That the current administration places very little value on the merit of robust scientific evidence when considering its actions (or inactions) is no longer shocking, but it remains an intolerable practice. In this week’s episode of “How is the Trump Administration Dismantling Science-Based Protections?”, we visit the Interior Department’s decision to formally reconsider a widely heraldedObama-era agreementfor protections of the greater sage grouse in the West.
On Thursday, the Interior Department published a formalnotice of intentto rework 98 sage grouse management plans across thequirky bird’s11 state range. This change comes after amere 60 days deliberationby the Interior Department’s internal Sage-Grouse Review Team (appointed by Secretary Ryan Zinke) and Sage-Grouse Task Force (representatives of Governors of the eleven Western States) – and much to the chagrin of the many stakeholders who worked for several years to craft a cooperative land use agreement in an effort to protect the sage grouse and its habitat.
What’s the deal with the sage grouse?
The sage grouse is the chicken of the “Sagebrush Sea” — an ecosystem which is “suffering death by a thousand cuts”, asformer Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell put it. Habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and wildfires in the sagebrush have all contributed to the decline of this magnificent bird.
Importantly Secretary Jewell worked to put in place federal-state partnerships in order to protect the sage grouse. In 2010 theFWS proposed listingthe sage grouse under the Endangered Species because of the threats its survival faced. After much input from stakeholders and the public, the agency in 2015 choseNOT to list的物种,而是把努力放在国家的人agement plans,assuring us allthat states could put programs in place to ensure the bird’s protection. With Secretary Zinke’s moves, we’re now paving over (perhaps literally) those state protection plans, leaving the sage grouse at least as vulnerable as it was when the FWS proposed listing it under the Endangered Species Act.
The sage grouse has long been caught in the crosshairs of political controversy, especially when it comes to undermining the science behind conservation efforts. For example, in 2004, Julie MacDonald, a political appointee at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),altered scientific contentin a report examining the vulnerability of the greater sage grouse, which was subsequently presented to a panel of experts that recommended against listing the bird under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(read my colleagues’ thoughts on political interference in sage grouse conservation effortshereandhere).
Ignoring the science
The Sage-Grouse Review Team (SGRT) recommendations include potentially removing or modifying the boundaries of critical habitat called sagebrush focal areas (SFAs), as well as setting population targets andcaptive breeding, and modifying or issuing new policy on fluid mineral leasing and development. Also worth noting is thatan Obama-era moratorium on mining claims in six Western states recently expired, with no indication of renewal from Secretary Zinke.
The problem with the Interior changing the conservation plans is twofold: 1) the motivation for reviewing the sage grouse management plans was to “ease the burden on local economies” by opening protected lands to development, which could have negative impacts on already rapidly-dwindling sage grouse populations, and 2) reopening the plans could spell more trouble for recovery efforts and potentially force FWS to list the sage grouse under the ESA in the future, which is precisely what states wanted to avoid. The conservation plan is critical, but it only works with the agreed upon protections in place.
决定撤销多年的合作和有限公司mpromise between federal, state, local, and tribal governments, NGO’s, scientists, industry, landowners, ranchers, and hunters in a matter of two months sends a loud message to the public that economic considerations prevail over scientific evidence, even at the cost of an entire ecosystem and the species dependent upon it.
The SGRT recommendations ignore the science and put the entire sagebrush landscape at risk, much to the detriment of the sage grouse. Wyoming Governor Matt Mead iscritical of the new plan, concerned that it ignores scientific consensus. “We’ve got to have good science lead the way, and that trumps politics,”Mead said. “Let’s look at what the states have done, and what biologists, folks who know this, are telling us.”
Sage advice
We cannot allow our government to irresponsibly cater to oil and gas industry at the expense of our wildlife and public lands. Instead, we must urge the Department of Interior to focus their efforts on collaborative, science-informed management of the sage grouse and its habitat.