DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 238/Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 238/Tuesday, December 11, 2012 73828 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0071. You may proposes to list the lesser prairie- submit a comment by clicking on chicken as a threatened species Fish and Wildlife Service ‘‘Comment Now!’’ throughout its range. (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail The Endangered Species Act provides 50 CFR Part 17 or hand-delivery to: Public Comments the basis for our action. Under the [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0071: Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2012– Endangered Species Act, we can 4500030113] 0071; Division of Policy and Directives determine that a species is an Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife endangered or threatened species based RIN 1018–AV21 Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS on any of five factors: (A) The present 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. or threatened destruction, modification, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife We request that you send comments or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) and Plants; Listing the Lesser Prairie- only by the methods described above. overutilization for commercial, Chicken as a Threatened Species We will post all comments on http:// recreational, scientific, or educational AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, www.regulations.gov. This generally purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) Interior. means that we will post any personal the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or ACTION: Proposed rule. information you provide us (see the Information Requested section below for manmade factors affecting its continued SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and more information). existence. The primary factors Wildlife Service, propose to list the Public hearings: The public hearings supporting the proposed threatened lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus will be held at the following locations: status for lesser prairie-chicken are the pallidicinctus), a grassland bird known (1) Woodward, Oklahoma: High historical, ongoing, and probable future from southeastern Colorado, western Plains Technology Center Seminar impacts of cumulative habitat loss and Kansas, eastern New Mexico, western Center, 3921 34th Street, Woodward, fragmentation. These impacts are the Oklahoma, and the Texas Panhandle, as OK 73801. result of: conversion of grasslands to a threatened species under the (2) Garden City, Kansas: Garden City agricultural uses; encroachment by Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Community College, 801 N. Campus invasive woody plants; wind energy amended (Act). If we finalize the rule as Drive, Garden City, KS 67846. development; petroleum production; proposed, it would extend the Act’s (3) Lubbock, Texas: Lubbock Civic and presence of roads and manmade protection to this species. We have Center, 1501 Mac Davis Lane, Lubbock, vertical structures including towers, determined that designation of critical TX 79401. utility lines, fences, turbines, wells, and habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken (4) Roswell, New Mexico: Eastern buildings. under the Act is prudent but not New Mexico University Fine Arts We will request peer review of the determinable at this time. We are Auditorium, 64 University Boulevard, methods used in our proposal. We will seeking information and comments from Roswell, NM 88203. specifically request that several the public regarding the lesser prairie- People needing reasonable knowledgeable individuals with chicken and this proposed rule. accommodations in order to attend and scientific expertise in this species or participate in the public hearing should related fields review the scientific DATES: We will accept comments information and methods that we used received or postmarked on or before contact Dixie Porter, Field Supervisor, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field in developing this proposal. March 11, 2013. Comments submitted We are seeking public comment on Office, as soon as possible (see FOR electronically using the Federal this proposed rule. Anyone is welcome FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below). eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES to comment on our proposal or provide section, below) must be received by FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: additional information on the proposal 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing Dixie Porter, Field Supervisor, that we can use in making a final date. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field determination on the status of this Public Hearings: We will hold four Office, 9014 East 21st Street, Tulsa, OK species. Please submit your comments public hearings on this proposed rule. 74129; by telephone 918–581–7458 or and materials concerning this proposed The public hearings will be held in by facsimile 918–581–7467. Persons rule by one of the methods listed in the Woodward, Oklahoma, on Tuesday, who use a telecommunications device ADDRESSES section. Within 1 year February 5; Garden City, Kansas, on for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal following the publication of this Thursday, February 7; Lubbock, Texas, Information Relay Service (FIRS) at proposal, we will publish in the Federal on Monday, February 11; and Roswell, 800–877–8339. Register a final determination New Mexico, on Tuesday, February 12. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: concerning the listing of the species or The public hearings will be held from Executive Summary withdraw the proposal if new 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. information is provided that supports ADDRESSES: Document availability: You This document consists of: (1) A that decision. may obtain copies of the proposed rule proposed rule to list the lesser prairie- on the Internet at http:// chicken as a threatened species; and (2) Public Comments www.regulations.gov at Docket No. a finding that critical habitat is prudent We intend that any final action FWS–R2–ES–2012–0071 or by mail but not determinable at this time. resulting from this proposed rule will be from the Oklahoma Ecological Services Why we need to publish a rule. Under based on the best scientific and Field Office (see FOR FURTHER the Endangered Species Act, a species commercial data available and be as INFORMATION CONTACT). may warrant protection through listing accurate and as effective as possible. Written Comments: You may submit if it is an endangered or threatened Therefore, we request comments or written comments by one of the species throughout all or a significant information from other concerned following methods: portion of its range. In this proposal, we governmental agencies, Native (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal are explaining why the lesser prairie- American tribes, the scientific eRulemaking Portal: http:// chicken warrants protection under the community, industry, general public, or www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket Endangered Species Act. This rule any other interested parties concerning VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:29 Dec 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11DEP3.SGM 11DEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 73829 this proposed rule. We particularly seek advisable to provide for the through April 1996, we were under a comments regarding: conservation of the lesser prairie- moratorium on listing actions as a result (1) The historical and current status chicken pursuant to section 4(d) of the of Public Law 104–6, which, along with and distribution of the lesser prairie- Act. a series of continuing budget chicken, its biology and ecology, Please note that submissions merely resolutions, eliminated or severely specific threats (or lack thereof) and stating support for, or opposition to, the reduced our listing budget through regulations that may be addressing those action under consideration without April 1996. We were unable to act on threats and ongoing conservation providing supporting information, the petition during that period. On July measures for the species and its habitat. although noted, will not be considered 8, 1997 (62 FR 36482), we announced (2) Information relevant to the factors in making a determination, as section our 90-day finding that the petition that are the basis for making a listing 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that presented substantial information determination for a species under determinations as to whether any indicating that the petitioned action section 4(a) of the Endangered Species species is an endangered or threatened may be warranted. In that notice, we Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 species must be made ‘‘solely on the requested additional information on the U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: basis of the best scientific and status, trend, distribution, and habitat (a) The present or threatened commercial data available.’’ requirements of the species for use in destruction, modification, or You may submit your comments and conducting a status review. We curtailment of the species’ habitat or materials concerning this proposed rule requested that information be submitted range; by one of the methods listed in the to us by September 8, 1997. In response (b) Overutilization for commercial, ADDRESSES section. to a September 3, 1997, request by the recreational, scientific, or educational If you submit a comment via http:// Lesser Prairie-Chicken Interstate purposes; www.regulations.gov, your entire Working Group, we reopened the (c) Disease or predation; submission—including any personal comment period for an additional 30 (d) The inadequacy of existing identifying information—will be posted days beginning on November 3, 1997 regulatory mechanisms; or on the Web site. If your submission is (62 FR 59334). We subsequently (e) Other natural or manmade factors made via a hardcopy that includes published our 12-month finding for the affecting its continued existence and personal identifying information, you lesser prairie-chicken on June 9, 1998 threats to the species or its habitat. may request at the top of your document (63 FR 31400), concluding that the (3) Which areas would be appropriate that we withhold this information from petitioned action was warranted but as critical habitat for the species and public review. However, we cannot precluded by other higher priority why areas should or should not be guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information
    Prepared in cooperation with the KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4242 EXPLANATION Potential contributing area Boundary of major river basin Hiii Infiltration-excess overland flow only ^H Saturation-excess overland flow only - Subbasin boundary Hi Infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows L I Noncontributing area U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Estimation of Potential Runoff Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information By KYLE E. JURACEK Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4242 Prepared in cooperation with the KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Lawrence, Kansas 1999 U.S. Department of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Information Services U.S. Geological Survey Building 810, Federal Center 4821 Quail Crest Place Box 25286 Lawrence, KS 66049-3839 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................^ 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................^
    [Show full text]
  • Suspended-Sediment Loads, Reservoir Sediment Trap Efficiency, and Upstream and Downstream Channel Stability for Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas, 2008–10
    Prepared in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office Suspended-Sediment Loads, Reservoir Sediment Trap Efficiency, and Upstream and Downstream Channel Stability for Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas, 2008–10 Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5187 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover. Upper left: Tuttle Creek Lake upstream from highway 16 bridge, May 16, 2011 (photograph by Dirk Hargadine, USGS). Lower right: Tuttle Creek Lake downstream from highway 16 bridge, May 16, 2011 (photograph by Dirk Hargadine, USGS). Note: On May 16, 2011, the water-surface elevation for Tuttle Creek Lake was 1,075.1 feet. The normal elevation for the multi-purpose pool of the reservoir is 1,075.0 feet. Back cover. Water-quality monitor in Little Blue River near Barnes, Kansas. Note active channel-bank erosion at upper right (photograph by Bill Holladay, USGS). Suspended-Sediment Loads, Reservoir Sediment Trap Efficiency, and Upstream and Downstream Channel Stability for Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas, 2008–10 By Kyle E. Juracek Prepared in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5187 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Cedar Bluff Reservoir 2000 Reservoir Survey
    CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR 2000 RESERVOIR SURVEY RE.SO' -J U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 0MB No. 0704-0 188 L AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED March 2001 Final _______________________________ 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NTJMBERS Cedar Bluff Reservoir PR 2000 Reservoir Survey 6. AUTHOR(S) Ronald L. Ferrari ______________________ 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver CO 80225-0007 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Federal Center, P0 Box 25007, DIBR Denver CO 80225-0007 ____________________________ 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Hard copy available at Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILiTY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 worch) The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) surveyed Cedar Bluff Reservoir in September of 2000 to develop a topographic map and compute a present storage-elevation relationship (area-capacity tables). The data were used to calculate reservoir capacity lost due to sediment accumulation since dam closure in November of 1950. The underwater survey was conducted in September of 2000 near reservoir elevation 2143.7 feet (project datum). The underwater survey used sonic depth recording equipment interfaced with a global positioning system (GPS) that gave continuous sounding positions throughout the underwater portions of the reservoir covered by the survey vessel. The above-water topography was detennined by digitizing the developed contour lines from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • FISHERIES and WILDLIFE DIVISION FISH CULTURE SECTION 1999 PRODUCTION REPORT
    FISHERIES and WILDLIFE DIVISION FISH CULTURE SECTION 1999 PRODUCTION REPORT h Meade Fish Rearing Station KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS 1'his program receives Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act o f 1973, Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department o f the Interior and its bureaus prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex (in educational programs). I f you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility, or if you desire further information please write to: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office for Diversity and Civil Rights Programs-Extemal Programs 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 130 Arlington, VA 22203 FISH CULTURE SECTION 1999 PRODUCTION REPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE DIVISION KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS Steve Williams, Secretary January, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 TRENDS IN FISH PRODUCTION DEMAND 2 FISH PRODUCTION SUMMARY 3 FARLINGTON HATCHERY 5 Channel Catfish 8 Largemouth Bass 10 Redear Sunfish 11 Saugeye 12 Percid/Morone sps. 13 Striped Bass 14 Striped Bass Hybrids 15 Walleye 17 Grass Carp 18 MEADE FISH REARING STATION 19 Hybrid Bluegill 23 Largemouth Bass 24 Smallmouth Bass 26 Grass Carp 28 MILFORD HATCHERY 29 Channel Catfish 33 Largemouth Bass 36 Paddlefish 37 Striped Bass 38 Striped Bass Hybrids (WBxSTB) 40 Percid sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Plains Bison and Wood Bison Conservation in Canada
    Bison Conservation in Canada Shelley Pruss Parks Canada Agency Greg Wilson Environment and Climate Change Canada 19 May 2016 1 Canada is home to two subspecies of bison Key morphological differences between Wood Bison bull (Bison bison athabascae) Plains Bison bulls(Bison bison bison) Line drawing courtesy of Wes Olson taken from COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Plains Bison (Bison bison bison) and the Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae) in Canada. 2 PLAINS BISON All wild Plains Bison subpopulations in Canada today are the descendants of approximately 81 ancestors captured in three locations in the 1870s and 1880s, and persist as a tiny fraction of their original numbers (~30 million in North America). WOOD BISON Alaska Dept of Fish and Game Historical (pre-settlement) distribution of Wood Bison and Plains Bison in North America. Modified from Gates et al. (2010). Polygons courtesy of Keith Aune, Wildlife Conservation Society (COSEWIC 3 2013) The Species at Risk Act The federal government is responsible for implementing the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) • Purpose: to prevent species from being extirpated or becoming extinct and to provide for recovery of species at risk The key provisions of SARA are: • Prohibitions against killing or harming listed species on federal lands • Requirement to develop a national recovery strategy and action plan(s) and to identify critical habitat to the extent possible for Extirpated, Endangered, and Threatened species • Management plans are developed for species of Special
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Resource & Regional Goal Action Plan Implementation
    State of the Resource & Regional Goal Action Plan Implementation Report August 2018 Smoky Hill-Saline Regional Planning Area Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................2 WATER USE TRENDS ...........................................................................................................................3 WATER RESOURCES CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................5 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................................ 5 SURFACE WATER ............................................................................................................................................... 6 WATER QUALITY .............................................................................................................................. 10 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS .......................................................................................................... 14 SURFACE WATER ............................................................................................................................................. 14 IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS ................................................................................................................ 16 REGIONAL GOALS & ACTION PLAN PROGRESS .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting Model Biophysical Setting: 9814340 Texas-Louisiana Coastal Prairie
    LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting Model Biophysical Setting: 9814340 Texas-Louisiana Coastal Prairie This BPS is lumped with: 1487 This BPS is split into multiple models: BpS 1434 is systematically lumped with 1487. BpS 1487 is too fine for mapping and modeling. General Information Contributors (also see the Comments field) Date 1/24/2007 Modeler 1 Chris Harper [email protected] Reviewer Modeler 2 Ron Masters [email protected] Reviewer Modeler 3 Patrick Walther [email protected] Reviewer Vegetation Type Dominant Species Map Zone Model Zone ANGE Upland 98 Alaska Northern Plains Grassland/Herbaceous SCSC California N-Cent.Rockies General Model Sources PAVIS Great Basin Pacific Northwest Literature SPSP Great Lakes South Central Local Data TRDA3 Hawaii Southeast Expert Estimate PAHE2 Northeast S. Appalachians SONU2 Southwest MOCE2 Geographic Range This BpS encompasses non-saline tallgrass prairie vegetation ranging along the coast of LA and TX. This coastal prairie region once covered as much as nine million acres (Grace 2000). The prairie region of southwestern LA was once extensive (~ 2.5 million acres) but today is limited to small, remnant parcels (100-1000ac). Gulf Coast and inland varying distances from 50-150 miles (80-240 km) from south TX to LA and the mouth of the Mississippi River. In LA, it is bordered to the north and east by Southern Floodplain Forest (Kuchler 1964). To the south and west it also joins with the desert grasslands. This BpS is found in MZ37 in ECOMAP subsections 232Ea and 232Eb. Biophysical Site Description This BpS is found on Vertisols and Alfisols which developed over Pleistocene terraces flanking the Gulf Coast.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Guidebook
    KANSAS FIELD CONFERENCE FIELD GUIDE 2005 FIELD CONFERENCE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS WATER, RECREATION, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JUNE 8–10, 2005 EDITED BY ROBERT S. SAWIN REX C. BUCHANAN CATHERINE S. EVANS JAMES R. MCCAULEY THIS PROJECT IS OPERATED BY THE KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND FUNDED, IN PART, BY THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS, THE KANSAS WATER OFFICE, AND THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGY EXTENSION THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS 1930 CONSTANT AVE. LAWRENCE, KANSAS 66047–3726 KGS OPEN-FILE TELEPHONE: (785) 864–3965 REPORT 2005–17 WWW.KGS.KU.EDU CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS WATER, RECREATION, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2005 FIELD CONFERENCE 3 2 7 8 1 6 5 Proposed HorseThief Reservoir 4 Wednesday Thursday Friday 0 10 mi KANSAS FIELD CONFERENCE Central Great Plains Water, Recreation, and Economic Development 2005 FIELD CONFERENCE June 8-10, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS Participants List ....................................................................................................... 1 - 1 Biographical Information ........................................................................................ 1 - 5 KANSAS FIELD CONFERENCE 2005 Field Conference – “Central Great Plains – Water, Recreation, and Economic Development” ....... 2 - 1 Sponsors .................................................................................................................. 2 - 3 Kansas Geological Survey ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Destruction of the Bison an Environmental History, –
    front.qxd 1/28/00 10:59 AM Page v The Destruction of the Bison An Environmental History, 1750–1920 ANDREW C. ISENBERG Princeton University front.qxd 1/28/00 10:59 AM Page vi published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, uk http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny 10011-4211, usa http://www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain © Andrew C. Isenberg 2000 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2000 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Ehrhardt 10/12 pt. System QuarkXPress [tw] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication data Isenberg, Andrew C. (Andrew Christian) The destruction of the bison : an environmental history, 1750–1920 / Andrew C. Isenberg. p. cm. – (Studies in environment and history) Includes index. isbn 0-521-77172-2 1. American bison. 2. American bison hunting – History. 3. Nature – Effect of human beings on – North America. I. Title. ql737.u53i834 2000 333.95´9643´0978 – dc21 99-37543 cip isbn 0 521 77172 2 hardback front.qxd 1/28/00 10:59 AM Page ix Contents Acknowledgments page xi Introduction 1 1 The Grassland Environment 13 2 The Genesis of the Nomads 31 3 The Nomadic Experiment 63 4 The Ascendancy of the Market 93 5 The Wild and the Tamed 123 6 The Returns of the Bison 164 Conclusion 193 Index 199 ix intro.qxd 1/28/00 11:00 AM Page 1 Introduction Before Europeans brought the horse to the New World, Native Americans in the Great Plains hunted bison from foot.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Chance for the Plains Bison
    ARTICLE IN PRESS BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION xxx (2007) xxx– xxx available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Review Second chance for the plains bison Curtis H. Freesea,*, Keith E. Auneb, Delaney P. Boydc, James N. Derrd, Steve C. Forresta, C. Cormack Gatese, Peter J.P. Goganf, Shaun M. Grasselg, Natalie D. Halbertd, Kyran Kunkelh, Kent H. Redfordi aNorthern Great Plains Program, World Wildlife Fund, P.O. Box 7276, Bozeman, MT 59771, USA bMontana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 1420 E 6th Avenue, Helena, MT 59620, USA cP.O. Box 1101, Redcliff, AB, Canada T0J 2P0 dDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4467, USA eFaculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T6G 2E1 fUSGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, P.O. Box 173492, Bozeman, MT 59717-3492, USA gLower Brule Sioux Tribe, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Recreation, P.O. Box 246, Lower Brule, SD 57548, USA hNorthern Great Plains Program, World Wildlife Fund, 1875 Gateway South, Gallatin Gateway, MT 59730, USA iWCS Institute, Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY 10460, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: Before European settlement the plains bison (Bison bison bison) numbered in the tens of mil- Received 30 July 2006 lions across most of the temperate region of North America. Within the span of a few dec- Received in revised form ades during the mid- to late-1800s its numbers were reduced by hunting and other factors 12 November 2006 to a few hundred. The plight of the plains bison led to one of the first major movements in Accepted 27 November 2006 North America to save an endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • Smoky Hill River (Elkader
    SMOKY HILL/SALINE RIVER BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Water Body/Assessment Unit: Cedar Bluff Lake and Smoky Hill River (Elkader, Gove, and Trego) Water Quality Impairment: Sulfate 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Subbasin: Smoky Hill Headwaters, North Fork Smoky Hill, Upper Smoky Hill, Ladder, and Hackberry Counties: Gove, Greeley, Lane, Logan, Ness, Scott, Sherman, Thomas, Trego, Wallace, and Wichita HUC 8: 10260001 HUC 11 (14): 010 (090, 100, 110) (Figure 1) 020 (010, 020, 030) 030 (010, 020, 030, 040) 040 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060) 10260002 010 (060, 070, 080, 090, 100, 110, 120) 030 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060) 10260003 010 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060) 020 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080, 090) 030 (010, 020, 030) 040 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080) 050 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080) 10260004 010 (040, 050, 060, 070, 080) 020 (030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080, 090) 030 (010, 020, 030, 040) 040 (010, 020, 030, 040) 050 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080, 090) 10260005 010 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060) 020 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070) Ecoregion: Western High Plains, Moderate Relief Rangeland (25c) Western High Plains, Flat to Rolling Cropland (25d) Central Great Plains, Rolling Plains and Breaks (27b) Drainage Area: Approximately 4,305 square miles. 1 Cedar Bluff Lake Conservation Pool: Area = 6,618 acres Watershed Area: Lake Surface Area = 416:1 Maximum Depth = 19.0 meters (62.3 feet) Mean Depth = 7.8 meters (25.6 feet) Retention Time = 1.36 years (16.3 months) Designated Uses: Primary and Secondary Contact Recreation; Expected Aquatic Life Support; Food Procurement; Irrigation Authority: Federal (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List Plains Bison As Threatened Under the ESA. James A
    Petition to list plains bison as threatened under the ESA. James A. Bailey, PhD. Belgrade, MT [email protected] Summary: I petition to list wild plains bison (Bison bison bison) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, in order to conserve the subspecies and the ecosystems upon which plains bison depend. I find that each of the four major ecotypes of plains bison in the United States is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future and that each ecotype is not sufficiently abundant or distributed, nor properly managed, to fulfill stated purposes of the ESA. While the number of plains bison in wild and conservation herds has not declined in about 70 years, there are numerous threats to the future of wild plains bison that are not apparent in the total number of animals. Wild plains bison are threatened with loss of potential habitat, introgression with cattle genes, loss of genetic diversity, domestication and loss of wildness, disappearance of ecological effectiveness, and lack of effective, coordinated and persistent state and federal programs to restore the subspecies. Should the Fish and Wildlife Service contend that listing plains bison is not warranted, I request that each major ecotype of wild plains bison be listed as threatened, as a significant distinct population segment (DPS), under the ESA in order to conserve the ecotypes and the ecosystems upon which these ecotypes depend. I suggest four major ecotypes of plains bison be considered as significant DPS’s to retain allelic diversity of plains bison in the future, so that bison may again fulfill their evolved ecological role as a keystone interactive species across examples of significant portions of the subspecies’ historic range.
    [Show full text]