

unsuitable for the streaked horned lark, landscape have resulted in altered risk of adverse effects to both conservation of the species will benefit vegetation structure and facilitated individuals and populations is expected from the support of agricultural invasion by nonnative grasses and to be mitigated as these types of practices that result in the creation and woody vegetation, including noxious activities will likely benefit the maintenance of habitat that is suitable weeds, rendering habitat unsuitable for subspecies by helping to preserve and for the subspecies. This proposed streaked horned larks. By their nature, enhance the habitat of existing local revised 4(d) rule, if finalized, would noxious weeds grow aggressively and populations over time. Reasonable care remove the incentive for private multiply quickly, negatively affecting all for habitat management may include, landowners in Oregon to discontinue types of habitats, including those used but would not be limited to, procuring activities resulting in suitable habitat for by larks. Some species of noxious weeds and implementing technical assistance larks on the highest-priority agricultural spread across long distances through from a qualified biologist on habitat lands based on section 9 liability wind, water, and animals, as well as via management activities, and best efforts concerns. Additionally, the rule would humans and vehicles, thereby affecting to minimize streaked horned lark reduce any section 9 liability concerns habitats far away from the source plants. exposure to hazards (e.g., predation, of private landowners in Washington Because noxious weed control habituation to feeding, entanglement, considering the implementation of maintains the low statured vegetation etc.). Therefore, we propose in the 4(d) agricultural practices that result in the and the open landscape that streaked rule an exception to the prohibition on creation and maintenance of habitat that horned lark relies upon, this activity is take for any habitat restoration actions is suitable for the subspecies. The essential to the retention of suitable that would create or enhance streaked primary crop type that results in habitat nesting, wintering, and foraging habitat. horned lark habitat, provided that features preferred by lark is grass seed, As with other land management reasonable care is taken to minimize and the typical harvest (combining) activities, noxious weed control during such take. the nesting season has the potential to period for grass seed fields occurs in We acknowledge that all of these destroy streaked horned lark nests and late June or early July, after the most activities excepted from incidental take young. On the other hand, streaked active part of the breeding season for in this rule have the potential to result horned larks can benefit from weeds, as larks is done. Because the timing of in destruction of nests, crushing of eggs they eat the seeds of weedy forbs and ground disturbance for grass seed farms or nestlings, or flushing of fledglings or grasses. However, despite any potential is after the primary part of the nesting adults when conducted during the benefit from weeds or concerns over season is over, it does not put the active breeding season for streaked reproductive success of the subspecies timing of control, the eradication (or removal) of noxious weeds wherever horned larks. The 2013 listing rule (78 at great risk, the benefits of encouraging FR 61452) included dredge spoil the continuation of the inadvertent they may occur is important to the maintenance of the low-statured deposition timing and placement on creation of lark habitat through normal Columbia River islands, incompatibly grass seed farming practices outweigh vegetation required by nesting and wintering larks. Therefore, excepting the timed burning and mowing regimes, the benefit of restricting the timing of activities associated with military this exception to take. Excepting routine routine mechanical or chemical management of noxious weeds from the training, and activities associated with agricultural activities on non-Federal airports as threats to the subspecies. lands from the prohibition on take Act’s prohibitions of take, furthers the conservation of the subspecies by Despite these threats noted at the time would help provide an overall benefit to helping to prevent the spread of those of listing, the Service determined that the subspecies by maintaining suitable noxious weeds that may render habitat timing restrictions on these activities habitat for the streaked horned lark. unsuitable for the streaked horned lark. were not appropriate, stating in the rule: This exception to the prohibition on It also encourages landowners to ‘‘Our purpose in promulgating a special take for agricultural activities would be manage their lands in ways that meet rule to exempt take associated with rangewide in Oregon and Washington, their property management needs and activities that inadvertently create and we find that the definition of also help to prevent degradation or loss habitat for the streaked horned lark is to ‘‘normal farming practices’’ in this 4(d) of suitable habitat for the streaked allow landowners to continue those rule is consistent with relevant Oregon horned lark. Noxious weed control activities without additional regulation. and Washington State laws (Oregon targets those species included on We believe that imposing a timing Revised Statutes (ORS), chapter 30, County, State, and Federal noxious restriction would likely reduce the section 30.930, and Revised Code of weed lists (see State and Federal lists utility of the special rule for land Washington (RCW), title 7, chapter 7.48, via links at http://plants.usda.gov/java/ managers, and could have the section 7.48.310, respectively). noxious; Washington State counties unintended side effect of causing Streaked horned larks nest, forage, each have a noxious weed control landowners to discontinue their habitat and winter on extensive areas of bare website, and selected Oregon State creation activities’’ (78 FR 61464). No ground with low-statured vegetation. counties maintain noxious weed lists). timing restrictions were included in the These areas include native prairies, Finally, activities associated with 4(d) rule, and these land management coastal dunes, fallow and active streaked horned lark habitat restoration activities have continued across the agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, (e.g., removing non-native plants and range since 2013. Survey data from sparsely vegetated edges of grass fields, planting native plants, creating open some regularly monitored sites recently planted conifer farms with areas, and maintaining sparse vegetation throughout the range of the subspecies extensive bare ground, moderately to through vegetation removal or now show an increase from 198 heavily grazed pastures, gravel roads or suppression via controlled burns) would breeding pairs in 2013, to 383 breeding gravel shoulders of lightly traveled be very beneficial to the subspecies; any pairs in 2019, despite the lack of timing roads, airports, and dredge deposition adverse effects to the subspecies from restrictions on land management sites in the Lower Columbia River. The these activities would likely be only activities. While the loss of individuals suppression and loss of ecological short-term or temporary, especially with is never welcome, this 4(d) rule disturbance regimes such as fire and respect to harassment or disturbance of provides for the conservation of the flooding across vast portions of the individual lark. In the long term, the subspecies by including provisions that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19205

support the continuation of land may be issued for the following revised 4(d) rule, incidental take is not management activities that create purposes: For scientific purposes, to prohibited, and purposeful take is not replacement habitat; the benefits of enhance propagation or survival, for prohibited if the activity is authorized these provisions to the subspecies economic hardship, for zoological or exempted under the MBTA, such as outweigh the cost of any loss of exhibition, for educational purposes, for activities under a migratory bird individuals. incidental taking, or for special rehabilitation permit necessary to aid a As discussed above under Summary purposes consistent with the purposes sick, injured, or orphaned bird. Thus, if of Biological Status and Threats, of the Act. There are also certain a permit is issued for activities resulting multiple factors are affecting the status statutory exemptions from the in purposeful take of streaked horned of the streaked horned lark. A range of prohibitions, which are found in larks under the MBTA, it will not be activities have the potential to affect the sections 9 and 10 of the Act. necessary to have an additional permit streaked horned lark, including the We recognize the special and unique under the Act. management of hazardous wildlife at relationship with our State natural Nothing in this proposed revised 4(d) airports and associated airstrikes, resource agency partners in contributing rule would change in any way the routine agricultural activities, and the to conservation of listed species. State recovery planning provisions of section routine removal or other management of agencies often possess scientific data 4(f) of the Act, the consultation noxious weeds. Prohibiting take and valuable expertise on the status and requirements under section 7 of the Act, rangewide under section 9 of the Act to distribution of endangered, threatened, or the ability of the Service to enter into the streaked horned lark, will help and candidate species of wildlife and partnerships for the management and preserve the species’ remaining plants. State agencies, because of their protection of the streaked horned lark. populations, slow their rate of decline, authorities and their close working However, interagency cooperation may and allow for the maintenance of relationships with local governments be further streamlined through planned suitable habitat for the species. and landowners, are in a unique programmatic consultations for the However, these same activities also position to assist the Services in species between Federal agencies and benefit streaked horned lark through the implementing all aspects of the Act. In the Service, where appropriate. We ask creation of the very habitat features this regard, section 6 of the Act provides the public, particularly State agencies (large open spaces with very early seral that the Services shall cooperate to the and other interested stakeholders that stage vegetation) that streaked horned maximum extent practicable with the may be affected by the proposed revised lark prefer; without these replacement States in carrying out programs 4(d) rule, to provide comments and habitats throughout the range, the status authorized by the Act. Therefore, any suggestions regarding additional of the subspecies would likely be much qualified employee or agent of a State guidance and methods that the Service worse. Therefore, while we are conservation agency that is a party to a could provide or use, respectively, to extending the take prohibition for the cooperative agreement with the Service streamline the implementation of this streaked horned lark, we are excepting in accordance with section 6(c) of the proposed revised 4(d) rule (see from this prohibition take that is Act, who is designated by his or her Information Requested, above). incidental to the management of agency for such purposes, will be able III. Required Determinations hazardous wildlife at airports, to conduct activities designed to accidental airstrikes by aircraft, routine conserve streaked horned lark that may Clarity of the Rule agricultural activities, the routine result in otherwise prohibited take We are required by Executive Orders removal or other management of without additional authorization. 12866 and 12988 and by the noxious weeds, and habitat restoration As a subspecies of the horned lark Presidential Memorandum of June 1, activities. As discussed above, we (Eremophila alpestris), the streaked 1998, to write all rules in plain believe that that these exceptions will horned lark is protected by the language. This means that each rule we provide for the conservation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 publish must: species by supporting the maintenance U.S.C. 703 et seq.). The MBTA makes it (1) Be logically organized; and creation of habitat features that unlawful, at any time, by any means or (2) Use the active voice to address streaked horned lark rely upon. in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, readers directly; Under the Act, ‘‘take’’ means to capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or (3) Use clear language rather than harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to jargon; wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or barter, barter, offer to purchase, (4) Be divided into short sections and to attempt to engage in any such purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, sentences; and conduct. Some of these provisions have export, import, cause to be shipped, (5) Use lists and tables wherever been further defined in regulations at 50 exported, or imported, deliver for possible. CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or transportation, transport or cause to be If you feel that we have not met these otherwise, by direct and indirect transported, carry or cause to be carried, requirements, send us comments by one impacts, intentionally or incidentally. or receive for shipment, transportation, of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To Regulating incidental take would help carriage, or export, any migratory bird, better help us revise the rule, your preserve the species’ remaining or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird comments should be as specific as populations, slow their rate of decline, included in the terms of four specific possible. For example, you should tell and decrease synergistic, negative conventions between the United States us the numbers of the sections or effects from other threats. and certain foreign countries (16 U.S.C. paragraphs that are unclearly written, We may issue permits to carry out 703). See 50 CFR 10.13 for the list of which sections or sentences are too otherwise prohibited activities, migratory birds protected by the MBTA. long, the sections where you feel lists or including those described above, Like the current 4(d) rule for the tables would be useful, etc. involving threatened wildlife under subspecies, this proposed revised 4(d) certain circumstances. Regulations rule adopts existing requirements under National Environmental Policy Act (42 governing permits for threatened species the MBTA as appropriate regulatory U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With provisions for the streaked horned lark. It is our position that, outside the regard to threatened wildlife, a permit Accordingly, under the proposed jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 19206 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, (2) Habitat modification and prepare environmental analyses as set forth below: management of sources of forage, water, pursuant to the National Environmental and shelter to reduce the attractiveness Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in PART 17—ENDANGERED AND of the area around the airport for connection with regulations adopted THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS hazardous wildlife. This exception for pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We ■ habitat modification and management published a notice outlining our reasons 1. The authority citation for part 17 includes control and management of for this determination in the Federal continues to read as follows: vegetation (grass, weeds, shrubs, and Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– trees) through mowing, discing, 49244). We also determine that 4(d) 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise herbicide application, or burning; rules that accompany regulations noted. (3) Routine management, repair, and adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the ■ 2. Amend § 17.41 by revising maintenance of roads and runways Act are not subject to the National paragraph (a) to read as set forth below: (does not include upgrades or Environmental Policy Act. construction of new roads or runways); § 17.41 Special rules—birds. (B) Accidental aircraft strikes at Government-to-Government (a) Streaked horned lark (Eremophila airports on non-Federal lands. Relationship With Tribes alpestris strigata). (C) Agricultural (farming) practices In accordance with the President’s (1) Prohibitions. The following implemented on farms consistent with memorandum of April 29, 1994 prohibitions that apply to endangered State laws on non-Federal lands in (Government-to-Government Relations wildlife also apply to streaked horned Washington and Oregon. with Native American Tribal lark. Except as provided under (1) For the purposes of this rule, farm Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive paragraph (a)(2) of this section and means any facility, including land, Order 13175 (Consultation and §§ 17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any buildings, watercourses and Coordination with Indian Tribal person subject to the jurisdiction of the appurtenances, used in the commercial Governments), and the Department of United States to commit, to attempt to production of crops, nursery stock, the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we commit, to solicit another to commit, or livestock, poultry, livestock products, readily acknowledge our responsibility cause to be committed, any of the poultry products, vermiculture to communicate meaningfully with following acts in regard to this species: products, or the propagation and raising recognized Federal Tribes on a (i) Import or export, as set forth at of nursery stock. government-to-government basis. In § 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. (2) For the purposes of this rule, an accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 (ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) agricultural (farming) practice means a of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal for endangered wildlife. mode of operation on a farm that is or (iii) Possession and other acts with Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust may be used on a farm of a similar unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth Responsibilities, and the Endangered nature; is a generally accepted, at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. Species Act), we readily acknowledge reasonable, and prudent method for the (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in our responsibilities to work directly operation of the farm to obtain a profit the course of commercial activity, as set with Tribes in developing programs for in money; is or may become a generally forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that accepted, reasonable, and prudent wildlife. method in conjunction with farm use; Tribal lands are not subject to the same (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth controls as Federal public lands, to complies with applicable State laws; at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. and is done in a reasonable and prudent remain sensitive to Indian culture, and (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In to make information available to Tribes. manner. Common agricultural (farming) regard to this species, you may: practices include, but are not limited to, References Cited (i) Conduct activities as authorized by the following activities: a permit under § 17.32. (i) Planting, harvesting, rotation, A complete list of references cited in (ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) mowing, tilling, discing, burning, and this proposed rulemaking is available on through (4) for endangered wildlife, and herbicide application to crops; the internet at http:// (c)(6) and (7) for endangered migratory (ii) Normal transportation activities, www.regulations.gov and upon request birds. and repair and maintenance of from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife (iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b). unimproved farm roads (this exemption Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION (iv) Take incidental to an otherwise does not include improvement or CONTACT). lawful activity caused by: construction of new roads) and graveled Authors (A) The management of hazardous margins of rural roads; wildlife at airport facilities by airport (iii) Livestock grazing according to The primary authors of this proposed staff or employees contracted by the normally acceptable and established rule are the staff members of the Fish airport to perform hazardous wildlife levels; and Wildlife Service’s Species management activities. Hazardous (iv) Hazing of geese or predators; and Assessment Team and the Oregon Fish wildlife is defined by the Federal (v) Maintenance of irrigation and and Wildlife Office. Aviation Administration as species of drainage systems. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 wildlife, including feral animals and (D) Removal or other management of domesticated animals not under control, noxious weeds. Routine removal or Endangered and threatened species, that are associated with aircraft strike other management of noxious weeds are Exports, Imports, Reporting and problems, are capable of causing limited to the following, and must be recordkeeping requirements, structural damage to airport facilities, or conducted in such a way that impacts Transportation. act as attractants to other wildlife that to non-target plants are avoided to the IV. Proposed Regulation Promulgation pose a strike hazard. Routine maximum extent practicable: management activities include, but are (1) Mowing; Accordingly, we propose to amend not limited to, the following: (2) Herbicide and fungicide part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title (1) Hazing of hazardous wildlife; application;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19207

(3) Fumigation; and Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). regulations governing the halibut fishery (4) Burning. This action is intended to promote the under the Convention between the (E) Habitat restoration actions. Habitat goals and objectives of the IFQ Program, United States and Canada for the restoration and enhancement activities the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of for the conservation of streaked horned 1982, and other applicable laws. the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering lark may include activities consistent DATES: Submit comments on or before Sea (Convention). The IPHC’s with formal approved conservation April 28, 2021. regulations are subject to approval by plans or strategies, such as Federal or ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, the Secretary of State with the State plans that include streaked horned identified by FDMS Docket Number concurrence of the Secretary of lark conservation prescriptions or NOAA–NMFS–2021–0032, by any of the Commerce (Secretary). NMFS publishes compliance, which the Service has following methods: the IPHC’s regulations as annual determined would be consistent with • Electronic Submission: Submit all management measures pursuant to 50 this rule. electronic public comments via the CFR 300.62. The 2021 IPHC annual (v) Possess and engage in other acts Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to management measures were published with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set https://www.regulations.gov and enter on March 9, 2021 (86 FR 13475). forth at § 17.21(d)(2) through (d)(4). NOAA–NMFS–2021–0032 in the Search The Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c(a) * * * * * box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, and (b), provides the Secretary with Martha Williams, complete the required fields, and enter general responsibility to carry out the or attach your comments. Convention and the Halibut Act. The Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the • Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish Mail: Submit written comments to Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c(c), also and Wildlife Service. Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional provides the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) with [FR Doc. 2021–06943 Filed 4–12–21; 8:45 am] Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries authority to develop regulations, BILLING CODE 4333–15–P Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Susan Meyer. Mail comments to P.O. including limited access regulations, Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. that are in addition to, and not in DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Instructions: NMFS may not consider conflict with, approved IPHC comments sent by any other method, to regulations. Regulations recommended National Oceanic and Atmospheric any other address or individual, or by the Council may be implemented by Administration received after the end of the comment NMFS only after approval by the period. All comments received are a Secretary. 50 CFR Part 679 part of the public record and will The Council has exercised its generally be posted for public viewing authority in developing halibut [Docket No. 210407–0077] on http://www.regulations.gov without management programs for the RIN 0648–BK42 change. All personal identifying subsistence, sport, and commercial information (e.g., name, address), halibut fisheries. The Secretary Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch confidential business information, or exercised authority to implement the Sharing Plan otherwise sensitive information commercial IFQ halibut fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries submitted voluntarily by the sender will management program (58 FR 59375; Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and be publicly accessible. NMFS will November 9, 1993). The IFQ Program for Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), accept anonymous comments (enter N/ the halibut fishery is implemented by Commerce. A in the required fields if you wish to Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for remain anonymous). The halibut IFQ fishery is managed in comments. Electronic copies of the Categorical specific areas defined by the IPHC. Exclusion and the Regulatory Impact These IFQ regulatory areas (Areas) are: SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed Review (RIR) prepared for this action Area 2A (California, Oregon, and rule to revise regulations for the (referred to as the ‘‘Analysis’’) are Washington); Area 2B (British commercial individual fishing quota available from http:// Columbia); Area 2C (Southeast Alaska), (IFQ) Pacific halibut (halibut) fisheries www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Area 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska), Area for the 2021 IFQ fishing year. This Alaska Region website at http:// 3B (Western Gulf of Alaska), and Area proposed rule would remove limits on alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 4 (subdivided into five areas, 4A the maximum amount of halibut IFQ Additional requests for information through 4E, in the Bering Sea and that may be harvested by a vessel, regarding halibut may be obtained by Aleutian Islands of Western Alaska). commonly known as vessel use caps, in contacting the IPHC, 2320 W These Areas are described at 50 CFR IFQ regulatory areas 4A (Eastern Commodore Way, Suite 300, Seattle, part 679, Figure 15. Halibut allocated Aleutian Islands), 4B (Central and WA 98199–1287; or Sustainable under the IFQ program in Areas 2C, 3A, Western Aleutian Islands), 4C (Central Fisheries Division, NMFS Alaska 3B, and Area 4 are subject to limits on Bering Sea), and 4D (Eastern Bering Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK the maximum amount of halibut IFQ Sea). This action is needed to provide 99802; Sustainable Fisheries Division. that may be harvested by a vessel, additional flexibility to IFQ participants FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: commonly known as vessel use caps. in 2021 to ensure allocations of halibut Abby Jahn, 907–586–7228. NMFS also allocates halibut to the IFQ can be harvested by the limited SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western Alaska Community number of vessels operating in these Development Quota (CDQ Program) in areas. This action is within the authority Authority for Action Areas 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E of the Secretary of Commerce to The IPHC and NMFS manage fishing (§ 679.31(a)(2)). Halibut is allocated to establish additional regulations for halibut through regulations the CDQ Program in Areas 4B, 4C, 4D, governing the taking of halibut which established under the authority of the and 4E and those allocations are not are in addition to, and not in conflict Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 subject to a vessel use cap. Throughout with, those adopted by the International (Halibut Act). The IPHC promulgates this preamble, the term ‘‘vessel use cap’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS