When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raises the specter of listing a species as threatened or endangered, it gets a lot of attention. Such designations carry with them implications for how private and public land can be used, and pushes ideological buttons about government control, individual freedom and – particularly in the West – connection to the land. The prospect of a federal listing can spur collaboration, action and on-the-ground results that would otherwise be challenging to achieve. Such was the case with the greater sage-grouse, a bird that has prompted conservation efforts that have both improved its lot and averted a federal listing. It is a success story that can inform future species-conservation scenarios.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was in Colorado this week to announce the decision not to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act, citing the successful work on the ground to improve sage-grouse habitat throughout the bird’s 11-state range. That effort has been far-reaching and inclusive. A plan, crafted with input from stakeholders including states, ranchers, landowners, conservation groups, the FWS, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the U.S. Geographical Survey, included state-specific strategies for improving sage-grouse habitat that is shrinking because of development and climate change, among other factors.
In Colorado, sage-grouse conservation efforts have been impressive and effective. A well-stocked toolbox offers multifaceted solutions that benefit the bird: There are landowner incentives – through conservation easements and other benefits – to adopt management agreements that benefit the grouse. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has a vast data trove gathered from years monitoring the birds’ numbers and activities, and deploys that information to help local conservation efforts. In Routt County, a $20 million mill levy is dedicated to habitat conservation and a market-based habitat exchange is running. The BLM and Forest Service are including sage-grouse conservation protocols in their respective management plans. The gas and oil industry, whose work can be harmful to grouse, has modified its practices to protect them.
Each of these components has resulted from years of conversation, collaboration and dedication to two things: protecting the grouse and avoiding a federal listing – not necessarily in that order.
If the November decision to list the Gunnison sage-grouse – a greater sage-grouse sub-species – as threatened is any indication, listing the greater sage-grouse would have done little if anything to benefit the bird. That decision overlooked the significant efforts – specifically those in Gunnison County – that have positively affected the bird. Between county efforts, state support and cooperation from landowners and industry, 97 percent of the critical Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in Gunnison County is under some sort of protection – via landowner management agreements, conservation easements or development restrictions to protect grouse. The listing decision was a major blow to those long-built and successful efforts. The decision not to list the greater sage-grouse – based largely on the successful efforts that have benefited its Gunnison cousin – should figure prominently in all parties’ thinking. The Endangered Species Act has prompted impressive work that has protected critical habitat and, by extension, the sage-grouse that rely upon it. To do so without a listing the bird as threatened or endangered – as was the case with the greater sage-grouse – is the best possible scenario.
