Conservation plan includes exceptions for recreation

Keeping local control of Gunnison sage grouse population

Written agreements between government agencies don’t always garner a lot of excitement, but a draft Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) for the Gunnison sage grouse is making waves in Gunnison County and even graced a recent issue of High Country News.

It’s praise-worthy for a few reasons: it’s a tangible result after years of discussion; it would simplify conservation if the bird is listed under the Endangered Species Act (a likely outcome this fall); and it represents a broader spectrum of local interests, including recreation.
This has important implications for development in the valley, even for user groups like mountain bikers. While it’s tempting to think of development with a capital D—road building, mining or geothermal development—when it comes to protecting endangered species, development can also mean projects like building trails.
The intent of the CCA is to get out in front of a listing decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which is expected in September. New projects would need to meet more stringent conservation measures than those in place already, but the CCA would provide a local review process and prevent many projects from going through a lengthier FWS review process.
“As envisioned, if a project meets the standards in the CCA, the Fish and Wildlife Service won’t even see it,” said Jim Cochran, Gunnison County wildlife coordinator.
Cochran explained that the plan identifies two tiers of protection within public lands. High priority habitat is identified as habitat that lies within two miles of lekking areas and includes multiple types of sage grouse habitat. Development in these zones would require mitigation.
“Say you have a new single track bicycle trail. As proposed, the mitigation in the high priority habitat would require you to reclaim someplace else an additional trail so there’s a net reduction in fragmentation,” Cochran said.
By contrast, habitat that falls outside of that two-mile radius and includes only one type of habitat like wintering grounds would not require mitigation.
“In high priority habitat, protections really get down to a reduction in fragmentation. Tier two protection [or habitat that is not high priority] is no net increase in fragmentation,” Cochran said.
Dave Wiens is the executive director of Gunnison Trails, Inc. and the recreation representative on the county-wide Gunnison Sage Grouse Strategic Committee. He believes that the CCA gives fair consideration to recreation.
“If people agree to this guiding document, no one is coming in and saying you can’t pursue new opportunities. It’s saying here’s the hoops you have to jump through to do a trail in these areas,” Wiens said.
And even projects that don’t fit within the CCA can still go to the FWS for review. Wiens also pointed out that the CCA includes some unique exceptions for recreational use. Hartman Rocks, Signal Peak (which would include a significant amount of single track), and the Van Tuyl Ranch have all been identified as Urban Interface Recreation Areas. They would still be subject to current conservation measures, like seasonal closures, but would not be subject to further requirements.
Cochran agreed the recreation component was a notable aspect of the plan, saying, “There is an opportunity to develop them more with an understanding that it may mean some sacrifice of sage grouse habitat. But the reality is that if we don’t provide an outlet for that type of recreation it’s going to occur someplace, and probably in an unmanaged form.”
Cochran gives a lot of credit to the Bureau of Land Management for moving the process forward in the last couple of years, in particular by hiring a staff member to spearhead the process. But Brian St. George, BLM Gunnison Field Office manager, says the strength of the document lies in the fact that it has been informed by so many different user groups in the Gunnison Valley. That cooperation has allowed the local conservation community to move into ground-breaking territory.
“In Colorado, we certainly consider this a pilot effort,” St. George said. “There are a few examples of CCAs nationwide, but in most cases they are the first level of conservation planning for a species.”
The Gunnison Basin already had a range-wide conservation plan similar to most CCAs. The document currently circulating the valley for review is more of a hybrid—something that could complement federal management of an endangered species. St. George admits that the timing of the CCA is tight—it would have been preferable to have it done in advance of a listing decision. But he believes it will be a useful document whether the bird is listed or not.
“This is management we would take regardless of a listing decision. It’s necessary to continue to make the Gunnison Basin a population stronghold, so we tried to develop management steps and practices necessary if the bird is listed and if it is not, they will be a big contributing factor in a FWS decision not to list,” St. George said.
The draft CCA has been under review by a range of valley organizations, including the county commissioners, the Gunnison County Electric Association, and the Gunnison County Stockgrowers Association. The BLM hopes to incorporate that feedback and have a document submitted to the FWS by the end of the summer, prior to its listing decision.