|
Subject
|
Source
|
Summary
|
Narrative Reference
|
|
Risk of Extinction:
|
12-Month Finding:Listing Factor A; summary of Factor A
|
Loss of sagebrush and greater sage-grouse habitat has been occurring since arrival
of European settlers in the 1800s, as evidenced by the change in the sage-grouse's
distribution and loss of local populations. Habitat loss and fragmentation continues
today as a result of many factors. Extinction risk factors identified by the expert
panel convened by the Service as contributing to habitat loss and fragmentation
were invasive species, infrastructure as related to energy development and urbanization,
wildfire, agriculture, grazing, energy development, urbanization, strip/coal mining,
weather, and pinyon-juniper expansion. Several experts identified concerns with
the synergistic effects of threat factors (e.g., infrastructure increases and invasive
species expansion).
|
Risk of Extinction1
|
|
|
12-Month Finding: Listing Factor B; summary of Factor B
|
Hunting was not identified as a primary threat factor for the greater sage-grouse
in the 12-Month Finding. For the 12-Month Finding, no data were collected suggesting
that poaching, non-consumptive use, or scientific use limit greater sage-grouse
populations range-wide.
|
Risk of Extinction2
|
|
|
12-Month Finding: Listing Factor C; summary of Factor C
|
Disease and predation are not factors that endanger or threaten the sage-grouse
throughout all or a significant portion of its range at this time. FWS is concerned
about the effects of West Nile Virus on greater sage-grouse and will closely monitor
future infections and observed population effects.
|
Risk of Extinction3
|
|
|
12-Month Finding: Listing Factor D; summary of Factor D
|
Existing regulatory mechanisms do not endanger or threaten the greater sage-grouse
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
|
Risk of Extinction4
|
|
|
12-Month Finding: Listing Factor E; summary of Factor E
|
Other natural and manmade factors do not endanger or threaten the sage-grouse throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
|
Risk of Extinction5
|
|
Habitat threats
|
12-Month Finding:Listing Factor A
|
Agents of habitat loss or change discussed in Listing Factor A: "habitat conversion,
habitat fragmentation, powerlines, communication towers, fences, roads and railroads,
grazing, mining, non-renewable and renewable energy development, fire, invasive
species/noxious weeds, pinyon-juniper, and urbanization... ...Several members of
the FWS expert panel identified concerns with the synergistic effects of threat
factors (e.g., infrastructure increases and invasive species expansion). The expert
panelists also discussed that the range of the greater sage-grouse would likely
contract and fragment due to habitat modifications and losses."
|
Habitat Threats -1 through 12
|
|
Data gaps
|
12-Month Finding:Petition finding
|
With respect to extinction risk, "areas of uncertainty discussed by the expert panel
included: systematic relationships among various grouse species; underlying mechanisms
by which sage-grouse populations respond to habitat changes; how to scale grouse
habitat preference up to the level at which federal land is managed; lack of studies
across the range limits inferences; effects of invasive plants; application of grazing
techniques to favor sagebrush habitat; underutilization of the case study approach
for sage-grouse management; future gas and oil development impacts; future advances
in horticulture and fire suppression; the role of crested wheatgrass in sagebrush
management; and the effectiveness of CRP program. No attempt was made to rank the
effects of these and other areas of uncertainty on the estimates of future risk."
|
|
|
Inventory and Monitoring; baseline data
|
Conservation Assessment
|
Introduction: "we still lack baseline information across much of the sagebrush biome
against which to evaluate population and habitat changes. Therefore, most information
that we present is recent but perhaps now we can begin the daunting task of providing
a baseline database for future efforts."
|
Inventory and Monitoring 5
|
|
Inventory and Monitoring; sage-grouse*
|
Conservation Assessment
|
Chapter 6: " ... results from our questionnaire indicated monitoring techniques
continue to vary among areas and years both within and among agencies. This variation
complicates attempts to understand grouse population trends and make comparisons
among areas." Agencies not only vary greatly in how they collect data but also how
they manage databases." Although monitoring efforts have increased, there still
appears to be a reluctance by some states/provinces to use established and accepted
monitoring techniques (Jenni and Hartzler 1978, Emmons and Braun 1984, Connelly
et al. 2003)." Until recently, no effort has been made to compile and standardize
all major monitoring techniques useful for assessing sage-grouse habitats and populations.
|
Inventory and Monitoring1, 4
|
|
Inventory and Monitoring; Habitat treatments
|
Conservation Assessment
|
Page 7-32: "With few exceptions, monitoring vegetation and wildlife response to
habitat treatments across appropriate spatial and temporal scales is lacking (Crawford
et al. 2004)." Published methods for assessing vegetation were not developed specifically
for sage-grouse habitats. Some population monitoring techniques have not been described
in detail while others were based on work done in a single area or over a relatively
short time
|
Inventory and Monitoring2(a & b), 3
|
|
Habitat disturbance and resiliency
|
Conservation Assessment
|
p 13-8; The cumulative impacts of the disturbances, rather than any single source,
may be the most significant influence on the trajectory of sagebrush ecosystems.
... Those remaining landscapes of sagebrush habitats most important to sage-grouse
also are the most sensitive to disturbance impacts and also will require the longest
recovery periods.P 13-10 ; "Many regions of the sagebrush biome now exist in an
ecological state past thresholds from which recovery is likely (West 1999)."
|
Habitat Disturbance and Resiliency 1
|
|
Habitat Disturbance and Resiliency
|
Other
|
"... Soils that are highly productive for agricultural products are also highly
productive for wildlife...many habitat conversions or other treatments targeted
the most productive of the remaining soils and hence native vegetation communities...resulting
in further disproportionate losses of habitat and population resilience...Because
the plant biomass is greater on more productive soils ... these areas can also have
the greatest fuel loads and be more susceptible to burning and/or invasion by undesirable
plant species, including noxious weeds. Habitat improvement treatments for wildlife,
including sage-grouse, frequently similarly focus on the most productive soils,
...This presents the potential for significantly adverse ecological changes if projects
do not respond as intended, or if the, number, type, size and sequencing of projects
within the range of the sage-grouse population are not fully coordinated across
the entire range of that population. It is these remaining most productive soils
that are in many cases also the most critical for sage-grouse production and protection.
Considering the potentially large number of habitat treatment projects associated
with implementation of sage-grouse conservation plans, a lack of appropriately scaled
coordination could result in substantial, widespread loss of habitat from which
it could be very difficult to recover.Soils are also a consideration for infrastructure
development projects, such as the energy corridors attendant transmission and distribution
lines, and other factors related to human population growth in the West. Such projects
generally seek soils and substrates that offer the fewest physical impediments to
facility construction and maintenance.
|
Habitat Disturbance and Resiliency 2
|
|
Habitat restoration
|
Conservation Assessment
|
P 7-49; "Bottlenecks to Success: Availability and cost of native seed is a major
obstruction to the use native seeds in revegetation projects (McArthur 2004)...
Equipment for sowing native seeds is not widely available."
|
Habitat Restoration 1
|
|
Habitat restoration
|
Conservation Assessment
|
The level and distribution of existing expertise related to seeding/restoration
of rangelands is believed to be well below that needed.
|
Habitat Restoration 2
|
|
Land uses
|
Conservation Assessment
|
P 1-3, Introduction: "Less than 1% of the 668,412 km2 currently occupied by greater
sage-grouse, and very little sagebrush habitat is legally protected... Multiple-use
management dominates approximately 70% of the sagebrush habitats, which are owned
publicly... Consumptive uses that potentially influence sagebrush habitats include
livestock grazing, mining, energy development, conversion to agriculture, and urbanization.
Non-consumptive uses, such as use of off-road vehicles for recreation, also have
the potential to influence habitats and populations of sage-grouse."
|
|
|
Technical Assistance
|
Local Working Group Conference Report
|
The need was expressed (recommendation #3) "That WAFWA facilitates (sic) the development
of a clearinghouse for research, data, funding, best management practices, and project
implementation stories that local working groups can easily access."
|
Technical Assistance 1
|
|
Technical Assistance
|
Local Working Group Conference Report
|
The level and distribution of existing expertise related to seeding/restoration
of rangelands is believed to be well below that needed.
|
Technical Assistance 2
|
|
Coordination
|
Conservation Assessment
|
: 2-13 "Many greater sage-grouse populations have distributions that span one or
more jurisdictional boundaries (Chapter 6). Effective management of these populations
requires coordination between the various landowner, (sic) wildlife managers and
the public."
|
Coordination 1
|
|
Coordination
|
Local Working Group Conference Report
|
P 6; "They requested assistance from the agencies to develop a system to prioritize
projects. This system would prioritize implementation of local working group planned,
regional and range-wide projects to maximize the impacts on sage-grouse populations.
The regional and range-wide coordination will be especially critical during implementation
and monitoring."
|
Coordination 1
|
|
Coordination
|
Local Working Group Conference Report
|
Concerns regarding networking and communication between local working groups
|
Coordination 2
|
|
Coordination
|
Local Working Group Conference Report
|
State Wildlife Comprehensive Conservation Strategies
|
Coordination 3
|
|
Coordination
|
Dept. of Interior policy
|
The Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts when Making Listing Decisions
|
Coordination 4
|
|
Coordination
|
|
There is no comprehensive analysis of agency policies, programs and regulations
at national, regional and/or state levels to address issues that may adversely affect
sage-grouse conservation and which are not within the purview of local working groups.
Local working groups and States are not positioned to address federal agency policies
and regulations at national and regional levels, and likely not at state levels,
as well.
|
Coordination 5
|