Community Conservation - The High Plains Partnership at Work
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Session:Community Conservation on the High Plains (Tues 3/13 8:45 am)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Community Conservation - The High Plains Partnership at Work
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Session:Community Conservation on the High Plains (Tues 3/13 8:45 am) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Abstract: We present the history and success of the High Plains Partnership for Species at Risk, a cooperative conservation effort involving state and federal agencies, community groups, and private landowners. The goal of the partnership is to work across traditional public and private boundaries to reverse declining and imperiled wildlife by implementing voluntary, community-based solutions to natural resources problems on the high plains. Several wide-ranging species, including the lesser prairie chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), swift fox (Vulpes velox), and black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), are declining, have been proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act, or are candidates that await listing if their populations do not recover soon. As the flagship High Plains Partnership project, the Western Governors' Association joined with the Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group to reverse the decline of the lesser prairie chicken and prevent it from becoming listed as threatened. With more than 93 percent of occupied lesser prairie chicken habitat existing on private land across five states, it was imperative that landowners, government employees, and other stakeholders become partners to achieve this monumental task. Together, this group has developed strategies and habitat restoration projects that sustain the ranching enterprise while also benefitting lesser prairie chickens and other prairie species. Our results show that the best way to ensure rangeland health and reverse declines of many at-risk species is through multi agency support and collaboration, soliciting community involvement early in the process, and promoting voluntary cooperation by landowners through incentive-based programs. A key tool for habitat restoration on private lands is the Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAA) program, which offers regulatory assurances to participating landowners that their conservation efforts will protect them from further land-use restrictions should imperiled species become federally listed. We outline the implementation of lesser prairie chicken CCAA projects on more than 84,000 acres of private land in four states and summarize the public response to this new program. Also presented are the practical components necessary to 1) initiate dialogue and trust with landowners regarding species recovery, 2) develop guidelines for effective use of habitat incentive funding, 3) deliver private lands agreements that meet both the needs of wildlife and landowners, and 4) document success for all interested parties.
BackgroundThe Western Governors' Association and Its Role. Established in 1984, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) is an independent, nonpartisan organization of Governors from 21 Western states, and three U. S. islands in the Pacific. The Association was formed to provide strong leadership in an era of critical change in the economy and demography of the West. The Western Governors' recognize that many vital issues and opportunities shaping our future are shared throughout the west. Through their association, the Western Governors' identify and address key policy and governance issues in natural resources, the environment, human services, economic development, international relations and public management. WGA helps the Governors develop strategies both for the complex, long-term issues facing the west and for the region's immediate needs. For nine years, reform of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been the Governors' top federal legislative priority. They have long agreed that the ESA needs to provide adequate funding for states, incentives and assurances for landowners, and an efficient and timely delisting process once species are recovered. Adequate funding for states would enable responsible agencies to address species decline proactively, effectively preventing declines before federal listing becomes necessary. They also believe the ESA must have more supportive provisions such as incentives and assurances that encourage and enable landowners to become full partners in recovery efforts. The Governors fully believe that the ultimate outcome of the ESA should be species recovery. Lessons Learned. In the early 1990's, WGA and the U. S. Department of Interior agreed to an initiative called the Great Plains Partnership that included 13 states, two Canadian provinces and several states in Mexico. Also included were multiple federal agencies and conservation groups, as well as several ranchers working together to address declining species. There were numerous lessons learned in the fledgling effort; after a time, the Governors realized that the scale of the project spanned too large an area, and that maintaining a high level council was too resource intensive. It also became clear that tangible results and long-term commitments were difficult to achieve when benefits were far from a Governor's home state or an organization's target interest. However, the concept and mission of the Great Plains Partnership was right on the mark: to catalyze and empower the people of the great plains to define and create their own generationally sustainable future. New Strategies. Governor Jim Geringer of Wyoming, WGA's chairman at the time and the lead Governor for its Open Lands and Stewardship Program, recommended testing the Great Plains Partnership concept on a smaller scale by focusing efforts on key environmental concerns of the five states in the southern high plains. By reducing the scope, the Governors' felt that resource commitments would better reach constituents at home, thereby maintaining political support, financial commitment and community energy. They wanted to create a "place based" conservation initiative, where everyone could see the benefits where they lived and worked. What was apparent to each of the five states was that several wide-ranging species, including the lesser prairie chicken, mountain plover, swift fox, and black-tailed prairie dog, were declining, had been proposed for listing under the ESA, or were candidates awaiting listing if their populations did not recover soon. In particular, many landowners, wildlife biologists, and environmentalists were concerned about lesser prairie chickens, which were at an all-time low. An Opportunity for ChangeIn early October 1995, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was petitioned by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and a private citizen to list the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species under the ESA. This petition set into motion a chain of events and partnerships that shaped the formation of the High Plains Partnership. Following the petition, a coalition of wildlife and natural resource agency professionals from Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, where populations of lesser prairie chickens occurred, along with other state, federal, and private partners, formed the Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group to address conservation issues on a regional basis (Mote et al. 1998). At its inception, the Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group's aim was to identify threats to and increase the range-wide population and distribution of the lesser prairie chicken for the purpose of preventing the need to federally list the species under the Endangered Species Act. To accomplish this monumental task, the group identified five primary objectives (Mote et al. 1998):
Defining a Conservation NeedThe Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group began its efforts to define the objectives, strategies, and activities necessary to maintain lesser prairie chickens throughout their range in 1996. Shortly after the group began its efforts, the Service began the lengthy process of addressing the petitions to list the species by undertaking a comprehensive investigation into the status of the bird and its habitat, and the current and potential threats to the species. Conversion of native sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) and shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) rangeland to areas of cultivation is cited by many authors as an important factor in the decline of lesser prairie chickens (Copelin 1963, Jackson and DeArment 1963, Crawford and Bolen 1976, Crawford 1980, Taylor and Guthery 1980, Braun et al. 1994, Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group 1997). By the 1930s, Bent (1932) speculated that extensive cultivation and overgrazing had begun to cause the species to disappear from sections where it had been abundant. Some research indicates that areas with greater than 20-37 percent cultivation may be incapable of supporting stable populations of lesser prairie chickens (Crawford and Bolen 1976). In addition to the direct loss of habitat through cultivation, many researchers have concluded that an insufficient amount of lightly grazed habitat is available to support successful nesting (Crawford 1980, Jackson and DeArment 1963, Davis et al. 1979, Taylor and Guthery 1980, Davies 1992). Uniform or widespread livestock grazing of rangeland to a degree that leaves less than adequate residual cover remaining in spring is considered detrimental to lesser prairie chicken populations (Bent 1932, Davis et al. 1979, Cannon and Knopf 1980, Crawford 1980, Bidwell and Peoples 1991, Riley et al. 1992, Giesen 1994). Intense grazing results in grass height and density below that necessary for nesting and escape cover and many desirable food plants are markedly reduced. It is also accepted that superior cover at and around lesser prairie chicken nests increases nest success because the nest and hen are better concealed from predators (Davis et al. 1979, Wisdom 1980, Haukos and Smith 1989, Riley et al. 1992, Giesen 1994). Because the lesser prairie chicken depends on medium and tall grasses that are preferred by cattle, in regions of low rainfall its habitat is easily deteriorated (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1961). When grasslands are in a deteriorated condition due to overgrazing, the soils have less water-holding capacity, and the availability of succulent vegetation and insects are reduced. Thus, the effects of overgrazing are likely exacerbated by drought (Davis et al. 1979, Merchant 1982) and vice versa. It should be clarified that livestock grazing is not necessarily detrimental to lesser prairie chickens. However, a level of grazing that leaves little cover in the spring for concealment of prairie chicken nests is detrimental. Also detrimental is the widespread eradication and suppression of native shrubs to increase available forage for livestock. This practice can compound the threats to small populations by further reducing the remaining cover in rangeland areas that may already lack sufficient residual grass cover. To provide suitable habitat for lesser prairie chickens, grazing management must ensure that a diversity of plants and cover types remain on the landscape (Taylor and Guthery 1980). Because of historic settlement and land use patterns, conversion of prairie shrublands to cultivation and introduced forages, and the modification of native rangelands through modern grazing practices and other factors, much of the remaining habitat is fragmented (Crawford 1980, Braun et al. 1994, Woodward et al. 2001 in press). As a group, grouse may be relatively intolerant of extensive habitat fragmentation due to their short dispersal distances and other life history characteristics (Braun et al. 1994). Fragmentation may exacerbate the extinction process (Wilcove et al. 1986) through several mechanisms: remaining fragments may be smaller than necessary home range size (Samson 1980), necessary habitat heterogeneity may be lost, habitat between patches may house high levels of predators or brood parasites, and probability of recolonization decreases as distance from nearest patch increases (Wilcove et al. 1986, Knopf 1996). On June 9, 1998 (63 FR 31400) the Service published the 12-month finding on the petitions to list the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species. The Service found that biologically, the lesser prairie chicken warrants listing as threatened, but is temporarily precluded by higher listing priorities, effectively adding the lesser prairie chicken to the Service's candidate species list. However, considerably more research is required to understand range-wide declines of the lesser prairie chicken and how non-traditional habitats affect population dynamics of extant populations (Woodward et al. 2001). Therefore, under the coordination of the Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group, critical research into the biology, habitat, and recovery of the bird are ongoing in all states within occupied range. The High Plains PartnershipAfter identifying a conservation need common to each of the five states, the High Plains Partnership (for Species at Risk) was born. While the ultimate goal of the High Plains Partnership is to address declining wildlife issues throughout the High Plains region, the lesser prairie chicken initiative was targeted to be the flagship project for High Plains Partnership. The WGA, acting as a coordination point and fiscal agent, joined with the Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group to reverse the decline of the lesser prairie chicken and prevent it from becoming listed as threatened. In retrospect, the High Plains Partnership was built on the research and findings from focus groups held with landowners as part of the early Great Plains Partnership work. WGA reports such as, "A Way of Life -- Great Plains Citizens Talk about Ecosystems" (Creighton and Harwood 1996) and a facilitator's guide to managing environmental conflicts called "Let's Get To It -- Getting Beneath Difficult Environmental Resource Debates" (WGA 1998) were the basis for developing the implementation strategies for the High Plains Partnership's work on lesser prairie chickens. Because the vast majority of lesser prairie chicken habitat occurs on private land, the working group, WGA, Service, and other partners realized that it was imperative that landowners become engaged in the conservation effort. Ranch Conversations. Understanding the importance of landowner involvement was one thing. Winning their trust and cooperation was another matter. Through the Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group, an Education, Information and Outreach Committee was created to decide how best to communicate with and engage landowners and other stakeholders in the recovery process. The first obstacle the outreach committee had to overcome was a general anxiety about asking people to talk about a species that could be listed as threatened at any time. Hand wringing, indecision and overall avoidance initially hampered progress. The first major outreach effort was a newsletter and survey entitled, "Lesser Prairie Chicken Update." The outreach committee believed a newsletter would be a good primer for informing stakeholders about the status of the bird and the existence of the Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group. After reading about all the good work that was underway, readers were asked to offer their ideas for lesser prairie chicken recovery. The response to the survey was very disappointing. Out of 31,000 surveys mailed or handed out in the five-state region, less than one percent were completed and returned. In retrospect, the outreach committee concluded that while landowners were the target audience, the first newsletter was distributed to wide audience, with poor results. Something as impersonal as a newsletter also wasn't the answer. Some members of the outreach committee also noted that public meetings in traditionally aren't a very successful way to initiate dialogue between government agencies and private landowners. They had to come up with a different concept, one that conveyed the message that instead of talking "at" landowners, agencies wanted to have a conversation with them, a "Ranch Conversation" of sorts. The term stuck, and the group began building a meeting format around that theme. Getting the word out about the Ranch Conversations was handled in several ways, but the most effective tool was a personal invitation. The invitations were tailored specifically for each meeting (Figure 1.). They listed as sponsors many local groups that landowners would be familiar and comfortable with, such as the local Resource Conservation and Development association (RC&D), local soil and water Conservation Districts and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. These groups also assisted in mailing the invitations to landowners they knew would be interested. Each invitation was concise and solicited landowners' ideas about why lesser prairie chickens were in trouble and what they might be willing to do to help. And like a public meeting, landowners could ask questions or raise concerns about the status of the bird and how its listing under the ESA might affect their farm or ranch. The first Ranch Conversation was held in January 1999 in Buffalo, Oklahoma. To everyone's delight, more than 120 people attended, 80 of whom were landowners. Also in attendance were regional and state political representatives, which helped reinforce to participants that lesser prairie chicken conservation was an important issue, and that their views were being heard. Admittedly, many of the landowners and other stakeholders showed up at the Ranch Conversations wondering, "What are they going to do to me now?" Many had attended public meetings before and were expecting a "business as usual" approach. Based on survey responses, attendees found that the Ranch Conversations were different. First, a neutral third party convened the meeting -- in most instances it was the local RC&D -- and invited both governmental and private speakers. Second, the meeting was facilitated by an outside party, who admitted that he had no preconceived notions about the lesser prairie chicken. Results of the 12 Ranch Conversations across all five states were very similar. Participants were very interested in the status of the bird and any management decisions or policies that could affect their property. They wanted to be updated regularly on the status of the bird, future activities, and successes. They did not want the process to end with one meeting, and inquired about opportunities to receive newsletters and to participate in future Ranch Conversations, field days, special wildlife events. At the conclusion of each Ranch Conversation, an exit survey was distributed that asked the attendees to evaluate the meeting and provide information about lesser prairie chicken populations on their property, if so desired. A total of 231 meeting participants completed or partially completed the surveys (see survey results at www.westgov.org). This information has been invaluable in seeking ways to improve communication and working relationships with private landowners. The Ranch Conversations created an opportunity to build new relationships with landowners based upon the open, more relaxed dialogue that had been established. Landowners, no doubt, learned a great deal about lesser prairie chickens from biologists, but equally important, resource professionals learned first hand about the struggles facing agricultural producers. Although a majority of landowners who attended the Ranch Conversations indicated a willingness to continue discussion and habitat work with agencies, many remained skeptical. For them, the word "trust" had been tarnished by previous experiences, and the state and federal agencies had to prove they could be trusted. After conducting the Ranch Conversations throughout each of the five states, it became clear to the Service that there are two primary obstacles that discourage landowners from improving habitat for lesser prairie chickens; 1) the direct, indirect, and perceived costs of restoring and maintaining healthy rangeland, and 2) the threat of regulatory restrictions if lesser prairie chickens are identified on the property and later become federally listed. To address these concerns, the Service initiated a new program called Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances that helps alleviate these obstacles. Candidate Conservation Agreements with (regulatory) Assurances.Candidate species currently receive no statutory protection under the ESA. However, the Service encourages the formation of partnerships to initiate early conservation measures for these species because early conservation preserves management options, minimizes the cost of recovery, and reduces the potential for restrictive land use policies in the future. Because private property owners may face land use restrictions if species found on their lands are listed under the ESA, this potential has led some property owners to actively manage their lands to prevent or discourage declining and candidate species from occurring there. This represents a worst-case scenario for species recovery. One incentive property owners need to voluntarily promote candidate conservation on their lands and waters is future regulatory certainty. To address this need, the Service has finalized a policy to establish standards and procedures for developing Candidate Conservation Agreements with (regulatory) Assurances (CCAA) for private property owners (Federal Register 6/16/99). This new approach provides non-federal property owners who voluntarily agree to manage their lands or waters to remove threats to candidate or proposed species assurances that their conservation efforts will not result in future regulatory obligation in excess of those they have already agreed to. The ultimate goal of a CCAA is to remove enough threats to the target species to preclude or remove the need for their protection under the ESA. Based on the knowledge of lesser prairie chicken biology, effects of habitat fragmentation/scale, and socioeconomic factors, the logical first-step to maintaining lesser prairie chickens in the wild is to stabilize and secure landscape-level tracts of high quality native rangeland that currently support chickens. To further this goal, the Service in coordination with other conservation groups has taken the strategy to identify and target core areas that centralize around 1) occupied habitat 2) willing landowners and 3) feasible habitat recovery potential. By doing so, available funds will have a more effective and lasting result toward population recovery than by simply taking a "shotgun" approach to habitat restoration throughout the historic range. Over the last two years, the Service has developed CCAAs with private landowners to benefit existing lesser prairie chicken populations in Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. In just two short years, 84,341 total acres of private land have been committed to grazing and vegetation management plans that will enhance or recover range conditions to benefit lesser prairie chickens for at least 10 years through the CCAA program. Part of the success of this program must be attributed to the long-term economic benefits that good range management also provide for most cattle operations. Due to the popularity of the projects, the Service has proposed to enroll an additional 195,000 acres of private land into the CCAA program in 2001 under the High Plains Partnership. These projects are expected to benefit not only lesser prairie chicken, but also swift fox, black-tailed prairie dogs, mountain plover, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Arkansas River darter (Etheostoma cragini), and the Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi). To date, 120 additional landowners have contacted the Service requesting CCAA development on their property, and are on a waiting list pending available funds. Some of the habitat improvement practices that have been funded through the Service's CCAA program include, but are not limited to:
Practical RecommendationsFrom our experiences over the last two years conducting Ranch Conversations and developing CCAAs for lesser prairie chickens, we have learned that partnerships are the key to species recovery. In reality, no one agency, political group, community, or citizen has all the tools (or money) to restore the lesser prairie chicken. By combining the unique technical skills, contacts, and resources of each member of the High Plains Partnership, far more can be accomplished in less time. In an era when many agricultural producers feel tremendous economic pressures and anxiety about private property rights, it is often difficult to motivate private landowners to participate in conservation recovery efforts, even when substantial incentive funds are available to pay for the work. Therefore, we have outlined several recommendations (see below) that resource managers should consider when trying a similar approach for other species. Ultimately, our results have shown that in the context of current programs and policies, the best way to ensure rangeland health and reverse declines of many at-risk species is through multi-agency support and collaboration, soliciting community involvement early in the process, and promoting voluntary cooperation by landowners through incentive-based programs.
AcknowledgmentsThe activities of the Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group, in association with the Western Governors' Association, have resulted in more than $260,000 of new funding for states to use to halt the decline of the lesser prairie chicken. We want to thank the following groups for their generous support of the High Plains Partnership: Colorado Division of Wildlife, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resources Conservation Service, George M. Sutton Avian Research Center, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service, Resource Conservation and Development in CO, KS, NM, OK, and TX, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon of Kansas, National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, Playa Lakes Joint Venture, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Wildlife Management Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, The Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Chevron Corporation, Phillips Petroleum, and Houston Industries. We especially thank the private citizens and landowners who have donated their time and money to promote the success of the High Plains Partnership to help ensure that future generations may enjoy the natural resources of the high plains. Literature CitedBent, A. C. 1932. Life histories of north American gallinaceous birds. U. S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 162. 490pp. Bidwell, T. G. and A. Peoples. 1991. Habitat management for Oklahoma's prairie chickens. Coop. Ext. Serv., Div. of Agr., Oklahoma State University. Bulletin No. 9004. Braun, C. E., K. Martin, T. E. Remington, and J. R. Young. 1994. North American grouse: issues and strategies for the 21st century. Trans. 59th No. Am. Wildl. And Natur. Resour. Conf.:428-437. Cannon, R. W. and F. L. Knopf. 1980. Distribution and status of the lesser prairie chicken in Oklahoma. Pages 71-74 in Vohs, P. A. and Knopf, F. L. (eds) Proceedings: Prairie Grouse Symposium. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. Copelin, F. F. 1963. The lesser prairie chicken in oklahoma. Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Department Technical Bulletin No. 6. Oklahoma City. 58pp. Crawford, J. A. 1980. Status, problems, and research needs of the lesser prairie chicken. Pages 1-7 in Vohs, P. A. and Knopf, F. L. (eds) Proceedings: Prairie Grouse Symposium. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. Crawford, J. A. and E. G. Bolen. 1976. Effects of land use on lesser prairie chickens in Texas. J. Wildl. Manage. 40:96-104. Creighton, J. and R. C. Harwood. 1996. A way of life -- great plains citizens talk about ecosystems. Western Governors' Association, Denver, CO. 35 pp. Davies, B. 1992. Lesser prairie chicken recovery plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Springs. 23pp. Davis, C. A., T. Z. Riley, R. A. Smith, H. R. Suminski, and M. J. Wisdom. 1979. Habitat evaluation of lesser prairie chickens in eastern Chaves county, New Mexico. Dept. Fish and Wildl. Sci., New Mexico Agric. Exp. Sta., Las Cruces. 141pp. Giesen, K. M. 1994. Movements and nesting habitat of lesser prairie-chicken hens in Colorado. Southwestern Nat. Vol. 39. Hamerstrom, F. N. and F. Hamerstrom. 1961. Status and problems of north American grouse. Wilson Bull. 73:284-294. Haukos, D. A. and L. M. Smith. 1989. Lesser prairie-chicken nest site selection and vegetation characteristics in tebuthiuron treated and untreated sand shinnery oak in Texas. Great Basin Nat. 49:624-626 Jackson, A. S. and R. DeArment. 1963. The lesser prairie chicken in the Texas panhandle. J. Wildl. Manage. 27:733-737. Knopf, F. L. 1996. Prairie legacies - birds. Pages 135-148 in F. B. Samson and F. L. Knopf, eds. Prairie conservation: preserving north America's most endangered ecosystem. Island Press, Washington, D. C. Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group. 1997. Draft conservation plan for lesser prairie chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus). 30pp. Merchant, S. S. 1982. Habitat use, reproductive success, and survival of female lesser prairie-chickens in two years of contrasting weather. M.S. thesis, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. Riley, T. Z., C. A. Davis, M. Ortiz, and M. J. Wisdom. 1992. Vegetative characteristics of successful and unsuccessful nests of lesser prairie chickens. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:383-387. Samson, F. B. 1980. Island biogeography and the conservation of prairie birds. Proc. N. Am. Prairie Conf. 7:293-305. Taylor, M. A. and F. S. Guthery. 1980. Status, ecology, and management of the lesser prairie chicken. U. S. Dept. Agri. Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-77. 15pp. Western Governors' Association. 1998. Let's get to it B getting beneath difficult environmental resource debates. Western Governor's Association, Denver, CO. 115 pp. Wilcove, D. S., C. H. McLellan, and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pages 237-256 in M. E. Soule, ed. Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass. Wisdom, M. J. 1980. Nesting habitat of lesser prairie chickens in eastern New Mexico. M. S. Thesis, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. Woodward, A. J. W., S. D. Fuhlendorf, D. M. Leslie, Jr., and J. Shackford. 2001. Influence of landscape composition and change on lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) populations (in press).
Author and Copyright InformationCopyright 2001 by Authors Sylvia Gillen Stephanie A. Harmon |