[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EMPOWERING STATE BASED MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS FOR GREATER SAGE GROUSE
RECOVERY
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-440 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ruben Gallego, AZ
Doug LaMalfa, CA Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Jeff Denham, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Paul Cook, CA Darren Soto, FL
Bruce Westerman, AR A. Donald McEachin, VA
Garret Graves, LA Anthony G. Brown, MD
Jody B. Hice, GA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Jimmy Gomez, CA
Darin LaHood, IL
Daniel Webster, FL
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Greg Gianforte, MT
Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, October 25, 2017...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
.............................................................
Bedke, Hon. Scott, Speaker of the Idaho House of
Representatives, Oakley, Idaho............................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Questions submitted for the record....................... 10
Bird, Darin, Deputy Director, Utah Department of Natural
Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah............................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Goicoechea, Hon. J.J., DVM, Chairman, Board of Eureka County
Commissioners, Eureka, Nevada.............................. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Tubbs, John, Director, Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation, Helena, Montana................ 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Questions submitted for the record....................... 19
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Hammack, Katherine, Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Department of the Army, April 15, 2016 Letter to
Congressman Adam Smith..................................... 55
Herbert, Gary R., Governor of the State of Utah, prepared
statement.................................................. 52
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 70
Wilderness Society, Sage-Grouse Implementation Options....... 56
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EMPOWERING STATE BASED MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS FOR
GREATER SAGE GROUSE RECOVERY
----------
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Lamborn, Wittman,
McClintock, Pearce, Thompson, Labrador, Tipton, LaMalfa, Cook,
Hice, Radewagen, Cheney, Gianforte; Grijalva, Tsongas, Torres,
and Soto.
Also present: Representative Amodei.
The Chairman. Thank you. We welcome you to the Committee
hearing today. I will call this meeting to order when it is
time. But according to our clock up there we still have a half-
hour before it starts, so if any of you want to just flit
around for a while, you got it.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. This Committee is called to order. The
Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on empowering
state based management solutions for the greater sage-grouse
recovery.
I ask unanimous consent at this time that the gentleman
from Nevada, Mr. Amodei, be allowed to sit with the Committee
and participate in the hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
However, that is conditioned upon the fact that I never see
him carrying his laundry to his apartment again in the morning.
If you want to look like a peasant woman carrying your clothes,
that is fine, but not in public. OK, we are set.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements are
limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Minority Member, and the
Vice Chair. This will allow us to hear from witnesses faster. I
ask unanimous consent that all other Members' opening
statements be made part of the hearing record if they are
submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today.
Without objection, so ordered.
Let me start with my opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. Today, the Committee members are meeting to
examine state-driven successes that we have seen in the
management of the greater sage-grouse. Clearly, there is a
continuing need for local control over both the bird and its
habitat.
The range of the greater sage-grouse covers millions of
acres over parts of 11 states. It is as expansive as it is
varied, and yet there are different ways in which we handle
that.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was an
administration that decided to tell the states we have a
problem with the sage-grouse, you come up with a plan to solve
that problem and we will implement that. Then I watched as
states busily became involved in coming up with a plan that met
the environmental needs of their particular communities. Only
then to find, later on, that the administration that said we
will honor the state plans decided to change their mind. They
instead came up with a one-size-fits-all approach, based on
whatever science, we don't know, because it was never actually
shown to us. Nor were those who came up with that science ever
allowed to talk to this particular Committee.
So, instead, we have a hybrid system that is not
necessarily helping the problem today. That is the purpose of
today's hearing: to provide further evidence that state and
local control leads to lasting success, not just to actually
control and manage the bird, but to rehabilitate the species.
And that is the goal of the state-side programs, which is not
necessarily the product of a one-size-fits-all Federal approach
to this particular issue.
States have consistently proven they are masters at caring
for their own lands and their wildlife, and sage-grouse is no
different. In my home state of Utah, for example, the state
spends an average of $5 million a year managing sage-grouse.
With its state plan, Utah can cut fire lines, remove flammable
invasive species, and react quickly in the event of wildfire.
The plan has produced excellent results, with significantly
fewer wildfire damages to sage-grouse habitat in 2016, and
minimizing the impact of this and future fire seasons.
The reason I mention that is, quite frankly, the greatest
threat we have to sage-grouse in my state is wildfire. If we
can actually control and manage the wildfire, we actually help
the habitat of that bird. And if you can get the crows to quit
eating their eggs, that would be helpful, too.
I look forward to hearing from local stakeholders,
representing several sage-grouse states that not only have
state plans working, but the bird is thriving under their local
management.
It is important that we applaud the current
Administration's efforts to correct the flaws in these resource
management plans of the past. However, it is also important
that the Administration fully recognize the successes of state
plans, the opportunity we have with state plans, and to ensure
a robust local input as they develop these kinds of
corrections.
I thank our witnesses for traveling great distances to be
here today and to outline what their states have and can do in
the future. We have found that implementing their locally
developed recovery plans will be the best source that we can
do, not just, as I said, to control sage-grouse, but to
rehabilitate this species and move forward in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on
Natural Resources
Today, the Committee meets to examine state-driven successes we
have seen in the management of the greater sage-grouse. Clearly, there
is a continuing need for local control over both the bird and its
habitat.
The range of the greater sage-grouse, covering millions of acres
over parts of 11 states, is as expansive as it is varied. Yet, the
Federal Government under the Obama administration insisted on managing
greater sage-grouse recovery with a Washington, DC, one-size-fits-all
approach that fails miserably to address the individual management
challenges present in each state.
The purpose of today's hearing is to provide further evidence that
state and local control leads to lasting success. States have
consistently proven to be masters at caring for their own lands and
wildlife, and sage-grouse is no different.
In my home state of Utah, for instance, the state spends an average
of $5 million a year managing sage-grouse. The results are encouraging:
our state has seen the population of the bird increase steadily since
1990, and Utah is well exceeding the target number of male sage-grouse
established by our recovery plan.
This success is due to the state's ability to tailor the management
plan to meet the distinct needs of Utah's environment. Unlike other
states, the single greatest problem threatening sage-grouse in Utah is
catastrophic wildfires. With its state plan, Utah can cut fire lines,
remove flammable invasive species, and react quickly in the event of a
wildfire. The plan has produced excellent results, with significantly
fewer wildfires damaging sage-grouse habitat in 2016, and minimizing
the impact of this and future fire seasons.
All of this, despite the prior administration's regulatory attempt
to force a Federal `one-size-fits-all' approach. Simply put, had Utah
been mandated to implement a Nevada plan, or a California plan, or
anything less than a tailored solution, much more of Utah would have
quite literally gone up in smoke and our grouse population would have
suffered.
Irrespective of what success Utah or other states can achieve on
their own, however, the Fish and Wildlife Service has dictated its
intent to re-examine the species for listing by 2020.
I look forward to hearing from local stakeholders representing
several sage-grouse states that, not only are the state plans working,
but the bird is thriving under local management.
Imposing an ESA listing decision of the sage-grouse would stifle
state-based management plans, unravel the nearly 15 years of positive
advances made by western states, and disregard the investment each
state has made to protect the species. In addition, the BLM and Forest
Service are currently reviewing the 98 resource management plans that
were developed simultaneously with the Fish and Wildlife Service's
decision to not list sage-grouse. These federally decreed plans, which
left in place would create a `de facto' listing, are overly
restrictive, rushed decisions that did failed to consider local input
in many areas.
We applaud the current Administration's efforts to correct the
flaws in these resource management plans. However, it is important also
that the Administration fully recognize the successes of the state
plans, and ensure robust local input as they develop their corrections.
I thank our witnesses for traveling out to be here today to outline
the successes each of their states have found in implementing their
locally developed recovery plans, underscoring the all that is possible
through smart and effective local control.
______
The Chairman. With that I yield back, and I recognize the
Ranking Member for his statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me also join
with you in welcoming our witnesses.
In 2015, the last time we held an oversight hearing on the
sage-grouse management, the Majority and their witnesses
complained about being cut out of the process. Of course, these
claims were false and have been abandoned. People know that the
corresponding effort to conserve sage-grouse and sagebrush
habitat without an ESA listing was highly inclusive and
transparent.
Now, the Majority has shifted from criticizing the process
to criticizing the outcome. They claim that sage-grouse
conservation plans put in place last year are not based on
sound science, are hindering economic development, and are
increasing wildfires and encroachment by invasive species.
These claims are also false.
Let's talk about the real facts that are grounded in
science, and put aside the ``alternative facts'' grounded in
nothing more than the hope that nobody is really paying
attention.
It is a fact that restoring sagebrush ecosystems is more
complicated than allowing more cattle grazing. Scientific
studies show not only that cattle grazing played a big role in
spreading cheatgrass, but also that higher grazing intensity
promotes the continued spread of that plant. The same is true
for pinyon-juniper encroachment, which scientists have found to
be significantly greater in grazed areas.
The science also shows that grazing will not stop fires
under very hot and dry conditions, just as those being
experienced more and more in our West as a result of climate
change. But climate change is a factor that is not being
considered by this Administration and Congress. In fact, it is
being debased and denied as a science and a reality in that
climate change is and must be factored in the future.
Making our lands more resilient to these threats is a
complex challenge, and the solution is painstaking, science-
based range restoration, not turning cattle loose and calling
it a day.
The science also shows that habitat fragmentation from
energy development and mining are key threats to sage-grouse.
The Obama administration worked with states, localities,
tribes, industry, scientists, and other stakeholders to protect
core sage-grouse habitats without impacting existing mining and
energy claims and still maintaining access to the vast majority
of these recoverable resources.
That is not a job killer; that is the definition of
multiple use and sustainable, responsible management of our
natural resources.
Cries that the Federal Government imposed cookie-cutter or
one-size-fits-all policies are also disingenuous. States have
full control over how they manage for sage-grouse conservation
on state and private lands, and all 98 of the resource
management plans underpinning the conservation strategy are
individually tailored.
Of course, the Majority does not really care about any of
these facts. All they care about is their crusade to transfer
U.S. public lands, or management of these lands, from Federal
agencies representing all Americans to states and localities
that represent a few.
Two of our invited guests, witnesses today, have publicly
argued for this approach, never mind the fact that the states
lack the resources to manage these lands effectively without
selling them off to the highest bidder.
So, instead of celebrating the sage-grouse conservation
success, the Majority is focused on keeping two myths alive to
support their seize-and-sell agenda.
The first myth is that the Endangered Species Act does not
work. That has been disproven time and time again, but never
more clearly than in the particular case that we are dealing
with today, where state and Federal partners worked hand in
hand to prevent the listings of a species.
The second is the myth that the West is a land of
inexhaustible natural resources that could produce infinite
wealth and job opportunities, if only the Federal Government
would get out of the way. Much of the West is evolving. Its
economic future is in clean energy, outdoor industries, and
lower-impact, more sustainable resource use.
The Trump-Zinke plan to roll back sage-grouse protections
will only hurt the West. It will make it more likely that the
bird will warrant Endangered Species Act listing when the Fish
and Wildlife reviews its status.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In 2015, the last time we held an oversight hearing on sage-grouse
management, the Majority and their witnesses complained about being cut
out of the process. Of course, those claims were false and have been
abandoned.
People know the effort to conserve sage-grouse and sagebrush
habitat without an ESA listing was highly inclusive and transparent.
Now, the Majority has shifted from criticizing the process to
criticizing the outcome. They claim that the sage-grouse conservation
plans put in place last year are not based on sound science, are
hindering economic development, and are increasing wildfires and
encroachment by invasive species. These claims are also false.
Let's talk about real facts that are grounded in science and put
aside ``alternative facts'' grounded in nothing more than the hope that
nobody is really paying attention.
It is a fact that restoring sagebrush ecosystems is more
complicated than allowing more cattle grazing. Scientific studies show
not only that cattle grazing played a big role in spreading cheatgrass
but also that higher grazing intensity promotes the continued spread of
the plant. The same is true for pinyon-juniper encroachment, which
scientists have found to be significantly greater in grazed areas.
The science also shows that grazing will not stop fires under very
hot and dry conditions, such as those being experienced more and more
often across the West as a result of climate change.
Making our lands more resilient to these threats is a complex
challenge and the solution is painstaking, science-based range
restoration--not turning a bunch of cattle loose and calling it a day.
The science also shows that habitat fragmentation from energy
development and mining are key threats to sage-grouse.
The Obama administration worked with states, localities, tribes,
industry, scientists, and other stakeholders to protect core sage-
grouse habitat without impacting existing mining and energy claims and
still maintaining access to the vast majority of recoverable resources.
That's not a job killer--that's the definition of multiple use and
sustainable, responsible management of our natural resources.
Cries that the Federal Government imposed ``cookie cutter'' or
``one-size-fits-all'' policies are also disingenuous. States have full
control over how they manage for sage-grouse conservation on state and
private lands, and all 98 of the resource management plans underpinning
the conservation strategy are individually tailored.
But, of course, the Majority doesn't really care about any of these
facts. All they care about is their crusade to transfer U.S. public
lands, or management of those lands, from Federal agencies representing
all Americans to states and localities that represent only a few.
Two of their invited witnesses have publicly argued for this
approach, never mind the fact that states lack the resources to manage
these lands effectively without selling them off to the highest bidder.
So, instead of celebrating the sage-grouse conservation success,
the Majority is focused on keeping two myths alive to support their
``seize and sell'' agenda.
The first is the myth that the Endangered Species Act doesn't work.
That has been disproven time and time again, but maybe never more
clearly than in this particular case where state and Federal partners
worked hand in hand to prevent the listing of a species.
The second is the myth that the West is a land of inexhaustible
natural resources that could produce infinite wealth and job
opportunities if only the Federal Government would get out of the way.
Much of the West is evolving. Its economic future is in clean energy,
outdoor industries, and lower-impact, more sustainable resource use.
The Trump-Zinke plan to roll back sage-grouse protections will only
hurt the West. It will make it more likely that the bird will warrant
an ESA listing when the Fish and Wildlife Service reviews its status.
I yield back.
______
Mr. Grijalva. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you for that opening statement.
Mr. Grijalva. You are welcome.
The Chairman. I am now going to introduce our witnesses.
You will notice the restraint I am having here. All the
wonderful one-liners, I am going through my head and I am not
going to use any of them right now. We will go directly to the
witnesses that are there. I appreciate them being here.
We will hear from you in this order: the Honorable Scott
Bedke, who is the Speaker of the House in the State of Idaho
from Oakley, Idaho, thank you for being here; Mr. Darin Bird,
who is the Deputy Director of the Utah Department of Natural
Resources from Salt Lake City, Utah; the Honorable John Tubbs,
who is the Director of the Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation in Helena, Montana; the Honorable
J.J.--oh, I was going to say that correctly and I screwed it up
already, Goicoechea--the County Commissioner and the Chairman
of the Eureka County Commissioners in Eureka County, Nevada.
We appreciate you being here. I am going to remind the
witnesses that, under our Committee Rules, they are limited in
their oral testimony to 5 minutes, but their entire statement
will appear in the record.
The microphones in front of you are not automatic.
Actually, this is the first time we have used this committee
room since it was fixed. Hopefully it works. But at least, on
the plus side, you don't have to look at the old chairmen of
the Budget Committee any more. So, at least that is a plus for
us. Since they are not automatic, you are going to have to
press the button to be on there, and just adjust how close you
need to be to be heard from that point on.
If any of you are not aware of the light system, when the
green light is on, you are using your 5 minutes and everything
is going great. When the yellow light comes on, it is like a
traffic light and you have to hustle through as fast as you
possibly can, because when the red light goes on I am going to
cut you off, even though that is rude. But I apologize, we are
going to have to do that. I will do the same with Members, too.
So, when it is your turn, remember, if it is yellow, go faster,
because I am going to cut you off at 5 minutes.
Speaker Bedke, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and thank
you for being here.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT BEDKE, SPEAKER OF THE IDAHO HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, OAKLEY, IDAHO
Mr. Bedke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
members of the Committee. Thank you for this invitation to
testify on the importance of sage-grouse conservation in the
West. I am the Speaker of the House in Idaho and a charter
member of the governor's task force on sage-grouse, and I
perhaps am uniquely qualified to testify on this topic.
For five generations my family has had a ranching operation
in the heart of greater sage-grouse habitat in the Great Basin
of Southern Idaho and Northern Nevada. Our ranch operates in a
way that benefits the greater sage-grouse and its habitat.
The best available science has shown us that the major
threats to sage-grouse populations in the Great Basin are,
Number one, wildfire; and Number two, the invasive plants that
follow a large fire. The best science also says that livestock
grazing is a second-tier threat, and then only when it is
employed improperly. Proper livestock grazing is not deemed to
be a threat at all.
The Idaho sage-grouse plan is predicated on decades of
science and expertise. Instead of adopting Idaho's sage-grouse
plan, the 2015 Federal land use plan amendments seek to punish
livestock grazing with unreasonably large lek buffers and
impossible minimum stubble height requirements. If, as the
science says, wildfire is the Number one threat to sage-grouse
populations, then further reductions on livestock grazing
create and increase fuel load, making the habitat much more
susceptible to larger and more frequent wildfires. The
amendments are counterproductive to the sage-grouse
conservation.
This past summer, my family witnessed firsthand how good
intentions and a total lack of practical knowledge can
backfire. Lightning started a small fire on one of our grazing
allotments on the Nevada-Idaho border. The first burned
approximately 500 acres before it was declared out and
contained. The next day the fire started up, however, and the
firefighters returned with their equipment. To our surprise,
some of the heavy equipment sat around unused for hours, while
the fire continued to grow and eventually burned another 20,000
acres, all of which was in prime sage-grouse habitat.
Why? Because Federal regulations prevented the use of
firefighting equipment since there was not a qualified Cat
tender on the fire. A Cat tender is a person that walks in
front of the bulldozer as the fire line is created, in order to
assure that no historical artifacts are disturbed. However,
most of the time the fire line is laid down in an area that has
already been disturbed, such as an existing road or fence line,
as it was in this case, thus obviating the need for
archeological clearance.
So, thousands of acres of prime sage-grouse habitat burned
because of improper Federal firefighter policy. This scenario
will be repeated if fuel control activities such as grazing are
further restricted. There is nothing wrong with using a Cat
tender, but Federal red tape resulted in a perverse outcome,
since those on the ground did not have the decision-making
authority to quickly assess and adapt to a rapidly escalating
range fire. In other words, they were not allowed to employ
common sense, and thousands of acres of habitat burned,
arguably, needlessly.
Range fire is the top concern in Idaho sage-grouse habitat.
Our plans are specifically designed to address the factors
which result in catastrophic wildfire, but there seems to be a
growing trend in the Federal resource planning ignoring decades
of experience and the specific needs of the western states. In
fact, Federal sage-grouse plans will actually make the
situation worse.
Let me explain how that has happened. Anti-grazing
activists have been fighting lawsuits for decades, trying to
list grazing as one of the threats to the greater sage-grouse.
The activists hold to a completely unproven theory that minimum
stubble height will help grouse hide from ravens and crows, who
predate on sage-grouse nests. But because ravens and crows have
been unmanaged for decades due to Federal restrictions on
predator control, their numbers now far exceed historical
levels. As a result, in many places sage-grouse nest predation
by crows and ravens is somewhere in the range of 60 to 90
percent mortality.
Rather than implement predator control to reduce nest
predation, the BLM and the Forest Service have adopted unproven
stubble height requirements that will result in fewer AUMs and
increased fuel loads. Federal agencies have made the Number one
threat to sage-grouse in Idaho worse. In fact, these Federal
amendments, if left standing, will create an explosive wildfire
situation throughout the Great Basin.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, since 2014, I have been meeting
with you and your staff regarding the coming disaster of these
sage-grouse plan amendments. The very things that we warned
against are now adopted by the BLM and Forest Service. More
Federal regulation is only making the situation on the ground
worse for the greater sage-grouse.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bedke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rep. Scott Bedke, Speaker of the Idaho House of
Representatives
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to testify regarding the importance of protecting state
sage-grouse conservation in the West. We appreciate your efforts to
provide congressional protections for Idaho's sage-grouse plans.
I am the Speaker of the House in the state of Idaho and a charter
member of the Governor of Idaho's sage-grouse task force. I am also
perhaps uniquely positioned to testify regarding the greater sage-
grouse. My brother and I run a family ranching operation. For five
generations, our family has operated in the heart of greater sage-
grouse habitat in the Great Basin of southern Idaho and northern
Nevada. We understand the needs of greater sage-grouse. Our ranching
operation is designed to operate according to the best available
science and methodology to benefit the greater sage-grouse and its
habitat.
Idaho's sage-grouse conservation efforts are designed to address
the conservation of sage-grouse in the state of Idaho using the best
available science. That science determined that the largest threat to
the sage-grouse population in the Great Basin is, Number one, wildfire,
and Number two, the invasive plant species that proliferate after a
large fire. The best science also says that livestock grazing is a
``second tier'' threat--and then only if the grazing is carried out
improperly. Proper livestock grazing is not deemed to be a threat at
all.
All of the sage-grouse stakeholders were disappointed in the
Federal land management agencies' disregard for the decades of science
and expertise upon which Idaho's sage-grouse plans are predicated.
Instead of adopting Idaho's sage-grouse plan, the 2015 Federal land use
plan amendments seek to punish livestock grazing with unreasonably
large lek (breeding ground) buffers and impossible minimum stubble
height requirements. If, as the science says, wildfire is the Number
one threat to the sage-grouse population, then Federal plan amendments
that further restrict livestock grazing create an increased fuel load,
thus making the habitat much more susceptible to larger and more
frequent wildfires. The amendments are counterproductive to sage-grouse
conservation.
This past summer, my family witnessed firsthand how good intentions
and a total lack of practical knowledge can backfire. Lightning started
a range fire on one of our grazing allotments on the Nevada-Idaho
border. The fire burned approximately 500 acres and was declared out
and contained, and the fire crews left. The next day, the fire started
again and burned approximately another 20,000 acres, all of which was
in sage-grouse habitat.
As the fire began to build again, the hardworking firefighters
showed up with their firefighting equipment. To our surprise, most of
the heavy equipment sat unused for hours. The fire continued to grow
and get more out of control. Why? Because Federal regulations prevented
the use of firefighting equipment since a ``Cat tender'' had not shown
up. A ``Cat tender'' is a person who walks in front a bulldozer as the
fire line is created, in order to assure that no historical artifacts
are disturbed. However, most of the time the fire line is laid down in
areas that have already been disturbed, such as an existing road or
fence line, as it was in this case--thus obviating the need for
archaeological clearance or cat tending. So instead of extinguishing
the fire, thousands of acres of prime sage-grouse habitat burned. In
fact, essentially the entire winter unit of our allotment was consumed
in one large catastrophic wildfire.
These dangerous situations will be made worse by restrictions on
fuel control activities such as grazing. There is nothing wrong with
using a ``Cat tender.'' But Federal red tape resulted in a perverse
outcome. Rather than being able to quickly assess the situation on the
ground and doing the right thing, those on the ground did not have the
decision-making authority to adapt to a quickly escalating wildfire.
What we are talking about here is using common sense.
There seems to be a growing trend in Federal resource planning of
ignoring the needs of the western states, to say nothing of the decades
of wisdom and practical experience we can offer. Let me speak more
specifically: catastrophic wildfire is the top concern in Idaho sage-
grouse habitats. Our plans are designed to address the factors which
can result in catastrophic wildfire. Federal sage-grouse plans not only
ignore Idaho's science and our decades of experience in addressing
these contributing factors, but they will actually make the situation
worse.
Let me explain how this happened. Anti-grazing activists have been
filing lawsuits for decades to list livestock grazing as one of the
threats to the greater sage-grouse. Their theory has been to reduce
AUMs by requiring a minimum stubble height on the range. Their
justification is a completely unproven theory that a minimum stubble
height requirement will help grouse hide from ravens and crows who
predate on sage-grouse nests. Because ravens and crows have been
literally unmanaged for decades due to Federal restrictions on predator
control, their numbers far exceed historic levels. As a result, in many
places, nest predation by ravens and crows is somewhere in the range of
60-90 percent of the sage-grouse nests. So rather than implement
predator control to reduce nest predation, the BLM and Forest Service
adopted unproven stubble height restrictions that will result in fewer
AUMs.
In addition, there are common-sense changes that can be employed in
firefighting protocols. In the process of placating anti-grazing
activists, Federal agencies have made the Number one threat to the
greater sage-grouse in Idaho worse. In fact, these Federal amendments,
if left to stand, will create an explosive wildfire situation
throughout the Great Basin. This shows a lack of common sense and
ignores the threat assessment and the best available science upon which
the states' sage-grouse plans are based.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, since 2014 we have been
meeting with you and your staff regarding the coming disaster of these
Federal sage-grouse plan amendments. The very things which we warned
against were adopted by the BLM and Forest Service. This summer, our
family witnessed the catastrophic wildfire which we had predicted could
occur. More Federal regulation is not helping sage-grouse and their
habitats; in fact, it is hurting. Placating anti-grazing, anti-
sportsmen, and radical anti-use activists is making the situation on
the ground worse for the greater sage-grouse. Good intentions are not
good enough for the people of the West. These plans are bad for the
West, bad for jobs, and bad for sage-grouse.
We are encouraged by Chairman Bishop's sage-grouse legislation.
Western states have invested $750 million to address the needs of sage-
grouse. These state conservation measures need to be respected and
protected. The previous administration's 2015 BLM and Forest Service
sage-grouse plans are misguided at best, catastrophic at worst. These
plans are based on restrictions on human activity rather than
addressing the real threats of pinyon/juniper encroachment, wildfire,
and post-wildfire effects, which account for the greatest challenges to
sage-grouse habitat in the state of Idaho and across the Great Basin.
Instead, these plans seem to be based on the Wyoming and Colorado sage-
grouse plans which do not, and will not, work for Idaho.
This past winter, Governor Butch Otter and I visited congressional
leaders and expressed Idaho's strong support for reversing these
Federal sage-grouse plan amendments and providing congressional
protections for Idaho's conservation measures. For the last 20 years,
sage-grouse populations have been steady or increasing in Idaho and
across the West. We are committed to sage-grouse conservation in the
state of Idaho. For 30 years, radical environmental activists have been
petitioning to list this bird and have been filing lawsuit after
lawsuit. Greater sage-grouse are not endangered. State conservation
plans are working to protect and conserve sage-grouse and their
habitat. It is time to take congressional action to protect the state
plans. Please give the state-based plans a chance and some time to
work. We in Idaho are committed to their success.
Thank you.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Hice to the Honorable Scott
Bedke, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives
The Honorable Scott Bedke did not submit responses to the Committee by
the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. Speaker Bedke, in your testimony, you indicate that
sportsmen and women are not being utilized adequately in the fight to
conserve sage-grouse. This was disappointing to hear as most sportsmen
and women that I know agree that conservation of public lands and
species is important.
Can you expand on that statement and explain why sportsmen and
women are integral to conservation and why you feel this is not
happening in your state?
Question 2. How should sportsmen and women serve as partners in
sage-grouse conservation? What options are available to the average
sportsman to engage in conservation efforts?
______
The Chairman. All right, thank you. I appreciate it. Thank
you for your testimony.
Mr. Bird, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DARIN BIRD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Bird. Thank you. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Grijalva, and members of the Committee, thank you for your kind
invitation for me to appear today. I am appearing on behalf of
Governor Gary Herbert, and ask that a copy of his written
testimony be included as part of the hearing record, as well.
It is easy to come and testify against unpopular Federal
programs; however, that is not my purpose today. I am here to
talk about one of the successes, and what is needed to protect
sage-grouse, western habitats, and hardworking Americans.
Catastrophic wildfire has become a major concern across the
American West. This year the Federal Government has spent $2
billion on wildfire control. This is a new record, and
tremendously burdensome for the American taxpayer.
When it comes to sage-grouse, our Number one concern in the
state of Utah is wildfire. In 2007, Utah experienced a severe
wildfire season. One catastrophic wildfire burned over 300,000
acres in central Utah. As a state, we assessed the problem and
took action. We raised millions of dollars in private and state
funding. Along with our Federal partners, we began to address
the root causes of catastrophic fire in sage-grouse habitats,
and began to restore Utah watersheds.
This program, Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, has
completed hundreds of projects in the last 10 years. Over 500
private, state, and Federal partners have contributed to this
program financially. We have invested over $150 million and
treated approximately 1.3 million acres. In just 9 years, we
have cut the number of wildfire and sage-grouse habitat by 50
percent. We have had almost no catastrophic wildfires in our
sage-grouse habitat.
In fact, the total acres burned since these efforts began
has been one-fifth of what it was before we started these
conservation actions. This has saved 514,552 acres of sage-
grouse habitat in these last 9 years. It has also saved tens of
millions of dollars of wildfire-fighting costs in the state of
Utah. These projects do more than just control fire; they
restore our watersheds, native vegetative communities, and
dramatically enhance habitat for wildlife. These areas are
wetter, produce more runoff, and they dramatically increase the
resilience and redundancy of habitats for sage-grouse.
Our researchers are documenting dramatic, measurable
improvements in habitat utilization, nesting success, and
population response of sage-grouse in these restored areas. By
every measure, this program has become a resounding success for
sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.
I am here to do more than just share a feel-good success
story of a program that is working. I am here to protect these
programs. In 2015, the Obama administration adopted land-use
plan amendments aimed at imposing more regulations on human
activities on millions of acres across the state of Utah. These
Federal sage-grouse plans may be well intentioned, but they are
a threat to the partnerships, funding, and collaboration that
makes Utah's watershed restoration initiative work.
Here is the problem: the state of Utah relies on economic
activity on areas outside of our sage-grouse management areas
to help pay for Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative. These
new regulations have essentially brought much of the new
economic activity in areas outside of Utah's sage-grouse
management areas to a standstill. What this means is that
funding for mitigation, sportsmen, and state tax revenues are
being lost. This threatens the one program, the watershed
initiative, that is doing the most to protect and restore sage-
grouse in the state of Utah.
Good intentions do not make good policy. My earnest
petition is that Congress let the people who are impacted the
most enact the policies needed to protect our families and our
communities. I am asking you to protect a program that is
unrivaled in the Nation. The success of our Watershed
Restoration Initiative in restoring and protecting sage-grouse
is one of the reasons why Utah's legislature passed a nearly
unanimous bipartisan resolution in support of a bill introduced
by Congressman Bishop to protect Utah's sage-grouse
conservation efforts.
Take action and pass legislation that will protect the
proven, on-ground conservation programs that are working for
sage-grouse, sage-grouse habitats, and hard-working Americans.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Darin Bird, Deputy Director, Utah Department Of
Natural Resources
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the
Committee, thank you for the kind invitation to testify today. I am
appearing on behalf of Governor Gary Herbert and kindly ask that a copy
of his written testimony be included as part of the hearing record as
well.
It is easy to come and testify against unpopular Federal programs.
However, that is not my purpose today. I am here to talk about one of
our successes and what is needed to protect sage-grouse, western
habitats, and hardworking Americans.
Catastrophic wildfire has become a major concern across the
American West. This year, the Federal Government has spent $2 billion
on wildfire control. This is a new record and a tremendously burdensome
expenditure for the American taxpayer.
When it comes to sage-grouse, our Number one concern in the state
of Utah is wildfire. In 2007, Utah experienced a severe wildfire
season. One catastrophic wildfire burned over 300,000 acres in central
Utah. As a state, we assessed the problem and took action. We raised
millions of dollars in private and state funding. We began to address
the root causes of catastrophic wildfire in sage-grouse habitats and
began to restore Utah watersheds.
This program, The Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, has
completed hundreds of projects in the last 10 years. Over 500 private,
state, and Federal partners have contributed to this program
financially. We have invested over $160 million and treated
approximately 1.3 million acres. In just 9 years we have cut the number
of wildfires in sage-grouse habitat by 50 percent. We have almost no
catastrophic wildfires in our sage-grouse habitat. In fact, total acres
burned since these efforts began has been one-fifth of what is was
before we started these conservation actions . . . this has saved
514,552 acres of sage-grouse habitat in the last 9 years. It has also
saved tens of millions of dollars in wildfire fighting costs in the
state of Utah.
These projects do more than just control wildfire. They restore our
watersheds, native vegetative communities, and dramatically enhance
habitat for wildlife. These areas are wetter, produce more runoff, and
they dramatically increase the resilience and redundancy of habitats
for sage-grouse. Our researchers are documenting dramatic measurable
improvements in habitat utilization, nesting success, and population
response of sage-grouse in these restored areas.
By every measure, this program has been a resounding success for
sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.
I am here to do more than just share a feel good success story of a
program that is working. I am here to protect these programs. In 2015,
the Obama administration adopted land use plan amendments aimed at
imposing more regulations on human activity on millions of acres across
the state of Utah. These Federal sage-grouse plans may be well
intentioned, but they are a threat to the partnerships, funding, and
collaboration that makes Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative Work.
Here is the problem: the state of Utah relies on economic activity
in areas outside of our Sage Grouse Management Areas to help pay for
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative. These new regulations have
essentially brought much of the new economic activity in areas outside
of Utah's SGMAs to a standstill. What this means is that funding from
mitigation, sportsmen, and state tax revenues are being lost. This
threatens the one program, (i.e. the Watershed Restoration Initiative)
that is doing the most to protect and restore sage-grouse in the state
of Utah.
Good intentions do not make good policy. My earnest petition is
that Congress let the people who are impacted the most enact the
policies needed to protect our families, and our communities. I am
asking you to protect a program that is unrivaled in the Nation.
The success of our Watershed Restoration Initiative in restoring
and protecting sage-grouse is one of the reasons why Utah's legislature
passed a nearly unanimous bipartisan resolution in support of a bill
introduced by Congressman Bishop to protect Utah's sage-grouse
conservation efforts. Take action and pass legislation that to protect
the proven on-the-ground conservation programs that are working for
sage-grouse, sage-grouse habitats, and hardworking Americans.
Thank you very much and I look forward to answering any questions
that you may have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Tubbs.
STATEMENT OF JOHN TUBBS, DIRECTOR, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION, HELENA, MONTANA
Mr. Tubbs. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Grijalva, and members of the Committee. My name is John Tubbs,
and I am the Director of the Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation and the Chairman of the Montana Sage Grouse
Oversight Team. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
Montana's perspective on how Congress and the Administration
can effectively empower state management for the greater sage-
grouse.
I have three main points today. First and foremost, the
states have been and will continue to be empowered if Congress
and the Administration recognize and support the long history
of bipartisan state-led collaboration to conserve the greater
sage-grouse across its range in the West.
States have served as the primary convener of diverse
stakeholders for decades, and have been the primary drivers of
policy initiatives, targeting sage-grouse conservation through
the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the
Western Governors' Association Sage Grouse Task Force. Congress
and the Administration should continue to give deference to
state leadership and should avoid actions that undermine years
of collaborative efforts among our partners.
Montana finalized its most recent plan in 2015. It too is
grounded in the work of diverse stakeholders, and continues
with an all lands/all hands approach. Montana's plan aligns
closely with Wyoming's plan, only with a greater emphasis on
private lands, where most of Montana's best sage-grouse habitat
occurs. It also has a broad bipartisan support of the Montana
State Legislature.
Our stakeholders are directly engaged with our state
program on a regular basis. They continue to express support
for how the Federal plans and state plans work together in
concert toward Montana's common shared goal of precluding the
need to list the greater sage-grouse under the ESA, so that we
maintain authority to manage our lands, our economy, and our
wildlife.
Second, Congress and the Administration can empower states
by avoiding policy changes that foster uncertainty and hold the
potential to land sage-grouse on the Endangered Species Act
list. The conclusion that the sage-grouse did not warrant
listing in 2015 was predicated on the fact that Federal and
state land use plans provide the certainty required to
demonstrate that the threats would be reduced in approximately
90 percent of the breeding habitat and a majority of the
occupied range.
These regulatory mechanisms did not exist in 2010, when it
was determined that a listing was warranted. Congress and the
Administration should avoid changes that undermine the
foundation of the 2015 not-warranted finding, and must consider
how future risks of listing may disproportionately impact
states.
Montana is concerned that the potential changes to Federal
plans may erode the very underpinnings that were critical to
achieving the conservation rangewide of sage-grouse, and that
it was sufficient to avoid listing in 2015. State plans alone
are not sufficient. Montana believes potential legal issues
could arise from taking a hasty and narrow view toward changing
Federal plans. A thoughtful analysis is needed to identify
elements of Federal plans that were necessary to conserve
habitat and that were relied upon by the Service when it
concluded that the listing was not warranted. Any changes that
would undercut the efficacy of the conservation measures to
address threats and measured against the best-available science
should make us pause to reconsider.
Finally, states can be supported by efforts to adaptively
implement land use plans to address changing conditions, use
new science, build consistency across ownerships with state
conservation strategies. The Administration should use all
available tools, including the issuance of guidance,
instruction memoranda, training, and other strategies to build
consistencies. The Administration must exercise due diligence,
and consult with states prior to embarking on the costly, time-
consuming plan amendments.
We spent 3 years developing those plans in Montana,
engaging with our state BLM, multiple years working our state
plan. We are in the process of implementing those plans, and
believe that the next 3 years is most profitable, working
together with our Federal partners toward the 2020 consistency
review by the Service, as opposed to going back into plan
amendment processes.
With that, thank you for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tubbs follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Tubbs, State of Montana, Chairman of the
Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team and Director of Montana Department
of Natural Resources
Good morning Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members
of the Committee. My name is John Tubbs and I serve as Chairman of the
Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team and Director of the Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide Montana's perspectives on how Congress and the
Administration can most effectively empower state management for the
greater sage-grouse.
I have three main points today.
First and foremost, states have been and will continue to be
empowered best if Congress and the Administration recognize and support
the long history of bipartisan, state-led collaboration to conserve
greater sage-grouse across its range in the West. States have served as
the primary convener of diverse stakeholders for decades and have been
the primary drivers of policy initiatives targeting sage-grouse
conservation through executive action and through the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Western Governors'
Association Sage Grouse Task Force. Congress and the Administration
should continue to give deference to state leadership and should avoid
actions that undermine years of collaborative efforts among our
partners.
Second, Congress and the Administration can best empower states by
avoiding policy changes that foster uncertainty and hold potential to
land sage-grouse on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) list. The
conclusion that sage-grouse did not warrant listing in 2015 was
predicated on the fact that Federal and state land use plans provided
the certainty required to demonstrate that threats would be reduced in
approximately 90 percent of the breeding habitat and the majority of
occupied range. These regulatory mechanisms did not exist in 2010 when
it was determined that listing was warranted. Congress and the
Administration should avoid changes that undermine the foundation of
the 2015 not warranted finding and must consider how future risk of a
listing may disproportionately impact states.
Finally, states can be supported by efforts to adaptively implement
land use plans to address changing conditions, use new science and
build consistency across ownerships with state conservation strategies.
The Administration should use all available tools including the
issuance of guidance, instructional memoranda, trainings and other
strategies to build consistency. The Administration must exercise due
diligence and meaningfully consult with states prior to embarking on
costly and time consuming plan amendments that may spark litigation or
new petitions for an Endangered Species Act listing. Congress should
avoid changes that limit the flexibility of Federal agencies to resolve
conflicts when and where they occur under the Federal plans.
1. States will continue to be empowered if Congress and the
Administration recognize and support the long history of states'
bipartisan collaboration to conserve greater sage-grouse
Montana has a long history of bipartisan collaboration to conserve
greater sage-grouse and their habitats. Montana sportsmen, resource
managers, landowners and other conservation interests have been
concerned about the status of sage-grouse as far back as the 1950s.
Similar concerns across the West crystallized in a formal Memorandum of
Understanding signed by Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Member
Agencies and Federal natural resource management agencies in 2000. Each
state committed to convene a work group and craft a plan.
Montana adopted its first formal Greater Sage Grouse Management
Plan in 2005. It was the product of a diverse working group that
included representatives of Federal and state agencies, tribal
representatives, private organizations, and the public. The Plan
charted a path to achieve long-term conservation and enhancement of
sagebrush steppe that would support not only sage-grouse, but people
and other wildlife. It created local working groups. As importantly, it
provided for coordinated management across jurisdictional boundaries
and development of community support to balance conservation with
social, cultural, and community values.
New science, coupled with new or expanded potential threats to
sage-grouse habitat and populations and litigation prompted Montana to
update its original 2005 plan. Early in 2013, following efforts in
Wyoming and other states, Governor Bullock issued Executive Order 2-
2013 creating a diverse citizen-based advisory council. The council was
directed to gather information, furnish advice, and provide
recommendations for a state-wide strategy to preclude the need to list
the greater sage-grouse under the ESA.
Private landowners, conservation groups, industry, and state and
Federal partners worked together intensively for nearly a year. After
extensive public comment and meetings around the state, the council
finalized their recommendations. Governor Bullock issued Executive
Order 10-2014 in 2014 based on their work.
Recognizing the value of proactive stewardship and conservation, in
2015 the Montana Legislature passed the Greater Sage Grouse Stewardship
Act (Stewardship Act) by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, codifying
many of the recommendations of the advisory council. The Legislature
created the Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team, which has met regularly
since fall, 2015. Separately, the Montana Legislature appropriated
funding to implement Montana's Sage Grouse Program and encourage
voluntary conservation of private lands to address threats. In fact,
Montana has committed $10 million toward private land conservation. In
partnership with others thus far, Montana will have protected 72,000
acres of private land from the threat of cultivation. Additional
conservation measures have been implemented on private lands through
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.
Governor Bullock issued Executive Order 12-2015 later in 2015 to
address additional program needs. Taken together, Executive Order 12-
2015 and the Stewardship Act comprise Montana's Conservation Strategy
(or State Plan). Montana's plan aligns closely with Wyoming's plan,
only with a greater emphasis on private lands where most of Montana's
best sage-grouse habitat occurs.
Montana has nearly 1,000 leks and an estimated 18 percent of the
total greater sage-grouse population and nearly 20 percent of the
rangewide habitat; however, about 78 percent of the occupied range is
in state, tribal and private landownership. Only 22 percent of the
occupied range is federally owned and managed in Montana.
Montana takes an ``all lands/all hands'' approach to sage-grouse
conservation because private lands and state trust lands are
intermingled with Federal lands in a checkerboard fashion. By working
with private landowners, conservation groups, industry, and Federal
agencies, Montana has found a path forward that conserves working
landscapes and that supports sage-grouse, other wildlife, agriculture,
economic opportunities for industry, and outdoor recreation.
Diverse stakeholders have been at the table every step of the way
in Montana. They lobbied extensively in support of the Stewardship Act
in 2015 and continue to be directly engaged with Montana's Sage Grouse
Program on a regular basis. Moreover, they continue to testify before
the Montana Legislature and various interim committees to support
Montana's sage-grouse conservation efforts to this day. They also
express support for how the Federal plans and the State Plan work
together and in concert toward Montana's common, shared goal:
maintaining authority to manage our lands, our economy, and our
wildlife.
Similar collaborative efforts occurred in other western states, and
governors have led the way. Along with local citizens and Federal
partners, states have forged a path that balances economic opportunity
with conservation. States are committed to maintaining the state and
Federal conservation efforts developed at the local level, which when
taken together, will preclude the need to list sage-grouse under ESA
across its range.
Meaningful consultation and coordination between states and the
Federal Government has been a hallmark of this effort. Governors have
consistently demanded that the Department of the Interior offer direct
and meaningful consultation opportunities given states' track record,
the commitments of our partners, and the leadership role and
responsibility states have for managing wildlife. Those expectations
have been the same, regardless of the administration.
Given decades of bipartisan work, Congress and the Administration
must continue to stand behind and respect state efforts and avoid
actions that unnecessarily polarize the collaborative work of our
partners. States have consistently requested the Department of the
Interior work hand in hand with the Western Governors Sage Grouse Task
Force. Only the governors can speak for whether this consultation is
adequate. Future policy actions must be developed in concert with the
states--top down approaches from Washington, DC, whatever their
intentions, must not be pursued under the guise of state empowerment.
2. States will continue to be empowered if Congress and the
Administration avoid policy changes that foster uncertainty and hold
potential to disproportionately impact individual states
In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service)
identified habitat loss, fragmentation, and the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms to address threats as the key factors leading to
the determination that ESA protections for the greater sage-grouse were
warranted. Populations had been in decline for decades and some local
populations had been extirpated.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 80 Fed. Reg. 59858, 59870 (Oct. 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September of 2015, the Service concluded that the primary
threats were ameliorated by conservation efforts implemented by
Federal, state, and private landowners. Regulatory mechanisms were
adopted in three state plans and in the Federal land use plans,
incorporating conservation principles identified by the scientific
experts to substantially reduce risks through avoidance and
minimization measures at a landscape scale.\2\ These efforts were
complimented by voluntary conservation efforts on private lands by
individual landowners, the NRCS Sage Grouse Initiative, and Candidate
Conservation Agreements with Assurances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 80 Fed. Reg. 59858, 59874-59882 (Oct. 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Along with Wyoming and Oregon, Montana is one of the three states
that adopted affirmative regulatory mechanisms that addressed threats
to sage-grouse. In contrast, other states adopted primarily voluntary
state plans. Federal land use plans filled the gaps across the West
through sage-grouse specific provisions and land use allocations.
Federal land use plans provided the high degree of certainty required
to demonstrate that threats would be reduced across approximately 90
percent of the breeding habitat and the majority of occupied range
because common elements were included across the range which avoided
and minimized disturbance in the remaining large priority blocks of
habitat, while also providing management flexibility in areas that are
less critical for conservation.\3\ The Federal plans and state plans
from Wyoming, Oregon, and Montana provide protective, regulatory
mechanisms for the majority of the most important habitat for sage-
grouse. All told, the Montana, Wyoming and Oregon plans provide
assurances for over 56 million acres of occupied range on state, tribal
and privately-owned lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 80 Fed. Reg. 59858, 59874-59882, 59928, 59931, 59934 (Oct.
2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 not warranted finding relies on the foundation of both the
state and Federal plans. The regulatory nature of state plans from
Wyoming, Oregon, and Montana provided the greatest degree of certainty
in addressing threats on state and private lands and were complemented
by other state plan efforts, and the voluntary work of NRCS with
private landowners. The Federal plans provided new regulatory
mechanisms on over half of the occupied sage-grouse range that did not
exist in 2010 when listing was warranted and sage-grouse became a
candidate for listing.\4\ The new sage-grouse measures and land use
allocations adequately addressed threats, and through common elements,
conserved the most important habitats across the range of the
species.\5\ All states benefited from the Federal plans contributing to
habitat conservation and threat abatement in consistent ways across the
range, regardless of whether individual state plans were regulatory or
voluntary. This is because the Service analyzed the adequacy of habitat
conservation measures, threats, and the combined effect of state and
Federal regulatory mechanisms at a landscape scale and rangewide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 80 Fed. Reg. 59858, 59873-59882, 59928 (Oct. 2, 2015).
\5\ See 80 Fed. Reg. 59858, 59874-59882, 59928, 59931, 59934-59936
(Oct. 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana believes there are potential legal issues that could arise
from taking a hasty and narrow view toward changing Federal plans.
First, a thoughtful analysis is needed to identify elements of the
Federal plans that were necessary to conserve habitat through avoidance
and minimization measures in key habitats across the range and that
were relied upon by the Service when it concluded that listing was not
warranted in 2015. Any changes that would undercut the efficacy of
conservation measures to address threats, as measured against the best
available science, should give us pause to reconsider. Sage-grouse do
not tolerate habitat loss and fragmentation very well, nor are they
good pioneers. The science is unambiguous in that regard.
Second, the sum of changes within individual states must be
analyzed when they are aggregated up to a landscape scale and across
the range. If the aggregate of changes undercuts that which is
necessary to address threats adequately and sustain sage-grouse into
the future, then litigation is not only certain, but a listing is also
likely. Here, Montana again stresses the need for due diligence and
meaningful consultation prior to moving forward.
Montana is very concerned that potential changes to Federal plans
may erode the very underpinnings that were critical to achieving
conservation rangewide and that was sufficient to avoid a listing in
2015. State plans alone are not, and will not ever be, adequate.
Montana did however identify a number of areas where plans could be
improved as part of our governor's consistency review. To date, those
issues have been addressed through administrative arrangements not
requiring plan amendment at the state level. Shortsighted, piecemeal
changes to Federal plans (individually or collectively) would be a step
back in time to the days when management was focused on administrative
boundaries alone, not natural resources on a landscape scale. Piecemeal
changes could impact and fragment larger blocks of known valuable
habitat, and as a result, could lead to population declines and
eventual listing. Montana would be disproportionately impacted by such
a result.
Montana's most valuable sage-grouse habitats occur on private
lands. In fact, 66 percent of Montana's sage-grouse habitat is
privately owned. That's 21,582,000 acres. An additional 2.2 million
acres of sage-grouse habitat is state trust land. All told, about 75
percent of Montana's sage-grouse live on private and state trust lands.
For generations, Montana ranchers have knit together grazing
opportunities on private, state, and Federal lands to sustain their
families and the integrity of the land.
The impacts to private landowners and Montana's economy if sage-
grouse were listed would be severe, in both regulatory and pragmatic
ways. Montana's private landowners should not be forced to carry the
burden for more than their fair share of the stewardship responsibility
to preclude or respond to an ESA listing.
Habitat conservation for sage-grouse translates to habitat for big
game. Montana has a deep tradition of hunting on both public and
private lands. Big game hunting in Montana contributes $324 million
annually to the Montana economy. In counties that contain designated
sage-grouse habitats, big game hunters spend over $113.5 million
annually when hunting Montana's checkerboard landscape.\6\ For these 38
rural counties, hunter expenditures have significant and positive
impacts on local economies. Montana's motto of ``think habitat''
applies equally to sage-grouse and big game. The state recognizes the
synergies between sage-grouse conservation, maintaining working
ranchlands, and supporting our hunting heritage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (2016); see https://
mtfwp.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/
index.html?appid=0fa1de4222074cdeb7dbf0710ecb2ee0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sagebrush habitats in the West support over 300 other wildlife
species, any one of which could be in trouble and heading for the ESA
emergency room. We have limited data for most of these species, but are
confident that addressing threats to sage-grouse through habitat
conservation will take care of them, too.
Congress and this Administration can empower states by fully
funding Federal agencies to implement their missions and respective
land management plans. The existing Federal plans account for the
complexity of managing millions of acres at a landscape scale and
endeavor to balance multiple use mandates with conservation. This work
is expensive, but critical to sustaining future energy development and
outdoor recreation over the long haul. Farm Bill conservation programs
remain critical to sage-grouse conservation on working lands and must
continue to receive adequate funding.
3. States can be supported by efforts to adaptively implement land use
plans to address changing conditions, use the best available science
and build consistency across ownerships with state conservation
strategies
In July of 2015, Montana voiced a number of concerns regarding
potential issues with the BLM sage-grouse plans in our governor's
consistency review letter. We continue to see the need for improvement
and consistency in some areas. However, we have also learned a lot in
the first 2 years of implementing the state and Federal plans. Many
issues flagged at the outset in 2015 have either not materialized or
have not proven to be insurmountable. We have found ways to address
them administratively and expect to find new ways in the future.
For example, Montana BLM now implements Montana's disturbance cap
threshold of 5 percent. This has been or soon will be institutionalized
through a new Instructional Memorandum from the BLM State Office. The
state and Montana BLM now take the same analytic approach to range
improvement projects. Going even further, conversations have already
begun in Montana about increasing training and collaboration between
BLM and livestock producers. This would ensure consistent and effective
implementation of the plans while also providing needed flexibility for
local managers to implement science-based management at the local site
scale in an ecologically meaningful way that's appropriate for Montana
habitats. It also provides certainty for ranching families. Federal
land use plans were always expected to evolve based on changing needs
and circumstances. We have already seen that in Montana, and we will
continue to adapt and resolve issues locally in the future. A
commitment to flexibly address conflicts when and where they occur is a
cornerstone of Montana's Greater Sage Grouse Plan and has proven to be
a tenant that has been supported by our Federal agency partners.
Nonetheless, there are areas where alignment could still be
improved. But it is equally important that we analyze and exhaust the
full range of administrative tools to address inconsistencies and
resolve conflicts before resorting to lengthy, costly plan amendments
under NEPA. Once more, it is equally important that we ensure that any
new proposed changes to the Federal sage-grouse plans not create
further inconsistencies with state policy. Top down policy from
Washington, DC holds potential to further exacerbate the
inconsistencies with state and Federal efforts rather than resolve
them.
Montana believes the most efficient approach to address concerns is
to look at the full spectrum of tools, ranging from public outreach to
staff training, instructional memoranda at the national and state
levels, and maintenance actions to existing plans. In short, we can
best move forward by refining the existing plans. It is imperative that
we avoid prolonged and unnecessary work that would unravel the
foundation of the 2015 ``not warranted'' finding to the point that we
all risk a result we worked so hard to avoid. Adaptive implementation
of the plans can reduce uncertainty for our partners, industry, and
working ranch families who take care of the land and the wildlife on
our behalf and can help address inconsistencies efficiently. While
properly vetted, limited plan amendments may be needed to address
concerns over time, Montana believes most conflicts can be addressed in
the near term through other means.
Thank you for the opportunity to share Montana's perspective. We
look forward to continuing our work with Congress and the
Administration to improve certainty, address inconsistencies with state
policy through adaptive actions, and support the collaboration among
diverse partners that resulted in the 2015 not warranted finding.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Grijalva to Mr. John Tubbs,
Director of Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Question 1. Wildfire is a concern throughout greater sage-grouse
habitat. Secretary Jewell issued Secretary Order 3336 in 2015 to
address this concern and develop, in partnership with Federal and state
agencies, working guidelines and plans that break the cycle of
spreading invasive, non-native grasses after wildfires. In 2016,
Jewell's Interior Department issued the Integrated Rangeland Fire
Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan. Do you believe Secretary
Jewell's response was timely and appropriate? Do you believe it would
be wise to stick with this approach rather than roll it back or
substitute range management that is not based on sound science? Can you
discuss these wildfire planning efforts and what is being done across
the West to restore the sagebrush ecosystem?
Answer. Yes. The Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy
(Strategy) and the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy
Actionable Science Plan (Science Plan) represent affirmative actions
that can be taken by local, state, and Federal agencies to address
wildfire, which is a primary threat to sagebrush ecosystems. The threat
of habitat loss and fragmentation due to wildfire is particularly acute
and serious in the Great Basin.
Development of both the Strategy and the Science Plan was timely,
appropriate, and essential to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) 2015 determination that listing the Greater Sage Grouse (GRSG)
was not warranted.\1\ Without these documents, there would be little,
if any, coordinated and dedicated approach to addressing the
significant and stochastic wildfire threat that evades all state and
Federal regulatory mechanisms. Ongoing implementation and adaptive
refinement should continue in the future. The Strategy is proactive and
has utility throughout the West, not just states with greater sage-
grouse populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 80 Fed. Reg. 59858, 59906-59908 (Oct. 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildfire kills sagebrush and results in the direct loss of
sagebrush habitat upon which GRSG depend. In 2010, the USFWS identified
wildfire as one of the primary factors linked to GRSG declines due to
the long-term loss of sagebrush and conversion of sagebrush steppe
habitats to invasive annual grasses such as cheatgrass. At that time,
USFWS determined that GRSG warranted listing under the Endangered
Species Act.
Fire intensity and frequency had been increasing due to the
establishment of a positive feedback loop between increasing wildfires,
elimination of sagebrush, and subsequent invasion and establishment of
cheatgrass--which itself acts as a fine fire fuel leading to increased
fire intensity and frequency and further precluding re-establishment of
sagebrush. Development of the Strategy and Science Plan was in direct
response to the 2010 finding, which identified the lack of any
integrated fire strategy and concluded that gaps in scientific
knowledge were problematic.
The USFWS relied on the Strategy and Science Plan documents, as
well as their implementation, when analyzing the threat of habitat loss
and fragmentation due to wildfire in order to reach its conclusion that
listing was not warranted in 2015.
Addressing the threat of wildfire and annual invasive grasses is
vital to long-term GRSG conservation. This is clearly set forth in the
USFWS administrative record going back at least 10 to 15 years. The
negative impacts of fire on GRSG and its sagebrush habitat are also
long supported in the scientific, peer-reviewed literature.
For example, in the absence of the Strategy and Science Plan and
under the current burn rates, about 17-25 percent of GRSG range within
the Great Basin could be impacted in the next 20-30 years. Without
affirmatively managing wildfire response and restoration, wildfire and
invasive plants could cause GRSG abundance to decline by 43 percent
over the next 30 years.\2\ This has important implications for long-
term conservation of the species over a significant portion of its
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 80 Fed. Reg. 59858, 59900 (Oct. 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Strategy outlined a long-term approach to better prevent and
suppress wildfire through improved efficiency and efficacy of response
and restoration of fire-impacted areas. Even while maintaining the
safety of firefighters and preserving the efficiency of operations, the
Strategy prioritized the protection, conservation, and restoration of
the sagebrush steppe ecosystems particularly for GRSG.
Quite simply, states and Federal agencies share a common goal to
reduce the size, severity and cost of rangeland wildfires. The Strategy
concluded that a coordinated, science-based adaptive management
approach was needed. One of the action items specifically called for
enhancing the capability, capacity, and utilization of non-Federal
wildlife fire assets and organizations so that local communities were
in a better position to provide local protection. Rural Fire Protection
Associations were specifically mentioned. The Strategy also called for
a coordinated approach to positioning fire-management resources to
improve fire response and post-fire restoration actions.
The Strategy also identified the need for and recommended
development of an actionable science plan to improve knowledge, reduce
uncertainty and provide better tools for local communities, livestock
grazing permittees, and on-the-ground fire and natural resource
managers.
The Science Plan was completed in 2016. It was developed by a
multi-disciplinary team comprised of state and Federal experts in their
respective fields. The document: (1) prioritizes research needs to fill
current knowledge gaps; (2) connects scientists with fire and natural
resource managers so managers can make informed decisions and achieve
management objectives; and (3) creates a process to fund the needed
science, implement research, and communicate results.
Specifically, the Science Plan prioritized a total of 37 science
needs--areas where more research is needed: 8 are specific to fire; 6
are specific to invasives; 10 are related to restoration; 9 are
specific to sagebrush and GRSG; and 4 that are related to climate and
weather. A key emphasis of the Science Plan is to get information and
tools to on-the-ground fire and land managers so they can make better
decisions and achieve better outcomes with, and on behalf of, local
communities. One example where new science has direct application to
management is a recent study that found that annual wildfire risk
across the Great Basin can be modeled and predicted based on
precipitation patterns alone (e.g. consecutive wet years followed by
consecutive dry years). This information can be applied ahead of each
fire season to adjust wildfire preparedness or plan fuel treatments as
appropriate.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Pilliod, D.S., Welty, J.L. and Arkle, R.S. 2017. Refining
the cheatgrass-fire cycle in the Great Basin: precipitation timing and
fine fuel composition predict wildfire trends. Ecology and Evolution,
1-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to invasives, annual exotic grasses like cheatgrass
are more prevalent in the Great Basin than the Rocky Mountain
States.\4\ Absent cheatgrass, many sagebrush ecosystems have
experienced frequent fire return intervals but exhibited resilience to
mixed-severity fires common across the West. Range management through
livestock grazing alone, even if it were infallible, will not be
sufficient to address habitat loss and fragmentation due to wildfire at
the necessary scale. Wildfire risk is compounded by unfavorable soil
and moisture regimes regionally, due to low resistance to fire in the
first instance, as well as by growing conditions at localized scales in
any given year. In addition to well-managed grazing practices,
eradication of invasives such as cheatgrass and restoration of native
species is required to foster resilience to changing conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 80 Fed. Reg. 59858, 59898-59900 (Oct. 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An estimated 2,070,451 acres of GRSG burned in 2017 across the 11
western states. In Nevada alone, approximately 965,567 acres burned.
The total number of acres burned rangewide in 2017 is up substantially
from 2016 (626,268 acres) and 2015 (562,734 acres). It unrealistic to
think that grazing regimes can effectively reverse soil moisture
patterns, improve resistance to fire, and align weather and climatic
trends to neutralize the fact that large portions of GRSG range is
already predisposed to significant wildfire, particularly in the Great
Basin.
About 54 percent of GRSG breeding habitat in substantial portions
of Nevada and Utah is classified as having a low resistance to wildfire
and invasion by exotic species. Range management at that scale is not
commensurate with the response necessary to truly address the threat of
more frequent and intense wildfire.
Ameliorating the risk of habitat loss and fragmentation due to
wildfire at the scale necessary to ensure that listing is never
warranted requires a more direct, concerted approach--like the Strategy
and the Science Plan. Continued implementation of both the Strategy and
the Science Plan is needed to reduce future losses of sagebrush
habitats, successfully restore that which does burn, and to break the
cheatgrass invasion-wildfire cycle. To be successful at addressing the
primary threat of wildfire, managers need to make scientifically
informed decisions. These documents are scientifically sound.
Last, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) National Forest and
Rangeland Management Initiative was launched in July 2016 under Montana
Governor Steve Bullock's tenure as Chair. This Initiative will
ultimately lead to valuable administrative and legislative
recommendations for improving forest and rangeland management. The
goals of the initiative are to:
Examine existing forest and rangeland management
authorities and programs to determine their strengths and
weaknesses;
Perform a detailed investigation of the role of
collaboratives in landscape restoration;
Create a mechanism for states and land managers to share
best practices, case studies, and policy options for forest
and rangeland management; and
Recommend improved forest and rangeland management
authorities and encourage more effective collaboration.
A Report was issued in June of 2017.\5\ Based upon the input from
state and Federal land managers, private landowners, local governments,
businesses and non-governmental organizations, WGA sought to identify
best practices and offer recommendations that put western states on a
path toward healthier, more resilient ecosystems, while continuing to
support diverse economic opportunities for western communities. The
Report's findings and recommendations speak to many of the same themes
raised in the Strategy document: the need for improved collaboration
and coordination with respect to regional land management challenges
and opportunities for restoration. The Report also calls for the
application of the best available science. The Science Plan charts a
path to fill important knowledge gaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Special Report: Western Governors' National Forest and
Rangeland Management Initiative. June 2017 (available at: http: / /
westgov.org/reports/national-forest-and-rangeland-management-
initiative-special-report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Initiative's second year, Western Governors will be
primarily focused on the implementation of recommendations in the First
Year Report, within their own states, collaboratively through WGA and
with the U.S. Congress. Opportunities to further refine the Integrated
Rangeland Fire Management Strategy and the Actionable Science Plan may
be identified.
Question 2. A 2013 study conducted by scientists at Oregon State
University and published in the Journal of Applied Ecology found that
``cattle grazing reduces invasion resistance [to cheatgrass]'' and
``exacerbates [cheatgrass] dominance in one of North America's must
endangered ecosystems''--the sagebrush steppe. In light of that fact,
do you agree with other witnesses that increased grazing is the best
way to reduce cheatgrass invasions and wildfire potential?
Answer. No. Historically speaking, improper grazing and severe
drought affected the sagebrush ecosystem and GRSG habitat across the
West. Grazing that was inconsistent with local ecological conditions,
coupled with other disturbance pressures reduced the vigor of native
rangeland plants and resistance to invasion by exotic annual species
like cheatgrass. Long-term changes in plant communities and soils
resulted so that exotic annual grasses like cheatgrass flourished.
These shifts permanently changed the ecological trajectory of
rangelands that were historically overgrazed because thresholds of
recovery by native perennial species were crossed. The entire plant
community structure shifted. Now, these areas are more prone to
wildfire, as discussed above.
Carefully prescribed livestock grazing in the spring or late fall
may be effective in controlling cheatgrass in small, localized areas.
This is in combination with other methods of control. The goal is to
prevent cheatgrass from producing seeds while at the same time not
impacting desirable native perennial vegetation through overgrazing.
Preventing seed production should reduce the number of seeds in the
soil overall, as seeds only remain viable for about 2 to 3 years. Also,
maintaining the vigor of desirable perennial species and preventing
soil disturbance helps prevent cheatgrass invasion and expansion.
However, a blanket increase in grazing is not the best way to
reduce cheatgrass invasions and potential for wildfire. This is because
cheatgrass is only palatable as livestock forage during the early
spring green-up period, not season long. After a certain point in the
growing season, it is no longer suitable for livestock grazing and
livestock may then overgraze desirable species. Once grazed,
cheatgrass' residual growth (from early spring through to when seeds
are set and the plant cures) will eventually become the fine fuel which
carries wildfire.
The upshot is that cheatgrass is not palatable forage for a long
enough period of time, nor can it be grazed intensively enough to
actually reduce the frequency of fire, its intensity, or its behavior.
Quite the opposite is true. Cheatgrass thrives in disturbance. The
greater the disturbance, the more it thrives. The relationship between
fire frequency, intensity, and behavior and cheatgrass cannot be
explained alone, nor will it be strongly influenced by, livestock
grazing at the scales necessary for conservation of sagebrush
landscapes and GRSG. As noted above, as cheatgrass abundance increases,
wildfires become more frequent and more intense. Native perennial
rangeland plant species are lost eventually, leaving a near monoculture
of cheatgrass, ripe for recurring wildfires.
Rather than a blanket increase in grazing, most rangeland
management and noxious weed professionals recommend targeted grazing to
avoid negative impacts to livestock performance and range conditions
and further recommend that targeted grazing be complemented with an
integrated strategy for invasive control and restoration. Careful,
targeted grazing is one tool among many that may help reduce the
impacts of invasive species and wildfire.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Now Mr. Goicoechea, who is not
only a Commission Chairman, but also, I think, Chairman of the
Ecosystem Council in Nevada.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. J.J. GOICOECHEA, DVM, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
EUREKA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, EUREKA, NEVADA
Dr. Goicoechea. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva,
and members of the Committee, my name is Dr. J.J. Goicoechea,
and I am a fourth-generation cattle producer from Eureka,
Nevada. I am the current Vice Chair of the National Cattlemen's
Beef Association Federal Lands Committee, and the Chairman of
the Eureka County Board of County Commissioners. It is a
pleasure to testify before you today regarding empowering
state-based management for the greater sage-grouse.
A fundamental question before us today is what is being
done today at local and state levels that benefits the recovery
of the greater sage-grouse. It should be no surprise that
western states are actively implementing plans within their
respective borders that are having positive impacts on
habitats.
In 2013, Nevada took a major step in providing for the
management and recovery of the greater sage-grouse. The
creation of the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council by the
Nevada Legislature during that session demonstrated Nevada's
commitment to the long-term management of the sagebrush
ecosystem and the species that rely upon it. These species
include the multiple-use industries dependent upon those same
ecosystems for their survival.
Nevada, like most other western states, developed a state-
specific plan for the conservation of the greater sage-grouse.
It contained state-specific goals and objectives, and was
intended to be the preferred alternative for the 2015 Nevada,
Northeastern California land use plan amendment. Instead, a
broader cookie-cutter approach was taken by the Federal
agencies. In an attempt to find consistency in the West, the
Department of the Interior greatly overlooked the fact that no
two states are exactly alike, no two states have the exact same
threats and impacts.
The arbitrary designation of millions of acres of sagebrush
focal areas and further restricting the very activities that
made these areas the best of the best is an example of over-
reach and a top-down approach to management that has failed in
the past, and will only harm populations of sage-grouse if left
in place.
Similar to my counterparts, the major threats in Nevada to
the greater sage-grouse are fire and invasive species. Nevada
is working diligently with the BLM in an attempt to limit the
size and severity of wildfires in our state, and to better
manage invasive species. But we continue to encounter hurdles
as we work to decrease invasive annual grass.
The vast majority of these hurdles at the district office
level arise from the 2015 LUPAs, including the habitat
objectives contained in Table 2.2. This table, while perhaps
ideally what sage-grouse would like to have for habitat, is
being used as nothing more than a tool to further limit
multiple use on Federal lands, and in the process is allowing
for fuel loading and the continued spread of invasive species.
This last summer, a prime example of this occurred in
Nevada. A ranching operation asked for a period of time to
leave their cattle on beyond their permit, due to an increased
fuel load from two back-to-back record winners. The request was
denied, the cattle were moved, and on July 9 at 4:00 p.m. in
the afternoon the Rooster Comb Fire ignited. Before it was
contained, 220,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat had burned in
Elko, Lander, and Eureka Counties.
While the birds in that area of the Rooster Comb Fire may
have ideally wanted 7 inches of deep-rooted perennials and 25
percent forb cover, today they have 220,000 acres of zero
cover, no perennial plants, and another attempt to restore
burned habitat begins with the issuance of livestock grazing
closures for that area.
As you can see from my written testimony, Nevada is clearly
aware of the threats to our state. We are committed to helping
our Federal land management partners, and we have the statutory
authority within the Sage Brush Ecosystem Council to coordinate
with Federal agencies. The creation of the Nevada State Plan
was an example of collaboration and coordination among all
groups.
If there is still a perception that there is a lack of
regulatory mechanism in place for protecting the greater sage-
grouse, let me say it is not a lack of regulatory mechanisms,
it is the wrong regulatory mechanisms. Why don't we listen to
state and local officials that implement plans that were
developed at the ground level?
The top-down approach has squeezed public land industries,
all while continuing to lose sensitive habitats and imperil
wildlife species. If the true goal is conservation, put it back
in the hands of those closest to the land. If the goal instead
is to remove economic drivers from rural communities and there
is no desire to protect habitats, then we can continue on the
path that we are on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goicoechea follows:]
Prepared Statement of Julian Joseph (J.J.) Goicoechea on behalf of
Public Lands Council, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, and Eureka County
Nevada
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is J.J. Goicoechea and I am a fourth generation
cattle producer from Eureka, Nevada. I am a past president of the
Nevada Cattlemen's Association and currently serve on the Executive
Committee for that organization and I am the current Vice-Chair of the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association Federal Lands Committee. In
addition, I am in my second term as a Eureka County Nevada Commissioner
and currently serve as chairman of the board. In 2013 I was appointed
to represent Local Government on the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council
and last year I was reappointed to a second term. I have been honored
to serve as the chairman of the SEC since its creation. It is a
pleasure to testify before you today regarding empowering state based
management for the greater sage-grouse.
A fundamental question before us today is what is being done at the
local and state levels now that benefits the ``recovery'' of the
greater sage-grouse. It should be no surprise that western states are
actively implementing plans within their respective states that are
having positive impacts on habitats. In 2013, Nevada took a major step
in providing for the management and recovery of the greater sage-
grouse. The creation of the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council by the
Nevada Legislature during the 2013 regular session demonstrated
Nevada's commitment to the long-term management of the sagebrush
ecosystem and the species that rely upon it. These species include the
multi-use industries that rely upon this same ecosystem for their
survival. Nevada Revised Statute 232.162, the chapter establishing the
Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council, reads in part;
7. The Council shall:
(a) Consider the best science available in its determinations
regarding and conservation of the greater sage grouse
(Centrocerus urophasianus) and sagebrush ecosystems in this
State;
(b) Establish and carry out strategies for:
(1) The conservation of the greater sage grouse and sagebrush
ecosystems in this State;
(h) Coordinate and facilitate discussion among persons, federal
and state agencies, and local government concerning the
maintenance of sagebrush ecosystems and the conservation of the
greater sage-grouse;
Nevada, much like most other western states, developed a State Plan
for the conservation of the greater sage-grouse. This plan, entitled
the 2014 Nevada Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan was adopted
October 1, 2014 and updated April and May of 2015. The Nevada plan
contains specific goals and objectives for Nevada. It also identified
state specific threats to the greater sage-grouse and the sagebrush
ecosystem. The Nevada plan was intended to be the preferred alternative
in the 2015 Nevada and Northeastern California Land Use Plan Amendment
by the Bureau of Land Management. Instead, a broader cookie cutter
approach was taken by the Federal agencies. In an attempt to find
``consistency'' in the West, the Department of the Interior greatly
overlooked the fact that no two states are exactly alike, no two states
have the exact same threats and impacts. Even within states, the
threats vary among geography location, elevation, and land management
agencies, etc. In addition, many habitats and populations of sage-
grouse are stable. A robust plan should include the protection of these
areas and birds in addition to providing lift to others in need. The
arbitrary designation of millions of acres as Sagebrush Focal Areas and
further restricting the very activities that made these areas the best
of best is an example of over-reach and a top down approach to
management that has failed in the past and will only harm populations
of sage-grouse if left in place. At no time did the state of Nevada
endorse or advocate for a special land designation. The Sagebrush
Ecosystem Council recognizes the importance of quality habitat and is
ultimately responsible for its protection and enhancement. Restricting
activities lessens the value of credits created in Nevada's
Conservation Credit System and actually deters enrollment in protective
actions that would benefit the sage-grouse for generations.
Nevada can't carry out our own legislatively mandated management of
sage-grouse and habitat in our state because the Federal agencies
elected to once again take a heavy handed top down approach to
management. Wildlife is the responsibility of the state in which they
reside. If a species is not on the Endangered Species List, it should
be the state making decisions for the species.
The major threats to the GS in Nevada are fire and invasive species
that often invade the ecosystem after fire. Nevada is working
diligently with the BLM in an attempt to limit the size and severity of
wildland fires in our state and to better manage invasive species. We
continue to encounter hurdles as we work to decrease fuel loading
invasive annual grass seed loads. The vast majority of these hurdles at
the District Office level arise from the 2015 LUPAs. Habitat objectives
for the GS included in the LUPAs are a recipe for disaster when
considering their impacts on fire behavior. Grazing allotments in SG
habitat need to meet the objectives contained in Table 2.2. This table,
while perhaps ideally what SG would like to have for habitat is nothing
more than a tool to further limit multiple use on Federal lands, and in
the process allow for fuel loading and the continues spread of invasive
species. How can the driest state in the Nation address its top threat
to SG, fire, when a table being used by BLM employees to manage lands
is defining habitat as having a minimum of 7 inches of droop height.
When managing for a native deep rooted perineal plant to have 7 inches
of height in the summer months, what do you think we are also managing
for?
It is no secret that cheatgrass is the Number one invasive plant
threat in Nevada today. Cheatgrass greens up early, ahead of native
perineal plants and takes the nutrients and water from the soil before
the native plants growing season. As we wait idly by with our rulers
and yard sticks, hoping the native grasses get to 7 inches, hoping we
maintain a canopy cover of shrubs for nesting, we are allowing gasoline
to grow unchecked. By June, the cheatgrass is over a foot tall in
places, it is cured, meaning seed heads have developed, it is no longer
palatable to animals and it waves in the wind waiting for a spark. When
the spark comes, Nevada's Number one threat to sage-grouse and sage-
grouse habitat once again devastates the ecosystem. Fires of 200,000
acres plus gobble up islands of previously unburned habitat and
annihilate restoration efforts in old burn scars. We are seeing the
same areas burn again and again. What is the first step taken when this
happens? Remove the one tool that could have prevented severity of the
fires in the first place, grazing.
This last summer a prime example of this occurred in Nevada. Late
spring a ranching operation asked the BLM if they could stay on an
allotment for a few more weeks beyond the permit. The reason for this
was that a large buildup of fuel due to two back to back record winters
was being seen. The ranching operation knew this fuel loading was going
to be an issue and they had livestock there and were willing to make
changes in order to help. The answer from the agency was no. The fear
of litigation by doing something outside a set a sideboards drives
decisions like this daily. So despite repeated requests to stay longer
and reduce fuel, the livestock were moved. The Rooster Comb Fire
ignited on Sunday, July 9 at 4:00 p.m. Before it was contained, it
burned nearly 220,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat.
Now large fires were not unusual this summer, but this fire was the
result of repeated attempts to rehabilitate an area that has burned
numerous times over the past few decades. Livestock grazing had been
excluded from the area during recent rehabilitation efforts and this
year grazing was allowed, but as mentioned above, not effectively to
help alleviate the Number one threat to sage-grouse in Nevada. So while
the birds in the area of the Rooster Comb Fire may very well have
ideally wanted 7 inches of deep rooted perineal plants across the
landscape with at least 25 percent shrub cover, they now have 220,000
acres of zero cover, no perineal plants, and another attempt to restore
burned habitat begins with the issuance of a livestock grazing closure
decision for the area.
The Nevada State Plan under the threat of Wildfire and Invasive
Species lists Objective 1.1: Reduce the amount of sage-grouse habitat
loss due to large acreage wildfires and invasion or potential
domination by non-native plants.
Pre-suppression
In order to address the threat of fire and invasive plants,
which continues to challenge land managers throughout the
western United States, the State proposes a paradigm shift.
This entails a shift in focus from the current suppression-
centric approach to a more nuanced, cost effective and
proactive approach focusing on pre-suppression activities;
The second significant threat to sage-grouse habitat in Nevada is
Pinion Juniper Encroachment. This is a threat isolated to the Great
Basin for the most part. In the Nevada Plan, our state lays out
objectives and actions to tackle the continued spread of Pinion Juniper
into our sagebrush ecosystems. To date thousands of acres of invasive
Pinion Juniper have been removed from predominately private property.
The red tape associated with getting NEPA done on public lands once
again is limiting how effective treatments can actually be. The west
slope of the Diamond Mountains looks like a patchwork quilt with nearly
every acre of private property treated for Pinion Juniper and vast
expanses of public lands remaining untreated. We need to keep in mind
that sage-grouse will not use habitat that has over 4 percent pinion
juniper on it per some reports. While private property owners continue
to leverage grants and expend private dollars to match, and even create
leks in some cases, to have meaningful watershed wide improvement, we
need the Federal agencies to remove the red tape, come to the table
with state and local officials, and spend dollars on meaningful
projects to better habitat, slow fire spread, decrease fire intensity,
and bolster our rural economies.
As you can see, Nevada is clearly aware of the threats to our
state, we are clearly committed to helping our Federal land management
partners and we have the statutory authority within the Sagebrush
Ecosystem Council to coordinate with Federal and state agencies. The
creation of the Nevada State Plan was an example of collaboration and
coordination among all groups. The nine (9) voting members representing
conservation and environmental issues, the Board of Wildlife
Commissioners, local government, Native American tribes, mining,
energy, agriculture, general public and ranching consulted with and
considered input by ex-officio members of the council. The ex-officio
members were the State Directors of BLM, United States Fish and
Wildlife and Natural Resource Conservation Service, the State
Supervisor for the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest, the Directors of
Nevada Department of Wildlife, Nevada Department of Agriculture, and
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Hundreds of
hours of public comment was accepted and a balanced plan was created
that will protect the greater sage-grouse, its habitats, all the while
preserving the economies of rural Nevada.
If there is still a perception that there is a ``lack of regulatory
mechanisms'' in place for protecting the greater sage-grouse, I will
state as I have in numerous public meetings, it isn't a lack of
regulatory mechanisms it's the wrong regulatory mechanisms. Insanity is
doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
Why don't we listen to state and local officials and implement plans
that were developed at the ground level? The top down approach has
continued to squeeze public land industries all while continuing to
lose sensitive habitats and imperil wildlife species. If the true goal
is conservations, put it back in the hands of those closest to the
land. If the goal instead is to remove economic drivers from rural
communities with no desire to protect habitats, then continue on the
path we are on. We have a tremendous head start at that.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor, I appreciate that.
OK, now we start with questions from the Committee. I
remind you that it is under the 5-minute rule, as well.
I am going to go last, so I will recognize Mr. Lamborn for
the first questions.
Mr. Lamborn. I hope I have the right microphone. And this
is a beautiful room; I am glad it was refinished.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing and for
your leadership and your legislation on this important issue.
Dr. Goicoechea, some claim that the Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service's 1998 Land Use Planning
Amendments were adopted with strong state and local support. Is
that actually the case?
Dr. Goicoechea. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman.
There was coordination and cooperation, if you will. But those
have become buzz words. We need to stop checking the box, we
need to stop holding meetings to say that we are coordinating
and cooperating with local and state agencies, and we need to
get down to actually using what they presented.
While they did take input, I think you can see from the
final documents that they were not seriously considered. Again,
they wanted uniformity across the West, they took bits and
pieces, but they did not use the state-specific or local-
specific recommendations, as they should have under FLPMA.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. And then for you, or Mr. Bird,
or Mr. Bedke, or all three of you, my home state of Colorado
has spent more than $10 million, set aside 130,000 acres for
habitat, and is developing a mitigation marketplace, all for
protecting the sage-grouse.
Some people have expressed fears to me that Secretary
Zinke's recent order, S.O. 3353, will somehow make the sage-
grouse more likely to be listed as threatened or endangered,
thus negating the commendable efforts of states like Colorado
and your states. Are those fears surrounding Secretarial Order
3353 well founded?
Mr. Bedke. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I don't think those
fears are very well-founded at all. And while I don't know the
specifics of the Colorado plan, I do know the specifics of the
Idaho plan. The Idaho plan came about as a direct result of
then-Secretary Salazar coming to Idaho, asking us to put
together all of the stakeholders, and coming to a consensus-
based sage-grouse plan, one that worked for Idaho. I am
assuming a similar process happened in Colorado.
This plan went on to be blessed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Again, all under the Obama administration and
then-Secretary Salazar. It became the preferred alternative
with the BLM.
Yet, then there was a change at the Secretarial level, and
all of our plans went out the window. Overlaid on top of them
were all of these withdrawals, some of which are encompassed in
Secretary Zinke's removal. Everything that they are worried
about was stuff that was on top of already federally approved
state management plans. So, they went over and above, at least
in our case, and that is where the rub is.
We reached consensus in Idaho with this broad group. All of
the stakeholders were in the room from Day 1 until the very
end, and we did not quit until we had consensus. As a result,
again, it was blessed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it
was a co-preferred plan from BLM, and then it was jettisoned.
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Bird?
Mr. Goicoechea?
Dr. Goicoechea. Thank you. Secretarial Order 3353 did dive
down in and take a look at some of these inconsistencies and
asked for those to be brought back to the Secretary of the
Interior. I think it is critical that we recognize we need to
collect the data from these states that shows that we are
protecting habitat, and what the bird populations are doing.
We will need that data for the 2020 data call, when the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service again decides on the status of
the greater sage-grouse. And much like Idaho, Nevada's plan
was, in fact, endorsed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and our state director was an active participant in the Sage
Brush Ecosystem Council at every meeting and helped us
construct that plan to what their wants and desires were for
the bird.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you all for being here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Grijalva.
OK, Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. More than 2 years
ago, the Department of the Interior announced that, thanks to
unprecedented, proactive partnerships between our Federal land
management agencies, 11 western states which you represent in
part today, sportsmen, ranchers, farmers, and conservationists,
the greater sage-grouse does not need protections under the
Endangered Species Act.
This very significant achievement was possible thanks to
years of on-the-ground collaborations and Federal land
management plans that conserve sagebrush habitat, while
simultaneously providing predictability for economic
development, something we all care about.
The Federal land management plans are based on plans
developed by each state, not one-size-fits-all, but individual
plans to suit each state's individual needs. And it was these
very partnerships that made it possible for the Fish and
Wildlife Service to conclude in 2015 that the greater sage-
grouse does not need to be listed as endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act.
The Trump administration's effort to overturn the Federal
land management plans, I believe, is putting all of these
efforts at risk, creating uncertainty for those working on the
ground to conserve this iconic species and its habitat, and
increasing the likelihood that the species will need to be
listed under the Endangered Species Act, something we all want
to avoid.
Mr. Tubbs, thank you for being here. You mentioned in your
written testimony that Montana has a motto of ``Think
Habitat.'' Why is focusing on habitat the best way to approach
conservation of the sage-grouse?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Congressman. What we do
know about sage-grouse, especially in Montana, since that is
where I come from, is if you have quality habitat, the birds
will survive. Populations will go up and down over years. The
trend had been down. We are improving, most recently. But if
you have good-quality habitat, you can assure that the
population will remain and grow into the future.
The biggest threat in Montana, as opposed to the prior
testimony, is fragmentation of that habitat, not fire.
Ms. Tsongas. So, then, what would your thoughts be on some
of the sort of proposed alternatives to habitat-focused
conservation, such as setting specific population targets or
running a sage-grouse captive breeding program? What are your
thoughts about those possible alternatives?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, while we certainly
track population of sage-grouse, and also do lek counts every
year, the populations vary year to year. One wet spring
snowfall at the wrong time, and your brood will die and will
lose all the population of that year, or a lot of it. Then it
will take several years to rebound. So, any one given year is
concerning to us, because we might fall into ESA restrictions
because of a bad spring.
Instead, we think that quality habitat is a better measure.
Excuse me, what was the second part of the question?
Ms. Tsongas. The second part was captive breeding programs.
Mr. Tubbs. Captive breeding? Captive breeding, and you can
read all the literature, is not a useful tool in sage-grouse
conservation. It has not been successful, and is limited to
remnant populations. I do know Alberta is trying it, but again,
it is a very small, marginal tool.
Ms. Tsongas. One of the things I have become aware of in
Montana, you have the significant challenge of having 78
percent of the state sage-grouse habitat spread across state,
tribal, and private lands. But despite that, you have been able
to create the all lands/all hands approach, as you call it,
bringing all these diverse stakeholders to the table.
What keeps these partnerships together at a time when the
Trump administration is seeking to upend the existing plans?
What holds you all together?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, we have actively
kept the coalition together. Our plan is not a static plan. We
are implementing it now with those stakeholders. And we have an
Audubon to land trust to oil and gas industry and coal industry
at the table. We have a common motivation: to conserve the bird
and make sure that Montana has an economy. With those two
goals, we are working together quite well.
Ultimately, maybe plan amendments will be needed, but right
now let's do implementation.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you for your testimony. It sounds to me
like the existing framework established by the states focused
on habitat protection and restoration is certainly working in
Montana, and is the best chance we have of protecting the
species from extinction or being listed under the Endangered
Species Act. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Wittman.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
our panelists for joining us today.
This is a great opportunity to recognize the importance of
state management plans and the critical role that they play in
preserving species. And also understanding how, in the past,
Federal management plans, I think, have in many ways been
harmful to certain elements of local and state economies,
understanding what those impacts are and understanding, too,
that our states are, in many areas, better situated to make
decisions about species and conservation plans in their states.
What works best, what their experience has been, I think, is
where we need to be.
And with that, Mr. Bedke, I wanted to get your perspective.
Several years ago the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service imposed
certain overflight restrictions in the area of Mountain Home
Air Force Base in the Little Jacks Creek area. And what
happened with that, is it was in response to peregrine falcon
nesting times.
And what it did was it cut off a large majority of the base
air space to training in that particular region, cutting back
on the opportunities for pilots to get the training they need
to make sure that they are proficient. And, as you know, with
pilots, especially in the Air Force and the Navy, if they don't
have training as tactical pilots, then they lose their
certifications and that creates an overall reduction in
readiness for our Nation.
And many of us served both on the Armed Services Committee
and the Natural Resources Committee, so we see the crossover
there, and those are concerns that many of us have in how these
decisions impact our Nation's military readiness.
Is there a possibility of additional overflight or use
restrictions at Mountain Air Force Base by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service because of sage-grouse? And, if so, is that a
continuing concern for Idaho and the impacts that that may
have, both on the state and on our military readiness?
Mr. Bedke. Congressman, I believe that it does. In some of
the earlier plans there were withdrawals and limitations on the
use of the training areas, not only around Mountain Home, but
also out in Tonopah in Nevada and other places. These are some
of the best last places to go practice. Limiting that certainly
inhibits our readiness as a Nation.
I think that you can have it both ways. However, this is
not the first time that we have had training areas. And the
sage-grouse has been able to get by.
And that is maybe even understated. The sage-grouse
population in Idaho is still hunted. In 9 of the 11 western
states, these are still game birds, so it has nearly become a
surrogate issue, about controlling the land management in these
Federal lands.
I appreciate the position that has been expressed from
Montana and other states, but with respect, Idaho's land
management overlay is not like Montana's, nor is it like
Wyoming's or Colorado's or any of the other states. Each state
is unique, and the take-home message is that Mountain Home and
the Air Force were at the table when we created the state plan.
And we touched all of the bases with all of the stakeholders in
there, again, gaining the blessing of the then-U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and BLM, and then new secretary, new rules,
and new overlay.
We are not trying to circumvent, we want a good, viable
bird population there. Again, coming back to the firefighting
protocols, if both sides of the room agree that wildfire is the
Number one threat, then we ought to be about changing the way
we fight fires.
It is foolish to have a fire boss come in from a fire in
Arizona to a fire in Nevada. He has zero expertise with that
area, and as he gets into cell phone range, we need to be able
to e-mail him firefighting protocols where, when we didn't have
the fire, we went in and we have a series of if-then
statements. If the fire is here, you already have clearance to
put a fire line there. And if the fire is in that quadrant,
here is your permission to do what is needed. We are not
talking about circumventing any of the historical values, or
any of the cultural values, or any of the values out there at
all. But during the fire is a bad time to try to get clearance
for all of these things, and we can do a better job than we
are.
The Chairman. Thank you, I appreciate that.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you.
The Chairman. I wonder where I have heard those questions
before.
Dr. Wittman. I don't know.
The Chairman. Too bad there is nobody here from Yakima to
say what the bird did out there, too, right? For the Army.
Mr. Soto.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start with,
there was a new land management plan that came out and,
obviously, that is why we are here today.
First, Mr. Tubbs, is this new land management plan
affecting grazing, or is this about oil and gas drilling, or is
this about home building? What real restrictions of those three
categories are affected by the new land management plan?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, one clarification.
Land management plan being the state's plan or the Federal
plan?
Mr. Soto. The Federal plan. Forgive me.
Mr. Tubbs. So, coming into it, Montana did raise concerns
about the resource management plans that were being developed
by the Bureau of Reclamation. Montana's sage-grouse plan had
yet to be authorized and implemented.
We were concerned that there would be major impacts, absent
a state conservation plan if only Federal lands were protected
in Montana. Given the limited scope of sage-grouse habitat that
they manage, we were basically being told that their only
choice would be to lock down Federal lands without a sage-
grouse conservation plan for the state.
We put that in place. Governor Bullock showed leadership in
developing that plan, and we have maintained flexibility for
our economy within sage-grouse habitat. We have reviewed
thousands of proposals, rarely does a grazing plan require any
permitting from a Montana perspective.
Mr. Soto. Sure. So, because I am particularly sensitive
about the grazing issue, it is not affecting grazing, per se,
on Federal lands right now?
Mr. Tubbs. Well, Congressman and Mr. Chairman, most
recently our sage-grouse oversight team, with review of the
Federal team, have authorized as accepted practices putting
water lines for stock tanks so that we can spread out grazing
and do better land management.
Montana has a very strong culture of good conservation
through our ranchers and farmers, and we think our plan
protects that.
Mr. Soto. I wanted to go back a little bit. There was, I
believe, in our last farm bill a sage-grouse initiative which
created incentives for voluntary conservation. How did that
initiative end up playing out?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, the sage-grouse
initiative in Montana is a key partnership with NRCS, our
conservation districts, and the state. We have initially had
three staff work with landowners across the state on a number
of projects.
The good news is that good sage-grouse conservation also is
good range management. That helps good stock numbers and
maintaining a healthy range. It also maintains the bird, as
well as wildlife species. This area of Montana is also some of
our top hunting in the United States, some of the biggest mule
deer bucks or elk that you can get in any state will be found
in sage-grouse habitat in Montana, and good range management
preserves all those.
Mr. Soto. Thank you. Speaker Bedke, first of all, I am
sorry about what happened to your land with the fire. That is
terrible, what happened. And that perhaps is one of the things
that we have to look at, either incorporating state or Federal
amendments to look at fire prevention that makes sense. And
also your suggestion about invasive species and how, either
through state or Federal, we need to address that.
Is the current land management plan preventing you from
grazing on Federal land and lands that you own right now?
Mr. Bedke. Well, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Soto, right
now, no. But next year, arguably, yes. What we have out there,
we are blessed to have a lot of sage-grouse. So, therefore, you
have a lot of leks, strutting grounds, or breeding grounds, and
early in the spring the birds congregate on these leks.
Then out around the leks there is a 5-mile buffer zone. And
in that buffer zone, then, we are required to maintain minimal
stubble height. The problem is that a cow, when she puts her
head down to graze, she doesn't stop at 4 inches. And that
becomes a problem.
We want to have all of these objective goals, but we need
to also have subjective goals. If a population is there, then
that needs to be OK. So, our concern is that leaving that much
stubble height contributes to the Number one cause of
degradation, wildfire.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Once again, thank you for being here and lending your
expertise.
Mr. Tubbs, I have been impressed for the past couple years
where we have had witnesses before us to talk about how top-
down, heavy-handed, punitive approaches to endangered species
has just failed, and it has failed since the beginning.
But what has really impressed me is how, when we get to
voluntary conservation and partnerships, when it is not
punitive, how many species actually have been de-listed as a
result of that.
I know Montana has been one of the Nation's leaders in
conserving and restoring the sage-grouse habitats, and I
understand that Montana established a series of competitive
grants that led to the restoration of thousands of acres of
critical land. How effective have these grants been, and the
spirit of voluntary conservation and other conservation
partnerships been?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, Montana is blessed
with wonderful habitat, and much of that habitat is on private
lands. As a result, land trusts have been working with
landowners in Montana for decades in conservation practices.
And, more recently, in conservation practices specifically at
protecting the greater sage-grouse.
We have invested just over $3.5 million of state funds in
sage-grouse conservation on several hundred thousand acres of
ranch land in Montana, protecting it, and also stewarding those
ranches into the future as working lands and working ranches.
The effect is to preserve extremely high-quality habitat.
That is where most of our money has been invested. We did
invest in a couple of general habitat easements and are now
trying those out in our new habitat conservation and mitigation
plans as to how it can then bridge the gap where we need
development.
And development will happen in Montana. By providing this
type of conservation investment with state dollars, we are able
to maintain the economy, as well, where impacts to sage-grouse
are not preventable.
Mr. Thompson. How many people have applied for these
grants? And will that trend continue to grow in the future? And
what kind of leverage are you seeing on those investment
dollars? What are the grant recipients bringing to the table?
Any idea, in terms of matching dollars or voluntary dollars in
this effort?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, we can provide you
with a full record of it, so that the Committee has the record.
We've had tremendous value, we are generally in it at a 1-
to-10 or 1-to-5 ratio, in those kind of parameters. Other
conservation investors are the big land trusts. And it is the
Montana Land Reliance, which is a big land trust made out of a
small, little group of folks in Helena, Montana. But they have
preserved over a million acres, so they celebrated that just
this year. The Nature Conservancy is the other big land trust
party that works in this landscape, and we have done deals with
both. And then the private landowners and their families have
been donators, as well.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Bird, we all know the devastating wildfire impact. We
see that, unfortunately, all too real every day, especially
right now. It is really highlighted, and we know it is
continuous. And you mentioned wildfire is the sage-grouse's
Number one threat.
It seems that Utah has been somewhat successful in
controlling wildfires, maybe better than some areas, through a
state program. With a little bit of time, can you elaborate on
the efforts taken between local, state, Federal, and private
entities to do that with wildfires?
Mr. Bird. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I think the key to it
is getting money on the ground early, pre-suppression, and then
post-suppression work in those areas. That is where Utah has
done a great job. Our Legislature has done a wonderful job of
getting money on the ground.
Before fire happens, and afterward, in fact, for every
state dollar spent on restoration we have had $5 from partner
agencies. And on pre-suppression work in the state, for every
dollar we have had $20 from other partners, both local,
private, and even individual landowners.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Going back to that point that most of the
sage-grouse habitats in Montana are on private land, an ESA
listing would have big implications. So, Montana initiated
conserving habitats a long time ago.
A question on that, is energy development and other
resource use easier or more difficult when sage-grouse
populations are healthy, as we find the situation in Montana
now, or when they are threatened by extinction?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, the situation in
Montana that we feared was without a Montana sage-grouse
conservation plan, the Department of the Interior, through its
Bureau of Land Management, was indicating that it would have to
severely restrict development of any resources on Federal
lands.
It also impacts our agricultural community, both on
agricultural land, as well as grazing land, if only land use
plans on the Federal side were there. By adopting a Montana
conservation plan, we actually freed up the ability to develop
energy resources, as well as other resources on Federal lands.
And it is that partnership that we continue to strive to
succeed at.
Mr. Grijalva. So, a tremendous amount of outreach and state
involvement in the various plans, Director Tubbs, ultimately
led to the 2015 decision not to list the sage-grouse. How has
Montana been involved in the Secretary's recent decision to
revisit and review those plans?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, Governor Bullock was
Chair of the Western Governors' Association when the
Secretarial Order came out. Working with all 11 western
governors, they created the Sage Grouse Advisory Group within
the WGA.
Initially, there was good consultation early on with the
Secretary's office. However, they rapidly pushed forward a
product and defined which direction they were going to go,
prior to re-engaging with the Governors' Association. And even
though we continue to meet, we would ask that the
Administration continue to work with our governors and the
state of Montana, so that we can continue to improve the
process.
Mr. Grijalva. Just to follow up, changing the strategy at
this point on the conservation plans, would that threaten the
bird?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I think that it
is wholly dependent on what those changes would be. While one
could argue that there is no increased risk to listing, that is
significantly a question as to whether protections are taken
away for any one state.
That is part of the issue with the rangewide conditions
determination. There are states like Montana that have good
populations, great habitat. But we have been impacted and would
be in the future if other states were allowed to change
protections such that the species was warranted.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. OK. Now, for ground rules here, a
couple of things.
First of all, this is in deference to Mr. Grijalva. Your
microphone is on your left. It is the only thing that is going
to be on the left in the room, but your microphone is on the
left.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Second, for the witnesses, you don't have to
address me on every answer. When I ask my questions, they will
be intelligent. You can address me then.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So, you don't have to say ``Mr. Chairman''
every time you open your mouth.
Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Obama
administration's de facto sage-grouse listing and the 20-year
mineral moratorium on 10 million acres of land has been one of
the greatest threats to the livelihood of western communities.
Some of the most stifling consequences of the Obama-era
regulations were targeted at businesses. New mining operations
on this massive swath of land, where more than 7,000 active
claims were already present, were prohibited for 2 years.
Thankfully, President Trump's Department of the Interior
canceled the massive proposed withdrawal, allowing job creators
and hard rock miners to get back to work immediately.
Speaker Bedke, it is good to see you again. Given the
litigation risks, the time it would take to once again amend 98
management plans, and that the Forest Service has not even
started to unwind their Obama plan amendments, do you agree
with me that Congress must act and kill these 98 politically
amended Obama plans, once and for all?
Mr. Bedke. Yes, Congressman, I do.
Dr. Gosar. Would such actions provide the most certainty in
the timeliest manner for the local stakeholders?
Mr. Bedke. Yes, it certainly would, and here is the irony.
We are holding up the Obama administration rules as the
standard by which all sage-grouse should be managed. And our
state plans were compliant under that administration. They were
blessed by that administration. And then, to guild the lily, if
you will, at that point smacks of over-reach.
We were on a good path. All we need is for everybody to
roll it back to the way it was and let the state plans work.
Montana's plan is going to look different than Idaho's. That is
because the underlying topography is way different. Idaho is
going to have similarities to Nevada's and Utah, but we have
zero oil and gas. So, our mix is going to be different.
And to have other states say that, if I may, I just heard
that if Idaho changes its plan, or if the management is changed
in Idaho, that that somehow threatens Montana. Nothing could be
further from the truth. But I do take issue with the fact that
Idaho is providing off-site mitigation for these other states.
That is not right.
We have a plan. Hold us to a standard, give us the numbers,
describe point B, and turn us loose, again, back to all the
stakeholders that we had at the table. This was not a myopic
group. It was broad-based. And we came up with a plan, a
consensus plan, that was eventually endorsed by the then-Obama
administration. These can work. Just give us the time, get out
of our way and give us some time to let it work.
With all due respect, that is my point here today.
Dr. Gosar. Well, my colleagues from the left, it defies
everything they stand for--it is the all-encompassing, all-
knowing in Washington, DC, the bureaucracy. And, in Arizona, we
actually had to fight the Fish and Wildlife Service. That was
very belligerent. They were anti-law in regards to that, so it
has been very cumbersome. So, I believe that I would trust the
rancher back in Idaho or in Nevada versus the Federal
Government.
Mr. Bedke. I would agree with you, Congressman, the
Nation's natural resources are best served by having local
families acting as those stewards. The Nation's interests and
these family interests coincide on being good, long-term
stewards of the public lands in the West.
Dr. Gosar. I fully agree with you. My grandfather was a
rancher. And if they cannot be conservationists, they don't
have the luxury the following year. So, they are extremely in
tune with the land and nature.
Dr. Goicoechea, it is good seeing you again. A couple of
questions for you. At the risk of over-simplifying the issue,
why would other state management plans not work for Nevada?
Dr. Goicoechea. Our threats, our topography are very
different, Congressman. While Speaker Bedke says fire and
invasives are the same in Idaho, we are the driest state in the
Union, and no one knows that better than those of us that make
a living off the land. We cannot apply prescriptions from
Montana to Nevada. They will not work.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I am extremely grateful to Secretary Zinke
and the acting BLM Director Nedd for their actions to unwind
the bureaucratic mess of the previous administration, which was
preventing effective state management of the sage-grouse
recovery. And while taking steps to unwind the de factor sage-
grouse listing through the administrative action is welcome,
Congress must act in order to provide timely and permanent
certainty on this issue for local stakeholders in the western
communities. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Speaker Bedke, for being here today.
I had the privilege of serving with Speaker Bedke for 4
years in the Idaho Legislature, and it is always good to see
him.
Speaker, in 2011, when Secretary Salazar invited western
states to partner with the Federal Government to work on
solutions related to sage-grouse, how did the state of Idaho
respond?
Mr. Bedke. We responded with enthusiasm. In the formal
conversations and the informal conversations that we had, we
took this as an opportunity to help plan our own destiny. For
once, it looked like the locals would be empowered to solve a
broad-based problem. It was what we have been talking about for
decades. And we went into it with good faith. We had a lot of
meetings, a lot of discussions. Again, this was not a
homogenous group. And we had a good work product come out of
that.
So, you can only imagine our disappointment when the goal
line was moved, and the rules changed.
Mr. Labrador. Absolutely. What role did the Federal
agencies in Idaho play during that process?
Mr. Bedke. They were in the room. We had all of them in the
room. And it is not like they got pre-decisional, but they
certainly were able to communicate kind of a warmer, warmer,
colder, colder type of an approach as we noodled and
contemplated and had discussions on what the plan might look
like.
And we had Jack Connelly, you know, he wrote the sage-
grouse bible. He was in the room the whole time. And our plan
reflected what was good for the bird at every turn.
Mr. Labrador. Did these agencies approve of the plan?
Mr. Bedke. Certainly, yes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service ultimately blessed the plan. I don't think that is the
proper terminology, but endorsed it, and it became the co-
preferred alternative, with the BLM, under the NEPA process.
Mr. Labrador. You have mentioned that the main threat to
sage-grouse in Idaho is fires. Is that correct?
Mr. Bedke. Yes. Not just I, but that is what the science
says.
Mr. Labrador. Correct. Do the Obama administration plans
address these threats?
Mr. Bedke. Well, the old plan did, because baked into the
Idaho plan were robust, firefighting measures, some of the
things that I have talked about here, having if-then
statements. You know, if the fire starts here, then it is OK to
put a fire line there, and getting all the clearances ahead of
time so that you have an algorithm, basically--if the fire is
in this section, then it is OK to do this other list of things.
So, fire was integral, and its control was in the middle of
all these plans.
Mr. Labrador. What could be done to make firefighting more
effective to better protect sage habitat?
Mr. Bedke. Thank you. I have alluded to that at the time.
The firefighters know how to put out fires. We hamstring them,
and tie their hands with Federal regulatory overlay.
They are as frustrated, that day that we went from 500
acres to 20,000 acres was a frustrating day for the guys on the
fire line, it was a frustrating day for the ranchers, whose
livelihood and the ability to feed their livestock was going up
in smoke. And to have the heavy equipment sit on a truck
because there was no Cat tender there, someone to walk in front
of it as they put the line in, by an existing road that had
already been disturbed by existing fence lines that had already
been disturbed, was counterproductive.
By anyone's standard, they ought to be able to make on-the-
ground decisions. If we are going to tie their hands on the
ground, then let's give them an algorithm ahead of time that
they can have in their file, so that they can say it started in
this quadrant, so therefore I can do these things. And we have
touched all the archeological, historical, cultural, other
species concerns ahead of time when you are not under the gun
of having a fire.
Mr. Labrador. And it is not just frustrating, but it is
more dangerous for the firefighters, too, is it not?
Mr. Bedke. Well, certainly.
Mr. Labrador. Yes. Are you aware of the notice of intent
that was recently released by the Department of the Interior?
Mr. Bedke. Yes.
Mr. Labrador. Can the existing plans that affect Idaho be
fixed, or do they need to be completely repealed and replaced
with a state plan?
Mr. Bedke. I think that we need to be able to roll back the
Federal plan amendments to go back to the state's plan, so that
each state has a plan that works in their locality. I applaud
these other states, they should applaud us, and we should go
back to the state plans.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel for
taking the time to be able to be here today, as well. It is
interesting, being able to hear the stories from the different
states, from Nevada to Montana to Idaho and into Utah, as well,
in terms of being able to come up with plans that actually work
for our individual states.
I come out of the state of Colorado. We have very unique
topography in the state of Colorado. One of our local counties
had invested several million dollars in actually mapping out
the best areas for sage-grouse rehabilitation for the actual
habitat that would work. That was completely in contradiction
of what the BLM had originally put out with a broad-brush
stroke, to where the entire western half of Colorado was
virtually sage-grouse habitat, even though it could not sustain
it.
So, those private-public partnerships, which were developed
with the local ranchers, with the local counties, with our
state, were actually yielding what we wanted to be able to
achieve.
I certainly applaud the efforts that we are seeing in our
state and I listen to the conversation. It seems that the
debate is not so much about species rehabilitation as about
should the Federal Government make the determination, or should
the states be able to implement some of those policies. And I
think a sensible person would certainly step forward and say if
we want to be able to achieve the goal, let's follow the best
route.
Mr. Goicoechea, when you were talking about the fire that
broke out in your state, you had the ranchers apply to be able
to actually get in to graze, to be able to create better
habitat, because you had good moisture growing.
What was the policy of the Federal Government, and how did
that impact, ultimately, the habitat of rehabilitating the
species?
Dr. Goicoechea. Thank you. So, Mr. Congressman, when you
are 87 percent controlled by the Federal Government, you find
yourself a lot of times asking Father or Mother May I, and that
is what happened in this case. There was not the flexibility to
go beyond the term permit, even though the range conditions
showed we have a high fire risk here. In no way, shape, or form
was there going to be resource damage by allowing those
livestock to stay.
The Bureau of Land Management is afraid of litigation. They
have been litigated time and time again. They do not want to
step outside. They don't have the flexibility, and these plans
are not giving them that flexibility. So, when they said no,
the cattle moved on, and 30 days later we had 220,000 acres of
black.
Mr. Tipton. I am a small business guy, and in terms of
having the flexibility, that was one of the issues that we
actually had in Colorado. Unfortunately, when they were
revisiting the plan, some efforts were made in the original
efforts to be able to incorporate some of the Colorado ideas.
But they were discarded for consistency of a one-size-fits-all
program.
When we are talking about science and the best
understanding of it, each one of you in your states, you have
game and fish departments that are there, you have local county
officials that are there. Would you say they are pretty good
experts, in terms of probably knowing the habitat, knowing how
to best be able to address an issue?
Mr. Goicoechea?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir, absolutely. And when it comes to
firefighting, as well, your state and local departments, those
volunteers in Nevada, the Nevada Division of Forestry, we know
the best. We know the conditions on the ground, we know where
to make that stand. We know who has grazed, how long they have
grazed, when they have grazed, where the natural breaks are.
If we don't empower the locals and the state agencies, we
will never get ahead of habitat loss.
Mr. Tipton. Director Bird, Speaker Bedke, would you speak
to that, as well?
Mr. Bird. I would agree, we do a good job of managing
wildlife in the states. That is what we do with our wildlife
agencies. I wish you could come and see some of our local
meetings with the local landowners, the agencies, the
sportsmen, and all those folks who are involved working
together to come up with priorities for projects in their area.
It is an amazing thing to watch.
Mr. Bedke. Congressman, many of us have been in these types
of meetings before, and we did not want to go through the
frustration and disappointment of having the wrong people in
the room at the start. So, we went out of our way at the
beginning of the process to make sure we had the right people
in the room, the right scientists.
Again, I referenced earlier Mr. Connelly is the standard.
He wrote the sage-grouse guidebook. He was in the room with us.
We, again, did not want to have happen, what has ultimately
happened, that we would look back at our process and say it was
deficient in some way, and therefore we have to start over. We
went to great lengths to have the right people in the room all
the time.
Mr. Tipton. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Pearce, are you ready? OK. The one on your left.
Mr. Pearce. It is hard for me to reach the left, sir. I
will take your orders, if you make me.
Mr. Tubbs, you seem to be in a position where you would
work with the Fish and Wildlife Service, you kind of know the
way they operate, the way they think. And that is not a trick
question, I was just trying to get everybody on the ground
here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tubbs. Congressman, we certainly have been working with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Montana for decades.
Mr. Pearce. I know, but when I look at the estimates of
numbers of birds, the estimates are 200 to 500,000. That is
kind of a big gap. Behind the scenes, do they ever sit there
and say, ``Can't we get this a little bit closer?''
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, sorry about that, Congressman----
Mr. Pearce. Don't put any thoughts in my head.
Mr. Tubbs. It is a fact of my Montana State Legislature,
Congressman. In Montana, our fish and wildlife agency is the
agency that is required to report populations. While we know
lek counts, actually counting birds is a statistical exercise,
and not an easy thing to do. So, I think that probably
results----
Mr. Pearce. Do you think that is an acceptable gap?
Mr. Tubbs. Congressman, we are putting additional efforts,
in fact, our State Legislature has directed our wildlife agency
to report population estimates into developing those, so we
hope to have better statistics in the future.
Mr. Pearce. OK.
Mr. Tubbs. It will remain a statistical question, though.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Bedke, you are the one that experienced the
fire, right, on your property?
Mr. Bedke. Yes, this year. But fire is part of the
ecosystem in the Great Basin, and we experience fires in some
sort, either I do or my neighbors or my extended family, each
and every year.
Mr. Pearce. It is part of the ecosystem, but the ecosystem
used to be in balance. Is the ecosystem in balance today?
Mr. Bedke. I believe that it is not, Congressman. If you go
back to the days where there were huge sage-grouse numbers,
they were also arguably some of the bad old days of grazing. It
was a continuous graze situation. There were not any rotational
systems like we employ now and have for the last 40 years, 30
years, for sure.
Back in those days, that is when the bird flourished. And
the reason is because you turned the cattle out in the spring,
and they found their own level, so to speak, over the entire
allotment. And as they did that, they created natural fire
breaks because they camped out in the bottoms where the streams
are. If you are out where there are 10 inches of rain per year,
or 12, then that is where the cattle go, and they eat the more
desirable plants in the bogs, and then work up the side hills.
Mr. Pearce. Yes, I appreciate that.
Mr. Bedke. So, that created natural fire breaks that, in a
deferred or a rotational system, you do not have now.
Mr. Pearce. I understand. In New Mexico, I know that we
experienced that. The ecosystem used to have a major fire every
8 years. The tree rings would show that. And when we quit
putting out fires, then we logged to make the difference. Then,
when we quit logging, instead of 50 trees per acre, we have 500
or 2,500 trees per acre. The system is out of balance.
Then the Forest Service says we are going to reintroduce
fire into the wild, kind of like we just discovered this thing
here, and it is the way it ought to be. Now we are getting the
3,000-acre fires. We are seeing what is going on in California.
And the system is badly out of balance, and fire is
destructive.
Did you ever hear the Fish and Wildlife Service complaining
about the fires and the destruction of habitat and endangered
species, especially the sage-grouse? Do you ever hear that? Did
you hear it when you experienced that major fire?
Mr. Bedke. We certainly did. And those discussions and
those 18 months of meetings is where I learned that the Number
one threat to sage-grouse was fire.
Mr. Pearce. Yes, but what do they do? The Fish and Wildlife
will stop every activity, but they do not stop the Forest
Service from mismanaging our forests.
Mr. Bedke. Congressman, we must conclude that it is not
about the bird, and it is more about land management.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Bird, you are spending a lot of money in
Utah on trying to stop the problem. What do you all do for
active management? You just fight fires? What do you do with
your money?
Mr. Bird. No, again, it is active, hands-on management. It
is pre-suppression, it is getting rid of pinyon-juniper, it is
getting rid of the threats and the problems.
Mr. Pearce. Does the Forest Service help you in those
efforts?
Mr. Bird. They have in this area. The Forest Service and
BLM have.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
The Chairman. All right. Speaking of wildfires, Mr. LaMalfa
from California, the Burn State.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
panel. Again, thank you for your time and travel, being here,
and for the level of patience you have with trying to deal with
this issue. I do have several of these counties in my area,
whether it is burning forest, burning sage habitat, or what
have you, that continues to be a problem with little solution
coming out of Washington. I am more hopeful here in the last
few months.
But what I want to hear from the panel here is, how do you
feel lately, especially that the engagement with the Federal
Government has been with the state, local level, tribal
officials on getting to a better solution.
Again, my area on the California side has Modoc County,
Lassen County, Plumas County, a neighbor to Mr. Amodei, over
there on the Nevada side, where he is working very hard, doing
great work on that, as well, over there, with that common
backyard.
The gentleman, Mr. Bird, you were talking a little bit
earlier about when you get people in the room it was a really
good, positive meeting, and also Speaker Bedke, as well, when
you get the right people in the room, the collaboration has
been pretty good. Do you feel lately, both of you, that the
Federal collaboration side of that has been helpful? Do you
feel the ball is being moved?
Somebody said on this panel also that there is the fear of
litigation. Just touch on those two things, Mr. Bird, please.
Mr. Bird. I would think it works best, obviously, at the
local level. We get along well with our local managers, and
when they are given the flexibility to work with us, that works
well. That would be my statement there, sir.
Mr. Bedke. You will always be surprised if you have a
common goal. Then, there are ground rules that are set up that
no one's position in the room is going to trump the other
positions, and you are going to stay until you are finished,
you are going to stay until you have a solution.
It takes you a few meetings to get into that mode, frankly.
But once you do, then it turns out you have the expertise, good
ideas, and the good thinking that happens in a group dynamic.
Then, you have a good product. And that is what we experienced,
and that is why we are so indignant that they changed it on us
after all that good work.
Mr. LaMalfa. They changed it? Which ``they''?
Mr. Bedke. They, the Federal Government. They amended our
amendments. Over the top of these state plans, they went to the
next level that made it impossible, or certainly would make it
very difficult, to continue things like livestock grazing.
Mr. LaMalfa. When you show them the results about the
number of acres of sage-grouse habitat that is being burned and
lost and the negative results you are seeing, does this shake
them up any? What do they say when you have these meetings with
them?
Mr. Bedke. Well, it depends on how formal a meeting it is.
No one likes to see the habitat burn.
Mr. LaMalfa. I wonder. I wonder. Do they like it because of
the preventative measures, whether they are talking sage
habitat or forestry, as well, they don't seem to really allow
effective measures to----
Mr. Bedke. Any decent land manager knows that the growth
increment every year will build up, and it does not matter
whether you are in a forest situation, or a range situation.
That growth increment is going to be there every year, and you
can either harvest it or you can eventually burn it. Those are
your two choices.
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Goicoechea, again, when we see that the
environmental groups really spend most of their time suing the
Forest Service or BLM when these efforts are being made, don't
you feel they are essentially preventing the ability of the
sage-grouse to actually thrive and be populous in the area at
the end of the day?
Dr. Goicoechea. Absolutely. They are preventing the
flexibility and adaptive management that we need to allow the
bird to flourish.
Mr. LaMalfa. And we have heard even in this Committee today
that grazing is not the answer, that grazing somehow is making
it worse. Please address that, as my time expires here.
Dr. Goicoechea. Grazing is a huge tool, and the most
readily available tool to limiting the size of our fires. In
the Great Basin, that is the Number one threat. You have heard
it over and over again.
Mr. LaMalfa. What does it cost the government to have
grazing? I would just like to hear that number.
Dr. Goicoechea. It benefits the government. It makes the
government money.
Mr. LaMalfa. The government makes money. Yes, all right.
Thank you, panelists, I appreciate it.
The Chairman. Good answer.
Mr. Graves, who asked me my favorite sage-grouse recipe.
You can maybe ask them, as well.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here. And I want to thank all of you for the
travel today.
Mr. Bird, I am from Louisiana and I am a little slow, I
guess, right? I just want to make sure I understand this
clearly. This is an issue where the Federal Government is
mismanaging a species and you are asking for more state control
of that. Is that accurate?
Mr. Bird. I think, Congressman, any time we have more local
control it works better.
Mr. Graves. I am sorry. You said any time you have more
state control it works better?
Mr. Bird. More local/state control, it works better.
Mr. Graves. Wow. How about that? Thank you very, very much.
I cannot even tell you how much I appreciate that.
The Chairman. I am assuming that applies to fish, as well
as birds?
Mr. Graves. Oh, wow, look at that.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Graves. How about that?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves. I didn't think you would draw that connection.
Speaker Bedke, you are a fifth-generation rancher, as I
understand. You have people from Washington, DC, that are
making decisions in your state. Can you talk a little bit about
what you see as being a disconnect between some of the
decisions that are being made, versus practical application on
the ground in your state?
And what I mean by that is, if you are truly trying to
advance an objective, whether it is an environmental objective,
a land management objective, or others, could you talk a little
bit about how you see a disconnect, or perhaps a
misunderstanding of practical solutions trying to address some
of these objectives?
Mr. Bedke. The reason that I include that, I am the fourth
generation, and I am in Washington, DC, and the fifth
generation is doing all the work while I am here. So, the
reason that we even mention that in our bios is because we are
proud of that, and we have a legacy and an experience over
decades, generations of stewardship.
In my tenure at the ranch, with every new administration we
make 90-degree turns to the previous policy. That is
disruptive, over time, to good ecosystem management. Livestock
has grazed out in this part of the world since the 1860s. So,
the fact that we are there, and the bird has flourished up to
this time ought to tell us something. And we can continue to do
that.
But the disconnect is that no never means no, yes never
means yes. We are just waiting for the shift in the political
winds, and that is ultimately bad land management.
Mr. Graves. Let's see, I have one more question. I just
want to make sure, actually, maybe I will ask Mr. Bird, because
I am not sure I can pronounce the other name.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves. Can you talk a little bit, and just give your
perspective. I heard you all talk about this when I came in,
but you are talking about multiple states, and the ability of
states to work together toward a common solution, whenever
states in some cases may have different objectives. Can you
talk about perhaps an experience that you have had in working
together with other states and the ability of states to work
together toward a common objective like this?
Mr. Bird. Well, like you say, Congressman, all states are
different. We all have different objectives, different needs.
I think one example in Utah is that we don't have the same
percentage and the issues with the oil and gas industry and
sage-grouse that Wyoming would, or other states. And I think
working through those differences and/or working through our
similarities is always helpful.
Mr. Graves. Would any of the rest of you care to comment on
that, just on experiences?
Mr. Bedke. I will jump in. The sage-grouse working group is
a product of the state legislators getting together. We have a
common issue, we learned this from the wolf de-listing. So,
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming came together to coordinate our
efforts, to coordinate our state plans so, ultimately, the wolf
could be de-listed. And we were successful doing that.
Now the next issue that comes along is the sage-grouse
issue. We keep that same coordination between the existing
three states. We add Utah, Nevada, Colorado, and eastern
Oregon. Those state legislators come. We met regularly in Salt
Lake City, and we formulated these plans, knowing full well
that there had to be coordination between the state plans,
ultimately.
Mr. Graves. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. The principal question I have is whether
our laws are actually counterproductive to protecting
endangered species. For example, our experience in the Sierra
is we now have Draconian restrictions over land management,
catastrophically overgrown forests.
Those forests are now susceptible to natural stressors such
as drought, pestilence, disease, and ultimately catastrophic
wildfire. We have lost 1,100 square miles of forestland in my
district to catastrophic fire in the last 5 years, and a lot of
that has incinerated protected wildlife habitats. In fact, I
think two fires cost us about 80 spotted owl habitats that we
lost because we could not manage the land because of laws that
were purportedly protecting the spotted owl. Now those habitats
are gone completely.
Is that the same story for the sage-grouse and other
management restrictions?
Mr. Bedke. Sir, to a degree, it is. A range fire is a lot
different than a forest fire. It is not as hot, and things grow
back quicker under a range situation, if you can ever get any
rain.
But in the forest, it is certainly a much bigger deal. You
have to thin the growth increment in a forest. And if you
don't, then, like I said earlier, either man will harvest it or
nature will harvest it. And when man has pre-empted nature as
long as it has in a forest situation, then the fires are
catastrophic, and they are sterilizing.
Mr. McClintock. But in the case of range land, you
mentioned the fact that forest firefighting efforts were
delayed catastrophically for lack of, what did you call it, a
Cat spotter?
Mr. Bedke. Cat tender.
Mr. McClintock. Cat tender.
Mr. Bedke. Yes, and it has nothing to do with felines, and
everything to do with the machine that is built in Peoria,
Illinois.
Mr. McClintock. But, basically, in the middle of a wildfire
emergency, where they are trying to cut a fire break, they were
delayed because there wasn't an expert who could precede the
bulldozer to determine whether or not there might be
archeological finds or, I assume also, sage-grouse nests in
front of the bulldozer as the fire was bearing down on it? Do I
understand that correctly?
Mr. Bedke. You understand it perfectly. It is as if we had
a fire in this room, and fire extinguishers hanging on that
wall, and you couldn't use them.
Mr. McClintock. When I was at the Detwiler Fire, which
caused the evacuation of Mariposa and threatened the Yosemite
Valley just a couple of months ago, the firefighters were
complaining to me that they had been trying for years to get
permits for controlled burns so that they could have defensible
space between the dying forests and the range land, which they
rightly calculated was in immediate danger of igniting. And it
did. And they couldn't get permits for it.
And then fire comes through, and the amount of carbon being
released by these fires makes a mockery of all of our
environmental laws.
Mr. Bedke. Again, if you want to argue with me,
Congressman, you are going to have to change the subject.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bedke. Because that is exactly the point. All of these
preventative measures that you reference have to go through
NEPA. And our NEPA process is set up so that----
Mr. McClintock. It is needlessly time-consuming and
ultimately cost-prohibitive.
Mr. Bedke. It is time consuming and prone to lawsuits. So,
you have this paralysis by this wanting to love the ground
through NEPA.
Mr. McClintock. Let me change the subject for a moment.
Mr. Bedke. All right.
Mr. McClintock. Nobody wants to see any species go extinct.
But I don't understand why captive breeding programs and fish
hatchery programs shouldn't be employed to maintain these
populations.
Mr. Bedke. That is exactly the mentality that I took in the
room, as well. I have learned since that it is hard to do
captive breeding programs with the sage-grouse. It works very
well with other species, but for some reason----
Mr. McClintock. But in many cases they still don't let us
include them in the population counts.
Mr. Bedke. That is the case, certainly, with fish.
Mr. McClintock. OK. One more, oh yes, on climate change. It
seems to me that the climate has been changing for about 4\1/2\
billion years. The planet has been warming on and off since the
last Ice Age.
But it is changing, it is warming. Doesn't that argue in
favor of more active management of our lands, so that we can
match the density of the vegetation to the ability of the land
to support it?
Mr. Bedke. And in unison, the choir said yes.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Cheney.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all of our witnesses for being here today.
Speaker Bedke, I was particularly struck by your testimony
and by your description of what had happened most recently on
your land. And you had a line in your written testimony where
you noted that good intentions are not good enough. I think
that is a very apt description for what has happened here. And
I think it is a diplomatic description, frankly, for what has
happened here.
But when you look at the policies that we have seen,
particularly out of the last 8 years, and the attempt to impose
this one-size-fits-all, Wyoming has 37 percent of the sage-
grouse population, and we are very proud of our state
management plan.
I wonder, though, if you could describe in a little bit
more detail what happened when you saw these amendments
imposed, and specifically, what were the brakes that you saw
put on the state management plan that had been so carefully
developed and put into place in Idaho?
Mr. Bedke. Well, they went beyond the mark. And we knew we
had to defend these plans, long term, and made them as bullet-
proof as we possibly could, and still allow for the traditional
uses out there. Everyone at the table, including the ranchers,
knew that their practices were going to have to be modified,
and they were in agreement to do that.
All right, so then you have the plan amendments that
overlay over the top. Like I described, the lek buffers. If you
have a lot of leks, you have a lot of 5-mile circumference, or
5-mile circles around each one of these leks, where their use
at certain times of the year are severely limited. And to
conduct a grazing program in these polka dots, over, literally,
tens of thousands of acres, you cannot fence them economically
to keep the cattle out.
So, it becomes very, very subjective, based on, again, the
political winds that are blowing. And that was our largest
concern.
Then these wholesale mineral withdrawals, the tens of
millions of acres that were lifted and all the headlines read
that Zinke is removing the protection for the sage-grouse.
Well, that was never a problem in the first place.
I look to everything through the lens of a livestock
person, and not a miner or the others, or a mineral or gas
explorer. So, specifically for the livestock were the buffer
zones and the stubble height requirements. After you graze, you
still had to have 7 inches of stubble height after you go in
there, and that is hard to accomplish.
And it becomes a judgment call each and every day out there
by the land management agencies whether or not you are in
compliance. And if you are not, then baked into their protocols
was this 50 percent reduction, and a 50 percent reduction, and
a 50 percent reduction. Well, you can only stand so many of
those, and then you are out of business.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you. And in addition to the damage that
has been done to the grazing industry, for example, and I
apologize if I don't get your name right, Mr.--J.J.? J.J., you
can call me Liz.
In addition to the damage that has been done to some of our
industries, the grazing industry and the mineral industry,
isn't it true that when we are trying to impose a one-size-
fits-all solution to Washington we are also not as effective as
we could be in helping to preserve the sage-grouse?
Dr. Goicoechea. Congresswoman Liz, that is exactly correct.
And that is why we have to get away from it.
And what Speaker Bedke is alluding to as he talks about the
grazing and the 7 inches are the habitat objectives in that
table. They may work well in parts of Wyoming, they may work
well in parts of Montana. There are hardly any places in Nevada
where they are going to work well. Seven inches? If we had 7
inches of grass and could grow it regularly, we would not be
sitting in here, having this conversation today. And that is
part of the problem.
We have to get back to that local, we are damaging the
bird, we are burning the habitat by trying to achieve something
that ecologically is impossible to do.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much. And I think it is a sad
and tragic example, but a really important example of, across
the board, what happens when you have mismanagement from
Washington, and I am fully supportive and very proud to be a
co-sponsor of the Chairman's legislation. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. And I appreciate Representative
Cheney for covering for me on the Floor the other night, too.
Thank you.
Mr. Gianforte.
Mr. Gianforte. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
to the panel for being here. And it is great to hear the
successes you are having.
I want to call out Director Tubbs first, for the phenomenal
work that has been done in Montana, and you have led that
effort. We have been able to protect the great sage-grouse in
Montana. I understand that our male sage-grouse population is
up 153 percent since 2014, largely thanks to the all lands/all
hands approach that you have spearheaded.
I can attest myself last week being in southern Phillips
County, trying to fill an antelope tag, that there were many
sage-grouse that we witnessed in the pastures, so that was
good. Keep up the good work. I appreciate it.
My first question is for Speaker Bedke. I want to dig in a
little more. You testified that rangewide plans lack the
recognition of the issues that are facing the species in a
specific state. And some states are happier with these rules
than others, because of the differences we have talked about.
You have also noted a disregard for science in some of
these plans. I want to go specifically to wildfires, because
you listed that as the primary issue in affecting habitat, and
we talked at some length here about the specific regulations
that are impeding local firefighting. You mentioned a couple.
My question is, what additionally should we be doing to
free up and provide more local control, as we attempt to fight
fire and protect sage-grouse habitat?
Mr. Bedke. Well, I envision a world where an edict comes
from Washington, for a change, out to the local offices that
says, ``You will have pre-fire suppression plans so that we can
accomplish some of the,'' and that is not going to eliminate
all the fires out there. Every front that comes through is
going to have lightning with it, and there are going to be
fires started, but we can minimize the size of these fires.
Because if it is an all-hands-on-deck for the sage-grouse,
and the Number one issue or the Number one threat is fire, then
we can do better here. Yet, our actions out on the ground
contradict that statement. I can only describe my frustration
watching that.
Mr. Gianforte. And we have heard testimony here that we are
better off----
Mr. Bedke. Yes, but what we need to do, then, is create
fire districts out there, so that the ranchers are trained and
have access to equipment. Because they live out there, and many
times they will be the ones to see the smoke, and they can go
out and address that, so they need to be properly trained and
their communication systems need to be able to talk to the
Federal land management agencies. We have started doing that
with great success in some parts of the state.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Mr. Bird, you testified that you have
actually cut the wildfire impact on sage-grouse by 50 percent,
protecting over 500,000 acres. Can you just go into a little
more detail on how you did that, and what should we do at the
Federal level to encourage that behavior or get out of the way?
Mr. Bird. Every acre of pre-suppression saves a ton of
money in the end. And we know, as states, as local entities,
where our greatest threats are. And the key is working those
areas. Whether it is sage-grouse habitat or whether it is near
communities, we know where those threats are. And it is a
matter of getting ahead of ourselves and doing that pre-
suppression work.
Oftentimes, as we know, when the fire season goes on and
Federal money gets fewer and further between, the Forest
Service, for instance, will go over budget on their fire. And
what goes first? That pre-suppression money that could have
been on the ground and could have prevented those fires in the
first place.
Mr. Gianforte. So, reducing fuel loads, doing preparation
actually reduces the intensity and the severity of the fires?
Mr. Bird. Right. And just following up on Speaker Bedke, we
have a new program in Utah called the catastrophic fire
program, and that is getting into those local fire districts,
getting into those local areas, training them so that they can
take care of those fires immediately.
In fact, I think it is closer to 90 percent of the initial
fire attack in Utah is done by those local volunteer agencies.
And if they are properly trained, they can do a remarkable job.
Mr. Gianforte. Again, I want to thank the panel here for
your testimony today. It is clear that when there is more local
control, we get better outcomes for the sage-grouse and for our
local producers.
And, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
indulgence in letting anybody show up at this meeting. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Goicoechea, for those of you who have a hard time
pronouncing his name, the only reason I know is because I spent
14 years in the Nevada Legislature with his father. They are
Spanish Basque, I believe. So, for those of you that are into
kind of that what side of the ridge line those sheep herders
are from, the French Basque will not be happy to know that Dr.
Goicoechea, who is a large-animal vet, is from the wrong side
of the ridge line.
That notwithstanding, though, I go into that embarrassing
part for both of us to underscore the fact that as I look at
this distinguished panel with the Speaker from Idaho, the
Deputy Director from Utah's Natural Resources Department, and
the Director from Montana, what we have sitting over there in
the nice Basque gentleman's chair is the guy who is the head of
the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council, which was the policy
group formed by the legislature. The bill was signed by the
Governor to do numerous things, if you look at the statute, but
it is basically to establish what the facts are and what the
policy ought to be, and create a sagebrush conservation plan
for the state of Nevada. Thank you for your service, Dr.
Goicoechea.
So, when we talk about collaboration and transparency, I
want to start out with a few questions that are pretty easy
ones to answer.
Have you completed a Nevada plan for the conservation of
the sage-grouse and its habitat?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir.
Mr. Amodei. Does that plan contain a provision dealing with
wild horses?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir.
Mr. Amodei. Did the plan that was put into the BLM resource
management plans and travel management plans in Nevada contain
an element that dealt with wild horses?
Dr. Goicoechea. Not efficiently at all, no.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you. Now, let me ask you this. Did your
plan have a mitigation system in it?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir, the Nevada conservation credit
system.
Mr. Amodei. Did the one that was enacted in the six or
seven Nevada district offices, their resource management and
travel management plans, did it include a mitigation system in
it?
Dr. Goicoechea. No, sir.
Mr. Amodei. Can you tell me any part of the Nevada plan
that was adopted after the draft EIS was circulated in Nevada
and the final one came out? Was there any part of the Nevada
plan that was picked up in that transparent collaborative
process?
Dr. Goicoechea. No, sir, I can't tell you of one.
Mr. Amodei. So, when we hear about transparency, let's go
to another area, sagebrush focal areas. About 3 million acres
in Nevada, is that correct?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir. A little over.
Mr. Amodei. Did your group--by the way, your group worked
for how long on this plan?
Dr. Goicoechea. Several, a couple of years.
Mr. Amodei. Public hearings?
Dr. Goicoechea. Public hearings, hundreds of hours of
hearings and public testimony.
Mr. Amodei. Noticed in accordance with the open meeting
law?
Dr. Goicoechea. Absolutely.
Mr. Amodei. Your members included environmentalists, they
included members of the public, they included members of the
State Wildlife Commission, ex officio were all the Federal land
managers in the state. Is that accurate?
Dr. Goicoechea. That is accurate.
Mr. Amodei. When did you find out that Nevada was to have 3
million acres of something called a sagebrush focal area?
Dr. Goicoechea. When the record of decision was signed.
Mr. Amodei. And that was not in the draft EIS?
Dr. Goicoechea. No, sir.
Mr. Amodei. I would like to add for the Committee's record
that in my service on an inferior committee, when we had the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the Chief of the
Forest Service, we asked the question, ``Where did the
sagebrush focal areas come from?''
I would further represent for the Committee's record that
the answer from those gentlemen basically said it came from
fish.
So, when then-Director of Fish and Wildlife, Mr. Ashe, was
there, we said, ``How did you figure out where the lines
were?'' Well, that was an open, collaborative process.
It was such a good, open, and collaborative process that if
you look in your Committee brief you will see that a Federal
district court judge, who probably does not show up as a
contributor to the present Administration's campaign fund,
ruled that they had not complied with NEPA and that these came
out of nothing that would resemble, these are my words, no one
else's, an open and collaborative process.
So, as you can tell, I want to thank you for those answers.
I want to also do a couple other things.
One is it is my understanding that, of the $65 million that
the people in the 114th Congress appropriated to the Department
of the Interior to take care of sagebrush things on the ground,
that $35 million of it stayed within the Beltway. So, when we
talk about fuels management and other sorts of collaborative
things, that is not a great record of putting things in the
Beltway.
Are we thinking maybe things closer to the state are
better, perhaps?
Now the last thing I want to go through, real quickly,
because I am almost out of time. Mr. Chairman, it is my
understanding that, in the last 20 years, BLM statistics, not
counting the last fire season, there were between 6 and 7
million acres burned in Nevada, that sheep grazing is about 20
percent of what it used to be, that Federal land managers have
basically permitted 150,000 acres in mining, and that cattle
grazing is down about 20 percent from its height. Are those
numbers basically accurate?
Dr. Goicoechea. Those are basically accurate. Yes, sir.
Mr. Amodei. So, based on those numbers, when you talk about
the Number one threat to habitat, whether it is fragmentation
or loss, would it be your conclusion that when we talk about
mining and grazing and things like that, and the decisions of
Federal land managers, that those are not the threats?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir. The threats are----
Mr. Amodei. Thank you. And thank you Mr. Chairman, and God
bless the West.
Dr. Goicoechea. I don't want the gavel to come flying at
me.
The Chairman. Yes.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And after that you can carry your laundry on
the streets if you want to.
Let me just take a couple seconds to ask a few questions
here.
Mr. Goicoechea, first of all, there have been three reviews
of sage-grouse by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Each time they
have said that they did not warrant listing. There is another
one scheduled in 2020. Based on your experience in past times,
do you expect them to find something different in this fourth
review that they have not found in the other three?
Dr. Goicoechea. No, sir, I do not. And I believe that it is
critical that we continue to collect that data that shows what
we are doing in our states is effective and is protecting those
birds.
The Chairman. OK, Mr. Bird, the state of Utah spent roughly
$3 million in the management of habitat and things like the
watershed protection initiative, and everything else.
What is the difference between the population, say, in the
last 30 years of the bird in the state of Utah?
Mr. Bird. Up, they are up.
The Chairman. Significantly?
Mr. Bird. They are up.
The Chairman. They are up.
Same thing, Mr. Speaker. You put, like, $750 million in
sage-grouse management in Idaho?
Mr. Bedke. I think that is a cumulative number from all the
western states.
The Chairman. As I think some of the others have been
saying here, have the requirements that have been put on you
most recently from the Federal Government, the BLM, as well as
the Forest Service, have they augmented those situations, what
you are trying to do, or has it been basically a hindrance to
what you are attempting to do?
Mr. Bedke. Well, it is certainly a hindrance within the
stakeholder community. The creation of the sagebrush focal
areas, as Congressman Amodei referenced, plus the buffer zones,
plus the stubble height requirements seem more designed to
limit livestock grazing than anything else.
The Chairman. And we will not even go into detail of what
happens if you let that growth take place without any kind of
limitations to it, without any kind of grazing on it.
Eventually what happens when it gets old and dies and cuts out
any kind of new growth, it becomes fodder for wildfires, making
it even more dangerous than it was before.
There is one thing I just want to notice, that from the
four of you that are here, you are representing Idaho, Utah,
Montana, and Nevada. And, as was mentioned by the Ranking
Member, in private lands there has been great control as far as
habitat. I think it was also mentioned by Mr. Tubbs, you have
done great habitat on your private lands.
Fifty-four percent of the West is owned by the Federal
Government. Montana, though, is about 20 percent below that
average. You bring the average down there. You have much more
private land than the rest of the states have. No offense. You
and California lower the average for the rest of us here. You
have more private property, which means you should do a better
job in managing than the other states do. If not, it is on your
head.
I know Utah would love to have something like 30 percent of
Utah or even 54 percent of Utah owned by the Federal
Government. We don't. We have a much more difficult problem,
which means the state has control over these areas, but not on
the Federal lands. And I realize in Nevada you don't have
squat, as far as private lands in the state of Nevada.
Everything has to go through this process.
What you four gentlemen have illustrated is that every
state is indeed different, and it has been brought out by
several Members here. Every plan has to be different. If we
really care about the bird, if we care about not just
controlling anything, but rehabilitation of the species, it has
to be done differently. And that was what the original intent
that Secretary Salazar said. And at one time that was the
approach that you all went through in coming up with state
plans, and then it was cut off.
Mr. Tubbs, I think you said it. One time the governors were
simply cut off of the process, and then brought back in
afterwards. Too late. And that is why there have been a lot of
lawsuits by governors from different states in the West,
because they were cut off and then brought back too late.
If we really want to solve this problem, you have to let
state plans go into effect, and you have to give them a chance
to show that they can actually accomplish their results, and
that is going to take a couple of years to do that.
But what we are doing right now is wrong, and I applaud
this Administration for trying to see if we can roll it back.
But what we have to do is roll back in an intelligent way to
make sure that the states are not only just given the
authority, but also are not going to be limited in what their
authority does by outside sources or outside limitations that
come in there.
I thank all four of you for being here. I thank the
Committee also for being here and the questions they have.
Are there other questions on another round?
Mr. Grijalva. No, Mr. Chairman. Just to enter into the
record from Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness, Mr.
Feehan, on a response to a question regarding the Endangered
Species Act and effect on military preparedness, in which he
says that the current status without any legislative change
protects their interest, in terms of preparation.
And to just clarify that response by Director Tubbs was in
terms of inclusion in the review of the current plans had to do
with this present Administration, not the former.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Is there anyone else?
Then, if not, for our witnesses, once again, thank you for
being here. I appreciate that. The public record will stay open
for a while.
If there are other questions that Members have, they may be
submitted to you. We would ask you to respond to those. Those
will all be part of the record in a timely fashion.
Where is my other sheet of what I have to say at the very
end? No one can go until I say it.
Well, it is not there, not there, or not there. Oh, well,
thank you for being here.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. There is something I have to say, and it is
we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of Gary R. Herbert, Governor of the State of Utah
Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for holding
this important hearing. I appreciate you inviting me to share with you
and members of this Committee some thoughts on management concepts for
public lands as they pertain to ``Empowering States in Sage Grouse
Management.''
introduction
It is easy to come and testify against unpopular Federal programs.
That is not my purpose today. I am here to deliver a message about our
successes and what is needed to protect sage-grouse, western habitats,
and hardworking Americans.
Catastrophic wildfire has become a major concern across the
American West. This year, the Federal Government has spent $2 billion
on wildfire control. This is a new record and a tremendously burdensome
expenditure for the American taxpayer. The fires were so bad that the
smoke plume literally spanned the Nation this summer. Some of America's
most pristine forests, national parks, and vistas burned for months.
The impacts of catastrophic wildlife to the lives of millions of
Americans cannot be understated.
watershed restoration initiative
When it comes to sage-grouse, our Number one concern in the state
of Utah is wildfire. In 2007, Utah experienced a severe wildfire
season. The state's wildfires in sage-grouse areas were particularly
bad. One catastrophic wildfire burned over 200,000 acres in central
Utah. The wildfire burned so hot, that it jumped a multi-lane
interstate freeway and actually killed a driver. As a state, we
assessed the problem and took action. We raised millions of dollars in
private and state funding. We began to address the root causes of
catastrophic wildfire in sage-grouse habitats and began to restore Utah
watersheds.
This program, The Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, has
completed hundreds of projects in the last 10 years. Over 40 private,
state, and Federal partners contribute to this program financially. We
have invested over 150 million dollars and treated approximately 1.5
million acres. By any standard, this program has been an overwhelming
success. It has not only saved the state from wildfire, it has saved
hundreds of millions of dollars in firefighting costs.
These projects do more than just control wildfire. They restore our
watersheds, native vegetative communities, and dramatically enhance
habitat for wildlife. These areas are wetter, produce more runoff, and
they dramatically increase the resilience and redundancy of habitats
for sage-grouse. Our researchers are documenting dramatic measurable
improvements in habitat utilization, nesting success, and population
response of sage-grouse in these restored areas.
results for wildfire
The Watershed Restoration Initiative is working to control
wildfire. We have fewer fires in our Sage Grouse Management Areas.
Naturally occurring fires are smaller and easier to put out.
Catastrophic wildfire numbers are a mere fraction of what these were
just 10 years ago.
One measure of success: ``Total acres burned'' has improved
dramatically. From 1999-2007, the 9 years before these conservation
actions, wildfires within the state of Utah burned 628,663 acres within
Utah Sage Grouse Management Areas. This amounts to 8.7 percent of
acreage within Utah's SGMAs in a 9-year period.
From 2008-2016, the 9 years after these conservation actions were
commenced, wildfires within the state of Utah burned 114,111 acres
within Utah's Sage Grouse Management Areas. This amounts to 1.5 percent
of acreage within Utah's SMGAs that were impacted by wildfire during
the 9-year period.
This is fivefold improvement since just 2008. Just as importantly,
this means that 514,552 fewer acres were burned by wildfire in the last
9 years compared to the 9 years before the Watershed Restoration
Initiative Commenced. The improvement within Utah's SGMAs is
significant and demonstrates that Utah's regulatory system is more than
adequate to control the threat of wildfire.
why this matters
I am here to do more than just share a feel good success story of a
program that is working. I am here to protect these programs. In 2015,
the Obama administration issued new Federal land use plans in the name
of sage-grouse. This followed 30 years of listing petitions that
claimed that western states could not manage sage-grouse.
We understand the needs of our sage-grouse, and their unique
habitats within the state. We have protected and grown our grouse
populations for decades. We have studied and adaptively managed for
sage-grouse success. We have spent tens of millions of dollars to
protect, restore, enhance, and grow sage-grouse habitat in the state of
Utah. The state, stakeholders, and citizens support these common-sense
programs that work for Utah and its citizens. Our investment in sage-
grouse conservation has been very successful.
federal plans hurt programs needed the most
The new BLM and Forest Service sage-grouse plan amendments are
aimed at imposing more regulations on the state of Utah. Let me be very
direct so there can be no confusion. These new regulations are a far
cry from ``collaboration'' or ``balance.'' In fact, these plans
undermine the programs that are doing the most for sage-grouse in Utah.
Let me give you one example. The Federal sage-grouse plans are
based on a paradigm of regulation, not conservation. Take oil and gas
drilling. Documents obtained by the state of Utah show that Federal
officials are mandating ``no surface occupancy'' for oil and gas
drilling within Utah's Sage Grouse Management Areas. Is oil and gas a
big problem in Utah's Sage Grouse Management Areas? Not at all. In
fact, there are less than 200 active oil and gas wells on the 7.4
million acres of Utah's SGMAs. This is far below the oil and gas
density levels for priority habitat agreed upon with Federal officials.
Ninety-four percent of Utah's sage-grouse are protected within
Utah's Sage Grouse Management Areas. This is the highest percentage of
birds protected within core areas of any western state. This is also
our best sage-grouse habitat. Instead of looking for ways to augment
the Watershed Restoration Initiative that has saved 500,000 acres from
wildfire and post wildfire effects, Federal sage-grouse plans were
focused on a few oil and gas wells.
It gets worse. The state of Utah relies on economic activity in
areas outside of our Sage Grouse Management Areas help pay for Utah's
Watershed Restoration Initiative. These new regulations have
essentially brought much of the new economic activity in areas outside
of Utah's SGMAs to a standstill. What this means is that funding from
mitigation, sportsmen, and state tax revenues are being lost. This
threatens the one program, (i.e. the Watershed Restoration Initiative)
that is doing the most to protect and restore sage-grouse in the state
of Utah.
These Federal sage-grouse plans may be well intentioned, but they
are a threat to the partnerships, funding, and collaboration that makes
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative Work. Let me be clear: These
BLM and Forest Service Plans are bad for conservation, bad for Utahns,
and bad for sage-grouse.
good intentions unintended consequences
Good intentions do not make good policy. This year the Federal
Government has spent $2 billion trying to control western wildfires.
This is the most that has ever been spent in American history. For 100
years, we have controlled the natural fire cycle that kept stands of
invasive pinyon and juniper trees in check. Litigation has stopped most
logging and forest thinning needed to control the fuel loads. Federal
regulators continue to cut cattle and sheep grazing which also are an
important fire prevention measure.
These ill-advised policies are not working. Western states must now
live with the catastrophic wildfires, toxic smoke filled air, loss of
homes and businesses, and even the loss of human life. Certainly, this
was not the outcome environmental activists expected. However, it is
the good citizens of my state who must live with the unintended
consequences of these failed policies on a daily basis.
let western states manage
My earnest petition is that Congress let the people who are
impacted the most enact the policies needed to protect our families,
and our communities. Western states are in the best spot to look beyond
the good intentions and consider the very real, and very disastrous,
real world impacts of these policies.
I am asking you to protect a program that is unrivaled in the
Nation. The success of our Watershed Restoration Initiative in
restoring and protecting sage-grouse is one of the reasons why Utah's
legislature passed a nearly unanimous bipartisan resolution in support
of a bill introduced by Congressman Bishop to protect Utah's sage-
grouse conservation efforts.
It is time to revitalize and replace outdated Federal land
policies. The new era of public lands will be one in which state and
local entities take on a greater role and will use their skill,
flexibility, and innovation to meet the recreation, environmental, and
energy needs of the 21st century.
Congress must look at these policies from a conservation, fiscal,
and human standpoint. Let our state's programs continue to work. Take
action and pass legislation that throws out these ill-advised Great
Basin BLM and Forest Service Land Use Plans. Protect the proven on-the-
ground conservation programs that are working for sage-grouse, sage-
grouse habitats, and hardworking Americans.
______
Rep. Adam Smith Submission
Department of the Army,
Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Washington, DC
April 15, 2016
The Honorable Adam Smith
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Smith:
This letter is in response to your request regarding the Greater
Sage-grouse and whether a future decision to list the species under the
Endangered Species Act would affect military training, operations, and
readiness.
The Department of the Army is closely monitoring the status of the
Greater Sage-grouse and its relationship to the Army mission. We
currently believe that existing statutory authorities adequately
protect the interests of the Department and we do not anticipate a need
for additional legislation from Congress. The Army's responses to your
specific questions are attached.
Thank you for your inquiry into this matter and your continued
support of the Army, our Soldiers and their Families.
Sincerely,
Katherine Hammack
Enclosure
*****
1. How would the land use plans, and other requirements for protection
of the Greater Sage-grouse and its habitat, affect military training,
operations, or readiness? The Army has reviewed relevant portions of
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and state management
plans and does not believe these plans will affect Army training,
operations, or readiness to any significant degree. Army installations
such as Yakima Training Center with a resident population of greater
sage-grouse have already included conservation measures for this
species in their Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP).
INRMPs and the species conservation measures therein are approved by
both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the state
conservation agency. The Greater Sage-grouse conservation measures in
the INRMP have not prevented Yakima Training Center from meeting its
military mission.
2. If the Greater Sage-grouse were to be listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA, what affect would that decision have on
military training, operations, or readiness? If the species were to be
listed as threatened or endangered, consultation under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) would be required for actions on Army
lands that may affect the species. While there had been some concern
that listing the Greater Sage-grouse may result in additional
restrictions, the Army now expects the USFWS to take into account the
Greater Sage-grouse conservation measures we have implemented through
our INRMPs, rather than requiring additional restrictions or mitigation
actions. We also expect our installations would be exempt from the
designation of critical habitat because of the conservation measures in
our INRMPs. Therefore, considering these expectations, the Army does
not anticipate a significant impact to military training, operations,
or readiness if the species is listed under the ESA.
3. How do the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs)
allow for both training and wildlife conservation at U.S. military
installations while not adversely affecting military training,
operations, or readiness? Army INRMPs establish conservation measures
for the natural resources on Army installations that are consistent
with the military use of our installations and ensure that there is no
net loss in the capability of installation lands to support the
military mission. Army INRMPs arc developed by the Army's installation
natural resource managers in close coordination with our training range
managers and installation commanders. This ensures that there are
effective species conservation measures and that those measures are
tailored to the installation military mission to avoid adverse effects
to mission.
4. What statutory authorities does the Department of Defense have to
address potential conflicts that may arise in the future to ensure that
military training, operations, and readiness will not be adversely
affected? Does the Department believe these authorities are sufficient
to protect the interests of the Department of Defense without
additional legislation from Congress? Congress made several important
changes to Section 4 of the ESA in 2003 that provide DoD the
authorities to address conflicts. ESA subparagraph 4(a)(3)(B) exempts
military lands from critical habitat designation if the lands are
covered by an approved INRMP that provides a benefit to the subject
species. The DoD may also rely on ESA paragraph 4(b)(2) to exclude the
installation from critical habitat designation based on potential
impacts to national security. The DoD may also invoke subsection 7(j)
of the ESA. This provision directs the Endangered Species Committee to
grant an exemption for any action the Secretary of Defense believes is
necessary for reasons of national security. The cited authorities are
sufficient to protect the interests of the Army without additional
legislation from Congress.
______
Rep. Grijalva Submissions
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sage-Grouse Implementation Options in Northwest Colorado
Greater Sage-grouse Conservation--The Collaboration Continues
The BLM's Greater Sage-grouse Plans provide a framework for managing
the activities on our public lands in a way that preserves multiple
use, sustains the land for future generations, and meets the
conservation goals for sage-grouse and the sagebrush habitat. Thanks to
these plans, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the greater
sage-grouse no longer required listing under the Endangered Species
Act, a status we can keep with thoughtful implementation in each state
and region. The collaborative framework provides discretion to BLM
state and field offices. This allows them to work with cooperating
agencies and other partners, to determine the best way to achieve the
goals and objectives of the plans in the context of proposed uses.
An overview of the discretion available to the BLM to manage major
public land uses under the Northwest Colorado Plan is provided below.
Protective measures
Practices, such as avoiding large-scale transmission
lines, to preserve land and vegetation, are limited to
sage-grouse habitat.
The strongest measures, for instance only allowing oil and
gas development without surface disturbance, are only
targeted on the most important habitat.
These habitat areas are identified by state and federal
scientists.
Avoidance
The Plans' framework, rather than closing lands to uses, identifies
potentially harmful uses that should be avoided but may be permitted as
needed, even in high quality habitat, such as:
Wind energy development in General Habitat Management
Areas
Major rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as transmission
lines--in General and Priority Habitat Management Areas
Minor rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as roads--in
General and Priority Habitat Management Areas
Oil and gas leasing and development
Only lands within one mile of active leks are closed to leasing.
Agencies are required to prioritize oil and gas leasing and development
outside sage-grouse habitat. Neither the Rocky Mountain Record of
Decision nor the Northwest Colorado Plan specify methods for
prioritization--focusing instead on what BLM state offices should
``consider.'' Similarly, BLM's guidance (IM 2016-143) provides a set of
``factors to consider'' in prioritizing leasing and development,
including:
Parcels immediately adjacent or proximate to existing oil
and gas leases and development operations or other land use
development should be more appropriate for consideration
before parcels that are not near existing operations.
Parcels that are within existing Federal oil and gas units
should be more appropriate for consideration than parcels
not within existing Federal oil and gas units.
Parcels in areas with higher potential for development are
more appropriate for consideration than parcels with lower
potential for development.
Parcels in areas of lower-value sage-grouse habitat or
further away from important life-history habitat features
are more appropriate for consideration than parcels in
higher-value habitat or closer to important life-history
habitat features.
Parcels within areas having completed field-development
Environmental Impact Statements or Master Leasing Plans
that allow for adequate site-specific mitigation and are in
conformance with the objectives and provisions in the
Greater Sage-grouse Plans may be more appropriate for
consideration than parcels that have not been evaluated by
the BLM in this manner.
Parcels within areas where law or regulation indicates
that offering the lands for leasing is in the government's
interest will generally be considered more appropriate for
leasing.
As appropriate, use the BLM's Surface Disturbance Analysis
and Reclamation Tracking Tool (SDARTT) to evaluate
Expressions of Interest (nominated parcels) in Priority
Habitat Management Areas, to ensure that existing surface
disturbance does not exceed the disturbance and density
caps and that development of valid existing rights (solid
minerals, rights-of-way) for approved-but-not-yet-
constructed surface disturbing activities would not exceed
the caps.
Travel management
No routes are closed in the Record of Decision or
Northwest Colorado Plan.
Route designation is to be determined in follow-on
planning tailored to specific planning areas based on broad
considerations set out in the Northwest Colorado Plan.
Livestock grazing
No areas are closed to grazing, either in the Record of
Decision or Northwest Colorado, and the Plan does not set
out habitat requirements.
The Northwest Colorado Plan sets out sage-grouse seasonal
habitat indicators and associated desired conditions or
objectives.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-142) provides for at least one
alternative to consider adopting thresholds and defined
responses as terms and conditions for renewal of a grazing
permit or lease in Priority Habitat Management Areas, but
does not require they be incorporated.
Effectiveness monitoring
The Northwest Colorado Plan sets out objectives and
commits the agencies to track whether these objectives are
being met.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-139) requires the agency to
compile monitoring data and prepare reports regarding the
effectiveness of the plan in meeting the objectives and
goals for different resources but does not mandate a
specific response. If objectives are not being met or
progress is not being made toward meeting them, BLM's
report is to discuss ``if and how the BLM can work to
reduce or eliminate any of the causal factors.''
Adaptive management
The Northwest Colorado Plan sets out triggers for
considering when actions, such as changing General Habitat
Management Areas to Priority Habitat Management Areas, may
need to be taken, based on habitat conditions and
population numbers determined with state agencies.
Triggers are based on habitat loss and population
declines.
Hard triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
is not succeeding) require specific responses.
Soft triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
actions may not be achieving desired results) require
conservation on a project-by-project basis that is designed
with stakeholders to ``implement an appropriate response
strategy.''
______
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sage-Grouse Implementation Options in Idaho/Southwestern Montana
Greater Sage-grouse Conservation--The Collaboration Continues
The BLM's Greater Sage-grouse Plans provide a framework for managing
the activities on our public lands in a way that preserves multiple
use, sustains the land for future generations, and meets the
conservation goals for sage-grouse and the sagebrush habitat. Thanks to
these plans, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the greater
sage-grouse no longer required listing under the Endangered Species
Act, a status we can keep with thoughtful implementation in each state
and region. The collaborative framework provides discretion to BLM
state and field offices. This allows them to work with cooperating
agencies and other partners, to determine the best way to achieve the
goals and objectives of the plans in the context of proposed uses.
An overview of the discretion available to the BLM to manage major
public land uses under the Idaho/Southwestern Montana Plan is provided
below.
Protective measures
Practices, such as avoiding large-scale transmission
lines, to preserve land and vegetation, are limited to
sage-grouse habitat.
The strongest measures, for instance only allowing oil and
gas development without surface disturbance, are only
targeted on the most important habitat.
These habitat areas are identified by state and federal
scientists.
Avoidance
The Plan's framework, rather than closing lands to uses, identifies
potentially harmful uses that should be avoided but may be permitted as
needed, even in high quality habitat, such as:
Wind energy development in General and Important Habitat
Management Areas
Solar energy development in Important Habitat Management
Areas
Major rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as transmission
lines--in General, Important and Priority Habitat
Management Areas
Minor rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as roads--in
Important and Priority Habitat Management Areas
Oil and gas leasing and development
No areas are closed to leasing. Agencies are required to prioritize oil
and gas leasing and development outside sage-grouse habitat. Neither
the Great Basin Record of Decision nor the Idaho Plan specify methods
for prioritization--focusing instead on what BLM state offices should
``consider.'' Similarly, BLM's guidance (IM 2016-143) provides a set of
``factors to consider'' in prioritizing leasing and development,
including:
Parcels immediately adjacent or proximate to existing oil
and gas leases and development operations or other land use
development should be more appropriate for consideration
before parcels that are not near existing operations.
Parcels that are within existing Federal oil and gas units
should be more appropriate for consideration than parcels
not within existing Federal oil and gas units.
Parcels in areas with higher potential for development are
more appropriate for consideration than parcels with lower
potential for development.
Parcels in areas of lower-value sage-grouse habitat or
further away from important life-history habitat features
are more appropriate for consideration than parcels in
higher-value habitat or closer to important life-history
habitat features.
Parcels within areas having completed field-development
Environmental Impact Statements or Master Leasing Plans
that allow for adequate site-specific mitigation and are in
conformance with the objectives and provisions in the
Greater Sage-grouse Plans may be more appropriate for
consideration than parcels that have not been evaluated by
the BLM in this manner.
Parcels within areas where law or regulation indicates
that offering the lands for leasing is in the government's
interest will generally be considered more appropriate for
leasing.
As appropriate, use the BLM's Surface Disturbance Analysis
and Reclamation Tracking Tool (SDARTT) to evaluate
Expressions of Interest (nominated parcels) in Priority
Habitat Management Areas, to ensure that existing surface
disturbance does not exceed the disturbance and density
caps and that development of valid existing rights (solid
minerals, rights-of-way) for approved-but-not-yet-
constructed surface disturbing activities would not exceed
the caps.
Travel management
No routes are closed in the Record of Decision or Idaho
Plan.
Route designation is to be determined in follow-on
planning tailored to specific planning areas with broad
``guidelines'' included in Appendix L to the Idaho Plan.
Livestock grazing
No areas are closed to grazing, either in the Record of
Decision or Idaho Plan, and the Plan does not set out
habitat requirements.
The Idaho Plan sets out sage-grouse seasonal habitat
indicators and associated desired conditions or objectives.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-142) provides for at least one
alternative to consider adopting thresholds and defined
responses as terms and conditions for renewal of a grazing
permit or lease in Sagebrush Focal Areas or Priority
Habitat Management Areas, but does not require they be
incorporated.
Effectiveness monitoring
The Idaho Plan sets out objectives and commits the
agencies to track whether these objectives are being met.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-139) requires the agency to
compile monitoring data and prepare reports regarding the
effectiveness of the plan in meeting the objectives and
goals for different resources but does not mandate a
specific response. If objectives are not being met or
progress is not being made toward meeting them, BLM's
report is to discuss ``if and how the BLM can work to
reduce or eliminate any of the causal factors.''
Adaptive management
The Idaho Plan sets out triggers for considering when
actions, such as changing Important Habitat Management
Areas to Priority Habitat Management Areas, may need to be
taken, based on habitat conditions and population numbers
determined with state agencies.
Triggers are based on habitat loss and population
declines.
Hard triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
is not succeeding) require specific responses.
Soft triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
actions may not be achieving desired results) require
conservation on a project-by-project basis that is designed
with stakeholders to ``implement an appropriate response
strategy.''
______
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sage-Grouse Implementation Options in Montana
Greater Sage-grouse Conservation--The Collaboration Continues
The BLM's Greater Sage-grouse Plans provide a framework for managing
the activities on our public lands in a way that preserves multiple
use, sustains the land for future generations, and meets the
conservation goals for sage-grouse and the sagebrush habitat. Thanks to
these plans, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the greater
sage-grouse no longer required listing under the Endangered Species
Act, a status we can keep with thoughtful implementation in each state
and region. The collaborative framework provides discretion to BLM
state and field offices. This allows them to work with cooperating
agencies and other partners, to determine the best way to achieve the
goals and objectives of the plans in the context of proposed uses.
An overview of the discretion available to the BLM to manage major
public land uses under the Montana Plans \1\ is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These plans provide management for all but Southwestern
Montana, which is managed under a separate sage-grouse plan that
contains similarly flexible provisions as the Montana Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistency with Montana's plan
The Montana Plans are designed to be consistent with the
State of Montana's sage-grouse plan and to ensure that
sage-grouse are managed similarly on state, private and
federal lands.
The Montana Plans contain a built-in review process
allowing for changes, including to disturbance caps, based
on updates to and progress achieved by the State of
Montana's sage-grouse plan.
Protective measures
Practices, such as avoiding large-scale transmission
lines, to preserve land and vegetation, are limited to
sage-grouse habitat.
The strongest measures, for instance only allowing oil and
gas development without surface disturbance, are only
targeted on the most important habitat.
These habitat areas are identified by state and federal
scientists.
Avoidance
The Plans' framework, rather than closing lands to uses, identifies
potentially harmful uses that should be avoided but may be permitted as
needed, even in high quality habitat, such as:
Wind energy development in General and Restoration Habitat
Management Areas
Solar energy development in General and Restoration
Habitat Management Areas
Major rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as transmission
lines--in General, Restoration and Priority Habitat
Management Areas
Minor rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as roads--in
Restoration and Priority Habitat Management Areas
Oil and gas leasing and development
No areas are closed to leasing. Agencies are required to prioritize oil
and gas leasing and development outside sage-grouse habitat. Neither
the Rocky Mountain Record of Decision nor the Montana Plans specify
methods for prioritization--focusing instead on what BLM state offices
should ``consider.'' Similarly, BLM's guidance (IM 2016-143) provides a
set of ``factors to consider'' in prioritizing leasing and development,
including:
Parcels immediately adjacent or proximate to existing oil
and gas leases and development operations or other land use
development should be more appropriate for consideration
before parcels that are not near existing operations.
Parcels that are within existing Federal oil and gas units
should be more appropriate for consideration than parcels
not within existing Federal oil and gas units.
Parcels in areas with higher potential for development are
more appropriate for consideration than parcels with lower
potential for development.
Parcels in areas of lower-value sage-grouse habitat or
further away from important life-history habitat features
are more appropriate for consideration than parcels in
higher-value habitat or closer to important life-history
habitat features.
Parcels within areas having completed field-development
Environmental Impact Statements or Master Leasing Plans
that allow for adequate site-specific mitigation and are in
conformance with the objectives and provisions in the
Greater Sage-grouse Plans may be more appropriate for
consideration than parcels that have not been evaluated by
the BLM in this manner.
Parcels within areas where law or regulation indicates
that offering the lands for leasing is in the government's
interest will generally be considered more appropriate for
leasing.
As appropriate, use the BLM's Surface Disturbance Analysis
and Reclamation Tracking Tool (SDARTT) to evaluate
Expressions of Interest (nominated parcels) in Priority
Habitat Management Areas, to ensure that existing surface
disturbance does not exceed the disturbance and density
caps and that development of valid existing rights (solid
minerals, rights-of-way) for approved-but-not-yet-
constructed surface disturbing activities would not exceed
the caps.
Travel management
No routes are closed in the Record of Decision or Montana
Plans.
Route designation is to be determined in follow-on
planning tailored to specific planning areas.
Livestock grazing
No areas are closed to grazing, either in the Record of
Decision or Montana Plans, and the Plans do not set out
habitat requirements.
The Montana Plans set out sage-grouse seasonal habitat
indicators and associated desired conditions or objectives.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-142) provides for at least one
alternative to consider adopting thresholds and defined
responses as terms and conditions for renewal of a grazing
permit or lease in Sagebrush Focal Areas or Priority
Habitat Management Areas, but does not require they be
incorporated.
Effectiveness monitoring
The Montana Plans set out objectives and commit the
agencies to track whether these objectives are being met.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-139) requires the agency to
compile monitoring data and prepare reports regarding the
effectiveness of the plan in meeting the objectives and
goals for different resources but does not mandate a
specific response. If objectives are not being met or
progress is not being made toward meeting them, BLM's
report is to discuss ``if and how the BLM can work to
reduce or eliminate any of the causal factors.''
Adaptive management
The Montana Plans set out triggers for considering when
actions, such as habitat restoration, may need to be taken,
based on habitat conditions and population numbers
determined with state agencies.
Triggers are based on habitat loss and population
declines.
Hard triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
is not succeeding) require specific responses.
Soft triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
actions may not be achieving desired results) require
conservation on a project-by-project basis that is designed
with stakeholders, including state agencies, ``with
consideration of local knowledge and conditions.''
______
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sage-Grouse Implementation Options in Nevada
Greater Sage-grouse Conservation--The Collaboration Continues
The BLM's Greater Sage-grouse Plans provide a framework for managing
the activities on our public lands in a way that preserves multiple
use, sustains the land for future generations, and meets the
conservation goals for sage-grouse and the sagebrush habitat. Thanks to
these plans, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the greater
sage-grouse no longer required listing under the Endangered Species
Act, a status we can keep with thoughtful implementation in each state
and region. The collaborative framework provides discretion to BLM
state and field offices. This allows them to work with cooperating
agencies and other partners, to determine the best way to achieve the
goals and objectives of the plans in the context of proposed uses.
An overview of the discretion available to the BLM to manage major
public land uses under the Nevada Plan is provided below.
Protective measures
Practices, such as avoiding large-scale transmission
lines, to preserve land and vegetation, are limited to
sage-grouse habitat.
The strongest measures, for instance only allowing oil and
gas development without surface disturbance, are only
targeted on the most important habitat.
These habitat areas are identified by state and federal
scientists.
Avoidance
The Plan's framework, rather than closing lands to uses, identifies
potentially harmful uses that should be avoided but may be permitted as
needed, even in high quality habitat, such as:
Wind energy development in General Habitat Management
Areas
Major rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as transmission
lines--in General and Priority Habitat Management Areas
Minor rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as roads--in
Priority Habitat Management Areas
Oil and gas leasing and development
No areas are closed to leasing. Agencies are required to prioritize oil
and gas leasing and development outside sage-grouse habitat. Neither
the Great Basin Record of Decision nor the Nevada Plan specify methods
for prioritization--focusing instead on what BLM state offices should
``consider.'' Similarly, BLM's guidance (IM 2016-143) provides a set of
``factors to consider'' in prioritizing leasing and development,
including:
Parcels immediately adjacent or proximate to existing oil
and gas leases and development operations or other land use
development should be more appropriate for consideration
before parcels that are not near existing operations.
Parcels that are within existing Federal oil and gas units
should be more appropriate for consideration than parcels
not within existing Federal oil and gas units.
Parcels in areas with higher potential for development are
more appropriate for consideration than parcels with lower
potential for development.
Parcels in areas of lower-value sage-grouse habitat or
further away from important life-history habitat features
are more appropriate for consideration than parcels in
higher-value habitat or closer to important life-history
habitat features.
Parcels within areas having completed field-development
Environmental Impact Statements or Master Leasing Plans
that allow for adequate site-specific mitigation and are in
conformance with the objectives and provisions in the
Greater Sage-grouse Plans may be more appropriate for
consideration than parcels that have not been evaluated by
the BLM in this manner.
Parcels within areas where law or regulation indicates
that offering the lands for leasing is in the government's
interest will generally be considered more appropriate for
leasing.
As appropriate, use the BLM's Surface Disturbance Analysis
and Reclamation Tracking Tool (SDARTT) to evaluate
Expressions of Interest (nominated parcels) in Priority
Habitat Management Areas, to ensure that existing surface
disturbance does not exceed the disturbance and density
caps and that development of valid existing rights (solid
minerals, rights-of-way) for approved-but-not-yet-
constructed surface disturbing activities would not exceed
the caps.
Travel management
No routes are closed in the Record of Decision or Nevada
Plan.
Route designation is to be determined in follow-on
planning tailored to specific planning areas.
Livestock grazing
No areas are closed to grazing, either in the Record of
Decision or Nevada Plan, and the Plan does not set out
habitat requirements.
The Nevada Plan sets out sage-grouse seasonal habitat
indicators and associated desired conditions or objectives.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-142) provides for at least one
alternative to consider adopting thresholds and defined
responses as terms and conditions for renewal of a grazing
permit or lease in Sagebrush Focal Areas or Priority
Habitat Management Areas, but does not require they be
incorporated.
Effectiveness monitoring
The Nevada Plan sets out objectives and commits the
agencies to track whether these objectives are being met.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-139) requires the agency to
compile monitoring data and prepare reports regarding the
effectiveness of the plan in meeting the objectives and
goals for different resources but does not mandate a
specific response. If objectives are not being met or
progress is not being made toward meeting them, BLM's
report is to discuss ``if and how the BLM can work to
reduce or eliminate any of the causal factors.''
Adaptive management
The Nevada Plan sets out triggers for considering when
actions, such as habitat restoration, may need to be taken,
based on habitat conditions and population numbers
determined with state agencies.
Triggers are based on habitat loss and population
declines.
Hard triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
is not succeeding) require specific responses.
Soft triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
actions may not be achieving desired results) require
conservation on a project-by-project basis that is designed
with stakeholders, including state agencies, ``with
consideration of local knowledge and conditions.''
______
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sage-Grouse Implementation Options in Oregon
Greater Sage-grouse Conservation--The Collaboration Continues
The BLM's Greater Sage-grouse Plans provide a framework for managing
the activities on our public lands in a way that preserves multiple
use, sustains the land for future generations, and meets the
conservation goals for sage-grouse and the sagebrush habitat. Thanks to
these plans, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the greater
sage-grouse no longer required listing under the Endangered Species
Act, a status we can keep with thoughtful implementation in each state
and region. The collaborative framework provides discretion to BLM
state and field offices. This allows them to work with cooperating
agencies and other partners, to determine the best way to achieve the
goals and objectives of the plans in the context of proposed uses.
An overview of the discretion available to the BLM to manage major
public land uses under the Oregon Plan is provided below.
Protective measures
Practices, such as avoiding large-scale transmission
lines, to preserve land and vegetation, are limited to
sage-grouse habitat.
The strongest measures, for instance only allowing oil and
gas development without surface disturbance, are only
targeted on the most important habitat.
These habitat areas are identified by state and federal
scientists.
Avoidance
The Plan's framework, rather than closing lands to uses, identifies
potentially harmful uses that should be avoided but may be permitted as
needed, even in high quality habitat, such as:
Wind energy development in General Habitat Management
Areas and certain counties with significant wind potential
in Priority Habitat Management Areas
Solar energy development in General Habitat Management
Areas
Major rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as transmission
lines--in General and Priority Habitat Management Areas
Minor rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as roads--in
Priority Habitat Management Areas
Oil and gas leasing and development
No areas are closed to leasing. Agencies are required to prioritize oil
and gas leasing and development outside sage-grouse habitat. Neither
the Great Basin Record of Decision nor the Oregon Plan specify methods
for prioritization--focusing instead on what BLM state offices should
``consider.'' Similarly, BLM's guidance (IM 2016-143) provides a set of
``factors to consider'' in prioritizing leasing and development,
including:
Parcels immediately adjacent or proximate to existing oil
and gas leases and development operations or other land use
development should be more appropriate for consideration
before parcels that are not near existing operations.
Parcels that are within existing Federal oil and gas units
should be more appropriate for consideration than parcels
not within existing Federal oil and gas units.
Parcels in areas with higher potential for development are
more appropriate for consideration than parcels with lower
potential for development.
Parcels in areas of lower-value sage-grouse habitat or
further away from important life-history habitat features
are more appropriate for consideration than parcels in
higher-value habitat or closer to important life-history
habitat features.
Parcels within areas having completed field-development
Environmental Impact Statements or Master Leasing Plans
that allow for adequate site-specific mitigation and are in
conformance with the objectives and provisions in the
Greater Sage-grouse Plans may be more appropriate for
consideration than parcels that have not been evaluated by
the BLM in this manner.
Parcels within areas where law or regulation indicates
that offering the lands for leasing is in the government's
interest will generally be considered more appropriate for
leasing.
As appropriate, use the BLM's Surface Disturbance Analysis
and Reclamation Tracking Tool (SDARTT) to evaluate
Expressions of Interest (nominated parcels) in Priority
Habitat Management Areas, to ensure that existing surface
disturbance does not exceed the disturbance and density
caps and that development of valid existing rights (solid
minerals, rights-of-way) for approved-but-not-yet-
constructed surface disturbing activities would not exceed
the caps.
Travel management
No routes are closed in the Record of Decision or Oregon
Plan.
Route designation is to be determined in follow-on
planning tailored to specific planning areas with broad
considerations included in the Oregon Plan.
Livestock grazing
No areas are closed to grazing, either in the Record of
Decision or Oregon Plan, and the Plan does not set out
habitat requirements.
The Oregon Plan sets out sage-grouse seasonal habitat
indicators and associated desired conditions or objectives.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-142) provides for at least one
alternative to consider adopting thresholds and defined
responses as terms and conditions for renewal of a grazing
permit or lease in Sagebrush Focal Areas or Priority
Habitat Management Areas, but does not require they be
incorporated.
Effectiveness monitoring
The Oregon Plan sets out objectives and commits the
agencies to track whether these objectives are being met.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-139) requires the agency to
compile monitoring data and prepare reports regarding the
effectiveness of the plan in meeting the objectives and
goals for different resources but does not mandate a
specific response. If objectives are not being met or
progress is not being made toward meeting them, BLM's
report is to discuss ``if and how the BLM can work to
reduce or eliminate any of the causal factors.''
Adaptive management
The Oregon Plan sets out triggers for considering when
actions, such as changing General Habitat Management Areas
to Priority Habitat Management Areas, may need to be taken,
based on habitat conditions and population numbers
determined with state agencies.
Triggers are based on habitat loss and population
declines.
Hard triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
is not succeeding) require specific responses.
Soft triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
actions may not be achieving desired results) require
conservation on a project-by-project basis that is designed
with stakeholders to ``implement an appropriate response
strategy.''
______
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sage-Grouse Implementation Options in Utah
Greater Sage-grouse Conservation--The Collaboration Continues
The BLM's Greater Sage-grouse Plans provide a framework for managing
the activities on our public lands in a way that preserves multiple
use, sustains the land for future generations, and meets the
conservation goals for sage-grouse and the sagebrush habitat. Thanks to
these plans, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the greater
sage-grouse no longer required listing under the Endangered Species
Act, a status we can keep with thoughtful implementation in each state
and region. The collaborative framework provides discretion to BLM
state and field offices. This allows them to work with cooperating
agencies and other partners, to determine the best way to achieve the
goals and objectives of the plans in the context of proposed uses.
An overview of the discretion available to the BLM to manage major
public land uses under the Utah Plan is provided below.
Protective measures
Practices, such as avoiding large-scale transmission
lines, to preserve land and vegetation, are limited to
sage-grouse habitat.
The strongest measures, for instance only allowing oil and
gas development without surface disturbance, are only
targeted on the most important habitat.
These habitat areas are identified by state and federal
scientists.
Avoidance
The Plan's framework, rather than closing lands to uses, identifies
potentially harmful uses that should be avoided but may be permitted as
needed, even in high quality habitat, such as:
Major rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as transmission
lines--in Priority Habitat Management Areas
Minor rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as roads--in
Priority Habitat Management Areas
Limited Prescriptions
The Utah Plan provides for BLM to permit uses without specifying in
detail how protections will be managed for:
Major rights-of-way/infrastructure in General Habitat
Management Areas
Minor rights-of-way/infrastructure in General Habitat
Management Areas
Wind energy development in General Habitat Management
Areas
Oil and gas development in General Habitat Management
Areas
Oil and gas leasing and development
No areas are closed to leasing. Agencies are required to prioritize oil
and gas leasing and development outside sage-grouse habitat. Neither
the Great Basin Record of Decision, Rocky Mountain Record of Decision
nor the Utah Plan specify methods for prioritization--focusing instead
on what BLM state offices should ``consider.'' Similarly, BLM's
guidance (IM 2016-143) provides a set of ``factors to consider'' in
prioritizing leasing and development, including:
Parcels immediately adjacent or proximate to existing oil
and gas leases and development operations or other land use
development should be more appropriate for consideration
before parcels that are not near existing operations.
Parcels that are within existing Federal oil and gas units
should be more appropriate for consideration than parcels
not within existing Federal oil and gas units.
Parcels in areas with higher potential for development are
more appropriate for consideration than parcels with lower
potential for development.
Parcels in areas of lower-value sage-grouse habitat or
further away from important life-history habitat features
are more appropriate for consideration than parcels in
higher-value habitat or closer to important life-history
habitat features.
Parcels within areas having completed field-development
Environmental Impact Statements or Master Leasing Plans
that allow for adequate site-specific mitigation and are in
conformance with the objectives and provisions in the
Greater Sage-grouse Plans may be more appropriate for
consideration than parcels that have not been evaluated by
the BLM in this manner.
Parcels within areas where law or regulation indicates
that offering the lands for leasing is in the government's
interest will generally be considered more appropriate for
leasing.
As appropriate, use the BLM's Surface Disturbance Analysis
and Reclamation Tracking Tool (SDARTT) to evaluate
Expressions of Interest (nominated parcels) in Priority
Habitat Management Areas, to ensure that existing surface
disturbance does not exceed the disturbance and density
caps and that development of valid existing rights (solid
minerals, rights-of-way) for approved-but-not-yet-
constructed surface disturbing activities would not exceed
the caps.
Travel management
No routes are closed in the Record of Decision or Utah
Plan.
Route designation is to be determined in follow-on
planning tailored to specific planning areas with broad
considerations included in the Utah Plan.
Livestock grazing
No areas are closed to grazing, either in the Record of
Decision or Idaho Plan, and the Plan does not set out
habitat requirements.
The Utah Plan sets out sage-grouse seasonal habitat
indicators and associated desired conditions or objectives.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-142) provides for at least one
alternative to consider adopting thresholds and defined
responses as terms and conditions for renewal of a grazing
permit or lease in Sagebrush Focal Areas or Priority
Habitat Management Areas, but does not require they be
incorporated.
Effectiveness monitoring
The Utah Plan sets out objectives and commits the agencies
to track whether these objectives are being met.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-139) requires the agency to
compile monitoring data and prepare reports regarding the
effectiveness of the plan in meeting the objectives and
goals for different resources but does not mandate a
specific response. If objectives are not being met or
progress is not being made toward meeting them, BLM's
report is to discuss ``if and how the BLM can work to
reduce or eliminate any of the causal factors.''
Adaptive management
The Utah Plan sets out triggers for considering when
actions, such as changing General Habitat Management Areas
to Priority Habitat Management Areas, may need to be taken,
based on habitat conditions and population numbers
determined with state agencies.
Triggers are based on habitat loss and population
declines.
Hard triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
is not succeeding) require specific responses.
Soft triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
actions may not be achieving desired results) require
conservation on a project-by-project basis that is designed
with stakeholders to ``implement an appropriate response
strategy.''
______
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sage-Grouse Implementation Options in Wyoming
Greater Sage-grouse Conservation--The Collaboration Continues
The BLM's Greater Sage-grouse Plans provide a framework for managing
the activities on our public lands in a way that preserves multiple
use, sustains the land for future generations, and meets the
conservation goals for sage-grouse and the sagebrush habitat. Thanks to
these plans, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the greater
sage-grouse no longer required listing under the Endangered Species
Act, a status we can keep with thoughtful implementation in each state
and region. The collaborative framework provides discretion to BLM
state and field offices. This allows them to work with cooperating
agencies and other partners, to determine the best way to achieve the
goals and objectives of the plans in the context of proposed uses.
An overview of the discretion available to the BLM to manage major
public land uses under the Wyoming Plans is provided below.
Consistency with Wyoming's plan
The Wyoming Plans are modeled on and designed to be
consistent with the State of Wyoming's sage-grouse plan and
to ensure that sage-grouse are managed similarly on state,
private and federal lands.
The Wyoming Plans incorporate the latest habitat
information from the state, which Wyoming released just
three months before BLM finalized the plans in Sept. 2015.
Protective measures
Practices, such as avoiding large-scale transmission
lines, to preserve land and vegetation, are limited to
sage-grouse habitat.
The strongest measures, for instance only allowing oil and
gas development without surface disturbance, are only
targeted on the most important habitat.
These habitat areas are identified by state and federal
scientists.
Avoidance
The Plans' framework, rather than closing lands to uses, identifies
potentially harmful uses that should be avoided but may be permitted as
needed, even in high quality habitat, such as:
Wind energy development in Priority Habitat Management
Areas
Solar energy development in General and Priority Habitat
Management Areas
Major rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as transmission
lines--in Priority Habitat Management Areas
Minor rights-of-way/infrastructure--such as roads--in
Priority Habitat Management Areas
Oil and gas leasing and development
No areas are closed to leasing. Agencies are required to prioritize oil
and gas leasing and development outside sage-grouse habitat. Neither
the Rocky Mountain Record of Decision nor the Wyoming Plans specify
methods for prioritization--focusing instead on what BLM state offices
should ``consider.'' Similarly, BLM's guidance (IM 2016-143) provides a
set of ``factors to consider'' in prioritizing leasing and development,
including:
Parcels immediately adjacent or proximate to existing oil
and gas leases and development operations or other land use
development should be more appropriate for consideration
before parcels that are not near existing operations.
Parcels that are within existing Federal oil and gas units
should be more appropriate for consideration than parcels
not within existing Federal oil and gas units.
Parcels in areas with higher potential for development are
more appropriate for consideration than parcels with lower
potential for development.
Parcels in areas of lower-value sage-grouse habitat or
further away from important life-history habitat features
are more appropriate for consideration than parcels in
higher-value habitat or closer to important life-history
habitat features.
Parcels within areas having completed field-development
Environmental Impact Statements or Master Leasing Plans
that allow for adequate site-specific mitigation and are in
conformance with the objectives and provisions in the
Greater Sage-grouse Plans may be more appropriate for
consideration than parcels that have not been evaluated by
the BLM in this manner.
Parcels within areas where law or regulation indicates
that offering the lands for leasing is in the government's
interest will generally be considered more appropriate for
leasing.
As appropriate, use the BLM's Surface Disturbance Analysis
and Reclamation Tracking Tool (SDARTT) to evaluate
Expressions of Interest (nominated parcels) in Priority
Habitat Management Areas, to ensure that existing surface
disturbance does not exceed the disturbance and density
caps and that development of valid existing rights (solid
minerals, rights-of-way) for approved-but-not-yet-
constructed surface disturbing activities would not exceed
the caps.
Travel management
No routes are closed in the Record of Decision or Wyoming
Plans.
Route designation is to be determined in follow-on
planning tailored to specific planning areas.
Livestock grazing
No areas are closed to grazing, either in the Record of
Decision or Wyoming Plans, and the Plans do not set out
habitat requirements.
The Wyoming Plans set out sage-grouse seasonal habitat
indicators and associated desired conditions or objectives.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-142) provides for at least one
alternative to consider adopting thresholds and defined
responses as terms and conditions for renewal of a grazing
permit or lease in Sagebrush Focal Areas or Priority
Habitat Management Areas, but does not require they be
incorporated.
Effectiveness monitoring
The Wyoming Plans set out objectives and commit the
agencies to track whether these objectives are being met.
BLM's guidance (IM 2016-139) requires the agency to
compile monitoring data and prepare reports regarding the
effectiveness of the plan in meeting the objectives and
goals for different resources but does not mandate a
specific response. If objectives are not being met or
progress is not being made toward meeting them, BLM's
report is to discuss ``if and how the BLM can work to
reduce or eliminate any of the causal factors.''
Adaptive management
The Wyoming Plans set out triggers for considering when
actions, such as habitat restoration, may need to be taken,
based on habitat conditions and population numbers
determined with state agencies.
Triggers are based on habitat loss and population
declines.
Hard triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
is not succeeding) require specific responses.
Soft triggers (where measured levels indicate conservation
actions may not be achieving desired results) require
conservation on a project-by-project basis that is designed
with stakeholders, including state agencies, ``with
consideration of local knowledge and conditions.''
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Rep. Grijalva Submission
-- The Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy
Actionable Science Plan, October 2016, produced by
the U.S. Department of the Interior.
[all]