The Lesser Prairie-Chicken (LEPC) is under review for possible listing as a Kansas threatened species.  A petition was submitted to Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks (KDWP) on behalf of the Kansas Ornithological Society and six Audubon Chapters in July 2009.  It was determined that substantial evidence was presented in this petition to warrant a review of the status of the LEPC.

 

Some questions have and will arise as this review proceeds.

 

A.  The Review Process

1)    What was the basis for the recommendation that the petition to list the LEPC as Kansas threatened warranted further review?

2)    What conditions must be met for a species to be considered Threatened or Endangered in the state of Kansas?

3)    What steps will occur during this review of the LEPC status? 

4)    How long will it take to complete this review process?

 

B.  Biological Status

1)    What are the most imminent threats to the survival of a viable LEPC population in KS?

2)    What information is used to determine population trends within existing LEPC populations? 

3)    What is the current population estimate of LEPC in Kansas? 

4)    What are the limiting factors for the abundance and distribution of LEPC in Kansas and elsewhere in LEPC range?

5)    Is hunting a significant factor in the abundance or distribution of LEPC in Kansas?

 

C.  Regulatory Impacts of Listing LEPC as Threatened

1)    How would KS listing the LEPC as threatened affect farm/ranch practices?

2)    What types of projects are reviewed for potential impacts to threatened and endangered species impacts?

3)    How would KS listing the LEPC as threatened affect energy development?

4)    How would KS listing the LEPC as threatened affect CRP contract expirations?

5)    What is the permitting process for projects that will impact threatened and endangered species in Kansas? 

6)    What protocols are likely to be put in place for the protection of LEPC if it were listed as threatened? 

7)    What will listing do to change trends?

8)    Can the LEPC be listed as SINC (Species-in-need-of-conservation) instead of threatened?

 

D.   Social/Economic Impacts of Listing LEPC as Threatened

1)    Will KS listing the LEPC as threatened end the hunting season for this species   in the state? 

2)    Would listing the LEPC as threatened affect the hunting season for the related Greater Prairie Chicken? 

3)    What effect would listing the LEPC as threatened have on license sales and economic return to local businesses?

4)    If listed, would additional preference be given for State Wildlife Grant (SWG) funding for LEPC conservation?

5)    What federal, state, or non-governmental programs currently used to fund LEPC conservation will no longer be available if the LEPC is listed as threatened?

 

E.    Current and Pending Conservation Actions regarding LEPC

 

1)    What are the current and pending conservation efforts focused on improving LEPC populations?

2)    What is the status of listing the LEPC as a federally threatened species?  Why did the USFWS designate the LEPC as deserving federal protection?

3)    Would listing (or not listing) LEPC as threatened in Kansas affect federal listing? 

4)    How will current conservation efforts be affected by a decision to not list the LEPC as threatened?

5)    Do proposals for limiting carbon emissions at the federal (and state) levels include protections for native grasslands?

===============================================================

A.  The Review Process

 

1)    What was the basis for the recommendation that the petition to list the LEPC as Kansas threatened warranted further review?

The T&E Task Committee recognized two threats that could be deemed imminent when it comes to maintaining the population viability of the LEPC in Kansas.  They are 1) habitat fragmentation caused by energy developments within the Kansas range; 2) the reversion of CRP land to cropland.  CRP land is believed to have provided the habitat for 215 “new” lek sites in 16 counties north of the Arkansas River since 1997 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).  A third concern is the past report of a downward trend in Kansas lek counts although some assumptions were made in the analysis that may not be valid. 

 

2) What conditions must be met for a species to be considered Threatened or Endangered in the state of Kansas?

As stated in Kansas Statute 32-960, the following are to be considered in the listing of a species:

·       Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;

·       Overutilization for commercial, sporting, education, or other purposes;

·       Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;

·       Other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence within the state;

·       Consultations, as appropriate, with federal agencies, other interested state agencies, persons, and organizations;

·       Consideration of those actions, if any, being carried out or about to be carried out by the federal government, other states, other agencies of this state, or nongovernmental organizations.

One or more of these factors could justify listing or not listing the species.  It begins with a petition that has enough scientific information to warrant a review.  The review process is explained below.

 

3) What steps will occur during this review of the LEPC status? 

After the petition has been accepted for further review there are several steps that will occur:

·       Publish notice in KS Register regarding status review & upcoming informational meetings;

·       Appoint ad hoc committee of experts to assist in review;

·       KDWP Commission process (includes General Discussions;

Workshop, and Public Hearing sessions);

·       Convene informational meetings;

·       Seek expert evaluations using numeric scoring and specific questions on population trends and imminent threats;

·       Mail notices to state governors with common borders where species also occurs;

·       Establish repositories of info;

·       News releases describing potential action;

·       Final recommendations to the KDWP Secretary;

·       If Secretary deems listing is necessary, publish notice of proposed action & date of public hearing on regulation in KS Register (90 day comment period;

·       If listing is recommended, a statement of economic impact must be prepared;

·       KDWP Commission votes on the regulation; if passes, publish notice in KS Register of amendment to Threatened list (15 days later, regulation becomes effective).

 

4) How long will it take to complete this review process?

Approximate time from start to finish is 12 to 16 months.  This is due to required times for publication in the Kansas Register, public comment periods, expert review, information gathering, informational meetings, and timing of KDWP Commission meetings.

 

B.  Biological Status

1)    What information is used to determine population trends within existing LEPC populations? 

The most efficient method of following LEPC population trends is counting individuals on their early spring display arenas known as leks.  Lek count surveys have been used in Kansas for LEPC since 1964.  The survey routes are 10 miles long and the surveyor stops every mile and listens for 3 minutes to locate nearby leks.  After the route is completed the surveyor returns to each lek to flush and count the birds present.  Because this survey covers a wide area (13 counties), it better represents the overall trend than a more intensive but local survey (e.g. Cimarron National Grasslands) that could be greatly impacted by a local weather event (e.g. drought, hailstorm).

 

2)    How has the distribution of the LEPC changed in Kansas?

The historical distribution covered much of western Kansas (estimated range of 29,600 sq. miles).  Its range probably reached a minimum in the 1930s but was known to occupy just 3,980 sq. miles in the 1950s.  Since then, it has increased to occupy 11,230 sq. miles.  Kansas has about half (49%) of the current global distribution of LEPC.

 

3)    What is the current population estimate of LEPC in Kansas?

The 2009 estimated breeding population in Kansas was 13,200 - 20,800.  Kansas has the largest remaining population of LEPC in the 5-state range and represents 48 – 56% of the global population.

 

4)    What are the limiting factors for the abundance and distribution of LEPC in Kansas and elsewhere in LEPC range?

There are several interrelated and confounding factors that influence LEPC population.  In the short term, weather can have a significant effect.  A drought will change grazing pressure and reduce nest success.  Climate change may be a factor in weather patterns.  Fragmentation of the rangeland with roads, houses, power lines, wind farms, and gas wells are a few examples that cause loss of habitat.  In some parts of the range, tree invasion has made large expanses of land uninhabitable for LEPC.

 

5)    Is hunting a significant factor in the abundance or distribution of LEPC in Kansas?

Hunting is not considered a factor in the abundance or distribution of LEPC.  The number of birds taken by hunters is very low and few hunters actively seek LEPC due to the amount of effort necessary to harvest a bird.  Habitat quality or lack of it is the overriding variable affecting the abundance and distribution of LEPC.   Likewise, predation and disease are not considered threats to the LEPC population but more likely reflect poor habitat quality.

 

 

C.  Regulatory Impacts of Listing LEPC as Threatened

1)    How would Kansas listing the LEPC as threatened affect farm/ranch practices?

Overall, there will be very little effect on farm/ranch practices. The vast majority of private landowner/farmer/rancher projects that KDWP staff currently reviews have no impact on LEPC regardless of listing. Additionally, as per KDWP regulations, KDWP does not have the authority to regulate private activities of landowners (except for intentional taking) even if negative impacts to T/E are anticipated.  The language in KAR 115-15-3 that explains our authority with respect to private land operations is:

 

An action permit shall not be required to conduct normal farming and ranching

practices, unless a permit is required by another state or federal agency or such practices involve an intentional taking of a threatened or endangered species. "Normal farming and ranching practices" include activities financed with private funds on private lands, and government cost-shared, routine agricultural land treatment measures.

         

2)    What types of projects are reviewed for potential impacts to threatened and     endangered species impacts?

          KDWP currently receives approximately 2,500 requests annually for threatened and endangered species review. Most project reviews are performed as a result of other state or federal permit requirements. Project types reviewed by KDWP are extremely diverse. Below are examples of projects reviewed by KDWP:

 

Bridge replacement / construction       Housing developments

Electric transmission lines                   Stream bank stabilizations

Cell towers                                  Rural development loans

Grassed waterways                             Mined land reclamation

Wind farms                                         Airport runway extension / construction

         

 

 

3)    How would Kansas listing the LEPC as Threatened affect energy development?

KDWP is currently involved in cooperative efforts with utilities, transmission line developers, wind/solar energy developers and the Kansas Corporation Commission to address concerns with LEPC habitat and associated impacts. At this time KDWP merely makes recommendations to the developers on how impacts can be avoided or minimized. If LEPC becomes listed, KDWP may have additional authority to require compensatory mitigation if impacts are unavoidable.

 

 

4)    How would Kansas listing the LEPC as Threatened affect CRP contract expirations?

Since KDWP has no authority to regulate private activities of landowners, including government cost-shared and routine agricultural land treatment measures such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the agency has no authority to intervene or regulate CRP contract expirations. 

 

Farm Services Agency (FSA) along with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are the key agencies involved with CRP.  FSA and NRCS consult with KDWP with respect to LEPC, but CRP is ultimately under their authority.

 

5)    What is the permitting process for projects that potentially impact threatened and endangered species in Kansas? 

Upon request for a threatened and endangered species review, KDWP will review the project and determine if the project will impact a threatened or endangered species. If the project is determined to impact a species, and if KDWP has the authority, the project sponsor will be contacted and informed of KDWP’s finding.  KDWP will begin to work with the sponsor to avoid, and/or minimize impacts to that species. If impacts are unavoidable, the project sponsor and KDWP will develop a mitigation plan to minimize or compensate impacts to the species and its habitat.  This process will be formally documented through the issuance of a KDWP Action Permit.

 

6)    What protocols are likely to be put in place for the protection of LEPC if it were listed as Threatened? 

Upon listing LEPC as a threatened species, KDWP would designate areas of Kansas as Critical Habitat for the LEPC and then determine how to mitigate for the impacts of a proposed project that is within the LEPC Critical Habitat designation.

 

7)    What will listing do to change trends?

We don’t know the answer to this question. This really depends on future energy policies along with continued cooperation of energy utilities, and wind/solar/transmission developers.  Our ability to intervene into oil/gas development via the Kansas Corporation Commission has never been investigated.

 

8)    Can the LEPC be listed as SINC (Species-in-need-of-conservation) instead of threatened?

Regulatory implications of listing LEPC as SINC is the same as not listing LEPC.  However, listing it is as SINC logically falls in line with the fact that LEPC is a candidate for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act.  However, by statute, a SINC species is a nongame species.  Because the LEPC is a game species, the LEPC does not fit into this category.

 

D) Social/Economic Impacts of Listing LEPC as Threatened

 

1)    Will Kansas listing the LEPC as Threatened end the hunting season for this species in the state? 

If listed as a threatened species, hunting would generally not be allowed.  However, the LEPC is considered a game species and it would require a statutory change to amend that status.

 

2)    Would listing the LEPC as Threatened affect the hunting season for the related Greater Prairie Chicken? 

Yes.  Since there is overlap in the ranges of the two species, it is probable that hunting of both species would be prohibited in the overlapping area.

 

3)    What effect would listing the LEPC as Threatened have on license sales and economic return to local businesses?

There could be some negative impact on license sales but probably not significant as most upland bird hunters hunt prairie chicken incidentally to pheasant and quail.  Likewise, there could be some negative impact to any outfitter or lodging establishment that had previously benefited from LEPC hunting.  However, this might be offset by revenue generated by LEPC viewing.

 

4) If listed, would additional preference be given for State Wildlife Grant (SWG) funding for LEPC conservation?

Listing the LEPC as threatened would increase its ranking for SWG grants.  However, the LEPC already ranks high for SWG funding because of its high ranking in the Kansas Comprehensive Wildlife Plan (A Future for Kansas Wildlife). 

 

5)  What federal, state, or non-governmental programs currently used to fund LEPC conservation will no longer be available if the LEPC is listed as Threatened?

If the LEPC were removed from the statutes that consider it a game species, it would no longer be eligible for funding through the Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson funding), which is only available to those species that are hunted.

 

 

E.    Current and Pending Conservation Actions regarding LEPC

 

1)    What are the current and pending conservation efforts focused on maintaining/improving LEPC populations in Kansas? 

There are several ongoing conservation efforts targeting the LEPC.  These include:

a)    An Interstate Lesser Prairie-Chicken Working Group with wildlife agency representatives of the 5 states within the range of this bird hold an annual meeting to discuss strategies and progress toward improving the population.  This group also prepared a plan that specifically addresses objectives, strategies, and actions aimed at population enhancement and conservation of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken.  This plan, known as the Assessment and Conservation Strategy for the Lesser Prairie-Chicken, was formulated in 1999 and was a response to possible federal listing action by the USFWS.  In 2008, this group completed a comprehensive strategic review known as the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Conservation Initiative that now serves as the foundation document for various conservation actions.

b)   There are concerted efforts being made toward avoiding wind power development within LEPC habitats in Kansas.  This is being done by both nongovernmental organizations and governmental agencies.  For example, Playa Lakes Joint Ventures has prepared a map showing the core habitat and buffer areas for the LEPC.  Its purpose is to provide wind industry initial insight into where development would have negative impacts on the LEPC population.  In addition, it illustrates areas where mitigation projects would be most beneficial to LEPC populations.

c)    A Conservation Priority Area for CRP has been developed to target CRP grasslands to enhance LEPC habitats.  In addition, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has published information on the effects of CRP on priority prairie birds in the Shortgrass Prairie and Central Midgrass Prairie Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs).  These bulletins provide estimates of LEPC population in Kansas due to CRP.

d)   USFWS Partners for Wildlife Program is working with individual ranchers to remove trees to enhance LEPC habitat.  One Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances has been developed through the cooperation with a ranch owner.

e)    Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks personnel conduct an annual lek count survey on 15 routes.  Three of these survey routes date back to 1964.  These efforts are used to monitor population trends and variability of the sampling routes.

f)     Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks personnel have provided numerous educational publications, programs, meetings, tours and workshops that focus on LEPC conservation.  These include working with wind power developers to reduce impacts of energy developments and landowners to enhance LEPC habitat.

g)    Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks and Pheasants Forever have worked closely with congressional delegations to create and modify federal agricultural programs in ways that will enhance LEPC habitat availability and quality.  These include USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Initiatives Program (EQIP), Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP), and the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP).

 

 

2)    What is the status of listing the LEPC as a federally threatened species? 

The USFWS was petitioned to federally list the LEPC in 1995.  The subsequent review found that the listing was warranted but precluded (1998) due to higher listing priority actions.  In 2008, the Listing Priority Number (LPN) changed from 8 to 2.  As stated in the Candidate Notice of Review published in the Federal Register Oct. 12, 2008:

“Based on our most recent assessment, we find that ongoing threats to the lesser prairie-chicken have increased in terms of the amount of habitat involved and that the overall magnitude of threats to the lesser prairie-chicken throughout its range is high because the threats put the viability of the lesser prairie-chicken at substantial risk.  The threats are ongoing and thus, imminent.  Consequently, we changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 for this species.”

 

3)    Would listing (or not listing) LEPC as Threatened in Kansas affect federal listing? 

Listing LEPC as Threatened in Kansas would not necessarily make federal listing more likely.  The USFWS will evaluate the current status, distribution and threats range wide before making a final decision.  However, listing in Kansas would be evaluated within the federal listing guidelines under the category, “The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.”  This factor looks at what mechanisms are already in place to provide protection to the LEPC and its habitat.  A change in Kansas status would be considered in the LEPC’s Candidate Notice of Review which is published annually by the USFWS in the Federal Register.

 

4)    How will current conservation efforts be affected by a decision to not list the LEPC as Threatened?

Not listing the LEPC on the Kansas Threatened Species list probably would not have any effect on current and ongoing conservation efforts.   This does not mean that if the LEPC is not listed then nothing will change.  Regardless of the Kansas listing status, there will continue to be a lot of attention on LEPC conservation by NGO’s, agricultural agencies, energy developers, regulators and researchers.  However, one concern is that a no listing decision will be viewed as a green light to develop wind farms in LEPC range.

 

5)    Do proposals for limiting carbon emissions at the federal (and state) levels include protections for native grasslands?

Rangeland is eligible for the Agricultural Soil Carbon Sequestration Offset program through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).  The rangeland manager must participate in some type of rotational grazing or sustainable grazing practice. In addition, previously degraded rangeland as well as CRP land can qualify if certain criteria are met.  It is unknown to what extent this program could benefit the LEPC population.