My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-06-12_REVISION - M1978314 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1978314
>
2006-06-12_REVISION - M1978314 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 6:05:59 PM
Creation date
11/22/2007 1:34:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978314
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/12/2006
Doc Name
Reconsideration of Conversion of Application Approval
From
Hogan & Hartson
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
CN1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
`patches'. There should be a `no net loss' of sagebrush policy in all areas where Greater <br />sage-grouse populations persist. <br />12. Mitigation (on or off site) for planned distwbances has little merit <br />as no effective mitigation has been demonstrated to be effective in maintaining <br />distribution or abundance of Greater sage-grouse. <br />13. There is a question if adequate existing regulatory mechanisms are <br />in place to protect Greater sage-grouse. Unfortunately, it appears that existing regulatory <br />mechanisms have failed to protect Greater sage-grouse for the last 60+ years, which is <br />one of the major reasons for the documented decreases in abundance and distribution of <br />the species. Without the threat of listing under the Endangered Species Act, no changes <br />would have occurred in management or planning for Greater sage-grouse in the last ] 0 <br />years. There would be no Conservation Plans, no Local Working Groups, and the BLM <br />would not have listed Greater sage-grouse as a sensitive species. The evidence that recent <br />interest in protecting the species has made measwable difference in population numbers <br />or distribution is lacking. All conservation plans developed to date are voluntary, <br />implementation of conservation actions has been limited, and funding has only recently <br />been directed to benefit Greater sage-grouse. One can only conclude that present <br />regulatory mechanisms have failed, aze ineffective, and are inadequate. <br />III. Conclusions <br />14. In their finding dated 12 January 2005 that Greater sage-grouse <br />were "not warranted" for listing under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and <br />Wildlife Service [Federal Register 70(8): 2245] indicated, "most of the planned <br />conservation efforts for the greater sage-grouse have not yet been implemented." Clearly, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.