[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EMPOWERING STATE MANAGEMENT OF GREATER SAGE GROUSE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-7
__________
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 PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-772PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Matt Cartwright, PA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Norma J. Torres, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Paul Cook, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Lois Capps, CA
Garret Graves, LA Jared Polis, CO
Dan Newhouse, WA Vacancy
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Vacancy
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, May 19, 2015............................ 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wyoming....................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Statement of Witnesses:
Arnett, Ed, Senior Scientist, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, Loveland, Colorado............................ 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Questions submitted for the record....................... 26
Clarke, Kathleen, Director, State of Utah Public Lands Policy
Coordinating Office, Salt Lake City, Utah; Former Director,
Bureau of Land Management, 2001-2006....................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Questions submitted for the record....................... 16
Miller, Dustin, Administrator, State of Idaho Office of
Species Conservation, Boise, Idaho......................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Questions submitted for the record....................... 37
Swartout, John, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Governor
John Hickenlooper, State of Colorado, Denver, Colorado..... 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Questions submitted for the record....................... 41
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 74
Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, Prepared statement of.............. 73
Western Governors' Association, James D. Ogsbury, Executive
Director, Prepared statement of............................ 69
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EMPOWERING STATE MANAGEMENT OF GREATER SAGE GROUSE
----------
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Lamborn, McClintock,
Lummis, Benishek, Duncan, Labrador, LaMalfa, Denham, Cook,
Westerman, Graves, Newhouse, Zinke, Hice, Radewagen, MacArthur,
Mooney, Hardy; Grijalva, Costa, Dingell, Gallego, and Polis.
Also present: Representative Tipton.
The Chairman. The committee--the script says the committee
has to come to order, but you are all so quiet out there,
anyway. We will see what--we are now in order.
The committee is meeting today to hear testimony on
empowering state management of the greater sage grouse.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member, Vice Chair, and a designated Ranking Minority Member,
which will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner, and help
keep Members to their schedules.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all Members'
opening statements be made part of the hearing record, if they
are submitted to the Committee clerk by 5:00 p.m. today.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Hearing no objections, that is so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent to allow Representative Tipton
of Colorado to participate in today's hearings when he is able
to be here, and to ask questions.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Hearing no objection, that will be so
ordered, as well.
All right. Let me begin with some opening statements, if we
could. So, fortunately, I am going to start with mine. You
know, whether you all want it or not, I am going to start with
mine.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. Over the past few months we have been hearing
a lot coming from the Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife,
and Bureau of Land Management about their cooperative efforts.
Today is the time we are going to hear directly from states.
Forty years ago, the Endangered Species Act was passed with
every good intention; but, despite some of the rhetoric coming
from special interest groups and their claims, the reality is
that less than 2 percent of the more than 1,500 listed species
have ever actually been recovered. Cramming more species onto a
list, or blocking millions of acres, including restricting even
how our military can use lands for military training and
readiness, is not a measure of success.
You know, in the play ``Wicked,'' Elphaba was asked--was
told by the good witch, whose name just escaped me, that black
is this year's pink. We can also say the same thing, that the
greater sage grouse is this year's northern spotted owl. Twenty
years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service placed millions of
acres under Federal management, destroying jobs, wiping out
entire communities.
And the result? Well, today the spotted owls continue to
decline, this time caused by a larger species of owl, the
barred owl, and catastrophic wildfires from poorly managed
forest land that was blocked off for the owls' habitat. Fish
and Wildlife Service is now dispatching armed bird specialists
to kill the predatory armed barred owl, which--I am sorry,
neither is effective, nor is it creative.
So, what we need to do is, simply, we have to think
differently. The failure of Federal programs, which is
constant, is not going to be the issue of today's hearing. It
is how to succeed that is going to be the issue of today's
hearing. To do that, we have to simply think differently, and
we need to examine the states' under-utilized authority to
manage species. The states are in charge of wildlife, and the
states have a record of success in that obligation. States are
the laboratory of innovation, something the Federal Government,
with its efforts, simply cannot match. That is why we are still
here, in some effort, to try and do things differently.
The states have not been sitting on the sidelines in this
effort. There are some special interest groups out there that
are simply saying, in all the rationale they give, that the
common boundary--that states are incompetent to do this kind of
job, that only somebody on the national level is smart enough,
is organized enough, has enough resources on the national level
to actually do this. That is pure, unadulterated balderdash.
And you all know what word I am thinking of, instead of
``balderdash.''
What we will show in here is simply that people at the
states level have just the trained competence and intelligence
to do it. If you actually look at some of the special interest
groups' arguments, what they are saying are people in the
states are dumb, and only people here in Washington are smart.
We have one witness today who worked for the state, then became
the national BLM Director here at Washington, and then left and
went back to the state. I will ask her at some time what made
her go dumb, all of a sudden, when she left Washington and went
back to Utah. But that, indeed, is the argument that some
interest groups keep extending. That does not work.
In 2011, then-Secretary Salazar invited 11 states to
develop individual sage grouse management plans to effectively
balance economic development and management of the species.
Those states responded in an unprecedented effort, backed by
some of the top researchers and scientists in the country, and
came up with programs that, unfortunately, have been dismissed
out of hand by the Fish and Wildlife Service without a good
reason. It is not, as the Director said, nor is it right to
have strongholds where wilderness-like restrictions over 16.5
million acres of land will be done--all drafted in Washington,
behind closed doors, and without the input of the states. That
is not, in my estimation, collaboration or cooperation.
We can do better. We will do better. And if we allow the
states to actually go forward with the plans they have, we will
find an amazing renaissance, not only with this species, but
all sorts of other processes that we can do in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on
Natural Resources
Over the past few months, we've heard much rhetoric from Interior
Department, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management
officials about their ``cooperative efforts.'' Now it's time to hear
directly from the states.
More than 40 years ago, the Endangered Species Act was enacted with
good intentions and bipartisan support to recover species at the brink
of extinction. Unfortunately, with less than 2 percent of the more than
1,500 listed species ever recovered, the law is failing.
Cramming thousands more species onto the list and blocking the use
of millions of acres of land--including restricting even how our
military servicemen can use lands for military training and readiness,
cannot be a measurement of success.
States are using resources wisely to recover species and keep them
off the list. We should do more to encourage them.
It is in that context that we examine the states' underutilized
authority to manage species. Given the chance, states could prevent the
need for a Federal listing, and prevent endless fights to de-list
species that recover. States have already proven to be laboratories
where innovative policymakers can experiment to develop more effective
policies. The problem with the Federal one-size-fits-all approach is
that it's never actually been compared to anything else.
The greater sage grouse is fast becoming the ``new'' northern
spotted owl. Over 20 years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service placed
millions of acres under Federal management, choking out a once thriving
Northwest timber industry, destroying jobs and wiping entire
communities off the map. The result today: Spotted owls continue to
decline, caused by a larger species of owl--the barred owl--and
catastrophic wildfires that have destroyed poorly managed forests
blocked off for the owl's habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service is now
dispatching ``armed bird specialists'' to kill the predatory barred
owls. This doesn't sound like effective or creative management to me.
There has to be a better way to conserve these animals and at the
same time protect the livelihoods of the people that live closest to
them. Standing idly by as the Federal Government makes the sage grouse
the next spotted owl while wrecking countless local economies is not an
option. Instead, a significant step in the right direction would be to
empower states to fulfill their duty as wildlife managers.
Some say states have been sitting on the sidelines. To the
contrary, states have been leading on their own, despite the Interior
Department's top-down, litigation-driven approach.
In 2011, when then-Secretary Salazar invited 11 western states to
develop individual sage grouse management plans, there was confidence
that states could develop individually tailored plans that would
effectively balance economic development and management of the species,
and that these plans would provide the blueprint for successful sage
grouse management.
The states responded with an unprecedented effort, backed by some
of the top researchers and scientists in the country, and many were
hopeful they would be given fair consideration. But despite these
significant efforts, state plans were dismissed out of hand. Even
worse, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service recently mocked
those concerned with their inept handling of the Federal listing
process as a ``kabuki drama.''
Last October, the Fish and Wildlife Service introduced perhaps its
most stunning sage grouse suggestion yet: stop everybody from doing
anything, by creating arbitrary ``strongholds;'' in effect, cementing
wilderness-like restrictions on 16.5 million acres of Federal land in
several states. States that have spent significant resources and years
on sage grouse efforts were blindsided by these new proposals, which
were drafted in Washington, DC behind closed doors, without their
input. This doesn't sound like collaboration or cooperation to me.
We can do better. We need transparency for data and science behind
these Federal listing proposals. We need to remove incentives that fuel
frivolous litigation.
We need to ensure policymaking happens out in the open and not
behind closed doors or in courtrooms. What we need to do is to bring
management of species into the 21st century.
I look forward to hearing about the positive work being
accomplished to protect and manage species that will serve to point us
in a new direction.
______
The Chairman. With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member
for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's meeting
continues a very familiar trend of holding hearings to
criticize the Administration's work under the Endangered
Species Act without inviting the Administration to testify. A
balanced hearing on this topic would include witnesses from the
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, which
together manage the 64 percent of the remaining greater sage
grouse habitat that is located in the U.S. public lands.
It would also include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the agency that will decide, based on the best-available
science, whether the bird warrants protection under ESA.
Instead, the Majority has invited political appointees, not
scientists, from three states who claim they have been frozen
out by Federal managers and their efforts to conserve sage
grouse--and their efforts are sufficient.
As far as their claim of having no access, nothing could be
further from the truth. Federal agencies have worked closely
with the 11 relevant states throughout the process of
developing science-based strategies to conserve sage grouse and
their habitat. I am sure if the Republicans had invited any of
these agencies, they would have told us more about this
collaborative effort.
Even as they have worked closely with state officials,
Federal agencies have gone out of their way to let states prove
they have sufficient local conservation measures in place.
Federal officials have asked states to submit plans that
balance conservation needs with other state priorities for
public and private lands. Last year, the Fish and Wildlife
Service approved such a plan for Wyoming, and I am hopeful
other states will take advantage of this opportunity.
To be clear, the states cannot reach their goal of avoiding
an ESA listing of the greater sage grouse unless their plans
create certainty that the bird is not threatened with
extinction. The greater sage grouse has been wiped out in two
states, and has seen its range nearly cut in half because of
habitat destruction. At one point, as many as 16 million
greater sage grouse called the sagebrush sea ecosystem their
home. Now the population has been reduced to as few as 200,000
birds.
I am confident that the necessary work can be accomplished
in advance of the September 30 deadline, and that the greater
sage grouse can become an ESA success story. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the states themselves agree that a not-warranted
decision is within reach.
Unfortunately, some Members are attempting to snatch defeat
from the jaws of victory. They support legislation to delay a
listing decision and give up control of the people's lands to
state governments that lack the resources to manage them.
Instead of supporting an unprecedented cooperative conservation
effort, some Members on this committee are undertaking efforts
to undermine the entire process. They have gone as far as
arguing that protecting the greater sage grouse could impact
military readiness, a claim which has been roundly discredited
by the Defense Department.
I understand why some people want to short-circuit this
process. If it works, then ESA works. A successful plan that
avoids species listing and protects a landscape stretching
across multiple states, while also allowing for economic
development, would undercut arguments in favor of weakening the
Act.
The ESA has been the catalyst for conservation of many
species and landscapes across this country. We are close to
another success with the greater sage grouse. The only thing
standing in the way is a group of people more concerned about
the extinction of their talking points than the extinction of
the species.
Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I
yield back the remainder of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's meeting continues the familiar trend of holding hearings to
criticize the Administration's work under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) without inviting the Administration to testify. A balanced
hearing on this topic would include witnesses from the Bureau of Land
Management and the U.S. Forest Service, which together manage the 64
percent of remaining greater sage-grouse habitat that is located on
U.S. public lands. It would also include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the agency that will decide based on the best available
science whether the bird warrants protection under the ESA. Instead,
the Majority has invited political appointees--not scientists--from
three states who claim they have been frozen out by Federal managers
and that their efforts to conserve sage-grouse are sufficient.
As far as their claim of having no access, nothing could be farther
from the truth. Federal agencies have worked closely with the 11
relevant states throughout the process of developing science-based
strategies to conserve sage-grouse and their habitat. I'm sure if the
Republicans had invited any of these agencies, they would have told us
more about this collaborative effort.
Even as they have worked closely with state officials, Federal
agencies have gone out of their way to let states prove they have
sufficient local conservation measures in place. Federal officials have
asked states to submit plans that balance conservation needs with
others state priorities for public and private lands. Last year, the
Fish and Wildlife Service approved such a plan for Wyoming, and I am
hopeful that other states will take advantage of this opportunity.
To be clear, the states cannot reach their goal of avoiding an ESA
listing of the greater sage-grouse unless their plans create certainty
that the bird is not threatened with extinction. The greater sage-
grouse has been wiped out in two states, and has seen its range nearly
cut in half because of habitat destruction. At one point, as many as 16
million greater sage-grouse called the sagebrush sea home; now the
population has been reduced to as few as 200,000 birds. I am confident
that the necessary work can be accomplished in advance of the September
30 deadline, and that the greater sage-grouse can become an ESA success
story. FWS and the states themselves agree that a ``not warranted''
decision is within reach.
Unfortunately, some Members of Congress are attempting to snatch
defeat from the jaws of victory. They support legislation to delay a
listing decision and give up control of the people's lands to state
governments that lack the resources to manage them. Instead of
supporting an unprecedented, cooperative conservation effort, some
members--including the Chairman of this Committee--are trying to
undermine the process. They have gone as far as arguing that protecting
the greater sage-grouse could impact military readiness, a claim which
has been roundly discredited by the Department of Defense.
I understand why some people want to short circuit this process: if
it works, then the ESA works. A successful plan that avoids species
listings and protects a landscape stretching across multiple states--
while also allowing for economic development--would undercut arguments
in favor of weakening the Act. The ESA has been the catalyst for
conservation of many species and landscapes across the country, and we
are close to another success with the greater sage-grouse. The only
thing standing in the way is a group of people more concerned about the
extinction of their talking points than about the extinction of
species.
Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I yield back
my time.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Now I am going to call several
different audibles here. Part of it is because we have a time
commitment here. So, before I recognize the Vice Chair and any
other designee for opening statements, I would like to have
some of our witnesses be introduced by those here who know them
very well.
So, we do have at the witness table, Kathleen Clarke, who
is the Director of the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office
in the State of Utah, and formerly the Director of the Bureau
of Land Management here in Washington. We have Mr. Dustin
Miller, who is the Administrator from the Idaho Office of
Species Conservation in the State of Idaho; Mr. Ed Arnett, who
is with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; and
Mr. John Swartout, who is a Senior Policy Advisor from the
Office of Governor Hickenlooper, in the State of Colorado.
Because Mr. Lamborn has another obligation, I would like
him, if he would, to take a moment to introduce Mr. Swartout.
And then we will actually turn to Mr. Polis and Mr. Labrador to
introduce some of the guests. Let me finish off with mine, and
then we will go from there. Then we will come back to the
statements. Sorry.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing. Thank you for your flexibility. It is my honor to
introduce one of our witnesses, Mr. John Swartout, who is the
Senior Policy Advisor, as you said, for Governor John
Hickenlooper.
In the past, Mr. Swartout has been Executive Director of
Greater Outdoors Colorado, GOCO, and of the Colorado Coalition
of Land Trust; so he does have a lot of resource and land
background and experience. In addition to working for Governor
Hickenlooper, he has worked in the past for Senator Wayne
Allard and Governor Bill Owens. He is one of these individuals
whose abilities are sought out by governors and administrations
on both sides of the aisle, and I think that is a real
testament to his ability. I am glad we can have him here today;
and I really commend his testimony to everyone who is at this
hearing, and listening, and will read later, like I will,
because I can't stay for the whole hearing.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Polis, I understand Mr. Arnett is your constituent.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I am thrilled to welcome Dr. Arnett
from Loveland, Colorado. Dr. Arnett, who has his Ph.D. in
forest science from Oregon State University, is the Senior
Scientist at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
His other academic degrees include natural resource management,
fish and wildlife management, zoology, and physiology. He
worked as a wildlife biologist for the Forest Service and for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
After he finished his doctorate, he joined an international
conservation effort. He also is part of a public television
series, ``This American Land,'' that helps educate the American
public about our natural resources. He is also an avid
sportsman, enjoys big-game hunting, fly fishing, and water foul
and upland bird hunting, and is also an American Kennel Club
judge.
I am really thrilled to welcome, from Loveland, Colorado,
Dr. Ed Arnett. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Labrador, if you would like to
introduce Mr. Miller from the state of Idaho.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased to introduce Dustin Miller this morning. It is great to
have him here. He is a graduate of the University of Idaho,
with a degree in environmental science. He served as a natural
resources field coordinator to Idaho Senator Larry Craig before
he joined Governor Otter's Office of Species Conservation in
2008.
At OSC he served first as a Project Manager and Policy
Advisor for Terrestrial Wildlife Issues, and has served as the
Administrator of the agency for nearly 3 years now. The Office
of Species Conservation is charged with coordinating and
implementing policies and programs related to the conservation
and recovery of species listed as threatened, endangered, or
candidate under the Endangered Species Act in Idaho. In his
position at OSC, Dustin has worked tirelessly and led statewide
efforts to develop Idaho's sage grouse management plan. They
have done a terrific job, and I thank you for being here today.
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Kathleen, I will apologize. You are from my state. It is
not going to be as flowery as the other introductions. I
apologize for that.
She had the opportunity of having a lot of experience in
the state of Utah, and then, I think about the time I came back
here, she also came back here as the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management. She spent 5 years in that thankless job, and
did a marvelous job in trying to bring some kind of balance to
the entire situation. After retirement from that, she has gone
back to the state where she is still working now with Governor
Herbert's Office, dealing with the Public Lands Policy
Coordinating Office.
I have to admit, in a whole bunch of areas when it has come
to land issues, you have been a valuable resource in everything
that we are trying to do in Utah, from the public lands
initiative, to this area that deals with sage grouse. I
appreciate your willingness to come back here and be with us in
a hearing room that you have, I am sure, many fond and maybe
not-so-fond memories from your past experience.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. But it is great to have you here. I thank all
the witnesses, especially because I know how long it takes to
travel from out in the real world, where we live, to come back
here; so I appreciate you doing that.
With that, and with appreciation for making the break so we
could do those, I would go back to our opening statements. I
will recognize the Vice Chairman, the gentlelady from Wyoming.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this
hearing, as I understand it, is to allow states to tell their
remarkable stories. I appreciate that you have given them a
voice. We will catch the Administration's position on another
day.
In 2011, Secretary Salazar invited the states to take the
lead in conserving sage grouse. The goal was preventing a
species listing that would devastate western economies, which
it can because it affects 11 states. The states have responded
with tens of millions of dollars, countless man hours, and an
unprecedented dedication to sage grouse conservation.
But what we have found out as states is, because there are
11 states, and the issues that threaten sage grouse populations
in these 11 states are so different, a cookie-cutter approach
won't work. Each state is unique in their ecology, their
economies, their culture, their sage grouse habitat, and the
reasons for sage grouse to decline in their states are very
different, some within the control of mankind, some not.
I am proud to say that Wyoming has led the pack by securing
the first and only federally approved state sage grouse plan.
Our plan makes sense for Wyoming. It balances sage grouse
conservation with energy production, agriculture, and other
human necessities. But each state varies in the type and degree
of threats to sage grouse. For some, like in Wyoming, it is
primarily oil and gas production. In others, like Utah and
Nevada, it is wildfires and drought.
So, you cannot use the same methodology in each state to
address the problem. The factors aren't static, even within a
state. States are in the best position to be nimble, and to
respond to the conditions on the ground. And states can achieve
this better in real time, as they adjust to the conditions they
are dealing with, rather than on paper in the Federal Register.
That is why the Fish and Wildlife Service needs to allow
states to craft plans that are as unique as the states
themselves. This isn't just important for the sage grouse, it
is important for my state of Wyoming; because no matter how
solid Wyoming's plan is, if the sage grouse is listed anywhere,
it is listed everywhere, including Wyoming.
So this hearing, Mr. Chairman, is also very timely, in
light of yesterday's announcement by the Administration that
they will pursue some administrative changes to the Endangered
Species Act. It is a refreshing day when the Administration
admits that the law needs more transparency, more state and
local involvement, and less unproductive litigation. These are
exactly the kind of improvements that were passed last year,
and by the full House, as part of H.R. 4315. We had four bills
that we bundled and sent to the Floor that came out of this
committee that did exactly that.
Now, the Administration has previously spurned this
committee's efforts to improve the Act and defended the deeply
flawed system. So we need to make sure that, while the
Administration took a positive verbal step yesterday, that they
follow through and fix the problems as they exist on the
ground, not just here in Washington, among bureaucrats.
So, as we review the Administration's proposals in more
detail in the days ahead, I hope they are a sign that we can
finally lose the scare tactics, have articles about people that
want to tweak the ESA and update the ESA as gutting the ESA.
That is hardly the case of what we want to do. We need this
open dialog with the Administration on how to bring the ESA
into the 21st century. It is a positive sign. This hearing is a
positive sign.
Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Cynthia M. Lummis, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wyoming
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for holding this hearing to allow sage grouse states, the
leaders in sage grouse conservation, to tell their remarkable story.
In 2011, Secretary Salazar invited the states to take the lead in
conserving the sage grouse. The goal: preventing a species listing that
would devastate western economies. The states have responded with tens
of millions of dollars, countless man hours, and an unprecedented
dedication to sage grouse conservation.
With 11 states involved, a cookie cutter approach won't work. Each
state is unique--in their ecology, in their economics, and in their
culture.
I am proud to say that Wyoming has led the pack by securing the
first and only federally-approved state sage grouse plan. Our plan
makes sense for Wyoming, balancing sage grouse conservation with energy
production, agriculture, and other human necessities. But each state
varies in the type and degree of threats to sage grouse--whether oil
and gas production, wildfire, drought, urbanization, invasive species,
or pinion junipers.
And these factors aren't static. States are in the best position to
be nimble and responding to conditions on the ground. States can
achieve better results for the sage grouse in real time, not just on
paper in the Federal Register.
The Fish and Wildlife Service needs to allow states to craft plans
that are as unique as the states' themselves. This isn't just important
for the sage grouse, it's important for the state of Wyoming. No matter
how solid Wyoming's plan is, if the sage grouse is listed anywhere, it
is listed everywhere, including Wyoming.
This hearing is also very timely in light of yesterday's
announcement by the Administration that they will pursue administrative
changes to the Endangered Species Act. The Administration has finally
admitted that the law needs more transparency, more state and local
involvement, and less unproductive litigation.
These are exactly the kind of improvements passed by this committee
and the full House as part of H.R. 4315 in the last Congress. Yet this
Administration has had ``just say no'' policy on ESA improvements for
the last 6 years, including a veto threat of last year's modest, common
sense package.
The Administration has spurned this committee's efforts to improve
the law, all while defending a deeply flawed system. Simply trusting
that the Administration will fix these problems on its own seems like
allowing the fox to guard the hen house.
As we review the Administration's proposals in more details in the
days ahead, I hope these proposals are a sign that we can finally lose
the scare tactics and have an open dialog with the Administration on
how to bring the ESA into the 21st century.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
______
The Chairman. OK. I understand Mr. Polis is giving the
opening statement for the Minority side. Is that correct?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, thank you.
The Chairman. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED POLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Bishop,
Ranking Member Grijalva. Thank you to our witnesses.
You know, I wonder whether, if the Dutch had an Endangered
Species Act, whether the dodo bird would have gone extinct, and
whether we would have the expression that something has gone
the way of the dodo. Unfortunately, too many animals, including
the dodo bird, have become extinct due to human actions.
The heath hen, a coastal North American bird in the grouse
family, was once found from Massachusetts, south of Virginia,
right near this area. But, due to over-hunting and habitat loss
and domestic cats, my friend, the heath hen, who I have here,
has sadly gone the way of the dodo.
What will be the fate of the greater sage grouse? If the
language recently tucked into the Defense bill--of all things,
the Defense bill--is any indication, unfortunately, my friend,
the greater sage grouse, could go the way of the heath hen and
go the way of the dodo bird. Effectively, it could be
legislated into extinction by politicians. And that would be a
shame, because state and Federal managers are on the cusp of a
huge conservation victory if wildlife experts are allowed to
stay the course without congressional or political
interference.
I am fortunate to share my home state of Colorado with both
the greater sage grouse and the Gunnison sage grouse. The
greater sage grouse, which is the topic of today's hearing, is
distributed in six populations in northwest Colorado; but it is
threatened by industrial oil and gas development, fragmentation
of its sagebrush habitat, fire, and invasive weeds. Due to
these threats, the greater sage grouse occupies only half of
the historic range and, therefore, based entirely on its merits
has become a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species
Act.
Through the Endangered Species Act, we have seen Federal
agencies, the largest manager of sage grouse habitat in our
area, in collaboration with state and local partners, take very
important steps toward conserving and saving the bird and its
habitat. More than 1.8 million acres of Colorado's greater sage
grouse habitat is found on BLM lands in the Northwest District.
That is almost half of the bird's entire habitat in Colorado.
The draft management plan considers four possible
management alternatives for maintaining and increasing habitat
for the greater sage grouse on BLM and national forest lands in
northwest Colorado.
By the way, as you know, this applies to Federal lands
only, not to private lands. And, importantly, the management
alternatives reflect local adjustments and input to national
management recommendations, based on input from cooperating
government agencies and the general public. This unprecedented
effort to bring people together to save a species that is an
important part of our natural heritage in Colorado were
catalyzed by the Federal recognition that the bird was a
candidate species under the Endangered Species Act.
But you know what? It is also about the habitat. Colorado
and other states, alongside their Federal partners, have been
and continue to invest time and resources to protect the sage-
steppe ecosystem which is critical to sportsmen and Colorado's
outdoor-based economy. The sage-steppe ecosystem has been
recognized as one of the most imperiled ecosystems in America.
Of course, the bird is an emblem of it, but it has so many
other important ramifications to protect our critical
ecosystems.
Tourism is an incredible driver of our economy. In fact, as
Governor Hickenlooper's executive order to preserve the
sagebrush steppe said, in sustaining Colorado's outdoor-reliant
economy, ``it fuels more than $3 billion in annual spending on
wildlife-related recreation.'' I am pleased to see that, thanks
to the flexibility of the Endangered Species Act, efforts from
Federal agencies to private landowners and others can have an
impact and save a species to prevent it from going the way of
the heath hen, the way of the dodo.
I am thrilled that Mr. Swartout is here. Thank you for
being here, and for your work on this important conservation
initiative. Yours and Governor Hickenlooper's commitment to
protecting the sage grouse from endangerment is clear in last
week's executive order. I look forward to working with you, the
Governor, and our coordinated agencies to preserve the
framework of the Endangered Species Act, prevent forced
legislative extinction of species, ensure that Colorado remains
at the forefront of sage grouse protection, and to ensure that
the sage grouse does not go the way of the dodo or the heath
hen.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Polis follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Polis, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Colorado
Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva.
If the Dutch had the Endangered Species Act, would the dodo bird
have gone ``the way of the dodo bird? '' What about the now-extinct
Heath Hen? The Heath hen, a coastal North American bird in the grouse
family, known for its courtship displays, was once found from
Massachusetts south to Virginia, but due to overhunting and habitat
loss the heath hen sadly went the way of the dodo bird.
What will the fate of the greater sage-grouse be? If the language
recently tucked into the Defense bill is any indication, the bird could
be legislated into extinction. And that would be a shame, because state
and Federal managers on the cusp of a huge conservation victory if they
are allowed to stay the course without congressional interference.
I am fortunate to share my home state of Colorado with both the
greater sage-grouse and the Gunnison sage-grouse. The greater sage-
grouse, the topic of today's hearing, is distributed in six populations
in northwest Colorado. However, it is threatened by oil and gas
development, fragmentation of its sagebrush habitat, fire, and invasive
weeds. Due to these threats, the greater sage-grouse occupies only half
of historic range and has become a candidate for listing under the
Endangered Species Act.
Through the Endangered Species Act, we've seen the Federal
agencies, the largest manager of sage-grouse habitat, in collaboration
with state and local partners, take considerable steps toward
conserving the bird and its habitat.
More than 1.8 million acres of Colorado's greater sage-grouse
habitat is found on BLM lands in the northwest district. That is almost
half of the entire bird's habitat in Colorado. Last fall, the BLM and
Routt National Forest released the Draft Management Plan Amendment for
public comment. The draft considers four possible management
alternatives for maintaining and increasing habitat for the greater-
sage grouse on BLM and Routt National Forest lands in northwest
Colorado. This applies to Federal lands only, not to private lands.
And, importantly, the management alternatives reflect local adjustments
to national management recommendations based on input from the
cooperating government agencies and the public.
These unprecedented collaborative efforts, which were catalyzed by
the Federal recognition that the bird was in a candidate species under
the ESA, have been impressive. But this isn't all about the bird. It's
about the habitat, too. Colorado and other states, alongside their
Federal partners, have been and continue to invest time and resources
to protect the sage-steppe ecosystem which is critical to sportsmen and
Colorado's outdoors-based economy. The sage-steppe ecosystem has been
recognized as one of the most imperiled ecosystems in America due to
continued degradation and lack of protection. This habitat is a
cornerstone of the West's ranching industry since its inception and
many rural western communities rely on the seasonal economic boost
provided by sportsmen. As was stated by the Backcounty Hunters and
Anglers in reaction to Governor Hickenlooper's executive order,
sagebrush steppe plays a crucial role ``in sustaining Colorado's
outdoor-reliant economy, which fuels more than $3 billion in annual
spending on wildlife-related recreation like hunting.''
I am pleased to see that, thanks to the flexibility of the ESA,
efforts from Federal agencies to private landowners can have an impact.
However, I hope that the state's plans ultimately provide the certainty
needed for the bird's successful recovery.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. We will now turn to our witnesses;
and I am going to do another audible on this one, in figuring
out which way to go. I will be totally chauvinistic, and allow
Ms. Clarke to go first, and then the others I am going to do
alphabetically, if that is OK with you.
So, Ms. Clarke, we will start on this process.
For all of the witnesses, your written testimony is
included in the record. Your oral testimony, by our rules, will
be limited to 5 minutes. If this is your first time with us,
the lighting system above you is--if it is a green light, you
are OK. When there is 1 minute left, you have the yellow light;
and then, when it is the red light, I am going to do whatever I
can to stop you.
So, Kathleen, if I can turn to you for your oral testimony,
we are happy to have you here.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, DIRECTOR, STATE OF UTAH PUBLIC
LANDS POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH; FORMER
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, 2001-2006
Ms. Clarke. Thank you. It is good to be with the committee,
and I find myself in somewhat a unique and interesting position
today, having formerly served as the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management. When I was in that position, I directed and
oversaw the development of a sage grouse strategy for
conservation, which was implemented throughout the BLM in 2003
and 2004. And I believe that that contributed significantly to
the finding of not-warranted for listing that we had in 2005.
As the current Director of the Public Land Policy
Coordinating Office, I was given a similar assignment by
Governor Herbert. I was asked to assemble a team of
stakeholders, to do a year-long overview of the status of sage
grouse in the state of Utah, and to put together a
comprehensive sage grouse conservation plan for the state.
I believe that Utah's work in this effort should also
contribute to a not-warranted finding. However, despite our
good work and tireless efforts to find common ground with our
Federal land management agencies, I can tell you that, sadly, I
think there is a dichotomy developing between the state's
collaborative approach and Federal unilateralism. What started
out as a very promising partnership is becoming increasingly
imbalanced and, sadly, adversarial.
I want to be clear. The state of Utah is absolutely
committed to the conservation, long-term conservation, of the
sage grouse. Over $50 million have been invested in the last 10
years in sage grouse conservation, and Utah has only 4 percent
of the birds. But that is the second-highest amount that any
state has invested in the grouse conservation.
In close partnership with our Federal agencies, we have
restored over half-a-million acres of sage grouse habitat. This
has been since 2006. Significantly, that is after a not-
warranted decision was made. So, fears that if a not-warranted
decision comes out, then we stop conservation, are simply not
true--at least not in Utah, because that put us to work at an
even more rigorous pace.
Research and groundwork have been the hallmark of sage
grouse conservation in Utah. We have engaged in an aggressive
research program in the state led by Utah State University and
other universities, and we have probably the most robust data
set on sage grouse of any state in the West. We have over 15
years, a very comprehensive data that has been collected
throughout each of our significant sage grouse management
areas. That has been done in collaboration with local working
groups; these groups are an assemblage of Federal agencies, as
well as on-the-ground partners, such as ranchers, farmers and
sports enthusiasts, and the scientists. They have worked
together to come up with a clear understanding of the needs of
the bird.
We have engaged in land management studies involving
habitat improvement and restoration, predator control, and
population augmentation. And the results, quite frankly, have
been stunning and directly contradict the doom and gloom that
we are hearing about the sage grouse. We have taken our
scientific findings and translated them into very effective
conservation practices. As a result of the work, populations in
Utah have stabilized and trends are positive.
A recent study by the Pew Foundation failed to recognize
that fact, but it also ignored the 9- to 12-year cyclical
nature of the birds within the state of Utah, even though the
scientist that issued that report had previously acknowledged
that cycle in a prior study on population viability. Our matrix
for success are far simpler. Recognizing the cyclical nature of
populations in Utah, we have the goal of stabilizing these
trends by focusing on the most basic conservation need of the
birds, and that is the maintenance and the creation of usable
habitat for the populations of the birds.
Our conservation plan provides a solid framework for
assessing the needs of the birds within the state. Utah is not
like Wyoming; we do not have a vast sea of sagebrush. And we
are not like the Great Basin. Our most important conservation
strategies address the major threats that the species face in
Utah, and that is wildfire and the associated invasion of
undesirable grasses and the encroachment of conifer trees into
the sagebrush. These natural events constitute 97 percent of
the threat in the state of Utah, where development, or ex-urban
development and energy, only represent 3 percent of the threat
to our sage grouse populations.
Our strategies are based upon the best-available science,
and we rely on robust data collected for over 20 years. We
analyzed every wildfire in our separate sage grouse management
areas over a period of 18 years to see where those
vulnerabilities were.
The Chairman. Kathleen, I need you to summarize.
Ms. Clarke. OK.
The Chairman. You are over, here.
Ms. Clarke. I am already over?
The Chairman. Yes. I gave you a break for the cough you
had. I need you to summarize quickly.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Clarke. OK, all right. I want to emphasize that the
state of Utah is fully committed to conserving sage grouse
populations. We place great reliance on the substantial
contributions of ranchers and other concerned landowners to
conserve the species.
And I want to state that I firmly believe that regulations
do not conserve species. I believe that people do. And if
people are going to work for conservation, conservation has to
work for people. In the state of Utah, we have a plan that
motivates our private landowners. We work in concert with our
Federal partners and our state agencies, and we have a very
successful program and look forward to working with all of our
partners to continue that into the future. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathleen Clarke, Utah Public Lands Policy
Coordinating Office
i. introduction: dichotomy of state coordinated planning and
implementation and the federal mandate process
I find myself in an interesting position. As a former Director of
the Bureau of Land Management, I have extensive insight into operations
of a Federal regulatory and land management agency. I respect the role
of the Federal Government in management of lands and natural resources
and oversaw BLM's development and implementation of a rigorous range
wide sage grouse conservation strategy which helped to support a ``non-
warranted'' listing determination for the greater sage grouse (GRSG) in
2006.
As the current director of the Public Lands Policy Coordinating
Office for the State of Utah (PLPCO), I oversaw a year-long review of
sage-grouse in Utah, and the subsequent development of a bold, science-
based conservation plan, including clearly identified goals and
objectives recognized as innovative by observers of the process. Based
upon that work and the subsequent efforts to find common ground with
the Federal land management agencies, I can tell you that sadly, there
is a dichotomy developing between the state of Utah's collaborative
planning process and a growing Federal unilateralism. What started out
as a promising partnership is becoming increasingly imbalanced and
adversarial.
Let me be clear, the state of Utah is committed to long-term sage-
grouse conservation. Over $50 million has been invested in the last 10
years in sage-grouse conservation in Utah. The state, in a close
partnership with Federal agencies, has restored over 560,000 acres of
sage-grouse habitat since 2006, which work was funded and undertaken
after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the species was
``not warranted'' for listing. Research and ground work have been the
hallmark of sage-grouse conservation. The state has engaged in an
aggressive research program through our universities to scientifically
determine the conservation needs of the species. We have improved
habitat and engaged in land management studies involving habitat
improvement and restoration, predator control and population
augmentation. Results have been stunning, and directly contradict the
recent gloom and doom predictions concerning the sage-grouse.
As a result of all this work, populations have stabilized. A recent
study issued by the Pew Foundation fails to recognize this fact. The
recent study failed to take into account the 9- to 12-year cyclical
nature of populations in Utah, a point which was clearly recognized by
the same authors in their earlier work on the topic of population
viability. Our metric for success is far simpler and takes into account
the cycles of population. Recognizing the cyclical nature of population
numbers in Utah, the State's Conservation Plan sets the goal of
stabilizing the population trends by emphasizing the most basic
conservation need in Utah--the maintenance and creation of useable
habitat for the populations of birds.
ii. detailed conservation planning
The State of Utah's Conservation Plan provides a solid framework
for assessing the needs of the birds within the state. Utah is not a
vast sea of sagebrush, such as found in Wyoming or the Great Basin. The
most important conservation strategies address the major threats to the
species in Utah--wildfire and the associated invasion of undesirable
grass, and the encroachment of conifer trees into the sagebrush. These
natural events constitute 97 percent of the threat to the species in
Utah. Human activities, such as energy development and exurban
development, are not major threats, representing only 3 percent of the
threat. Utah's sage-grouse conservation strategies are completely based
upon the best available science developed over the past 20 years, and
the most robust data.
The state's team analyzed every wildfire in our 11 separate Sage-
Grouse Management Areas over a period of 18 years. We funded mapping of
invasive conifer encroachment on the 7.4 million acres within the
SGMAs. We analyzed every existing oil and gas well, and explored likely
energy development patterns. We considered complex forward-looking
models of the expansion of human towns and cities. We analyzed the
nexus between these patterns and on-the-ground sage-grouse populations
to identify the most effective tools for conservation. Finally the
state developed complex, acre-by-acre planning for the next decade to
ensure that the state has a conservation strategy to address areas
where there is a nexus between the major and lesser threats and the
birds. Implementation of these strategies by state agencies was
recently fortified through a Governor's Executive Order.
iii. rationale for the effort
Why did the state do this? In part, this was due to invitations by
Federal partners to produce conservation plans sufficient to support a
not warranted listing for the species. But also because the science and
other relevant information clearly demonstrate that long-term
conservation of sage-grouse can be assured under science-based,
strategic state management. In Utah, balance still matters. Developing
solutions that protect our freedoms and private property rights still
matters.
Throughout our deliberative process, we have been able to identify
and implement proven solutions that will conserve sage-grouse. More
importantly these solutions also work for the people and partners who
live, work and raise their families in sage-grouse country. These
citizens were focused on the conservation of sage-grouse through the
efforts of 10 Local Working Groups involving over 1,500 volunteers,
long before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ever considered a
petition to list. Long-term success of sage-grouse can be successful
only if these partnerships are protected under state-management of
sage-grouse. Top-down Federal mandates threaten that success.
We are experiencing numerous frustrations as we work with the
Federal land management agencies on proposed plan amendments which will
reduce the likelihood of a listing of the species. Instead of helping
cut through the red tape, Federal agencies are focusing most of their
effort on finding new ways to regulate human activity. As someone
representing a state which has invested decades in sage-grouse
conservation, the relentless efforts to force more standardized and
irrelevant mandates on the use of the land not only threatens the
conservation of the species, but unnecessarily imposes hardship on the
hard-working citizens of the West.
Some examples may help you understand this. Utah's plan and
detailed conservation strategies focus agency energy and funds into
wildfire suppression and rehabilitation, the elimination of conifer
encroachment and the improvement of poor quality habitat. The science
behind this work demonstrates that the birds will immediately use the
rehabilitated lands once a project is complete. Yet, instead of this
proven approach, the Federal land agencies are intent on the creation
of unnecessary zones of regulation, most of which will have no effect
on the primary conservation issue (more useable habitat), or on
reduction of the primary threats.
We find the Federal resistance to implementing the conservation
programs that matter the most to be the most frustrating. Now is the
time to put aside the state vs. Federal electioneering that we are
seeing from Federal agencies. While lip service is paid to
``collaboration,'' the focus of Federal regulators is increasingly
unilateral and dismissive of state conservation actions. After months
of conversation, states see more and more demands for regulation for
issues that pose only remote risk and/or benefit, but threaten millions
of acres with unnecessary mineral withdrawal, ``no-surface occupancy''
rules that are counterproductive, and a strong emphasis on proposed
resolution of lesser conservation threats.
The state of Utah is fully committed to conserving sage-grouse
populations and the sagebrush landscape upon which they depend. Our
efforts include a strong adaptive management program designed to
monitor the effects of the current conservation plans, and to find
solutions for future issues that may arise. The state's 15 year conifer
removal program needs to be immediately and aggressively undertaken by
all landowners, including the Federal agencies. This, and a shift in
emphasis of the wildfire suppression and rehabilitation program toward
sage-grouse conservation, will do the most to benefit sage-grouse.
These efforts directly address the high-risk threats to the species in
Utah.
The state also places reliance upon the substantial efforts by
ranchers and other concerned landowners to conserve the species. These
folks are working hard to employ best available practices endorsed by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and other agencies. They
are eager to participate through conservation easements and other legal
tools. More than 1,500 volunteers participate in Utah's Local Working
Groups and associated conservation projects. The state's Conservation
Plan contains a specific measurable goal to this effect. Yet we are
informed that these efforts are meaningless, because there is no
``certainty'' in the immediate future attached to their contributions,
according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's current and strongly
expressed interpretation of its Policy for the Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts (PECE).
The state of Utah supports the efforts of Congress to allow the
states the opportunity to demonstrate the robust nature of their plans,
and demonstrate the required level of certainty required by the
Service's PECE standards. The 10-year time frame mentioned in
legislation is firmly based in the science of sage-grouse in Utah, and
is recognized in peer-reviewed scientific papers. We believe that
congressional action is likely the only way to ensure the states have
the necessary time to demonstrate effective conservation efforts and to
secure the long-term sustainability of the GRSG.
Thank you.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rob Bishop to Kathleen Clarke,
Director, Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office
Question 1. The witness from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership suggested that the state of Utah abandoned its sage grouse
protection program after the Interior Secretary made her ``not
warranted'' determination.
If this is an incorrect statement, please provide data to the
contrary.
Answer. Since 2006, which is the year after sage-grouse were
declared ``not warranted'' for listing, Utah did not abandon its
conservation program for greater sage-grouse. Rather, the state of
Utah, with the continued commitment and help of many partners, has
dramatically increased its conservation efforts since that time. Since
2006, over 500,000 acres of sage-grouse habitats have been enhanced in
Utah, even though more than 50 percent of the habitat in Utah is
privately owned, and at a cost of nearly $80 million (Figure 1). So,
even after sage-grouse were found to be ``not warranted'' for listing,
conservation efforts and associated expenditures in Utah have not only
grown, but they have synergistically accelerated through broad,
volunteer-based partner collaboration. Total expenditures for on-the-
ground conservation actions in Utah have increased since 2006, and even
exceeded $10 million in 2008 and 2013 (Figure 2), was that trend of
conservation actions and expenditures, when combined with those of
other western states clearly demonstrates an increased commitment, not
the ``abandonment'' that has been suggested, to sage-grouse
conservation by Utah and other states (Figure 3).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1. Total on-the-ground greater sage-grouse conservation
expenditures in Utah since 2006.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2. Total expenditures in Utah on greater sage-grouse
conservation projects, 2006-2014.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 3. Total estimated expenditures by 10 western states on
sage-grouse conservation actions, 2000-2012.
These on-the-ground conservation expenditures were made possible
through broad collaboration, combined with local commitment to long-
term conservation of sage-grouse populations in Utah. Utah's track-
record of voluntarily planning and implementing landscape-level,
science-based and collaborative conservation projects is testimony to
our commitment and resolve in protecting this species without the need
for Federal regulation. To date, over 1,500 voluntary participants in
our 10 Local Working Groups across Utah have been voluntarily
participating in sage-grouse conservation efforts. Through those local
collaborative efforts, all Local Working Groups have revised their
local conservation plans since 2006. In addition, the state of Utah has
updated the 2002 Utah Sage-grouse Strategy, and those updates were
locally reviewed and approved by the Utah Wildlife Board and was
published in 2009. In addition, in 2013 the Utah Public Lands Policy
Coordinating Office, with support from the Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources, finalized the Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in
Utah, which is designed to enhance, restore and increase landscape-
scale sage-grouse habitats.
As further testament to Utah's most recent commitment to the long-
term conservation of greater sage-grouse, on February 25, 2015, Utah
Governor Gary Herbert signed Executive Order (EO/2015/002),
Implementing the Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse, which
directs state agencies to collaborate in the implementation of the
Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah. Since that time, the
Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, through close coordination
with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, has executed a series of
Memorandum of Understandings, each of which further clarify and
formalize the commitments of each agency to the continued and
collaborative conservation of greater sage-grouse in Utah.
Question 2. During the hearing, the recent PEW study was referred
to. Has your state had a chance to review the study including the
methodology used?
Do you support the study's conclusion, and if not, why not?
Do you have data to suggest that the conclusions in the PEW study
are incorrect?
If yes, provide any data to the committee.
Answer. Yes, the state of Utah has reviewed the recently
distributed, and scientifically flawed PEW Charitable Trust report
(Garton et al. 2015). For many reasons, the state of Utah does not
support the conclusions of the PEW report.
First and foremost, in Garton et. al. (2011), which is a
scientifically reviewed, published and widely recognized study that was
led and co-authored by the same lead researcher as the PEW report, the
authors state that sage-grouse populations in Utah ``increased from
about 6,500 males in 1965 to a peak at 14,000 males in 1970, followed
by cycles of declines and peaks at 9- to 12-year intervals.'' These
data and conclusions, which again, were derived by the same lead author
as the PEW report, were based on a robust range-wide sage-grouse lek
count data that was collected from 1965 through 2007. That study
recognizes, validates and has served as the scientific basis for the
understanding that range-wide sage-grouse populations are naturally
cyclical.
Rather than adding new data from 2008 to 2013 to that existing
dataset from Garton et al. (2011), the PEW Report is based on selective
data which appears to incorporate only low periods (2007-2013) in the
natural 9-12 year sage-grouse population cycles (see Figure 4 below).
These data and conclusions clearly present biased and misleadingly
negative outcomes and conclusions about the effectiveness of sage-
grouse conservation actions in Utah. Had the authors analyzed a longer-
term dataset, including the data from 2014 and the newly collected 2015
lek count data in Utah, the conclusions of this study would likely have
been much different. This is why the Conservation Plan for Greater
Sage-Grouse in Utah (2013) relies heavily on a 10-year rolling average
of population abundance when assessing population trends over time.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4. The annual total and average number of male sage-grouse
counted per lek, and the 10-year rolling average sage-grouse population
trend in Utah, 1980-2014.
Second, the report has not been subjected to a rigorous peer-review
process, which is widely accepted as the most reliable process for
generating the best available science. The state of Utah did not have
an opportunity to review the PEW Report prior to its distribution. Had
local biologists from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources been
given that opportunity, they would have recommended that a longer-term
dataset be incorporated into the study.
Further, the areas that were evaluated in the PEW Report do not
correspond well to Utah's Sage-Grouse Management Areas (SGMAs), which
are outlined in the Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah
(2013) and provide the basis for state-wide sage-grouse conservation in
Utah. More specifically, the Rich-Morgan-Summit and Uintah SGMAs are
only small edges of the Wyoming Basin modeling area in the Pew Report,
the Box Elder SMGA is only a small portion of the Northern Great Basin
modeling area in the PEW Report, and the Ibapah and Hamlin Valley SGMAs
are only small portions of the Southern Great Basin modeling area in
the PEW Report. As a result of this poor spatial correspondence,
conclusions that are based on efforts that span multiple states
jurisdictions do not accurately represent the effectiveness of sage-
grouse conservation actions in Utah.
Finally, the authors then extrapolated the statistics based upon
the decline portion of the cycle into unsupported conclusions about the
effectiveness of conservation efforts. The authors specifically suggest
that the conservation actions implemented since 2007 appeared to have
had no effect on populations. This assertion is inappropriate and is
not based upon an unbiased set of information. Such a conclusion must
be based instead upon a comparison of sage-grouse lek count trends in
areas where conservation actions were completed, then compared with
areas where no actions were conducted. Such an analysis was not
completed nor was it considered as part of this study.
Question 3a. Please explain the activities of your state to work
with private landowners in your efforts to create/expand habitat for
sage grouse.
Answer. Utah's approach to sage-grouse conservation is rooted in
local decisions that guide local conservation. To that end, the state
of Utah has partnered with Utah State University to develop Utah's
Community-Based Conservation Program, whose mission is to ``implement a
process that enhances coordination and communication between community-
based adaptive resource management working groups, private and public
partners.'' Through that process, 10 Local Working Groups have been
developed, and to date they have collaboratively developed, updated and
implemented local management plans for designated geographic areas in
Utah that contribute to the conservation of sage-grouse. In total, more
than 1,500 people have participated in these Local Working Groups, and
even though more than 50 percent of Utah's lands are privately owned,
over 500,000 acres of sage-grouse habitats have been enhanced in Utah
at a cost of nearly $80 million (see Figure 1).
The state of Utah has been actively working with private landowners
and others on sage-grouse conservation since the mid-1990s. As part of
that effort, the state of Utah sponsored the creation of 10 Local
Working Groups (LWGs). In 2006, in order to evaluate if the LWG process
and similar efforts in other states were meeting stakeholder needs, the
CBCP coordinator initiated a 2-year study of 700 randomly selected
members in 54 sage-grouse LWGs in nine western states. The research was
supported by a Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Grant. The research project explored these core
questions: (1) What types of LWGs have been the most successful at
generating effective wildlife conservation programs on working
agricultural lands, (2) What kinds of technical or institutional
support can increase the potential for success among current LWGs, and
(3) What role can LWGs play in the portfolio of NRCS efforts to protect
wildlife on working lands? The survey research was then augmented by
in-depth case study interviews of participants in four LWGs. A copy of
the final technical report can be accessed at http://extension.usu.edu/
files/publications/publication/pub_8613439.pdf. The state of Utah also
produced a guide for NRCS and other western states on how to better
work with local landowners and communities to implement sage-grouse
conservation actions. In this case, Utah not only worked to more fully
engage Utah landowners in sage-grouse conservation, but also focused on
how to better support local working groups and landowners throughout
the entire range of greater sage-grouse.
Question 3b. Will the draft RMP revisions enhance your efforts in
that regard or make such tasks harder?
Answer. The draft RMP revisions do not consider conservation
measures as part of an ``all lands'' approach. While portions of the
proposed revisions are helpful for the species (i.e., wildfire
provisions), many of the provisions may wind up being counter-
productive. For example, BLM restrictions concerning activities on its
lands could simply move the disturbance to private or state land, when
the least damaging option may be on the BLM lands.
Question 4. Are the goals of Director Ashe's October (2014) memo
consistent with your analysis of the problems facing the sage grouse?
If yes, please explain. If these proposals miss the mark, please
explain.
Answer. The October, 2014 memo does not represent a comprehensive
solution to the threats faced by the greater sage-grouse. The memo has
lead to the creation of proposed BLM and Forest Service ``solutions''
which do not reflect the best conservation measures for the species,
instead the memo has caused the agencies to focus on peripheral
matters.
The memo identified a new category of lands--the so-called
population ``strongholds.'' No data has been provided which would allow
independent review concerning the need for those particular areas, they
are simply delineated as strongholds based upon the general reference
to various studies. Several of these same studies were used by the
states as the basis for the state plans, so the strongholds memo does
not present any new information. The states had previously identified
Priority Areas for Conservation, which were included in the Service's
Conservation Objective Team (COT) Report dated March, 2013. The
strongholds memo ignores the advice of the Service's own COT Report,
which has been held up by Interior officials as the gold-standard for
conservation measures for the sage-grouse.
The identification of strongholds has directly resulted in the
proposed creation of ``Sagebrush Focal Areas'' by the BLM and the
Forest Service as part of their plan amendment process. The proposed
sagebrush focal areas feature a withdrawal from the mining law, no
surface occupancy with no exceptions for fluid minerals, and a
prioritization for the review of grazing. These provisions have been
described as ``pivotal'' in the discussion about a ``not warranted''
decision by the Service, which is forthcoming by the end of September.
The Interior Department has informed the public that the withdrawal
from the mining laws is required to prevent the creation of valid
property rights in the hands of claimants. Yet all of the current
mining operations in the West comprise a total of around 350,000 acres,
and more than 9 million is proposed for withdrawal. The solution
proposed is out of balance with the true nature of the possible threat
to the species represented by mining. Mining is a disturbance which can
be managed--the proposed withdrawal, which requires a separate
Secretarial process, is designed to eliminate mining exploration.
Exploration is not a threat to the species identified in the 2010
Service sage-grouse listing decision.
The proposed NSO provisions have the potential to be counter-
productive in areas with mixed ownership of lands, as it may preclude
the siting of land disturbances in the least offensive manner to the
habitat needs of the species.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Arnett.
STATEMENT OF ED ARNETT, SENIOR SCIENTIST, THEODORE ROOSEVELT
CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP, LOVELAND, COLORADO
Dr. Arnett. Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Grijalva, and members of the committee. Thank you very much for
the invitation to testify this morning on this very important
topic. My name is Ed Arnett, I am the Senior Scientist with the
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. We are a national
sportsman's conservation partnership organization with 42
formal partners, many of those who work very extensively on
sage grouse.
I appreciated Mr. Polis' introduction. I have been a
professional biologist for 25 years, working with Federal
agencies, as well as a Fortune 500 timber-industry company
during the spotted owl era that was mentioned earlier; so I
have a little bit of background on that particular set of
issues. I also have worked with the NGO sector for some time
now.
The title of this hearing, ``Empowering State Management of
Greater Sage Grouse,'' is an important one to note. The states,
in fact--as we have already heard, and we agree with--have been
extensively engaged and empowered from the very beginning. Any
notion to the contrary would, of course, be misleading.
Indeed, it was the state agency biologists decades ago that
brought attention to concerns over sagebrush ecosystems, and
increasing concerns about sage grouse. Since then, the states
have been full partners with Federal managers, ranchers, and
other relevant stakeholders in developing the conservation road
map that we see today for sage grouse.
As we have heard and will hear from the states, they have
made very important and significant contributions that we
certainly appreciate and recognize. TRCP fully supports the
state management of all wildlife species, because this is a
critical tenant of the North American model that is so
important to sportsmen.
There can be no doubt that the best way to maintain
oversight of sage grouse and, moreover, hundreds of species
that are dependent on this system, is to keep the bird off the
Endangered Species List. If we can all agree that that is our
shared definition of success, to sustain state management of
grouse and keep it from being listed, then we should agree that
the path forward is through the development and implementation
of both Federal and state plans that are robust to preclude the
need to list the species.
This is not an either/or proposition. We need strong plans
for our Federal lands; and we need state plans that address
private lands, as well as the state lands that operate under
different mandates. Of course, we also need our private
landowners, and their critical important engagements, to round
out a comprehensive strategy for these diverse western
landscapes.
We are confident that the conservation measures and
collaboration necessary to do this are currently happening
across the range of the species, and require no action by this
Congress other than the allocation of appropriate levels of
funding for sustained management and conservation, so we avoid
winding up in the same place further down the road.
The Endangered Species Act is a tool of last resort, and
one that certainly is not preferred by sportsmen as a vehicle
for conservation; but the loss of sage grouse habitat and the
drop in numbers is no secret, and the weight of evidence can't
be denied. It seems that the specter of an ESA listing has been
necessary to drive this historic level of collaboration, at
least among some, and among the different stakeholders that is
currently taking place on behalf of greater sage grouse.
The science clearly indicates that sage grouse habitat must
be protected with durable conservation plans that will
eventually produce habitat and more birds on the ground.
Suggesting there is some other path forward simply serves to
unnecessarily confuse the issue.
We must remain on the path we are on today and finalize
these plans and begin--as Kathleen noted that the state of Utah
is implementing--we need to implement these things broadly on
the ground and get it over the hump and moving forward.
The vast majority of core sage grouse habitat is on Federal
land, so strong Federal plans covering both BLM and Forest
Service acres are close to being finalized. We are nearly
there, but they have to be coupled with strong state plans and
reflect state-specific approaches to sage grouse conservation.
We believe this will be enough to thwart off the listing.
Science-based state and Federal conservation plans
implemented with adequate funding represent the only way to
maintain state authority of the sage grouse plan--the sage
grouse management. Fundamentally shifting Federal land
management and decisionmaking to the states at this stage of
the game, or delaying Federal action on a listing, are perhaps
the best ways to ensure the bird winds up on the list. Actions
like this only serve to take focus off what must be done.
And, interestingly, we are only hearing from a minority
about the delays needed to allow the state plans to develop and
manifest. We are not hearing from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service that they require a delay to get to a not-warranted
decision. As such, we believe Congress should let the current
process and historic collaboration continue, and we believe we
will have a successful conclusion.
I would again like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify today, and I will be happy to answer questions after
the other speakers. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Arnett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward B. Arnett, Ph.D., Senior Scientist,
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
introduction and qualifications
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the committee,
my name is Ed Arnett and I am the Senior Scientist for the Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, a national sportsmen's conservation
organization comprised of 42 Partner organizations, our mission is to
ensure all Americans a quality place to hunt and fish. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on such a timely and important topic as
sage grouse conservation.
I've been a professional wildlife biologist and scientist for 25
years, with experience in research, management, academia, and
conservation policy. I earned my Ph.D. from Oregon State University in
Forest Science; a Master's degree in Zoology and Physiology from the
University of Wyoming; a Bachelors from Montana State University in
Fish and Wildlife Management; and an Associate of Applied Science
degree in Natural Resources Management from Colorado Mountain College.
I have extensive research and management experience in forest-wildlife
relationships, wind energy and wildlife, and other aspects of energy
and wildlife relationships.
background
Once numbering millions and spanning 13 U.S. states and three
Canadian provinces, greater sage-grouse are now extirpated in two
states and one province and have lost 44 percent of their original
range. Numerous stressors that include habitat fragmentation, energy
development, urbanization, fire, invasive species, disease and poor
rangeland health have contributed to declines of sage-grouse in the
past several decades. Indeed, the fact that a once abundant, widely
distributed and harvested game bird is now at population levels low
enough to consider for listing as threatened or endangered should be a
major concern for all stakeholders and certainly for America's
sportsmen.
Sagebrush ecosystems are critically important to more than 350
species of plants and animals, including those pursued by sportsmen
such as mule deer, pronghorn, and the greater sage-grouse. The sage-
grouse in essence has become a modern day ``canary in the coal mine''
that is telling us that sagebrush ecosystems and many of the species
that depend on them are in jeopardy. Thriving populations of sage
grouse are a good indicator of healthy sagebrush ecosystems.
The TRCP supports the continued science-based management of sage-
grouse as a game bird under the authority of state fish and wildlife
agencies. We believe that the best way to maintain state management
authority is to enact both Federal and state conservation plans with
durable protections for sage-grouse habitat, thus enabling the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to make a ``not-warranted'' decision
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) without delay. Balancing
sagebrush and sage-grouse conservation with other land uses also is
important, notably (1) implementation of sustainable grazing practices
that keep working ranches in operation while providing habitat for
sage-grouse; and (2) responsible energy development that balances with
conservation and does not further impact sage-grouse and their habitats
and mitigates unforeseen impacts once avoidance and minimization
measures have been taken.
past engagement by the states
Given the theme of this hearing, a bit of history is in order
regarding the engagement of the states in the collaboration and
progress that has been made the past decade. Any notion that the states
have not been ``empowered'' or engaged is misleading. In the mid-1990s,
it was state agency biologists that began expressing concern about
declining numbers of sage-grouse, loss of habitat, and deteriorating
conditions of the remaining sagebrush ecosystems. At that time,
however, it was determined that sage-grouse did not meet requirements
for listing under the ESA. As we all know, years later, after
litigation, a ``not warranted'' decision in 2005, and more litigation,
the USFWS in 2010 determined sage-grouse did warrant ESA protection.
The USFWS is now under court order to finalize a decision by September
30, 2015. But the stage for extensive state agency engagement and
cooperation with the Federal agencies was set a decade earlier.
In 2002, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(WAFWA) partnered with the USFWS to generate an assessment of sage-
grouse populations and habitats (Connelly et al. 2004) and a
conservation strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) built from the ground up
that continues to serve as a foundation of the current efforts. The
Governor's Sage-grouse Task Force was later created in 2011 and chaired
by the states (Governors Matt Mead-WY and John Hickenlooper-CO). That
state-dominated task force was charged with developing recommendations
on how to best advance a coordinated, multi-state, range-wide effort to
conserve the sage-grouse, including the identification of conservation
objectives to ensure the long-term viability of the species (USFWS
2013). With the backing of this task force, the USFWS embarked on
developing range-wide conservation objectives for the sage-grouse to
define the degree to which threats need to be reduced or ameliorated to
conserve sage-grouse so that it is no longer in danger of extinction or
likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future
(USFWS 2013). The USFWS recognized that state wildlife agencies have
management expertise and management authority for sage-grouse; as such,
the USFWS created a Conservation Objectives Team (COT) of state and FWS
representatives to accomplish this task. The COT consisted primarily of
state agency biologists/representatives (10 of the 11 western states in
the range of sage-grouse) along with five biologists and other staff
from the USFWS. At the heart of the COT report is the foundation laid
by the WAFWA conservation strategy (Stiver 2006). Importantly, all of
the states signed off on the COT report and the threats to sage-grouse
and strategies to reduce those threats embedded within the report.
The states have continued to be engaged extensively, through the
Governor's Task Force, WAFWA and their Sage-grouse Executive Oversight
Committee, and other venues. From my perspective, the coordination and
work between the states and Federal agencies to achieve positive
outcomes and ultimately a not-warranted decision, while not perfect at
all levels or all the time, has been unmatched in my 25-year career.
state and federal land management operate under different mandates
Nearly half of the Nation's remaining sagebrush habitat lies on
Federal public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and
conservation measures in that agency's new resource management plans
will likely carry significant weight in the September 2015 decision.
Private and state lands, however, are also vital to the birds' future,
and the ESA listing decision will hinge on good state conservation
plans and efforts from private landowners (e.g., the NRCS Sage Grouse
Initiative). The states have done a tremendous amount of work, as
evidenced by reports from the Western Governors Association and others,
and should be commended for their efforts. Both voluntary and
regulatory measures in the current and future state plans are
critically important components of a broader, comprehensive Federal and
state strategy for sage-grouse.
However, shifting land management authority completely to the
states and negating Federal land management plans, as has been proposed
in several recent legislative proposals, is fundamentally flawed and
problematic for numerous reasons. There are key differences in how
state and Federal governments are mandated to manage their respective
lands. First and foremost, states do not manage their lands under a
multiple-use mandate, as the Federal agencies are required to by law.
State school trust lands are under constitutional mandate to generate,
and where possible maximize, revenues for schools, which limits their
flexibility and management options in many cases. In contrast, Federal
land managers operate under a multiple use sustained yield mandate,
giving them far greater flexibility to manage for conservation values
in addition to other values. Moreover, at least some states have
limited ability to regulate private lands given their current
constitutional statutes and in some states, counties have authority
over many decisions that may affect sage-grouse habitat (e.g.,
permitting development). The management stipulations that states apply
to non-Federal lands are far more limited in scope than the types of
requirements that Federal land managers can apply. As a result, sage-
grouse management plans on Federal, public lands can and should be
significantly more conservation-oriented than the state plans insofar
as development buffers and setbacks from priority sage grouse habitat.
State plans, however, must work in conjunction with strong Federal
plans for sage grouse conservation to be successful.
states already have management authority of populations and cooperating
status
The states, primarily through their respective fish and wildlife
agency, already have full management authority of wildlife populations.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (among others) sets the stage
for state cooperation with Federal agencies, and the states have
``cooperating agency'' status under administrative rule set forth by
the Federal agencies. For example, the BLM planning Handbook (H-1610
Appendix C, p. 6) requires field offices to:
``Designate priority species and habitats, in addition to
special status species, for fish or wildlife species recognized
as significant for at least one factor such as density,
diversity, size, public interest, remnant character, or age.
Identify desired outcomes using BLM strategic plans, state
agency strategic plans, and other similar sources. Describe
desired habitat conditions and/or population for major habitat
types that support a wide variety of game, non-game, and
migratory bird species; acknowledging the states' roles in
managing fish and wildlife, working in close coordination with
state wildlife agencies, and drawing on state comprehensive
wildlife conservation strategies. Identify actions and area
wide use restrictions needed to achieve desired population and
habitat conditions while maintaining a thriving natural
ecological balance and multiple-use relationships.''
As mentioned earlier, the states have been engaged since concerns
for sage-grouse and loss of sagebrush habitat arose years more than two
decades ago. The states remain responsible for managing not only
populations but also approximately one-third of the identified priority
sage-grouse habitat into the future. Extraordinary effort and
coordination has occurred for the past several years and the states are
finalizing their plans (or already have done so and have begun
implementation; e.g., WY, UT) that will compliment Federal efforts.
While we have seen some reluctance and mediocre plans in some states to
date, the ongoing process and negotiations should be allowed to play
out and be finalized with the goal of a comprehensive, coordinated
state and Federal strategy for sage-grouse and sagebrush ecosystems.
This is happening, and requires no further congressional action on
sage-grouse.
issues with legislating state management on federal lands
Current proposed Federal legislation under consideration would:
Eliminate the ability of Federal public land managers to
amend or modify Federal resource management plans whether
to enable conservation or development, and seeks to
retroactively nullify resource management plan amendments
already made, a change in policy that would impact millions
of acres and hundreds of species of fish and wildlife.
Halt Federal land-use planning efforts, costing taxpayers
tens of millions of dollars, and delaying implementation
that is needed immediately. Such action also would increase
the uncertainty within SG range associated with this major
change in land management policy--unintended consequences?
Erode the implementation of bedrock conservation
statutes--such as the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Federal Land Policy
and Management Act, National Forest Management Act,
Administrative Procedures Act, Fish and Wildlife Act of
1956, and others.
Eliminate judicial review on a sweeping array of long-term
land management decision points.
It can be argued that state management authority and practices on
private and state lands, or lack thereof, is in part responsible for
declines in sagebrush habitat and ultimately populations of sage-
grouse. Importantly, state conservation plans and regulatory authority
vary dramatically across the 11 states, a situation not necessarily
driven by different environmental conditions or threats to the species
that warrant flexibility and different approaches. Additionally, some
populations of sage-grouse span multiple states that have different
habitat designations and management approaches--this would be very
problematic for managing such populations.
Numerous questions regarding any such shift in management authority
immediately surface. How soon could we possibly expect such a shift in
management responsibility to occur? It does not seem possible that
halting all efforts by BLM and the USFS and shifting to a state-driven
plan is possible in the immediate future--the Federal management plans
are nearly finalized and ready for much needed implementation. How will
states incorporate the intent of the ESA, existing Federal regulations,
and case law into the analysis on a state by state basis? How will the
states do their own analysis on plans, or will they employ the 5-factor
analysis that the USFWS must employ according to the ESA? How would
individual states address the range wide listing petition they are
dealing with now? Perhaps most important, how will courts rule on the
adequacy of state plans--will this be through Federal or perhaps
through 11 different state courts?
Finally, the state plans, even those produced by committees of
diverse stakeholders, did not go through a broader public review and
input process as the Federal plans have. As such, implementing such
state plans on Federal lands owned by the American people with no
opportunity to comment is fundamentally and constitutionally flawed.
Given these issues and questions, the state plans themselves cannot
stand alone and drive conservation efforts on Federal and state and
private lands that would adequately conserve the species.
conclusion
Our organization and many of our partner organizations have been
active in the sage-grouse issue and define success as keeping the bird
off of the threatened/endangered species list and its continued
management by the state wildlife agencies. The threat of an ESA listing
for sage-grouse has brought the states, Federal agencies and multiple
stakeholders to the table in a meaningful way. The only way to conserve
the species, avoid a listing, and sustain state management authority,
is with strong conservation plans and collaboration that is currently
ongoing. We have seen unprecedented coordination and planning efforts
across 11 western states and we believe the USFWS can get to a ``not
warranted'' decision by the court-ordered deadline in September 2015,
and without congressional intervention. The recent ``not warranted''
decision on the Bi-state population of greater sage-grouse clearly
demonstrates that a positive outcome from these current efforts can be
achieved. However, we are deeply concerned that current legislative
efforts not only represent an unprecedented shift of management
responsibility by turning over land use and habitat management
authority of publicly-owned, Federal lands to the states, but also
unnecessarily delays implementation of management plans that have been
years in the making. We need to achieve timely approval of Federal land
management plans and begin implementing conservation and habitat
management measures that convert ``paper birds and habitat'' into real
results on the ground.
Altering the process at this point via delay and shifts in
management authority creates even greater uncertainty for stakeholders
and virtually assures a listing down the road. As such, what we need
from Congress is simple--adequate and sustainable funding levels that
ensure conservation durability in the long term.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the TRCP I
want to thank you for inviting me to share this information and assist
you on this important issue. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
references
Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004.
Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats.
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report.
Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C.
Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006.
Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report.
Cheyenne, Wyoming.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus
urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. February 2013.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rob Bishop to Dr. Ed Arnett,
Senior Scientist, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Question 1. You stated that after the ``not warranted''
determination was made in 2004, the state of Utah stopped its
activities to protect the sage grouse. Could you provide the committee
with specific data to support your statement?
Answer. To clarify, I did not single out Utah when answering the
question posed to me during the hearing on this issue. What I said was
that after the 2005 decision, many states--perhaps not Utah given what
Ms. Clarke noted regarding her state--slowed their activities and
expenditures on sage-grouse. I confirmed with the Western Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) who tracked expenditures by the
states from 2000-2012 on sagebrush and sage-grouse-related activities.
They noted that leading up to the 2005 listing decision the rate of
expenditures (in other words, the acceleration of expenditures)
increased up to around 2004 and then declined after the 2005 decision
was made. This was a short-term slowing in that rate of increase and
the interpretation was that the urgency/importance of sagebrush and
sage-grouse-related expenditures declined to some extent after the
``not warranted'' finding, but that was not necessarily reflective of
all states. According to Ms. Clarke, Utah was not one of those states.
WAFWA also noted that as the remand and 2010 decision time frame
neared, expenditures began to ramp up again. It is worth noting that
these expenditures did not include those from the NRCS Sage-grouse
Initiative that has spent nearly \1/2\ a billion dollars since its
inception in 2010.
Question 2. Your testimony argues that valid existing rights would
protect existing oil and gas leases under pending FWS policy to protect
the sage grouse. However, Director Ashe's October (2014) memorandum
proposes new restrictions on development. These additional restrictions
constitute the creation of new, would-be greater sage grouse
``strongholds.'' These ``strongholds'' will essentially prevent any
surface occupancy on approximately 16.5 million acres of land across
several states.
Please explain how this fact squares with your statement?
Answer. First, the language in the current EISs and what I have
heard from DOI indicates that the overlap with fluid and locatable
minerals is low (e.g., 84 percent of oil and gas reserves are located
outside of priority habitat)--this would include the focal areas or
``strongholds.'' That percentage is even higher in many of the state-
specific EISs.
I'm interpreting the question as having to do with some overlap of
existing leases and SFAs, or with the need to develop roads to access
leased areas with valid and existing rights. The BLM generally has to
balance impacts to other resources while honoring valid existing rights
and so has experience handling this situation. To that end, there is
explicit language in the current, final draft RMPs that address valid
and existing rights. For example, from the Hi-line, MT plan:
``Existing roads, or realignments, would be used to access
valid and existing rights. If valid and existing rights cannot
be accessed via existing roads, then any new road would be
constructed to the absolute minimum standard necessary with
appropriate BMPs and mitigation (Appendices C and M; p. 199).
From the Buffalo EIS (p. 138):
``Where a proposed fluid mineral development project on an
existing lease could adversely affect Greater Sage-Grouse
populations or habitat, the BLM will work with the lessees,
operators, or other project proponents to avoid, reduce and
mitigate adverse impacts to the extent compatible with lessees'
rights to drill and produce fluid mineral resources. The BLM
will work with the lessee, operator, or project proponent in
developing an APD for the lessee to avoid and minimize impacts
to Greater Sage-Grouse or its habitat and will ensure that the
best information about the Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat
informs and helps to guide development of such Federal
leases.''
From the Buffalo EIS (p. 199):
``In cases where Federal oil and gas leases are or have been
issued without stipulated restrictions or requirements that are
later found to be necessary, or with stipulated restrictions or
requirements later found to be insufficient, consider their
inclusion before approving subsequent exploration and
development activities. Include these restrictions or
requirements only as reasonable measures or as conditions of
approval authorizing APDs or Master Development Plans.
Conversely, in cases where leases are or have been issued with
stipulated restrictions or requirements found to be excessive
or unnecessary, the stipulated restrictions or requirements may
be appropriately modified, excepted or waived in authorizing
actions. Both the application of reasonable measures or COAs
and the modification, exception, or waiver of stipulated
restrictions or requirements must first be based upon site-
specific analysis including necessary supporting NEPA.''
These are just a few examples where the EISs clearly honor valid
and existing rights while attempting to work with operators to minimize
adverse effects.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF DUSTIN MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR, STATE OF IDAHO--
OFFICE OF SPECIES CONSERVATION, BOISE, IDAHO
Mr. Miller. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. Thank you for holding this important oversight
hearing on empowering state management of greater sage grouse.
My name is Dustin Miller, and I am the Administrator for Idaho
Governor C.L. Butch Otter's Office of Species Conservation, an
agency charged with balancing the conservation and recovery of
federally listed and candidate species with the economic
vitality of the state. It sure is a pleasure to be here before
you this morning.
In Idaho, we are blessed with abundant natural resources,
which is why we take conservation over fish and wildlife
populations very seriously. People in our state care deeply
about these issues and have a certain tenacity to roll up their
sleeves and develop grass-roots, proactive solutions to complex
natural resource issues; and that is exactly what Idahoans have
been doing on the greater sage grouse front.
In 2011, then-Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar invited
11 western states to partner with the Federal Government and
develop state-based conservation plans to preclude the need to
list greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. In
March of 2012, Governor Otter took the Secretary up on his
offer, and created an executive task force charged with
developing recommendations on actions needed to accomplish this
goal.
The Governor's sage grouse task force was comprised of a
diverse group of stakeholders, advised predominantly by our
local sage grouse experts and policy advisors. This group
worked diligently under a compressed time frame to develop
meaningful recommendations leading to the development of a
Governor's Sage Grouse Conservation Plan, which was
subsequently incorporated as an alternative within the Federal
land use planning effort.
In Idaho, we have focused the majority of our conservation
planning efforts on addressing the primary threats to greater
sage grouse, which are wildfire and invasive species. As such,
the Governor's plan centers on an innovative approach to
dealing with those primary threats through the application of a
three-tiered habitat conservation system and an associated
adaptive management strategy. The Governor's plan also
implements proactive actions that aim to protect key sage
grouse habitat through greater emphasis on wildfire prevention,
suppression, and restoration.
The conservation efficacy of the Governor's plan is
significant, as it truly is a landscape approach that takes
into account the entire life history of greater sage grouse. In
fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated in writing
that the foundational elements of the strategy are
scientifically sound and consistent with the Service's desired
conservation objectives. The Idaho BLM has also given great
credence to the Governor's plan, by including it as a co-
preferred alternative within the Federal land use planning
effort in Idaho.
Months of collaborating with our Federal partners to refine
the co-preferred alternatives led us to genuinely believe that
our state and Federal collaboration was going to be a success.
However, recent top-down direction from the national BLM office
has presented us with some unique challenges that, without
resolution, stand to undermine our collaborative sage grouse
conservation efforts.
The Department of the Interior and the national BLM office
are well aware of our concerns, and have engaged us in an
effort to resolve these concerns. However, while we have made
some progress, we still need a genuine commitment from the
Federal Government to work toward a mutually agreeable solution
concerning the application of sagebrush focal areas on 3.5
million acres of our core sage grouse habitat in Idaho.
Two years ago, a significant milestone in the collaborative
effort initiated by Secretary Salazar was achieved when states,
in partnership with the Service, developed a set of objectives
for addressing the threats to greater sage grouse. The
resulting report titled, ``The Conservation Objectives Team
Report,'' represents the goalpost for achieving success. One of
the cornerstones of this report is the flexibility to tailor
conservation actions to local ecological and socioeconomic
conditions. Unfortunately, the last-minute, standardized
Federal direction erodes this flexibility.
Our sage grouse conservation planning efforts in Idaho
demonstrate our commitment to conserving this species across
the landscape, balanced with preserving the custom, culture,
and economic opportunity in Idaho.
Given that the Federal Government manages 74 percent of the
habitat in Idaho, the majority of our efforts have been focused
on the Federal lands planning process. However, the state
recently completed a conservation plan for state endowment
lands that complements the Governor's plan for Federal lands.
Additionally, the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
through the sage grouse initiatives, continues to make
significant investments in Idaho by working with private
landowners and ranchers on voluntary sage grouse conservation
actions.
The state of Idaho holds the notion that local
collaboration, local ideas, and local efforts garner the
greatest results. The people in Idaho wish to see this iconic
western species continue to thrive on the sage-steppe landscape
for generations to come, and we believe that our collaborative
planning efforts ensures that vision.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dustin T. Miller, Administrator, State of Idaho--
Office of Species Conservation
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you
for holding this important oversight hearing on ``Empowering State
Management for Greater Sage-grouse.'' My name is Dustin Miller and I am
the Administrator for Idaho Governor C.L. ``Butch'' Otter's Office of
Species Conservation. The Office of Species Conservation is charged
with coordinating and implementing policies and programs related to the
conservation and recovery of species listed as Threatened, Endangered
or Candidate under the Federal Endangered Species Act in Idaho. Our
mission enables us to engage partners in conservation actions that
strike the appropriate balance between providing for the needs of
native fish and wildlife species in Idaho while ensuring that
predictable levels of land-use activities continue.
In Idaho, we are blessed with abundant natural resources, which is
why we take conservation of our fish and wildlife populations very
seriously. People in our state care deeply about these issues and have
a certain tenacity to roll up their sleeves and develop grassroots
proactive solutions to complex natural resources issues; and that's
exactly what Idahoans have been doing on the greater sage-grouse front.
After all, robust and durable conservation actions developed at the
local level provides greater assurances that the species will be
protected, as those living closest to the resource are typically the
most invested in conservation.
In 2011, then-Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, invited the
11 western states across the range of greater sage-grouse to partner
with the Federal Government to address the shortcomings identified
within the Service's 2010 warranted but precluded finding. The states
were tasked with developing and implementing conservation actions
across the landscape that would be adequate to avoid an ESA listing of
the species. In March of 2012, Governor Otter took the Secretary up on
his offer and created an executive task force charged with providing
the Governor recommendations on policies and actions necessary for
developing a state-wide regulatory mechanism to preclude the need to
list greater sage-grouse. The Governor's Sage-Grouse Task Force was
comprised of a diverse group of stakeholders representing industry,
sportsmen and conservation interests, local sage-grouse working groups,
and elected officials. The task force was advised predominantly by our
local sage grouse scientists at the Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
along with other state, Federal, and academic advisors. This group
worked diligently to develop a number of meaningful recommendations for
inclusion as an Alternative within the Federal sage-grouse planning
effort. Mr. Chairman, a statement from the Governor's Sage-Grouse Task
Force is included with my testimony as part of the official record.
In Idaho, we have focused the majority of our conservation planning
efforts on addressing the primary threats to greater sage-grouse, which
are wildfire and invasive species. With that in mind, the Governor's
plan centers on an innovative approach to dealing with those primary
threats through the application of a three-tiered habitat conservation
system and an associated adaptive management strategy. This approach
allows the state to elevate the level of conservation on medial sage-
grouse habitat if an adaptive regulatory trigger becomes operative in
our Core habitat areas, regardless of land-ownership. The Governor's
plan also implements proactive actions that aim to protect key sage-
grouse habitat through a greater emphasis on wildfire prevention,
suppression and restoration. The creation of Rangeland Fire Protection
Associations by the Idaho Legislature, for example, has already proven
to be an effective tool in decreasing the response time to wildfires in
remote areas of sage-grouse habitat and thus helping to prevent
catastrophic wildfire.
The conservation efficacy of the Governor's plan is significant, as
it truly is a landscape approach that takes into account the entire
life history of the species. In fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildfire
Service has stated in writing that the foundational elements of this
strategy are scientifically sound and consistent with the Service's
desired conservation objectives. This letter from the Service to
Governor Otter is included with my testimony as part of the official
record. The Idaho BLM has also given great credence to the Governor's
plan by including the plan as a ``Co-preferred Alternative'' within the
Federal planning effort.
Months of collaborating with our local Idaho BLM Office and others
over the refinements of the co-preferred alternatives led us to
genuinely believe that our state-Federal collaboration was going to be
a success. The type of collaborative employed for the conservation of
sage-grouse in Idaho mirrored that of the Idaho Roadless rule
collaborative, where industry groups, conservation organizations,
counties, and state and Federal agencies came together to craft a
locally derived solution to a top-down one-size fits all approach.
Ultimately, that collaborative prevailed. However, top-down direction
from the Washington BLM Office in January of this year has presented us
with some unique challenges that without resolution will undermine the
fragile coalition we've built that is necessary for sustaining long-
term and meaningful sage-grouse conservation. The Department of the
Interior and the Washington BLM Office are well aware of our concerns,
and have engaged us in an effort to resolve those concerns. While we
have made some progress, we still need a genuine commitment from the
Federal Government to work with us on a mutually agreeable solution
concerning the application of Sagebrush Focal Areas on 3.5 million
acres of our Core sage-grouse habitat in Idaho.
Two years ago, a significant milestone in the cooperative effort
initiated by Secretary Salazar was achieved when the states in
partnership with the Service developed a set of objectives for
addressing the threats to greater sage-grouse. The resulting report
titled the Conservation Objective Team Report, or COT Report represents
the goalposts for achieving success. One of the cornerstones of the COT
Report is the flexibility provided to create solutions that meet the
needs of the species and the local ecological and socioeconomic
conditions and thus allowing each state the ability to tailor their own
state-specific plans to achieve the COT Report objectives. The state of
Idaho has worked in good faith with our stakeholders and our Federal
partners to use this framework to reach the identified goalposts.
Unfortunately, the last minute range wide standardized requirements
imposed by the Washington BLM office deviates from the flexibility
afforded by the COT report.
Our sage-grouse conservation planning efforts in Idaho demonstrate
our commitment to conserving this species across the landscape balanced
with preserving the custom, culture and economic opportunity in Idaho.
Given that the Federal Government manages 74 percent of the habitat in
Idaho, the majority of our efforts have been focused on the Federal
lands planning process. However, the state recently completed a
conservation plan for state endowment lands that complements the
Governor's Plan. Additionally, the NRCS through the Sage-Grouse
Initiative continues to make significant investments in Idaho by
working with private landowners and ranchers on voluntary conservation
actions that provide benefits to greater sage-grouse, as well as
certainty for ranchers and landowners.
The testimony submitted for the record by Katie Kalinowski of the
Western Governors Association provides additional information on
landscape sage-grouse conservation actions occurring in Idaho and other
western states. The information contained in that testimony serves as a
summary of the Western Governors Association 2014 Sage-Grouse Inventory
Report. Mr. Chairman, Governor Otter wishes to have this Western
Governors Association report and its Appendix entered into the official
hearing record.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the state of Idaho holds to the notion
that local collaboration, local ideas, and local efforts garner the
greatest results. We have a lot of pride in our state, and we are
especially proud of our western heritage and abundant natural
resources. The people in Idaho wish to see this iconic western species
continue to thrive on the sage-steppe landscape for generations to
come, and we believe that our planning efforts ensures that vision.
Right now, we are close to having a complete state-based conservation
package that provides for the conservation of sage-grouse; but as
you've heard, some of the recent top-down directives from Washington,
DC have the potential to derail years of positive collaboration. It is
our sincere hope that we can come to an agreeable resolution, where the
state of Idaho is truly the architect of its own destiny relative to
greater sage-grouse conservation.
Attachments:
U.S. Fish and Wildfire Service letter to Governor Otter
Statement from the Governor's Sage-Grouse Task Force
ATTACHMENTS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
April 10, 2013
Hon. C.L. ``Butch'' Otter
Governor of Idaho
State Capitol
Boise, Idaho 83702
Dear Governor Otter:
Thank you for your letter of March 14, 2013 requesting U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) ``concurrence'' in regards to Idaho's
Greater sage-grouse (GRSG) conservation strategy (Strategy). Before the
Service responds to this request, we would like to express our
continued appreciation for your leadership in guiding the collaborative
approach in which your staff in the Governor's Office, the Office of
Species Conservation and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game has
worked with us to refine the State's approach to conserving GRSG in
Idaho.
The Service remains impressed with and supportive of the science-
based adaptive conservation strategy for GRSG you have crafted
collaboratively in Idaho, for Idaho-specific needs. In brief, the
foundation of the Strategy and most of the specific elements that
complete it, are solid and are grounded in scientific concepts and
approach important to both the Service and Department of the Interior.
While there is much about the current draft that the Service supports;
there remain elements that need refinement, clarification, or need to
be incorporated into the Strategy for the Service to conclude the
entire strategy is consistent with the Service's Greater sage-grouse
Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report.
A detailed response to your inquiry is attached. In summary, the
integrated nature of the Strategy makes it difficult to ``concur'' with
specific elements as most are interrelated and depend on other elements
of the Strategy to function effectively. Nonetheless, our review
revealed that the 4 foundational elements of the Strategy (Habitat
Zones, Conservation Areas, Population Objective and Adaptive Triggers)
are consistent with the COT as is the Livestock Grazing Management
element. Therefore, this determination of consistency with the COT
reflects ``concurrence'' for these elements, with the necessary
elements noted in our detailed comments (see attachment), for the
purpose of BLM IM 2012-043. This ``concurrence'' should not be
construed as being automatically implementable by the BLM. The Service
looks forward to working with your Task Force, and BLM as appropriate,
to refine, clarify and add aspects of the Strategy as needed for
similar support of, for example, the Wildfire Management and
Infrastructure elements; and the Implementation Team/Commission. The
latter, while an element of the Strategy that that needs clarity and
refinement is an issue the Service believes is easily addressed. There
are numerous examples of such bodies, including as the State has
verbally referenced, the process used on the Idaho Roadless Rule. The
Service looks forward to assisting the State craft such a process for
the Strategy.
Conservation of GRSG is a challenge. It is a challenge due to the
geographic scale of the issue; the need of the species for large intact
undisturbed geographies of habitat; the difficult nature of the threats
in the Great Basin portion of the range; and the relevance of the
habitat in questions to myriad conservation and economic needs and
interests. Long-term conservation of GRSG will require a strong and
sustained commitment by stakeholders across multiple jurisdictions to
work together collaboratively. It is for these reasons that the Service
commends the State of Idaho for acknowledging and crafting a Strategy
that on one hand details proactive conservation actions to address the
threats on the landscape, but equally important embraces the
uncertainty of how those threats will play out on the landscape and how
they will affect GRSG over time by crafting a robust, outcome based
scientific strategy that is collaborative and adaptive. This balance
between proactive conservation design/actions based on empirical data
and assumptions, with a feedback loop from monitoring to inform
adaptation in design/action, with stakeholders in the decision loop as
an integral part of that process, is a fundamental component of the
both the Strategic Habitat Conservation approach the Service employs,
and Adaptive Management that the Department of the Interior employs.
We hope this review is helpful. The Service looks forward to
continuing our role in this process of on-going refinement of the
Strategy, its implementation over time, and as part of the adaptive
process it embraces.
Sincerely,
Brian T. Kelly,
Idaho State Supervisor.
Enclosure
Purpose of the Service's Comments
We want to be clear regarding the purpose of our comments. First,
our comments serve to continue the collaborative and iterative process
we have been engaged in with you. We see this review as an important
``check-in'' and continuation of that process to ensure the Strategy is
ultimately best positioned to contribute to a future where listing GRSG
under the ESA is unnecessary.
Our comments also provide the requested feedback regarding
``concurrence'' as referenced in BLM Instructional Memorandum 2012-043.
While the Service and BLM are both Department of the Interior Agencies,
and we together with the State of Idaho and other partners, are
collaborating in the conservation of GRSG; the BLM and Service have
different legal authorities and policy requirements. As such, any
``concurrence'' we may offer on elements of the Strategy should not be
construed a priori as being implementable by the BLM. That is a
determination BLM must make. The Service acknowledges and respects BLM
authority in this regard. The Service stands ready to assist the State
and BLM in BLM's approval process where appropriate (e.g., Service
review of elements of the Strategy that are modified to be
implementable by BLM). Our comments on the Strategy at this juncture
are not part of the on-going BLM process to amend and or revise various
Resource Management Plans across the range of GRSG. That review process
will be completed separately.
Service support of the Strategy in part or whole should not be
interpreted as a decision by the Service commensurate with a listing
decision under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That determination
will be made when the Service formally reviews the status of the
species in 2015. However, our purpose in developing the COT report was
to guide the States in the development of conservation actions and
strategies so that when we review those efforts in 2015 they would
contribute to the conservation of the species in a manner that
collectively would address threats such that listing would not be
necessary. It is for this reason, our review of the Strategy herein is
provided in the context of the COT report.
Components of the Strategy
We frame our review in the context of the three primary elements of
the strategy: (1) Foundational Elements, (2) Specific Elements, and (3)
Implementation Team/Commission. Foundational elements of the Strategy
are those that transcend specific management and conservation actions
or reactive adaptive processes once population or habitat triggers are
tripped. We refer to four Foundational Elements: Thematic Approach,
Conservation Areas, Adaptive Triggers, and Population Objective.
Specific Elements identified in the Strategy are those that target
specific threats including: wildfire, invasive species, and
infrastructure, as primary threats; and recreation, West Nile virus,
improper livestock grazing management, and livestock grazing
infrastructure as secondary threats. The Implementation Team/Commission
referenced in the Strategy is meant to ensure proper action is taken
when a trigger is tripped. As such, for the purposes of our review, we
will evaluate the Implementation Team/Commission as a separate
operational element of the strategy.
Foundational Elements
Our review of the Strategy revealed a thoughtful, science-based and
outcome-driven adaptive management approach to the conservation of GRSG
in Idaho. This approach is consistent with the COT report. The Thematic
Approach, Conservation Areas, Adaptive Triggers, and Population
Objectives are consistent with the COT report and the Service strongly
supports these aspects of the State's Strategy.
Examples of how the four Foundational Elements of the Strategy are
consistent with the General Conservation Objectives and Specific
Conservation Objectives related to Priority Areas for Conservation
(PACs) in the COT report include:
1. The designation of a Core Habitat Zone (CHZ) of approximately 5.5
million acres which by itself is currently home to
approximately 73% of the male GRSG in Idaho. The CHZ
captures the COT report intent of avoiding development in
priority areas for conservation (PACs). The Strategy
reflects that the development of infrastructure (a primary
threat to GRSG) is prohibited in CHZ; with a process for
limited exceptions. The Service commends the State for
ensuring that any exceptions to the prohibition to
infrastructure in CHZ, must meet the conservation standard
in the Important Habitat Zone (IHZ; see discussion in next
paragraph). While we support the configuration and intent
of the CHZ, we look forward to working with the State to
clarify how exceptions are determined and specific
mitigation strategies if exceptions occur are implemented
(see Specific Elements and Implementation Team/Commission
headings, below).
2. The designation of an Important Habitat Zone (IHZ), of
approximately 4 million acres which by itself is currently
home to 22% of the male GRSG in Idaho. The IHZ also
captures the COT report intent of stopping the population
decline in that while infrastructure is permitted; it is
permitted in a way that must demonstrate it will not affect
the population trend for the Conservation Area in question.
IHZ serves an equally important role in the Strategy as it
can serves to buffer loss of habitat due to fire (see #5).
3. The Strategy's use of a measureable population objective, and
utilizing monitoring to ensure that objective is met; and
setting metrics that trigger changes in practices or review
of current practices to ensure the Strategy's conservation
objective is met long-term.
4. The use of four separate Conservation Areas in which the adaptive
triggers are individually applied adds an increased level
of sensitivity to change, that we expect to translate to
more timely changes in management if necessary, which will
translate to an enhanced ability to ensure the population
objective of the Strategy is met state-wide (the Service
appreciates and concurs with the State's desire to have
additional peer review of the adaptive triggers).
5. The use of a ``hard trigger'' that, if tripped, requires IHZ be
managed as CHZ, with infrastructure development subject to
the same standards in both zones. In essence, if applied to
all Conservation Areas, the CHZ would almost double in
size. This would add the conservation benefit of CHZ to IHZ
until no longer necessary.
6. The COT report also references the importance of incentive-based
conservation actions in developing a conservation strategy.
The foundational elements of the Strategy provide a context
for incentivizing actions to maintain population numbers
and intact habitat; and help ensure the conservation and
restoration of GRSG in Idaho. The structure of these
foundational elements of the Strategy (and specific
elements consistent with the COT report and others as they
are refined) will help provide stakeholders predictability
with regard to GRSG conservation needs.
Specific Elements
Livestock Grazing Management: This specific element of the Strategy
is consistent with the COT report. The Service supports this aspect of
the Strategy because it requires Idaho Rangeland Health Standards
(IRHS) be met and it does so in the context of the Strategy. The COT
report identifies that if the riparian (IRHS 2) and upland (IRHS 4)
rangeland health standard is met, that is the minimum needed to address
the threat of grazing on GRSG based on our expertise under the ESA. To
achieve this, the Strategy provides an adaptive management process by
which adjustments in grazing based on ecological site potential and
habitat characteristics would be prioritized as needed outside of
normally scheduled permit renewals based on population triggers and
cause of declines within each Conservation Area in the Strategy.
Additionally, the adaptive management approach the Strategy provides an
important framework for deciding what, in addition to IRHS 2 and 4,
might be required under IRHS 8 (Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive
Species) for GRSG conservation.
As noted above, the COT also references the importance of
incentive-based conservation actions in developing a conservation
strategy. The Service believes the Livestock Grazing Management Element
address the conservation needs of GRSG while providing an important
incentive to permitees to be good stewards.
An additional important benefit to the Service of the Livestock
Grazing Management element is that the regulation of improper grazing
as a threat to GRSG when permits had not yet been analyzed by BLM to
meet IRHS for GRSG (IRHS 2, 4; and 8 as needed) would be accomplished
through the Strategy on an as needed basis based on population status.
This approach is in contrast to requiring all individual permits be
conditioned to meet IRHS 2. 4 and 8 (as needed), by the time the
Service makes its listing determination--a goal that is likely not
achievable. To be clear, the Service supports adherence to IRHS. Our
support for the approach of this element is due to it being a wise
approach for regulating the appropriate conservation action for the
secondary threat of improper grazing to GRSG where needed, until IRHS
necessary for GRSG conservation are achieved at the management area
scale. This adequacy of regulatory mechanisms under ESA is an important
consideration. Pending more clarity in how the Implementation Team/
Commission is staffed and operates once a trigger is tripped; the
Service would expect to fully support this element of the Strategy.
While we would defer to the BLM on their permit-specific application of
these triggers in the context of requirements to enhance and restore
rangelands under Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the
Service supports the Livestock Grazing Element in the interim as long
as no triggers have been tripped within a Conservation Area.
Infrastructure: The specific actions in the infrastructure element
are consistent with the COT pending a clearer understanding how the
Implementation Team/Commission operates to determine exceptions to CHZ
development, development in IHZ, and how referenced mitigation of
impacts will work.
Mitigation: Mitigation is referenced in multiple elements in the
Strategy but there is no explanation of the how mitigation for impacts
in CHZ, IHZ and potentially GHZ will work. The Service is aware of
preliminary work by your Task Force and the work of the Idaho Sage-
grouse Advisory Council and this element and encourages the State to
build on these efforts for this element of the Strategy.
Restoration: The Service recognized in our letter of August 1,
2012, that one of the many strengths of the Strategy is that habitat in
need of restoration was included in and adjacent to CHZ as a priority
commitment for restoration and to expand Core habitat. However, the
Strategy is largely silent on the important relationship between
mitigation and restoration for restoration to occur; what constitutes
habitat that is lost versus gained back; and restoration monitoring.
The need for how direct and indirect loss of habitat is quantified and
what constitutes restored habitat is a missing component of the habitat
trigger as well.
Wildfire Management: Wildfire and invasive species associated with
fire are the greatest threat to long-term persistence of GRSG in the
Great Basin and the threat most difficult to manage. The Strategy has
been refined to help manage this threat in a significant way. The
addition of legislative changes and funding to support the creation of
Rural Fire Districts (RFDs) is a significant addition to the Strategy
and one the Service supports and that is consistent with the COT
report. Viewing wildfire management in the context of Prevention,
Response and Restoration and tailoring actions within each is likewise
an important refinement. The Service looks forward to working with the
State and other partners to help establish more RFDs; and to identify
more specifics actions under each category of Prevention, Response and
Restoration.
One aspect of the strategy that is not a specific fire management
action but that the Strategy notes and the Service likewise
acknowledges as one of the strongest attributes of the Strategy is how
the overarching construct of the Strategy is designed with fire in
mind. The conservation objective of maintaining between 95% and 73% of
the males on leks, the establishment of refined habitat triggers that
catch declines and adapt practices earlier and by Conservation Area,
the identification of areas in need of restoration, the commitment to
IRHS are all mechanisms to reduce fire, buffer the effects of fire, and
provide for refinement in management in an adaptive construct to reduce
the effects of fire in the long term.
Management on non-Federal Property: The Strategy to date has
focused on Federal properties. This is understandable due to the
ongoing Resource and Land Use Management Plan revisions and amendments
underway by BLM and the U.S. Forest Service. The Service looks forward
to working with the State to ensure the Strategy applies where
necessary and appropriate to all properties with adequate state or
local regulatory mechanisms.
Implementation Team/Commission
Many of the specific elements of the Strategy are in the Service's
view conditionally consistent with the COT pending more clarity how the
Implementation Team/Commission is staffed and operates; and how it
interacts with scientific support. Because the Strategy is an outcome-
based, adaptive strategy, its efficacy is achieved through a balance
between proactive actions and reactive steps to adapt and or change
actions if necessary. Therefore, the Service needs to understand in
more detail how the Implementation Team/Commission functions to
evaluate data and inform decisions to adapt management that ensure the
Strategy objective is met (e.g., see Infrastructure, above).
Summary
In summary the Strategy is a robust approach to conserving GRSG in
the Great Basin. Many components of the Strategy are strong, in
particular the underlying foundational elements and grazing management;
with wildfire and infrastructure similarly strong pending additional
clarity and refinement as noted. The State of Idaho and the
stakeholders on the Governor's Task Force have done remarkable work in
a compressed timeframe as these aspects of the plan address threats to
GRSG in the Great Basin in a way that gives the Service more regulatory
certainty, stakeholders more operational certainty, and provides for
the conservation of GRSG and sage-brush in Idaho that helps ensure more
resiliency to large wildfires. The elements of the Strategy that the
Service would welcome more conversations with the State to refine, add
or clarify in the Strategy include non-federal properties, restoration,
mitigation, and the operation of the Implementation Team/Commission.
****
Three Cs for Sage-grouse
Cooperation, Collaboration, and Conservation the Keys to Saving Sage-
grouse
The State of Idaho has shown itself to be a leader among the
western states in conserving the greater sage-grouse. The State and its
stakeholders have been proactively working on sage-grouse management
and conservation efforts since the early 1950s. As the timeline for the
sage-grouse listing decision became clear, Governor Otter established a
15-member task force in early 2012 to take an even closer look at
addressing both short and long-term solutions to the threats to the
species and its habitat. The task force was comprised of a wide cross-
section of Idaho's public including ranchers, sportsmen, conservation
groups, energy representatives, interested public, and federal and
state agency officials. Our assignment was to develop a detailed,
science-based strategy for conserving the species alongside land uses
aimed at avoiding the need to list sage-grouse under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). We involved and incorporated the advice of top sage
grouse biologists and sagebrush habitat scientists.
As members of the Idaho Sage-grouse Task Force, it has been our
mission since inception to ensure the species' long-term viability in
Idaho. We were brought together to develop a regulatory plan to address
the priority threats to the species' welfare. The intent of our efforts
was that this plan could become a standard for resource managers as
they sought to wisely manage habitat in a way that facilitated a more
secure, resilient sage-grouse population.
The Idaho sage-grouse plan was quickly recognized as a worthy
effort. Two years ago, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), the
federal agency charged with determining whether or not the species
would be listed, wrote a letter to Governor Otter stating that the
foundation of the Idaho Plan was ``solid and grounded in scientific
concepts . . .'' Further progress was made last year when the Bureau of
Land Management and U.S. Forest Service listed the Idaho strategy as a
co-preferred alternative in their draft land use plan amendments. In
the months that followed, the state worked intensively with the federal
agencies to narrow the remaining issues and ensure that our strategy
both meets the needs of the species and federal requirements. It was
acknowledged by the federal agencies that not only did the state plan
address the correct threats but it also put forward a strong,
collaborative, and meaningful effort toward conserving sage-grouse.
Our plan contains three elements most essential to conservation of
the species: collaboration, cooperation, and conservation. Importantly,
this was done collaboratively with a majority of interested parties
represented on the task force so the product could be embraced and
implemented by all. This has been the hallmark of the sage-grouse
conservation work done in Idaho, since the inception of the first local
working group in the 1990s. Working together in an organized
collaborative and cooperative way, we believe, is the only avenue for
success in a situation as huge and complex as this.
Though the work has been difficult, the federal agencies engaged
with the State of Idaho in a productive effort to reach a consensus
conservation plan. However, in the last four months, the Department of
Interior (DOI) appears to have advanced positions that depart
significantly from earlier federal input. U.S. Senator James Risch
recently asked Secretary Jewell in a Senate committee hearing why the
``goalpost was being moved'' when we were so close to finalizing our
plan. We are very concerned that these recent shifts will diminish the
broad support for the Idaho Plan that we worked so hard to achieve.
When collaboration fails, we believe that efforts to conserve the
species will suffer.
We recognize that contentious issues remain between the federal
agencies and the State of Idaho. We call on the Department of the
Interior to resolve these remaining issues in a way that conserves
sage-grouse and fits Idaho's all lands-all hands approach. The work of
the Idaho task force gives witness to the fact that, all of us,
collectively, are the best hope for sage-grouse. Working together we
can get this done.
Many of us are very concerned about the severe impacts that an
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing could have on our industries and
on land uses in the state. We also firmly believe that conservation
efforts are most effective when they are based on sound biological
principles and applied with support of people at the local level. We
ask that the federal agencies recognize the creativity and cooperative
spirit that we demonstrated through our task force efforts as positive
elements to build upon, not deficiencies. We as Idahoans are ready to
take the actions needed to conserve sage-grouse and the rangelands upon
which we all rely.
Members of the Idaho Governor's Sage Grouse Task Force:
Will Whelan Gene Gray
The Nature Conservancy Local Working Group Rep.
Brett Dumas Rochelle Oxarango
Idaho Power Public at Large
John Robison Russ Hendricks
Idaho Conservation League Idaho Farm Bureau Federation
Richard Savage Jerry Hoagland
Idaho Cattle Association Owyhee County Commissioner
Chuck Jones Dr. Robert Cope
J.R. Simplot Co. Lemhi County Commissioner
Randy Vranes Bill Meyers
Monsanto Renewable Energy
Scott Bedke Jack Oyler
Idaho House Speaker Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
Senator Bert Brackett
Idaho State Senate
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rob Bishop to Mr. Dustin Miller,
Administrator, Idaho Office of Species Conservation
Mr. Miller did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. During the hearing, the recent PEW study was referred
to. Has your state had a chance to review the study including the
methodology used?
Do you support the study's conclusion and if not, why not?
Do you have data to suggest that the conclusions in the PEW study
are incorrect?
If yes, please provide any data to the committee.
Question 2. Please explain the activities of your state to work
with private landowners in your efforts to create/expand habitat for
the sage grouse.
Will the draft RMP revisions enhance your efforts in that regard or
make such tasks harder?
Question 3. Are the goals of Director Ashe's October (2014) memo
consistent with your analysis of the problems facing the sage grouse?
If yes, please explain. If these proposals miss the mark, please
explain.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Now we will turn to Mr. Swartout. Not that you are last,
but you have the last letter in the alphabet that we have here
today. So, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SWARTOUT, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, OFFICE OF
GOVERNOR JOHN HICKENLOOPER, STATE OF COLORADO, DENVER, COLORADO
Mr. Swartout. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to provide our perspective on how the state of Colorado has
worked to conserve and protect the greater sage grouse. I thank
you and your colleagues for your thoughtful consideration and
your efforts to gather the information necessary to properly
evaluate these matters.
Colorado has a proud record of collaboration with
landowners, wildlife managers, ranchers, conservation groups,
and state and Federal agencies; and together we have made
stewardship of the species a priority. The state's wildlife
management agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife--we call it
CPW--has exceptionally strong in-house capabilities to develop
research and science. Colorado puts an enormous amount of
resources into that development of research and capabilities
for the agency, and they have developed site-specific science
regarding the greater sage grouse.
Relying on that expertise, CPW has collected and analyzed
Colorado-specific data to assess habitat quality, threats to
habitat, and the impacts of various changes to habitat for
greater sage grouse. In 2008, working with landowners,
stakeholders, Federal agencies, and other state agencies and
conservation groups, our biologists developed a comprehensive
management plan for the greater sage grouse, which was designed
to increase the abundance and viability of the species and its
habitat.
In 2013 and 2014, Colorado updated the plan. Additionally,
Colorado's regulatory framework for energy development
proactively engages our important oil and gas industry in
helping to protect the greater sage grouse and its habitat. The
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's 1200-series
rules require consultation with CPW whenever an operator seeks
to develop energy resources in sensitive wildlife habitat.
Concerted cooperation among our agricultural producers and
our wildlife agency has resulted in the ``Ranching for Sage
Grouse'' program. This program provides landowners with the
best-available science and management tools for grazing in
habitat areas, and protecting the greater sage grouse
populations. The effectiveness of these broad-based
conservation efforts are borne out by data.
Since 2003, Colorado Parks and Wildlife has protected over
80,000 acres of sage grouse habitat through fee title purchase
or conservation easement at a cost of just over $52 million.
Additionally, the land trust community in Colorado has
protected an additional 154,000 acres of private land in
greater sage grouse habitat areas through conservation
easements, including some of the best sage grouse habitat and
largest leks in the state.
Since 2005, CPW has expended more than $9.2 million to
conduct annual operations in support of greater sage grouse
conservation.
Just last week, the governor of Colorado issued an
executive order that calls on state agencies to take further
actions to reduce impacts on greater sage grouse.
I must say that the Western Governors continue to work with
each other and Interior Secretary Jewell within the National
Sage Grouse Task Force to create robust state and Federal plans
that protect the greater sage grouse. It has been a tremendous
effort, and we want to thank Secretary Jewell and her team for
partnering with us and working on these plans. It hasn't been
easy.
In closing, let me just stress this point: Colorado has
worked closely with many partners across the spectrum,
including local governments, landowners, conservationists, and
my friend, Ed Arnett, sitting next to me. A decision by the
Fish and Wildlife Service to list the greater sage grouse puts
all this cooperation at risk, and threatens to pull apart the
coalitions that we built in Colorado.
To close, I would just like to say that despite all of the
above and despite our concern about a listing, the governor of
Colorado thinks that congressional action at this time, to
delay a listing, doesn't provide the state with the kind of
regulatory certainty that we need.
And we continue to work with Secretary Jewell and her team.
There are difficulties--this is a negotiation--but we continue
to work with them, and we think we are very close to reaching
an agreement that will allow us to get to a not-warranted
decision, that will justify a not-warranted decision by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It has been a difficult effort.
There are issues that the states have, but we continue in
earnest to work with the Secretary and her team.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swartout follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Swartout, Senior Advisor to Governor John W.
Hickenlooper, State of Colorado
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to provide our
perspective on how the state of Colorado has worked to conserve and
protect the greater sage grouse. I thank you and your colleagues for
your thoughtful consideration and your efforts to gather the
information necessary to properly evaluate these matters.
Colorado has a proud record of collaboration with landowners,
wildlife managers, ranchers, conservation groups and state and Federal
agencies, and together we've made stewardship of this species a
priority. All of us have worked tirelessly, using the best available,
site-specific science to protect both the species and its habitat.
Today I want to briefly describe to you what we've accomplished.
The state's wildlife management agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
(CPW), has exceptionally strong in-house research capabilities, and its
biologists have played a critical role in developing and updating
state-specific science regarding greater sage-grouse.
Relying on that expertise, CPW has collected and analyzed Colorado-
specific data to assess habitat quality, threats to habitat, and the
impact of various changes in habitat on greater sage-grouse
populations. In 2008, working with dozens of stakeholders from state
and Federal agencies, as well as private landowners and conservation
groups, CPW biologists developed a comprehensive management plan
(Conservation Plan) for the greater sage-grouse which was designed to
increase the abundance and viability of the species and its habitat.
Following feedback from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
in 2013 CPW completed the ``Colorado Package,'' a comprehensive update
and status review to the Conservation Plan. The state updated the
Conservation Plan once again in 2014 in its ``Synthesis Report,''
providing additional information on the implementation and effects of
conservation efforts. These conservation efforts have been designed to
address the threats initially identified by CPW in its analyses of
Colorado-specific data, and subsequently mirrored in the Federal
Government's Conservation Objective Team and National Technical Team
reports.
Additionally, Colorado's regulatory framework for energy
development proactively engages our important oil and gas industry in
helping to protect the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. The
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's 1200-series rules
require consultation with CPW whenever an operator seeks to develop
energy resources in sensitive wildlife habitat. Typically, where
greater sage-grouse habitat has been implicated, these consultations
lead to site visits and detailed, site-specific recommendations. An
independent study of the consultation process showed that industry has
complied with recommendations received from CPW 97 percent of the time
when seeking to develop projects in sensitive wildlife habitat.
Concerted cooperation among agriculture producers and CPW has
resulted in the ``Ranching for Sage-grouse'' program, which provides
landowners with the best available science and management tools for
grazing in habitat areas and protecting greater sage-grouse
populations. Local efforts to conserve the greater sage-grouse have
also been robust, as detailed in the Colorado Package and the Synthesis
Report. For example, local governments in northwest Colorado have
reviewed their zoning regulations to better accommodate greater sage-
grouse habitat conservation objectives. With 164 grazing and multiple
use leases in habitat areas, the Colorado State Land Board (SLB) has
management authority over 393,269 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat.
Currently, SLB is pursuing a detailed inventory of state trust lands
located in greater sage-grouse habitat, and will apply site-specific
adjustments to its management regime based on the results of the
inventory. The effectiveness of these broad-based conservation efforts
is borne out by the data.
Since 2003, CPW has protected over 80,600 acres of greater sage-
grouse habitat through fee title purchase or conservation easement at a
cost of approximately $52.8 million.
Additionally, the land trust community in Colorado has protected an
additional 154,181 acres of private land in greater sage-grouse habitat
areas through conservation easements, including some of the best sage-
grouse habitat and largest leks in the state. CPW has completed four
Wildlife Mitigation Plans with oil and gas operators covering a total
of 57,697 acres in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan greater sage-grouse
population, incorporating avoidance measures and best management
practices for minimizing impacts.
Since 2005, CPW has expended more than $9.2 million to conduct
annual operations in support of greater sage-grouse conservation.
Just last week, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper issued an
executive order that calls on state agencies to take further actions to
reduce impacts to the greater sage grouse. Those actions include:
increasing coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, launching a
market-based habitat exchange, taking inventory of--and improving
habitat within--state lands with grouse populations and strengthening
the role of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
It's also worth mentioning the same kind of collaborative work
we've conducted for the Gunnison sage grouse, a sub-species with a
narrower habitat range than the greater. CPW has invested more than $40
million on conservation and management of the Gunnison sage grouse
since 2005. Our partners have contributed an additional $10 million.
Since 2003, state wildlife managers have protected more than 30,000
acres of Gunnison sage grouse habitat (primarily via conservation
easements). About 68,000 additional acres are managed by other
conservation interests such as The Nature Conservancy.
Between lands in public ownership and private lands secured by
conservation easements, about 55 percent of Gunnison sage grouse's
mapped range has some level of protection from development. Despite our
proactive and extensive and ongoing range-wide conservation measures to
protect greater sage-grouse, in 2010, FWS determined that the species
was ``warranted but precluded'' for listing under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) throughout its entire 11-state range.
FWS must determine by September 30, 2015 whether the sage-grouse
still warrants protection under the ESA and if so, whether to propose
an ``endangered'' or a ``threatened'' listing for the species.
Western Governors continue to work with each other and Secretary of
the Interior, Sally Jewell, within the National Sage Grouse Task Force
to create robust state and Federal plans to protect the greater sage-
grouse. It has been a tremendous effort on everyone's part. We want to
thank Secretary Jewell and her team for their efforts.
Colorado firmly believes that state-led efforts provide the most
effective approach to protecting and conserving the species and its
habitat. The listing of the greater sage-grouse under the ESA would
have a significant and detrimental economic impact on the state. Given
the limited resources available to the Federal agencies charged with
managing a federally listed species, the state is concerned that the
health and vitality of the greater sage-grouse population may also
decline as a result of a listing, setting back the conservation gains
made to date under the our Conservation Plan.
In closing, let me stress this point: Colorado has worked closely
with many partners across the spectrum, including local governments,
landowners and conservationists.
A decision by Fish and Wildlife to list the greater sage grouse
puts at risk all this cooperation and threatens to pull apart the very
coalitions that--to date--have made enormous progress is conserving the
sage grouse and its habitat. Our partners will be left wondering: What
was the point of all this effort? We've taken enormous steps to avoid a
listing and the accompanying Federal intervention only to have our
efforts answered with a listing. That kind of outcome not only
jeopardizes our progress with the sage grouse, but any other work we're
doing to conserve these treasured species in Colorado and the Rocky
Mountain West.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rob Bishop to Mr. John Swartout,
Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Governor Hickenlooper, State of
Colorado
Mr. Swartout did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. During the hearing, the recent PEW study was referred
to. Has your state had a chance to review the study including the
methodology used?
Do you support the study's conclusion and if not, why not?
Do you have data to suggest that the conclusions in the PEW study
are incorrect?
If yes, please provide any data to the committee.
Question 2. Please explain the activities of your state to work
with private landowners in your efforts to create/expand habitat for
the sage grouse.
Will the draft RMP revisions enhance your efforts in that regard or
make such tasks harder?
Question 3. Are the goals of Director Ashe's October (2014) memo
consistent with your analysis of the problems facing the sage grouse?
If yes, please explain. If these proposals miss the mark, please
explain.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. We will now turn to the committee
for questions. I will always go last, in an effort to make sure
that Rep. Hardy actually gets to ask some questions here today.
Stick around, we will see what happens.
Turning to Mr. McClintock, do you have any questions?
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first question
I have relates to an experience I had a few years ago on the
Klamath, where they are trying to tear down four perfectly good
hydroelectric dams because of a catastrophic decline on the
salmon population. I asked them, ``Well, why doesn't somebody
build a fish hatchery? ''
Well, it turns out somebody did build a fish hatchery. It
produces 5 million salmon smolts every year. Seventeen thousand
return as fully grown adults to spawn in the Klamath. The
problem is, they don't let us include them in the population
counts. I, for the life of me, don't understand why we don't
allow such things as captive breeding programs to meet the ESA
requirements. None of us want to see a species go extinct
because of human activity, but there are so many more flexible
ways of accomplishing that.
Ms. Clarke, what are your thoughts?
Ms. Clarke. I am somewhat familiar with the predicaments on
the Klamath, and have great empathy for those who have been
impacted by the listings that are involved there.
I believe we have to find better ways to do things; and I
think, as the Chairman said, part of what we hope to accomplish
in this hearing is to consider innovation and new ideas to
break some of the traditional fixes that have not proved to be
effective. I don't think we have to sacrifice human activity--
--
Mr. McClintock. I hate to interrupt, but my time is short.
That is precisely my point. To add insult to insanity, when
they tear down the Iron Gate Dam, the Iron Gate fish hatchery
goes with it; then you do have a catastrophic decline.
Ms. Clarke. That is right.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Miller, aren't there better ways of
doing things than what we are doing to achieve the ESA goals?
Mr. Miller. Yes, Congressman, there are, and that is
through our state-led planning efforts. We are closest to the
ground, sir. Our local biologists and scientists know more
about the species than our Federal partners do. So I believe,
really, in the state-led effort to implement our conservation
strategies on the ground.
Mr. McClintock. I don't have a lot of sage grouse in my
district, but in our region, in the Sierra Nevada, we have had
similar experiences with critical habitat designations.
For example, sound forest management practices were
prevented over vast tracts of our forests to preserve spotted
owl habitats. The irony of that is the forests, because of
that, became dangerously overgrown and ultimately were
incinerated by two catastrophic wildfires that also took out
nearly 50 spotted owl habitats. It reminds me of the Vietnam
War maxim, ``We have to destroy these habitats to save them,''
and that is exactly what these policies have done.
We now have 2.2 million acres of the Sierra declared
critical habitat for the Yosemite toad and the Sierra yellow-
legged frog, despite the fact that the national Fish and
Wildlife Service admits that human activity is not the
principal reason for the decline in these populations--it is
non-native predators that just love to eat the little things,
and a virus that is decimating amphibian populations throughout
the Southwest. It is not human activity, and yet 2.2 million
acres of the Sierra--essentially, the entire footprint on that
range--is now subject to additional restrictions that make
forest management all the harder, and are setting the stage for
another catastrophic event.
What would the states do differently, Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Obviously there are things, Congressman, that
are concerning to us about the current implementation of the
Endangered Species Act. We do need to see some modifications to
that statute to ensure that state-led efforts are a priority.
Again, I can't emphasize enough the local science and the local
actions from our stakeholders are very important in driving
forward sound policies that balance the appropriate level of
conservation of our fish and wildlife populations with
maintaining economic vitality----
Mr. McClintock. Let me ask you this question. How much of
the problem is the law, and how much of it is ideological
zealotry by those who are currently administering the law?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, I feel that, obviously, there
are--we do need to see some changes to the Act; but I think the
courts have interpreted the Act in a fashion that is contrary
to what the writers of the Act back in 1974 intended. I think
we have gone too far from the original intent of the Endangered
Species Act.
Mr. McClintock. OK, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Do you want some sage grouse in
your area?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We can arrange that.
Mr. McClintock. As long as there aren't any strings
attached.
The Chairman. Well, you can't get that one.
All right. Mrs. Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
of our witnesses today.
I want to take a step backward from the discussion that we
have been having, because I think despite some of the tension
in the room, I really think that there is some agreement about
the importance of protecting the greater sage grouse and the
significant role that the bird plays in local ecosystems and
economies.
I, like you, have never seen the sage grouse; but I am
married to a man that has, and knows its importance. So, I
think I want to go back, if I can get through my questions, to
ask you a question about the original intent of the Endangered
Species Act. But first, I would like--because we do have
different views and ideas about how to get there--I would like
to explore that a bit further.
Dr. Arnett, I found your testimony very interesting, at
2:00 a.m. this morning, as you tried to bring the Federal and
the state level together. I think everyone in this room wants
to avoid a listing of the greater sage grouse under the
Endangered Species Act. What do you think the best way to
accomplish that is?
Dr. Arnett. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I
believe, in both the written testimony and in my oral comments,
we think this is a comprehensive view of Federal and state
collaboration and strong conservation plans on both Federal and
state lands, in conjunction with these voluntary efforts and,
quite frankly, easements, which are contractual agreements with
private landowners to conserve habitat and manage their lands
differently.
Again, it is not an either/or. We need all of the above in
managing the landscapes. These are diverse landscapes across a
wide range of conditions, and it requires all of the above
approach, in my opinion, with multiple tools--that includes
mitigation and some pretty creative mitigation tools in the
toolbox these days that have been brought forth in the form,
not only of the traditional conservation banking, but also in
these exchange programs. These are all tools that we need to
put collectively forward.
But the science is clear that we do need the habitat, first
and foremost, and we need to manage that habitat. That has been
brought out very clearly, quite frankly, with my state
colleagues, as well.
Mrs. Dingell. So your testimony, your written and your oral
here, talks about the partnership between the state and the
Federal level. Yet the testimony and discussion we have heard
this morning--and in the written last night--alleges the states
have not been involved in the process.
Can you give us background, and maybe expand a little on
the role that state agencies have played in that effort? Again,
as you just said, the critical role of both of them playing
together, can the Federal not be involved in any way? How would
that work? Do you agree that the states haven't been, and that
they are the best in--it is really a difference of opinion
between the two of you sitting next to each other.
Dr. Arnett. I am not convinced we are that far apart. But I
think, clearly, it has been stated by everyone that the states
have been engaged.
And a little bit of history--this is nothing that just
popped up last month or 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. This
is something that has been of concern to biologists, wildlife
professionals in the state agencies and the academic world, and
those that are out on the ground for some number of years--
decades, quite frankly. WAFWA established a monitoring program
back in--Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; my
apologies for the Acronese--the WAFWA group led efforts back in
the 1950s, put together monitoring to track sage grouse, and
started some of the research endeavors.
Back in the 1990s, the concern began to increase. And,
actually, it was state biologists that were considering the
petition to list. This didn't come from the green groups; this
came from biologists that were really concerned about a number
of different things: loss of habitat, declining numbers of
birds. The states have led many of these efforts--the state
biologists, as Dustin pointed out very clearly, have direct
authority of wildlife populations. They always have had
authorization to manage populations, whereas the state, the
overall state governments, manage state lands, state-owned
lands, and the Federal Government manages the habitat.
The states have always had cooperating agency status. They
have always been engaged. I am not going to try to speak,
especially for the three states here, or any other state, as to
what that cooperation has looked like or if it could have been
better--my guess is I suspect it can, it can always be better
in terms of collaboration; but the states have always been at
the table. In my opinion, the wildlife agencies have, in fact,
been there. Their advice hasn't always been heeded,
necessarily.
So, the biologists have had concerns for some time. They
put together the original strategy--whoops, am I over? Sorry.
The Chairman. You are.
Dr. Arnett. It is a 5-minute response to each question,
isn't it? I just realized that.
So, I think my conclusion is that the states definitely
have been engaged, they have cooperating status, and they have
been partnering with the Feds, and we are very close to getting
to a consensus.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Benishek.
Dr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here this morning. I appreciate your questions, Mrs.
Dingell--my colleague from Michigan, by the way.
I would like to ask you all about the working relationship
that you have with the Federal Government on conservation
issues. Now, we have talked about the state's efforts to do
this management; and, frankly, I agree with you, because I
think that the Feds just don't have the intimate knowledge of
the states that local conservation people do. They know the
areas that are involved, so I am on board with you.
But I want to know what level of cooperation exists at this
point in time? Could maybe each of you kind of clue me into
that briefly, so that I could ask another question?
Ms. Clarke. Would you like me to go?
Dr. Benishek. Sure.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you for the question. We have had a very
good working relationship with our Federal partners in the
state of Utah. It started out, I think, as a real partnership.
We worked closely together. We had a task force of higher-level
officials that met periodically, and we continued to meet.
But at a couple of different stages in the process in the
evolution of this we started getting top-down directives which
seemed to contradict the conservation objectives that we had
all agreed to. Most recently, we have had some additional ones
that are very----
Dr. Benishek. What do you mean by a top-down directive,
then?
Ms. Clarke. Well----
Dr. Benishek. Explain that to me.
Ms. Clarke. We are getting a new overlay of constraints
that are going to be imposed upon the land use plans that, at
least in the case of Utah, we believe do not address the
threats. What they do is constrain human activity, and they
threaten the economic stability of our state, and our
educational incomes to support our students; so it is
troublesome.
Dr. Benishek. I appreciate that answer. Mr. Miller, could
you give me an answer?
Mr. Miller. Yes, Congressman, real quick. To echo Ms.
Clarke's statement, we, in Idaho, have engaged with our local
Federal partners at a very high level. I mean this has been a
collaborative from the start--with the Idaho BLM office, the
local Fish and Wildlife Service office, and the Forest Service.
We built a really good, cohesive strategy together by blending
our two co-preferred alternatives: the Governor's alternative
with the internal BLM and Forest Service alternative; a solid
plan that addresses the needs for greater sage grouse, but
balances that with maintaining predictable levels of land use
activity in our state.
And, again, to echo Ms. Clarke's statements, the
frustration lies with this recent top-down direction from the
national BLM office that occurred in January for insertion of
additional requirements into these specific land use plan
amendments, environmental impact statements. There are things
within that national direction that are very concerning to the
states.
We have engaged with the Department of the Interior to
resolve those issues, and I truly believe that there are folks
at Interior and the national BLM office that want to find a
solution to some of these complex remaining issues, one being
the sagebrush focal area map and associated rule set. That was
never vetted with the state----
Dr. Benishek. Let me ask Mr. Swartout if he agrees with
that assessment, that there is some top-down directive in
changing the plan that doesn't seem to be effective in the
management of the grouse.
Mr. Swartout. Thank you for the question, Congressman. In
Colorado we have been dealing with these issues for a long
time. And I think the real issue, where the Endangered Species
Act becomes adversarial to some degree, is in the structure of
the role that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where they are
required to measure regulatory measures, right?
They have to take those regulatory measures, and they are
often litigated. And that is their primary focus, whereas
states have put enormous value on cooperation and partnerships.
We work with the Cattlemen and the Farm Bureau and local
landowners, conservation groups, industry; and states put the
weight on those activities.
The key issue is finding the balance between those two
things within a listing decision. So, have things been added as
Idaho and Utah described? Yes. But that is a part of what we
deal with, with the Endangered Species Act, is that--trying to
find the balance between regulatory measures and state
cooperative partnerships is really what the struggle is all
about; and we are hopeful to get that balance right and get to
a not-warranted decision.
Dr. Benishek. Thank you. Well, we are out of time. Thank
you----
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Polis.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I want to begin by thanking our
friends at the American Museum of Natural History for the
wonderful preserved heath hen, which, again, used to commonly
roam from Virginia to Massachusetts. They are now extinct. They
are a related species to the greater sage grouse, and, of
course, we hope that Congress itself does not cause the greater
sage grouse to go the way of the heath hen and the dodo.
I want to go to Dr. Arnett. Two legislative proposals have
recently emerged that would delay an Endangered Species Act
listing decision on the greater sage grouse through legislative
action. What, from your perspective and expertise, would a 6-
or a 10-year delay in listing mean for the greater sage grouse?
And do you think the bird would be in better shape or worse
shape?
Dr. Arnett. Well, of course, being a scientist, I have to
say it depends on what actions that are taken.
In 2005, during the not-warranted listing decision, Utah
may have taken a lot of progressive, proactive steps and
continued that conservation effort. But my colleagues, the
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, have noted
to me that a lot of those proactive conservations came to an
end; and I think that, without a little bit of crisis involved
here to push the effort, I am not sure that the foot would stay
on the gas, personally.
Quite frankly, this is a concern, if we get to a not-
warranted, which is what we define as success, and I think
everyone here defines as success, is that we need long-term
sustainability for the management----
Mr. Polis. In your opinion, if the listing was
legislatively delayed 10 years, do you think a listing at that
time would be even more likely, given the likely state of the
bird and the withdrawal of some of the state efforts that they
are engaging in?
Dr. Arnett. We think it is likely, and keep in mind that
the bird is still--is warranted, but precluded. That would
seemingly give a lot of uncertainty to a business owner or
someone else trying to plan out into the future. I think we are
better off getting the plans done now, with some long-term
commitment goals and objectives, and giving them more certainty
than waiting 6 years to see what happens.
Mr. Polis. Mr. Swartout, you spoke about the significant
success Colorado has seen in sage grouse habitat conservation
through the efforts of state, local, and private players. You
also mentioned how important site-specific variables are in
management of the grouse.
That being said, what are your thoughts on attempts made by
this body, here in Washington, to give national directives
through bills like the Defense bill, in terms of how sage
grouse is managed?
Mr. Swartout. Thank you, Representative Polis. As you know,
we have invested enormous resources, but these issues concern
all of our constituents in the 11 states; and Congress
certainly has the freedom to intervene as they choose, because
they also represent those constituents.
But we have, as I mentioned in my testimony, we have been
working very diligently with Secretary Jewell, her team, the
BLM, on trying to come to a successful conclusion in our BLM
plans and our state-led conservation efforts to protect sage
grouse. We continue to focus on that, and we have a path
forward to get there. It is difficult, and it has been
difficult, as described by Utah and Idaho in their testimony;
but the Governor's goal is to still find a path forward to get
to a not-warranted decision.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
Dr. Arnett, as you know, last month the Fish and Wildlife
Service announced it would not list the bi-state population of
the greater sage grouse in Nevada and California under the ESA
because adequate safeguards to conserve the species were put in
place by the state and Federal managers. Do you see any reason
why a similar outcome can't be reached for the range-wide
population of greater sage grouse, and is that a good model?
Dr. Arnett. We do not. We believe that we can get there. We
believe there are investments that have been put forward by the
states, strong conservation plans that complement those state
efforts on Federal properties, and private landowner engagement
that is unprecedented.
Mr. Polis. And do you think that Congress not politically
or artificially delaying or taking this out for 10 years and
making sure that that pressure exists is an important part of
reaching the kind of arrangement that was done in Nevada and
California for the greater sage grouse?
Dr. Arnett. Our position is that a delay is not necessary,
unless, and I will say this again--if the Fish and Wildlife
Service came to us and said, ``There is some timeline that we
know we will get to a not-warranted''--I suspect we can support
that; but we haven't heard that yet.
Mr. Polis. Great. Well, I----
Dr. Arnett. And just real quickly, sorry to interrupt you--
--
Mr. Polis. Yes.
Dr. Arnett. The track record issue is an important one,
because track records have to be established by all of these
players. But, again, that should be driven by the Service
saying that we don't have it, and if we had this amount of time
to see it. I don't know that we need the life cycle of the
species to see--one cycle of a generation to see that happen.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, and thanks again to the American
Museum of Natural History. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Too bad they didn't breed that thing for you.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just real quick, I
think what I hear and what I read is that wildfire and invasive
species are the largest threat. But it seems like the
environmentalist movement is wanting to threaten the
development of energy, oil and gas, in the sage grouse region.
I have concern about that. How do we address that wildfire and
invasive species ought to be the focus.
I don't have a dog in the fight. I am going to yield my
time to the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Zinke.
Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the
collaborative process is an enormous effort. It takes experts
sitting together at a table, and when the Federal Government,
or a higher authority, intervenes and say they know best, it
concerns me. It concerns me in Montana that I have talked to
the Director of the BLM. Nowhere do I see what a healthy
population number is in Montana, and we are talking about
Montana, where the CMR is larger than most states.
So, when I don't know what a target number is, when the
plan doesn't have anything constructive, other than habitat,
when it doesn't address wildfire, it doesn't address predators,
and yet, locally, the farmers, the ranchers, the people that
live on the land have expressed a considerable desire to save
the species in a constructive manner that looks at predators,
looks at wildfire, looks at weather--and so, I guess my
question to Ms. Clarke is that you have been around this
process. Other than perhaps a taxidermy, or the Smithsonian
Institute, is there an example of the sage grouse within the DC
area, living?
Ms. Clarke. I am not aware that there are any sage grouse
in the DC area.
Mr. Zinke. Well, why then would Washington, the
bureaucracy, given there are no sage grouse here--in your view,
why would they decide what is best for Montana or the western
states, that have a deep, traditional concern for wildlife
management? Why would the bureaucracy here think that they have
a better management plan than the western states?
Ms. Clarke. I think it is the culture in Washington. I
think not just the agencies at Interior, but so much of
Washington gets removed from reality. I think it is a matter of
respect, and showing the due respect to the local people out in
the West. Sometimes it is the farmers and the ranchers, who
aren't scientists, that get it the best. They understand the
land and the resources, and what is going on.
Mr. Zinke. So we agree. We need more scientists and less
lawyers out in the field.
But also, what is the effect? You have gone through this
process much more than I. And I am a Teddy Roosevelt
conservationist. I love the land, and I think species are
absolutely critical that we maintain; but what is the effect of
going through a collaborative process, and then disrupting
that? What is the frustration and what is the effect of not
having the value in respecting the process of a collaborative
effort in the state?
Ms. Clarke. Well, I think part of the response is what you
are seeing from Congress. There are those who say that
collaboration is not working, it is becoming heavy-handed, the
state's input is being devalued, and so we have to find another
solution.
We hope we can find a workable solution with or without
congressional intervention. We do not need a listing. The
states are incredibly capable and committed to conserving the
sage grouse, the habitat. These are our homes, this is where we
live. We want it taken care of, not just to avoid a listing,
but because we want that land and those species to be viable
for our children and our grandchildren.
Mr. Zinke. You are an expert in this area. Would you not
say that predator control, wildfire management, as well as
habitat should be a part of the solution, other than just
concentrating on habitat?
As an example, I sat down with the Director, and I asked
him, ``Why is the population--Why is it down in Montana? '' He
mentioned oil and gas exploration. Now, Montana is a pretty big
state. In this committee I have often said Montana is between
Washington, DC and Chicago, plus 2 miles.
Now, I went and reviewed how many active-duty oil rigs we
have in the great state of Montana. We had one at the time. Now
we have zero. So I don't think oil and gas exploration has been
a significant cause of the diminishing stock. But, again, you
go out to the farmers, the ranchers, those who live on the
land, it is predators.
So, do you agree that we should be looking at predators,
rather than cutting down juniper trees?
Ms. Clarke. I think predators are an important issue. In
Utah, they certainly are. And I do think we need better
stewardship of Federal lands.
Mr. Zinke. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Doctor Arnett, something that I think we need to clear up
in this hearing. Is it true that activities relating to
existing energy leases, mining claims, grazing permits, and
other existing legal arrangements will not be affected in any
way by Federal land management plans now under consideration
for the sage grouse conservation, particularly even in the
strongholds? It has caused all this unnecessary consternation
at this point. Can you explain to the committee that point?
Dr. Arnett. That is correct, Congressman. Valid and
existing rights do not apply to the conservation efforts that
are ongoing. To my knowledge--and I have not had the luxury of
seeing the final Bureau of Land Management plans, but the focal
areas in question, I would assume, have been developed
without--in areas that do not have certain valid and existing
rights, I would assume.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. One quick question, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Swartout mentioned that a delay is unnecessary, and that
adequate conservation measures could be put in place to reach a
non-warranted decision for the greater sage grouse. Do you
agree that a delay is unnecessary?
Mr. Miller. Well, Congressman, as I indicated in my
statement, we still have remaining issues that we are trying to
work through Interior to get to a mutual agreement on what our
final conservation strategy between the state and the Federal
Government should look like.
We, obviously, are running out of time. The final
environmental impact statements are slated to be released later
this month or early June. We don't want to sell ourselves short
on time, and our ability to negotiate further with the Interior
Department on these remaining issues.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. So, you don't know if a delay is
necessary or not.
Mr. Miller. Well, Congressman, Governor Otter is definitely
supportive of an extension if we need more time to resolve
these remaining issues. And, like Dr. Arnett said, if there is
a need to demonstrate a track record here, there has been a
delay with the release of these Federal EISs.
Mr. Grijalva. Would you consider significant progress as
also a part of the criteria for an extension?
Mr. Miller. We have made significant----
Mr. Grijalva. No, I am asking. Would that be part of the
criteria?
Mr. Miller. Well, yes.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Dr. Arnett, early on, the comparison was
made between the northern spotted owl and the sage grouse, and
how that comparison is valid or not. How fair is this
comparison?
Dr. Arnett. I think there are definitely parallels. But it
is also a very different situation. One parallel of interesting
note, the biologists that I worked with for years in the timber
industry warned the timber industry of the northern spotted owl
in the 1970s, and it took a long time for that to manifest,
until the bird was actually listed--getting back to the point
about having the specter of ESA in front.
It is a different situation. Obviously, covers a broader
range of conditions. And one of my feelings is that a failure
in the spotted owl plan wasn't relied too heavily on a system
of Federal reserves, and needed to better integrate with
private lands and state lands----
Mr. Grijalva. The collaboration issue that we have been
talking about today, states and the Federal agencies, how did
that nexus work with regard to the spotted owl, or----
Dr. Arnett. Well, it was driven by President Clinton, his
forest plan and the forest summit. It came from that. Again,
that generated the forest plan that was then later applied in
that late successional reserve program, and then the states
managed private lands. But I think there needed to be a better
integration of the private sector and state lands in a broader,
comprehensive strategy. That would have been helpful.
Mr. Grijalva. Would you compare the job, in terms of
collaboration on the sage grouse process as we are now, better
than or----
Dr. Arnett. I don't think we have seen anything like what
we have seen with the sage grouse issue in my career.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this.
This is also very critical in my northeast California district
that borders Nevada and Mr. Amodei's district, where the sage
grouse, or otherwise known as sage hen, is quite an issue. The
bi-state situation was a good sign.
The problem is, with the threat of any kind of list, some
are referring to it as a good pressure. But what we have are
Federal agencies that are unable to keep up with the management
of their lands, whether it is BLM or the Forest Service. So, we
have this proliferation of juniper, big-time, in our area here,
and a listing just takes options off the table. I imagine the
juniper eradication is going much more slowly because we are
pussy-footing around. There might be sage hen habitat out there
that is a problem, but we don't nearly keep up with the juniper
or--Mr. Zinke mentioned predators, too. That is a bigger
consideration we ought to be looking at. Maybe not as much in
my area as his, but--all the options.
What are the things that you would actually do to really
improve the situation? We move so slowly with EISs and studying
and talking, and all this, when it is the farmers, the
ranchers, it is the people that live in the area that actually
know and understand what it takes, where the species is, what
it would take to help make it a little better, you know?
I mean the regulation, the threat of listing, has gotten
everybody's attention. Farmers and ranchers are willing. These
landowners, the ones that are adjacent to the Federal lands,
they are willing to do things. Maybe in the past there were
some stiff-necked folks, I certainly get that. But they are
willing to step forward and do it.
When we have these listings--as Mr. McClintock mentioned
with the Yosemite toad, yellow-legged frog and all that, 2
million acres are--who knows? By the time they are done
implementing their plan, their proposal, it will probably mean
people can do less things in the area to manage timber, to
manage the lands, to do things that would dovetail well with
the species and its recovery. It will just be off limits,
instead. The whole forest will burn. In the case we are talking
about here, more and more juniper grows because we are afraid
we might disturb a nesting grouse, instead of doing things that
are going to improve it.
It is a big frustration. So, I don't think any more
pressure to go through with a listing, especially since so many
listings these days come from a deal cut by government with a
bunch of environmental groups that have a long Christmas wish
list of species they want to list, and there is no time to go
through all those processes, because they take so long, so they
get sued, they just cut a deal, list them anyway. That is the
great frustration I see out in districts like mine and
neighboring ones.
So, Ms. Clarke, again, up there in Utah, have you seen that
the sage grouse are actually using the treated areas that the
state is creating? Is it something----
Ms. Clarke. It is amazing. They absolutely are. Often, they
move into them almost immediately. Within months we see sage
grouse moving into restored habitat. So, absolutely, it is
effective.
Mr. LaMalfa. Because you have had the ability to move a
little more quickly and efficiently in getting these areas set
up.
Ms. Clarke. That is right. We have a 10-year plan to go out
and remove pinyon juniper throughout the state in sage grouse
management areas. We need to get past the timely problems of
getting an EA done, so that we can do that on Federal land, as
well. We want to work with the Feds as well as private
landowners to move quickly and remove that PJ and improve
habitat.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, are the Federal folks, do you feel like
they are just hand-tied to be able to move things as quickly
as--efficiently as----
Ms. Clarke. Our local players in the BLM and the Forest
Service are so eager to participate because they like the
vision and the capacity they see in the state of Utah, but
sometimes they are hog-tied by regulations. And they----
Mr. LaMalfa. So they want to do it, but they don't----
Ms. Clarke. They are not nimble.
Mr. LaMalfa. They don't have the ability. Washington is not
giving them the ability to do that by----
Ms. Clarke. They are constrained.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, OK. That has to be highly frustrating for
everybody wanting to do that.
Mr. Miller, in Idaho--coming back to the wildfire piece
there--I imagine you have a pretty big problem with that, as
well. What success is the state of Idaho having on addressing
wildfire and lessening that?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, thank you for the question. And,
real quickly here, I would say one of the most significant
actions we have taken in the state of Idaho has been the
creation of rangeland fire protection associations, comprised
of landowners and ranchers in very remote areas of sage grouse
habitat that play a crucial role in initial attack in keeping
fires----
Mr. LaMalfa. Now, as we are running out of time, how is
this interfacing with Federal lands, or Federal agency
cooperation, or lack of? How is that going?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, there is a lot of collaboration
with these range and fire protection associations--Federal
resources and state resources. These members of these RFPAs are
trained pursuant to Federal and state wild and fire-fighting
protocols.
Mr. LaMalfa. The Chairman is using some timber up there. I
thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Miller. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. About to throw it at you all.
Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking at the
photograph here of the sage grouse, it is obviously a very
beautiful bird, much like the heath hen. We don't have any of
those in Arkansas. Matter of fact, if we were to see one,
someone might assess that a bobwhite quail got too friendly
with a dominecker hen. But, although we don't have sage grouse,
we do have endangered species.
Ms. Clarke, you mentioned in your testimony that people
manage species and regulations manage people. Do you feel that
the threat of a listing is being used to micro-manage state
policies and land use decisions?
Ms. Clarke. At this point I feel like it is--that the
motivation is more to manage land, and to restrict human uses
of land, rather than to manage species.
Mr. Westerman. Are these efforts directed to avoiding the
threat of extinction, or based on the actions of Federal
regulators?
Ms. Clarke. Well, I think it is the Federal regulators.
What their motivations are, I am not going to pretend to know.
But at this point, the way we assess the threats in Utah, this
latest round of land management restrictions do not address the
threats that the sage grouse face in the state of Utah.
Mr. Westerman. And you referred to this earlier, but I have
seen the same instance in my state, where the Federal employees
who work for the Forest Service or Fish and Wildlife are really
there on the ground, wanting to do the right thing, but yet it
is regulations out of DC----
Ms. Clarke. That is right.
Mr. Westerman [continuing]. That are----
Ms. Clarke. And sometimes it is policy out of DC.
Mr. Westerman. All right. Mr. Miller, your state has been
the jurisdiction of choice for groups who prefer to manage sage
grouse through Federal court decisions. Has it been your
observation that the litigation is making a positive difference
on the ground? Or is it just more paralysis by analysis?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, I would agree with the latter. The
volume of litigation in our state regarding land use activities
is high. It is significant, and oftentimes the problem is that
the resource suffers as a result. When those land managers that
should be out there working with the resource users and working
to ensure a balance is struck between conservation and
multiple-use activities, when they are stuck in their offices
working on FOIA requests or trying to figure out how to address
these litigation challenges, the resource suffers and the users
of our public lands suffer.
Mr. Westerman. As we have talked about a little bit, the
Idaho sage grouse habitat is particularly vulnerable to
wildfire and invasive species. Does the Governor's plan
recognize and address these threats?
Mr. Miller. Absolutely, Congressman. And, in fact, that is
where our task force put the majority of their effort.
Wildfire and invasive species are the primary threats in
Idaho and other Great Basin states. If we did nothing to
address those threats, then this bird would be in trouble; but
we do have a suite of robust conservation actions within our
strategy to adequately deal with those threats.
Mr. Westerman. So is it your assessment that the sage
grouse is doing better on state-controlled lands or federally-
controlled lands?
Mr. Miller. Well, the majority of the habitat in Idaho is
managed by the Federal Government, about 74 percent. And
another 6 percent is on our state endowment lands. It is tough
to tell you which--you know, the majority of the populations
are on Federal land, as a result. So that is a difficult
question to answer.
Our state lands are managed differently than the Federal
lands. We have a constitutional mandate to maximize revenue
generation on those state lands, which includes utilizing
livestock grazing. Our plan also utilizes and recognizes
livestock grazing as part of the solution, from a fuels
reduction standpoint. So, that is a difficult question to
answer, how the populations are doing on state lands, compared
to the Federal lands. But again, the user groups are part of
the solution in Idaho on dealing with our threats.
Mr. Westerman. Ms. Clarke, do you have any data in Utah on
the state versus Federal lands?
Ms. Clarke. No. In Utah, about half of our sage grouse
habitat is on private land. And, interestingly, I don't think
the Feds can conserve sage grouse on Federal lands alone,
because the settlers in Utah were smart folks, and they settled
prime lands that are now a critical part of the habitat of
year-round live habitats for the grouse. So we have to have a
landscape-level integrated plan to make it work.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here. I appreciate you offering testimony and
perspective.
Ms. Clarke, I apologize that I missed your oral testimony,
but I did have a chance to read through your written testimony,
and I see a number of statements here regarding frustrations.
Let me ask. Do you think the sage grouse--and I am sure I
am asking you to repeat yourself--is worth protecting?
Ms. Clarke. I think the sage grouse is worth protecting.
I----
Mr. Graves. Mr. Miller?
I am sorry.
Ms. Clarke. Go ahead.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Miller, I assume----
Mr. Miller. Absolutely. Without question.
Mr. Graves. OK. All right, I----
Mr. Miller. No question.
Mr. Graves. Great, thank you. In reading this, it seems
that there appears to be some frustration. I don't want to put
words in your mouth, but the disconnect, perhaps, between the
Federal Government coming in and taking a one-size-fits-all
approach, as compared to giving you the ability to develop more
prescriptive plans in your states to manage these species.
Ms. Clarke, in your written testimony, there is a dichotomy
developing between the state of Utah's collaborative planning
process and growing Federal unilateralism. It is becoming
increasingly imbalanced and adversarial. Results have been
stunning and directly contradict the recent gloom and doom
predictions concerning sage grouse. Of course, that is
pertaining to the efforts that Utah has undertaken.
Then, last, you are experiencing numerous frustrations
working with the Federal land management agencies. Federal
agencies are focusing most of their effort on finding new ways
to regulate human activity, relentless efforts to force more
standardized and irrelevant mandates on the use of land not
only threatens the conservation of species, but unnecessarily
imposes hardship on the hardworking citizens of the West.
You have indicated your willingness and your belief that
the species should be protected. It sounds like, in this case,
that the state believes that it can develop a more prescriptive
approach that may result in better results than, again, the
one-size-fits-all approach of the Federal land management
agencies. Is that accurate?
Ms. Clarke. That is absolutely true.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Miller, do you care to offer any additional
comments in regard to that line of questioning, and the ability
of the state to develop a tailored plan, based on your actual
habitat, as compared to having the Federal Government come in?
Mr. Miller. Yes, Congressman, and I will read the first
sentence of my closing paragraph.
Mr. Graves. Yours is a little thicker; I didn't get all the
way through it.
Mr. Miller. ``The state of Idaho holds to the notion that
local collaboration, local ideas, and local efforts garner the
greatest results.'' We believe that we have done that through
our collaborative planning effort. Our local scientists have
done one heck of a job in Idaho on providing us with the
necessary data and the conservation actions necessary to
conserve this species in concert with our multitude of land use
activities in the state.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. Ms. Clarke, your perspective is
unique, in that you have had both Federal and state experience.
I am sure that must be very helpful in your efforts here.
Mr. Chairman, I can't help but think I have seen this
before, and I am not real sure where, but a situation where the
states and the Federal Government probably have the same
objective in regard to the sustainable management of species,
where the states can develop more tailored plans that are
better equipped, based upon their constituents and the habitat
that they are specifically facing, yet the Federal Government
is coming in and managing unilaterally.
Mr. Chairman, I can't tell you how much I appreciate you
having this hearing today. I can't tell you how much I agree
with you that this is exactly how species should be managed.
And I just want to congratulate you for your great work. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Graves. As you leave, maybe we
can get some sage grouse down in Louisiana, so you can
complement that with the red snapper. Is that what you are
talking about?
Mr. Graves. That is right. For those that aren't drawing
the parallels, that would be with red snapper. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I got it, yes. OK.
Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. We did draw the parallel, thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here this morning.
Very interesting testimony, and appreciate your taking the time
to enlighten us.
Particularly, Ms. Clarke, I found your testimony
interesting, considering your background, your work at the
Federal level and now at the state level. I think I could get
from your testimony the feeling of being burdened by
regulations toward your efforts at saving the greater sage
grouse.
I live in central Washington. In my district we have the
Yakima Training Center, which is a 327,000-acre training site
for our military. Of that, there are 77,000 acres that are
currently designated sage grouse protection area. The Army has
already taken various steps and spent a lot of money to operate
in a manner that minimizes its impact on these species, things
like seasonal management and habitat protection.
If ESA further, under a listing, would further impact and,
really, take a lot of the training center out of being
operable, and very severely limit its ability to carry out its
mission. So, with that kind of a perspective for me, I would
like you to elaborate, Ms. Clarke, a little bit further on your
testimony that Federal regulators' focus is increasingly
unilateral and somewhat dismissive of the state conservation
action.
Ms. Clarke. I think it goes back to my statement that I
really don't believe regulation is going to conserve the
species, and that is at the core of the listing. It is a very
severe regulatory move. I appreciate the members of the panel
here and their general agreement that we don't have to go
there.
But we are starting to see this regulatory heavy hand on
the plans of our Federal partners, and that is the BLM and the
Forest Service. I have great concerns that those plans may
become so detrimental to our ability to access, enjoy, and
utilize the lands in our states, such as Yakima, that the plans
may be, in fact, more dangerous than a listing.
So, what we are all struggling for right now--and it is
what I have heard from my companions here--is that we are
holding out hope that we can negotiate with the Department of
the Interior and with the Department of Agriculture and the
Forest Service to get to a point where the plans are
responsible, that they acknowledge that the states have a very
significant role in conservation, and that, together, we don't
need to list; but we don't need to shut down the public lands,
either.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. And I was trying to
scribble down your quotations, if I can use that at some point,
with your permission.
So, further question for you, Mr. Miller. I think everybody
on the panel has brought up in some reference to wildfire
prevention, suppression, restoration as keys to protecting the
greater sage grouse.
You may or may not know that this committee has been
working hard to spearhead efforts, legislation that will help
support states in targeting wildfire prevention. So, in your
view, what is the ideal role of the Federal Government in
wildfire mitigation? And how do these efforts tie in with
supporting ongoing state-level sage grouse protection measures?
Mr. Miller. I appreciate that question, Congressman, and it
truly comes down to a collaborative, and recognizing where we
can come together to do the most good on the wildfire front in
Idaho and other Great Basin states.
I do appreciate the Secretary of the Interior releasing a
Secretarial Order on wildland fire in, I believe, February of
this year that redirects resources and prioritizes activities
in sage grouse habitat. Of course, human life and property is
always a priority. But now, the Interior Department has allowed
sage grouse to be a priority within their wildland fire-
fighting system.
So, it truly is a partnership with the Federal Government.
We have a vast landscape in Idaho, predominantly managed by the
Federal Government. So I do appreciate the Interior Department
taking that step forward to reprioritize their actions in sage
grouse habitat on Federal lands.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much. Too short a time. So,
thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Cresent, we did it.
Representative Hardy.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I almost feel guilty
going ahead of Mr. Tipton. In Nevada, 15 of the 17 counties
are--sage grouse is involved in those areas. I guess this would
both go to Ms. Clarke and Mr. Miller. With the process of
knowing that, let's see--165 million acres of land are
basically sage grouse range throughout the West, and 64 percent
of that is Federal lands. In the state of Nevada, it is 17.6
million acres, and 87 percent of that----
Ms. Clarke. Is Federal.
Mr. Hardy. From my standpoint, I have some real challenges.
I grew up in Nevada my whole life, and have watched what has
happened throughout the state with the growth of the pinyon
juniper and the lack of--or the mismanagement of what I call
the Federal Government and what they are doing.
Ms. Clarke, in your testimony you talked about you guys
actually clearing the pinyon juniper. That is on state or
private lands, is that correct?
Ms. Clarke. That is on whatever lands need the treatment.
We look at the landscape and we work with all partners and
landowners.
Mr. Hardy. You were able to clear Federal lands?
Ms. Clarke. Yes, where they have the appropriate NEPA, we
have gone ahead and cleared lands.
Mr. Hardy. Where they had the appropriate NEPA. Have you
had any challenges being able to clear Federal lands?
Ms. Clarke. Yes. If they are not NEPA-cleared, we can't
touch them.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you. In Nevada none of that land has been
touched with any type of clearing process, to my knowledge, to
date. And I have been over that state many times throughout my
life--hunted sage grouse. Do you see any correlation between
these clearing areas and your private areas? Because what I see
when I travel throughout the state--and even Utah--hunting, I
see that these private lands actually hold greater amount of
sage grouse than the so-called Federal lands, public lands. Do
you see any of the same----
Ms. Clarke. Absolutely. The Deseret Land and Livestock is a
beautiful example in northern Utah. That is a privately managed
area. Sage grouse populations thrive; they have robust grazing.
It is an area that has had oil and gas activity. So, it is land
that is stewarded. We need more stewardship on public land.
Mr. Hardy. I agree. With that being said, another place I
have been a number of times is the Kennecott Copper Mine.
Ms. Clarke. Yes.
Mr. Hardy. Which is, without question, I think, one of the
largest mines in the United States. It has large amounts of
wildlife: sage grouse, deer, all kinds of elk, everything; and
it is because it is managed. It is mined, but it is managed,
and they do well there.
A question I have for you, Ms. Clarke, with your experience
being in the state and the Federal level, is there anything
that has changed in this Administration from when you were
there?
Ms. Clarke. I have found that this Administration has
curtailed access to public lands in a pretty dramatic way.
Early on in this Administration there was a paper that was
leaked that suggested that they wanted about half of the BLMs
in conservation status, about half of the acreage. Through
various means, it seems we are getting there.
I am concerned that a listing would certainly take more of
that land out of play, but so would severe land use plan
restrictions. So, it is a troubling pattern that I have seen.
Mr. Hardy. Is there anything you see that we can do,
legislatively, to fix the problem between the states and the
Federal Government?
Ms. Clarke. I would love to see the Federal Congress take a
good, hard look at the regulatory process in the agencies. I
think right now they run pretty much with a free hand; and I
think some of these regulations that have such tremendous
impact should have to come before Congress and be approved,
rather than be allowed to be adopted by the agency.
Mr. Hardy. OK. Mr. Miller, just one quick question for you.
Can you elaborate on your rural fire districts in Idaho, and
how that was established to fight wildfire on the range, sage
grouse habitat?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. There was legislation by the Idaho
State legislature that set up these rangeland fire protection
associations, and for years there had been problems, mainly a
liability issue with having ranchers and other landowners on
the fire line on Federal land. Through a partnership with the
Federal Government now, we do have ranchers that are trained
pursuant to these protocols, that can play an active role in
initial attack and anchor these fires a whole lot better and a
lot faster, oftentimes, than the agencies can.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be with the committee. I would like to thank our
panel for taking time to be able to be here. Great to see a
fellow Coloradoan, Mr. Swartout, here, as well.
Incredibly important issue, I think, for the state of
Colorado and for the western United States. A blanket question
for all four of you: What is the number that the Department of
the Interior has established as recovery for the greater sage
grouse?
Ms. Clarke?
Ms. Clarke. I am not aware that they have given us a
population number. The state itself has objectives, but we have
not been given a goal.
Mr. Tipton. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. We have not seen a population objective from
the Federal Government.
Mr. Tipton. Mr. Arnett?
Dr. Arnett. That has not been established by the Federal
Government. It should be established by the state agencies.
Some have population objectives and some don't.
Mr. Tipton. Mr. Swartout?
Mr. Swartout. No, we haven't seen a number from the Federal
Government; but our biologists work on thresholds of what they
think the carrying capacity of the land is, trying to improve
that, and move trend line numbers up in an upward direction for
the sage grouse.
Mr. Tipton. Well, you are joined by Secretary Jewell.
Before this committee, when I asked her the question, they
don't have an identifiable number. Wouldn't it be a good idea,
if we are going to actually have recovery, to be able to have a
number when we know that we win?
But I have a greater problem, as well, and I think that you
have spoken to this in some of your testimony, when we have 11
states that are going to be included in designation of the sage
grouse for critical habitat. If we have full recovery, Mr.
Swartout, in the state of Colorado, if we had a number--which
we do not, because the Department of the Interior has not
established that--but if we did have full recovery, would we
still be listed in the state of Colorado?
Mr. Swartout. Congressman Tipton, I am not sure I
understand the question. Would----
Mr. Tipton. With an 11-state listing, where we are all
grouped in with 11 states, if we get full recovery in the state
of Colorado, if we had a number--which we don't--we wouldn't be
taken off listing, would we?
Mr. Swartout. No, not likely.
Mr. Tipton. Does that make good sense to you?
Mr. Swartout. No. But I would say, Congressman Tipton--and
I compliment you on your long efforts on these issues in
working with the Governor and our two great Senators from the
state of Colorado in a proactive way on these issues--that the
key to this is our landowners in Colorado, many of whom are
your constituents, as you know. These landowners have taken
unprecedented amount of effort to allow our scientists from
Colorado Parks and Wildlife to come on their property and
actually track these birds, so that we have a good sense of the
management actions that are most effective in dealing with
trying to bring these species back.
Mr. Tipton. At the state and at the local level.
Mr. Swartout. Right.
Mr. Tipton. Let's talk a little bit about science, since
you brought that up. You went and did a scientific survey. Did
you expand or decrease the estimated acreage that the Federal
Government is suggesting becomes critical habitat?
Mr. Swartout. I think, as we went from the national models
that measure vegetation and other things, and developed through
an enormous investment from the state of Colorado in science,
we have been able to actually----
Mr. Tipton. So was it greater or less than what the Federal
Government was----
Mr. Swartout. It is less, Congressman.
Mr. Tipton. It is less. That has been supplemented, hasn't
it, in counties like Garfield County, to where they actually
make massive reductions in what was going to be critical
habitat, simply because the terrain wouldn't support the
population? Is that accurate?
Mr. Swartout. Yes. Our Colorado Parks and Wildlife----
Mr. Tipton. So the Federal Government has faulty science
that they are trying to use when they are getting ready to try
and impose a listing of the sage grouse.
Mr. Swartout. I wouldn't call it faulty science,
Congressman.
Mr. Tipton. Aspirational science?
Mr. Swartout. I would say that they are taking a broader
model; and what the state does, often in partnership with them,
is put it on the ground and actually measure what the behavior
of these--in this case, sage grouse--to better inform our
management decisions on what actions have the highest leverage
to keep the trend line moving up for the species----
Mr. Tipton. But there seems to be pretty much consensus on
this panel that those local conservation efforts, the state
conservation efforts--Ms. Clarke, you were pointing
specifically, I think, in some of your comments also, we are
seeing private property rights now being infringed on in
regulatory fashion by the heavy hand of government coming in.
But we ought to be able to give these an opportunity to be
able to succeed. We have some legislation that I am co-
sponsoring. Mr. Stewart on this committee is carrying a
companion piece by Cory Gardner out of Colorado to be able to
allow our state efforts, our local efforts, to be able to
develop over a 6-year period, to be able to actually revive the
species. Would that, just in a conceptual basis, would that be
an admirable goal for us to really reach for, when we are
talking about legislative solutions?
Mr. Swartout. As I said earlier, Congress has every right
to pursue working with their constituents.
The Chairman. You are out of time. Say yes in 2 seconds.
Mr. Swartout. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Hice.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. For each of the witnesses again, I, as my
other colleagues, thank you for being here.
I am a Member from the state of Georgia. And, obviously, my
district is not directly impacted by the sage grouse, but
certainly all of us are impacted in various ways from the
Endangered Species Act and so forth.
Ms. Clarke, let me begin with you. You have provided some
contrast between natural threats and the human impact of rural
development, oil, gas, some of these other things, drilling. As
it relates to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau
of Land Management, do you believe that the focus has been on
the most important challenges of the sage grouse conservation?
Ms. Clarke. In Utah, I do not believe the Federal plan is
focused on the most important issues. More importantly, it is
not focused on solutions to deal with those threats--the main
ones in Utah, fire and invasives, pinyon juniper and
sagebrush--or, excuse me, not sagebrush--grass, cheatgrass.
Cheatgrass is terrible, problematic, terribly problematic.
Dr. Hice. OK. So are you saying then, the natural threats
are the greatest threat?
Ms. Clarke. Yes, absolutely.
Dr. Hice. OK. What significance would you say is human
threat?
Ms. Clarke. Well, in the state of Utah we did a very
careful analysis, and it is about 3 percent.
Dr. Hice. OK. So a fairly insignificant----
Ms. Clarke. Very insignificant.
Dr. Hice [continuing]. Amount, all together. All right. Let
me expand this to each of you a little bit more.
One of the legal requirements of NEPA is that participation
by the states and the public must be meaningful in order to
provide the Federal Government the best information possible
that they need for actions that impact the environment.
With that in mind, do you believe that your states have had
the best chance to have meaningful participation in land use
under NEPA? And we will just kind of go down the line with
this.
Ms. Clarke. We have had a lot of participation, a lot of
exchange. I think sometimes we are heard, but nothing changes
as the Feds listen to our perspective. So we have had some very
good experiences and some very disappointing ones. As this has
evolved, we feel like it is becoming much more federally
driven, and less of a partnership.
Dr. Hice. OK, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Yes, Congressman. I believe that our
collaborative effort has been very, very strong in Idaho, and
we have had that high level of participation with the Idaho
BLM, local Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. We
have been at the table, as cooperators, with our cooperating
agency status. As a result, we have built a pretty robust and
solid plan to conserve this species.
Dr. Hice. If we can go rather quickly, I have another
question I want to put out to you.
Dr. Arnett. Well, very quickly, I don't represent any one
of the states. But, broadly, I would say that the vast majority
of the state plans that I have personally reviewed have been
developed with stakeholder input, but without public review
process, as is NEPA, and that is a little bit of a different
situation.
Dr. Hice. OK, good point. All right, thank you.
Mr. Swartout. Congressman, I would call the effort
unprecedented with our local governments and other
stakeholders, and with the two Federal agencies. It has been
unprecedented, in terms of the amount of work and effort that
our folks have put into it, working with the Federal
Government.
And, as I said in my testimony, are these processes
difficult? Absolutely, they are; but we feel that we have been
given adequate ability to comment and work with the Federal
Government toward what we hope is a balanced solution.
Dr. Hice. OK. I think my time is going to expire here real
quickly. I will go back, Ms. Clarke, to you.
As far as the flexibility between state plans and the
Federal plans, what is the comparison?
Ms. Clarke. I think the states can be much more nimble and
adjust quickly. Federal plans, once in place, are very, very
difficult to modify. Going through plan amendments can take
years.
Dr. Hice. Can they override the state plans?
Ms. Clarke. On Federal land, absolutely.
Dr. Hice. OK, thank you very much.
I see my time is about to go, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. All right. I get to ask some
questions now, and they have to be brief answers. I have to get
out of here, too.
So, just simply yes or no. Ms. Clarke, does the Utah plan
deal in some way with wildfire?
Ms. Clarke. Yes.
The Chairman. Idaho plan? Does it deal with wildfire?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The Colorado plans, do they deal with
wildfire?
Mr. Swartout. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you. All right. So, Ms. Clarke, in the
Utah plan, does it maintain the status quo or actually increase
the amount of habitat?
Ms. Clarke. It increases habitat and populations.
The Chairman. All right. So, even the Secretary and the
Interior Department say they don't want to list the sage
grouse; so none of us are talking about listing as the goal.
There is also some kind of concept here, when we are
talking about delaying listing. I just want to be very clear
that the legislation that was actually passed by the House the
other day doesn't delay listing of the sage grouse. It actually
implements the state management plans of the sage grouse. It is
an entire difference.
There is also a difference here. Mr. Miller, you mentioned
this, too. If, indeed, it is listed or not, if BLM or the
others come up with a regional management plan that has this
criteria for the sage grouse, whether it is listed or not, that
is a moot issue, then, isn't it?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And your concern is that they are going
forward with this without consultation.
Mr. Miller. Well, at a high level, sir, the top-down
directives still need to be vetted and worked out with the
state.
The Chairman. So, if those regional management plans were
then taken into account, it wouldn't matter whether the bird
was listed or not. It would be the same net effect, which is
the concept of why we are dealing with those issues, especially
in the NDAA.
Mr. Swartout, last November Governor Hickenlooper called
the sage grouse Gunnison listing ``discouraging, and
complicates our good-faith efforts to work with local
stakeholders on locally driven approaches.'' What did Colorado
do about that issue?
Mr. Swartout. We have continued to work with our coalition
of counties and----
The Chairman. Now, come on. What did you do?
Mr. Swartout. Oh, I am sorry.
The Chairman. You sued.
Mr. Swartout. We filed litigation.
The Chairman. OK. You sued.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Swartout. Sorry.
The Chairman. That is the concern I have. Gunnison sage
grouse--if the hope is that eventually the Federal Government
will actually work with the states and work fairly--the
Gunnison sage grouse does not give me a whole lot of warmth
that that actually will take place.
Ms. Clarke, a 6- or a 10-year period of time to try and
evaluate the effectiveness of the state plan, do you need time
to see if these plans work or not?
Ms. Clarke. Given the cycle of the bird, absolutely. You
are not going to see the total effectiveness for a period of--
--
The Chairman. So, in Utah, at least, from 2007 to 2013,
there was a decline in the population of the bird, we say,
which has been quoted by a lot of special interest groups. But
if you go back to 1968 and use that as the base, our population
is----
Ms. Clarke. It is on the rise.
The Chairman. Like about 350 percent higher than it was----
Ms. Clarke. Yes, absolutely.
The Chairman [continuing]. Back in 1968?
Ms. Clarke. It is stunning.
The Chairman. Which is one of the reasons why, in the plan,
once again, in the NDAA, to allow the state plans to have 10
years to work, so you find out if it does work without BLM
putting other regional management plans and taking away the
actual application of litigation.
Ms. Clarke. Correct.
The Chairman. OK. I am running down here as quickly as I
can.
Since my language in the military bill has been called into
question by a few people, let me state that for you, the states
who don't think the Federal Government has been in consultation
with you, feel yourselves lucky they have done what you had,
because the military is stating that they do have a problem
with the potential listing of sage grouse on their ranges. And
they will clearly tell you the Fish and Wildlife Service has
done no consultation at all with the military, which is why
they are caught unaware.
Mr. Newhouse is correct. His range is spending $1.5 million
a year to conserve and protect 250 birds, 80 of which were
brought in from Idaho. And that is why every branch of the
military said this is a concern. It is a military issue. There
has been no consultation with Interior as to what will happen
on the military issues, even though it was supposed to take
place. So, if you compare yourselves to the Department of
Defense, you guys have been blessed with all sorts of
consultation.
But the question is, where do we go forward? Is there a
possibility that the Federal Government will supersede your
plans? And that is the question, and that is why you are here
to talk about what the states can do. I think each of you has
shown, in your individual states, the states are prepared, they
are ready to move up; and, if we are going to be successful on
this issue, we have to think things differently than we have
done in the past, and that is why it is extremely important
that the states be allowed to go forward with their plans. I
appreciate your testimony here.
I am showing you how to do this. I have 26 seconds left,
and I yield back my time. A second round of questioning for
anyone who has it.
Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me, if
there is no objection, place into the record this statement
from the Department of Defense. Mark Wright, their spokesman,
essentially indicates, ``While some of the management actions
we have instituted have necessitated changes in when and how we
use certain areas of our installation--especially during
breeding season--none have resulted in unacceptable limits on
our military readiness activities,'' and it goes on.
[The remainder of the statement from Mark Wright, DoD
submitted for the record by Mr. Grijalva is as follows:
``Because we have already undertaken these actions voluntarily,
and expect to need to manage for the sage-grouse indefinitely,
we do not believe the listing decision--regardless of the
outcome--will affect our mission activities to any great
degree.'']
Mr. Grijalva. I want to ask Mr. Arnett. Some of the
comments that were made, maybe you could comment quickly on
them. Is the heavy regulatory hand of the Federal Government,
some of the conclusions, the lack of cooperation with states,
and human development not a threat to the sage grouse, only
natural threats. State, Federal, and local have worked on
collaborative efforts. Do they take into account other threats?
If you could, sir.
Dr. Arnett. Certainly. The depiction of wildfire and
invasive species being a major threat in the western portion of
the range is true. There is no question. But there definitely
are threats from anthropogenic disturbance, and that is a
primary threat in the eastern portion of the range. That has
been very well documented with a strong body of science on
impacts of energy development and other disturbance.
But it can be managed. There is no question that this can
be managed. We think the development of these conservation
plans, by defining where conservation areas need to occur, and
development areas need to occur, it can be managed. In fact,
some of these focal areas and the core habitats are mostly
outside of oil and gas reserves, to the best of my knowledge.
I would like to point out one thing that I have heard a lot
about, the top-down approach and the last-minute nature of
this. Keep in mind that these were draft plans that we all
commented on through a public process. The Federal Government
has addressed those comments, and they are addressing it based
on the science. So, whether some of these things were vetted
with the states, and at what point in time, I am not clear on;
but there was a public review process, and the BLM has yet to
release final plans. They have to address those public plans,
and ultimately, they have to address the science.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Arnett, it seems the underlining theme,
the efforts, legislative proposals, both at the Federal and
state level, would give away the authority to manage U.S.
public lands to the states. Do you believe it is sound policy
to go in that direction? Do the states have the resources to
adequately manage such land, that much land? And how would such
a policy set back the topic today, which is the sage grouse and
other species, in terms of the future?
Dr. Arnett. Well, another thing to keep in mind, the state
plans, again, were developed under the mandates of state plans.
Most states can't regulate private lands, and they have a
mandate, as Mr. Miller pointed out earlier, to maximize
revenues on state lands. So, they were developed in a different
context. I agree that the states can be more nimble, but they
were all developed under a different context.
I think the Federal plans are an important component of
this. As I said, it is not one or the other, it is all of the
above.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, my
experience back home in Tucson, where I was a county
commissioner, was the pygmy owl. It was listed as a threatened
species. A lot of pressure. Everybody in the community was
screaming that the sky was going to fall, and that this pygmy
owl was the end of growth, development, and ruining the economy
of the county of Pima.
With collaboration with Fish and Wildlife, Forest, and
other Federal agencies, a management plan was developed with
the county and accepted. The consequence has been that you have
managed growth, and detailed managed growth, as to how the
county grows. You have two bond elections that have been passed
overwhelmingly by the public to continue to pursue and purchase
open space to continue to preserve the corridor, the habitat
corridor, for the pygmy owl.
I mention that because it was a collaborative effort, but
that there was a regulatory guidance and a listing that
prompted local government and state government to begin to work
in earnest with the Federal Government to come up with an
acceptable plan. That was the impetus; and, without an impetus,
I don't see this happening. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. OK. Before I recognize Mr. Tipton and ask Mr.
LaMalfa if he will take the chair for a second--let me, because
I have to run here, thank all four of you for actually being
here and taking the time to testify.
Mr. Grijalva asked for unanimous consent for a statement by
a DoD spokesman. Anybody is a DoD spokesman--I even have a
military fellow here who could qualify as a DoD spokesman. And
I won't put in the slides that the Army, Air Force, and Navy
gave us when they told us this is a problem, nor will I put in
the record the statement on the Army in which they asked not to
have this provision taken out of the NDAA. But that is beside
the point, isn't it?
Before I actually--let me thank you for being here one more
time. I apologize for leaving you very quickly, but I am late
for another engagement. I just appreciate your testimony.
Mr. LaMalfa, you will take over. And, Mr. Tipton, you are
recognized for questions.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did appreciate, by
the way, your amendment to the NDAA. Statistics show we have 35
different Army installations that are going to be impacted. The
Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps have a combined 12 installations,
and they are continuing to work to be able to actually
resustain that habitat, and be able to grow the population of
the sage grouse. When we look at the Yakima Training Center,
they have significantly improved the numbers and genetic
diversity in the Columbia Basin, based off of their own
studies.
I just have just a couple of follow-up questions. I think
Mr. Swartout can probably have some empathy for this. In the
state of Colorado, we have two very diverse economic
situations. We have pockets of prosperity in our metropolitan
areas; but in the third congressional district that I
represent, we continue to see a real unemployment level that,
in far too many of our counties, happens to be double-digit.
But we also have responsible energy development. I put
forward legislation, ``Planning for America's Energy Future
Act,'' which literally calls for all of the above.
Mr. Arnett, a statement that you have made caught my
attention, saying that all valid and existing rights in regards
to responsible energy development will be respected with a
listing. Does that imply that there will be no expansion?
Dr. Arnett. Expansion of?
Mr. Tipton. Of any other development rights.
Dr. Arnett. My understanding, as part of the development of
these conservation plans, any existing valid and----
Mr. Tipton. But no new ones.
Dr. Arnett [continuing]. Will be honored.
Mr. Tipton. If it hasn't already been identified, or
somebody hasn't filed, nothing new will be added. Is that
correct?
Dr. Arnett. It would be managed according to what the----
Mr. Tipton. So if something is withdrawn, then that is
lost.
Dr. Arnett. Something has been withdrawn----
Mr. Tipton. Nothing new?
Dr. Arnett. I can see some of those kinds of stipulations.
There will be stipulations as part of the plan.
Mr. Tipton. So that----
Dr. Arnett. For non-existing valid----
Mr. Tipton. That could potentially have a very negative
impact in a suffering economic region in the third
congressional district. Couldn't it, Mr. Swartout?
Mr. Swartout. This is part of the balance that we are
trying to achieve by having local government participation in
these plans, and many of the counties that you represent, as
part of your congressional district, as you know.
I think the more critical issue is the interplay of both
Federal and state and private lands. One of the things we
worked really hard on with the BLM in our plan was to make sure
that if they weren't allowing the activity on Federal land, we
weren't pushing it onto private land, where it would have even
a bigger impact on the grouse. So we worked tirelessly with
Colorado Parks and Wildlife and our counties to figure out a
mosaic--a holistic approach that avoided areas with sage
grouse, and tried to put the impacts where it would have the
least impact on the sage grouse. That is what we are struggling
to maintain in these plans that we sent to Washington, DC, and
that is where the tension is.
Mr. Tipton. I do want to let you know I appreciate your
efforts and the Governor's efforts in regards to standing up
for these rural areas, and understanding a lot of the
challenges that we face.
I would like to extend this out. Ms. Clarke, maybe you can
speak to this. When we start talking about regulating private
land--I think Mr. Arnett had just noted that states don't have
the right to regulate private land. Thank God. If we have this
plan implemented, let's say we have a resource that we can
responsibly develop on private land. If we have listing,
private land is encompassed in on this. Could that resource,
that family's fortunes, and the jobs that could be created,
could those be perhaps unintended consequence of not being able
to be developed?
Ms. Clarke. They certainly could be, depending on the way
the critical habitat is designated; but once listed, they are
listed on private and public lands. So doesn't matter.
Mr. Tipton. Well I appreciate, again, all of you taking
time to be able to be here. I think that our common ground is
this: We would like to make sure that the right thing is done,
that we are able to rehabilitate the species. I appreciate very
much the comments that were being made, that the efforts like
we are seeing in Colorado, the private-public partnerships on
the ground, are yielding some of the best results. We hope and
encourage the Department of the Interior to be able to
recognize that, and to be able to work with us, and to be able
to protect our private-sector jobs in communities right now
that are suffering.
Thank you so much, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaMalfa [presiding]. Thank you, gentleman from
Colorado.
The gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We started this
hearing, I guess, talking about the dodo bird. Does anybody
know when the dodo bird became extinct?
Dr. Arnett. Long time ago.
Mr. Labrador. Long time ago. It was, I think, late 1600s,
early 1700s. And, apparently, society has not been able to
thrive since the dodo bird became extinct, right? We have had
no progress in life or in humanity since then. Obviously, I am
being a little facetious; but this is a very important hearing
today. I want to thank you all for being here.
Mr. Miller, in 2011, when Secretary Salazar invited western
states to partner with the Federal Government to work on
solutions related to sage grouse, how did Governor Otter
respond?
Mr. Miller. Congressman Labrador, Governor Otter is a
states rights advocate. So he said, ``This worked very well
with our Idaho Roadless collaborative; I am going to do the
same thing on sage grouse.'' So he set up a very diverse, 15-
member task force to advise him on recommendations necessary
for incorporation into a plan that would address the needs for
sage grouse, balanced with the economic vitality of our state.
Mr. Labrador. What are the Governor's concerns about the
recent top-down direction that has come from the BLM's national
office?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, for quite some time we were moving
down a very good path with our local Federal partners. We
developed a very strong strategy blending the two co-preferred
alternatives, the Governor's alternative and the BLM's internal
alternative.
We thought we were about to cross the finish line together,
until in January of this year, the national BLM office imposed
national direction on all BLM planning units that included the
carve-out of sagebrush focal areas across 16 million acres of
priority habitat in the West, of which 3.5 million acres are in
Idaho. It is a carve-out of our core habitat areas. The
Interior Department included a new, more restrictive rule set
for management of land use activities in those focal areas.
What is concerning to the Governor is that that was never
negotiated or vetted with the state or his task force. We
thought we were there, like I said, Congressman, but this last-
minute top-down directive on these sage grouse focal areas
stands to erode this strong partnership that we have developed.
We are hopeful we can get there with Interior. As I said
earlier, there is a willingness from individuals in the
Interior Department and the national BLM office to continue
working through these remaining elements with us.
Mr. Labrador. So were you under the impression from the
Federal agencies that you were working with, that if the state
produced a thoughtful plan, that it would be a preferred
alternative?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Labrador. OK. In 2013, Fish and Wildlife Service's
Idaho State Supervisor Brian Kelly wrote a letter to Governor
Otter in which he stated that, ``Our review revealed that the
four foundation elements of the strategy--habitat zones,
conservation areas, population objective, and adaptive triggers
are consistent with the conservation objectives team, as is the
livestock grazing management element.'' What were your
expectations after seeing this letter?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, that further validated our
conservation planning efforts. The COT report does represent
the goalpost, what we are shooting for. It contains a suite of
conservation objectives that allows the states and the local
planning units to develop those strategies to achieve the
goalpost there. That letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service
was an indication that we were almost there, that we were
developing a----
Mr. Labrador. So your expectations were that your plan
would be approved, correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Labrador. And have those expectations been met?
Mr. Miller. They have been met at the local level, sir,
with Idaho BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service in Idaho; but not
at the national level.
Mr. Labrador. So a final decision, you are not sure it is
going to go along with what you expected.
Mr. Miller. That would be accurate.
Mr. Labrador. Does the state of Idaho have the capacity to
manage sage grouse?
Mr. Miller. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Labrador. Do Fish and Game and OSC have the proper
biologists, scientists, and other policy staff?
Mr. Miller. Absolutely.
Mr. Labrador. Do Fish and Game and OSC have the support of
the Governor and the legislature to properly manage the
species?
Mr. Miller. Yes, they do.
Mr. Labrador. OK. So what would you like--as your last
opportunity to tell the Federal Government, what would you like
us to know?
Mr. Miller. I can't emphasize enough the value of the
collaborative and the partnership used in building our
strategy. We had industry, conservation partners, local and
state-elected officials advising the Governor, along with state
and local Federal agencies on developing a robust strategy for
conserving the species.
We feel we are there. We just need to overcome these last-
minute obstacles with the Interior Department.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Thank you, gentleman from Idaho. I
ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the testimony of
the Western Governors' Association.
[No response.]
Mr. LaMalfa. OK.
[The prepared statement of the Western Governors'
Association follows:]
Prepared Statement of James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, Western
Governors' Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the Western
Governors' Association (WGA) in connection with the oversight hearing
on ``Empowering State Management of Greater Sage-Grouse.'' My name is
James D. Ogsbury and I am WGA's Executive Director. WGA is an
independent, non-partisan organization representing the Governors of 19
western states and 3 U.S.-flag islands.
Western Governors support implementation of reasonable management
efforts to conserve species and preclude the need to list species under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Western states proactively work on
species conservation and possess knowledge and experience to manage
species within the region. This is particularly true with the greater
sage-grouse, a bird found in 11 western states--California, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming--that is a candidate for listing under the ESA.
All 11 greater sage-grouse states have developed state conservation
plans for the bird and invested millions of dollars in conservation and
research. Western Governors appreciate this forum for states to
highlight what has been accomplished through state leadership of
greater sage-grouse management and to explain why states should
continue in this leadership role going forward.
WGA has released an annual report of the voluntary conservation
measures that states and local governments have implemented for greater
sage-grouse since 2011. Our fourth annual report (http://westgov.org/
images/dmdocuments/2014_WGA_ Sage_Grouse_Inventory_Final_lo_res.pdf)
includes conservation efforts of Federal agencies, conservation
districts, industry and nonprofits, as well as states. The report's
appendix (http://westgov.org/images/dmdocuments/2014_WGA_Sage_
Grouse_Appendix_lo-res.pdf) is a compilation of all state and local
government efforts reported over the last 4 years.
I commend your attention to the following highlights from the 2014
report:
Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota and South Dakota either
completed or updated state plans for sage-grouse
conservation during 2014.
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock issued an Executive Order in
2014 establishing a statewide greater sage-grouse habitat
conservation program and requiring state agency compliance.
Colorado, Idaho and Montana have collectively protected
nearly 350,000 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat through
purchase or conservation easements.
Idaho wildlife and land agencies have spent $4 million
improving and restoring habitat.
Utah has completed nearly 85 percent of a 560,000-acre
project to ameliorate conifer encroachment in sage-grouse
management areas.
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and Idaho Gov. C.L. ``Butch''
Otter are directing almost $6 million toward greater sage-
grouse conservation, and Wyoming's legislature awarded
approximately $2 million for additional greater sage-grouse
research.
Western Governors helped create a state-Federal Sage-Grouse Task
Force in 2011 that has fostered a dialog between states and Federal
land management agencies regarding management strategies, conservation
tools and related policies. At task force meetings, states have clearly
stated that, while conservation plans may differ from one state to
another to reflect primary threats to greater sage-grouse and
institutional dynamics, taken collectively the plans provide the
comprehensive structure needed to conserve greater sage-grouse and
their habitat. The Federal agencies on the task force have acknowledged
that a diverse but cohesive approach that achieves the desired
conservation outcomes can, if structured carefully, meet the
requirements of ESA for a ``not warranted'' decision.
Conservation easements are one mechanism states are using to
protect habitat on private lands. The permanency and durability of
easements render them a vital part of successful sage-grouse
conservation. Private landowners are central to voluntary conservation
efforts, and their contributions should be given full consideration by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in determining whether to list
the greater sage-grouse under the ESA. A great amount of land is being
protected at a substantial cost. In Colorado, for example, over 80,600
acres of greater sage-grouse habitat has been protected by Colorado
Parks and Wildlife through either fee title purchase or conservation
easements at a cost of approximately $52.8 million. The states'
significant contribution to permanent conservation is in addition to
parallel work being performed by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) through its Sage Grouse Initiative on private lands.
NRCS has put more than 450,000 acres of conservation easements into
place in the last 5 years. NRCS invested $165 million, with another $85
million in partner match, for a total conservation easement investment
of $250 million.
State conservation leadership also comes in the form of people
power. Montana, South Dakota and Colorado hired staff that cooperate
with the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Sage Grouse
Initiative to promote private land conservation. Nevada hired a new
rangeland health program coordinator to assist landowners with
rangeland health assessments and monitoring.
Moving from planning to implementation, states have invested
heavily in habitat improvements beneficial to greater sage-grouse and
other species dependent on sagebrush habitat. They have spent millions
on improving riparian habitat, restoring habitat burned by wildfires,
and removing invasive conifer trees that crowd out sagebrush.
Investments also extend to research and education. The legislatures
in Idaho and Wyoming contributed $2.5 million toward research and lek
monitoring. Utah is studying lek use after juniper removal and Colorado
has a research unit working on multiple research efforts.
Innovative management tools are also being utilized by states to
bolster sage-grouse habitat. Nevada's Sagebrush Ecosystem Council
adopted the Nevada Conservation Credit System to offset impacts from
human-caused disturbances through enhancements and protections that
result in a net benefit for greater sage-grouse habitat. Extensive
fence-marking and fence-removal work has been performed by states and
their partners, reducing collision risk and eliminating perches for
predators.
A major threat to greater sage-grouse is rangeland fire. Burned
sagebrush areas take decades to recover. Utah updated its conservation
plan to address wildfire and Nevada created a Wildland Fire Protection
Program to provide improved access to firefighters and implement pre-
suppression activities. Idaho increased its number of Rangeland Fire
Protection Associations from three to five. These associations
facilitate coordination between public and private partners to improve
initial attack on wildfires, with faster response times translating
into reductions in acres burned.
All of this is only what states have accomplished through the end
of 2014; much more is planned for 2015 and beyond:
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock recently signed into law the
Montana Greater Sage Grouse Stewardship Act. The bill
establishes an oversight team and calls for conservation
easements and a conservation fund. The state is hiring five
new employees to oversee its sage grouse program.
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval requested legislative approval
in his FY15-17 biennial budget for over $5.1 million for
Sagebrush Ecosystem Program efforts, including a commitment
of $1 million each year for critical habitat protection and
restoration projects in sage-grouse management areas.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is working with
the FWS and agricultural and livestock operators to develop
a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA)
for greater sage-grouse.
Idaho is conducting numerous research projects and adding
another Rangeland Fire Protection Association.
North Dakota will complete a fully funded cooperative
monitoring project and provide recommendations on best
management practices for grazing livestock in greater sage-
grouse habitat.
The success of collaborative, locally led conservation is
illustrated by the recent determination that the bi-state distinct
population segment of greater sage-grouse in California and Nevada does
not require protection under the ESA. Interior observed that a key
factor in the decision not to list the bird was the development of the
Bi-State Action Plan, a conservation plan developed by partners in the
Bi-State Local Area Working Group over the past 15 years and secured
with $45 million in funding. Western Governors encourage support for
similar efforts throughout the sage-grouse range.
As captured in WGA's 2014 Sage-Grouse Inventory report, the efforts
described here represent just one piece of the greater sage-grouse
conservation puzzle. Over 60 percent of greater sage-grouse habitat is
on Federal lands. Federal agencies, as partners, should do their share
by proactively addressing habitat needs such as invasive species
control, rangeland fire preparedness, and site restoration and
rehabilitation. Implementing such measures allows Federal agencies and
others to better protect the landscape under a range of circumstances
and conditions.
This is a significant point. The states have taken substantial
actions, at significant cost, to protect and enhance greater sage-
grouse habitat. These actions, however, affect only that portion of the
greater sage-grouse's habitat over which states have authority. States
cannot compel the Federal Government to protect and enhance habitat on
federally owned lands. That is a management decision left to the
Federal Government.
It is important to note that the states view several areas of
Federal action--or lack of action--as counterproductive to the
protection of greater sage-grouse habitat. For example, Western
Governors have been very concerned that the budgetary tactic of ``fire
borrowing'' redirects funding from activities that would otherwise
mitigate fire hazards in greater sage-grouse habitat, among other
areas. Western states are also concerned about the insufficiency of
Federal action to combat invasive species. Invasives can have a
dramatic impact on sage-grouse habitat and the severity of fire in
rangeland areas. The Federal Government has a responsibility to:
properly maintain Federal lands; protect and enhance forest health;
minimize the severity of catastrophic wildfire; and provide a vibrant
habitat for the greater sage-grouse and other important species.
FWS should fully recognize the voluntary conservation efforts of
states together with local governments, Federal agencies, conservation
districts, private landowners, industry and nonprofits. These efforts,
if allowed to run their course, will provide greater sage-grouse with
the necessary habitat to live and thrive.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony. Please
feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the content of
these remarks or require further information.
______
Mr. LaMalfa. I will just have one last bit of questions
here, and I think that will be it for today.
So, Mr. Miller, listening to Mr. Labrador and your
exchange, do you really need the Federal Government in
partnership with you at all?
Mr. Miller. Well----
Mr. LaMalfa. I mean, really. Do you really need the help?
If it was completely put back to your state, do you think you
would have a more successful program of recovery and
maintenance of sage grouse, as well as other species?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, the state of Idaho is the manager
of all fish and wildlife in the state. Of course, that is why
we jumped out ahead of this and said, ``We have the best
scientists, the best biologists, at the state level to drive
this conservation strategy.'' This is an issue of state
sovereignty over wildlife, and we intend to maintain state
sovereignty over the species.
Because of the majority of sage grouse habitat in Idaho
being managed by the Federal Government, about 74 percent, we
needed to engage with BLM on the habitat portion of our
conservation strategy.
Mr. LaMalfa. Of course. They have the jurisdiction; but if
they turned it over to you, do you think you would see a better
result? ``Listen, hey, we are going to contract with you. You
manage it for us, we will just stay in Washington.'' What do
you think the result would be?
Mr. Miller. Well----
Mr. LaMalfa. I mean, obviously, you would have to set aside
NEPA and other types of things; but just in the realm of what
is good for the creature.
Mr. Miller. I think, if managed by the state, those
resources would continue, or would be managed in a more
appropriate fashion to address the needs for sage grouse.
Fuel loading in Idaho is significant, and we want to
implement tools through our strategy to deal with fuel loading
on public lands. That is why our industry groups are a huge,
huge partner in this endeavor.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you.
So, Mr. Arnett, during today's hearing, I have heard you
kind of take a position that is more defending of the Federal
role, where the others on the panel have kind of expressed--you
know, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Miller--that they have had more success
at the local level.
So, what looks to me is like a much slower, much more
difficult process to get through and even--as was testified;
that once the Federal Government makes a law, makes a decision
on it, it is much, much harder to wade through that in order to
try and tweak that, or go in a different direction. How do you
defend this current process, versus some of the success stories
we have heard here today with local state-level input and
control?
Dr. Arnett. Well, again, I would like to start with the
fact that Federal lands are owned by the public, the American
people. And they are managed by these Federal agencies under a
variety of bedrock----
Mr. LaMalfa. Managed being a pretty loosely used term
from----
Dr. Arnett. Fair enough. I understand the frustration from
the states. We have seen that, in terms of the expeditious
nature of getting things permitted. We would like to believe
that once we get these conservation strategies--both state and
Federal--in place, we will have some certainty and some
understanding of where energy can be developed and where
habitat can be managed.
Mr. LaMalfa. It is the year 2015. Where have these
strategies been for the last 30 or 40 years?
Dr. Arnett. That is a very good question.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK.
Dr. Arnett. I mean the states have been engaged in this for
a long time. And I think----
Mr. LaMalfa. It is a moving target for the states, though,
too. It is a moving target for the private landowners that have
to live next to these areas. So, well, thank you.
Mr. Swartout, I will finish up with you here. Do you think
a listing of the sage grouse under the ESA would have helped or
hindered the establishment of sage grouse conservation
easements?
Mr. Swartout. I think that, in the status before a listing,
it has created pressure that has actually helped us to develop
and work with private landowners.
Mr. LaMalfa. How about an actual listing, though?
Mr. Swartout. What would an actual listing--what effect
would that have? It would have a detrimental effect, without
question.
Mr. LaMalfa. What is the impact you have seen with already-
listed Gunnison sage grouse, on willingness of landowners to
enter into the conservation agreements now?
Mr. Swartout. In some degrees it has made it more
difficult. But Colorado's 30-year history working with
landowners and building that partnership between agriculture
and our Department of Wildlife in Colorado is fairly robust,
and it is stretched. It has been stretched by the Gunnison
listing, but it hasn't broken because of the governors--the
last three governors of Colorado have had this commitment to--
--
Mr. LaMalfa. So it hasn't broken because of a previous
momentum and engagement and strategy to do so, but it has put a
damper on it, you would say.
Mr. Swartout. It has made it a little more difficult.
Mr. LaMalfa. A little more difficult. OK. Well, I
appreciate it.
To everybody on our panel here today, thank you for your
travel, for your valuable testimony. We do appreciate what it
takes to get here and be part of this.
Since there are no other members of the committee left, I
will say there might be additional questions that committee
members may submit, and we would ask you to respond to those in
writing. Under Committee Rule 4(h), the hearing record will be
held open for 10 business days after these responses.
So, if there is no further business, without objection this
committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Niki Tsongas, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Massachusetts
Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for holding this hearing before the
Full Committee on Natural Resources. I regret that I was not able to
attend due to a prior family commitment.
Right now, there are unprecedented and proactive partnerships
throughout the West working to conserve sage brush habitat, encourage
predictability for economic development, and prevent listing of the
greater sage grouse as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. There exists tremendous momentum to complete the Federal
land management plans and strengthen state conservation efforts.
These significant investments by Federal agencies such as the
Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, 11 states, and private partners including sportsmen,
ranchers, farmers, and conservationists, are making a difference in
sage-grouse conservation and in preserving the rural character of key
western landscapes that strengthen the economies of farms, ranches, and
forests, which are all threatened by ongoing urbanization and suburban
sprawl.
Rather than helping communities, legislation that delays
conservation actions and prohibits the Fish and Wildlife Service from
making an Endangered Species Act determination creates uncertainty and
only undermines the immense progress already underway.
There is no denying that states do work hard and have been serious
and engaged partners in the effort to prevent the sage grouse from
being listed under the Endangered Species Act, but states do not have
the right to unilaterally set policy on public lands that belong to and
are managed on behalf of all Americans. It is great that they have been
key partners and we would like to see a situation in which state
agencies and Federal partners continue to work hand-in-hand.
This type of collaborative approach has been shown to work. The
Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, recently announced that the
bi-state sage grouse, a distinct population of the bird that lives on
the California-Nevada border, will not need to be listed on the
endangered species list thanks to the work of Federal, state, and
private partners. As Secretary Jewell stated in the announcement, ``the
collaborative, science-based efforts in Nevada and California are proof
that we can conserve sagebrush habitat across the West while we
encourage sustainable economic development.''
Republican Governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval stated that ``this
approach can coexist in both the bi-state area and across the range of
the greater sage grouse.'' So as you can see, there is bipartisan
support for this collaborative, science-based approach. This is the
kind of work that can keep the greater sage grouse off the endangered
species list, which is what we all want to see happen.
The time to address the threats to sagebrush habitat is now--not 5
or 10 years from now, when the West is more fragmented, wildfires are
more intense, or invasive species have gained more ground. Federal
agencies, states, ranchers, sportsmen, and industry stakeholders are
all working together with the shared goal of keeping the greater sage
grouse off the Endangered Species list. We should give the ongoing
collaborative partnerships the opportunity to succeed and provide much-
needed certainty for all stakeholders.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
-- Letter from the Specialty Equipment Market Association,
Diamond Bar, CA, June 2, 2015, in response to the
hearing.
-- Statement from Dr. Clait E. Braun, Grouse Inc., Tucson,
AZ, responding to the hearing testimony by Kathleen
Clarke.
-- Statement of John W. Connelly, Ph.D. and Edward O. Garton,
Ph.D., responding to written testimony of Kathleen
Clarke.
[all]