Sent Certified U.S

Status Review and Petition to List the Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act American Lands Alliance SENT CERTIFIED U.S. POSTAL EXPRESS MAIL December 22, 2003 Assistant Director of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW, Room 3242 Washington, D.C. 20240 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 25486 Denver, Colorado 80225 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 Re: Petition to List Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) under the Endangered Species Act The following petitioners hereby petition to list the Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (sage grouse) as “threatened” or “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C § 1531 et seq.) and the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.). • American Lands Alliance • Biodiversity Conservation Alliance • Center for Biological Diversity • Center for Native Ecosystems • Forest Guardians • The Fund for Animals • Gallatin Wildlife Association • Great Old Broads for Wilderness • Hells Canyon Preservation Council • The Larch Company • Northwest Ecosystem Alliance • Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides • Oregon Natural Desert Association • Oregon Natural Resources Council • Predator Defense Institute • Sierra Club • Sinapu • Western Fire Ecology Center • Western Watersheds Project • Wild Utah Project • Wildlands CPR This submittal is not intended to supplement any previous petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received to list sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but is submitted as a wholly new petition for the species. Please use the following address for all correspondence regarding this petition. Mark Salvo American Lands Alliance 2224 W. Palomino Drive Chandler, Arizona 85224 [email protected] While previous petitioners have contended that Greater Sage Grouse are two subspecies—an “eastern” and a “western” subspecies—this petition recognizes only one species of sage grouse, consistent with preliminary findings by Benedict et al. (2003),1 with the possible exception of a genetically distinct Mono Basin species/subspecies/population segment in southwestern 2 Nevada/eastern California. 1 Benedict, N. G., S. J. Oyler-McCance, S. E. Taylor, et al. 2003. Evaluation of the eastern (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) and western (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios) subspecies of Sage-grouse using mitochondrial control-region sequence data. Cons. Genetics 4: 301-310. 2 See Benedict, N. G., S. J. Oyler-McCance, S. E. Taylor, et al. 2003. Evaluation of the eastern (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) and western (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios) subspecies of Sage-grouse using mitochondrial control-region sequence data. Cons. Genetics 4: 301-310; R. Webb. 2001. Status Review of the Mono Basin Distinct Population Segment of the Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios). Institute for Wildlife Protection. Eugene, OR. Status Review and Petition to List the Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 5 Petitioners 8 Status Review and Petition to List the Greater Sage Grouse 14 Introduction 14 Taxonomy 15 Description 16 Demographics and Life History Events 22 Population Mechanisms and Vulnerability 31 Geographical Distribution 43 Habitat 50 Population Assessments 74 Threat Analysis 112 Effects on Sage Grouse Habitat and Range 114 Over Utilization of the Species 173 Disease and Parasitism 177 Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 179 The Future for Sage Grouse 204 Gaps in Information Needed to Conserve the Species 205 Importance of Sage Grouse 205 Protection of Sagebrush Ecosystems 206 Addendum 209 Page 4 of 218 Status Review and Petition to List the Greater Sage Grouse Status Review and Petition to List the Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sage grouse have inhabited the western United States and southern Canada since the Pleistocene epoch. The sage grouse was discovered by Lewis and Clark in 1806 and was assigned its scientific name, Centrocercus urophasianus (Latin for “spiny-tailed pheasant”), in 1831. Sage grouse perhaps once numbered in the millions. Huge flocks of sage grouse were reported to “blacken the sky” as recently as the late 1800s. Their historic range closely conformed to the distribution of tall and short sagebrush on the prairie sagebrush steppe (the “Sagebrush Sea”) covering what became sixteen western states and three Canadian provinces. However, since 1900 the distribution of sage grouse has been reduced with extirpation of populations at the periphery of their range. Sage grouse no longer occur in Arizona, British Columbia, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. The sage grouse population has declined as much as 45-80 percent over the past 20 years due to habitat destruction, degradation and fragmentation. The current breeding population is estimated at 140,000 individuals, representing only about eight percent of historic numbers. These birds are sparsely distributed over vast tracts of degraded habitat, often in isolated sub- populations. Sage grouse are valued as an historical icon of the West and a charismatic ambassor for the Sagebrush Sea. Prior to the arrival of white settlers, American Indians utilized the sage grouse for food and created dances and costumes to mimic their strutting behavior. Today, birdwatchers delight in the species fascinating mating ritual in early spring, and hunters pursue the grouse in autumn. Scientists marvel at the sage grouse’s ability to survive in its harsh, arid environment. Sage grouse are a key focal species for the Sagebrush Sea. Because they depend on large expanses of healthy sagebrush habitat, conserving the species will also benefit other sagebrush obligates, such as the sagebrush vole (Lagurus curtatus), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporusgraciosus), and the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis). Page 5 of 218 Status Review and Petition to List the Greater Sage Grouse The Endangered Species Act sets forth five criteria for listing, and requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list species as “threatened” or “endangered” if they meet one or more of the criteria. This petition carefully and systematically documents how the Greater Sage Grouse meet not just one, but all five criteria. A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range. Sage grouse habitat has been fragmented, damaged, and destroyed by domestic livestock grazing; agricultural and urban conversion (including suburbanizations and “ex-urbanization,” or the establishment of new communities far outside of existing settlement); invasive species; application of herbicides and pesticides; altered fire regimes; oil and gas development (including coalbed methane development); off-road vehicle use; and the placement and construction of utility corridors, roads and fences. At least 80 million acres of sagebrush habitat have been lost in the past 200 years. B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes. Sage grouse are hunted in nine states, and incidents of poaching are evident. Experts now believe hunting of isolated, local populations has negatively impacted the species and can slow population recovery. Recreationists and birdwatchers can flush sage grouse on leks, disrupting breeding activity. Scientific study of sage grouse, specifically the use of radio transmitters, is known to cause mortality in sage grouse chicks and adults. C. Disease or predation. Sage grouse suffer periodically from a variety of parasites and disease, including coccidiosis. Disease outbreaks have been associated with contaminated water and drying water holes, where sage grouse are crowded together. West Nile encephalitis virus has also killed sage grouse. Construction of powerlines, fences, and oil and gas wells, and encroaching juniper trees serve as raptor perches and may increase predation on sage grouse chicks and adults. Habitat degradation also unnecessarily exposes sage grouse to ground predators. D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Federal, state, and local governments have failed to reverse the decline in sage grouse populations. Current regulatory regimes allow, and even prioritize harmful land uses over sage grouse conservation. Agency natural resource planning has been “captured” by local special Page 6 of 218 Status Review and Petition to List the Greater Sage Grouse interests in many cases. Agency science and scientists that support sage grouse conservation have also been censored in favor of political and economic concerns. Present conservation efforts are disjointed and lack leadership. The BLM’s newly devised conservation framework would rely on local sage grouse working groups to conserve the species. These groups are often paralyzed by discord, lack of resources, and conflicting goals. E. Other natural or man-made factors affecting the species’ continued existence. Drought in the West continues to stress both sage grouse and sagebrush ecosystems. New federal energy and livestock grazing policies issued by the current administration threaten to eliminate vast areas of habitat from sage grouse use. These factors combined with the myriad other threats described in this petition

Load more