Gunnison Sage-grouse Need ESA Protection

We disagree with a recent editorial by the Grand Junction Sentinel that listing Gunnison sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act would not benefit the species ("Something to grouse about," Mar. 7, 2007).

Gunnison sage-grouse are a distinct species from greater sage-grouse, identified by researchers as early as the 1970s and recognized as a new species by the American Ornithologists' Union in 2000. While its historic range may have included parts of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona, the species now occurs only in eight small populations in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah.

Like other grouse species, Gunnison sage-grouse populations may be cyclic. However, a slight increase in total population last year does not compensate for the significant overall decline in the Gunnison sage-grouse population of between 42 and 90 percent from historic numbers. Today, only about 4,000-5,000 breeding individuals remain and a Grand Junction Sentinel article published as recently as 2004 worried that the Gunnison sage-grouse population at Pi?on Mesa was in danger of extirpation ("Grouse decline has feds working," Nov. 15, 2004).

Citizens' organizations petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Gunnison sage-grouse as "threatened" or "endangered" under the ESA in 2000. The agency finally responded in 2006. As has been well documented, Fish and Wildlife Service biologists initially recommended listing the grouse as "endangered" and identified critical habitat for the species in accordance with the ESA. But political appointees within the Bush Administration manipulated and overturned the biologists' decision and published a "not warranted" listing determination instead (see www.sagebrushsea.org/sp_gunn_grouse_interference.htm).

Fish and Wildlife Service biologists and field personnel identified numerous human activities and related factors that threaten Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat, including oil and gas development, livestock grazing, urban and exurban development, agriculture, reservoirs, conifer encroachment, invasive species, and the placement and construction of roads, fences, and utility corridors. These threats have not gone away since the Bush Administration declined to list the grouse under the ESA. Further, agency officials did not find that current conservation plans would recover the species.

The ESA enjoys a 98 percent success rate at preventing species from becoming extinct. Meanwhile, countless known and unknown imperiled species not afforded ESA protection have gone extinct since the law was enacted in 1973.

San Miguel County and all the parties involved in litigation to protect the Gunnison sage-grouse under the ESA continue to collaborate with federal, state and local governments, ranchers, developers, oil and gas drillers, and property owners to conserve a bird identified by the Audubon Society as one of the ten most endangered avian species in the nation. For its part, the San Miguel County provides significant funding to pay for the coordinator of its local sage-grouse working group and will continue to spend hundreds of thousands of local taxpayer dollars to protect Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Unfortunately, without listing, some are unwilling to do their part to save Gunnison sage-grouse from extinction. ESA listing will ensure that we all work together to protect a unique local species at risk. That should be everyone's goal.

Mark Salvo
Director
Sagebrush Sea Campaign

and

Art Goodtimes
Chair
San Miguel County Board of Commissioners