Lesser prairie chicken briefing

~~Canadian, 2/15/13

Doug FiskPresident, Board of Directors

Panhandle Producers &Royalty Owners Association

Senator Kel Seliger31st Senatorial District

Representative Ken King

House District 88

Wayne HughesExecutive Vice President

PPROA

• US Fish & Wildlife Service -endangered species listing process

• Texas Parks & Wildlife Department –rangewide conservation plan • USFWS comment process

• Member of the grouse family• Endemic species found only in a 5 state

region• Habitat needs are large tracts (20,000

acres or more) of open grasslands

Where are we on theESA timeline for LPC ?

October 1995

Petitioned to list the

LPC

July 1997

Positive 90 day finding

July 1998

12 month findingwarranted but

precluded

Series of annual

reviews of candidate

status (CNOR)

December 2008

LPN 8 to 2

November 2010most

recent Candidate

Notice published

December 2012

Proposed Rule

published

September 2013

Final Rule proposed

What would happen if the LPC is listed under the ESA

A Recovery Plan - Average costs for recovery is $15.9 millionB. Project review – delay in start time for

conservation and development projects C. Expanded federal budgets to accommodate LPC

conservation effortsD. Federalization of state trust species

LPC Conservation delivery:Oil and Gas Candidate Conservation Agreement with

Assurances (CCAA) effort• Parties include:

- 5 state wildlife agencies- Several Associations across LPC range- Multiple Oil and Gas Companies

• State Wildlife Agencies and industry are working together on conservation practices or BMPs.

• Parties agree on Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies being permit holder.

• Draft submitted to USFWS.

Benefits of Range-Wide CCAA Held by WAFWA

• Known development costs• Low participation costs• Low administration costs• Direct conservation benefit

Certificate of Inclusion• “Insurance policy” for the producer -- fee• Site assessment by WAFA wildlife biologist• Identifies existing production sites and roads • Determine areas “at risk” – level of occupancy • Impact of future production activities• Impacts of other industries, land users• Fee on new drilling and production• Fees applied to enhancing potential and existing lpc habitat at other locations – 10% admin. cost

Actions Necessary for Success• Maintain state authority for LPC management.• Expedited review by FWS of LPC Conservation Plan,

CCAA/CCA, and facilitation of NEPA review.• Continuation of Farm Bill, State Wildlife Grants, and Partners

for Wildlife Programs supporting LPC conservation to allow for transition to range wide effort.

• Maintain SGP-CHAT and implement business plan for streamlined permitting.

• Continued partnership with industry and ranching

Sean KylePanhandle Diversity Biologist

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

DRAFT Range-wide Conservation Plan for the

Lesser Prairie-Chicken

Why are we here today?

• Overview of the draft Range-wide Plan

• Solicit early comments and feedback prior to public meetings

Outline

• Background on the listing, Range-wide Plan, and how you can be a part of it

• What should the plan do?• Population goals• Habitat focal areas (HFAs) and connectivity zones (CZs)• Metrics and mitigation framework• Implementation

Outline

• Background on the listing, Range-wide Plan, and how you can be a part of it

• What should the plan do• Population goals• Habitat focal areas (HFAs) and connectivity zones (CZs)• Metrics and mitigation framework• Implementation

Who’s involved in the process so far?LPC Interstate Working Group (LPCIWG)• Ecological Management and Research Institute• Science Team• Universities, States, FWS, NRCS, NGOs

• Voluntary Offset Committee• States, FWS, NGOs

• Banking and Credit Trading Working Group• States, FWS, NGOs, private conservation organizations

• Conservation Implementation Teams• Local biologists and conservation delivery staff

Range-Wide Plan Review and Feedback ProcessHow you can get involved

Draft #1—Jan 19• Range-wide Industry Meeting—Edmond, OK on Jan 23-24• Texas Agricultural Associations and Agency Meeting—Amarillo,

TX on Feb 1• Texas Landowner Working Group Meetings—Canadian and

Morton, TX on Feb 5 & 6

Draft #2—Feb 15• TX Public Meetings—NE & SW in late Feb• Public Meetings—CO, NM, OK, KS in late Jan through late Feb

Final draft goes to USFWS by March 31

• Background on the listing, Range-wide Plan, and how you can be a part of it

• What should the plan do?• Population goals• Habitat focal areas (HFAs) and connectivity zones (CZs)• Metrics and mitigation framework• Implementation

Outline

Range-Wide Conservation Plan Goals

• Develop range-wide population and habitat goals and monitoring strategies

• Develop common framework for offsets or mitigation

• Unify targeting and delivery of conservation programs

Structure of the Range-wide Plan

• Background on the listing, Range-wide Plan, and how you can be a part of it

• What should the plan do?

• Population goals• Habitat focal areas (HFAs) and connectivity zones (CZs)• Metrics and mitigation framework• Implementation

Outline

Population Goals

• Science–based• Sustainable• Attainable• Does not require a

chicken on every acre across the historic range

Population Goals

• Science Team produced ecoregional population goals

• Goals are 10 year averages

• 67,000 birds range-wide

• 2x the 2012 population estimate

8,000

24,000

10,000

25,000

• Background on the listing, Range-wide Plan, and how you can be a part of it

• What should the plan do?• Population goals

• Habitat focal areas (HFAs) and connectivity zones (CZs)

• Metrics and mitigation framework• Implementation

Outline

Habitat Focal Areas and Connectivity Zones

• Focus management efforts

• Space for chickens AND development

• Science-based and attainable goals

Habitat Focal Areas• Represent 35% of the current range of the species• Intensive management will support 75% of the

population goals• Low oil and gas well density• Encompass less than 5% of the high quality wind

development potential

Connectivity Zones

• Represent <14% of the range of the species in Texas

• Isolated populations can be unstable• Ensure connectivity of focal areas with lower

habitat requirements

Population and Habitat Goals

• Range-wide, science-based, attainable goals to ensure the long-term existence of the species

• Common goals across all agencies and conservation organizations• Spatially defined for targeted conservation delivery

Ensure the conservation of the species as well as a thriving economy in the region

• Background on the listing, Range-wide Plan, and how you can be a part of it

• What should the plan do?• Population goals• Habitat focal areas (HFAs) and connectivity zones (CZs)

• Mitigation framework• Implementation

Outline

Mitigation SystemWhat should it do?

• Clearly define impacts and offsets to be able to demonstrate a net conservation benefit

• Incentivize avoidance or minimization of impacts

• The mitigation process is a one-time process that ensures operational certainty

• Incentivize landowners to manage for quality LPC habitat

How do we define impacts and habitat conservation ?

• ACRES impacted or conserved

• Habitat POTENTIAL

• Habitat QUALITY

• TIME that habitat is impacted or conserved

Defining impactsImpact Buffers

• Science Team recommendation based on peer-reviewed science– 100-1000 m based on

structure

• Realistic impact weightings– 100%, 66%, 33%

• Prior impacts grandfathered

Incentives for Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts

• Costs weighted by where impacts occur– HFAs, CZs, other

• Impact buffers incentivize clustering of impacts

Existing Impacts

Buffers of Existing Impacts

Mitigation of Impacts• Quantify impacts

– Buffers of proposed impacts-existing impacts

– Habitat assessment—acres, potential, quality, time

• Remaining impact units may be transferred for other developments

• One-time cost for industry

Legal assurances, operational certainty, and funding for conservation

Conservation Offsets

• Funding goes to landowners• LPC management plan• Habitat assessment—acres,

potential, quality, time• Baseline conservation units

$$ for the landowner Conservation to offset impacts

Annual Conservation Generation

• Annual assessment of habitat quality• Management practices

– Prescribed grazing– Tree/brush removal– Prescribed fire– Fence marking– Treatment of non-native & invasive plants– Restoration of grass cover– Management of planted grasses

Annual payments for the landowner based on performance

Mitigation System Summary

• Net conservation benefit and operation certainty

• Incentivizes avoidance and minimization of impacts

• Performance-based habitat management system that provides options for landowners

• Creates new revenue streams for landowners

How much does it cost/pay?• Developing base costs for

impact and conservation units:– What is required to meet

conservation goals?– How much impact do we

expect?– What is the cost for

implementing practices?– How much do landowners

need to make the program attractive?

– What would industry consider to be a reasonable cost?

• Background on the listing, Range-wide Plan, and how you can be a part of it

• What should the plan do?• Population goals• Habitat focal areas (HFAs) and connectivity zones (CZs)• Metrics and mitigation framework

• Implementation

Outline

Implementation

• Multiple options for conservation delivery

• We need a range-wide entity to coordinate conservation information

Range-Wide Conservation Coordination

• Who is WAFWA?• Board of Directors—accountability• Not a public entity—confidentiality• 501(c)(3 ) non-profit organization– Hire staff for conservation delivery– Aside from overhead costs, 85% of

the funds goes to conservation and landowners

Written comments• Cultural & political issues

• Economic impacts• Personal point of view

Written comments• Request for extended comment period past 3/11

• New science and legal issues• Five factors considered in listing

- Habitat -- Over utilization -

- Disease & predation -- Regulatory mechanism -

- Other factors -- multi-state, multi jurisdictional complexity -- Extend listing deadline 90 days past 9/30 -

Written commentsPublic Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2012–0071; Division of Policy and DirectivesManagement; U.S. Fish and WildlifeService; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

For more information:Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners

Association3131 Bell #209

Amarillo 79106(806) 352-5637

pproa@pproa.org

www.pproa.org