(Courtesy of NRCS/USDA)
(News Update: Tuesday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a new status review and listing decision for greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act. The agency previously determined that listing the sage-grouse as “threatened” or “endangered” under the ESA was “not warranted” in 2005. Conservationists successfully sued to overturn the agency’s determination in the Federal District Court of Idaho last year. Today’s announcement marks the beginning of a 90-day public comment period on the proposed listing decision. The date for the completion of the new status review and proposed listing decision is not yet known.)

   CHEYENNE - Maps developed by a state sage grouse task force indicate that 16 percent of the state’s surface area has 75 percent of the state’s sage grouse population – the state’s core areas for the imperiled bird that don’t have much energy or housing development pressure – yet.

   Those figures are extrapolated from a head-count and mapping of strutting male sage grouse, with a ratio of how many birds are in a breeding lek, compared to the number of strutting males. Maps developed by Audubon and The Nature Conservancy show color codes of sage grouse population densities that show the habitats for 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent of the species.

 

   John Emmerich, deputy director of Wyoming Game & Fish Department, said the new data creates “a fantastic opportunity if we can agree how to manage those core areas.”

 

   Energy and housing developments need to stay out or have no impact in those core areas, for a decade, said Emmerich. That gives energy companies time to demonstrate that intensely developed industrial zones like Jonah Field can be rehabilitated and repopulated with endangered and sensitive species.

 

   If the federal government or environmental groups want to list the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act, said Emmerich, he’s confident that the bird won’t be listed in Wyoming if the state can legitimately claim to be protecting 75 percent of the sage grouse population – about 100,000 birds.

 

   Still to be worked out by the task force, is what does protection mean for those core areas?

 

   Task force members emphasized that there are multiple threats against sage grouse, beyond energy development. Threats include housing and business development, mining, industrial development, agriculture and more, they said.
There was no mention of absolute protections undergirded by rules and regulations – the entire emphasis was put on rewards and incentives.

 

   Bob Budd, executive director of the Wildlife Trust and leader of the sage grouse task force, compared the task facing the sage grouse task force, with one faced by a bighorn sheep task force a few years ago. In that case, said Budd, state agencies and conservations groups focused on core areas for bighorn sheep. The unified approach paid off later when the Wyoming bighorn management plan was challenged and task force participants closed ranks, he said.

 

   “We need to defer to the bird,” said Budd, emphasizing the need to make all actions lead to benefiting sage grouse and/or its habitat.

 

   Budd outlined the general agreements toward the end of the meeting at the Cheyenne Public Library.

 

   “We have general agreement to the idea of protecting the core areas,” said Budd. Beyond that, he said, there will be a mapping exercise between task force members within the next week, to come up with a basic map of the core areas. WYGIS, a mapping office within the University of Wyoming, will take the lead on future mapping.

 

   Other ideas tossed out by task force members include incentive-based management; focusing dollars on the core groups; tradeoffs between impacts on core areas and mitigation enhancements in non-core areas and using conservation agreements between the state and private property owners to protect core areas.

 

   “What percentage should we seek to protect?” asked Budd. Fifty percent was felt to be too low, but after discussion, two-thirds to three-fourths was felt to be a viable range. Budd asked the hypothetical question of how much would it cost to strive for, say, 80 percent protection? Only more accurate mapping and population surveys will tell.
-30-