Gunnison sage grouse marches toward endangered species listing

County grapples with local impact

Things are heating up for the Gunnison sage grouse—and not because it’s mating season. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has begun drafting a proposed listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and county officials are seeking to understand just what that means for Gunnison County.

Gunnison County wildlife coordinator Jim Cochran went before the Board of County Commissioners in May to urge them to proceed deliberately as the FWS considers the listing.
“The agency is in the process of drafting a proposed listing of the Gunnison sage grouse. They started at the end of April, and the timeframe is about 18 months, at the end of which it will be yes or no,” Cochran said.
The final ruling would come out after the next county commissioners’ election, and Cochran suggested that the new board could take a position on the matter different from the current board’s.
“All kinds of things can happen to change that timeframe but the feedback I’m receiving from some members of the community is that the county may be in a different position at the end of that decision. Whereas now we’re in a very proactive and cooperative mode, the board that exists at that time may be apt to join in litigation [against the decision]. Can we make sure… [we] do not in some way preclude or compromise the county’s position in the future?” Cochran said.
“We have no intentions of anything one way or the other. We are not trying to set up a position we may or may not take in the future,” commissioner Hap Channell confirmed.
Rather, the commissioners appear to be tackling what the Gunnison sage grouse’s listing under the ESA would mean for local control and involvement in the species’ protection.
“Will there be revelations or will it all happen all at once?” Channell asked.
“As far as I know, [the FWS] will not disclose any information until they publish their proposal,” Cochran said.
“So it’s a waiting game,” commissioner Paula Swenson said.
And it’s a waiting game that continues to change. Cochran’s visit with the commissioners coincided with news that a settlement between the FWS and WildEarth Guardians would accelerate the review of 251 candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act—that list included the Gunnison sage grouse along with two other species native to Gunnison County. A subsequent lawsuit challenged the settlement on the grounds that it does not protect enough species, causing a federal judge to stay the decision. But the settlement has only added to what is already a climate of uncertainty.
“It has been point blank told to us that we are key to the survival of the species so if we can help drive the process, or be a bigger part of it, we can protect our interests and meet the needs of the sage grouse,” Chamberland said.
Chamberland has been spearheading efforts to look into options that might allow the County to act in a more cooperative role throughout the listing process. According to Al Pfister, wildlife biologist for the Grand Junction FWS, that type of role is associated with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and the ESA does not include the same level of participation for local governments. But that doesn’t mean that county input won’t be considered.
“As far as the listing decision there will be an opportunity for anyone—including the local government, federal or state entities—anyone to provide their perspective,” Pfister said.
The agency will take into account any research or County policies and practices that have been developed to protect the Gunnison Sage Grouse. But a more active role remains important to a county that has taken a formal stance on balancing the well-being of the species with local development. The Board of County Commissioners formally adopted the Gunnison County Sage-grouse Conservation Action Plan in 2009 to protect the species, and strategies and studies from that plan are still being implemented by the Gunnison Basin Sage-grouse Strategic Committee.
 “Some of the things we are trying to do take time to accomplish because we are dealing with a species, a biological entity,” Cochran said. “But the county, as far as development or use of private land within occupied habitat, is working as best we can through the strategic committee to develop a habitat prioritization model or process—something the Fish and Wildlife Service will agree they can use.”
The committee is also overseeing a grazing research project to understand in more detail the relationship between grazing and the Gunnison sage grouse, often a point of contention between environmental groups and ranchers.
“Grazing does negatively affect Gunnison sage grouse in sage grouse habitat and elsewhere because cattle compete with the species for space and habitat. Livestock have been known to flush sage grouse hens from their nest, and may be a threat to broods,” said Mark Salvo, director of the WildEarth Guardian’s Sagebrush Sea Campaign.
“Honestly, one of the things we continue to tell people is back when this basin had many more cattle then we do now, there were many more sage grouse than there are now,” Cochran said.
The study hopes to answer that debate once and for all. County Commissioners and Cochran hope to see the county’s work considered in the listing decision. At a May 20 meeting between Cochran, the commissioners and the Gunnison County Planning Commission, Cochran addressed that desire to maintain some kind of local control.
“Rather than have the federal government come down and say, ‘Gunnison County, here is your plan,’ we have taken the proactive effort to determine the plan ourselves,” Cochran said.
But he and county attorney David Baumgarten acknowledged that just how effectively the county can ensure consideration of that plan is yet to be determined. As Baumgarten told the Planning Commission in May, that is a conversation that still needs to happen.
“A question is how significantly, if at all, can the county requirements, to the degree that we have them or create them, actually influence that listing decision. Is there a more of a seat at the listing decision table that we can take advantage of?” Baumgarten asked.
According to Chamberland, subsequent conversations with the Department of the Interior suggest that writing the FWS and formally requesting a cooperating status for the County could get them a better seat at the table. If accepted, the status would at least guarantee that County policies be considered by the agency in its listing decision.
For now, initial concerns that the WildEarth Guardians settlement accelerates the review process for the Gunnison Sage grouse appear to be unfounded.
“The Settlement Agreement does include the Gunnison sage grouse. However, it should be noted that the Fish and Wildlife Service had already initiated the review process for that species,” said Salvo. “The process is already under way, so the settlement doesn’t accelerate that listing decision.”
Pfister confirmed that timing remains unchanged thus far. A proposed ruling is anticipated in January or February of 2012 and a final ruling one year after that.