[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]