Population and Regulatory Status of Lesser P l ti d R l t St t - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Population and Regulatory Status of Lesser P l ti d R l t St t f L Prairie-Chickens in Oklahoma Russ Horton Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation LPCH Status in Oklahoma LPCH Status in Oklahoma Gamebird Closed Season (since
P l ti d R l t St t f L Population and Regulatory Status of Lesser Prairie-Chickens in Oklahoma
Russ Horton Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Closed Season (since 1997)
L d iti – Low densities – Restricted Range
10 Mil S d Li R
Early May
6 co nties in NW Oklahoma
Number of active Leks
14 16 18 ks 8 10 12 14 er of Lek 2 4 6 Num b 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 Year
1 i fl h f ll k l k
Average Number of Lesser Prairie Chickens per Lek 10 12 c k e n s 4 6 8 r o f C h ic 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N u m b e r 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 Year
Chronology
Petition to list received by USFWS October 5 1995 Petition to list received by USFWS – October 5, 1995 Candidate status conferred – June 9, 1998 – warranted i i i for listing as threatened, but precluded by higher priority listing actions (LPN = 8) Annual assessments Current candidate assessment Current candidate assessment Future ?
THREATS (Range-wide) The present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range. Conversion of Prairie and Native CRP to Cropland Grazing Management i i Habitat Fragmentation Wind Energy Development Oil and Gas Development p Fire Suppression and Tree/Shrub Encroachment
THREATS THREATS Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or d ti l educational purposes. Disease or predation. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
THREATS Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Nest Parasitism and Competition by Exotic Species Insecticides Herbicides Herbicides Hybridization Collision Mortality Drought
Pre-CRP
Post-CRP
10.0
Kansas Survey Data – LPC/Square Mile (6 County Mean)
7 0 8.0 9.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 2 0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
THREATS TAXONOMY PRIORITY
Listing Priority
THREATS TAXONOMY PRIORITY Magnitude Immediacy High Imminent Monotypic species Species 1 2 Non-imminent Species Subspecies/population Monotypic species Species 2 3 4 5 Subspecies/population 6 Moderate to Low Imminent Monotypic species Species S b i / l i 7 8 9 Non-imminent Subspecies/population Monotypic species Species Subspecies/population 9 10 11 12 p p p
ESA Implications ESA Implications
ESA section 9 violations of take prohibitions
“…to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
ESA section 7 consultations [7(a)(2)]
“Each Federal agency shall… insure that any action Each Federal agency shall… insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out… is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of… or result in the destruction or adverse modification of (critical) ( ) habitat….”
ESA conservation and recovery tools ESA conservation and recovery tools
Threats to Lesser Prairie-chicken
Habitat fragmentation Agricultural conversion of Agricultural conversion of prairie/native CRP Energy development gy p Fire suppression Eastern redcedar encroachment Collision mortality Periodic drought