31400 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

At the time of promulgation, EPA

determined that the Petroleum

Refineries NESHAP does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector. This determination is not

altered by today’s action, the purpose of

which is to revise the date by which a

report is due and provide an exemption

for specific vent streams. Thus, today’s

proposed rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 12875

To reduce the burden of Federal

regulations on States and small

governments, the President issued

Executive Order 12875 entitled

‘‘Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership’’ on October 26, 1993.

Executive Order 12875 prohibits the

EPA, to the extent feasible and

permitted by law, from promulgating

any regulation that is not required by

statute and that creates a mandate upon

a State, local or tribal government

unless: (i) The Federal Government

provides the funds necessary to pay the

direct costs incurred by the State, local

or tribal government in complying with

the mandate; or, (ii) EPA provides to the

Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of the EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of those entities

concerns, any written communications

submitted to EPA by such units of

government and the EPA’s position

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. Executive Order 12875

further requires the EPA to develop an

effective process to permit elected

officials and other representatives of

State, local and tribal governments ‘‘to

provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded

mandates.’’ This rule does not create a

mandate upon State, local or tribal

governments.

F. Applicability of Executive Order

13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to any

rule that EPA determines (1)

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

the environmental health or safety risk

addressed by the rule has a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the EPA must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the EPA.

This proposed rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866, and it does not address an

environmental health or safety risk that

would have a disproportionate effect on

children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous air

pollutants, Petroleum refineries,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Storage vessels.

Dated: May 28, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–15006 Filed 6–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a

Petition To List the Lesser PrairieChicken as Threatened and Designate

Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition

finding.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) announces a 12-month finding

for a petition to list the lesser prairiechicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus)

under the Endangered Species Act of

1973 as amended. After review of all

available scientific and commercial

information, the Service finds that

listing this species is warranted but

precluded by other higher priority

actions to amend the Lists of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants. The lesser prairie-chicken is

added to the Service’s candidate species

list.

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was made on June 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Data, information,

comments, or questions concerning this

petition should be sent to the Field

Supervisor, U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 222 S. Houston, Suite A, Tulsa,

Oklahoma, 74127. The petition finding,

supporting data, and comments are

available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry

Brabander, Field Supervisor, Oklahoma

Ecological Services Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section) (telephone 918/581–

7458 ext. 224, facsimile 918/581–7467).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that for

any petition to revise the Lists of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants that contains substantial

scientific and commercial information,

the Service make a finding within 12

months of the receipt of the petition on

whether the petitioned action is: (a) not

warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)

warranted but precluded from

immediate proposal by other pending

proposals of higher priority. Information

contained in this notice is a summary of

the information in the 12-month

finding, which is the Service’s decision

document. When a petition to list a

species is found to be warranted but

precluded, the species is designated a

candidate species. A candidate species

is a taxon for which the Service has on

file sufficient information to support

issuance of a proposed listing rule.

Section 4(b)(3)(C) requires that a

petition for which the requested action

is found to be warranted but precluded

be treated as though it has been

resubmitted on the date of such finding;

a subsequent finding is to be made on

such a petition within 12 months of the

initial or previous finding. Notices of

such 12-month findings are to be

published promptly in the Federal

Register.

On October 6, 1995, the Service

received a petition, dated October 5,

1995, from the Biodiversity Legal

Foundation, Boulder, Colorado and

Marie E. Morrissey (petitioners). The

petitioners requested that the Service

list the lesser prairie-chicken as

threatened throughout its known

historic range in the United States, and

that critical habitat be designated as

soon as needs of the species are

sufficiently well known. However, from

October 1995 through April 1996,

funding for the Service’s listing program

was severely reduced or eliminated and

the Service was unable to act on the

petition.

The Service made a 90-day finding

that the petition presented substantial

information indicating that the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules 31401

requested action may be warranted. The

90-day finding was announced in the

Federal Register on July 8, 1997 (62 FR

36482). In that notice, additional

information on the status, trend,

distribution, and habitat use of the

species was requested by September 8,

1997, for use in a status review. In

response to a request by the Lesser

Prairie-chicken Interstate Working

Group comprised of state agencies and

other interested parties, an additional

30-day period for submission of

information was announced in the

Federal Register on November 3, 1997

(62 FR 59334).

The Service has reviewed the petition,

the literature cited in the petition, other

available literature and information, and

consulted with biologists and

researchers familiar with the lesser

prairie-chicken. On the basis of the best

scientific and commercial information

available, the Service finds the petition

is warranted but precluded by work on

other species having higher priority for

listing.

The lesser prairie-chicken is in the

Order Galliformes, Family Phasianidae,

subfamily Tetraoninae, and is

recognized as a species separate from

the greater prairie-chicken

(Tympanuchus cupido) (American

Ornithologist’s Union 1957). Average

length ranges from 38–41 centimeters

(15–16 inches) (Johnsgard 1973). The

plumage of the lesser prairie-chicken is

similar to that of the greater prairiechicken, although it is somewhat lighter

and is characterized by alternating

brown and buff-colored barring. Males

have long tufts of feathers on the sides

of the neck which are erected during

courtship display. Males also display

yellow-orange eyecombs and reddishpurple air sacs during courtship

displays (Copelin 1963, Johnsgard

1983). Lesser prairie-chickens were first

described as a subspecies of the greater

prairie-chicken (Ridgway 1873) but

were granted specific status in 1885

(Ridgway 1885). A discussion of lesser

prairie-chicken taxonomy is found in

Giesen (1997).

Lesser prairie-chickens exhibit a lek

mating system. Males gather to display

on leks at dusk and dawn beginning in

late February through early May

(Copelin 1963, Hoffman 1963, Crawford

and Bolen 1975). A dominant older

male occupies the center of the lek,

while younger males gather in outlying

areas. Females arrive at the lek in early

spring; peak hen attendance at leks is

during mid-April (Copelin 1963, Haukos

1988). The sequence of vocalizations

and posturing of the dominant male,

termed ‘‘booming,’’ has been described

by Johnsgard (1983) and Haukos (1988).

After mating, the hen selects a nest

site, usually 1–3 kilometers (km) (0.6–2

miles (mi)) from the lek (Giesen 1994b),

and lays an average clutch of 10–14 eggs

(Bent 1932, Taylor and Guthery 1980).

Second nests may occur when the first

attempt is unsuccessful. Incubation lasts

23–26 days, and young leave the nest

within hours of hatching (Coats 1955).

Broods may remain with females for 6–

8 weeks (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Campbell

(1972) estimated a 65 percent annual

mortality rate, and a 5-year maximum

life span. Giesen (1997) provided a

comprehensive summary of lesser

prairie-chicken breeding behavior,

habitat, and phenology.

The lesser prairie-chicken historically

occupied areas of sand sagebrush

(Artemesia filifolia)—bluestem

(Andropogon spp. and/or

Schizachyrium spp.) or shinnery oak

(Quercus havardii)—bluestem

grasslands in portions of southeastern

Colorado (Giesen 1994a), southwestern

Kansas (Schwilling 1955), western

Oklahoma (Duck and Fletcher 1944), the

Texas Panhandle (Henika 1940,

Oberholser 1973), and eastern New

Mexico (Ligon 1927). In Colorado and

Kansas, the sand sagebrush prairie

community used by lesser prairiechickens also includes sand dropseed

(Sporobolus cryptandrus), little

bluestem (Schizachyrium scorparium),

switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), blue

grama (Bouteloua gracilis), and sideoats

grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) (Baker

1953, Taylor and Guthery 1980, Giesen

1994a). Most of the lesser prairiechickens in Kansas are found south of

the Arkansas River in sand sagebrush

prairies similar to those in southeastern

Colorado (Sexson and Horak 1978).

In western Oklahoma, lesser prairiechickens use sand sagebrush-bluestem

grasslands as well as the shinnery oakbluestem grasslands, dominated by sand

bluestem (Andropogon halli), little

bluestem, and sand dropseed (Duck and

Fletcher 1944, Copelin 1963). In Texas,

populations are confined almost

exclusively to sandy ridges containing

shinnery oak and/or sand sagebrush, as

well as tall grasses such as sand

bluestem, little bluestem, and

switchgrass (Jackson and De Arment

1963, Litton 1978).

In the southeastern part of New

Mexico, lesser prairie-chickens exist in

the shrub-dominated High Plains

Bluestem habitat type in mixed stands

of tall grasses (i.e., sand bluestem, little

bluestem) and shinnery oak (Riley et al.

1993a). In northern New Mexico, lesser

prairie-chickens primarily used sand

sagebrush rangelands dominated by

sand bluestem, little bluestem, and

Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), with

some yucca (Yucca spp.), shinnery oak,

and mesquite (Prosopsis spp.) (Taylor

and Guthery 1980).

The diet of lesser prairie-chickens is

dominated by vegetative matter in

autumn and winter, with insects

increasing in proportion in the diet

during the summer months. Shinnery

oak leaf galls, catkins, leaves, and

acorns may comprise 60–70 percent of

the autumn and winter diet (Davis et al.

1979; Riley et al. 1993b); fragrant sumac

(Rhus aromatica) and sand sagebrush

also are important winter foods (Doerr

and Guthery 1980). When available,

grain sorghum fields are often used as

winter food (Copelin 1963, Donaldson

1969). In New Mexico, green vegetation

constituted about 80 percent of the

spring diet (Davis et al. 1979). Insects

(Acrididae, Tettigoniidae, and

Membracidae) comprised 55 percent of

the summer diet of adults, and 99–100

percent of the summer diet of juveniles

(Davis et al. 1979, Davis et al. 1980).

Summary of Population Status

Little information is available on

lesser prairie-chicken populations prior

to 1900. Litton (1978) suggested that

there may have been as many as two

million birds in Texas alone prior to

1900. The Service is not aware of any

independent estimate to corroborate

Litton’s claim, and the source or

methodology behind his estimate is

unknown. However, in the early

twentieth century, lesser prairiechickens were reportedly quite common

throughout their range in Colorado,

Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and

Texas (Bent 1932, Baker 1953, Bailey

and Niedrach 1965, Sands 1968,

Fleharty 1995). By the 1930s, extensive

cultivation, overgrazing, and drought

had begun to cause the species to

disappear from areas where it had been

abundant (Bent 1932, Baker 1953, Bailey

and Niedrach 1965, Davison 1940, Lee

1950, Oberholser 1974). Lesser prairiechicken abundance appeared to

fluctuate somewhat during the 1940s

and 1950s (Copelin 1963, Snyder 1967,

Crawford 1980), and by the early 1970s,

the total fall population may have been

reduced to about 60,000 birds (Crawford

1980). By 1980, the estimated total fall

population was approximately 44,000 to

53,000 birds (Crawford 1980).

Each of the five State wildlife

agencies provided the Service with

information regarding the status of the

lesser prairie-chicken. Most states

collect data in the form of one or both

of the following indices—average lek

size (i.e., number of males per lek); or

density of leks in a given area. The State

of Kansas estimates density of birds per

square mile (sq mi). In general, each of
31402 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

the State wildlife agencies believes that

they are unable to provide a precise

estimate of lesser prairie-chicken

population abundance in their State. In

the absence of bird density data, the

number of active leks over large areas

was recommended as the most reliable

index to prairie grouse population

trends (Cannon and Knopf 1981).

In Colorado, the lesser prairie-chicken

has been listed as threatened under

State law since 1973. The total number

of lesser prairie-chickens counted on

leks increased substantially between

1959 and 1990 as did survey effort. The

Colorado Division of Wildlife currently

estimates a total of 800–1,000 lesser

prairie-chickens in the State (K. Giesen,

pers. comm. August 26, 1997).

In Kansas, the lesser prairie-chicken is

an upland game bird with a legal

harvest between December 1 and

January 31. In the early part of this

century, lesser prairie-chickens were

considered plentiful in the sandhill and

bunchgrass areas (Colvin 1914 as

reported by Bent 1932), and they

remained abundant until the droughts of

the 1930s (Schwilling 1955). Estimated

fall population in 1979 was 17,000–

18,000 birds (Crawford 1980). Eight of

10 lesser prairie-chicken survey routes

in Kansas had a significantly declining

trend of birds per sq mi (data available

from most routes from 1969–1995; R.

Applegate, in litt. August 8, 1996). In

1997, the rangewide average of 0.69

birds per 100 hectares (ha) (1.8 birds per

sq mi) was not a statistically significant

decline over the 1996 average of 0.8

birds per 100 ha (2.2 birds per sq mi)

(Rodgers 1997).

In New Mexico the lesser prairiechicken is an upland game bird,

although the hunting season was closed

in 1996. Estimates of occupied range in

New Mexico over the last century

suggest a pattern of decline and

increase, including reoccupation of

former range (Ligon 1927, Snyder 1967,

Sands 1968). In the 1950s, the

population was estimated at 40,000–

50,000 (Sands 1968) and by 1972, at

6,000–10,000 birds (Taylor and Guthery

1980 based on Campbell 1972). Survey

data from 1971–1997 analyzed by the

New Mexico Natural Heritage Institute

show a clear decrease after 1988. During

the 1990s, much greater survey effort

continually failed to yield increased

numbers of prairie chickens on

traditional lek sites on Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) administered

property.

In Oklahoma, the lesser prairiechicken is considered an upland game

bird, although the harvest season will be

closed beginning with the fall 1998

hunting season. Abundance estimates in

Oklahoma also suggest population

fluctuations—in 1944, 15,000 birds were

estimated (Duck and Fletcher 1944); by

1956, only 2,500–3,000 (Summars

1956); and in 1960, approximately

15,000 (Copelin 1963). By 1979, Cannon

and Knopf (1980) reported an estimated

total of 7,500 lesser prairie-chickens. A

very rough estimate of 475 total lesser

prairie-chickens in spring of 1995 was

provided to the petitioner by the

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife

Conservation (ODWC). Between 1968

and 1997, the mean number of males

per active lek ranged from a high of 16.5

in 1975 to a low of 4.6 in 1995. In both

1996 and 1997, an average of 6.8 males

per active lek was estimated. Between

1987 and 1997, the estimated density of

leks within occupied habitat ranged

from a high of 0.13 leks per 100 ha (0.33

leks per sq mi) in 1988 to a low of 0.024

leks per 100 ha (0.06 leks per sq mi) in

1997 (ODWC 1997).

In Texas, the lesser prairie-chicken is

an upland game bird with a legal

harvest from October 18–19. Although

Litton (1978) reported estimates of 2

million birds in Texas prior to 1900, the

source of this estimate is unknown. By

1937, the population may have been

reduced to 12,000 (Oberholser 1974). In

1967, the State of Texas believed the

lesser prairie-chicken population was of

sufficient size to reinstate a limited

harvest, which had been closed since

1937. In 1979, the population was

estimated at 11,000–18,000 birds

(Crawford 1980). Between 1942 and

1986, the Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department (TPWD) annually estimated

density of leks per 100 ha in two

counties of the Texas panhandle

(Wheeler and Hemphill). During this

time period, density of leks in Hemphill

County remained fairly stable, and

averaged 0.083 leks per 100 ha (0.21

leks per sq mi). In 1997, density

estimated on this study area was 0.049

leks per 100 ha (0.13 leks per sq mi), 41

percent below the 1942–1986 average.

In Wheeler County, the 1942–1985

average was 0.518 leks per 100 ha (1.35

leks per sq mi), and the 1997 estimate

was 0.074 leks per 100 ha (0.19 leks per

sq mi), 85.7 percent lower than the

1942–1986 average (J. Hughes, in litt.

August 26, 1997).

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4 of the Endangered Species

Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424)

promulgated to implement the listing

provisions of the Act set forth the

procedures for adding species to the

Federal lists. A species may be

determined to be an endangered or

threatened species due to one or more

of the five factors described in section

4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the lesser prairie-chicken

are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Historical and Current Range

In the early twentieth century, lesser

prairie-chickens were reportedly

common throughout their five-state

range (Bent 1932, Baker 1953, Sands

1968, Fleharty 1995). Lesser prairiechickens are currently found within

each of the five states, although their

distribution within those states has

declined (Bent 1932, Taylor and

Guthery 1980, Giesen 1997).

The area originally occupied by lesser

prairie-chickens was estimated as

358,000 square kilometers (sq km)

(140,000 sq mi), and by 1969 it was

about 125,000 sq km (49,000 sq mi), due

to wide-scale conversion of native

prairie to cultivated cropland (Taylor

and Guthery 1980 based on Aldrich

1963). In 1980, occupied range was

estimated at 27,300 sq km (10,700 sq

mi), which represented a 78 percent

decrease in range since 1963, and a 92

percent decrease since the 1800s (Taylor

and Guthery 1980).

Colorado—It is likely that lesser

prairie-chickens were resident only in

six counties prior to settlement (Giesen

1994a). Museum specimens are known

only from Baca and Prowers counties

(Giesen 1994a). At present, lesser

prairie-chickens are known to be

present in Baca, Prowers, and Kiowa

counties (Giesen 1994a).

Kansas—Lesser prairie-chicken

historical range included 38 counties

(Schwilling 1955, Figure 1), and they

are currently known to exist in 19

Kansas counties (R. Applegate, in litt.

October 8, 1997).

Oklahoma—Lesser prairie-chickens

historically occurred in 16 Oklahoma

counties (Duck and Fletcher 1944). In

1943, lesser prairie-chickens were

located in nine counties, comprising an

estimated range of 10,143 sq km (3,962

sq mi) (Duck and Fletcher 1944). In

1963, they were located in 12 counties,

with an estimated range of 6,225 sq km

(2,432 sq mi) (Copelin 1963). By 1979,

they were verified in 8 counties;

isolated fragments totaled an estimated

2,791 sq km (1,090 sq mi), a decrease of

approximately 72 percent since 1944

(Cannon and Knopf 1980).

At present, there are reports of lesser

prairie-chickens occurring in seven

counties (ODWC 1997; R. Horton,

ODWC, in litt. November 12, 1997; J.

Shackford, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules 31403

and Wildlife Research Unit, in litt. May

27, 1997). The estimated occupied range

in 1995 was 1,162 sq km (454 sq mi) (R.

Horton, ODWC, pers. comm. December

13, 1995), which would indicate a

decrease of 89 percent since Duck and

Fletcher’s (1944) estimate.

Texas—The earliest systematic survey

of lesser prairie-chickens in the State

was Henika (1940) (M. Peterson, TPWD

and Wildlife, in litt. October 17, 1997).

At that time, range of the lesser prairiechicken encompassed portions of 20

counties (Henika 1940). In addition to

those counties, Oberholser (1974)

reported that museum specimens exist

for five additional counties, although

there is uncertainty as to whether two

of the five specimens were actually

greater prairie-chicken and Attwater’s

prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido

attwateri), respectively (M. Peterson, in

litt. November 12, 1997). Although

Henika (1940) may have reported the

first systematic survey, Henika

considered the occupied range at that

time to be a reduction of the historical

range.

In 1989, the TPWD produced an

occupied range map that encompassed

portions of 13 counties (Locknane

1992), with an estimated range of 5,732

sq km (2,239 sq mi) (A. Sansom, in litt.

April 3, 1997); a net loss of 793 sq km

(310 sq mi) of occupied habitat had

occurred between 1940 and 1989 (M.

Peterson, in litt. October 17, 1997). In

1997, TPWD reported that lesser prairiechickens were found in 16 counties (K.

Mote, in litt. October 17, 1997).

New Mexico—In the 1920s and 1930s,

the former range of the lesser prairiechicken in New Mexico was described

as all of the sandhill rangeland of

eastern New Mexico, from Texas to

Colorado, and west to Buchanan in

DeBaca County (Ligon 1927, Bent 1932,

Snyder 1967). Ligon (1927) mapped the

breeding range at that time as

encompassing portions of seven

counties, a small subset of what he

described as former range. In the 1950s

and 1960s, occupied range mapped by

Frary (1957) and Snyder (1967) was

more extensive, indicating reoccupation

of some areas. Presently, New Mexico

Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF)

reports that lesser prairie-chickens are

known in portions of seven counties (B.

Hale, NMDGF, pers. comm. October 6,

1997), and that they have apparently

been extirpated from 3,308 sq km (1,292

sq mi) of an original range of 22,131 sq

km (8,645 sq mi) (Bailey 1997).

Habitat Destruction

Conversion of native sand sagebrush

and shinnery oak rangeland to areas of

cultivation is cited by many authors as

an important factor in the decline of

lesser prairie-chickens (Copelin 1963;

Jackson and DeArment 1963; Crawford

and Bolen 1976; Crawford 1980; Taylor

and Guthery 1980; Braun et al. 1994;

Lesser Prairie-chicken Interstate

Working Group 1997). Between 1915

and 1925, many new acres of prairie sod

were plowed on the Great Plains to grow

needed wheat (Laycock 1987). By the

1930s, Bent (1932) speculated that

extensive cultivation or overgrazing had

begun to cause the species to disappear

from sections where it had been

abundant. Because grain crops increased

winter food supply, the initial

conversion of some native prairie to

cultivation may have been beneficial to

the species. However, areas with greater

than 20–37 percent cultivation may be

incapable of supporting stable

populations (Crawford and Bolen 1976).

In the 1940s, 1970s, and 1980s,

additional acres of previously unbroken

grassland were plowed (Laycock 1987).

Bragg and Steuter (1995) estimated

that in 1993, only 8 percent of the

bluestem-grama association and 58

percent of the mesquite-buffalograss

association as described by Kuchler

(1985) remained. The remaining mixedgrass prairie vegetation differs from presettlement conditions. The present

grazing, fire, and water management

regimes are vastly different and less

variable, cultivated cropland has been

added, and the amount of woodland

habitat has expanded (Knopf and

Samson 1997).

Recent loss of native rangeland within

the range of the lesser prairie-chicken

was determined using the National

Resources Inventory (NRI) of the U. S.

Department of Agriculture Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

The 1992 NRI Summary Report

provided estimates of change in

rangeland acreage from 1982–1992 for

each state. When considered state-wide,

each of the five states with lesser

prairie-chickens showed a decline in the

amount of rangeland acreage over that

time period, indicating that loss of

habitat may still be occurring. However,

estimates of rangeland from 1982–1992

for counties specifically within lesser

prairie-chicken range showed no

statistically significant change, possibly

due to small sample size and large

variance estimates.

Habitat Modification (Grazing and

Fragmentation)

Grazing has always been an ecological

force within the Great Plains ecosystem.

The evolutionary history of the mixedgrass prairie resulted in endemic bird

species adapted to a mosaic of lightly to

severely grazed areas (Bragg and Steuter

1995, Knopf and Samson 1997). The

Service believes that areas of heavily,

moderately, and lightly grazed areas are

necessary on a landscape scale. In some

areas within lesser prairie-chicken

range, an insufficient amount of lightly

grazed habitat is available to support

successful nesting (Crawford 1980;

Jackson and DeArment 1963; Davis et al.

1979; Taylor and Guthery 1980; Davies

1992). Uniform or widespread livestock

grazing of rangeland to a degree that

leaves less than adequate residual cover

remaining in the spring is considered

detrimental to lesser prairie-chicken

populations (Bent 1932; Davis et al.

1979; Cannon and Knopf 1980;

Crawford 1980; Bidwell and Peoples

1991; Riley et al. 1992; Giesen 1994b),

because grass height is reduced below

that necessary for nesting cover and

desirable food plants are markedly

reduced. Superior cover at and around

nests is thought to increase nest success

because nests are better concealed from

predators (Davis et al. 1979; Wisdom

1980; Riley et al. 1992; Giesen 1994b).

When grasslands are in a deteriorated

condition due to overgrazing, the soils

have less water-holding capacity, and

the availability of succulent vegetation

and insects is reduced. Thus, the effects

of overgrazing are likely exacerbated by

drought (Davis et al. 1979; Merchant

1982).

In summary, livestock grazing is not

necessarily detrimental to lesser prairiechickens. However, a level of grazing

that leaves little cover in the spring for

concealment of prairie-chicken nests is

detrimental. In some areas, limited

brush control may be warranted, but

widespread eradication of brush to

increase forage for livestock can result

in a lack of shrub cover for lesser

prairie-chickens which is also

detrimental. Because the lesser prairiechicken depends on medium and tall

grasses that are preferred by cattle in

regions of low rainfall, its habitat is

easily overgrazed (Hamerstrom and

Hamerstrom 1961). To be favorable to

lesser prairie-chickens, grazing

management must ensure that a

diversity of plants and cover types

remain on the landscape (Taylor and

Guthery 1980).

Because suitable habitat for lesser

prairie-chickens has been lost due to

conversion to agriculture and modified

through grazing practices and other

factors, much of the remaining suitable

habitat is fragmented (Crawford 1980;

Braun et al. 1994). Fragmentation may

exacerbate the extinction process

(Wilcove et al. 1986) through several

mechanisms: remaining fragments may

be smaller than the necessary home

range size (Samson 1980), necessary
31404 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

habitat heterogeneity may be lost,

habitat between patches may house high

levels of predators or brood parasites,

and the probability of recolonization

decreases as distance from nearest patch

increases (Wilcove et al. 1986; Knopf

1997). As a group, grouse may be

relatively intolerant of extensive habitat

fragmentation due to their short

dispersal distances and other life history

characteristics such as specialized food

habits and generalized anti-predator

strategies (Braun et al. 1994).

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

In the late 19th century, lesser prairiechickens were subject to market hunting

(Jackson and DeArment 1963). Harvest

has been regulated since approximately

the turn of the century (Crawford 1980).

Giesen (1997) summarized the history of

regulated harvests in each of the states:

hunting seasons were closed in

Colorado in the early 1900s; in Kansas

from 1903–1905, 1913–1916, 1927–

1930, 1936–1940, 1944–1950, and 1953–

1956; in Texas from 1937–1967; in New

Mexico from the early 1930s to 1948,

1950–1958, and 1996 through present;

and in Oklahoma from 1916–1928,

1930, 1932, and 1934–1949. Currently,

the lesser prairie-chicken is classified as

a game species in Kansas, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, and Texas, although the

legal harvest is now closed in New

Mexico and Oklahoma.

The Service does not believe that

overutilization through recreational

hunting is a primary cause of lesser

prairie-chicken population declines.

However, when populations are small

and fragmented, they are vulnerable to

local extirpations through many

mechanisms, including human harvest.

The Service does not know if the

continental lesser prairie-chicken

population has declined to the point

where recreational harvest could cause

a significant decline at the population

level.

Braun et al. (1994) called for

definitive experiments that evaluate the

extent to which hunting is an additive

mortality factor at different harvest rates

and in different patch sizes. In the

interim, they suggested conservative

harvest regimes for small or fragmented

populations, because fragmentation

likely decreases the resilience of

populations to harvest. The Service

concurs with this recommendation.

The effect of recreational observations

of birds at leks is unknown. These

effects are likely to be minimal at the

population level if disturbance is

minimized by observers remaining in

vehicles or blinds until the birds

disperse from the lek after sunrise, and

if observations are confined to a limited

number of total leks.

C. Disease or Predation

Giesen (1997) reported no available

information on ectoparasites or

infectious diseases in lesser prairiechickens, although several

endoparasites including nematodes and

cestodes are known to infect the species.

In the spring of 1997, a sample of 12

lesser prairie-chickens from Hemphill

County, Texas, were captured and tested

for the presence of disease and

parasites. No evidence of viral or

bacterial diseases, hemoparasites,

parasitic helminths, or ectoparasites was

found (J. Hughes, TPWD, in litt. August

26, 1997). The significance of the

parasite infestations noted in the

literature is unknown. The Lesser

Prairie Chicken Interstate Working

Group (1997) concluded that while

density-dependent transmission of

disease was unlikely to have a

significant effect on lesser prairiechicken populations, a disease that was

transmitted independently of density

could have drastic effects.

Prairie falcons (Falco mexicanus),

northern harriers (Circus cyaneus),

great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus),

and coyotes (Canis latrans) have been

identified as predators of lesser prairiechicken adults and chicks (Copelin

1963; Davis et al. 1979; Merchant 1982;

Haukos and Broda 1989; Giesen 1994).

Predators of nests and eggs also include

Chihuahuan ravens (Corvus

cryptoleucus), striped skunks (Mephitis

mephitis), ground squirrels

(Spermophilus spilosoma), and

bullsnakes (Pituophis melanoleucus), as

well as coyotes and badgers (Taxidea

taxus) (Davis et al. 1979, Giesen 1997).

Predation on lesser prairie-chickens is

especially important relative to nest

success. Nest success and brood

survival of greater prairie-chickens

accounted for most of the variation in

population trends (Wisdom and Mills

1997). Thus, to have the greatest effect

on population growth, management for

greater prairie-chickens should focus on

improving nest success and brood

survival. To the Service’s knowledge, a

similar analysis has not been completed

for the lesser prairie-chicken, but the

Service expects that survival of young is

important for all prairie grouse.

Bergerud (1988) concluded that

population changes in many grouse

species are driven by changes in

breeding success; this conclusion was

supported by an analysis of Attwater’s

prairie-chicken (Peterson and Silvy

1994).

The community of prairie mammals

has undergone a significant

reconstruction due to destruction of

habitat, decimation of keystone species

and top predators, and the increase in

generalist and introduced animals

(Benedict et al. 1996). Habitat generalist

species such as the coyote, red fox

(Vulpes fulva), gray fox (Urocyon

cinereoargenteus), and raccoon (Procyon

lotor) may all have increased in

population size or range size since

European settlement (Bowles 1981;

Jones et al. 1983; Caire et al. 1989;

Benedict et al. 1996). The initial

reduction of large canids of the Great

Plains may have been responsible for an

increase in medium-sized predators

such as skunk, raccoon, and fox, which

are known to cause low duck nest

success in the northern Great Plains

(Sargeant et al. 1984, Garrettson et al.

1996). As habitat fragmentation

increases, the effects of terrestrial nest

predators may increase (Braun et al.

1978). The Lesser Prairie-chicken

Interstate Working Group (1997)

reported that two ongoing studies of

prairie grouse, in Kansas and Oklahoma,

have shown a very high rate of nest

failure due to predators. However, the

significance of nest predation at the

population level is not known.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

In 1973, the lesser prairie-chicken was

listed as threatened in Colorado under

the State’s ‘‘Nongame and Endangered

or Threatened Species Conservation

Act.’’ In July of 1997, the NMDGF

received a formal request to commence

an investigation into the status of the

lesser prairie-chicken within New

Mexico. This request was the beginning

of the process for potential listing of this

species under New Mexico’s Wildlife

Conservation Act. Most occupied lesser

prairie-chicken habitat throughout its

current range occurs on private land

(Taylor and Guthery 1980), where states

have little authority to protect the

species or its habitat, with the exception

of setting harvest regulations.

The National Forest Management Act

(NFMA, 36 CFR Ch. 11, Section 219.19),

requires that certain species be

identified as management indicator

species if their population changes are

believed to indicate the effects of

management activities. According to the

NFMA, planning alternatives should be

evaluated in terms of population trends

of management indicator species, and

biologists from state and Federal

agencies should be consulted to

coordinate planning. In Region 2 of the

Forest Service (USFS), the Pike and San

Isabel National Forests, which
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules 31405

administers the Comanche and

Cimarron National Grasslands,

designates the lesser prairie-chicken as

a management indicator species. Its

Land and Resource Management Plan

contains specific standards and

guidelines for lesser prairie-chicken

habitat management. Revision of the

current Land and Resource Management

Plan is scheduled to be completed in

1999 (J. Hartman, pers. comm. April 22,

1997).

The current standards and guidelines

apply wherever lesser prairie-chickens

occur on these Grasslands (J. Hartman,

in litt. April 25, 1997). The guidelines

direct the USFS to: maintain range with

a diversity of plant forms, promote midseral to potential natural community

plant species, protect all lesser prairiechicken leks from surface disturbance at

all times, protect nesting habitat from

surface disturbance from April 15–June

30, and limit livestock and wild

herbivore allowable forage use in lesser

prairie-chicken habitat to 40 percent (J.

Hartman, in litt. April 25, 1997). As

stated in the Oil and Gas Leasing

Environmental Impact Statement for the

Comanche and Cimarron National

Grasslands, no surface use is allowed in

‘‘prairie chicken dancing grounds and

nesting areas’’ between March 1 and

June 1 (J. Hartman, in litt. April 25,

1997). Internal USFS recommendations

(USDA Forest Service 1995) to

implement a specific habitat monitoring

plan to ensure that nesting habitat

standards are met had not been

implemented as of December 1997 (S.

Curry, USFS, pers. comm. December 1,

1997).

In Region 3 of the USFS, the Cibola

National Forest, which administers the

Black Kettle, Kiowa, and Rita Blanca

National Grasslands, does not designate

the lesser prairie-chicken as a

management indicator species and does

not provide specific standards and

guidelines for lesser prairie-chicken

habitat management. The Land and

Resource Management Plan is currently

being revised, and the USFS is

considering: (1) making the lesser

prairie-chicken an indicator species;

and (2) the implementation of grazing

guidelines specific to lesser prairiechicken habitat needs. However, these

decisions have not been finalized (L.

Cosper, USFS, pers. comm. January 13,

1998). Over the past year, District

Rangers of the Cimarron, Comanche,

and Black Kettle National Grasslands

have been consulting with the State

wildlife agencies to refine nesting

habitat recommendations and to

develop grazing standards (J. Hartman

and D. Pieper, in litt. September 5,

1997).

The other Federal land occupied by

lesser prairie-chickens is administered

by the BLM in New Mexico. The lesser

prairie-chicken has no official special

status on land administered by the BLM

(E. Roberson, BLM, in litt. January 12,

1998). The majority of lesser prairiechicken habitat is within the Roswell

Resource Area. In October of 1997 the

Roswell Approved Resource

Management Plan and Record of

Decision were signed (BLM 1997a).

Drilling and 3–D geophysical

exploration will not be allowed in lesser

prairie-chicken habitat March 15–June

15 each year. During that period, other

activities that produce noise or involve

human activity will not be allowed

between 3:00 am and 9:00 am; this does

not include normal, around-the-clock

operations. No new drilling will be

allowed within 200 meters (m) (650 feet

(ft)) of all known leks, although

exceptions will be considered for areas

of no or low prairie-chicken booming

activity; unoccupied habitat, including

leks, as determined at the time of

permitting; or in emergency situations

(BLM 1997a, App. 1). Because lesser

prairie-chickens often nest within a 3

km (1.9 mi) radius of a lek, restrictions

on drilling within 200 m will not

protect all or even a majority of nesting

habitat.

Davis et al. (1979) were contracted by

BLM to provide information necessary

to evaluate the effects of grazing on

lesser prairie chicken habitat needs.

Although Davis et al. (1979)

recommended reduction of stock levels

and construction of a series of livestock

exclosures at least 32 ha (80 acres (ac))

in size, it is not clear that these

recommendations were followed. In

1997 BLM reported the presence of

several 1 ha (2–3 ac) exclosures, one 40

ha (97 ac) exclosure, and a proposed

expansion of a 37 ha (91 ac) exclosure

to 80 ha (195 ac) (R. French, BLM, pers.

comm. November 12, 1997; BLM 1997a).

In New Mexico, the BLM administers

a total of 2,275 grazing allotments, 290

of which have Allotment Management

Plans in place to guide livestock grazing

management (BLM 1997b). Of the 415

grazing allotments present in the

Roswell Resource Area, 45 have existing

Allotment Management Plans. An

estimated 3 new plans or revisions will

be completed each year. The Resource

Management Plan states that

adjustments in livestock numbers or

other changes will be considered and

implemented, if needed, to avoid

conflicts with the management of

habitat for lesser prairie-chickens (BLM

1997a, p. 30). Stocking rates may not be

decreased if a change in grazing

management (change in season of use,

pasture rest rotation, or Holistic Range

Management) can be used to meet the

same goal (E. Roberson, in litt. January

12, 1998).

As a separate effort, Standards for

Public Land Health and Guidelines for

Livestock Grazing are being developed

for public lands by the New Mexico

Resource Advisory Council, and ‘‘will

be implemented in the Roswell

Resource Area to develop a more

effective partnership between the

ranching industry and the BLM’’ (BLM

1997a, p. 31). A draft copy of the

Standards and Guidelines provided to

the Service indicated that livestock

grazing guidelines will be applied only

after it is determined that a site does not

meet the specified standard (BLM

1997b). Site indicator interpretations

and targets will be developed by each

BLM field office in conjunction with

various rangeland interests (BLM 1997b,

p. 4). The Service noted that no mention

was made of NMDGF or Service

participation in the development of

these standards. In addition, while the

above-referenced language in the

approved Resource Management Plan

discusses potential livestock

adjustments to avoid conflicts with

lesser prairie-chicken habitat needs, no

specific proposals to do so were noted.

Given that the lesser prairie-chicken is

not currently a Federal- or State-listed

species, a regulatory mechanism may

not exist to ensure development of

standards and guidelines that favor

lesser prairie-chicken habitat needs.

E. Other Natural or Human Made

Factors Affecting Its Continued

Existence

Drought is considered a universal

ecological driver across the Great Plains

(Knopf 1997). Infrequent, severe drought

may cause local extinctions of annual

forbs and grasses that have invaded

stands of perennial species, and

recolonization of these areas may be

slow (Tilman and El Haddi 1992). In

this way, drought may impact lesser

prairie-chickens through its effect on

seasonal growth of vegetation necessary

to provide nesting and roosting cover,

food, and escape from predators

(Merchant 1982; Peterson and Silvy

1994; Morrow et al. 1996).

The sensitivity of lesser prairiechickens to drought was discussed by

Crawford (1980) and Hamerstrom and

Hamerstrom (1961). Home ranges may

be larger in drought years (Copelin

1963, Merchant 1982), and recruitment

may be less likely after drought years

(Merchant 1982, Morrow 1986, Giesen

1997). Along with other prairie grouse,

this species has a high reproductive

potential in years of adequate
31406 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

conditions. Thus, drought conditions

are unlikely to be the sole causative

factor in long-term lesser prairiechicken population declines, unless the

severity and/or frequency of drought has

increased in recent years.

To address this question, the Service

reviewed available records of the

monthly Palmer Drought Severity Index

(PDSI, Palmer 1965) which takes into

account precipitation,

evapotranspiration, and soil-moisture

conditions (Alley 1985). Monthly PDSI

values from January 1895 through July

1997 were obtained for the climate

divisions within the lesser prairiechicken’s range. Review of the average

PDSI for the months March-August in

each year reveals that while major

droughts over the last century are

clearly observed in each climate

division (1930s, 1950s), there does not

appear to be an increase in the

frequency or severity of drought

conditions over the last 10–15 years.

Highs and lows during that time are

well within the range of variation

experienced over the last 100 years.

Female ring-necked pheasants

(Phasianus colchicus) have been

documented parasitizing nests of several

species, including greater prairiechicken (Vance and Westemeier 1979;

Kimmel 1987; Westemeier et al. 1989).

Consequences of nest parasitism vary,

and may include abandonment of the

host nest, reduction in number of host

eggs, lower hatching success, and

parasitic broods (Kimmel 1987).

Predation rate may increase with

incidence of parasitism (Vance and

Westemeier 1979). Further

consequences may include the

imprinting of the pheasant young from

the parasitized nest to the host species,

and later attempts by male pheasants to

court females of the host species (Schein

1963, Kimmel 1987). Male pheasants

have been observed disrupting the

breeding behavior of greater prairiechickens on leks (Sharp 1957, Follen

1966, Vance and Westemeier 1979). In

addition, pheasant displays toward

female prairie-chickens almost always

cause the female to leave the lek (Vance

and Westemeier 1979). Thus, an attempt

by a pheasant to display on a prairiechicken lek would completely disrupt

the normal courtship activities of

prairie-chickens.

To our knowledge, no published

reports of this disruption exist for lesser

prairie-chickens, although the Service

has received anecdotal reports from staff

of the ODWC, the TPWD, and the

Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and

Wildlife Research Unit. The Service

considers competition with and

parasitism by pheasants another factor

that may have affected lesser prairiechicken populations. This factor needs

further quantification to understand its

relative impact on lesser prairie-chicken

populations.

Section 4(b) of the Act states that the

Service may make warranted but

precluded findings only if it can

demonstrate that: (1) An immediate

proposed rule is precluded by other

pending proposals; and that (2)

expeditious progress is being made on

other listing actions. On September 21,

1983 (48 FR 43098), the Service

published in the Federal Register its

priority system for listing species under

the Act. The system considers

magnitude of threat, immediacy of

threat, and taxonomic distinctiveness in

assigning species numerical listing

priorities on a scale of 1 to 12. The

Service has determined that the overall

magnitude of threats to the lesser

prairie-chicken throughout its range is

moderate, and that the threats are

ongoing, thus they are considered

imminent. A listing priority of 8 has

consequently been assigned for the

lesser prairie-chicken. The Service is

making expeditious progress on other,

higher priority listing actions.

The Service’s 12 month finding

contains more detailed information

regarding the above decisions. A copy

may be obtained from the Oklahoma

Ecological Services Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section). If additional data

become available in the future, the

Service may reassess the listing priority

for this species or the need for listing.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited in

this notice is available upon request

from the Oklahoma Ecological Services

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this document

is Noreen E. Walsh, Oklahoma

Ecological Services Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1532

et seq.)

Dated: June 1, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98–15333 Filed 6–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 980603145–8145–01; I.D.

052998C]

RIN 0648–AL33

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Western Pacific

Crustacean Fisheries; Bank/AreaSpecific Harvest Guidelines

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed

rule that would allocate the 1998 overall

harvest guideline of 286,000 lobsters

(spiny and slipper combined) in the

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI)

among three individual fishing banks

and a fourth combined area.

Specifically, under this proposed rule,

no more than 70,000 lobsters may be

harvested from Necker Island; no more

than 20,000 lobsters may be harvested

from Gardner Pinnacles; no more than

80,000 lobsters may be harvested from

Maro Reef; and no more than 116,000

lobsters may be harvested from all the

other remaining NWHI banks combined

within Crustaceans Permit Area 1. This

rule is intended to protect the lobster

resources at each fishing ground, to

provide better data on stocks, and to

conserve the resource.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by June 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to, and copies of the initial

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)

and environmental assessment are

available from, Kitty Simonds,

Executive Director, Western Pacific

Fishery Management Council, 1164

Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI

96813.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kitty Simonds at (808) 522–8220 or

Alvin Katekaru, Fishery Management

Specialist, Pacific Islands Area Office,

NMFS, at (808) 973–2985.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

framework procedures of the Fishery

Management Plan for the Crustaceans

Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region

(FMP) and its implementing regulations

(50 CFR 660.53), the Council, at its 96th

meeting, requested that the Southwest

Regional Administrator, NMFS

(Regional Administrator) initiate a