ERIK MOLVAR

Perspective

Gov. Dave Freudenthal's recent executive order establishing core areas for sage grouse is being hailed by the energy industry and a minority of conservation groups as the even-handed compromise that will save the bird from the Endangered Species list. Not so fast.

Identifying large core areas for sage grouse conservation is an important step forward. And given the current free-for-all in oil and gas drilling, any additional protections for the sage grouse can look pretty good.

But these core areas won't get ironclad protection: The governor's policy prescribes a non-regulatory approach, which leaves sage grouse conservation efforts inside the core areas up to voluntary efforts by industry. Historically, this approach has never amounted to much. Given the sprawl of industrial development in sage grouse country, which has already destroyed much of the key habitat, a balanced approach might be full protection for the populations we have left.

And outside the core areas, the new policy will fast-track sage grouse habitats for oil and gas development by incentivizing even speedier permitting of oil and gas drilling, presumably with little or no restrictions. So at least a quarter of the state's current sage grouse population stands to be lost.

Because the core areas are often isolated from each other, and because important sage grouse habitats outside the core areas will get fast-tracked for energy development with even less protection than they receive today, the governor's new plan will fragment sage grouse populations even further. Populations thus isolated will be much more vulnerable to being wiped out by random events like West Nile virus outbreaks or drought conditions, and will be much more difficult to re-establish once they're gone.

The Powder River Basin provides an instructive example on the weaknesses of the core area plan. Here, all of the most important and largest sage grouse leks in the center of the basin were gerrymandered out of the core areas, leaving only the breeding areas at the fringe of the Basin protected (on lands not wanted by the coa-lbed methane industry). The loss of habitats in the heart of the basin, which remain outside the core areas, threatens the survival of the population as a whole.

The Atlantic Rim provides another prime example of the shortcomings of the core area plan. Here, one of Wyoming's three largest sage grouse breeding concentrations was designated as a core area. But the policy contains a loophole you could drive a 2,000-well coal-bed methane field through: The new sage grouse protections don't apply to any projects or actions already approved. Thus, while the core area was established to recognize the importance of the Atlantic Rim as sage grouse habitat, the area will have no viable sage grouse populations once it becomes a coal-bed methane field.

There is a natural tendency for groups (both conservation and industry) who were directly involved in the negotiations for the governor's plan to declare it a victory for sage grouse, after investing so much time and effort in the process. Groups who were not directly involved in the negotiations (perhaps excluded due to strong sage grouse conservation stands) can stand back and view the outcome more objectively. Among these groups, the new plan is being met by a great deal of skepticism.

To be sure, the conservation groups involved in the negotiations were able to obtain one important concession: That industrial development in the core areas only occur if it won't reduce sage grouse numbers there. Even this language isn't watertight, being open to interpretation: Already EnCana is spinning this as if the 40-acre well spacing (16 wells per square mile) might be appropriate in core areas on a case-by-case basis, even though studies have shown this level of drilling to be a death wish for sage grouse populations. But the language does make a strong goal statement, and that's an improvement over the current state of sage grouse conservation policies.

The expectation that the new plan will stave off Endangered Species listing is also unfounded. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must evaluate conservation plans based on its Policy for Evaluating Conservation Effectiveness, which requires that both the implementation of the plan and its effectiveness have a high degree of certainty. The new executive order, by contrast, is so filled with uncertainty and so lacking in measurable benchmarks that it will be virtually impossible for it to qualify.

With the sage grouse already on the brink of Endangered Species listing, the governor's plan protects only about three-quarters of the sage grouse populations that are left. For context, today's population is a remnant that represents 10 percent of the sage grouse numbers present in the 1950s. We can hardly afford to lose the quarter of the state's remaining sage grouse population that is dependent on habitats outside the core areas.

In the end, the governor has hammered out a compromise that attempts to save the sage grouse while providing the oil and gas industry with unimpeded development opportunities. A noble goal, but an unrealistic one. Sage grouse populations aren't going to recover without putting the brakes on the habitat destruction and making major changes in drilling practices. Some of these reforms will inconvenience industry and may even cut into profits, even if such reforms don't lead to a significant drop in oil and gas production. But that's the price of balance.

Could a real solution emerge from the governor's newly minted sage grouse policy? Perhaps. Does the new policy send a strong message to the BLM that changes are needed? Absolutely. But it is premature to determine whether this policy is a significant change in conservation direction or just another set of smoke and mirrors. Time will tell.

Erik Molvar is a wildlife biologist for Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and has worked on sage grouse conservation issues in Wyoming for eight years.