Bill Overview
Title: Promoting Local Management of the Lesser Prairie Chicken Act
Description: This bill prohibits any population of the lesser prairie-chicken ( Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ) in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, or New Mexico from being listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The lesser prairie-chicken is a type of grouse. Currently, two distinct population segments (DPS) of the lesser prairie-chicken are listed under the ESA. The Southern DPS of the lesser prairie-chicken is listed as endangered and the Northern DPS is listed as threatened. The bill removes both populations from the list. In addition, the bill bans Interior from listing any population of the lesser prairie-chicken as endangered or threatened in the future.
Sponsors: Rep. Estes, Ron [R-KS-4]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the management of lesser prairie-chicken habitat regulations
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The lesser prairie-chicken inhabits regions across five U.S. states: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico.
- The listing of a species as endangered or threatened under the ESA can lead to habitat protections and restrictions on land use, impacting local landowners, farmers, and industries.
- These regions are home to various economic activities, including agriculture and energy production, which could be affected by ESA regulations.
- Landowners and industries potentially involved number in the thousands across these states.
- Conservation efforts and biodiversity are considerations for environmental groups and residents.
- Local communities dependent on land use that might be restricted by such listings would directly be affected, impacting their economic activities and possibly livelihoods.
Reasoning
- The target population includes farmers, ranchers, and industry workers largely in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico, particularly those whose economic activities rely on land use that could be restricted by protections under the ESA. These include agricultural and energy sectors such as farming, cattle ranching, oil extraction, and wind energy development.
- Given the potential for local management, impacts could vary significantly based on individual stake in land use and conservation efforts.
- The budget limits indicate that any policy implementation must consider practical constraints in terms of management and operational costs, alongside the scale of population impacted.
- Interviews cover a spectrum from directly impacted individuals to those experiencing indirect or negligible effects.
Simulated Interviews
Cattle Rancher (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the importance of protecting wildlife, but my ranching operations have faced numerous headaches due to restrictions.
- If the ESA listing is lifted, this could mean more flexibility and less red tape for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Oklahoma)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that this move prioritizes short-term economic gains over critical biodiversity.
- There are sustainable ways to manage land that don't involve delisting under the ESA.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Oil Field Worker (Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could help our operations around some tight areas.
- Regulations have long made our operations difficult.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Agricultural Consultant (Kansas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as a chance to relieve some burden from the farmers I work with.
- Hopefully, this will facilitate a more practical land management plan.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Wind Energy Developer (New Mexico)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The delisting could pave the way for more straightforward development.
- However, careful planning to avoid environmental damage is still important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired Farmer (Kansas)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My generation saw how mismanaged land can hurt future prosperity.
- I'm leery of changes that remove protections without a clear plan.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Local Government Official (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might simplify our work regarding development plans.
- Yet, it's crucial to consult stakeholders to avoid unintended consequences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Farmer (Oklahoma)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Without all the bureaucratic hurdles, we could expand operations more easily.
- Still, we should find ways to be good stewards of the land.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Ecologist (Colorado)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy threatens not just the lesser prairie-chicken but a host of species dependent on these habitats.
- We risk losing a beautiful and integral part of our ecosystem.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 6 |
Energy Policy Analyst (New Mexico)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an industry perspective, this removes significant barriers to development.
- There needs to be a careful assessment of long-term ecological impacts too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $13000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $11000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- The act could shift the cost burden from the federal government to the states.
- Long-term environmental impacts due to reduced protection under the ESA need to be considered.
- Potential economic development benefits need to be weighed against the ecological consequences.
- The response and actions from environmental groups and potential legal challenges could influence both cost and savings.