Op-ed: Decision to not list sage grouse means birds will continue to vanish

The not warranted decision for greater sage grouse announced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Sept. 22 is being condemned as short-sighted or praised as rewarding the efforts of state and federal agencies over the last five to 10 years. The status of greater sage grouse is to be reassessed in five years. But in five years, sagebrush-steppe habitats will have had more destruction, and sage-grouse populations will be further reduced, fragmented, and some may never recover.

Some believe the no-listing decision is like kicking the can down the road with no assurance of success, and that politics and money have overridden biology and data. Others seem convinced the decision was on target and allows states and federal agencies to demonstrate their efforts will result in demonstrable increases in numbers of greater sage grouse, if not also the distribution of occupied habitat. But, the decision was not based on science.

I fully expect to be at this point again in five years, but with less usable habitat and lower population numbers. Why? It will be far more difficult to improve the remaining habitat after five years than at present, especially as connectivity among populations continues to be lost. This is despite the massive influx of millions of dollars, primarily to remove invasive junipers while improving management of private lands. Presently, there are no published data to indicate that removal of junipers (and other small conifer trees) has increased sage grouse abundance or overall distribution.

There are more than 27,000 oil and gas wells in Wyoming that were placed on hold because they involved sage grouse priority habitats. Now they will move forward under scientifically inadequate protections of the new federal plans — i.e., 0.6-mile buffers around traditional display and breeding sites called leks — when the most permissive scientific study calls for at least a 3.1-mile buffer, and 5 percent surface disturbance when no published science has ever supported more than 3 percent surface disturbance. The political compromises on sage-grouse protections in these plans may satisfy a wide spectrum of interest groups, but are not sufficient to prevent sage-grouse declines. I know of no scientific studies that support the assertion that these decisions were based on science.

The big picture is that sage grouse populations in the Dakotas, eastern Montana and eastern Wyoming, as well as the isolated small populations in Utah and elsewhere, have almost no chance for any recovery under the new plans, and scientific studies show a strong likelihood of extinction in these areas. Losses of small, isolated populations will occur in all states no matter how you slice the data. Unfortunately, it is impossible to markedly improve destroyed or even "disturbed" sagebrush-steppe habitats in a five-year period under current knowledge or management. We did not get to this point in five years, and it will take far more than five years to improve habitats to where they can again support viable populations of sage-grouse. The secretary, with a few strokes of a pen providing direction to the BLM (primarily), could have made a real difference.

My view, based on a 40-year exposure, is not encouraging for sage grouse and most sagebrush-steppe habitats on public lands or on most private lands. The future is not bright for sage grouse with the states and private landowners basically in charge. Their past track record dating to the 1960s is not reassuring. A "threatened" listing could have encouraged better protection and improvement of existing habitats. Approving the status quo with voluntary actions that may or may not be adequately and consistently implemented is not what is needed to avoid another "crisis" with fewer birds and intact habitats in five years. It simply kicks the can down the road, allowing additional sage grouse declines and habitat shrinkage.

Clait Braun is a sage grouse scientist with numerous published studies on the impacts of human activities on grouse and their habitats. He formerly led the Colorado Division of Wildlife sage grouse research program.