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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., critical habitat can only be completed Central Time, on July 8, 2021. We will by issuing a rule. Fish and Wildlife Service hold a second public informational What this document does. We session from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., Central propose the listing of the Northern DPS 50 CFR Part 17 Time, followed by a public hearing from of the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species with a rule under [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2021–0015; 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Central Time, on FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] July 14, 2021. section 4(d) of the Act and the Southern ADDRESSES: You may submit comments DPS of the lesser prairie-chicken as an RIN 1018–BB27 by one of the following methods: endangered species under the Act. The basis for our action. Under the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Act, we may determine that a species is and Plants; Lesser Prairie-Chicken; an endangered or threatened species Threatened Status With Section 4(d) www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS–R2–ES–2021–0015, which is because of any of five factors: (A) The Rule for the Northern Distinct present or threatened destruction, Population Segment and Endangered the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the Search button. On the modification, or curtailment of its Status for the Southern Distinct habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Population Segment resulting page, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the commercial, recreational, scientific, or AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Document Type heading, check the educational purposes; (C) disease or Interior. Proposed Rule box to locate this predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) document. You may submit a comment ACTION: Proposed rule. other natural or manmade factors by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail affecting its continued existence. We Wildlife Service (Service), propose to to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: make these determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and list two Distinct Population Segments FWS–R2–ES–2021–0015, U.S. Fish and commercial data available after (DPSs) of the lesser prairie-chicken Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 conducting a review of the status of the (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), a Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– species and after taking into account grassland bird known from southeastern 3803. those efforts being made to protect the Colorado, western Kansas, eastern New We request that you send comments species. Mexico, western Oklahoma, and the only by the methods described above. We have determined that both the Texas Panhandle under the Endangered We will post all comments on http:// northern and southern parts of the lesser Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). www.regulations.gov. This generally prairie-chicken’s range are discrete and This determination also serves as our means that we will post any personal significant under our DPS Policy and 12-month finding on a petition to list information you provide us (see are, therefore, listable entities under the the lesser prairie-chicken. After a review Information Requested, below, for more Act. The Southern DPS consists of the of the best available scientific and information). Shinnery Oak Ecoregion in New Mexico commercial information, we find that Public informational meeting and and Texas, and the Northern DPS listing the Southern DPS as endangered public hearing: The public consists of the Sand Sagebrush is warranted, and that listing the informational meetings and the public Ecoregion, the Mixed Grass Ecoregion, Northern DPS as threatened is hearings will be held virtually using the and the Short Grass/Conservation warranted. Accordingly, we propose to Zoom platform. See Public Hearing, Reserve Program (CRP) Ecoregion in list the Southern DPS as an endangered below, for more information. Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and species under the Act and the Northern FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kansas. These two DPSs together DPS as a threatened species with a rule Debra Bills, Field Supervisor, Arlington encompass the entirety of the lesser issued under section 4(d) of the Act Ecological Services Field Office, 2005 prairie-chicken’s range. The primary (‘‘4(d) rule’’). If we finalize this rule as NE Green Oaks Blvd., Suite 140, threat impacting both DPSs is the proposed, it will add these two DPSs to Arlington, TX 76006; telephone 817– ongoing loss of large, connected blocks the List of Endangered and Threatened 277–1129. Persons who use a of grassland and shrubland habitat. The Wildlife and extend the Act’s telecommunications device for the deaf Southern DPS has low resiliency, protections to them. We also are (TDD) may call the Federal Relay redundancy, and representation and is notifying the public that we have Service at 800–877–8339. particularly vulnerable to severe scheduled informational meetings SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: droughts due to being located in the followed by public hearings on the dryer and hotter southwestern portion proposed rule. Executive Summary of the range. Because the Southern DPS DATES: We will accept comments Why we need to publish a rule. Under is currently at risk of extinction, we received or postmarked on or before the Act, if we determine that a species propose to list it as endangered. August 2, 2021. Comments submitted is an endangered or threatened species In the Northern DPS, as a result of electronically using the Federal throughout all or a significant portion of habitat loss and fragmentation, eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, its range, we are required to promptly resiliency has been much reduced below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. publish a proposal in the Federal across two of the ecoregions in the Eastern Time on the closing date. We Register and make a determination on Northern DPS when compared to must receive requests for a public our proposal within 1 year. To the historical conditions. However, this DPS hearing, in writing, at the address maximum extent prudent and still has redundancy across the three shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION determinable, we must designate critical ecoregions and genetic and CONTACT by July 16, 2021. habitat for any species that we environmental representation. We Public informational meeting and determine to be an endangered or expect habitat loss and fragmentation public hearing: We will hold a public threatened species under the Act. across the Northern DPS to continue informational session from 5 p.m. to 6 Listing a species as an endangered or into the foreseeable future, resulting in p.m., Central Time, followed by a public threatened species and designation of even further reduced resiliency. Because

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 (5) Information on regulations that are Please note that submissions merely in the foreseeable future, we propose to necessary and advisable to provide for stating support for, or opposition to, the list it as threatened. the conservation of the Northern DPS of action under consideration without Peer review. In accordance with our the lesser prairie-chicken and that the providing supporting information, joint policy on peer review published in Service can consider in developing a although noted, will not be considered the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 4(d) rule for the DPS. In particular, in making a determination, as section FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, information concerning the extent to 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that memorandum updating and clarifying which we should include any of the determinations as to whether any the role of peer review of listing actions prohibitions associated with section 9 in species is an endangered or a threatened under the Act, we sought the expert the 4(d) rule or whether any other forms species must be made ‘‘solely on the opinions of 6 appropriate specialists of take should be excepted from the basis of the best scientific and regarding the species status assessment prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. commercial data available.’’ (SSA) report. We received responses (6) Information on whether an You may submit your comments and from 4 specialists, which informed the exception from the prohibitions materials concerning this proposed rule proposed listing rule. The purpose of associated with section 9 should be by one of the methods listed in peer review is to ensure that our listing included in the 4(d) rule for the ADDRESSES. We request that you send determinations and 4(d) rules are based Northern DPS for industry and/or comments only by the methods on scientifically sound data, landowner participants who are described in ADDRESSES. assumptions, and analyses. The peer enrolled in and operating in compliance If you submit information via http:// reviewers have expertise in the biology, with the mitigation framework included www.regulations.gov, your entire habitat, and threats to the species. in the Range-Wide Conservation Plan submission—including any personal for the Lesser Prairie-Chicken being identifying information—will be posted Information Requested administered by the Western on the website. If your submission is We intend that any final action Association of Fish and Wildlife made via a hardcopy that includes resulting from this proposed rule will be Agencies but who do not have personal identifying information, you based on the best scientific and incidental take coverage via the may request at the top of your document commercial data available and be as companion Candidate Conservation that we withhold this information from accurate and as effective as possible. Agreement with Assurances covering oil public review. However, we cannot Therefore, we request comments or and gas activities. guarantee that we will be able to do so. information from other governmental (7) Which areas would be appropriate We will post all hardcopy submissions agencies, Native American Tribes, the as critical habitat for the species and on http://www.regulations.gov. scientific community, industry, or any why areas should or should not be Comments and materials we receive, other interested parties concerning this proposed for designation as critical as well as supporting documentation we proposed rule. habitat in the future, including whether used in preparing this proposed rule, We particularly seek comments there are threats to the species from will be available for public inspection concerning: human activity that would be expected on http://www.regulations.gov. (1) The species’ biology, range, and to increase due to the designation and Because we will consider all population trends, including: whether that increase in threat would comments and information we receive (a) Biological or ecological outweigh the benefit of designation such during the comment period, our final requirements of the species, including that the designation of critical habitat determinations may differ from this habitat requirements for feeding, may not be prudent. proposal. Based on the new information breeding, and sheltering; (8) Specific information on: we receive (and any comments on that (b) Genetics and taxonomy; (a) The amount and distribution of new information), we may conclude that (c) Historical and current range, habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken the Southern DPS is threatened instead including distribution patterns; which should be considered for of endangered, or that the Northern DPS (d) Historical and current population proposed critical habitat; is endangered instead of threatened, or levels, and current and projected trends; (b) What may constitute ‘‘physical or we may conclude that either DPS does and biological features essential to the not warrant listing as either an (e) Past and ongoing conservation conservation of the species within the endangered species or a threatened measures for the species, its habitat, or geographical range currently occupied species. In addition, we may change the both. by the species’’; parameters of the prohibitions or the (2) Factors that may affect the (c) Where these features are currently exceptions to those prohibitions in the continued existence of the species, found; 4(d) rule for the Northern DPS if we which may include habitat modification (d) Whether any of these features may conclude it is appropriate in light of or destruction, overutilization, disease, require special management comments and new information predation, the adequacy of existing considerations or practices; received. For example, we may expand regulatory mechanisms, or other natural (e) What areas are currently occupied the incidental-take prohibitions or the or manmade factors. and contain features essential to the exceptions to those prohibitions in the (3) Biological, commercial trade, or conservation of the species should be 4(d) rule for the Northern DPS to other relevant data concerning any included in the designation and why; include prohibiting additional activities threats (or lack thereof) to this species and if we conclude that those additional and existing conservation measures and (f) What unoccupied areas are activities are not compatible with regulations that may be addressing those essential for the conservation of the conservation of the species. Conversely, threats. species and why. Please include we may establish additional exceptions (4) Additional information concerning sufficient information with your to the incidental-take prohibitions in the the historical and current status, range, submission (such as scientific journal final rule if we conclude that the distribution, and population size of this articles or other publications) to allow activities would facilitate or are species, including the locations of any us to verify any scientific or commercial compatible with the conservation and additional populations of this species. information you include. recovery of the species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29434 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

List of Acronyms April 1996. We were unable to act on required the Service to submit a We use many acronyms in this the petition during that period. proposed listing rule for the lesser proposed rule. For the convenience of On July 8, 1997 (62 FR 36482), we prairie-chicken to the Federal Register the reader, we define some of them here: announced our 90-day finding that the for publication by September 30, 2012. petition presented substantial On September 27, 2012, the ACEC = Area of Critical Environmental information indicating that the settlement agreement was modified to Concern petitioned action may be warranted. We require that the proposed listing rule be BLM = Bureau of Land Management CI = confidence interval subsequently published our 12-month submitted to the Federal Register on or CCAA = candidate conservation agreement finding for the lesser prairie-chicken on before November 29, 2012. On with assurances June 9, 1998 (63 FR 31400), concluding December 11, 2012, we published a CCA/A = candidate conservation agreement that the petitioned action was warranted proposed rule (77 FR 73828) to list the and candidate conservation agreement but precluded by other higher priority lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened with assurances listing actions. This 12-month finding species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et CPW = Colorado Parks and Wildlife identified the lesser prairie-chicken as a seq.). On May 6, 2013, we announced CRP = Conservation Reserve Program candidate for listing with a listing the publication of a proposed 4(d) rule DPS = Distinct Population Segment priority number (LPN) of 8, indicating under the authority of section 4(d) of the KDWPT = Kansas Department of Wildlife, that the magnitude of threats was Act (78 FR 26302). Parks and Tourism On July 9, 2013, we announced a 6- LPCI = Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative moderate and the immediacy of the LPN = Listing Priority Number threats to the species was high. month extension (78 FR 41022) of the NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation On January 8, 2001 (66 FR 1295), we final listing determination based on our Service published our resubmitted petition finding that there was substantial ODWC = Oklahoma Department of Wildlife findings for 25 animal species, disagreement regarding the sufficiency Conservation including the lesser prairie-chicken, or accuracy of the available data PFW = the Service’s Partners for Fish and having outstanding ‘‘warranted-but- relevant to our determination regarding Wildlife Program precluded’’ petition findings as well as the proposed listing rule. RMPA = Resource Management Plan notice of one candidate removal. The On April 10, 2014, we published a Amendment lesser prairie-chicken remained a final rule listing the lesser prairie- RWP = Lesser Prairie-Chicken Range-wide candidate with an LPN of 8 in our chicken as a threatened species under Conservation Plan the Act (79 FR 19973) and concurrently SSA = Species Status Assessment October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808); June TPWD = Texas Parks and Wildlife 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657); May 4, 2004 (69 published a final 4(d) rule for the lesser Department FR 24876); May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870); prairie-chicken (79 FR 20073). However, USFS = U.S. Forest Service September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756); and on September 1, 2015, the final listing WAFWA = Western Association of Fish and December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034) rule for the lesser prairie-chicken was Wildlife Agencies candidate notices of review. In our vacated by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Previous Federal Actions December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), candidate notice of review, we changed which also mooted the final 4(d) rule. In 1973, the Service’s Office of the LPN for the lesser prairie-chicken On July 20, 2016, the Service published Endangered Species published a list of from an 8 to a 2. This change in LPN in the Federal Register a final rule that threatened wildlife of the United States reflected a change in the magnitude of removed the lesser prairie-chicken from in Resource Publication 114, often the threats from moderate to high the List of Endangered and Threatened referred to as the ‘‘Red Book.’’ While primarily due to an anticipated increase Wildlife in accordance with the court this publication did not, by itself, in the development of wind energy and decision (81 FR 47047). provide any special protections, it associated placement of transmission On September 8, 2016, we received a served in part to solicit additional lines throughout the estimated occupied new petition from WildEarth Guardians, information regarding the status of the range of the lesser prairie-chicken. Our Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for identified taxa. The lesser prairie- November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), Biological Diversity to list the lesser chicken was one of 70 birds included in November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), and prairie-chicken as endangered this publication (Service 1973, pp. 134– October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370) throughout its entire range or in three 135), but little Federal regulatory action candidate notices of review retained an distinct population segments (Molvar occurred on the lesser prairie-chicken LPN of 2 for the lesser prairie-chicken. 2016, entire). On November 30, 2016, until 1995. After making our 12-month finding in we published a 90-day petition finding On October 6, 1995, we received a 1998, we received several 60-day that concluded that the petition to list petition, dated October 5, 1995, from the notices of intent to sue from WildEarth the lesser prairie-chicken provided Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Boulder, Guardians (formerly Forest Guardians) substantial information that the Colorado, and Marie E. Morrissey and several other parties for failure to petitioned action may be warranted (81 (petitioners). The petitioners requested make expeditious progress toward FR 86315). On June 12, 2019, the that we list the lesser prairie-chicken as listing of the lesser prairie-chicken. petitioners filed their complaint with threatened throughout its known WildEarth Guardians subsequently filed the court alleging the Service failed to historical range in the United States. suit on September 1, 2010, in the U.S. complete the 12-month petition finding The petitioners also requested that District Court for the District of for the lesser prairie-chicken. On critical habitat be designated as soon as Colorado. September 12, 2019, the Service and the the needs of the species are sufficiently In 2011, the Service entered into a plaintiffs entered into a stipulated well known. However, from October settlement agreement with WildEarth settlement agreement that the Service 1995 through April 1996, we were Guardians that impacted multiple cases would submit a 12-month petition under a moratorium on listing actions as nationwide (In re Endangered Species finding to the Federal Register no later a result of Public Law 104–6, which, Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. than May 26, 2021. This 12-month along with a series of continuing budget 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 finding completes the Service’s resolutions, eliminated or severely (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)). As relevant to obligations under that settlement reduced our listing budget through the lesser prairie-chicken, the agreement agreement.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29435

Supporting Documents attendance and habitat condition indeterminable and rely almost entirely An SSA team prepared an SSA report (Copelin 1963, pp. 29–30; Hoffman on anecdotal information (Boal and for the lesser prairie-chicken. The SSA 1963, p. 731; Campbell 1972, pp. 698– Haukos 2016, p. 6). While little is team was composed of Service 699, Hagen et al. 2005, entire, Harju et known about precise historical biologists, in consultation with other al. 2010, entire). Females tend to population sizes, the lesser prairie- species experts. The SSA report establish nests relatively close to the chicken was reported to be quite represents a compilation of the best lek, commonly within 0.6 to 2.4 mi (1 common throughout its range in the scientific and commercial data available to 4 km) (Copelin 1963, p. 44; Giesen early 20th century (Bent 1932, pp. 280– concerning the status of the species, 1994, p. 97), where they incubate 8 to 281, 283; Baker 1953, p. 8; Bailey and including the impacts of past, present, 14 eggs for 24 to 27 days and then raise Niedrach 1965, p. 51; Sands 1968, p. and future factors (both negative and broods of young throughout the summer 454; Fleharty 1995, pp. 38–44; Robb and beneficial) affecting the species. The (Boal and Haukos 2016, p. 4). Some Schroeder 2005, p. 13). For example, Service sent the SSA report to six females will attempt a second nesting if prior to 1900, as many as two million independent peer reviewers and the first nest fails (Johnsgard 1973, pp. birds may have existed in Texas alone received four responses. The Service 63–64; Merchant 1982, p. 43; Pitman et (Litton 1978, p. 1). Information also sent the SSA report to the five State al. 2006, p. 25). Eggs and young lesser regarding population size is available fish and wildlife agencies within the prairie-chickens are susceptible to starting in the 1960s when the State fish range of the lesser prairie-chicken natural mortality from environmental and wildlife agencies began routine (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, stress and predation. The appropriate lesser prairie-chicken monitoring Oklahoma, and Texas) and the four vegetative community and structure is efforts. However, survey methodology primary Federal agencies with whom vital to provide cover for nests and and effort have differed over the we work to deliver conservation actions young and to provide food resources as decades, making it difficult to precisely that could benefit the lesser prairie- broods mature into adults (Suminski estimate trends. chicken: The Bureau of Land 1977, p. 32; Riley 1978, p. 36; Riley et The SSA report and this proposed Management (BLM), the Natural al. 1992, p. 386; Giesen 1998, p. 9). For rule rely on two main population Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), more detail on habitat needs of the estimates. The two methodologies Farm Service Agency (FSA), and U.S. lesser prairie-chicken, please see the largely cover different time periods, so Forest Service (USFS). These partners SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 9–14). we report the results of both throughout include scientists with expertise in The lesser prairie-chicken once this proposed rule in order to give the management of either the lesser prairie- ranged across the Southern Great Plains best possible understanding of lesser of Southeastern Colorado, Southwestern prairie-chicken trends both recently and chicken or the habitat upon which the Kansas, Western Oklahoma, the throughout the past decades. lesser prairie-chicken depends. We Panhandle and South Plains of Texas, The first of the two studies used received responses from USFS, BLM, and Eastern New Mexico; currently, it historical lek surveys and population and all five of the State wildlife occupies a substantially reduced portion reconstruction methods to calculate agencies. Comments and feedback from of its presumed historical range historical trends and estimate male partners and peer reviewers were (Rodgers 2016, p. 15). Estimates of the abundance from 1965 through 2016 incorporated into the SSA report as potential maximum historical range of (Hagen et al. 2017, pp. 6–9). We have appropriate and have informed this the lesser prairie-chicken (e.g., Taylor identified concerns in the past with proposed rule. and Guthery 1980a, p. 1, based on some of the methodologies and I. Proposed Listing Determination Aldrich 1963, p. 537; Johnsgard 2002, p. assumptions made in this analysis, and 32; Playa Lakes Joint Venture 2007, p. others have also noted the challenges of Background 1) range from about 64–115 million using these data for long-term trends Below is a summary of the taxonomy, acres (ac) (26–47 million hectares (ha)). (for example, Zavaleta and Haukos life history, and ecology of the lesser The more recent estimate of the 2013, p. 545; Cummings et al. 2017, pp. prairie-chicken; for a thorough review, historical range of the lesser prairie- 29–30). While these concerns remain, please see the SSA report (version 2.2; chicken encompasses an area of including the very low sample sizes Service 2021, pp. 5–14). approximately 115 million ac (47 particularly in the 1960s, this work The lesser prairie-chicken is in the million ha). Presumably, not all of the represents the only attempt to compile order Galliformes, family Phasianidae, area within this historical range was the extensive historical ground lek subfamily Tetraoninae; it is generally evenly occupied by lesser prairie- count data collected by State agencies to recognized as a species separate from chicken, and some of the area may not estimate the number of males at both the the greater prairie-chicken have been suitable to regularly support range-wide and ecoregional scales, and (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) (Jones lesser prairie-chicken populations (Boal represents the best available data for 1964, pp. 65–73; American and Haukos 2016, p. 6). However, the understanding historical population Ornithologist’s Union 1998, p. 122). current range of the lesser prairie- trends. Most lesser prairie-chicken adults live chicken has been significantly reduced Following development of aerial for 2 to 3 years and reproduce in the from the historical range at the time of survey methods (McRoberts et al. 2011b, spring and summer (Service 2021, pp. European settlement. Estimates as to entire), the second summary of lesser 10–12). Males congregate on leks during extent of the loss vary from greater than prairie-chicken population data uses the spring to attract and mate with 90 percent reduction (Hagen and Giesen more statistically rigorous estimates of females (Copelin 1963, p. 26; Hoffman 2005, unpaginated) to approximately 83 lesser prairie-chicken abundance (both 1963, p. 730; Crawford and Bolen 1975, percent reduction (Van Pelt et al. 2013, males and females). This second study p. 810; Davis et al. 1979, p. 84; p. 3). uses data from aerial line-transect Merchant 1982, p. 41; Haukos 1988, p. Lesser prairie-chicken monitoring has surveys throughout the range of the 49). Male prairie-chickens tend to been occurring for multiple decades and lesser prairie-chicken; these results are exhibit strong breeding site fidelity, have included multiple different then extrapolated from the surveyed often returning to a specific lek many methodologies. Estimates of population area to the rest of the range (Nasman et times, even in cases of declining female abundance prior to the 1960s are al. 2020, entire). The results of these

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 The results of the study using lek data estimates following 1997 peaked again precise estimates of the annual lesser (abundance of males) indicate that at about 92,000 males in 2006, but prairie-chicken abundance, as indicated lesser prairie-chicken range-wide subsequently declined to 34,440 males by the large confidence intervals. Thus, abundance (based on a minimum in 2012 (Figure 1). we caution the reader not to draw estimated number of male lesser prairie- The aerial survey results from 2012 conclusions based upon annual chicken at leks) peaked from 1965–1970 through 2020 (Figure 2) estimated the fluctuations. Instead, we consider the at a mean estimate of about 175,000 lesser prairie-chicken population best use of this data is for long-term males (Figure 1). The estimated mean abundance, averaged over the most trend analysis. Thus, in the SSA Report population maintained levels of greater recent 5 years of surveys (2015–2020, no and this proposed rule, we report the than 100,000 males until 1989, after surveys in 2019), at 27,384 (90% population estimate for the current which they steadily declined to a low of confidence interval: 15,690, 59,981) condition as the average of the past 5 25,000 males in 1997 (Garton et al. (Nasman et al. 2020, p. 21; Table 3.3). years of surveys. 2016, p. 68). The mean population BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

j Range-wide Population Range~Wide Total I ,.,,,.,..~------,I SCl,000 ..--,------~--- I -E~tim3ti!dNo.ofl.EPC

§ 41),000 -r-~ Ii: ~ooo R:b+½~+~+P++;;c:;.,p+f-'-~++h J ! I i !i 20.000 p~~~4~+~4c4-'-"±--~~~~~.,,.:s i i :100000 I 1 10,000 t-:-~~P~~+~~~➔+s-;;.;,,.;;+.;;:;;.;;.;~

I -: _'----,.-_70--- ...-"----_ --,-D0()---,.-,0--,.,., ·- :WU 201'.I 2014 101> 2011>- 2017 2llt# :rotll 20-XI Figure 1. Estimated range-wide minimum Figure 2. Annual estimates of total range-wide number of Lesser Prairie-Chicken males population size of lesser prairie-chicken from attending leks 1964-2016 (90% confidence 2012-2020. Bars represent the bootstrapped 90% interval). Based on population reconstruction confidence intervals. Graph generated from Nasman using 2016 aerial survey as the initial population et al. (2020, Table 12, p. 21). There were no surveys size (reproduced from Hagen et al. 2017). in 2019.

The preferred habitat of the lesser tend to avoid using areas with trees, sustaining populations (Giesen 1998, prairie-chicken is mixed-grass prairies vertical structures, and other pp. 3–4; Bidwell et al. 2002, pp. 1–3; and shrublands, with the exception of disturbances in areas with otherwise Hagen et al. 2004, pp. 71, 76–77; Haukos the Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion where adequate habitat conditions (Braun et al. and Zavaleta 2016, p. 107). shrubs play a lesser role. Lesser prairie- 2002, pp. 11–13; Pruett et al. 2009, pp. The lesser prairie-chicken now occurs 1256, 1258; Hovick et al. 2014a, p. 1685; chickens appear to select areas having a within four ecoregions (Figure 3); these shrub component dominated by sand Boggie et al. 2017, entire; Lautenbach ecoregions were originally delineated in sagebrush or sand shinnery oak when 2017, pp. 104–142; Plumb et al. 2019, 2012 as part of the aerial survey those areas are available (Donaldson entire). designed to monitor long-trends in 1969, pp. 56, 62; Taylor and Guthery At the population scale, the most lesser prairie-chicken populations. Each 1980a, p. 6; Giesen 1998, pp. 3–4). In important requirement for the lesser ecoregion is associated with unique the southern and central portions of the prairie-chicken is having large, intact, environmental conditions based on lesser prairie-chicken range, small ecologically diverse grasslands to habitat and climatic variables and some shrubs, such as sand shinnery oak, have complete their life history and maintain genetic differentiation (Boal and Haukos been reported to be important for healthy populations (Fuhlendorf et al. summer shade (Copelin 1963, p. 37; 2017b, entire). Historically, these 2016, p. 5; Oyler-McCance et al. 2016, Donaldson 1969, pp. 44–45, 62), winter ecologically diverse grasslands and p. 653). These four ecoregions are the protection, and as supplemental foods shrublands were maintained by the Short-Grass Prairie/CRP Mosaic (Johnsgard 1979, p. 112), while in the occurrence of wildfires (keeping woody Ecoregion in Kansas; the Sand Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion, stands of vegetation restricted to drainages and Sagebrush Prairie Ecoregion in grass that provide adequate vegetative rocky outcroppings) and by grazing by Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma; the structure likely serve the same roles. bison and other large ungulates. The Mixed-Grass Prairie Ecoregion in The absence of anthropogenic features lesser prairie-chicken is a species that is Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma; and the as well as other vertical structures is area-sensitive; that is, it requires large, Sand Shinnery Oak Prairie Ecoregion of important, as lesser prairie-chickens intact grasslands for functional self- New Mexico and Texas.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:40 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP01JN21.019 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29437

Lesser Prairie-Chicken Ecoregions

· Sand Shinn Oak Prairie Ecoregion ...... ! ··/ i

Ecoreglon 9 Mtxed-i.irass Prallie sand sagebrush Prairie 0 so 100Mi Sand Shlnneiy oak Prairie

100 Km 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.

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C population estimate peaked again to miles (mi) (153 kilometers (km)) (Figure The Shinnery Oak Ecoregion occupies ∼15,000 males in 2006 and then 3; Oyler-McCance et al. 2016, p. 653). portions of eastern New Mexico and the declined again to fewer than 3,000 With the exception of lesser prairie- South Plains of Texas (McDonald et al. males in the mid-2010s. While chicken areas owned by the State Game 2012, p. 2). It has a variable vegetation population estimates for the Shinnery Commission and federally owned BLM community that contains a mix of Oak Ecoregion have varied over recent lands in New Mexico, the majority of shrubs such as sand shinnery oak years, the most recent surveys estimate the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion is privately (Quercus havardii) and sand sagebrush a 5-year average population size of 3,077 owned (Grisham et al. 2016a, p. 315). (Artemisia filifolia) as well as mixed and birds (90% confidence intervals (CI): Nearly all of the area in the Texas tall grasses and forbs (Grisham et al. 170, 8,237). Approximately 11 percent portion of the ecoregion is privately 2016a, p. 317). The mean population of all lesser prairie-chicken occur in this owned and managed for agricultural use estimate ranged between about 5,000 to ecoregion (Service 2021, pp. 66–78). and petroleum production (Haukos 12,000 males through 1980, increased to Lesser prairie-chicken from the 2011, p. 110). The remaining patches of 20,000 males in the mid-1980s and Shinnery Oak Ecoregion are genetically shinnery oak prairie have become declined to ∼1,000 males in 1997 (Hagen distinct and geographically isolated isolated, relict communities because the et al. 2017 pp. 6–9). The mean from the other three ecoregions by 95 surrounding grasslands have been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP01JN21.020 29438 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

converted to row crop agriculture or 2016, p. 260). By the 1980s, large Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion (Oyler- fragmented by oil and gas exploration expanses of prairies had been converted McCance et al. 2016, p. 653). and urban development (Peterson and from native grass for crop production in The northern section of this ecoregion Boyd 1998, p. 22). Additionally, honey this ecoregion. After the introduction of is the only portion of the lesser prairie- mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) the CRP in 1985, landowners began to chicken’s range where co-occurrence encroachment within this ecoregion has have enhanced incentives to convert with greater prairie-chicken occurs. played a significant role in decreasing croplands to perennial grasslands to Hybridization rates of up to 5 percent available space for the lesser prairie- provide cover for the prevention of soil have been reported (Pitman 2013, p. 5), chicken. Technological advances in erosion. The State of Kansas required and that rate seemed to be stable across irrigated row crop agriculture have led those enrolling in the CRP to plant multiple years, though sampling is to more recent conversion of shinnery native mixed- and tall-grass species, limited where the species co-occur oak prairie habitat to row crops in which is notable because the grasses in (Pitman 2013, p. 12). Limited additional Eastern New Mexico and West Texas this area historically consisted largely of work has been completed to further (Grisham et al. 2016a, p. 316). short-grass species, which generally do assess the rate of hybridization. There The Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion occurs not provide adequate habitat for the are concerns about the implications of in Southeast Colorado, Southwest lesser prairie-chicken. For more genetic introgression (dilution) of lesser Kansas, and a small portion of Western information on the CRP, see the SSA prairie-chicken genes, particularly given Oklahoma (McDonald et al. 2012, p. 2). report (Service 2021, pp. 52–54). that potential effects are poorly The vegetation community in this area Prior to the late 1990s, lesser prairie- understood (Dahlgren et al. 2016, p. primarily consists of sand sagebrush chickens in this ecoregion were thought 276). Unresolved issues include and the associated mixed and tall grass to be largely absent (or occurred whether hybridization reduces fitness, species that are usually found in the sporadically in low densities) (Hagen alters behavior or morphological traits sandier soils adjacent to rivers, streams, and Giesen 2005, unpaginated; Rodgers in either a positive or negative way and and other drainages in the area. Lesser 1999, p. 19). We do not know what the historical occurrence and rate of prairie-chicken from the Sand proportion of the eastern Short-Grass/ hybridization. The Mixed-Grass Ecoregion for the Sagebrush Ecoregion form a distinct CRP Ecoregion in Kansas was lesser prairie-chicken lies in the genetic cluster from other ecoregions historically occupied by lesser prairie- northeastern panhandle of Texas, the but have likely contributed some chicken (Hagen 2003, pp. 3–4), and panhandle of northwestern Oklahoma, individuals to the Short-Grass/CRP surveys in this ecoregion only began in Ecoregion through dispersal (Oyler- and south-central Kansas (McDonald et earnest in 1999 (Dahlgren et al. 2016, p. McCance et al. 2016, p. 653). al. 2012, p. 2). The Mixed-Grass 262). The CRP is an idle lands program, Historically, the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion is separated from the Short- Ecoregion supported the highest density which requires establishment of grass Grass/CRP Ecoregion in Kansas by the of lesser prairie-chicken and was cover and precludes tillage or Arkansas River. The vegetation considered the core of the lesser prairie- agricultural commodity production for community in this ecoregion consists chicken range (Haukos et al. 2016, p. the duration of the contract, and has largely of a mix of perennial grasses and 282). A single flock detected in Seward contractual limits to the type, frequency, shrubs such as sand sagebrush, sand County, Kansas, was estimated to and timing of management activities, plum (Prunus angustifolia), yucca potentially contain more than 15,000 such as burning, haying, or grazing of (Yucca spp.), and sand shinnery oak birds (Bent 1932, p. 281). The the established grasses. As a result of (Wolfe et al. 2016, p. 300). Based upon population size is estimated to have these factors, CRP often provides the population reconstruction data, the peaked at more than 85,000 males in the vegetative structure preferentially used mean population estimate was around 1970s (Garton et al. 2016, p. 62) and has by lesser prairie-chickens for nesting. In 30,000 males in the 1970s and 1980s been in decline since the late 1970s. the State of Kansas, the availability of followed by a decline in the 1990s More recent survey efforts estimate a 5- CRP lands, especially CRP lands with (Hagen et al. 2016, pp. 6–7). The mean year average population size of 1,215 interseeded or original seed mixture of population estimate peaked again in the birds (90% CI: 196, 4,547). Less than 5 forbs, resulted in increased habitat early 2000s at around 25,000 males, percent of all lesser prairie-chicken availability for the lesser prairie-chicken before declining to and remaining at its occur in this ecoregion (Service 2021, and, thus, an expansion of the known lowest levels, <10,000 males since 2012 pp. 66–78). Most of the decline has been lesser prairie-chicken range and an (Hagen et al. 2016, pp. 6–7). Although attributed to habitat deterioration and increase in the abundance of the lesser historical population estimates in the conversion of sand sagebrush to prairie-chicken (Rodgers 1999, pp. 18– ecoregion reported some of the highest intensive row crop agriculture due to an 19; Fields 2004, pp. 11, 105; Fields et densities of lesser prairie-chicken in the increase in center pivot irrigation al. 2006, pp. 931, 937; Sullins et al. range (Wolfe et al. 2016, p. 299), recent (Jensen et al. 2000, p. 172). 2018, p. 1617). aerial survey efforts estimate a 5-year Environmental conditions in this The Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion is average population size of 6,135 birds ecoregion can be extreme, with now estimated to contain the majority of (including males and females; 90% CI: stochastic events such as blizzards lesser prairie-chickens compared to the 1,719, 11,847). The recent survey work negatively impacting lesser prairie- other ecoregions, with recent survey estimates about 22 percent of lesser chicken populations. efforts estimating a 5-year average prairie-chicken occur in this ecoregion The Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion falls population size of 16,957 birds (90% CI: (Service 2021, pp. 66–78). Lesser within the mixed- and short-grass 13,605, 35,350), representing prairie-chicken from the Mixed-Grass prairies of Central and Western Kansas approximately 62 percent of the Ecoregion are similar in genetic (McDonald et al. 2012, p. 2). As the rangewide population (Service 2021, pp. variation with the Short-Grass/CRP name implies, much of this ecoregion 66–78). Recent genetic studies indicate Ecoregion, with individuals likely historically consisted of short-grass that lesser prairie-chickens have moved dispersing from the Mixed-Grass prairie interspersed with mixed-grass northward largely from the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion to the Short-Grass/CRP prairie as well as sand sagebrush prairie Ecoregion and, to a lesser extent, the Ecoregion (Oyler-McCance et al. 2016, along some drainages (Dahlgren et al. Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion into the p. 653).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29439

Distinct Population Segment Evaluation individuals to the Short-Grass/CRP meet the condition for discreteness Under the Act, the term species Ecoregion through dispersal (Oyler- under our DPS Policy. McCance et al. 2016, p. 653). includes ‘‘any subspecies of fish or Significance wildlife or plants, and any distinct Additionally, these three ecoregions are Under our DPS Policy, once we have population segment of any species of not geographically isolated from one determined that a population segment is vertebrate fish or wildlife which another (Figure 3). As a result of the discrete, we consider its biological and interbreeds when mature.’’ 16 U.S.C. shared genetic characteristics and the ecological significance to the larger 1532(16). To guide the implementation geographic connections, we have taxon to which it belongs. This of the distinct population segment (DPS) concluded the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion, the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion, consideration may include, but is not provisions of the Act, we and the limited to: (1) Evidence of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion are appropriately considered as one persistence of the discrete population (National Oceanic and Atmospheric segment in an ecological setting that is Administration—Fisheries), published potential DPS configuration. Under the Act, we have the authority unusual or unique for the taxon, (2) the Policy Regarding the Recognition of to consider for listing any species, evidence that loss of the population Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any segment would result in a significant Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS distinct population segment (DPS) of gap in the range of the taxon, (3) Policy) in the Federal Register on these taxa if there is sufficient evidence that the population segment February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under information to indicate that such action represents the only surviving natural our DPS Policy, we use two elements to may be warranted. We considered occurrence of a taxon that may be more assess whether a population segment whether two segments meet the DPS abundant elsewhere as an introduced under consideration for listing may be criteria under the Act: The population outside its historical range, recognized as a DPS: (1) The population southernmost ecoregion (Shinnery Oak) or (4) evidence that the discrete segment’s discreteness from the and a segment containing the three population segment differs markedly remainder of the species to which it northernmost ecoregions (Mixed-Grass, from other populations of the species in belongs, and (2) the significance of the Short-Grass/CRP, and Sand Sagebrush). its genetic characteristics. population segment to the species to For the lesser prairie-chicken, we first which it belongs. If we determine that Discreteness considered evidence that the discrete a population segment being considered Under our DPS Policy, a population population segment differs markedly for listing is a DPS, then the population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be from other populations of the species in segment’s conservation status is considered discrete if it satisfies either its genetic characteristics. The most evaluated based on the five listing of the following conditions: (1) It is recent rangewide genetic study factors established by the Act to markedly separated from other examined neutral markers in the four determine if listing it as either populations of the same taxon as a ecoregions where the lesser prairie- endangered or threatened is warranted. consequence of physical, physiological, chicken occurs. It concluded that there As described in Previous Federal ecological, or behavioral factors. is significant genetic variation across the Actions, we were petitioned to list the Quantitative measures of genetic or lesser prairie-chicken range. The study lesser prairie-chicken either rangewide morphological discontinuity may also concluded that although there is or in three distinct population segments. provide evidence of this separation; or genetic exchange between the three The petition suggested three DPS (2) it is delimited by international northern ecoregions (particularly configurations: (1) Shinnery Oak governmental boundaries within which movement of birds northward from the Ecoregion, (2) the Sand Sagebrush differences in control of exploitation, Mixed-Grass Ecoregion to the Short- Ecoregion, and (3) a segment including management of habitat, conservation Grass/CRP Ecoregion, and, to a lesser the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion and the status, or regulatory mechanisms exist extent, from the Sand Sagebrush Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion. The that are significant in light of section Ecoregion into the Short-Grass/CRP petition also combined the Sand 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Ecoregion), lesser prairie-chicken from Sagebrush Ecoregion, the Mixed-Grass We conclude the two segments satisfy the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion in the Ecoregion, and the Short-Grass/CRP the ‘‘markedly separate’’ conditions. southwestern part of the range are a Ecoregion due to evidence they are The two groups of ecoregions are not group that is genetically distinct from linked genetically and geographically separated from each other by the remainder of the range (Oyler- (Molver 2016, p. 18). Genetic studies international governmental boundaries. McCance et al. 2016, p. 653). The indicate that lesser prairie-chicken from The southernmost ecoregion (Shinnery Shinnery Oak Ecoregion is more distinct the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion are similar Oak) is separated from the three from all three ecoregions in the in genetic variation with the Short- northern ecoregions by approximately Northern DPS than those ecoregions are Grass/CRP Ecoregion, with individuals 95 mi (153 km), much of which is from each other (Oyler-McCance et al. likely dispersing from the Mixed-Grass developed or otherwise unsuitable 2016, Table 4). The Shinnery Oak Ecoregion to the Short-Grass/CRP habitat. There has been no recorded Ecoregion was likely historically Ecoregion (Oyler-McCance et al. 2016, movement of lesser prairie-chickens connected to the remainder of the range, p. 653). Other genetic data indicate that between the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion but the two parts have been separated lesser prairie-chicken from the Sand and the three northern ecoregions over since approximately the time of Sagebrush Ecoregion and lesser prairie- the past several decades. Because there European settlement. Therefore, the two chicken from the Mixed-Grass and is no connection between the two parts segments of the range are genetically Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion also share of the range, there is subsequently no distinct from each other. genetic traits. Genetic studies of neutral gene flow between them (Oyler- We next considered evidence that loss markers indicate that, although lesser McCance et al. 2016, entire). of the population segment would result prairie-chicken from the Sand Therefore, we have determined that in a significant gap in the range of the Sagebrush Ecoregion form a distinct both the southern ecoregion and the taxon. As discussed above, the genetic cluster from other ecoregions, northern three ecoregions of the lesser southwestern and northeastern parts of they have also likely contributed some prairie-chicken range both individually the range are separated by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 criterion of the DPS Policy. Therefore, are both discrete and significant under of the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion would under the Service’s DPS Policy, we find our DPS Policy and are, therefore, result in the loss of the entire that both the southern and northern uniquely listable entities under the Act. southwestern part of the species’ range segments of the lesser prairie-chicken Based on our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; and decrease species redundancy and are significant to the taxon as a whole. February 7, 1996), if a population ecological and genetic representation, segment of a vertebrate species is both Distinct Population Segment Conclusion thus decreasing its ability to withstand discrete and significant relative to the demographic and environmental Our DPS Policy directs us to evaluate taxon as a whole (i.e., it is a distinct stochasticity. The loss of the other three the significance of a discrete population population segment), its evaluation for ecoregions would result in the loss of 75 in the context of its biological and endangered or threatened status will be percent of the species’ range, as well as ecological significance to the remainder based on the Act’s definition of those loss of the part of the range (the Short- of the species to which it belongs. Based terms and a review of the factors Grass/CRP Ecoregion) which has on an analysis of the best available enumerated in section 4(a) of the Act. recently experienced a northward scientific and commercial data, we Having found that both parts of the expansion of occupied habitat. This conclude that the northern and southern lesser prairie-chicken range meet the would create a large gap in the parts of the lesser prairie-chicken range definition of a distinct population northeastern portion of the species are discrete due to geographic (physical) segment, we evaluate the status of both range, also reducing the species’ ability isolation from the remainder of the the Southern DPS and the Northern DPS to withstand demographic and taxon. Furthermore, we conclude that of the lesser prairie-chicken to environmental stochasticity. Therefore, both parts of the lesser prairie-chicken determine whether either meets the the loss of either part of the range would range are significant, because loss of definition of an endangered or result in a significant gap in the range either part would result in a significant threatened species under the Act. The of the lesser prairie-chicken. These gap in the range of the taxon, and line demarcating the break between the genetic differences and the evidence because the two parts of the range are Northern and Southern DPS lies that a significant gap in the range of the markedly separate based on neutral approximately half-way between the taxon would result from the loss of genetic markers. Therefore, we conclude two DPSs in the unoccupied area either discrete population segment both that both the northern and southern between them (Figure 4). individually satisfy the significance parts of the lesser prairie-chicken range BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29441

~~~Df'S 13}:Az1sootl'remDPS • • • Df'S BOUll<,talY ti 5() 't®Mi t=Jstate$ .. r I 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.

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP01JN21.021 29442 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Regulatory and Analytical Framework individual, population, and species application of standards within the Act level. We evaluate each threat and its and its implementing regulations and Regulatory Framework expected effects on the species, then policies. The following is a summary of Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) analyze the cumulative effect of all of the key results and conclusions from the and its implementing regulations (50 the threats on the species as a whole. SSA report; the full SSA report can be CFR part 424) set forth the procedures We also consider the cumulative effect found on http://www.regulations.gov at for determining whether a species is an of the threats in light of those actions Docket FWS–R2–ES–2021–0015. endangered species or a threatened and conditions that will have positive To assess lesser prairie-chicken species. The Act defines an endangered effects on the species, such as any viability, we used the three conservation species as a species that is ‘‘in danger existing regulatory mechanisms or biology principles of resiliency, of extinction throughout all or a conservation efforts. The Secretary redundancy, and representation (Shaffer significant portion of its range,’’ and a determines whether the species meets and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, threatened species as a species that is the definition of an ‘‘endangered resiliency supports the ability of the ‘‘likely to become an endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only species to withstand environmental and species within the foreseeable future after conducting this cumulative demographic stochasticity (for example, throughout all or a significant portion of analysis and describing the expected wet or dry, warm or cold years), its range.’’ The Act requires that we effect on the species now and in the redundancy supports the ability of the determine whether any species is an foreseeable future. species to withstand catastrophic events ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened The Act does not define the term (for example, droughts, large pollution species’’ because of any of the following ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in events), and representation supports the factors: the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened ability of the species to adapt over time (A) The present or threatened species.’’ Our implementing regulations to long-term changes in the environment destruction, modification, or at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a (for example, climate changes). In curtailment of its habitat or range; framework for evaluating the foreseeable general, the more resilient and (B) Overutilization for commercial, future on a case-by-case basis. The term redundant a species is and the more recreational, scientific, or educational ‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far representation it has, the more likely it purposes; into the future as the Services can is to sustain populations over time, even (C) Disease or predation; reasonably determine that both the under changing environmental (D) The inadequacy of existing future threats and the species’ responses regulatory mechanisms; or conditions. Using these principles, we to those threats are likely. In other identified the species’ ecological (E) Other natural or manmade factors words, the foreseeable future is the affecting its continued existence. requirements for survival and period of time in which we can make reproduction at the individual, These factors represent broad reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not population, and species levels, and categories of natural or human-caused mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to described the beneficial and risk factors actions or conditions that could have an provide a reasonable degree of influencing the species’ viability. effect on a species’ continued existence. confidence in the prediction. Thus, a In evaluating these actions and prediction is reliable if it is reasonable The SSA process can be categorized conditions, we look for those that may to depend on it when making decisions. into three sequential stages. During the have a negative effect on individuals of It is not always possible or necessary first stage, we evaluated the individual the species, as well as other actions or to define foreseeable future as a species’ life-history needs. The next conditions that may ameliorate any particular number of years. Analysis of stage involved an assessment of the negative effects or may have positive the foreseeable future uses the best historical and current condition of the effects. scientific and commercial data available species’ demographics and habitat We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in and should consider the timeframes characteristics, including an general to actions or conditions that are applicable to the relevant threats and to explanation of how the species arrived known to or are reasonably likely to the species’ likely responses to those at its current condition. The final stage negatively affect individuals of a threats in view of its life-history of the SSA involved making predictions species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes characteristics. Data that are typically about the species’ responses to positive actions or conditions that have a direct relevant to assessing the species’ and negative environmental and impact on individuals (direct impacts), biological response include species- anthropogenic influences that are likely as well as those that affect individuals specific factors such as lifespan, to occur in the future. Throughout all of through alteration of their habitat or reproductive rates or productivity, these stages, we used the best available required resources (stressors). The term certain behaviors, and other information to characterize viability as ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either demographic factors. the ability of a species to sustain together or separately—the source of the populations in the wild over time. We action or condition or the action or Analytical Framework use this information to inform our condition itself. The SSA report documents the results regulatory decision. However, the mere identification of of our comprehensive biological review The SSA report does not assess the any threat(s) does not necessarily mean of the best scientific and commercial distinct population segments proposed that the species meets the statutory data regarding the status of the species, for the species because the SSA focuses definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or including an assessment of the potential on the biological factors, rather than a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining threats to the species. The SSA report those, such as DPS, that are created by whether a species meets either does not represent a decision by the the regulatory framework of the Act. definition, we must evaluate all Service on whether the species should Both the geospatial and threats analysis identified threats by considering the be proposed for listing as an endangered in the SSA report are summarized by expected response by the species and or threatened species under the Act. It ecoregion. In this proposed rule, we the effects of the threats—in light of does, however, provide the scientific present the analyses per ecoregion from those actions and conditions that will basis that informs our regulatory the SSA report but also summarize per ameliorate the threats—on an decisions, which involve the further DPS as applicable.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29443

Summary of Biological Status and ecoregions, maintaining healthy lesser region. Additionally, if historically Threats prairie-chicken populations across this some parts of the range were drastically In this discussion, we review the range of diversity increases the impacted or eliminated due to a biological condition of the species and likelihood of conserving inherent stochastic event, that area could be its resources, and the threats that ecological and genetic variation within reestablished from other populations. influence the species’ current and future the species to enhance its ability for Today, those characteristics of the condition, in order to assess the species’ adaptation to future changes in grasslands have been degraded, overall viability and the risks to that environmental conditions. resulting in the loss and fragmentation of grasslands in the Southern Great viability. Resiliency We note that, by using the SSA Plains. Under present conditions, the In the case of the lesser prairie- potential lesser prairie-chicken habitat framework to guide our analysis of the chicken, we considered the primary scientific information documented in is limited to small, fragmented grassland indicators of resiliency to be habitat patches (relative to historical the SSA report, we have not only availability, population abundance, conditions) (Service 2021, pp. 64–78). analyzed individual effects on the growth rates, and quasi-extinction risk. The larger and more intact the species, but we have also analyzed their Lesser prairie-chicken populations remaining grassland patches are, with potential cumulative effects. We within ecoregions must have sufficient appropriate vegetation structure, the incorporate the cumulative effects into habitat and population growth potential larger, healthier, and more resilient the our SSA analysis when we characterize to recover from natural disturbance lesser prairie-chicken populations will the current and future condition of the events such as extensive wildfires, be. Exactly how large habitat patches species. To assess the current and future extreme hot or cold events, extreme should be to support healthy condition of the species, we undertake precipitation events, or extended local populations depends on the quality and an iterative analysis that encompasses periods of below-average rainfall. These intactness of the patches. Recommended and incorporates the threats events can be particularly devastating to total space needed for persistence of individually and then accumulates and populations when they occur during the lesser prairie-chicken populations evaluates the effects of all the factors late spring or summer when nesting and ranges from a minimum of about 12,000 that may be influencing the species, brood rearing are occurring and ac (4,900 ha) (Davis 2005, p. 3) up to including threats and conservation individuals are more susceptible to more than 50,000 ac (20,000 ha) to efforts. Because the SSA framework mortality. support single leks, depending on the considers not just the presence of the The lesser prairie-chicken is quality and intactness of the area factors, but to what degree they considered a ‘‘boom-bust’’ species based (Applegate and Riley 1998, p. 14; collectively influence risk to the entire on its high reproductive potential with Haufler et al. 2012, pp. 7–8; Haukos and species, our assessment integrates the a high degree of annual variation in Zavaleta 2016, p. 107). cumulative effects of the factors and rates of successful reproduction and A single lesser prairie-chicken lek is replaces a standalone cumulative effects recruitment. These variations are largely not considered a population that can analysis. driven by the influence of seasonal persist on its own. Instead, complexes of Representation precipitation patterns (Grisham et al. multiple leks that interact with each 2013, pp. 6–7), which impact the other are required for a lesser prairie- To evaluate representation as a population through effects on the chicken population to be persistent over component of lesser prairie-chicken quality of habitat. Periods of below- time. These metapopulation dynamics, viability, we considered the need for average precipitation and higher spring/ in which individuals interact on the multiple healthy lesser prairie-chicken summer temperatures result in less landscape to form larger populations, populations within each of the four appropriate grassland vegetation cover are dependent upon the specific biotic ecoregions to conserve the genetic and and less food available, resulting in and abiotic landscape characteristics of ecological diversity of the lesser prairie- decreased reproductive output (bust the site and how those characteristics chicken. Each of the four ecoregions periods). Periods with above-normal influence space use, movement, patch varies in terms of vegetative precipitation and cooler spring/summer size, and fragmentation (DeYoung and communities and environmental temperatures will support favorable Williford 2016, pp. 89–91). Maintaining conditions, resulting in differences in lesser prairie-chicken habitat conditions multiple, highly resilient populations abundance and distribution and and result in high reproductive success (complexes of leks) within the four management strategies (Boal and (boom periods). In years with ecoregions that have the ability to Haukos 2016, p. 5). Despite reduced particularly poor weather conditions, interact with each other will increase range and population size, most lesser individual female lesser prairie-chicken the probability of persistence in the face prairie-chicken populations appear to may forgo nesting for the year. This of environmental fluctuations and have maintained comparatively high population characteristic highlights the stochastic events. Because of this levels of neutral genetic variation need for habitat conditions to support concept of metapopulations and their (DeYoung and Williford 2016, p. 86). As large population growth events during influence on long-term persistence, discussed in Significance above, recent favorable climatic conditions so they when evaluating lesser prairie-chicken genetic studies also show significant can withstand the declines during poor populations, site-specific information genetic variation across the lesser climatic conditions without a high risk can be informative. However, many of prairie-chicken range based on neutral of extirpation. the factors affecting lesser prairie- markers (Service 2021, Figure 2.4), Historically, the lesser prairie-chicken chicken populations should be analyzed which supports management separation had large expanses of grassland habitat at larger spatial scales (Fuhlendorf et al. of these four ecoregions and highlights to maintain populations. Early European 2002, entire). important genetic differences between settlement and development of the them (Oyler-McCance et al. 2016, p. Southern Great Plains for agriculture Redundancy 653). While it is unknown how this initially, and for energy extraction later, Redundancy describes the ability of a genetic variation relates to differences in substantially reduced the amount and species to withstand catastrophic adaptive capacity between the connectivity of the grasslands of this events. Catastrophes are stochastic

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 analysis to analyze the extent of usable Threats Influencing Current Condition population collapse regardless of land cover changes and fragmentation Following are summary evaluations of population health and for which within the range of the lesser prairie- the threats analyzed in the SSA report adaptation is unlikely. Redundancy chicken, characterizing landscape for the lesser prairie-chicken: Effects spreads the risk and can be measured conditions spatially to analyze the associated with habitat degradation, through the duplication and distribution ability of those landscapes to support loss, and fragmentation, including of resilient populations that are the biological needs of the lesser prairie- conversion of grassland to cropland connected across the range of the chicken. Impacts included in this (Factor A), petroleum production species. The larger the number of highly analysis were the direct and indirect (Factor A), wind energy development resilient populations the lesser prairie- effects of areas that were converted to and transmission (Factor A), woody chicken has, distributed over a large cropland; encroached by woody vegetation encroachment (Factor A), and area within each ecoregion, the better vegetation such as mesquite and eastern roads and electrical distribution lines the species can withstand catastrophic red cedar (Juniperus virginiana); and (Factor A); other factors, such as events. Catastrophic events for lesser developed for roads, petroleum livestock grazing (Factor A), shrub prairie-chicken might include extreme control and eradication (Factor A), drought; widespread, extended production, wind energy, and collision mortality from fences (Factor droughts; or a disease outbreak. transmission lines. We acknowledge Measuring redundancy for lesser that there are other impacts, such as E), predation (Factor C), influence of prairie-chicken is a difficult task due to power lines or incompatible grazing on anthropogenic noise (Factor E), fire the physiological and biological the landscape, that can affect lesser (Factor A); and extreme weather events characteristics of the species, which prairie-chicken habitat. For those (Factor E). We also evaluate existing make it difficult to survey and limit the impacts, either no geospatial data were regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and usefulness of survey results. To estimate available, or the available data would ongoing conservation measures. redundancy for the lesser prairie- have added so much complexity to our In the SSA report, we also considered chicken, we estimated the geographic geospatial model that the results would three additional threats: Hunting and distribution of predicted available have been uninterpretable or not other recreational, educational, and habitat within each of the four explanatory for our purpose. scientific use (Factor B); parasites and ecoregions and the juxtaposition of that diseases (Factor C); and insecticides There are several important (Factor E). We concluded that, as habitat to other habitat and non-habitat. limitations to our geospatial analysis. As the amount of large grassland indicated by the best available scientific First, it is a landscape-level analysis, so patches decreases and grassland patches and commercial information, these the results only represent broad trends become more isolated to reduce or threats are currently having little to no preclude lesser prairie-chicken at the ecoregional and rangewide scales. impact on lesser prairie-chickens and movement between them, the overall Secondly, this analysis does not their habitat, and thus their overall redundancy of the species is reduced. incorporate different levels of habitat effect now and into the future is As redundancy decreases within any quality, as the data do not exist at the expected to be minimal. Therefore, we representative ecoregion or DPS, the spatial scale or resolution needed. Our will not present summary analyses of likelihood of extirpation within that analysis only considers areas as either those threats in this document but will ecoregion increases. As large grassland potentially usable or not usable by consider them in our overall patches, the connectivity of those lesser prairie-chicken based upon land conclusions of impacts to the species. patches, and the number of lesser cover classifications. We recognize that For full descriptions of all threats and prairie-chicken increase, so does the some habitat, if managed as high-quality how they impact the species, please see redundancy within an ecoregion or a grassland, may have the ability to the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 24– DPS. support higher densities of lesser 49). prairie-chicken than other habitat that Current Condition Habitat Degradation, Loss, and exists at lower qualities. Additionally, Fragmentation In the SSA report, we assessed the we also recognize that some areas of current condition of the lesser prairie- land cover that we identified as suitable The grasslands of the Great Plains are chicken through an analysis of existing could be of such poor quality that it is among the most threatened ecosystems habitat; a review of factors that have of limited value to the lesser prairie- in North America (Samson et al. 2004, impacted the species in the past, chicken. We recognize there are many p. 6) and have been impacted more than including a geospatial analysis to important limitations to this landscape any other major ecosystem on the estimate areas of land cover impacts on analysis, including variation and continent (Samson and Knopf 1994, p. the current landscape condition; a inherent error in the underlying data 418). Temperate grasslands are also one summary of the current potential usable and unavailable data. We interpreted of the least conserved ecosystems (Hoekstra et al. 2005, p. 25). Grassland area based upon our geospatial analysis; the results of this analysis with those loss in the Great Plains is estimated at and a summary of past and current limitations in mind. population estimates. We also evaluated approximately 70 percent (Samson et al. and summarized the benefit of the In this proposed rule, we discuss 2004, p. 7), with nearly 93,000 square extensive conservation efforts that are effects that relate to the total potential km (23 million ac; 9.3 million ha) of ongoing throughout the lesser prairie- usable unimpacted acreage for lesser grasslands in the United States lost chicken range to conserve the species prairie-chicken, as defined by our between 1982 and 1997 alone (Samson and its habitat. geospatial analysis (hereafter, analysis et al. 2004, p. 9). The vast majority of area). A complete description of the the lesser prairie-chicken range (>95 Geospatial Analysis Summary purpose, methodology, constraints, and percent) occurs on private lands that The primary concern for the lesser additional details for this analysis is have been in some form of agricultural prairie-chicken is habitat loss and provided in the SSA report for the lesser production since at least the early fragmentation. We conducted a prairie-chicken (Service 2021, Appendix 1900s. As a result, available habitat for geographic information system (GIS) B, Parts 1, 2, and 3). grassland species, such as the lesser

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29445

prairie-chicken, has been much reduced ecological concept of carrying capacity. are no longer used by lesser prairie- and fragmented compared to historical Within any given block or patch of chicken, are used at reduced rates, or conditions across its range. lesser prairie-chicken habitat, carrying the disturbance negatively alters Habitat impacts occur in three general capacity is the maximum number of demographic rates or behavior in the categories that often work birds that can be supported indefinitely affected area. In many cases, as synergistically at the landscape scale: by the resources available within that discussed in detail below for specific Degradation, loss, and fragmentation. area, that is, sufficient food, shelter, and disturbances, the indirect habitat loss Habitat degradation results in changes lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and can greatly exceed the direct habitat to a species’ habitat that reduces its wintering areas. As habitat loss loss. suitability to the species, but without increases and the size of an area Primarily due to their site fidelity and making the habitat entirely unsuitable. decreases, the maximum number of the need for large, ecologically diverse Degradation may result in lower birds that can inhabit that particular landscapes, lesser prairie-chickens carrying capacity, lower reproductive habitat patch also decreases. appear to be relatively intolerant to potential, higher predation rates, or Consequently, a reduction in the total habitat alteration, particularly for other effects. Habitat loss may result area of available habitat can negatively activities that fragment habitat into from the same anthropogenic sources influence biologically important smaller patches. The birds require that cause degradation, but the habitat characteristics such as the amount of habitat patches with large expanses of has been altered to the point where it space available for establishing vegetative structure in different has no suitability for the species at all. territories and nest sites (Fahrig 1997, p. successional stages to complete different Habitat fragmentation occurs when 603). Over time, the continued phases in their life cycle, and the loss habitat loss is patchy and leaves a conversion and loss of habitat will or partial loss of even one of these matrix of grassland habitat behind. reduce the capacity of the landscape to structural components can significantly While habitat degradation continues to support historical population levels, reduce the overall value of that habitat be a concern, we focus our analysis on causing a decline in population sizes. to lesser prairie-chickens (Elmore et al. habitat loss and fragmentation from the Habitat loss not only contributes to 2013, p. 4). In addition to the impacts cumulative effects of multiple sources of overall declines in usable area for a on the individual patches, as habitat activities as the long-term drivers of the species but also causes a reduction in loss and fragmentation increases on the species’ viability. the size of individual habitat patches landscape, the juxtaposition of habitat Initially, reduction in the total area of and influences the proximity and patches to each other and to non-habitat available habitat may be more connectivity of these patches to other areas will change. This changing pattern significant than fragmentation and can patches of similar habitat (Stephens et on the landscape can be complex and exert a much greater effect on al. 2003, p. 101; Fletcher 2005, p. 342), difficult to predict, but the results, in populations (Fahrig 1997, pp. 607, 609). reducing rates of movement between many cases, are increased isolation of However, as habitat loss continues, the habitat patches until, eventually, individual patches (either due to effects of fragmentation often compound complete isolation results. Habitat physical separation or barriers effects of habitat loss and produce even quality for many species is, in part, a preventing or limiting movement greater population declines than habitat function of patch size and declines as between patches) and direct impacts to loss alone (Bender et al. 1998, pp. 517– the size of the patch decreases (Franklin metapopulation structure, which could 518, 525). Spatial habitat fragmentation et al. 2002, p. 23). Both the size and be important for population persistence occurs when some form of disturbance, shape of the habitat patch have been (DeYoung and Williford 2016, pp. 88– usually habitat degradation or loss, shown to influence population 91). results in the separation or splitting persistence in many species (Fahrig and The following sections provide a apart of larger, previously contiguous, Merriam 1994, p. 53). The size of the discussion and quantification of the functional components of habitat into fragment can influence reproductive influence of habitat loss and smaller, often less valuable, success, survival, and movements. As fragmentation on the grasslands of the noncontiguous patches (Wilcove et al. the distances between habitat fragments Great Plains within the lesser prairie- 1986, p. 237; Johnson and Igl 2001, p. increase, the rate of dispersal between chicken analysis area and more 25; Franklin et al. 2002, entire). Habitat the habitat patches may decrease and specifically allow us to characterize the loss and fragmentation influence habitat ultimately cease, reducing the current condition of lesser prairie- availability and quality in three primary likelihood of population persistence and chicken habitat. ways: (1) Total area of available habitat potentially leading to both localized and Conversion of Grassland to Cropland constrains the maximum population regional extinctions (Harrison and size for an area; (2) the size of habitat Bruna 1999, p. 226; With et al. 2008, p. Historical conversion of grassland to patches within a larger habitat area, 3153). In highly fragmented landscapes, cultivated agricultural lands in the late including edge effects (changes in once a species becomes extirpated from 19th century and throughout the 20th population or community structures an area, the probability of recolonization century has been regularly cited as an that occur at the boundary of two is greatly reduced (Fahrig and Merriam important cause in the rangewide habitats), influences habitat quality and 1994, p. 52). decline in abundance and distribution size of local populations; and (3) patch For the lesser prairie-chicken, habitat of lesser prairie-chicken populations isolation influences the amount of loss can occur due to either direct or (Copelin 1963, p. 8; Jackson and species movement between patches, indirect habitat impacts. Direct habitat DeArment 1963, p. 733; Crawford and which constrains demographic and loss is the result of the removal or Bolen 1976a, p. 102; Crawford 1980, p. genetic exchange and ability to alteration of grasslands, making that 2; Taylor and Guthery 1980b, p. 2; recolonize local areas where the species space no longer available for use by the Braun et al. 1994, pp. 429, 432–433; might be extirpated (Johnson and Igl lesser prairie-chicken. Indirect habitat Mote et al. 1999, p. 3). Because 2001, p. 25; Stephens et al. 2003, p. loss and degradation is when the cultivated grain crops may have 101). vegetation still exists, but the areas provided increased or more dependable Habitat loss, fragmentation, and adjacent to a disturbance (the winter food supplies for lesser prairie- degradation correlate with the disturbance can be natural or manmade) chickens (Braun et al. 1994, p. 429), the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29446 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

initial conversion of smaller patches of habitat available and how fragmented As part of the geospatial analysis grassland to cultivation may have been the remaining habitat is for the lesser discussed in the SSA report, we temporarily beneficial to the short-term prairie-chicken, leading to overall calculated the amount of usable land needs of the species as primitive and decreases in resiliency and redundancy cover for the lesser prairie-chicken that inefficient agricultural practices made throughout the range of the lesser has been impacted (both direct and grain available as a food source (Rodgers prairie-chicken. The impact of cropland indirect impacts) by oil and natural gas 2016, p. 18). However, as conversion has shaped the historical and current wells in the current analysis area of the increased, it became clear that condition of the grasslands and lesser prairie-chicken, though this landscapes having greater than 20 to 37 shrublands upon which the lesser analysis did not include all associated percent cultivated grains may not prairie-chicken depends. infrastructure as those data were not support stable lesser prairie-chicken available. We used an impact radius of Petroleum and Natural Gas Production populations (Crawford and Bolen 1976a, 984 ft (300 m) for indirect effects of oil p. 102). More recently, abundances of Petroleum and natural gas production and gas wells. These calculations were lesser prairie-chicken increased with has occurred over much of the estimated limited to the current analysis area and increasing cropland until a threshold of historical and current range of the lesser do not include historical impacts of 10 percent was reached; after that, prairie-chicken. As demand for energy habitat loss that occurred outside of the abundance of lesser prairie-chicken has continued to increase nationwide, current analysis area. Thus, the declined with increasing cropland cover so has oil and gas development in the calculation likely underestimates the (Ross et al. 2016b, entire). While lesser Great Plains. In Texas, for example, rangewide effects of historical oil and prairie-chicken may forage in active oil and gas wells in the lesser gas development on the lesser prairie- agricultural croplands, croplands do not prairie-chicken occupied range have chicken. About 4 percent of the total provide for the habitat requirements of increased by more than 80 percent over area in the Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion; the species life cycle (cover for nesting the previous decade (Timmer et al. 5 percent of the total area in the Sand and thermoregulation); thus, lesser 2014, p. 143). The impacts from oil and Sagebrush Ecoregion; about 10 percent prairie-chicken avoid landscapes gas development extend beyond the of the total area in the Mixed-Grass dominated by cultivated agriculture, immediate well sites; they involve Ecoregion; and 4 percent of the total particularly where small grains are not activities such as surface exploration, area in the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion of the dominant crop (Crawford and Bolen exploratory drilling, field development, space that was identified as potential 1976a, p. 102). and facility construction, as well as usable or potential restorable areas have As part of the geospatial analysis access roads, well pads, and operation been impacted due to oil and gas completed for the SSA, we estimated and maintenance. Associated facilities development in the current analysis the amount of cropland that currently can include compressor stations, area of the lesser prairie-chicken. exists in the four ecoregions of the lesser pumping stations, and electrical Rangewide, we estimate about 1,433,000 prairie-chicken. These percentages do generators. ac (580,000 ha) of grassland have been not equate to the actual proportion of Petroleum and natural gas production lost due to oil and gas development habitat loss in the analysis area because result in both direct and indirect habitat representing about 7 percent of the total not all of the analysis area was effects to the lesser prairie-chicken analysis area. Maps of these areas in necessarily suitable lesser prairie- (Hunt and Best 2004, p. 92). Well pad each ecoregion are provided in the SSA chicken habitat; they are only the construction, seismic surveys, access report (Service 2021, Appendix E, estimated portion of the total analysis road development, power line Figure E.2). area converted from the native construction, pipeline corridors, and Oil and gas development directly vegetation community to cropland. other activities can all result in direct removes habitat that supports lesser About 37 percent of the total area in the habitat loss by removal of vegetation prairie-chicken, and the effects of the Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion; 32 percent used by lesser prairie-chickens. As development extend past the immediate of the total area in the Sand Sagebrush documented in other grouse species, site of the wells and their associated Ecoregion; 13 percent of the total area in indirect habitat loss also occurs from infrastructure, further impacting habitat the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion; and 14 avoidance of vertical structures, noise, and altering behavior of lesser prairie- percent of the total area in the Shinnery and human presence (Weller et al. 2002, chicken throughout both the Northern Oak Ecoregion of grassland have been entire), which all can influence lesser and the Southern DPS. These activities converted to cropland in the analysis prairie-chicken behavior in the general have resulted in decreases in population area of the lesser prairie-chicken. vicinity of oil and gas development resiliency and species redundancy. Rangewide, we estimate about 4,963,000 areas. These activities also disrupt lesser Wind Energy Development and Power ac (2,009,000 ha) of grassland have been prairie-chicken reproductive behavior Lines converted to cropland, representing (Hunt and Best 2004, p. 41). about 23 percent of the total analysis Anthropogenic features, such as oil Wind power is a form of renewable area. We note that these calculations do and gas wells, affect the behavior of energy increasingly being used to meet not account for all conversion that has lesser prairie-chickens and alter the way current and projected future electricity occurred within the historical range of in which they use the landscape (Hagen demands in the United States. Much of the lesser prairie-chicken but are limited et al. 2011, pp. 69–73; Pitman et al. the new wind energy development is to the amount of cropland within our 2005, entire; Hagen 2010, entire; Hunt likely to come from the Great Plains analysis area. For further information, and Best 2004, pp. 99–104; Plumb et al. States because they have high wind including total acreages impacted, see 2019, pp. 224–227; Sullins et al. 2019, resource potential, which exerts a the SSA report for the lesser prairie- pp. 5–8; Peterson et al. 2020, entire). strong, positive influence on the amount chicken (Service 2021 Appendix E and Please see the SSA report for a detailed of wind energy developed within a Figure E.1). summary of the best available scientific particular State (Staid and Guikema The effects of grassland converted to information regarding avoidance 2013, p. 384). In 2019, three of the five cropland within the historical range of distances and effects of oil and gas States within the lesser prairie-chicken the lesser prairie-chicken have development on lesser prairie-chicken range (Colorado, New Mexico, and significantly impacted the amount of habitat use (Service 2021, pp. 27–28). Kansas) were within the top 10 States

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29447

nationally for fastest growing States for prairie-chicken, 0.50–1.0 kHz. Female occurrence of more than 0.09 mi (0.15 wind generation in the past year (AWEA greater prairie-chickens avoided km) of major roads, or transmission 2020, p. 33). There is substantial wooded areas and row crops but lines within a 1.2-mi (2-km) radius information (Southwest Power Pool showed no response in space use based (Sullins et al. 2019, unpaged). 2020) indicating interest by the wind on wind turbine noise (Raynor et al. Additionally, a recent study industry in developing wind energy 2019, entire). Additionally, differences corroborated numerous authors’ (Pitman within the range of the lesser prairie- in background noise and signal-to-noise et al. 2005; Pruett et al. 2009; Hagen et chicken, especially if additional ratio of boom chorus of leks in relation al. 2011; Grisham et al. 2014; Hovick et transmission line capacity is to distance to turbine have been al. 2014a) findings of negative effects of constructed. As of May 2020, documented, but the underlying cause power lines on prairie grouse and approximately 1,792 wind turbines were and response needs to be further reported a minimum avoidance distance located within the lesser prairie-chicken investigated, especially since the study of 1,925.8 ft (587 m), which is similar analysis area (Hoen et al. 2020). Not all of wind energy development noise on to other studies of lesser prairie- areas within the analysis area are habitat grouse is almost unprecedented chickens (Plumb et al. 2019, entire). for the lesser prairie-chicken, so not all (Whalen et al. 2019, entire). As part of our geospatial analysis, we turbines located within the analysis area The effects of wind energy calculated the amount of otherwise affect the lesser prairie-chicken and its development on the lesser prairie- usable land cover for the lesser prairie- habitat. chicken must also take into chicken that has been impacted (both The average size of installed wind consideration the influence of the direct and indirect impacts) by wind turbines and all other size aspects of transmission lines critical to energy development in the current wind energy development continues to distribution of the energy generated by analysis area of the lesser prairie- increase (Department of Energy (DOE) wind turbines. Transmission lines can chicken. We used an impact radii of 2015, p. 63; AWEA 2020, p. 87–88; traverse long distances across the 5,906 ft (1,800 m) for indirect effects of AWEA 2014, entire; AWEA 2015, entire; landscape and can be both above ground wind turbines and 2,297 ft (700 m) for AWEA 2016, entire; AWEA 2017, entire; and underground, although the vast indirect effects of transmission lines. AWEA 2018, entire; AWEA 2019, entire; majority of transmission lines are Within our analysis area, the following AWEA 2020, entire). Wind energy erected above ground. Most of the acreages have been identified as developments range from 20 to 400 impacts to lesser prairie-chicken impacted due to wind energy towers, each supporting a single turbine. associated with transmission lines are development: About 2 percent of the The individual permanent footprint of a with the above ground systems. Support total area in the Short-Grass/CRP, single turbine unit, about 0.75–1 ac structures vary in height depending on Mixed-Grass, and Shinnery Oak (0.3–0.4 ha), is relatively small in the size of the line. Most high-voltage Ecoregions; and no impacts of wind comparison with the overall footprint of power line towers are 98 to 125 ft (30 energy development documented the entire array (DOE 2008, pp. 110– to 38 m) high but can be higher if the currently within the Sand Sagebrush 111). Roads are necessary to access the need arises. Local distribution lines, if Ecoregion. Rangewide, we estimate turbine sites for installation and erected above ground, are usually much about 428,000 ac (173,000 ha) of maintenance. Depending on the size of shorter in height but still contribute to grassland have been impacted by wind the wind energy development, one or fragmentation of the landscape. energy development, representing about more electrical substations, where the The effect of the transmission line 2 percent of the total analysis area generated electricity is collected and infrastructure is typically much larger (Service 2021, Appendix E, Figure E.3). transmitted on to the power grid, may than the physical footprint of These percentages do not account for also be built. Considering the initial transmission line installation. overlap that may exist with other capital investment and that the service Transmission lines can indirectly lead features that may have already impacted life of a single turbine is at least 20 years to alterations in lesser prairie-chicken the landscape. (DOE 2008, p. 16), we expect most wind behavior and space use (avoidance), Additionally, according to our energy developments to be in place for decreased lek attendance, and increased geospatial analysis, the following at least 30 years. Repower of existing predation on lesser prairie-chicken. acreages within the analysis area have wind energy developments at the end of Transmission lines, particularly due to been directly or indirectly impacted due their service life is increasingly their length, can be a significant barrier to the construction of transmission common, with 2,803 MW of operating to dispersal of prairie grouse, disrupting lines: About 7 percent of the total area projects partially repowering in 2019 movements to feeding, breeding, and in the Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion; 5 (AWEA 2020, p. 2). roosting areas. Both lesser and greater percent of the total area in the Sand Please see the SSA report for a prairie-chickens avoided otherwise Sagebrush Ecoregion; 7 percent of the detailed review of the best available usable habitat near transmission lines total area in the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion; scientific information regarding the and crossed these power lines much less and 10 percent of the total area in the potential effects of wind energy often than nearby roads, suggesting that Shinnery Oak Ecoregion. Rangewide, we development on habitat use by the power lines are a particularly strong estimate about 1,553,000 ac (629,000 ha) lesser prairie-chicken (Service 2021, pp. barrier to movement (Pruett et al. 2009, of grassland have been impacted by 31–33). pp. 1255–1257). Because lesser prairie- transmission lines representing about 7 Noise effects to prairie-chickens have chicken avoid tall vertical structures percent of the total analysis area been recently explored as a way to like transmission lines and because (Service 2021, Appendix E, Figure E.4). evaluate potential negative effects of transmission lines can increase Wind energy development and wind energy development. For a site in predation rates, leks located in the transmission lines remove habitat that Nebraska, wind turbine noise vicinity of these structures may see supports lesser prairie-chicken. The frequencies were documented at less reduced attendance by new males to the effects of the development extend past than or equal to 0.73 kHz (Raynor et al. lek, as has been reported for sage-grouse the immediate site of the turbines and 2017, p. 493), and reported to overlap (Braun et al. 2002, pp. 11–13). their associated infrastructure, further the range of lek-advertisement Decreased probabilities of use by lesser impacting habitat and altering behavior vocalization frequencies of lesser prairie-chicken were shown with the of lesser prairie-chicken throughout

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29448 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

both the Northern and the Southern as mesquite or eastern red cedar, other reduced, a typical grassland fire may not DPSs. These activities have resulted in tall, woody plants, such as redberry or be intense enough to eradicate eastern decreases in population resiliency and Pinchot juniper (Juniperus pinchotii), red cedar (Briggs et al. 2002a, p. 585; species redundancy. black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Briggs et al. 2002b, p. 293; Bragg and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), Hulbert 1976, p. 19) and will not Woody Vegetation Encroachment and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) can eradicate mesquite. As discussed in Background, habitat also be found in grassland habitat As part of our geospatial analysis, we selected by lesser prairie-chicken is historically and currently used by lesser calculated the amount of woody characterized by expansive regions of prairie-chicken and may become vegetation encroachment in the current treeless grasslands interspersed with invasive in these areas. analysis area of the lesser prairie- patches of small shrubs (Giesen 1998, Invasion of grasslands by chicken. These calculations of the pp. 3–4); lesser prairie-chicken avoid opportunistic woody species causes current analysis area do not include areas with trees and other vertical otherwise usable grassland habitat to no historical impacts of habitat loss that structures. Prior to extensive Euro- longer be used by lesser prairie-chicken occurred outside of the current analysis American settlement, frequent fires and and contributes to the loss and area; thus, it likely underestimates the grazing by large, native ungulates fragmentation of grassland habitat effects of historical woody vegetation helped confine trees like eastern red (Lautenbach 2017, p. 84; Boggie et al. encroachment rangewide on the lesser cedar to river and stream drainages and 2017, p. 74). In Kansas, lesser prairie- prairie-chicken. An additional rocky outcroppings. The frequency and chicken are 40 times more likely to use limitation associated with this intensity of these disturbances directly areas that had no trees than areas with calculation is that available remote influenced the ecological processes, 1.6 trees per ac (5 trees per ha), and no sensing data lack the ability to detect biological diversity, and patchiness nests occur in areas with a tree density areas with low densities of typical of Great Plains grassland greater than 0.8 trees per ac (2 trees per encroachment, as well as areas with ecosystems (Collins 1992, pp. 2003– ha), at a scale of 89 ac (36 ha) shorter trees; thus, this calculation 2005; Fuhlendorf and Smeins 1999, pp. (Lautenbach 2017, pp. 104–142). likely underestimates lesser prairie- 732, 737). Similarly, within the Shinnery Oak Following Euro-American settlement, chicken habitat loss due to woody Ecoregion, lesser prairie-chicken space vegetation encroachment. The identified increasing fire suppression combined use in all seasons is altered in the with government programs promoting areas of habitat impacted by woody presence of mesquite, even at densities vegetation are: About 5 percent of the eastern red cedar for windbreaks, of less than 5 percent canopy cover total area in the Short-Grass/CRP erosion control, and wildlife cover (Boggie et al. 2017, entire). Woody Ecoregion; about 2 percent of the total facilitated the expansion of eastern red vegetation encroachment also area in the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion; cedar distribution in grassland areas contributes to indirect habitat loss and about 24 percent of the total area in the (Owensby et al. 1973, p. 256; DeSantis increases habitat fragmentation because Mixed-Grass Ecoregion; and about 17 et al. 2011, p. 1838). Once a grassland lesser prairie-chicken are less likely to percent of the total area in the Shinnery area has been colonized by eastern red use areas adjacent to trees (Boggie et al. Oak Ecoregion. Rangewide, we estimate cedar, the trees are mature within 6 to 2017, pp. 72–74; Lautenbach 2017, pp. about 3,071,000 ac (1,243,000 ha) of 7 years and provide a plentiful source 104–142). of seed so that adjacent areas can readily Fire is often the best method to grassland have been directly or become infested with eastern red cedar. control or preclude tree invasion of indirectly impacted by the Despite the relatively short viability of grassland. However, to some encroachment of woody vegetation, or the seeds (typically only one growing landowners and land managers, burning about 18 percent of the total area. These season), the large cone crop, potentially of grassland can be perceived as a high- percentages do not account for overlap large seed dispersal ability, and the risk activity because of the potential that may exist with other features that physiological adaptations of eastern red liability of escaped fire impacting may have already impacted the cedar to open, relatively dry sites help nontarget lands and property. landscape. Further information, make the species a successful invader of Additionally, it is undesirable for including total acres impacted, is grassland landscapes (Holthuijzen et al. optimizing cattle production and is available in the SSA report (Service 1987, p. 1094). Most trees are relatively likely to create wind erosion or 2021, Appendix B; Appendix E, Figure long-lived and, once they become ‘‘blowouts’’ in sandy soils. E.5). established in grassland areas, require Consequently, wildfire suppression is Woody vegetation encroachment is intensive management to remove to common, and relatively little prescribed contributing to ongoing habitat loss as return areas to a grassland state. burning occurs on private land. Often, well as contributing to fragmentation Within the southern- and prescribed fire is employed only after and degradation of remaining habitat westernmost portions of the estimated significant tree invasion has already patches. The effects of woody vegetation historical and occupied ranges of lesser occurred and landowners consider encroachment are particularly prairie-chicken in Eastern New Mexico, forage production for cattle to have widespread in the Shinnery Oak Western Oklahoma, and the South diminished. Preclusion of woody Ecoregion that makes up the Southern Plains and Panhandle of Texas, honey vegetation encroachment on grasslands DPS as well as the Mixed-Grass mesquite is another common woody of the southern Great Plains using fire Ecoregion of the Northern DPS. While invader within these grasslands (Riley requires implementing fire at a there are ongoing efforts to control 1978, p. vii; Boggie et al. 2017, entire). frequency that mimics historical fire woody vegetation encroachment, the Mesquite is a particularly effective frequencies of 2–14 years (Guyette et al. current level of woody vegetation on the invader in grassland habitat due to its 2012, p. 330), further limiting the landscape is evidence that removal ability to produce abundant, long-lived number of landowners able to efforts are being outpaced by rates of seeds that can germinate and establish implement fire in a manner that would encroachment, thus we expect that this in a variety of soil types and moisture truly preclude future encroachment. threat will continue to contribute to and light regimes (Lautenbach et al. Additionally, in areas where grazing habitat loss and fragmentation, which 2017, p. 84). Though not as widespread pressure is heavy and fuel loads are has reduced population resiliency

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29449

across the range of the lesser prairie- transmission lines with the exception to Other Factors chicken. height of poles and electrical power Livestock Grazing carried through the line. In addition to Roads and Electrical Distribution Lines habitat loss and fragmentation, electrical Grazing has long been an ecological Roads and distribution power lines power lines can directly affect prairie driving force throughout the ecosystems are linear features on the landscape that grouse by posing a collision hazard of the Great Plains (Stebbins 1981, p. contribute to loss and fragmentation of (Leopold 1933, p. 353; Connelly et al. 84), and much of the untilled grasslands lesser prairie-chicken habitat and 2000, p. 974). There were no datasets within the range of the lesser prairie- fragment populations as a result of available to quantify the total impact of chicken is currently grazed by livestock behavioral avoidance. Lesser prairie- distribution lines on the landscape for and other animals. Historically, the chickens are less likely to use areas the lesser prairie-chicken. Although interaction of fire, drought, prairie dogs close to roads (Plumb et al. 2019, entire; distribution lines are a significant (Cynomys ludovicianus), and large Sullins et al. 2019, entire). Additionally, landscape feature throughout the Great ungulate grazers created and maintained roads contribute to lek abandonment Plains with potential to affect lesser distinctive plant communities in the when they disrupt important habitat prairie-chicken habitat, after reviewing Western Great Plains, resulting in a features (such as affecting auditory or all available information, we were mosaic of vegetation structure and visual communication) associated with unable to develop a method to composition that sustained lesser lek sites (Crawford and Bolen 1976b, p. quantitatively incorporate the prairie-chicken and other grassland bird populations (Derner et al. 2009, p. 112). 239). Some mammal species that prey occurrence of distribution lines into our As such, grazing by domestic livestock on lesser prairie-chicken, such as red geospatial analysis. fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoons (Procyon is not inherently detrimental to lesser As part of our geospatial analysis, we lotor), and striped skunks (Mephitis prairie-chicken management and, in estimated the area impacted by direct mephitis), have greatly increased their many cases, is needed to maintain and indirect habitat loss due to roads distribution by dispersing along roads appropriate vegetative structure. (Service 2021, Appendix B, Part 2). (Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 212; However, grazing practices that tend These calculations of the current Forman 2000, p. 33; Frey and Conover to result in overutilization of forage and analysis area do not include historical 2006, pp. 1114–1115). decreasing vegetation heterogeneity can Traffic noise from roads may impacts of loss; thus, it likely produce habitat conditions that differ in indirectly impact lesser prairie-chicken. underestimates the historical effect of significant ways from the historical Because lesser prairie-chicken depend roads on rangewide habitat loss for the grassland mosaic; these incompatible on acoustical signals to attract females lesser prairie-chicken. The results practices alter the vegetation structure to leks, noise from roads, oil and gas indicate that the total areas of grassland and composition and degrade the development, wind turbines, and that have been directly and indirectly quality of habitat for the lesser prairie- similar human activity may interfere impacted by roads within the analysis chicken. The more heavily altered with mating displays, influencing area for the lesser prairie-chicken are: conditions are the least valuable for the female attendance at lek sites and about 17 percent of the total area in the lesser prairie-chicken (Jackson and causing young males not to be drawn to Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion; about 14 DeArment 1963 p. 733; Davis et al. the leks. Within a relatively short percent of the total area in the Sand 1979, pp. 56, 116; Taylor and Guthery period, leks can become inactive due to Sagebrush Ecoregion; about 20 percent 1980a, p. 2; Bidwell and Peoples 1991, a lack of recruitment of new males to of the total area in the Mixed-Grass pp. 1–2). In some cases, these alterations the display grounds. For further Ecoregion; and about 19 percent of the can result in areas that do not contain discussion on noise, please see total area in the Shinnery Oak the biological components necessary to Influence of Anthropogenic Noise. Ecoregion. Rangewide, we estimate support the lesser prairie-chicken. Depending on the traffic volume and about 3,996,000 ac (1,617,000 ha) of Where grazing regimes leave limited associated disturbances, roads also may grassland have been impacted by roads, residual cover in the spring, protection limit lesser prairie-chicken dispersal representing about 18 percent of the of lesser prairie-chicken nests may be abilities. Lesser prairie-chickens avoid total analysis area (Service 2021, inadequate, and desirable food areas of usable habitat near roads (Pruett Appendix E, Figure E.6). We did not resources can be scarce (Bent 1932, p. et al. 2009, pp. 1256, 1258; Plumb et al. have adequate spatial data to evaluate 280; Cannon and Knopf 1980, pp. 73– 2019, entire) and in areas where road habitat loss caused solely by power 74; Crawford 1980, p. 3; Kraft 2016, pp. densities are high (Sullins et al. 2019, p. lines, but much of the existing impacts 19–21). Because lesser prairie-chicken 8). Lesser prairie-chickens are thought of power lines occur within the impacts depend on medium- and tall-grass to avoid major roads due to disturbance caused by roads. Power lines that fall species for nesting, concealment, and caused by traffic volume and perhaps to outside the existing impacts of roads thermal cover that are also preferentially avoid exposure to predators that may would represent additional impacts for grazed by cattle, these plant species use roads as travel corridors. However, the lesser prairie-chicken that are not needed by lesser prairie-chicken can the extent to which roads constitute a quantified in our geospatial analysis. easily be reduced or eliminated by cattle significant obstacle to lesser prairie- Development of roads and electrical grazing, particularly in regions of low chicken movement and space use is distribution lines directly removes rainfall (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom largely dependent upon the local habitat that supports lesser prairie- 1961, p. 290). In addition, when landscape composition and chicken, and the effects of the grasslands are in a deteriorated characteristics of the road itself. development extend past the immediate condition due to incompatible grazing Local electrical distribution lines are footprint of the development, further and overutilization, the soils have less usually much shorter in height than impacting habitat and altering behavior water-holding capacity (Blanco and Lal transmission lines but can still of lesser prairie-chicken throughout 2010, p. 9), and the availability of contribute to habitat fragmentation both the Northern and the Southern succulent vegetation and insects used through similar mechanisms as other DPSs. These activities have resulted in by lesser prairie-chicken chicks is vertical features when erected above decreases in population resiliency and reduced. However, grazing can be ground. Distribution lines are similar to species redundancy. beneficial to the lesser prairie-chicken

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29450 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

when management practices produce or prior to Euro-American settlement. 626; Bell 2005, pp. 15, 19–25). In West enhance the vegetative characteristics These changes have reduced the Texas and New Mexico, lesser prairie- required by the lesser prairie-chicken. suitability of remnant grassland areas as chicken avoid nesting where sand The interaction of fire and grazing and habitat for lesser prairie-chicken. shinnery oak has been controlled with its effect on vegetation components and Grazing management that has altered tebuthiuron, indicating their preference structure is likely important to prairie- the vegetation community to a point for habitat with a sand shinnery oak chickens (Starns et al. 2020, entire). On where the composition and structure are component (Grisham et al. 2014, p. 18; properties managed with patch-burn no longer suitable for lesser prairie- Haukos and Smith 1989, p. 625; Johnson grazing regimes, female greater prairie- chicken can contribute to fragmentation et al. 2004, pp. 338–342; Patten and chickens selected areas with low cattle within the landscape, even though these Kelly 2010, p. 2151). Where sand stocking rates and patches that were areas may remain as prairie or shinnery oak occurs, lesser prairie- frequently burned, though they avoided grassland. Livestock grazing, however, chicken use it both for food and cover. areas that were recently burned (Winder is not inherently detrimental to lesser Sand shinnery oak may be particularly et al. 2017, p. 171). Patch-burn grazing prairie-chicken provided that grazing important in drier portions of the range created preferred habitats for female management results in a plant that experience more severe and greater prairie-chickens if the regime community diversity and structure that frequent droughts and extreme heat included a relatively frequent fire-return is suitable for lesser prairie-chicken. events, as sand shinnery oak is more interval, a mosaic of burned and While domestic livestock grazing is a resistant to drought and heat conditions unburned patches, and a reduced dominant land use on untilled range than are most grass species. And stocking rate in unburned areas avoided land within the lesser prairie-chicken because sand shinnery oak is toxic to by grazers. When managed compatibly, analysis area, geospatial data do not cattle and thus not targeted by grazing, widespread implementation of patch- exist at a scale and resolution necessary it can provide available cover for lesser burn grazing could result in significant to calculate the total amount of livestock prairie-chicken nesting and brood improvements in habitat quality for grazing that is being managed in a way rearing during these extreme weather wildlife in the tall-grass prairie that results in habitat conditions that are events. Loss of this component of the ecosystem (Winder et al. 2017, p. 165). not compatible with the needs of the vegetative community likely contributed In the eastern portion of the lesser lesser prairie-chicken. Therefore, we did to observed population declines in prairie-chicken range, patch-burn not attempt to spatially quantify the lesser prairie-chicken in these areas. grazing resulted in patchy landscapes scope of grazing effects across the lesser While relatively wide-scale shrub with variation in vegetation prairie-chicken range. eradication has occurred in the past, composition and structure (Lautenbach geospatial data do not exist to evaluate Shrub Control and Eradication 2017, p. 20). Female lesser prairie- the extent to which shrub eradication chickens’ use of the diversity of patches Shrub control and eradication are has contributed to the habitat loss and in the landscape varied throughout their additional forms of habitat alteration fragmentation for the lesser prairie- life cycle. They selected patches with that can influence the availability and chicken and, therefore, was not the greatest time-since-fire and suitability of habitat for lesser prairie- included in our quantitative analysis. subsequently the most visual chicken (Jackson and DeArment 1963, While current efforts of shrub obstruction for nesting, and they pp. 736–737). Most shrub control and eradication are not likely occurring at selected sites with less time-since-fire eradication efforts in lesser prairie- rates equivalent to that witnessed in the and greater bare ground and forbs for chicken habitat are primarily focused on past, any additional efforts to eradicate summer brooding. sand shinnery oak for the purpose of shrubs that are essential to lesser Livestock also inadvertently flush increasing forage for livestock grazing. prairie-chicken habitat will result in lesser prairie-chicken and trample lesser Sand shinnery oak is toxic if eaten by additional habitat degradation and thus prairie-chicken nests (Toole 2005, p. 27; cattle when it first produces leaves in reduce redundancy and resiliency. Pitman et al. 2006, pp. 27–29). Brief the spring and competes with more flushing of adults from nests can expose palatable grasses and forbs for water and Influence of Anthropogenic Noise eggs and chicks to predation and nutrients (Peterson and Boyd 1998, p. Anthropogenic noise can be extreme temperatures. Trampling nests 8), which is why it is a common target associated with almost any form of can cause direct mortality to lesser for control and eradication efforts by human activity, and lesser prairie- prairie-chicken eggs or chicks or may rangeland managers. Prior to the late chicken may exhibit behavioral and cause adults to permanently abandon 1990s, approximately 100,000 ac physiological responses to the presence their nests, ultimately resulting in loss (40,000 ha) of sand shinnery oak in New of noise. In prairie-chickens, the of young. Although these effects have Mexico and approximately 1,000,000 ac ‘‘boom’’ call vocalization transmits been documented, the significance of (405,000 ha) of sand shinnery oak in information about sex, territorial status, direct livestock effects on the lesser Texas were lost due to the application mating condition, location, and prairie-chicken is largely unknown and of tebuthiuron and other herbicides for individual identity of the signaler and is presumed not to be significant at a agriculture and range improvement thus is important to courtship activity population scale. (Peterson and Boyd 1998, p. 2). and long-range advertisement of the In summary, domestic livestock Shrub cover is an important display ground (Sparling 1981, p. 484). grazing (including management component of lesser prairie-chicken The timing of displays and frequency of practices commonly used to benefit habitat in certain portions of the range, vocalizations are critical reproductive livestock production) has altered the and sand shinnery oak is a key shrub in behaviors in prairie grouse and appear composition and structure of grassland the Shinnery Oak and portions of the to have developed in response to habitat, both currently and historically, Mixed-Grass Ecoregions. The unobstructed conditions prevalent in used by the lesser prairie-chicken. Much importance of sand shinnery oak as a prairie habitat and indicate that of the remaining remnants of mixed- component of lesser prairie-chicken effective communication, particularly grass grasslands, while still important to habitat in the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion during the lekking season, operates the lesser prairie-chicken, exhibit has been demonstrated by several within a fairly narrow set of acoustic conditions quite different from those studies (Fuhlendorf et al. 2002, pp. 624– conditions. Prairie grouse usually

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29451

initiate displays on the lekking grounds noise, but noise is a threat that is almost and include an increase in the Southern around sunrise, and occasionally near entirely associated with anthropogenic Great Plains of megafires (greater than sunset, corresponding with times of features such as roads or energy 100,000 ac (400 km2)) since the mid- decreased wind turbulence and thermal development. Therefore, through our 1990s (Lindley et al. 2019, p. 164). variation (Sparling 1983, p. 41). accounting for anthropogenic features Changes have occurred throughout all or Considering the narrow set of acoustic we may have inherently accounted for portions of the Great Plains in number conditions in which communication all or some of the response of the lesser of large wildfires and season of fire appears most effective for breeding prairie-chicken to noise produced by occurrence, as well as increased area lesser prairie-chicken and the those features. burned by wildfire or increasing importance of communication to Overall, persistent anthropogenic probability of large wildfires (Donovan successful reproduction, human noise could cause lek attendance to et al. 2017, p. 5990). Furthermore, Great activities that result in noises that decline, disrupt courtship and breeding Plains land cover dominated by woody disrupt or alter these conditions could activity, and reduce reproductive or woody/grassland combined result in lek abandonment (Crawford success. Noise can also cause vegetation is disproportionately more and Bolen 1976b, p. 239). abandonment of otherwise usable likely to experience large wildfires, with Anthropogenic features and related habitat and, as a result, contribute to the greatest increase in both number of activities that occur on the landscape habitat loss and degradation. fires and of area burned (Donovan et al. can create noise that exceeds the natural Fire 2020a, p. 11). Fire behavior has also background or ambient level. When the been affected such that these behavioral response to noise is Fire, or its absence, is understood to increasingly large wildfires are burning avoidance, as it often is for lesser be a major ecological driver of under weather conditions (Lindley et al. prairie-chicken, noise can be a source of grasslands in the Southern Great Plains 2019, entire) that result in greater (Anderson 2006, entire; Koerner and habitat loss or degradation leading to burned extent and intensity. These Collins 2014, entire; Wright and Bailey increased habitat fragmentation. shifts in fire parameters and their 1982, pp. 80–137). Fire is an ecological Anthropogenic noise may be a outcomes have potential consequences process important to maintaining possible factor in the population for lesser prairie-chicken, including: (1) grasslands by itself and in coupled declines of other species of lekking Larger areas of complete loss of nesting interaction with grazing and climate. grouse in North America, particularly habitat as compared to formerly patchy The interaction of these ecological for populations that are exposed to mosaicked burns; and (2) large-scale processes results in increasing grassland human developments (Blickley et al. reduction in the spatial and temporal heterogeneity through the creation of 2012a, p. 470; Lipp and Gregory 2018, variation in vegetation structure and temporal and spatial diversity in plant pp. 369–370). Male greater prairie- composition affecting nesting and chicken adjust aspects of their community composition and structure and associated response of wildlife brood-rearing habitat, thermoregulatory vocalizations in response to wind cover, and predator escape cover. turbine noise, and wind turbine noise (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001, entire; may have the potential to mask the Fuhlendorf and Engle 2004, entire; Effects from fire are expected to be greater prairie-chicken chorus at 296 Fuhlendorf et al. 2017a, pp. 169–196). relatively short term (Donovan et al. hertz (Hz) under certain scenarios, but Following settlement of the Great 2020b, entire, Starns et al. 2020, entire) the extent and degree of masking is Plains, fire management generally with plant community recovery time uncertain (Whalen 2015, entire). Noise emphasized prevention and largely predictable and influenced by produced by typical oil and gas suppression, often coupled with grazing pre-fire condition, post-fire weather, infrastructure can mask grouse pressures that significantly reduced and and types of management. Some effects vocalizations, compromise the ability of removed fine fuels (Sayre 2017, pp. 61– from fire, however, such as the response female sage-grouse to find active leks 70). This approach, occurring in concert to changing plant communities in the when such noise is present, and affect with settlement and ownership patterns range of the lesser prairie-chicken, will nest site selection (Blickley and that occurred in most of the Southern vary based on location within the range Patricelli 2012, p. 32; Lipp 2016, p. 40). Great Plains, meant that the scale of and available precipitation. In the Chronic noise associated with human management was relegated to smaller eastern extent of the distribution of sand activity leads to reduced male and parcels than historically were affected. shinnery oak that occurs in the Mixed- female attendance at noisy leks. This increase in smaller parcels with Grass Ecoregion, fire has potential Breeding, reproductive success, and both intensive grazing and fire negative effects on some aspects of the ultimately recruitment in areas with suppression resulted in the lesser prairie-chicken habitat for 2 years human developments could be impaired transformation of landscapes from after the area burns, but these effects by such developments, impacting dynamic heterogeneous to largely static could be longer in duration dependent survival (Blickley et al. 2012b, entire). and homogenous plant communities. upon precipitation patterns (Boyd and Because opportunities for effective This simplification of vegetative pattern Bidwell 2001, pp. 945–946). Effects communication on the display ground due to decoupling fire and grazing from fire on lesser prairie-chicken occur under fairly narrow conditions, (Starns et al. 2019, pp. 1–3) changed the varied based on fire break preparation, disturbance during this period may have number and size of wildfires and season of burn, and type of habitat; negative consequences for reproductive ultimately led to declines in positive effects included improved success. Other communications used by biodiversity in the affected systems brood habitat through increased forb grouse off the lek, such as parent- (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001, entire). and grasshopper abundance, but these offspring communication, may continue Changes in patterns of wildfire in the can be countered by short-term (2-year) to be susceptible to masking by noise Great Plains have been noted in recent negative effects to quality and from human infrastructure (Blickley and years (Donovan et al. 2017, entire). availability of nesting habitat and a Patricelli 2012, p. 33). While these landscapes have a long reduction in food sources (Boyd and No data are available to quantify the history of wildfire, large wildfires Bidwell 2001, pp. 945–946). Birds areas of lesser prairie-chicken habitat (greater than 1,000 ac (400 ha)) typically moved into recently burned landscapes rangewide that have been affected by did not occur in recent past decades, of western Oklahoma for lek courtship

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29452 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

displays because of the reduction in fire; dry periods will inhibit or extend effects of incompatible grazing and structure from formerly dense plant community response. predation. vegetation (Cannon and Knopf 1979, Historically, fire served an important Although the lesser prairie-chicken entire). role in maintenance and quality of has adapted to drought as a component More recently, research evaluating habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken. of its environment, drought and the indirect effects concluded that Currently, due to a significant shift in accompanying harsh, fluctuating prescribed fire and managed grazing fire regimes in the lesser prairie-chicken conditions (high temperatures and low following the patch-burn or pyric range, fire use for management of food and cover availability) have herbivory (grazing practices shaped fire) grasslands plays a locally important but influenced lesser prairie-chicken approach will benefit lesser prairie- overall limited role in most lesser populations. Widespread periods of chicken through increases in forbs; prairie-chicken habitat. This current drought commonly result in ‘‘bust invertebrates; and the quality, amount, lack of prescribed fire use in the range years’’ of recruitment. Following and juxtaposition of brood habitat to of the lesser prairie-chicken is extreme droughts of the 1930s, 1950s, available nesting habitat (Elmore et al. contributing to woody plant 1970s, and 1990s, lesser prairie-chicken 2017, entire). The importance of encroachment and degradation of population levels declined and a temporal and spatial heterogeneity grassland quality due to its decoupling decrease in their overall range was derived from pyric herbivory is from the grazing and fire interaction that observed (Lee 1950, p. 475; Ligon 1953, apparent in the female lesser prairie- is the foundation for plant community p. 1; Schwilling 1955, pp. 5–6; chicken use of all patch types in the diversity in structure and composition, Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1961, p. patch-burn grazing mosaic, including which in turn supports the diverse 289; Copelin 1963, p. 49; Crawford greater than 2 years post-fire for nesting, habitat needs of lesser prairie-chicken. 1980, pp. 2–5; Massey 2001, pp. 5, 12; 2-year post fire during spring lekking, These cascading effects contribute to Hagen and Giesen 2005, unpaginated). 1- and 2-year post-fire during summer greater wildfire risk, and concerns exist Additionally, lesser prairie-chicken populations reached near record lows brooding, and 1-year post-fire during regarding the changing patterns of nonbreeding season (Lautenbach 2017, during and after the more recent wildfires (scale, intensity, and pp. 20–22). While the use of prescribed drought of 2011 to 2013 (McDonald et frequency) and their consequences for fire as a tool for managing grasslands al. 2017, p. 12; Fritts et al. 2018, entire). remaining lesser prairie-chicken throughout the lesser prairie-chicken Drought impacts prairie grouse, such populations and habitat that are range is encouraged, current use is at a as lesser prairie-chicken, through increasingly fragmented. Concurrently, temporal frequency and spatial extent several mechanisms. Drought affects wildfire has increased as a threat insufficient to support large amount of seasonal growth of vegetation necessary rangewide due to compounding lesser prairie-chicken habitat. These fire to provide suitable nesting and roosting influences of increased size and severity management efforts are limited to a cover, food, and opportunity for escape of wildfires and the potential small number of fire-minded from predators (Copelin 1963, pp. 37, landowners, resulting in effects to a consequences to remaining isolated and 42; Merchant 1982, pp. 19, 25, 51; small percentage of the lesser prairie- fragmented lesser prairie-chicken Applegate and Riley 1998, p. 15; chicken range. populations. Peterson and Silvy 1994, p. 228; While lesser prairie-chicken evolved Extreme Weather Events Morrow et al. 1996, pp. 596–597; Ross in a fire-adapted landscape, little et al. 2016a, entire). Lesser prairie- research (Thacker and Twidwell 2014, Weather-related events such as chicken home ranges will temporarily entire) has been conducted on response drought, snow, and hail storms can expand during drought years (Copelin of lesser prairie-chicken to altered fire influence habitat quality or result in 1963, p. 37; Merchant 1982, p. 39) to regimes. Research to date has focused direct mortality of lesser prairie- compensate for scarcity in available on site-specific responses and chickens. Although hail storms typically resources. During these periods, the consequences. Human suppression of only have a localized effect, the effects adult birds expend more energy wildfire and the limited extent of fire of snow storms and drought can often be searching for food and tend to move into use (prescribed fire) for management more widespread and can affect areas with limited cover in order to over the past century has altered the considerable portions of the lesser forage, leaving them more vulnerable to frequency, scale, and intensity of fire prairie-chicken range. Drought is predation and heat stress (Merchant occurrence in lesser prairie-chicken considered a universal ecological driver 1982, pp. 34–35; Flanders-Wanner et al. habitat. These changes in fire across the Great Plains (Knopf 1996, p. 2004, p. 31). Chick survival and parameters have happened 147). Annual precipitation within the recruitment may also be depressed by simultaneously with habitat loss and Great Plains is highly variable (Wiens drought (Merchant 1982, pp. 43–48; fragmentation, resulting in patchy 1974, p. 391), with prolonged drought Morrow et al. 1996, p. 597; Giesen 1998, distribution of lesser prairie-chicken capable of causing local extinctions of p. 11; Massey 2001, p. 12), which likely throughout their range. An increase in annual forbs and grasses within stands affects population trends more than size, intensity, or severity of wildfires as of perennial species; recolonization is annual changes in adult survival (Hagen compared to historical occurrences often slow (Tilman and El Haddi 1992, 2003, pp. 176–177). Drought-induced results in increased vulnerability of p. 263). Grassland bird species in mechanisms affecting recruitment isolated, smaller lesser prairie-chicken particular are impacted by climate include decreased physiological populations. Both woody plant extremes such as extended drought, condition of breeding females (Merchant encroachment and drought are additive which acts as a bottleneck that allows 1982, p. 45); heat stress and water loss factors that increase risk of negative only a limited number of individuals to of chicks (Merchant 1982, p. 46); and consequences of wildfire ignition, as survive through the relatively harsh effects to hatch success and juvenile well as extended post-fire lesser prairie- conditions (Wiens 1974, pp. 388, 397; survival due to changes in microclimate, chicken habitat effects. The extent of Zimmerman 1992, p. 92). Drought also temperature, and humidity (Patten et al. these negative impacts can be interacts with many of the other threats 2005, pp. 1274–1275; Bell 2005, pp. 20– significantly altered by precipitation impacting the lesser prairie-chicken and 21; Boal et al. 2010, p. 11). Precipitation, patterns following the occurrence of the its habitat, such as amplifying the or lack thereof, appears to affect lesser

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29453

prairie-chicken adult population trends lesser prairie-chicken populations, but, completion of the Resource with a potential lag effect (Giesen 2000, as discussed above, these events have Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) p. 145; Ross et al. 2016a, pp. 6–8). That shaped recent history and influenced in 2008. The management goal for the is, rain levels in one year promote more the current condition for the lesser ACEC is to protect the biological vegetative cover for eggs and chicks in prairie-chicken. qualities of the area, with emphasis on the following year, which influences Regulatory Mechanisms the preservation of the shinnery oak- survival and reproduction. dune community to enhance the Although lesser prairie-chicken have In Appendix D of the SSA report biodiversity of the ecosystem, persisted through droughts in the past, (Service 2021), we review in more detail particularly habitats for the lesser the effects of such droughts are the existing regulatory mechanisms prairie-chicken and the dunes sagebrush exacerbated by human land use (such as local, State, and Federal land lizard. Upon designation, the ACEC was practices such as incompatible grazing use regulations or laws) that may be closed to future oil and gas leasing, and and land cultivation (Merchant 1982, p. significant to lesser prairie-chicken existing leases would be developed in 51; Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1961, conservation. Here, we present a accordance with prescriptions pp. 288–289; Davis et al. 1979, p. 122; summary of some of those regulatory applicable to the Core Management Area Taylor and Guthery 1980a, p. 2; Ross et mechanisms. All existing regulatory as described below (BLM 2008, p. 30). al. 2016b, pp. 183–186) as well as the mechanisms were fully considered in Additional management prescriptions other threats that have affected the our conclusion about the status of the for the ACEC include designation as a current condition and have altered and two DPSs. right-of-way exclusion area, vegetation fragmented the landscape and decreased All five States in the estimated management to meet the stated population abundances (Fuhlendorf et occupied range have incorporated the management goal of the area, and al. 2002, p. 617; Rodgers 2016, pp. 15– lesser prairie-chicken as a species of limiting the area to existing roads and conservation concern and management 19). In past decades, fragmentation of trails for off-highway vehicle use (BLM priority in their respective State lesser prairie-chicken habitat was less 2008, p. 31). All acres of the ACEC have Wildlife Action Plans. While extensive than it is today, connectivity been closed to grazing through identification of the lesser prairie- between occupied areas was more relinquishment of the permits except for chicken as a species of conservation prevalent, and populations were larger, one 3,442-ac (1,393-ha) allotment. allowing populations to recover more concern helps heighten public awareness, this designation provides no The BLM’s approved RMPA (BLM quickly. In other words, lesser prairie- 2008, pp. 5–31) provides some limited chicken populations were more resilient protection from direct take or habitat protections for the lesser prairie-chicken to the effects of stochastic events such destruction or alteration. The lesser in New Mexico by reducing the number as drought. As lesser prairie-chicken prairie-chicken is listed as threatened in of drilling locations, decreasing the size population abundances decline and Colorado; this listing protects the lesser of well pads, reducing the number and usable habitat declines and becomes prairie-chicken from direct purposeful length of roads, reducing the number of more fragmented, their ability to mortality by humans but does not powerlines and pipelines, and rebound from prolonged drought is provide protections for destruction or implementing best management diminished. alteration of habitat. Hail storms can cause mortality of Primary land ownership practices for development and prairie grouse, particularly during the (approximately 5 percent of total range) reclamation. The effect of these best spring nesting season. An excerpt from at the Federal level is on USFS and BLM management practices on the status of the May 1879 Stockton News that lands. The lesser prairie-chicken is the lesser prairie-chicken is unknown, describes a large hailstorm near Kirwin, present on the Cimarron National particularly considering about 82,000 ac Kansas, as responsible for killing Grassland in Kansas and the Comanche (33,184 ha) have already been leased in prairie-chickens (likely greater prairie- National Grassland in Colorado; a total those areas (BLM 2008, p. 8). Although chicken) and other birds by the of approximately 3 percent of the total the BLM RMPA is an important tool for hundreds (Fleharty 1995, p. 241). acres estimated in the current condition identifying conservation actions that Although such phenomena are likely is on USFS land. The 2014 Lesser would benefit lesser prairie-chicken, rare, the effects can be significant, Prairie-Chicken Management Plan for this program is not adequate to particularly if they occur during the these grasslands provides a framework eliminate threats to the species such nesting period and result in significant to manage lesser prairie-chicken habitat. that is does not warrant listing under loss of eggs or chicks. Severe winter The plan provides separate population the Act. storms can also result in localized and habitat recovery goals for each No new mineral leases will be issued impacts to lesser prairie-chicken grassland, as well as vegetation surveys on approximately 32 percent of Federal populations. For example, a severe to inform ongoing and future monitoring mineral acreage within the RMPA winter storm in 2006 was reported to efforts of suitable habitat and lek planning area (BLM 2008, p. 8), reduce lesser prairie-chicken numbers activities. Because National Grasslands although some exceptions are allowed in Colorado by 75 percent from 2006 to are managed for multiple uses, the plan on a case-by-case basis (BLM 2008, pp. 2007, from 296 birds observed to only includes guidelines for prescribed fire 9–11). Within the Core Management 74. Active leks also declined from 34 and grazing. Area and Primary Population Area, new leks in 2006 to 18 leks in 2007 (Verquer In New Mexico, roughly 41 percent of leases will be restricted in occupied and 2007, p. 2). While populations the known historical and most of the suitable habitat; however, if there is an commonly rebound to some degree estimated occupied lesser prairie- overall increase in reclaimed to following severe weather events such as chicken range occurs on BLM land, for disturbed acres over a 5-year period, drought and winter storms, a population a total of 3 percent of the total acres new leases in these areas will be with decreased resiliency becomes estimated in the current condition. The allowed (BLM 2008, p. 11). In the susceptible to extirpation from BLM established the 57,522-ac (23,278- southernmost habitat management stochastic events. ha) Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat units, where lesser prairie-chickens are We are not able to quantify the impact Preservation Area of Critical now far less common than in previous that severe weather has had on the Environmental Concern (ACEC) upon decades (Hunt and Best 2004), new

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 offset for industry impacts that have maintained annually for the life of the (1.5 mi) of a lek (BLM 2008, p. 11). occurred through the RWP and CCAA practice, typically 1 to 15 years, to treat We conclude that existing regulatory (Moore 2020, p. 9). These areas are or manage habitat for lesser prairie- mechanisms have minimal influence on enrolled under RWP conservation chicken. From 2010 through 2019, the rangewide trends of lesser prairie- contracts that will provide mitigation NRCS worked with 883 private chicken habitat loss and fragmentation for 1,538 projects, which impacted agricultural producers to implement because 97 percent of the lesser prairie- 48,743 ac (19,726 ha) (WAFWA 2020, conservation practices on 1.6 million ac chicken analysis area occurs on private table 32, unpaginated). When enrolling (647,497 ha) of working lands within lands, and the activities affecting lesser a property, industry participants agree the historical range of the lesser prairie- prairie-chicken habitat are largely to minimize impacts from projects to chicken (NRCS 2020, p. 2). During that unregulated land use practices and land lesser prairie-chicken habitat and time, through LPCI, NRCS implemented development. mitigate for all remaining impacts on prescribed grazing plans on 680,800 ac Conservation Efforts the enrolled property. At the end of (275,500 ha) across the range (Griffiths 2019 in the CCAA, there were 111 active 2020, pers. comm.). Through LPCI, The SSA report also includes detailed contracts (Certificates of Inclusion) with NRCS has also removed over 41,000 ac information on current conservation 6,228,136 ac (2,520,437 ha) enrolled (16,600 ha) of eastern red cedar in the measures (Service 2021, pp. 49–61). (Moore 2020, p. 4), and in the WAFWA Mixed-Grass Ecoregion and chemically Some programs are implemented across Conservation Agreement there were 52 treated approximately 106,000 ac the species’ range, and others are active WAFWA Conservation (43,000 ha) of mesquite in the Shinnery implemented at the State or local level. Agreement contracts (Certificates of Oak Ecoregion. Lastly, NRCS has Because the vast majority of lesser Participation) with 599,626 ac (242,660 conducted prescribed burns on prairie-chicken and their habitat occurs ha) enrolled (WAFWA 2020, Table 5 approximately 15,000 ac (6,000 ha) on private lands, most of these programs unpaginated). A recent audit of the during this time. are targeted toward voluntary, mitigation program associated with the incentive-based actions in cooperation The Conservation Reserve Program RWP and CCAA identified several key with private landowners. (CRP) is administered by the USDA’s At the rangewide scale, plans include issues to be resolved within the program Farm Service Agency and provides the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Rangewide to ensure financial stability and short-term protection and conservation Conservation Plan, the Lesser Prairie- effective conservation outcomes (Moore benefits on millions of acres within the Chicken Initiative, and the Conservation 2020, Appendix E). WAFWA has hired range of the lesser prairie-chicken. The Reserve Program. Below is a summary of a consultant who is currently working CRP is a voluntary program that allows the primary rangewide conservation with stakeholders, including the eligible landowners to receive annual efforts. For detailed descriptions of each Service, to consider available options to rental payments and cost-share program, please see the SSA report. All address the identified issues to ensure assistance in exchange for removing existing ongoing conservation efforts long-term durability of the strategy. cropland and certain marginal were fully considered in our finding on In 2010, the U.S. Department of pastureland from agricultural the status of the two DPSs. Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources production. CRP contract terms are for In 2013, the State fish and wildlife Conservation Service (NRCS) began 10 to 15 years. The total amount of land agencies within the range of the lesser implementation of the Lesser Prairie- that can be enrolled in the CRP is prairie-chicken and the Western Chicken Initiative (LPCI). The LPCI capped nationally by the Food Security Association of Fish and Wildlife provides conservation assistance, both Act of 1985, as amended (the 2018 Farm Agencies (WAFWA) finalized the Lesser technical and financial, to landowners Bill) at 27 million ac (10.93 million ha). Prairie-Chicken Range-wide throughout the LPCI’s administrative All five States within the range of the Conservation Plan (RWP) in response to boundary (NRCS 2017, p. 1). The LPCI lesser prairie-chicken have lands concerns about threats to lesser prairie- focuses on maintenance and enrolled in the CRP. The 2018 Farm Bill chicken habitat and resulting effects to enhancement of lesser prairie-chicken maintains the acreage limitation that not lesser prairie-chicken populations (Van habitat while benefiting agricultural more than 25 percent of the cropland in Pelt et al. 2013, entire). The RWP producers by maintaining the farming any county can be enrolled in CRP, with established biological goals and and ranching operations throughout the specific conditions under which a objectives as well as a conservation region. In 2019, after annual declines in waiver to this restriction can be targeting strategy that aims to unify landowner interest in LPCI, the NRCS provided for lands enrolled under the conservation efforts towards common made changes in how LPCI will be Conservation Reserve Enhancement goals. Additionally, the RWP establishes implemented moving forward and Program (84 FR 66813, December 6, a mitigation framework administered by initiated conferencing under section 7 of 2019). Over time, CRP enrollment WAFWA that allows industry the ESA with the Service. Prior to 2019, fluctuates both nationally and locally. participants the opportunity to mitigate participating landowners had to address Within the counties that intersect the unavoidable impacts of a particular all threats to the lesser prairie-chicken Estimated Occupied Range plus a 10- activity on the lesser prairie-chicken. present on their property. In the future, mile buffer, acres enrolled in CRP have After approval of the RWP, WAFWA each conservation plan developed under declined annually since 2007 (with the developed a companion oil and gas LPCI will only need to include one or exception of one minor increase from candidate conservation agreement with more of the core management practices 2010 to 2011) from nearly 6 million ac assurances (CCAA), which adopted the that include prescribed grazing, (2.4 million ha) enrolled to current mitigation framework contained within prescribed burning, brush management, enrollment levels of approximately 4.25 the RWP that was approved in 2014. and upland wildlife habitat million ac (1.7 million ha) (FSA 2020a, As of August 1, 2020, WAFWA had management. Additional management unpublished data). More specific to our used incoming funds from industry practices may be incorporated into each analysis area, current acreage of CRP participants to place 22 sites totaling conservation plan, as needed, to enrollment is approximately 1,822,000 128,230 unimpacted ac (51,893 ha) facilitate meeting the desired objectives. ac (737,000 ha) within our analysis area. under conservation contracts to provide These practices are applied or Of those currently enrolled acres there

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 agreements with direct and indirect though only a portion of each wildlife ha) of introduced grasses and legumes improvements on about 173,000 ac management area can be considered as dispersed primarily within the Mixed- (70,011 ha) of private lands benefitting conservation acres for lesser prairie- Grass and Shinnery Oak Ecoregions conservation of the lesser prairie- chicken. The Service’s PFW program (FSA 2020b, unpublished data). chicken in Kansas. has funded a shared position with At the State level, programs provide In 2009, Colorado Parks and Wildlife ODWC for 6 years to conduct CCAA direct technical and financial cost-share (CPW) initiated its Lesser Prairie- monitoring and, in addition, has assistance to private landowners Chicken Habitat Improvement Program provided funding for on-the-ground interested in voluntarily implementing that provides cost-sharing to private work in the lesser prairie-chicken range. conservation management practices to landowners who participate in practices Since 2017, the Oklahoma PFW program benefit species of greatest conservation such as deferred grazing around active has implemented 51 private lands need—including the lesser prairie- leks, enhancement of fields enrolled in agreements on about 10,603 ac (4,291 chicken. Additionally, a variety of State- CRP and cropland-to-grassland habitat ha) for the benefit of the lesser prairie- level conservation efforts acquire and conversion. Since program inception, chicken in Oklahoma. The Nature manage lands or incentivize CPW has completed 37,051 ac (14,994 Conservancy of Oklahoma manages the management by private landowners for ha) of habitat treatments. The Nature 4,050-ac (1,640-ha) Four Canyon the benefit of the lesser prairie-chicken. Conservancy holds permanent Preserve in Ellis County for ecological Below is a summary for each State conservation easements on multiple health to benefit numerous short-grass within the range of the lesser prairie- ranches that make up the Big Sandy prairie species, including the lesser chicken. For a complete description of complex. Totaling approximately 48,940 prairie-chicken. In 2017, The Nature each, see the SSA report. All ac (19,805 ha), this complex is managed Conservancy acquired a conservation conservation measures discussed in the with lesser prairie-chicken as a easement on 1,784 ac (722 ha) in Woods SSA report were fully considered in this conservation objective and perpetually County. The Conservancy is seeking to proposed rule. protects intact sand sagebrush and permanently protect additional acreage Within the State of Kansas, short-grass prairie communities. The in the region through the acquisition of conservation efforts are administered by USFS currently manages the Comanche conservation easements. the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Parks and Tourism (KDWPT), The Zoological Area, as part of the (TPWD) worked with the Service and Nature Conservancy, and the Service’s Comanche and Cimarron National landowners to develop the first state- Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Grasslands, which encompass an area of wide umbrella CCAA for the lesser (PFW). KDWPT has targeted lesser 10,177 ac (4,118 ha) in Colorado that is prairie-chicken in Texas, which was prairie-chicken habitat improvements managed to benefit the lesser prairie- finalized in 2006. The Texas CCAA on private lands by leveraging chicken (USFS 2014, p. 9). In 2016, covers 50 counties, largely landowner cost-share contributions, CPW and KDWPT partnered with encompassing the Texas Panhandle and industry and nongovernmental Kansas State University and USFS to South Plains regions. Total landowner organizations’ cash contributions, and initiate a 3-year translocation project to participation by the close of January agency funds toward several federally restore lesser prairie-chicken to the 2020 was 91 properties totaling funded grant programs. The KDWPT has Comanche National Grasslands approximately 657,038 ac (265,894 ha) implemented conservation measures (Colorado) and Cimarron National enrolled in 15 counties (TPWD 2020, over 22,000 ac (8,900 ha) through the Grasslands (Kansas). Beginning in the entire). The Service’s PFW program and Landowner Incentive Program, over fall of 2016 and concluding with the the TPWD have actively collaborated on 18,000 ac (7,285 ha) through the State 2019 spring lekking season, the range management programs designed Wildlife Grant Private Landowner partnership trapped and translocated to provide cost-sharing for Program, 30,000 ac (12,140 ha) through 411 lesser prairie-chickens from the implementation of habitat the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion in Kansas to improvements for lesser prairie-chicken. and 12,000 ac (4,855 ha) through the the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion. During The Service provided funding to TPWD Habitat First Program within the range April and May 2020 lek counts, to support a Landscape Conservation of the lesser prairie-chicken. Colorado and Kansas biologists and Coordinator position for the Panhandle Additionally, KDWPT was provided an technicians found 115 male birds on 20 and Southern High Plains region, as opportunity through contributions from active leks in the landscape around the well as funding to support Landowner the Comanche Pool Prairie Resource Comanche and Cimarron National Incentive Program projects targeting Foundation to leverage additional Grasslands (Rossi 2020, pers. comm.). lesser prairie-chicken habitat Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration In 2013, the Oklahoma Department of improvements (brush control and funds in 2016 to direct implementation Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) was grazing management) in this region. of 19,655 ac (7,954 ha). The Nature issued a 25-year enhancement of More than $200,000 of Service funds Conservancy in Kansas manages the survival permit pursuant to section were committed in 2010, and an 18,060-ac (7,309-ha) Smoky Valley 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA that included an additional $100,000 was committed in Ranch. The Nature Conservancy also umbrella CCAA between the Service 2011. serves as the easement holder for nearly and ODWC for the lesser prairie-chicken Since 2008, Texas has addressed 34,000 ac (13,760 ha) of properties that in 14 Oklahoma counties (78 FR 14111, lesser prairie-chicken conservation on are enrolled under the RWP. The Nature March 4, 2013). As of 2019, there were 14,068 ac (5,693 ha) under the Conservancy is also working to use 84 participants with a total of 399,225 Landowner Incentive Program. Typical funds from an NRCS Regional ac (161,561 ha) enrolled in the ODWC conservation measures include native Conservation Partnership Program that CCAA, with 357,654 ac (144,737) plant restoration, control of exotic or have resulted in nearly 50,000 ac enrolled as conservation acres (ODWC invasive vegetation, prescribed burning, (20,235 ha) on three ranches either with 2020). The ODWC owns six wildlife selective brush management, and secured or in-process conservation management areas totaling prescribed grazing. The PFW program in easements. The Service’s PFW program approximately 75,000 ac (30,351 ha) in Texas has executed 66 private lands has executed 95 private lands the range of the lesser prairie-chicken, agreements on about 131,190 ac (53,091

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 Since the CCA and CCAA were finalized of the reduction vary from greater than benefit of the lesser prairie-chicken in in 2008, 43 oil and gas companies have 90 percent (Hagen and Giesen 2005, Texas. The Nature Conservancy of Texas enrolled a total of 1,964,163 ac (794,868 unpaginated) to approximately 83 acquired approximately 10,635 ac (4,303 ha) in the historical range of the lesser percent (Van Pelt et al. 2013, p. 3). ha) in Cochran, Terry, and Yoakum prairie-chicken. In addition, 72 ranchers We estimated the current amount and Counties. In 2014, The Nature in New Mexico and the New Mexico configuration of potential lesser prairie- Conservancy donated this land to Department of Game and Fish have chicken usable area within the analysis TPWD. The TPWD acquired an enrolled a total of 2,055,461 ac (831,815 area using the geospatial analysis additional 3,402 ac (1,377 ha) ha). The New Mexico State Land Office described in the SSA report (Service contiguous to the Yoakum Dunes has enrolled a total of 406,673 ac 2021, Section 3.2; Appendix B, Parts 1, Preserve creating the 14,037-ac (5,681- (164,575 ha) in the historical range of 2, and 3) and considering existing ha) Yoakum Dunes Wildlife the lesser prairie-chicken. The CCA and impacts as described above. The total Management Area. In 2015, through the CCAA have treated 79,297 ac (32,090 area of all potential usable (land cover RWP process, WAFWA acquired an ha) of mesquite and reclaimed 154 that may be consistent with lesser additional 1,604 ac (649 ha) in Cochran abandoned well pads and associated prairie-chicken areas that have the County, nearly 3 mi (5 km) west of the roads. CEHMM has also removed 7,564 potential to support lesser prairie- Yoakum Dunes Wildlife Management ac (3,061 ha) of dead, standing chicken use) and potential usable, Area. The land was deeded to TPWD mesquite, and has another 12,000 ac unimpacted land cover (that is, not soon after acquisition. In 2016, an (5,000 ha) scheduled in the upcoming 2 impacted by landscape features) additional 320 ac (129 ha) was years. categories in each ecoregion and purchased by TPWD bordering the The Nature Conservancy owns and rangewide is shown in Table 1. WAFWA acquired tract creating an manages the 28,000-ac (11,331-ha) additional 1,924-ac (779-ha) property Milnesand Prairie Preserve near To assess lesser prairie-chicken that is being managed as part of the Milnesand, New Mexico. Additionally, habitat at a larger scale and incorporate Yoakum Dunes Wildlife Management the New Mexico Department of Game some measure of connectivity and Area, now at 15,961 ac (6,459 ha). and Fish has designated 30 Prairie fragmentation, we then grouped the The BLM’s Special Status Species Chicken Areas (PCAs) specifically for areas of potential usable, unimpacted RMPA, which was approved in April management of the lesser prairie- land cover based on the proximity of 2008, addressed the concerns and future chicken ranging in size from 28 to 7,189 other areas with potential usable, management of lesser prairie-chicken ac (11 to 2,909 ha) and totaling more unimpacted lesser prairie-chicken land and dunes sagebrush lizard habitats on than 27,262 ac (11,033 ha). In 2007, the cover. To do this, we used a ‘‘nearest BLM lands and established the Lesser State Game Commission used New neighbor’’ geospatial process to Prairie-Chicken Habitat Preservation Mexico State Land Conservation determine how much potential usable Area of Critical Environmental Concern Appropriation funding to acquire 5,285 land cover is within 1 mi (1.6 km) of (BLM 2008, entire). Since the RMPA ac (2,137 ha) of private ranchland in any area of potential usable land cover. was approved in 2008, BLM has closed Roosevelt County. The Service’s PFW This nearest neighbor analysis gives an approximately 300,000 ac (121,000 ha) program in New Mexico has contributed estimate of how closely potential usable, to future oil and gas leasing and closed financial and technical assistance for unimpacted land cover is clustered approximately 850,000 ac (344,000 ha) restoration and enhancement activities together, versus spread apart, from other to wind and solar development (BLM benefitting the lesser prairie-chicken in potential usable, unimpacted land 2008, p. 3). From 2008 to 2020, they New Mexico. In 2016, the PFW program cover. Areas with at least 60 percent have reclaimed 3,500 ac (1,416 ha) of executed a private land agreement on potential usable, unimpacted land cover abandoned well pads and associated 630 ac (255 ha) for treating invasive within 1 mi (1.6 km) were grouped. The roads and required burial of power lines species with a prescribed burn. In 2020 60 percent threshold was chosen within 2 mi (3.2 km) of lesser prairie- the PFW program executed a private because maintaining grassland in large chicken leks. Additionally, BLM has land agreement for a prescribed burn on blocks is vital to conservation of the implemented control efforts for 155 ac (63 ha). species (Ross et al. 2016a, entire; Hagen mesquite on 832,104 ac (336,740 ha) Conditions and Trends and Elmore 2016, entire; Spencer et al. and has plans to do so on an additional 2017, entire; Sullins et al. 2019, entire), 30,000 ac (12,141 ha) annually. In 2010, Rangewide Trends and these studies indicate that BLM acquired 7,440 ac (3,010 ha) of The lesser prairie-chicken estimated landscapes consisting of greater than land east of Roswell, New Mexico, to historical range encompasses an area of 60% grassland are required to support complete the 54,000-ac (21,853-ha) approximately 115 million ac (47 lesser prairie-chicken populations. This ACEC for lesser prairie-chicken, which million ha). As discussed in approach eliminates small, isolated, and is managed to protect key habitat. Background, not all of the area within fragmented patches of otherwise Following approval of the RMPA, a this historical range was evenly potential usable land cover that are not candidate conservation agreement occupied by lesser prairie-chicken, and likely to support persistent populations (CCA) and CCAA was drafted by a team some of the area may not have been of the lesser prairie-chicken. A separate including the Service, BLM, Center of suitable to regularly support lesser analysis found that the areas with 60 Excellence for Hazardous Material prairie-chicken populations (Boal and percent or greater unimpacted potential Management (CEHMM), and Haukos 2016, p. 6). However, the usable land cover within 1 mile (1.6 km) participating cooperators to address the current range of the lesser prairie- captured approximately 90 percent of conservation needs of the lesser prairie- chicken has been significantly reduced known leks (Service 2021, Appendix B, chicken and the dunes sagebrush lizard. from the historical range, and estimates Part 3).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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.]

Nearest Ecoregion Ecoregion Potential neighbor Percent of total area usable area analysis 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 In the SSA report and this proposed Approximate distribution of lek analysis indicate that about 19 percent rule, we discuss lesser prairie-chicken locations as reported by WAFWA for the of the entire analysis area and from 12 population estimates from two studies. entire range that were observed percent to 33 percent within each of the The first study calculated historical occupied by lesser prairie-chicken at four ecoregions is available for use by trends in lesser prairie-chicken least once between 2015 and 2019 are the lesser prairie-chicken. Due to abundances from 1965 through 2016 shown in the SSA report (Service 2021, limitations in data availability and based on population reconstruction Appendix E, Figure E.7). accuracy as well as numerous methods and historical lek surveys Following development of aerial limitations with the methodology and (Hagen et al. 2017, pp. 6–9). The results survey methods (McRoberts et al. 2011, assumptions made for this analysis, this of these estimates indicate that lesser entire), more statistically rigorous estimate should not be viewed as a prairie-chicken rangewide abundance estimates of lesser prairie-chicken precise measure of the lesser prairie- (based on a minimum estimated number abundance (both males and females) chicken habitat; instead, it provides a of male lesser prairie-chicken) peaked have been conducted by flying aerial generalized baseline to characterize the from 1965–1970 at a mean estimate of line-transect surveys throughout the current condition and by which we can about 175,000 males. The mean range of the lesser prairie-chicken and then forecast the effect of future population estimates maintained levels extrapolating densities from the changes. of greater than 100,000 males until surveyed area to the rest of the range 1989, after which they steadily declined beginning in 2012 (Nasman et al. 2020, In the SSA report, we also considered to a low of 25,000 males in 1997 (Garton entire). The aerial survey results from trends in populations. Estimates of et al. 2016, p. 68). The mean population 2012 through 2020 (Service 2021, Figure population abundance prior to the estimates following 1997 peaked again 3.2) estimated the lesser prairie-chicken 1960s are indeterminable and rely at about 92,000 males in 2006 but population abundance, averaged over almost entirely on anecdotal subsequently declined to 34,440 males the most recent 5 years of surveys information (Boal and Haukos 2016, p. in 2012. The Service identified concerns (2015–2020, no surveys in 2019), at 6). While little is known about precise in the past with some of the 27,384 (90 percent CI: 15,690, 59,981) historical population sizes, the lesser methodologies and assumptions made (Nasman et al. 2020, p. 21; Table 2). The prairie-chicken was reported to be quite in this analysis, and the challenges of results of these survey efforts should not common throughout its range in the these data are noted in other studies (for be taken as precise estimates of the early 20th century (Bent 1932, pp. 280– example, Zavaleta and Haukos 2013, p. annual lesser prairie-chicken population 281, 283; Baker 1953, p. 8; Bailey and 545; Cummings et al. 2017, pp. 29–30). abundance, as indicated by the large Niedrach 1965, p. 51; Sands 1968, p. While these concerns remain, including confidence intervals. Thus, the best use 454; Fleharty 1995, pp. 38–44; Robb and the very low sample sizes particularly in of this data is for long-term trend Schroeder 2005, p. 13). In the 1960s, the 1960s, this work represents the only analysis rather than for conclusions State fish and wildlife agencies began attempt to compile the extensive based on annual fluctuations. As such, routine lesser prairie-chicken historical ground lek count data we report the population estimate for monitoring efforts that have largely collected by State agencies to estimate the current condition as the average of continued to today. rangewide population sizes. 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 ESTI- MATES, AND PERCENT OF RANGEWIDE TOTALS FOR EACH ECOREGION (FROM NASMAN et al. 2020, P. 21). NO SUR- VEYS WERE CONDUCTED IN 2019

5-Year 5-Year 5-Year Ecoregion average minimum maximum Percent of estimate lower CI upper CI 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 ESTI- MATES, AND PERCENT OF RANGEWIDE TOTALS FOR EACH ECOREGION (FROM NASMAN et al. 2020, P. 21). NO SUR- VEYS WERE CONDUCTED IN 2019—Continued

5-Year 5-Year 5-Year Ecoregion average minimum maximum Percent of estimate lower CI upper CI total

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

We now discuss habitat impacts and habitat loss and fragmentation and land cover in the Southern DPS (Table population trends in each ecoregion and quantify the current condition of the 3). Based on our nearest neighbor DPS throughout the range of the lesser Shinnery Oak Ecoregion. Of the sources analysis, we estimated there are prairie-chicken. of habitat loss and fragmentation that approximately 1,023,572 ac (414,225 ha) Southern DPS have occurred, cropland conversion, or 27 percent of the ecoregion and the roads, and encroachment of woody Southern DPS potentially available for Using our geospatial analysis, we vegetation had the largest impacts on use by lesser prairie-chicken (Table 1). were able to explicitly account for

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) Percent of Impact sources Acres 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 ecoregions. Average estimates from 2015 Some areas have also been altered due methods, the mean population estimate to 2020 are 3,077 birds (90 percent CI: to woody vegetation encroachment. ranged between about 5,000 to 12,000 170, 8,237), representing about 11 Within this ecoregion, it has been males through 1980, increased to 20,000 percent of the rangewide total (Table 2). estimated that about 73 percent of the males in the mid-1980s and declined to Recent estimates have varied between landscape has been converted to ∼1,000 males in 1997 (Hagen et al. 2017, fewer than 1,000 birds in 2015 to more cropland with 7 percent of the area in pp. 6–9). The mean population estimate than 5,000 birds in 2020 (see also CRP (Dahlgren et al. 2016, p. 262). peaked again to ∼15,000 males in 2006 Service 2021, Appendix E, Figure E.7). According to our GIS analysis, of the and then declined again to fewer than sources of habitat loss and Northern DPS 3,000 males in the mid-2010s. fragmentation that have occurred, Aerial surveys have been conducted Prairies of the Short-Grass/CRP conversion to cropland has had the to estimate lesser prairie-chicken Ecoregion have been significantly single largest impact on land cover in population abundance since 2012, and altered since European settlement of the this ecoregion (Table 4). Based on our results in the Shinnery Oak Ecoregion Great Plains. Much of these prairies nearest neighbor analysis, we estimated from 2012 through 2020 (Service 2021, have been converted to other land uses approximately 1,023,894 ac (414,355 Figure 3.10) indicate that this ecoregion such as cultivated agriculture, roads, ha), or 16 percent of the ecoregion, is has the third highest population size power lines, petroleum production, potentially available for use by lesser (Nasman et al. 2020, p. 21) of the four wind energy, and transmission lines. 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 Percent of Impact sources Acres ecoregion

Cropland Conversion ...... 2,333,660 37 Petroleum Production ...... 248,146 4

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 TO- TALS)—Continued [Impacts are not necessarily cumulative because of overlap of some impacted areas by more than one impact source.]

Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion Percent of Impact sources Acres 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 about 62 percent of the rangewide lesser Fragmentation has also occurred due to methods, the mean population estimate prairie-chicken total (Table 2). oil and gas development, wind energy for this ecoregion increased from a Much of the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion development, transmission lines, minimum of about 14,000 males in 2001 was originally fragmented by home- highways, and expansion of invasive and peaked at about 21,000 males in steading, which subdivided tracts of woody plants such as eastern red cedar. 2011 (Hagen et al. 2017, pp. 8–10; see land into small parcels of 160–320 ac A major concern for lesser prairie- also Service 2021, Figure 3.3). (65–130 ha) in size (Rodgers 2016, p. chicken populations in this ecoregion is Aerial surveys since 2012 indicate 17). As a result of these small parcels, the loss of grassland due to the rapid that the Short-Grass/CRP Ecoregion road and fence densities are higher westward expansion of the eastern red- (Figure 3.4) has the largest population compared to other ecoregions and, cedar (NRCS 2016, p. 16). Oklahoma size (Nasman et al. 2020, p. 21) of the therefore, increase habitat fragmentation Forestry Services estimated the average four ecoregions. Average estimates from and pose higher risk for collision rate of expansion of eastern red-cedar in 2015 to 2020 are 16,957 birds (90 mortalities than in other ecoregions 2002 to be 762 ac (308 ha) per day percent CI: 13,605, 35,350), making up (Wolfe et al. 2016, p. 302). (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 Percent of Impact sources Acres 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 The Mixed-Grass Ecoregion (Nasman et al. 2020, p. 21). Average were able to explicitly account for historically contained the highest lesser estimates from 2015 to 2020 are 6,135 habitat loss and fragmentation and prairie-chicken densities (Wolfe et al. birds (90 percent CI: 1,719, 11,847), quantify the current condition of this 2016, p. 299). Based on population representing about 22 percent of the ecoregion for the lesser prairie-chicken. reconstruction methods, the mean rangewide total (Table 2). Results show Of the sources of habitat loss and population estimate for this ecoregion in minimal variation in recent years. fragmentation that have occurred, the 1970s and 1980s was around 30,000 Prairies of the Sand Sagebrush encroachment of woody vegetation had males (Hagen et al. 2017, pp. 6–7). Ecoregion have been influenced by a the largest impact, with conversion to Population estimates declined in the variety of activities since European cropland, roads, and petroleum 1990s and peaked again in the early settlement of the Great Plains. Much of production also having significant 2000s at around 25,000 males, before these grasslands have been converted to impacts on land cover in this ecoregion declining and remaining at its lowest other land uses such as cultivated (Table 5). Based on our nearest neighbor levels, <10,000 males in 2012, since the agriculture, roads, power lines, analysis, we estimated there are late 2000s (Hagen et al. 2017, pp. 6–7). petroleum production, wind energy, and approximately 994,483 ac (402,453 ha) Aerial surveys from 2012 through transmission lines. Some areas have also or 12 percent of the ecoregion, that is 2020 (Service 2021, Figure 3.6) indicate been altered due to woody vegetation potentially available for use by lesser this ecoregion has the second highest encroachment. Only 26 percent of prairie-chicken (Table 1). population size of the four ecoregions historical sand sagebrush prairie is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29460 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

available as potential nesting habitat for occurred, conversion to cropland has degradation of the rangeland within this lesser prairie-chicken (Haukos et al. had the single largest impact on land ecoregion continues to be a limiting 2016, p. 285). Using our geospatial cover in this ecoregion (Table 6). Based factor for lesser prairie-chicken, and analysis, we were able to explicitly on our nearest neighbor analysis, we most of the existing birds within this account for habitat loss and estimated there are approximately ecoregion persist primarily on and near fragmentation and quantify the current 1,028,523 ac (416,228 ha) or 33 percent CRP lands. Drought conditions in the condition of this ecoregion for the lesser of the ecoregion, potentially available period 2011–2014 have expedited prairie-chicken. Of the sources of for use by lesser prairie-chicken (Table population decline (Haukos et al. 2016, habitat loss and fragmentation that have 1). In addition, habitat loss due to the 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 Percent of Impact sources Acres 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 1,215 birds (90 percent CI: 196, 4,547) this ecoregion in Colorado and Kansas methods, the mean population estimate representing about 4 percent of the detected 406 birds, so we know the for this ecoregion peaked at >90,000 rangewide lesser prairie-chicken total current population is actually larger males from 1970 to 1975 and declined (Table 2). Recent results have been than indicated by the aerial survey to its lowest level of fewer than 1,000 highly variable, with 2020 being the results (Rossi and Fricke, pers. comm. males in recent years. lowest estimate reported. Although the 2020, entire). Aerial surveys from 2012 through aerial survey results show 171 birds in Table 7 combines the estimated area 2020 indicate that this ecoregion has the this ecoregion in 2020, (with no impacted presented above for each of lowest population size (Nasman et al. confidence intervals because the the three ecoregions into one estimate 2020, p. 21) of the four ecoregions. number of detections were too low for for each impact source for the Northern Average estimates from 2015 to 2020 are statistical analysis), ground surveys in 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 Percent of Impact sources Acres 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 remove non-usable areas. We further loss of usable areas and restoration refined the analysis to account for efforts by estimating the rate of change As discussed above, we conducted a connectivity by use of our nearest based on future projections (Service geospatial analysis to characterize the neighbor analysis as described in 2021, Figure 4.1). current condition of the landscape for Rangewide Trends. We then used this the lesser prairie-chicken by Due to uncertainties associated with geospatial framework to analyze the categorizing land cover data (into both future conservation efforts and future condition for each ecoregion. To potential usable, potential restoration, impacts, it is not possible to precisely analyze future habitat changes, we or non-usable categories), taking into quantify the effect of these future accounted for the effects of both future account exclusion areas and impacts to actions on the landscape. Instead, we

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29461

established five future scenarios to methodology used to quantify do we expect them to into the represent a range of plausible outcomes projections of impacts and future foreseeable future: Hunting and other based upon three plausible levels of conservation efforts is provided in the recreational, educational, and scientific conservation (restoration efforts) and SSA report (Service 2021, Appendix C). use (Factor B); parasites and diseases three plausible levels of impacts. To Quantifying future conservation (Factor C); and insecticides (Factor E). account for some of the uncertainty in efforts in terms of habitat restoration For the purposes of this assessment, these projections, we combined the allows us to account for the positive we consider the foreseeable future to be levels of impacts into five different impact of those efforts within our the amount of time on which we can scenarios labeled 1 through 5 (Table 8). analysis by converting areas of land reasonably determine a likely threat’s Scenario 1 represents the scenario with cover that were identified as potential anticipated trajectory and the low levels of future impacts and high habitat in our current condition model anticipated response of the species to levels of future restoration, and Scenario to usable land cover for the lesser those threats. For climate change, the 5 represents the scenario with high prairie-chicken in the future projections. time for which we can reliably project impacts and low restoration. Scenario 1 Explicitly quantifying three levels of threats and the anticipated response is and 5 were used to frame the range of impacts in the future allows us to approximately 60 years. For many other projected outcomes used in our model account for the effect of these impacts threats impacting the lesser prairie- as they represent the low and high of on the lesser prairie-chicken by chicken throughout its range, we likely projected outcomes. Scenarios 2, converting areas identified as usable consider the time for which we can 3, and 4 are model iterations that fall land cover in our current condition reliably project threats and the within the range bounded by scenarios model to nonusable area that will not be anticipated response to be 25 years. This 1 and 5 and have continuation of the available for use by the lesser prairie- time period represents our best current level of restoration efforts and chicken in the future. professional judgment of the foreseeable As we did for the current condition to vary impacts at low, mid, and high future conditions related to conversion assess habitat connectivity, after we levels, respectively. These scenarios of grassland to cropland, petroleum characterized the projected effects of provide a wide range of potential future production, wind energy, and woody conservation and impacts on potential outcomes to consider in assessing lesser vegetation encroachment, and, as future usable areas, we grouped the prairie-chicken habitat conditions. discussed above, is the time period used areas of potential usable, unimpacted to project these threats in our geospatial TABLE 8—SCHEMATIC OF FUTURE land cover on these new future landscape projections using our nearest analysis. For this period, we had SCENARIOS FOR LESSER PRAIRIE- neighbor analysis (Service 2021, pp. 21– reasonable confidence in projecting CHICKEN CONSERVATION CONSID- 24; Appendix B, Parts 1, 2, and 3). Also, these future changes, and the timeframe ERING A RANGE OF FUTURE IM- as done for the current condition, we corresponds with some of the long-term PACTS AND RESTORATION EFFORTS evaluated the frequency of usable area planning for the lesser prairie-chicken. blocks by size in order to evaluate For other threats and the anticipated Levels of future change in habitat fragmentation and connectivity species response, we can reliably project Scenario usable area in the future scenarios (Service 2021, impacts and the species response for less than 25 years, such as livestock Restoration Impacts Figure 4.2). grazing, roads and electrical distribution 1 ...... High ...... Low. Threats Influencing Future Condition lines, shrub control and eradication, and 2 ...... Continuation ...... Low. Following are summary evaluations of fire. 3 ...... Continuation ...... Mid. the expected future condition of threats Habitat Loss and Fragmentation 4 ...... Continuation ...... High. analyzed in the SSA for the lesser 5 ...... Low ...... High. prairie-chicken: Effects associated with As discussed in ‘‘Threats Influencing habitat degradation, loss, and Current Condition,’’ habitat loss and To project the likely future effects of fragmentation, including conversion of fragmentation is the primary concern for impacts and conservation efforts to the grassland to cropland (Factor A), lesser prairie-chicken viability. We landscape as described through our land petroleum production (Factor A), wind discuss how each of these activities may cover model, we quantified the three energy development and transmission contribute to future habitat loss and levels of future habitat restoration and (Factor A), woody vegetation fragmentation for the lesser prairie- three levels of future impacts within the encroachment (Factor A), and roads and chicken and present the outcomes of the analysis area by ecoregion on an annual electrical distribution lines (Factor A); projections. basis. In addition to restoration efforts, climate change (Factor A); and other Conversion of Grassland to Cropland we also quantified those efforts that factors, such as livestock grazing (Factor enhance existing habitat. While these A), shrub control and eradication Because much of the lands capable of enhancement efforts do not increase the (Factor A), fire (Factor A); and climate being used for row crops has already amount of available area and thus are change (Factor E). been converted to cultivated agriculture, not included in the spatial analysis, In this proposed rule, we do not we do not expect future rates of they are summarized in the SSA report present summary evaluations of the conversion to reach those witnessed and considered as part of the overall following threats as we have no historically; however, conversion has analysis of the biological status of the information to project future trends, continued to occur (Lark 2020, entire). species. We then extrapolated those though we do expect them to have some Rates of future conversion of grasslands results over the next 25 years. We chose effect on the species in the future: to cultivated agriculture in the analysis 25 years as a period for which we had Predation (Factor C), collision mortality area will be affected by multiple reasonable confidence in reliably from fences (Factor E), and influence of variables including site-specific biotic projecting these future changes, and the anthropogenic noise (Factor E). We also and abiotic conditions as well as timeframe corresponds with some of the do not discuss the following threats, as socioeconomic influences such as long-term planning for the lesser prairie- they are having little to no impact on governmental agriculture programs, chicken. A complete description of the species and its habitat currently, nor commodity prices, and the economic

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29462 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

benefits of alternative land use Service 2021, p. 83). Table 9 outlines expect future rates of conversion (from practices. the resulting three levels of projected grassland to cropland) to be equivalent For the purposes of the SSA, we habitat loss of future conversion of to those we have historically witnessed, conducted an analysis to project the grassland to cultivated agriculture per the limited amount of large intact future rates of conversion of grassland to ecoregion over the next 25 years. See the grasslands due to the historical extent of cropland at three different levels. We SSA report (Service 2021, Appendix C) conversion means all future impacts are used information from aggregated for further details and methodologies for expected to have a disproportionate remote sensing data from the USDA these projections. While we do not scale of impact. Cropland Data layer (Lark 2020, entire;

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.]

Projected impacts (acres) Ecoregion 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 three levels to acres of usable area Given current trends in energy impacted. Our analysis accounts for production, we anticipate that oil and In the SSA report, we conducted an indirect impacts as well as potential gas production across the lesser prairie- analysis to project the future rates of overlap with other existing impacts to chicken range will continue to occur petroleum production at low, include colocation efforts by developers. and that rates will vary both temporally intermediate, and high levels. We Table 10 represents the extent of and spatially. The rates of development compiled State well permitting spatial potential usable area impacted at the will be dependent upon new data from each State within each of the three levels of development per exploration, advancements in ecoregions to inform assumptions ecoregion over the next 25 years. See the technology, and socioeconomic around future rates of development SSA report (Service 2021, Appendix C) dynamics that will influence energy (Service 2021, p. 84). We converted the for further details and methodologies markets in the future. projected number of new wells at the regarding these projections.

TABLE 10—FUTURE PROJECTION OF THREE LEVELS OF IMPACTED ACRES (INCLUDING BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT EF- FECTS) 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.]

Projected impacts Ecoregion (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 number of proposed wind energy future development was estimated at Transmission Lines projects that will be built within the three different levels within the analysis As discussed in ‘‘Threats Influencing range of the lesser prairie-chicken in area of the lesser prairie-chicken at low, Current Condition,’’ the States in the any future timeframe is difficult to intermediate, and high levels (Service lesser prairie-chicken analysis area have accurately discern. We conducted an 2021, Appendix C). Table 11 represents experienced some of the largest growth analysis of current and potential future the wind development projects in wind energy development in the wind energy development for the SSA projected at three levels of development nation. Identification of the actual for the Lesser Prairie-Chicken, and the per ecoregion.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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

Projected wind developments Ecoregion 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 Service 2021, Appendix C, for further wind energy development grid that was Influencing Current Condition,’’ wind details). This analysis does not mean laid over the analysis area and which energy development also has indirect that all of the impacts occur to allowed the random placement for each impacts on the lesser prairie-chicken. otherwise usable lesser prairie-chicken development for each iteration (Service To determine the number of acres land cover. In fact, it is highly unlikely 2021, p. 86). The resulting projected impacted by wind energy development due to viable wind development impacts in 25 years using the median in the current condition, we analyzed potential outside lesser prairie-chicken iteration for each of the range of future wind energy facilities recently usable areas that all projected impacts scenarios are shown in Table 12. constructed within and near our will occur in areas that are otherwise Scenarios 1 and 5 were used to frame analysis area. We applied a 5,900-ft usable for the lesser prairie-chicken. the scenarios used in our model as they (1,800-m) impact radius to individual Because we cannot predict the precise represent the low and high of likely turbines to account for indirect impacts location of future developments and to projected outcomes. The rangewide and found that the last 5 years show a simplify and facilitate modeling the substantial increase in the relative locations for future projections for wind projections range from 164,100 ac density of wind energy projects (see development, we created a potential (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-CHICK- EN ECOREGION AND RANGEWIDE

Projected wind development impacts Ecoregion (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 project the location (and thus effects to which will result in further loss of lesser represents a major limitation on wind lesser prairie-chicken habitat), we could prairie-chicken habitat into the energy development in the Great Plains. not quantify the future potential effect foreseeable future. The degree of future Additional transmission lines will be of habitat loss and fragmentation on the habitat impacts will depend on land required to transport future electricity lesser prairie-chicken that could be management practices and the level of production to markets; thus, we expect caused by transmission line conservation efforts for woody an expansion of the current development. However, we do vegetation removal. transmission capacity in the Great acknowledge potential habitat loss and To describe the potential future Plains. As this expansion occurs, these fragmentation from transmission lines is effects of encroachment of woody transmission lines will, depending on likely to continue depending upon their vegetation, we used available their location, result in habitat loss as location. information regarding rates of increases well as further fragmentation and could Woody Vegetation Encroachment in eastern red cedar and mesquite also be the catalyst for additional wind encroachment and applied this rate of development affecting the lesser prairie- Due to the past encroachment trends change (over the next 25 years) to the chicken. While we were able to analyze and continued suppression of fire across amount of existing woody vegetation the current impacts of transmission the range of the lesser prairie-chicken, per ecoregion within the analysis area lines on the lesser prairie-chicken, due we expect this encroachment of woody (Appendix C). The estimated current to the lack of information available to vegetation into grasslands to continue, condition analysis described in ‘‘Threats

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29464 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Influencing Current Condition’’ Additionally, due to assumed woody vegetation at low, intermediate, provides the baseline of woody differences in encroachment rates and and high levels of encroachment (see vegetation encroachment, and rates tree densities we provide two the SSA report (Service 2021, Appendix derived from the literature were applied projections for each of the Short-Grass/ C) for rationale behind assumed rates of to this baseline to project new acres of CRP and Mixed-Grass Ecoregions (East change). Table 13 outlines the three encroachment. We then adjusted the and West portions) in the Northern DPS, levels of this projected habitat loss by projected number of new acres of largely based on current tree ecoregion caused by future encroachment using relative density distribution and precipitation gradient. encroachment of woody vegetation over calculations specific to each ecoregion We projected the extent of expected the next 25 years for the purpose of the to account for indirect effects. habitat loss due to encroachment of 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]

Projected impacts Ecoregion (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 increasing by 0.8 °F (0.4 °C) and within extreme precipitation events are Roads and electrical distribution lines the Southwest (including Colorado and projected to increase in frequency in New Mexico) increasing by 1.6 °F (0.9 both the Southern Great Plains and the are another important source of habitat ° loss and fragmentation. In our geospatial C) (Vose et al. 2017, p. 187). By mid- Southwest (Easterling et al. 2017, pp. analysis for the current condition of the century (2036–2065), regional average 218–221). Other extreme weather events lesser prairie-chicken, we were able to temperatures compared to near-present such as heat waves and long duration times (1976–2005) are projected to droughts (Cook et al. 2016, entire), as quantify the area affected by roads, but ° ° no data were available to quantify the increase by 3.6–4.6 F (2.0–2.6 C) in the well as heavy precipitation, are Southern Great Plains, and by 3.7–4.8 °F expected to become more frequent (Karl potential independent impacts of ° distribution lines on habitat loss and (2.1–2.7 C) in the Southwest, et al. 2009, pp. 124–125; Shafer et al. fragmentation. We acknowledge that depending on future emissions. By late- 2014, p. 445; Walsh et al. 2014, pp. 28– some additional habitat loss and century (2071–2100), regional average 40). The devastating ‘dust bowl’ fragmentation will occur in the future temperatures are projected to rise in the conditions of the 1930s could become Southern Great Plans by 4.8–8.4 °F (2.7– more common in the American due to construction of new roads and ° ° ° power lines, but we do not have data 4.7 C), and by 4.9–8.7 F (2.7–4.8 C) Southwest, with future droughts being available to inform projections on how in the Southwest (Vose et al. 2017, p. much more extreme than most droughts much and where any potential new 197). Annual extreme temperatures are on record (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1181, development would occur. also consistently projected to rise faster 1183–1184). Other modeling also than annual averages with future projects changes in precipitation in Climate Change changes in very rare extremes North America through the end of this Future climate projections for this increasing; by late century, current 1-in- century, including an increase in dry region of the United States indicate 20 year maximums are projected to conditions throughout the Central Great general trends of increasing occur every year, while current 1-in-20 Plains (Swain and Hayhoe 2015, entire). temperatures and increasing year minimums are not expected to Furthermore, the combination of precipitation extremes over the 21st occur at all (Vose et al. 2017, pp. 197– increasing temperature and drought century (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 123–128; 198). results in greater impacts on various Kunkel et al. 2013, pp. 73–75; Shafer et Projecting patterns of changes in ecological conditions (water availability, al. 2014, pp. 442–445; Easterling et al. average precipitation across these soil moisture) than increases in 2017, pp. 216–222; Vose et al. 2017, pp. regions of the United States results in a temperature or drought alone (Luo et al. 194–199). Average temperature has range of increasing and decreasing 2017, entire). Additionally, future already increased between the first half precipitation with high uncertainty in decreases in surface (top 4 inches (10 of the last century (1901–1960) and overall averages, although parts of the centimeters)) soil moisture over most of present day (1986–2016), with observed Southwest are projected to receive less the United States are likely as the regional average temperatures within precipitation in the winter and spring climate warms under higher scenarios the Southern Great Plains (including (Easterling et al. 2017, pp. 216–218; (Wehner et al. 2017, p. 231). Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas) Wuebbles et al. 2017, p. 12). However,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29465

Grasslands are critically endangered percent at nests in Texas and New fluctuating weather patterns; however, globally and an irreplaceable ecoregion Mexico in 2011, which are beyond the environmental conditions expected in North America, and climate change is threshold for nest survival (Grisham et from climate change may be outside of an emerging threat to grassland birds al. 2013, p. 8). Increased temperatures in their adaptive potential, particularly in (Wilsey et al. 2019). In a review of the late spring as projected by climate the timeframe weather changes are potential effects of ongoing climate models may lead to egg death or nest expected to occur (Fritts et al. 2018, p. change on the Southern Great Plains abandonment of lesser prairie-chicken 9556). Extreme weather events and and on the lesser prairie-chicken, results (Boal et al. 2010, p. 4). Furthermore, if periods of drying of soil surface suggest increases in temperatures lesser prairie-chicken shift timing of moisture are projected to increase across throughout the lesser prairie-chicken reproduction (to later in the year) to the lesser prairie-chicken range range and possible increases in average compensate for lower precipitation, (Easterling et al. 2017, pp. 218–222; precipitation in the northern part of the then impacts from higher summer Wehner et al. 2017, pp. 237–239). In range but decreasing precipitation in the temperatures could be exacerbated. In a Kansas, extreme drought events in the southern portion of its range (Grisham et study of greater prairie-chickens, summers from 1981 through 2014 had a al. 2016b, pp. 222–227). Weather heterogeneous grasslands have high significant impact on lesser prairie- changes associated with climate change thermal variability with a range of chicken abundance recorded at leks; can have direct effects on the lesser measured operative temperatures thus, increases in drought frequency prairie-chicken, leading to reduced spanning 41 °F (23 °C) with air and intensity could have negative survival of eggs, chicks, or adults, and temperatures >86 °F (30 °C) (Hovick et consequences for the lesser prairie- indirect effects on lesser prairie-chicken al. 2014b, pp. 1–5). In this setting, chicken (Ross et al. 2016a, pp. 6–7). are likely to occur through a variety of females selected nest sites that were as Even mild increases in drought had means including long-term (by mid and much as 14.4 °F (8 °C) cooler than the significant impacts on the likelihood of late twenty-first century) changes in surrounding landscape. population extirpation for lesser prairie- grassland habitat. Other indirect effects Although the entire lesser prairie- chicken (De Angelis 2017, p. 15). may include more secondary causes chicken range is likely to experience Drought is a particularly important such as increases in predation pressure effects from ongoing climate change, the factor in considering lesser prairie- or susceptibility to parasites or diseases. southern part of the Southern DPS (the chicken population changes. The lesser We have little information to describe Shinnery Oak Ecoregion) may be prairie-chicken is considered a ‘‘boom– future grassland conditions as a result of particularly vulnerable to warming and bust’’ species, meaning that there is a long-term climate changes, although drying weather trends, as this portion of high degree of annual variation in warmer and drier conditions would the range is already warmer and drier population size due to variation in rates most likely reduce overall habitat than northern portions and is projected of successful reproduction and quality for lesser prairie-chicken in to continue that trend (Grisham et al. recruitment. These variations are largely much of its range. In general, the 2013, entire; Grisham et al. 2016c, p. driven by seasonal precipitation vulnerability of lesser prairie-chicken to 742). Research in the Shinnery Oak patterns (Grisham et al. 2013, pp. 6–7). the effects of climate change depends on Ecoregion relating projections in Periods of below-normal precipitation the degree to which it is susceptible to, weather parameters in 2050 and 2080 to and higher spring/summer temperatures and unable to cope with, adverse nest survival found with high certainty result in less appropriate grassland that the negative effects on future nest vegetation cover and fewer food sources, environmental changes due to long-term survival estimates will be significant, resulting in decreased reproductive weather trends and more extreme and the resulting survival rates are too output (bust periods). Periods with weather events. Based on an analysis of low for population sustainability in the favorable climatic conditions (above- future climate projections the lesser Southern Great Plains in the absence of normal precipitation and cooler spring/ prairie-chicken could have a net loss of other offsetting influences (Grisham et summer temperatures) will support more than 35 percent to 50 percent of al. 2013, pp. 6–7). As late spring and favorable lesser prairie-chicken habitat its range due to unsuitable climate summer daily high temperatures rise, conditions and result in high variables (Salas et al. 2017, p. 370). the ability for lesser prairie-chicken to reproductive success (boom periods). One area of particular vulnerability find appropriate nest sites and The lesser prairie-chicken population for the lesser prairie-chicken is the need successfully rear broods is expected to failed to rebound for at least 4 years for specific thermal profiles in the decline. Lower rates of successful following the 2011 drought (Fritts et al. microhabitats they use for nesting and reproduction and recruitment lead to 2018, pp. 9556–9557). This information rearing of broods. Warmer air and further overall declines in population indicates either that the extreme surface soil temperatures and the related abundance and resiliency to withstand environmental conditions during 2011 decreased soil moisture near nest sites stochastic events such as extreme may have been beyond what the lesser have been correlated with lower weather events. prairie-chicken is adapted to or that the survival and recruitment in the lesser Extreme weather effects such as return period following the 2008–2009 prairie-chicken (Bell 2005, pp. 16, 21). drought, heat waves, and storms can dry period and ensuing low population On average, lesser prairie-chicken avoid also directly affect lesser prairie-chicken numbers in 2010 was too short for the sites for nesting that are hotter, drier, survival and reproduction and can population to recover enough to be and more exposed to the wind (Patten result in population crashes due to resilient to the 2011 drought. et al. 2005, p. 1275). Nest survival species responses including direct The resilience and resistance of probability decreased by 10 percent mortality from thermal stress, increased species and ecosystems to changing every half-hour when temperature was predation due to larger foraging areas, or environmental conditions depend on greater than 93.2 °F (34 °C) and vapor decreased fitness when food resources many circumstances (Fritts et al. 2018, pressure deficit was less than –23 are scarce. Like other wildlife species in entire). As climatic conditions shift to mmHg during the day (Grisham et al. arid and semiarid grasslands, lesser more frequent and intense drought 2016c, p. 737). Thermal profiles from prairie-chicken on the Southern High cycles, this shift is expected to result in nests in some cases exceeded 130 °F Plains have adaptations that increase more frequent and extreme bust years (54.4 °C) with humidity below 10 resilience to extreme environments and for the lesser prairie-chicken and fewer

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29466 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

boom years. As the frequency and lesser prairie-chicken. Grazing response to fire both temporally and intensity of droughts increase in the management varies both spatially and spatially. An expansive adoption of Southern Great Plains region, there will temporally across the landscape. prescribed fire in management of be diminishing opportunity for boom Additionally, grazing management remaining grasslands would be expected years with above-average precipitation. could become more difficult in the face to have a moderating effect on risk of Overall, more frequent and intense of a changing climate with more wildfires and concurrently would droughts may lessen the intensity of frequent and intense droughts. reduce woody plant encroachment and boom years of the lesser prairie-chicken Our geospatial model does not increase habitat quality and diversity. population cycle in the future which account for impacts to habitat quality as We are not able to quantify these would limit the ability of the species to data needed to characterize habitat impacts on the future condition of the rebound following years of drought quality for the lesser prairie-chicken at landscape in our geospatial analysis due (Ross et al. 2018, entire). These changes the scale and resolution needed for our to lack of data and added complexity, will reduce the overall resiliency of analysis do not exist. While data do not but we acknowledge that fire (both lesser prairie-chicken populations and exist to quantify rangewide extent of prescribed fires and wildfire), or its exacerbate the effects of habitat loss and grazing practices and their effects on absence, will continue to be an fragmentation. Because lesser prairie- habitat, livestock grazing will continue ecological driver across the range of the chicken carrying capacities have already to influence lesser prairie-chicken lesser prairie-chicken in the future with been much reduced, if isolated populations in the foreseeable future. potentially positive and negative effects populations are extirpated due to Shrub Control and Eradication across both short-term and long-term seasonal weather conditions, they timelines in the foreseeable future. cannot be repopulated due to the lack of The removal of native shrubs such as sand shinnery oak is an ongoing Projected Future Habitat Conditions and nearby populations. Trends Although climate change is expected concern to lesser prairie-chicken habitat to alter the vegetation community across availability throughout large portions of To forecast the potential changes in the lesser prairie-chicken range its range, particularly in New Mexico, future lesser prairie-chicken habitat, we Oklahoma, and Texas. While relatively (Grisham et al. 2016b, pp. 228–231), we used the projected levels of potential wide-scale shrub eradication has did not account for the future effects of future impacts from conversion to occurred in the past, we do not have climate change in our geospatial habitat cropland, petroleum production, wind geospatial data to evaluate the extent to model, as we did not have information energy development, and woody which shrub eradication has contributed to inform specific land cover changes vegetation encroachment. We also to habitat loss and fragmentation for the predicted to result from future climate worked with the primary conservation lesser prairie-chicken. While some change (Service 2021, p. 92). entities delivering ongoing, established Federal agencies such as BLM limit this The best available information lesser prairie-chicken conservation practice in lesser prairie-chicken supports that climate change projections programs to develop estimated habitat, shrub control and eradication of increased temperatures, increased reasonable projections for rates of future still occur through some Federal conservation efforts. We asked the precipitation extremes, increased soil programs and on private lands, which entities to provide us with information drying, and an increase of severe events make up the majority of the lesser to project three levels of conservation: such as drought and storms within the prairie-chicken range. Though we Low, continuation, and high. We asked Southern Great Plains are likely to have expect this threat to continue to impact the conservation entities not provide significant influences on the future the species into the foreseeable future, aspirational goals for a given program resiliency of lesser prairie-chicken we do not have data available to project but instead to solely use past populations by mid to late 21st century. the potential scale of habitat loss likely performance, funding expectations, and These trends are expected to exacerbate to occur in the future due to shrub expert opinion to provide plausible the challenges related to past and eradication. future rates for given conservation ongoing habitat loss and fragmentation, practices. We then used this information making it less likely for populations to Fire to estimate future conservation efforts withstand extreme weather events that As discussed in ‘‘Threats Influencing over the next 25 years for the lesser are likely to increase in frequency and Current Condition,’’ the current lack of prairie-chicken. severity. prescribed fire use in the range of the The results of this future geospatial Other Factors lesser prairie-chicken is contributing to model (Service 2021, Section 4.2 and woody plant encroachment and Appendices B and C) is provided in Livestock Grazing degradation of grassland quality. Table 14; further details and maps are We expect that grazing will continue As the effects of fire suppression available in Appendix E of the SSA to be a primary land use on the continue to manifest throughout the report. The median results show a very remaining areas of grassland within the Great Plains, the future impacts of modest increase in areas available for range of the lesser prairie-chicken in the wildfires on the lesser prairie-chicken use by lesser prairie-chicken in our future, and grazing influences habitat are difficult to predict. If recent patterns nearest neighbor analysis under suitability for the lesser prairie-chicken continue with wildfires occurring at Scenario 1 (assuming high levels of (Diffendorfer et al. 2015, p. 1). When increasingly larger scales with less restoration and low levels of impacts) managed to produce habitat conditions frequency and higher intensities than (with an increase for the Shinnery Oak that are beneficial for the lesser prairie- historical fire occurrence, there is an Ecoregion and a decrease for the other chicken, grazing is an invaluable tool for increasing potential of greater negative three ecoregions) and decreasing maintaining healthy prairie ecosystems. impacts on lesser prairie-chicken. amounts of projected declines in areas However, if grazing is managed in a way Additionally, as climate change available for use by lesser prairie- that is focused on maximizing short- projections are indicating the possibility chicken under Scenarios 2–5 (Table 14). term cattle production, resulting in of longer and more severe droughts Rangewide changes in areas available rangeland that is overused, this could across the range of the lesser prairie- for use by lesser prairie-chicken in our have significant negative effects on the chicken, this could alter the vegetation nearest neighbor analysis range from a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 conservation actions will not be enough some of what has been lost, and species a 26 percent decrease in Scenario 5. to offset those habitat losses. Our viability for this species will continue to This analysis indicated additional analysis finds that the expected decline. future habitat loss and fragmentation conservation efforts are inadequate to BILLING CODE 4333–15–P across the range of the lesser prairie- prevent continued declines in total chicken is likely to occur, and habitat availability, much less restore

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29468 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules -24.2% -36.6% -14.0% -30.4% -26.2% I I I I I FOR 884,851 776,111 711,933 630,633 OUR 3,003,529 I I I OF AVAILABLE -21.1% -34.7% -13.7% -24.6% -23.4% RESULT I I I A AREAS AS sos,1s2 887,224 649,227 111,923 USE 3,116,525 CURRENT I I I FOR -9.3% -14.3% -25.3% -15.1% -15.9% ESTIMATED I I I AVAILABLE FROM 932,477 877,663 868,161 742,855 AREAS 3,421,756 I I I ACREAGE -4.7% -3.5% -6.6% -6.9% IN -13.0% I I I PRAIRJE-CHICKEN CHANGE 956,190 980,302 9ss,012 864,780 YEARS. 3,789,343 25 I I I LESSER IN PERCENT OF o.5% -4.8% -2.0% -3.5% 12.3% I I I SHOWING ANALYSIS. ACREAGE 974,200 992,632 975,047 AND 1,149,759 4,091,638 I I I MEDIAN ACRES, IN 994,483 NEIGHBORHOOD FUTURE 1,023,894 1,023,572 1,028,523 4,010,473 I I I OUR OF ANALYSIS 3,153,420 3,sso,209 8,527,718 6,298,014 21,s29,361 I I I RESULT 14.-PROJECTED A AS TABLE USE NEIGHBORHOOD Rangewide Mixed-Grass Totals Grass/CRP Oak Short- Sand Sagebmsh Shinnery

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP01JN21.022 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29469

It is important to note that these populations. Additionally, in spaces to continue to be enrolled in the future, acreages consist of patches of that are highly fragmented, relatively and CCAA projections within this table fragmented habitat among developed small amounts of additional impacts represent enrollments in addition to areas and other unsuitable habitat. may have great consequences as existing enrollments. This table also Based on our geospatial analysis, the landscape composition thresholds for does not include continued vast majority of blocks of usable habitat the lesser prairie-chicken are surpassed. management actions on permanently and the total area within those blocks, Several habitat enhancement actions protected properties (such as State- both in the current condition and in for the lesser prairie-chicken are being owned wildlife management areas or future scenarios, are less than 12,000 ac implemented across the analysis area. conservation banks), as it is assumed (4,856 ha), and very few blocks were These enhancement actions are this management will continue. greater than 50,000 ac (20,234 ha) implemented on existing habitat to Additionally, the numbers reported for (Service 2021, Figure 4.2). As discussed enhance the quality of that given area. NRCS grazing plans are acres in above, the space required by lesser We asked our conservation partners to addition to the number of acres reported prairie-chicken to support individuals provide us with a range of plausible above in ‘‘Conservation Efforts’’ that are from a single lek is approximately rates for conservation efforts occurring being managed under prescribed grazing 12,000–50,000 ac (4,856–20,234 ha). within the lesser prairie-chicken for the lesser prairie-chicken by NRCS, The dominance of smaller blocks on the analysis area by ecoregion. We also as we assume that as contract acres landscape further exhibits that those requested information regarding expire from the program additional spaces are highly fragmented, even with effectiveness, project lifespan, and acres will be enrolled. the remaining potential usable area for spatial targeting of these efforts (Service The actual conservation benefit the lesser prairie-chicken totaling 2021, Appendix C, Section C.3.4). Next, provided to the lesser prairie-chicken by approximately 4,000,000 ac (1,600,000 we converted those rates for each these programs varies greatly and is ha) in the current condition, and program and conservation effort to the difficult to summarize because it potentially declining to as low as total effort at year 25. Table 15 depends on the location and the specific 3,000,000 ac (1,200,000 ha) under summarizes the three projected levels of actions being carried out for each scenario 5 for our future condition future habitat enhancement over the individual agreement. In addition, the projections. High levels of next 25 years for each ecoregion. These level of future voluntary participation in fragmentation, as discussed in ‘‘Threats efforts represent those above and these programs can be highly variable Influencing Current Condition,’’ do not beyond what is already accounted for depending on available funding, provide the landscape composition within the current condition analysis. opportunities for other revenue sources, needed for long-term stability of Acreage enrolled in CCAAs are assumed 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

Total level of future effort (acres) at year 25 Enhancement efforts 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29470 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Future Population Trends into the future. For this analysis, quasi- purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) Several estimates of lesser prairie- extinction was set at effective The inadequacy of existing regulatory chicken population growth rates have population sizes (demographic Ne) of 50 mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or been based on current conditions for the (populations at short-term extinction manmade factors affecting its continued lesser prairie-chicken, with most risk) and 500 (populations at long-term existence. extinction risk) adult breeding birds, derived from demographic matrix Status of the Southern DPS of the Lesser corresponding to an index based on models (Fields 2004, pp. 76–83; Hagen Prairie-Chicken Throughout All of Its minimum males counted at leks of ≤85 et al. 2009, entire; Sullins 2017, entire; ≤ Range Cummings et al. 2017, entire). Most and 852, respectively (Garton et al. 2016, pp. 59–60). The initial analysis We have carefully assessed the best studies project declining lesser prairie- scientific and commercial information chicken populations; however, the using data collected through 2012 was reported in Garton et al. (2016, pp. 60– available regarding the past, present, magnitude of actual future declines is and future threats to the Southern DPS unlikely to be as low as some modeling 73), but it has since been updated to include data collected through 2016 of the lesser prairie-chicken and its tools indicate (Service 2021, Table 4.10). (Hagen et al. 2017, entire). We have habitat. We analyzed effects associated Most positive population growth identified concerns in the past with with habitat degradation, loss, and calculations were derived from 2014– some of the methodologies and fragmentation, including conversion of 2016 (Hagen et al. 2017, Supplemental assumptions made in this analysis, and grassland to cropland (Factor A), Information; Service 2021, Table 4.10), the challenges of these data are noted in petroleum production (Factor A), wind where estimates indicated populations Zavaleta and Haukos (2013, p. 545) and energy development and transmission have increased. However, we caution Cummings et al. (2017, pp. 29–30). (Factor A), woody vegetation that any analysis using growth rates While these concerns remain, this work encroachment (Factor A), and roads and based upon short-term data sets can be represents one of the few attempts to electrical distribution lines (Factor A); problematic as they are very sensitive to project risk to the species across its other factors, such as livestock grazing the starting and ending points in the range, and we considered it as part of (Factor A), shrub control and estimates. Additionally, these growth our overall analysis and recognize any eradication (Factor A), collision rates are accompanied by relatively limitations associated with the analysis. mortality from fences (Factor E), large margins of error. Results were reported for each predation (Factor C), influence of Estimates based on aerial surveys over analysis assuming each ecoregion is anthropogenic noise (Factor E), and fire the past 9 years have indicated a functioning as an independent (Factor A); and extreme weather events rangewide fluctuating population population and also assuming there is (Factor E). We also analyzed the effects beginning with an estimated 28,366 (90 movement of individuals between of existing regulatory mechanisms percent CI: 17,055–40,581) individuals populations (Service 2021, Table 4.11; (Factor D) and ongoing conservation in 2012 to an estimated 34,408 (90 Table 4.12). The results suggest a wide measures. In the SSA report, we also percent CI: 21,270–47,946) individuals range of risks among the ecoregions, but considered three additional threats: in 2020. Included within this timeframe the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion Hunting and other recreational, was a population low of 15,397 (90 consistently had the highest risks of educational, and scientific use (Factor percent CI: 8,145–22,406) individuals in quasi-extinction and the Short-Grass/ B); parasites and diseases (Factor C); 2013. We caution against drawing CRP Ecoregion had the lowest. This and insecticides (Factor E). We consider inferences from point estimates based analysis was based only on simulating all of these impacts now in analyzing upon these data due to low detection demographic variability of populations the status of the Southern DPS. probabilities of the species leading to and did not incorporate changing Over the past several decades, habitat large confidence intervals. We also environmental conditions related to loss, fragmentation, and degradation caution that trend analyses from short- habitat or climate. have resulted in the loss of large areas term data sets are highly sensitive to of the habitat that supports the lesser starting and ending population sizes. Determination of Lesser Prairie-Chicken prairie-chicken in the Southern DPS. For example, if you use 2012, the first Status Suitable habitat has been lost as year of available rangewide survey data, Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) grasslands are converted to cropland, as the starting point for a trend analysis, and its implementing regulations (50 and as petroleum and natural gas it may appear that populations are CFR part 424) set forth the procedures production and wind energy relatively stable to slightly increasing, for determining whether a species meets development have resulted in further but during the years of 2010–2013, the the definition of an endangered species loss of habitat. The lesser prairie- range of the lesser prairie-chicken or a threatened species. The Act defines chicken is particularly vulnerable to experienced a severe drought and thus ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species ‘‘in changes on the landscape, as it requires lesser prairie-chicken populations were danger of extinction throughout all or a large blocks of suitable habitat to at historic lows. If the data existed to significant portion of its range,’’ and complete its life-history needs. This perform the same analysis using the ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species ‘‘likely includes its lek breeding system, which starting point as 2009, then the results to become an endangered species within requires males and females to be able to would likely show a decreasing the foreseeable future throughout all or hear and see each other over relatively population trend. a significant portion of its range.’’ The wide distances, the need for large The future risk of extinction of the Act requires that we determine whether patches of habitat that include several lesser prairie-chicken has been a species meets the definition of types of microhabitats, and the evaluated using historical ground ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened behavioral avoidance of vertical surveys (Garton et al. 2016, pp. 60–73). species’’ because of any of the following structures. In the case of petroleum and This analysis used the results of those factors: (A) The present or threatened wind energy production, the extent of surveys to project the risk of lesser destruction, modification, or the impact from the threat is not just the prairie-chicken quasi-extinction in each curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) original site, but also all roads, of the four ecoregions and rangewide Overutilization for commercial, powerlines, and other infrastructure over two timeframes, 30 and 100 years recreational, scientific, or educational associated with the sites, and noise

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29471

associated with those areas that may after the last severe drought. Under Status of the Northern DPS of the Lesser interfere with communication between current climactic conditions, another Prairie-Chicken Throughout All of Its male and female birds. wide-scale severe drought could occur Range In the Southern DPS, woody in this ecoregion at any time, and the We have carefully assessed the best vegetation encroachment by honey species may not be able to recover. scientific and commercial information mesquite has played a significant role in Overall, the lesser prairie-chickens in available regarding the past, present, limiting available space for the lesser the Southern DPS are likely to continue and future threats to the Northern DPS prairie-chicken and is one of the to experience declines in resiliency, of the lesser prairie-chicken and its primary threats to the species in this redundancy, and genetic representation. habitat. We analyzed effects associated DPS. Fire, incompatible grazing Thus, after assessing the best available with habitat degradation, loss, and management, and drought associated fragmentation, including conversion of with climate change also continue to information, we determine that the grassland to cropland (Factor A), degrade habitat. The size of fires, Southern DPS of the lesser prairie- especially in areas dominated by woody chicken is in danger of extinction petroleum production (Factor A), wind vegetation, are increasing. When throughout all of its range. We find that energy development and transmission managed compatibly, fire and grazing a threatened species status is not (Factor A), woody vegetation can improve habitat quality. However, appropriate for the Southern DPS encroachment (Factor A), and roads and fire management efforts are currently because it is currently in danger of electrical distribution lines (Factor A); occurring on only a limited portion of extinction. other factors, such as livestock grazing the lesser prairie-chicken range. (Factor A), shrub control and The Southern DPS is particularly Status of the Southern DPS of the Lesser eradication (Factor A), collision vulnerable to effects associated with Prairie-Chicken Throughout a mortality from fences (Factor E), climate change and drought, as it is Significant Portion of Its Range predation (Factor C), influence of anthropogenic noise (Factor E), and fire already warmer and drier than the Under the Act and our implementing Northern DPS. That warmer and drier (Factor A); and extreme weather events regulations, a species may warrant trend is expected to continue (Grisham (Factor E). We also analyzed existing listing if it is in danger of extinction or et al. 2013, entire; Grisham et al. 2016c, regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and p. 742). Given the needs of lesser likely to become so in the foreseeable ongoing conservation measures. In the prairie-chicken for cool microclimates future throughout all or a significant SSA report, we also considered three to find appropriate nest sites and rear portion of its range. We have additional threats: Hunting and other broods, droughts like those that have determined that the Southern DPS of the recreational, educational, and scientific recently occurred on the landscape lesser prairie-chicken is in danger of use (Factor B); parasites and diseases could further impact already declining extinction throughout all of its range (Factor C); and insecticides (Factor E). population growth rates in this DPS. and accordingly did not undertake an As with the Southern DPS, we consider Some conservation measures and analysis of any significant portion of its all of these impacts now in analyzing regulatory mechanisms are acting to range. Because the Southern DPS of the the status of the Northern DPS. reduce the magnitude of threats lesser prairie-chicken warrants listing as As is the case in the Southern DPS, impacting the lesser prairie-chicken and endangered throughout all of its range, habitat degradation, loss, and its habitat. However, our analysis our determination is consistent with the fragmentation is the primary threat to demonstrates that the restoration efforts decision in Center for Biological the lesser prairie-chicken in this DPS, have not been enough to offset the Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 with other threats such as fire, incompatible livestock grazing, and impacts of habitat loss and (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the extreme weather events further fragmentation and conservation efforts court vacated the aspect of the Final focused on localized management to decreasing population resiliency and Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase affect habitat quality, while not species redundancy. The largest impacts ‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the addressing the overarching limiting in this DPS are cropland conversion and factor of habitat loss and fragmentation, Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of woody vegetation encroachment. The is not addressing the long-term ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion is also population needs for the lesser prairie- Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) experiencing habitat degradation due to chicken. Thus, these measures are only that provided the Services do not incompatible grazing management. The minimally ameliorating the threats undertake an analysis of significant Short-Grass/CRP region has the highest acting throughout the DPS. portions of a species’ range if the number of birds, with a 5-year estimate After evaluating threats to the species species warrants listing as endangered of approximately 17,000 birds. Other and assessing the cumulative effect of throughout all of its range. portions of the range have lower the threats under the section 4(a)(1) population resiliency. In particular, the Determination of Status of the Southern factors, we conclude that the Southern Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion has DPS of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken DPS is continuing to experience ongoing approximately 1,000 birds remaining habitat loss and fragmentation, and Our review of the best available (Table 2). additional threats from influence of scientific and commercial information Resiliency of populations throughout anthropogenic noise and extreme indicates that the Southern DPS of the the Northern DPS has decreased from weather events, particularly droughts. lesser prairie-chicken meets the historical levels, though the DPS still Currently, only 27 percent of this has redundancy across the three definition of an endangered species. ecoregion is available for use by the ecoregions and genetic and Therefore, we propose to list the lesser prairie-chicken. Based on mean environmental representation. However, population estimates, the Southern DPS Southern DPS of the lesser prairie- our future scenario analysis has very low resiliency to stochastic chicken as an endangered species in demonstrates that the current threats events. It may have as few as 5,000 birds accordance with sections 3(6) and acting on the landscape are expected to remaining. The population count 4(a)(1) of the Act. either continue at the same levels or dropped to as low as 1,000 birds in 2015 increase in severity in the foreseeable

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29472 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

future. Habitat loss is projected to projections, habitat will become Following the court’s holding in outpace conservation efforts to restore increasingly fragmented and less able to Center for Biological Diversity, we now habitat. Though we do not expect rates support lesser prairie-chickens. Thus, consider whether there are any of habitat conversion to cropland to be after assessing the best available significant portions of the species’ range equivalent to the rates that we information, we conclude that the where the species is in danger of historically witnessed, we expect any Northern DPS of the lesser prairie- extinction now (i.e., endangered). In additional conversion that does occur chicken is not currently in danger of undertaking this analysis for the will have a disproportionately large extinction but is likely to become in Northern DPS of the lesser prairie- effect on resiliency and redundancy due danger of extinction within the chicken, we choose to address the status to the limited amount of remaining large foreseeable future throughout all of its question first—we consider information intact grasslands. Conversion of habitat range. pertaining to the geographic distribution due to oil, gas, and wind energy will Status of the Northern DPS of the Lesser of both the species and the threats that continue to occur, though the rates of Prairie-Chicken Throughout a the species faces to identify any development are uncertain. Woody Significant Portion of Its Range portions of the range where the species vegetation encroachment is also expected to continue, particularly in the Under the Act and our implementing is endangered. We evaluated all parts of Mixed-Grass Ecoregion. Increased regulations, a species may warrant the Northern DPS, including the Sand drought and severe weather events listing if it is in danger of extinction or Sagebrush Ecoregion, the Mixed Grass associated with climate change are likely to become so in the foreseeable Ecoregion, and the Short Grass/CRP expected to decrease population future throughout all or a significant Ecoregion. We identified one portion, resiliency and redundancy into the portion of its range. The court in Center the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion, that may foreseeable future, and as habitat for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 meet the definition of endangered, as availability continues to decline, and WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) population estimates have shown the available habitat blocks decrease in size, (Everson), vacated the aspect of the 2014 greatest declines in that portion of the populations may decline to below quasi- Significant Portion of its Range Policy range. extinction levels. Our future scenarios that provided that the Services do not For the Northern DPS, we considered undertake an analysis of significant project that usable habitat will decrease whether the threats are geographically portions of a species’ range if the from 3–25 percent within the Northern concentrated in any portion of the species warrants listing as threatened DPS (5–24 percent in the Short-Grass/ species’ range at a biologically CRP Ecoregion, from 2–37 percent in the throughout all of its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the meaningful scale. We examined the Mixed-Grass Ecoregion, and from 3–14 following threats: Effects associated percent in the Sand Sagebrush species is endangered in a significant with habitat degradation, loss, and Ecoregion) due to projected impacts portion of its range—that is, whether fragmentation, including conversion of from conversion to cropland, energy there is any portion of the species’ range development, and woody vegetation for which both (1) the portion is grassland to cropland, petroleum encroachment. significant; and (2) the species is in production, wind energy development Conservation measures and regulatory danger of extinction in that portion. and transmission, woody vegetation mechanisms are acting to reduce the Depending on the case, it might be more encroachment, and roads and electrical magnitude of threats impacting the efficient for us to address the distribution lines; other factors, such as lesser prairie-chicken and its habitat. ‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ livestock grazing, shrub control and However, our analysis demonstrates that question first. We can choose to address eradication, collision mortality from future restoration efforts will not be either question first. Regardless of fences, predation, influence of enough to offset the impacts of habitat which question we address first, if we anthropogenic noise, and fire; extreme loss and fragmentation and conservation reach a negative answer with respect to weather events, including cumulative efforts focused on localized the first question that we address, we do effects. However, we did not identify management to affect habitat quality, not need to evaluate the other question any threats that were concentrated in while not addressing the overarching for that portion of the species’ range. the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion that were limiting factor of habitat loss and We apply the term ‘‘significant’’ not at similar levels in the remainder of fragmentation, is not addressing the differently for the purpose of the the range at a biologically meaningful long-term population needs for the ‘‘significant portion of the range’’ scale. lesser prairie-chicken. Thus, these analysis than the DPS analysis. The DPS Policy requires that for a vertebrate Thus, there are no portions of the measures are having only minimal DPS’s range where the species has a impacts on threats acting throughout the population to meet the Act’s definition different status from its rangewide DPS. of ‘‘species,’’ the population must be After evaluating threats to the species discrete from other populations and status. Therefore, no portion of the and assessing the cumulative effect of must be significant to the taxon as a species’ range provides a basis for the threats under the section 4(a)(1) whole. The use of ‘‘significant to the determining that the species is in danger factors, we find that the lesser prairie- taxon as a whole’’ under the DPS Policy of extinction in a significant portion of chicken maintains populations in all is necessarily broad. Notably, a segment its range, and we determine that the three ecoregions in the Northern DPS, could be ‘‘significant to the taxon as a species is likely to become in danger of and has genetic and ecological whole’’ for the DPS policy but not be extinction within the foreseeable future representation in those ecoregions, as ‘‘significant’’ for the different analysis throughout all of its range. This is well as population redundancy across under the Significant Portion of Its consistent with the courts’ holdings in the entirety of the DPS. Thus, lesser Range Policy. Thus, a determination Desert Survivors v. Department of the prairie-chicken in the Northern DPS are that an area is significant for the Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 not currently in danger of extinction, purposes of DPS does not necessarily WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and thus the Northern DPS does not mean that it will be significant for the and Center for Biological Diversity v. meet the definition of endangered. purposes of the Significant Portion of Its Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. However, based on our future Range Policy. Ariz. 2017).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29473

Determination of Status of the Northern for reclassification from endangered to Section 7(a) of the Act requires DPS of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken threatened (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal Federal agencies to evaluate their Our review of the best available from protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and actions with respect to any species that scientific and commercial information methods for monitoring recovery is proposed or listed as an endangered indicates that the Northern DPS of the progress. Recovery plans also establish or threatened species and with respect lesser prairie-chicken meets the a framework for agencies to coordinate to its critical habitat, if any is definition of a threatened species. their recovery efforts and provide designated. Regulations implementing Therefore, we propose to list the estimates of the cost of implementing this interagency cooperation provision Northern DPS of the lesser prairie- recovery tasks. Recovery teams of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires chicken as a threatened species in (composed of species experts, Federal Federal agencies to confer with the accordance with sections 3(20) and and State agencies, nongovernmental Service on any action that is likely to 4(a)(1) of the Act. organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery jeopardize the continued existence of a Available Conservation Measures plans. When completed, the recovery species proposed for listing or result in Conservation measures provided to outline, draft recovery plan, and the destruction or adverse modification of species listed as endangered or final recovery plan will be available on proposed critical habitat. If a species is threatened species under the Act our website (http://www.fws.gov/ listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of include recognition, recovery actions, endangered), or from our Arlington the Act requires Federal agencies to requirements for Federal protection, and Field Office (see FOR FURTHER ensure that activities they authorize, prohibitions against certain practices. INFORMATION CONTACT). fund, or carry out are not likely to Recognition through listing results in Implementation of recovery actions jeopardize the continued existence of public awareness, and conservation by generally requires the participation of a the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal Federal, State, Tribal, and local broad range of partners, including other action may affect a listed species or its agencies, private organizations, and Federal agencies, States, Tribes, critical habitat, the responsible Federal individuals. The Act encourages nongovernmental organizations, agency must enter into consultation cooperation with the States and other businesses, and private landowners. with the Service. countries and calls for recovery actions Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (such as restoration Some examples of Federal agency to be carried out for listed species. The actions within the species’ habitat that protection required by Federal agencies of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and may require conference or consultation, and the prohibitions against certain or both, as described in the preceding activities are discussed, in part, below. outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be paragraph include: Landscape-altering The primary purpose of the Act is the activities on Federal lands; provision of accomplished solely on Federal lands conservation of endangered and Federal funds to State and private because their range may occur primarily threatened species and the ecosystems entities through Service programs, such or solely on non-Federal lands. To upon which they depend. The ultimate as the PFW Program, the State Wildlife achieve recovery of these species goal of such conservation efforts is the Grant Program, and the Wildlife requires cooperative conservation efforts recovery of these listed species, so that Restoration Program; construction and on private, State, and Tribal lands. they no longer need the protective operation of communication, radio, and measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the If this species is listed, funding for similar towers by the Federal Act calls for the Service to develop and recovery actions will be available from Communications Commission or implement recovery plans for the a variety of sources, including Federal Federal Aviation Administration; conservation of endangered and budgets, State programs, and cost-share issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act threatened species. The recovery grants for non-Federal landowners, the permits by the U.S. Army Corps of planning process involves the academic community, and Engineers; construction and identification of actions that are nongovernmental organizations. In management of petroleum pipeline by necessary to halt or reverse the species’ addition, pursuant to section 6 of the the Federal Energy Regulatory decline by addressing the threats to its Act, the States of Colorado, Kansas, New Commission; construction and survival and recovery. The goal of this Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas would be maintenance of roads or highways by process is to restore listed species to a eligible for Federal funds to implement the Federal Highway Administration; point where they are secure, self- management actions that promote the implementation of certain USDA sustaining, and functioning components protection or recovery of the lesser agricultural assistance programs; of their ecosystems. prairie-chicken. Information on our Federal grant, loan, and insurance Recovery planning consists of grant programs that are available to aid programs; or Federal habitat restoration preparing draft and final recovery plans, species recovery can be found at: http:// programs such as Environmental beginning with the development of a www.fws.gov/grants. Quality Incentive Program and CRP; and recovery outline and making it available Although the Southern DPS and the development of Federal minerals, such to the public within 30 days of a final Northern DPS of the lesser prairie- as oil and gas. listing determination. The recovery chicken are only proposed for listing The Act and its implementing outline guides the immediate under the Act at this time, please let us regulations set forth a series of general implementation of urgent recovery know if you are interested in prohibitions and exceptions that apply actions and describes the process to be participating in recovery efforts for the to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions used to develop a recovery plan. lesser prairie-chicken. Additionally, we of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at Revisions of the plan may be done to invite you to submit any new 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any address continuing or new threats to the information on this species whenever it person subject to the jurisdiction of the species, as new substantive information becomes available and any information United States to take (which includes becomes available. The recovery plan you may have for recovery planning harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, also identifies recovery criteria for purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or review of when a species may be ready CONTACT). to attempt any of these) endangered

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 (2) Removal of nonnative or invasive eggs or active nests or cause mortality or the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful trees and shrubs, not including shinnery injury to chicks, juveniles, or adult to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, oak or sand sagebrush; and lesser prairie-chickens. transport, or ship in interstate or foreign (3) Removal of existing infrastructure Questions regarding whether specific commerce in the course of commercial including oil and gas infrastructure, activities would constitute a violation of activity; or sell or offer for sale in electrical transmission and distribution section 9 of the Act in regards to the interstate or foreign commerce any lines, windmills, existing fences, and Southern DPS of the lesser prairie- species listed as an endangered species. other anthropogenic features impacting chicken should be directed to the It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, the landscape. Arlington Ecological Services Field carry, transport, or ship any such Based on the best available Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION wildlife that has been taken illegally. information, the following activities CONTACT). may potentially result in a violation of Certain exceptions apply to employees II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section of the Service, the National Marine section 9 of the Act in the southern DPS of the lesser prairie-chicken if they are 4(d) of the Act for the Northern DPS of Fisheries Service, other Federal land the Lesser Prairie-Chicken management agencies, and State not authorized in accordance with conservation agencies. applicable law; this list is not Background We may issue permits to carry out comprehensive: (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, Section 4(d) of the Act contains two otherwise prohibited activities sentences. The first sentence states that involving endangered wildlife under possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including the ‘‘Secretary shall issue such certain circumstances. Regulations import or export across State lines and regulations as he deems necessary and governing permits are codified at 50 international boundaries, except for advisable to provide for the CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered properly documented antique conservation’’ of species listed as wildlife, a permit may be issued for the specimens of these taxa at least 100 threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has following purposes: For scientific years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) noted that statutory language like purposes, to enhance the propagation or of the Act. ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates survival of the species, and for (2) Actions that would result in the a large degree of deference to the agency incidental take in connection with unauthorized destruction or alteration (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 otherwise lawful activities. There are of the species’ habitat. Such activities (1988)). Conservation is defined in the also certain statutory exemptions from could include, but are not limited to, the Act to mean ‘‘the use of all methods and the prohibitions, which are found in removal of native shrub or herbaceous procedures which are necessary to bring sections 9 and 10 of the Act. vegetation by any means for any any endangered species or threatened It is our policy, as published in the infrastructure construction project or species to the point at which the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR the direct conversion of native shrub or measures provided pursuant to [the Act] 34272), to identify to the maximum herbaceous vegetation to another land are no longer necessary.’’ Additionally, extent practicable at the time a species use. the second sentence of section 4(d) of is listed, those activities that would or (3) Actions that would result in the Act states that the Secretary ‘‘may by would not constitute a violation of sustained alteration of preferred regulation prohibit with respect to any section 9 of the Act. The intent of this vegetative characteristics of lesser threatened species any act prohibited policy is to increase public awareness of prairie-chicken habitat, particularly under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish the effect of a proposed listing on those actions that would cause a or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case proposed and ongoing activities within reduction or loss in the native of plants.’’ Thus, the combination of the the range of the species proposed for invertebrate community within those two sentences of section 4(d) provides listing. For the Northern DPS of the habitats or alterations to vegetative the Secretary with wide latitude of lesser prairie-chicken, which we are composition and structure. Such discretion to select and promulgate proposing to list as threatened, the activities could include, but are not appropriate regulations tailored to the discussion below in section II regarding limited to, incompatible livestock specific conservation needs of the protective regulations under section 4(d) grazing, the application of herbicides or threatened species. The second sentence of the Act complies with our policy. insecticides, and seeding of nonnative grants particularly broad discretion to We now discuss specific activities plant species that would compete with the Service when adopting the related to the Southern DPS, which we native vegetation for water, nutrients, prohibitions under section 9. are proposing to list as endangered. and space. The courts have recognized the extent Based on the best available information, (4) Actions that would result in lesser of the Secretary’s discretion under this the following actions are unlikely to prairie-chicken avoidance of an area standard to develop rules that are result in a violation of section 9, if these during one or more seasonal periods. appropriate for the conservation of a activities are carried out in accordance Such activities could include, but are species. For example, courts have with existing regulations and permit not limited to, the construction of upheld rules developed under section requirements; this list is not vertical structures such as power lines, 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency comprehensive. As identified in the communication towers, buildings, authority where they prohibited take of SSA report, restoration actions are infrastructure to support energy threatened wildlife, or include a limited essential for conservation of the lesser development, roads, and other taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley prairie-chicken. Restoration actions will anthropogenic features; motorized and Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. not constitute a violation of section 9 as nonmotorized recreational use; and Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); those actions are implemented on lands activities such as well drilling, Washington Environmental Council v. that are not currently lesser prairie- operation, and maintenance, which National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 chicken habitat. These restoration would entail significant human U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. actions include: presence, noise, and infrastructure. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) (1) Planting previously tilled or no till (5) Actions, intentional or otherwise, rules that do not address all of the croplands to grasses; that would result in the destruction of threats a species faces (see State of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 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 lesser prairie-chicken habitat. These of the southern Great Plains using fire Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative actions are essential for the species as requires implementing fire at a history when the Act was initially this is the only way to offset habitat loss frequency that mimics historical fire enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the and fragmentation. For the lesser frequencies of 2–14 years (Guyette et al. threatened list, the Secretary has an prairie-chicken, the primary restoration 2012, p. 330) and thus further limits the almost infinite number of options actions consist of woody vegetation number of landowners implementing available to him with regard to the removal in and adjacent to grasslands fire in a manner that would truly permitted activities for those species. He (this does not include the removal of preclude future encroachment. We have may, for example, permit taking, but not sand shinnery oak (specifically, Quercus determined that there is a potential for importation of such species, or he may havardii species) or sand sagebrush short-term adverse impacts, but we want choose to forbid both taking and (specifically, Artemisia filifolia to encourage the use of prescribed fire importation but allow the transportation species)), removal of existing on the landscape; thus, we provide an of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, anthropogenic features (such as existing exception for this action below. 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). energy infrastructure, roads, fences, Finally, we considered the need for Exercising this authority under windmills, and other anthropogenic compatibly managed grazing activities section 4(d), we have developed a features), and converting cropland to that result in the vegetation structure proposed rule that is designed to grassland. We have determined that an and composition needed to support the address the specific threats and exception under this 4(d) rule is not lesser prairie-chicken. The habitat needs conservation needs of the Northern DPS needed for these restoration actions as for the lesser prairie-chicken vary across of the lesser prairie-chicken. Although they occur on lands already impacted or the range, and grazing can affect these the statute does not require us to make altered in ways that they no longer habitats in different ways. It is a ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ finding represent lesser prairie-chicken habitat important that grazing be managed at a with respect to the adoption of specific and thus there is no potential for a given site to account for a variety of prohibitions under section 9, we find section 9 violation. factors specific to the local ecological that this rule as a whole satisfies the We also considered the value site including past management, soils, requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to provided by the implementation of precipitation and other factors. This issue regulations deemed necessary and prescribed fire on the landscape. Prior management will ensure that the advisable to provide for the to extensive Euro-American settlement, resulting vegetative composition and conservation of the Northern DPS of the frequent fires helped confine trees like structure will support the lesser prairie- lesser prairie-chicken. As discussed eastern red cedar to river and stream chicken. Grazing management that alters above under Summary of Biological drainages and rocky outcroppings. the vegetation community to a point Status and Threats, we have concluded However, settlement of the Southern where the composition and structure are that the Northern DPS of the lesser Great Plains altered the historical no longer suitable for lesser prairie- prairie-chicken is likely to become in ecological context and disturbance chicken can contribute to habitat loss danger of extinction within the regimes. The frequency and intensity of and fragmentation within the landscape, foreseeable future primarily due to these disturbances directly influenced even though these areas may remain as threats associated with habitat loss, the ecological processes, biological prairie or grassland. Livestock grazing, fragmentation, and degradation. The diversity, and patchiness typical of however, is not inherently detrimental provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule Great Plains grassland ecosystems, to the lesser prairie-chicken provided would promote conservation of the which evolved with frequent fire that that grazing management results in a Northern DPS of the lesser prairie- helped to maintain prairie habitat for plant community with species and chicken by encouraging management of lesser prairie-chicken (Collins 1992, pp. structural diversity suitable for the the landscape in ways that meet the 2003–2005; Fuhlendorf and Smeins lesser prairie-chicken. When livestock conservation needs of the lesser prairie- 1999, pp. 732, 737). grazing is managed compatibly, it can be chicken and identifying the prohibitions Following Euro-American settlement, an invaluable tool necessary for needed to conserve the lesser prairie- fire suppression allowed trees, such as managing healthy grasslands benefiting chicken. We believe it is appropriate to eastern red cedar, to begin invading or the lesser prairie-chicken. extend the standard section 9 encroaching upon neighboring While developing this proposed 4(d) prohibitions for endangered species to grasslands. Implementation of rule, we found that determining how to the Northern DPS of the lesser prairie- prescribed fire is often the best method manage grazing in a manner compatible chicken in order to conserve the species. to control or preclude tree invasion of with the Northern DPS of the lesser While developing this proposed 4(d) grasslands. However, to some prairie chicken is highly site specific rule, the Service considered exceptions landowners and land managers, burning based on conditions at the local level; to the standard section 9 prohibitions of grassland can be perceived as thus, broad determinations within this for endangered species that would unnecessary for meeting their proposed 4(d) rule would not be facilitate essential conservation actions management goals, costly and beneficial to the species or local land needed for the Northern DPS. We burdensome to enact, undesirable for managers. While the 4(d) rule was one consider essential conservation efforts optimizing production for cattle, and approach considered to promote to include restoration actions, likely to create wind erosion or conservation of the Northern DPS of the utilization of prescribed fire, and ‘‘blowouts’’ in sandy soils. lesser prairie-chicken by encouraging compatible grazing management as the Consequently, wildfire suppression is management of grassland landscapes in primary essential conservation actions common, and relatively little prescribed ways that support both long-term needed to conserve the lesser prairie- burning occurs on private land. Often, viability of livestock enterprises, and chicken. prescribed fire is employed only after concurrent conservation of lesser For the purposes of this rule and our significant tree invasion has already prairie-chicken, we determined that SSA analysis we consider restoration occurred and landowners consider other mechanisms would be more actions to be actions that convert areas forage production for cattle to have appropriate to support this action. that are otherwise not habitat for lesser diminished. Preclusion of woody Besides a 4(d) rule, other mechanisms prairie-chickens to areas which are vegetation encroachment on grasslands supporting conservation opportunities

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29476 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

exist in other portions of the fields supporting small grains, alfalfa, suppression of wildfire resulting in Endangered Species Act and our and hay production. Lesser prairie- widespread degradation and loss of policies, including under Federal chickens also maintain lek sites within grasslands. While fire plays an Agency Actions and Consultations these cultivated areas, and they may be important role, potential exists for some (section 7), Permits (section 10), and present during farming operations. short-term negative impacts to the lesser Conservation Banking. We recognize the Thus, existing cultivated lands, prairie-chicken while implementing value of compatibly managed grazing for although not a native habitat type, may prescribed fire. The potential impacts the lesser prairie-chicken, and we look provide food resources for lesser prairie- depend upon what time of the year the forward to working with our partners chickens. fire occurs, extent of habitat burned and and local land managers to ensure there Routine agricultural activities covered burn severity including, but are not are viable conservation options that by this provision include: limited to, disturbance of individuals, provide regulatory coverage for (a) Plowing, drilling, disking, destruction of nests, and impacts to interested landowners. mowing, or other mechanical available cover for nesting and The provisions of this proposed rule manipulation and management of lands. concealment from predators. are one of many tools that we would use (b) Routine activities in direct support Prescribed fire activities covered by to promote the conservation of the of cultivated agriculture, including this provision include: Northern DPS of the lesser prairie- replacement, upgrades, maintenance, (a) Construction and maintenance of chicken. This proposed 4(d) rule would and operation of existing infrastructure fuel breaks. apply only if and when we make final such as buildings, irrigation conveyance (b) Planning needed for application of the listing of the Northern DPS of the structures, fences, and roads. prescribed fire. lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened (c) Use of chemicals in direct support (c) Implementation of the fire and all species. of cultivated agriculture when done in associated actions. accordance with label (d) Any necessary monitoring and Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule recommendations. followup actions. This proposed 4(d) rule would We do not view regulating these Implementation of prescribed fire is provide for the conservation of the activities as necessary and advisable for essential to managing for healthy Northern DPS of the lesser prairie- the conservation of the lesser prairie- grasslands and shrublands, but chicken by prohibiting the following chicken as, while there may be limited currently use of prescribed fire is activities, except as otherwise use for foraging and lekking sites, these minimal or restricted to frequent use in authorized or permitted: Importing or lands do not have the ability to support small local areas within the range of the exporting; take; possession and other the complete life-history needs of the lesser prairie-chicken. While prescribed acts with unlawfully taken specimens; species and thus are not considered fire has the potential for some limited delivering, receiving, transporting, or habitat. We are proposing that none of negative short-term effects on the lesser shipping in interstate or foreign the provisions in 50 CFR 17.31 would prairie-chicken, we have concluded that commerce in the course of commercial apply to actions that result from the long-term benefits of implementing activity; or selling or offering for sale in activities associated with the prescribed fire drastically outweigh the interstate or foreign commerce. We also continuation of routine agricultural short-term negative effects. include the following two exceptions to practices, as specified above, on existing Furthermore, as discussed in the these prohibitions, which along with the cultivated lands that are in row crop, background section of this proposed prohibitions, are set forth under seed-drilled untilled crop, hay, or forage 4(d) rule, fire is a necessary component Proposed Regulation Promulgation: production. These lands must meet the for the management and maintenance of (1) Continuation of routine definition of cropland as defined in 7 healthy grassland for the lesser prairie- agricultural practices on existing CFR 718.2, and, in addition, must have chicken. We are proposing that none of cultivated lands. been cultivated, meaning tilled, planted, the provisions in 50 CFR 17.31 would This proposed 4(d) rule provides that or harvested, within the previous 5 apply to the implementation of take of the lesser prairie-chicken will years. prescribed fire as discussed above. not be prohibited provided the take is (2) Implementation of prescribed fire As discussed above under Summary incidental to activities that are for the purposes of grassland of Biological Status and Threats, threats conducted during the continuation of management. including habitat loss, fragmentation, routine agricultural practices, as This proposed 4(d) rule provides that and degradation are affecting the status specified below, on cultivated lands that take of the lesser prairie-chicken will of the Northern DPS of the lesser are in row crop, seed-drilled untilled not be prohibited provided the take is prairie-chicken. A range of activities crop, hay, or forage production. These incidental to activities that are have the potential to affect the Northern lands must meet the definition of conducted during the implementation of DPS of the lesser prairie-chicken, cropland as defined in 7 CFR 718.2, prescribed fire, as specified below, for including actions that would result in and, in addition, must have been the purpose of grassland and shrubland the unauthorized destruction or cultivated, meaning tilled, planted, or management. alteration of the species’ habitat. Such harvested, within the 5 years preceding As discussed in the Background activities could include, but are not the proposed routine agricultural section of this proposed 4(d) rule, fire limited to: The removal of native shrub practice that may otherwise result in plays an essential role in maintaining or herbaceous vegetation by any means take. Thus, this provision does not healthy grasslands and shrublands, for any infrastructure construction include take coverage for any new preventing woody vegetation project or direct conversion of native conversion of grasslands into encroachment, and encouraging the shrub or herbaceous vegetation to agriculture. structural and species diversity of the another land use; actions that would Lesser prairie-chickens travel from plant community required by the lesser result in the long-term alteration of native rangeland and CRP lands, which prairie-chicken. The intensity, scale, preferred vegetative characteristics of provide cover types that support lesser and frequency of fire regimes in the lesser prairie-chicken habitat, prairie-chicken nesting and brood- southern Great Plains has been particularly those actions that would rearing, to forage within cultivated drastically altered due to human cause a reduction or loss in the native

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29477

invertebrate community within those distribution of endangered, threatened, essential for the conservation of the habitats. and candidate species of wildlife and species. Such activities could include, but are plants. State agencies, because of their Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 not limited to, incompatible livestock authorities and their close working define the geographical area occupied grazing, the application of herbicides or relationships with local governments by the species as an area that may insecticides, and seeding of nonnative and landowners, are in a unique generally be delineated around species’ plant species that would compete with position to assist the Services in occurrences, as determined by the native vegetation for water, nutrients, implementing all aspects of the Act. In Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may and space; and actions that would result this regard, section 6 of the Act provides include those areas used throughout all in lesser prairie-chicken avoidance of an that the Services shall cooperate to the or part of the species’ life cycle, even if area during one or more seasonal maximum extent practicable with the not used on a regular basis (e.g., periods. Such activities could include, States in carrying out programs migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, but are not limited to, the construction authorized by the Act. Therefore, any and habitats used periodically, but not of vertical structures such as power qualified employee or agent of a State solely by vagrant individuals). lines, communication towers, buildings, conservation agency that is a party to a Conservation, as defined under infrastructure to support energy cooperative agreement with the Service section 3 of the Act, means to use and development, roads, and other in accordance with section 6(c) of the the use of all methods and procedures anthropogenic features; motorized and Act, who is designated by his or her that are necessary to bring an nonmotorized recreational use; and agency for such purposes, would be able endangered or threatened species to the activities such as well drilling, to conduct activities designed to point at which the measures provided operation, and maintenance, which conserve the Northern DPS of the lesser pursuant to the Act are no longer would entail significant human prairie-chicken that may result in necessary. Such methods and presence, noise, and infrastructure; and otherwise prohibited take without procedures include, but are not limited actions, intentional or otherwise, that additional authorization. to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as would result in the destruction of eggs Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule or active nests or cause mortality or research, census, law enforcement, would change in any way the recovery injury to chicks, juveniles, or adult habitat acquisition and maintenance, planning provisions of section 4(f) of the lesser prairie-chickens. Regulating these propagation, live trapping, and Act, the consultation requirements activities would slow the rate of habitat transplantation, and, in the under section 7 of the Act, or the ability loss, fragmentation, and degradation extraordinary case where population of the Service to enter into partnerships and decrease synergistic, negative pressures within a given ecosystem for the management and protection of effects from other threats. cannot be otherwise relieved, may Under the Act, ‘‘take’’ means to the Northern DPS of the lesser prairie- include regulated taking. harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, chicken. However, interagency Critical habitat receives protection wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or cooperation may be further streamlined under section 7 of the Act through the to attempt to engage in any such through planned programmatic requirement that Federal agencies conduct. Some of these provisions have consultations for the species between ensure, in consultation with the Service, been further defined in regulation at 50 Federal agencies and the Service, where that any action they authorize, fund, or CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or appropriate. We ask the public, carry out is not likely to result in the otherwise, by direct and indirect particularly State agencies and other destruction or adverse modification of impacts, intentionally or incidentally. interested stakeholders that may be critical habitat. The designation of Regulating take would help slow the affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to critical habitat does not affect land rate of habitat loss, fragmentation, and provide comments and suggestions ownership or establish a refuge, degradation and decrease synergistic, regarding additional guidance and wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other negative effects from other threats. methods that the Service could provide conservation area. Designation also does We may issue permits to carry out or use, respectively, to streamline the not allow the government or public to otherwise prohibited activities, implementation of this proposed 4(d) access private lands, nor does including those described above, rule (see Information Requested, above). designation require implementation of involving threatened wildlife under III. Critical Habitat restoration, recovery, or enhancement certain circumstances. Regulations measures by non-Federal landowners. governing permits are codified at 50 Background Where a landowner requests Federal CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened Critical habitat is defined in section 3 agency funding or authorization for an wildlife, a permit may be issued for the of the Act as: action that may affect a listed species or following purposes: For scientific critical habitat, the Federal agency (1) The specific areas within the purposes, to enhance propagation or would be required to consult with the geographical area occupied by the survival, for economic hardship, for Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. species, at the time it is listed in zoological exhibition, for educational However, even if the Service were to accordance with the Act, on which are purposes, for incidental taking, or for conclude that the proposed activity found those physical or biological special purposes consistent with the would result in destruction or adverse features purposes of the Act. There are also modification of the critical habitat, the certain statutory exemptions from the (a) Essential to the conservation of the Federal action agency and the prohibitions, which are found in species, and landowner are not required to abandon sections 9 and 10 of the Act. (b) Which may require special the proposed activity, or to restore or We recognize the special and unique management considerations or recover the species; instead, they must relationship with our State natural protection; and implement ‘‘reasonable and prudent resource agency partners in contributing (2) Specific areas outside the alternatives’’ to avoid destruction or to conservation of listed species. State geographical area occupied by the adverse modification of critical habitat. agencies often possess scientific data species at the time it is listed, upon a Under the first prong of the Act’s and valuable expertise on the status and determination that such areas are definition of critical habitat, areas

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29478 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

within the geographical area occupied Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. species conservation planning efforts if by the species at the time it was listed 5658)), and our associated Information new information available at the time of are included in a critical habitat Quality Guidelines provide criteria, these planning efforts calls for a designation if they contain physical or establish procedures, and provide different outcome. biological features (1) which are guidance to ensure that our decisions Prudency Determination essential to the conservation of the are based on the best scientific data species and (2) which may require available. They require our biologists, to Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as special management considerations or the extent consistent with the Act and amended, and implementing regulations protection. For these areas, critical with the use of the best scientific data (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the habitat designations identify, to the available, to use primary and original maximum extent prudent and extent known using the best scientific sources of information as the basis for determinable, the Secretary shall and commercial data available, those recommendations to designate critical designate critical habitat at the time the physical or biological features that are habitat. species is determined to be an essential to the conservation of the When we are determining which areas endangered or threatened species. Our species (such as space, food, cover, and should be designated as critical habitat, regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state protected habitat). In identifying those our primary source of information is that the Secretary may, but is not physical or biological features that occur generally the information from the SSA required to, determine that a in specific occupied areas, we focus on report and information developed designation would not be prudent in the the specific features that are essential to during the listing process for the following circumstances: support the life-history needs of the species. Additional information sources (i) The species is threatened by taking species, including, but not limited to, may include any generalized or other human activity and water characteristics, soil type, conservation strategy, criteria, or outline identification of critical habitat can be geological features, prey, vegetation, that may have been developed for the expected to increase the degree of such symbiotic species, or other features. A species; the recovery plan for the threat to the species; feature may be a single habitat species; articles in peer-reviewed (ii) The present or threatened characteristic or a more complex journals; conservation plans developed destruction, modification, or combination of habitat characteristics. by States and counties; scientific status curtailment of a species’ habitat or range Features may include habitat surveys and studies; biological is not a threat to the species, or threats characteristics that support ephemeral assessments; other unpublished to the species’ habitat stem solely from or dynamic habitat conditions. Features materials; or experts’ opinions or causes that cannot be addressed through may also be expressed in terms relating personal knowledge. management actions resulting from to principles of conservation biology, Habitat is dynamic, and species may consultations under section 7(a)(2) of such as patch size, distribution move from one area to another over the Act; distances, and connectivity. time. We recognize that critical habitat (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of Under the second prong of the Act’s designated at a particular point in time the United States provide no more than definition of critical habitat, we can may not include all of the habitat areas negligible conservation value, if any, for designate critical habitat in areas that we may later determine are a species occurring primarily outside outside the geographical area occupied necessary for the recovery of the the jurisdiction of the United States; by the species at the time it is listed, species. For these reasons, a critical (iv) No areas meet the definition of upon a determination that such areas habitat designation does not signal that critical habitat; or are essential for the conservation of the habitat outside the designated area is (v) The Secretary otherwise species. When designating critical unimportant or may not be needed for determines that designation of critical habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate recovery of the species. Areas that are habitat would not be prudent based on areas occupied by the species. The important to the conservation of the the best scientific data available. Secretary will only consider unoccupied species, both inside and outside the As discussed earlier in this document, areas to be essential where a critical critical habitat designation, will there is currently no imminent threat of habitat designation limited to continue to be subject to: (1) collection or vandalism identified under geographical areas occupied by the Conservation actions implemented Factor B for either the Northern DPS or species would be inadequate to ensure under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) the Southern DPS of the lesser prairie- the conservation of the species. In regulatory protections afforded by the chicken, and identification and addition, for an unoccupied area to be requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act mapping of critical habitat is not considered essential, the Secretary must for Federal agencies to ensure their expected to initiate any such threat. In determine that there is a reasonable actions are not likely to jeopardize the our SSA report and proposed listing certainty both that the area will continued existence of any endangered determination for both the Northern and contribute to the conservation of the or threatened species; and (3) the Southern DPSs, we determined that the species and that the area contains one prohibitions found in section 9 of the present or threatened destruction, or more of those physical or biological Act. Federally funded or permitted modification, or curtailment of habitat features essential to the conservation of projects affecting listed species outside or range is a threat to the two DPSs and the species. their designated critical habitat areas that the threat in some way can be Section 4 of the Act requires that we may still result in jeopardy findings in addressed by section 7(a)(2) designate critical habitat on the basis of some cases. These protections and consultation measures. The two DPSs the best scientific data available. conservation tools will continue to occur wholly in the jurisdiction of the Further, our Policy on Information contribute to recovery of this species. United States, and we are able to Standards Under the Endangered Similarly, critical habitat designations identify areas that meet the definition of Species Act (published in the Federal made on the basis of the best available critical habitat. Therefore, because none Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), information at the time of designation of the circumstances enumerated in our the Information Quality Act (section 515 will not control the direction and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have of the Treasury and General substance of future recovery plans, been met and because there are no other Government Appropriations Act for habitat conservation plans, or other circumstances the Secretary has

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29479

identified for which this designation of you must register. For information on National Environmental Policy Act (42 critical habitat would be not prudent, how to register, or if you encounter U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) we have determined that the problems joining Zoom the day of the We have determined that designation of critical habitat is prudent meeting, visit https://www.fws.gov/ environmental assessments and for both DPSs of the lesser prairie- southwest/. Registrants will receive the environmental impact statements, as chicken. Zoom link and the telephone number defined under the authority of the for the public informational meetings Critical Habitat Determinability National Environmental Policy Act and public hearings. If applicable, (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not Having determined that designation is interested members of the public not be prepared in connection with prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act familiar with the Zoom platform should regulations adopted pursuant to section we must find whether critical habitat for view the Zoom video tutorials (https:// 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice the Northern DPS and the Southern DPS support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/ outlining our reasons for this of lesser prairie-chicken is 206618765-Zoom-video-tutorials) prior determination in the Federal Register determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR to the public informational meetings on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is and public hearings. not determinable when one or both of The public hearings will provide Government-to-Government the following situations exist: interested parties an opportunity to Relationship With Tribes (i) Data sufficient to perform required present verbal testimony (formal, oral In accordance with the President’s analyses are lacking, or comments) regarding this proposed rule. memorandum of April 29, 1994 (ii) The biological needs of the species While the public informational meetings (Government-to-Government Relations are not sufficiently well known to will be an opportunity for dialogue with with Native American Tribal identify any area that meets the the Service, the public hearings are not: Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ They are a forum for accepting formal Order 13175 (Consultation and We reviewed the available verbal testimony. In the event there is a Coordination with Indian Tribal information pertaining to the biological large attendance, the time allotted for Governments), and the Department of needs of the species and habitat oral statements may be limited. the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we characteristics where this species is Therefore, anyone wishing to make an readily acknowledge our responsibility located and data that would be needed oral statement at the public hearings for to communicate meaningfully with to perform other required analyses. A the record is encouraged to provide a recognized Federal Tribes on a careful assessment of the economic prepared written copy of their statement government-to-government basis. In impacts that may occur due to a critical to us through the Federal eRulemaking accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 habitat designation is not yet complete, Portal, or U.S. mail (see ADDRESSES, of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal and we are in the process of working above). There are no limits on the length Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust with the States and other partners in of written comments submitted to us. Responsibilities, and the Endangered acquiring the complex information Anyone wishing to make an oral Species Act), we readily acknowledge needed to perform that assessment. statement at the public hearings must our responsibilities to work directly Because the information sufficient to register before the hearing (https:// with Tribes in developing programs for perform a required analysis of the www.fws.gov/southwest/). The use of a healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that impacts of the designation is lacking, we virtual public hearing is consistent with Tribal lands are not subject to the same therefore conclude that the designation our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). controls as Federal public lands, to of critical habitat for both the Southern Required Determinations remain sensitive to Indian culture, and DPS and the Northern DPS of the lesser to make information available to Tribes. prairie-chicken to be not determinable Clarity of the Rule We solicited information from all of the at this time. The Act allows the Service We are required by Executive Orders Tribes within the entire range of the an additional year to publish a critical 12866 and 12988 and by the lesser prairie-chicken to inform the habitat designation that is not Presidential Memorandum of June 1, development of the SSA report, and determinable at the time of listing (16 1998, to write all rules in plain notified Tribes of our upcoming U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). language. This means that each rule we proposed listing determination. We also Public Hearings publish must: provided these Tribes the opportunity to (1) Be logically organized; review a draft of the SSA report and We have scheduled two public (2) Use the active voice to address provide input prior to making our informational meeting with public readers directly; proposed determination on the status of hearings on this proposed rule for the (3) Use clear language rather than the lesser prairie-chicken but did not lesser prairie-chicken. We will hold the jargon; receive any responses. We will continue public informational meetings and (4) Be divided into short sections and to coordinate with affected Tribes public hearings on the dates and at the sentences; and throughout the listing process as times listed above under Public (5) Use lists and tables wherever appropriate. informational meeting and public possible. hearing in DATES. We are holding the If you feel that we have not met these References Cited public informational meetings and requirements, send us comments by one A complete list of references cited in public hearings via the Zoom online of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To this rulemaking is available on the video platform and via teleconference so better help us revise the rule, your internet at http://www.regulations.gov that participants can attend remotely. comments should be as specific as and upon request from the Arlington For security purposes, registration is possible. For example, you should tell Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR required. To listen and view the meeting us the numbers of the sections or FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). and hearing via Zoom, listen to the paragraphs that are unclearly written, meeting and hearing by telephone, or which sections or sentences are too Authors provide oral public comments at the long, the sections where you feel lists or The primary authors of this proposed public hearing by Zoom or telephone, tables would be useful, etc. rule are the staff members of the Fish

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 29480 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

and Wildlife Service’s Species 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, lesser [Northern DPS]’’ and an entry for Assessment Team and the Arlington as set forth below: ‘‘Prairie-chicken, lesser [Southern DPS]’’ Ecological Services Field Office. in alphabetical order under BIRDS to PART 17—ENDANGERED AND read as follows: List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Endangered and threatened species, § 17.11 Endangered and threatened Exports, Imports, Reporting and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 wildlife. continues to read as follows: recordkeeping requirements, * * * * * Transportation. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise (h) * * * Proposed Regulation Promulgation noted. Accordingly, we propose to amend ■ 2. In § 17.11(h) amend the table by part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title adding an entry for ‘‘Prairie-chicken,

Listing citations and Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules

*******

BIRDS

******* Prairie-chicken, lesser [Northern Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ...... U.S.A. (All lesser prairie-chickens north of a T [Federal Register citation DPS]. line starting at 37.9868 N, 105.0133 W, and when published as a final ending at 31.7351 N, 98.3773 W, NAD83; rule]; see map at § 17.41(k)). 50 CFR 17.41(k).4d Prairie-chicken, lesser [Southern Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ...... U.S.A. (All lesser prairie-chickens north of a E [Federal Register citation DPS]. line starting at 37.9868 N, 105.0133 W, and when published as a final ending at 31.7351 N, 98.3773 W, NAD83; rule]. see map at § 17.41(k)).

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.41 by adding Distinct Population Segment (DPS). The New Mexico, and ending in Texas at paragraph (k) to read as follows: Northern DPS of the lesser prairie- 31.7351 N, 98.3773 W, NAD83, as chicken pertains to lesser prairie- shown in the map: § 17.41 Special rules—birds. chickens found northeast of a line BILLING CODE 4333–15–P * * * * * starting in Colorado at 37.9868 N, (k) Lesser prairie-chicken 105.0133 W, going through northeastern (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), Northern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:47 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29481

Figure 1 to paragraph (k)

Boundary of Northern and Southern Distinct Population Segments

• - • DPS Boundary e c::Jsates 0 50 100 Mi L..... J Counties

0 50 100 Km

(1) Prohibitions. The following (i) Import or export, as set forth at (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In prohibitions that apply to endangered § 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. regard to this species, you may: wildlife also apply to the Northern DPS (ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) (i) Conduct activities as authorized by of the lesser prairie-chicken. Except as for endangered wildlife. a permit under § 17.32. provided under paragraph (k)(2) of this (iii) Possession and other acts with (ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) section and §§ 17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth through (c)(4) for endangered wildlife. unlawful for any person subject to the at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in (iii) Take as set forth at § 17.31(b). jurisdiction of the United States to the course of a commercial activity, as (iv) Take incidental to an otherwise commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit set forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered lawful activity caused by: another to commit, or cause to be wildlife. (A) Continuation of routine committed, any of the following acts in (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth agricultural practices on existing regard to this species: at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. cultivated lands, including:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP01JN21.023 29482 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules

(1) Plowing, drilling, disking, accordance with label (v) Possess and engage in other acts mowing, or other mechanical recommendations. with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set manipulation and management of lands; (B) Implementation of prescribed fire forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered for the purposes of grassland (2) Routine activities in direct support wildlife. management, including: of cultivated agriculture, including (1) Construction and maintenance of Martha Williams, replacement, upgrades, maintenance, fuel breaks; Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the and operation of existing infrastructure (2) Planning needed for application of Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish such as buildings, irrigation conveyance prescribed fire; and Wildlife Service. structures, fences, and roads; and (3) Implementation of the fire and all [FR Doc. 2021–11442 Filed 5–28–21; 8:45 am] (3) Use of chemicals in direct support associated actions; and BILLING CODE 4333–15–C of cultivated agriculture when done in (4) Any necessary monitoring and followup actions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\01JNP3.SGM 01JNP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3