[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE AND LOCAL EFFORTS TO PROTECT SPECIES, JOBS, PROPERTY, AND
MULTIPLE USE AMIDST A NEW WAR ON THE WEST PART 1 AND 2
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, September 4, 2013 (Part 1), in Casper, Wyoming
Wednesday, September 4, 2013 (Part 2), in Billings, Montana
__________
Serial No. 113-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-208 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Cardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Raul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Mark E. Amodei, NV Joe Garcia, FL
Markwayne Mullin, OK Matt Cartwright, PA
Chris Stewart, UT Vacancy
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, Part 1............. 1
Statement of Members:
Daines, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Montana........................................... 5
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 2
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 3
Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wyoming....................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Hendry, Robert L., Vice Chair, Natrona County Board of
Commissioners, Lysite, Wyoming............................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Lally, Meghan O'Toole, Sheep and Cattle Rancher, Savory
Wyoming.................................................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Meyer, Jeff, Managing Partner, Sweetwater River Conservancy,
Alcova, Wyoming............................................ 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Taylor, Renee C., Owner, Taylor Environmental Consulting LLC,
Casper, Wyoming............................................ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Wharff, Robert A., Executive Director, Wyoming Sportsmen for
Fish and Wildlife, Evanston, Wyoming....................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, Part 2............. 49
Statement of Members:
Cramer, Hon. Kevin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Dakota...................................... 57
Daines, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Montana........................................... 54
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 50
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 52
Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wyoming....................................... 53
Statement of Witnesses:
Cebull, Brian R., Billings, Montana.......................... 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Galt, David A., Executive Director, Montana Petroleum
Association, Helena, Montana............................... 65
Prepared statement of.................................... 66
Knox, Matt, Board of Directors, Fergus County Farm Bureau,
Representing Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Winifred,
Montana.................................................... 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Robinson, Lesley, County Commissioner, Phillips County,
Malta, Montana............................................. 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
White, Kerry, Executive Board Member, Citizens for Balanced
Use, Bozeman, Montana...................................... 81
Prepared statement of.................................... 83
Whiteman, Channis, Member of the Crow Tribe, Equipment
Operator, Cloud Peak Energy, Crow Agency, Montana.......... 77
Prepared statement of.................................... 80
Additional material submitted for the record:
Bullock, Hon. Steve, Governor, State of Montana, Letter
Submitted for the Record................................... 56
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON STATE AND LOCAL EFFORTS TO PROTECT SPECIES,
JOBS, PROPERTY, AND MULTIPLE USE AMIDST A NEW WAR ON THE WEST PART 1
----------
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Casper, Wyoming
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in Wyoming
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2211 King Boulevard,
Casper, Wyoming, Hon. Doc Hastings [Chairman of the committee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings, Lummis, Lamborn, and
Daines.
The Chairman. The House Committee on Natural Resources will
come to order. The committee is meeting today to hear testimony
on the hearing entitled State and Local Efforts to Protect
Species, Jobs, Property, and Multiple Use Amidst a New War on
the West.
By way of introduction, I am Congressman Doc Hastings, and
I live in Washington, in Washington State. I call it the real
Washington. I spend part of my time every year back in
Washington, DC, and my district runs throughout central
Washington, and we are very familiar with the impacts of the
Endangered Species Act in the Northwest. We are constantly at
odds with it. Twenty years ago, Washington State as a whole was
a--I won't say beneficiary but maybe a victim of the spotted
owl. So I am familiar with that, and I am very pleased to be
here in Casper, Wyoming today.
Before we start today's hearing, I want to recognize my
colleague and your congresswoman from Wyoming, Cynthia Lummis.
Cynthia?
Mrs. Lummis. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am so delighted that the Natural Resources Committee
Chairman, Doc Hastings, has chosen to be here today, along with
my colleagues, Representative Doug Lamborn of Colorado--
welcome, Doug--and our neighbor Steve Daines from Montana. We
are really pleased that you have chosen Casper and our State of
Wyoming as one of the sites for this important field hearing.
Being that this is a congressional hearing, we are going to
begin, as we do every session with the House of
Representatives, with the posting of the colors and Pledge of
Allegiance. So please join me in standing to recognize the
Natrona County High School Mustang Battalion, who will post the
colors; and Mr. Stan Low, a great American, who will lead us in
the Pledge of Allegiance.
[Pledge of Allegiance.]
Mrs. Lummis. Well, thank you, Mustang Battalion; and thank
you, Stan Low, for your service to our country and for being
here today and leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I now recognize City Council President Paul Meyer for a few
welcoming words.
[No response.]
Mrs. Lummis. Not here. And on his behalf I will just say
welcome, and I yield back to the Chairman.
The Chairman. With that, the way congressional hearings are
held are typically we have opening statements by the Members
and, of course, we will hear from the panel. Following hearing
from the panel, there will be a round of questions from members
of the committee.
We do have a timeframe because we have to go to Montana for
a hearing up there, so we have to be out of here just before
11:00. If everything works well, we will do that.
I now recognize myself for my opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Chairman. Today the Committee on Natural Resources
continues its important oversight of the Endangered Species
Act, with the goal of hearing specifically from an array of
interests directly affected by the Endangered Species Act, and
by that we mean States, local governments, sportsmen, and
private property owners.
I am pleased to be here in Casper, Wyoming this morning
with Congresswoman Lummis and my two colleagues, one from
Montana, one from Colorado. Congresswoman Lummis and I are co-
chairmen of the ESA Working Group. The Working Group is made up
of Members from around the country who understand the need to
carefully examine the Endangered Species Act. It is an act that
has not been reauthorized for 25 years, and yet in that 25
years the lack of reauthorization in the roughly 15 years
before that, the recovery rate of those species that are listed
was 2 percent or less.
Already, this Working Group has received hundreds of
comments from individuals seeking improvements to the ESA. In
addition to this morning's hearing, later today the committee
will be in Billings, as I mentioned, to hear from affected
individuals there. In the coming weeks, the ESA Working Group
will hold additional forums to ensure broader input from all
States affected by this law.
Ramped-up ESA listings, previously the 2011 settlement and
executive orders, and actions by litigious groups, are wreaking
havoc on people affected by the ESA, and that includes multiple
use of lands that were designed for multiple use, rural
economies, energy development, and even some States' own
species conservation activities. Rather than ensuring the
Federal Government cooperates with States to the maximum extent
practicable on major actions affecting land and water within
the States' borders, this administration is allowing ``sue and
settle'' to dictate how Federal agencies prioritize endangered
species listings.
When species such as the grizzly bear, the gray wolf, or
the dune sagebrush lizard are deemed healthy enough to be
removed from the ESA list, States face more lawsuits from
agenda-driven groups, blocking or delaying efforts that balance
species conservation efforts with other important economic and
recreational priorities. While the Interior Department's
announced proposal a few months ago to de-list the gray wolf is
encouraging, I have a healthy skepticism about when they will
follow through on this long overdue decision and allow States
to finally manage their wolves.
I am also very troubled that, despite clear legal authority
to the contrary, last week this administration finalized an
Executive order that will effectively shut out Congress, shut
out the States and the American public from knowing the true
costs of ESA listings and critical habitat designations that
was intended by the law. Already, hundreds of thousands of
acres of private property have been included in habitat
designations that will dramatically impact the future value and
multiple uses of those lands.
For example, the Canadian lynx habitat designation includes
more than 16 million acres, including 8.5 million acres of
private property. The Fish and Wildlife Service itself
acknowledges that this could result in a loss of more than $2.3
billion in development revenues.
Serious questions remain about the lack of data and science
supporting the measures the BLM, the Bureau of Land Management,
and the Fish and Wildlife Service claim are needed for the
greater sage grouse in 11 Western States. Even though
significant State and local resources are being devoted for the
sage grouse, in Wyoming alone, the BLM has altered, delayed or
denied literally hundreds of oil and gas leases, mining and
grazing permits, water pipelines and power transmission lines,
and weed control projects--I get exhausted just talking about
that--due to the sweeping sage grouse plans.
Rather than force a massive land grab to meet arbitrarily
set court deadlines, successful State, local and private
species conservation efforts need to be encouraged and given a
chance to succeed. Allowing the fate of species to be
increasingly decided by Federal bureaucrats, lawyers or Federal
judges is not working and undercuts the intent or the purpose
of ESA.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and
having a robust discussion on ways that this 40-year-old law
can be improved for species and people. In addition to the
testimony from our witnesses, we also want to hear from
everybody else who may be impacted by the ESA. So I encourage
anybody that is sitting here and obviously not testifying to go
online and visit our ESA Working Group at
esaworkinggroup.hastings.house.gov and submit whatever comments
to the Working Group.
Now I would like to allow my colleagues to make brief
opening statements. Everything we do in Congress is done by
seniority, and Mr. Lamborn is next senior on the committee, so
we will hear from him next.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your
efforts putting together the hearings we are going to have
today and being a leader in this area of endangered species and
the other important issues that the Natural Resources Committee
works on.
I want to thank Cynthia Lummis also. She is a leader in the
field of resources and energy in our committees in Congress,
especially here on the Natural Resources Committee, and she has
taken leadership in this area of the Endangered Species Act,
and I appreciate that. It is an act that was well intended and
has many good purposes and intentions, but I think it has been
prone to some abuse on the part of those who want to shut down
development, shut down the access of energy in the name of
preserving species.
We all want to make sure that our heritage of species are
all protected and even restored, but we have a balance to
reach, and I think we can reach that balance. The example of
the Preble's Meadow jumping mouse comes to mind. That is a
little critter that is found in Colorado and Wyoming and other
places, but it has a unique status of when you go north of the
State line, into Wyoming, it is not a threat or endangered, but
if you go south it is. Animals don't recognize State lines. So,
to me, that was an arbitrary distinction on the part of the--I
believe it was the Fish and Wildlife Service. And yet it has
had a very expensive impact in Colorado.
Developments up and down the front range in Colorado are
much more expensive if there is evidence that the Preble's
Meadow jumping mouse has a home there. And yet there is science
that says it is a sub-species. It belongs to the Bear Lodge
jumping mouse family and is not a separate species in and of
itself. The science is kind of mixed, and you can find contrary
studies. And yet we have tried and tried and tried to get the
ear of the Federal agency, and they really don't want to listen
to us.
So I am looking forward to the people who are going to be
testifying today. I am going to yield back because I want to
make sure our schedule keeps moving, but I do look forward to
the give-and-take we are going to have and learning more about
this critical issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Mrs. Lummis is next.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Mrs. Lummis. Well, again, I want to thank the Chairman and
all of you for attending this hearing today.
The ESA is a subject that needs attention, having its
authorization lapse more than 25 years ago. This hearing is
appropriately timely and centered in a part of the country that
has been ground zero, the West, for development of the ESA's
policies.
During the first half of the 20th century, this Nation had
bountiful and almost unlimited natural resources that were in
some ways exploited in a manner that caused great concern for
the American people, such that during the second half of the
20th century the command and control, big government and
litigious policy by courtroom rather than policy by Congress
seemed to dominate the manner in which natural resource policy
was implemented.
I am an advocate for 21st century conservation, a very new
and different conservation ethic that recognizes sound science,
recognizes our ability to have finite resources but utilize
them in a smart, scientifically based way using private sector
principles and voluntary efforts that actually create a better
environment for species, for clean air, clean water, for
business, for jobs, and for the American experience of
recreationists, sportsmen, and people who use natural resources
as their source of a livelihood.
I think this morning we are going to hear examples of how
that could be the case. We have people on the ground here in
Wyoming who are implementing the 21st century conservation
ethic and plowing new ground, creating new policies without the
government's heavy hand dictating it. In fact, it is going to
percolate up from a local level to the policymaking level.
So I am very excited about the prospects of Wyoming being,
as it frequently is, a leader in natural resource policy in a
way that sets an example for the rest of the Nation and,
indeed, the rest of the world. I am looking forward to our
panelists discussing some of those very innovative, cutting-
edge new ideas for implementing the 21st century conservation
ethic, including the Endangered Species Act and how it can move
forward and advance a better environment for species and
mankind, and I deeply appreciate your testimony here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank you very much for your statement.
And last but certainly not least, I recognize our
colleague, new colleague from Montana, Mr. Daines.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE DAINES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be here
with our southern neighbor, Wyoming. Welcome.
I am grateful to be here because the Endangered Species Act
poses a challenge for my home State of Montana, as well as my
colleagues here who represent Western States.
I am a fifth-generation Montanan. I am an avid and
passionate outdoorsman and sportsman, like most Montanans are,
but I also recognize the need to keep that balance with jobs. I
don't think they are mutually exclusive. I think we can have
both. In fact, we like to say in Montana, we like to work well
so I can play, with the quality of life that we have.
But I believe the ESA should not be focused primarily on
listing the species. It should be focused on recovering the
species. We have that example certainly with the gray wolf that
Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, other States have encountered. We
were happy in Montana seeing the gray wolf finally de-listed in
2011. In fact, I got a wolf tag in my pocket. We know how to
manage predators in Montana. And I know that Wyoming's de-
listing of the wolf is important, as well.
Our communities are safer now. Our ag and properties can be
better protected from the gray wolf.
Chairman Hastings, Representative Lummis and the other
members of the committee are hoping that the FWS will finalize
its decision to de-list the wolf in the lower 48 States.
But besides the gray wolf, the grizzly bear poses a risk to
resource development safety in our communities in Montana.
And finally, I continue to keep a close eye on the Federal
Government as the BLM moves forward with their safety routes
conservation planning. Unfortunately, without reforming the
ESA, again getting back to what it was designed to do is to
recover the species, it has turned into a dream for litigants.
I think the trial lawyers probably win more than anybody else
in this process. In fact, Deputy Interior Secretary David
Hayes, out-going Deputy Secretary, recently declared that
critical habitat designations related to the ESA have been
``fish in the barrel litigation for folks.''
The proposed plan by BLM has the potential to significantly
impact our ag, our oil and gas, our timber, fishing, hunting,
and multiple use industries. We will be hearing about these
challenges in my home State this afternoon. We will have this
same hearing up in Billings.
But thanks again for having me. I look forward to hearing
the testimony. I yield back my time.
The Chairman. I want to thank my colleagues for their
opening statements. Now we will turn to our panel of five.
You were asked by the committee to submit written
statements, and your entire statement will appear in the
record. What I would like you to do is to try to hold your oral
comments to 5 minutes. In front of you we have a little machine
there that is our timing lights. The green, yellow and red,
they are kind of self-explanatory.
The way it works, when the green light comes on, it means
your time has started and you are doing very, very well. When
you get to the yellow, that means you have used 4 minutes of
your 5. And then when it gets to red, that means your 5 minutes
are up. Obviously, we want you to complete your thoughts, but
keep your oral comments within that time period and allow us to
have more interaction at the end of the period.
So with that, our first witness is Mr. Robert Hendry, Vice
Chair of the Natrona County Board of Commissioners from Lysite.
Mr. Hendry, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. HENDRY, VICE CHAIR, NATRONA COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, LYSITE, WYOMING
Mr. Hendry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Lummis,
and members of the committee. My name is Rob Hendry, and thank
you for the opportunity to testify on the crucial issue of
Endangered Species Act reform. I am a County Commissioner right
here in Natrona County, so welcome to Casper.
Together with my wife and two sons, we own and manage Clear
Creek Cattle Company, a fourth-generation family ranch. I am
past-president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, a
livestock industry association that is represented in Wyoming
since 1872, and I currently serve on the Agriculture, State and
Public Lands and Water Resources Committee of the Wyoming
County Commissioners Association. While the Wyoming Stock
Growers and the Wyoming Commissioners Association concur with
these remarks, they are my own.
I want to share with the committee some financial impacts
on the State of Wyoming that ESA has had. These include grizzly
bears and wolves. In 2012, we had approximately 1,000 head of
cattle killed. We had the value of $742,000; 1,500 head of
sheep killed, at a value of $273,000. These are dollars that
can't roll over in our community.
If the little impacts of the Preble's Meadow jumping mouse
in southeastern Wyoming and northern Colorado, this
questionable sub-species which has been de-listed in Wyoming
and then re-listed as a result of litigation is one of them.
For example, when an aquatic species is listed, the laws and
restrictions put upon water rights can have a major impact on
both agricultural enterprises and land value.
Further, the listing of plant species often leads to
private land value loss or private land value loss or reduction
in public land grazing.
The ESA is 40 years old. It can be characterized like an
over-aged truck. It serves a very useful purpose, but it is in
bad need of repair. I would like to offer a few thoughts on how
we can fix ESA in a meaningful manner.
The first objective of the ESA should be to foster species
management to avoid listing, to have the acknowledgement that
this cannot be accomplished solely through Federal regulations.
You have to work with land owners, industry, State and local
governments to enhance species and habitat, and I can think of
no better way than Wyoming's sage grouse core area strategy.
It is often said that the cost of filing a petition is no
more than a 48-cent stamp. We believe that listing a petition
should be required to include a reasonable amount of peer-
reviewed science significant to support the claim and available
scientific data on its historic range within North America.
In reviewing and issuing the finding of a properly filed
petition, the Service should be required by law to consult with
State wildlife agencies operating within current and historic
range.
And when the Service determines that a listing of
threatened or endangered is warranted, the delineation and
designation of crucial habitat should be clearly in the
recovery criteria and should accompany the listing.
The designation of crucial habitat should always have an
analysis on the impact of other wildlife and plant species that
it may affect.
It should have a clear, distinct population segment
established in the legislation so that it is not subject to re-
definition and not subject to political science but subject to
sound science.
The role of the 4(d) rule should be expanded to ensure that
it will always have a reasonable take of a species in the
course of normal human activity.
And when a species is listed with the establishment of a
clear recovery criteria, citizens have certain knowledge of
knowing that when the criteria have been met, then de-listing
will automatically occur.
Finally, the opportunity of litigation that comes to the
Service's limited human and financial resources, while imposing
huge, often immeasurable costs on the private sector and the
revenues of the State of Wyoming.
In closing, let me emphasize the real and measurable social
and economic impacts of the ESA on ranchers and local
governments. The energy, tourism, agricultural industry is the
three-legged stool that provides a robust, healthy economy. It
provides good-paying jobs in Wyoming, and it helps us pay our
bills and put money away for a rainy day. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hendry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert L. Hendry, Vice Chair, Natrona County
Board of Commissioners, Lysite, Wyoming
Mr. Chairman, Representative Lummis and members of the committee, I
am Rob Hendry from Lysite, Wyoming. Thank you for the opportunity to
present testimony on the critical issue of Endangered Species Act (ESA)
reform. I am a Natrona County Commissioner. Together with my wife and
two sons, we own and manage Clear Creek Cattle Company, our fourth-
generation family ranch. I am the past President of the Wyoming Stock
Growers Association and I currently serve on the Agriculture, State and
Public Lands and Water Resources Committee of the Wyoming County
Commissioners Association. WCCA represents the elected commissioners of
Wyoming's 23 counties. WSGA has represented Wyoming's livestock
industry since 1872. While the WCCA and the WSGA concur with these
remarks, they are my own.
I wish to offer insight on two points: First, that the current
implementation regime for the ESA creates too much uncertainty by way
of its varied application, which creates headaches for the landowner
while providing no sure foundation for the successful conservation of
our Nation's most vulnerable species; and second, while the ESA has
been interpreted to ensure the preservation of species ``whatever the
costs,'' it does not necessarily mean that solutions cannot be obtained
via a working collaboration between industry, environmental non-profit
organizations, private landowners, the individual States, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) to minimize those costs.
The State of Wyoming has over 50 percent of Federal public land
commingled with private lands. There are currently 17 listed and
candidate plant and animal species in Wyoming. As demonstrated by the
attached maps (See Exhibit 1) for these species indicating the areas
for which section 7 consultation is required under the ESA, virtually
every acre of our State is directly impacted by the ESA. These impacts
include the economic impacts on Wyoming's key industries of energy,
tourism, and agriculture; loss of revenues to State and local
governments; and changes to the customs and culture of our citizens.
Although the ESA as adopted by Congress in 1973 explicitly
precluded the consideration of economic criteria in species listing,
Congress soon recognized the potentially devastating economic impacts
and responded in 1978 with the provision under section 4 that allows
the Secretary to ``take into consideration the economic impact, . . .
and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as
critical habitat.'' While this was an important step, several
challenges remain.
First, because the designation of critical habitat often occurs
much later than the listing, significant economic impacts often occur
prior to or absent the designation of critical habitat. Second, there
is no well-developed nor widely accepted toll for measuring the
economic impacts to the private sector and to local governments. While
the Federal Government's forthcoming rule regarding the simultaneous
disposition of its economic analysis upon the designation of critical
habitat is welcome, the absence of factors in the proposed incremental
analysis creates ambiguity where there is little room for it. Moreover,
the absence of factors gives significant deference to the Secretary,
which raises concerns that any economic analysis undertaken will be
prejudiced by flavor of the day political machinations and not the kind
of long-term strategic analysis required. Distinguished University of
Wyoming Professor Jason Shogren noted this in a paper that he published
on ``Economics and the Endangered Species Act.''
``The best measure of economic loss is opportunity cost--the
foregone opportunities due to restrictions on the use of
property due to listings, designation of critical habitat, and
recovery plans. Opportunity costs include the reduced economic
profit from restricted or altered development projects
including agriculture production, timber harvesting, minerals
extraction, and recreation activities; wages lost by displaced
workers who remain unemployed or who are re-employed at lower
pay; lower consumer surplus due to higher process; and lower
county property and severance tax revenue.''
Professor Shogren focused on the lack of national data to measure
the impact of the ESA on economic growth, as well as to measure direct
private expenditures driven by the ESA.
I want to share with the committee some of the financial impacts of
the ESA on Wyoming agriculture. Too often an uninformed public assumes
the economic impacts are limited to the costs of predation by large
carnivore species including the grizzly bear and the currently delisted
gray wolf. Reported losses of livestock in Wyoming to these two species
in 2012 included approximately 1,000 head of cattle with a value of
$742,000 and 1,500 head of sheep with a value of $273,000. While these
numbers may seem relatively insignificant in relation to a $1 billion
industry, it is important to recognize that these losses fall
disproportionately on producers in those areas inhabited by these
protected species. The impact of these species is even greater in other
areas for which economic data is lacking. These include:
1. Direct impacts of grizzly bear and gray wolf activity on
livestock weight gains;
2. Additional labor and equipment costs associated with livestock
protection and predation deterrence;
3. Reductions and/or restrictions placed on public land grazing due
to the presence of grizzly bears or gray wolves;
4. Compliance with food storage, carcass disposal and other
regulatory burdens;
5. Difficulty of finding employees who are willing to tend livestock
in grizzly bear occupied areas; and
6. Diminished value of grazing permits and private grazing lands in
bear and wolf occupancy areas.
At the other end of the spectrum from the grizzly bear is the tiny
but impactful Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse found only in southeastern
Wyoming and northern Colorado. This questionable subspecies, which has
been delisted in Wyoming then relisted as a result of litigation, has
burdened agriculture with:
1. Restricted ability to clean irrigation ditches;
2. Restrictions on changes in agricultural practices under the 4(d)
rule;
3. Real time costs of continued participation in numerous public and
industry meetings held to address mouse issues due to the
fact that many of our agricultural producers do not have
hired labor, and therefore time away from the farm/ranch
directly impacts ranch work and profitability; and
4. Direct cost of ranchers who have employed biologists or
environmental consultants to conduct studies to counter the
evidence on habitat and mouse classification presented by
the USFWS.
I merely offer the grizzly bear, gray wolf, and preble's jumping
mouse as specific examples. Comparable costs to agricultural producers
can be traced to many of the other listed animal species. For example,
when aquatic species are listed, loss of, or restrictions upon, water
rights can have a major impact on both the agricultural enterprise and
on land values. Further, the listing of plant species often leads to
reduced private land values and loss or reduction in public land
grazing permits.
The response of Federal land management agencies to the presence of
listed or candidate species often goes far beyond the specific
requirements of the ESA. Allow me to provide a very recent example. In
2012, the U.S. Forest Service initiated a section 7 consultation with
the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on livestock grazing on a
complex of nine allotments on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. The
outcome was a biological opinion that authorized the lethal removal of
no more than three female grizzly bears over the next three grazing
seasons. This summer the Wyoming Game and Fish, in consultation with
the Service, removed two female bears that were habitual killers of
cattle. Following removal of the second bear, the U.S. Forest Service
advised the permittees that, if a third female grizzly was lethally
removed, they would require that all livestock be removed from these
allotments. While this threat has been withdrawn at this time, it is
indicative of the pressure faced by Wyoming ranchers.
Let me now turn to one of the most challenging and costly impacts
of the ESA to the ranching industry--incessant litigation. When I
became President of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association in 1999, for
example, one of my first actions was to establish a Litigation Fund. At
that time, WSGA had served our industry for over 125 years without
having to engage in litigation to protect our members' interests. Since
1999, however, WSGA has expended several hundred thousands of dollars
in defending its members' private property rights and Federal grazing
permits from challenges by groups that believe environmentalism takes
place in the courts, such as Centers for Biological Diversity and
Western Watersheds Project, as opposed to groups who are interested in
making meaningful impacts on the ground. Furthermore, these challenges
are typically premised, in whole or in part, on purported threats to
listed species.
The costs associated with litigation are not limited to the State
and the associations I represent today alone. According to the
Department of Justice, it spent more than $15 million on attorney fees
for alleged violations of the ESA in just the past 4 years. Even more
shocking is the following: In fiscal year 2011, the Service, spent over
75 percent of its $20.9 million listing and critical habitat budget
responding to litigation alone. That leads me to question the
underlying efficacy of the ESA in its current form. These precious
resources should not be spent in the courts. This is money that could
be spent on enhancing our land and wildlife habitat, instead of paying
lawyers and clogging the court system.
Compounding the litigation issue is that the ESA lacks any
certainty in its status review and the delisting processes. The result
of these ambiguities is, again, litigation. The grizzly bear has been
delisted and relisted due to litigation. The gray wolf was delisted,
relisted, and is now threatened by litigation to relist again in
Wyoming. The preble's jumping mouse was delisted, then relisted by way
of litigation. The bottom line is that when the listing of an iconic
species such as the Greater Sage Grouse is determined by the Service as
not warranted, these groups just come back again through litigation
until finally reaching their objective of securing a listing. A listing
of the Greater Sage Grouse will cripple our State and local economies.
In the end, all of these potential economic pitfalls and
encumbrances, in their aggregate, have a negative economic and cultural
impact on Wyoming's counties. I can speak on behalf of all County
Commissioners in Wyoming that no elected official wants to see the
destruction of a species, especially when practicable, workable
alternatives are obtainable. Too often conservation and economic
development are held to be mutually incompatible. Perhaps that is the
flavor of the day in Washington, but in Wyoming we have proven time and
again the effectiveness of collaboration to obtain real, workable
solutions to the issue at hand. Whether it is Hydraulic Fracturing,
Sage Grouse Core Area Development or Carbon Sequestration, Wyoming has
continually demonstrated its willingness to take the lead and to work
with myriad Federal and State agencies, local government, as well as
private parties to develop solutions that not only minimize detrimental
impacts to our most vulnerable flora and fauna, but also encourage
sustainable economic growth in Wyoming.
Essentially, the ESA can be compared to the ranch pickup that is 40
years old. It still serves a very useful purpose, but badly needs a
tune-up. I would like to offer a few thoughts as to where one might
begin to reform the ESA in a meaningful manner:
1. The first objective of the ESA should be to foster species
management that avoids listing. There needs to be
acknowledgment that this cannot be accomplished solely
through Federal regulation. It is best accomplished when
landowners, industry, and State and local governments are
motivated to proactively act to enhance a species and its
habitat. I have found no better example of this than the
leadership that Wyoming has exhibited in protecting and
enhancing the sage grouse through its Core Area Development
program;
2. It is often said that ``The cost of filing a listing petition is
no more than a 48 cent stamp.'' We believe that a listing
petition should be required to include a reasonable amount
of peer-reviewed science sufficient to support a claim that
the subject of the petition is a distinct species or
subspecies and a description of available scientific data
on its current and historic range within North America. A
listing petition should only be valid for a single species
or subspecies and, in turn, a legal challenge to a 90-day
or 12-month finding should be limited to that specific
species or subspecies;
3. In reviewing and issuing a finding on a properly filed petition,
the Service should be required by law to consult with State
wildlife agencies operating within the current and historic
range;
4. When the Service determines that a listing as threatened or
endangered is warranted, the designation of critical
habitat and the delineation of clear recovery criteria
should be required to accompany the listing. The
designation of critical habitat should include an analysis
of the impact on other wildlife or plant species that may
be affected;
5. A clear definition of ``distinct population segment'' should be
established in legislation so that it is not subject to
``redefinition'' by subsequent solicitors as it has been in
the past;
6. The role of the 4(d) rule should be expanded to assure that it
will support reasonable ``take'' of species in the course
of normal human economic activity;
7. When a species is listed with the establishment of clear recovery
criteria, citizens should have the certainty of knowing
that, when those criteria have been met, delisting will
automatically occur; and
8. Finally, the opportunity for litigation that consumes limited the
Service's human and financial resources while imposing
huge, often immeasurable, costs on the private sector and
the revenues of State and local governments must be
stemmed.
In closing, let me again emphasize the real, often immeasurable
social and economic impacts of the ESA on ranchers and local
governments in a State such as Wyoming that is natural resource
dependent for its economy and its culture. The energy industry, tourism
industry and agricultural industry is the three legged stool that
provides a robust and healthy economy. These industries provide good
paying jobs for Wyoming citizens. They also help us pay our bills and
put money in the bank for a ``rainy day''. As it is currently
implemented, the ESA is too far reaching in its impacts on both the
species it seeks to protect and the lives that it impacts to allow so
many of these impacts to be left to the regulatory and judicial
processes. After 40 years, the need for greater Congressional direction
is abundantly clear and that should be that the conservation of species
is necessarily best accomplished by those closest to the resource.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to answering questions.
Joint WCCA/WSGA Exhibit I
fws federally listed, proposed and candidate species in wyoming areas
subject to section 7 consultation
Contents
Wildlife
Greater Sage-grouse (Candidate)
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Candidate)
Colorado River Fish (Endangered)
(Bonytail, Colorado Pikeminnow, Humpback Chub, Razorback
Sucker)
Kendall Warm Springs Dace (Endangered)
Platte River Species (Endangered)
(Interior Least Tern, Pallid Sturgeon, Piping Plover,
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid, Whooping Crane)
Wyoming Toad (Endangered)
Black-footed Ferret (Endangered, Experimental)
North American Wolverine (Proposed)
Canada Lynx (Threatened)
Grizzly Bear (Threatened)
Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Threatened)
Plants
Fremont County Rockcress (Candidate)
Whitebark Pine (Candidate)
Blowout Penstemon (Endangered)
Colorado Butterfly Plant (Threatened)
Desert Yellowhead (Threatened)
Ute Ladies'-tresses (Threatened)
Please Note, All Information Can Be Found At: http://www.fws.gov/
wyominges/Pages/Species/Species_Endangered.html.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hendry.
I will recognize now Mr. Robert Wharff, Executive Director
of the Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, from Evanston,
Wyoming.
Mr. Wharff, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. WHARFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WYOMING
SPORTSMEN FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE, EVANSTON, WYOMING
Mr. Wharff. Thank you, Honorable Chairman Hastings,
Representative Lummis, and members of the Natural Resources
Committee. I go by Bob Wharff, unless my mom is yelling at me.
I do appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Natural
Resources Committee today and testify about sportsmen
concerning the State and local efforts to protect species,
jobs, property, and multiple use amidst a new war on the West.
I have some materials that are in a packet, Mr. Chairman, and
with your permission, I would request that those materials are
entered into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, they will be part of the
record.
Mr. Wharff. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My testimony will focus mainly on two species which are
most likely to impact Wyoming sportsmen and hunters which come
here seeking the adventure of a lifetime. In Wyoming, we have
seen both the grizzly bear and the gray wolf meet and maintain
recovery objectives. Both of these species have been removed
from Federal protections, and both have been re-listed as a
result of the courts being used by litigants to maintain
protections when these species have met and continue to exceed
recovery goals.
While both of these species have followed similar paths,
they both have taken different paths to get where we are today.
In the packet that I handed out, Mr. Chairman, there is a
map, and just for brevity because I don't feel like doing this
for 5 minutes, you will see a map that I was able to take from
the Game and Fish Department. It shows Yellowstone National
Park. The red boundary shows the recovery zone. The purple
boundary shows what they identified as simple grizzly bear
habitat, and the little blue dots are capture locations where
the Game and Fish Department capture grizzly bears and either
relocate them, or in some instances those animals were
euthanized.
I think this does highlight a flaw within the Endangered
Species Act, and that is that wildlife management is not an
exact science. Multiple fabrics can and do influence responses
from our vast wildlife resources. The very nature of the beast,
the grizzly bear, so to speak, is its ability to surmount and
overcome challenges they face in the untamed Wild West.
I am going to go on and talk about wolves, and I really
would ask the committee to read through this on your travels up
to Billings, because I am just going to touch it light. There
is a lot of material in here. There is an article in here that
I really would encourage you to read when you have time. It is
one that we published in our quarterly publication.
But for brevity's purpose, I think this speaks volumes. If
you look at this map, this map shows the distribution of Rocky
Mountain health in the world. This map shows Shiras moose
distribution. You guys can probably barely even see that in the
green. There is another one that shows that the blue is Big
Horn. The red shows distribution of gray wolves.
Now, I am going to depart from my presentation. It speaks
volumes. Why are we putting our carriers at risk to protect a
species that is anything but threatened? It was brought in as a
non-essential experimental population, and it has been treated
with kid gloves, and we were promised it would not have local
impacts. I can tell you I have a lot of friends in Wyoming that
would tell you they are lucky to be here today.
I have included a statement. Unfortunately, he addressed it
to the State of Wyoming, Mr. Chair. I hope you guys would still
consider that even if we are not all from here. But it is a
personal comment from an individual that runs a family
business, and he talks directly about the impacts, his
experience due to the impacts of wolves and grizzly bears on
his personal business.
I think that the wolf also highlights another problem
caused by the ESA and the manner in which it is implemented.
Ultimately, it is Wyoming and the citizens of this State that
will be tasked and burdened with the cost of maintaining and
sustaining this recovery of non-essential experimental
population of gray wolves found within its borders. Yet, a
court far removed from the area may, in fact, decide how
Wyoming and its citizens will live with a species that we have
recovered.
And just, Mr. Chairman, I have a point in my comments. I
know that the Working Group had asked a series of questions. I
did answer those for the committee. I am not going to bother
since it is recorded here.
I did also capture some possible solutions. Just for
brevity, I do think one of the things that I see lacking is I
believe that the States are better suited to manage wildlife.
That is what they do, and I think they do it well. I think we
probably shouldn't look away so we can make them more of an
even partner with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the
Endangered Species Act.
One of the other points is single species management. This
simply doesn't work. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen it yet, but
at some point in time we are going to see species advocates
given protections either from the Migratory Bird Treaty, and an
example of that is the raven. I think we are starting to see
that ravens are having a far greater impact on our sage grouse
populations than anybody had foreseen, and I do think those are
critical factors that we have to address in how do we resolve
these conflicts.
Unfunded Federal mandates, I know we have gone over that a
little bit. Fiscal Year 2012, Mr. Chairman, Wyoming contributed
$1.7 million just to grizzly bear management. Of that, the
Federal portion was $126,000. I don't feel that is a very fair
or admirable sharing of the responsibilities. Government
accountability and human health and safety, those are all
factors, Mr. Chairman.
And since I am out of time, I will stop there. Thank you
for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wharff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert A. Wharff, Executive Director, Wyoming
Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Evanston, Wyoming
Honorable Chairman Hastings, Representative Lummis and members of
the Natural Resources Committee,
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Natural Resources
Committee and testify in behalf of sportsmen, concerning ``State and
Local Efforts to Protect Species, Jobs, Property and Multiple Use
Amidst a New War on the West''.
I have some materials that I will give to the committee which I
have obtained from individuals which wanted their story to be told but
due to time constraints, I will not be able to cover all of them. With
your permission I would request these materials be added to the record.
My testimony will focus on the two species which are most likely to
impact Wyoming's Sportsmen and our non-resident hunters which come here
seeking the adventure of a lifetime!
We have seen both the grizzly bear and the gray wolf meet and
maintain recovery objectives. Both of these species have been removed
from Federal protections and both have been relisted as a result of the
courts being used by litigants to maintain protections when these
species have met and continue to exceed recovery goals.
While both of these species have followed similar paths, they both
have taken different paths to get us where we are today.
grizzly bears
Grizzly bears remain an icon of the Untamed Wild West. In 1975,
grizzly bears were given Federal protections to allow their numbers to
increase and to ensure that they had room to roam. Throughout this
entire process, wildlife biologists were continually developing and
modifying techniques designed to afford some level of comfort in
stating the obvious; grizzly bear numbers were increasing. As those
numbers continue to increase, it is only natural to expect that you
will see greater conflicts between this magnificent animal and the
humans which reside in proximity to their recovery areas.
I have provided you with a map as I believe the visual speaks
volumes as to the successfulness of efforts to protect and restore
grizzly bears to a sustainable population. You can see the recovery
area outlined in red, the identified and accepted suitable habitat
outlined in purple. The blue dots identify 2012 Capture Location Sites.
The continued expansion of grizzly bears is a good sign that we have
healthy and robust populations of bears; however, it also demonstrates
the fact that we will most assuredly continue to see an increase in
human/bear conflicts. We have recently seen about 4-5 incidents this
year and hunters have yet to enter the remote areas in pursuit of their
quarry. Just 2 years ago, we saw two people in Wyoming that lost their
lives to grizzly bear encounters and a few more that were injured but
survived the ordeal. Most of these incidents resulted in the grizzly
bears (if they could be found and confirmed the perpetrator) ultimately
forfeiting their lives as well.
In 2012, within Wyoming but excluding National Parks, there were 28
known or probable human-caused mortalities of grizzly bears. A known
mortality occurs when the carcass of the bear is found and a probable
mortality denotes that no carcass was found but the bear is believed to
have sustained an injury that would result in the death of the animal.
Cubs-of-the-year whose mother is a known mortality is considered
probable mortalities. In 2012, 4 cubs-of-the-year were counted as
probable mortalities but the WY G&F report didn't identify in which
category they occurred.
According to the WY G&F report; 3 grizzly bears died from Natural
causes, 11 were killed in self-defense, 12 were removed by agency
personnel, 1 was killed after being struck on a highway and 1 was
mistakenly killed by a black bear hunter.
Of the 12 removed by agency action; 5 were removed due to livestock
depredation, 6 were removed due to property damage and human food
rewards and 1 individual was removed because it had become extremely
habituated to humans.
The report also noted that 5 of the 12 bears removed by agency
personnel occurred outside of the Suitable Habitat Boundary. Several of
the reported self-defense mortalities and the mistaken identification
by a hunter are currently under investigation.
I mention this information for two reasons; first, I believe too
many people believe that ESA protections prevent the death of grizzly
bears; and second, grizzly bears are a human health and safety issue
that often are not given adequate consideration.
Grizzly bears were delisted at the request of the USFWS and this
decision was based upon the best available science but the agency
tasked with making the decision as to whether or not threats have
adequately been addressed and recovery goals obtained and sustained
over a considerable period of time. Litigants were able to successfully
obtain court orders to trump this decision and grizzly bears have once
again been placed under Federal protections.
It appears as though, given the time the USFWS, has been able to
collect scientific data that demonstrates the perceived threats were
there but that grizzly bears are able to switch to alternative food
sources and will continue to maintain and sustain themselves at
recovery level objectives.
This does highlight a flaw within the ESA; wildlife management is
not an exact science. Multiple factors can and do influence behavior
and responses from our vast wildlife resources. The very nature of the
beast, so to speak, is of its ability to surmount and overcome
challenges they face in our Untamed Wild West.
gray wolves
The gray wolf is an entirely different tale to be told.
Gray wolves were first listed as threatened and endangered in the
lower 48 States in 1974. In 1978, saw the reclassification of the Gray
Wolf in the United States and Mexico, with the determination of
Critical Habitat in Michigan and Minnesota. In 1994, under a specially
created and newly established classification; Nonessential Experimental
Population of gray wolves were defined and brought into what is now
known today as the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Distinct Population
Segment (DPS). The DPS designation was adopted in 2003, when wolves in
the NRM had obtained and maintained recovery objectives for 3
consecutive years.
The primary three States contained with the NRM DPS are Idaho,
Montana and Wyoming. All three States presented the USFWS with their
preferred gray wolf management plans. It is not surprising for me to
see that when you look at the official USFWS Web site the Nonessential
Experimental Population Segment is now only mentioned as an
Experimental Population. Words do matter and it is important as you
look at the ESA and how it has morphed into something far different
than its original intended purpose.
It is important to understand that initially, these three States
were collectively tasked with recovering this Nonessential Experimental
Population of Gray Wolves within this specific geographical region
known as the NRM DPS. Wolf experts were asked to review all three State
wolf management plans to determine if collectively, they would allow
for gray wolves to be maintained and sustained. Some expressed concerns
about Wyoming's plan but ultimately 10 out of the 11 experts stated
that gray wolves would be maintained and sustained under all 3 unique
State plans. It wasn't long however until Wyoming and its plan was
placed under closer scrutiny. Wyoming's plan was and remains a plan
that would contain wolves to areas of the State where they have
suitable habitat and are the least likely to get into conflict with
current and well established uses that Wyoming citizens desire to
maintain. Wyoming was first isolated by the other two States and the
USFWS in an attempt to force Wyoming to reconsider the plan adopted by
its citizens. In 2005, we saw for the first time, actions that were
applied to Idaho and Montana. Both States were awarded greater
management flexibility under the newly established 10(j) rules of the
ESA.
In 2008, we saw the USFWS remove the NRM DPS from Federal
protections and saw the implementation of the 10(j) rules which were
afforded only to Idaho and Montana. The importance of this step was
that now States and tribes with approved USFWS plans were now able to
better address ``unacceptable impacts'' to wild ungulate populations.
Wyoming was excluded from this reprieve for our wild ungulates because
the USFWS was unwilling to accept Wyoming's wolf management plan.
Because Wyoming had made changes to our plan during the 2007
legislative session, Wyoming was included in the recommendation to
remove Federal protections; however, the 10(j) ruling allowing for
greater management flexibility to protect our wild ungulate populations
was NOT available or afforded to Wyoming.
In 2009, Wyoming was once again treated differently than the other
States within the NRM DPS. The USFWS, who actually helped Wyoming
modify its 2007 plan to conform to their requested changes, once again
declined in 2009 to defend Wyoming's plan and claimed it did not
contain an adequately regulatory mechanism for the purpose of the ESA.
Wyoming was once again forced to defend the legitimacy of their
wolf management plan and wolf management decisions were once again
turned over to the courts.
In 2011 we saw the final delisting of the NRM DPS, excluding
Wyoming.
In 2012 we finally saw the delisting of gray wolves for Wyoming;
however, that action was challenged in two different District courts
outside the State of Wyoming. One of those courts has remanded
authority back to the Wyoming District court; while the other, located
in Washington, DC seeks to determine whether or not Wyoming should have
the ability to manage wolves according to their wolf management plan.
This also highlights another problem caused by the ESA and the
manner in which it is implemented, for it is ultimately Wyoming and the
citizens of this State that will be tasked and burden with the costs of
maintaining and sustaining this recovered Nonessential Experimental
Population of gray wolves found within its borders; yet, a court far
removed from the area impacted may decide how Wyoming and its citizens
will live with a species they have recovered.
The ESA working group created by the Natural Resource Committee has
asked for an open and honest discussion and seeks to answer the
following questions:
How is ESA success defined?
This is one of the major problems within the ESA. To some success
is simply the listing of a species; to others, success is not achieved
until a listed species is once again removed from Federal protections.
Here is a story recently ran on FOX5 news from Las Vegas, NV about
the Desert tortoise.
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/23256865/desert-tortoise-faces-threat-
from-its-own-refuge#.UhunqKDj_WE.gmail.
Desert Tortoise Faces Threat From Its Own Refuge
For decades, the vulnerable desert tortoise has led a sheltered
existence.
Developers have taken pains to keep the animal safe. It's been
protected from meddlesome hikers by the threat of prison time. And
wildlife officials have set the species up on a sprawling conservation
reserve outside Las Vegas.
But the pampered desert dweller now faces a threat from the very
people who have nurtured it.
Federal funds are running out at the Desert Tortoise Conservation
Center and officials plan to close the site and euthanize hundreds of
the tortoises they've been caring for since the reptiles were added to
the endangered species list in 1990.
Officials expect to put down more than half the 1,400 tortoises at
the research and holding facility in the coming months in preparation
for closure at the end of 2014.
Is this success?
How do we measure ESA progress?
I believe this is another problem within the ESA as no current
process requires an assessment or process to determine if progress is
being made. The ESA, some would argue, is more about stopping progress
than it is about protecting species. Listing is a well-defined and
relatively simple process; whereas, removing a species from Federal
protection is anything but defined. Often, in Wyoming, we have seen the
goal posts moved once a species has met recovery goals and new bench
marks have been established.
Is the ESA working to achieve its goals?
The first paragraph in your email introduction states clearly:
``The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was created four decades ago in 1973
to preserve, protect and recover key domestic species. Since that time,
over 1,400 U.S. domestic species and sub-species have been listed. Most
species remain on the list and hundreds more could potentially be added
within just the next 2 years.'' It would appear as though the mission
of the ESA has continued to expand without ever having actually
achieved many of its goals.
Is species recovery effectively prioritized and efficient?
With a recovery rate of around 1 percent for species listed as
threatened or endangered; clearly, it would cause the common person to
conclude that the ESA is flawed and anything but efficient. It would
also appear as though the purpose has expanded beyond preserving,
protecting and recovering key domestic species to include all species.
Does the ESA ensure the compatibility of property and water rights and
species protection?
It would appear as though more weight is given to species
protection over that of property and water rights. I know of local
businesses which have been negatively impacted by indirect impacts
associated with continued protections of recovered species. The town of
Dubois, Wyoming has probably suffered more than any other town in
Wyoming.
Is the ESA transparent, and are decisions open to public engagement and
input?
The ESA has definitely become much more than transparent. Some
organizations, it would appear, have been able to turn the ESA and some
species into a cash cow. Decisions are open to the public and input is
readily obtained; however, it would appear as though nothing carries as
much weight as litigation. This in turn causes the public to lose faith
in the process and I believe puts species more at risk because the
public is pushed aside by those who benefit from species listing.
Notice I said listing not recovery of the species. Once a species is
delisted or removed from Federal protections, it can no longer be a
cash cow.
Is litigation driving the ESA? Is litigation helpful in meeting ESA
goals?
As a member of a group that has been forced to turn to litigation
in order to get fair consideration of Wyoming's wolf management plan I
can state that litigation is necessary at times. However, I do wonder
whether or not litigation is driving the ESA. Unfortunately, as I
stated earlier, I believe some organizations attempt to stop delisting
from occurring as recovered species don't seem capable of generating
money as do species which remain listed and under current threats,
whether those threats are real or imagined.
What is the role of State and local government and landowners in
recovering species?
I believe it was the intent of those who created the ESA to involve
State and local government as well as private landowners; however, I
believe their role has been greatly diminished due to the lack of
understanding of the powers they have under the ESA. Landowners should
be more involved with recovery efforts as successful recovery efforts
are more likely to occur if landowners and affected communities rally
around threatened or endangered species.
Are changes to the ESA necessary?
Yes, I believe that the ESA is in need of some changes.
Possible Solutions
States should be given equal status with the USFWS and
decisionmaking powers should be equally shared between the Secretary of
Interior and Governor of each respective State.
States are better suited to manage our wildlife resources than the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). States are already paying the
costs for species recovery. States are better suited to work
collectively with effected communities and assess and understand the
actual economic impacts. The USFWS adds complexity to the process and
allows litigants to search for courts that are far removed from the
impacted areas and thus easier to manipulate.
One need only look at how the wolf delisting has occurred in
Wyoming to see an exact example of the debacle the ESA has become. From
the very beginning Wyoming has been thwarted from implementing a plan
the people of Wyoming desired.
It is ultimately Wyoming citizens which will ensure that the
species remains recovered. It is the Wyoming citizens which have been
obligated to shoulder the cost; both indirectly and directly. It is our
wildlife resources which are being sacrificed on the altar of wildlife
worshipers because some would prefer to feed wild animals rather than
allowing Wyoming's citizens to be fed via our own wildlife resources.
It is Wyoming's citizens which are faced with the possibility that
someone else may determine our fate.
Couple this with the fact that Wyoming is spending on average $1
million a year managing grizzly bears even though this species has
surpassed recovery goals, was delitsed in 2007 only to be relisted by
people that are not tasked with paying the management costs nor forced
to live daily with the potential threat of a grizzly bear encounter.
The USFWS orders the destruction of several grizzly bears every year
yet hunting them is unacceptable. The truth is that sportsmen were and
remain the first conservationists. We put our money where our mouths
are, so to speak.
Single Species Management Does Not Work
Congress needs to amend the ESA to stopped single species
management from trumping management of the whole ecosystem. One of the
problems within the ESA is that it forces one species to take a higher
priority over the complete ecosystem and other species within it. There
are a lot of examples of how good intentions have led to bad outcomes
simply because by protecting one species we have altered the natural
balance. If something is NOT changed soon, we will soon see species
being listed as a direct result from species which Congress has either
protected via treaty or granted protections under the ESA.
Wildlife populations are highly variable. By granting protections
to some species, the ESA is potentially causing some species to be
maintained at much higher densities than would have naturally occurred.
This in turn may be causing significant impacts to species from
increased competition for food, space and water. It also may cause some
species to be more at risk of predation since some species appeared to
have been more migratory in the past, are now becoming year round
residents. An example of this would be raven's (protected under the
Mexican Bird Treaty) and sage grouse (a species currently under threat
of listing).
Unfunded Federal Mandates
The ACT states; encouraging the States and other interested
parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of
incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet
national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation's
international commitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit
of all citizens, the Nation's heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants.
The ESA is costing States millions of dollars. In Wyoming, grizzly
bears have a price tag of approximately $1 million per year. The USFWS
has contributes ______ per year toward grizzly bear management costs.
What recourse currently exists for States to recuperate the costs
of a listed species? As I stated earlier, the States are task with both
the burden and cost of protecting a listed species; yet, the ESA is
protecting that species for the entire Nation. More needs to be done to
understand the actual costs of the ESA to affected States.
Government Accountability
The USFWS also needs to be held accountable for commitments they
make. Wyoming was told that wolves would have no economic impact to the
State; yet, countless people have been impacted by the Nonessential
Experimental Population of gray wolves foisted upon the State. People
should not be told there will be no economic impact and then left to
suffer under continued protections of a recovered species. How is the
USFWS held accountable for statements they make at the onset to listing
a particular species? It appears as though they can make any statement
and then simply walk away once the process has started.
Human Health and Safety
Human health and safety also seems to be something that needs to be
added to the ESA. As the grizzly bear distribution map I presented
shows, grizzly bears are expanding beyond their Primary Conservation
area and their identified suitable habitat. This will continue to cause
an increase in human/grizzly bear conflicts. Is it acceptable for the
USFWS to put human lives at risk? Can we honestly state that the
constitutional guarantee that no person or class of persons shall be
denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons
or other classes in like circumstances in their lives, liberty,
property, and pursuit of happiness when only a very few States subject
their citizens to the risk of a grizzly bear encounter we continually
endure in our State?
Another issue is with regards to diseases associated with
Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolves; Echinococcus
granuioslis (E.g.). I have included a letter from the USFWS to an
individual which had contacted U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY). While
the letter is meant to dispel concerns about this tapeworm, it also
leaves some questions unanswered. How much more at risk are those which
live in close proximity to wolves than those which live elsewhere? Once
again, are we as westerners being exposed to threats that other U.S.
citizens are not? It appears that more research should have been
conducted prior to gray wolves being introduced. Congress needs to
ensure that the ESA cannot continue to create different classes of
people nor put human lives at risk by exposing them to threats imposed
upon them by the continued protection of recovered species.
The Congress finds and declares that the United States has pledged
itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve
to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and
plants facing extinction, pursuant to--
(A) Migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico;
(B) The Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan;
(C) The Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation
in the Western Hemisphere;
(D) The International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries;
(E) The International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the
North Pacific Ocean;
(F) The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora; and
(G) Other international agreements.
How do the grizzly bear, wolf, and other species discussed here
today fit into the international intent of the ACT?
We are the envy of the World because of our abundant and rich
wildlife resources.
Thanks for your time and service in the U.S. House of
Representatives and for the opportunity to provide my thoughts and
comments pertaining to the ESA and its impact on Wyoming's Sportsmen
and Sportswomen.
______
The Chairman. I want to let you know that I can give a
little time, but a little time.
Mr. Wharff. Thank you again.
The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony.
I would now like to recognize Ms. Renee Taylor, owner of
Taylor Environmental Consulting here in Casper.
Ms. Taylor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RENEE C. TAYLOR, OWNER, TAYLOR ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING LLC, CASPER, WYOMING
Ms. Taylor. OK. I want to thank the committee for inviting
me here this morning. I have a small consulting business here
in Casper, and I have been active in the environmental industry
one way or the other for the last 30 years, and with the ESA
directly.
I will explore some of the frustrations that I have seen
and felt with the ESA and the impact it has on effective
species conservation, jobs, property, and multiple use based on
my experience with the Preble's Meadow jumping mouse and the
greater sage grouse.
Frustrations with the ESA generally fall into three
categories, the selective use of data and research, ESA
decisions driven by litigation and settlements, and the lack of
consideration for public participation and conservation
actions.
In August, you heard from Dr. Ramey about the data
requirements of the act. ESA decisions are to be based on the
best available data, not outcomes that are founded on data that
is unavailable and therefore cannot be tested or replicated.
Similarly, we see the ever-increasing use of predictive
modeling to determine outcomes well into the future. However,
the Service never tests these models to determine if they are
real-world, accurate situations. Instead, the Service deems
them accurate and demands conservation action based on them.
Selective use of peer and non-peer-reviewed literature is
also an issue to us. The agencies tell us that all information
used for decisionmaking must be peer reviewed. However, in
agency decisions we often see select non-peer-reviewed
materials, including gray literature, alongside peer-reviewed
works, while data provided by industry or private parties is
often ignored.
Moving conservation targets are also an issue for us. The
mitigation bar is continually being revised as a result of
``emerging information.'' We never allow an ESA or conservation
decision to play out long enough to see if the findings were
correct or if the applied mitigations actually work.
Agency response to our concerns is that the sky is falling
and we must do whatever we can to conserve the species if we do
not act immediately. This is not sound science.
Section 4 of the ESA contains timeframes for completing the
various statutory phases of the listing. If the Service
actually adhered to these timeframes, the vast majority of the
litigation could be avoided.
Settlements between a plaintiff and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service are generally crafted in a vacuum and targeted
toward the outcomes desired by the plaintiff. The potentially
affected parties--States, tribes, landowners, business
entities, et cetera--should be, must be included in these
deliberations. We saw the outcome of this closed process again
last week with the settlement between the Service and the
Center for Biological Diversity regarding the Mexican wolf in
Arizona and New Mexico.
Settlements between the Service and plaintiffs, such as
that in 2011 with Wild Earth Guardians and the Center for
Biological Diversity, which requires the Service to reconsider
listing decisions and to specify the timeframes within which
they should do so, not only allows the plaintiffs to set the
agency's priorities but takes staff away from more pressing
conservation issues such as agreements with landowners and
States who are trying to work within the act and the associated
regulatory systems.
Litigation-driven outcomes end up with decisions being made
by individual judges on information provided by often special-
interest select experts. Judges are not supposed to be making
scientific decisions within the ESA.
Local and State conservation efforts are ignored or co-
opted by negotiated settlements, and Section 6 of the ESA
directs the Service to work with States and to accept
applicable and appropriate State conservation programs.
Because of the lack of time, I am going to skip a whole lot
relative to the Preble's Meadow jumping mouse, but please be
assured that this is a perfect example of what is wrong with
the ESA, and litigation dragging outcomes. This mouse should
not be listed in the State of Wyoming. Sorry about Colorado.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lamborn. Apology accepted.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Taylor. The greater sage grouse is another example of
things going awry. The State of Wyoming has done its job
through its MOU with the Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM and the
other States to enact conservation planning for the greater
sage grouse in its State and on a local and statewide basis.
Because of what I will call the conservation NGO's don't like
our conservation plan, and they don't like the fact that the
Service does not list species, they constantly take the species
to court, where Judge Winmill is directing the Service and the
BLM in how they are to do their sage grouse decisions. This is
not appropriate.
A significant portion of the range is a huge deal. That is
how the Service was forced to vacate its de-listing of the
Preble's Meadow jumping mouse, because the significant portion
of the range policy that was in service was vacated, and
Wyoming could get sucked into a sage grouse conservation
program through listing because there is no significant portion
of the range policy.
The fact that you have this strong, stable sage grouse
population and conservation practices that work should not
punish you by being listed. You should be rewarded by not being
listed.
The State of Wyoming and its conservation partners, its
citizens, have worked for 10 years to come up with a viable
conservation plan.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Renee C. Taylor, Owner, Taylor Environmental
Consulting LLC, Casper, Wyoming
I will explore the frustration with the ESA and the impact it has
on effective species conservation, jobs, property and multiple use
using two species I am very familiar with; Preble's meadow jumping
mouse and greater sage-grouse.
Our frustrations with ESA generally fall into three categories, (1)
selective use of data and research, (2) ESA decisions driven by
litigation and settlements and (3) lack of consideration for public
participation and conservation actions:
In August, you heard from Dr. Ramey about the data
requirements of the Act, ``the best scientific and
commercial data available.'' ESA decisions are to be made
based on the best available data, not outcomes that are
founded on data that is unavailable and therefore the
outcomes cannot be replicated and the data cannot undergo
additional testing through the scientific method.
Similarly, we see the ever-increasing use of predictive
modeling to determine outcomes well into the future;
however, the Service never tests these models in a real
word situation to determine if the modeled outcomes are
accurate. Instead the Service deems them accurate and
demands conservation action based on them.
Selective use of peer and non-peer reviewed literature by
agencies (i.e. FWS and BLM). We are told by FWS that all
information used in their decisionmaking must be peer
reviewed; there is nothing in the act about only peer
reviewed materials being considered. However, in agency
decisions we often see select non-peer reviewed materials,
including gray literature, being cited alongside peer
reviewed works. While data provided by industry is often
ignored.
Moving conservation targets: The mitigation bar is
continually being revised as a result of emerging
information. We never allow an ESA/conservation decision to
play out long enough to see if the findings were correct or
if applied mitigations work. Our response is always ``the
sky is falling and the species is going to blink out'' if
we do not act immediately. Mother Nature does not react
like that.
Section 4 of the ESA contains timeframes for completing
the various statutory phases of species listing. If the
Service actually adhered to these timeframes the vast
majority of the litigation could be avoided, it is the
slipping of these requirements that provides the
opportunity for settlements that leave other interested and
potentially affected parties out of the loop.
Settlements between a plaintiff and the USFWS are
generally crafted in a vacuum and targeted toward the
outcomes desired by the plaintiff. The potentially affected
parties (States, tribes, landowners, business entities,
etc.) must be included in these deliberations. We saw this
again last week with the settlement between the Service and
the Center for Biological Diversity regarding the Mexican
wolf in Arizona and New Mexico.
Settlements between the Service and plaintiffs, such as
that in 2011 with Wild Earth Guardians and Center for
Biological Diversity, which requires reconsideration of
species listing decisions and specifying the timeframes
within which to do so, not only allows the plaintiff to
sets the agencies priorities but takes staff away from more
pressing issues such as conservation agreements with
landowners and States who are trying to work within the act
and associated regulatory system.
Litigation driven outcomes with decisions being made by
individual judges based on information provided by often
special interest selected ``Experts,'' during settlement
hearings/conferences.
Local and State conservation efforts are ignored or co-
opted by ``emerging science,'' negotiated settlements and
litigation. Section 6 of the ESA directs the Service to
work with States and to accept applicable and appropriate
State conservation programs, among other things.
1. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM or Zapus hudsonius preblei)
(a) 1998--Listed in Colorado and Wyoming, listing was preceded by
significant trapping effort in Colorado but only one
trapping event in historical range of the species in
Wyoming.
(b) 1999--a private landowner in SE Wyoming came forward to conduct
an extensive trapping program in the historical range and
in habitats that were ``similar'' to those where the
subspecies was found in Colorado. Resulting in the capture
of 33 individuals, 24 more than the Wyoming historical
record.
(c) FWS gathers a ``Recovery Planning Team'' which meets extensively
for the next 5 years with no measurable outcome.
(d) June 2003--FWS designates critical habitat in Wyoming and
Colorado for the subspecies.
(e) December 2003--Dr. Ramey determines the PMJM is not a unique
subspecies.
(f) December 2003--State of Wyoming filed their first petition to
delist.
(g) February 2005--FWS publishes proposal to delist PMJM in Wyoming.
(h) 2006--Dr. King (USGS) determines the PMJM is a unique subspecies.
(i) FWS enters into a hand selected peer review panel process to
``evaluate'' the genetics work completed by Drs. Ramey and
King; FWS ``Peer Review'' panel is initiated on two
occasions.
(j) Sept. 2006 (through Oct. 2007)--Wyoming files notice of intent to
sue FWS over non action on the 2005 petition to delist.
(k) 2008--Delisted in Wyoming.
(l) 2009--Petition filed by Center for Native Ecosystems, followed by
a court order, to re-instate regulatory protections for
PMJM in Wyoming based on issues related to the definition
of ``significant portion of the range'' (SPR).
(m) August 2011--to comply with the Court Order the PMJM is re-listed
in Wyoming based on vacating the FWS policy on SPR.
(n) December 2011--the Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
notice of draft policy regarding application of SPR; the
Service has yet to finalize the rule defining this critical
piece of the act, which would allow them to list species
only where they are at greatest risk.
(o) May 2013--Again, (from the 2011 settlement agreement) a court
ordered date by which to conduct the 5-year status review
and (finally) address the two petitions to delist received
in 2003 (FR Vol. 78, No. 101, pg. 31680). The status review
again re-iterates the lack of risk to the species in
Wyoming from oil and gas development, farming and livestock
ranching. But stresses the potential impact from human
population growth in the four Wyoming counties where PMJM
is found, reveling a 13 percent increase (20,410 people) by
2030 including the concern that Cheyenne might grow by
8,372 soles. The review also discusses the potential
negative effects on PMJM habitat from climate change and
fire. These out comes are derived through modeling efforts
extending out 30 to 50 years and completely ignores the
fact that fires and climate change have occurred over the
range of the species since it came into existence. Not to
mention that population growth of 20,000 persons is minute
and will generally not occur within Preble's habitat. Based
on these finding the Service determined that the risk to
the species is significant therefore it could not de-list
the species in Wyoming.
All this is over a mouse that Gwilym Jones, in his 1981
encyclopedic review of the Genus Zapus, states ``There is no evidence
of any population of Zapus hudsonius (ZH) being sufficiently isolated
to warrant subspecific status'' (Jones 1981). What Dr. Jones points out
is that these 14 to 19 ``subspecies'' of Zapus hudsonius are really
races, not subspecies worthy of ESA protection.
Genetics has a long history of the argument between ``Lumpers''
(Dr. Ramey) and ``Splitters'' (Dr. King). ZH is ripe territory for such
arguments but so are domestic cats and dogs. Basically, following the
same logic used to determine that the PMJM is a unique subspecies, we
could also demonstrate that your cat and mine are separate subspecies
and one or the other may be worthy of ESA protection. As Dr. Taylor
Haynes, so eloquently stated at a Preble's Recovery Team meeting, ``A
species being rare or uncommon does not equal a species at risk of
extinction and ESA protection.''
Another important point brought out by Dr. Jones (1981) is that
``populations of the progenitors of the (Zapus) genus were isolated by
the thawing of the glaciers and associated meltwaters with further
isolation of groups occurring during periods of environmental drying.''
So much for the ``climate change'' we discuss today being a unique
event in the history of the earth. Indeed, climate change is one of the
natural forces of evolution. Sadly, the Service determined it could not
recognize the work of Dr. Jones, or his 569-page dissertation, as it
was not ``peer reviewed.''
This mouse is the perfect example of everything wrong with ESA,
initial decisions based on little or no data, private parties have to
do the work of the Service to collect the necessary data. The bright
spot in the story is that the FWS staff acknowledged the new data and
the cooperation of landowners, eventually amending the listing decision
based on a petition from the State. Unfortunately, as we see so often,
the special interest NGO's don't like sound, on the ground science-
based decisionmaking and sued for a re-evaluation of the delisting;
eventually ending with the court ordered listing of a species in an
area where no risk to the species has been documented. Special interest
driven decisions are the outcome and completely ignore the potential
impacts to the very people who have provided habitat for the species
while also providing jobs and food for the Nation and their families.
2. Sage-grouse
The greater sage-grouse story in Wyoming generally starts in 1999
when the game and fish departments in States within the range of the
species, BLM and USFWS enter into an Memorandum of Understanding to
look at the species and what could be done to conserve it. The States
were tasked with developing State and local level conservation plans;
these were to address conservation taking into consideration local
economies, impacts and habitats. This story begins with the threat of
the ESA, do something to conserve the species or we will have to list
it!
Wyoming completed its statewide plan in 2003 and immediately set
about the local planning process. All these workgroups included members
from the oil and gas and mining industries, wildlife biologists,
private landowners, agriculture, ``conservation'' NGO's, local
government, NRCS, WGFD and the BLM, with the Service in attendance.
These planning efforts were completed and evolved into an Executive
order issued by Governor Freudenthal in 2008, with the goal of
maintaining or enhancing the sage-grouse population in designated Core
Population areas. This EO has been amended twice since 2008 with the
latest in 2011 (SWED 2011).
In a 2011 letter to Governor Mead, the USFWS stated it ``continues
to view implementation of the Executive order as an adequate mechanism
to preclude the need to list this species and if the Executive order
remains a sound policy to manage and protect sage-grouse populations in
Wyoming. The Service believes the Executive order can result in the
long-term conservation of the Greater sage-grouse and thus reduce the
need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If fully implemented, we believe the
Executive order can provide the conservation program necessary to
achieve your goal of precluding listing of the Greater sage-grouse in
Wyoming.''
The BLM Washington Office IM 2012-043 further affirmed the Wyoming
Core Population Area Protection process by stating, ``The BLM field
offices do not need to apply the conservation policies and procedures
described in this IM in areas in which (1) a State and/or local
regulatory mechanism has been developed for the conservation of the
Greater Sage-grouse in coordination and concurrence with the USFWS
(including Statewide Executive Order 2011-5, Great Sage-Grouse Core
Area Protection; SWED 2011); and (2) the State sage-grouse plan has
subsequently been adopted by the BLM through the issuance of State-
level BLM IM.''
In February 2012 the BLM Wyoming State Office issued IM WY-2102-
019, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy on Wyoming BLM
Administered Public Lands Including the Federal Mineral Estate. This IM
provides guidance to BLM Wyoming field offices regarding management
consideration of greater Sage-grouse habitats for proposed activities
until the resource management planning amendments are completed. This
IM is consistent with the Washington IM mentioned above and the State
Executive order.
The Wyoming Conservation Strategy, as described in the EO, is
premised on the concept of managed development of oil and gas, mining
and wind energy in Core Population areas, those areas of the State with
the most robust populations of sage-grouse. Approximately 86 percent of
the grouse in the State receive enhanced protection under this program.
The Core concept was based in large part on research findings that
illustrated that sage-grouse and oil and gas development can and do co-
exist (Taylor et al. 2007 and 2011). Publically available Wyoming data
was used in this effort to determine under what conditions grouse
exhibit a decline or avoid an area. The EO then used other Wyoming
based research findings, relative to avoidance of oil and gas
operations, and buffered this information to provide an added
conservation cushion.
A key component of the Wyoming conservation strategy is the
analysis of all projects, that require a State or Federal agency
permit, proposed within a ``Core Population Area.'' This GIS analysis
of disturbance and disruptions (DDCT) evaluates the level of existing
and proposed surface disturbance and disruptions (active well sites and
or mining locations) within 4-miles of a sage-grouse lek (the
definition of the analysis area is more complicated than this). In my
experience, these analysis areas can be quite large, for example
55,0000 acres to evaluate the effect of fewer than 10 new well sites.
If the proposed project will not exceed the disturbance and disruptions
limitations stipulated in the Executive order the project receives a
``concurrence'' or ``go-ahead'' letter from the WGFD. In the event the
project analysis reveals that these limitations will, or already are
exceeded, the WGFD and the BLM (if involved), work with the proponent
to reduce/mitigate impacts to the species. This process needs to be
followed for a number of years so we can determine if it works to
``maintain or enhance'' sage-grouse populations in the State of
Wyoming. Only after the program is tracked and the population data
analyzed over a good number of years (3 year running average as stated
in the Wyoming Conservation Strategy) should we make any changes.
All that said, none of this is adequate enough for the
``conservation'' NGO's who continue to pound the table with new
emerging research ``demonstrating'' that the EO and IMs are not
adequate. They continually take their case to U.S. District Court Judge
John B. Lynn Winmill, who has mandated BLM consider the National
Technical Team (NTT) Report (BLM 2011) in the process of amending nine
BLM Resource Management Plans to more fully address sage-grouse
conservation. Similarly, the NGO's have demanded, and BLM capitulated,
that a ``Recovery Alternative'' be considered. Neither of these
``conservation'' strategies recognizes the valid existing rights of oil
and gas lessees, the rights of private landowners, and the resource
based economies of the State or the multiple use mandate of the BLM.
They certainly do not recognize that in Wyoming oil and gas,
agriculture and sage-grouse have co-existed quite nicely for over 100
years.
Long story short, regardless of the broad based public process and
cooperation that went into the development of the Wyoming sage-grouse
conservation program or the endorsement of the Wyoming concept by USFWS
and BLM, the threat of the ESA listing is constantly hung over the
issue and used as a battering ram to force more stringent conservation
measures to be implemented.
As with the PMJM, the definition of SPR and a clear policy for its
use is of critical importance to the State of Wyoming. Without the
ability to identify and provide listing protection to the species in
those areas where it is truly at risk due to a lack of conservation
effort, Wyoming could end up included in a listing decision because of
its strong and stable grouse population and conservation practices.
This would effectively punish the State and its citizen partners for
their hard work in developing and implementing grouse conservation.
The courts should not control the outcome of the ESA. ESA decisions
should rely solely on the best available data not the professional
opinion of folks with a conservation bias. Sage-grouse represents one
of, if not the largest, voluntary conservation efforts in the history
of ESA but this could all be lost if the court and special interest
plaintiffs are allowed to direct the outcome. I suspect that if this
were to happen the Service would be hard pressed to garner much public
support in the future. The Service should acknowledge the tremendous
level of public participation and effort that has gone into the range
wide conservation of sage-grouse and allow it to play out. The BLM (in
the case of sage-grouse) and the Service constantly kowtow to the
demands of the litigants who use the courts to move forward their case
leaving those that have participated honestly in the regulatory process
in the dust.
In closing, I must admit I am not an advocate of opening up the
ESA; I have grave concern about the effort being taken over by special
interests, just as has occurred with ESA to date. The USFWS must be
directed to operate as was originally conceived in the act; sound
science based on the best available data. The ESA contains timeframes
for acting on petitions, if the Service were to abide by these
constraints there would be little fodder for litigants. And last, in
this era of bio-politics, when cohorts of researchers control the
published literature and therefore the conservation outcome, any change
in the ESA will not affect the apparent lack of scientific integrity.
Regardless of the good intentions of this committee, honesty in the use
of the scientific method cannot be legislated.
Literature Cited
Bureau of Land Management. 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-
grouse Conservation Measures. National Technical Team. On line at:
https://www.google.com/
url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC
sQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blm.gov%2Fpgdata%2Fetc%2Fmedialib%2Fblm
%2Fco%2Fprograms%2Fwildlife.Par.73607.File.dat%2FGrSG%2520Tech%2520Team
%2520Report.pdf&ei=KLUjUrfND6veyQHN9oBY&usg=AFQjCNHgNuTc3NkzaIBHO
kYhnTdJawD-kg&bvm=bv.51495398,d.aWc.
Jones, G.S. 1981. The Systematics and Biology of the Genus Zapus
(Mammalia, Rodentia, Zapododae (Canada, United States). Indiana State
University, Terre Haute, Indiana.
Taylor, R.C., Matthew Dzialak and Larry Hayden-Wing. 2007. Greater
Sage-grouse Populations and Energy Development in Wyoming. Online at
http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/PDF/WYsageGrouseNov2paper.pdf.
Taylor, R.C., Brook Russell and Bryan Taylor. 2011. Synopsis,
Greater Sage-grouse Populations and Energy Development in Wyoming--2010
Update.
USFWS. 2011. Letter from R. Mark Sattleberg, Wyoming Field Office
Field Supervisor, Ecological Services to Matthew H. Mead regarding the
Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5 Greater sage-grouse protection. Dated
June 24, 2011. Reference number ES-61411/WY11TA0313.
SWED. 2011. State of Wyoming, Executive Department. Executive order
2011-5, Greater sage-grouse core area protection. Online at http://
wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/
SAGEGROUSE_EO_COREPROTECTION0000651.pdf.
______
The Chairman. You are very perceptive.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Your comments on the
Preble mouse are in the written statement, so it is part of the
record.
Ms. Taylor. Thank you.
The Chairman. I would now like to recognize Mr. Jeff Meyer,
the Managing Partner for the Sweetwater River Conservancy in
Alcova, Wyoming.
Mr. Meyer, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JEFF MEYER, MANAGING PARTNER, SWEETWATER RIVER
CONSERVANCY, ALCOVA, WYOMING
Mr. Meyer. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
Wyoming. It is a pleasure to join you, Congressman Lummis, and
your colleagues to talk about species protection, jobs,
property, and multiple use. I am Jeff Meyer, the Managing
Partner of the Sweetwater River Conservancy.
The Sweetwater River Conservancy is headquartered 40 miles
southwest of Casper on the Pathfinder Ranch. It is comprised of
nine working cattle ranches located along the North Platte and
Sweetwater Rivers. The SRC lands total 712,000 acres, an area a
little bit larger than the State of Rhode Island.
Today these historic lands offer a powerful platform to
realize three groundbreaking ideas: first, an idea to bring
willing landowners and investors together to expand the
protection of Wyoming's iconic wildlife; second, an idea to
help Wyoming capitalize on its abundant natural resources; and
third, an idea to demonstrate how keeping intact landscape-size
parcels of private land is good for business.
Earlier this year, with the full support of the State of
Wyoming, SRC submitted applications to the United States Army
Corps of Engineers to create a Wetland, Stream, and Riparian
Mitigation Bank, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
create a Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Bank, all on SRC-
owned lands. We will submit a third application for a raptor
bank later this year. These banks will be the first of their
kind in Wyoming and the largest ever in the United States.
The enactment of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered
Species Act in the 1970s set the stage for our strategy today.
These laws were motivated in part by the loss of critical
habitat and the fragmentation of large landscapes. Today, four
decades later, the debate surrounding the implementation of
this legislation continues to rage and the time for new
thinking seems ripe.
To protect critical habitat, regulators apply the principle
of no net loss and condition the issuance of a permit on the
ability of a developer to mitigate the consequences. They
require the developer to, first, avoid the impact when
possible; second, minimize the impact; and third, compensate
for unavoidable impacts. But without a clear way to meet these
requirements, a project can languish for years or be derailed
altogether.
Within the third category, compensatory mitigation, we
believe SRC will make a constructive contribution toward the
goals of the ESA.
SRC lands are home to high-quality habitat for the greater
sage grouse, raptors, black-footed ferret, and several other
plants and animals that are being carefully monitored by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Throughout the past 5 years,
over 100 scientists have spread out over our ranches to catalog
these resources. They worked their way over four mountain
ranges, 70 miles of major river frontage, across hundreds of
miles of side streams and tributaries, and through tens of
thousands of acres of sagebrush scrub lands. This unparalleled
body of knowledge served as the basis for the applications we
recently submitted.
Once approved, we will actively restore and enhance the
water quality and wildlife habitat on our lands using private
capital and following strict scientific protocols approved by a
task force of State and Federal regulators. These improvements,
known as ``lift,'' will create certified credits that can be
used by developers to offset the impacts of energy projects
elsewhere in the same geographic service area.
The price for these credits will be negotiated on a willing
seller/willing buyer basis. No one will be obligated to buy
them, and developers will have the option of doing their own
compensatory mitigation or contracting with others. It is our
business assumption, however, that by investing heavily in the
preapproved, up-front mitigation, we will have an appealing
product that adds valuable clarity and predictability to the
permitting process.
But adding clarity and predictability is not the only
benefit to the SRC mitigation banks. The benefits are much
wider. One, neighboring ranchers who partner with us will have
a new source of revenue by managing their lands for both cattle
production and wildlife enhancement.
For the conservationist, SRC's unique approach supports
habitat conservation across large landscapes, creating an
ecologically compelling solution and an unrivaled product.
Sportsmen will continue to have access to our lands and enjoy
higher populations of game and fish. Regulators will have a
credible new tool that enables them to protect species and
promote multiple use of public lands. And finally, these
improvements will be financed by private investors and will not
rely on Federal appropriations or tax credits to succeed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff Meyer, Managing Partner, Sweetwater River
Conservancy, Alcova, Wyoming
Good morning Mr. Chairman and welcome to Wyoming. It is a pleasure
to join you, Congressman Lummis, and your colleagues to talk about
species protection, jobs, property and multiple use. I am Jeff Meyer,
the Managing Partner of the Sweetwater River Conservancy.
The Sweetwater River Conservancy (SRC) is headquartered 40 miles
southwest of Casper on the Pathfinder Ranch. Comprised of nine working
cattle ranches located along the North Platte and Sweetwater Rivers,
SRC lands total 712,000 acres--an area about the size of Rhode Island.
Today these historic lands offer a powerful platform to realize
three groundbreaking ideas. First, an idea to bring willing landowners
and investors together to expand the protection of Wyoming's iconic
wildlife. Second, an idea to help Wyoming capitalize on its abundant
natural resources. And third, an idea to demonstrate how keeping intact
landscape size parcels of private land is good business.
Earlier this year, with the full support of the State of Wyoming,
SRC submitted applications to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
create a Wetland, Stream, Riparian Mitigation Bank and to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to create a Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Bank,
all on SRC ranch lands. We will submit a third application for a raptor
bank later this year.
These banks will be the first of their kind in Wyoming and the
largest ever permitted in the United States.
The enactment of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act
in the 1970s set the stage for our strategy today. These laws were
motivated in part by the loss of critical habitat and the fragmentation
of large landscapes. Today, four decades later, the debate surrounding
the implementation of this legislation continues to rage and the time
for new thinking seems ripe.
To protect critical habitat, regulators apply the principle of ``no
net loss'' and condition the issuance of a permit on the ability of a
developer to mitigate the consequences. They require the developer to
first, avoid the impact when possible; second, minimize the impact; and
third, compensate for unavoidable impacts. But without a clear way to
meet these requirements, a project can languish for years or derail
altogether.
Within the third category, ``compensatory mitigation'', we believe
SRC will make a constructive contribution toward the goals of the
Endangered Species Act.
SRC lands are home to high quality habitat for the greater sage
grouse, raptors, mule deer, black footed ferret, and several other
plants and animals that are being carefully monitored by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Throughout the past 5 years, over 100 scientists
have spread out over our ranches to catalogue these resources. They
worked their way over four mountain ranges, along 70 miles of major
river frontage, across hundreds of side streams and tributaries, and
through thousands of acres of sagebrush scrub lands.
This unparalleled body of knowledge served as the basis for the
applications we recently submitted.
Once approved, we will actively restore and enhance the water
quality and wildlife habitat on our lands using private capital and
following strict scientific protocols approved by a task force of State
and Federal regulators. These improvements, known as ``lift'', will
create certified credits that can be used by developers to off-set the
impact of energy projects elsewhere in the same geographic service
area.
The price for these credits will be negotiated on a ``willing
seller--willing buyer'' basis. No one will be obligated to buy them and
developers will have the option of doing their own compensatory
mitigation or contracting with others.
It is our business assumption, however, that by investing heavily
in ``pre-approved'' up front mitigation, we will have an appealing
product that adds valuable clarity and predictability to the permitting
process.
But adding clarity and predictability is not the only benefit to
the SRC mitigation banks. The benefits are much wider.
Neighboring ranchers who partner with us will have a new source of
revenue by managing their lands for both cattle production and wildlife
enhancement.
For conservationist, SRC's unique approach supports habitat
conservation across large landscapes creating an ecologically
compelling solution of unrivaled import.
Sportsmen will continue to have access to our lands and enjoy
higher populations of game and fish.
Regulators will have a credible new tool that enables them to
protect species and promote multiple use of public lands.
And finally, these improvements will be financed by private
investors and will not rely on Federal appropriations or tax credits to
succeed.
Today, the SRC mitigation banks are proposed only on private lands.
But it is possible, with supporting public policy, to imagine a time
when a land owner, using private capital, could improve the habitat on
the BLM grazing lands he leases and share the revenues from the
mitigation banks with the Federal Government. That's another big idea
for Wyoming's landscapes and wildlife.
Thank you.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Meyer. You did not
go over time, so we will credit that back.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And now, certainly not least, I would like to
recognize Ms. Meghan Lally, who is a sheep and cattle rancher
in Savery, Wyoming.
Ms. Lally, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MEGHAN O'TOOLE LALLY, SHEEP AND CATTLE RANCHER,
SAVERY, WYOMING
Ms. Lally. Good morning, Chairman Hastings and members of
the committee. Thank you to Representative Lummis for inviting
me to speak to you this morning. I am Meghan O'Toole Lally, and
I am a fifth-generation sheep and cattle rancher. I raise sheep
and cattle on our family ranch, located on the Wyoming-Colorado
border, along with my parents and brother. I serve as a
Supervisor on the Little Snake River Conservation District and
have recently been appointed to the Wyoming Environmental
Quality Council.
We pride ourselves on our management of our ranch, as well
as our private, State, and Federal leases. The Ladder Ranch is
under conservation easement and has been designated as an
Important Bird Area by the Wyoming Audubon Society.
This summer, my daughter Siobhan and I were gathering
cattle in the forest. A sage grouse and several of her chicks
flew up in front of us. The mother sage grouse proceeded to act
as a decoy. She acted hurt and flew in the opposite direction
of her chicks. Siobhan asked me what the mother grouse was
doing. I explained that she was trying to draw us away from her
chicks so that they may survive if we were predators. I love
being able to see these neat birds and give these lessons to my
children.
When I was a kid growing up on the ranch, we would see lots
of wildlife daily on the bus ride to school. I had no idea
until I left the valley that everyone did not have the same
wildlife experiences growing up. My children continue to have
those same experiences on the school bus today.
The Endangered Species Act is broken. The problems are
numerous. The solutions exist that are working. They can be
expanded to a national scale.
The decisions are made for listing habitat needs or species
needs. It is imperative that the Fish and Wildlife Service use
peer-reviewed science to make decisions.
The State of Wyoming formed the Wyoming Statewide Big Horn/
Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group. It included people
representing all interested parties. The stated goal of the
group was to maintain healthy bighorn sheep populations while
sustaining an economically viable domestic sheep industry in
Wyoming.
The Wyoming Plan, as it is known, is a model for how to
address domestic sheep/Big Horn sheep management in the West.
It allowed areas where Big Horn sheep would be the priority and
there would be no domestic sheep. There were also areas for
domestic sheep grazing. Several of our sheep grazing permits
are in that area. Recently, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance
sued the Forest Service over a small herd of Big Horn sheep
located near our grazing permit.
Right now, the Federal Government is increasing the amount
of red tape and analysis of habitat projects before they can be
implemented on the ground. It used to take 3 to 6 months to get
a project approved, funded, and on the ground. Now the agencies
are saying that we need to plan on at least a year for all of
the extra analysis needed for even simple projects.
The intention by the adopters of the Endangered Species Act
is that incentives should be used to encourage the preservation
of species. I believe that the adage that you catch more bees
with honey than with vinegar needs to be the aim of the Fish
and Wildlife Service. In that spirit, I offer the following
solutions.
I believe that collaborative processes are a great tool for
increasing the success of the implementation of the Endangered
Species Act. The Wyoming Plan is an example of a win-win plan
for everyone. Without the Wyoming Plan, constant litigation
would be the future between the Big Horn Sheep advocates and
the domestic industry. The Game and Fish would not be able to
expand the habitat for the Big Horn sheep, and the State of
Wyoming would lose an industry which contributes to the economy
of the State. However, under the plan, the Game and Fish has an
avenue to introduce Big Horn Sheep to other parts of the State,
which will increase the overall numbers of Big Horn sheep.
There needs to be an acknowledgement that in order to
preserve these endangered or threatened species or preclude
listing at all, that work needs to be done on the ground
immediately. Simplifying the paperwork from dozens of pages to
a reasonable application, allowing ground-level managers to
make decisions, and increasing the number of technicians on the
ground to get the work done would streamline the process and
make it easier to get work done in a timely manner.
Congress has the power to list species under the Endangered
Species Act. I think one solution is to preemptively list sage
grouse as warranted but precluded for existing management
plans. Industry and agriculture crave stability. State plans
for sage grouse management are currently offering up stability
while protecting sage grouse in areas where they currently
exist and are thriving.
There is a group within the Fish and Wildlife Service
called Partners for Fish and Wildlife. The Partners for Fish
and Wildlife helps to fund habitat work on private lands. They
already have the infrastructure and relationships with
landowners to get effective habitat work done for endangered
species. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife is uniquely
positioned to fulfill the direction of the Endangered Species
Act for the Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the designated
endangered species.
There needs to be a recognition that if a species exists
and thrives on a property, public or private, the practices
that currently occur on that property will not harm and
possibly protect that species.
The Endangered Species Act is an important part of saving
animals from becoming extinct. However, right now it is being
used as a hammer to destroy livestock grazing and industry in
the West. Not only does this affect the public lands
management, it also affects the economies and culture of the
communities where it is applied.
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony to you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lally follows:]
Prepared Statement of Meghan O'Toole Lally, Sheep and Cattle Rancher,
Savory Wyoming
Good morning, Chairman Hastings, and members of the committee.
Thank you to Representative Lummis for inviting me to speak to you this
morning. I am Meghan O'Toole Lally and I am a fifth generation sheep
and cattle rancher. I raise sheep and cattle on our family ranch,
located on the Wyoming-Colorado border, along with my parents and
brother. I serve as a Supervisor on the Little Snake River Conservation
District and have been appointed to the Wyoming Environmental Quality
Council.
We pride ourselves on our management of our property, as well as
our private, State and Federal leases. The Ladder Ranch is under
Conservation Easement with the Nature Conservancy in Wyoming and
Colorado Cattlemen's Land Trust in Colorado. The ranch has also been
designated as an Important Bird Area by the Wyoming Audubon Society.
This summer, my daughter Siobhan and I were gathering cattle in the
forest. A Sage Grouse and several of her chicks flew up in front of us.
The mother grouse proceeded to act as a decoy. She acted hurt and flew
in the opposite direction of her chicks. Siobhan asked me what the
mother grouse was doing. I explained that she was trying to draw us
away from her chicks, so that they may survive, if we were predators. I
love being able to see these neat birds and give these lessons to my
children.
When I was a kid growing up on the ranch we would see Mule Deer,
elk, Pronghorn Antelope, Golden and Bald Eagles, Sage Grouse, as well
as squirrels, rabbits and other small birds daily on the bus ride to
school. I had no idea, until I left the Valley that everyone did not
have the same wildlife experiences growing up. My children continue to
have those same experiences today.
The Endangered Species Act is broken. Right now there are 630
animal species and 854 plant species that have been listed as
threatened or endangered in some form. There are another 74 species
that have been proposed for listing and 168 candidate species. Of those
only 1 percent have been delisted. Obviously we are doing something
wrong. Listing hundreds of species without adequate science and without
a plan for recovery beyond ``all human activity is bad'' will not
improve our track record. There are two types of groups working on the
problems in the West. The hopefuls and the hatefuls. The hopefuls are
trying to work toward collaborative solutions that meet everyone's
needs. The hatefuls want to litigate and derail the process. The
problems are numerous; solutions exist that are working, if they can be
expanded to a national scale.
The Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) concept
is a good one for landowners who enter into it willingly with their
eyes wide open. However, the CCAs and CCAAs that I am aware of have
taken 10 years to even get the applications processed. Very few exist
at all. Many people who were interested in the program decided not to
participate because they expose themselves to litigation and regulation
with no legal, court tested guarantees. Until landowners can enter into
agreements with the Fish and Wildlife Service without fear of being
sued or the rules and regulations changing midstream, most landowners
will not be willing to commit to provide habitat for and protect
threatened or endangered species.
Litigation by hateful groups threatens the procedural rules set by
the rulemaking process. Sue and Settle has been used by the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD) to force the candidate listing of 168
species. Contrary to CBD stated insistence on a procedurally correct,
transparent process on the part of Federal agencies, Sue and Settle is
an opaque process that is not subject to public comment or review.
In Wyoming, we have experienced hateful groups filing the same or
similar lawsuits in several venues. They choose which venue they would
like their lawsuit to be heard. Then the other suits are dropped. This
happened recently in the current round of grey wolf litigation.
When decisions are made for listing, habitat needs, or species
needs, it is imperative that the Fish and Wildlife Service use peer
reviewed science to make decisions. When the agency uses ideas and
hunches to make decisions it could have wide ranging impacts that have
no positive effect on the target species. If there is any question as
to the validity of the science, the National Academy of Science needs
to be consulted.
When it became apparent that hateful groups were using Big Horn
sheep to remove domestic sheep grazing from public lands in the West,
Wyoming decided it needed to be proactive. The State formed the Wyoming
State-Wide Big Horn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group. It
included people representing all interested parties, including Wyoming
Wool Growers, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the Wild Sheep
Foundation, environmental groups, sheep producers and others. The
stated goal of the group was ``to maintain healthy bighorn sheep
populations while sustaining an economically viable domestic sheep
industry in Wyoming.''
The Wyoming Plan, as it is known, is a model for how to address
domestic sheep/Big Horn sheep management in the West. It was adopted in
2004. It allowed areas where Big Horn sheep would be the priority and
there would be no domestic sheep. There were also areas for domestic
sheep grazing. Several of our sheep grazing permits are in that area.
Recently, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (BCA) sued the Forest
Service over a small herd of Big Horn sheep located near our grazing
permit. This herd was deemed non-essential by the Game and Fish and the
Working Group. The herd was reintroduced in 1977. The grazing permits
in that predate that time by several decades. There are several other
permittees who could also be impacted by the decision that any possible
contact by domestic sheep to a Big Horn sheep means the loss of a
permit. Biodiversity Conservation Alliance used that same law firm that
is used by Western Watersheds for their litigation in Idaho.
Unfunded mandates are negatively affecting wildlife agencies. The
Federal Government regularly hands down unfunded mandates on endangered
species management that the State wildlife agencies then have to try to
implement. These mandates affect the management of other species within
the State, which may endanger them in the future. It also strains the
budgets of these agencies. The States then need to make up the money
poured into these mandates. Many times this may result in increase in
license fees to make up the shortfalls.
By restricting the legal historic activities that can take place on
private property; I believe that the Endangered Species Act is being
used to perform an illegal takings of that private property.
Right now the Federal Government is increasing the amount of red
tape and analysis of habitat projects before they can be implemented on
the ground. It used to take 3-6 months to get a project approved,
funded and on the ground. Now the agencies are saying that we need to
plan on at least a year for all of the extra analysis for even simple
projects. There is a historic irrigation ditch on our ranch, dug by
hand and with mules at the turn of the century by my great-grandfather.
We are slowly piping the ditch, for efficiency and also to preserve the
integrity of the ditch. We had a Federal archeologist tell us we may
not be able to continue to pipe the ditch without archeological
analysis because it is a historic structure.
In section 2(a)(5), the Endangered Species Act states that ``The
Congress declares and finds that--in encouraging the States and other
interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system
of incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet
national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation's
international commitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit
of all citizens, the Nation's heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants.''
This clearly indicates an intention by the adopters of the
Endangered Species Act that incentives should be used to encourage the
preservation of species. I believe that the adage that ``you catch more
bees with honey than with vinegar'' needs to be the aim of the Fish and
Wildlife Service. In that spirit I offer the following solutions.
I believe that collaborative processes are a great tool for
increasing the success of the implementation of the Endangered Species
Act. The Wyoming Plan is an example of a win-win plan for everyone.
Without the Wyoming Plan, constant litigation would be the future
between the Big Horn Sheep advocates and the domestic industry. The
Game and Fish would not be able to expand the habitat for the Big Horn
sheep and the State of Wyoming would lose an industry which contributes
to the economy of the State. However, under the plan, the Game and Fish
has an avenue to introduce Big Horn Sheep to other parts of the State,
which will increase the overall numbers of Big Horn Sheep.
There needs to be acknowledgement that in order to preserve these
endangered or threatened species or preclude listing at all that work
needs to be done on the ground immediately, not 2 or 3 years from now.
Water developments, fence mitigation, sage brush treatments, and fish
passages or barriers are all examples of important habitat work that
could be done now to preserve endangered species habitat. Simplifying
the paperwork from dozens of pages to a reasonable application,
allowing ground level managers to make decisions, and increasing the
number of technicians on the ground to get the work done would
streamline the process and make it easier to get work done in a timely
manner.
There is a group within the Fish and Wildlife Service called
Partners for Fish and Wildlife. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife
helps to fund habitat work on private lands. They already have the
infrastructure and relationships with landowners to get effective
habitat work done for endangered species. They have projects on the
ground all over the country doing work to preserve habitat for toads in
Nevada, Sage Grouse in Wyoming, and the Mountain Plover in Colorado, as
well as many others. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife is uniquely
positioned to fulfill the direction of the Endangered Species Act for
the Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the designated endangered
species.
Some producers--working with local conservation groups--have
expressed interest in adding endangered species habitat enhancements to
water projects. Examples include habitat improvements to recharge
basins and riparian areas near ditches, hedge rows on fields, etc.
Others have sought add native habitat improvements specifically to open
up access for local endangered species. However, the restricted
application of safe harbor rules by Government agencies has forced many
proponents to abandon their efforts.
Recognition that if a species exists and thrives on a property--
public or private--the practices that currently occur on that property
will not harm and possibly protect that species. Sage grouse are
vulnerable to predators. Areas where people run sheep tend to have
heavy predator control. Based on my own observations, there are many
thriving Sage Grouse leks within our lambing areas. I believe that the
predator control that takes place on our lambing grounds has helped to
keep the sage grouse in those areas healthy.
Tools exist within the Endangered Species Act itself. Habitat
Conservation Areas, Safe Harbor provisions, section 6 cooperative
agreements with the States, and 75-90 percent match for any work done
by the States for endangered species management and habitat
improvement.
The Endangered Species Act is an important part of saving animals
from becoming extinct. However, it is being used as a hammer to destroy
livestock grazing in the West. Not only does this affect the public
lands management, it also affects the economies and culture of the
communities where it is applied.
The purposes of the Endangered Species Act ``are to provide a means
whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened
species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the
conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.''
It clearly states that the original intent of the Endangered
Species Act was a good one. Saving species from extinction is
important. However, it has been hijacked by the hateful groups to
attack industries and people
I love seeing the Sage Grouse dance and watch the chicks follow
their mothers through the brush. I also want my children to have the
same opportunities to see these birds. I am doing everything I can to
preserve the habitat for the Sage Grouse. However, I can see by listing
the Sage Grouse under the Endangered Species Act, it may actually cause
a reduction in Sage Grouse Habitat and people on the ground doing
everything they can to coexist with them.
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony to you.
______
The Chairman. Thank you all. I want to thank you all, and I
do know how difficult it is to repeat your remarks on an issue
like this. I fully recognize that, and that is why under our
rules, your whole statement--and I read all of your statements,
and they were all longer than 5 minutes, except for Mr. Meyer.
I think yours was longer than 5 minutes, too. But at any rate,
I appreciate that is part of the record. It is important that
we have this as we go forward, we have this evidence coming
from these areas.
We are starting the questioning period for Members, and I
am going to defer to my colleagues here who are more immediate
in this geographical area, and I will follow up last. If we
have time, we will do a second round.
So I will start by recognizing my colleague from Wyoming,
Representative Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. And I would
also want to thank my chief of staff, Jeffrey Fagan, who is
here; Jackie King from our staff in Casper; Ryan McConaughey
from our staff in Casper, and also want to acknowledge the
presence of Wyoming State Treasurer, Jeff Gordon--Mark Gordon.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Lummis. You are racing cars these days, Mark. Great
job of course as Wyoming State Treasurer. I am delighted to see
you here Mark.
Questions for our fabulous panel. I want to start with Jeff
Meyer. Mitigation making is something I do see as part of a
21st century conservation strategy that could make a huge
difference.
Now, I have two questions for you. One is, tell me the
difference between doing mitigation on a very small scale
versus a landscape scale such as you are doing. And also, how
does what you are doing dovetail with or differ from current
policies?
Mr. Meyer. So really, all science today points to--and I
think Fish and Wildlife is accepting, beginning to accept
this--that, you think about it, the landscape scale per acre,
there is more for us to develop the larger your contiguous
property. We call it the economies of contiguousness. The
greater lift you get per acre for both habitat and species. And
since, if you read the rules, that this land has to be managed
in perpetuity for the species for which the mitigation predator
sold, by having all that in one area, it makes it more
economically viable not only to do it but the odds of success
for the future just really are greater, as opposed to having
small, 100-acre, fragmented, postage-stamp projects located all
through the State.
And it is important in Wyoming, if you think about it, to
locate these banks where there are very few to no oil and gas
or other carbon that could be extracted, which is why we picked
our ranches where we are, where we have them, which is, again,
in kind of an interval as far as an oil- and gas-free area.
As far as how does it differ from the current policy,
really I think that with the interim memorandum that I think
came out from Bureau of Land Management in May, they are
starting to see the idea that the Government can't do
everything, and for the first time they are also recognizing
the opportunity to mitigate for impacts on Federal land by
private property holders.
So I would really say the contiguousness, the big landscape
properties are important also to the rancher because Wyoming
ranching culture is such an important part of this State. It
allows ranches to become contiguous ranches, as opposed to
ranchettes. And for the sportsmen, it allows an area that is
really managed for game and fish. So the opportunity for
increased hunting opportunities and fishing opportunities is
something that will never be found when mitigation is done on
fragmented pieces of property.
Mrs. Lummis. So it monetizes the conservation of land.
Mr. Meyer. It allows the rancher to monetize the habitat
value of his ranch. That is correct.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. It is an impressive property, and I
hope you all get to see it at some point.
A question for Ms. Taylor. You mentioned predictive
modeling is never tested but it is used. So how can we set
recovery goals without predictive modeling? What would be a
good standard at the beginning of the listing process for what
constitutes recovery so they can't be automatically de-listed,
instead of having the constant moving of the goal posts when we
have already achieved the initial goal for de-listing?
Ms. Taylor. Well, I think there are two different things. I
think it may not have been clear. When I think about predictive
modeling, I go specifically back to either sage grouse or the
Preble's. In the recent de-listing or re-listing of Preble's
and the reevaluation of the 5-year status review that came out
in May of this year, they used predictive modeling to determine
population growth in the four southern counties of Wyoming
where the mouse lives and cited that a 20,000-person growth
over the next 30 years would be a negative impact on the
species. They also thought that the predictive modeling that
determined climate change or fire frequency over the next 50
years would be an issue for the species.
It is that kind of modeling, or the predictive modeling for
things like the sage grouse that says what the impacts are way
out over time. It is not based on the species and their
reactions but patterns. So that is what I am looking at.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you very much. My time has expired, and
I appreciate your clarification. Thank you.
The Chairman. We will surely have time for another round.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Lamborn from Colorado.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing.
I would ask unanimous consent that our whole opening
statements be included in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, that will be part of the
record.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
Commissioner Hendry, I am going to ask my first question to
you. I drove in from Laramie this morning, where my daughter
and her family live, and I just loved driving through your
county, the beautiful, wide-open spaces. You have a great place
here.
Mr. Hendry. Thank you, Representative, and we think we do.
We are right in the heart of Wyoming, and Casper right now is
doing pretty well.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, I want to compliment the whole State of
Wyoming because I think your policies are balancing
environmental concerns and energy and jobs and the things that
help make a better standard of living for people. You are a
State that gets it, and I wish Colorado could learn some things
from you.
And I want to thank Cynthia for playing a leading role in
helping to make that happen as we go forward.
Mr. Hendry. Well, our agriculture and tourism and oil and
gas and extracting industries, they not only make Wyoming
operate but they make the rest of the country operate as well.
Mr. Lamborn. Now, specifically, recently the Obama
administration finalized a rule ignoring significant opposing
comments in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and letters from
many of us in Congress on how it must conduct economic analyses
for critical habitat designations. The rule will require
Federal agencies administering the ESA to only analyze cost of
the actual habitat designation while ignoring all other costs
associated with listing a species. What would that do to rural
and western areas of our country?
Mr. Hendry. Well, Representative, I think that the socio-
economic factors in all things are something that the
Commissioners Association really pays attention to. Our
communities are based on these industries that we have here,
and if you list, say, the wolf, it is not only a detriment on
livestock but it is those dollars that turn over in the
economy, over and over. Those are the kinds of things that
affect our local economy. The Preble's mouse, they are talking
about some oil and gas, some shale development down in
southeastern Wyoming and Colorado. We could get into a deal
where they couldn't do some of that activity, the normal course
of human activity, because of that mouse, and that is economic
development in those areas.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you.
Ms. Taylor, I want to follow up with you on the mouse that
we are talking about. How would you characterize the current
trend of ESA sub-level species and distinct populations? How is
that going, and is that based on sound science?
Ms. Taylor. The mouse is an extremely interesting
discussion relative to genetics, the genetics work that has
been done. There was research in 1981 that led to a doctoral
thesis that demonstrates that, of the 19 different supposed
sub-species of the mouse, that there is really no valid sub-
species separation between them. Genetics work was done on a
number of mice, a huge number of mice, on tissue samples in
2003, and again this was determined that sub-species
designation of the Preble's was inappropriate.
A contingent of researchers was then hired by the Fish and
Wildlife Service to reevaluate all of that data, and they
determined that it was appropriate to have that sub-species.
The issue comes down to how we discuss genetics over time.
Are they individual races? Are they separate sub-species? Are
these things valid? And making determinations on a significant
portion of the range, which is what happened with Wyoming and
Colorado, can be important for separating out where a species
or sub-species might be at risk versus where it is not at risk,
and in Wyoming it is not at risk, and the Service has
documented that numerous times. Yet, they had to, through
litigation and the vacating of significant portion of the
range, had to re-list. So that is not appropriate.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Daines.
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to an outstanding panel. It makes me proud to be
a westerner, the way of life and the culture that we have. I
appreciate the comments, the passion, and the common sense that
we heard this morning. We don't hear that very often back in
Washington, DC, so thank you for that.
This issue, talking about the jumping mouse, talking about
the greater sage grouse, these are critically important issues.
I watched my State, the western part of our State, see its
industry decimated, and the ESA has been one of the
underpinning arguments by these fringe groups that is creating
wildfire risk. We have more active forest fires today in
Montana than anywhere else in the country, as we speak. These
issues we are talking about are critically important for our
future.
I would like to start off by directing a question here to
Mr. Hendry. I love the comment about the 40-year-old ESA, the
old pick-up, as far as ESA serving a useful purpose but in bad
need of repair. That is well said. Montana is undergoing its
own planning process for sage grouse conservation as we speak.
Could you reiterate for me the importance of the involvement of
local communities and industries in the planning process for
the greater sage grouse? We need to take some of this learning
certainly to Montana. If we could learn from you, what would
you say?
Mr. Hendry. Well, the sage grouse core area is--and Ms.
Taylor has been involved in this quite a bit also--developed
through government and everybody working together, developed a
plan that marked the core areas, the areas that sage grouse
could really utilize within the State. So if you decide to work
in that, if you have to work your energy in that area, ranching
or anything else, you have to adhere to certain rules that
protect that sage grouse.
Outside that area, there are still a few rules, but it is
not as intrusive, I guess, on your business. Although we have
about 70 percent, 60 to 70 percent public land, the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service, they treat the sage
grouse as if it was protected now. So it hampers our ability to
do business in those areas that are really not in our sage
grouse core areas.
But it was developed by the State of Wyoming and everybody
working together. Not all people like the sage grouse core area
strategy, but it is a strategy in order to try to keep that
bird from being listed.
Mr. Daines. We hunt sage grouse in Montana. I assume----
Mr. Hendry. We do here, too.
Mr. Daines. The season opened up 4 days ago, a two-bird
limit.
But I would like to ask a question of each of you that goes
back to this reform of the ESA. You all have been involved in
that process far more than any of us up here have been. I came
to Congress with a business background in the private sector,
and we focus on results and outcomes versus activities.
If you could change one thing to reform the ESA--we all
agree it is a 40-year-old process that needs reform. If you
want to volunteer a second level, I will take that as well.
What would it be? I will start with Mr. Hendry and work our way
across.
Mr. Hendry. I would say it would be tied to crucial habitat
for whatever species that you are talking about listing. That
can have far-reaching effects. So crucial habitat would be one
of them, and have that right up front so we know what we are
dealing with when the listing is put in.
Mr. Daines. I am out of time. We are going to have a second
round; is that right?
The Chairman. Finish that real quick.
Mr. Daines. All right.
Mr. Wharff?
Mr. Wharff. I guess, going back to my days in law
enforcement, I guess the one thing that I see lacking is the
common man principle. I mean, I think there are a lot of things
within the ESA that the common man theory would definitely
help, because some of the things just don't make sense that we
see being done under the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Daines. What would that specifically look like?
Mr. Wharff. I guess put common sense back into it. I think
that the ESA started out very good, and I think it has morphed,
as is typical with some government programs. I guess the nature
of the beast is to expand, mission creep, and I think we need
to push back and make it focus on what the purposes were, and I
think that is putting the common person back into it. If it
doesn't make sense, why do we do things? Sometimes I think that
is what is lacking.
Mr. Daines. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Taylor? This is hard, I know.
Ms. Taylor. I would go back to actually something that
Meghan said and I think that others said, and that is that when
there is a State conservation program where the State has
worked to develop with its folks a State conservation program,
the Service should be required to follow that. They should
acknowledge it, they should accept it, and they should watch
how it plays out over time.
Mr. Daines. Thank you.
Mr. Meyer?
Mr. Meyer. The ESA should be based on science and not
politics.
Mr. Daines. Thank you.
Ms. Lally?
Ms. Lally. I will reflect what Renee said.
Mr. Daines. Can you pull the microphone closer, Ms. Lally?
Thank you.
Ms. Lally. I will reflect what Renee said. State-based
collaborative processes done by people within the State that
know what is important are what need to be followed.
Mr. Daines. Thank you.
The Chairman. I will now recognize myself.
I want to ask this question specifically to Ms. Lally and
Mr. Meyer. In previous testimony in front of our committee, and
I have said this publicly, it seems to me that the ESA has
become a litigant's dream. That is where all of the activity
is. And two of the major litigants, the Center for Biologic
Diversity and the Western Watershed, both of them say that they
have to have their lawsuits. Otherwise, conservation would
never happen on whatever species they are trying to effect.
So what is your response to those who are always litigants?
Would any conservation happen lacking Federal threats of
litigation?
We will start with you, Ms. Lally.
Ms. Lally. Well, I will go back to the example that I am
fairly familiar with on the wild sheep. Wyoming came up with a
plan, and it was a plan that was agreed on by the domestic
industry, environmental groups, as well as the Wild Sheep
Foundation, and it was working. The wild sheep were protected,
and so was domestic industry. When the lawsuit took place by
the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance using Western Watershed
lawyers, all of a sudden everybody said, well, this doesn't
hold in the Wyoming plan.
The Game and Fish Department would like to reintroduce wild
sheep in other portions of Wyoming. If this happens, it will be
fought tooth and nail to allow another wild sheep anywhere else
in Wyoming, and those wild sheep that will be introduced will
increase the population exponentially more than can occur that
is currently not doing well anyway.
The Chairman. So, if I understand this correctly, what you
are saying is you would have a disproportionate population of
wild sheep that probably could not be sustained from your
perspective. Does that----
Ms. Lally. The Game and Fish has decided that that herd
cannot thrive. They have never done well since they were
introduced in the 1970s. They have never done very well, and
they would prefer to focus on populations that are thriving and
growing, as opposed to populations that are contracting. And so
to say 50 to 70 sheep, they want to basically hijack the
process so that those 70 sheep can survive and no other sheep
can be introduced anywhere else because nobody else will allow
it.
The Chairman. OK, thank you.
Mr. Meyer?
Mr. Meyer. I grew up in a farming community in Iowa, very
similar I think to the ranching community here. We grew up and
I hunted, I fished almost every day of the year, with or
without lawsuits or anything else. If you are a rancher, it is
part of your culture to maintain the wildlife on your ranch. I
mean, it is like you are going to do it whether--if somebody
tells you I won't like it very much, but you are going to do it
anyway.
So, I believe that ranchers and really user groups, Ducks
Unlimited and the success that they have, the Rocky Mountain
Elk Foundation, have had a great impact because we are the
folks who are really out on the land and the ones that are
recreating. So it is hard for me to imagine that under any
circumstances we would want to damage the thing that we enjoy
most.
The Chairman. I kind of suspected that would be your
answer. I mentioned that I come from central Washington. It is
the Columbia Basin Project and the Yakima Valley Project in our
district. Those were our very first agriculture areas that were
irrigated, and I have always felt that the farmers are the best
stewards of the land, because if you are not a steward of your
land, you are not going to have a crop. And these crops are
rotated on a regular basis for a variety of reasons, and so
forth. But I always thought the notion that a farmer would go
out and waste a whole bunch of money on pesticides or something
like that, which is the perception in some parts of the world,
is totally erroneous.
But to your point, Ms. Lally, what you are simply saying, I
think, if I can capsulize that, is these decisions, if they can
be made on a local level, are probably better for whomever is
affected by these decisions. Is that a fair assessment of where
you are coming from?
Ms. Lally. Absolutely, as well as the wildlife.
The Chairman. OK. My time is now expired, and so we will
start a second round.
Mrs. Lummis, you are recognized.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask whether primacy at the State level, as
is sometimes used for environmental regulations, would be
something that would be useful for inclusion in the Endangered
Species Act, the notion that the State can take primacy from
the Federal Government in the implementation through, for
example, a habitat conservation plan. Would anyone just
volunteer to answer that?
Ms. Taylor. I think the concept of primacy relative to the
Endangered Species Act is one that is very intriguing. I am not
sure where the State of Wyoming would come up with the funds to
be able to afford it. We would have to look at that very
closely, because right now it is the sportsmen who provide the
funding for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and right now
the Wyoming Game and Fish Department is who is managing sage
grouse and the gray wolf and the grizzly bear.
The whole idea of primacy goes back to what we were saying
about if the States have a valid conservation program, it
should be accepted and allowed to play out, and that is already
allowed within the Endangered Species Act. We should accept it
and we should strengthen that.
Mrs. Lummis. Ms. Lally, you mentioned that approving
habitat projects is too slow at the Federal level.
Ms. Lally. We have an old ditch on our ranch. It was hand-
dug by mules by my great-grandfather. And we are slowly piping
it in order to strengthen the ditch and also increase
efficiency so there is less water loss to evaporation.
So we applied for NRCS money to do that, and we were told
by an NRCS archaeologist that they would need to take a year to
do a study because that is an historic structure.
Mrs. Lummis. The ditch is an historic structure.
Ms. Lally. The ditch is an historic structure. That ditch
has been in nearly continuous use the whole time. So all of a
sudden there are all these extra hurdles put in so that we are
not able to get work that we know will help the wildlife.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Meyer, you created wetlands in Sweetwater,
and you have also altered spring ditches to make improvements
in the water quality. Could you explain a little bit about
that?
Mr. Meyer. Sure. So one of our goals is to--in Wyoming in
the wintertime when it snows, and in the spring runoff, a lot
of the irrigation ditches that used to be streamed--and for
good reason, they were irrigation ditches, because the ranchers
use them to irrigate their crops. So what we try to do is we
try to reengineer the streams to the way they were, but at the
same time put in high water efficiency techniques; for
instance, rubberizing the ditches before they get into the
actual captures. They can save sometimes 50 percent of your
water. So that at the end you have more water for the fish, and
cleaner water, and more sub-irrigation for your ranch, as well
as a higher, efficient use of the water rights that the ranch
internally owns.
So really we just try to--and a lot of ranchers are still
watering kind of like the Egyptians used to do, with flood
irrigation. And all we are trying to do is figure out how to
kind of balance what the fish and wildlife needs with what the
rancher needs, and in most cases we are seeing more tonnage
grown per acre just by using the new techniques and using our
water more efficiently.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Wharff, can you mention some environmental
groups that you have been able to work with to help recover
species or decline opportunities for hunting with them, a
species recovery exercise?
Mr. Wharff. That is difficult. I work with a lot of
different groups, and I think the biggest challenge is pulling
everybody to the middle. Any time you get to extremes, that is
when you kind of tend to tread in dangerous territory. But I
honestly can't think of a lot of groups who have actually sat
down and came to resolutions. To me, it is a process, and I
really have not felt like most of the environmental groups are
actually looking to see species removed. I think they prefer to
keep them listed. It is a cash cow in many instances.
But I guess it depends, too, on how you look at some
groups. Some groups are classified as conservation groups,
whereas in my opinion they are probably more environmental
oriented.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I recognize Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wharff, I would like to follow up with you on some
points you raised earlier. I think there are some
inconsistencies with the Endangered Species Act that need to be
addressed as we look to make it better.
Are there species that are considered threatened or
endangered in the United States that are found more commonly in
other countries such as Canada?
Mr. Wharff. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As that map demonstrates,
the gray wolf is probably the most offensive thing that I have
seen. First of all, it is a species--we had populations of
native wolves that were here. They say it was actually made in
1937, yet we had confirmed sightings in 1993. To me, that is
the tragedy. We brought a species of this, looking at the map,
that was anything but threatened on a worldwide basis, and look
what we put at risk. Those species that I identified--the elk,
the moose, and the big horns--Mr. Hendry here can tell you what
the costs are to the livestock because we know how many we
have.
Wildlife management is not an exact science. We have no
idea of the exact cost. But to me, that is the best example
that I see, is a species where the actions weren't really
warranted, in my opinion. When you look at the cost imposed
upon the States that are burdened, it makes absolutely no sense
to me.
Mr. Lamborn. Does the Fish and Wildlife Service introduce
animals into areas and then say these are to be protected even
when that is not their original habitat?
Mr. Wharff. Mr. Chairman, yes. My understanding is some of
the States have been told that the Mexican gray wolf--I know
some of my friends in Utah told me the Mexican gray wolf has
never been documented in that State, that they are being
threatened with being saddled with recovery of that species of
wolf that historically has never had any record that it existed
in that State.
Mr. Lamborn. Do you know anything about the snowshoe lynx?
Mr. Wharff. I can't say that I do. I know about the history
of snowshoes and the lynx, but I don't know about a snowshoe
lynx.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wharff. I am sorry.
Mr. Lamborn. There is some concern that it is being
introduced into areas where it was never originally found, and
now there is an obligation to keep it protected with its impact
on tourism, fishing, hiking, hunting, energy, and all these
other ramifications.
Mr. Wharff. I keep going back to the wolf, Mr. Chairman,
because, to me, that is the one I am most familiar with. This
is a species that hunts in larger packs than the species that
are wildlife-evolved. The species they brought from the north
is a little bit bigger because they are in northern climates.
They are more conditioned to hunt in packs, and there are added
advantages that they have that our species are forced to
contend with, and it does upset that balance when you take
something that wasn't indigenous and force it. It gets right
back to the people who live with that burden are the ones who
are obligated and tasked with recovery. In some instances, it
may not really be a species that really fits.
Mr. Lamborn. Is there any resistance among environmental
advocacy groups to practice--like the State of Colorado, for
instance--of raising endangered and threatened species, like
fish species, in captivity and then releasing them into the
wild to buildup the population? I think we have learned that is
not always embraced by environmental groups. Do you have any
insight on that?
Mr. Wharff. Mr. Chairman, I guess there is a link that when
it is reared by them, that it loses its wild significance. But
I like what Wyoming was able to accomplish with the black-
footed ferret. That is a species that Wyoming saved, the black-
footed ferret, not the Endangered Species Act. I do think that
is the thing that is important. I think we have to think
outside the box sometimes and see what works.
There is a reluctance, and of course you do run into issues
with contamination and disease. There are a lot of factors when
we start talking about raising things. Natural systems work
best. They are more cost-efficient. But, yes, I look at some of
these and question that if, in fact, the true goal is recovery,
I would think anything that we can do to recover that species
should be pursued, within reason.
Mr. Lamborn. Absolutely, and why it is not always embraced,
I don't understand. If, like you said, you really want to
conserve that species, that is what we are really after. Thank
you.
Mr. Wharff. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Daines?
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We kind of talked about the lack of clarity with the ESA in
terms of what constitutes recovery to get these species de-
listed. Mr. Meyer, in your testimony you talk about protection
of critical habitat, what needs to be done to receive permanent
approval on a project in critical habitat. You talk about how
the developer must minimize the impact of the area. You mention
in your testimony there are not clear guidelines which can make
achieving habitat protection and conservation through adequate
level difficult. Your testimony also focused on solutions
oriented more toward local ranchers.
So my question is, how important is it to the local land
users, the ranchers, the resource developers, et cetera, to
have the flexibility to conserve or improve the land to the
appropriate standards that best fits their land use purposes?
Mr. Meyer. Let me see if I got that question. I will give
you my answer. My feeling on it is that we are all blessed by
different things. Some ranches are blessed with oil and gas,
and others are blessed with sage grouse habitat. And I guess it
is my belief that the rancher who is blessed with sage grouse
habitat and not oil and gas should have the opportunity to
monetize that habitat as opposed to being penalized and not
being able to do anything with it. That is really kind of what
we are trying to do.
We have met with, I would say, 80 percent of the energy
companies within Wyoming who are all very supportive because
what they want to do--the perception is that the energy
companies want to destroy the environment, which is kind of
ridiculous at this point, right? But they want to extract
energy and make money for their shareholders, and they want a
clear-cut way to be able to do that, and all we are trying to
offer is a better mouse trap, and our better mouse trap is why
don't you go to where you have large areas of great habitat and
allow those areas to be paid by the private developers to
offset their impacts where they are drilling a well or putting
in a horizontal platform?
Currently, and I think I am right on this, I think there is
a 5 percent--is that what it is?--5 percent inside a section
that you can use, but that includes all historical impacts. So
that includes the ditch your great-grandfather dug. It is not
new impacts that the energy company has. It is new impacts on
top of all historical impacts. So in many cases, especially on
Federal land, it almost makes a site unpermittable.
So all we are trying to do is really offer a solution to
that. And as Congressman Lummis said, conservation for the 21st
century. I believe it can be private based. It does not need to
be government based. The government is good to assist, but I
don't know that everybody has to have their hand held as we
walk down the path together.
Mr. Daines. It reminds me of the two biggest lies that we
hear in Montana and Wyoming. The first one is when somebody
from DC comes and says, ``We are here to help.'' And the second
one is when Montanans and Wyomingites say, ``We are glad you
are here.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Daines. In light of the complexity that you face, I
know you talked about political science versus good science as
it relates to species recovery. Mr. Wharff, I think you made a
comment about ravens and sage grouse. Could you develop that a
little more? Because I have spent time with multi-generational
ranchers up in Montana who will tell you that coyote
populations, the predator populations with bird raptors, is a
significant factor in terms of where sage grouse populations
are allowed to go down. But are we introducing ravens? I would
like to get your comments there.
Mr. Wharff. You bet, Mr. Chairman, Representative Daines.
That is one of the problems. The Mexican Bird Treaty protects
the raven, and it is a treaty that Congress entered into, and
it was probably a good thing to do. My recollection was that it
was also a way for us to protect the bald eagle, so it was a
good treaty, but there are consequences to that.
We found that with the ravens, they used to be more
migratory in nature, and you are starting to see that in some
climates they are not migrating anymore. They are starting to
impact and displace native birds that used to use those ranges,
and we are starting to find that a lot of the impacts that we
are seeing with sage grouse are attributed to ravens. It is one
of those things a lot of people don't think about. They invade
the nest, and they will invade the young as well.
So that is one of the problems that I see. I think we have
all these good intentions and have done all these things, but
nobody has looked at collectively, as a whole, how these things
are packaged together. That is why, when you talk about single-
species management, that is the big flaw I see in the
Endangered Species Act, that nothing is managed by itself. We
have all different species that are dependent upon those
specific ecosystems, and any time we start providing protection
for one species over another, you do upset the balance.
That is one thing we are starting to see. As I mentioned,
ravens are not migrating. We are starting to see them
establishing in areas where they used to not be, that they just
kind of pass through. So there are impacts to those
protections, and I don't know that anybody has ever looked
collectively at how those things all come together. That is one
of the big problems I see. I don't know if that answers it.
Mr. Daines. It does. One more comment, and then I am done.
I appreciate that comment, too, that there is always political
science going on back in the Beltway. But we need good, sound
peer review, and I think we can make some progress here. So,
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. In the testimony where you mentioned the
raven, it reminded me that I mentioned in my opening comment
that I come from Washington State, where the timber industry
has declined, the timber harvest on Federal land has declined
by 90 percent because of the spotted owl. Recently, it was
discovered that it was not the lack of old growth that caused
the demise of the spotted owl but rather the barred owl, to
which the Fish and Wildlife solution was to shoot the barred
owl. That is just not common sense. I mean, that just tells you
what is wrong. A whole industry has gone away. We have seen
that go away.
I want to follow up on something that you had mentioned.
You mentioned that if the law could be followed, and you cited
a specific timeframe, that a lot of this litigation could be
avoided. Could you elaborate on that and maybe explain, if that
is the case, then why are we in this situation? What is
lacking, I guess?
Ms. Taylor. Unfortunately, I think what is lacking is a
focus in the way the Fish and Wildlife Service does its
business that they address petitions when they come in. There
is a petition to list, a petition to de-list. The act does
contain timeframes, and you end up with litigation when the
Service does not follow those timeframes.
The Chairman. You mean misses a deadline?
Ms. Taylor. Misses a deadline, correct. The act does
provide legal fodder when it says we will act in 90 days. I
think it says ``if feasible'' or something like that. There are
90-day deadlines. There are 12-month deadlines. There are a
number of different deadlines depending on the portion of the
process that you are in. One of them comes back to 5-year
reviews or the reviews of species that are determined to be
warranted but precluded from listing, and that is a lot of what
gives fodder to litigation. You didn't follow that, you didn't
meet that deadline; therefore, we are going to force you to
meet that deadline.
I am not an advocate for growing the size of the Fish and
Wildlife Service. I think that the whole concept of perhaps
looking at primacy is not a bad one from the standpoint of
being able to say to the States let's look at what is going on
in your area relative to the way you are managing a species or
how you could manage a species so that you can address these
things on your basis in a more efficient manner.
The Chairman. Well, you mentioned that you are not a fan of
opening up the ESA because it may be overtaken by special
interest groups. I suppose with any law, there is a threat of
that. But if this part of the law is failing because of
timeframes, there must be some way, it seems to me, to tighten
that up so that won't happen. Now, I don't know what it is, but
the way it is right now, it is subject to political pressure;
i.e., if you don't want to do anything, you purposely miss a
timeframe, opening up a lawsuit. So nothing gets done.
So there has to be a way, it seems to me, and that would,
of course, mean opening it up, which is a problem. Would you
acknowledge that?
Ms. Taylor. I do. I mean, on the one hand, for 30 years I
have worked with the ESA, and we have talked many times about
potentially opening it up. But then you get to this fear, and
that is what it is, of the process being overtaken and coopted
by what I will call the conservation NGO's. They have so much
power within the process right now. In fact, they control, in
many cases, the peer-review literature. So there is a whole lot
of problem with the way the agencies go forward, and you are
correct, they delay making decisions so that they can get a
lawsuit. We see that in many different aspects of the Federal
Government. I mean, the Clean Air Act is a perfect example of
that also.
The Chairman. Well, I guess my point is I was just
intrigued by your final statement, you are not a fan of opening
it up. Yet, we have problems that we are going to have to
somehow address. That is what we are trying to ascertain with
these hearings, because the law has not been reauthorized for
25 years, and yet we still enforce it. I dare say if you walk
down any main street in any town in Wyoming, or probably any
town in this country, and say that there is a law on the books
that has not been reauthorized for 25 years, should we enforce
it, I doubt if you would get more than 1 or 2 percent to say
no, it hasn't been reauthorized. Yet the way we budget back
there, because we fund it, it is de-facto reauthorized, and
that presents a problem to us to get the other side to sit down
and have meaningful discussions.
Well, my time has expired, and we are going to have to
leave to go up to Billings. I want to thank the panel very,
very much for your testimony. If you have additional thoughts
on what was said, if something sparks you, don't hesitate.
Please communicate that with us.
Likewise, if we have a question that comes up in our minds
that we want to get back to you and ask, please respond in a
timely manner to our requests, too.
And for members of the audience, if you would like to weigh
in, you can go to the Natural Resources Committee, go to the
Web site. I don't know how to do that, but my staff does.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And I know it works because people are
communicating with us all the time, so I know it works. So I
would certainly invite all of you to participate in any way
that you feel.
I also want to say that this is a full committee hearing.
Most people recognize that committees are bipartisan in nature.
We opened up an invitation to the other side. They could have
had witnesses in both this hearing and the hearing we are going
to have in Billings. They declined the invitation. So if it
sounds like this is only one-sided, I want to tell everybody
that this was open. It was designed to be open. This is a full
committee hearing for the Natural Resources Committee.
So, with that, once again I want to thank the panelists.
You have been a very good audience. I want to thank you for
being here, and I want to thank my colleagues also for being
here. We will pack up and head up to Billings, and hopefully we
will have another robust discussion, as we had here.
So if there is no further business to come before the
committee, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:37 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
# # #
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON STATE AND LOCAL EFFORTS TO PROTECT SPECIES,
JOBS, PROPERTY, AND MULTIPLE USE AMIDST A NEW WAR ON THE WEST PART II
----------
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Billings, Montana
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in Cisel
Hall, Montana State University-Billings, 1500 University Drive,
Billings, Montana, Doc Hastings [Chairman of the committee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings, Daines, Cramer, Lamborn,
and Lummis.
The Chairman. Good afternoon. May I ask everyone to please
rise for the posting of the colors?
Relax. Not quite yet. We are missing one person. There you
go. Thank you. Gentlemen will hold off. Marines will hold off
for just a moment before you post the--there it is.
The House Committee on Natural Resources will come to
order. The committee is meeting today in Billings to hear
testimony on a hearing called ``State and Local Efforts to
Protect Species, Jobs, Property, and Multiple Use Amidst a New
War on the West.''
Now, by way of introduction, I am Congressman Doc Hastings
from the State of Washington. I represent the 4th District,
which, for those of you familiar with Washington, it is central
Washington from the Tri-Cities to the Oregon border. And
Washington State over the years, not exclusively, but certainly
has been affected greatly by the Endangered Species Act. We
have an ongoing discussion or battle, I might say, as far as
the salmon on the Columbia River and its tributaries. And some
20 years ago or more, we had the spotted owl, and we are still
suffering from that. So I am familiar with the impacts that the
Endangered Species Act would have.
So I am very pleased to be joined by four of my colleagues
on the House Natural Resources Committee: Congressman Steve
Daines from Montana, your Congressman, Doug Lamborn, who is a
Congressman from the 5th District in Colorado, Cynthia Lummis
from Wyoming, also an at-large Member, and Kevin Cramer from
North Dakota. So I am very pleased that they are here with me
today.
But now I would like to defer to my colleague, Mr. Daines,
for introductions and the posting of the colors. Mr. Daines?
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is good to be
here in Montana. I think most of us here in Montana believe
that Washington, DC should look more like Montana, not the
other way around.
Well, being that this is a congressional hearing, we are
going to begin as we do with every session of the House of
Representatives with the posting of the colors and the Pledge
of Allegiance.
Please join me in standing to recognize the Eugene Sara
Detachment of the Marine Corps League in Billings, who will
post the colors. And Tom Hanel, the Mayor of Billings, will
lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
[Posting of Colors.]
[Pledge of Allegiance.]
Mr. Daines. Thank you, and you may be seated, please.
I now recognize the Mayor of Billings, Tom Hanel, for a few
opening remarks.
Mayor Hanel. Thank you, Congressman Daines, and thank you,
each and every one, for being here today. Our special guests,
welcome to Billings. Welcome to Montana, a beautiful city.
I would like to say on behalf of the City of Billings, and
also a special welcome to all of our guests in the audience,
here for such a special meeting. We are very appreciative of
also MSUB for hosting this meeting. I want to wish each and
every one of you the very best.
And, of course, to our special guests, safe travels to and
from. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Chairman. This hearing, let me just briefly say how the
process works here. When we have committee meetings in
Washington, DC and subcommittee meetings, members generally
make an opening statement not to exceed 5 minutes. We try very
hard to keep that within 5 minutes. And we do it by seniority.
So since I am the Chairman, I am obviously the most senior
member, and I get to start. That is only fair, I think. So when
I come with a different lineup here, what you are seeing is the
seniority of the members on the Natural Resources Committee.
So let me start by saying that this afternoon's hearing is
the second oversight hearing that we have had today. We were in
Casper, Wyoming earlier, for a hearing on the Endangered
Species Act. And it is another important opportunity to hear
specifically from interests that are directly affected by it.
The Endangered Species Act or ESA Working Group that I and
Congressman Lummis co-chair, has received hundreds of comments
from individuals seeking to reform the ESA. In the coming
weeks, the ESA Working Group will hold additional forums to
ensure broader input from all areas that are affected by this
sweeping law.
Ramped up ESA listings and habitat designations through
executive orders in closed door settlements, like the mega
settlement in 2011 by certain litigious groups, are affecting
private landowners. They are having effects on multiple uses of
public lands, Federal lands. It is having effects on
agriculture, rural economies, rural timber communities, energy
producers lately, and even some States' own species
conservation activities.
Montana is certainly one State in the forefront of ESA's
impacts. Environmental groups have filed at least 29 ESA-
related lawsuits and more than a dozen lawsuits against the
Forest Service in Montana over just the past 2 years. Earlier
this year, groups sued the Forest Service to block a forest
thinning project that would lessen the impact of wildfires in
Kootenai Natural Forest.
Threats of lawsuits are delaying job-producing activities
for years, such as a mining project in Lincoln County, that
have gone through an extensive ESA and NEPA analyses. BLM claim
sage grouse are distributed over an astounding 258,000 square
miles in portions of 11 States. In Montana, BLM has identified
nearly 3 million acres of priority area for sage grouse habitat
in portions of 39 of your counties, including oil and natural
gas resources in the Williston and Powder River Basins.
Energy producers that support thousands of Montana and
North Dakota jobs are concerned with the potential future lease
rights in these areas. Ranchers and sportsmen are justifiably
concerned about the impacts of grazing and access as well.
Three years ago, this administration's Fish and Wildlife
Service determined sage grouse ranked relatively low in
priority of candidate species needing Federal protection. Yet
the Interior Department negotiated two ESA mega settlements
with litigious groups without any input from Congress, without
input from affected States, without input from local entities,
and started a clock to force hundreds of listings and millions
of acres of habitat designations, all for the sage grouse. This
is simply not good public policy and demonstrates why ESA is in
need of improvement.
I was greatly concerned that a few months ago, BLM issued
thousands of pages of Montana resource plans containing
sweeping sage grouse measures and shut off public input after
just 3 short months. They even refused the Montana delegations
to extend public comment. Decisions of this magnitude should
not be restricted by environmental lawyers, court calendars, or
Federal bureaucrats' marching orders from Washington, DC.
More concerning are the continuing serious unanswered
question about BLM's lack of data and science supporting the
National Technical Team, or NTT, and other conservation
measures BLM and Fish and Wildlife claim are needed for the
greater sage grouse.
Recent communications received through the Freedom of
Information Act, or FOIA, requested through the State of Idaho
suggests potentially serious interference by Interior
Department officials leading to the sage grouse initiative.
Now, if there is interference, and I am not drawing a
conclusion today, but that certainly undermines the credibility
of the science use for Federal sage grouse resources. So this
committee has found that very, very troubling.
Now, I understand as we are holding this hearing, members
of the Governor's Montana Sage Grouse Advisory Committee are
meeting to discuss their State's, this State's, conservation
efforts. Hopefully their efforts will culminate in development
of a much more balanced plan than what the Federal Government's
plans are from what we know right now. So I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today and having a robust discussion
on ways that we can improve the Endangered Species Act.
And with that, we will go by seniority, as I said, and I
will recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lummis--or Mr.
Lamborn. Lummis is next.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Is this working? Is that better? OK, thank
you.
Well, it is great to be here in the beautiful State of
Montana, and I appreciate the leading role that my colleague,
Representative Steve Daines, has shown on our committee in
dealing with these vital issues surrounding our Nation's
resources.
Today the House Natural Resources Committee continues our
oversight of the Endangered Species Act with a specific focus
on State and local efforts to protect species, as well as jobs
and private property rights.
The Obama administration through Executive orders, Federal
regulation, and settlement driven ESA listings, and habitat
designations, is unfortunately waging a renewed war on the
West, and has literally shut out Congress, States, local
communities, private landowners, and even scientists who may
dispute the often unreliable or unverifiable data used for
these decisions.
Although borne of the best intentions, the Endangered
Species Act has failed to live up to its promise. Although the
act was intended to recover species, less than 1 percent--1
percent--of the total number of U.S. species listed have ever
been recovered and removed from the list. Of those delisted,
most were removed from the list due to data errors or other
factors.
Many view the enforcement of the ESA as being driven by
litigation or the threat of litigation, which in turn distracts
from species conservation. Due to rigid timelines, vague
definitions in the act, and the propensity of some
environmental organizations to sue the Federal agencies as a
way of generating taxpayer funded revenue, the ESA has been
taken over by lawsuits, settlements, and judicial action.
Many of these lawsuits have recently been wrapped up into
two so-called mega settlements between the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Center for Biological Diversity and Wild Earth
Guardians. Recently, the Fish and Wildlife Service Director
told Western Governors that the mega settlements have helped
decrease the amount of deadline lawsuits by environmental
groups. However, these self-imposed deadlines are creating
legal dilemmas for the Service on decisions whether and when to
list more than 750 new species, and to designate millions of
acres of habitat over the next 4 years.
The Obama administration has also dramatically increased
the designation of critical habitat, and has imposed actions
that have been detrimental to economic growth. Here are some
examples: BLM has acknowledged that its strict guidance with
regard to the sage grouse has led to the deferral of more than
700 oil and gas leases in Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and my own
State of Colorado; delay of more than 35 grazing permit
renewals in Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming;
more than seven electricity rights of way in Idaho and Wyoming;
and denial of numerous coal bed natural gas and mining permits
in Wyoming.
It should be possible to balance environmental protection
and economic growth.
I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses and
learning more about the efforts of the State of Montana and its
local communities to protect endangered species, while at the
same protecting private property rights and ensuring economic
growth.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his testimony, and
I will recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming, Mrs. Lummis.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Mrs. Lummis. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank Congressman Steve Daines and the people of Montana for
inviting us and warmly welcoming us for this hearing today. It
is an honor and a pleasure to serve with Steve Daines on the
House Natural Resources Committee, and to work with him on
issues of mutual concern to our adjacent States. He does a
wonderful job on behalf of the people of Montana. And, Steve,
thank you for your courtesy and including us in this hearing
today.
I also want to acknowledge my thanks to the Chairman of the
House Natural Resources Committee, Doc Hastings, who not only
chairs the committee, but co-chairs with me an effort to have a
better Endangered Species Act, one that serves mankind and the
flora and fauna that we so rely on and love as we try to make
the Endangered Species Act work better.
During the first half of the 20th century, there were
beliefs that we had bountiful, unlimited natural resources. And
when we reached the middle of the 20th century, we began to see
that there were limits to our natural resources. There are
limits to clean air, clean water, to species, and to the
environment that they rely on, and the habitat they need. But
we responded with a command and control structure out of
Washington, DC with rules drafted by people who have never been
on the ground and never seen the species that they were
affecting. We now have policy by litigation, policy that is
made by courts and by lawyers, and not by policymakers or
policy implementers, not by county commissioners, not people
who use these resources.
I am very anxious to find a 21st century conservation
strategy that will have robust conservation of species, and
particularly their habitat, which is absolutely necessary to
preserve those species, and at the same time, that allows for
wise use of our lands by the people who rely on it for jobs and
to have a robust economy. And I look very much forward to the
testimony of our panel here in Montana.
Earlier today in Casper, Wyoming, we heard from some real
innovators in public policy on the ground, boots on the ground
conservation, not conservation litigation in the courtroom, not
policies, but practices on the land that conserve species,
conserve habitat, and make it possible for mankind to share
these wonderful, bountiful resources once again through sound
science, through landowner and locally driven practices. Our
panel today will define for us additional innovations that we
can take with us as we attempt to have a strong, robust,
practice, common sense, science-based Endangered Species Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady for her comments and
opening statement.
And now I will recognize somebody that you are all familiar
with, as we say, the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Daines.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE DAINES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Daines. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
agreeing to host this hearing here in Montana this afternoon,
and I want to thank my colleagues for being here as well. We
are surrounded by some great States here. I got North Dakota,
Wyoming, Washington, and Colorado, so we are in good company
here today. Thanks for coming up to Montana.
I also want to extend a special thanks to the Chancellor of
MSU-Billings, Mr. Groseth. Rolf and Janie are friends of ours
going back to longer than probably we want to admit, but it is
good to have this facility. Thank you for allowing us to be
here.
I am truly grateful that so many people have traveled from
so far away to join me to address a very important issue
affecting Montanans, and this is the abuse of the Endangered
Species Act. This law is well intentioned. This is about trying
to find reforms to the ESA going forward.
I just heard the other day from a rancher--when you think
about the ESA, it was crafted in 1973, so the ESA is now 40
years old. He said, it is like a 40-year ranch pickup. It
served a useful purpose, but it is in bad need of repair. I
think that sums it up. It is well intentioned, but we need to
bring some balance back to the ESA. And as we are going to see
here today, it is harmful to many livelihoods here in Montana.
Now, like many in the audience here and most Montanans, we
are avid outdoors people. We love the outdoors. That is what
keeps us here. And when we built our company in Bozeman, our
recruiting Web site was, ``iloveitthere.com.'' We used to say
``Work, where you also like to play.'' But there is a balance
here. We want to be able to play in the outdoors as outdoors
people, but we also need jobs. You cannot play in the outdoors
unless you have got a job here to stay in Montana. I think we
can strike a better balance in this regard.
For better or for worse, the wildlife and the environment
that supports it are central to our way of life in Montana. As
our witnesses are going to attest to later today, our land,
living in concert with a very diverse wildlife we are fortunate
to have here in Montana, allow us to grow commodities that feed
the entire world, develop minerals that provide economic
security for our State and for our jobs for our kids, and
provide recreational opportunities that are truly second to
none. All of us know if you are flying this time, that last
leg, whether it is Salt Lake to Montana or Minneapolis or
Denver, about half the folks getting on the planes right now
are carrying a fly rod. In the fall, about half the folks are
wearing camo. In the winter time, they are carrying ski boots.
People want to come to Montana because of the incredible
quality of life that we have.
However, in August we have seen firsthand the devastation
from wildfires. So far this year, nearly 100,000 acres have
burned in Montana so far. Nationwide the problem gets even
bigger. I just got the update here this morning: 466,000 acres
have burned during this season. Wildfires threaten communities.
In fact, as of yesterday, Montana had the largest fires in the
Nation, in our State. The fires destroyed a forest where many
of us love to recreate and where our unique wildlife lives, not
to mention the threats to watersheds and so forth, as well as
the air. I think the frustration for many of us is we have got
bureaucrats back in Washington, DC that are not waking up and
breathing the smoke-filled air that we breathe out here in
Montana as a result of ravaging wildfires.
We once boasted in Montana a very strong timber industry.
It helped maintain healthy forests, supported jobs, provided a
steady revenue stream for our counties and our schools. Today,
timber harvests are down 90 percent from when I was a kid. A
U.S. Forest Service official recently acknowledged that the
abundance of litigation has played a huge role in blocking
responsible timber sales in Montana and other Region 1 States,
including projects supported by collaborative efforts,
consisting of timber as well as conservation leaders.
In fiscal year 2012, and so far this year, 40 percent of
the projects, the timber projects, in Region 1 of the Forest
Service have been appealed or litigated. Many of the lawsuits
are fueled by the Endangered Species Act. The outgoing Deputy
Interior Secretary, David Hayes, recently declared that
critical habitat designations have been ``fish in the barrel
litigation for folks.'' And unfortunately, it is the trial
lawyers that are winning in this battle, and oftentimes
Montanans are losing.
I am concerned that some of the fires existing on Federal
Forest Service land could be prevented. We could reduce some of
that risk if the Forest Service managed the forests the way
they should.
The saw mill project near Cedar Lake is a perfect example.
I was at that saw mill the day after the court order came down
that stopped that project. It was a collaborative project that
was appealed by a fringe extreme group, and it was stopped.
This project amongst timber and conservation leaders was
blocked based on the 9th Circuit Court. It was a decision that
found the Forest Service had not fully analyzed its potential
impact on the Canadian lynx and ESA protected species since
2000. The failure to recover this species is symptomatic of the
ESA's poor record.
Meanwhile, as of April 2012, fringe groups have won $1.2
million from the taxpayer coffers. Now, tell me, how will
burdensome paperwork for a non-controversial sale, whose merits
are supported by conservationists and loggers alike, how is
that harmful to a species? Was conservation of the species
really the goal?
In northwest Montana, the Montanore Mining Project has been
trying to get off the ground for 8 years. This project will
create over 400 jobs in the Lincoln County with double digit
unemployment. In my view, this project should have been started
years ago. Today the project is still held up and is now
becoming almost economically impossible for the company due to
the existence of the grizzly bear habitat. Similarly, jobs at
the Wild Bend Mining Company are at risk because of the ESA.
These examples just scratch the surface of the ESA's impact
here in Montana.
Now, in conclusion, part of the focus today is the
potential listing of the greater sage grouse. I would like to
enter into the record Governor Bullock's letter describing his
commitment to finding a Montana solution to this potential
listing.
The Chairman. It will be part of the record, without
objection.
Mr. Daines. And comments from the Montana Electric
Cooperative Association addressing how a sage grouse listing
would make power for their customers more expensive.
[The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Daines follow:]
Letter Submitted for the Record by The Honorable Steve Bullock,
Governor
State of Montana,
Helena, MT, September 3, 2013.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources.
Re: Oversight Field Hearing in Billings, Montana, September 4, 2013
statement of montana governor steve bullock
I welcome members of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee to
the State of Montana. Thank you for coming to our State to learn about
the State's efforts to protect the Greater Sage-grouse.
We Montanans work best when we work together to solve problems. As
westerners, we've always had to rely on each other, regardless of our
political views. That's especially the case now with the serious
gridlock and partisanship that continues to plague Washington, DC.
Shortly after taking the oath of office, Montanans of many
different stripes asked me to take action--from energy industry
executives to conservation leaders and local government officials--all
were concerned that Montana was not doing enough to address protections
for the sage grouse.
Protecting this species is about protecting jobs and our economy,
and State leadership over our wildlife. We can protect this iconic bird
while promoting continued economic development and the protection of
private property rights.
This past February, I established the Greater Sage-grouse Habitat
Conservation Advisory Council, ``to gather information. furnish advice,
and provide . . . recommendations on policies and actions for a state-
wide strategy'' to protect the sage grouse and keep its management in
State hands.
I put a broad cross-section of Montanans on the Council--citizens
representing such interests as energy, mining, transmission,
conservation, sportsmen and women, legislature, agriculture and
ranching, and local and tribal governments. I made the Council's work a
clear priority of the Director of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
The Advisory Council has been following a very aggressive meeting
schedule to craft a Montana solution. The process has been in-depth and
transparent, and will lead to a draft strategy recommendation that will
undergo extensive public review and comment.
There has been considerable support and involvement from industry.
private citizens. and governmental and non-governmental organizations.
The Council has received input from leading scientists. specialists.
citizen experts such as ranchers working in sage grouse country, and
other western States with valuable experience.
While you are conducting your hearing, the Council will be in a
previously scheduled meeting to continue its work, its 7th meeting
since May. It is regrettable that the Council members will not be able
to attend in person to share with you the fruits of their work.
Information regarding the Council's work can be found at: http://
fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/sageGrouse/habitatConservation/.
The sage-grouse is currently State managed and not under the
authority of the Federal Government. It is my goal to keep management
of the bird under State leadership, despite the litigation brought
against the Federal Government seeking to end State control. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Scrvice have asked Montana to share its updated
management strategy for sage grouse. and I plan on submitting our
Montana-led solution early next year.
Here on the ground in Montana, the solutions will come from
Montanans, who will roll up their sleeves, set aside political
differences and posturing. and work to find creative ways to protect
our economy and the sage grousc for our future generations.
Again, thank you for your interest in this important issue and
welcome to the last, best place.
Sincerely.
Steve Bullock,
Governor.
______
Mr. Daines. I, too, am deeply concerned that sage grouse
could become the Canada lynx or grizzly bear of southern,
central, and eastern Montana. We want to keep the ESA from
being used as a tool to obstruct positive species and resource
management and allow the people, not the bureaucrats in
Washington or judges in the Ninth Circuit, to determine how our
environment and our resource economies can flourish together.
If we continue to allow fringe groups and liberal judges to
dictate our policies, Montanans will lose. We need a good dose
of sound science and less dose of political science.
With that, I will yield back to the Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
And now, I will recognize the gentleman from North Dakota,
Mr. Cramer.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEVIN CRAMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. First of all,
thank you for answering favorably to Representative Daines' and
my letter requesting this important hearing in this beautiful
place. And thank you, Steve, for your hospitality. My wife,
Chris, and I have grown to very much appreciate and love Steve
and Cindy Daines, and appreciate your service to our country.
And thank you to the citizens of Billings because my wife
and daughters have spent a lot of money at the Rim Rock Mall on
our way to Red Lodge on a regular basis.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cramer. We love this place, and so, it is great to be
with you. And this is an important issue.
From time to time, I feel sorry for myself when I consider
how far it is between constituents and the big congressional
district known as North Dakota, and then I think about how far
Steve Daines has to drive to do his job, and I feel better
about myself. But I am reminded when we do that how special the
West is, how very special the West is, and how special it is
has remained, not because bureaucrats in Washington, DC have
been looking over it so carefully, but because the people who
live here care so much for it. In fact, you would be hard
pressed to find anybody in Washington that loves the West more
than the people who have chosen to make it their home.
And so much of what we face out here in terms of challenges
are really challenges that come from Washington, DC. They come
at us in droves from Washington. So I appreciate the leadership
of this committee and my opportunity to serve with these good
people on the Natural Resources Committee, who have a clear
understanding, and who know that from time to time during a
recess, it is good to get some common sense from where common
sense is most abundant, in this very same West.
In North Dakota, prior to being elected to Congress, I
spent nearly 10 years as a regulator in the energy world. I was
a State Public Service Commissioner, and carrying the
portfolios for refineries and pipelines, coal mining, power
generation, and sighting transmission lines, and all of the
things that add to our quality of life and grow our economy.
And I was quite shocked one day when some witness at one of our
hearings raised the issue of sage grouse as a problem for a
particular route.
And I would just say, as frightening as it is to think of
bureaucrats in Washington, unelected, setting public policy,
the thing that is far more frightening than that is litigation
setting public policy. And I used to be critical of Congress
for giving up so much of its authority by giving so much of it
away. Now, we are in a new era, and we need to revisit those
earlier decisions and get our hands wrapped around this
litigious, bureaucratic mess really that brings us here.
You have a good Representative here, and you have a good
team here to take it up. But the real experts are waiting to
testify, and I will yield the remainder of my time so that we
can hear from them, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. I
thank all of my colleagues for their testimony. And we will
begin the panel with your testimony.
Now, let me explain that you have all been asked to submit
written testimony. And virtually in all of your written
testimonies, the ones that I read, I know far exceed 5 minutes.
Nothing wrong with that. That makes it part of the public
record. What we would like to ask you to do, and just in
essence of time so we can have some interaction with questions,
is keep your oral arguments within 5 minutes.
Now, I am pretty generous. Did we get that hook that we
asked for?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Now, I am generous, and so what you have in
front of you is the timing lights. It is very similar to a
traffic light. You can look at it that way. But when the green
light comes on, it means that you have 5 minutes, and you are
doing wonderfully well. When the yellow light comes on, that
means you are within a minute, or like if you are driving a
car, you speed up. That may be an idea to speed up. But when
the red light comes on, that means that your 5 minutes are up,
and I would ask you to try to wrap up your remarks.
Obviously we want to hear--and I do say this. I know it is
extremely difficult in 5 minutes to put together all of what
you are trying to communicate. Believe me, we recognize that.
That is why we have your full statement that you submitted, so
that is part of the record.
And this will be the only oral part of this other than the
question and answer from members of this committee. But if any
of you would like to submit any statements on anything that is
said one way or the other--open country here--you can visit our
committee Web site, which is www.naturalresources.house.gov,
and press ``contact.'' Or just go to Google and say House
Natural Resources. Somebody will get you there.
OK. With that, thank you all, panelists, for being here,
and we will start on my left side with Ms. Lesley Robinson, who
is a Commissioner from Phillips County, Montana. Ms. Robinson,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LESLEY ROBINSON, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PHILLIPS
COUNTY, MALTA, MONTANA
Ms. Robinson. Chairman Hastings and members of the
committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I am Lesley
Robinson, Chairman of the Montana Association of Counties
Public Lands Committee, a Commissioner from Phillips County,
and a member of the Montana Stockgrowers Association.
Phillips County spans 5,213 square miles. We have
approximately 4,000 people and 56,000 cattle. Ninety-eight
percent of Phillips County's 3.2 million acres is classified as
agriculture land. Approximately 33 percent is administered by
the BLM, and 49 percent is private land.
Phillips County's economy is dependent on agriculture and
natural gas production. The 2012 Montana ag statistics State
cash sales of agricultural commodities for Phillips County was
$80 million. These raw commodities are further processed and
transported to other regions of the United States and world,
generating $434 million in commerce. Based on annual
consumption levels, Phillips County produces enough beef to
feed 343,350 people and enough wheat to feed 1.6 million
people. Gas production results in 4 of the top 15 taxpayers in
Phillips County, providing 37 full-time jobs.
I am a fourth generation Phillips County rancher. Our ranch
sits right in the middle of high quality sage grouse habitat as
identified by the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and the
BLM. This area covers a major portion of Phillips and Valley
County. Any action will have a significant economic impact on
our rural economies of this area and the State.
BLM has just released their draft Resource Management Plan,
and 969 allotments in our planning area have been assessed, and
93 are meeting rangeland health standards. While the ranching
community is always striving to keep improving, this is proof
that our industry has been successful in working with the BLM
to meet the objectives.
I would like to share with the committee some research that
was conducted in south Phillips County where I live. The
research title is ``Landscape-Scale Factors Affecting
Population Dynamics of Greater Sage Grouse.'' It was conducted
from 2001 to 2004 by Brendan James Moynahan, Ph.D. candidate
with The University of Montana.
Moynahan radio tagged 243 hens in south Phillips County. In
his first year of the study, most nest failures, 94 percent,
were attributed to depredation, and most of the nest
depredations, 63 percent, were attributed to avian predators.
He noted that even in areas of expansive, high-quality habitat
such as south Phillips County, winters may be so severe as to
have a clear and substantial populations-level impacts.
However, there is no published research data that indicates
livestock grazing has any impact on sage grouse populations.
The fact that there is a hunting season on sage grouse
indicates that there is a healthy population.
Additionally, Montana FWP is capturing live birds in south
Phillips County and transporting them to Canada to improve
their population. The agency believes that the sage grouse
population is stable over the last 30 years.
If a listing of sage grouse under the ESA were to occur, it
would have a dramatic effect on our community and State. I
believe one of the first actions to be implemented would be a
reduction or elimination of grazing in sage grouse areas. The
socioeconomic impacts of this type of action would be
substantial, and the likely reductions in livestock grazing on
Federal lands could have great impacts on local economies like
ours that are dependent on livestock production.
TransCanada has also proposed the Keystone XL pipeline. The
route would enter the United States in Phillips County and pass
through five other counties. We have seen case after case of
projects such as this being derailed because of the Endangered
Species listing and the habitat associated with those species.
If these projects fail to materialize, so do the good paying
jobs and essential tax revenue to the county.
The active management of public lands is essential to the
economy of our community. It is my experience that species
conservation will happen only at the ground level. No one is
better equipped or motivated to prevent the ESA listings than a
rancher, who own and/or operate or manage the land that is most
likely to be the prime species habitat. If you give ranchers
and their local governments an opportunity, they will develop
the voluntary proactive measures they can to implement that
benefit the species in question.
I firmly believe that species conservation is a community-
driven effort that strives to work with individuals, groups,
and agencies to achieve a goal. Addressing species, such as
sage grouse, needs to be a grassroots effort, not a top down
approach. Allowing multiple use of Federal lands is a critical
step in ensuring a secure food and fuel supply for the American
people. It is imperative that we provide your committee and the
entire Congress the input that is needed to modernize the ESA
process to meet the future needs of our communities, State, and
Nation.
Thank you for allowing me to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lesley Robinson, County Commissioner, Phillips
County, Malta, Montana
Chairman Hastings and members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on behalf of Phillips County at the House
Natural Resources Committee Oversight Field Hearing.
I am Lesley Robinson, Chairman of the Montana Association of
Counties Public Lands Committee, a Commissioner from Phillips County
and a member of the Montana Stockgrowers Association.
Phillips County spans 5,213 square miles. We have approximately
4,000 people and 56,000 cattle in our county. Ninety-eight percent of
Phillips County's 3.2 million acres is classified as agriculture land.
Approximately 33 percent is managed by the BLM and 49 percent is
private land.
Phillips County's economy is dependent on Agriculture and Natural
Gas production. The 2012 Montana Agricultural Statistics State cash
sales of agricultural commodities for Phillips County was $80 million.
These raw agricultural commodities are further processed and
transported to other regions of the United States and world, generating
$434 million in commerce. Based on annual consumption levels Phillips
County produces enough beef to feed 343,350 people and enough wheat to
feed 1.6 million people.
I am a fourth generation Phillips County rancher. Our ranch sits in
the middle of ``core area 2'' on the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
sage grouse designation and the Bureau of Land Management ``Greater
Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area.'' This area covers a major
portion of Phillips and Valley County, including 1.6 million acres
total. With 54 percent of this acreage, under BLM management and 27
percent being private, any potential listing of sage grouse under the
Endangered Species Act, Any action will have a significant economic
impact on rural economies in this area and the State.
Currently the BLM has just released the HiLine Draft Resource
Management Plan (RMP). The HiLine District administers 763 permits,
permitting approximately 386,600 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of livestock
forage. All 969 allotments in the planning area have been assessed for
rangeland health standards. Out of those allotments, 907 allotments are
meeting rangeland health standards. This is a 93 percent success rate
for grazing allotments in this planning area. While the ranching
community is always striving to keep improving, this is proof that our
industry has been successful in working with the BLM to meet the
objectives.
I would like to share with the committee some research that was
conducted in south Phillips County where I live. The research title is
Landscape-Scale Factors Affecting Population Dynamics of Greater Sage-
Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in north-central Montana, it was
conducted from 2001-2004 by Brendan James Moynahan, Ph.D. Candidate
with The University of Montana.
Moynahan radio-tagged 243 hens during a 3-year study of sage-grouse
in south Phillips County. In his first year of the study, 2001 most
nest failures (94 percent) were attributed to depredation, and most
nest depredations (63 percent) were attributed to avian predators. He
suspected that California gulls were the primary predators (Moynahan
2004: 29)
Of the successful nests of the marked hens in 2001, only one chick
survived to 30 days (Moynahan 2004: 69)
Moynahan noted that even in ``areas of expansive, high-quality
habitat such as south Phillips County, winters may be so severe as to
have clear and substantial populations-level impacts'' (Moynahan 2004:
128). Additionally he suggested that the effects of West Nile virus
were pronounced (Moynahan 2004: 129).
The fact that there is a hunting season on sage-grouse administered
by the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, indicates a healthy
population. Additionally, the State agency is capturing live birds in
south Phillips County and transporting them to Canada to improve their
population. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks believes the sage-grouse
population is stable over the last 30 years. There is no published
research data that indicates livestock grazing has any impact on sage-
grouse populations.
If a listing of sage grouse under the ESA were to occur, it would
have a dramatic effect on our community and State. I believe one of the
first actions to be implemented would be a reduction or elimination of
grazing in sage grouse areas. The socioeconomic impacts of this type of
action would be substantial. The likely reductions in livestock grazing
on Federal lands could have great impacts on local economies like ours
that are dependent on livestock production.
It is my experience that species conservation will happen only at
the ground level. No one is better equipped or motivated to prevent ESA
listings than ranchers, who own and/or manage the land that is most
likely to be prime species habitat. If you give ranchers and their
local governments an opportunity, they will develop the voluntary,
proactive measures, they can implement that benefit the species in
question. This approach meets the needs of the community, while also
meeting the needs of wildlife.
A Public Opinion Strategies poll in Montana also supports the
ideals of having a strong economy and a healthy environment. Seventy-
two percent of those surveyed, said they supported the statement that
``We can protect land and water and have a strong economy with good
jobs for Americans at the same time, without having to choose one over
the other.'' The survey also pointed out that there was strong support
for allowing Montana to better manage wildlife to avoid Federal
Government interference. Montanan's know what's best for Montana.
In addition to the agricultural economy of our county, 4 of the top
15 taxpayers in Phillips County are gas companies. Direct employment
from gas production in Phillips County has resulted in 37 full time
jobs. TransCanada has also proposed the Keystone XL pipeline. The route
would enter Montana in Phillips County and pass through Valley, McCone,
Dawson, Prairie and Fallon Counties. We have seen case after case of
projects such as this being derailed because of ESA listings and the
habitat associated with those species. If these projects fail to
materialize, so do the good paying jobs and essential tax revenue to
the county. The active management of public lands is essential to the
economy of our community. Allowing multiple use of Federal lands, is a
critical step in ensuring a secure food and fuel supply for the
American people.
I firmly believe that species conservation is a community-driven
effort that strives to work with individuals, groups and agencies to
achieve a goal. It is essential that addressing species, such as sage
grouse, is a grassroots effort, not a top down approach. It is
imperative that we provide your committee and the entire Congress, the
input that is needed to modernize the ESA process to meet the future
needs of our communities, State and Nation.
______
The Chairman. And that is exactly why we are here to hear
that testimony.
Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Matt Knox, who is
representing the Montana Farm Bureau. And Mr. Knox is from
Winifred, Montana. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATT KNOX, MONTANA FARM BUREAU, WINIFRED, MONTANA
Mr. Knox. Chairman Hastings, Congressman Daines, and
members of this committee, I thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on this important issue.
I ranch in central Montana in the Missouri Breaks with my
wife, Karla, and daughters, Sally and Sarah. Currently, I am
serving on the Board of Directors of the Fergus County Farm
Bureau, and I also represent the Missouri River Stewards, an
organization dedicated to protecting ranching in the Missouri
river breaks. I am testifying today on behalf of the Montana
Farm Bureau.
We believe Montana has a viable and stable sage grouse
population. As such, any efforts at conservation should be
aimed at continuation of current efforts. The bird numbers vary
due to many factors. There are very real threats to the
survival of sage grouse, but they should not be confused with
misdirected conservation measures. Amongst these misdirected
measures are several that are listed in the BLM's national
strategy to protect sage grouse. They were developed by the
National Technical Team, whose main interest it seems is to
restrict or eliminate land uses that, in fact, pose little or
no threat to grouse.
Some of the measures are predicated on the assumption that
livestock grazing is associated with sage grouse population
loss. This ignores the parallel decline over the past half
century of both livestock numbers and sage grouse on public
lands. In 1953, there were approximately 18 million AUMs on
public lands in the West. By 2000, that number was around 10
million. If grazing were the problem, sage grouse should be
flourishing. Sage grouse management and grazing management
share a common objective of healthy native rangeland, which is
important to both livestock and sage grouse.
Another misdirected conservation measure is the management
of wildfire by BLM. We believe the national strategy suggests
managing fire by minimum impact suppression tactics. Rangeland
fire, we believe, in sage grouse habitat should be attacked
immediately and aggressively.
Predation continues to be ignored by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as a factor in sage grouse decline. Their
response to questions on predation continues to be that it may
be a rare localized issue, but adequate habitat is the real
problem. One example is a very aggressive nest predator, the
raven, whose population in the West has grown by over 1,000
percent since 1900. And I can certainly bear that out where we
live. Predators are a factor, and any effort to conserve the
species needs to address the issue.
At the request of the livestock and oil and gas industries,
Governor Bullock appointed a Sage Grouse Advisory Committee to
develop a management plan for sage grouse in Montana. The plan
must pass muster with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
keep the bird from being listed. As mentioned above, there is
plenty of data proving that grazing and sage grouse are
compatible. Therefore, we suggest that Montana follow the
Wyoming example of exempting traditional agricultural
practices. The livestock and oil and gas industries have put a
lot of time in this. We would hate to see all this time wasted.
This brings us to the crux of the problem of the act
itself. It is not working very well. One of the major factors
we all know about is cost. A couple of examples that were
compiled by the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman
Montana: the Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health reported
that 130,000 jobs were lost and more than 900 sawmills, paper,
and pulp mills were closed because of the spotted owl. And we
all remember recently what went on with the farmers in the
Klamath Basin. Those crops were valued at $53 million.
The ESA, or the threat of it, can also cause what I would
call perverse incentives. When the draft version of the final
management plan for the Missouri Breaks Monument came out, some
of the leks on deeded land were identified in their maps.
Language was included, enabling BLM to manage adjacent BLM
lands accordingly. In other words, we were being punished for
being good managers apparently.
We strongly contested this provision, but without success.
Since that time, there has been an understandable and
justifiable reluctance on the part of our local ranchers to
cooperate with lek inventories.
In closing, farmers and ranchers are very frustrated with
the ESA process. We need to see honest economic analysis. We
also would prefer a solution built around incentives and
landowner and community involvement. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matt Knox, Board of Directors, Fergus County Farm
Bureau, Representing Montana Farm Bureau Federation
Chairman Hastings, Congressman Daines and members of the Natural
Resources Committee.
My name is Matt Knox, and I want to thank you for the opportunity
to testify today on ``State and Local Efforts to Protect Species, Jobs,
Property, and Multiple Use Amidst a New War on the West''.
I ranch in north central Montana in the Missouri Breaks with my
wife Karla and daughters Sally and Sarah. Currently I serve on the
Board of Directors of Fergus County Farm Bureau and also represent the
Missouri River Stewards, an organization dedicated to protecting
ranching in the Missouri river breaks.
Today I am testifying on behalf of the Montana Farm Bureau.
I would like to talk specifically about Sage Grouse, the real
threats to the species, misdirected conservation efforts by the BLM,
Montana's developing sage grouse management plan and end with a few
comments on the Endangered Species Act in general.
Montana has a viable and stable sage grouse population. As such any
efforts at conservation should be aimed at continuation of current
efforts. Bird numbers tend to vary due to weather patterns, predation,
disease, wildfire and sage brush conversion. These are very real
threats to the survival of sage grouse and should not be confused with
misdirected conservation measures. Among these misdirected measures are
several that are listed in the BLM's national strategy to protect sage
grouse. They were developed by the National Technical Team (NTT) whose
main interest it seems is to restrict or eliminate land uses that in
fact pose little or no threat to grouse. Some of the measures are
predicated on the assumption that livestock grazing is associated with
sage grouse population loss. This ignores the parallel decline over the
past half century of both livestock numbers and sage grouse on public
lands. In 1953, there was approximately 18 million animal unit months
(AUMs) on BLM land in the West, by 2000 that number was around 10
million AUMs. If grazing were the problem, sage grouse should be
flourishing. Sage grouse management and grazing management share a
common objective of healthy native rangeland vegetation, which is as
important to range livestock production as it is to sage grouse.
Retiring grazing privileges as suggested by the BLM is based on
political antagonism far more than real biology. It is amazing to our
members that grazing by cattle is a threat but overgrazing by wild
horses or wildlife has no effect in the eyes of the BLM.
Another misdirected conservation measure is the management of
wildfire by the BLM. The national strategy suggests managing fire by
Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST). It doesn't take a long
memory to recall the devastation to sage grouse habitat during the 2012
fire season. Rangeland fire in sage grouse habitat should be attacked
immediately and aggressively.
Predation continues to be ignored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as a factor in sage grouse decline. Their response to questions
on predation continues to be; it may by a rare localized issue but
adequate habitat is the real problem. In the early 1900s sage grouse
numbers began to grow as ranchers and farmers controlled coyotes,
skunks, crows and ravens. The trend continued into the 1960s when
efforts to control predators were curtailed through government
regulation. An example is a very aggressive nest predator, the raven
whose population in the West has grown by over 1,000 percent since
1900. Predators are a factor and any effort to conserve the species
needs to address the issue.
At the request of the livestock and oil and gas industry, Governor
Bullock appointed a sage grouse advisory committee to develop a
management plan for sage grouse in Montana. The plan must pass muster
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service thus keeping the bird from
being listed. As mentioned above there is abundant data proving that
grazing and sage grouse are very compatible uses. That applies not only
to grazing, but to water development, irrigation and other developments
within reasonable distances from active leks. Therefore we suggest that
Montana follow the Wyoming example of exempting traditional
agricultural practices. The livestock and oil and gas industries have
put a great deal of time and effort in this effort as well as hundreds
of hours of State legislator and agency employee hours. These hours
will have been wasted and the reputation of the entire ESA tarnished
even further if, as Director Dan Ashe stated at a recent Farm Bureau
gathering in Washington, DC that he was 90 percent certain that sage
grouse will be listed no matter what the States develop as management
strategies.
This brings us to the crux of the problem, the Endangered Species
Act itself. It is not working very well. In fact since its passage over
13,000 species of plants and animals have been listed. Depending on
whose numbers you use, anywhere between 7-20 species have been removed
from the list. Of those removed, most had little or nothing to do with
the act but dealt with species already extinct or recovered by some
other means. This leaves the ESA with a success percentage of around
.06 percent. Cost is another factor of the equation. Some examples of
costs compiled by the Political Economy Research Center (PERC) in
Bozeman Montana are:
Delay of a $55 million high school in California while
waiting for ESA determination on fairy shrimp. Cost $1
million.
The Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health reported that
130,000 jobs were lost and more than 900 sawmills, paper
and pulp mills were closed because of the spotted owl.
Farmers in the Klamath Basin lost crops valued at $53
million because irrigation water was shut off in 2001 to
protect two fish species.
$100 million spent on Prebles Jumping Mouse which wasn't
even a unique species.
The definition of critical habitat has wandered far afield. The
current definition now fits better for those who would seek wide spread
land use control than for those who would preserve a species.
``Critical habitat'' is not defined as land on which the species
currently lives, but as any area that has characteristics essential to
the survival of the species. A piece of property may be designated
``critical habitat'' if a species might have lived there or could
possibly live there some time in the future.
Endangered designations lack verifiable peer reviewed scientific
evidence. According to Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, San Jose State University
in ``The Handbook of Environmental Science Health and Technology'',
scientists around the world have recognized that biological species
must be reproductively isolated and genetically distinctive natural
populations. This scientific categorization of species bears no
resemblance to the political use of the word in the ESA. In fact
Edwards claims detailed records reveal 40 percent of species listed on
the ESA to be only sub-species or distinct populations. Among these is
the Florida panther, eastern timber wolf, Columbian white tail deer and
the infamous northern spotted owl.
In closing, Montana Farmers and Ranchers are extremely frustrated
with the Endangered Species Act. It is like a treadmill to landowners
and producers. We spend an inordinate amount of time and effort in
order to keep species from being listed, only to have them listed
anyway. Once listed, delisting goals are moving targets. When delisting
targets are reached delisting is further delayed by court cases.
Habitat control takes precedence over species conservation.
Conservation of one species leads to degradation of another. The sage
grouse is on center stage at this time, before that it was the wolf,
cutthroat trout and grizzly bears to name a few. When we start playing
god to one species there is no place to stop until the Federal
Government controls the entire West.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Knox, for your
testimony.
Next, I will recognize Mr. Dave Galt from the Montana
Petroleum Association, which is based in Helena. And you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVE A. GALT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MONTANA
PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, HELENA, MONTANA
Mr. Galt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to Montana.
Thank you for invitation to speak and for the huge effort on
your part to hold a series of hearings out West to learn more
about the Endangered Species Act.
Chairman Hastings, members of the committee, for the
record, I am Dave Galt, Executive Director of the Montana
Petroleum Association. Our members include companies, and
members, and individuals involved in the exploration, drilling,
production, transporting, and refining of oil and natural gas.
The Montana State University, Billings, has done extensive
analysis of the economic impact of the oil and gas industry in
Montana. Here are a few facts from their 2012 update published
in the Treasure State Journal. Direct and indirect jobs
supported by the industry exceed 20,000. Total economic output
from the oil and gas industry in Montana is in excess of $10
billion dollars. Firms, investors, and employees of Montana's
oil and gas industry paid an estimated $440 million in State
and local taxes. A 5 percent industry expansion would result in
over 1,000 new jobs in Montana.
I have attached three charts to help you visualize oil and
gas production in or State. The map shows oil producing areas
in green, gas in red, and sage grouse core areas in purple. The
black dots--the little, itty-bitty black dots--represent wells
drilled in Montana since 1915. While the purple areas represent
sage grouse core areas, when you include the entire grouse
habitat, it covers most of the eastern half of Montana. The
other two slides illustrate oil and gas production in Montana
by county just to give you an idea of where it is coming from
in Montana. And my point is that it is across the State, and
not just in the Bakken.
Studies relied upon by the NTT and the BLM in their NTT
were significantly and scientifically flawed. A primary source
of information used by the NTT was reviewed by the Center of
Environmental Science, Accuracy, and Reliability, which found
significant mischaracterization of previous research;
substantial errors and omissions; lack of independent
authorship and peer reviews; three of the authors on the NTT
were also the authors, researchers, and editors on three of the
most cited sources, methodological bias; invalid assumptions
and analysis; and inadequate data.
The NTT also insisted repeatedly on citing Holloran's study
in 2005, dissertation as gospel, even though it failed to
acknowledge that countless stipulations and mitigation measures
utilized by the oil and gas industry throughout sage grouse
habitat. The focus of the study was limited to an unmitigated
control area which was used as a basis for comparison to areas
where mitigation was being employed.
In Montana, no site specific sage grouse data relating to
the actual study areas were used by the BLM in their resource
management plan revisions. Therefore, MPA has asked the BLM to
rewrite the planning document.
The Interior's reliance on the NTT report will cause new
oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development in Montana to
be essentially terminated in sage grouse areas and sage grouse
habitat. The BLM has proposed the use of no surface occupancy
stipulation on millions of acres of public lands, as well as
private surface and Federal minerals ostensibly to protect sage
grouse and its habitat. BLM makes these areas off limits to new
rights-of-way, and even is considering forcing the relocation
of existing rights-of-way.
In conclusion, we support efforts to avoid listing of the
greater sage grouse as a threatened or endangered species, but
we object that the Department of the Interior believes that the
habitation destruction is the single most important factor
impacting the sage grouse, particularly that from oil and gas
development. Weather and predation are extremely important
factors and have been essentially ignored by the agencies.
Nevertheless, the greater sage grouse will continue to survive
to the best of its ability, while the economy of public lands
and the States will suffer draconian declines due to
unjustified limits on multiple use and revenue generating
activities.
Mr. Chairman, I have got an extensive written testimony.
There is a lot of information in there. There are studies that
we have referred to. We did not provide them. We would be glad
to if the committee so desires. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Galt follows:]
Prepared Statement of David A. Galt, Executive Director, Montana
Petroleum Association, Helena, Montana
Welcome to Montana. Thank you for the time and the huge effort to
hold a series of meetings in the West to learn more about sage grouse
and other potential endangered species.
Chairman Hastings, members of the committee; I am Dave Galt,
Executive Director of the Montana Petroleum Association (MPA). MPA's
members include companies involved in the exploration, drilling
production, transporting and refining of oil and natural gas. Montana
has a long history of oil and gas production. Our first commercial was
drilled in Elk Basin in 1915.
Montana State University-Billings has done extensive analysis of
the economic impact of the oil and gas industry in Montana. Here are a
few facts from their 2012 update published in the Treasure State
Journal:
Direct and indirect jobs supported by the industry exceed
20,000 jobs.
Total economic output from the oil and gas industry in
Montana is in excess of $10 billion.
Firms, investors, and employees of Montana's oil and gas
industry paid an estimated $440 million in State and local
taxes in 2011--Tax revenue that supports education,
protective services, roads and a host of services.
Montana was one of only a few States that maintained a positive
budget balance through the recent great recession. Montana is in the
black because of the active petroleum industry. New wells, expanding
refinery capacity and new pipeline systems all contribute to a robust
economy in Montana. A 5 percent industry expansion would result in over
1,000 new jobs in Montana.
I have attached three charts to help you visualize oil and gas
production in Montana. The map shows oil producing areas in green, gas
in red and sage grouse core areas in purple. The black dots represent
wells drilled in Montana since 1915. While the purple areas represent
sage grouse core areas; when you include the rest of the sage habitat,
it covers most of the eastern half of Montana except the extreme north
east corner. Sage grouse management proposed by the BLM with the
blessing of the USFWS is going to have a debilitating impact on
Montana's oil and gas production. The other two slides illustrate oil
and gas production by county in Montana. The point is that there is
production and potential across Montana, not just in the ``Bakken.''
The potential listing of sage grouse and the Sprague's pipit pose
huge problems not just for the oil and gas industry in Montana, but for
all multiple-use activities, including mining and grazing. We are
seeing States in the West develop plans to provide conservation
measures for sage grouse that place huge tracts of land off limits to
nearly all revenue-generating activities. The determination of the need
to list the sage grouse has been a topic of litigation and debate for
the last decade. Law suits by environmental groups have led to a
``closed door'' settlement by the Federal Government to decide the
status of many species, the sage grouse being one, petitioned for
listing as threatened or endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service must decide by July of 2015 if the sage grouse is endangered.
In the meantime; Western States, led by Wyoming, are developing
conservation plans for the grouse. At the same time the Bureau of Land
Management, BLM is rushing to release revised resource plans, or amend
existing plans, which contain draconian stipulations for resource
development. The ink wasn't dry on Montana's 2005 conservation plan,
when academics and environmental groups said the restrictions in that
plan were inadequate. Wyoming took the lead to identify core areas and
protect them with very strict stipulations. And now the BLM's National
Technical Team (NTT) on sage grouse recommends even more stringent
stipulations, despite the fact that none of the existing stipulations
have any science behind them to suggest they are inadequate.
Of particular concern is that the Department of the Interior,
particularly the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey
and Bureau of Land Management, have failed to utilize any type of
systematic cataloging and quantitative evaluation to determine the
type, extent and effectiveness of mitigation measures that have been
employed by the oil and gas industry in areas where it operates. That
the agencies have very little useful and site-specific data upon which
to base its land management decisions, particularly with respect to oil
and gas exploration and development activities, is egregious when one
views the protections measure proposed by BLM in its RMP revisions and
amendments. DOI is relying upon flawed data perpetuated by its National
Technical Team on Sage Grouse which is highly problematic.
Studies relied upon by the NTT were significantly and
scientifically flawed. Just a few of these problems are:
The Cooper Ornithological Society's Monograph: Studies in Avian
Biology (monograph), used as a primary source of information by the
NTT, was reviewed by the Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy and
Reliability (CESAR) in a paper \1\ which found that the monograph
relied upon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Science or Advocacy? Ecology and Conservation of Greater Sage-
Grouse: A Landscape Species and its Habitats: An Analysis of the four
most influential chapters of the monograph.
Significant mischaracterization of previous research;
Substantial errors and omissions;
Lack of independent authorship and peer review (3 of the
authors of the NTT are also the authors, researchers, and
editors on 3 of the most cited sources in the NTT);
Methodological bias;
A lack of reproducibility;
Invalid assumptions and analysis; and
Inadequate data.
The NTT also insisted upon repeatedly citing Holloran's 2005
dissertation \2\ as gospel despite the fact that it failed to
acknowledge the countless stipulations and mitigation measures utilized
by the oil and gas industry throughout sage grouse habitat. It is
critically important to recognize that the focus of this study was
limited to an unmitigated control area which was to be used as a basis
for comparison to areas where mitigation was being employed. Not
surprisingly, Holloran's predictions of catastrophic population decline
have been clearly refuted by the data. Specifically, he predicted
population declines of between negative 8.7 percent to negative 24.4
percent annually in Pinedale (page 82, Table 2). However, those doom
and gloom population predictions have simply failed to come true.
Instead sage grouse populations in these areas have been continually
increasing, and are well above statewide averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ (Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus
urophasianus) population response to natural gas field development in
western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation. University of Wyoming. Laramie,
Wyoming.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyses of lek count data by the State of Wyoming show that lek-
attendance trends have been increasing since 1990 and their densities
are the highest in the State. In fact, a separate analysis by Renee
Taylor of Taylor Environmental Inc. has shown that there is no
statistically significant difference between the average number of male
sage grouse in areas affected by oil and gas in both the Pinedale and
control areas. If Holloran's predictions were true, there would only be
a handful of birds left around Pinedale. Clearly, Holloran and his
approach were wrong.
A report \3\ prepared using Wyoming Game and Fish sage-grouse data
clearly demonstrates the significance of precipitation levels with
respect to sage-grouse population arcs. While weather and precipitation
levels cannot be controlled by the Federal government, they are clearly
tied to sage-grouse survival and population and must be acknowledged.
Also, numerous published reports and papers have identified the
significant role predation has on the survival of the sage-grouse which
have not been taken into full account by the Department of Interior so
that reasonable and effective measures to reduce predation can be
formulated and adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Draught and Wildlife Survival--Wyoming Game and Fish
Department, Sage Grouse Precipitation Drought Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When BLM prepared its RMP revisions for Montana, no site-specific
sage-grouse data relating to the actual study areas was used. Rather,
BLM relied upon information based on studies of Sage Grouse Management
Zone 1 (MZ1) as described in the NTT Report, which includes
northeastern Wyoming and far western North and South Dakota. In so
doing, BLM failed to ensure the accuracy needed upon which to base
informed land use decisions. Although analysis of MZ1 would be
appropriate as a study area for analysis of cumulative impacts to sage-
grouse nation-wide, potential direct and indirect impacts to sage-
grouse and sage-grouse habitat resulting from implementation of the RMP
must address only those conditions and potential direct and indirect
impacts specific to the specific planning areas. Consequently, MPA has
asked for a redraft of all these RMP Revisions in which sage-grouse
data directly applicable to the planning areas in Montana would be
utilized.
It is also important to note that the NTT Report is not even
supported by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(WAFWA) as DOI's sole source of Sage-grouse management direction. In a
letter sent to the Interior Secretary on May 16, 2013 WAFWA member
States made it clear that they never endorsed the sole use of the NTT
or any other scientific publication. Rather, they believe that a
variety of peer-reviewed publications which collectively provide the
best available science for sage-grouse should have been used by BLM as
the basis for conserving the Sage-grouse, thereby avoiding a listing
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). WAFWA went on to recommend that
management and regulatory mechanisms should be based upon the best
available science which would provide the best strategy for near- and
long-term management of sage-grouse and provides the best opportunity
for precluding the need to list the species under the ESA.
We point out that the International Research Center for Energy and
Economic Development (ICEED peer reviewed a paper entitled ``Oil and
Gas Development and Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): A
Review of Threats and Mitigation Measures,'' Volume 35, Number 1, which
was published by The Journal of Energy and Development. The paper
pointed out that:
``Current stipulations and regulations for oil and gas
development in sage grouse habitat are largely based on studies
from the Jonah Gas Field and Pinedale anticline. These fields,
and their effect on sage grouse, are not necessarily
representative of sage grouse responses to less intensive
energy development. Recent environmental regulations and newer
technologies have lessened the threats to sage grouse.''
As a result of BLM's reliance upon the NTT Report and its
recommendations, new oil and gas leasing, exploration and development
in Montana will be essentially terminated in areas within sage grouse
habitat if the measures proposed by BLM in its RMP revisions are
adopted. Specifically, BLM has proposed the use of new No Surface
Occupancy (NSO) stipulations on millions of acres of public lands as
well as private surface/Federal minerals ostensibly to protect sage
grouse and its habitat. NSO stipulations, which prevent the use of the
surface area of the lease, would be imposed on 50 percent of the public
lands in the Miles City FO, 70 percent in the HiLine FO and 60 percent
in the Billings FO. Added to that, in the Billing Field Office, BLM is
attempting to force the use of the same stipulations upon Federal
minerals under private surface. We expect similar constraints to be
used in the other field offices as well. BLM also proposes to make
sizable portions of these areas off-limits to new right-of-way
construction and even goes so far as considering forcing the removal
and replacement of existing rights-of-way to areas outside sage grouse
habitat.
In conclusion, while we support efforts to avoid a listing of the
Greater Sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species, we are
disturbed that the DOI has embraced the notion that habitat destruction
is the single most important factor impacting the sage-grouse,
particularly that from oil and gas development, which as pointed out
earlier in this testimony has been proven to be a fallacy. While we
acknowledge that unmitigated habitat destruction may play a role,
albeit much more limited than acknowledged by the agencies, in the
survival of the sage-grouse, weather and predation are extremely
important factors that have been essentially ignored by the agencies
when determining how best to manage habitat. To date, DOI's focus has
been to find ways to prevent or minimize human uses of habitat based
upon flawed studies and reviews contained in the NTT Report.
Nevertheless, it is patently obvious that DOI's tunnel vision will not
result in essential improvements to the widespread degraded habitat
managed by Federal agencies nor will it address the significant problem
of extensive predation throughout the Western States. Instead, it will
shift DOI's burden and responsibilities to public land users in
discrete areas where they have activities while failing to address the
problem as a whole. Nevertheless, the Greater Sage-grouse will continue
to survive to the best of its ability while the economy of the public
lands States will suffer draconian declines due to unjustified limits
on multiple-use and revenue generating activities.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. If you would like to, if you have other
studies that you want part of the record, we would welcome
that.
Mr. Galt. Yes, sir. I will get them in, provide them.
The Chairman. Without objection, they will be part of the
record.
OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Galt.
Now, I will recognize Mr. Brian Cebull from here in
Billings. Mr. Cebull, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN R. CEBULL, BILLINGS, MONTANA
Mr. Cebull. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Hastings
and members of the committee. My name is Brian Cebull, and I am
a third generation Montana native. Although I have spent my
entire 20-year professional career in the oil and gas business,
I am here today representing myself as a Montana landowner and
a Montana sportsman.
My wife and I own a unique ranch located in Carbon County,
only 1 hour south of Billings. Grove Creek Ranch consists of
our deeded acreage, plus over 15,000 acres of BLM grazing
leases, and contains a healthy population of sage grouse, a
very active population of grizzly bears, and an occasional
wolf. I have included a few photos of these bears for your
entertainment in my written testimony.
My experiences and those of my tenants in dealing with
grizzly bears highlight the flaws of the current ESA process
and the need to keep species, such as the greater sage grouse,
off of that list.
To summarize my observations and those of my tenants
regarding how the ESA affects our ranch operations, when it
comes to dealing with problem bears, the top down and
centralized approach of the current ESA management lacks common
sense and does not work in Montana. More authority to address
problem animals in habitat needs to be placed in the hands of
local personnel, including ranchers and landowners. The
ranchers and landowners know best how to manage their own land.
Those in charge of administering the ESA should have the
ability to change and adapt local management plans as
necessary.
With the increasing grizzly bear population in our area, we
have seen outdated management plans that are resulting in ever-
increasing bear-human-livestock conflicts. Based on the
staggering 27 individual grizzly bears that biologists estimate
to live along a 20-mile span of the Beartooth Mountains near
our ranch, and the expectation that this number is increasing,
I have concluded myself that politics, and not science, is
influencing these grizzly bear population estimates in order to
maintain pressure to keep the bear on the list. All too often
the determination to list or to remain on the list is being
made by Federal judges instead of scientists. The ESA and the
decision to list or delist should be based on sound science and
not politics.
The ESA is a hammer. It is a threat that is constantly held
over the heads of all private landowners and groups that
utilize public lands either for recreation or for their
livelihood. The heavy-handed ``do this or else'' style of the
ESA will create as disincentive among those affected local
groups, and will result in the opposite effect of what was
intended by the act.
The ESA has become a listing tool that restricts activities
and not a management tool for the recovery of species. Since it
became law in 1973, over 2,000 species have been listed as
endangered, and only 20 species have been removed from the list
due to population recovery. The ESA has become a tool for
pseudo environmental groups to hinder economic development and
recreational activities on both public and private lands.
The potential listing of the greater sage grouse under the
ESA is already affecting our ranch operations. And based on our
experiences with the already listed grizzly bear, it is in
everyone's best interest to take steps to keep them off the
list.
We are under continuous pressure to reduce our AUMs on
grazing allotments already to enhance sage grouse habitat.
Responsible rotational grazing practices actually improve the
health of the land and the forage available for wildlife,
including sage grouse. There is little doubt that a listing of
the sage grouse will result in immediate pressure to stop all
grazing on public lands in critical habitat areas.
The top down, heavy-handed, and centralized approach to
management that we see with the grizzly bear lacks common sense
and will not work with sage grouse. Landowners like myself and
local groups, such as Sage Grouse Montana, are already working
voluntarily to improve the habitat for sage grouse and other
species on our private property, and are working with the BLM
to ensure responsible grazing rotations on our public lands.
These grass roots efforts to protect sage grouse will almost
certainly come to a stop if the bird is listed.
As a lifelong hunter and a President of the Montana Chapter
of Safari Club International, the listing of sage grouse will
have a profound impact on our hunting heritage in Montana for
all species. In addition to the loss of sage grouse as a game
bird, hunters will lose access to thousands of acres of private
and public lands that they have used for generations. The
critical habitat areas that will be shut down or have severely
restricted access are any areas that are suitable areas, and
will not even require sage grouse to be present on them.
The ESA has and will continue to have a profound impact on
Montanans and our way of life. We have seen the politically
motivated management of listed species, such as wolves and
grizzlies, result in dramatic declines in big game populations,
resulting in lost hunting opportunities and devastating impacts
to local businesses. Future ESA listings, such as the possible
listing of sage grouse, will have similar negative impacts on
both public and private lands, and those who rely on these
lands both for recreation and for their livelihood.
I strongly encourage you to focus on local control and
voluntary efforts to restore sage grouse habitat, and to do
everything in your power in Congress to make sure that greater
sage grouse does not get listed under the ESA. Please help me
ensure that the ESA can no longer be used as a tool for fringe
environmental groups to dictate how we live and work in
Montana.
There is a new war in the West, and it is a war on our
traditional Montana values.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cebull follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian R. Cebull, Billings, Montana
Chairman Hastings and members of the committee, thank you very much
for allowing me to testify before your committee. I am Brian Cebull, a
3rd generation Montanan who is proud to call this great State my home.
I work in Billings in the oil and gas industry as the owner of a small
exploration and production company as well as the co-owner of an
innovative environmental service company in the Williston Basin.
While the oil and natural gas business provides my livelihood, I
did not come here today to testify about oil and gas development and
the negative impacts that ESA listing of the sage grouse will have on
my industry. Instead, I am here today to testify as a Montana landowner
who lives with endangered and threatened species and as a sportsman who
has a passion for hunting.
My wife and I own Grove Creek Ranch in southern Carbon County
Montana that is comprised of deeded acreage plus more than 15,000 acres
of BLM grazing leases. Our deeded land consists mostly of spring-fed
riparian land with grassy bottoms and aspen groves. Our land is unique
in that it is home to a variety of wildlife including whitetail deer,
moose, elk, black bears, occasional wolves, and is located in
designated core sage grouse habitat. According to Montana FWP
biologists, there are four active sage grouse breeding leks either on
or adjacent to our deeded land at Grove Creek. In the spring of 2011 we
encountered our first grizzly bear and now have documented more than 12
different grizzlies in the last 2 years including capturing a video of
a grizzly sow with 4 cubs of the year this past June. I have included a
few photos of grizzlies at our ranch at the end of these comments. My
most recent encounter with a grizzly on my ranch was just this past
Saturday evening.
Our experiences with the already listed and ``endangered'' grizzly
bear is an important lesson when considering adding another species to
the ESA list. Based on our observations and those of our tenants who
graze cattle on our land:
It is obvious that the population of grizzly bears in the
greater Yellowstone ecosystem is being underestimated for
political purposes. Based on my observations and those of
my tenants, the number of bears in the 3 State area of that
makes up the Yellowstone ecosystem must greatly exceed the
600 bears that has been used as a common estimate. A local
scientific estimate indicated that there were 27 individual
grizzly bears during the 2011-2012 season on the Beartooth
mountain front between Red Lodge, MT, and Clark, WY, a span
of only 20 miles! So far in 2013 there have been 11
individual confirmed sightings of bears in the same area
and 9 of those were confirmed on our ranch at Grove Creek.
According to local biologists, bear sightings and
encounters are getting much more frequent in our area.
Common sense says that the actual number of bears must be
several times higher in the entire Yellowstone ecosystem
based on the high number of bears seen in our small area.
The current population of bears has far exceeded the
expected levels of the original endangered species
management plan therefore the management practices of the
plan is not effective in relationship to the current impact
of the bears in regards to agriculture, sportsmen and
recreational use. The same management plan for a declining
species cannot work for a species whose population is
rebounding. This lack of adaptability is leading to ever-
increasing encounters and conflicts between bears, humans,
and livestock.
The management guidelines for grizzlies are unrealistic.
In a particular instance with my tenants on their land in
the Bear Creek area, a sow grizzly bear and her cubs had
multiple livestock kills and were on the path to many more.
When approached about this, the regulatory entity that was
handling the situation labeled the bear as a first time
offender because complaints had not been lodged against her
in the past. With the existing guidelines, action was slow
to be taken because she was a first offender in spite of
the fact the fact that she had killed in excess of 10
animals that season. It was deemed that if the activity was
repeated the next year, she would be labeled a problem bear
and action would be taken. After strong lobbying at
multiple levels of the government by my tenants, the number
of kills was taken into account and she was removed and
destroyed. Her cubs were relocated despite the fact that
they would likely repeat the cattle-killing activities of
their mother.
With the excess population of bears and the ineffective
management practices of the current endangered species
plan, the bears are starting to push their boundaries and
locate themselves in areas outside of their expected
habitat. Our ranch on Grove Creek is one of those places.
As you can see, whether or not the ESA listing has helped grizzly
bears, the current situation with grizzlies is not sustainable and
needs to be remedied. Although sage grouse do not pose the same threats
to humans and livestock as grizzly bears, a listing under the ESA will
result in many of the same issues as the grizzlies with regards to
ongoing management under the plan.
The potential listing of the sage grouse is already affecting our
ability to utilize our BLM grazing allotments:
There is a constant push when dealing with the BLM on
grazing plans and permits that our carrying capacity or
AUM's need to be decreased to increase habitat for sage
grouse although there is little correlation between
responsible grazing practices and the loss of sage grouse
habitat or nesting areas. In fact, proper grazing practices
can actually be beneficial to grouse as the cattle grazing
creates new growth and succulents and regenerates fresh
forage. Of course, historic overgrazing has led to declines
in sage habitat and this irresponsible and short sighted
behavior should be corrected by the local range management
specialists wherever they are occurring. Even at Grove
Creek, some of our historic BLM grazing was grazed beyond
capacity by our predecessors and was very slow to recover,
so we have rested some pastures for 2 years to allow them
time to recover. All of our BLM pastures are rested at
least every other year to promote healthy growth.
No definitive proof has been given that the activity of
livestock and other species is having a true long term
impact on the sage grouse but there is consistent pressure
from environmental groups to ban all grazing on public
lands. Without a doubt, these so-called conversation groups
will press legal action to enforce a ban immediately if the
sage grouse is listed. Based on my on-the-ground
observations, the populations of sage grouse in areas where
no outside activity has occurred within the sage grouse's
habitat are no better than where grazing, energy
exploration or other activities have occurred.
It seems folly that measures and management practices are
being put into place through RMP's and grazing plans to
affect certain aspects of the sage grouse food supply and
habits, yet very few of those practices are directed toward
other species within the same eco system. Many of these
species such as raptors are also federally protected and
are predators of the sage grouse, and when they are out of
balance, they could potentially negate the effects of the
ESA management plan. With this considered, it makes any
amendments or alterations to the management guidelines for
other activities in the area even more egregious.
We bought our ranch both for investment and for hunting
opportunities. As such, we work with our tenants to manage the grazing
and crop lands to benefit both their livestock and wildlife. Hunting is
a passion and a way of life for me, and I am currently the president of
the Montana Chapter of Safari Club International. Our chapter has been
actively promoting the mission of SCI which includes the conservation
of wildlife, protection of the hunter, and education of the public
concerning hunting and its use as a conservation tool.
Hunters are true conservationists and their license
dollars go directly to the preservation of habitat and the
management of game species.
Managing land for livestock grazing and for wildlife is
beneficial to both big game and game birds such as sage
grouse. Properly timed and intensive grazing rotations, the
development of water projects, and the planting of high
protein seed crops are just a few of the ways that we
improve the habitat for wildlife including sage grouse.
Hunting of animals creates a perceived value and respect
of that animal in the public's eyes. The listing of the
sage grouse will remove it from the hunting rolls and
diminish its value, which is exactly opposite of the intent
of the listing.
In addition to being removed from the hunting roles in
Montana, the listing of sage grouse will have detrimental
impacts to access of both public and private lands due to
the closing of access roads and corridors and potentially
seasonal restrictions on access. The listing of sage grouse
will possibly impact ALL hunting, especially in those areas
deemed as core sage grouse habitat.
The Montana FWP Commission has an established two bird-
per-day limit on Sage Grouse during upland bird season. The
Commission's bag recommendations are based on the sound
scientific input of local FWP biologists and other local
experts since it was found that regulated hunting with
reasonable bag limits was not an additive mortality and did
not decrease the number of birds that survived until the
following Spring. This is a perfect example of local
control and species management that will be derailed
through an ESA listing.
It would be a big mistake to list the sage grouse or any other
species under the current guidelines and practices of the 40 year old
ESA which is outdated and unmanageable and does not yield the desired
goal of species recovery. In my opinion, the ESA is broken and needs to
be fixed:
The ESA has become a listing tool instead of a management
tool. It is fairly easy to be put on the list but it is
nearly impossible for a species to be removed from it.
There are currently over 2,000 listed species and only 20
have ever been removed from the list due to population
recovery. This dismal 1 percent success rate does not
include the species that went extinct after being listed.
The ESA is a hammer or club that is held over the head of
landowners, sportsmen, ranchers, recreationalists, and
developers. It is a constant threat of ``do this, or
else''. The constant threat of a listing is not an
effective way to influence the behavior or actions of those
people affected by the threat. Although many of the best
practices of the affected groups will actually benefit the
sage grouse and their habitat, the best way to influence
behavior is to create and promote incentives that will
positively impact both the threatened species and the
impacted parties.
The current ESA is a top-down, bureaucratic, and
centralized approach to species management. Local control
and grassroots efforts will work better to manage wildlife
and habitats and will get much less pushback from affected
parties. Control and incentives should be given to local
authorities and landowners to maintain or improve habitats.
The ESA has become more about politics and less about
science. In the case of the grizzly and the northern gray
wolf, Federal Judges and not scientists determined whether
a species remained on the ``List''. When you consider the
measly success rate for delisting, it indicates that the
ESA is being used as a political tool by the environmental
and so-called conservation groups to halt or slow down
economic development and severely limit access on public
lands for grazing, hunting, and recreation. Groups that
fight to put species on the ``List'' also fight to keep
them on regardless of any scientific evidence to the
contrary because they are opposed to development or human
activities or any sorts. The ``management by litigation''
approach taken by environmental groups leads to many of the
misguided efforts that we see today and unnecessarily
burdens the personnel and financial resources of the
Federal agencies involved.
Management under today's ESA for listed or pending species
such as the sage grouse usually means doing ``something''
regardless of how much that ``something'' costs or the
impacts that it has on current activities. Economic impacts
need to be considered and should weigh heavily on decisions
to list species.
Utilizing sound management practices including reasonable hunting
limits, best grazing practices, and activity limits based on sound
science, we are starting to make huge strides toward stabilizing the
population of sage grouse, despite the fact that they are not currently
listed. Most ranchers and landowners quite frankly don't care about
sage grouse being on their land--they're neither an asset nor a
nuisance. If the sage grouse is listed under the ESA, it will have
profound impacts across all aspects of both public and private lands in
Montana--hence the nickname the ``spotted owl of the West''. We need to
continue to make progress on the sage grouse using sound science and
local management, and avoid listing of the sage grouse at all costs
under the current flawed ESA. We need to work toward making legislative
improvements to the current ESA process so that future listings will
result in the desired outcome of species recovery and timely delisting.
The ESA and the species that are managed under this plan have had a
profound impact on Montanans and our way of life. The improper
management of species such as wolves and grizzlies has resulted in
dramatic declines in elk and moose populations resulting in lost
hunting opportunities and dramatically impacting the towns whose
economies rely on hunting season. Future ESA listings will have similar
and profound impacts on both public and private lands and those who
rely on these lands both for recreation and for their livelihood. The
ESA should be reformed and based on science, not politics, and should
no longer be a tool for fringe groups to dictate how we live in
Montana.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Cebull, for your
testimony.
Next, I will recognize Mr. Channis Whiteman, a member of
the Crow Tribe, recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHANNIS WHITEMAN, MEMBER OF THE CROW TRIBE,
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR, CLOUD PEAK ENERGY, CROW AGENCY, MONTANA
Mr. Whiteman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the House Natural Resources Committee. My name is Channis
Whiteman, and I am a member of the Crow Tribe, and an employee
at Cloud Peak Energy's Spring Creek Coal Mine. On behalf of the
Crow Tribe, I welcome you to Montana.
I am also happy to welcome you on behalf of Cloud Peak
Energy. We are honored to have you in Montana and appreciate
your interest in the issue that not only impacts the company I
work for, but my tribe and my family.
Let me begin by giving you some background. The Crow
Reservation is Montana's largest reservation with more than 2.2
million acres of land. The Reservation is home to more than
8,500 Apsaalooke tribal members.
You should also know that the Crow struggle economically.
Our unemployment rate approaches 50 percent. Our young people
are forced to leave our home in search of work. Others struggle
with social problems associated with poverty, idleness, and
despair.
This does not have to be. The Crow Reservation is a wealthy
reservation. We are blessed with an abundance of natural
resources, including timber, water, oil, gas, and renewable
energy opportunities. We are also blessed with a massive coal
deposit. And their work on behalf of the tribe, the BIA
Division of Energy and Mineral Development has estimated that
there are more than 9 billion tons of coal resources within the
boundaries of the Crow Reservation. The Crow Tribe recently
signed an option and lease agreement with Cloud Peak Energy,
our neighbor to the east of our Reservation, with the intent
and hope to develop some of those reserves.
Crow coal reserves could serve existing domestic markets,
as well as the growing Asian market. It is a reserve the tribe
is interested in developing because we believe it is a key to
making us a self-reliant reservation economy that can provide
good jobs for our kids and hope for all generations.
I know what I speak, Mr. Chairman, because I am a proud
coal miner at Cloud Peak Energy's Spring Creek Mine. I am a
heavy equipment operator; a job I have had with Spring Creek
since 2005. Cloud Peak Energy is one of the largest coal mining
companies in the United States. Cloud Peak owns and operates
three mines in the Powder River Basin States of Wyoming and
Montana.
In Montana, Cloud Peak Energy owns and operates the Spring
Creek Coal Mine, the State's largest coal mine, which was
responsible for about 48 percent of Montana's total coal
production last year. And at a time when the Crow unemployment
rate is near 50 percent, and the U.S. unemployment rate is over
7, coal mining provides safe, reliable, good paying jobs, jobs
that feed families and create opportunities to make healthy
communities.
But I know there are detractors who say the harm of coal
mining to the environment outweighs the benefits of jobs and
tax revenue created by mining. Some argue that we must choose
between these good paying jobs and the environment.
Now, I don't know a lot about the Endangered Species Act or
the legal issues surrounding the sage grouse. That said, I
think we would all agree with Congress's worthy intentions when
passing the Endangered Species Act. However, we must make sure
that any actions to save a species also takes into
consideration the human impact. The Endangered Species Act
should not force us to choose wildlife over humans and the
economic opportunity necessary to my family and my tribe.
I am here to tell you that we can have both, thriving
wildlife populations and good paying jobs created by coal. Mr.
Chairman, let me be clear so all understand our position.
Protecting the environment is of monumental importance to the
Crow Tribe. Cloud Peak's reclamation work and operation
mitigation efforts often result in improvement of wildlife
habitat. I know this because I see this every day I go to work.
To give you a quick example, at the Spring Creek Mine, our
reclamation work is second to none. If you look on the screen,
you will see a photo of our award winning reclamation work. As
a dozer operator, I have been involved in the re-grading of
land after the coal has been removed, returning it to a
condition most would argue is better than before we mined it.
Reclaiming land specifically to provide habitat for a variety
of wildlife species, including sage grouse is a permanent and
ongoing operation.
We are creating a sage grouse habitat today at Spring Creek
in places that were not sage grouse habitats before we mined
it. And this restored and improved habitat is already bringing
in wildlife, including mule deer, antelope, osprey and a wide
variety of other native species.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a biologist, or a scientist, or an
expert on sage grouse, but I do know Cloud Peak Energy takes
its responsibility to the environment very seriously. If the
implementation of laws like the Endangered Species Act fails to
adequately consider people in the equation, then I fear efforts
to save the Sage Grouse could lead to lost jobs, and the sage
grouse will still lose habitat.
Restrictions that prevent Cloud Peak Energy from
temporarily disturbing the land could lead to permanent impacts
for me, my fellow coal miners, my family, and my tribe.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Crow Tribe
is located in a rural part of Montana. We do not have a lot of
options, but what we do have is a lot of coal. Coal brings good
paying jobs and critical revenue to my tribe. In recent years,
coal revenues from the only operation that currently mines Crow
coal, Westmoreland Resources' Absaloka Mine, accounted for
almost two-thirds of the tribe's revenues outside of Federal
programs. To better provide for our people, the tribe needs to
expand and diversify our coal revenue and jobs.
And that coal also gives us a lot of hope because it helps
provides a path toward self-sufficiency, opportunity for my
kids, and a choice for all the families that want to stay on
their homeland. Good paying jobs do not have to come at the
expense of the environment. We can have both. As a heavy
equipment operator for a coal mining company and as a member of
the Crow Tribe, I know we are already accomplishing both.
Let me finally say, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, on behalf of Cloud Peak Energy, I extend an
invitation to tour our Spring Creek Mine, a world class mine
with world class employees, recovering a world class coal
reserve. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whiteman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Channis Whiteman, Member or the Crow Tribe,
Equipment Operator, Cloud Peak Energy, Crow Agency, Montana
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the House Natural
Resources Committee. My name is Channis Whiteman and I am a member of
the Crow Tribe and employee at Cloud Peak Energy's Spring Creek Coal
mine. On behalf of the Crow Tribe, I welcome you to Montana.
I am also happy to welcome you on behalf of Cloud Peak Energy. We
are honored to have you in Montana and appreciate your interest in
issues that not only impact the company I work for, but my tribe and my
family.
Let me begin by giving you some background.
The Crow Reservation is Montana's largest reservation with more
than 2.2 million acres of land. The reservation is home to more than
8,500 Apsaalooke tribal members.
You should also know that the Crow struggle economically. Our
unemployment rate approaches 50 percent. Our young people are forced to
leave our home in search of work. Others struggle with social problems
associated with poverty, idleness and despair.
This does not have to be. The Crow Reservation is a wealthy
reservation. We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources
including timber, water, oil, gas and renewable energy opportunities.
We are also blessed with a massive coal deposit--in their work on
behalf of the tribe, the BIA Division of Energy and Mineral Development
has estimated that there are more than 9 billion tons of coal resources
within the boundaries of the Crow Reservation.
The Crow Tribe recently signed an option and lease agreement with
Cloud Peak Energy, our neighbor to the east of our reservation, with
the intent and hope to develop some of those reserves.
Crow coal reserves could serve existing domestic markets as well as
the growing Asian market.
It is a reserve the tribe is interested in developing because we
believe it is a key to making us a self-reliant reservation economy
that can provide good jobs for our kids and hope for all generations.
I know what I speak, Mr. Chairman, because I am a proud coal miner
at Cloud Peak Energy's Spring Creek Mine. I am a heavy equipment
operator; a job I have had with Cloud Peak since 2005.
Cloud Peak Energy is one of the largest coal mining companies in
the United States. Cloud Peak owns and operates three mines in the
Powder River Basin States of Wyoming and Montana.
In Montana, Cloud Peak Energy owns and operates the Spring Creek
Coal Mine, the State's largest coal mine, which was responsible for
about 48 percent of Montana's total coal production last year.
And at a time when the Crow unemployment rate is near 50 percent
and the U.S. unemployment rate is over 7 percent, coal mining provides
safe, reliable, good paying jobs.
Jobs that feed families and create opportunities and make healthy
communities.
But I know there are detractors who say the harm of coal mining to
the environment outweighs the benefits of the jobs and tax revenue
created by mining. Some argue that we must choose between these good
paying jobs and the environment.
Now I don't know a lot about the Endangered Species Act or the
legal issues surrounding the sage grouse. That said, I think we'd all
agree with Congress's worthy intentions when passing the Endangered
Species Act
However we must make sure that any actions to save a species also
takes into consideration the human impact. The Endangered Species Act
should not force us to choose wildlife over humans and the economic
opportunity necessary to my family and my tribe.
I am here to tell you that we can have both--thriving wildlife
populations and good paying jobs created by coal. Mr. Chairman, let me
be clear so all understand our position. Protecting the environment is
of monumental importance to the Crow Tribe.
Cloud Peak's reclamation work and operation mitigation efforts
often result in improvement of wildlife habitat.
I know this because I see it every day I go to work.
Let me give you a quick example. At the Spring Creek Mine, our
reclamation work is second to none. If you look on the screen, you will
see a photo of our award winning reclamation work. As a dozer operator,
I have been involved in the re-grading of land after the coal has been
removed, returning it to a condition most would argue, is better than
before we mined.
Reclaiming land specifically to provide habitat for a variety of
wildlife species including sage grouse is a permanent and ongoing
operation.
We are creating sage grouse habitat today, at Spring Creek, in
places that were not sage grouse habitat before we mined. And this
restored and improved habitat is already bringing in wildlife,
including mule deer, antelope, osprey and a wide variety of other
native species.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a biologist or a scientist or an expert on
sage grouse. But I do know Cloud Peak Energy takes its responsibility
to the environment very seriously.
If the implementation of laws like the Endangered Species Act fails
to adequately consider people in the equation, then I fear efforts to
save the Sage Grouse could lead to lost jobs, and the sage grouse will
still lose habitat.
Restrictions that prevent Cloud Peak Energy from temporarily
disturbing the land could lead to permanent impacts for me, my fellow
coal miners, my family, and my tribe.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Crow Tribe is
located in a rural, remote part of Montana. We don't have a lot of
options.
But what we do have is a lot of coal. And that coal brings good
paying jobs and critical revenue to my tribe. In recent years, coal
revenues from the only operation that currently mines Crow coal--
Westmoreland Resources' Absaloka Mine--accounted for almost \2/3\ of
the tribe's revenues outside of Federal programs. To better provide for
our people, the tribe needs to expand and diversify our coal revenue
and jobs.
And that coal also gives us a lot of hope because it helps provides
a path toward self-sufficiency, opportunity for my kids and a choice
for all the families that want to stay on their homeland.
Good paying jobs do not have to come at the expense of the
environment. We can have both. As a heavy equipment operator for a coal
mining company AND as a member of the Crow Tribe, I know we are already
accomplishing both.
Let me finally say, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on
behalf of Cloud Peak Energy I extend an invitation to tour our Spring
Creek Mine, a world class mine with world class employees, recovering a
world class coal reserve.
Congressman Daines toured the Spring Creek Mine in 2012 and I
suspect he would be willing to attest to the impressive nature of our
operation. Thank you again Congressman Daines for your interest in our
mine and issues that affect my livelihood and for your efforts to bring
this hearing to Montana.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Whiteman, for your
testimony.
And last, but certainly not least, we will go now to Mr.
Kerry White, who is the Executive Director of Citizens for
Balanced Use based out of Bozeman. Mr. White, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KERRY WHITE, EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER, CITIZENS FOR
BALANCED USE, BOZEMAN, MONTANA
Mr. White. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A correction on that. I
am one of the 12 executive board members. We have no paid
employees. We are all volunteers because we feel very
passionate about what we are trying to do. We are a multiple
use organization trying to educate the public on the importance
of multiple use recreation, active resource management, and
active forest management, responsible resource development.
I brought a prop with me, and I would like to show it to
you. This is a draft environmental impact statement, over 1,200
pages, on one project in the Gallatin. This is the final
environmental impact statement, another 1,500 pages, on one
project in the Gallatin. These both represent one project. This
is what is given to the public to comment on. About 90 percent
of the information in here has to deal with threatened species,
endangered species, species' habitat. A lot of it is under the
Endangered Species Act, whether it is grizzly bears,
wolverines, big horn sheep, big horn goats, the list goes on
and on--cutthroat trout, bull trout, it does not matter.
But I am here today to try to look at the social aspect of
what is going on out here. Rural America is dying. My wife and
I took a 3,000-mile trip to 9 Western States the end of July,
and I am sorry to say we did not visit Colorado, and we did not
go to Wyoming. But we did go to Idaho, and we did go to
Chairman Hastings' State, LeGrande, Baker City, California,
Nevada, Idaho, eastern Washington. And what we found was on
these two-lane highways was that in these small towns, boarded
up businesses, houses needing paint, roofs, old cars in the
driveway.
Talking to the people in the stores and the restaurants and
the gas stations, what they were frustrated with was being
locked out and off of their Federal managed public lands. Their
timber jobs were gone, the mining, the mineral, not the
minerals and mining were not there, but that they could not get
to them.
And I want to talk about this wheel that we kind of
developed with CBU. At the top of the point up here is people,
and that is what makes up communities, and it supports
communities. If you are out there and you are trying to make a
living, you want food, clothing, shelter. Agriculture here,
which was talked about on the panel, that is the food source,
and it also generates some of our current energy supplies, too,
which I think is kind of foolish, but that is what we do.
Watershed, we need water, and these forest fires out here,
we will see the devastation to our watersheds next spring when
the snows melt. And that is very sad, sickening to me to see
this renewable resource go up in smoke. Timber to build our
houses and homes. Minerals supply everything from this pointer,
to my cell phone, to everything in this room. They supply our
energy, turn the lights on. All of these provide jobs for those
people in those communities.
But what I am here today to tell you about is what I talk
to the people about, and that is the social and mental well-
being of these people that want to live and thrive and work in
these local rural communities. They cannot. They cannot because
they cannot get to the resources that enables them to have a
job.
And at the bottom of this wheel here, you will see
recreation. And when you go out and you work 5 days a week, or
6 days a week, or 7 days a week, and you get off in the
afternoon, and you want to go out and play, and I do not care
what you want to do, whether it is cross country skiing, or
snowmobiling, or rafting, or boating, or playing golf, or going
bowling, it is recreational activities that you spend with your
family and your friends. You spent it with your grandparents,
and now you want to spend them with your kids, and you want to
spend them with your grandkids.
I attached my testimony to the committee. It has a picture
of my family. There is some great information in there,
attachments on what we are breathing from these fires. But
recreation is what keeps us mentally revitalized. And when you
take away the access to agriculture, minerals, timber, and to
our watersheds because of fish or some animal, you take away
access to recreation. And when you take away access to
recreation, what you do is you force those people into their
little iPads, their iPhones, their computer games. You take
them out of the outdoors, and that is what's important to
people is being outdoors.
We had a survey done in Gallatin County: do you like
passive recreation or active recreation? Three-quarters of the
people wanted active recreation. That is outdoor, out in the
woods, out on our public lands recreating. If you take that
away from us, you are taking away our social, health, and well-
being.
And the main culprit--I am not blaming you, I am not
blaming anybody. I am not even blaming the environmental
groups. But Congress has given them the tools to be able to do
this, and we need to take those tools away from them.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kerry White, Executive Board Member, Citizens for
Balanced Use, Bozeman, Montana
I am Kerry White representing Citizens for Balanced Use (CBU).
Thank you for accepting the following comments from CBU regarding the
abuse of the Endangered Species Act by environmental groups.
CBU is a grass roots 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to
the education of the public in the importance of multiple use
recreation, responsible resource development and active forest
management. CBU has over 6,500 active members and hundreds of
supporting businesses in Montana and other Western States. CBU, through
its supporting and affiliated organizations, reaches over 100,000
people in our mission of bringing together different public land user
groups. Our supporting organizations include resource industries,
agriculture organizations, and numerous recreation groups of all sizes
and interests.
CBU was formed in 2004 in response to the closure of more than half
of the multiple use roads and trails in the Gallatin National Forest
(GNF) Travel Management Plan. Our organization solicited and helped
people submit over 140 appeals on this decision and yet all were
dismissed and the Record of Decision was issued. CBU filed litigation
on this flawed action but lost in the liberal Federal court in
Missoula. We appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit only to lose
again. Most of the reasons to justify the closures in the Travel Plan
revision used by the Forest Service revolved around the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The ESA is used by the Forest Service and
environmental groups as the tool of choice to close our federally
managed public lands to access, occupancy and use.
In the B-D Forest Plan revision the Forest Service designated many
areas of the forest as non-motorized and non-mechanized. After the
Forest Plan revision was complete the Forest Service began travel
planning in specific areas of the forest. The Forest Service refused to
conduct site specific road and trail inventories for travel planning in
areas designated as non-motorized and non-mechanized in the Forest Plan
revision. We were told these areas were already designated as non-
motorized and non-mechanized and there would be no reason to evaluate
the road and trail facilities in these areas. These areas were
essentially turned into defacto wilderness by the Forest Service by
removing all motorized and mechanized use even though there were
historic motorized and mechanized roads and trails in these areas. Many
of the reasons used by the Forest Service again revolved around the
ESA.
Many of the animals and issues being used to close access include
Grizzly Bears, Lynx, Wolverine, Mountain Goats, Big Horn Sheep, West
Slope Cutthroat, Bull Trout, Goshawk, Wolves, Big Game cover, old
growth timber and more. Justifications for their actions were not
always about a species being present but many times just the fact that
these areas could provide habitat was sufficient to close them to human
activity. Human activity is a worthwhile use of the land and laws like
ESA allows Federal agencies to close potential habitat based on bad
science to mechanical use and other uses that families in Montana have
been using for generations.
Our 12 executive board members of CBU are business owners, property
owners, farmers, ranchers and family oriented people who have been here
for several generations. None of our board are paid for their time and
dedication to our efforts. It sickens us to see the misuse of the ESA
to close these areas where we spent time with our grandparents, parents
and children. We wish we could enjoy these areas with family and
friends today but because of abuse of the ESA and flawed decisions by
the management agencies these precious opportunities are now forever
lost.
The GNF Travel Planning process is another example. During the GNF
Travel Plan process I conveyed to the Forest Service that access to
areas considered for closure are places where I have fond memories of
recreating with my parents and grandparents. In this travel plan, 50
percent of the GNF is closed to multiple use access. The Forest Service
seems to not understand the benefit of these traditional Montana
pastimes. Their management prohibiting multiple use is offensive to the
way of life of people like me in Montana and is unacceptable.
I understand not everyone like some Forest Service personal are as
lucky as I have been to have grown up in this beautiful part of
Montana; but the impact on the local communities, other families like
mine, and traditional uses of the land must not be ignored. The impact
on the local community, not bureaucrats, must be a critical part of any
land management analysis.
Laws like the ESA allow groups like Forest Service Employees for
Environmental Ethics, Center for Biological Diversity, and WildEarth
Guardians to keep Montanans and those who love to travel here from
experiencing the great outdoors.
One of our board members is an engineer for an aerospace company.
We were discussing the Forest Service and how they continue to prepare
NEPA documents that do not hold up in court. He told me that in his
industry, if their company were to engineer something that caused a
plane to crash; the first thing they would focus on would be why it
failed. The Forest Service on the other hand spends millions of dollars
developing and preparing an EIS document to comply with NEPA and at the
end of the day it fails in court. The DEIS and FEIS documents prepared
for the GNF Travel Plan numbered over 2,500 pages. This is unreasonable
to require the Forest Service and BLM to continue to prepare these
large complex documents and simply not fair to the general public to
require them to read, comprehend and comment on this amount of
information.
This information is concerning to CBU and should be concerning to
Congress. Multiple NEPA EIS documents are prepared for the exact same
project and they continue to be flawed, incomplete, and not stand up in
court time after time. The main content of NEPA documents, that
continue to fail, is insufficient analysis of wildlife under the ESA.
Whether it is wildlife disturbance, potential loss of habitat, old
growth cover or any other wildlife related issue, the ESA is destroying
rural America. Something must be done. CBU believes that some
environmental groups are using the tools like the ESA to stop use of
our public lands.
Case in point. When the B-D Forest Plan revision was being started
in 2007, Forest Service officials included approximately 350,000 acres
of new wilderness in the plan even though no analysis of wilderness
character lands was completed. Forest Service officials feel pressured
to base decisions like these due to the threat of litigation from some
environmental groups. The Forest Service must be able to manage our
lands so that the land continues to support our robust recreation and
resource industries for generations ahead. With laws like ESA and NEPA
establishing a framework for obstructive environmental lawsuits, smart
land management is impossible.
It is also disturbing to CBU that obstructive environmental groups
profit from keeping responsible resource management projects from
proceeding by the American taxpayer. Obstructive environmentalism is a
business and our Federal Government and the courts are doing a great
job in funding them. Take for example the Equal Access to Justice Act.
When environmental groups prevail in court they are reimbursed through
the EAJA for attorney fees and witness fees and court costs. Reports
CBU have seen show environmental groups are collecting over $1 billion
per year through the EAJA. These funds are tax dollars and are paid to
these groups from the budgets of the agencies where the litigation
occurred. If litigation is filed on a project in the Gallatin National
Forest and the court rules in favor of the environmental group, those
EAJA funds come from the budget of the GNF. This has greatly impaired
the ability of specific forests to complete necessary trail and road
maintenance or campground and facility improvements. Moreover, keeps
funds away from supporting life-saving fire suppression.
road and trail obliterations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Most litigation revolves around the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) so in fact the ESA is the root of the problem. In an effort to
reduce the backlog of road and trail maintenance it becomes somewhat
easier for the Forest Service to just remove that facilities or
campgrounds from the inventory. This is occurring throughout the
Western States by both the Forest Service and BLM.
I am 59 years old, married 31 years to Patty, have 3 children, Kim
(married to Nick), Tim and Brian, and 2 grandchildren Owen and Nora. My
great grandfather came to the Gallatin Valley in 1864 and we still
operate the family ranch. I am the current president of the Gallatin
Sons and Daughters of the Pioneers and a Montana House member
representing District 70.
My grandfather and grandmother built a cabin in the Squaw Creek
drainage of the Gallatin River in 1934 on Forest Service lease ground
and at that time the lease was $35 per year. Today that yearly lease
exceeds $1,700. Back then the Forest Service encouraged people to enjoy
and experience our public lands. Not true anymore. I remember spending
time with my grandfather (Bud) at the cabin fishing and hunting. I
remember the District Ranger one day stopping by and telling Bud that
he was heading up the drainage and working his way south to Buffalo
Horn (about 40 miles) on his horse and pack string to look at the
condition of the forest. He asked my grandfather to look after things
while he was gone for a few days. This was the way it was, Forest
Service employees working with the people and also being out in the
forest, on the ground, caring for the land.
A few years later I remember riding down the Squaw Creek road with
Bud in his old 62 Dodge Dart and as we passed the District Rangers
living quarters at the head of Squaw Creek he turned to me and said,
``Well there goes the forest''. This statement startled me and I
surprisingly turned to him and asked what he meant. He explained to me
that the District Ranger, the one responsible for managing the Gallatin
Forest, was moving to town. He told me in no uncertain terms. ``Now how
in the world can you manage a forest from an office in town?'' He was
completely right in this statement because we have seen our forest go
from a once lush green garden to an ocean of dead, dying and diseased
timber. An agency once supported by harvested timber creating good
paying jobs and supporting the local community tax base now is an
agency draining our Federal budget and managing these lands from behind
a desk using maps, satellite imagery, modeling, assumptions,
predictions and skewed data provided by agenda-driven environmental
groups funding so-called scientific studies with a predetermined
outcome. The tool of choice again is the Endangered Species Act.
Contrary to the intent of the ESA, this management technique
continues to fail and as a result all things suffer. The environmental
groups want to stop active mechanical treatment of our renewable timber
resource and they use the ESA to further this agenda. Let us look for a
moment what affect this management technique is having on the land, the
animals, the water and our air. Two recent articles in the Bozeman
Daily Chronicle revealed the true cost of smoke generated by forest
fires. The American Lung Association and the Montana DNRC both stated
that smoke from forest fires was prematurely KILLING people with
pulmonary disease and respiratory problems. Raging fires are so intense
because of the overgrown forest and lack of active management that the
soils in many cases are sterilized and baked. Animals unable to escape
these fast moving fires are consumed and killed. The fish in our
streams are baked and the soil erosion from rain, no longer able to be
absorbed, suffocates what fish remain. Millions and billions of dollars
spent trying to contain these monster fires and protect homes and property while putting lives at risk. This is environmentalism at its
finest.
environental cost of fire
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I worked 5 years as a subcontractor on the forest fires as a
camp mechanic. I inspected vehicles coming on the fire and before they
left to make sure they were safe. I repaired broken vehicles and
equipment and had access to everyone and every department in fire camp.
During that time I was astounded at the waste and abuse of government
money. A fire camp of 900 would usually be 600 administration and 300
fire fighters.
I believe we are wasting valuable resources in fighting these
fires. We are wasting vast amounts of money, 40 percent of the Forest
Service budget on these preventable fires. We are wasting a valuable
renewable resource by letting it burn. We are polluting our streams and
air. We are killing millions of animals unable to escape these fires.
Most of all we are wasting the valuable resources of our rural
communities and the people wanting to live in them. This is
unacceptable to waste such a precious resource when we could be doing
so much with it.
When I was growing up I never experienced the smoke like it appears
today. Many environmental organizations claim it is because of global
warming. They are ignoring the fact that timber harvests have been
stopped by their own groups which allow forests to burn, polluting the
air.
CBU is working every day to educate people on what would be a
better solution to our public land management needs. Good jobs created
by active forest management and responsible resource development and
taking care of our environment rather than letting it deteriorate,
waste away and burn. There is social and mental well-being and better
health resulting from people enjoying multiple use recreation and
access. CBU has received numerous letters and emails from folks serving
our country in the military. Some of these brave Americans have been
disabled and injured. These folks need some type of motorized and
mechanized transport to enjoy our public lands. Many of these people
have thanked us for trying to keep these precious places open to them
and their families when they return home. The very fabric of our Nation
is being destroyed by these obstructive environmental groups attempting
to remove people from the land. We are happy to continue this fight on
their behalf and a fight it is.
Recently Patty and I decided to take a 3 week journey covering 9
Western States on our motorcycle. We wanted to take the back road two
lane highways and see for ourselves the economic recovery that many in
Washington, DC are telling us about. We visited with hundreds of people
along the way in small towns and communities. What we saw was boarded
up businesses on main streets across the West, houses in need of
repairs and paint, streets and schools in disrepair and old vehicles
parked in driveways. What was even more alarming was what we heard from
these people living in the small communities.
We listened to story after story about how once these towns were
booming with timber jobs, mining and small farms. Businesses once
booming on Main Street were being turned into vacant buildings and
empty lots. The people are moving away in search of employment and
opportunities. The children are forced to leave as these communities
once vibrant are turning into ghost towns.
We continued to ask the one question of why and every time we
asked, the answer was the same. ``The environmental groups have shut
down our resource industries.'' The environmental groups have turned to
the tools given them by the government to stop resource industries and
close access. Many stories reflected the passion of these people once
able to use this land, care for this land, and recreate in and on this
land. Stories of spending time with their ancestors visiting those
special places that are now off limits and closed was a common theme.
Roads obliterated, locked gates and signs of closures were frequently
spoken of.
I have been hearing of this so-called economic recovery we are
experiencing but to be very honest my wife and I saw no evidence of it
in rural America. What we saw were people scratching to make a living
and the broken dreams and promises all taken away by environmental
groups and our Federal bureaucracy all in the name of an endangered
fish or animal. There seemed to be little joy or hope in the eyes of
these hard working rural Americans. This sight is something every
person in Congress should see and every person serving in our Congress
should hear.
These rural folks will tell you about the mismanagement of our
Federal lands and their current condition. While obstructive
environmental groups are profiting from Federal land mismanagement, the
forests in the west are dead and dying with little relief in sight. You
could see the disgust on the people's faces as they spoke of the waste
that is happening to this resource.
Water in the West is sometimes scarce. Environmentalist are quick
to point the finger at global warming as the cause when in fact there
very well may be another proven factor for reduced stream flows and
ground water levels. This factor is overpopulation of trees in the
forest. Our forests are so dense and thick today that even the animals
are moving to private land for forage. A pilot project was done in
California where water tables and stream flows were recorded before and
after a forest thinning project was completed.
After thinning this forest to healthy tree populations the ground
water table rose 100 feet. Old stream beds once dry were once again
flowing.
When the actions of these groups and those in our government
agencies create the very problems we are seeing today, I find this
dishonest and unacceptable. We have heard the new ``don't ever waste a
crisis'' and we are seeing it today with the global warming hysteria. I
believe the true crisis is out of control land management agencies
throwing regulation after regulation at the people on a daily basis.
Most of these Federal agency land managers and biologists don't know
anything of the history and caring for the land. They are over educated
bureaucrats sitting behind a desk looking at Google earth and creating
models of predictions with flawed input data of E-stimates, S-
peculations and A-ssumptions. Behold the ESA.
The spotted owl is a great example of how the ESA wrongly destroyed
an industry and people's lives and years later we now know that it was
not the timber industry that was destroying this bird. But was it
really about a bird or was it about destroying an industry? I believe
it was the latter of the two. Once the industry and infrastructure was
gone, the mission was complete. This industry could come back but only
if long term predictability was in place and investors were assured a
continued multiple year flow of raw material. This will take hard work
on the part of our Congress and a President willing to support active
forest management.
I talked about our trip around the Western United States and how
people were depressed and sadden by what they see occurring on our
public lands. I want to speak of social environments and the
requirement of analysis of social impacts in developing and producing
NEPA documents. Of all the NEPA documents produced on Forest Service
and BLM actions it is clear they lack adequate social impact analysis.
Social well-being of a community is not solely based on jobs and
income but also on mental well-being and feelings. A healthy community
depends largely on recreation as a retreat from work and a hectic
everyday life. Recreation can be passive or active. Passive being the
organized sports like swim centers, football games, golf courses and
walking trails. Active recreation is the opportunity to experience the
outdoors in numerous ways like gold panning, snowmobiling, horseback
riding, fishing, hunting, etc. In a survey done in Gallatin County,
people were asked what type of recreation they prefer and 3 to 1 the
people preferred active recreation. The current direction of the
Federal land managers is to close recreational access to these lands.
This directly affects the social health and well-being of those people
living in these areas.
The other part of the required social analysis is the economic job
loss. When the Forest Service and BLM prepare a social analysis on jobs
for a proposed action they use what is known as the IMPLAN SYSTEM
program developed in Colorado. This flawed technique requires data
input of demographics, populations, income, businesses, etc. The
problem with their analysis is they only use information from large
metropolitan areas in determining the impact. For instance on a project
in the B-D National forest they would use economic data from Butte,
Missoula, Bozeman and Helena and ignore small communities like Dillon,
Jackson, Lima, Wise River, Ennis, etc. The result of 10 lost jobs in
Bozeman (pop. 65,000) as a result of an action is quite different than
10 jobs in Wise River (pop. 150). The failure to consider these impacts
to small communities is destroying rural America with every action
implemented. The Federal land managers claim they are doing this to
comply with Federal requirements, which in most cases revolves around
compliance with the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, Roadless Rule, Clean
Water Act, Clear Air Act and the list goes on and on. How about
compliance with the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act or the Organic
Act, or the Taylor Grazing Act, or the Mining Act? CBU has been told by
these agencies that these latter Acts are old and outdated so these
land managers ignore them.
In the Western United States much of the land is under Federal
management. These lands were not relinquished to the States as were in
the Eastern States when they came into the Union. As a result the
Western States are disadvantaged as to the management of these lands
and the loss of income to the States. Limited tax base, limited
resource income, limited powers over these lands. Federal agencies are
required by Federal law to coordinate their management policies and
actions with local and State governments but in reality the Federal
agencies have refused to comply with the coordination requirements.
There are efforts underway today in several Western States to get the
Federal Government to give these federally managed public lands back to
the States. CBU believes this effort has merit. Who better to manage
these lands than those most affected by how they are managed.
CBU believes we are at a critical stage in our history. We are
losing our rural communities where our food is produced. We are losing
the infrastructure to treat and harvest our forests. We are putting off
limits millions of acres of federally managed public land to energy
development. We are restricting private property use in a way never
before seen in history. The worst thing of all is there seems to be no
end in sight to this regulation madness.
In the United States today there is an effort to attack coal
production and the burning of coal to produce electricity. I have heard
that coal produces about 80 percent of our electricity nationally. Coal
is a resource which the United States has vast reserves. One coal fired
electricity generating plant is Colstrip which is in Montana. This
facility supports 1,000s of good paying jobs and provides electricity
for thousands of homes and businesses. I have included an attachment
which shows this facility. Colstrip 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all working at
capacity in this photo. The discharge from the 4 stacks is steam and
NOT deadly carcinogens such as what is released from forest fires. You
can see the beautiful clear blue skies over this community even with
this facility running at capacity. So if letting our forests burn is
the right thing to do and is supported by the environmental
organizations and producing electricity from coal is sinful and wrong
and objected to by the environmental organizations, then my question is
simply this, is it really about the environment or is it a business
model of raising money to remove humans from the land.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CBU stands ready and willing to help develop solutions to these
problems but we are not the decisionmakers. CBU will continue to
educate people on the importance of responsible resource development,
active forest management and access to multiple use recreation while
protecting and defending the private property rights of everyone.
Thank you for accepting this brief testimony on behalf of Citizens
for Balanced Use.
list of current and immediate past actions affecting not only multiple-
use recreation but the resource and agricultural industries which in
turn adversely affect the economies of local communities:
United States Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No. 01-35690 D.C.
No.
CV-96-00152-DWM
Every Resource Management Plans and Planning Actions
(inter-agency) Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan (inter-agency) ICBEMP
(inter-agency) Northern Rockies
Lynx Amendment (inter-agency)3-States OHV Strategy
B-DNF Continental Divide Trail near
Jackson, MT B-DNF Whitetail Pipestone Travel
Plan
B-DNF 2003 Forest Plan Update B-DNF Analysis of the Management
Situation
B-DNF Continental Divide trail near
Feely B-DNF Continental Divide trail near
Whitetail-Pipestone
B-DNF Social Assessment B-DNF Mussigbrod Post Fire Roads
Management
B-DNF & BLM Flint Creek Watershed
Project BLM Blackleaf Project EIS
BLM Dillon Resource Management Plan BLM Headwater Resource Management
Plan
BLM Arizona Strip Travel Plan BLM Bruneau Resource Area Travel
Plan
BLM Escalante Grand Staircase
Monument BLM Missouri Breaks Monument
BLM Moab Resource Management Plans BLM National OHV Strategy
BLM National Mountain Biking
Strategic Action Plan BLM San Rafael Travel Plan
BLM Sleeping Giant Travel Plan BLM Whitetail/Pipestone Rec.
Management Strategy
BLM Lake Havasu RMP BLM Sustaining Working Landscapes
Initiative
BLM Rocky Mountain Front Scenery
Evaluation Project BLM Kanab Resource Management Plan
Bitterroot NF Fire Salvage EIS Bitterroot NF Post-fire Weed
Mitigation EIS
Bitterroot NF Sapphire Divide Trail Bitterroot NF Forest Plan Revision
Caribou NF Travel Plan Custer National Forest Travel Plan
EPA Tenmile Creek Watershed Plan Flathead NF Robert Wedge Post Fire
Project
Flathead NF West Side Reservoir
Post Fire Project Flathead NF Forest Plan Revisions
Flathead NF Moose Post Fire Road
Closures Flathead NF Spotted Bear Road
Closures
Gallatin NF 2002 Travel Plan Update Helena NF Blackfoot Travel Plan
Helena NF Blackfoot Water Quality
Plan Helena NF Cave Gulch Fire Salvage
Sale
Helena NF Clancy-Unionville Plan Helena NF North Belts Travel Plan
Helena NF North Divide Travel Plan Helena NF Noxious Weed Plan
Helena NF South Belts Travel Plan Helena NF South Divide Travel Plan
Helena NF Continental Divide
National Scenic Trail Humboldt Toiyabe NF Charleston-
Jarbidge Road
Humboldt Toiyabe NF Spring
Mountains NRA Kootenai NF Bristow Restoration
Project
Kootenai NF McSwede Restoration
Project Kootenai NF Forest Plan Revisions
Lolo NF Forest Plan Revision L&CNF Judith Restoration Plan
L&CNF Rocky Mountain Front Travel
Plan L&CNF Snowy Mountain Travel Plan
L&CNF Travel Plan update Montana State Wolf Plan
Montana State Trail Grant Program
PEIS Montana State Trail Plan PEIS
Montana FWP Statewide Outdoor
Recreation Plan Nez Perce NF Travel Plan Revisions
NPS Salt Creek Road Closure NPS Yellowstone Winter Plan
(snowmobile closure)
Payette NF Travel Plan Revisions Sawtooth NF Travel Plan Revisions
USFS National OHV Policy and
Implementation USFS Forest Plan Amendments for
Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation
USFS National Strategic Plan 2003
Update USFS Roadless
USFS Roadless Rule II USFS Roads Policy
USFS National Land Management Plan
Revisions USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan
USFWS Westslope Cutthroat Trout ESA USFWS CMR National Wildlife Refuge
Road Closures
USFWS Sage Grouse Plan
[From the Bozeman Daily Chronicle: Opinion, Friday, August 23, 2013]
Reducing the Health Impacts of Wildfires
(By Kim Davitt, Guest Columnist)
Summers in Montana are pretty magical, with plenty of sunny days
and blue skies to enjoy hiking, camping, fishing and other outdoor
activities. But, in recent years, summer also means wildfires. In many
parts of the State, people have had to contend with a few smoky days,
or even smoky weeks, spoiling outdoor plans.
Recent fires in Idaho and Montana are beginning to fill our
communities with smoke. For those that suffer from asthma, COPD or
another lung disease, even a few smoky days can be dangerous.
Montanans should stay indoors when outdoor air quality is bad.
Wildfire smoke even impacts those without lung disease and can increase
the risk for respiratory tract irritation and can cause more serious
health problems, such as reduced lung function, bronchitis and even
premature death. These risks are especially magnified for older adults
and outdoor workers. Children require extra protection, because their
fragile respiratory systems are still developing.
Immediate actions that can help reduce respiratory harm caused by
wildfires include:
People living near fire-stricken areas are encouraged to
stay inside as much as possible with their doors, windows
and fireplace dampers shut. Use the recirculation setting
on air conditioners to avoid outdoor contamination. Using
whole house fans is not recommended, because they bring in
unfiltered outside air.
Keep car windows and vents closed when driving through
smoky areas. Air conditioning should be set to
``recirculate'' to avoid unhealthy outside air.
Limit time outdoors, particularly if you smell smoke or
experience eye or throat irritation.
People with asthma should ask their doctors about any
changes in medication needed to ope with smoky conditions.
If you can't reach your physician, use your medications as
directed and closely follow your asthma action plan.
If you choose to wear a dust mask for protection, use one
labeled ``N95'' or ``P1000.''
The American Lung Association and other health professionals who
are part of the Healthy Air Campaign are concerned about the health
risks posed by wildfire smoke. Fires put fine particles into the air,
which can irritate and damage our lungs. More smoke means more bad air
days, more asthma attacks, more emergency room visits, and premature
deaths.
Because climate change is fuel ing more drought-related forest
fires, and power plants are the largest source of climate-chang ing
carbon pollution, the American Lung Association has called on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set standards to lower power
plant carbon pollution. Less carbon pollution will help rein in climate
change that is fueling conditions that causes intense forest fires and
could make efforts to reduce ozone (smog) tougher.
We call on Montana's leaders in Congress to support these health
protections.
Kim Davitt is Montana initiatives manager for the American Lung
Association. She lives in Missoula.
[Bozeman Daily Chronicle August 25, 2012]
Idaho Fires Blowing Smoke Over Bozeman
A handful of fires from Idaho are to blame for the cover of smoke
that blanketed the Gallatin Valley on Friday. Zach Uttech,
meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Great Falls, said
fires such as the Mustang Complex, Porcupine Complex and the Mallard
and Ditch fires in east-central Idaho sent smoke to the area. ``It's
basically aimed in that direction to go over southwestern Montana,''
Uttech said. Even though winds pushed heavy smoke out of the Bozeman
area by Friday afternoon, Uttech predicted that smoke would roll back
in. But with weaker winds and cooler weather, Uttech said the smoke
shouldn't be a problem today. ``I really don't think it's going to be
as bad,'' Uttech said. Smoke in the air can cause respiratory symptoms
in sensitive people, aggravate heart or lung diseases and increase the
likelihood of premature death in the elderly or people with
cardiopulmonary disease, according to the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality. Health officials advise people to limit their
exposure to the smoky air by staying indoors and not exerting
themselves outside. Today's high is predicted to be 78 degrees, with a
low of 40. The wind is expected to blow 2 mph.
MONTANA 2012 WILDFIRE SMOKE EMISSIONS *
[as of 9/9/2012]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Non-Forest Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burned Area (acres) 408,789 404,716 813,505
Fuel Consumption (ton dry 3,416,104 1,093,744 4,509,848
vegetation)
Emissions (tons)
Species:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 5,465,767 1,844,053 7,309,819
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 461,174 68,906 530,080
Methane (CH4) 25,006 2,122 27,128
Acetylene (C2H2) 991 262 1,253
Ethylene (C2H4) 5,842 897 6,738
Propylene (C3H6) 3,279 864 4,144
Formaldehyde (HCHO) 8,882 798 9,680
Methanol (CH3OH) 10,727 1,291 12,017
Formic Acid (HCOOH) 888 230 1,118
Acetic Acid (CH3COOH) 12,708 3,883 16,591
Phenol (C6H5OH) 3,484 569 4,053
Furan (C4H4O) 2,050 186 2,236
Glycolaldehyde (C2H4O2) 3,519 886 4,405
Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) 2,835 448 3,284
Ammonia (NH3) 6,491 569 7,059
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO) 6,593 4,266 10,859
PM2.5 (fine particulate 88,135 7,842 95,978
matter)
Propane (C3H8) 888 109 998
n-Butane (C4H10) 284 17 301
Isoprene (C5H8) 253 43 295
Benzene (C6H6) 1,879 219 2,098
Toluene (C6H5CH3) 820 87 907
Mercury (Hg) 0.83 0.04 0.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: Shawn Urbanski Research Phyical Scientist Missoula Fire
Sciences Laboratory RMRS, U.S. Forest Service.
* Methodology upon request from DEQ.
[From Loggers World, January 2013, Volume 49, Number 1]
forest service acres harvested
(By the American Forest Resources Coalition http://www.amforest.org/)
In a November 14 report, the Forest Service disclosed that the
total acres harvested on its lands in FY 2012 was 208,639 acres. Keep
in mind that the Forest Service manages over 191 million acres; thus
they harvested timber on only .1 percent of their lands.
The most used harvest scheme was thinning (113,719 acres) followed
by sanitation harvest (30,538 acres) and selection cut (16,283 acres).
Harvest by Regions from largest to smallest were: Region 9--42,847
acres; Region 8--42,084 acres; Region 6--39,117 acres; Region 2--28,422
acres; Region 5--21,860 acres; Region 1--12,662 acres; Region 3--11,014
acres; Region 4--9,560 acres; and Region 10--1,063 acres.
According to the Forest Service's Forest Restoration Strategy
(Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on our National
Forests--February 2012), there are between 65 and 82 million acres of
National Forest System lands in need of restoration. Of those acres,
approximately 12.5 million require mechanical treatment. If we stay on
this current pace of harvest and restoration, it would take over 60
years to get those acres treated, not counting new acres that become in
need of restoration.
Thanks to Bill Imbergamo and the Federal Forest Resource Coaltion
for sharing this data.
Restoring a Forest Watershed and Adding Water Back to the Land
(By Dan C. Abercrombie, [email protected])
Historical evidence clearly shows a significant decline in both
stream flow and ground water recharge in the Sacramento Mountains of
southern New Mexico. Photos, oral history, early Census data, and
written accounts all paint a much wetter picture than is present today.
Dense forests are robbing springs and streams of surface flow. Ground
water recharge during the recent drought was non-existent. Large
numbers of wells all over Otero County dried up. Drilling deeper was
successful in some areas, but people in some areas are still hauling
water.
Members of the Sacramento River Watershed Coalition recently
completed several large thinning projects near Timberon. Several
thousand acres of Ponderosa pine and alligator juniper have been
thinned and restored to historical tree densities. Trees were thinned
on both private and State Land using Senator Jeff Bingaman's Forest
Restoration funds, State Forestry Wildland/Urban Interface funds, NRCS
Environmental Quality Incentive Program cost share, BLM, and the
rancher's input. Tree densities were reduced to improve ground cover
and reduce danger of a crown fire.
The Otero Soil and Water Conservation District began monitoring
static water levels in five wells in the watershed about 3 years ago.
Following the treatment and decent summer precipitation, water rose
about 100 feet in a well below the treated area. The static water level
in this well is now about 15 feet.
The New Mexico Bureau of Geology is preparing a Hydrogeology Map of
the Sacramento Mountains.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. White, for your
testimony. I want to thank all the panelists for their
testimony. And I will say this at the end of this hearing, too.
If you have something else to add, as Mr. Galt wanted to add,
that is certainly acceptable, and we will do that.
Now, I said at the outset that seniority has its
privileges, but I am going to defer my questions so that others
who represent this area much more closely than I do have a
chance. And we will start with Mr. Daines for questions for 5
minutes.
Mr. Daines. I guess that is home field advantage. Is that
right?
The Chairman. That is in this case, yes.
Mr. Daines. Well, thank you. And thank you for the
outstanding testimony today, and for this very informed group
of witnesses, and for what you have shared with us today.
I want to investigate here the comments that both Mr. Galt,
Ms. Robinson, and Mr. Knox shared about population sage grouse
and predation as a factor. And I think anybody who has grown up
in Montana knows and when you watch populations, you look at
predation, you look at weather, you also look at disease as
populations go up and down as three important variables,
amongst others.
But I was intrigued by the predation by other birds,
including the raven, that was mentioned here. It seems to be
the single most important factor, at least arguably, a very
important factor in sage grouse populations. The raven and
these other predatory birds are protected by the Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
So we have two government statutes that potentially are at
cross purposes with each other, and it seems like our Federal
Government then blames humans as a primary cause versus looking
at some of these naturally occurring processes in this very
complex ecosystem.
How can the BLM redirect its effort toward predation? I
would be interested in hearing any thoughts you might have. Ms.
Robinson, do you have a thought on that?
Ms. Robinson. Well, I would just like to say that as a
County Commissioner, I go to lots of meetings. And every time
we bring up predators, and it is never, ever looked at. It is
always completely ignored. Well, we do not have any control
over predators, so we are not looking at predators. Well, if
you look at the numbers, that is one of the big reasons of the
decline in sage grouse is predators, but yet they are not even
looking at any solutions because they are not admitting that
there is a problem.
Mr. Daines. Mr. Knox, do you have a thought on that, too?
Mr. Knox. Yes, that is a very difficult issue to address. I
have an example. When we were dealing with the riparian grazing
issues along the Missouri River, we were told by one of the BLM
employees, and he was quite frank about it. He said, even
though most of the problems that you are faced with are caused
by the dams upstream and the lack of natural flood stages, he
said, there is very little we can do about them, but we can do
something about you. So as individual ranchers, we feel that
all the time.
And so, I do not have a good answer to that, but I would
hope that maybe through this process we can at least get them
to acknowledge that these acts are in opposition to each other,
and we are the victims out here because of it.
Mr. Daines. Mr. Galt?
Mr. Galt. Thank you, Congressman Daines. I just agree with
my colleagues here. I mean, the National Technical Team did not
take that up. That was one of our criticisms of the National
Technical Team report. And as we sit on the Council, Governor
Bullock's Council, on Sage Grouse Conservation Strategies, I
mean, we are handed the document by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. And below a certain line, everything below that line
is really on the table for discussion. And predation, weather,
things like that are below that line.
So your wildlife specialists are saying it is not a
problem, but everybody that has come to that Council has said
this is a serious issue, and we see it particularly with the
people that live on the land and see it every day. And I just
think you need to bring them to the table and say, why not.
Mr. Daines. So you see that NTT, that data, that is one of
the biggest flaws in it is eliminating these variables?
Mr. Galt. That is one flaw, yes.
Mr. Daines. Is there another flaw?
Mr. Galt. Congressman Daines, Mr. Chairman, there are quite
a few flaws with that.
Mr. Daines. Do you want to give us another one?
Mr. Galt. I think that a big issue is that we are not
really taking a look at what industry and what conservation
groups and what members of the Farm Bureau and Stockgrowers
have actually done in mitigation standards since 2002, 2003,
2004. Montana's first comprehensive plan was done in 2005. We
have not even had a chance to go back and look and analyze what
mitigations that have been in place since then and what kind of
activity they have had on sage grouse populations.
So we are sitting here basing data back on studies that
were done early on before anybody really took heart in what was
going on in the landscape, and we are saying that these are the
problems. And the one study that was relied upon a lot used an
unmitigated control area, and said these horrible things are
going to happen. This unmitigated control area was supposed to
be used as a comparison to areas with controls, yet that was
not the case. The predictions were made of horrible decimation
of the sage grouse. They have not come true. It is really
tight.
Mr. Daines. I have one quick question, Mr. White, and my
time is up.
The Chairman. We will have the second round.
Mr. Daines. OK. I will come back for the second round then.
So little time, so many questions.
The Chairman. Yes. I recognize Mr. Lamborn from Colorado.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
having this hearing. First, I would like to ask Mr. Galt a
question. And on the committee, I am the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, so I want to ask
you an energy-related question. Would banning oil and gas
activities on public lands help the sage grouse in any way? Why
or why not?
Mr. Galt. It would not stop the coyotes, Congressman
Lamborn. You know, there are some issues with oil and gas, and
there are a lot of studies that would attribute that certain
uncontrolled activities would impact the bird. So eliminating
it all together would have a marginal perhaps impact indicated
by the study.
Mr. Lamborn. So marginal at most.
Mr. Galt. I think so.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. And that is what I expected. Thanks for
saying that.
Mr. Cebull, I have a question for you. You devoted
considerable time in your written testimony to the high numbers
of grizzly bears. The Federal Endangered Species Act is real
clear about how to list a species, but is very vague when it
comes to de-listing a species, so vague that it allows
litigants from outside Montana, for instance, to fight the de-
listing of wolves to the point where Congress had to step in.
Based on your experiences, does the law need to be improved
when it comes de-listing so that better attention and resources
could be concentrated on the remaining species that actually
need help?
Mr. Cebull. Representative Lamborn, Chairman Hastings,
absolutely I think that we need to do something about de-
listing. As I said, this has become a listing tool and not a
management tool. The ultimate goal of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 was species recovery. In order to recover, you have
to have population increase, and you then you have to get them
off the list. We have only allowed, as you cited in your
comments also, 1 percent of all these species being listed
actually were taken off the list because of recovery. The rest
were taken off, some of them were already extinct when they
were listed. Some of them were taken off because they went
extinct while they were listed. And so, there was a variety.
But 1 percent, and to me that is not successful.
So that tells me that either the--and there are multiple
flaws in the ESA that I cited. The management of the ESA
through the process is not doing a good job of recovering, and
the species, like the grizzly bear, that I personally can
attest. I saw my last grizzly bear on Saturday night, and this
is not an area that was historically known as grizzly bear
range.
And I can attest that, in my opinion, that there are a lot
of grizzlies. And talking to the biologists and the local
people, there are a lot more grizzlies than there were. And I
believe that they should have been de-listed and managed
locally by the State a long time ago, so.
Mr. Lamborn. I asked this question down in Casper. Is there
an issue with animals being either introduced or maybe just
found here and there in areas where they are not historically
known to occur, and yet that becomes now something to be
protected, even though historically that was not part of that
animal's habitat?
Mr. Cebull. I think that is absolutely correct, and it goes
to the heart of this. And the sage grouse issue as critical
habit is defined as where sage grouse might live, not
necessarily where you would find them today. And I think that
is the biggest issue with sage grouse.
Without a doubt, when you look at core grizzly bear habitat
or what is listed as historic grizzly bear habitat, there are a
lot of areas in Montana that have not had grizzlies in a long
time that it is a wide swath of them now. And our ranch is one
of those that has probably historically had grizzly bears. And,
I mean, historically when the elk were out on the plains and
the predators were out on the plains.
But for a long time there have been grizzlies moving that
far out of the mountains because we are really 2 miles away
from the timber that would be considered grizzly range.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. Ms. Robinson, I would like to
ask you a question. I assume that you go to associations like
NACO where county commissioners from around the West are
gathered together, and you talk with these folks. Are they
concerned about the sage grouse listing, because that could
affect 11 different Western States?
Ms. Robinson. Yes, Congressman. I am the Vice Chair of the
Public Lands Committee for NACO, and I also am the Second Vice
President, yes, Second Vice President of Western Interstate
Region. And, yes, endangered species is a big concern.
We have a resolution that we just passed in July in Fort
Worth talking about sage grouse. And I did not bring that, but
I would be happy to get you a copy.
Mr. Lamborn. What was the gist of it?
Ms. Robinson. I could not tell you off the top of my head.
But the thing is, kind of with my testimony, we need not top
down, but from grassroots efforts, and to deal with the people
that are on the land with the sage grouse is better suited for
the species rather than top down.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Robinson, would you get that letter so we
can have it as part of the record?
Ms. Robinson. Yes.
The Chairman. Please get that to us.
I thank the gentleman.
I recognize Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For anyone on the
panel, is it true that when a species is headed for listing,
that recovery criteria are established so you know what amount
of species will constitute recovery? Does anyone know? Mr.
Cebull?
Mr. Cebull. Mr. Chairman, Representative Lummis, during my
research for this panel hearing, I actually did read that. The
response to the 1 percent success rate of the ESA was the fact
that there are targets with endangered species. Many of those
targets are multiple decade targets where they are expecting
stabilization and growth, but it might take decades to see that
happen. So in my research, I did find that.
Mrs. Lummis. Are you aware of the goalpost ever moving? In
other words, once a species reaches that criteria, the criteria
was changed?
Mr. Cebull. Yes, Representative. I think probably the most
recent one that was very famous here was the wolves, and the
fact that they were, in 2001, I believe, early on, that they
were declared as being recovered. And then the goalpost kept
moving as far as breeding pairs, number of wolves. And
eventually it took us until congressional action to get the
wolves off the list. It took years and years, and we had a
tremendous amount of damage to our industry and our hunting
industries because of the increasing number of wolves and
livestock.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Cebull, what has happened to the low low
elk herd? Do you know about the low low elk herd?
Mr. Cebull. I am sorry, Representative, I do not know.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. White, do you know anything about the low
low elk herd?
Mr. White. Thank you, Representative Lummis. The northern
elk herd has been--I mean, that was up around 20,000 head, and
I think it is down around 3,000, 4,000 now. From what I am
hearing over in the low low, there are 1,700 to 1,500 elk where
it was 5,000, 6,000, so.
Mrs. Lummis. And when you have depletions of ungulates,
especially huntable ungulates, in those kind of proportions, do
the number of hunting licenses that are issued drop?
Mr. White. They do.
Mrs. Lummis. And what does that do to outfitters, guides,
businesses that have thrived off of the hunting and recreation
economy?
Mr. White. Well, it has had a significant impact to local
economies that many times in many places in the small
communities in Central Montana, 70, 80 percent of their income
is derived from that short hunting season. When you do not have
the animals, you do not have the hunters, you do not have the
income to the communities. Then those businesses, once
flourishing, actually are gone.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. White, are there people in Montana who
fill their freezers with wild game and have that as their main
protein source through the winter?
Mr. White. They do.
Mrs. Lummis. Is that true also on the reservation, Mr.
Whiteman?
Mr. Whiteman. Sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Mrs. Lummis. Are there tribal members on the reservation
who use big game or wild meat as their main source of protein
through the winter?
Mr. Whiteman. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. And so, they are hunting. They are sustenance
hunting. They are relying on hunting to feed their families.
Mr. Whiteman. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. Is that true?
Mr. Whiteman. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. Has the Endangered Species Act in any way, to
your knowledge, interfered with the ability of Montanans, who
rely on wild meat for food, to obtain adequate food from wild
meat?
Mr. Whiteman. No, it has not.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Cebull, are you aware of any instances
where that is true?
Mr. Cebull. Representative Lummis, going back to your
original question, the northern elk herd being an issue, that
started out, and I will go back to when I was a kid back in the
1980s. We used to have a late season down in Gardner, and there
was over 10,000 cow tags issued in Gardner in a given year
because these were 2-day hunts. They went out. This was a great
family tradition.
That hunt is completely gone now because the northern elk
herd, as was cited earlier, is greatly diminished. So that
being said, and understanding the pressure in the Madison
Valley and western Montana, places that have large populations
of wolves and grizzly bears, quite frankly, are doing a lot of
predation on elk.
It absolutely is affecting hunting opportunities and
affecting people's ability to harvest elk, for example. And so,
I absolutely would say that is impacting people's ability to
put protein and put game meat in their freezer.
Mrs. Lummis. For either Mr. Galt or Mr. Knox, could you
give some quick examples of how litigation is affecting the
efforts to recover species or the industries you are in? And I
see that my time expired, so you know what I will do? I will
save that question, so hold your thoughts on that. And if we
have a second round, I will ask that again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. We will have a second round. Mr.
Cramer is recognized.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
to each of the panelists here. Your testimony is quite
compelling.
In North Dakota, we do not have a lot of sage grouse. We
have some, and they continue to increase about 15 percent per
year. But the greater fear that is driven by the ESA in North
Dakota is this issue of critical habitat. And it creates sort
of a growing uncertainty. Can any of you describe for me what
it is that makes something a critical habitat to the Fish and
Wildlife Service? Mr. Galt?
Mr. Galt. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cramer, just from what
I have learned on the Sage Grouse Council, they use a lot of
analysis of bird populations and where those densities are
heavier at their mating grounds than they are in other places.
Those are kind of the dictum. Male lek attendance is a density
issue that they drew the circles around and labeled those
critical habitat.
And you do have critical habitat right in Bowman County,
North Dakota that is right east of the Cedar Creek Anticline,
one of the oldest developments in the State of Montana, that
makes our Cedar Creek Anticline critical because of the
connection between your population and populations otherwise in
Montana.
Mr. Cramer. Well, I get the sense from time to time that
this critical habitat definition becomes broader by virtue not
of population density, but the potential possibility somewhere
down the road perhaps of population. And that is what concerns
me is just how broadly can they define critical habitat.
And so I hear that fear a lot beyond Bowman County that,
gee, our grass looks like theirs. Could they come and declare
or determine this to be critical habitat as well.
I want to ask, and this may be getting to what
Representative Lummis was getting at. If we were to buy into
and join the goals of the Endangered Species Act, how is it
that litigation, a litigation strategy, actually enhances the
goals of the act, or does it not? Because one of the things
that concerns me, and here we live in this era of budget
crunch, and approach $17 trillion debt, and the Federal
Government trying to find more efficient ways to use money.
And it seems to me that if our goal was really
conservation, that diverting that conservation money to
litigation or defending against litigation does not seem like
it would really meet the goal. Is that an accurate observation,
and could anybody elaborate on it?
Mr. Knox. We have not in our area been sued specifically
over sage grouse or anything ESA related with sage grouse. But
the grazing management plan for the National Monument was, of
course, challenged by the environmental groups, Western
Watersheds being one of them. And they, of course, are very
enthusiastic about ESA listing for the sage grouse.
But it is a miserable, long, drawn-out process. We in the
rural communities and agriculture, we always go back to the
same well to raise money to defend ourselves from these sorts
of things. And so, I guess the upshot is we came through the
process all right, but we spent a lot of money, and money that
would have been spent in our operations at home and staying at
home in our communities. So that is, I guess, my view of it.
Mr. Cramer. Do you think then along those lines, do you see
this litigation wave, if you will, as a disincentive to do what
comes naturally to us out here in the West, and that is to
engage in voluntary conservation? In other words, are we
robbing people of even their own natural instinct to be
conservationists on the land if you are a stockman or a
rancher?
Mr. Knox. Yes, I believe that is definitely a part of it.
As I included in my testimony, when leks were identified
adjacent to Federal lands that were part of the monument
designation, and showed up in the final management plan, it had
a definite dampening effect on people's enthusiasm for
cooperating with anyone inventorying sage grouse, leks. So,
yes, to your point, we have seen that.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you for your testimony. And I will yield
back the remaining seconds.
The Chairman. If I wait 5 seconds, it will be gone.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I will now recognize myself. I want to ask a
question of all of the panelists. We have had a number of
hearings on this, and what I am going to say has been alluded
to by my colleagues, but it has also been alluded by you, about
the litigious nature of implementing the Endangered Species
Act.
Now, when we have hearings, the litigants say that the ESA
is 99 percent effective because it saves endangered species.
Now, from what I hear of you, you are all on the front lines of
these species conversation. So in your view, is 99 percent an
accurate number that the litigants said?
We will start with you. Yes or no, Ms. Robinson.
Ms. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, do you want just a yes or no,
or do you want just----
The Chairman. Well, you can emphasize it if you would like.
But I would like to have a yes or no.
Ms. Robinson. OK, no.
The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Knox?
Mr. Knox. I would say no.
The Chairman. Mr. Galt?
Mr. Galt. I agree.
The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Cebull?
Mr. Cebull. Chairman Hastings, no.
The Chairman. OK. And, Mr. Whiteman?
Mr. Whiteman. Yes.
The Chairman. OK. And, Mr. White?
Mr. White. Mr. Chairman, no.
The Chairman. No. OK. Well, I wanted to kind of get that
out because the ESA was first passed in 1973, so it has been
roughly 4 years. And I am going to talk here in round numbers.
And we have roughly in the United States about 1,500 listings,
and it took 40 years to get that 1,500 listings.
But the mega settlement that I alluded to in 2011 has the
potential of upwards of 750 to 800 listings. That means that in
6 years, which is the timeframe of the mega settlement, the
listings could go up by 50 percent.
Do you think that with that burden, that transparency and
good science can be applied to the next 700--and I will throw
this out--if it was applied to the first 1,500? And I will ask
Mr. Galt and Mr. Knox that question.
Mr. Galt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not think it could.
I think that is part of the problem we are facing right now is
there is not any good science on there, and we have a ticking
clock from the sue and settle crowd to make decisions on all
these species that science cannot get to.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Knox, would you like to weigh in?
Mr. Knox. Yes, I would agree with Mr. Galt on some of the
definitions of species where there are sub species that have
been listed that really should not have been. And if we are
going to talk about 700 more, I guess I would be mistrustful of
the science.
The Chairman. And that kind of goes to the core of where
our problem is because while I mentioned that ESA was passed
initially in 1973, it has not been reauthorized as a law since
1988. That is 25 years ago. And I daresay if you walk down any
town main street in Montana, probably anyplace that is affected
by the Endangered Species Act or any law, and since we enforce
a law that has not been reauthorized for 25 years, I daresay
you would probably get anybody to even say yes.
But because of the process that we have to go through in
Washington, DC when we appropriate any law, appropriate dollars
to carry out any law, whether it has been reauthorized or not,
it is de facto reauthorized. Now, that presents a real problem
because in order to have a discussion on real reform, you have
to have two sides that want to sit down and talk. But when one
side, because of the de facto reauthorization of a law that I
believe is flawed, you have a whole lot of difficulty trying to
get people to sit down and talk.
And I just want to say that is one of the reasons we are
having these hearings around the country and this working group
so we can get input, because we need to break through that.
People need to understand the impact this will have on our
economy.
And, Mr. White, your circle was very good. Those are all
parts of our economy and, frankly, our life whether you live in
a rural America or urban America. But you cannot have these
things unless you have these resources, and they are being
greatly, greatly compromised because of a lack of trying to get
things done. So I just wanted to point that out.
We are going to do a second round now, and I will recognize
Mr. Daines first.
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As part of the brief
that was pulled together for this hearing, I was struck by a
fact here that the Department of Justice responded to this
committee when asked for the litigious behavior and activity in
the last 4 years as it relates to the ESA. In just the last 4
years, the Federal Government has defended more than 570 ESA
related lawsuits, costing more than $15 million in funds paid
from the judgment fund. This is not the cost of the lawyers in
the Federal Government defending the ESA. These are dollars
that were given to the plaintiffs as part of the Equal Access
to Justice Act. This is taxpayer dollars, so we are paying
their legal fees.
Question: do the lawsuits from distant groups, like the
Center for Biological Diversity, which they are the number one
litigant. There 117 of these lawsuits that came from the Center
for Biological Diversity. Do these lawsuits encourage or
discourage voluntary efforts to conserve species? I would like
to get some thoughts on that.
Lesley, you are in the middle of some of these activities.
Is it encouraging or discouraging?
Ms. Robinson. I would say discourage. If you can work with
the rancher and they do not have a fear of what is going to
happen, then they are a lot more apt to work with you. And that
is where the sage grouse are. They are right in the middle of
ranches, so we know that is working. But I would say that there
is a fear of it.
Mr. Daines. Mr. Knox?
Mr. Knox. I would say that it is also--it has made it more
difficult in the relationship between ranchers and, for
example, range conservationists, who we traditionally get along
with pretty well, and the Bureau of Land Management, because
some of these groups have the strategy to litigate and contest
every aspect of a management plan, whether it is an ESA issue
or some other kind of issue. And so, and the strategy is
simple. Overwhelm the range people with paperwork so that they
fall behind, they make a mistake, and then we can really nail
them.
And so, when you are the rancher caught in the middle of
this and basically, we just want to run our cows and enjoy our
lifestyle in our communities, it has a dampening effect. It
definitely does.
Mr. Daines. Well, speaking of paperwork, we are going to
talk about Mr. White's stack over there in a minute. But I was
struck by the testimony as well that--reminding ourselves in
Montana we have a sage grouse hunting season. It just opened up
September 1, two-bird limit, four in possession. And also, we
are transporting birds to Canada for transplant purposes. And I
think just a reminder for all of us, the goal here is we are
trying to find ways to ensure we keep the sage grouse off the
ESA as conservationists, as sportsmen and women here in this
State.
And in light of that, the need to reform the ESA, I would
like to get thoughts from each of you, if you were President
for a day and could wave a wand, and there were one or two
things you would seek to reform in the ESA to take this 40-
year-old law and bring it to 2013, what might that be?
And, Mr. White, given the fact you got a stack down there,
maybe you could start that input.
Mr. White. Thank you, Representative Daines. The litigation
that you are speaking about on these lawsuits many times are
compensated back to the environmental groups through the Equal
Access to Justice Act. But these environmental groups do not
have to post any kind of bond or anything. A 44-cent stamp will
get them into the courtroom, and then if they prevail, they
take that money and they turn around and sue again on another
issue or another bird.
So I think some sort of bonding requirement and damage,
some sort of estimate on the damage that could be caused by the
litigation, and have the environmental group or those litigants
post some sort of a bond, I think, would discourage a lot of
these litigations.
Mr. Daines. Great. Thanks, Mr. White. Who else? I only have
45 seconds. Who else has a thought? Mr. Galt and then Mr.
Cebull?
Mr. Galt. I think two things, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Daines. You really need to bring people together, take a look
at how they look at the whole habitat issue. It is hard for us
to understand that the wildlife professionals can stand up and
say hunting does not have an effect on the mortality of the
bird. But we have got a habitat issue, and you cannot have a
surface disturbance next to a highway.
And the second thing that I would like to add is that
Congress, in the short term, really needs to take a look at
that time schedule that is under effect on all of those species
that are under the sue and settle agreement and see if we
cannot push that date back, because we are making decisions
based on science that was done before mitigation even started
to work. And we are going to make that decision poorly.
Mr. Daines. OK. I am out of time. I want to enter into the
hearing record, Mr. Chairman, some contents of the American
Motorcycle Association, Richland Prairie Counties, Senator
Jennifer Fielder, and the Yellowstone Valley Audubon Society.
The Chairman. Without objection, they will be part of the
record.
I recognize Mr. Lamborn from Colorado.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Robinson, for
your own county and the people you talk to from around the
country, I would like to get your perspective. Recently, the
Obama administration finalized a rule and ignored significant
opposing comments, a 10th Circuit Court of Appeal opinion, and
letters from Members of Congress, such as ourselves, on how it
will conduct economic analysis for critical habitat
designations. And their rule will require Federal agencies
administering the ESA to only analyze the actual cost of the
designation, while ignoring all other costs that are caused by
the listing of a species.
Would it not be better to fully document the costs of the
Endangered Species Act by analyzing its impact on, let us say,
rural areas?
Ms. Robinson. Mr. Congressman, it definitely would be
important for us for them to analyze all of the costs, because
if you look at how many people we are feeding in Phillips
County, and if you cut our grazing rates, then what is the
step-down effect of that? How many people are not going to have
food? How many people in our little town of Malta, how many
businesses will go broke because of fewer ranchers on the land?
There is such a trickle-down effect of one decision, and it all
needs to be analyzed.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I agree. That should not be
ignored.
Mr. White, Mr. Kieran Suckling, the Executive Director for
the Center of Biological Diversity, was quoted in 2009 as
saying, ``When we stop the same timber sale three or four times
running, the timber planners want to pull their hair out. They
feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed, and
they are. So they become much more willing to play by our
rules. Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect
of environmental campaigning.''
Do you think that this litigation approach on timber sales
has affected the health of our forests, possibly contributing
to an unhealthy condition that we see with catastrophic
wildfires?
Mr. White. Representative Lamborn, I definitely agree. And
actually what I did is when I submitted my written testimony, I
put in there a study that was done on a pilot project down in
California where they went in and they put in a test well and
did well monitoring on the water table level below where they
thinned the Ponderosa Pine. And after the thinning project, the
next year the groundwater recovered 100 feet. The static
groundwater below that thinning project is now sitting at 15
feet, and actually streams that were once dry with that
overgrown forest have begun to run again.
So what I am saying is every time you have got a tree out
there, each one of those drinks water, and when you start
pulling that amount of water out of the ground with an
overgrown forest, what happens is it starves the next tree next
to it and puts it in stress, and then creates a problem of that
one more susceptible to disease. We have got a massive bug kill
out in our forests. Almost 50 percent of the Beaverhead Deer
Lodge National Forest is dead and dying.
We cannot cut those dead trees, and after they burn, we
cannot even salvage those salvage burn trees after they have
burned and destroyed all the wildlife habitat and erosion,
streams, and everything. So I think it is quite out of control.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you so much. That is amazing.
Mr. Cebull, one of the concerns of our committee is that
the Federal Government should be incorporating more data from
State and local governments and landowners. One example is from
Garfield County, Colorado, where they spent millions counting
and protecting sage grouse in their habitats. Yet the Fish and
Wildlife Service has ignored them.
Should the Federal Government use more studies than what
they are accepting right now? Should tribes, States,
localities, and landowners not have more input on these Federal
decisions?
Mr. Cebull. Mr. Chairman, Representative Lamborn,
absolutely they should, and that was a big, big focus of my
testimony. And something I would like to say is that you get a
lot more common sense the closer to the ground you get. The ESA
is a 60,000 foot approach. It is coming. It is that top down
centralized approach. When you get on the ground, things look a
whole lot different than they do from 60,000, and common sense
prevails. Whether it is the landowner, the rancher, or the
local administration, it definitely prevails.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. I am going to try to squeeze
one more in. Mr. Knox, when these taxpayer funds go to the
plaintiffs' attorneys, who bring these fish in a barrel type of
lawsuits, do those monies ever get turned around and used for
species and habitat protection, to your knowledge?
Mr. Knox. No, I am sure not. I know, for example, that the
Western Watersheds group uses that money to roll into more
lawsuits. And that is consistently what they do, and I am
fairly sure that other environmental groups are doing it.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Knox. Treating the law the same way and the money the
same way.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I recognize Mrs.
Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank
Mr. Cramer for following up on my questions about litigation
with Mr. Knox and Mr. Galt.
So I am going to go on with a question for Mr. Whiteman. I
understand you are involved in coal mine reclamation. Can you
tell me, if you are looking at a piece of land before it is
mined, and then it is mined and reclaimed, is the reclaimed
land capable of supporting the same species that were on the
land before it was mined?
Mr. Whiteman. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. And is that part of your obligation in terms
of mine reclamation to reclaim it to a quality that existed
before mine reclamation?
Mr. Whiteman. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. Are you aware of any instances where the
Endangered Species Act has prevented either coal mining or oil
and gas development?
Mr. Whiteman. Yes. Not really what I know with other--let
me see. In the beginning of the 2000s, when coal methane--it
hindered production. That was brought to my attention about a
week ago because I had friends, co-workers that worked in that
area.
Mrs. Lummis. OK. Thank you, Mr. Whiteman.
Mr. Galt, are you aware of any instance where the
Endangered Species Act prevented oil and gas development?
Mr. Galt. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Lummis, I would
answer two ways. I think the concerns about the potential of
the listing for the sage grouse has indeed slowed, if not
removed, many acres of Federal land from the ability to be
leased. And I would have to go back to my records, but I am
particularly thinking of a sale in North Garfield County,
Montana where Federal acres were removed over concerns about
the bird in 2007 or 2008, quite a bit time ago.
Mrs. Lummis. OK.
Mr. Galt. Second, one of the areas in the States that does
have a lot of interest in oil and gas development is along the
east slope of the Rocky Mountains. That would be grizzly bear
habitat. And I know companies that have worked in there have
had a dickens of a time working with the various agencies in
areas with listed species.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Galt, again for you, with regard to data
collection and dissemination, if the Department of the Interior
were compelled to release its data so that independent analysts
could attempt to replicate the data that they used to make
listing decisions, would that be a helpful thing?
Mr. Galt. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Lummis, I think it
would be very helpful. And further than that, I think it would
also be very important for the academics, if the study that
they produce on taxpayer dollars used by the government to make
widespread determinations, if that is the case, which it is,
their data should be made public, too, and it is not. Thank you
for that question.
Mrs. Lummis. Now, also, Mr. Galt, if Congress were to allow
Montana and other Western States time to implement, track, and
analyze conservation plans, without the threat of a court
designated listing deadline, would that be a helpful thing?
Mr. Galt. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Lummis, I think so.
When I started in this job in 2005, the ink was dry on the
Montana Wildlife Conservation Strategy Book, and I cannot
remember the name of it. But they had sage grouse,
comprehensive sage grouse stipulations in that book that our
members started to develop in 2005. The ink was not dry on
that, and they were already saying that those stipulations were
not good enough. And we have stipulations in the Wyoming plan
that now people are saying are yet not good enough.
And I think we really need to find out if the ones in 2005
were really good because some of the studies are showing that
what was thought to be a huge decimation of sage grouse in
particular areas in your States are seeing the largest lek
densities in the State. And they are certainly back in robust
numbers.
Mrs. Lummis. Now, for any of you, would it be reasonable
for Congress to set some factors or criteria by which the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service could rank order listing petitions
based on imminent threat rather than using predictive models
that reach forward for years, like trying to predict how global
warming will affect species? Would that be helpful? Anyone?
Ms. Robinson. I think that would be very helpful. I do not
know how you can do predictions on global warming not knowing
what tomorrow brings as far as that. And there should not be
listings based on predictions.
Mr. Galt. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Lummis, yes.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. Mr. Cebull?
Mr. Cebull. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Lummis, I would
also like to encourage you to include economic impacts in that
listing in that rating.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back. Thank you, panel.
The Chairman. I recognize Mr. Cramer.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I forget or
run out of time, Mr. Chairman, I know that the record will open
for 10 more days. But I would like to offer the written
testimony of Lynn Helms, the Director of Industrial Commission
and Department of Mineral Resources in North Dakota.
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be part of the
record.
Mr. Cramer. You know, one of my take-aways, and I am not
surprised by it by listening to you all and being here, is that
much like my State of North Dakota, you do not compromise
quality of life for an improved standard of living. And you are
to be commended for that. That is clear when you drive around
this beautiful State of yours.
And this issue of consent decrees becoming law by virtue of
liberal organizations suing a liberal administration and coming
to a settlement in a liberal judge's chambers is very
concerning to me. And I am wondering if any of you and your
organizations that you belong to or associations have ever
considered using sue and settle as an offensive tool instead of
it always being a defensive tool. Because, quite frankly,
Napoleon once said, ``The logical conclusion of defense is
defeat.'' And while our job is to create policy that does not
encourage such a thing, I would be interested to know if you
have ever considered using the tools that your opponents use
against you.
Mr. White. Representative, we have considered that under
the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act as to what these fires
are doing and erosion and stuff to our watersheds and stuff
like that.
These environmental impact statements, whether they be
draft or final, right in the front when they start on the draft
environmental impact statement, it says that a lot of the
information in here are estimates, speculation, and
assumptions. Put into a modeling program and out the back end,
you get a prediction.
And so, with that estimate and speculation and assumption,
I believe that is the ESA. And that is all it is is people
behind a desk creating models, putting in junk in the front and
junk out the back.
We do not have the tools. Congress did not give us an
organization the tools to go out and sue to try to get our way.
All we are trying to do is keep what we have. We are not asking
for anymore. It is incrementally being taken away from us in
rural America, resource industries, everybody on the panel,
counties losing tax base.
And one other thing. When Montana came into the Union, we
did not get all our land under the Equal Footing Doctrine like
the Eastern States. And so, that reduces our tax ability and
our tax base within our State. So maybe transfer that land and
dispose of that land back to the States might be a good idea,
because I just do not think that the Federal Government is
doing a good job of managing what they have, yet they go out
through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and want to buy
some more.
Mr. Cramer. Right.
Mr. White. And I just do not think that it is common sense,
as was mentioned on the panel. Thank you.
Mr. Galt. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cramer, we have not
done that within our organization. We have engaged in two
lawsuits in my tenure as executive director. Both of the times
we have intervened in support of the government, in one case
the State government, in the other case, the Federal
Government.
So, we have a lot of projects at stake. We have a lot of
time at stake. Making the decision to engage in litigation is
very serious and a very big step for an organization as diverse
as ours. But some of these NGO's, that is how they survive, and
that is not how MPAs survive.
Mr. Cramer. Anybody else?
Ms. Robinson. As a County Commissioner, economically it is
just not feasible for counties to go into a lawsuit or for a
rancher. And we have intervened in different lawsuits, but the
bottom line is the money just is not there to do it.
Mr. Knox. We are a small organization. I am representing
the Farm Bureau today, but I also am involved with the Missouri
River Stewards. And I would echo what Lesley has said. So far,
we have had intervener status and that sort of thing. And I
think it goes to your point that we are playing defense, and we
have talked about that.
The Farm Bureau, who I am representing here today, is, of
course, a bigger, more effective organization. And they have
sued over the listing of the wolves, to varying degrees of
success. But some of it has been done, but I guess we are not
as good at it as the other side.
Mr. Cramer. I want to wrap up with this quick question.
Should litigants have to have a direct personal interest in the
outcome of a lawsuit before they can engage in it? I mean, you
all have had to intervene from time to time. Should litigants
not have the same obligation or same relationship?
Mr. White. Representative, yes, definitely.
Mr. Cramer. I think so, too. With that, I thank you,
Chairman. I thank the panel. And I look forward to eating some
bread and beef from Phillips County.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, thank you. Let me wrap this up because
we had a lot of discussion today on the sage grouse. And I have
to tell you my first reaction when I heard about the potential
listing of the sage grouse when it was described to me in this
way. The sage grouse is endangered in 11 States covering
260,000 square miles. Now, my first thought was, if one is
dealing in common sense, that is a pretty darn big area in 11
States to have a species be endangered.
To put that in perspective, that is nearly 260,000 square
miles. Montana has a square mileage of, I think, around
147,000, so that just gives you the perspective of what this
is. It cries for some sort of solution. But I just wanted to
make that observation.
Mr. Cebull, you said there should be an economic analysis.
I totally agree with you. You may or may not be aware that this
administration finalized a rule ignoring that, even a 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals rule on that.
Let me finish where I kind of started. I mentioned from the
outset that I am from the Pacific Northwest where we have been
greatly impacted, much longer, I think, than you are. I am not
going to say exclusively, but certainly much longer. And I will
tell you, and this is kind of a warning, it does not go away.
Two issues: the spotted owl. The spotted owl has caused a
decline in timber harvests on Federal lands in Oregon,
Washington, and California by a factor of 90 percent--90
percent. And now, we have discovered that it was not the lack
of old growth that caused the demise, but rather a predator
called the barred owl. So what is Fish and Wildlife solution?
Shoot the bard owl. Now, that is not common sense. That is why
this cries to be talked about.
The other issue is the salmon issue. We have spent billions
of dollars, taxpayer dollars and rate payer dollars because all
of it is paid by rate payers, Bonneville Power, billions of
dollars to save the salmon. The salmon runs are coming back in
greater numbers now on average in the last couple of years
since records have been kept in 1938.
Yet there is an article in one of the Seattle newspapers
talking again about removing four Snake River dams that
generate--I forget how many megawatts of power, enough to do
Seattle for about a year, to supposedly save the salmon. So
these issues are not going to go away.
So my message to you in that regard is this: you
communicate here with people in Montana. You have to extend
that network much, much farther. Commissioner Robinson, you
said you have talked to other county commissioners. My appeal
to you--I am not going to tell you what to do--my appeal to you
is to be much more aggressive in that regard. Do not leave it
up to just the Western States. You have got to engage county
organizations in other States, because it is coming.
Case in point: I remember several years ago when the issue
of endangered species in the Permian Basin--you are familiar
with the Permian Basin. It is an area that produces a lot of
oil and natural gas, but because of new technologies, it may be
even better. And my colleagues came up to me and said, boy, you
have to do something about the Endangered Species Act. Now, I
said this without trying to be flippant or anything, but I
said, welcome to the club, because now you are part of this
deal.
So my appeal to you, Mr. Galt, is you are part of this
association, and I know your members compete against each other
trying to get jobs. But you have one commonality: if you do not
have a robust organization out there, you are not going to have
jobs. I mean, it is as simple as that. So you need to
communicate with other associations in other States. They have
to be part of this.
Now, Texas settled. Not everybody was happy with that. But
I guarantee you it is not going to go away in Texas. That was
only one settlement. There will be others.
And finally, I will just say this, and this is not in
relationship to the Endangered Species Act. But, Mr. White, you
talked about the catastrophic wildfires and what it does to our
renewable resources. Just for your information, we passed out
just before the August district work period--all of us voted
for it--a bill dealing with healthy forests. We think there is
a solution there, and if you have not looked at that, I would
invite you to.
So I want to thank especially the panelists. I thought the
testimony was very thoughtful, the questions and answers. Well,
the answers were maybe more than the questions. But
nevertheless, I really want to thank you. And that is all going
to be part of the record. I cannot emphasize. That is part of
the record that we will buildup on.
And for any of you that are in the audience, obviously if
you have something that you would like to weigh in on, pro or
con. By the way, I should say this: the House Natural Resources
Committee is a bipartisan committee. It is made up of Democrats
and Republicans. We happen to be all Republicans, so we called
this hearing. And, of course, we fully expected the Democrats
to participate. And by the way, they are the minority party.
They had a chance to have witnesses at the table.
They had an opportunity to do that, and they refused to
have a witness here or to send a member of their party to this
full committee hearing. So I just wanted to say that for the
record.
But I will leave it open. If anybody here has contrary
views of what you have heard today, we certainly welcome that,
and you can go to www.housenaturalresources.gov, or whatever it
is. You can find it, just go online.
So with that, again, I want to thank all of you, and you
have been a very, very attentive audience. We appreciate that
very much. Stay tuned because this issue is not going away.
That is why we are having these field hearings. That is why we
are having this working group made up of members from the
eastern part of the United States so that when the political
opportunity is right, we can move legislation hopefully that
will correct what we all think are flaws in the ESA.
So with that, thank you all, the panel. I want to thank my
colleagues for being here, and certainly thank the audience.
And with no further business, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]