Laserfiche WebLink
`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 />