29432 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2021–0015; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BB27 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Lesser Prairie-Chicken; 

Threatened Status With Section 4(d) 

Rule for the Northern Distinct 

Population Segment and Endangered 

Status for the Southern Distinct 

Population Segment 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list two Distinct Population Segments 

(DPSs) of the lesser prairie-chicken 

(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), a 

grassland bird known from southeastern 

Colorado, western Kansas, eastern New 

Mexico, western Oklahoma, and the 

Texas Panhandle under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

This determination also serves as our 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the lesser prairie-chicken. After a review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that 

listing the Southern DPS as endangered 

is warranted, and that listing the 

Northern DPS as threatened is 

warranted. Accordingly, we propose to 

list the Southern DPS as an endangered 

species under the Act and the Northern 

DPS as a threatened species with a rule 

issued under section 4(d) of the Act 

(‘‘4(d) rule’’). If we finalize this rule as 

proposed, it will add these two DPSs to 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and extend the Act’s 

protections to them. We also are 

notifying the public that we have 

scheduled informational meetings 

followed by public hearings on the 

proposed rule. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

August 2, 2021. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by July 16, 2021. 

Public informational meeting and 

public hearing: We will hold a public 

informational session from 5 p.m. to 6 

p.m., Central Time, followed by a public 

hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., 

Central Time, on July 8, 2021. We will 

hold a second public informational 

session from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., Central 

Time, followed by a public hearing from 

6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Central Time, on 

July 14, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R2–ES–2021–0015, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, check the 

Proposed Rule box to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R2–ES–2021–0015, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Public informational meeting and 

public hearing: The public 

informational meetings and the public 

hearings will be held virtually using the 

Zoom platform. See Public Hearing, 

below, for more information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Debra Bills, Field Supervisor, Arlington 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2005 

NE Green Oaks Blvd., Suite 140, 

Arlington, TX 76006; telephone 817– 

277–1129. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, if we determine that a species 

is an endangered or threatened species 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, we are required to promptly 

publish a proposal in the Federal 

Register and make a determination on 

our proposal within 1 year. To the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, we must designate critical 

habitat for any species that we 

determine to be an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

Listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species and designation of 

critical habitat can only be completed 

by issuing a rule. 

What this document does. We 

propose the listing of the Northern DPS 

of the lesser prairie-chicken as a 

threatened species with a rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act and the Southern 

DPS of the lesser prairie-chicken as an 

endangered species under the Act. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

make these determinations solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and after taking into account 

those efforts being made to protect the 

species. 

We have determined that both the 

northern and southern parts of the lesser 

prairie-chicken’s range are discrete and 

significant under our DPS Policy and 

are, therefore, listable entities under the 

Act. The Southern DPS consists of the 

Shinnery Oak Ecoregion in New Mexico 

and Texas, and the Northern DPS 

consists of the Sand Sagebrush 

Ecoregion, the Mixed Grass Ecoregion, 

and the Short Grass/Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP) Ecoregion in 

Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and 

Kansas. These two DPSs together 

encompass the entirety of the lesser 

prairie-chicken’s range. The primary 

threat impacting both DPSs is the 

ongoing loss of large, connected blocks 

of grassland and shrubland habitat. The 

Southern DPS has low resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation and is 

particularly vulnerable to severe 

droughts due to being located in the 

dryer and hotter southwestern portion 

of the range. Because the Southern DPS 

is currently at risk of extinction, we 

propose to list it as endangered. 

In the Northern DPS, as a result of 

habitat loss and fragmentation, 

resiliency has been much reduced 

across two of the ecoregions in the 

Northern DPS when compared to 

historical conditions. However, this DPS 

still has redundancy across the three 

ecoregions and genetic and 

environmental representation. We 

expect habitat loss and fragmentation 

across the Northern DPS to continue 

into the foreseeable future, resulting in 

even further reduced resiliency. Because 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29433 

the Northern DPS is at risk of extinction 

in the foreseeable future, we propose to 

list it as threatened. 

Peer review. In accordance with our 

joint policy on peer review published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum updating and clarifying 

the role of peer review of listing actions 

under the Act, we sought the expert 

opinions of 6 appropriate specialists 

regarding the species status assessment 

(SSA) report. We received responses 

from 4 specialists, which informed the 

proposed listing rule. The purpose of 

peer review is to ensure that our listing 

determinations and 4(d) rules are based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. The peer 

reviewers have expertise in the biology, 

habitat, and threats to the species. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the adequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species 

and existing conservation measures and 

regulations that may be addressing those 

threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of this 

species, including the locations of any 

additional populations of this species. 

(5) Information on regulations that are 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the Northern DPS of 

the lesser prairie-chicken and that the 

Service can consider in developing a 

4(d) rule for the DPS. In particular, 

information concerning the extent to 

which we should include any of the 

prohibitions associated with section 9 in 

the 4(d) rule or whether any other forms 

of take should be excepted from the 

prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. 

(6) Information on whether an 

exception from the prohibitions 

associated with section 9 should be 

included in the 4(d) rule for the 

Northern DPS for industry and/or 

landowner participants who are 

enrolled in and operating in compliance 

with the mitigation framework included 

in the Range-Wide Conservation Plan 

for the Lesser Prairie-Chicken being 

administered by the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies but who do not have 

incidental take coverage via the 

companion Candidate Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances covering oil 

and gas activities. 

(7) Which areas would be appropriate 

as critical habitat for the species and 

why areas should or should not be 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat in the future, including whether 

there are threats to the species from 

human activity that would be expected 

to increase due to the designation and 

whether that increase in threat would 

outweigh the benefit of designation such 

that the designation of critical habitat 

may not be prudent. 

(8) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken 

which should be considered for 

proposed critical habitat; 

(b) What may constitute ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species within the 

geographical range currently occupied 

by the species’’; 

(c) Where these features are currently 

found; 

(d) Whether any of these features may 

require special management 

considerations or practices; 

(e) What areas are currently occupied 

and contain features essential to the 

conservation of the species should be 

included in the designation and why; 

and 

(f) What unoccupied areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and why. Please include 

sufficient information with your 

submission (such as scientific journal 

articles or other publications) to allow 

us to verify any scientific or commercial 

information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, our final 

determinations may differ from this 

proposal. Based on the new information 

we receive (and any comments on that 

new information), we may conclude that 

the Southern DPS is threatened instead 

of endangered, or that the Northern DPS 

is endangered instead of threatened, or 

we may conclude that either DPS does 

not warrant listing as either an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In addition, we may change the 

parameters of the prohibitions or the 

exceptions to those prohibitions in the 

4(d) rule for the Northern DPS if we 

conclude it is appropriate in light of 

comments and new information 

received. For example, we may expand 

the incidental-take prohibitions or the 

exceptions to those prohibitions in the 

4(d) rule for the Northern DPS to 

include prohibiting additional activities 

if we conclude that those additional 

activities are not compatible with 

conservation of the species. Conversely, 

we may establish additional exceptions 

to the incidental-take prohibitions in the 

final rule if we conclude that the 

activities would facilitate or are 

compatible with the conservation and 

recovery of the species. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29434 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

List of Acronyms 

We use many acronyms in this 

proposed rule. For the convenience of 

the reader, we define some of them here: 

ACEC = Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern 

BLM = Bureau of Land Management 

CI = confidence interval 

CCAA = candidate conservation agreement 

with assurances 

CCA/A = candidate conservation agreement 

and candidate conservation agreement 

with assurances 

CPW = Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

CRP = Conservation Reserve Program 

DPS = Distinct Population Segment 

KDWPT = Kansas Department of Wildlife, 

Parks and Tourism 

LPCI = Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative 

LPN = Listing Priority Number 

NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

ODWC = Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation 

PFW = the Service’s Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program 

RMPA = Resource Management Plan 

Amendment 

RWP = Lesser Prairie-Chicken Range-wide 

Conservation Plan 

SSA = Species Status Assessment 

TPWD = Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department 

USFS = U.S. Forest Service 

WAFWA = Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies 

Previous Federal Actions 

In 1973, the Service’s Office of 

Endangered Species published a list of 

threatened wildlife of the United States 

in Resource Publication 114, often 

referred to as the ‘‘Red Book.’’ While 

this publication did not, by itself, 

provide any special protections, it 

served in part to solicit additional 

information regarding the status of the 

identified taxa. The lesser prairiechicken was one of 70 birds included in 

this publication (Service 1973, pp. 134– 

135), but little Federal regulatory action 

occurred on the lesser prairie-chicken 

until 1995. 

On October 6, 1995, we received a 

petition, dated October 5, 1995, from the 

Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Boulder, 

Colorado, and Marie E. Morrissey 

(petitioners). The petitioners requested 

that we list the lesser prairie-chicken as 

threatened throughout its known 

historical range in the United States. 

The petitioners also requested that 

critical habitat be designated as soon as 

the needs of the species are sufficiently 

well known. However, from October 

1995 through April 1996, we were 

under a moratorium on listing actions as 

a result of Public Law 104–6, which, 

along with a series of continuing budget 

resolutions, eliminated or severely 

reduced our listing budget through 

April 1996. We were unable to act on 

the petition during that period. 

On July 8, 1997 (62 FR 36482), we 

announced our 90-day finding that the 

petition presented substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. We 

subsequently published our 12-month 

finding for the lesser prairie-chicken on 

June 9, 1998 (63 FR 31400), concluding 

that the petitioned action was warranted 

but precluded by other higher priority 

listing actions. This 12-month finding 

identified the lesser prairie-chicken as a 

candidate for listing with a listing 

priority number (LPN) of 8, indicating 

that the magnitude of threats was 

moderate and the immediacy of the 

threats to the species was high. 

On January 8, 2001 (66 FR 1295), we 

published our resubmitted petition 

findings for 25 animal species, 

including the lesser prairie-chicken, 

having outstanding ‘‘warranted-butprecluded’’ petition findings as well as 

notice of one candidate removal. The 

lesser prairie-chicken remained a 

candidate with an LPN of 8 in our 

October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808); June 

13, 2002 (67 FR 40657); May 4, 2004 (69 

FR 24876); May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870); 

September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756); and 

December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034) 

candidate notices of review. In our 

December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), 

candidate notice of review, we changed 

the LPN for the lesser prairie-chicken 

from an 8 to a 2. This change in LPN 

reflected a change in the magnitude of 

the threats from moderate to high 

primarily due to an anticipated increase 

in the development of wind energy and 

associated placement of transmission 

lines throughout the estimated occupied 

range of the lesser prairie-chicken. Our 

November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), 

November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), and 

October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370) 

candidate notices of review retained an 

LPN of 2 for the lesser prairie-chicken. 

After making our 12-month finding in 

1998, we received several 60-day 

notices of intent to sue from WildEarth 

Guardians (formerly Forest Guardians) 

and several other parties for failure to 

make expeditious progress toward 

listing of the lesser prairie-chicken. 

WildEarth Guardians subsequently filed 

suit on September 1, 2010, in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Colorado. 

In 2011, the Service entered into a 

settlement agreement with WildEarth 

Guardians that impacted multiple cases 

nationwide (In re Endangered Species 

Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 

10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 

(D.D.C. May 10, 2011)). As relevant to 

the lesser prairie-chicken, the agreement 

required the Service to submit a 

proposed listing rule for the lesser 

prairie-chicken to the Federal Register 

for publication by September 30, 2012. 

On September 27, 2012, the 

settlement agreement was modified to 

require that the proposed listing rule be 

submitted to the Federal Register on or 

before November 29, 2012. On 

December 11, 2012, we published a 

proposed rule (77 FR 73828) to list the 

lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened 

species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). On May 6, 2013, we announced 

the publication of a proposed 4(d) rule 

under the authority of section 4(d) of the 

Act (78 FR 26302). 

On July 9, 2013, we announced a 6- 

month extension (78 FR 41022) of the 

final listing determination based on our 

finding that there was substantial 

disagreement regarding the sufficiency 

or accuracy of the available data 

relevant to our determination regarding 

the proposed listing rule. 

On April 10, 2014, we published a 

final rule listing the lesser prairiechicken as a threatened species under 

the Act (79 FR 19973) and concurrently 

published a final 4(d) rule for the lesser 

prairie-chicken (79 FR 20073). However, 

on September 1, 2015, the final listing 

rule for the lesser prairie-chicken was 

vacated by the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Texas, 

which also mooted the final 4(d) rule. 

On July 20, 2016, the Service published 

in the Federal Register a final rule that 

removed the lesser prairie-chicken from 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife in accordance with the court 

decision (81 FR 47047). 

On September 8, 2016, we received a 

new petition from WildEarth Guardians, 

Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for 

Biological Diversity to list the lesser 

prairie-chicken as endangered 

throughout its entire range or in three 

distinct population segments (Molvar 

2016, entire). On November 30, 2016, 

we published a 90-day petition finding 

that concluded that the petition to list 

the lesser prairie-chicken provided 

substantial information that the 

petitioned action may be warranted (81 

FR 86315). On June 12, 2019, the 

petitioners filed their complaint with 

the court alleging the Service failed to 

complete the 12-month petition finding 

for the lesser prairie-chicken. On 

September 12, 2019, the Service and the 

plaintiffs entered into a stipulated 

settlement agreement that the Service 

would submit a 12-month petition 

finding to the Federal Register no later 

than May 26, 2021. This 12-month 

finding completes the Service’s 

obligations under that settlement 

agreement. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29435 

Supporting Documents 

An SSA team prepared an SSA report 

for the lesser prairie-chicken. The SSA 

team was composed of Service 

biologists, in consultation with other 

species experts. The SSA report 

represents a compilation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the species, 

including the impacts of past, present, 

and future factors (both negative and 

beneficial) affecting the species. The 

Service sent the SSA report to six 

independent peer reviewers and 

received four responses. The Service 

also sent the SSA report to the five State 

fish and wildlife agencies within the 

range of the lesser prairie-chicken 

(Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Texas) and the four 

primary Federal agencies with whom 

we work to deliver conservation actions 

that could benefit the lesser prairiechicken: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 

Farm Service Agency (FSA), and U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS). These partners 

include scientists with expertise in 

management of either the lesser prairiechicken or the habitat upon which the 

lesser prairie-chicken depends. We 

received responses from USFS, BLM, 

and all five of the State wildlife 

agencies. Comments and feedback from 

partners and peer reviewers were 

incorporated into the SSA report as 

appropriate and have informed this 

proposed rule. 

I. Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

Below is a summary of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the lesser 

prairie-chicken; for a thorough review, 

please see the SSA report (version 2.2; 

Service 2021, pp. 5–14). 

The lesser prairie-chicken is in the 

order Galliformes, family Phasianidae, 

subfamily Tetraoninae; it is generally 

recognized as a species separate from 

the greater prairie-chicken 

(Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) (Jones 

1964, pp. 65–73; American 

Ornithologist’s Union 1998, p. 122). 

Most lesser prairie-chicken adults live 

for 2 to 3 years and reproduce in the 

spring and summer (Service 2021, pp. 

10–12). Males congregate on leks during 

the spring to attract and mate with 

females (Copelin 1963, p. 26; Hoffman 

1963, p. 730; Crawford and Bolen 1975, 

p. 810; Davis et al. 1979, p. 84; 

Merchant 1982, p. 41; Haukos 1988, p. 

49). Male prairie-chickens tend to 

exhibit strong breeding site fidelity, 

often returning to a specific lek many 

times, even in cases of declining female 

attendance and habitat condition 

(Copelin 1963, pp. 29–30; Hoffman 

1963, p. 731; Campbell 1972, pp. 698– 

699, Hagen et al. 2005, entire, Harju et 

al. 2010, entire). Females tend to 

establish nests relatively close to the 

lek, commonly within 0.6 to 2.4 mi (1 

to 4 km) (Copelin 1963, p. 44; Giesen 

1994, p. 97), where they incubate 8 to 

14 eggs for 24 to 27 days and then raise 

broods of young throughout the summer 

(Boal and Haukos 2016, p. 4). Some 

females will attempt a second nesting if 

the first nest fails (Johnsgard 1973, pp. 

63–64; Merchant 1982, p. 43; Pitman et 

al. 2006, p. 25). Eggs and young lesser 

prairie-chickens are susceptible to 

natural mortality from environmental 

stress and predation. The appropriate 

vegetative community and structure is 

vital to provide cover for nests and 

young and to provide food resources as 

broods mature into adults (Suminski 

1977, p. 32; Riley 1978, p. 36; Riley et 

al. 1992, p. 386; Giesen 1998, p. 9). For 

more detail on habitat needs of the 

lesser prairie-chicken, please see the 

SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 9–14). 

The lesser prairie-chicken once 

ranged across the Southern Great Plains 

of Southeastern Colorado, Southwestern 

Kansas, Western Oklahoma, the 

Panhandle and South Plains of Texas, 

and Eastern New Mexico; currently, it 

occupies a substantially reduced portion 

of its presumed historical range 

(Rodgers 2016, p. 15). Estimates of the 

potential maximum historical range of 

the lesser prairie-chicken (e.g., Taylor 

and Guthery 1980a, p. 1, based on 

Aldrich 1963, p. 537; Johnsgard 2002, p. 

32; Playa Lakes Joint Venture 2007, p. 

1) range from about 64–115 million 

acres (ac) (26–47 million hectares (ha)). 

The more recent estimate of the 

historical range of the lesser prairiechicken encompasses an area of 

approximately 115 million ac (47 

million ha). Presumably, not all of the 

area within this historical range was 

evenly occupied by lesser prairiechicken, and some of the area may not 

have been suitable to regularly support 

lesser prairie-chicken populations (Boal 

and Haukos 2016, p. 6). However, the 

current range of the lesser prairiechicken has been significantly reduced 

from the historical range at the time of 

European settlement. Estimates as to 

extent of the loss vary from greater than 

90 percent reduction (Hagen and Giesen 

2005, unpaginated) to approximately 83 

percent reduction (Van Pelt et al. 2013, 

p. 3). 

Lesser prairie-chicken monitoring has 

been occurring for multiple decades and 

have included multiple different 

methodologies. Estimates of population 

abundance prior to the 1960s are 

indeterminable and rely almost entirely 

on anecdotal information (Boal and 

Haukos 2016, p. 6). While little is 

known about precise historical 

population sizes, the lesser prairiechicken was reported to be quite 

common throughout its range in the 

early 20th century (Bent 1932, pp. 280– 

281, 283; Baker 1953, p. 8; Bailey and 

Niedrach 1965, p. 51; Sands 1968, p. 

454; Fleharty 1995, pp. 38–44; Robb and 

Schroeder 2005, p. 13). For example, 

prior to 1900, as many as two million 

birds may have existed in Texas alone 

(Litton 1978, p. 1). Information 

regarding population size is available 

starting in the 1960s when the State fish 

and wildlife agencies began routine 

lesser prairie-chicken monitoring 

efforts. However, survey methodology 

and effort have differed over the 

decades, making it difficult to precisely 

estimate trends. 

The SSA report and this proposed 

rule rely on two main population 

estimates. The two methodologies 

largely cover different time periods, so 

we report the results of both throughout 

this proposed rule in order to give the 

best possible understanding of lesser 

prairie-chicken trends both recently and 

throughout the past decades. 

The first of the two studies used 

historical lek surveys and population 

reconstruction methods to calculate 

historical trends and estimate male 

abundance from 1965 through 2016 

(Hagen et al. 2017, pp. 6–9). We have 

identified concerns in the past with 

some of the methodologies and 

assumptions made in this analysis, and 

others have also noted the challenges of 

using these data for long-term trends 

(for example, Zavaleta and Haukos 

2013, p. 545; Cummings et al. 2017, pp. 

29–30). While these concerns remain, 

including the very low sample sizes 

particularly in the 1960s, this work 

represents the only attempt to compile 

the extensive historical ground lek 

count data collected by State agencies to 

estimate the number of males at both the 

range-wide and ecoregional scales, and 

represents the best available data for 

understanding historical population 

trends. 

Following development of aerial 

survey methods (McRoberts et al. 2011b, 

entire), the second summary of lesser 

prairie-chicken population data uses 

more statistically rigorous estimates of 

lesser prairie-chicken abundance (both 

males and females). This second study 

uses data from aerial line-transect 

surveys throughout the range of the 

lesser prairie-chicken; these results are 

then extrapolated from the surveyed 

area to the rest of the range (Nasman et 

al. 2020, entire). The results of these 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29436 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

survey efforts should not be taken as 

precise estimates of the annual lesser 

prairie-chicken abundance, as indicated 

by the large confidence intervals. Thus, 

we caution the reader not to draw 

conclusions based upon annual 

fluctuations. Instead, we consider the 

best use of this data is for long-term 

trend analysis. Thus, in the SSA Report 

and this proposed rule, we report the 

population estimate for the current 

condition as the average of the past 5 

years of surveys. 

The results of the study using lek data 

(abundance of males) indicate that 

lesser prairie-chicken range-wide 

abundance (based on a minimum 

estimated number of male lesser prairiechicken at leks) peaked from 1965–1970 

at a mean estimate of about 175,000 

males (Figure 1). The estimated mean 

population maintained levels of greater 

than 100,000 males until 1989, after 

which they steadily declined to a low of 

25,000 males in 1997 (Garton et al. 

2016, p. 68). The mean population 

estimates following 1997 peaked again 

at about 92,000 males in 2006, but 

subsequently declined to 34,440 males 

in 2012 (Figure 1). 

The aerial survey results from 2012 

through 2020 (Figure 2) estimated the 

lesser prairie-chicken population 

abundance, averaged over the most 

recent 5 years of surveys (2015–2020, no 

surveys in 2019), at 27,384 (90% 

confidence interval: 15,690, 59,981) 

(Nasman et al. 2020, p. 21; Table 3.3). 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

The preferred habitat of the lesser 

prairie-chicken is mixed-grass prairies 

and shrublands, with the exception of 

the Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion where 

shrubs play a lesser role. Lesser prairiechickens appear to select areas having a 

shrub component dominated by sand 

sagebrush or sand shinnery oak when 

those areas are available (Donaldson 

1969, pp. 56, 62; Taylor and Guthery 

1980a, p. 6; Giesen 1998, pp. 3–4). In 

the southern and central portions of the 

lesser prairie-chicken range, small 

shrubs, such as sand shinnery oak, have 

been reported to be important for 

summer shade (Copelin 1963, p. 37; 

Donaldson 1969, pp. 44–45, 62), winter 

protection, and as supplemental foods 

(Johnsgard 1979, p. 112), while in the 

Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion, stands of 

grass that provide adequate vegetative 

structure likely serve the same roles. 

The absence of anthropogenic features 

as well as other vertical structures is 

important, as lesser prairie-chickens 

tend to avoid using areas with trees, 

vertical structures, and other 

disturbances in areas with otherwise 

adequate habitat conditions (Braun et al. 

2002, pp. 11–13; Pruett et al. 2009, pp. 

1256, 1258; Hovick et al. 2014a, p. 1685; 

Boggie et al. 2017, entire; Lautenbach 

2017, pp. 104–142; Plumb et al. 2019, 

entire). 

At the population scale, the most 

important requirement for the lesser 

prairie-chicken is having large, intact, 

ecologically diverse grasslands to 

complete their life history and maintain 

healthy populations (Fuhlendorf et al. 

2017b, entire). Historically, these 

ecologically diverse grasslands and 

shrublands were maintained by the 

occurrence of wildfires (keeping woody 

vegetation restricted to drainages and 

rocky outcroppings) and by grazing by 

bison and other large ungulates. The 

lesser prairie-chicken is a species that is 

area-sensitive; that is, it requires large, 

intact grasslands for functional selfsustaining populations (Giesen 1998, 

pp. 3–4; Bidwell et al. 2002, pp. 1–3; 

Hagen et al. 2004, pp. 71, 76–77; Haukos 

and Zavaleta 2016, p. 107). 

The lesser prairie-chicken now occurs 

within four ecoregions (Figure 3); these 

ecoregions were originally delineated in 

2012 as part of the aerial survey 

designed to monitor long-trends in 

lesser prairie-chicken populations. Each 

ecoregion is associated with unique 

environmental conditions based on 

habitat and climatic variables and some 

genetic differentiation (Boal and Haukos 

2016, p. 5; Oyler-McCance et al. 2016, 

p. 653). These four ecoregions are the 

Short-Grass Prairie/CRP Mosaic 

Ecoregion in Kansas; the Sand 

Sagebrush Prairie Ecoregion in 

Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma; the 

Mixed-Grass Prairie Ecoregion in 

Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma; and the 

Sand Shinnery Oak Prairie Ecoregion of 

New Mexico and Texas. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01JN21.019</GPH>

j Range-wide Population I ,.,,,.,..~--------,I I -E~tim3ti!dNo.ofl.EPC Ii: -r-~ 

I i i i :100000 

I -: _'----,.-_ 70---... -"----_ --,-D0()---,.-,0--,.,., 

·- Figure 1. Estimated range-wide minimum 

number of Lesser Prairie-Chicken males 

attending leks 1964-2016 (90% confidence 

interval). Based on population reconstruction 

using 2016 aerial survey as the initial population 

size (reproduced from Hagen et al. 2017). 

Range~Wide Total 

SCl,000 ..--,---------------~---

§ 41),000 

J ~ooo R:b+1⁄2~+~+P++;;c:;.,p+f-'-~++h 

! 

!i 20.000 p~~~4~+~4c4-'-"±--~~~~~.,,.:s 

I 

1 10,000 t-:-~~P~~+~~~ +s-;;.;,,.;;+.;;:;;.;;.;~ 

:WU 201'.I 2014 101> 2011> 2017 2llt# :rotll 20-XI 

- Figure 2. Annual estimates of total range-wide 

population size of lesser prairie-chicken from 

2012-2020. Bars represent the bootstrapped 90% 

confidence intervals. Graph generated from Nasman 

et al. (2020, Table 12, p. 21). There were no surveys 

in 2019. 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29437 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

The Shinnery Oak Ecoregion occupies 

portions of eastern New Mexico and the 

South Plains of Texas (McDonald et al. 

2012, p. 2). It has a variable vegetation 

community that contains a mix of 

shrubs such as sand shinnery oak 

(Quercus havardii) and sand sagebrush 

(Artemisia filifolia) as well as mixed and 

tall grasses and forbs (Grisham et al. 

2016a, p. 317). The mean population 

estimate ranged between about 5,000 to 

12,000 males through 1980, increased to 

20,000 males in the mid-1980s and 

declined to ∼1,000 males in 1997 (Hagen 

et al. 2017 pp. 6–9). The mean 

population estimate peaked again to 

∼15,000 males in 2006 and then 

declined again to fewer than 3,000 

males in the mid-2010s. While 

population estimates for the Shinnery 

Oak Ecoregion have varied over recent 

years, the most recent surveys estimate 

a 5-year average population size of 3,077 

birds (90% confidence intervals (CI): 

170, 8,237). Approximately 11 percent 

of all lesser prairie-chicken occur in this 

ecoregion (Service 2021, pp. 66–78). 

Lesser prairie-chicken from the 

Shinnery Oak Ecoregion are genetically 

distinct and geographically isolated 

from the other three ecoregions by 95 

miles (mi) (153 kilometers (km)) (Figure 

3; Oyler-McCance et al. 2016, p. 653). 

With the exception of lesser prairiechicken areas owned by the State Game 

Commission and federally owned BLM 

lands in New Mexico, the majority of 

the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion is privately 

owned (Grisham et al. 2016a, p. 315). 

Nearly all of the area in the Texas 

portion of the ecoregion is privately 

owned and managed for agricultural use 

and petroleum production (Haukos 

2011, p. 110). The remaining patches of 

shinnery oak prairie have become 

isolated, relict communities because the 

surrounding grasslands have been 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01JN21.020</GPH>

· Sand Shinn 

Oak Prairie 

Ecoregion ..... . 

! ··/ i 

Lesser Prairie-Chicken Ecoregions 

9 0 so 

100 Km 

100Mi 

Ecoreglon 

Mtxed-i.irass Prallie 

sand sagebrush Prairie 

Sand Shlnneiy oak Prairie 

Sliort-grassl CRPMosalc 

Figure 3. The four ecoregions that make up the range of the lesser prairie-chicken; 

the Sand Shinnery Oak Prairie (Shinnery Oak) Ecoregion, the Sand Sagebrush 

Prairie (Sand Sagebrush) Ecoregion, the Mixed-Grass Prairie (Mixed-Grass) 

Ecoregion, and the Short-grass/CRP Mosaic (Short-Grass/CRP) Ecoregion. 
29438 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

converted to row crop agriculture or 

fragmented by oil and gas exploration 

and urban development (Peterson and 

Boyd 1998, p. 22). Additionally, honey 

mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) 

encroachment within this ecoregion has 

played a significant role in decreasing 

available space for the lesser prairiechicken. Technological advances in 

irrigated row crop agriculture have led 

to more recent conversion of shinnery 

oak prairie habitat to row crops in 

Eastern New Mexico and West Texas 

(Grisham et al. 2016a, p. 316). 

The Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion occurs 

in Southeast Colorado, Southwest 

Kansas, and a small portion of Western 

Oklahoma (McDonald et al. 2012, p. 2). 

The vegetation community in this area 

primarily consists of sand sagebrush 

and the associated mixed and tall grass 

species that are usually found in the 

sandier soils adjacent to rivers, streams, 

and other drainages in the area. Lesser 

prairie-chicken from the Sand 

Sagebrush Ecoregion form a distinct 

genetic cluster from other ecoregions 

but have likely contributed some 

individuals to the Short-Grass/CRP 

Ecoregion through dispersal (OylerMcCance et al. 2016, p. 653). 

Historically, the Sand Sagebrush 

Ecoregion supported the highest density 

of lesser prairie-chicken and was 

considered the core of the lesser prairiechicken range (Haukos et al. 2016, p. 

282). A single flock detected in Seward 

County, Kansas, was estimated to 

potentially contain more than 15,000 

birds (Bent 1932, p. 281). The 

population size is estimated to have 

peaked at more than 85,000 males in the 

1970s (Garton et al. 2016, p. 62) and has 

been in decline since the late 1970s. 

More recent survey efforts estimate a 5- 

year average population size of 1,215 

birds (90% CI: 196, 4,547). Less than 5 

percent of all lesser prairie-chicken 

occur in this ecoregion (Service 2021, 

pp. 66–78). Most of the decline has been 

attributed to habitat deterioration and 

conversion of sand sagebrush to 

intensive row crop agriculture due to an 

increase in center pivot irrigation 

(Jensen et al. 2000, p. 172). 

Environmental conditions in this 

ecoregion can be extreme, with 

stochastic events such as blizzards 

negatively impacting lesser prairiechicken populations. 

The Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion falls 

within the mixed- and short-grass 

prairies of Central and Western Kansas 

(McDonald et al. 2012, p. 2). As the 

name implies, much of this ecoregion 

historically consisted of short-grass 

prairie interspersed with mixed-grass 

prairie as well as sand sagebrush prairie 

along some drainages (Dahlgren et al. 

2016, p. 260). By the 1980s, large 

expanses of prairies had been converted 

from native grass for crop production in 

this ecoregion. After the introduction of 

the CRP in 1985, landowners began to 

have enhanced incentives to convert 

croplands to perennial grasslands to 

provide cover for the prevention of soil 

erosion. The State of Kansas required 

those enrolling in the CRP to plant 

native mixed- and tall-grass species, 

which is notable because the grasses in 

this area historically consisted largely of 

short-grass species, which generally do 

not provide adequate habitat for the 

lesser prairie-chicken. For more 

information on the CRP, see the SSA 

report (Service 2021, pp. 52–54). 

Prior to the late 1990s, lesser prairiechickens in this ecoregion were thought 

to be largely absent (or occurred 

sporadically in low densities) (Hagen 

and Giesen 2005, unpaginated; Rodgers 

1999, p. 19). We do not know what 

proportion of the eastern Short-Grass/ 

CRP Ecoregion in Kansas was 

historically occupied by lesser prairiechicken (Hagen 2003, pp. 3–4), and 

surveys in this ecoregion only began in 

earnest in 1999 (Dahlgren et al. 2016, p. 

262). The CRP is an idle lands program, 

which requires establishment of grass 

cover and precludes tillage or 

agricultural commodity production for 

the duration of the contract, and has 

contractual limits to the type, frequency, 

and timing of management activities, 

such as burning, haying, or grazing of 

the established grasses. As a result of 

these factors, CRP often provides the 

vegetative structure preferentially used 

by lesser prairie-chickens for nesting. In 

the State of Kansas, the availability of 

CRP lands, especially CRP lands with 

interseeded or original seed mixture of 

forbs, resulted in increased habitat 

availability for the lesser prairie-chicken 

and, thus, an expansion of the known 

lesser prairie-chicken range and an 

increase in the abundance of the lesser 

prairie-chicken (Rodgers 1999, pp. 18– 

19; Fields 2004, pp. 11, 105; Fields et 

al. 2006, pp. 931, 937; Sullins et al. 

2018, p. 1617). 

The Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion is 

now estimated to contain the majority of 

lesser prairie-chickens compared to the 

other ecoregions, with recent survey 

efforts estimating a 5-year average 

population size of 16,957 birds (90% CI: 

13,605, 35,350), representing 

approximately 62 percent of the 

rangewide population (Service 2021, pp. 

66–78). Recent genetic studies indicate 

that lesser prairie-chickens have moved 

northward largely from the Mixed-Grass 

Ecoregion and, to a lesser extent, the 

Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion into the 

Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion (OylerMcCance et al. 2016, p. 653). 

The northern section of this ecoregion 

is the only portion of the lesser prairiechicken’s range where co-occurrence 

with greater prairie-chicken occurs. 

Hybridization rates of up to 5 percent 

have been reported (Pitman 2013, p. 5), 

and that rate seemed to be stable across 

multiple years, though sampling is 

limited where the species co-occur 

(Pitman 2013, p. 12). Limited additional 

work has been completed to further 

assess the rate of hybridization. There 

are concerns about the implications of 

genetic introgression (dilution) of lesser 

prairie-chicken genes, particularly given 

that potential effects are poorly 

understood (Dahlgren et al. 2016, p. 

276). Unresolved issues include 

whether hybridization reduces fitness, 

alters behavior or morphological traits 

in either a positive or negative way and 

the historical occurrence and rate of 

hybridization. 

The Mixed-Grass Ecoregion for the 

lesser prairie-chicken lies in the 

northeastern panhandle of Texas, the 

panhandle of northwestern Oklahoma, 

and south-central Kansas (McDonald et 

al. 2012, p. 2). The Mixed-Grass 

Ecoregion is separated from the ShortGrass/CRP Ecoregion in Kansas by the 

Arkansas River. The vegetation 

community in this ecoregion consists 

largely of a mix of perennial grasses and 

shrubs such as sand sagebrush, sand 

plum (Prunus angustifolia), yucca 

(Yucca spp.), and sand shinnery oak 

(Wolfe et al. 2016, p. 300). Based upon 

population reconstruction data, the 

mean population estimate was around 

30,000 males in the 1970s and 1980s 

followed by a decline in the 1990s 

(Hagen et al. 2016, pp. 6–7). The mean 

population estimate peaked again in the 

early 2000s at around 25,000 males, 

before declining to and remaining at its 

lowest levels, <10,000 males since 2012 

(Hagen et al. 2016, pp. 6–7). Although 

historical population estimates in the 

ecoregion reported some of the highest 

densities of lesser prairie-chicken in the 

range (Wolfe et al. 2016, p. 299), recent 

aerial survey efforts estimate a 5-year 

average population size of 6,135 birds 

(including males and females; 90% CI: 

1,719, 11,847). The recent survey work 

estimates about 22 percent of lesser 

prairie-chicken occur in this ecoregion 

(Service 2021, pp. 66–78). Lesser 

prairie-chicken from the Mixed-Grass 

Ecoregion are similar in genetic 

variation with the Short-Grass/CRP 

Ecoregion, with individuals likely 

dispersing from the Mixed-Grass 

Ecoregion to the Short-Grass/CRP 

Ecoregion (Oyler-McCance et al. 2016, 

p. 653). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29439 

Distinct Population Segment Evaluation 

Under the Act, the term species 

includes ‘‘any subspecies of fish or 

wildlife or plants, and any distinct 

population segment of any species of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife which 

interbreeds when mature.’’ 16 U.S.C. 

1532(16). To guide the implementation 

of the distinct population segment (DPS) 

provisions of the Act, we and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration—Fisheries), published 

the Policy Regarding the Recognition of 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 

Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS 

Policy) in the Federal Register on 

February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under 

our DPS Policy, we use two elements to 

assess whether a population segment 

under consideration for listing may be 

recognized as a DPS: (1) The population 

segment’s discreteness from the 

remainder of the species to which it 

belongs, and (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the species to 

which it belongs. If we determine that 

a population segment being considered 

for listing is a DPS, then the population 

segment’s conservation status is 

evaluated based on the five listing 

factors established by the Act to 

determine if listing it as either 

endangered or threatened is warranted. 

As described in Previous Federal 

Actions, we were petitioned to list the 

lesser prairie-chicken either rangewide 

or in three distinct population segments. 

The petition suggested three DPS 

configurations: (1) Shinnery Oak 

Ecoregion, (2) the Sand Sagebrush 

Ecoregion, and (3) a segment including 

the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion and the 

Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion. The 

petition also combined the Sand 

Sagebrush Ecoregion, the Mixed-Grass 

Ecoregion, and the Short-Grass/CRP 

Ecoregion due to evidence they are 

linked genetically and geographically 

(Molver 2016, p. 18). Genetic studies 

indicate that lesser prairie-chicken from 

the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion are similar 

in genetic variation with the ShortGrass/CRP Ecoregion, with individuals 

likely dispersing from the Mixed-Grass 

Ecoregion to the Short-Grass/CRP 

Ecoregion (Oyler-McCance et al. 2016, 

p. 653). Other genetic data indicate that 

lesser prairie-chicken from the Sand 

Sagebrush Ecoregion and lesser prairiechicken from the Mixed-Grass and 

Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion also share 

genetic traits. Genetic studies of neutral 

markers indicate that, although lesser 

prairie-chicken from the Sand 

Sagebrush Ecoregion form a distinct 

genetic cluster from other ecoregions, 

they have also likely contributed some 

individuals to the Short-Grass/CRP 

Ecoregion through dispersal (OylerMcCance et al. 2016, p. 653). 

Additionally, these three ecoregions are 

not geographically isolated from one 

another (Figure 3). As a result of the 

shared genetic characteristics and the 

geographic connections, we have 

concluded the Sand Sagebrush 

Ecoregion, the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion, 

and the Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion are 

appropriately considered as one 

potential DPS configuration. 

Under the Act, we have the authority 

to consider for listing any species, 

subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any 

distinct population segment (DPS) of 

these taxa if there is sufficient 

information to indicate that such action 

may be warranted. We considered 

whether two segments meet the DPS 

criteria under the Act: The 

southernmost ecoregion (Shinnery Oak) 

and a segment containing the three 

northernmost ecoregions (Mixed-Grass, 

Short-Grass/CRP, and Sand Sagebrush). 

Discreteness 

Under our DPS Policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

of the following conditions: (1) It is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors. 

Quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation; or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

We conclude the two segments satisfy 

the ‘‘markedly separate’’ conditions. 

The two groups of ecoregions are not 

separated from each other by 

international governmental boundaries. 

The southernmost ecoregion (Shinnery 

Oak) is separated from the three 

northern ecoregions by approximately 

95 mi (153 km), much of which is 

developed or otherwise unsuitable 

habitat. There has been no recorded 

movement of lesser prairie-chickens 

between the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion 

and the three northern ecoregions over 

the past several decades. Because there 

is no connection between the two parts 

of the range, there is subsequently no 

gene flow between them (OylerMcCance et al. 2016, entire). 

Therefore, we have determined that 

both the southern ecoregion and the 

northern three ecoregions of the lesser 

prairie-chicken range both individually 

meet the condition for discreteness 

under our DPS Policy. 

Significance 

Under our DPS Policy, once we have 

determined that a population segment is 

discrete, we consider its biological and 

ecological significance to the larger 

taxon to which it belongs. This 

consideration may include, but is not 

limited to: (1) Evidence of the 

persistence of the discrete population 

segment in an ecological setting that is 

unusual or unique for the taxon, (2) 

evidence that loss of the population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon, (3) 

evidence that the population segment 

represents the only surviving natural 

occurrence of a taxon that may be more 

abundant elsewhere as an introduced 

population outside its historical range, 

or (4) evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics. 

For the lesser prairie-chicken, we first 

considered evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics. The most 

recent rangewide genetic study 

examined neutral markers in the four 

ecoregions where the lesser prairiechicken occurs. It concluded that there 

is significant genetic variation across the 

lesser prairie-chicken range. The study 

also concluded that although there is 

genetic exchange between the three 

northern ecoregions (particularly 

movement of birds northward from the 

Mixed-Grass Ecoregion to the ShortGrass/CRP Ecoregion, and, to a lesser 

extent, from the Sand Sagebrush 

Ecoregion into the Short-Grass/CRP 

Ecoregion), lesser prairie-chicken from 

the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion in the 

southwestern part of the range are a 

group that is genetically distinct from 

the remainder of the range (OylerMcCance et al. 2016, p. 653). The 

Shinnery Oak Ecoregion is more distinct 

from all three ecoregions in the 

Northern DPS than those ecoregions are 

from each other (Oyler-McCance et al. 

2016, Table 4). The Shinnery Oak 

Ecoregion was likely historically 

connected to the remainder of the range, 

but the two parts have been separated 

since approximately the time of 

European settlement. Therefore, the two 

segments of the range are genetically 

distinct from each other. 

We next considered evidence that loss 

of the population segment would result 

in a significant gap in the range of the 

taxon. As discussed above, the 

southwestern and northeastern parts of 

the range are separated by 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29440 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

approximately 95 mi (153 km). The loss 

of the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion would 

result in the loss of the entire 

southwestern part of the species’ range 

and decrease species redundancy and 

ecological and genetic representation, 

thus decreasing its ability to withstand 

demographic and environmental 

stochasticity. The loss of the other three 

ecoregions would result in the loss of 75 

percent of the species’ range, as well as 

loss of the part of the range (the ShortGrass/CRP Ecoregion) which has 

recently experienced a northward 

expansion of occupied habitat. This 

would create a large gap in the 

northeastern portion of the species 

range, also reducing the species’ ability 

to withstand demographic and 

environmental stochasticity. Therefore, 

the loss of either part of the range would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the lesser prairie-chicken. These 

genetic differences and the evidence 

that a significant gap in the range of the 

taxon would result from the loss of 

either discrete population segment both 

individually satisfy the significance 

criterion of the DPS Policy. Therefore, 

under the Service’s DPS Policy, we find 

that both the southern and northern 

segments of the lesser prairie-chicken 

are significant to the taxon as a whole. 

Distinct Population Segment Conclusion 

Our DPS Policy directs us to evaluate 

the significance of a discrete population 

in the context of its biological and 

ecological significance to the remainder 

of the species to which it belongs. Based 

on an analysis of the best available 

scientific and commercial data, we 

conclude that the northern and southern 

parts of the lesser prairie-chicken range 

are discrete due to geographic (physical) 

isolation from the remainder of the 

taxon. Furthermore, we conclude that 

both parts of the lesser prairie-chicken 

range are significant, because loss of 

either part would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon, and 

because the two parts of the range are 

markedly separate based on neutral 

genetic markers. Therefore, we conclude 

that both the northern and southern 

parts of the lesser prairie-chicken range 

are both discrete and significant under 

our DPS Policy and are, therefore, 

uniquely listable entities under the Act. 

Based on our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; 

February 7, 1996), if a population 

segment of a vertebrate species is both 

discrete and significant relative to the 

taxon as a whole (i.e., it is a distinct 

population segment), its evaluation for 

endangered or threatened status will be 

based on the Act’s definition of those 

terms and a review of the factors 

enumerated in section 4(a) of the Act. 

Having found that both parts of the 

lesser prairie-chicken range meet the 

definition of a distinct population 

segment, we evaluate the status of both 

the Southern DPS and the Northern DPS 

of the lesser prairie-chicken to 

determine whether either meets the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. The 

line demarcating the break between the 

Northern and Southern DPS lies 

approximately half-way between the 

two DPSs in the unoccupied area 

between them (Figure 4). 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29441 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01JN21.021</GPH>

ti 5() 't®Mi 

r I 

~~~Df'S 

13}:Az1sootl'remDPS 

• • • Df'S BOUll<,talY 

t=Jstate$ .. 

f-l C()UntleS 

Figure 4. The Northern and Southern DPSs of the lesser prairie-chicken. Areas 

northeast of the dividing line constitute the Northern DPS, while areas southwest of 

the line constitute the Southern DPS. 
29442 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. The Act defines an endangered 

species as a species that is ‘‘in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range,’’ and a 

threatened species as a species that is 

‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Services can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent a decision by the 

Service on whether the species should 

be proposed for listing as an endangered 

or threatened species under the Act. It 

does, however, provide the scientific 

basis that informs our regulatory 

decisions, which involve the further 

application of standards within the Act 

and its implementing regulations and 

policies. The following is a summary of 

the key results and conclusions from the 

SSA report; the full SSA report can be 

found on http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket FWS–R2–ES–2021–0015. 

To assess lesser prairie-chicken 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, 

resiliency supports the ability of the 

species to withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences that are likely 

to occur in the future. Throughout all of 

these stages, we used the best available 

information to characterize viability as 

the ability of a species to sustain 

populations in the wild over time. We 

use this information to inform our 

regulatory decision. 

The SSA report does not assess the 

distinct population segments proposed 

for the species because the SSA focuses 

on the biological factors, rather than 

those, such as DPS, that are created by 

the regulatory framework of the Act. 

Both the geospatial and threats analysis 

in the SSA report are summarized by 

ecoregion. In this proposed rule, we 

present the analyses per ecoregion from 

the SSA report but also summarize per 

DPS as applicable. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29443 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the factors 

that may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Representation 

To evaluate representation as a 

component of lesser prairie-chicken 

viability, we considered the need for 

multiple healthy lesser prairie-chicken 

populations within each of the four 

ecoregions to conserve the genetic and 

ecological diversity of the lesser prairiechicken. Each of the four ecoregions 

varies in terms of vegetative 

communities and environmental 

conditions, resulting in differences in 

abundance and distribution and 

management strategies (Boal and 

Haukos 2016, p. 5). Despite reduced 

range and population size, most lesser 

prairie-chicken populations appear to 

have maintained comparatively high 

levels of neutral genetic variation 

(DeYoung and Williford 2016, p. 86). As 

discussed in Significance above, recent 

genetic studies also show significant 

genetic variation across the lesser 

prairie-chicken range based on neutral 

markers (Service 2021, Figure 2.4), 

which supports management separation 

of these four ecoregions and highlights 

important genetic differences between 

them (Oyler-McCance et al. 2016, p. 

653). While it is unknown how this 

genetic variation relates to differences in 

adaptive capacity between the 

ecoregions, maintaining healthy lesser 

prairie-chicken populations across this 

range of diversity increases the 

likelihood of conserving inherent 

ecological and genetic variation within 

the species to enhance its ability for 

adaptation to future changes in 

environmental conditions. 

Resiliency 

In the case of the lesser prairiechicken, we considered the primary 

indicators of resiliency to be habitat 

availability, population abundance, 

growth rates, and quasi-extinction risk. 

Lesser prairie-chicken populations 

within ecoregions must have sufficient 

habitat and population growth potential 

to recover from natural disturbance 

events such as extensive wildfires, 

extreme hot or cold events, extreme 

precipitation events, or extended local 

periods of below-average rainfall. These 

events can be particularly devastating to 

populations when they occur during the 

late spring or summer when nesting and 

brood rearing are occurring and 

individuals are more susceptible to 

mortality. 

The lesser prairie-chicken is 

considered a ‘‘boom-bust’’ species based 

on its high reproductive potential with 

a high degree of annual variation in 

rates of successful reproduction and 

recruitment. These variations are largely 

driven by the influence of seasonal 

precipitation patterns (Grisham et al. 

2013, pp. 6–7), which impact the 

population through effects on the 

quality of habitat. Periods of belowaverage precipitation and higher spring/ 

summer temperatures result in less 

appropriate grassland vegetation cover 

and less food available, resulting in 

decreased reproductive output (bust 

periods). Periods with above-normal 

precipitation and cooler spring/summer 

temperatures will support favorable 

lesser prairie-chicken habitat conditions 

and result in high reproductive success 

(boom periods). In years with 

particularly poor weather conditions, 

individual female lesser prairie-chicken 

may forgo nesting for the year. This 

population characteristic highlights the 

need for habitat conditions to support 

large population growth events during 

favorable climatic conditions so they 

can withstand the declines during poor 

climatic conditions without a high risk 

of extirpation. 

Historically, the lesser prairie-chicken 

had large expanses of grassland habitat 

to maintain populations. Early European 

settlement and development of the 

Southern Great Plains for agriculture 

initially, and for energy extraction later, 

substantially reduced the amount and 

connectivity of the grasslands of this 

region. Additionally, if historically 

some parts of the range were drastically 

impacted or eliminated due to a 

stochastic event, that area could be 

reestablished from other populations. 

Today, those characteristics of the 

grasslands have been degraded, 

resulting in the loss and fragmentation 

of grasslands in the Southern Great 

Plains. Under present conditions, the 

potential lesser prairie-chicken habitat 

is limited to small, fragmented grassland 

patches (relative to historical 

conditions) (Service 2021, pp. 64–78). 

The larger and more intact the 

remaining grassland patches are, with 

appropriate vegetation structure, the 

larger, healthier, and more resilient the 

lesser prairie-chicken populations will 

be. Exactly how large habitat patches 

should be to support healthy 

populations depends on the quality and 

intactness of the patches. Recommended 

total space needed for persistence of 

lesser prairie-chicken populations 

ranges from a minimum of about 12,000 

ac (4,900 ha) (Davis 2005, p. 3) up to 

more than 50,000 ac (20,000 ha) to 

support single leks, depending on the 

quality and intactness of the area 

(Applegate and Riley 1998, p. 14; 

Haufler et al. 2012, pp. 7–8; Haukos and 

Zavaleta 2016, p. 107). 

A single lesser prairie-chicken lek is 

not considered a population that can 

persist on its own. Instead, complexes of 

multiple leks that interact with each 

other are required for a lesser prairiechicken population to be persistent over 

time. These metapopulation dynamics, 

in which individuals interact on the 

landscape to form larger populations, 

are dependent upon the specific biotic 

and abiotic landscape characteristics of 

the site and how those characteristics 

influence space use, movement, patch 

size, and fragmentation (DeYoung and 

Williford 2016, pp. 89–91). Maintaining 

multiple, highly resilient populations 

(complexes of leks) within the four 

ecoregions that have the ability to 

interact with each other will increase 

the probability of persistence in the face 

of environmental fluctuations and 

stochastic events. Because of this 

concept of metapopulations and their 

influence on long-term persistence, 

when evaluating lesser prairie-chicken 

populations, site-specific information 

can be informative. However, many of 

the factors affecting lesser prairiechicken populations should be analyzed 

at larger spatial scales (Fuhlendorf et al. 

2002, entire). 

Redundancy 

Redundancy describes the ability of a 

species to withstand catastrophic 

events. Catastrophes are stochastic 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29444 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

events that are expected to lead to 

population collapse regardless of 

population health and for which 

adaptation is unlikely. Redundancy 

spreads the risk and can be measured 

through the duplication and distribution 

of resilient populations that are 

connected across the range of the 

species. The larger the number of highly 

resilient populations the lesser prairiechicken has, distributed over a large 

area within each ecoregion, the better 

the species can withstand catastrophic 

events. Catastrophic events for lesser 

prairie-chicken might include extreme 

drought; widespread, extended 

droughts; or a disease outbreak. 

Measuring redundancy for lesser 

prairie-chicken is a difficult task due to 

the physiological and biological 

characteristics of the species, which 

make it difficult to survey and limit the 

usefulness of survey results. To estimate 

redundancy for the lesser prairiechicken, we estimated the geographic 

distribution of predicted available 

habitat within each of the four 

ecoregions and the juxtaposition of that 

habitat to other habitat and non-habitat. 

As the amount of large grassland 

patches decreases and grassland patches 

become more isolated to reduce or 

preclude lesser prairie-chicken 

movement between them, the overall 

redundancy of the species is reduced. 

As redundancy decreases within any 

representative ecoregion or DPS, the 

likelihood of extirpation within that 

ecoregion increases. As large grassland 

patches, the connectivity of those 

patches, and the number of lesser 

prairie-chicken increase, so does the 

redundancy within an ecoregion or a 

DPS. 

Current Condition 

In the SSA report, we assessed the 

current condition of the lesser prairiechicken through an analysis of existing 

habitat; a review of factors that have 

impacted the species in the past, 

including a geospatial analysis to 

estimate areas of land cover impacts on 

the current landscape condition; a 

summary of the current potential usable 

area based upon our geospatial analysis; 

and a summary of past and current 

population estimates. We also evaluated 

and summarized the benefit of the 

extensive conservation efforts that are 

ongoing throughout the lesser prairiechicken range to conserve the species 

and its habitat. 

Geospatial Analysis Summary 

The primary concern for the lesser 

prairie-chicken is habitat loss and 

fragmentation. We conducted a 

geographic information system (GIS) 

analysis to analyze the extent of usable 

land cover changes and fragmentation 

within the range of the lesser prairiechicken, characterizing landscape 

conditions spatially to analyze the 

ability of those landscapes to support 

the biological needs of the lesser prairiechicken. Impacts included in this 

analysis were the direct and indirect 

effects of areas that were converted to 

cropland; encroached by woody 

vegetation such as mesquite and eastern 

red cedar (Juniperus virginiana); and 

developed for roads, petroleum 

production, wind energy, and 

transmission lines. We acknowledge 

that there are other impacts, such as 

power lines or incompatible grazing on 

the landscape, that can affect lesser 

prairie-chicken habitat. For those 

impacts, either no geospatial data were 

available, or the available data would 

have added so much complexity to our 

geospatial model that the results would 

have been uninterpretable or not 

explanatory for our purpose. 

There are several important 

limitations to our geospatial analysis. 

First, it is a landscape-level analysis, so 

the results only represent broad trends 

at the ecoregional and rangewide scales. 

Secondly, this analysis does not 

incorporate different levels of habitat 

quality, as the data do not exist at the 

spatial scale or resolution needed. Our 

analysis only considers areas as either 

potentially usable or not usable by 

lesser prairie-chicken based upon land 

cover classifications. We recognize that 

some habitat, if managed as high-quality 

grassland, may have the ability to 

support higher densities of lesser 

prairie-chicken than other habitat that 

exists at lower qualities. Additionally, 

we also recognize that some areas of 

land cover that we identified as suitable 

could be of such poor quality that it is 

of limited value to the lesser prairiechicken. We recognize there are many 

important limitations to this landscape 

analysis, including variation and 

inherent error in the underlying data 

and unavailable data. We interpreted 

the results of this analysis with those 

limitations in mind. 

In this proposed rule, we discuss 

effects that relate to the total potential 

usable unimpacted acreage for lesser 

prairie-chicken, as defined by our 

geospatial analysis (hereafter, analysis 

area). A complete description of the 

purpose, methodology, constraints, and 

additional details for this analysis is 

provided in the SSA report for the lesser 

prairie-chicken (Service 2021, Appendix 

B, Parts 1, 2, and 3). 

Threats Influencing Current Condition 

Following are summary evaluations of 

the threats analyzed in the SSA report 

for the lesser prairie-chicken: Effects 

associated with habitat degradation, 

loss, and fragmentation, including 

conversion of grassland to cropland 

(Factor A), petroleum production 

(Factor A), wind energy development 

and transmission (Factor A), woody 

vegetation encroachment (Factor A), and 

roads and electrical distribution lines 

(Factor A); other factors, such as 

livestock grazing (Factor A), shrub 

control and eradication (Factor A), 

collision mortality from fences (Factor 

E), predation (Factor C), influence of 

anthropogenic noise (Factor E), fire 

(Factor A); and extreme weather events 

(Factor E). We also evaluate existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and 

ongoing conservation measures. 

In the SSA report, we also considered 

three additional threats: Hunting and 

other recreational, educational, and 

scientific use (Factor B); parasites and 

diseases (Factor C); and insecticides 

(Factor E). We concluded that, as 

indicated by the best available scientific 

and commercial information, these 

threats are currently having little to no 

impact on lesser prairie-chickens and 

their habitat, and thus their overall 

effect now and into the future is 

expected to be minimal. Therefore, we 

will not present summary analyses of 

those threats in this document but will 

consider them in our overall 

conclusions of impacts to the species. 

For full descriptions of all threats and 

how they impact the species, please see 

the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 24– 

49). 

Habitat Degradation, Loss, and 

Fragmentation 

The grasslands of the Great Plains are 

among the most threatened ecosystems 

in North America (Samson et al. 2004, 

p. 6) and have been impacted more than 

any other major ecosystem on the 

continent (Samson and Knopf 1994, p. 

418). Temperate grasslands are also one 

of the least conserved ecosystems 

(Hoekstra et al. 2005, p. 25). Grassland 

loss in the Great Plains is estimated at 

approximately 70 percent (Samson et al. 

2004, p. 7), with nearly 93,000 square 

km (23 million ac; 9.3 million ha) of 

grasslands in the United States lost 

between 1982 and 1997 alone (Samson 

et al. 2004, p. 9). The vast majority of 

the lesser prairie-chicken range (>95 

percent) occurs on private lands that 

have been in some form of agricultural 

production since at least the early 

1900s. As a result, available habitat for 

grassland species, such as the lesser 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29445 

prairie-chicken, has been much reduced 

and fragmented compared to historical 

conditions across its range. 

Habitat impacts occur in three general 

categories that often work 

synergistically at the landscape scale: 

Degradation, loss, and fragmentation. 

Habitat degradation results in changes 

to a species’ habitat that reduces its 

suitability to the species, but without 

making the habitat entirely unsuitable. 

Degradation may result in lower 

carrying capacity, lower reproductive 

potential, higher predation rates, or 

other effects. Habitat loss may result 

from the same anthropogenic sources 

that cause degradation, but the habitat 

has been altered to the point where it 

has no suitability for the species at all. 

Habitat fragmentation occurs when 

habitat loss is patchy and leaves a 

matrix of grassland habitat behind. 

While habitat degradation continues to 

be a concern, we focus our analysis on 

habitat loss and fragmentation from the 

cumulative effects of multiple sources of 

activities as the long-term drivers of the 

species’ viability. 

Initially, reduction in the total area of 

available habitat may be more 

significant than fragmentation and can 

exert a much greater effect on 

populations (Fahrig 1997, pp. 607, 609). 

However, as habitat loss continues, the 

effects of fragmentation often compound 

effects of habitat loss and produce even 

greater population declines than habitat 

loss alone (Bender et al. 1998, pp. 517– 

518, 525). Spatial habitat fragmentation 

occurs when some form of disturbance, 

usually habitat degradation or loss, 

results in the separation or splitting 

apart of larger, previously contiguous, 

functional components of habitat into 

smaller, often less valuable, 

noncontiguous patches (Wilcove et al. 

1986, p. 237; Johnson and Igl 2001, p. 

25; Franklin et al. 2002, entire). Habitat 

loss and fragmentation influence habitat 

availability and quality in three primary 

ways: (1) Total area of available habitat 

constrains the maximum population 

size for an area; (2) the size of habitat 

patches within a larger habitat area, 

including edge effects (changes in 

population or community structures 

that occur at the boundary of two 

habitats), influences habitat quality and 

size of local populations; and (3) patch 

isolation influences the amount of 

species movement between patches, 

which constrains demographic and 

genetic exchange and ability to 

recolonize local areas where the species 

might be extirpated (Johnson and Igl 

2001, p. 25; Stephens et al. 2003, p. 

101). 

Habitat loss, fragmentation, and 

degradation correlate with the 

ecological concept of carrying capacity. 

Within any given block or patch of 

lesser prairie-chicken habitat, carrying 

capacity is the maximum number of 

birds that can be supported indefinitely 

by the resources available within that 

area, that is, sufficient food, shelter, and 

lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and 

wintering areas. As habitat loss 

increases and the size of an area 

decreases, the maximum number of 

birds that can inhabit that particular 

habitat patch also decreases. 

Consequently, a reduction in the total 

area of available habitat can negatively 

influence biologically important 

characteristics such as the amount of 

space available for establishing 

territories and nest sites (Fahrig 1997, p. 

603). Over time, the continued 

conversion and loss of habitat will 

reduce the capacity of the landscape to 

support historical population levels, 

causing a decline in population sizes. 

Habitat loss not only contributes to 

overall declines in usable area for a 

species but also causes a reduction in 

the size of individual habitat patches 

and influences the proximity and 

connectivity of these patches to other 

patches of similar habitat (Stephens et 

al. 2003, p. 101; Fletcher 2005, p. 342), 

reducing rates of movement between 

habitat patches until, eventually, 

complete isolation results. Habitat 

quality for many species is, in part, a 

function of patch size and declines as 

the size of the patch decreases (Franklin 

et al. 2002, p. 23). Both the size and 

shape of the habitat patch have been 

shown to influence population 

persistence in many species (Fahrig and 

Merriam 1994, p. 53). The size of the 

fragment can influence reproductive 

success, survival, and movements. As 

the distances between habitat fragments 

increase, the rate of dispersal between 

the habitat patches may decrease and 

ultimately cease, reducing the 

likelihood of population persistence and 

potentially leading to both localized and 

regional extinctions (Harrison and 

Bruna 1999, p. 226; With et al. 2008, p. 

3153). In highly fragmented landscapes, 

once a species becomes extirpated from 

an area, the probability of recolonization 

is greatly reduced (Fahrig and Merriam 

1994, p. 52). 

For the lesser prairie-chicken, habitat 

loss can occur due to either direct or 

indirect habitat impacts. Direct habitat 

loss is the result of the removal or 

alteration of grasslands, making that 

space no longer available for use by the 

lesser prairie-chicken. Indirect habitat 

loss and degradation is when the 

vegetation still exists, but the areas 

adjacent to a disturbance (the 

disturbance can be natural or manmade) 

are no longer used by lesser prairiechicken, are used at reduced rates, or 

the disturbance negatively alters 

demographic rates or behavior in the 

affected area. In many cases, as 

discussed in detail below for specific 

disturbances, the indirect habitat loss 

can greatly exceed the direct habitat 

loss. 

Primarily due to their site fidelity and 

the need for large, ecologically diverse 

landscapes, lesser prairie-chickens 

appear to be relatively intolerant to 

habitat alteration, particularly for 

activities that fragment habitat into 

smaller patches. The birds require 

habitat patches with large expanses of 

vegetative structure in different 

successional stages to complete different 

phases in their life cycle, and the loss 

or partial loss of even one of these 

structural components can significantly 

reduce the overall value of that habitat 

to lesser prairie-chickens (Elmore et al. 

2013, p. 4). In addition to the impacts 

on the individual patches, as habitat 

loss and fragmentation increases on the 

landscape, the juxtaposition of habitat 

patches to each other and to non-habitat 

areas will change. This changing pattern 

on the landscape can be complex and 

difficult to predict, but the results, in 

many cases, are increased isolation of 

individual patches (either due to 

physical separation or barriers 

preventing or limiting movement 

between patches) and direct impacts to 

metapopulation structure, which could 

be important for population persistence 

(DeYoung and Williford 2016, pp. 88– 

91). 

The following sections provide a 

discussion and quantification of the 

influence of habitat loss and 

fragmentation on the grasslands of the 

Great Plains within the lesser prairiechicken analysis area and more 

specifically allow us to characterize the 

current condition of lesser prairiechicken habitat. 

Conversion of Grassland to Cropland 

Historical conversion of grassland to 

cultivated agricultural lands in the late 

19th century and throughout the 20th 

century has been regularly cited as an 

important cause in the rangewide 

decline in abundance and distribution 

of lesser prairie-chicken populations 

(Copelin 1963, p. 8; Jackson and 

DeArment 1963, p. 733; Crawford and 

Bolen 1976a, p. 102; Crawford 1980, p. 

2; Taylor and Guthery 1980b, p. 2; 

Braun et al. 1994, pp. 429, 432–433; 

Mote et al. 1999, p. 3). Because 

cultivated grain crops may have 

provided increased or more dependable 

winter food supplies for lesser prairiechickens (Braun et al. 1994, p. 429), the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29446 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

initial conversion of smaller patches of 

grassland to cultivation may have been 

temporarily beneficial to the short-term 

needs of the species as primitive and 

inefficient agricultural practices made 

grain available as a food source (Rodgers 

2016, p. 18). However, as conversion 

increased, it became clear that 

landscapes having greater than 20 to 37 

percent cultivated grains may not 

support stable lesser prairie-chicken 

populations (Crawford and Bolen 1976a, 

p. 102). More recently, abundances of 

lesser prairie-chicken increased with 

increasing cropland until a threshold of 

10 percent was reached; after that, 

abundance of lesser prairie-chicken 

declined with increasing cropland cover 

(Ross et al. 2016b, entire). While lesser 

prairie-chicken may forage in 

agricultural croplands, croplands do not 

provide for the habitat requirements of 

the species life cycle (cover for nesting 

and thermoregulation); thus, lesser 

prairie-chicken avoid landscapes 

dominated by cultivated agriculture, 

particularly where small grains are not 

the dominant crop (Crawford and Bolen 

1976a, p. 102). 

As part of the geospatial analysis 

completed for the SSA, we estimated 

the amount of cropland that currently 

exists in the four ecoregions of the lesser 

prairie-chicken. These percentages do 

not equate to the actual proportion of 

habitat loss in the analysis area because 

not all of the analysis area was 

necessarily suitable lesser prairiechicken habitat; they are only the 

estimated portion of the total analysis 

area converted from the native 

vegetation community to cropland. 

About 37 percent of the total area in the 

Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion; 32 percent 

of the total area in the Sand Sagebrush 

Ecoregion; 13 percent of the total area in 

the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion; and 14 

percent of the total area in the Shinnery 

Oak Ecoregion of grassland have been 

converted to cropland in the analysis 

area of the lesser prairie-chicken. 

Rangewide, we estimate about 4,963,000 

ac (2,009,000 ha) of grassland have been 

converted to cropland, representing 

about 23 percent of the total analysis 

area. We note that these calculations do 

not account for all conversion that has 

occurred within the historical range of 

the lesser prairie-chicken but are limited 

to the amount of cropland within our 

analysis area. For further information, 

including total acreages impacted, see 

the SSA report for the lesser prairiechicken (Service 2021 Appendix E and 

Figure E.1). 

The effects of grassland converted to 

cropland within the historical range of 

the lesser prairie-chicken have 

significantly impacted the amount of 

habitat available and how fragmented 

the remaining habitat is for the lesser 

prairie-chicken, leading to overall 

decreases in resiliency and redundancy 

throughout the range of the lesser 

prairie-chicken. The impact of cropland 

has shaped the historical and current 

condition of the grasslands and 

shrublands upon which the lesser 

prairie-chicken depends. 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Production 

Petroleum and natural gas production 

has occurred over much of the estimated 

historical and current range of the lesser 

prairie-chicken. As demand for energy 

has continued to increase nationwide, 

so has oil and gas development in the 

Great Plains. In Texas, for example, 

active oil and gas wells in the lesser 

prairie-chicken occupied range have 

increased by more than 80 percent over 

the previous decade (Timmer et al. 

2014, p. 143). The impacts from oil and 

gas development extend beyond the 

immediate well sites; they involve 

activities such as surface exploration, 

exploratory drilling, field development, 

and facility construction, as well as 

access roads, well pads, and operation 

and maintenance. Associated facilities 

can include compressor stations, 

pumping stations, and electrical 

generators. 

Petroleum and natural gas production 

result in both direct and indirect habitat 

effects to the lesser prairie-chicken 

(Hunt and Best 2004, p. 92). Well pad 

construction, seismic surveys, access 

road development, power line 

construction, pipeline corridors, and 

other activities can all result in direct 

habitat loss by removal of vegetation 

used by lesser prairie-chickens. As 

documented in other grouse species, 

indirect habitat loss also occurs from 

avoidance of vertical structures, noise, 

and human presence (Weller et al. 2002, 

entire), which all can influence lesser 

prairie-chicken behavior in the general 

vicinity of oil and gas development 

areas. These activities also disrupt lesser 

prairie-chicken reproductive behavior 

(Hunt and Best 2004, p. 41). 

Anthropogenic features, such as oil 

and gas wells, affect the behavior of 

lesser prairie-chickens and alter the way 

in which they use the landscape (Hagen 

et al. 2011, pp. 69–73; Pitman et al. 

2005, entire; Hagen 2010, entire; Hunt 

and Best 2004, pp. 99–104; Plumb et al. 

2019, pp. 224–227; Sullins et al. 2019, 

pp. 5–8; Peterson et al. 2020, entire). 

Please see the SSA report for a detailed 

summary of the best available scientific 

information regarding avoidance 

distances and effects of oil and gas 

development on lesser prairie-chicken 

habitat use (Service 2021, pp. 27–28). 

As part of the geospatial analysis 

discussed in the SSA report, we 

calculated the amount of usable land 

cover for the lesser prairie-chicken that 

has been impacted (both direct and 

indirect impacts) by oil and natural gas 

wells in the current analysis area of the 

lesser prairie-chicken, though this 

analysis did not include all associated 

infrastructure as those data were not 

available. We used an impact radius of 

984 ft (300 m) for indirect effects of oil 

and gas wells. These calculations were 

limited to the current analysis area and 

do not include historical impacts of 

habitat loss that occurred outside of the 

current analysis area. Thus, the 

calculation likely underestimates the 

rangewide effects of historical oil and 

gas development on the lesser prairiechicken. About 4 percent of the total 

area in the Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion; 

5 percent of the total area in the Sand 

Sagebrush Ecoregion; about 10 percent 

of the total area in the Mixed-Grass 

Ecoregion; and 4 percent of the total 

area in the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion of 

space that was identified as potential 

usable or potential restorable areas have 

been impacted due to oil and gas 

development in the current analysis 

area of the lesser prairie-chicken. 

Rangewide, we estimate about 1,433,000 

ac (580,000 ha) of grassland have been 

lost due to oil and gas development 

representing about 7 percent of the total 

analysis area. Maps of these areas in 

each ecoregion are provided in the SSA 

report (Service 2021, Appendix E, 

Figure E.2). 

Oil and gas development directly 

removes habitat that supports lesser 

prairie-chicken, and the effects of the 

development extend past the immediate 

site of the wells and their associated 

infrastructure, further impacting habitat 

and altering behavior of lesser prairiechicken throughout both the Northern 

and the Southern DPS. These activities 

have resulted in decreases in population 

resiliency and species redundancy. 

Wind Energy Development and Power 

Lines 

Wind power is a form of renewable 

energy increasingly being used to meet 

current and projected future electricity 

demands in the United States. Much of 

the new wind energy development is 

likely to come from the Great Plains 

States because they have high wind 

resource potential, which exerts a 

strong, positive influence on the amount 

of wind energy developed within a 

particular State (Staid and Guikema 

2013, p. 384). In 2019, three of the five 

States within the lesser prairie-chicken 

range (Colorado, New Mexico, and 

Kansas) were within the top 10 States 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29447 

nationally for fastest growing States for 

wind generation in the past year (AWEA 

2020, p. 33). There is substantial 

information (Southwest Power Pool 

2020) indicating interest by the wind 

industry in developing wind energy 

within the range of the lesser prairiechicken, especially if additional 

transmission line capacity is 

constructed. As of May 2020, 

approximately 1,792 wind turbines were 

located within the lesser prairie-chicken 

analysis area (Hoen et al. 2020). Not all 

areas within the analysis area are habitat 

for the lesser prairie-chicken, so not all 

turbines located within the analysis area 

affect the lesser prairie-chicken and its 

habitat. 

The average size of installed wind 

turbines and all other size aspects of 

wind energy development continues to 

increase (Department of Energy (DOE) 

2015, p. 63; AWEA 2020, p. 87–88; 

AWEA 2014, entire; AWEA 2015, entire; 

AWEA 2016, entire; AWEA 2017, entire; 

AWEA 2018, entire; AWEA 2019, entire; 

AWEA 2020, entire). Wind energy 

developments range from 20 to 400 

towers, each supporting a single turbine. 

The individual permanent footprint of a 

single turbine unit, about 0.75–1 ac 

(0.3–0.4 ha), is relatively small in 

comparison with the overall footprint of 

the entire array (DOE 2008, pp. 110– 

111). Roads are necessary to access the 

turbine sites for installation and 

maintenance. Depending on the size of 

the wind energy development, one or 

more electrical substations, where the 

generated electricity is collected and 

transmitted on to the power grid, may 

also be built. Considering the initial 

capital investment and that the service 

life of a single turbine is at least 20 years 

(DOE 2008, p. 16), we expect most wind 

energy developments to be in place for 

at least 30 years. Repower of existing 

wind energy developments at the end of 

their service life is increasingly 

common, with 2,803 MW of operating 

projects partially repowering in 2019 

(AWEA 2020, p. 2). 

Please see the SSA report for a 

detailed review of the best available 

scientific information regarding the 

potential effects of wind energy 

development on habitat use by the 

lesser prairie-chicken (Service 2021, pp. 

31–33). 

Noise effects to prairie-chickens have 

been recently explored as a way to 

evaluate potential negative effects of 

wind energy development. For a site in 

Nebraska, wind turbine noise 

frequencies were documented at less 

than or equal to 0.73 kHz (Raynor et al. 

2017, p. 493), and reported to overlap 

the range of lek-advertisement 

vocalization frequencies of lesser 

prairie-chicken, 0.50–1.0 kHz. Female 

greater prairie-chickens avoided 

wooded areas and row crops but 

showed no response in space use based 

on wind turbine noise (Raynor et al. 

2019, entire). Additionally, differences 

in background noise and signal-to-noise 

ratio of boom chorus of leks in relation 

to distance to turbine have been 

documented, but the underlying cause 

and response needs to be further 

investigated, especially since the study 

of wind energy development noise on 

grouse is almost unprecedented 

(Whalen et al. 2019, entire). 

The effects of wind energy 

development on the lesser prairiechicken must also take into 

consideration the influence of the 

transmission lines critical to 

distribution of the energy generated by 

wind turbines. Transmission lines can 

traverse long distances across the 

landscape and can be both above ground 

and underground, although the vast 

majority of transmission lines are 

erected above ground. Most of the 

impacts to lesser prairie-chicken 

associated with transmission lines are 

with the above ground systems. Support 

structures vary in height depending on 

the size of the line. Most high-voltage 

power line towers are 98 to 125 ft (30 

to 38 m) high but can be higher if the 

need arises. Local distribution lines, if 

erected above ground, are usually much 

shorter in height but still contribute to 

fragmentation of the landscape. 

The effect of the transmission line 

infrastructure is typically much larger 

than the physical footprint of 

transmission line installation. 

Transmission lines can indirectly lead 

to alterations in lesser prairie-chicken 

behavior and space use (avoidance), 

decreased lek attendance, and increased 

predation on lesser prairie-chicken. 

Transmission lines, particularly due to 

their length, can be a significant barrier 

to dispersal of prairie grouse, disrupting 

movements to feeding, breeding, and 

roosting areas. Both lesser and greater 

prairie-chickens avoided otherwise 

usable habitat near transmission lines 

and crossed these power lines much less 

often than nearby roads, suggesting that 

power lines are a particularly strong 

barrier to movement (Pruett et al. 2009, 

pp. 1255–1257). Because lesser prairiechicken avoid tall vertical structures 

like transmission lines and because 

transmission lines can increase 

predation rates, leks located in the 

vicinity of these structures may see 

reduced attendance by new males to the 

lek, as has been reported for sage-grouse 

(Braun et al. 2002, pp. 11–13). 

Decreased probabilities of use by lesser 

prairie-chicken were shown with the 

occurrence of more than 0.09 mi (0.15 

km) of major roads, or transmission 

lines within a 1.2-mi (2-km) radius 

(Sullins et al. 2019, unpaged). 

Additionally, a recent study 

corroborated numerous authors’ (Pitman 

et al. 2005; Pruett et al. 2009; Hagen et 

al. 2011; Grisham et al. 2014; Hovick et 

al. 2014a) findings of negative effects of 

power lines on prairie grouse and 

reported a minimum avoidance distance 

of 1,925.8 ft (587 m), which is similar 

to other studies of lesser prairiechickens (Plumb et al. 2019, entire). 

As part of our geospatial analysis, we 

calculated the amount of otherwise 

usable land cover for the lesser prairiechicken that has been impacted (both 

direct and indirect impacts) by wind 

energy development in the current 

analysis area of the lesser prairiechicken. We used an impact radii of 

5,906 ft (1,800 m) for indirect effects of 

wind turbines and 2,297 ft (700 m) for 

indirect effects of transmission lines. 

Within our analysis area, the following 

acreages have been identified as 

impacted due to wind energy 

development: About 2 percent of the 

total area in the Short-Grass/CRP, 

Mixed-Grass, and Shinnery Oak 

Ecoregions; and no impacts of wind 

energy development documented 

currently within the Sand Sagebrush 

Ecoregion. Rangewide, we estimate 

about 428,000 ac (173,000 ha) of 

grassland have been impacted by wind 

energy development, representing about 

2 percent of the total analysis area 

(Service 2021, Appendix E, Figure E.3). 

These percentages do not account for 

overlap that may exist with other 

features that may have already impacted 

the landscape. 

Additionally, according to our 

geospatial analysis, the following 

acreages within the analysis area have 

been directly or indirectly impacted due 

to the construction of transmission 

lines: About 7 percent of the total area 

in the Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion; 5 

percent of the total area in the Sand 

Sagebrush Ecoregion; 7 percent of the 

total area in the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion; 

and 10 percent of the total area in the 

Shinnery Oak Ecoregion. Rangewide, we 

estimate about 1,553,000 ac (629,000 ha) 

of grassland have been impacted by 

transmission lines representing about 7 

percent of the total analysis area 

(Service 2021, Appendix E, Figure E.4). 

Wind energy development and 

transmission lines remove habitat that 

supports lesser prairie-chicken. The 

effects of the development extend past 

the immediate site of the turbines and 

their associated infrastructure, further 

impacting habitat and altering behavior 

of lesser prairie-chicken throughout 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29448 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

both the Northern and the Southern 

DPSs. These activities have resulted in 

decreases in population resiliency and 

species redundancy. 

Woody Vegetation Encroachment 

As discussed in Background, habitat 

selected by lesser prairie-chicken is 

characterized by expansive regions of 

treeless grasslands interspersed with 

patches of small shrubs (Giesen 1998, 

pp. 3–4); lesser prairie-chicken avoid 

areas with trees and other vertical 

structures. Prior to extensive EuroAmerican settlement, frequent fires and 

grazing by large, native ungulates 

helped confine trees like eastern red 

cedar to river and stream drainages and 

rocky outcroppings. The frequency and 

intensity of these disturbances directly 

influenced the ecological processes, 

biological diversity, and patchiness 

typical of Great Plains grassland 

ecosystems (Collins 1992, pp. 2003– 

2005; Fuhlendorf and Smeins 1999, pp. 

732, 737). 

Following Euro-American settlement, 

increasing fire suppression combined 

with government programs promoting 

eastern red cedar for windbreaks, 

erosion control, and wildlife cover 

facilitated the expansion of eastern red 

cedar distribution in grassland areas 

(Owensby et al. 1973, p. 256; DeSantis 

et al. 2011, p. 1838). Once a grassland 

area has been colonized by eastern red 

cedar, the trees are mature within 6 to 

7 years and provide a plentiful source 

of seed so that adjacent areas can readily 

become infested with eastern red cedar. 

Despite the relatively short viability of 

the seeds (typically only one growing 

season), the large cone crop, potentially 

large seed dispersal ability, and the 

physiological adaptations of eastern red 

cedar to open, relatively dry sites help 

make the species a successful invader of 

grassland landscapes (Holthuijzen et al. 

1987, p. 1094). Most trees are relatively 

long-lived and, once they become 

established in grassland areas, require 

intensive management to remove to 

return areas to a grassland state. 

Within the southern- and 

westernmost portions of the estimated 

historical and occupied ranges of lesser 

prairie-chicken in Eastern New Mexico, 

Western Oklahoma, and the South 

Plains and Panhandle of Texas, honey 

mesquite is another common woody 

invader within these grasslands (Riley 

1978, p. vii; Boggie et al. 2017, entire). 

Mesquite is a particularly effective 

invader in grassland habitat due to its 

ability to produce abundant, long-lived 

seeds that can germinate and establish 

in a variety of soil types and moisture 

and light regimes (Lautenbach et al. 

2017, p. 84). Though not as widespread 

as mesquite or eastern red cedar, other 

tall, woody plants, such as redberry or 

Pinchot juniper (Juniperus pinchotii), 

black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), 

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), 

and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) can 

also be found in grassland habitat 

historically and currently used by lesser 

prairie-chicken and may become 

invasive in these areas. 

Invasion of grasslands by 

opportunistic woody species causes 

otherwise usable grassland habitat to no 

longer be used by lesser prairie-chicken 

and contributes to the loss and 

fragmentation of grassland habitat 

(Lautenbach 2017, p. 84; Boggie et al. 

2017, p. 74). In Kansas, lesser prairiechicken are 40 times more likely to use 

areas that had no trees than areas with 

1.6 trees per ac (5 trees per ha), and no 

nests occur in areas with a tree density 

greater than 0.8 trees per ac (2 trees per 

ha), at a scale of 89 ac (36 ha) 

(Lautenbach 2017, pp. 104–142). 

Similarly, within the Shinnery Oak 

Ecoregion, lesser prairie-chicken space 

use in all seasons is altered in the 

presence of mesquite, even at densities 

of less than 5 percent canopy cover 

(Boggie et al. 2017, entire). Woody 

vegetation encroachment also 

contributes to indirect habitat loss and 

increases habitat fragmentation because 

lesser prairie-chicken are less likely to 

use areas adjacent to trees (Boggie et al. 

2017, pp. 72–74; Lautenbach 2017, pp. 

104–142). 

Fire is often the best method to 

control or preclude tree invasion of 

grassland. However, to some 

landowners and land managers, burning 

of grassland can be perceived as a highrisk activity because of the potential 

liability of escaped fire impacting 

nontarget lands and property. 

Additionally, it is undesirable for 

optimizing cattle production and is 

likely to create wind erosion or 

‘‘blowouts’’ in sandy soils. 

Consequently, wildfire suppression is 

common, and relatively little prescribed 

burning occurs on private land. Often, 

prescribed fire is employed only after 

significant tree invasion has already 

occurred and landowners consider 

forage production for cattle to have 

diminished. Preclusion of woody 

vegetation encroachment on grasslands 

of the southern Great Plains using fire 

requires implementing fire at a 

frequency that mimics historical fire 

frequencies of 2–14 years (Guyette et al. 

2012, p. 330), further limiting the 

number of landowners able to 

implement fire in a manner that would 

truly preclude future encroachment. 

Additionally, in areas where grazing 

pressure is heavy and fuel loads are 

reduced, a typical grassland fire may not 

be intense enough to eradicate eastern 

red cedar (Briggs et al. 2002a, p. 585; 

Briggs et al. 2002b, p. 293; Bragg and 

Hulbert 1976, p. 19) and will not 

eradicate mesquite. 

As part of our geospatial analysis, we 

calculated the amount of woody 

vegetation encroachment in the current 

analysis area of the lesser prairiechicken. These calculations of the 

current analysis area do not include 

historical impacts of habitat loss that 

occurred outside of the current analysis 

area; thus, it likely underestimates the 

effects of historical woody vegetation 

encroachment rangewide on the lesser 

prairie-chicken. An additional 

limitation associated with this 

calculation is that available remote 

sensing data lack the ability to detect 

areas with low densities of 

encroachment, as well as areas with 

shorter trees; thus, this calculation 

likely underestimates lesser prairiechicken habitat loss due to woody 

vegetation encroachment. The identified 

areas of habitat impacted by woody 

vegetation are: About 5 percent of the 

total area in the Short-Grass/CRP 

Ecoregion; about 2 percent of the total 

area in the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion; 

about 24 percent of the total area in the 

Mixed-Grass Ecoregion; and about 17 

percent of the total area in the Shinnery 

Oak Ecoregion. Rangewide, we estimate 

about 3,071,000 ac (1,243,000 ha) of 

grassland have been directly or 

indirectly impacted by the 

encroachment of woody vegetation, or 

about 18 percent of the total area. These 

percentages do not account for overlap 

that may exist with other features that 

may have already impacted the 

landscape. Further information, 

including total acres impacted, is 

available in the SSA report (Service 

2021, Appendix B; Appendix E, Figure 

E.5). 

Woody vegetation encroachment is 

contributing to ongoing habitat loss as 

well as contributing to fragmentation 

and degradation of remaining habitat 

patches. The effects of woody vegetation 

encroachment are particularly 

widespread in the Shinnery Oak 

Ecoregion that makes up the Southern 

DPS as well as the Mixed-Grass 

Ecoregion of the Northern DPS. While 

there are ongoing efforts to control 

woody vegetation encroachment, the 

current level of woody vegetation on the 

landscape is evidence that removal 

efforts are being outpaced by rates of 

encroachment, thus we expect that this 

threat will continue to contribute to 

habitat loss and fragmentation, which 

has reduced population resiliency 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29449 

across the range of the lesser prairiechicken. 

Roads and Electrical Distribution Lines 

Roads and distribution power lines 

are linear features on the landscape that 

contribute to loss and fragmentation of 

lesser prairie-chicken habitat and 

fragment populations as a result of 

behavioral avoidance. Lesser prairiechickens are less likely to use areas 

close to roads (Plumb et al. 2019, entire; 

Sullins et al. 2019, entire). Additionally, 

roads contribute to lek abandonment 

when they disrupt important habitat 

features (such as affecting auditory or 

visual communication) associated with 

lek sites (Crawford and Bolen 1976b, p. 

239). Some mammal species that prey 

on lesser prairie-chicken, such as red 

fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoons (Procyon 

lotor), and striped skunks (Mephitis 

mephitis), have greatly increased their 

distribution by dispersing along roads 

(Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 212; 

Forman 2000, p. 33; Frey and Conover 

2006, pp. 1114–1115). 

Traffic noise from roads may 

indirectly impact lesser prairie-chicken. 

Because lesser prairie-chicken depend 

on acoustical signals to attract females 

to leks, noise from roads, oil and gas 

development, wind turbines, and 

similar human activity may interfere 

with mating displays, influencing 

female attendance at lek sites and 

causing young males not to be drawn to 

the leks. Within a relatively short 

period, leks can become inactive due to 

a lack of recruitment of new males to 

the display grounds. For further 

discussion on noise, please see 

Influence of Anthropogenic Noise. 

Depending on the traffic volume and 

associated disturbances, roads also may 

limit lesser prairie-chicken dispersal 

abilities. Lesser prairie-chickens avoid 

areas of usable habitat near roads (Pruett 

et al. 2009, pp. 1256, 1258; Plumb et al. 

2019, entire) and in areas where road 

densities are high (Sullins et al. 2019, p. 

8). Lesser prairie-chickens are thought 

to avoid major roads due to disturbance 

caused by traffic volume and perhaps to 

avoid exposure to predators that may 

use roads as travel corridors. However, 

the extent to which roads constitute a 

significant obstacle to lesser prairiechicken movement and space use is 

largely dependent upon the local 

landscape composition and 

characteristics of the road itself. 

Local electrical distribution lines are 

usually much shorter in height than 

transmission lines but can still 

contribute to habitat fragmentation 

through similar mechanisms as other 

vertical features when erected above 

ground. Distribution lines are similar to 

transmission lines with the exception to 

height of poles and electrical power 

carried through the line. In addition to 

habitat loss and fragmentation, electrical 

power lines can directly affect prairie 

grouse by posing a collision hazard 

(Leopold 1933, p. 353; Connelly et al. 

2000, p. 974). There were no datasets 

available to quantify the total impact of 

distribution lines on the landscape for 

the lesser prairie-chicken. Although 

distribution lines are a significant 

landscape feature throughout the Great 

Plains with potential to affect lesser 

prairie-chicken habitat, after reviewing 

all available information, we were 

unable to develop a method to 

quantitatively incorporate the 

occurrence of distribution lines into our 

geospatial analysis. 

As part of our geospatial analysis, we 

estimated the area impacted by direct 

and indirect habitat loss due to roads 

(Service 2021, Appendix B, Part 2). 

These calculations of the current 

analysis area do not include historical 

impacts of loss; thus, it likely 

underestimates the historical effect of 

roads on rangewide habitat loss for the 

lesser prairie-chicken. The results 

indicate that the total areas of grassland 

that have been directly and indirectly 

impacted by roads within the analysis 

area for the lesser prairie-chicken are: 

about 17 percent of the total area in the 

Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion; about 14 

percent of the total area in the Sand 

Sagebrush Ecoregion; about 20 percent 

of the total area in the Mixed-Grass 

Ecoregion; and about 19 percent of the 

total area in the Shinnery Oak 

Ecoregion. Rangewide, we estimate 

about 3,996,000 ac (1,617,000 ha) of 

grassland have been impacted by roads, 

representing about 18 percent of the 

total analysis area (Service 2021, 

Appendix E, Figure E.6). We did not 

have adequate spatial data to evaluate 

habitat loss caused solely by power 

lines, but much of the existing impacts 

of power lines occur within the impacts 

caused by roads. Power lines that fall 

outside the existing impacts of roads 

would represent additional impacts for 

the lesser prairie-chicken that are not 

quantified in our geospatial analysis. 

Development of roads and electrical 

distribution lines directly removes 

habitat that supports lesser prairiechicken, and the effects of the 

development extend past the immediate 

footprint of the development, further 

impacting habitat and altering behavior 

of lesser prairie-chicken throughout 

both the Northern and the Southern 

DPSs. These activities have resulted in 

decreases in population resiliency and 

species redundancy. 

Other Factors 

Livestock Grazing 

Grazing has long been an ecological 

driving force throughout the ecosystems 

of the Great Plains (Stebbins 1981, p. 

84), and much of the untilled grasslands 

within the range of the lesser prairiechicken is currently grazed by livestock 

and other animals. Historically, the 

interaction of fire, drought, prairie dogs 

(Cynomys ludovicianus), and large 

ungulate grazers created and maintained 

distinctive plant communities in the 

Western Great Plains, resulting in a 

mosaic of vegetation structure and 

composition that sustained lesser 

prairie-chicken and other grassland bird 

populations (Derner et al. 2009, p. 112). 

As such, grazing by domestic livestock 

is not inherently detrimental to lesser 

prairie-chicken management and, in 

many cases, is needed to maintain 

appropriate vegetative structure. 

However, grazing practices that tend 

to result in overutilization of forage and 

decreasing vegetation heterogeneity can 

produce habitat conditions that differ in 

significant ways from the historical 

grassland mosaic; these incompatible 

practices alter the vegetation structure 

and composition and degrade the 

quality of habitat for the lesser prairiechicken. The more heavily altered 

conditions are the least valuable for the 

lesser prairie-chicken (Jackson and 

DeArment 1963 p. 733; Davis et al. 

1979, pp. 56, 116; Taylor and Guthery 

1980a, p. 2; Bidwell and Peoples 1991, 

pp. 1–2). In some cases, these alterations 

can result in areas that do not contain 

the biological components necessary to 

support the lesser prairie-chicken. 

Where grazing regimes leave limited 

residual cover in the spring, protection 

of lesser prairie-chicken nests may be 

inadequate, and desirable food 

resources can be scarce (Bent 1932, p. 

280; Cannon and Knopf 1980, pp. 73– 

74; Crawford 1980, p. 3; Kraft 2016, pp. 

19–21). Because lesser prairie-chicken 

depend on medium- and tall-grass 

species for nesting, concealment, and 

thermal cover that are also preferentially 

grazed by cattle, these plant species 

needed by lesser prairie-chicken can 

easily be reduced or eliminated by cattle 

grazing, particularly in regions of low 

rainfall (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 

1961, p. 290). In addition, when 

grasslands are in a deteriorated 

condition due to incompatible grazing 

and overutilization, the soils have less 

water-holding capacity (Blanco and Lal 

2010, p. 9), and the availability of 

succulent vegetation and insects used 

by lesser prairie-chicken chicks is 

reduced. However, grazing can be 

beneficial to the lesser prairie-chicken 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29450 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

when management practices produce or 

enhance the vegetative characteristics 

required by the lesser prairie-chicken. 

The interaction of fire and grazing and 

its effect on vegetation components and 

structure is likely important to prairiechickens (Starns et al. 2020, entire). On 

properties managed with patch-burn 

grazing regimes, female greater prairiechickens selected areas with low cattle 

stocking rates and patches that were 

frequently burned, though they avoided 

areas that were recently burned (Winder 

et al. 2017, p. 171). Patch-burn grazing 

created preferred habitats for female 

greater prairie-chickens if the regime 

included a relatively frequent fire-return 

interval, a mosaic of burned and 

unburned patches, and a reduced 

stocking rate in unburned areas avoided 

by grazers. When managed compatibly, 

widespread implementation of patchburn grazing could result in significant 

improvements in habitat quality for 

wildlife in the tall-grass prairie 

ecosystem (Winder et al. 2017, p. 165). 

In the eastern portion of the lesser 

prairie-chicken range, patch-burn 

grazing resulted in patchy landscapes 

with variation in vegetation 

composition and structure (Lautenbach 

2017, p. 20). Female lesser prairiechickens’ use of the diversity of patches 

in the landscape varied throughout their 

life cycle. They selected patches with 

the greatest time-since-fire and 

subsequently the most visual 

obstruction for nesting, and they 

selected sites with less time-since-fire 

and greater bare ground and forbs for 

summer brooding. 

Livestock also inadvertently flush 

lesser prairie-chicken and trample lesser 

prairie-chicken nests (Toole 2005, p. 27; 

Pitman et al. 2006, pp. 27–29). Brief 

flushing of adults from nests can expose 

eggs and chicks to predation and 

extreme temperatures. Trampling nests 

can cause direct mortality to lesser 

prairie-chicken eggs or chicks or may 

cause adults to permanently abandon 

their nests, ultimately resulting in loss 

of young. Although these effects have 

been documented, the significance of 

direct livestock effects on the lesser 

prairie-chicken is largely unknown and 

is presumed not to be significant at a 

population scale. 

In summary, domestic livestock 

grazing (including management 

practices commonly used to benefit 

livestock production) has altered the 

composition and structure of grassland 

habitat, both currently and historically, 

used by the lesser prairie-chicken. Much 

of the remaining remnants of mixedgrass grasslands, while still important to 

the lesser prairie-chicken, exhibit 

conditions quite different from those 

prior to Euro-American settlement. 

These changes have reduced the 

suitability of remnant grassland areas as 

habitat for lesser prairie-chicken. 

Grazing management that has altered 

the vegetation community to a point 

where the composition and structure are 

no longer suitable for lesser prairiechicken can contribute to fragmentation 

within the landscape, even though these 

areas may remain as prairie or 

grassland. Livestock grazing, however, 

is not inherently detrimental to lesser 

prairie-chicken provided that grazing 

management results in a plant 

community diversity and structure that 

is suitable for lesser prairie-chicken. 

While domestic livestock grazing is a 

dominant land use on untilled range 

land within the lesser prairie-chicken 

analysis area, geospatial data do not 

exist at a scale and resolution necessary 

to calculate the total amount of livestock 

grazing that is being managed in a way 

that results in habitat conditions that are 

not compatible with the needs of the 

lesser prairie-chicken. Therefore, we did 

not attempt to spatially quantify the 

scope of grazing effects across the lesser 

prairie-chicken range. 

Shrub Control and Eradication 

Shrub control and eradication are 

additional forms of habitat alteration 

that can influence the availability and 

suitability of habitat for lesser prairiechicken (Jackson and DeArment 1963, 

pp. 736–737). Most shrub control and 

eradication efforts in lesser prairiechicken habitat are primarily focused on 

sand shinnery oak for the purpose of 

increasing forage for livestock grazing. 

Sand shinnery oak is toxic if eaten by 

cattle when it first produces leaves in 

the spring and competes with more 

palatable grasses and forbs for water and 

nutrients (Peterson and Boyd 1998, p. 

8), which is why it is a common target 

for control and eradication efforts by 

rangeland managers. Prior to the late 

1990s, approximately 100,000 ac 

(40,000 ha) of sand shinnery oak in New 

Mexico and approximately 1,000,000 ac 

(405,000 ha) of sand shinnery oak in 

Texas were lost due to the application 

of tebuthiuron and other herbicides for 

agriculture and range improvement 

(Peterson and Boyd 1998, p. 2). 

Shrub cover is an important 

component of lesser prairie-chicken 

habitat in certain portions of the range, 

and sand shinnery oak is a key shrub in 

the Shinnery Oak and portions of the 

Mixed-Grass Ecoregions. The 

importance of sand shinnery oak as a 

component of lesser prairie-chicken 

habitat in the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion 

has been demonstrated by several 

studies (Fuhlendorf et al. 2002, pp. 624– 

626; Bell 2005, pp. 15, 19–25). In West 

Texas and New Mexico, lesser prairiechicken avoid nesting where sand 

shinnery oak has been controlled with 

tebuthiuron, indicating their preference 

for habitat with a sand shinnery oak 

component (Grisham et al. 2014, p. 18; 

Haukos and Smith 1989, p. 625; Johnson 

et al. 2004, pp. 338–342; Patten and 

Kelly 2010, p. 2151). Where sand 

shinnery oak occurs, lesser prairiechicken use it both for food and cover. 

Sand shinnery oak may be particularly 

important in drier portions of the range 

that experience more severe and 

frequent droughts and extreme heat 

events, as sand shinnery oak is more 

resistant to drought and heat conditions 

than are most grass species. And 

because sand shinnery oak is toxic to 

cattle and thus not targeted by grazing, 

it can provide available cover for lesser 

prairie-chicken nesting and brood 

rearing during these extreme weather 

events. Loss of this component of the 

vegetative community likely contributed 

to observed population declines in 

lesser prairie-chicken in these areas. 

While relatively wide-scale shrub 

eradication has occurred in the past, 

geospatial data do not exist to evaluate 

the extent to which shrub eradication 

has contributed to the habitat loss and 

fragmentation for the lesser prairiechicken and, therefore, was not 

included in our quantitative analysis. 

While current efforts of shrub 

eradication are not likely occurring at 

rates equivalent to that witnessed in the 

past, any additional efforts to eradicate 

shrubs that are essential to lesser 

prairie-chicken habitat will result in 

additional habitat degradation and thus 

reduce redundancy and resiliency. 

Influence of Anthropogenic Noise 

Anthropogenic noise can be 

associated with almost any form of 

human activity, and lesser prairiechicken may exhibit behavioral and 

physiological responses to the presence 

of noise. In prairie-chickens, the 

‘‘boom’’ call vocalization transmits 

information about sex, territorial status, 

mating condition, location, and 

individual identity of the signaler and 

thus is important to courtship activity 

and long-range advertisement of the 

display ground (Sparling 1981, p. 484). 

The timing of displays and frequency of 

vocalizations are critical reproductive 

behaviors in prairie grouse and appear 

to have developed in response to 

unobstructed conditions prevalent in 

prairie habitat and indicate that 

effective communication, particularly 

during the lekking season, operates 

within a fairly narrow set of acoustic 

conditions. Prairie grouse usually 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29451 

initiate displays on the lekking grounds 

around sunrise, and occasionally near 

sunset, corresponding with times of 

decreased wind turbulence and thermal 

variation (Sparling 1983, p. 41). 

Considering the narrow set of acoustic 

conditions in which communication 

appears most effective for breeding 

lesser prairie-chicken and the 

importance of communication to 

successful reproduction, human 

activities that result in noises that 

disrupt or alter these conditions could 

result in lek abandonment (Crawford 

and Bolen 1976b, p. 239). 

Anthropogenic features and related 

activities that occur on the landscape 

can create noise that exceeds the natural 

background or ambient level. When the 

behavioral response to noise is 

avoidance, as it often is for lesser 

prairie-chicken, noise can be a source of 

habitat loss or degradation leading to 

increased habitat fragmentation. 

Anthropogenic noise may be a 

possible factor in the population 

declines of other species of lekking 

grouse in North America, particularly 

for populations that are exposed to 

human developments (Blickley et al. 

2012a, p. 470; Lipp and Gregory 2018, 

pp. 369–370). Male greater prairiechicken adjust aspects of their 

vocalizations in response to wind 

turbine noise, and wind turbine noise 

may have the potential to mask the 

greater prairie-chicken chorus at 296 

hertz (Hz) under certain scenarios, but 

the extent and degree of masking is 

uncertain (Whalen 2015, entire). Noise 

produced by typical oil and gas 

infrastructure can mask grouse 

vocalizations, compromise the ability of 

female sage-grouse to find active leks 

when such noise is present, and affect 

nest site selection (Blickley and 

Patricelli 2012, p. 32; Lipp 2016, p. 40). 

Chronic noise associated with human 

activity leads to reduced male and 

female attendance at noisy leks. 

Breeding, reproductive success, and 

ultimately recruitment in areas with 

human developments could be impaired 

by such developments, impacting 

survival (Blickley et al. 2012b, entire). 

Because opportunities for effective 

communication on the display ground 

occur under fairly narrow conditions, 

disturbance during this period may have 

negative consequences for reproductive 

success. Other communications used by 

grouse off the lek, such as parentoffspring communication, may continue 

to be susceptible to masking by noise 

from human infrastructure (Blickley and 

Patricelli 2012, p. 33). 

No data are available to quantify the 

areas of lesser prairie-chicken habitat 

rangewide that have been affected by 

noise, but noise is a threat that is almost 

entirely associated with anthropogenic 

features such as roads or energy 

development. Therefore, through our 

accounting for anthropogenic features 

we may have inherently accounted for 

all or some of the response of the lesser 

prairie-chicken to noise produced by 

those features. 

Overall, persistent anthropogenic 

noise could cause lek attendance to 

decline, disrupt courtship and breeding 

activity, and reduce reproductive 

success. Noise can also cause 

abandonment of otherwise usable 

habitat and, as a result, contribute to 

habitat loss and degradation. 

Fire 

Fire, or its absence, is understood to 

be a major ecological driver of 

grasslands in the Southern Great Plains 

(Anderson 2006, entire; Koerner and 

Collins 2014, entire; Wright and Bailey 

1982, pp. 80–137). Fire is an ecological 

process important to maintaining 

grasslands by itself and in coupled 

interaction with grazing and climate. 

The interaction of these ecological 

processes results in increasing grassland 

heterogeneity through the creation of 

temporal and spatial diversity in plant 

community composition and structure 

and associated response of wildlife 

(Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001, entire; 

Fuhlendorf and Engle 2004, entire; 

Fuhlendorf et al. 2017a, pp. 169–196). 

Following settlement of the Great 

Plains, fire management generally 

emphasized prevention and 

suppression, often coupled with grazing 

pressures that significantly reduced and 

removed fine fuels (Sayre 2017, pp. 61– 

70). This approach, occurring in concert 

with settlement and ownership patterns 

that occurred in most of the Southern 

Great Plains, meant that the scale of 

management was relegated to smaller 

parcels than historically were affected. 

This increase in smaller parcels with 

both intensive grazing and fire 

suppression resulted in the 

transformation of landscapes from 

dynamic heterogeneous to largely static 

and homogenous plant communities. 

This simplification of vegetative pattern 

due to decoupling fire and grazing 

(Starns et al. 2019, pp. 1–3) changed the 

number and size of wildfires and 

ultimately led to declines in 

biodiversity in the affected systems 

(Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001, entire). 

Changes in patterns of wildfire in the 

Great Plains have been noted in recent 

years (Donovan et al. 2017, entire). 

While these landscapes have a long 

history of wildfire, large wildfires 

(greater than 1,000 ac (400 ha)) typically 

did not occur in recent past decades, 

and include an increase in the Southern 

Great Plains of megafires (greater than 

100,000 ac (400 km2)) since the mid1990s (Lindley et al. 2019, p. 164). 

Changes have occurred throughout all or 

portions of the Great Plains in number 

of large wildfires and season of fire 

occurrence, as well as increased area 

burned by wildfire or increasing 

probability of large wildfires (Donovan 

et al. 2017, p. 5990). Furthermore, Great 

Plains land cover dominated by woody 

or woody/grassland combined 

vegetation is disproportionately more 

likely to experience large wildfires, with 

the greatest increase in both number of 

fires and of area burned (Donovan et al. 

2020a, p. 11). Fire behavior has also 

been affected such that these 

increasingly large wildfires are burning 

under weather conditions (Lindley et al. 

2019, entire) that result in greater 

burned extent and intensity. These 

shifts in fire parameters and their 

outcomes have potential consequences 

for lesser prairie-chicken, including: (1) 

Larger areas of complete loss of nesting 

habitat as compared to formerly patchy 

mosaicked burns; and (2) large-scale 

reduction in the spatial and temporal 

variation in vegetation structure and 

composition affecting nesting and 

brood-rearing habitat, thermoregulatory 

cover, and predator escape cover. 

Effects from fire are expected to be 

relatively short term (Donovan et al. 

2020b, entire, Starns et al. 2020, entire) 

with plant community recovery time 

largely predictable and influenced by 

pre-fire condition, post-fire weather, 

and types of management. Some effects 

from fire, however, such as the response 

to changing plant communities in the 

range of the lesser prairie-chicken, will 

vary based on location within the range 

and available precipitation. In the 

eastern extent of the distribution of sand 

shinnery oak that occurs in the MixedGrass Ecoregion, fire has potential 

negative effects on some aspects of the 

lesser prairie-chicken habitat for 2 years 

after the area burns, but these effects 

could be longer in duration dependent 

upon precipitation patterns (Boyd and 

Bidwell 2001, pp. 945–946). Effects 

from fire on lesser prairie-chicken 

varied based on fire break preparation, 

season of burn, and type of habitat; 

positive effects included improved 

brood habitat through increased forb 

and grasshopper abundance, but these 

can be countered by short-term (2-year) 

negative effects to quality and 

availability of nesting habitat and a 

reduction in food sources (Boyd and 

Bidwell 2001, pp. 945–946). Birds 

moved into recently burned landscapes 

of western Oklahoma for lek courtship 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29452 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

displays because of the reduction in 

structure from formerly dense 

vegetation (Cannon and Knopf 1979, 

entire). 

More recently, research evaluating 

indirect effects concluded that 

prescribed fire and managed grazing 

following the patch-burn or pyric 

herbivory (grazing practices shaped fire) 

approach will benefit lesser prairiechicken through increases in forbs; 

invertebrates; and the quality, amount, 

and juxtaposition of brood habitat to 

available nesting habitat (Elmore et al. 

2017, entire). The importance of 

temporal and spatial heterogeneity 

derived from pyric herbivory is 

apparent in the female lesser prairiechicken use of all patch types in the 

patch-burn grazing mosaic, including 

greater than 2 years post-fire for nesting, 

2-year post fire during spring lekking, 

1- and 2-year post-fire during summer 

brooding, and 1-year post-fire during 

nonbreeding season (Lautenbach 2017, 

pp. 20–22). While the use of prescribed 

fire as a tool for managing grasslands 

throughout the lesser prairie-chicken 

range is encouraged, current use is at a 

temporal frequency and spatial extent 

insufficient to support large amount of 

lesser prairie-chicken habitat. These fire 

management efforts are limited to a 

small number of fire-minded 

landowners, resulting in effects to a 

small percentage of the lesser prairiechicken range. 

While lesser prairie-chicken evolved 

in a fire-adapted landscape, little 

research (Thacker and Twidwell 2014, 

entire) has been conducted on response 

of lesser prairie-chicken to altered fire 

regimes. Research to date has focused 

on site-specific responses and 

consequences. Human suppression of 

wildfire and the limited extent of fire 

use (prescribed fire) for management 

over the past century has altered the 

frequency, scale, and intensity of fire 

occurrence in lesser prairie-chicken 

habitat. These changes in fire 

parameters have happened 

simultaneously with habitat loss and 

fragmentation, resulting in patchy 

distribution of lesser prairie-chicken 

throughout their range. An increase in 

size, intensity, or severity of wildfires as 

compared to historical occurrences 

results in increased vulnerability of 

isolated, smaller lesser prairie-chicken 

populations. Both woody plant 

encroachment and drought are additive 

factors that increase risk of negative 

consequences of wildfire ignition, as 

well as extended post-fire lesser prairiechicken habitat effects. The extent of 

these negative impacts can be 

significantly altered by precipitation 

patterns following the occurrence of the 

fire; dry periods will inhibit or extend 

plant community response. 

Historically, fire served an important 

role in maintenance and quality of 

habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken. 

Currently, due to a significant shift in 

fire regimes in the lesser prairie-chicken 

range, fire use for management of 

grasslands plays a locally important but 

overall limited role in most lesser 

prairie-chicken habitat. This current 

lack of prescribed fire use in the range 

of the lesser prairie-chicken is 

contributing to woody plant 

encroachment and degradation of 

grassland quality due to its decoupling 

from the grazing and fire interaction that 

is the foundation for plant community 

diversity in structure and composition, 

which in turn supports the diverse 

habitat needs of lesser prairie-chicken. 

These cascading effects contribute to 

greater wildfire risk, and concerns exist 

regarding the changing patterns of 

wildfires (scale, intensity, and 

frequency) and their consequences for 

remaining lesser prairie-chicken 

populations and habitat that are 

increasingly fragmented. Concurrently, 

wildfire has increased as a threat 

rangewide due to compounding 

influences of increased size and severity 

of wildfires and the potential 

consequences to remaining isolated and 

fragmented lesser prairie-chicken 

populations. 

Extreme Weather Events 

Weather-related events such as 

drought, snow, and hail storms can 

influence habitat quality or result in 

direct mortality of lesser prairiechickens. Although hail storms typically 

only have a localized effect, the effects 

of snow storms and drought can often be 

more widespread and can affect 

considerable portions of the lesser 

prairie-chicken range. Drought is 

considered a universal ecological driver 

across the Great Plains (Knopf 1996, p. 

147). Annual precipitation within the 

Great Plains is highly variable (Wiens 

1974, p. 391), with prolonged drought 

capable of causing local extinctions of 

annual forbs and grasses within stands 

of perennial species; recolonization is 

often slow (Tilman and El Haddi 1992, 

p. 263). Grassland bird species in 

particular are impacted by climate 

extremes such as extended drought, 

which acts as a bottleneck that allows 

only a limited number of individuals to 

survive through the relatively harsh 

conditions (Wiens 1974, pp. 388, 397; 

Zimmerman 1992, p. 92). Drought also 

interacts with many of the other threats 

impacting the lesser prairie-chicken and 

its habitat, such as amplifying the 

effects of incompatible grazing and 

predation. 

Although the lesser prairie-chicken 

has adapted to drought as a component 

of its environment, drought and the 

accompanying harsh, fluctuating 

conditions (high temperatures and low 

food and cover availability) have 

influenced lesser prairie-chicken 

populations. Widespread periods of 

drought commonly result in ‘‘bust 

years’’ of recruitment. Following 

extreme droughts of the 1930s, 1950s, 

1970s, and 1990s, lesser prairie-chicken 

population levels declined and a 

decrease in their overall range was 

observed (Lee 1950, p. 475; Ligon 1953, 

p. 1; Schwilling 1955, pp. 5–6; 

Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1961, p. 

289; Copelin 1963, p. 49; Crawford 

1980, pp. 2–5; Massey 2001, pp. 5, 12; 

Hagen and Giesen 2005, unpaginated). 

Additionally, lesser prairie-chicken 

populations reached near record lows 

during and after the more recent 

drought of 2011 to 2013 (McDonald et 

al. 2017, p. 12; Fritts et al. 2018, entire). 

Drought impacts prairie grouse, such 

as lesser prairie-chicken, through 

several mechanisms. Drought affects 

seasonal growth of vegetation necessary 

to provide suitable nesting and roosting 

cover, food, and opportunity for escape 

from predators (Copelin 1963, pp. 37, 

42; Merchant 1982, pp. 19, 25, 51; 

Applegate and Riley 1998, p. 15; 

Peterson and Silvy 1994, p. 228; 

Morrow et al. 1996, pp. 596–597; Ross 

et al. 2016a, entire). Lesser prairiechicken home ranges will temporarily 

expand during drought years (Copelin 

1963, p. 37; Merchant 1982, p. 39) to 

compensate for scarcity in available 

resources. During these periods, the 

adult birds expend more energy 

searching for food and tend to move into 

areas with limited cover in order to 

forage, leaving them more vulnerable to 

predation and heat stress (Merchant 

1982, pp. 34–35; Flanders-Wanner et al. 

2004, p. 31). Chick survival and 

recruitment may also be depressed by 

drought (Merchant 1982, pp. 43–48; 

Morrow et al. 1996, p. 597; Giesen 1998, 

p. 11; Massey 2001, p. 12), which likely 

affects population trends more than 

annual changes in adult survival (Hagen 

2003, pp. 176–177). Drought-induced 

mechanisms affecting recruitment 

include decreased physiological 

condition of breeding females (Merchant 

1982, p. 45); heat stress and water loss 

of chicks (Merchant 1982, p. 46); and 

effects to hatch success and juvenile 

survival due to changes in microclimate, 

temperature, and humidity (Patten et al. 

2005, pp. 1274–1275; Bell 2005, pp. 20– 

21; Boal et al. 2010, p. 11). Precipitation, 

or lack thereof, appears to affect lesser 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29453 

prairie-chicken adult population trends 

with a potential lag effect (Giesen 2000, 

p. 145; Ross et al. 2016a, pp. 6–8). That 

is, rain levels in one year promote more 

vegetative cover for eggs and chicks in 

the following year, which influences 

survival and reproduction. 

Although lesser prairie-chicken have 

persisted through droughts in the past, 

the effects of such droughts are 

exacerbated by human land use 

practices such as incompatible grazing 

and land cultivation (Merchant 1982, p. 

51; Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1961, 

pp. 288–289; Davis et al. 1979, p. 122; 

Taylor and Guthery 1980a, p. 2; Ross et 

al. 2016b, pp. 183–186) as well as the 

other threats that have affected the 

current condition and have altered and 

fragmented the landscape and decreased 

population abundances (Fuhlendorf et 

al. 2002, p. 617; Rodgers 2016, pp. 15– 

19). In past decades, fragmentation of 

lesser prairie-chicken habitat was less 

extensive than it is today, connectivity 

between occupied areas was more 

prevalent, and populations were larger, 

allowing populations to recover more 

quickly. In other words, lesser prairiechicken populations were more resilient 

to the effects of stochastic events such 

as drought. As lesser prairie-chicken 

population abundances decline and 

usable habitat declines and becomes 

more fragmented, their ability to 

rebound from prolonged drought is 

diminished. 

Hail storms can cause mortality of 

prairie grouse, particularly during the 

spring nesting season. An excerpt from 

the May 1879 Stockton News that 

describes a large hailstorm near Kirwin, 

Kansas, as responsible for killing 

prairie-chickens (likely greater prairiechicken) and other birds by the 

hundreds (Fleharty 1995, p. 241). 

Although such phenomena are likely 

rare, the effects can be significant, 

particularly if they occur during the 

nesting period and result in significant 

loss of eggs or chicks. Severe winter 

storms can also result in localized 

impacts to lesser prairie-chicken 

populations. For example, a severe 

winter storm in 2006 was reported to 

reduce lesser prairie-chicken numbers 

in Colorado by 75 percent from 2006 to 

2007, from 296 birds observed to only 

74. Active leks also declined from 34 

leks in 2006 to 18 leks in 2007 (Verquer 

2007, p. 2). While populations 

commonly rebound to some degree 

following severe weather events such as 

drought and winter storms, a population 

with decreased resiliency becomes 

susceptible to extirpation from 

stochastic events. 

We are not able to quantify the impact 

that severe weather has had on the 

lesser prairie-chicken populations, but, 

as discussed above, these events have 

shaped recent history and influenced 

the current condition for the lesser 

prairie-chicken. 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

In Appendix D of the SSA report 

(Service 2021), we review in more detail 

the existing regulatory mechanisms 

(such as local, State, and Federal land 

use regulations or laws) that may be 

significant to lesser prairie-chicken 

conservation. Here, we present a 

summary of some of those regulatory 

mechanisms. All existing regulatory 

mechanisms were fully considered in 

our conclusion about the status of the 

two DPSs. 

All five States in the estimated 

occupied range have incorporated the 

lesser prairie-chicken as a species of 

conservation concern and management 

priority in their respective State 

Wildlife Action Plans. While 

identification of the lesser prairiechicken as a species of conservation 

concern helps heighten public 

awareness, this designation provides no 

protection from direct take or habitat 

destruction or alteration. The lesser 

prairie-chicken is listed as threatened in 

Colorado; this listing protects the lesser 

prairie-chicken from direct purposeful 

mortality by humans but does not 

provide protections for destruction or 

alteration of habitat. 

Primary land ownership 

(approximately 5 percent of total range) 

at the Federal level is on USFS and BLM 

lands. The lesser prairie-chicken is 

present on the Cimarron National 

Grassland in Kansas and the Comanche 

National Grassland in Colorado; a total 

of approximately 3 percent of the total 

acres estimated in the current condition 

is on USFS land. The 2014 Lesser 

Prairie-Chicken Management Plan for 

these grasslands provides a framework 

to manage lesser prairie-chicken habitat. 

The plan provides separate population 

and habitat recovery goals for each 

grassland, as well as vegetation surveys 

to inform ongoing and future monitoring 

efforts of suitable habitat and lek 

activities. Because National Grasslands 

are managed for multiple uses, the plan 

includes guidelines for prescribed fire 

and grazing. 

In New Mexico, roughly 41 percent of 

the known historical and most of the 

estimated occupied lesser prairiechicken range occurs on BLM land, for 

a total of 3 percent of the total acres 

estimated in the current condition. The 

BLM established the 57,522-ac (23,278- 

ha) Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat 

Preservation Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) upon 

completion of the Resource 

Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) 

in 2008. The management goal for the 

ACEC is to protect the biological 

qualities of the area, with emphasis on 

the preservation of the shinnery oakdune community to enhance the 

biodiversity of the ecosystem, 

particularly habitats for the lesser 

prairie-chicken and the dunes sagebrush 

lizard. Upon designation, the ACEC was 

closed to future oil and gas leasing, and 

existing leases would be developed in 

accordance with prescriptions 

applicable to the Core Management Area 

as described below (BLM 2008, p. 30). 

Additional management prescriptions 

for the ACEC include designation as a 

right-of-way exclusion area, vegetation 

management to meet the stated 

management goal of the area, and 

limiting the area to existing roads and 

trails for off-highway vehicle use (BLM 

2008, p. 31). All acres of the ACEC have 

been closed to grazing through 

relinquishment of the permits except for 

one 3,442-ac (1,393-ha) allotment. 

The BLM’s approved RMPA (BLM 

2008, pp. 5–31) provides some limited 

protections for the lesser prairie-chicken 

in New Mexico by reducing the number 

of drilling locations, decreasing the size 

of well pads, reducing the number and 

length of roads, reducing the number of 

powerlines and pipelines, and 

implementing best management 

practices for development and 

reclamation. The effect of these best 

management practices on the status of 

the lesser prairie-chicken is unknown, 

particularly considering about 82,000 ac 

(33,184 ha) have already been leased in 

those areas (BLM 2008, p. 8). Although 

the BLM RMPA is an important tool for 

identifying conservation actions that 

would benefit lesser prairie-chicken, 

this program is not adequate to 

eliminate threats to the species such 

that is does not warrant listing under 

the Act. 

No new mineral leases will be issued 

on approximately 32 percent of Federal 

mineral acreage within the RMPA 

planning area (BLM 2008, p. 8), 

although some exceptions are allowed 

on a case-by-case basis (BLM 2008, pp. 

9–11). Within the Core Management 

Area and Primary Population Area, new 

leases will be restricted in occupied and 

suitable habitat; however, if there is an 

overall increase in reclaimed to 

disturbed acres over a 5-year period, 

new leases in these areas will be 

allowed (BLM 2008, p. 11). In the 

southernmost habitat management 

units, where lesser prairie-chickens are 

now far less common than in previous 

decades (Hunt and Best 2004), new 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29454 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

leases will not be allowed within 2.4 km 

(1.5 mi) of a lek (BLM 2008, p. 11). 

We conclude that existing regulatory 

mechanisms have minimal influence on 

the rangewide trends of lesser prairiechicken habitat loss and fragmentation 

because 97 percent of the lesser prairiechicken analysis area occurs on private 

lands, and the activities affecting lesser 

prairie-chicken habitat are largely 

unregulated land use practices and land 

development. 

Conservation Efforts 

The SSA report also includes detailed 

information on current conservation 

measures (Service 2021, pp. 49–61). 

Some programs are implemented across 

the species’ range, and others are 

implemented at the State or local level. 

Because the vast majority of lesser 

prairie-chicken and their habitat occurs 

on private lands, most of these programs 

are targeted toward voluntary, 

incentive-based actions in cooperation 

with private landowners. 

At the rangewide scale, plans include 

the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Rangewide 

Conservation Plan, the Lesser PrairieChicken Initiative, and the Conservation 

Reserve Program. Below is a summary of 

the primary rangewide conservation 

efforts. For detailed descriptions of each 

program, please see the SSA report. All 

existing ongoing conservation efforts 

were fully considered in our finding on 

the status of the two DPSs. 

In 2013, the State fish and wildlife 

agencies within the range of the lesser 

prairie-chicken and the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (WAFWA) finalized the Lesser 

Prairie-Chicken Range-wide 

Conservation Plan (RWP) in response to 

concerns about threats to lesser prairiechicken habitat and resulting effects to 

lesser prairie-chicken populations (Van 

Pelt et al. 2013, entire). The RWP 

established biological goals and 

objectives as well as a conservation 

targeting strategy that aims to unify 

conservation efforts towards common 

goals. Additionally, the RWP establishes 

a mitigation framework administered by 

WAFWA that allows industry 

participants the opportunity to mitigate 

unavoidable impacts of a particular 

activity on the lesser prairie-chicken. 

After approval of the RWP, WAFWA 

developed a companion oil and gas 

candidate conservation agreement with 

assurances (CCAA), which adopted the 

mitigation framework contained within 

the RWP that was approved in 2014. 

As of August 1, 2020, WAFWA had 

used incoming funds from industry 

participants to place 22 sites totaling 

128,230 unimpacted ac (51,893 ha) 

under conservation contracts to provide 

offset for industry impacts that have 

occurred through the RWP and CCAA 

(Moore 2020, p. 9). These areas are 

enrolled under RWP conservation 

contracts that will provide mitigation 

for 1,538 projects, which impacted 

48,743 ac (19,726 ha) (WAFWA 2020, 

table 32, unpaginated). When enrolling 

a property, industry participants agree 

to minimize impacts from projects to 

lesser prairie-chicken habitat and 

mitigate for all remaining impacts on 

the enrolled property. At the end of 

2019 in the CCAA, there were 111 active 

contracts (Certificates of Inclusion) with 

6,228,136 ac (2,520,437 ha) enrolled 

(Moore 2020, p. 4), and in the WAFWA 

Conservation Agreement there were 52 

active WAFWA Conservation 

Agreement contracts (Certificates of 

Participation) with 599,626 ac (242,660 

ha) enrolled (WAFWA 2020, Table 5 

unpaginated). A recent audit of the 

mitigation program associated with the 

RWP and CCAA identified several key 

issues to be resolved within the program 

to ensure financial stability and 

effective conservation outcomes (Moore 

2020, Appendix E). WAFWA has hired 

a consultant who is currently working 

with stakeholders, including the 

Service, to consider available options to 

address the identified issues to ensure 

long-term durability of the strategy. 

In 2010, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) began 

implementation of the Lesser PrairieChicken Initiative (LPCI). The LPCI 

provides conservation assistance, both 

technical and financial, to landowners 

throughout the LPCI’s administrative 

boundary (NRCS 2017, p. 1). The LPCI 

focuses on maintenance and 

enhancement of lesser prairie-chicken 

habitat while benefiting agricultural 

producers by maintaining the farming 

and ranching operations throughout the 

region. In 2019, after annual declines in 

landowner interest in LPCI, the NRCS 

made changes in how LPCI will be 

implemented moving forward and 

initiated conferencing under section 7 of 

the ESA with the Service. Prior to 2019, 

participating landowners had to address 

all threats to the lesser prairie-chicken 

present on their property. In the future, 

each conservation plan developed under 

LPCI will only need to include one or 

more of the core management practices 

that include prescribed grazing, 

prescribed burning, brush management, 

and upland wildlife habitat 

management. Additional management 

practices may be incorporated into each 

conservation plan, as needed, to 

facilitate meeting the desired objectives. 

These practices are applied or 

maintained annually for the life of the 

practice, typically 1 to 15 years, to treat 

or manage habitat for lesser prairiechicken. From 2010 through 2019, 

NRCS worked with 883 private 

agricultural producers to implement 

conservation practices on 1.6 million ac 

(647,497 ha) of working lands within 

the historical range of the lesser prairiechicken (NRCS 2020, p. 2). During that 

time, through LPCI, NRCS implemented 

prescribed grazing plans on 680,800 ac 

(275,500 ha) across the range (Griffiths 

2020, pers. comm.). Through LPCI, 

NRCS has also removed over 41,000 ac 

(16,600 ha) of eastern red cedar in the 

Mixed-Grass Ecoregion and chemically 

treated approximately 106,000 ac 

(43,000 ha) of mesquite in the Shinnery 

Oak Ecoregion. Lastly, NRCS has 

conducted prescribed burns on 

approximately 15,000 ac (6,000 ha) 

during this time. 

The Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP) is administered by the USDA’s 

Farm Service Agency and provides 

short-term protection and conservation 

benefits on millions of acres within the 

range of the lesser prairie-chicken. The 

CRP is a voluntary program that allows 

eligible landowners to receive annual 

rental payments and cost-share 

assistance in exchange for removing 

cropland and certain marginal 

pastureland from agricultural 

production. CRP contract terms are for 

10 to 15 years. The total amount of land 

that can be enrolled in the CRP is 

capped nationally by the Food Security 

Act of 1985, as amended (the 2018 Farm 

Bill) at 27 million ac (10.93 million ha). 

All five States within the range of the 

lesser prairie-chicken have lands 

enrolled in the CRP. The 2018 Farm Bill 

maintains the acreage limitation that not 

more than 25 percent of the cropland in 

any county can be enrolled in CRP, with 

specific conditions under which a 

waiver to this restriction can be 

provided for lands enrolled under the 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program (84 FR 66813, December 6, 

2019). Over time, CRP enrollment 

fluctuates both nationally and locally. 

Within the counties that intersect the 

Estimated Occupied Range plus a 10- 

mile buffer, acres enrolled in CRP have 

declined annually since 2007 (with the 

exception of one minor increase from 

2010 to 2011) from nearly 6 million ac 

(2.4 million ha) enrolled to current 

enrollment levels of approximately 4.25 

million ac (1.7 million ha) (FSA 2020a, 

unpublished data). More specific to our 

analysis area, current acreage of CRP 

enrollment is approximately 1,822,000 

ac (737,000 ha) within our analysis area. 

Of those currently enrolled acres there 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29455 

are approximately 120,000 ac (49,000 

ha) of introduced grasses and legumes 

dispersed primarily within the MixedGrass and Shinnery Oak Ecoregions 

(FSA 2020b, unpublished data). 

At the State level, programs provide 

direct technical and financial cost-share 

assistance to private landowners 

interested in voluntarily implementing 

conservation management practices to 

benefit species of greatest conservation 

need—including the lesser prairiechicken. Additionally, a variety of Statelevel conservation efforts acquire and 

manage lands or incentivize 

management by private landowners for 

the benefit of the lesser prairie-chicken. 

Below is a summary for each State 

within the range of the lesser prairiechicken. For a complete description of 

each, see the SSA report. All 

conservation measures discussed in the 

SSA report were fully considered in this 

proposed rule. 

Within the State of Kansas, 

conservation efforts are administered by 

the Kansas Department of Wildlife, 

Parks and Tourism (KDWPT), The 

Nature Conservancy, and the Service’s 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

(PFW). KDWPT has targeted lesser 

prairie-chicken habitat improvements 

on private lands by leveraging 

landowner cost-share contributions, 

industry and nongovernmental 

organizations’ cash contributions, and 

agency funds toward several federally 

funded grant programs. The KDWPT has 

implemented conservation measures 

over 22,000 ac (8,900 ha) through the 

Landowner Incentive Program, over 

18,000 ac (7,285 ha) through the State 

Wildlife Grant Private Landowner 

Program, 30,000 ac (12,140 ha) through 

the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 

and 12,000 ac (4,855 ha) through the 

Habitat First Program within the range 

of the lesser prairie-chicken. 

Additionally, KDWPT was provided an 

opportunity through contributions from 

the Comanche Pool Prairie Resource 

Foundation to leverage additional 

Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 

funds in 2016 to direct implementation 

of 19,655 ac (7,954 ha). The Nature 

Conservancy in Kansas manages the 

18,060-ac (7,309-ha) Smoky Valley 

Ranch. The Nature Conservancy also 

serves as the easement holder for nearly 

34,000 ac (13,760 ha) of properties that 

are enrolled under the RWP. The Nature 

Conservancy is also working to use 

funds from an NRCS Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program that 

have resulted in nearly 50,000 ac 

(20,235 ha) on three ranches either with 

secured or in-process conservation 

easements. The Service’s PFW program 

has executed 95 private lands 

agreements with direct and indirect 

improvements on about 173,000 ac 

(70,011 ha) of private lands benefitting 

conservation of the lesser prairiechicken in Kansas. 

In 2009, Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

(CPW) initiated its Lesser PrairieChicken Habitat Improvement Program 

that provides cost-sharing to private 

landowners who participate in practices 

such as deferred grazing around active 

leks, enhancement of fields enrolled in 

CRP and cropland-to-grassland habitat 

conversion. Since program inception, 

CPW has completed 37,051 ac (14,994 

ha) of habitat treatments. The Nature 

Conservancy holds permanent 

conservation easements on multiple 

ranches that make up the Big Sandy 

complex. Totaling approximately 48,940 

ac (19,805 ha), this complex is managed 

with lesser prairie-chicken as a 

conservation objective and perpetually 

protects intact sand sagebrush and 

short-grass prairie communities. The 

USFS currently manages the Comanche 

Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat 

Zoological Area, as part of the 

Comanche and Cimarron National 

Grasslands, which encompass an area of 

10,177 ac (4,118 ha) in Colorado that is 

managed to benefit the lesser prairiechicken (USFS 2014, p. 9). In 2016, 

CPW and KDWPT partnered with 

Kansas State University and USFS to 

initiate a 3-year translocation project to 

restore lesser prairie-chicken to the 

Comanche National Grasslands 

(Colorado) and Cimarron National 

Grasslands (Kansas). Beginning in the 

fall of 2016 and concluding with the 

2019 spring lekking season, the 

partnership trapped and translocated 

411 lesser prairie-chickens from the 

Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion in Kansas to 

the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion. During 

April and May 2020 lek counts, 

Colorado and Kansas biologists and 

technicians found 115 male birds on 20 

active leks in the landscape around the 

Comanche and Cimarron National 

Grasslands (Rossi 2020, pers. comm.). 

In 2013, the Oklahoma Department of 

Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) was 

issued a 25-year enhancement of 

survival permit pursuant to section 

10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA that included an 

umbrella CCAA between the Service 

and ODWC for the lesser prairie-chicken 

in 14 Oklahoma counties (78 FR 14111, 

March 4, 2013). As of 2019, there were 

84 participants with a total of 399,225 

ac (161,561 ha) enrolled in the ODWC 

CCAA, with 357,654 ac (144,737) 

enrolled as conservation acres (ODWC 

2020). The ODWC owns six wildlife 

management areas totaling 

approximately 75,000 ac (30,351 ha) in 

the range of the lesser prairie-chicken, 

though only a portion of each wildlife 

management area can be considered as 

conservation acres for lesser prairiechicken. The Service’s PFW program 

has funded a shared position with 

ODWC for 6 years to conduct CCAA 

monitoring and, in addition, has 

provided funding for on-the-ground 

work in the lesser prairie-chicken range. 

Since 2017, the Oklahoma PFW program 

has implemented 51 private lands 

agreements on about 10,603 ac (4,291 

ha) for the benefit of the lesser prairiechicken in Oklahoma. The Nature 

Conservancy of Oklahoma manages the 

4,050-ac (1,640-ha) Four Canyon 

Preserve in Ellis County for ecological 

health to benefit numerous short-grass 

prairie species, including the lesser 

prairie-chicken. In 2017, The Nature 

Conservancy acquired a conservation 

easement on 1,784 ac (722 ha) in Woods 

County. The Conservancy is seeking to 

permanently protect additional acreage 

in the region through the acquisition of 

conservation easements. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

(TPWD) worked with the Service and 

landowners to develop the first statewide umbrella CCAA for the lesser 

prairie-chicken in Texas, which was 

finalized in 2006. The Texas CCAA 

covers 50 counties, largely 

encompassing the Texas Panhandle and 

South Plains regions. Total landowner 

participation by the close of January 

2020 was 91 properties totaling 

approximately 657,038 ac (265,894 ha) 

enrolled in 15 counties (TPWD 2020, 

entire). The Service’s PFW program and 

the TPWD have actively collaborated on 

range management programs designed 

to provide cost-sharing for 

implementation of habitat 

improvements for lesser prairie-chicken. 

The Service provided funding to TPWD 

to support a Landscape Conservation 

Coordinator position for the Panhandle 

and Southern High Plains region, as 

well as funding to support Landowner 

Incentive Program projects targeting 

lesser prairie-chicken habitat 

improvements (brush control and 

grazing management) in this region. 

More than $200,000 of Service funds 

were committed in 2010, and an 

additional $100,000 was committed in 

2011. 

Since 2008, Texas has addressed 

lesser prairie-chicken conservation on 

14,068 ac (5,693 ha) under the 

Landowner Incentive Program. Typical 

conservation measures include native 

plant restoration, control of exotic or 

invasive vegetation, prescribed burning, 

selective brush management, and 

prescribed grazing. The PFW program in 

Texas has executed 66 private lands 

agreements on about 131,190 ac (53,091 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29456 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

ha) of privately owned lands for the 

benefit of the lesser prairie-chicken in 

Texas. The Nature Conservancy of Texas 

acquired approximately 10,635 ac (4,303 

ha) in Cochran, Terry, and Yoakum 

Counties. In 2014, The Nature 

Conservancy donated this land to 

TPWD. The TPWD acquired an 

additional 3,402 ac (1,377 ha) 

contiguous to the Yoakum Dunes 

Preserve creating the 14,037-ac (5,681- 

ha) Yoakum Dunes Wildlife 

Management Area. In 2015, through the 

RWP process, WAFWA acquired an 

additional 1,604 ac (649 ha) in Cochran 

County, nearly 3 mi (5 km) west of the 

Yoakum Dunes Wildlife Management 

Area. The land was deeded to TPWD 

soon after acquisition. In 2016, an 

additional 320 ac (129 ha) was 

purchased by TPWD bordering the 

WAFWA acquired tract creating an 

additional 1,924-ac (779-ha) property 

that is being managed as part of the 

Yoakum Dunes Wildlife Management 

Area, now at 15,961 ac (6,459 ha). 

The BLM’s Special Status Species 

RMPA, which was approved in April 

2008, addressed the concerns and future 

management of lesser prairie-chicken 

and dunes sagebrush lizard habitats on 

BLM lands and established the Lesser 

Prairie-Chicken Habitat Preservation 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(BLM 2008, entire). Since the RMPA 

was approved in 2008, BLM has closed 

approximately 300,000 ac (121,000 ha) 

to future oil and gas leasing and closed 

approximately 850,000 ac (344,000 ha) 

to wind and solar development (BLM 

2008, p. 3). From 2008 to 2020, they 

have reclaimed 3,500 ac (1,416 ha) of 

abandoned well pads and associated 

roads and required burial of power lines 

within 2 mi (3.2 km) of lesser prairiechicken leks. Additionally, BLM has 

implemented control efforts for 

mesquite on 832,104 ac (336,740 ha) 

and has plans to do so on an additional 

30,000 ac (12,141 ha) annually. In 2010, 

BLM acquired 7,440 ac (3,010 ha) of 

land east of Roswell, New Mexico, to 

complete the 54,000-ac (21,853-ha) 

ACEC for lesser prairie-chicken, which 

is managed to protect key habitat. 

Following approval of the RMPA, a 

candidate conservation agreement 

(CCA) and CCAA was drafted by a team 

including the Service, BLM, Center of 

Excellence for Hazardous Material 

Management (CEHMM), and 

participating cooperators to address the 

conservation needs of the lesser prairiechicken and the dunes sagebrush lizard. 

Since the CCA and CCAA were finalized 

in 2008, 43 oil and gas companies have 

enrolled a total of 1,964,163 ac (794,868 

ha) in the historical range of the lesser 

prairie-chicken. In addition, 72 ranchers 

in New Mexico and the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish have 

enrolled a total of 2,055,461 ac (831,815 

ha). The New Mexico State Land Office 

has enrolled a total of 406,673 ac 

(164,575 ha) in the historical range of 

the lesser prairie-chicken. The CCA and 

CCAA have treated 79,297 ac (32,090 

ha) of mesquite and reclaimed 154 

abandoned well pads and associated 

roads. CEHMM has also removed 7,564 

ac (3,061 ha) of dead, standing 

mesquite, and has another 12,000 ac 

(5,000 ha) scheduled in the upcoming 2 

years. 

The Nature Conservancy owns and 

manages the 28,000-ac (11,331-ha) 

Milnesand Prairie Preserve near 

Milnesand, New Mexico. Additionally, 

the New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish has designated 30 Prairie 

Chicken Areas (PCAs) specifically for 

management of the lesser prairiechicken ranging in size from 28 to 7,189 

ac (11 to 2,909 ha) and totaling more 

than 27,262 ac (11,033 ha). In 2007, the 

State Game Commission used New 

Mexico State Land Conservation 

Appropriation funding to acquire 5,285 

ac (2,137 ha) of private ranchland in 

Roosevelt County. The Service’s PFW 

program in New Mexico has contributed 

financial and technical assistance for 

restoration and enhancement activities 

benefitting the lesser prairie-chicken in 

New Mexico. In 2016, the PFW program 

executed a private land agreement on 

630 ac (255 ha) for treating invasive 

species with a prescribed burn. In 2020 

the PFW program executed a private 

land agreement for a prescribed burn on 

155 ac (63 ha). 

Conditions and Trends 

Rangewide Trends 

The lesser prairie-chicken estimated 

historical range encompasses an area of 

approximately 115 million ac (47 

million ha). As discussed in 

Background, not all of the area within 

this historical range was evenly 

occupied by lesser prairie-chicken, and 

some of the area may not have been 

suitable to regularly support lesser 

prairie-chicken populations (Boal and 

Haukos 2016, p. 6). However, the 

current range of the lesser prairiechicken has been significantly reduced 

from the historical range, and estimates 

of the reduction vary from greater than 

90 percent (Hagen and Giesen 2005, 

unpaginated) to approximately 83 

percent (Van Pelt et al. 2013, p. 3). 

We estimated the current amount and 

configuration of potential lesser prairiechicken usable area within the analysis 

area using the geospatial analysis 

described in the SSA report (Service 

2021, Section 3.2; Appendix B, Parts 1, 

2, and 3) and considering existing 

impacts as described above. The total 

area of all potential usable (land cover 

that may be consistent with lesser 

prairie-chicken areas that have the 

potential to support lesser prairiechicken use) and potential usable, 

unimpacted land cover (that is, not 

impacted by landscape features) 

categories in each ecoregion and 

rangewide is shown in Table 1. 

To assess lesser prairie-chicken 

habitat at a larger scale and incorporate 

some measure of connectivity and 

fragmentation, we then grouped the 

areas of potential usable, unimpacted 

land cover based on the proximity of 

other areas with potential usable, 

unimpacted lesser prairie-chicken land 

cover. To do this, we used a ‘‘nearest 

neighbor’’ geospatial process to 

determine how much potential usable 

land cover is within 1 mi (1.6 km) of 

any area of potential usable land cover. 

This nearest neighbor analysis gives an 

estimate of how closely potential usable, 

unimpacted land cover is clustered 

together, versus spread apart, from other 

potential usable, unimpacted land 

cover. Areas with at least 60 percent 

potential usable, unimpacted land cover 

within 1 mi (1.6 km) were grouped. The 

60 percent threshold was chosen 

because maintaining grassland in large 

blocks is vital to conservation of the 

species (Ross et al. 2016a, entire; Hagen 

and Elmore 2016, entire; Spencer et al. 

2017, entire; Sullins et al. 2019, entire), 

and these studies indicate that 

landscapes consisting of greater than 

60% grassland are required to support 

lesser prairie-chicken populations. This 

approach eliminates small, isolated, and 

fragmented patches of otherwise 

potential usable land cover that are not 

likely to support persistent populations 

of the lesser prairie-chicken. A separate 

analysis found that the areas with 60 

percent or greater unimpacted potential 

usable land cover within 1 mile (1.6 km) 

captured approximately 90 percent of 

known leks (Service 2021, Appendix B, 

Part 3). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29457 

TABLE 1—RESULTS OF LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN GEOSPATIAL ANALYSIS BY ECOREGION AND RANGEWIDE, ESTIMATING

TOTAL AREA IN ACRES, POTENTIAL USABLE AREA, AND AREA CALCULATED BY OUR NEAREST NEIGHBOR ANALYSIS

[All numbers are in acres. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.] 

Ecoregion Ecoregion 

total area 

Potential 

usable area 

Nearest 

neighbor 

analysis 

Percent of 

total area 

Short-Grass/CRP ............................................................................................. 6,298,014 2,961,318 1,023,894 16.3 

Mixed-Grass ..................................................................................................... 8,527,718 6,335,451 994,483 11.7 

Sand Sagebrush .............................................................................................. 3,153,420 1,815,435 1,028,523 32.6 

Northern DPS total ................................................................................... 17,979,152 11,112,204 3,046,900 16.9 

Shinnery Oak (Southern DPS total) ......................................................... 3,850,209 2,626,305 1,023,572 26.6 

Rangewide Totals .............................................................................. 21,829,361 13,738,509 4,070,472 18.6 

The results of the nearest neighbor 

analysis indicate that about 19 percent 

of the entire analysis area and from 12 

percent to 33 percent within each of the 

four ecoregions is available for use by 

the lesser prairie-chicken. Due to 

limitations in data availability and 

accuracy as well as numerous 

limitations with the methodology and 

assumptions made for this analysis, this 

estimate should not be viewed as a 

precise measure of the lesser prairiechicken habitat; instead, it provides a 

generalized baseline to characterize the 

current condition and by which we can 

then forecast the effect of future 

changes. 

In the SSA report, we also considered 

trends in populations. Estimates of 

population abundance prior to the 

1960s are indeterminable and rely 

almost entirely on anecdotal 

information (Boal and Haukos 2016, p. 

6). While little is known about precise 

historical population sizes, the lesser 

prairie-chicken was reported to be quite 

common throughout its range in the 

early 20th century (Bent 1932, pp. 280– 

281, 283; Baker 1953, p. 8; Bailey and 

Niedrach 1965, p. 51; Sands 1968, p. 

454; Fleharty 1995, pp. 38–44; Robb and 

Schroeder 2005, p. 13). In the 1960s, 

State fish and wildlife agencies began 

routine lesser prairie-chicken 

monitoring efforts that have largely 

continued to today. 

In the SSA report and this proposed 

rule, we discuss lesser prairie-chicken 

population estimates from two studies. 

The first study calculated historical 

trends in lesser prairie-chicken 

abundances from 1965 through 2016 

based on population reconstruction 

methods and historical lek surveys 

(Hagen et al. 2017, pp. 6–9). The results 

of these estimates indicate that lesser 

prairie-chicken rangewide abundance 

(based on a minimum estimated number 

of male lesser prairie-chicken) peaked 

from 1965–1970 at a mean estimate of 

about 175,000 males. The mean 

population estimates maintained levels 

of greater than 100,000 males until 

1989, after which they steadily declined 

to a low of 25,000 males in 1997 (Garton 

et al. 2016, p. 68). The mean population 

estimates following 1997 peaked again 

at about 92,000 males in 2006 but 

subsequently declined to 34,440 males 

in 2012. The Service identified concerns 

in the past with some of the 

methodologies and assumptions made 

in this analysis, and the challenges of 

these data are noted in other studies (for 

example, Zavaleta and Haukos 2013, p. 

545; Cummings et al. 2017, pp. 29–30). 

While these concerns remain, including 

the very low sample sizes particularly in 

the 1960s, this work represents the only 

attempt to compile the extensive 

historical ground lek count data 

collected by State agencies to estimate 

rangewide population sizes. 

Approximate distribution of lek 

locations as reported by WAFWA for the 

entire range that were observed 

occupied by lesser prairie-chicken at 

least once between 2015 and 2019 are 

shown in the SSA report (Service 2021, 

Appendix E, Figure E.7). 

Following development of aerial 

survey methods (McRoberts et al. 2011, 

entire), more statistically rigorous 

estimates of lesser prairie-chicken 

abundance (both males and females) 

have been conducted by flying aerial 

line-transect surveys throughout the 

range of the lesser prairie-chicken and 

extrapolating densities from the 

surveyed area to the rest of the range 

beginning in 2012 (Nasman et al. 2020, 

entire). The aerial survey results from 

2012 through 2020 (Service 2021, Figure 

3.2) estimated the lesser prairie-chicken 

population abundance, averaged over 

the most recent 5 years of surveys 

(2015–2020, no surveys in 2019), at 

27,384 (90 percent CI: 15,690, 59,981) 

(Nasman et al. 2020, p. 21; Table 2). The 

results of these survey efforts should not 

be taken as precise estimates of the 

annual lesser prairie-chicken population 

abundance, as indicated by the large 

confidence intervals. Thus, the best use 

of this data is for long-term trend 

analysis rather than for conclusions 

based on annual fluctuations. As such, 

we report the population estimate for 

the current condition as the average of 

the past 5 years of surveys. 

TABLE 2—RANGEWIDE AND ECOREGIONAL ESTIMATED LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN TOTAL POPULATION SIZES AVERAGED

FROM 2015 TO 2020, LOWER AND UPPER 90 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS (CI) OVER THE 5 YEARS OF ESTIMATES, AND PERCENT OF RANGEWIDE TOTALS FOR EACH ECOREGION (FROM NASMAN et al. 2020, P. 21). NO SURVEYS WERE CONDUCTED IN 2019 

Ecoregion 

5-Year 

average 

estimate 

5-Year 

minimum 

lower CI 

5-Year 

maximum 

upper CI 

Percent of 

total 

Short-Grass/CRP ............................................................................................. 16,957 13,605 35,350 62 

Mixed-Grass ..................................................................................................... 6,135 1,719 11,847 22 

Sand Sagebrush .............................................................................................. 1,215 196 4,547 4 

Shinnery Oak ................................................................................................... 3,077 170 8,237 11 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29458 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—RANGEWIDE AND ECOREGIONAL ESTIMATED LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN TOTAL POPULATION SIZES AVERAGED

FROM 2015 TO 2020, LOWER AND UPPER 90 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS (CI) OVER THE 5 YEARS OF ESTIMATES, AND PERCENT OF RANGEWIDE TOTALS FOR EACH ECOREGION (FROM NASMAN et al. 2020, P. 21). NO SURVEYS WERE CONDUCTED IN 2019—Continued 

Ecoregion 

5-Year 

average 

estimate 

5-Year 

minimum 

lower CI 

5-Year 

maximum 

upper CI 

Percent of 

total 

Rangewide Totals ..................................................................................... 27,384 15,690 59,981 100 

We now discuss habitat impacts and 

population trends in each ecoregion and 

DPS throughout the range of the lesser 

prairie-chicken. 

Southern DPS 

Using our geospatial analysis, we 

were able to explicitly account for 

habitat loss and fragmentation and 

quantify the current condition of the 

Shinnery Oak Ecoregion. Of the sources 

of habitat loss and fragmentation that 

have occurred, cropland conversion, 

roads, and encroachment of woody 

vegetation had the largest impacts on 

land cover in the Southern DPS (Table 

3). Based on our nearest neighbor 

analysis, we estimated there are 

approximately 1,023,572 ac (414,225 ha) 

or 27 percent of the ecoregion and the 

Southern DPS potentially available for 

use by lesser prairie-chicken (Table 1). 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED AREAS OF CURRENT DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS, BY IMPACT SOURCE, AND THE PROPORTION

OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE SHINNERY OAK ECOREGION ESTIMATED TO BE IMPACTED (SEE TABLE 1 FOR TOTALS) 

[Impacts are not necessarily cumulative because of overlap of some impacted areas by more than one impact source.] 

Shinnery Oak Ecoregion (Southern DPS) 

Impact sources Acres Percent of 

ecoregion 

Cropland Conversion ............................................................................................................................................... 540,120 14 

Petroleum Production .............................................................................................................................................. 161,652 4 

Wind Energy Development ...................................................................................................................................... 90,869 2 

Transmission Lines .................................................................................................................................................. 372,577 10 

Woody Vegetation Encroachment ........................................................................................................................... 617,885 16 

Roads ....................................................................................................................................................................... 742,060 19 

Total Ecoregion/Southern DPS Area ............................................................................................................... 3,850,209 

Based on population reconstruction 

methods, the mean population estimate 

ranged between about 5,000 to 12,000 

males through 1980, increased to 20,000 

males in the mid-1980s and declined to 

∼1,000 males in 1997 (Hagen et al. 2017, 

pp. 6–9). The mean population estimate 

peaked again to ∼15,000 males in 2006 

and then declined again to fewer than 

3,000 males in the mid-2010s. 

Aerial surveys have been conducted 

to estimate lesser prairie-chicken 

population abundance since 2012, and 

results in the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion 

from 2012 through 2020 (Service 2021, 

Figure 3.10) indicate that this ecoregion 

has the third highest population size 

(Nasman et al. 2020, p. 21) of the four 

ecoregions. Average estimates from 2015 

to 2020 are 3,077 birds (90 percent CI: 

170, 8,237), representing about 11 

percent of the rangewide total (Table 2). 

Recent estimates have varied between 

fewer than 1,000 birds in 2015 to more 

than 5,000 birds in 2020 (see also 

Service 2021, Appendix E, Figure E.7). 

Northern DPS 

Prairies of the Short-Grass/CRP 

Ecoregion have been significantly 

altered since European settlement of the 

Great Plains. Much of these prairies 

have been converted to other land uses 

such as cultivated agriculture, roads, 

power lines, petroleum production, 

wind energy, and transmission lines. 

Some areas have also been altered due 

to woody vegetation encroachment. 

Within this ecoregion, it has been 

estimated that about 73 percent of the 

landscape has been converted to 

cropland with 7 percent of the area in 

CRP (Dahlgren et al. 2016, p. 262). 

According to our GIS analysis, of the 

sources of habitat loss and 

fragmentation that have occurred, 

conversion to cropland has had the 

single largest impact on land cover in 

this ecoregion (Table 4). Based on our 

nearest neighbor analysis, we estimated 

approximately 1,023,894 ac (414,355 

ha), or 16 percent of the ecoregion, is 

potentially available for use by lesser 

prairie-chicken (Table 1). 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED AREAS OF CURRENT DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS, BY IMPACT SOURCE, AND THE PROPORTION

OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE SHORT-GRASS/CRP ECOREGION ESTIMATED TO BE IMPACTED (SEE TABLE 1 FOR TOTALS) 

[Impacts are not necessarily cumulative because of overlap of some impacted areas by more than one impact source.] 

Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion 

Impact sources Acres Percent of 

ecoregion 

Cropland Conversion ............................................................................................................................................... 2,333,660 37 

Petroleum Production .............................................................................................................................................. 248,146 4 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29459 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED AREAS OF CURRENT DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS, BY IMPACT SOURCE, AND THE PROPORTION

OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE SHORT-GRASS/CRP ECOREGION ESTIMATED TO BE IMPACTED (SEE TABLE 1 FOR TOTALS)—Continued 

[Impacts are not necessarily cumulative because of overlap of some impacted areas by more than one impact source.] 

Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion 

Impact sources Acres Percent of 

ecoregion 

Wind Energy Development ...................................................................................................................................... 145,963 2 

Transmission Lines .................................................................................................................................................. 436,650 7 

Woody Vegetation Encroachment ........................................................................................................................... 284,175 5 

Roads ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,075,931 17 

Total Ecoregion Area ........................................................................................................................................ 6,298,014 

Based on population reconstruction 

methods, the mean population estimate 

for this ecoregion increased from a 

minimum of about 14,000 males in 2001 

and peaked at about 21,000 males in 

2011 (Hagen et al. 2017, pp. 8–10; see 

also Service 2021, Figure 3.3). 

Aerial surveys since 2012 indicate 

that the Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion 

(Figure 3.4) has the largest population 

size (Nasman et al. 2020, p. 21) of the 

four ecoregions. Average estimates from 

2015 to 2020 are 16,957 birds (90 

percent CI: 13,605, 35,350), making up 

about 62 percent of the rangewide lesser 

prairie-chicken total (Table 2). 

Much of the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion 

was originally fragmented by homesteading, which subdivided tracts of 

land into small parcels of 160–320 ac 

(65–130 ha) in size (Rodgers 2016, p. 

17). As a result of these small parcels, 

road and fence densities are higher 

compared to other ecoregions and, 

therefore, increase habitat fragmentation 

and pose higher risk for collision 

mortalities than in other ecoregions 

(Wolfe et al. 2016, p. 302). 

Fragmentation has also occurred due to 

oil and gas development, wind energy 

development, transmission lines, 

highways, and expansion of invasive 

woody plants such as eastern red cedar. 

A major concern for lesser prairiechicken populations in this ecoregion is 

the loss of grassland due to the rapid 

westward expansion of the eastern redcedar (NRCS 2016, p. 16). Oklahoma 

Forestry Services estimated the average 

rate of expansion of eastern red-cedar in 

2002 to be 762 ac (308 ha) per day 

(Wolfe et al. 2016, p. 302). 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED AREAS OF CURRENT DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS, BY IMPACT SOURCE, AND THE PROPORTION

(%) OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE MIXED-GRASS ECOREGION ESTIMATED TO BE IMPACTED (SEE TABLE 1 FOR TOTALS) 

[Impacts are not necessarily cumulative because of overlap of some impacted areas by more than one impact source.] 

Mixed-Grass Ecoregion 

Impact sources Acres Percent of 

ecoregion 

Cropland Conversion ............................................................................................................................................... 1,094,688 13 

Petroleum Production .............................................................................................................................................. 859,929 10 

Wind Energy Development ...................................................................................................................................... 191,571 2 

Transmission Lines .................................................................................................................................................. 576,713 7 

Woody Vegetation Encroachment ........................................................................................................................... 2,047,510 24 

Roads ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,732,050 20 

Total Ecoregion Area ........................................................................................................................................ 8,527,718 

Using our geospatial analysis, we 

were able to explicitly account for 

habitat loss and fragmentation and 

quantify the current condition of this 

ecoregion for the lesser prairie-chicken. 

Of the sources of habitat loss and 

fragmentation that have occurred, 

encroachment of woody vegetation had 

the largest impact, with conversion to 

cropland, roads, and petroleum 

production also having significant 

impacts on land cover in this ecoregion 

(Table 5). Based on our nearest neighbor 

analysis, we estimated there are 

approximately 994,483 ac (402,453 ha) 

or 12 percent of the ecoregion, that is 

potentially available for use by lesser 

prairie-chicken (Table 1). 

The Mixed-Grass Ecoregion 

historically contained the highest lesser 

prairie-chicken densities (Wolfe et al. 

2016, p. 299). Based on population 

reconstruction methods, the mean 

population estimate for this ecoregion in 

the 1970s and 1980s was around 30,000 

males (Hagen et al. 2017, pp. 6–7). 

Population estimates declined in the 

1990s and peaked again in the early 

2000s at around 25,000 males, before 

declining and remaining at its lowest 

levels, <10,000 males in 2012, since the 

late 2000s (Hagen et al. 2017, pp. 6–7). 

Aerial surveys from 2012 through 

2020 (Service 2021, Figure 3.6) indicate 

this ecoregion has the second highest 

population size of the four ecoregions 

(Nasman et al. 2020, p. 21). Average 

estimates from 2015 to 2020 are 6,135 

birds (90 percent CI: 1,719, 11,847), 

representing about 22 percent of the 

rangewide total (Table 2). Results show 

minimal variation in recent years. 

Prairies of the Sand Sagebrush 

Ecoregion have been influenced by a 

variety of activities since European 

settlement of the Great Plains. Much of 

these grasslands have been converted to 

other land uses such as cultivated 

agriculture, roads, power lines, 

petroleum production, wind energy, and 

transmission lines. Some areas have also 

been altered due to woody vegetation 

encroachment. Only 26 percent of 

historical sand sagebrush prairie is 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29460 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

available as potential nesting habitat for 

lesser prairie-chicken (Haukos et al. 

2016, p. 285). Using our geospatial 

analysis, we were able to explicitly 

account for habitat loss and 

fragmentation and quantify the current 

condition of this ecoregion for the lesser 

prairie-chicken. Of the sources of 

habitat loss and fragmentation that have 

occurred, conversion to cropland has 

had the single largest impact on land 

cover in this ecoregion (Table 6). Based 

on our nearest neighbor analysis, we 

estimated there are approximately 

1,028,523 ac (416,228 ha) or 33 percent 

of the ecoregion, potentially available 

for use by lesser prairie-chicken (Table 

1). In addition, habitat loss due to the 

degradation of the rangeland within this 

ecoregion continues to be a limiting 

factor for lesser prairie-chicken, and 

most of the existing birds within this 

ecoregion persist primarily on and near 

CRP lands. Drought conditions in the 

period 2011–2014 have expedited 

population decline (Haukos et al. 2016, 

p. 285). 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED AREAS OF CURRENT DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS, BY IMPACT SOURCE, AND THE PROPORTION

(%) OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE SAND SAGEBRUSH ECOREGION ESTIMATED TO BE IMPACTED (SEE TABLE 1 FOR

TOTALS) 

[Impacts are not necessarily cumulative because of overlap of some impacted areas by more than one impact source.] 

Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion 

Impact sources Acres Percent of 

ecoregion 

Cropland Conversion ............................................................................................................................................... 994,733 32 

Petroleum Production .............................................................................................................................................. 163,704 5 

Wind Energy Development ...................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Transmission Lines .................................................................................................................................................. 167,240 5 

Woody Vegetation Encroachment ........................................................................................................................... 68,147 2 

Roads ....................................................................................................................................................................... 446,316 14 

Total Ecoregion Area ........................................................................................................................................ 3,153,420 

Based on population reconstruction 

methods, the mean population estimate 

for this ecoregion peaked at >90,000 

males from 1970 to 1975 and declined 

to its lowest level of fewer than 1,000 

males in recent years. 

Aerial surveys from 2012 through 

2020 indicate that this ecoregion has the 

lowest population size (Nasman et al. 

2020, p. 21) of the four ecoregions. 

Average estimates from 2015 to 2020 are 

1,215 birds (90 percent CI: 196, 4,547) 

representing about 4 percent of the 

rangewide lesser prairie-chicken total 

(Table 2). Recent results have been 

highly variable, with 2020 being the 

lowest estimate reported. Although the 

aerial survey results show 171 birds in 

this ecoregion in 2020, (with no 

confidence intervals because the 

number of detections were too low for 

statistical analysis), ground surveys in 

this ecoregion in Colorado and Kansas 

detected 406 birds, so we know the 

current population is actually larger 

than indicated by the aerial survey 

results (Rossi and Fricke, pers. comm. 

2020, entire). 

Table 7 combines the estimated area 

impacted presented above for each of 

the three ecoregions into one estimate 

for each impact source for the Northern 

DPS. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED AREAS OF CURRENT DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS, BY IMPACT SOURCE, AND THE PROPORTION

(%) OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE NORTHERN DPS ESTIMATED TO BE IMPACTED (SEE TABLE 1 FOR TOTALS) 

[Impacts are not necessarily cumulative because of overlap of some impacted areas by more than one impact source.] 

Northern DPS 

Impact sources Acres Percent of 

DPS 

Cropland Conversion ............................................................................................................................................... 4,423,081 25 

Petroleum Production .............................................................................................................................................. 1,271,779 7 

Wind Energy Development ...................................................................................................................................... 337,534 2 

Transmission Lines .................................................................................................................................................. 1,180,603 7 

Woody Vegetation Encroachment ........................................................................................................................... 2,399,832 13 

Roads ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3,254,297 18 

Total Northern DPS Area ................................................................................................................................. 17,979,152 

Future Condition 

As discussed above, we conducted a 

geospatial analysis to characterize the 

current condition of the landscape for 

the lesser prairie-chicken by 

categorizing land cover data (into 

potential usable, potential restoration, 

or non-usable categories), taking into 

account exclusion areas and impacts to 

remove non-usable areas. We further 

refined the analysis to account for 

connectivity by use of our nearest 

neighbor analysis as described in 

Rangewide Trends. We then used this 

geospatial framework to analyze the 

future condition for each ecoregion. To 

analyze future habitat changes, we 

accounted for the effects of both future 

loss of usable areas and restoration 

efforts by estimating the rate of change 

based on future projections (Service 

2021, Figure 4.1). 

Due to uncertainties associated with 

both future conservation efforts and 

impacts, it is not possible to precisely 

quantify the effect of these future 

actions on the landscape. Instead, we 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29461 

established five future scenarios to 

represent a range of plausible outcomes 

based upon three plausible levels of 

conservation (restoration efforts) and 

three plausible levels of impacts. To 

account for some of the uncertainty in 

these projections, we combined the 

levels of impacts into five different 

scenarios labeled 1 through 5 (Table 8). 

Scenario 1 represents the scenario with 

low levels of future impacts and high 

levels of future restoration, and Scenario 

5 represents the scenario with high 

impacts and low restoration. Scenario 1 

and 5 were used to frame the range of 

projected outcomes used in our model 

as they represent the low and high of 

likely projected outcomes. Scenarios 2, 

3, and 4 are model iterations that fall 

within the range bounded by scenarios 

1 and 5 and have continuation of the 

current level of restoration efforts and 

vary impacts at low, mid, and high 

levels, respectively. These scenarios 

provide a wide range of potential future 

outcomes to consider in assessing lesser 

prairie-chicken habitat conditions. 

TABLE 8—SCHEMATIC OF FUTURE

SCENARIOS FOR LESSER PRAIRIECHICKEN CONSERVATION CONSIDERING A RANGE OF FUTURE IMPACTS AND RESTORATION EFFORTS

Scenario 

Levels of future change in 

usable area 

Restoration Impacts 

1 .................. High ....................... Low. 

2 .................. Continuation .......... Low. 

3 .................. Continuation .......... Mid. 

4 .................. Continuation .......... High. 

5 .................. Low ........................ High. 

To project the likely future effects of 

impacts and conservation efforts to the 

landscape as described through our land 

cover model, we quantified the three 

levels of future habitat restoration and 

three levels of future impacts within the 

analysis area by ecoregion on an annual 

basis. In addition to restoration efforts, 

we also quantified those efforts that 

enhance existing habitat. While these 

enhancement efforts do not increase the 

amount of available area and thus are 

not included in the spatial analysis, 

they are summarized in the SSA report 

and considered as part of the overall 

analysis of the biological status of the 

species. We then extrapolated those 

results over the next 25 years. We chose 

25 years as a period for which we had 

reasonable confidence in reliably 

projecting these future changes, and the 

timeframe corresponds with some of the 

long-term planning for the lesser prairiechicken. A complete description of 

methodology used to quantify 

projections of impacts and future 

conservation efforts is provided in the 

SSA report (Service 2021, Appendix C). 

Quantifying future conservation 

efforts in terms of habitat restoration 

allows us to account for the positive 

impact of those efforts within our 

analysis by converting areas of land 

cover that were identified as potential 

habitat in our current condition model 

to usable land cover for the lesser 

prairie-chicken in the future projections. 

Explicitly quantifying three levels of 

impacts in the future allows us to 

account for the effect of these impacts 

on the lesser prairie-chicken by 

converting areas identified as usable 

land cover in our current condition 

model to nonusable area that will not be 

available for use by the lesser prairiechicken in the future. 

As we did for the current condition to 

assess habitat connectivity, after we 

characterized the projected effects of 

conservation and impacts on potential 

future usable areas, we grouped the 

areas of potential usable, unimpacted 

land cover on these new future 

landscape projections using our nearest 

neighbor analysis (Service 2021, pp. 21– 

24; Appendix B, Parts 1, 2, and 3). Also, 

as done for the current condition, we 

evaluated the frequency of usable area 

blocks by size in order to evaluate 

habitat fragmentation and connectivity 

in the future scenarios (Service 2021, 

Figure 4.2). 

Threats Influencing Future Condition 

Following are summary evaluations of 

the expected future condition of threats 

analyzed in the SSA for the lesser 

prairie-chicken: Effects associated with 

habitat degradation, loss, and 

fragmentation, including conversion of 

grassland to cropland (Factor A), 

petroleum production (Factor A), wind 

energy development and transmission 

(Factor A), woody vegetation 

encroachment (Factor A), and roads and 

electrical distribution lines (Factor A); 

climate change (Factor A); and other 

factors, such as livestock grazing (Factor 

A), shrub control and eradication 

(Factor A), fire (Factor A); and climate 

change (Factor E). 

In this proposed rule, we do not 

present summary evaluations of the 

following threats as we have no 

information to project future trends, 

though we do expect them to have some 

effect on the species in the future: 

Predation (Factor C), collision mortality 

from fences (Factor E), and influence of 

anthropogenic noise (Factor E). We also 

do not discuss the following threats, as 

they are having little to no impact on 

the species and its habitat currently, nor 

do we expect them to into the 

foreseeable future: Hunting and other 

recreational, educational, and scientific 

use (Factor B); parasites and diseases 

(Factor C); and insecticides (Factor E). 

For the purposes of this assessment, 

we consider the foreseeable future to be 

the amount of time on which we can 

reasonably determine a likely threat’s 

anticipated trajectory and the 

anticipated response of the species to 

those threats. For climate change, the 

time for which we can reliably project 

threats and the anticipated response is 

approximately 60 years. For many other 

threats impacting the lesser prairiechicken throughout its range, we 

consider the time for which we can 

reliably project threats and the 

anticipated response to be 25 years. This 

time period represents our best 

professional judgment of the foreseeable 

future conditions related to conversion 

of grassland to cropland, petroleum 

production, wind energy, and woody 

vegetation encroachment, and, as 

discussed above, is the time period used 

to project these threats in our geospatial 

analysis. For this period, we had 

reasonable confidence in projecting 

these future changes, and the timeframe 

corresponds with some of the long-term 

planning for the lesser prairie-chicken. 

For other threats and the anticipated 

species response, we can reliably project 

impacts and the species response for 

less than 25 years, such as livestock 

grazing, roads and electrical distribution 

lines, shrub control and eradication, and 

fire. 

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation 

As discussed in ‘‘Threats Influencing 

Current Condition,’’ habitat loss and 

fragmentation is the primary concern for 

lesser prairie-chicken viability. We 

discuss how each of these activities may 

contribute to future habitat loss and 

fragmentation for the lesser prairiechicken and present the outcomes of the 

projections. 

Conversion of Grassland to Cropland 

Because much of the lands capable of 

being used for row crops has already 

been converted to cultivated agriculture, 

we do not expect future rates of 

conversion to reach those witnessed 

historically; however, conversion has 

continued to occur (Lark 2020, entire). 

Rates of future conversion of grasslands 

to cultivated agriculture in the analysis 

area will be affected by multiple 

variables including site-specific biotic 

and abiotic conditions as well as 

socioeconomic influences such as 

governmental agriculture programs, 

commodity prices, and the economic 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29462 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

benefits of alternative land use 

practices. 

For the purposes of the SSA, we 

conducted an analysis to project the 

future rates of conversion of grassland to 

cropland at three different levels. We 

used information from aggregated 

remote sensing data from the USDA 

Cropland Data layer (Lark 2020, entire; 

Service 2021, p. 83). Table 9 outlines 

the resulting three levels of projected 

habitat loss of future conversion of 

grassland to cultivated agriculture per 

ecoregion over the next 25 years. See the 

SSA report (Service 2021, Appendix C) 

for further details and methodologies for 

these projections. While we do not 

expect future rates of conversion (from 

grassland to cropland) to be equivalent 

to those we have historically witnessed, 

the limited amount of large intact 

grasslands due to the historical extent of 

conversion means all future impacts are 

expected to have a disproportionate 

scale of impact. 

TABLE 9—FUTURE PROJECTION OF THREE LEVELS OF IMPACTED ACRES OF POTENTIAL USABLE AREA FOR THE LESSER

PRAIRIE-CHICKEN FROM CONVERSION OF GRASSLAND TO CROPLAND OVER THE NEXT 25 YEARS IN EACH ECOREGION

[Numbers may not sum due to rounding.] 

Ecoregion 

Projected impacts (acres) 

Low Intermediate High 

Short-Grass/CRP ......................................................................................................................... 89,675 145,940 185,418 

Mixed-Grass ................................................................................................................................. 4,220 33,761 50,910 

Sand Sagebrush .......................................................................................................................... 42,573 95,678 142,438 

Northern DPS totals ............................................................................................................. 136,468 275,379 378,766 

Shinnery Oak (Southern DPS) ............................................................................................. 21,985 51,410 93,946 

Rangewide Total ........................................................................................................... 158,454 326,789 472,712 

Petroleum Production 

In the SSA report, we conducted an 

analysis to project the future rates of 

petroleum production at low, 

intermediate, and high levels. We 

compiled State well permitting spatial 

data from each State within each of the 

ecoregions to inform assumptions 

around future rates of development 

(Service 2021, p. 84). We converted the 

projected number of new wells at the 

three levels to acres of usable area 

impacted. Our analysis accounts for 

indirect impacts as well as potential 

overlap with other existing impacts to 

include colocation efforts by developers. 

Table 10 represents the extent of 

potential usable area impacted at the 

three levels of development per 

ecoregion over the next 25 years. See the 

SSA report (Service 2021, Appendix C) 

for further details and methodologies 

regarding these projections. 

Given current trends in energy 

production, we anticipate that oil and 

gas production across the lesser prairiechicken range will continue to occur 

and that rates will vary both temporally 

and spatially. The rates of development 

will be dependent upon new 

exploration, advancements in 

technology, and socioeconomic 

dynamics that will influence energy 

markets in the future. 

TABLE 10—FUTURE PROJECTION OF THREE LEVELS OF IMPACTED ACRES (INCLUDING BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS) OF POTENTIAL USABLE AREA FOR THE LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN FROM OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT OVER

THE NEXT 25 YEARS IN EACH ECOREGION

[Numbers may not sum due to rounding.] 

Ecoregion 

Projected impacts 

(acres) 

Low Intermediate High 

Short-Grass/CRP ......................................................................................................................... 26,848 54,618 82,388 

Mixed-Grass ................................................................................................................................. 82,716 170,989 259,262 

Sand Sagebrush .......................................................................................................................... 3,166 9,054 14,942 

Northern DPS totals ............................................................................................................. 112,730 234,661 356,592 

Shinnery Oak (Southern DPS) ............................................................................................. 136,539 190,144 243,749 

Rangewide Total ........................................................................................................... 249,269 424,805 600,342 

Wind Energy Development and 

Transmission Lines 

As discussed in ‘‘Threats Influencing 

Current Condition,’’ the States in the 

lesser prairie-chicken analysis area have 

experienced some of the largest growth 

in wind energy development in the 

nation. Identification of the actual 

number of proposed wind energy 

projects that will be built within the 

range of the lesser prairie-chicken in 

any future timeframe is difficult to 

accurately discern. We conducted an 

analysis of current and potential future 

wind energy development for the SSA 

for the Lesser Prairie-Chicken, and the 

future development was estimated at 

three different levels within the analysis 

area of the lesser prairie-chicken at low, 

intermediate, and high levels (Service 

2021, Appendix C). Table 11 represents 

the wind development projects 

projected at three levels of development 

per ecoregion. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29463 

TABLE 11—PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS AT THREE

LEVELS IN EACH LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN ECOREGION AND RANGEWIDE

Ecoregion 

Projected wind developments 

Low Intermediate High 

Short-Grass/CRP ......................................................................................................................... 7 11 16 

Mixed-Grass ................................................................................................................................. 10 18 25 

Sand Sagebrush .......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 

Northern DPS totals ............................................................................................................. 18 31 44 

Shinnery Oak (Southern DPS) ............................................................................................. 4 7 10 

Rangewide Total ........................................................................................................... 22 38 54 

As outlined within ‘‘Threats 

Influencing Current Condition,’’ wind 

energy development also has indirect 

impacts on the lesser prairie-chicken. 

To determine the number of acres 

impacted by wind energy development 

in the current condition, we analyzed 

wind energy facilities recently 

constructed within and near our 

analysis area. We applied a 5,900-ft 

(1,800-m) impact radius to individual 

turbines to account for indirect impacts 

and found that the last 5 years show a 

substantial increase in the relative 

density of wind energy projects (see 

Service 2021, Appendix C, for further 

details). This analysis does not mean 

that all of the impacts occur to 

otherwise usable lesser prairie-chicken 

land cover. In fact, it is highly unlikely 

due to viable wind development 

potential outside lesser prairie-chicken 

usable areas that all projected impacts 

will occur in areas that are otherwise 

usable for the lesser prairie-chicken. 

Because we cannot predict the precise 

location of future developments and to 

simplify and facilitate modeling the 

locations for future projections for wind 

development, we created a potential 

wind energy development grid that was 

laid over the analysis area and which 

allowed the random placement for each 

development for each iteration (Service 

2021, p. 86). The resulting projected 

impacts in 25 years using the median 

iteration for each of the range of future 

scenarios are shown in Table 12. 

Scenarios 1 and 5 were used to frame 

the scenarios used in our model as they 

represent the low and high of likely 

projected outcomes. The rangewide 

projections range from 164,100 ac 

(66,400 ha) to 328,000 ac (133,000 ha). 

TABLE 12—RANGE OF PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS (INCLUDING BOTH DIRECT AND

INDIRECT EFFECTS) IN ACRES FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS FOR SCENARIOS 1 AND 5 OF EACH LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN ECOREGION AND RANGEWIDE

Ecoregion 

Projected wind 

development impacts 

(acres) 

Scenario 1 Scenario 5 

Short-Grass/CRP ..................................................................................................................................................... 68,300 134,200 

Mixed-Grass ............................................................................................................................................................. 50,200 106,000 

Sand Sagebrush ...................................................................................................................................................... 3,900 21,300 

Northern DPS totals ......................................................................................................................................... 122,400 261,500 

Shinnery Oak (Southern DPS) ......................................................................................................................... 41,700 66,500 

Rangewide Total ....................................................................................................................................... 164,100 328,000 

Electrical transmission capacity 

represents a major limitation on wind 

energy development in the Great Plains. 

Additional transmission lines will be 

required to transport future electricity 

production to markets; thus, we expect 

an expansion of the current 

transmission capacity in the Great 

Plains. As this expansion occurs, these 

transmission lines will, depending on 

their location, result in habitat loss as 

well as further fragmentation and could 

also be the catalyst for additional wind 

development affecting the lesser prairiechicken. While we were able to analyze 

the current impacts of transmission 

lines on the lesser prairie-chicken, due 

to the lack of information available to 

project the location (and thus effects to 

lesser prairie-chicken habitat), we could 

not quantify the future potential effect 

of habitat loss and fragmentation on the 

lesser prairie-chicken that could be 

caused by transmission line 

development. However, we do 

acknowledge potential habitat loss and 

fragmentation from transmission lines is 

likely to continue depending upon their 

location. 

Woody Vegetation Encroachment 

Due to the past encroachment trends 

and continued suppression of fire across 

the range of the lesser prairie-chicken, 

we expect this encroachment of woody 

vegetation into grasslands to continue, 

which will result in further loss of lesser 

prairie-chicken habitat into the 

foreseeable future. The degree of future 

habitat impacts will depend on land 

management practices and the level of 

conservation efforts for woody 

vegetation removal. 

To describe the potential future 

effects of encroachment of woody 

vegetation, we used available 

information regarding rates of increases 

in eastern red cedar and mesquite 

encroachment and applied this rate of 

change (over the next 25 years) to the 

amount of existing woody vegetation 

per ecoregion within the analysis area 

(Appendix C). The estimated current 

condition analysis described in ‘‘Threats 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29464 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Influencing Current Condition’’ 

provides the baseline of woody 

vegetation encroachment, and rates 

derived from the literature were applied 

to this baseline to project new acres of 

encroachment. We then adjusted the 

projected number of new acres of 

encroachment using relative density 

calculations specific to each ecoregion 

to account for indirect effects. 

Additionally, due to assumed 

differences in encroachment rates and 

tree densities we provide two 

projections for each of the Short-Grass/ 

CRP and Mixed-Grass Ecoregions (East 

and West portions) in the Northern DPS, 

largely based on current tree 

distribution and precipitation gradient. 

We projected the extent of expected 

habitat loss due to encroachment of 

woody vegetation at low, intermediate, 

and high levels of encroachment (see 

the SSA report (Service 2021, Appendix 

C) for rationale behind assumed rates of 

change). Table 13 outlines the three 

levels of this projected habitat loss by 

ecoregion caused by future 

encroachment of woody vegetation over 

the next 25 years for the purpose of the 

SSA report. 

TABLE 13—PROJECTION OF IMPACTS FROM WOODY VEGETATION ENCROACHMENT (INCLUDING BOTH DIRECT AND

INDIRECT EFFECTS) AT THREE LEVELS AT YEAR 25 IN THE LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN ECOREGIONS

[Numbers may not sum due to rounding] 

Ecoregion 

Projected impacts 

(acres) 

Low Intermediate High 

Short-Grass/CRP—East .............................................................................................................. 38,830 64,489 93,877 

Short-Grass/CRP—West ............................................................................................................. 1,390 3,598 5,963 

Mixed-Grass—East ...................................................................................................................... 311,768 517,784 753,739 

Mixed-Grass—West ..................................................................................................................... 874 2,261 3,748 

Sand Sagebrush .......................................................................................................................... 7,650 12,706 18,496 

Northern DPS totals ............................................................................................................. 360,512 600,838 875,823 

Shinnery Oak (Southern DPS) ............................................................................................. 11,548 81,660 170,653 

Rangewide Total ........................................................................................................... 372,060 682,498 1,046,476 

Roads and Electrical Distribution Lines 

Roads and electrical distribution lines 

are another important source of habitat 

loss and fragmentation. In our geospatial 

analysis for the current condition of the 

lesser prairie-chicken, we were able to 

quantify the area affected by roads, but 

no data were available to quantify the 

potential independent impacts of 

distribution lines on habitat loss and 

fragmentation. We acknowledge that 

some additional habitat loss and 

fragmentation will occur in the future 

due to construction of new roads and 

power lines, but we do not have data 

available to inform projections on how 

much and where any potential new 

development would occur. 

Climate Change 

Future climate projections for this 

region of the United States indicate 

general trends of increasing 

temperatures and increasing 

precipitation extremes over the 21st 

century (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 123–128; 

Kunkel et al. 2013, pp. 73–75; Shafer et 

al. 2014, pp. 442–445; Easterling et al. 

2017, pp. 216–222; Vose et al. 2017, pp. 

194–199). Average temperature has 

already increased between the first half 

of the last century (1901–1960) and 

present day (1986–2016), with observed 

regional average temperatures within 

the Southern Great Plains (including 

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas) 

increasing by 0.8 °F (0.4 °C) and within 

the Southwest (including Colorado and 

New Mexico) increasing by 1.6 °F (0.9 

°C) (Vose et al. 2017, p. 187). By midcentury (2036–2065), regional average 

temperatures compared to near-present 

times (1976–2005) are projected to 

increase by 3.6–4.6 °F (2.0–2.6 °C) in the 

Southern Great Plains, and by 3.7–4.8 °F 

(2.1–2.7 °C) in the Southwest, 

depending on future emissions. By latecentury (2071–2100), regional average 

temperatures are projected to rise in the 

Southern Great Plans by 4.8–8.4 °F (2.7– 

4.7 °C), and by 4.9–8.7 °F (2.7–4.8 °C) 

in the Southwest (Vose et al. 2017, p. 

197). Annual extreme temperatures are 

also consistently projected to rise faster 

than annual averages with future 

changes in very rare extremes 

increasing; by late century, current 1-in20 year maximums are projected to 

occur every year, while current 1-in-20 

year minimums are not expected to 

occur at all (Vose et al. 2017, pp. 197– 

198). 

Projecting patterns of changes in 

average precipitation across these 

regions of the United States results in a 

range of increasing and decreasing 

precipitation with high uncertainty in 

overall averages, although parts of the 

Southwest are projected to receive less 

precipitation in the winter and spring 

(Easterling et al. 2017, pp. 216–218; 

Wuebbles et al. 2017, p. 12). However, 

extreme precipitation events are 

projected to increase in frequency in 

both the Southern Great Plains and the 

Southwest (Easterling et al. 2017, pp. 

218–221). Other extreme weather events 

such as heat waves and long duration 

droughts (Cook et al. 2016, entire), as 

well as heavy precipitation, are 

expected to become more frequent (Karl 

et al. 2009, pp. 124–125; Shafer et al. 

2014, p. 445; Walsh et al. 2014, pp. 28– 

40). The devastating ‘dust bowl’ 

conditions of the 1930s could become 

more common in the American 

Southwest, with future droughts being 

much more extreme than most droughts 

on record (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1181, 

1183–1184). Other modeling also 

projects changes in precipitation in 

North America through the end of this 

century, including an increase in dry 

conditions throughout the Central Great 

Plains (Swain and Hayhoe 2015, entire). 

Furthermore, the combination of 

increasing temperature and drought 

results in greater impacts on various 

ecological conditions (water availability, 

soil moisture) than increases in 

temperature or drought alone (Luo et al. 

2017, entire). Additionally, future 

decreases in surface (top 4 inches (10 

centimeters)) soil moisture over most of 

the United States are likely as the 

climate warms under higher scenarios 

(Wehner et al. 2017, p. 231). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29465 

Grasslands are critically endangered 

globally and an irreplaceable ecoregion 

in North America, and climate change is 

an emerging threat to grassland birds 

(Wilsey et al. 2019). In a review of 

potential effects of ongoing climate 

change on the Southern Great Plains 

and on the lesser prairie-chicken, results 

suggest increases in temperatures 

throughout the lesser prairie-chicken 

range and possible increases in average 

precipitation in the northern part of the 

range but decreasing precipitation in the 

southern portion of its range (Grisham et 

al. 2016b, pp. 222–227). Weather 

changes associated with climate change 

can have direct effects on the lesser 

prairie-chicken, leading to reduced 

survival of eggs, chicks, or adults, and 

indirect effects on lesser prairie-chicken 

are likely to occur through a variety of 

means including long-term (by mid and 

late twenty-first century) changes in 

grassland habitat. Other indirect effects 

may include more secondary causes 

such as increases in predation pressure 

or susceptibility to parasites or diseases. 

We have little information to describe 

future grassland conditions as a result of 

long-term climate changes, although 

warmer and drier conditions would 

most likely reduce overall habitat 

quality for lesser prairie-chicken in 

much of its range. In general, the 

vulnerability of lesser prairie-chicken to 

the effects of climate change depends on 

the degree to which it is susceptible to, 

and unable to cope with, adverse 

environmental changes due to long-term 

weather trends and more extreme 

weather events. Based on an analysis of 

future climate projections the lesser 

prairie-chicken could have a net loss of 

more than 35 percent to 50 percent of 

its range due to unsuitable climate 

variables (Salas et al. 2017, p. 370). 

One area of particular vulnerability 

for the lesser prairie-chicken is the need 

for specific thermal profiles in the 

microhabitats they use for nesting and 

rearing of broods. Warmer air and 

surface soil temperatures and the related 

decreased soil moisture near nest sites 

have been correlated with lower 

survival and recruitment in the lesser 

prairie-chicken (Bell 2005, pp. 16, 21). 

On average, lesser prairie-chicken avoid 

sites for nesting that are hotter, drier, 

and more exposed to the wind (Patten 

et al. 2005, p. 1275). Nest survival 

probability decreased by 10 percent 

every half-hour when temperature was 

greater than 93.2 °F (34 °C) and vapor 

pressure deficit was less than –23 

mmHg during the day (Grisham et al. 

2016c, p. 737). Thermal profiles from 

nests in some cases exceeded 130 °F 

(54.4 °C) with humidity below 10 

percent at nests in Texas and New 

Mexico in 2011, which are beyond the 

threshold for nest survival (Grisham et 

al. 2013, p. 8). Increased temperatures in 

the late spring as projected by climate 

models may lead to egg death or nest 

abandonment of lesser prairie-chicken 

(Boal et al. 2010, p. 4). Furthermore, if 

lesser prairie-chicken shift timing of 

reproduction (to later in the year) to 

compensate for lower precipitation, 

then impacts from higher summer 

temperatures could be exacerbated. In a 

study of greater prairie-chickens, 

heterogeneous grasslands have high 

thermal variability with a range of 

measured operative temperatures 

spanning 41 °F (23 °C) with air 

temperatures >86 °F (30 °C) (Hovick et 

al. 2014b, pp. 1–5). In this setting, 

females selected nest sites that were as 

much as 14.4 °F (8 °C) cooler than the 

surrounding landscape. 

Although the entire lesser prairiechicken range is likely to experience 

effects from ongoing climate change, the 

southern part of the Southern DPS (the 

Shinnery Oak Ecoregion) may be 

particularly vulnerable to warming and 

drying weather trends, as this portion of 

the range is already warmer and drier 

than northern portions and is projected 

to continue that trend (Grisham et al. 

2013, entire; Grisham et al. 2016c, p. 

742). Research in the Shinnery Oak 

Ecoregion relating projections in 

weather parameters in 2050 and 2080 to 

nest survival found with high certainty 

that the negative effects on future nest 

survival estimates will be significant, 

and the resulting survival rates are too 

low for population sustainability in the 

Southern Great Plains in the absence of 

other offsetting influences (Grisham et 

al. 2013, pp. 6–7). As late spring and 

summer daily high temperatures rise, 

the ability for lesser prairie-chicken to 

find appropriate nest sites and 

successfully rear broods is expected to 

decline. Lower rates of successful 

reproduction and recruitment lead to 

further overall declines in population 

abundance and resiliency to withstand 

stochastic events such as extreme 

weather events. 

Extreme weather effects such as 

drought, heat waves, and storms can 

also directly affect lesser prairie-chicken 

survival and reproduction and can 

result in population crashes due to 

species responses including direct 

mortality from thermal stress, increased 

predation due to larger foraging areas, or 

decreased fitness when food resources 

are scarce. Like other wildlife species in 

arid and semiarid grasslands, lesser 

prairie-chicken on the Southern High 

Plains have adaptations that increase 

resilience to extreme environments and 

fluctuating weather patterns; however, 

environmental conditions expected 

from climate change may be outside of 

their adaptive potential, particularly in 

the timeframe weather changes are 

expected to occur (Fritts et al. 2018, p. 

9556). Extreme weather events and 

periods of drying of soil surface 

moisture are projected to increase across 

the lesser prairie-chicken range 

(Easterling et al. 2017, pp. 218–222; 

Wehner et al. 2017, pp. 237–239). In 

Kansas, extreme drought events in the 

summers from 1981 through 2014 had a 

significant impact on lesser prairiechicken abundance recorded at leks; 

thus, increases in drought frequency 

and intensity could have negative 

consequences for the lesser prairiechicken (Ross et al. 2016a, pp. 6–7). 

Even mild increases in drought had 

significant impacts on the likelihood of 

population extirpation for lesser prairiechicken (De Angelis 2017, p. 15). 

Drought is a particularly important 

factor in considering lesser prairiechicken population changes. The lesser 

prairie-chicken is considered a ‘‘boom– 

bust’’ species, meaning that there is a 

high degree of annual variation in 

population size due to variation in rates 

of successful reproduction and 

recruitment. These variations are largely 

driven by seasonal precipitation 

patterns (Grisham et al. 2013, pp. 6–7). 

Periods of below-normal precipitation 

and higher spring/summer temperatures 

result in less appropriate grassland 

vegetation cover and fewer food sources, 

resulting in decreased reproductive 

output (bust periods). Periods with 

favorable climatic conditions (abovenormal precipitation and cooler spring/ 

summer temperatures) will support 

favorable lesser prairie-chicken habitat 

conditions and result in high 

reproductive success (boom periods). 

The lesser prairie-chicken population 

failed to rebound for at least 4 years 

following the 2011 drought (Fritts et al. 

2018, pp. 9556–9557). This information 

indicates either that the extreme 

environmental conditions during 2011 

may have been beyond what the lesser 

prairie-chicken is adapted to or that the 

return period following the 2008–2009 

dry period and ensuing low population 

numbers in 2010 was too short for the 

population to recover enough to be 

resilient to the 2011 drought. 

The resilience and resistance of 

species and ecosystems to changing 

environmental conditions depend on 

many circumstances (Fritts et al. 2018, 

entire). As climatic conditions shift to 

more frequent and intense drought 

cycles, this shift is expected to result in 

more frequent and extreme bust years 

for the lesser prairie-chicken and fewer 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29466 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

boom years. As the frequency and 

intensity of droughts increase in the 

Southern Great Plains region, there will 

be diminishing opportunity for boom 

years with above-average precipitation. 

Overall, more frequent and intense 

droughts may lessen the intensity of 

boom years of the lesser prairie-chicken 

population cycle in the future which 

would limit the ability of the species to 

rebound following years of drought 

(Ross et al. 2018, entire). These changes 

will reduce the overall resiliency of 

lesser prairie-chicken populations and 

exacerbate the effects of habitat loss and 

fragmentation. Because lesser prairiechicken carrying capacities have already 

been much reduced, if isolated 

populations are extirpated due to 

seasonal weather conditions, they 

cannot be repopulated due to the lack of 

nearby populations. 

Although climate change is expected 

to alter the vegetation community across 

the lesser prairie-chicken range 

(Grisham et al. 2016b, pp. 228–231), we 

did not account for the future effects of 

climate change in our geospatial habitat 

model, as we did not have information 

to inform specific land cover changes 

predicted to result from future climate 

change (Service 2021, p. 92). 

The best available information 

supports that climate change projections 

of increased temperatures, increased 

precipitation extremes, increased soil 

drying, and an increase of severe events 

such as drought and storms within the 

Southern Great Plains are likely to have 

significant influences on the future 

resiliency of lesser prairie-chicken 

populations by mid to late 21st century. 

These trends are expected to exacerbate 

the challenges related to past and 

ongoing habitat loss and fragmentation, 

making it less likely for populations to 

withstand extreme weather events that 

are likely to increase in frequency and 

severity. 

Other Factors 

Livestock Grazing 

We expect that grazing will continue 

to be a primary land use on the 

remaining areas of grassland within the 

range of the lesser prairie-chicken in the 

future, and grazing influences habitat 

suitability for the lesser prairie-chicken 

(Diffendorfer et al. 2015, p. 1). When 

managed to produce habitat conditions 

that are beneficial for the lesser prairiechicken, grazing is an invaluable tool for 

maintaining healthy prairie ecosystems. 

However, if grazing is managed in a way 

that is focused on maximizing shortterm cattle production, resulting in 

rangeland that is overused, this could 

have significant negative effects on the 

lesser prairie-chicken. Grazing 

management varies both spatially and 

temporally across the landscape. 

Additionally, grazing management 

could become more difficult in the face 

of a changing climate with more 

frequent and intense droughts. 

Our geospatial model does not 

account for impacts to habitat quality as 

data needed to characterize habitat 

quality for the lesser prairie-chicken at 

the scale and resolution needed for our 

analysis do not exist. While data do not 

exist to quantify rangewide extent of 

grazing practices and their effects on 

habitat, livestock grazing will continue 

to influence lesser prairie-chicken 

populations in the foreseeable future. 

Shrub Control and Eradication 

The removal of native shrubs such as 

sand shinnery oak is an ongoing 

concern to lesser prairie-chicken habitat 

availability throughout large portions of 

its range, particularly in New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Texas. While relatively 

wide-scale shrub eradication has 

occurred in the past, we do not have 

geospatial data to evaluate the extent to 

which shrub eradication has contributed 

to habitat loss and fragmentation for the 

lesser prairie-chicken. While some 

Federal agencies such as BLM limit this 

practice in lesser prairie-chicken 

habitat, shrub control and eradication 

still occur through some Federal 

programs and on private lands, which 

make up the majority of the lesser 

prairie-chicken range. Though we 

expect this threat to continue to impact 

the species into the foreseeable future, 

we do not have data available to project 

the potential scale of habitat loss likely 

to occur in the future due to shrub 

eradication. 

Fire 

As discussed in ‘‘Threats Influencing 

Current Condition,’’ the current lack of 

prescribed fire use in the range of the 

lesser prairie-chicken is contributing to 

woody plant encroachment and 

degradation of grassland quality. 

As the effects of fire suppression 

continue to manifest throughout the 

Great Plains, the future impacts of 

wildfires on the lesser prairie-chicken 

are difficult to predict. If recent patterns 

continue with wildfires occurring at 

increasingly larger scales with less 

frequency and higher intensities than 

historical fire occurrence, there is an 

increasing potential of greater negative 

impacts on lesser prairie-chicken. 

Additionally, as climate change 

projections are indicating the possibility 

of longer and more severe droughts 

across the range of the lesser prairiechicken, this could alter the vegetation 

response to fire both temporally and 

spatially. An expansive adoption of 

prescribed fire in management of 

remaining grasslands would be expected 

to have a moderating effect on risk of 

wildfires and concurrently would 

reduce woody plant encroachment and 

increase habitat quality and diversity. 

We are not able to quantify these 

impacts on the future condition of the 

landscape in our geospatial analysis due 

to lack of data and added complexity, 

but we acknowledge that fire (both 

prescribed fires and wildfire), or its 

absence, will continue to be an 

ecological driver across the range of the 

lesser prairie-chicken in the future with 

potentially positive and negative effects 

across both short-term and long-term 

timelines in the foreseeable future. 

Projected Future Habitat Conditions and 

Trends 

To forecast the potential changes in 

future lesser prairie-chicken habitat, we 

used the projected levels of potential 

future impacts from conversion to 

cropland, petroleum production, wind 

energy development, and woody 

vegetation encroachment. We also 

worked with the primary conservation 

entities delivering ongoing, established 

lesser prairie-chicken conservation 

programs to develop estimated 

reasonable projections for rates of future 

conservation efforts. We asked the 

entities to provide us with information 

to project three levels of conservation: 

Low, continuation, and high. We asked 

the conservation entities not provide 

aspirational goals for a given program 

but instead to solely use past 

performance, funding expectations, and 

expert opinion to provide plausible 

future rates for given conservation 

practices. We then used this information 

to estimate future conservation efforts 

over the next 25 years for the lesser 

prairie-chicken. 

The results of this future geospatial 

model (Service 2021, Section 4.2 and 

Appendices B and C) is provided in 

Table 14; further details and maps are 

available in Appendix E of the SSA 

report. The median results show a very 

modest increase in areas available for 

use by lesser prairie-chicken in our 

nearest neighbor analysis under 

Scenario 1 (assuming high levels of 

restoration and low levels of impacts) 

(with an increase for the Shinnery Oak 

Ecoregion and a decrease for the other 

three ecoregions) and decreasing 

amounts of projected declines in areas 

available for use by lesser prairiechicken under Scenarios 2–5 (Table 14). 

Rangewide changes in areas available 

for use by lesser prairie-chicken in our 

nearest neighbor analysis range from a 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29467 

0.5 percent increase under Scenario 1 to 

a 26 percent decrease in Scenario 5. 

This analysis indicated additional 

future habitat loss and fragmentation 

across the range of the lesser prairiechicken is likely to occur, and 

conservation actions will not be enough 

to offset those habitat losses. Our 

analysis finds that the expected 

conservation efforts are inadequate to 

prevent continued declines in total 

habitat availability, much less restore 

some of what has been lost, and species 

viability for this species will continue to 

decline. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


EP01JN21.022</GPH>jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3

TABLE 14.-PROJECTED FUTURE MEDIAN ACREAGE OF LESSER PRAIRJE-CHICKEN AREAS AVAILABLE FOR USE AS A RES

NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS IN ACRES, AND SHOWING PERCENT CHANGE IN ACREAGE FROM ESTIMATED CURRENT AREAS 

USE AS A RESULT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS. IN 25 YEARS. 

Short- I 6,298,014 I 1,023,894 I 975,047 I -4.8% I 956,190 I -6.6% I 877,663 I -14.3% I sos,1s2 I -2

Grass/CRP 

Mixed-Grass 8,527,718 994,483 974,200 -2.0% 864,780 -13.0% 742,855 -25.3% 649,227 -3

Sand 3,153,420 1,028,523 992,632 -3.5% 980,302 -4.7% 932,477 -9.3% 887,224 -1Sagebmsh Shinnery I 3,sso,209 I 1,023,572 I 1,149,759 I 12.3% I 9ss,012 I -3.5% I 868,161 I -15.1% I 111,923 I -2

Oak 

Rangewide I 21,s29,361 I 4,010,473 I 4,091,638 I o.5% I 3,789,343 I -6.9% I 3,421,756 I -15.9% I 3,116,525 I -2

Totals 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29469 

It is important to note that these 

acreages consist of patches of 

fragmented habitat among developed 

areas and other unsuitable habitat. 

Based on our geospatial analysis, the 

vast majority of blocks of usable habitat 

and the total area within those blocks, 

both in the current condition and in 

future scenarios, are less than 12,000 ac 

(4,856 ha), and very few blocks were 

greater than 50,000 ac (20,234 ha) 

(Service 2021, Figure 4.2). As discussed 

above, the space required by lesser 

prairie-chicken to support individuals 

from a single lek is approximately 

12,000–50,000 ac (4,856–20,234 ha). 

The dominance of smaller blocks on the 

landscape further exhibits that those 

spaces are highly fragmented, even with 

the remaining potential usable area for 

the lesser prairie-chicken totaling 

approximately 4,000,000 ac (1,600,000 

ha) in the current condition, and 

potentially declining to as low as 

3,000,000 ac (1,200,000 ha) under 

scenario 5 for our future condition 

projections. High levels of 

fragmentation, as discussed in ‘‘Threats 

Influencing Current Condition,’’ do not 

provide the landscape composition 

needed for long-term stability of 

populations. Additionally, in spaces 

that are highly fragmented, relatively 

small amounts of additional impacts 

may have great consequences as 

landscape composition thresholds for 

the lesser prairie-chicken are surpassed. 

Several habitat enhancement actions 

for the lesser prairie-chicken are being 

implemented across the analysis area. 

These enhancement actions are 

implemented on existing habitat to 

enhance the quality of that given area. 

We asked our conservation partners to 

provide us with a range of plausible 

rates for conservation efforts occurring 

within the lesser prairie-chicken 

analysis area by ecoregion. We also 

requested information regarding 

effectiveness, project lifespan, and 

spatial targeting of these efforts (Service 

2021, Appendix C, Section C.3.4). Next, 

we converted those rates for each 

program and conservation effort to the 

total effort at year 25. Table 15 

summarizes the three projected levels of 

future habitat enhancement over the 

next 25 years for each ecoregion. These 

efforts represent those above and 

beyond what is already accounted for 

within the current condition analysis. 

Acreage enrolled in CCAAs are assumed 

to continue to be enrolled in the future, 

and CCAA projections within this table 

represent enrollments in addition to 

existing enrollments. This table also 

does not include continued 

management actions on permanently 

protected properties (such as Stateowned wildlife management areas or 

conservation banks), as it is assumed 

this management will continue. 

Additionally, the numbers reported for 

NRCS grazing plans are acres in 

addition to the number of acres reported 

above in ‘‘Conservation Efforts’’ that are 

being managed under prescribed grazing 

for the lesser prairie-chicken by NRCS, 

as we assume that as contract acres 

expire from the program additional 

acres will be enrolled. 

The actual conservation benefit 

provided to the lesser prairie-chicken by 

these programs varies greatly and is 

difficult to summarize because it 

depends on the location and the specific 

actions being carried out for each 

individual agreement. In addition, the 

level of future voluntary participation in 

these programs can be highly variable 

depending on available funding, 

opportunities for other revenue sources, 

and many other circumstances. 

TABLE 15—PROJECTED AMOUNT OF HABITAT ENHANCEMENT (IN ACRES) OVER THE NEXT 25 YEARS WITHIN THE FOUR

LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN ECOREGIONS

Enhancement efforts 

Total level of future effort (acres) at year 25 

Low Continuation High 

Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion 

KDWPT Enhancement Contract .................................................................................................. 0 6,740 17,500 

NRCS LPCI Grazing Plan ........................................................................................................... 0 0 4,000 

USFWS PFW Contract ................................................................................................................ 14,000 14,000 20,000 

Mixed-Grass Ecoregion 

WAFWA Management Plan ......................................................................................................... 0 0 118,245 

KDWPT Enhancement Contract .................................................................................................. 0 120 3,100 

ODWC Management ................................................................................................................... 1,400 3,300 6,400 

ODWC Additional CCAA Enrollment ........................................................................................... 0 50,000 100,000 

NRCS LPCI Grazing Plan ........................................................................................................... 0 0 58,000 

USFWS PFW Contract ................................................................................................................ 50,000 50,000 70,000 

TPWD Additional CCAA Enrollment ............................................................................................ 0 0 550,000 

Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion 

KDWPT Enhancement Contract .................................................................................................. 0 720 4,400 

CPW Enhancement Contract ...................................................................................................... 0 12,200 37,900 

NRCS LPCI Grazing Plan ........................................................................................................... 0 0 13,000 

USFWS PFW Contract ................................................................................................................ 0 6,000 18,000 

Shinnery Oak Ecoregion 

WAFWA Management Plan ......................................................................................................... 0 0 8,129 

NRCS LPCI Grazing Plan ........................................................................................................... 0 0 39,000 

BLM Prescribed Fire .................................................................................................................... 0 25,000 100,000 

NM CCAA Prescribed Fire .......................................................................................................... 50,000 100,000 150,000 

USFWS PFW Contract ................................................................................................................ 5,000 15,000 50,000 

TPWD Additional CCAA Enrollment ............................................................................................ 0 0 60,000 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29470 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Future Population Trends 

Several estimates of lesser prairiechicken population growth rates have 

been based on current conditions for the 

lesser prairie-chicken, with most 

derived from demographic matrix 

models (Fields 2004, pp. 76–83; Hagen 

et al. 2009, entire; Sullins 2017, entire; 

Cummings et al. 2017, entire). Most 

studies project declining lesser prairiechicken populations; however, the 

magnitude of actual future declines is 

unlikely to be as low as some modeling 

tools indicate (Service 2021, Table 4.10). 

Most positive population growth 

calculations were derived from 2014– 

2016 (Hagen et al. 2017, Supplemental 

Information; Service 2021, Table 4.10), 

where estimates indicated populations 

have increased. However, we caution 

that any analysis using growth rates 

based upon short-term data sets can be 

problematic as they are very sensitive to 

the starting and ending points in the 

estimates. Additionally, these growth 

rates are accompanied by relatively 

large margins of error. 

Estimates based on aerial surveys over 

the past 9 years have indicated a 

rangewide fluctuating population 

beginning with an estimated 28,366 (90 

percent CI: 17,055–40,581) individuals 

in 2012 to an estimated 34,408 (90 

percent CI: 21,270–47,946) individuals 

in 2020. Included within this timeframe 

was a population low of 15,397 (90 

percent CI: 8,145–22,406) individuals in 

2013. We caution against drawing 

inferences from point estimates based 

upon these data due to low detection 

probabilities of the species leading to 

large confidence intervals. We also 

caution that trend analyses from shortterm data sets are highly sensitive to 

starting and ending population sizes. 

For example, if you use 2012, the first 

year of available rangewide survey data, 

as the starting point for a trend analysis, 

it may appear that populations are 

relatively stable to slightly increasing, 

but during the years of 2010–2013, the 

range of the lesser prairie-chicken 

experienced a severe drought and thus 

lesser prairie-chicken populations were 

at historic lows. If the data existed to 

perform the same analysis using the 

starting point as 2009, then the results 

would likely show a decreasing 

population trend. 

The future risk of extinction of the 

lesser prairie-chicken has been 

evaluated using historical ground 

surveys (Garton et al. 2016, pp. 60–73). 

This analysis used the results of those 

surveys to project the risk of lesser 

prairie-chicken quasi-extinction in each 

of the four ecoregions and rangewide 

over two timeframes, 30 and 100 years 

into the future. For this analysis, quasiextinction was set at effective 

population sizes (demographic Ne) of 50 

(populations at short-term extinction 

risk) and 500 (populations at long-term 

extinction risk) adult breeding birds, 

corresponding to an index based on 

minimum males counted at leks of ≤85 

and ≤852, respectively (Garton et al. 

2016, pp. 59–60). The initial analysis 

using data collected through 2012 was 

reported in Garton et al. (2016, pp. 60– 

73), but it has since been updated to 

include data collected through 2016 

(Hagen et al. 2017, entire). We have 

identified concerns in the past with 

some of the methodologies and 

assumptions made in this analysis, and 

the challenges of these data are noted in 

Zavaleta and Haukos (2013, p. 545) and 

Cummings et al. (2017, pp. 29–30). 

While these concerns remain, this work 

represents one of the few attempts to 

project risk to the species across its 

range, and we considered it as part of 

our overall analysis and recognize any 

limitations associated with the analysis. 

Results were reported for each 

analysis assuming each ecoregion is 

functioning as an independent 

population and also assuming there is 

movement of individuals between 

populations (Service 2021, Table 4.11; 

Table 4.12). The results suggest a wide 

range of risks among the ecoregions, but 

the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion 

consistently had the highest risks of 

quasi-extinction and the Short-Grass/ 

CRP Ecoregion had the lowest. This 

analysis was based only on simulating 

demographic variability of populations 

and did not incorporate changing 

environmental conditions related to 

habitat or climate. 

Determination of Lesser Prairie-Chicken 

Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species ‘‘in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range,’’ and 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species ‘‘likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status of the Southern DPS of the Lesser 

Prairie-Chicken Throughout All of Its 

Range 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Southern DPS 

of the lesser prairie-chicken and its 

habitat. We analyzed effects associated 

with habitat degradation, loss, and 

fragmentation, including conversion of 

grassland to cropland (Factor A), 

petroleum production (Factor A), wind 

energy development and transmission 

(Factor A), woody vegetation 

encroachment (Factor A), and roads and 

electrical distribution lines (Factor A); 

other factors, such as livestock grazing 

(Factor A), shrub control and 

eradication (Factor A), collision 

mortality from fences (Factor E), 

predation (Factor C), influence of 

anthropogenic noise (Factor E), and fire 

(Factor A); and extreme weather events 

(Factor E). We also analyzed the effects 

of existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) and ongoing conservation 

measures. In the SSA report, we also 

considered three additional threats: 

Hunting and other recreational, 

educational, and scientific use (Factor 

B); parasites and diseases (Factor C); 

and insecticides (Factor E). We consider 

all of these impacts now in analyzing 

the status of the Southern DPS. 

Over the past several decades, habitat 

loss, fragmentation, and degradation 

have resulted in the loss of large areas 

of the habitat that supports the lesser 

prairie-chicken in the Southern DPS. 

Suitable habitat has been lost as 

grasslands are converted to cropland, 

and as petroleum and natural gas 

production and wind energy 

development have resulted in further 

loss of habitat. The lesser prairiechicken is particularly vulnerable to 

changes on the landscape, as it requires 

large blocks of suitable habitat to 

complete its life-history needs. This 

includes its lek breeding system, which 

requires males and females to be able to 

hear and see each other over relatively 

wide distances, the need for large 

patches of habitat that include several 

types of microhabitats, and the 

behavioral avoidance of vertical 

structures. In the case of petroleum and 

wind energy production, the extent of 

the impact from the threat is not just the 

original site, but also all roads, 

powerlines, and other infrastructure 

associated with the sites, and noise 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29471 

associated with those areas that may 

interfere with communication between 

male and female birds. 

In the Southern DPS, woody 

vegetation encroachment by honey 

mesquite has played a significant role in 

limiting available space for the lesser 

prairie-chicken and is one of the 

primary threats to the species in this 

DPS. Fire, incompatible grazing 

management, and drought associated 

with climate change also continue to 

degrade habitat. The size of fires, 

especially in areas dominated by woody 

vegetation, are increasing. When 

managed compatibly, fire and grazing 

can improve habitat quality. However, 

fire management efforts are currently 

occurring on only a limited portion of 

the lesser prairie-chicken range. 

The Southern DPS is particularly 

vulnerable to effects associated with 

climate change and drought, as it is 

already warmer and drier than the 

Northern DPS. That warmer and drier 

trend is expected to continue (Grisham 

et al. 2013, entire; Grisham et al. 2016c, 

p. 742). Given the needs of lesser 

prairie-chicken for cool microclimates 

to find appropriate nest sites and rear 

broods, droughts like those that have 

recently occurred on the landscape 

could further impact already declining 

population growth rates in this DPS. 

Some conservation measures and 

regulatory mechanisms are acting to 

reduce the magnitude of threats 

impacting the lesser prairie-chicken and 

its habitat. However, our analysis 

demonstrates that the restoration efforts 

have not been enough to offset the 

impacts of habitat loss and 

fragmentation and conservation efforts 

focused on localized management to 

affect habitat quality, while not 

addressing the overarching limiting 

factor of habitat loss and fragmentation, 

is not addressing the long-term 

population needs for the lesser prairiechicken. Thus, these measures are only 

minimally ameliorating the threats 

acting throughout the DPS. 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we conclude that the Southern 

DPS is continuing to experience ongoing 

habitat loss and fragmentation, and 

additional threats from influence of 

anthropogenic noise and extreme 

weather events, particularly droughts. 

Currently, only 27 percent of this 

ecoregion is available for use by the 

lesser prairie-chicken. Based on mean 

population estimates, the Southern DPS 

has very low resiliency to stochastic 

events. It may have as few as 5,000 birds 

remaining. The population count 

dropped to as low as 1,000 birds in 2015 

after the last severe drought. Under 

current climactic conditions, another 

wide-scale severe drought could occur 

in this ecoregion at any time, and the 

species may not be able to recover. 

Overall, the lesser prairie-chickens in 

the Southern DPS are likely to continue 

to experience declines in resiliency, 

redundancy, and genetic representation. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we determine that the 

Southern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. We find that 

a threatened species status is not 

appropriate for the Southern DPS 

because it is currently in danger of 

extinction. 

Status of the Southern DPS of the Lesser 

Prairie-Chicken Throughout a 

Significant Portion of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. We have 

determined that the Southern DPS of the 

lesser prairie-chicken is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range 

and accordingly did not undertake an 

analysis of any significant portion of its 

range. Because the Southern DPS of the 

lesser prairie-chicken warrants listing as 

endangered throughout all of its range, 

our determination is consistent with the 

decision in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 

(D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the 

court vacated the aspect of the Final 

Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 

‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the 

Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

that provided the Services do not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as endangered 

throughout all of its range. 

Determination of Status of the Southern 

DPS of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Southern DPS of the 

lesser prairie-chicken meets the 

definition of an endangered species. 

Therefore, we propose to list the 

Southern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken as an endangered species in 

accordance with sections 3(6) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Status of the Northern DPS of the Lesser 

Prairie-Chicken Throughout All of Its 

Range 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Northern DPS 

of the lesser prairie-chicken and its 

habitat. We analyzed effects associated 

with habitat degradation, loss, and 

fragmentation, including conversion of 

grassland to cropland (Factor A), 

petroleum production (Factor A), wind 

energy development and transmission 

(Factor A), woody vegetation 

encroachment (Factor A), and roads and 

electrical distribution lines (Factor A); 

other factors, such as livestock grazing 

(Factor A), shrub control and 

eradication (Factor A), collision 

mortality from fences (Factor E), 

predation (Factor C), influence of 

anthropogenic noise (Factor E), and fire 

(Factor A); and extreme weather events 

(Factor E). We also analyzed existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and 

ongoing conservation measures. In the 

SSA report, we also considered three 

additional threats: Hunting and other 

recreational, educational, and scientific 

use (Factor B); parasites and diseases 

(Factor C); and insecticides (Factor E). 

As with the Southern DPS, we consider 

all of these impacts now in analyzing 

the status of the Northern DPS. 

As is the case in the Southern DPS, 

habitat degradation, loss, and 

fragmentation is the primary threat to 

the lesser prairie-chicken in this DPS, 

with other threats such as fire, 

incompatible livestock grazing, and 

extreme weather events further 

decreasing population resiliency and 

species redundancy. The largest impacts 

in this DPS are cropland conversion and 

woody vegetation encroachment. The 

Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion is also 

experiencing habitat degradation due to 

incompatible grazing management. The 

Short-Grass/CRP region has the highest 

number of birds, with a 5-year estimate 

of approximately 17,000 birds. Other 

portions of the range have lower 

population resiliency. In particular, the 

Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion has 

approximately 1,000 birds remaining 

(Table 2). 

Resiliency of populations throughout 

the Northern DPS has decreased from 

historical levels, though the DPS still 

has redundancy across the three 

ecoregions and genetic and 

environmental representation. However, 

our future scenario analysis 

demonstrates that the current threats 

acting on the landscape are expected to 

either continue at the same levels or 

increase in severity in the foreseeable 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29472 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

future. Habitat loss is projected to 

outpace conservation efforts to restore 

habitat. Though we do not expect rates 

of habitat conversion to cropland to be 

equivalent to the rates that we 

historically witnessed, we expect any 

additional conversion that does occur 

will have a disproportionately large 

effect on resiliency and redundancy due 

to the limited amount of remaining large 

intact grasslands. Conversion of habitat 

due to oil, gas, and wind energy will 

continue to occur, though the rates of 

development are uncertain. Woody 

vegetation encroachment is also 

expected to continue, particularly in the 

Mixed-Grass Ecoregion. Increased 

drought and severe weather events 

associated with climate change are 

expected to decrease population 

resiliency and redundancy into the 

foreseeable future, and as habitat 

availability continues to decline, and 

available habitat blocks decrease in size, 

populations may decline to below quasiextinction levels. Our future scenarios 

project that usable habitat will decrease 

from 3–25 percent within the Northern 

DPS (5–24 percent in the Short-Grass/ 

CRP Ecoregion, from 2–37 percent in the 

Mixed-Grass Ecoregion, and from 3–14 

percent in the Sand Sagebrush 

Ecoregion) due to projected impacts 

from conversion to cropland, energy 

development, and woody vegetation 

encroachment. 

Conservation measures and regulatory 

mechanisms are acting to reduce the 

magnitude of threats impacting the 

lesser prairie-chicken and its habitat. 

However, our analysis demonstrates that 

future restoration efforts will not be 

enough to offset the impacts of habitat 

loss and fragmentation and conservation 

efforts focused on localized 

management to affect habitat quality, 

while not addressing the overarching 

limiting factor of habitat loss and 

fragmentation, is not addressing the 

long-term population needs for the 

lesser prairie-chicken. Thus, these 

measures are having only minimal 

impacts on threats acting throughout the 

DPS. 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we find that the lesser prairiechicken maintains populations in all 

three ecoregions in the Northern DPS, 

and has genetic and ecological 

representation in those ecoregions, as 

well as population redundancy across 

the entirety of the DPS. Thus, lesser 

prairie-chicken in the Northern DPS are 

not currently in danger of extinction, 

and thus the Northern DPS does not 

meet the definition of endangered. 

However, based on our future 

projections, habitat will become 

increasingly fragmented and less able to 

support lesser prairie-chickens. Thus, 

after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that the 

Northern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken is not currently in danger of 

extinction but is likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

Status of the Northern DPS of the Lesser 

Prairie-Chicken Throughout a 

Significant Portion of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 

WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) 

(Everson), vacated the aspect of the 2014 

Significant Portion of its Range Policy 

that provided that the Services do not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, 

we proceed to evaluating whether the 

species is endangered in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which both (1) the portion is 

significant; and (2) the species is in 

danger of extinction in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

We apply the term ‘‘significant’’ 

differently for the purpose of the 

‘‘significant portion of the range’’ 

analysis than the DPS analysis. The DPS 

Policy requires that for a vertebrate 

population to meet the Act’s definition 

of ‘‘species,’’ the population must be 

discrete from other populations and 

must be significant to the taxon as a 

whole. The use of ‘‘significant to the 

taxon as a whole’’ under the DPS Policy 

is necessarily broad. Notably, a segment 

could be ‘‘significant to the taxon as a 

whole’’ for the DPS policy but not be 

‘‘significant’’ for the different analysis 

under the Significant Portion of Its 

Range Policy. Thus, a determination 

that an area is significant for the 

purposes of DPS does not necessarily 

mean that it will be significant for the 

purposes of the Significant Portion of Its 

Range Policy. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Center for Biological Diversity, we now 

consider whether there are any 

significant portions of the species’ range 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 

undertaking this analysis for the 

Northern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken, we choose to address the status 

question first—we consider information 

pertaining to the geographic distribution 

of both the species and the threats that 

the species faces to identify any 

portions of the range where the species 

is endangered. We evaluated all parts of 

the Northern DPS, including the Sand 

Sagebrush Ecoregion, the Mixed Grass 

Ecoregion, and the Short Grass/CRP 

Ecoregion. We identified one portion, 

the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion, that may 

meet the definition of endangered, as 

population estimates have shown the 

greatest declines in that portion of the 

range. 

For the Northern DPS, we considered 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in any portion of the 

species’ range at a biologically 

meaningful scale. We examined the 

following threats: Effects associated 

with habitat degradation, loss, and 

fragmentation, including conversion of 

grassland to cropland, petroleum 

production, wind energy development 

and transmission, woody vegetation 

encroachment, and roads and electrical 

distribution lines; other factors, such as 

livestock grazing, shrub control and 

eradication, collision mortality from 

fences, predation, influence of 

anthropogenic noise, and fire; extreme 

weather events, including cumulative 

effects. However, we did not identify 

any threats that were concentrated in 

the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion that were 

not at similar levels in the remainder of 

the range at a biologically meaningful 

scale. 

Thus, there are no portions of the 

DPS’s range where the species has a 

different status from its rangewide 

status. Therefore, no portion of the 

species’ range provides a basis for 

determining that the species is in danger 

of extinction in a significant portion of 

its range, and we determine that the 

species is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. This is 

consistent with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. Department of the 

Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 

WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), 

and Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. 

Ariz. 2017). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29473 

Determination of Status of the Northern 

DPS of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Northern DPS of the 

lesser prairie-chicken meets the 

definition of a threatened species. 

Therefore, we propose to list the 

Northern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken as a threatened species in 

accordance with sections 3(20) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the 

Act calls for the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning consists of 

preparing draft and final recovery plans, 

beginning with the development of a 

recovery outline and making it available 

to the public within 30 days of a final 

listing determination. The recovery 

outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions and describes the process to be 

used to develop a recovery plan. 

Revisions of the plan may be done to 

address continuing or new threats to the 

species, as new substantive information 

becomes available. The recovery plan 

also identifies recovery criteria for 

review of when a species may be ready 

for reclassification from endangered to 

threatened (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal 

from protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(composed of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the recovery 

outline, draft recovery plan, and the 

final recovery plan will be available on 

our website (http://www.fws.gov/ 

endangered), or from our Arlington 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (such as restoration 

of native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

If this species is listed, funding for 

recovery actions will be available from 

a variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost-share 

grants for non-Federal landowners, the 

academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. In 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the States of Colorado, Kansas, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas would be 

eligible for Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection or recovery of the lesser 

prairie-chicken. Information on our 

grant programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: http:// 

www.fws.gov/grants. 

Although the Southern DPS and the 

Northern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken are only proposed for listing 

under the Act at this time, please let us 

know if you are interested in 

participating in recovery efforts for the 

lesser prairie-chicken. Additionally, we 

invite you to submit any new 

information on this species whenever it 

becomes available and any information 

you may have for recovery planning 

purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into consultation 

with the Service. 

Some examples of Federal agency 

actions within the species’ habitat that 

may require conference or consultation, 

or both, as described in the preceding 

paragraph include: Landscape-altering 

activities on Federal lands; provision of 

Federal funds to State and private 

entities through Service programs, such 

as the PFW Program, the State Wildlife 

Grant Program, and the Wildlife 

Restoration Program; construction and 

operation of communication, radio, and 

similar towers by the Federal 

Communications Commission or 

Federal Aviation Administration; 

issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act 

permits by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; construction and 

management of petroleum pipeline by 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission; construction and 

maintenance of roads or highways by 

the Federal Highway Administration; 

implementation of certain USDA 

agricultural assistance programs; 

Federal grant, loan, and insurance 

programs; or Federal habitat restoration 

programs such as Environmental 

Quality Incentive Program and CRP; and 

development of Federal minerals, such 

as oil and gas. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 

50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take (which includes 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or 

to attempt any of these) endangered 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29474 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

wildlife within the United States or on 

the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful 

to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

species listed as an endangered species. 

It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 

carry, transport, or ship any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally. 

Certain exceptions apply to employees 

of the Service, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, other Federal land 

management agencies, and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. For the Northern DPS of the 

lesser prairie-chicken, which we are 

proposing to list as threatened, the 

discussion below in section II regarding 

protective regulations under section 4(d) 

of the Act complies with our policy. 

We now discuss specific activities 

related to the Southern DPS, which we 

are proposing to list as endangered. 

Based on the best available information, 

the following actions are unlikely to 

result in a violation of section 9, if these 

activities are carried out in accordance 

with existing regulations and permit 

requirements; this list is not 

comprehensive. As identified in the 

SSA report, restoration actions are 

essential for conservation of the lesser 

prairie-chicken. Restoration actions will 

not constitute a violation of section 9 as 

those actions are implemented on lands 

that are not currently lesser prairiechicken habitat. These restoration 

actions include: 

(1) Planting previously tilled or no till 

croplands to grasses; 

(2) Removal of nonnative or invasive 

trees and shrubs, not including shinnery 

oak or sand sagebrush; and 

(3) Removal of existing infrastructure 

including oil and gas infrastructure, 

electrical transmission and distribution 

lines, windmills, existing fences, and 

other anthropogenic features impacting 

the landscape. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

may potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act in the southern DPS 

of the lesser prairie-chicken if they are 

not authorized in accordance with 

applicable law; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, 

possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, 

or transporting of the species, including 

import or export across State lines and 

international boundaries, except for 

properly documented antique 

specimens of these taxa at least 100 

years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) 

of the Act. 

(2) Actions that would result in the 

unauthorized destruction or alteration 

of the species’ habitat. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, the 

removal of native shrub or herbaceous 

vegetation by any means for any 

infrastructure construction project or 

the direct conversion of native shrub or 

herbaceous vegetation to another land 

use. 

(3) Actions that would result in 

sustained alteration of preferred 

vegetative characteristics of lesser 

prairie-chicken habitat, particularly 

those actions that would cause a 

reduction or loss in the native 

invertebrate community within those 

habitats or alterations to vegetative 

composition and structure. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to, incompatible livestock 

grazing, the application of herbicides or 

insecticides, and seeding of nonnative 

plant species that would compete with 

native vegetation for water, nutrients, 

and space. 

(4) Actions that would result in lesser 

prairie-chicken avoidance of an area 

during one or more seasonal periods. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, the construction of 

vertical structures such as power lines, 

communication towers, buildings, 

infrastructure to support energy 

development, roads, and other 

anthropogenic features; motorized and 

nonmotorized recreational use; and 

activities such as well drilling, 

operation, and maintenance, which 

would entail significant human 

presence, noise, and infrastructure. 

(5) Actions, intentional or otherwise, 

that would result in the destruction of 

eggs or active nests or cause mortality or 

injury to chicks, juveniles, or adult 

lesser prairie-chickens. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act in regards to the 

Southern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken should be directed to the 

Arlington Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 

4(d) of the Act for the Northern DPS of 

the Lesser Prairie-Chicken 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the ‘‘Secretary shall issue such 

regulations as he deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation’’ of species listed as 

threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

noted that statutory language like 

‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates 

a large degree of deference to the agency 

(see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 

(1988)). Conservation is defined in the 

Act to mean ‘‘the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to [the Act] 

are no longer necessary.’’ Additionally, 

the second sentence of section 4(d) of 

the Act states that the Secretary ‘‘may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 

or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case 

of plants.’’ Thus, the combination of the 

two sentences of section 4(d) provides 

the Secretary with wide latitude of 

discretion to select and promulgate 

appropriate regulations tailored to the 

specific conservation needs of the 

threatened species. The second sentence 

grants particularly broad discretion to 

the Service when adopting the 

prohibitions under section 9. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld rules developed under section 

4(d) as a valid exercise of agency 

authority where they prohibited take of 

threatened wildlife, or include a limited 

taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. 

Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); 

Washington Environmental Council v. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 

U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 

2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) 

rules that do not address all of the 

threats a species faces (see State of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29475 

Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th 

Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative 

history when the Act was initially 

enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the 

threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to him with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. He 

may, for example, permit taking, but not 

importation of such species, or he may 

choose to forbid both taking and 

importation but allow the transportation 

of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 

93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). 

Exercising this authority under 

section 4(d), we have developed a 

proposed rule that is designed to 

address the specific threats and 

conservation needs of the Northern DPS 

of the lesser prairie-chicken. Although 

the statute does not require us to make 

a ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ finding 

with respect to the adoption of specific 

prohibitions under section 9, we find 

that this rule as a whole satisfies the 

requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to 

issue regulations deemed necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the Northern DPS of the 

lesser prairie-chicken. As discussed 

above under Summary of Biological 

Status and Threats, we have concluded 

that the Northern DPS of the lesser 

prairie-chicken is likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future primarily due to 

threats associated with habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and degradation. The 

provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule 

would promote conservation of the 

Northern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken by encouraging management of 

the landscape in ways that meet the 

conservation needs of the lesser prairiechicken and identifying the prohibitions 

needed to conserve the lesser prairiechicken. We believe it is appropriate to 

extend the standard section 9 

prohibitions for endangered species to 

the Northern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken in order to conserve the species. 

While developing this proposed 4(d) 

rule, the Service considered exceptions 

to the standard section 9 prohibitions 

for endangered species that would 

facilitate essential conservation actions 

needed for the Northern DPS. We 

consider essential conservation efforts 

to include restoration actions, 

utilization of prescribed fire, and 

compatible grazing management as the 

primary essential conservation actions 

needed to conserve the lesser prairiechicken. 

For the purposes of this rule and our 

SSA analysis we consider restoration 

actions to be actions that convert areas 

that are otherwise not habitat for lesser 

prairie-chickens to areas which are 

lesser prairie-chicken habitat. These 

actions are essential for the species as 

this is the only way to offset habitat loss 

and fragmentation. For the lesser 

prairie-chicken, the primary restoration 

actions consist of woody vegetation 

removal in and adjacent to grasslands 

(this does not include the removal of 

sand shinnery oak (specifically, Quercus 

havardii species) or sand sagebrush 

(specifically, Artemisia filifolia 

species)), removal of existing 

anthropogenic features (such as existing 

energy infrastructure, roads, fences, 

windmills, and other anthropogenic 

features), and converting cropland to 

grassland. We have determined that an 

exception under this 4(d) rule is not 

needed for these restoration actions as 

they occur on lands already impacted or 

altered in ways that they no longer 

represent lesser prairie-chicken habitat 

and thus there is no potential for a 

section 9 violation. 

We also considered the value 

provided by the implementation of 

prescribed fire on the landscape. Prior 

to extensive Euro-American settlement, 

frequent fires helped confine trees like 

eastern red cedar to river and stream 

drainages and rocky outcroppings. 

However, settlement of the Southern 

Great Plains altered the historical 

ecological context and disturbance 

regimes. The frequency and intensity of 

these disturbances directly influenced 

the ecological processes, biological 

diversity, and patchiness typical of 

Great Plains grassland ecosystems, 

which evolved with frequent fire that 

helped to maintain prairie habitat for 

lesser prairie-chicken (Collins 1992, pp. 

2003–2005; Fuhlendorf and Smeins 

1999, pp. 732, 737). 

Following Euro-American settlement, 

fire suppression allowed trees, such as 

eastern red cedar, to begin invading or 

encroaching upon neighboring 

grasslands. Implementation of 

prescribed fire is often the best method 

to control or preclude tree invasion of 

grasslands. However, to some 

landowners and land managers, burning 

of grassland can be perceived as 

unnecessary for meeting their 

management goals, costly and 

burdensome to enact, undesirable for 

optimizing production for cattle, and 

likely to create wind erosion or 

‘‘blowouts’’ in sandy soils. 

Consequently, wildfire suppression is 

common, and relatively little prescribed 

burning occurs on private land. Often, 

prescribed fire is employed only after 

significant tree invasion has already 

occurred and landowners consider 

forage production for cattle to have 

diminished. Preclusion of woody 

vegetation encroachment on grasslands 

of the southern Great Plains using fire 

requires implementing fire at a 

frequency that mimics historical fire 

frequencies of 2–14 years (Guyette et al. 

2012, p. 330) and thus further limits the 

number of landowners implementing 

fire in a manner that would truly 

preclude future encroachment. We have 

determined that there is a potential for 

short-term adverse impacts, but we want 

to encourage the use of prescribed fire 

on the landscape; thus, we provide an 

exception for this action below. 

Finally, we considered the need for 

compatibly managed grazing activities 

that result in the vegetation structure 

and composition needed to support the 

lesser prairie-chicken. The habitat needs 

for the lesser prairie-chicken vary across 

the range, and grazing can affect these 

habitats in different ways. It is 

important that grazing be managed at a 

given site to account for a variety of 

factors specific to the local ecological 

site including past management, soils, 

precipitation and other factors. This 

management will ensure that the 

resulting vegetative composition and 

structure will support the lesser prairiechicken. Grazing management that alters 

the vegetation community to a point 

where the composition and structure are 

no longer suitable for lesser prairiechicken can contribute to habitat loss 

and fragmentation within the landscape, 

even though these areas may remain as 

prairie or grassland. Livestock grazing, 

however, is not inherently detrimental 

to the lesser prairie-chicken provided 

that grazing management results in a 

plant community with species and 

structural diversity suitable for the 

lesser prairie-chicken. When livestock 

grazing is managed compatibly, it can be 

an invaluable tool necessary for 

managing healthy grasslands benefiting 

the lesser prairie-chicken. 

While developing this proposed 4(d) 

rule, we found that determining how to 

manage grazing in a manner compatible 

with the Northern DPS of the lesser 

prairie chicken is highly site specific 

based on conditions at the local level; 

thus, broad determinations within this 

proposed 4(d) rule would not be 

beneficial to the species or local land 

managers. While the 4(d) rule was one 

approach considered to promote 

conservation of the Northern DPS of the 

lesser prairie-chicken by encouraging 

management of grassland landscapes in 

ways that support both long-term 

viability of livestock enterprises, and 

concurrent conservation of lesser 

prairie-chicken, we determined that 

other mechanisms would be more 

appropriate to support this action. 

Besides a 4(d) rule, other mechanisms 

supporting conservation opportunities 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29476 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

exist in other portions of the 

Endangered Species Act and our 

policies, including under Federal 

Agency Actions and Consultations 

(section 7), Permits (section 10), and 

Conservation Banking. We recognize the 

value of compatibly managed grazing for 

the lesser prairie-chicken, and we look 

forward to working with our partners 

and local land managers to ensure there 

are viable conservation options that 

provide regulatory coverage for 

interested landowners. 

The provisions of this proposed rule 

are one of many tools that we would use 

to promote the conservation of the 

Northern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken. This proposed 4(d) rule would 

apply only if and when we make final 

the listing of the Northern DPS of the 

lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened 

species. 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule 

This proposed 4(d) rule would 

provide for the conservation of the 

Northern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken by prohibiting the following 

activities, except as otherwise 

authorized or permitted: Importing or 

exporting; take; possession and other 

acts with unlawfully taken specimens; 

delivering, receiving, transporting, or 

shipping in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or selling or offering for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce. We also 

include the following two exceptions to 

these prohibitions, which along with the 

prohibitions, are set forth under 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation: 

(1) Continuation of routine 

agricultural practices on existing 

cultivated lands. 

This proposed 4(d) rule provides that 

take of the lesser prairie-chicken will 

not be prohibited provided the take is 

incidental to activities that are 

conducted during the continuation of 

routine agricultural practices, as 

specified below, on cultivated lands that 

are in row crop, seed-drilled untilled 

crop, hay, or forage production. These 

lands must meet the definition of 

cropland as defined in 7 CFR 718.2, 

and, in addition, must have been 

cultivated, meaning tilled, planted, or 

harvested, within the 5 years preceding 

the proposed routine agricultural 

practice that may otherwise result in 

take. Thus, this provision does not 

include take coverage for any new 

conversion of grasslands into 

agriculture. 

Lesser prairie-chickens travel from 

native rangeland and CRP lands, which 

provide cover types that support lesser 

prairie-chicken nesting and broodrearing, to forage within cultivated 

fields supporting small grains, alfalfa, 

and hay production. Lesser prairiechickens also maintain lek sites within 

these cultivated areas, and they may be 

present during farming operations. 

Thus, existing cultivated lands, 

although not a native habitat type, may 

provide food resources for lesser prairiechickens. 

Routine agricultural activities covered 

by this provision include: 

(a) Plowing, drilling, disking, 

mowing, or other mechanical 

manipulation and management of lands. 

(b) Routine activities in direct support 

of cultivated agriculture, including 

replacement, upgrades, maintenance, 

and operation of existing infrastructure 

such as buildings, irrigation conveyance 

structures, fences, and roads. 

(c) Use of chemicals in direct support 

of cultivated agriculture when done in 

accordance with label 

recommendations. 

We do not view regulating these 

activities as necessary and advisable for 

the conservation of the lesser prairiechicken as, while there may be limited 

use for foraging and lekking sites, these 

lands do not have the ability to support 

the complete life-history needs of the 

species and thus are not considered 

habitat. We are proposing that none of 

the provisions in 50 CFR 17.31 would 

apply to actions that result from 

activities associated with the 

continuation of routine agricultural 

practices, as specified above, on existing 

cultivated lands that are in row crop, 

seed-drilled untilled crop, hay, or forage 

production. These lands must meet the 

definition of cropland as defined in 7 

CFR 718.2, and, in addition, must have 

been cultivated, meaning tilled, planted, 

or harvested, within the previous 5 

years. 

(2) Implementation of prescribed fire 

for the purposes of grassland 

management. 

This proposed 4(d) rule provides that 

take of the lesser prairie-chicken will 

not be prohibited provided the take is 

incidental to activities that are 

conducted during the implementation of 

prescribed fire, as specified below, for 

the purpose of grassland and shrubland 

management. 

As discussed in the Background 

section of this proposed 4(d) rule, fire 

plays an essential role in maintaining 

healthy grasslands and shrublands, 

preventing woody vegetation 

encroachment, and encouraging the 

structural and species diversity of the 

plant community required by the lesser 

prairie-chicken. The intensity, scale, 

and frequency of fire regimes in the 

southern Great Plains has been 

drastically altered due to human 

suppression of wildfire resulting in 

widespread degradation and loss of 

grasslands. While fire plays an 

important role, potential exists for some 

short-term negative impacts to the lesser 

prairie-chicken while implementing 

prescribed fire. The potential impacts 

depend upon what time of the year the 

fire occurs, extent of habitat burned and 

burn severity including, but are not 

limited to, disturbance of individuals, 

destruction of nests, and impacts to 

available cover for nesting and 

concealment from predators. 

Prescribed fire activities covered by 

this provision include: 

(a) Construction and maintenance of 

fuel breaks. 

(b) Planning needed for application of 

prescribed fire. 

(c) Implementation of the fire and all 

associated actions. 

(d) Any necessary monitoring and 

followup actions. 

Implementation of prescribed fire is 

essential to managing for healthy 

grasslands and shrublands, but 

currently use of prescribed fire is 

minimal or restricted to frequent use in 

small local areas within the range of the 

lesser prairie-chicken. While prescribed 

fire has the potential for some limited 

negative short-term effects on the lesser 

prairie-chicken, we have concluded that 

the long-term benefits of implementing 

prescribed fire drastically outweigh the 

short-term negative effects. 

Furthermore, as discussed in the 

background section of this proposed 

4(d) rule, fire is a necessary component 

for the management and maintenance of 

healthy grassland for the lesser prairiechicken. We are proposing that none of 

the provisions in 50 CFR 17.31 would 

apply to the implementation of 

prescribed fire as discussed above. 

As discussed above under Summary 

of Biological Status and Threats, threats 

including habitat loss, fragmentation, 

and degradation are affecting the status 

of the Northern DPS of the lesser 

prairie-chicken. A range of activities 

have the potential to affect the Northern 

DPS of the lesser prairie-chicken, 

including actions that would result in 

the unauthorized destruction or 

alteration of the species’ habitat. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to: The removal of native shrub 

or herbaceous vegetation by any means 

for any infrastructure construction 

project or direct conversion of native 

shrub or herbaceous vegetation to 

another land use; actions that would 

result in the long-term alteration of 

preferred vegetative characteristics of 

lesser prairie-chicken habitat, 

particularly those actions that would 

cause a reduction or loss in the native 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29477 

invertebrate community within those 

habitats. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, incompatible livestock 

grazing, the application of herbicides or 

insecticides, and seeding of nonnative 

plant species that would compete with 

native vegetation for water, nutrients, 

and space; and actions that would result 

in lesser prairie-chicken avoidance of an 

area during one or more seasonal 

periods. Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to, the construction 

of vertical structures such as power 

lines, communication towers, buildings, 

infrastructure to support energy 

development, roads, and other 

anthropogenic features; motorized and 

nonmotorized recreational use; and 

activities such as well drilling, 

operation, and maintenance, which 

would entail significant human 

presence, noise, and infrastructure; and 

actions, intentional or otherwise, that 

would result in the destruction of eggs 

or active nests or cause mortality or 

injury to chicks, juveniles, or adult 

lesser prairie-chickens. Regulating these 

activities would slow the rate of habitat 

loss, fragmentation, and degradation 

and decrease synergistic, negative 

effects from other threats. 

Under the Act, ‘‘take’’ means to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct. Some of these provisions have 

been further defined in regulation at 50 

CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or 

otherwise, by direct and indirect 

impacts, intentionally or incidentally. 

Regulating take would help slow the 

rate of habitat loss, fragmentation, and 

degradation and decrease synergistic, 

negative effects from other threats. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities, 

including those described above, 

involving threatened wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance propagation or 

survival, for economic hardship, for 

zoological exhibition, for educational 

purposes, for incidental taking, or for 

special purposes consistent with the 

purposes of the Act. There are also 

certain statutory exemptions from the 

prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship with our State natural 

resource agency partners in contributing 

to conservation of listed species. State 

agencies often possess scientific data 

and valuable expertise on the status and 

distribution of endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species of wildlife and 

plants. State agencies, because of their 

authorities and their close working 

relationships with local governments 

and landowners, are in a unique 

position to assist the Services in 

implementing all aspects of the Act. In 

this regard, section 6 of the Act provides 

that the Services shall cooperate to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

States in carrying out programs 

authorized by the Act. Therefore, any 

qualified employee or agent of a State 

conservation agency that is a party to a 

cooperative agreement with the Service 

in accordance with section 6(c) of the 

Act, who is designated by his or her 

agency for such purposes, would be able 

to conduct activities designed to 

conserve the Northern DPS of the lesser 

prairie-chicken that may result in 

otherwise prohibited take without 

additional authorization. 

Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule 

would change in any way the recovery 

planning provisions of section 4(f) of the 

Act, the consultation requirements 

under section 7 of the Act, or the ability 

of the Service to enter into partnerships 

for the management and protection of 

the Northern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken. However, interagency 

cooperation may be further streamlined 

through planned programmatic 

consultations for the species between 

Federal agencies and the Service, where 

appropriate. We ask the public, 

particularly State agencies and other 

interested stakeholders that may be 

affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to 

provide comments and suggestions 

regarding additional guidance and 

methods that the Service could provide 

or use, respectively, to streamline the 

implementation of this proposed 4(d) 

rule (see Information Requested, above). 

III. Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Designation also does 

not allow the government or public to 

access private lands, nor does 

designation require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures by non-Federal landowners. 

Where a landowner requests Federal 

agency funding or authorization for an 

action that may affect a listed species or 

critical habitat, the Federal agency 

would be required to consult with the 

Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

However, even if the Service were to 

conclude that the proposed activity 

would result in destruction or adverse 

modification of the critical habitat, the 

Federal action agency and the 

landowner are not required to abandon 

the proposed activity, or to restore or 

recover the species; instead, they must 

implement ‘‘reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ to avoid destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29478 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical or biological features that occur 

in specific occupied areas, we focus on 

the specific features that are essential to 

support the life-history needs of the 

species, including, but not limited to, 

water characteristics, soil type, 

geological features, prey, vegetation, 

symbiotic species, or other features. A 

feature may be a single habitat 

characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. When designating critical 

habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate 

areas occupied by the species. The 

Secretary will only consider unoccupied 

areas to be essential where a critical 

habitat designation limited to 

geographical areas occupied by the 

species would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species. In 

addition, for an unoccupied area to be 

considered essential, the Secretary must 

determine that there is a reasonable 

certainty both that the area will 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species and that the area contains one 

or more of those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information from the SSA 

report and information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of this species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans, or other 

species conservation planning efforts if 

new information available at the time of 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. Our 

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state 

that the Secretary may, but is not 

required to, determine that a 

designation would not be prudent in the 

following circumstances: 

(i) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of such 

threat to the species; 

(ii) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of a species’ habitat or range 

is not a threat to the species, or threats 

to the species’ habitat stem solely from 

causes that cannot be addressed through 

management actions resulting from 

consultations under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act; 

(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of 

the United States provide no more than 

negligible conservation value, if any, for 

a species occurring primarily outside 

the jurisdiction of the United States; 

(iv) No areas meet the definition of 

critical habitat; or 

(v) The Secretary otherwise 

determines that designation of critical 

habitat would not be prudent based on 

the best scientific data available. 

As discussed earlier in this document, 

there is currently no imminent threat of 

collection or vandalism identified under 

Factor B for either the Northern DPS or 

the Southern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken, and identification and 

mapping of critical habitat is not 

expected to initiate any such threat. In 

our SSA report and proposed listing 

determination for both the Northern and 

Southern DPSs, we determined that the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range is a threat to the two DPSs and 

that the threat in some way can be 

addressed by section 7(a)(2) 

consultation measures. The two DPSs 

occur wholly in the jurisdiction of the 

United States, and we are able to 

identify areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat. Therefore, because none 

of the circumstances enumerated in our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have 

been met and because there are no other 

circumstances the Secretary has 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29479 

identified for which this designation of 

critical habitat would be not prudent, 

we have determined that the 

designation of critical habitat is prudent 

for both DPSs of the lesser prairiechicken. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Having determined that designation is 

prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

we must find whether critical habitat for 

the Northern DPS and the Southern DPS 

of lesser prairie-chicken is 

determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is 

not determinable when one or both of 

the following situations exist: 

(i) Data sufficient to perform required 

analyses are lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

identify any area that meets the 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the species and habitat 

characteristics where this species is 

located and data that would be needed 

to perform other required analyses. A 

careful assessment of the economic 

impacts that may occur due to a critical 

habitat designation is not yet complete, 

and we are in the process of working 

with the States and other partners in 

acquiring the complex information 

needed to perform that assessment. 

Because the information sufficient to 

perform a required analysis of the 

impacts of the designation is lacking, we 

therefore conclude that the designation 

of critical habitat for both the Southern 

DPS and the Northern DPS of the lesser 

prairie-chicken to be not determinable 

at this time. The Act allows the Service 

an additional year to publish a critical 

habitat designation that is not 

determinable at the time of listing (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

Public Hearings 

We have scheduled two public 

informational meeting with public 

hearings on this proposed rule for the 

lesser prairie-chicken. We will hold the 

public informational meetings and 

public hearings on the dates and at the 

times listed above under Public 

informational meeting and public 

hearing in DATES. We are holding the 

public informational meetings and 

public hearings via the Zoom online 

video platform and via teleconference so 

that participants can attend remotely. 

For security purposes, registration is 

required. To listen and view the meeting 

and hearing via Zoom, listen to the 

meeting and hearing by telephone, or 

provide oral public comments at the 

public hearing by Zoom or telephone, 

you must register. For information on 

how to register, or if you encounter 

problems joining Zoom the day of the 

meeting, visit https://www.fws.gov/ 

southwest/. Registrants will receive the 

Zoom link and the telephone number 

for the public informational meetings 

and public hearings. If applicable, 

interested members of the public not 

familiar with the Zoom platform should 

view the Zoom video tutorials (https:// 

support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/ 

206618765-Zoom-video-tutorials) prior 

to the public informational meetings 

and public hearings. 

The public hearings will provide 

interested parties an opportunity to 

present verbal testimony (formal, oral 

comments) regarding this proposed rule. 

While the public informational meetings 

will be an opportunity for dialogue with 

the Service, the public hearings are not: 

They are a forum for accepting formal 

verbal testimony. In the event there is a 

large attendance, the time allotted for 

oral statements may be limited. 

Therefore, anyone wishing to make an 

oral statement at the public hearings for 

the record is encouraged to provide a 

prepared written copy of their statement 

to us through the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal, or U.S. mail (see ADDRESSES, 

above). There are no limits on the length 

of written comments submitted to us. 

Anyone wishing to make an oral 

statement at the public hearings must 

register before the hearing (https://

www.fws.gov/southwest/). The use of a 

virtual public hearing is consistent with 

our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations adopted pursuant to section 

4(a) of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We solicited information from all of the 

Tribes within the entire range of the 

lesser prairie-chicken to inform the 

development of the SSA report, and 

notified Tribes of our upcoming 

proposed listing determination. We also 

provided these Tribes the opportunity to 

review a draft of the SSA report and 

provide input prior to making our 

proposed determination on the status of 

the lesser prairie-chicken but did not 

receive any responses. We will continue 

to coordinate with affected Tribes 

throughout the listing process as 

appropriate. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Arlington 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
29480 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the Arlington 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h) amend the table by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Prairie-chicken, 

lesser [Northern DPS]’’ and an entry for 

‘‘Prairie-chicken, lesser [Southern DPS]’’ 

in alphabetical order under BIRDS to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

*******

BIRDS

*******

Prairie-chicken, lesser [Northern 

DPS].

Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ...... U.S.A. (All lesser prairie-chickens north of a 

line starting at 37.9868 N, 105.0133 W, and 

ending at 31.7351 N, 98.3773 W, NAD83; 

see map at § 17.41(k)).

T [Federal Register citation 

when published as a final 

rule]; 

50 CFR 17.41(k).4d

Prairie-chicken, lesser [Southern 

DPS].

Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ...... U.S.A. (All lesser prairie-chickens north of a 

line starting at 37.9868 N, 105.0133 W, and 

ending at 31.7351 N, 98.3773 W, NAD83; 

see map at § 17.41(k)).

E [Federal Register citation 

when published as a final 

rule]. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.41 by adding 

paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 17.41 Special rules—birds. 

* * * * * 

(k) Lesser prairie-chicken 

(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), Northern 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS). The 

Northern DPS of the lesser prairiechicken pertains to lesser prairiechickens found northeast of a line 

starting in Colorado at 37.9868 N, 

105.0133 W, going through northeastern 

New Mexico, and ending in Texas at 

31.7351 N, 98.3773 W, NAD83, as 

shown in the map: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29481 

(1) Prohibitions. The following 

prohibitions that apply to endangered 

wildlife also apply to the Northern DPS 

of the lesser prairie-chicken. Except as 

provided under paragraph (k)(2) of this 

section and §§ 17.4 and 17.5, it is 

unlawful for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit 

another to commit, or cause to be 

committed, any of the following acts in 

regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

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

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth 

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

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of a commercial activity, as 

set forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

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

at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. 

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In 

regard to this species, you may: 

(i) Conduct activities as authorized by 

a permit under § 17.32. 

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

through (c)(4) for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Take as set forth at § 17.31(b). 

(iv) Take incidental to an otherwise 

lawful activity caused by: 

(A) Continuation of routine 

agricultural practices on existing 

cultivated lands, including: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01JN21.023</GPH>

Figure 1 to paragraph (k) 

Boundary of Northern and Southern Distinct Population Segments 

e 

0 50 100 Mi 

0 50 100 Km 

• - • DPS Boundary 

c::Jsates 

L ..... J Counties 
29482 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(1) Plowing, drilling, disking, 

mowing, or other mechanical 

manipulation and management of lands; 

(2) Routine activities in direct support 

of cultivated agriculture, including 

replacement, upgrades, maintenance, 

and operation of existing infrastructure 

such as buildings, irrigation conveyance 

structures, fences, and roads; and 

(3) Use of chemicals in direct support 

of cultivated agriculture when done in 

accordance with label 

recommendations. 

(B) Implementation of prescribed fire 

for the purposes of grassland 

management, including: 

(1) Construction and maintenance of 

fuel breaks; 

(2) Planning needed for application of 

prescribed fire; 

(3) Implementation of the fire and all 

associated actions; and 

(4) Any necessary monitoring and 

followup actions. 

(v) Possess and engage in other acts 

with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set 

forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered 

wildlife. 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11442 Filed 5–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3