[Senate Hearing 114-504]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-504
THE STATUS OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND FOREST SERVICE'S
EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE PLANS AND SPECIFIC
MANAGEMENT PLANS REGARDING SAGE GROUSE CONSERVATION, AND THOSE
AGENCIES' COORDINATION ACTIVITIES WITH AFFECTED STATES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 28, 2016
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-994 WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining
JOHN BARRASSO, Chairman
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO RON WYDEN
JAMES E. RISCH DEBBIE STABENOW
MIKE LEE AL FRANKEN
STEVE DAINES JOE MANCHIN III
BILL CASSIDY MARTIN HEINRICH
CORY GARDNER MAZIE K. HIRONO
JOHN HOEVEN ELIZABETH WARREN
JEFF FLAKE
LAMAR ALEXANDER
Colin Hayes, Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
Chris Kearney, Budget Analyst and Senior Professional Staff Member
Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Spencer Gray, Democratic Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator
from Wyoming................................................... 1
Wyden, Hon. Ron, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator
from Oregon.................................................... 3
Risch, Hon. James E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho.................. 4
Lee, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Utah......................... 6
WITNESSES
Lyons, Jim, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.................... 7
Harper, Robert, Director, Water, Fish, Wildlife, Air & Rare
Plants, U.S. Forest Service, National Forest System, U.S.
Department of Agriculture...................................... 20
Clarke, Kathleen, Director, Public Lands Policy Coordinating
Office, State of Utah.......................................... 29
Macdonald, Catherine, Oregon Director of Conservation Programs,
The Nature Conservancy......................................... 35
Richards, Brenda, President, Public Lands Council, and Rancher,
Owyhee County, Idaho........................................... 42
Sweeney, Katie, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, National
Mining Association............................................. 50
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Clarke, Kathleen:
Opening Statement............................................ 29
Written Testimony............................................ 31
Response to Question for the Record.......................... 221
Harper, Robert:
Opening Statement............................................ 20
Written Testimony............................................ 22
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 214
Lee, Hon. Mike:
Opening Statement............................................ 6
Lyons, Jim:
Opening Statement............................................ 7
Written Testimony............................................ 10
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 88
Macdonald, Catherine:
Opening Statement............................................ 35
Written Testimony............................................ 37
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 222
Richards, Brenda:
Opening Statement............................................ 42
Written Testimony............................................ 45
Risch, Hon. James E.:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
Sweeney, Katie:
Opening Statement............................................ 50
Maps of Proposed Land Withdrawals for Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah and Wyoming................................... 51
Written Testimony............................................ 58
Response to Question for the Record.......................... 228
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership:
Statement for the Record..................................... 229
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
THE STATUS OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND FOREST SERVICE'S
EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE PLANS AND SPECIFIC
MANAGEMENT PLANS REGARDING SAGE GROUSE CONSERVATION, AND THOSE
AGENCIES' COORDINATION ACTIVITIES WITH AFFECTED STATES
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John
Barrasso, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Thank you all for being here to testify. We appreciate you
being here.
The purpose of today's hearing is to conduct oversight on
the status of implementation of the Federal Sage Grouse
Conservation and Management Plans under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service. This
hearing is not designed to focus solely on the quality, timing
or scope of the Administration's top/down approach to
conservation plans, but today's oversight of the plan
implementation does require recognition that the overlay of
federal plans last September effectively pushed aside years of
successful work by state and by private conservation in terms
of their efforts.
As part of their joint announcement last September, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM and the Forest Service used
the creation of federal management plans as justification for
the decision not to list the Greater Sage Grouse as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act. This was despite the fact
that the federal sage grouse plans had not yet been tested on
the ground, let alone, finalized.
Today marks 280 days since that joint announcement. Since
that time, no instructional memoranda has been finalized. No
final field guides have been made public, and agency staff on
the ground are no closer to implementing the federal plans than
they were last September.
In March, when instructional memoranda drafts were leaked
following a meeting with the Western Governors' staffs, there
was widespread concern that the documents would include
inconsistent or unreasonable habitat targets that would not
reflect on-the-ground range realities. These criticisms have
plagued the federal plans from the beginning, in large part,
because the federal plans, in many cases, failed to use
successful state efforts as a road map for the federal plans.
Now, nine months after the Administration announced their
sage grouse plans, implementation of the federal plans has not
yet begun. Undoubtedly, the Administration witnesses will say
that agencies are making progress by beginning habitat
inventories to prepare for implementation.
In some states, like Wyoming, agency personnel have begun
training to begin these habitat assessments this summer, but
BLM and Forest Service personnel will be assessing sage grouse
habitat conditions without instructional memoranda to inform
them.
To me it seems that these inventories are simply a way to
demonstrate false progress in implementation. I expect that
some of the witnesses today will say the federal plans
themselves contain flaws. This is something we have heard time
and time again since the plans were finalized last fall. I also
expect to hear that in some states the Administration failed to
meet their own planning requirements like the use of best
available science, and I expect to hear concerns about the
landscape scale approach that the federal agencies took when
developing their plans. I share all of these same concerns.
In this Subcommittee last week, we heard all of these
things about the BLM's overhaul of their planning rule, called
Planning 2.0. It seems that whether we are talking about the
BLM's planning process or sage grouse conservation across these
11 Western states, there is significant opposition on the
ground to federal action that advocates broad, sweeping policy
direction mandated by Washington. These one-size-fits-all
policies cripple public access to public lands and
disenfranchise those who have a vested interest in healthy
resources.
Future instructional memoranda will undoubtedly mention
grazing, mineral extraction, oil and natural gas production and
other public land uses. A CRS report from last Tuesday
indicated that oil and natural gas production on federal lands
is down 27 percent from 2010. I am concerned the BLM and the
Forest Service plans will further reduce natural gas production
on federal lands in Wyoming and other Western states.
In Wyoming and many of my colleagues' home states, their
ranchers, their energy and mineral producers and their
construction workers depend on production based on federal
lands. In turn, the greater sage grouse depends on the people
who depend on the land. For months, folks across the West have
been using the phrase, ``What's good for the bird, is good for
the herd.'' The message is simple but clear.
Maintaining healthy habitat is good for wildlife, for
recreationalists, for livestock and other land users, as well
as sage grouse. The use of best science that reflects true
habitat needs is critical to ensure the plans can be
implemented at a scale which benefits the bird and the
ecosystem.
At this point I think it is clear that I have significant
concerns about the lengthy delays in the instructional
memoranda and the way agencies have addressed public outreach
since last September.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
their discussions during the last several months and the
expected steps forward.
Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Chairman Barrasso, thank you, and I want to
say to you and to all our guests, the Finance Committee and the
Intelligence Committee are two other Committees where I also
have to be within the next 15 minutes. So I am going to be back
and forth some, and I don't want any of you to walk away with a
sense that somehow this is not of enormous importance because
it is.
Oregonians, like those from Wyoming, are no strangers to
the profound local changes that can come from listing an animal
under the Endangered Species Act. So it should be no surprise
that the possibility the greater sage grouse would be listed as
a threatened or endangered species is important in Oregon and
the fact is, it's important to lots of people across the West.
I recently had town hall meetings, for example, in Eastern
Oregon. That is sage grouse country. There is a lot of work
being done to implement sage grouse restoration plans. People
asked me about it at the town meetings. Because of all this
work, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided against
listing the greater sage grouse. In my view, the decision not
to list was a victory for all Westerners.
The Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service's updated
land use plans build off the local collaboration that I heard
discussed just a few days ago in Eastern Oregon, were, in my
view, critical factors in the decision to not list the bird.
Put simply, local folks got together to protect habitat to
avoid a sage grouse listing. While no land use plan is perfect,
I told everybody at those town meetings in Eastern Oregon that
I'm certainly open to ideas and suggestions to plans to provide
a road map for conservation, a way forward for ranchers and
some real certainty for rural communities that rely on multiple
uses of public lands.
In my view what the decision not to list the sage grouse
was all about was, sort of, a referendum on the proposition
that working together, collaborating, actually pays off. Coming
up with locally-based solutions that serve the interests of
everybody involved is government the way, people tell me at
town hall meetings, it's the way government is supposed to
work.
That is why, I believe, it's very troubling to see that
some of our colleagues in the other body, in the House, somehow
think it makes sense to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.
This year, the House of Representatives in their defense
authorization bill contains a sage grouse poison pill that
would snuff out the years of collaboration that went into
avoiding an endangered species listing in the first place.
In addition to handing control of public lands over to the
states, weakening the protections for the sage grouse, the
decision prevents the Fish and Wildlife Service from revisiting
its listing decision for at least ten years which are only
going to increase the odds of an endangered species listing in
the long term. This, in my view, is a frustrating and
exasperating example of Congress making important endangered
species decisions based on politics rather than science and
collaboration.
The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have
worked together and with local stakeholders to create plans
that are critical for ensuring continued multiple use of public
lands throughout the West. That is almost an obligatory
statement I make at a town hall meeting in rural Oregon is we
ought to be building on the notion of multiple use of public
lands in our part of the country, and that's what's being done
here.
The collective efforts of local stakeholders protect sage
grouse and habitat and ecosystems that are all so key to
benefitting local, usually agricultural, economies and
continuing multiple range land uses that almost always involve
grazing and recreation.
So I thank the panel for their input. I look forward to
working with my colleagues on this in a bipartisan manner. This
Committee, colleagues, particularly for some of our newer
members, has such a long, long history of working in a
bipartisan way. This is where we wrote the Secure Rural Schools
bill, for example. So we have a long history of working
together in a bipartisan way to ensure the continued health and
prosperity of our nation's public lands.
I especially want to thank Ms. Macdonald, with The Nature
Conservancy, for making the trek. I apologize for the bad
manners of coming in and out, but you've been on the ground, as
I understand it, working on sage grouse issues in Harney
County.
A lot of people in this room have probably heard of Harney
County now as a result of the last few months. You are doing
work to bring people together in Harney County to collaborate,
to show that it's possible to find common ground, and I am
going to do everything I possibly can to make sure that your
hard work doesn't go by the boards.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden.
A number of members are equally pressed with time and
multiple commitments, so I am going to give each member a
chance to do any introductions of the guests who are here to
testify or make a brief opening statement.
Senator Risch.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to make a
brief opening statement. I have other commitments like Senator
Wyden, but I am going to be here for the afternoon. I am
committed to this. The Intelligence Committee is important, but
this is really important to Idaho.
First of all, let me say, when we get down to the question,
Mr. Chairman, I am going to talk about where we are right now.
But I want to talk a little bit about where we have been on
this issue because I think it is important, as we go forward,
to talk about what I think has been an abysmal handling of this
issue by the Federal Government.
This has its beginnings with the prior Secretary of
Interior, Secretary Salazar. He wisely, wisely, suggested that
the states should get together and create a committee and do
the best they can to come up with a plan to save the sage
grouse.
Virtually everyone is in agreement that this magnificent
bird should be protected to the degree that it is has a
sustainable future. In doing that, to make a long story short,
I am going to use Idaho because our experience probably mirrors
the experience in some other states. The Governor, who by the
way is the second best governor our state has ever had----
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch [continuing]. Wisely put together a
collaborative committee to work on this particular issue and
write a sage grouse plan. The method he used, I think, was
outstanding because it is the method I used when we wrote the
successful roadless rule when I was governor.
What it did is it brought everybody together at the table,
everyone who would come, and indeed there were some who refused
to come. But those who would come in a give and take process
worked on the problem and came up with a plan.
Included in this group the Governor asked and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service agreed to have a person who had a seat at
the table. They worked long and hard, contributing thousands
and thousands of hours to producing a plan which everyone--and
used, by the way, some of the best minds on sage grouse biology
in America. We have some of those people actually in Idaho,
because we have the bird there. They wrote a really good plan,
we believed. We were well on our way, I thought, to success
when all of a sudden the BLM said, well wait a minute, not so
fast.
Now I was, still am, relatively new to this Federal
business. But what I couldn't understand was why would the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, who had signed off on this plan, be
trumped by the Bureau of Land Management? Mr. Lyons, you and I
are going to have a little chat about that as we get into the
questions.
Sally Jewell got appointed to be Secretary of Interior, and
I remember the day I met her. She came to my office seeking
confirmation and she says, ``Well I'm Sally Jewell''. I said,
``How do you do?'' Then I asked, ``Do you know what a sage
grouse is?'' That was my first sentence. Her answer was ``Well,
no, I really don't.'' I said, ``Well, you are going to before
very long,'' and we gave her a sage grouse 101 session.
My biggest complaint was the fact, as we were right in the
middle of the fact, that the BLM was trumping the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service designation or affirmation that the Idaho plan
was a good plan and should be accepted.
I said, ``You know, Sally, when you were head of REI, if
your marketing department and your economy department were
butting heads over an issue, you, as the CEO would step in and
resolve that.'' I said, ``You need to do this here. If BLM can
trump U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, why do we have a U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? We may as well just have one
department.''
She liked that logic, and I really thought that we were on
the way to resolving it. I felt at the beginning things were
going well, but now we have regressed backwards again and then
some other things really started to happen.
Part of my undergraduate degree was in land management,
forest management, to be specific. But I did a fair amount in
wildlife and in range management. I have never heard of a focal
area, and that was a long time ago that I went to school on
those things. So I asked around, what's a focal area? Nobody
had ever heard of a focal area.
But that thing was air dropped out of somewhere in one of
these buildings, one of these great big buildings down here. I
do not know why it was constructed, but it obviously blew up a
lot of things.
In any event, I am frankly disgusted with the way the
Federal Government has gone about this. I am disgusted with
where we are right now, and I am very disenchanted with the
Department of the Interior's efforts which, I think, have
frustrated the states' efforts which have made really good
faith, solid efforts to try to do what needs to be done for
these birds.
In addition to that, the thing that has always bothered me
and I have gone over it, is look, certainly there is science
involved here, but it is not nuclear physics. We keep focusing
on grazing, mining, transmission lines and everything else,
when everyone knows that the problem is fire.
If you have fire and it destroys the expanses of bold,
mature sage grouse that we have, the sage grouse is going to
have a problem. Yet everything we argue about is around fire
and really is not focusing on what can we do to prevent fires
in these very, very critical areas.
I am hoping as we have this hearing that we will again
refocus on what is the real problem for the sage grouse. With
that, I have talked long enough.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to
introduce our witness when we go to it.
Senator Barrasso. Would any other Senators like to make an
opening statement or introduction?
Senator Lee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. I would just like to chime in and express how
proud I am of my state. My state has been a real leader in
finding ways to balance the need to protect the sage grouse and
at the same time allow for economic activity.
I am proud to have the chance to introduce someone who has
been at the center of that, Kathleen Clarke, who serves as the
Director of Utah's Public Lands Coordinating Office which is
part of the Governor's Office.
Having worked in the Governor's Office during Governor
Herbert's predecessor's time in office, Governor Huntsman, I am
familiar with the important role that is played by that office,
and I am very proud to have Kathleen Clarke representing our
state. She is someone who understands the competing needs and
the need to orchestrate and harmonize the competing needs we
have relative to our federal public lands.
Prior to her time in her current job she served as the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management from 2001 until 2006,
so I think Kathleen Clarke's unique experience as both a state
official and a federal official uniquely qualifies her to be a
witness in front of our Committee, and I am proud to introduce
her today as a witness.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Lee.
If there are no other opening statements, it is now time to
hear from our witnesses and we will start with Mr. Jim Lyons,
who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals of
the Bureau of Land Management.
Welcome, Mr. Lyons, we appreciate you being here.
STATEMENT OF JIM LYONS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND AND
MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you
today about our efforts in the Bureau of Land Management to
develop our sage grouse land use plans.
On September 22nd, 2015, Secretary Jewell announced the
Fish and Wildlife Service had determined that in fact the
greater sage grouse didn't warrant protection under the
Endangered Species Act. That outcome was the result of an
unprecedented effort to conserve the species and its habitat
across its remaining range by federal agencies, state agencies
and other partners. Secretary Jewell referred to the effort
that we undertook as epic collaboration to reflect the working
relationship among all parties.
Three elements of the strategy were key: strong federal
plans, strong state and private land conservation, and, a new
and integrated rangeland fire strategy to address the issues
raised by Senator Risch.
BLM manages about 50 percent of the remaining greater sage
grouse habitat, the Forest Service about eight percent and the
remainder is in state and private management. So planning
efforts on public lands are an essential element in developing
the conservation that was necessary to achieve that ``not
warranted'' determination.
I want to point out, however, that in 2008 Wyoming actually
led the way in developing sage grouse conservation efforts
through the development of the Sage Grouse Executive Order by
Governor Freudenthal at the time which has been carried forward
by Governor Mead. They continue to, I think, provide leadership
in the development of a strategy that's based on the
identification and protection of what they call core areas.
It was in late 2011 that Governor Mead, Governor
Hickenlooper and Secretary Salazar convened a meeting of
colleagues in the Western states and federal agencies and put
together what's known as the Sage Grouse Task Force, and that's
really been the convening body that's coordinated much of the
work that has gone forth over the past five years.
The BLM strategy was built on a foundation of sound
science, developed by the states, federal agencies and
academicians. I think most critical was the development of
what's known as the Conservation of Objectives Team (COT)
Report which was called for by the Sage Grouse Task Force, put
together by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and really provided
a solid science-based and peer-reviewed foundation for sage
grouse plans.
The direction given to the sage grouse, excuse me, to the
COT was to address the ``unmet need for an action plan to
ensure a viable sage grouse population in the West and preclude
the listing of the species.'' The COT was composed of ten sage
grouse experts from the states, including a former colleague of
Kathleen and mine, John Harger, from Utah and five individuals
from the Fish and Wildlife Service. The COT delivered their
report in February 2013 and really, that report provided the
blueprint for conservation strategy that was used to build the
BLM and Forest Service plans.
Working from lands that were identified by the states
through this COT effort, originally identified as PACs, or
Priority Areas for Conservation, the plans were developed to
address identified threats to the greater sage grouse, to avoid
and minimize further degradation of priority habitat in those
PACs and to restore degraded habitat areas.
The goal was to work with the states to provide the
regulatory certainty the Fish and Wildlife Service needed to
achieve the ``not warranted'' decision that they made. In this
regard, the plans were built upon the approaches developed by
the states and actually reflect their geography, the nature of
the risks that affected each of the states and the economic
issues of concern to the states.
As a result, the plans are not one-size-fits-all as they
have been characterized but actually very different in their
construction and their approach. We have the core area strategy
in Wyoming. We have three different types of habitat
designations in Idaho, not unlike the three types of roadless
areas that were identified through the plan that you led,
Senator Risch. We have the all lands all threats approach that
was developed in Oregon. And Nevada developed its credit system
from mitigating the impacts associated with greater sage
grouse. So, each strategy was somewhat different but
incorporated the basic objective of avoiding and minimizing
impacts in priority habitat areas and protecting and restoring
habitat where possible.
This was the foundation for developing the plans, but I
want to emphasize the unprecedented collaboration that
continues into implementation. Recently the Sage Grouse Task
Force renewed its charter to continue its collaborative
efforts. Through the Sage Grouse Task Force, the states are
providing input on policy guidance to implement the BLM and
Forest Service plans. We've gone through an extensive process
of review and discussion, some debate, but I acknowledge that
has delayed the release of some of the guidance, but I think
it's improved the product and will certainly improve its
implementation.
During this past April, stakeholder meetings in each of the
sage grouse states were convened to discuss the plans, current
thinking about policy directions, listened to feedback and
recommendations from all interested parties to help us move
forward and to encourage further engagement in implementing the
plans. We continue to work with the states to develop
principles to guide mitigation which will be managed by each
state in ways that offset habitat impacts and seek to optimize
greater sage grouse benefits.
State and federal agencies are working to identify targeted
opportunities to protect sage grouse landscapes and restore
those areas that have been impacted by fire through something
called the Conservation/Restoration Strategy. A new MOU has
been signed between the BLM, the Forest Service and NRCS which
will be implemented through the Intermountain Joint Venture
that will further the collaboration between ranchers, private
landowners, permittees and other stakeholders on the ground and
the integrated rangeland fire strategy, which I want to
acknowledge was really the brainchild of Governor Otter, who,
as Senator Risch pointed out, highlighted the importance of
fire as a threat to the sage grouse in the Great Basin. His
comments at a WGA meeting caught the Secretary's attention and
that led to the creation of a Secretarial Order and the rapid
development of an integrated rangeland fire strategy plan which
we are implementing with the states. And I want to thank the
Committee and the members in general for their support of the
resources we need to implement that plan. It's been very
effective.
Through this collaborative approach to implementation, the
plans will not only benefit the greater sage grouse, but we
believe, will help to preserve the West's heritage of ranching
and outdoor recreation, protect hundreds of wildlife species,
including elk and pronghorn and mule deer, who also rely on
sage grouse. We hope to avoid the need to list other species of
concern in the sage brush ecosystem, which is widely
acknowledged as the most endangered ecosystem in North America,
and balance conservation objectives and development goals. The
plan seeks to conserve the most important sage grouse habitat
while still providing access to key resources. One example, the
vast majority of areas with high potential for oil and gas and
renewable energy development, are outside of priority sage
grouse habitat areas. Most importantly, the plans recognize
that a healthy economy and a healthy ecosystem are inextricably
linked.
So I wanted to close by emphasizing that strong federal
plans are one critical component but so too is the continued
collaboration and coordination with the states, in particular,
working to achieve outcomes on state and private lands.
Effective conservation measures have been framed. Now it's our
job to implement them in a similar, collaborative and
coordinated fashion.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear today, and
I look forward to the comments of my colleagues and the
discussion to follow.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Lyons.
Next is Mr. Robert Harper, who is the Director of Water,
Fish, Wildlife, Air and Rare Plants at the U.S. Forest Service.
Thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT HARPER, DIRECTOR, WATER, FISH, WILDLIFE,
AIR & RARE PLANTS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Harper. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Wyden and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss USDA's efforts to work with states, stakeholders on the
implementation of amendments to the Forest Service land use
plans for sage grouse conservation. I'm pleased to serve as the
witness today and share Forest Service efforts to implement the
amendments.
The design and implementation of sage grouse conservation
amendments represents a remarkable effort to develop and
implement a landscape-scale, science-based and collaborative
strategy to conserve the greater sage grouse in the sage brush
ecosystem.
We recognize sage brush landscapes of the interior West are
valued and used by people with long and deep connection to the
land and that our actions may affect many people. The
amendments and their implementation are strengthened by the
contributions of local partners and their expertise. Evidence
of our work here is reflected in the Fish and Wildlife
Service's September 2015 decision that the greater sage grouse
was not warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
We are deeply engaged with state and federal working groups
at multiple levels and my colleague, Jim Lyons, mentioned a
number of these. Agency leaders serve on the Sage Grouse Task
Force, me. The Sage Grouse Task Force is comprised of
governors' representatives and federal executives who have
worked together for several years and through the development
of federal plans and have committed to continue our work to
implement the plans.
We're contributing to the coordination of multiple state
mitigation frameworks, and we're engaged with state-specific
sage grouse working groups. We're developing implementation
protocols, and we've shared our draft protocols with states and
federal partners seeking their insights and feedback. And we
have posted the protocols on a publicly available website. We
are coordinating closely with other agencies. For example,
we've developed an MOU with the State of Nevada and the BLM to
cooperate on the use of Nevada's conservation credit mitigation
system. And we're developing MOUs with the states of Utah and
Wyoming to formalize frameworks necessary to formulize adaptive
management and monitoring strategies. At the local level we're
working with livestock producers and states to assess range
land conditions and identify if and where changes to allotment
management for sage grouse conservation may be required. We're
also working with states and livestock producers to formulate
on site monitoring and adaptive management frameworks.
USDA continues to be instrumental in coordinating sage
grouse conservation. Forest Service actions are enhanced by our
work through our sister agency, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and we're part of an over $200 million
investment in sage grouse conservation through Fiscal Year
2018.
We've entered into an MOU with the NRCS and BLM to provide
a collaborative framework to conserve sage grouse in the sage
brush ecosystem. We continue to work together to implement
specific actions such as removing conifers, preventing the
spread of invasive weeds and reducing the risk of wildfire.
And finally, if I could leave two messages with the
Committee it would be this: that the plans were collaboratively
developed and their implementation is and will continue to be
informed by contributions from local partners; and two, the
rising cost of wildfire at the Forest Service continues to
reduce the resources we have to implement non-fire related
conservation work, including the implementation of these plans.
We very much appreciate the support of the Subcommittee to find
a fix to the Forest Service fire funding issue.
With that, I thank the Committee for your support and I
will be happy to answer any questions when the time is
appropriate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harper follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Harper.
Next we will hear from Ms. Kathleen Clarke, Director of the
Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office for the State of Utah.
Thanks for being with us.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS POLICY
COORDINATING OFFICE, STATE OF UTAH
Ms. Clarke. Chairman Barrasso and members of the Committee,
it is a privilege for me to testify before you today on matters
relating to the sage grouse conservation and implementation of
federal sage grouse conservation plans.
As was mentioned, I currently represent the State of Utah
and serve in the position of Director of the Public Lands
Policy Coordinating Office. I was also asked by the Governor to
be the state's representative on the task force that has been
referenced.
In these positions I do oversee the implementation of
Utah's sage grouse conservation plan, and I oversee
coordination with the federal agencies on the implementation of
their plan.
The sage grouse population in Utah makes up only about
seven percent of the total national population. We have 7.5
million acres of habitat, and about half of that is owned by
the Federal Government.
Utah got on this problem years before it was--they were
approached by Secretary Salazar or even by his predecessor. We
have nearly 20 years of research and data that's been
accumulated by graduate students who have been digging into
this problem for years, and that work was done based on the
foresight of our division of wildlife resources and that
actually started when I was directing the Utah Department of
Natural Resources.
Since 2006 the state has invested over $50 million into
sage grouse management and research. We have protected 25,000
acres of habitat and increased sage grouse populations by 50
percent since 2013.
The greatest threats to sage grouse in Utah are fire, cheat
grass and the encroachment of Pinyon-Juniper trees into the
sage grouse habitat. We have found that as we prevent and
manage fire and restore sage brush habitat by removing excess
trees, we actually can increase sage grouse populations.
I just want to highlight a few of the issues and
frustrations we have been dealing with our federal partners
regarding the federal plans.
I remain very concerned that one-size-fits-all national
standards are being imposed to manage sage grouse in Utah. For
example, the Forest Service is looking to implement grass
heights, stubble height standards for livestock that are based
on conditions in Idaho and Oregon, but they're wholly
unrealistic for Utah. Critical sage grouse conservation areas
in the Southern part of Utah have likely never seen the seven
inches that the Forest Service is looking for and they likely
never will. Imposition of an unachievable grass height standard
will result in the eventual elimination of graze stock or of
livestock grazing in the area which could lead one to believe
that, in fact, that is the desired outcome of the federal plan.
In Utah alone, $2.5 billion a year comes from economic
activities in sage grouse habitat. And under these federal
plans, oil and gas development is being severely restricted, if
not totally banned, depending on the designation or the
classification of habitats the Federal Government imposes. Last
year alone there were over 480,000 acres of oil and gas leases,
lease requests that were deferred by federal agencies due to
sage grouse conservation.
And my third point is that the feds are suffering from
woeful inertia in dealing with their own plans. The federal
officials in our state have been waiting for months for that
Washington knows best implementation guidance. And as I have
suggested, sage grouse conservation action needs to be the
result of bottom/up processes that involves many partners and
that is informed by the best available science for that
particular locale.
All too often while working with federal managers we have
been told that sage grouse-related decisions are all on hold
until its direction comes from the DC brain trust. What a waste
of time and opportunity.
In summary and drawing on 35 years of experience dealing
with public land issues, I recommend just a few changes that, I
believe, could help.
First, I recommend the BLM follow the state sage grouse
plan. It is working, and it will continue to work. It is an all
lands plan, and we invite the Federal Government to fully
participate.
Second, we need less Washington, DC, interference in plan
implementation. Local BLM and Forest Service officials are
competent, they are very capable and we have worked closely
with them in refining our shared understanding and knowledge
about the sage grouse and in undertaking habitat restoration
projects and habitat protection projects. These partners stand
by our side regularly and they are essential to the successes
that we have enjoyed.
I urge the BLM and the Director of the BLM and the Chief of
the Forest Service and their respective Cabinet Secretaries to
step back and allow local federal officials to do their jobs
without the nagging requisite of constantly seeking permission
from the mother ship in DC before making decisions or taking
action.
And finally, we hope that the federal agencies will adopt
the compensatory mitigation measures that are being developed
in the states.
Again, we feel like a one-size-fits-all standard would be
inappropriate and very unhelpful. Our legislature directed the
development of such a plan, and we are asking that the federal
agencies adopt that.
Let me assure you that the State of Utah will continue to
protect, conserve and create sage grouse habitat regardless of
the federal plan. We are confident that our plan addresses the
real threats to conservation of the sage grouse in Utah rather
than the federal plan that seems more focused on limiting
access to federal lands than on species conservation.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Ms. Clarke. We
appreciate you being here to testify.
Next we will hear from Ms. Catherine Macdonald, who is the
Oregon Director of the Conservation Programs of The Nature
Conservancy.
Thanks for joining us.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE MACDONALD, OREGON DIRECTOR OF
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Ms. Macdonald. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, members of the
Subcommittee. It's an honor to have the opportunity to talk to
you and testify about the federal agency's efforts to implement
the greater sage grouse land use plan amendments.
I serve as the Oregon Director of Conservation Programs,
and over the past six years I have worked closely with our
federal agencies as well as state agencies and a wide variety
of stakeholders to develop an all-lands-all-threats approach to
greater sage grouse conservation in Oregon.
The Nature Conservancy has over 60 years of experience
working with private landowners and government agencies across
the nation and across the world. Our mission is to conserve the
lands and waters upon which all life depends and our efforts
are grounded in science and collaboration. We work to find
solutions that are good for nature and support healthy
economies. Stabilizing and increasing sage grouse populations
is a priority for The Nature Conservancy.
We are witnessing a tremendous loss of native sage brush
habitat across the West. Conserving habitat for sage grouse
will benefit over 350 other species of conservation concern and
healthy habitat for sage grouse also produces good range land
for ranchers.
Conservancy scientists and practitioners are conducting
research and helping private and public landowners protect and
restore greater sage grouse habitat across the West. In Oregon,
for example, we are advancing research in partnership with the
agricultural research station in Burns. We are working with a
commercial, Italian pasta maker and a little ingenuity and
problem solving with the scientists at that research station to
try and improve restoration success of sage grouse habitat
after wildfire.
In addition, we helped to design a decision support tool to
enable us to identify where the most important investments can
be made to benefit sage grouse, and we've been providing
technical assistance to ranchers who are interested in signing
up for conservation agreements with the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The work of many over the past six years really resulted in
an historic accomplishment. The federal agencies should be
commended for the land use plan amendments they developed. The
plan amendments applied sound science and provide a cohesive
strategy for addressing threats across the range of the
species. They were an essential ingredient to the 2015 decision
that the greater sage grouse did not warrant listing under the
Endangered Species Act. That was a high bar to reach.
In Oregon, the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation
Service have been valuable partners and great problem solvers.
In 2010 they began working proactively with the state. Over the
course of the next five years they continuously engaged over 60
stakeholders, representatives from local governments, the
Oregon Cattlemen's Association, energy companies, conservation
organizations, state agencies and our congressional delegation.
Our delegation's leadership and staff participation in this
effort was greatly appreciated. Collectively, we discussed
challenges, developed coordinated solutions and these helped
inform both the federal plans and our state action plan.
In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of
Land Management worked with the Oregon Cattlemen's Association
and eight Oregon counties to develop candidate conservation
agreements. These provide options, guidance and critical
assurances for ranchers with sage grouse habitat. This kind of
collaboration continues today. For example, the federal
agencies are working closely with our state and local
government to develop joint implementation methodologies for
determining disturbance levels. In response to the threat of
wildfire, the Bureau of Land Management is working closely with
range land fire protection associations to coordinate wildfire
response in priority habitat. And after the massive Soda fire
that burned more than 400 square miles in Oregon and Idaho, the
Federal Government provided funding for restoration efforts on
private lands. These examples of collaboration give us optimism
that we will be able to collectively resolve challenges in the
future.
The Nature Conservancy remains concerned about legislative
attempts to stall, delay or limit federal agencies' authority
to implement their greater sage grouse resource management plan
amendments.
Greater sage grouse populations have declined by more than
97 percent over historic counts. Given that the BLM and the
Forest Service manage nearly two-thirds of the remaining sage
grouse habitat, the federal plan amendments are a critical part
of an effort to restore and conserve sage grouse. Delaying or
suspending the plan amendments will distract us from the most
important thing/task at hand and that is making significant
progress implementing actions to stabilize and rebuild sage
grouse populations.
The federal agencies need the authority and funding to act.
Oregon is counting on our federal partners. We need our federal
partners to implement their plans in Oregon and across the West
to avoid the need to list the species in five years.
We urge Congress to give federal agencies support and the
resources they need to collaborate with states and public land
stakeholders to implement their plans. The federal agencies
have already conducted public meetings across the West to get
input on next steps. We hope that this engagement will continue
and that all stakeholders will make a strong commitment to
collaboration. With so much at stake, now is the time for us to
focus on effective implementation.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Macdonald follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Ms. Macdonald.
Senator Risch, could I ask you to please introduce our next
guest?
Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is my honor and privilege to introduce to the Committee
and welcome her to the Committee, Brenda Richards.
Brenda has a higher calling than any of us. She is actually
a county-elected official in Owyhee County, Idaho. She serves
as the County Treasurer.
More importantly than that, she is actively involved in
this issue and many other issues having to do with the public
lands. She and her husband, Tony, are fourth generation
ranchers in Owyhee County, larger than some states in this
United States. They operate in both Idaho and Nevada.
She has served as on the Board of Directors of both Idaho
and Nevada Cattlemen's Association, and she has served as the
Federal Lands Chair for the Idaho Cattlemen's Association for
five years. She worked with Senator Crapo very closely on the
development of the Owyhee Initiative, and she has worked over
14 years on that and is in her fourth term as Chairman of the
Board of Directors of that organization.
Although her degree is in accounting, she knows a lot more
about sage grouse than a lot of PhDs who study this, because
she is right out in the middle of it.
Ms. Macdonald, you talked about the Soda fire. That is
ground zero for Brenda's ranch, and they have been greatly
affected by the catastrophe that was the Soda fire.
With that, we welcome Brenda and appreciate hearing her
thoughts which may run slightly contrary to some of the views
that our agency friends have.
Thank you so much.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Richards, thank you for being here
with the Committee. We welcome your testimony.
STATEMENT OF BRENDA RICHARDS, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL,
AND RANCHER, OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO
Ms. Richards. Thank you, Senator Risch, for that kind
introduction.
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Wyden and members of the
Committee, my name is Brenda Richards and I am the President of
the Public Lands Council. As stated, my husband, Tony, and I
run a cow/calf operation in Reynolds Creek, Idaho, which is in
Owyhee County.
The Public Lands Council is the only national organization
that is dedicated solely to representing roughly 22,000
ranchers who graze in steward over 250 million acres of federal
land while owning 140 million acres of adjacent private land.
The businesses we operate form the economic nucleus of many
rural communities, providing jobs and opportunity where it
wouldn't otherwise exist.
Additionally, ranchers often serve as first responders in
emergency situations across vast remote stretches of unoccupied
federal lands. And simply put, public lands ranchers are an
essential element of strong communities, healthy economies and
productive range lands across the West.
Owyhee County is approximately 78 percent public land. Our
terrain is high desert, and we have some of the best sage
grouse habitat in the West. Owyhee County is in the heart of
sage grouse habitat.
Like much of the rural West, ranching drives our economy
and it has for more than 100 years resulting in healthy,
productive range lands that are as critical to the people of
Owyhee County as the air we breathe or the water we drink.
Ranchers are an essential component of any successful
species conservation effort. Recognizing the integral role we
play as land managers and the rising concerns about the sage
grouse populations, Owyhee County established a sage grouse
local working group in 1995. This local working group developed
and implemented the Owyhee County's Sage Grouse Local Working
Group Plan by 2000, and it's an effective conservation plan for
the sage grouse.
Over the years we have met and overcome numerous challenges
all through cooperation and coordination at the local level.
Whenever the Department of Interior moved the goal posts on us,
our working group responded, amending our plan to ensure that
it remained viable and effective as a conservation effort
ensuring the on the ground successes were still being achieved
by local ranchers, land owners, state agencies and the local
working group and that they would continue. This working group
is still active today.
The results of voluntary local conservation efforts like
this are all around the West, and they are undeniably a great
part of the habitat that's being preserved and how the species
is responding. According to the latest data from the August
2015 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency's report,
the population has increased by 63 percent on the sage grouse
over the past two years alone.
So to be blunt, the BLM's top/down approach of forcing a
one-size-fits-all, or the landscape-scale management of sage
grouse conservation efforts through the plan amendments that
were finalized last year, risk undoing over 20 years of
effective collaboration between local stakeholders. Time and
time again the BLM has touted their collaboration with the
local working groups and the state partners in newsletters,
press releases and sage grouse meetings, but unfortunately, the
land use plans that have emerged reflect none of that effort.
Rather than embracing grazing as a tool for conservation
benefits, these plan amendments impose arbitrary restrictions
that seem to satisfy requirements from newly minted objectives
such as focal areas and net conservation benefit. Perhaps
because we were so easily regulated and utilized such a large
area, many of these restrictions and limitations are aimed
directly at grazing, totally ignoring the fact that proper
grazing is not classified as a threat. Wildfire, invasive
species and infrastructure are the major threats, all of which
are most effectively managed through grazing as a tool.
To arbitrarily restrict grazing when it's needed is a
recipe for failure. It is also critical to note that
restrictions on federal grazing permits will absolutely impact
adjacent private grazing land where as much as 80 percent of
the productive sage grouse habitat exists.
The livestock industry has filed detailed comments on these
plans at each stage in the process. While they are too numerous
to go over here, these plans fail in a variety of important
areas.
Again, primary threats to the greater sage grouse are
wildfire and invasive annuals like cheat grass and require
active management through tools like grazing, not arbitrary
objectives such as those in the habitat objectives tables, 2-2,
found throughout the plans.
Since the online newspaper, Greenwire, leaked the BLM's
instructional memorandum draft several months ago, our industry
has repeatedly requested that BLM engage us in the finalization
of this guidance. Repeatedly those requests have been denied.
To date our only reference for what this guidance might
look like comes from the leaked documents found online. We have
been told we will get to see the documents once they are
completed and ready for implementation, but we feel that is
well past the point where we, as critical, on-the-ground
partners, can offer any constructive input to the process.
In conclusion, this lack of collaboration, the misplaced
focus on reducing grazing and disregard for ongoing local
management is precisely the reason these plans must be thrown
out. Local input and decades of successful collaborative
conservation efforts must be the starting point for federal
involvement not an afterthought.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear and welcome any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richards follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Ms. Richards. We
appreciate your testimony.
Next we will hear from Ms. Katie Sweeney, who is the Senior
Vice President and General Counsel of the National Mining
Association.
Thanks for joining us.
STATEMENT OF KATIE SWEENEY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & GENERAL
COUNSEL, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION
Ms. Sweeney. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, other
members of the Subcommittee. My name is Katie Sweeney. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National
Mining Association (NMA) about the impacts of the BLM and
Forest Service land use plans related to sage grouse
conservation.
I want to emphasize that NMA shares the concerns of other
panelists regarding the onerous restrictions imposed by the
land use plans; however, today I will focus my testimony on an
outgrowth of the plans that uniquely impacts the mining
industry.
As a consequence of the final land use plans, the Interior
Department is proposing to withdraw ten million acres of sage
grouse habitat from new mining operations, the largest land
withdrawal in the history of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. This is particularly troubling given that
mineral development is already either restricted or banned on
more than half of all federally-owned lands.
The agencies assert that the mineral withdrawal is
necessary to conserve the sage grouse but then attempts to
downplay the impacts of the withdrawal by claiming that the
lands involved are not highly prospective for miners.
But existing USGS and state data that was submitted during
the scoping period rebut this assertion, and one of the best
indicators of mineral potential in any given area are the
presence of existing mining claims. Yet BLM and Forest Service
never quantified the number of existing mine claims in the area
recommended for withdrawal, nor did BLM attempt to do so in the
scoping process.
NMA's research, that's attached to my testimony, identified
nearly 6,000 existing mining claims in the ten-million-acre
withdrawal area. The maps which I'm going to bring up on the
screen, not only show that these areas are likely to be highly
prospective for minerals, but the quantification of the
footprint of mining activities in the proposed withdrawal area
calls into question a necessity of the entire withdrawal.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The maps displayed show the overlap of each--of existing
mining claims and the proposed withdrawal area in each of the
affected states. We identified the number of existing mining
claims in the proposed withdrawal area, the total acreage of
those claims and the percentage of the proposed withdrawal area
impacted by the existing mining claims, and I think the results
are pretty telling.
These are in alphabetical order, not order of importance. I
know that there are many Committee members who have--who
represent these states.
In Idaho. So, you can see the overlap, the green and then
the red and blue dots are the mining claims. We are looking at
less than one percent of the nearly four million acres
withdrawn are impacted by existing claims.
Hold on. Uh oh, sorry. We'll go to Montana, I promise. I
can find it. There we go. In Montana, it's less than two
percent of the nearly one million acres withdrawn. In Nevada,
it's less than three percent of the nearly three million acres
withdrawn. In Oregon, it's less than one percent of the nearly
two million acres withdrawn. In Utah, it's less than one
percent of the more than 230 thousand acres withdrawn. And in
Wyoming, it's less than three percent of the more than 250,000
acres withdrawn. So in total the existing mining claims impact
only about one percent of the ten-million-acre area. How can a
ten-million-acre withdrawal be justified by an activity with
this small of an existing footprint?
For comparison sake, in 2015, and I think this is the
wildfire everybody else was mentioning, that wildfire
eliminated 200,000 acres of BLM sage grouse habitat. The
footprint of mining in the withdrawal area barely registers
compared to the impact of a single, large wildfire.
The withdrawal will do very little to protect the sage
grouse or its habitat as mining activities are not a major
threat. And as others have said, government reports prepared in
conjunction with the land use plans confirm this fact as they
uniformly conclude wildfire and invasive species are the
greatest threats. Data compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey
clearly show that habitat loss due to mining, range wide, are
minor totaling only about 3.6 percent and can be mitigated with
appropriate project specific conservation measures.
The proposed withdrawal also ignores the role that mining
companies played in improved habitat for sage grouse with
voluntary conservation efforts and well-designed reclamation,
mining activities regularly result in higher value habitat than
if the same lands were left unmanaged. The impacts of the
withdrawal reach far beyond mining.
Our domestic mining industry serves as the front end of the
supply chain for the minerals and materials vital to the
success of our health care, transportation, communication,
national defense and countless other industries. Further
limiting access to domestic minerals is detrimental. In the
last two decades the United States' dependence on mineral
imports has doubled, and today less than half of the minerals
American manufacturers need are sourced domestically.
In summary, the proposed withdrawal is simply bad public
policy that comes with a high price tag for U.S. mining and the
vast sectors of our economy that depend upon a reliable and
secure supply chain of minerals and metals.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sweeney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much to each and
every one of you. We are going to have some questions for
members of the panel.
We will start with Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to all of you for being here. This is an important
topic. It is an especially important topic to those of us from
the Western United States who have to live with the
consequences of this issue.
As I mentioned earlier, and as Ms. Clarke mentioned at
length in her testimony, Utah has done an extraordinary job at
managing these competing interests, at balancing the need to
protect the sage grouse while at the same time maintaining an
environment in which our economy can grow and where economic
activity can occur in a responsible fashion.
I am worried though. I am worried that Utah's federal
partners have been showing a pronounced propensity to ignore
suggestions made by the state. When this happens trust between
the state and its citizens on the one hand and the Federal
Government and its agencies and its regulators on the other
hand, tends to erode. When that trust tends to erode, it
becomes far more difficult for us to achieve what we want to
achieve; it becomes far more difficult for us to protect the
bird; and, it becomes far more difficult for us to accomplish
all the things, all the goals, the aspirations, that we have in
common.
On May 29th, 2015, just over a year ago, the BLM and the
Forest Service released their proposed land use plan
amendments. Utah seized on this opportunity and submitted a
substantial comment making many dozens of suggestions about how
best to manage the sage grouse in Utah. Utahans know well how
to deal with this, within our own state. After all, Utahans
have to live with the consequences of any efforts in those
areas.
In light of that, Mr. Lyons, I would like to ask you a
question. Do you know how many of those suggestions, the
suggestions that were submitted by the State of Utah, were
adopted in the September 9th, 2015, final record of decision?
Mr. Lyons. Well, Senator, I think I'd make two points. One
is I would have to go back and I would have to talk with the
state officials and others with regard to the nature of the
requests for changes in the plans and how they responded. And I
would also point out that many changes were made in the plans
in collaboration with the state before those final drafts were
issued.
So I want to make clear that many issues were resolved
before we got to that point. There may have been other issues
that were raised in the consistency review which is what, I
assume, you're referring to, but I'd have to check with staff
to see what changes were made both before and subsequent to the
consistency review.
Senator Lee. Okay.
[The information requested was not provided as of the date
of printing.]
Senator Lee. I am going to ask Ms. Clarke, to get her
perspective on this and on the point that you made in a moment.
My understanding is that your answer to that question could
be very simple. It is zero, none, not one of them, not one of
the suggestions made by the State of Utah submitted to the
Federal Government were followed, not a single one of them.
This is incredibly frustrating.
I would like to think that my state has earned a seat at
the table, not only because it is affected by this in a way
that most states are not, but also because my state has spent
upwards of $50 million trying to figure out how to protect the
sage grouse. That is a lot of money for a small, not terribly
wealthy state in the Rocky Mountains. And they have spent this
just studying the sage grouse and trying to get this right.
It is not as though we have just thrown that money out
there just to spend it. It is not as though we have wasted it.
These efforts have had a pretty good effect. The sage grouse
population in Utah has, as I understand it, increased by over
50 percent just since 2013. To have every single one of Utah's
land use plan suggestions categorically rejected and not
incorporated makes your agencies appear aloof and unresponsive,
unconcerned about the dynamic of the state/federal partnership.
The state/federal partnership, this is a dynamic that I am
constantly told exists between federal land use managers on the
one hand and state and local officials on the other hand. Yet
curiously, at least within my own state, I hear that only from
the federal officials. I never hear the state officers describe
it that way because more often than a partnership it is much
more of a dictatorial relationship.
So, Ms. Clarke, I would like to ask you had the BLM and had
the Forest Service adopted at least some of Utah's land use
amendment suggestions, what effect would those changes have
made on the State of Utah and on the State of Utah's ability to
protect the bird?
Ms. Clarke. Utah's plan and our many recommendations to the
Federal Government were based on a directive that we had as we
adopted the plan and that was to make sure we were taking good
care of the bird, conserve the bird, but also protect economic
opportunity. That wasn't an easy balancing act, but we did a
remarkable job with it.
One thing we did is identify 11 separate areas where we
created individual plans focused on the local threat. We have
used incredibly good science as we go through this. We think we
could have held on to that balance and wouldn't have had to say
no to many things had we been able to really have some of our
recommendations accepted.
One other thing is had they been accepted Utah probably
wouldn't be in litigation with the Federal Government over
these plans right now.
Senator Lee. What became of those suggestions though while
we are on that topic?
Ms. Clarke. We had a lot of discussion with the Federal
Government. They were available to talk. The frustration was we
had a lot of talk and the Federal Government did what they
wanted to do.
Senator Lee. Okay, thank you. I see my time is expired.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Lee.
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Mr. Lyons, greater sage grouse
populations have declined from historical highs that have been
at times estimated to be as high as possibly 16 million birds
to just a few hundred thousand. Irrespective of exact
population levels, which clearly fluctuate with precipitation,
in particular, this represents an enormous and very alarming
decline.
In your opinion, based on the strength of the conservation
included in the state plans alone, would the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service have been able to arrive at its decision not
to list the greater sage grouse as threatened? In other words,
do the state plans alone offer the kind of durable and
scientifically sound conservation requirements to achieve long-
term population success and avoid listing?
Mr. Lyons. Well Senator, I don't know that I can speak for
the Fish and Wildlife Service. So I will not attempt to----
Senator Heinrich. Let me point out that you are the only
Interior federal----
Mr. Lyons. Unfortunately I don't have to----
Senator Heinrich. Yes.
Mr. Lyons. But I would say that, you know, the challenge we
faced was building plans in collaboration with the states as we
did and then providing both the flexibility necessary to
respond to local conditions and recognize local initiatives, as
Kathleen just spoke of, but at the same time provide sufficient
consistency across the larger landscape such that the threats
identified by the COT report which again, was authored by a
team that included a dominant number of state officials, to
address those in a way that provided sufficient consistency so
that the Fish and Wildlife Service felt that those threats were
adequately addressed. And I think that was the challenge that
we faced.
Senator Heinrich. Speaking of those threats, Mr. Lyons, if
you listened to the opening comments from some of my
colleagues, you could be left with the impression that the
Department of the Interior has not taken seriously or addressed
the deleterious impacts that fire has on mature sage brush.
Would you tell us a little bit about what exactly
Department of the Interior is doing in that area?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I'd be glad to, Senator.
I think, as I indicated in my opening statement, we
recognized early on the significant threat associated with
range land fire. I think we recognized as well that past
efforts had not adequately dealt with that threat.
And so, Secretary Jewell issued a Secretarial Order, 336,
that directed us to develop a strategy for preventing,
suppressing and restoring lands impacted by range land fire in
short order. I think the Executive Order was issued in January.
We had preliminary recommendations put together to deal with
the pending fire season by March and a final plan for an
integrated strategy put together in May. And in my 35 years in
government I've never seen things move that quickly. So I was
pleased to see that happen.
We used that then to initiate efforts, again, in
collaboration with the states to secure more equipment, to be
in position, people in areas where we knew there was a high
fire risk.
We worked with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, WAFWA, which is basically the states' Fish and Game
directors, to identify areas of high risk to fire as well as
those of high resistance and resilience so we could better
target our efforts.
We made a significant investment in working with the states
in helping to train and provide resources for Range Land Fire
Protection Associations. Idaho has those. Nevada has those.
Oregon has a program, as does Nevada. And those individuals
become, really, the first line of defense in dealing with range
land fire. And I think it was a very successful effort. We also
put money into training veteran crews and added a substantial
number of veteran crews to the effort.
So, we took that threat seriously, and fortunately, we were
able to limit losses last year. I think the Soda fire, though,
was a reminder of how significant it is that we get prepared to
deal with this threat.
Senator Heinrich. I am quickly running out of time, so I
want to get to one more question. Thanks for your answer, Mr.
Lyons.
Ms. Macdonald, I wanted to ask a little bit about the sage
grouse initiative that is led by NRCS. It has worked with
ranchers, farmers and private landowners to voluntarily protect
more than four million acres of sage grouse habitat.
Can you just talk a little bit about this on the ground,
collaborative work and how it has achieved so much success?
Ms. Macdonald. Absolutely, thank you for the opportunity,
Senator Heinrich.
The Sage Grouse Initiative has been amazingly effective.
It's done a great job of using science to inform its decision
making and focus its resources. The Natural Resource
Conservation Service does a great job working with private
landowners, and we've been pleased to partner with them in the
development of some of the science that's been used to target
resources.
They move mighty quickly and they've also been able to
really do things that not only benefit the bird, but also
benefit the herd and I think that's part of what have made them
so successful.
May I follow up just on a couple of other points you made?
You know, in the State of Oregon our final request for changes
in the Governor's Consistency Report were also, I think, not
taken. But our governor, our governor and state, really felt
like it was so important to get the consistency across the BLM
plans that we were comfortable having a little difference
between our plan and the BLM's plan. And we are pretty
confident that we're going to be able to work a way to get
those differences to be more consistent.
So, while I appreciate the frustration Senator Lee
expressed, I think that there had been a lot of movement along
the way to make changes. You can see that reflected in our plan
and a lot of the other state plans where differences exist.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Montana is a state that has rich natural resources. We say
that we are a state where we work but we also like to play. As
Montanans, I think we understand that balance we need to have
where we want to have a place we can develop our natural
resources.
We can have a thriving agriculture business. At the same
time, we want to make sure we protect our environment so we
have a place to take our kids fishing and hunting and
backpacking on the weekends. That is who we are as Montanans.
I am an avid outdoorsman. I love spending time outside when
I am not here in Washington, DC. We found in Montana that
balance, and we struck that with hard work and the
encouragement of farmers, ranchers, folks in the energy
industry, from conservationists to put together a state plan in
terms of sage grouse conservation.
In Montana the sage grouse habitat is predominately
occupied by private landowners, and 64 percent of the sage
grouse habitat in Montana is in the hands of the private
citizens.
In Montana we also have a checkerboard land management
structure, typically by sections, square miles, a section of 40
acres. Federal tracts are oftentimes surrounded by state and
private lands, and these federal requirements can have a
significant impact on operations on the adjacent private or
state lands.
I was disappointed, I must say, to see that the plan, put
together by BLM, rather than complementing what was done with
our state plans in Montana, there was conflict. I was
disappointed to see the federal plans largely inconsistent with
the state plans in some very important areas. Remember, the
birds don't know the difference between a BLM section, a
private section or a state section.
This is just another example of this long list of one-size-
fits-none directives coming out of this town that do not take
into account the unique nature of the states and their ability
to provide home grown solutions. I am a firm believer that the
folks closest to the lands ought to have the greatest voice in
this process.
Mr. Lyons, after reading Governor Bullock's consistency
review, and we have a democratic governor so this is very
bipartisan issue back home and Governor Bullock's plan--he
listened to input from Montanans. Could you explain why it
appears that the voices of Montanans were not incorporated into
the planning process?
Mr. Lyons. Well Senator, I would suggest that we did try to
incorporate the views and concerns of the governor and others
in Montana in developing the plan, and we will continue to do
so through implementation.
I'd point out that the checkerboard ownership pattern that
you described is an important element here. And for that reason
we sought to build flexibility into the plans with regard to,
in particular, how oil and gas resources were to be developed
and reached an agreement with the governor's office in that
regard. Montana is in a unique situation in that it is
transitioning to adopting a strategy, known as the courier
strategy, which is essentially what has been implemented in
Wyoming.
So, we're working and we'll continue to work with the
governor's office as that transition occurs, and I think that
will provide additional flexibility for the state.
Senator Daines. Yes, and in that regard, thank you.
I recognize, and to the credit of our state BLM office,
they fought hard for clauses in Montana's RMP to ensure that
flexibility you talked about for the federal plans to be
reviewed every two years and amended if and when the Montana
state plan is proven to be ``effective.''
I think the land users back home in Montana need more
certainty that the BLM will indeed amend its land use plans to
reflect the successes of local landowners in our state plan. We
have been undertaking an active sage grouse conservation effort
for over ten years. The irony here, of course, as you know, is
the Montana plan is extremely similar to the Wyoming plan which
was largely adopted by the BLM in Wyoming and not so in
Montana.
So as I understand it, the BLM is undergoing its guidance
documents to implement these plans. How does the Department
plan to resolve these differences on federal land within these
first two years?
Mr. Lyons. I believe what we'll attempt to do is we'll
implement the plan as it's written now and as the state
develops its plan based on the courier strategy, we'll review
that plan and then amend the existing RMPs accordingly.
Senator Daines. Specifically, does the Department plan to
revise its plans in Montana in 2017?
Mr. Lyons. I think that's a function of when the plans are
presented by the State of Montana, and it's a function of the
construction of those plans. So, I can't commit to something I
haven't seen nor has been delivered. So I think that's why we
built this transition in recognizing the desire to put in place
this courier strategy which, I think, would work well for
Montana.
Senator Daines. A follow up on that.
They say that if you aim at nothing, you will hit it, in
terms of clear objectives and targets.
Could you define what you mean by ``effective'' and what
``meeting management objectives'' means so that Montanans have
a target to work with?
Mr. Lyons. Well effective means effective in sustaining the
habitat; And the population of the greater sage grouse so as to
ensure that it does not warrant listing in the future. I think
that's the objective across the range. It's actually the
objective that was created by the Western Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies over a decade ago, and we've consistently
focused on that as an objective in working with the states.
Senator Daines. Right.
I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much.
Ms. Macdonald, let me say you were critical of language
that is attempting to be passed at Congress that throws a
bucket of cold water on the federal agencies that are involved
in this.
Let me tell you, first of all, you represent, in my
judgement, one of the most successful conservation
organizations in America and one that has tremendous respect by
myself and this Congress, really. And you do it because you
work from the bottom/up and not the top/down.
With all due respect to the other gentlemen here, the
Federal Government is notorious for doing things just the
opposite. So I come back to the defense of those of us who are
supportive of attempting to handcuff these guys to a degree in
dealing with this problem.
We really think the states are doing a good job. In this
town, you cannot get people to understand this. The states
actually can do these things. We actually can manage things. We
can accomplish things and we do.
In our defense, we had to do this with wolves. Idaho had
gotten rid of its wolves for a long, long time. None of us
wanted wolves back. But the wolf, like the bird, is a
magnificent animal. We have them now, even though we did not
want them.
But we just couldn't. It was like the tar baby. We just
could not get away from the Federal Government. So we finally
passed a law and said, Federal Government, you are out of this
business. We are going to do it, and we are still trying to get
a handle on it. In Idaho and in a lot of places you can get
five tags because we have still got to thin what we've got, but
we have been successful in doing that.
I would not worry too much about this. I think we are going
to keep a close angle on this and see that this bird is--gets
to the point where it has a sustainable future in front of it.
But we think the states can do it. If those that worship at the
altar of the Federal Government, they will not like this, but
we think at the state level we can probably do that.
But anyway, thank you for your consideration. We will just
have to respectfully disagree on that particular point, but we
have the same objective. There is not anybody that wants to see
anything but the best for this bird.
Let me say that and just in closing on that. What that
should represent, and it doesn't always, but what it should
represent is just a depth of lack of confidence that we, who
represent states here, have in some of the things that the
Federal Government tries to do and this is certainly one of
them.
To my friends from the Forest Service and the BLM, it
should be loud and clear that the top/down approach just simply
is not appreciated. We really think and you have heard other
people say here that the bottom/up approach will work
substantially better.
The other thing that I would stress, and my colleague from
New Mexico, I think, stressed this, is look, let me tell you
what this is all about when it comes to the sage grouse. Fire,
fire and fire.
The human activities that are being used as an excuse to
regulate, as was pointed out by Ms. Sweeney, I mean, how
preposterous it is to throw ten million acres out because one
percent of it is affected by mining. It is just stunning. It
lacks common sense, but that is not new to this town.
Let me ask you, Mr. Lyons, we have not seen the grazing
instruction memorandum. There was a story leaked from Greenwire
that says there is such a thing. Can I get my hands on that?
Mr. Lyons. I'm sure you can, Senator.
Senator Risch. I would like one, please. If you would get
it to my office.
There are rumors that there is going to be a seven-inch
stubble requirement in every lek. Do you know whether that is
true or not?
Mr. Lyons. No, I don't believe there's going to be a seven-
inch stubble requirement in every lek.
Senator Risch. I think that would cause a lot of people to
breathe a sigh of relief.
I don't know, this stubble thing has always amazed me and I
suspect Brenda and others in the cattle business. This may come
as a shock but cattle do not like the top part. They like the
bottom part. Given their choice, they will take one all the way
down because they have to eat the bad part to get to the good
part, but unfortunately that is just the way it is. They do not
do that to every plant, but depending upon how you measure the
stubble it could be very difficult.
How about a buffer? We are hearing rumors about a six-mile
buffer around a lek. Is that true or is that just rumor that we
are hearing?
Mr. Lyons. I'm not aware of that.
Senator Risch. Okay.
Mr. Lyons. Senator, so but I'll gladly follow up and----
Senator Risch. I would appreciate that, if you could----
Mr. Lyons. If there's any truth to that.
Senator Risch. If you take that for the record.
I have got in front of me this evening an email, although I
am sure you wished you had never gotten it, that is dated April
26th from Chris Iverson. This is probably one of the emails you
guys would have given to Hillary to guard.
In any event it has gotten out. Mr. Iverson, in talking
very candidly about the approach that is being taken, talks
about the requirements. He says, ``Does anyone suppose that
any,'' and any is in caps, so I suppose that means it is a
shout. ``Does anyone suppose that ANY allotment is currently
meeting those standards?'' Did you respond to that question
that he asked you in this email or was this kind of a
rhetorical email that you----
Mr. Lyons. I think it was a rhetorical question, Senator.
And since we both have that email, you know, I would point out
that subsequent to that Chris says that ultimately the range
cons need to figure out how to meet those guidelines. So I
would not necessarily agree with Chris that we can assume that
people can't meet these objectives.
Stubble height is one element associated with a number of
objectives for the plans. I want to point out for the record
that no one variable, no one objective will be the determining
factor as to whether or not someone is complying with the land
health standards and further provide that it's not simply a
matter of meeting those standards, but if an operator could
demonstrate that their operation is, in fact, moving in that
direction and we certainly will work with permittees to achieve
that, then they will meet the standards.
I think there's been a lot of confusion about stubble
height and a lot of consternation. For that reason, we've had a
number of meetings with the cattle industry to try to discuss
this and correctly characterize it.
Senator Risch. We appreciate that.
Mr. Lyons. And we will continue to have those
conversations.
I had the good fortune of meeting with Speaker Bedke just a
few weeks ago to talk about this issue and some ways to try to
work better together to try to address these concerns.
Senator Risch. We appreciate that. There are 1,800 grazing
permittees in Southern Idaho. I do not need to tell you they
are all very, very nervous right now. I hope, through this
hearing, both of you will take all of this in the spirit in
which it is intended. We all want to work together to make a
sustainable future for this bird, and the criticisms that are
levied here are done so in the spirit of moving it forward.
So thank you for what you do. We are going to continue to
work with you and urge you in a direction that we think will be
helpful.
Mr. Chairman, I have got to excuse myself, but thank you so
much.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Risch.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions are for Deputy Assistant Secretary Lyons as
well, initially.
In 2010, Interior looked at starting a process to list the
sage grouse as endangered. In September of 2015 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife found that listing the greater sage grouse as an
endangered species was not necessary. That primarily came as a
result of the successful conservation efforts at the state and
local level.
So my question is in regard to BLM's sage grouse plan. Last
year North Dakota's Governor outlined six concerns about
federal plan inconsistencies. He talked about not accounting
for new well drilling technology for oil well drilling. He
talked about balancing all the uses. He wanted a case by case
analysis, and was concerned about BLM imposing net conservation
gain requirements. He was concerned about the definition of
``tall structures.'' What does that mean? What is that
requirement? Then there was a concern about adequate public
comment.
The state raised those concerns last year, and then in July
2015 BLM basically rejected or dismissed the concerns. The
state appealed, and in September of 2015 North Dakota's appeal
was turned down by BLM as well.
So when you talk about extensive state/federal
collaboration and when we see that those state efforts are
working, why is it the state was turned down when they came
with those concerns?
Mr. Lyons. Well, Senator, the Dakota's plans, along with
the Montana plan, were really designed to try to address those
threats where identified.
I think in some instances, and I can't speak to the
specifics of that letter of appeal, in some instances, the
recommendations were not consistent with what was judged to be
necessary to deal with those threats. And so, the plan moved
forward.
I'd be glad to give you a more specific response, Senator,
to those issues and go back and look at the letter and talk
with Jamie Connell or the State Director about how that
response was prepared.
Senator Hoeven. Well, we work with Jamie and we really like
her. We think she is great, so I am a little surprised that it
was turned down.
What I am really after here is how we create a better
collaboration in that, again, I think what you are hearing
pretty consistently up here is that the states can do a good
job but they need both Interior, just Fish and Wildlife, BLM,
they need some flexibility here. It cannot be a one-size-fits-
all. Multiple use in North Dakota is different than it is in
some of the other states. I think all of us have ranching, but
we also have tremendous energy development. There has got to be
some flexibility. How do we get a better collaboration? How do
we improve that collaboration? How do we get better
flexibility?
We actually have a remarkably good relationship with Jamie.
She is great. She is always looking for good ideas. She has
always tried to help us do the things that we think are
productive that makes sense, but she has got to be able to get
that help from here in DC.
Mr. Lyons. Well, I appreciate that. I think Jamie is an
outstanding director.
Senator Hoeven. She is.
Mr. Lyons. And a leader in BLM.
I think the answer to this, and if I haven't made this
clear, I want to emphasize that it is in implementation is how
we work together at the ground level to implement these plans
in ways that respond to local needs and provide the flexibility
necessary to address issues whether it's buffers or as we're
working now with the states in redrawing the boundaries of
priority habitat areas that were originally identified which
we're doing with a number of states.
I think there are and will continue to be important
opportunities to work together in a collaborative way on the
ground to make these plans work and achieve the conservation
outcomes that we seek to achieve.
Senator Hoeven. That is exactly what I am asking for. I am
asking for more flexibility, and I am asking you to empower
that Regional Director. I think we can do a lot if you do not
have this mindset that it has got to be the same everywhere
when it is not the same.
Mr. Lyons. The goal is not to be the same everywhere,
Senator. The goal is to provide enough consistency so that
there's certainty to the conservation outcomes that will be
provided by the plans, but the flexibility to respond to those
local needs and conditions.
Senator Hoeven. That is the key. That is where we need your
help.
Mr. Lyons. Glad to help.
Senator Hoeven. We appreciate your Regional Director and
her willingness to work with us, and we just need you to
empower her to do some of these things that were on the ground.
I wanted to take just a minute to ask Brenda Richards a
question from a rancher's perspective. Obviously, we think it
is a great benefit to the country to be able to have ranchers
out on the grasslands. But if you would just talk in terms of
the benefits to the public because, I do not think people
realize it, but there is a big time benefit to taxpayers and
there are other benefits that our ranchers are creating for
everybody by being out there in the grasslands and grazing. If
you could just touch on that for a minute, because I think it
is important that people understand it.
Ms. Richards. Thank you, Senator, for that opportunity.
As I indicated in my testimony in many of these areas
across the West, Idaho is not unique but ranching and grazing
has been there for over 100 years which has helped provide the
healthy habitat, the healthy range lands and the rural
communities which is something we need to stress. So even if
those ranches do change hands, many times, it's still into the
same intricate aspect of the ranching community.
There is a vested interest in local input. Our local Sage
Grouse Working Group which was started by the ranchers and then
brought others in to work is over 20 years old. So it's well
before all of this came to the very forefront.
And so, I think, you hit the nail right on the head. We are
an extremely important and integral part for continuing with
that because of the vast amount of public, private and state-
owned lands so we all have to work together.
And the ranchers have a vested interest there. They are the
businesses, they are the communities and they're long-term,
generational often to make sure that that stability is there.
Senator Hoeven. Hasn't your organization actually done some
studies and determined what the benefit is to taxpayers on an
annual basis? Do you have any of that information with you?
Ms. Richards. We have done some, and Owyhee County actually
has an economic impact statement. We also have an economic
analysis that shows what it does. I would be glad to provide
that to the Committee.
We've also pulled in some data through the National Public
Lands Council based on the ranching and what the benefits are
to the states, to the economic and the health of the resource.
We do have that documentation and study done by the University
of Wyoming and public lands sponsored it, and we will be glad
to get that to the Committee.
Senator Hoeven. Right.
I think some of those studies have shown on the order of
$750 million a year in benefit to taxpayers by having ranchers
out on the ground. So you have got all this really good data
there, and we appreciate you being here to talk about it.
Ms. Richards. If I could follow up.
I would say that alone in Owyhee County we are 7,697 acres.
We have 1.5 people per acre. Seventy-eight percent federal
land. But we have put ourselves $318,000 through into local
working group projects that are successful. So, you're spot on
with that, and we'd be glad to get that information to you.
Senator Hoeven. Thanks, and we really appreciate what the
ranchers are doing out there.
Ms. Richards. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
Mr. Lyons, I understand this ten-million-acre withdrawal is
going to be the largest in FLPMA history, and the Department
has justified this figure by saying there does not appear to be
significant mineral development potential.
Can you talk about whether your science or geological data
informed that statement and is there a complete geological or
mineral inventory of the ten-million acres?
Mr. Lyons. Well actually, Mr. Chairman, I think as you
understand, you know, we're in the process of developing the
withdrawal proposal. It's a separate process. So the plan has
actually recommended the withdrawal, segregation occurred, but
the process is unfolding.
So the mineral survey that would look at those particular
issues is being developed for us by the USGS and is not yet
completed. But we are and USGS did, in fact, reach out to all
the states and to other entities to secure information about
mineral potential and, I think, gather that as a foundation for
developing the EIS which we hope to complete by the end of this
year.
I should also point out that the alternatives for that EIS
are being developed in collaboration with cooperators. There
have been several discussions as well as several meetings both
for the scoping and as well as associated with the withdrawal
proposal.
So we will gather that information. We will share that
information and that will be one of the components that goes
into determining whether or not or how this withdrawal should
move forward.
Senator Barrasso. We are trying to get this all figured
out, because Ms. Sweeney's organization has expressed concern
about the withdrawal because BLM has yet to complete a number
of mineral examinations under the 1994--you are talking how
many years ago that was, congressional moratorium on, with
regard to mineral patents. How does the BLM intend to complete,
it looks like 6,000 mineral examinations triggered by this
potential withdrawal in the face of such a significant backlog?
Then Ms. Sweeney, I am going to ask you to weigh in as
well.
Mr. Lyons. Well, I can say, Mr. Chairman, that the mineral
potential report is to be completed shortly by USGS. I can't
speak to the particulars of the other analyses that you're
talking about, unfortunately.
And we'll use that as one of the components that goes into
preparing the environmental impact statement. That will be a
part of this process. It is a separate process from the plans.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Sweeney, go ahead.
Ms. Sweeney. I do think that there are significant concerns
as to whether BLM has the resources to complete that number of
mineral exams. I believe that between Forest Service and BLM
there is probably less than 40 mineral examiners that are
certified and able to do that kind of work.
And I would say, most of them are probably close to, if not
of, retirement age. I do think that delaying getting the
claims--determinations done since 1994. And there's still about
37 or 38 of those left, I think, that remain. I mean, it does
raise the issue as to whether or not, that practically speaking
BLM could even implement the claim validities that would be
prompted by the withdrawal.
Senator Barrasso. One of the other things you talked about
in your testimony, Ms. Sweeney, had to do with how you clearly
spell out the economic impacts that can result from withdrawing
ten million acres from mineral production.
In your view, did the Administration take these economic
issues, foreign policy implications and national security
implications into consideration when determining that ten-
million-acre figure?
Ms. Sweeney. I would say they did not or else they wouldn't
have moved forward with recommending it. But as Mr. Lyons says,
it's still is in the preliminary stages.
And so we're hopeful with that kind of information provided
to the agencies that they will realize that this withdrawal is
not necessary to conserve the sage grouse or its habitat.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Clarke, in your experience on both
sides of the table in this discussion, you are currently
overseeing a number of conservation efforts in Utah.
In your testimony you contrasted the successful
conservation efforts on the ground in Utah with the now lack of
what is happening in Washington. You referred to the mother
ship.
I am going to ask Ms. Richards to weigh in on this as well,
but has your relationship with local land managers, including
those in BLM and Forest Service on the ground at home, been
compromised by Washington's top/down mother ship approach to
local conservation efforts?
Ms. Clarke. I would say that our forward movement has
absolutely been compromised. Often we hear from these federal
partners that they share our frustration. They want to get on
with business and make things happen. But yes, it's very
frustrating.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Richards, could you comment as well?
Ms. Richards. Yes, I appreciate that opportunity.
Both again from our local level and on our state level our
governor put together a task force. We have a plan that was
bought off on by the state BLM and local BLM. We were working
on local working groups, and that has seemed to somewhat grind
to a halt.
I'd also like to add that although the question was not
answered specifically pertaining to a six-mile buffer, for our
county commissioners we were denied access to a gravel pit by
the BLM because it was within a four-mile buffer of sage grouse
pertaining to the documents, the implementation draft documents
that had been leaked because on the ground is not sure of how
to move forward. And as we know litigation is huge out there so
they don't want to take any risks.
So they're definitely, our local was/is and state has been
trying to work with it, but we have been, as Kathleen said,
ground to a halt somewhat by that.
Senator Barrasso. Yes, because as a rancher in Idaho you
have seen a number of federal resource management failures
throughout your career, your time.
By their own admission the Administration understands that,
``the primary threats to sage grouse are the widespread present
and potential impacts of wildfire.'' Senator Risch commented on
that. ``The loss of our native habitat to invasive species and
the conifer encroachment.''
Since the agency has announced the federal conservation
plans, have you seen any improvement or changes at all in the
way that they are managing wildfire or invasive species? What
have you noticed?
Ms. Richards. In my area in Owyhee County, as was
indicated, we were impacted tremendously by the Soda fire. So
there have been a number of dollars that have been put forward
to fire rehab, but that fire could have been prevented if there
was flexibility within the plans for some grazing management as
tools on the front.
So I'm not sure, and maybe I need you to repeat that. We
haven't seen anything that's actually come on the ground with
that, but maybe you could repeat what you're asking.
Senator Barrasso. I think you answered it in terms of
whether, there have actually been policy changes once they have
recognized the impact of what the real causes are and what they
are trying to do to prevent the real causes opposed to the man-
made relationships.
Ms. Richards. From what we've seen and the concern in the
grazing community is again, we have had on a local level,
because of the draft that was leaked out, we have had some
conversations that have been very negative about restrictions
that could be put on grazing which again, is counterproductive
to the fire component of that, the threat, because grazing is a
natural use of a renewable resource to reduce fuel loads. It
will not completely eliminate fire, but it certainly is a tool
that helps substantially reduce the fuel loads and protect
those lands in the sage grouse habitat.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Lyons, in your testimony you highlighted the years of
work that the Administration has undertaken on the issue of
sage grouse conservation, an extensive period of time. I think
your point is that the resource management plans and land use
plan amendments announced last fall were an accumulation of
years of work. If that is true, then why have we had to wait
nearly another whole year for agency guidance if you have been
working on this issue for more than a decade?
Mr. Lyons. Well Senator, I would suggest to you that the
reason there's been delays is because we've made the extra
effort to try to communicate with and coordinate with the
various interests who might be affected by these plans.
I would have to say, my father would say, ``You're in a
damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.'' You know,
draft IMs were prepared. We began to discuss those with
cooperators and others and concerns were raised. We then
elected to go out and engage more directly with various
interests.
So I reference the stakeholder meetings we had in April in
which we used those not only for discussion but as, kind of,
mini workshops in which we presented the drafts at that point
in time. And there were additional concerns, and then the
feedback was extremely helpful.
We've continued the dialogue through the Sage Grouse Task
Force with the states and a number of states have been quite
helpful. Wyoming would be one, for example, with their
experience in providing additional guidance. So we're trying to
get it right. We recognize how significant this is.
We recognize how critical the collaboration is to be
successful as we move forward and so the delays really, I
think, reflect due diligence, perhaps maybe an over cautious
approach to try and ensure that we can continue to move forward
and implement these policies and procedures in ways that are
going to be understood, that are going to be effective and will
be welcomed by the partners who are critical to ensuring that
we can achieve that.
If I could make one other point, just about fire?
You might have sensed that I'm very proud of the work that
we've done on fire, and I think it's important. And I, you
know, the Soda fire was unfortunate and I certainly feel for
Brenda and her family and the impacts that they felt.
But you know, we're trying to use the Soda fire as a
mechanism to try new approaches to dealing with restoration, in
particular. And one of those, in fact, is trying to use grazing
more effectively as a mechanism to reduce fuel loads. Brenda
and her family have been very helpful in that regard in trying
to develop this.
So we're trying to learn from past mistakes and try to use
these opportunities, a funny way to characterize the Soda fire,
but this opportunity to do a more effective job in the
restoration arena and also do that in a way that's going to
further reduce the likelihood of fire risk in the future.
Senator Barrasso. For your first answer let me just say
that for your efforts with regard to coordination of efforts, I
would appreciate if you do just not the states alone, but also
the stakeholders. I think it is critically important to this.
Now I want to thank all the witnesses for being here, for
your time and for your testimony. It is clear that serious
concerns remain. They remain about the future of public land
access as a result of the federal sage grouse plans. At best,
federal sage grouse plans were created to justify keeping the
species off the Endangered Species list but at worst the plans
really are a part of a larger campaign to restrict access to
public land.
It has been suggested that the agencies will use the
Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan process as a model for
future conservation efforts. This nine-month delay in
implementation of the plan is not acceptable now, and it will
not be acceptable in the future.
If there are no further questions from members, they may
submit written questions to you so the hearing record will be
open for the next two weeks.
Senator Barrasso. Given that, the hearing is adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]