<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:96657.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-909
OVERSIGHT ON SAGE GROUSE CONSERVATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
AND WATER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 24, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-657 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHN CORNYN, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MAX BAUCUS, Montana
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 24, 2004
OPENING STATEMENTS
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado,
prepared statement............................................. 44
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana,
prepared statement............................................. 45
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 1
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 11
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 11
WITNESSES
Back, Gary, principal ecologist, SRK Consulting.................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo......... 78
Calvert, Chad D., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management, Department of the Interior................ 12
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo......... 49
Crawforth, Terry, director, Nevada Department of Wildlife........ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo......... 60
Deeble, Ben, sage grouse project coordinator, National Wildlife
Federation..................................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo......... 89
Knight, Bruce I., Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Response to additional question from Senator Crapo........... 54
O'Keeffe, John, chairman, Public Land Committee, Oregon
Cattleman's Association; vice chair, Federal Lands Committee,
National Cattlemen's Beef Association; Oregon's Director to the
Public Lands Council........................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo......... 82
Mosher, James A., Ph.D., executive director, North American
Grouse Partnership............................................. 33
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Schnacke, Greg, executive vice president, Colorado Oil and Gas
Association.................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 60
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter from the Western Governors' Association................... 6-10
Mission statement, Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, Inc.... 78
Outline of Ideas for Sustaining Sage Grouse Conservation......... 3
Statements, North American Grouse Partnership....................95-102
OVERSIGHT ON SAGE GROUSE CONSERVATION
----------
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fish, Wildlife and Water,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 o'clock a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Michael D. Crapo
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Crapo, Thomas and Reid.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. This hearing will come to order.
This is a hearing of the, I guess we'll call it the
Subcommittee Oversight Hearing of the Committee on Fisheries,
Wildlife and Water Dealing with Sage Grouse Conservation.
For more than 100 years in America, the State Government
and supportive private wildlife conservation groups have
protected, restored and sustained our Nation's wildlife. Thirty
years ago, the Federal Government started the endangered
species program as a safety net to provide emergency responses
for needs for wildlife restoration.
Today, and especially concerning the sage grouse, we are
learning how these two fundamentals of American wildlife
policy, the State and local program and the Federal program,
can work together. The State and local program needs the
flexibility to respond when concerns arise. The Federal program
must be vigilant, but not premature in acting. Both need equal
ability to involve both private and Federal land managers.
We may not be perfect in this yet, but today we will
discuss an excellent example of how it is working and where it
needs to improve. State wildlife managers and private
conservationists from energy companies, ranching families and
environmental and sportsmen's groups are leading this effort.
Federal agencies are helping. This is a good start. Together
they are responding to declines in the harvestable surplus
populations of sage grouse. We need this work to continue, and
we need the ability to try new ideas until we find those that
work.
A proposal has been made to list this bird under the ESA.
Listing the bird, if it happens, ironically, will limit our
options for helping it. But today, we're here to focus on first
things first: what we are going to do in the field and what we
need to try next. I have directed the attention of the
witnesses to the outline of ideas for sustaining sage grouse
conservation prepared by our staff. I ask unanimous consent
that it be included in the record.
Without objection, it will be.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.030
Senator Crapo. This document summarizes the current
situation and its potential for breakthrough in wildlife
conservation partnership. The parties represented on our panels
today want to figure out together what techniques and
approaches will improve sage grouse populations. They want to
negotiate the details of who will commit to which of the
necessary tasks and at what cost.
I'm certain that if such a diverse group can agree to work
together for wildlife that our land management policies and
regulations can support it even if it means revising an
existing plan or manual or regulation or law. Today, we begin
to look into this exciting possibility, and I appreciate all
those who have joined us here in getting this started.
In addition to those present today, other partners involved
in this issue have submitted statements for the record.
Governors Kempthorne of Idaho, Guinn of Nevada, Owens of
Colorado, and others have pioneered many of the ideas that we
will cover. Again, I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent
from the Western Governors Association be included in the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced document follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.028
Senator Crapo. I also welcome the statements to be
submitted for the record from The Nature Conservancy.
[The referenced documents follow on pages 95-102.]
Senator Crapo. Before I go ahead and introduce our
witnesses, I'd like to turn to Senator Thomas of Wyoming for
any opening statement that he may have.
Senator Thomas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having this hearing. Certainly we've had a lot of conservation
and a lot of interest in sage grouse in Wyoming. I'm
particularly interested in how we work with these kinds of
issues with regard to the Endangered Species Act. You were good
enough to allow us to have a hearing in Wyoming a while back,
and we're looking for ways to make this Act work better, and I
think we have an opportunity here to talk about how we can work
together, hopefully without listing, so that we can have,
protect the grouse, at the same time be able to have multiple
use of the lands.
Those are the things, of course, that we've talked about in
the West. There are about 11 Western States that have a real
sage grouse population. In Wyoming, we have a good deal of it
there, as I said, and have been concerned about the Endangered
Species Act. We've had over 1,300 species listed and yet only
recovered about 16. So we ought to be emphasizing the
opportunity to be able to preserve these without the listing
and without the problems that go with it.
So we look forward to the hearing and look forward to being
able to work together to make this thing work. Thank you, sir.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Thomas. Oh, by the way, I want to welcome Assistant
Deputy Secretary Chad Calvert here, who is a native of Wyoming
and an old friend from years past. Welcome, Chad.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Senator Reid.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. I would first like to thank the Chairman for
the opportunity to hold a hearing on local conservation efforts
for sage grouse.
I would also like to welcome the panelists and take a
moment to especially thank two witnesses who have traveled from
Nevada: Terry Crawforth, director of the Nevada Department of
Wildlife and Gary Back of the Northeastern Nevada Stewardship
Group. With several conservation groups, like Mr. Back's
Stewardship Group, working together to avoid harm to our local
economies while at the same time advancing the conservation of
the sage grouse, I am proud Nevada has evolved as a leader in
this fight.
Together with Chairman Crapo, I have advocated using the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm bill)
conservation programs to help local communities like Elko, NV,
engage in voluntary conservation efforts for species like sage
grouse.
In fact, the Farm bill's Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program (WHIP) encourages private and public agencies to
develop wildlife habitat on their properties, and specifically
has directed funds to enhance habitats for sage grouse.
I know more can be done, and I am committed to improving
local conservation efforts. I look forward to hearing
suggestions from our witnesses.
Senator Crapo. We have three panels today. I'm going to
introduce the panels right now and then will give a couple of
instructions to the witnesses and get going. On our first panel
is Chad Calvert, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land
and Minerals at the Department of Interior and Bruce Knight,
who is the Director of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service at the Department of Agriculture.
Our second panel consists of Terry Crawforth, director of
the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Terry, you have the second
panel all to yourself.
Our third panel consists of Greg Schnacke, who is president
of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association; Gary Back, principal
ecologist at SRK Consulting and the Northeast Nevada
Stewardship Group; John O'Keeffe, vice chairman of NCBA Federal
Lands Committee and Sage Grouse Task Force; Ben Deeble, the
sage grouse coordinator for the National Wildlife Federation,
and Jim Mosher, North American Grouse Partnership and the
American Wildlife Conservation Partners.
For our witnesses, we are very interested in what you have
to say.
We are going to be very careful and thorough in reading
your written testimony. We ask you to keep your oral
presentations to 5 minutes. We have the little lights there to
help you. That way we will have an opportunity to engage in
some dialog and some questions.
So please try to pay attention, I know it's hard to pay
attention to the lights. I always sort of tongue in cheek say
that your time will run out before you've said everything you
want to say. So what we'd like to ask you to do is try to
finish up what you wanted to say during the questions and the
dialog that we will have afterwards and try to pay attention to
those lights.
With that, let's go ahead and begin with this panel. We'll
start first with you, Mr. Calvert.
STATEMENT OF CHAD D. CALVERT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, Senator Thomas, for giving us an opportunity to
discuss the Department of Interior's cooperation with State
wildlife agencies, private landowners and others to conserve
sage grouse and its habitat.
There has been an unprecedented effort spanning multiple
Federal agencies, 11 States and hundreds of counties and local
partners. I would ask that my written statement be made a part
of the record, and I will summarize it for you.
Senator Crapo. Yes, in fact, with regard to all statements,
they will all be part of the record.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Before I begin, I have with me some folks from BLM and from
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and I may ask them to assist me
with any technical questions you may have.
The Department is responsible for managing a lot of sage
brush across the West. BLM alone has approximately 57 million
acres. Roughly 40 million acres of that is either occupied or
suitable habitat for sage grouse. This is well over half of the
remaining suitable or occupied grouse habitat.
In 2000, the BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest
Service and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
WAFWA, signed a MOU to develop a framework for conservation
planning across the range of the sage grouse. A State and
Federal team was created to represent three Federal agencies
and four States. That team and the framework have accomplished
a lot in 4 years. They have collected and organized information
about the condition of habitats, the status of populations and
identified potential threats. Much of this data is available on
the Sage Map web site, which is maintained by the U.S.
Geological Survey.
That team has also been instrumental in initiating
cooperative conservation planning for sage grouse across all 11
States at both the statewide and local levels. Those plans are
now being completed and the majority should be in place within
the next year. Ultimately, we would like to see all the plans
pulled together into a range-wide strategy for the sage grouse.
The BLM has also drafted a national sage grouse habitat
conservation strategy in the summer of 2003, and put it out for
comment. In February and March of this year, BLM Director
Kathleen Clarke went to towns all across the West and held a
series of listening sessions. The strategy will incorporate
many of the comments that we received in those listening
sessions. The strategy is designed to complement the work of
the State wildlife agencies and to help guide BLM offices in
their planning and best management practices.
In terms of funding, the BLM will spend over $14 million on
sage grouse conservation in fiscal year 2004. It is seeking an
increase of $3.2 million for fiscal year 2005 for restoration
and conservation of habitat. These projects supplement our
planning efforts and support specific cooperative projects to
improve sage groups breeding, nesting, brood rearing and winter
habitat.
As part of the ESA status review, the BLM has also offered
information to Fish and Wildlife Service on its planning
standards and programs designed to protect habitat. Examples of
those include range health standards, systematic monitoring and
assessment, mitigation measures and fire and riparian
restoration.
The Special Status Species Program is BLM's overarching
regulatory mechanism to protect species. The Department's
manual requires agencies to utilize authorities to not only
protect listed species but also to avoid precipitating the
decline of other species to the point where a listing would be
appropriate. BLM's manual specifies that sensitive species will
be given the same level of protection afforded to Federal
candidate species.
In all 11 States where BLM manages sage brush, they
classify greater sage grouse as a sensitive species. So the BLM
pays close attention to sage grouse in all its planning
efforts. As an example, the BLM Wyoming standards and
guidelines for healthy range lands require, among other things,
that range habitat that supports T&E species or sensitive
species must be maintained or enhanced.
For other activities such as mineral development,
recreation use, rights of way, BLM-Wyoming's mitigation
guidelines for surface disturbing activities are applied. For
sage grouse and sharptails grouse, this generally means no
activities are authorized within nesting habitat from February
1 to July 31, or in critical winter concentration areas from
November 15 to April 30. Similar mitigation is required by BLM
across the range. The standards differ from place to place,
because they are developed collaboratively between BLM and each
individual State.
Fish and Wildlife Service also has many conservation tools
at its fingertips to help private landowners, State and local
government and other non-Federal partners in conservation. The
Candidate Conservation Agreement and Candidate Conservation
Agreement With Assurances are two very important tools. The
Candidate Conservation Agreement was used successfully earlier
this year to help ensure that the slickspot peppergrass in the
State of Idaho was not necessary to list. That was an agreement
between the BLM, State of Idaho, Idaho Army National Guard, and
several private property owners who held grazing permits.
The Candidate Conservation Agreement With Assurances is an
important tool for non-Federal property owners who may
voluntarily agree to remove threats to proposed or candidate
species, and they receive assurances that their efforts will
not result in future regulations beyond what they agreed to in
the event the species is listed.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also uses the Landowner
Incentive Program to provide financial assistance to partners
interested in implementing conservation that benefits listed
species on their private property.
Since my time is about up, this concludes my statement. I
do have more to say, obviously. I'd be happy to answer
questions that you have.
Senator Crapo. We will let you get into that in just a
minute. Thank you very much.
Mr. Knight.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE I. KNIGHT, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSERVATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Knight. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of
Agriculture's perspective on habitat restoration and
preservation associated with sage grouse. I want to express my
gratitude for your interest in the USDA's role in helping
farmers and ranchers improve sage grouse habitat.
For nearly 70 years, NRCS has been assisting owners of
private lands conserve their soil, water and related natural
resources. We deliver technical assistance based on sound
science, suited, we believe, to a farmer's or rancher's
specific needs.
In addition, NRCS provides voluntary assistance to
landowners in the form of financial incentives, cost share and
conservation easements. As you know, in 2002, President Bush
signed into law the most conservation oriented Farm bill in
history, which reauthorized and greatly enhanced conservation
programs, and emphasized the need to help producers meet
regulatory challenges.
From the standpoint of the mission and perspective of NRCS,
we recognize that the issue of sage grouse habitat has become
of increased concern to many ranchers. We also recognize that
28 percent of the existing sage grouse habitat is in fact found
on private lands, or about 40 million acres. Our goal is to
help producers maintain and improve sage grouse habitat as part
of their larger management efforts that provide multiple
benefits.
Under the leadership of Secretary Veneman, we have taken
proactive steps to provide additional program assistance
specifically for sage grouse habitat conservation. Last month,
the Secretary announced $2 million in Grassland Reserve Program
funding for projects that protect sage grouse habitat. The
initiative was made available in Colorado, Idaho, Utah and
Washington, and was in addition to nearly $70 million already
made available this year through the Grassland Reserve Program.
The Department also recently announced targeted sage grouse
assistance through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. For
example, as a result of that project, NRCS provided $350,000 to
protect habitat at Parker Mountain, UT. Under that specific
initiative, landowners are using cost share funds for brush
management, reseeding, water development and wildlife habitat
management on approximately 104,000 acres.
But our assistance to sage grouse goes far beyond the
targeted funding that we have already announced. For example,
our Agency's flagship conservation cost share program, the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, is providing nearly $1
billion in conservation incentives and cost share assistance
nationwide this year. That will include a wide range of habitat
preservation efforts, and water conservation efforts that will
in turn help the sage grouse.
We also know that the conversion of farms and ranches to
non-agricultural use poses a particular challenge to fragmented
sage grouse habitat. I would note that the Department's Farm
and Ranch Lands Protection Program is providing $112 million
this year to protect farm and ranch land from further
development.
While it's difficult to quantify the impacts, we know that
our programs are making important contributions toward
protecting and developing sage grouse habitat. Combining the
efforts of all our programs and technical assistance, NRCS
estimates that this year more than 80,000 acres of sage grouse
habitat will benefit directly from private lands conservation
efforts, with more than 1 million acres having secondary
benefits.
Although we are proud of these accomplishments, we want to
try to do even more to ensure that we are ready to meet what we
see as future challenges. For that reason, we are expanding
conservation planning and practice measures that benefit sage
brush and sage grouse habitat, and are also taking steps to
develop new scientific and technical tools for our field staff.
We must provide our people with as much knowledge, data and
technical standards as possible in order to ensure that farmers
and ranchers are getting the expert advice they need and
expect.
We also want to ensure that we partner appropriately with
agencies with in the Department of Interior and nationwide.
While it's clear that these significant gains are being made on
private lands, it's important to ensure that the voice of
agriculture is being heard and that the stories of success on
farms and ranches are incorporated into discussions and
decisions about the sage grouse.
Earlier this year, we initiated the leadership retreat with
the Fish and Wildlife Service in order to give the top
leadership of both agencies insight into each other's
operations and explore ways in which we can improve upon and
build upon those collaborations.
Mr. Chairman, there are many challenges ahead. But we're
enthusiastic about what is being done on private lands and
about the further progress that is possible. Thank you for
inviting USDA to participate in today's hearing. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Knight.
Mr. Calvert, I'll start with you with my questions. The BLM
has already classified the sage grouse as a sensitive species.
That requires the field staff to follow certain specific
procedures. You referenced the BLM manual and other guidance in
your remarks as the sources for those current procedures.
The question I have is, how deeply are these procedures set
in stone? What I mean is, if we develop more effective
procedures through the concerted efforts that we are talking
about here in this hearing, how would those policies be able to
be adapted?
Mr. Calvert. The standards and guidelines are flexible. The
actual factors in the range land health standards guidelines
are set. But they are amendable, of course, and differ from
State to State. The actual monitoring and assessment that goes
along with monitoring grazing allotments is something that can
be different from field office to field office. Certainly, if
they are successful best management practices they should be
incorporated into those. The other mitigation standards that I
talked about for surface disturbance activities also differ
from State to State.
BLM develops those in conjunction with the State
Government, usually the fish and game from each State, to
determine what, for example, is the nesting size that needs to
be protected during nesting season, is it a half a mile or is
it a mile or is it 3 miles. That's something that can be
different from place to place.
Senator Crapo. So there's really no structural, like a
regulatory or statutory impediment to making the adjustments in
this process, if we identify through the public-private, State
and local, Federal efforts that we're talking about today new
or different procedures that we would like to follow?
Mr. Calvert. That's correct.
Senator Crapo. Good.
Mr. Knight, first of all I want to say thank you for the
tremendous efforts that you oversee in terms of the resources
that you described in your testimony that we are bringing to
bear on conservation through the farm programs. As you know, I
also chair the committee in the Agriculture Committee that has
jurisdiction over the conservation title of the Farm bill and
have been very involved in drafting those provisions which you
are now administering.
Many times I have said that I think one of the things that
goes unnoticed in this country is that perhaps the most
important environmental legislation that we work on here in
Congress are the conservation provisions in the Farm bill,
because of the amount of significant Federal resources that are
put to bear in terms of accomplishing the conservation
objectives of the Federal Government. The programs that you
administer do tremendous good in that context. So first, I want
to thank you for that.
Mr. Knight. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. The question I have is, the programs through
which you are making funds available are competitive grant
application type programs, if I understand that correctly. When
you focus them on the sage grouse conservation, does that mean
that all sage grouse proposals compete with each other, or that
the sage grouse proposals are competitive with other non-sage
grouse proposals?
Mr. Knight. With most of our programs, what we will have is
a ranking system designed in each individual State meeting the
local needs and priorities of that State. That's generally
established by our professional staff in the State working
closely with the State Technical Committee which brings in
outside expertise from State Agencies, including the wildlife
agencies and very importantly, the ranching and the farming
community and environmental community. It's a wide open
process. We're able to establish a ranking procedure.
So earlier this year, we sent out a strong urging for folks
to adjust ranking procedures in order to be able to put sage
grouse habitat efforts higher up in the process. So if you
establish a ranking procedure and you get the maximum 100
points, they may be given additional points for sage grouse
habitat. That's how in most of the States that is being done.
In a few States they may do a pool. I'm not aware of, at
this point in time, of us having done a pool separately within
any of the programs for sage grouse or sage grouse habitat.
Senator Crapo. OK. Then I have just two other questions
related to that. One is sort of the same question I asked Mr.
Calvert. From what you described, I think the answer would be
yes, but I want to be sure about this. If the partnerships that
we're talking about here today between State, local, Federal
and private efforts come together and work effectively and
generate an approach to sage grouse management, is the system
that you have in place sufficiently flexible to accommodate
those new interests and perhaps change or increase priorities
on different types of projects as a result of the work of this
group?
Mr. Knight. We make every attempt to have a process that's
as flexible and as locally led as possible, and consciously try
to roll as many decisions down to the county level as we
possibly can about how to make an evaluation on where we're at.
We do try to standardize practices to the extent that we're not
following the latest scientific whim or scientific article
that's been written. So we try to have things standardized to
the extent that you have good sound science. But we also try to
maintain a very flexible, local regime on determinations.
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you. I do have another
question or two for each of you, but my time has run out, so I
will turn to Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert, what is the basic numerical background or
reason for doing some of the things you're doing with regard to
sage grouse? Is there evidence that there's a loss of sage
grouse? Are there numbers that have changed? What's the basis
for that?
Mr. Calvert. I would defer to the State fish and wildlife
folks for the actual discussion about demographics. Clearly
there's been a large decline in habitat. I don't think that
there's a definitive number for the population. Over 50 percent
loss of historical habitat, largely due to agriculture
conversion in places like Washington State, southern Idaho and
also urban development, cities and subdivisions moving in and
piling under sage brush to build homes, occasionally a sage
grouse, I suspect.
But in terms of population, that was the subject of the
WAFWA report that was issued this summer. It's the baseline
that we're all working from now in terms of numbers. I believe
it's clearly a subject that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
looking at in its status review. From Wyoming, Wyoming I
believe has some 30 or 40 percent of total occupied sage grouse
habitat, on BLM lands, anyway. In terms of numbers, clearly it
will have a profound impact on listing on activities in the
State of Wyoming.
Senator Thomas. What now? Of course there's no listing, but
has BLM applied restrictions on the use of land? If so, what's
the basis for that?
Mr. Calvert. As a special status species, where identified
by State fish and game as such, the BLM imposes in its planning
efforts mitigation factors on all activities. It generally
either hinges on the surface disturbance mitigation factors,
which may be, for example, no surface occupancy during times of
breeding or during critical winter habitat. Or it may be in
terms of standards and guidelines for range land health, going
out and looking at the health of the sage brush and the
understory to make sure that that important habitat for sage
grouse is being maintained, and then modifying grazing
practices accordingly.
But that's something that's been going on since, I think
probably mid-1990's, at least, managing it as a special
species.
Senator Thomas. There may be some seasonal restrictions,
then. Do these apply, for instance, for energy production and
so on?
Mr. Calvert. Yes, absolutely. That's already incorporated
in most of the plans in the State of Wyoming, at least. There
are seasonal restrictions. I believe the distance from the lek
may vary from place to place. But it is generally at least a
half a mile, where there is no surface occupancy from February
to July of each year. Then for critical winter habitat, you
have similar restrictions on surface occupancy.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Knight, have you in these efforts that
you both talk about, have you seen changes in the numbers?
Mr. Knight. With our data, it's difficult to show hard
changes in numbers of birds yet, with the efforts we're doing
right now. We're in the process of building that more
comprehensive conservation assessment.
But the anecdotal reports coming back are very positive.
When we're working with a private landowner, building a range
management plan, pointing out that there's a lek over here or a
lek there, and you might want to rotate that pasture at a time
when you're not hitting the cows on it during critical habitat
needs, you end up having a very positive response fairly
rapidly.
But those are still anecdotal and very difficult to
quantify. That challenge of quantification of conservation
efforts has been a major challenge for the Agency for a long
time. We are making major investments outside of the sage
grouse effort in being able to improve the quantification of
those efforts to really be able to evaluate which practice has
the greatest return.
Senator Thomas. So most of this is in private land farm
activities as opposed, say, for instance, to the Forest
Service?
Mr. Knight. Our specific Agency's work is private lands. We
do some cooperative work where you have the private lands and
the Federal lands interspersed. So the EQIP program can provide
some assistance on Forest Service or other lands where it is of
benefit to the private lands adjacent or adjoining it.
Senator Thomas. How much of this is driven, either of you,
by lawsuits or threats of lawsuits?
Mr. Calvert. Well, at the Department of Interior, we get
sued every day. It's something that we deal with. A lot of it,
and I should probably defer here to the Fish and Wildlife
Service about their listing, lawsuits clearly drive the listing
process, although this one is not the subject of a lawsuit.
There were seven petitions to list filed in the last 4 years,
and Fish and Wildlife Service combined three of the ones to
list the greater sage grouse and is now operating on that
status review. That's not driven by a lawsuit. But a lot of the
other activities are.
Senator Thomas. I hope we're not managing by lawsuit.
Thank you.
Mr. Knight. In the case of NRCS, if I might add, because so
many of the decisions are made at the State level with the
advice of the State Technical Committee, most of our reaction
to sage grouse has been because of a demand from the ranching
community wanting to get out in a proactive manner ahead of
this particular issue.
Senator Thomas. Good. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Just a couple of other questions
here. I assume both of you are familiar with the outline of
ideas that we've submitted for your review before the hearing.
I'd just like to ask each of you your general feeling about the
ideas proposed there, namely the notion that we could develop a
more inclusive group than the current group that would include
participants as listed in the outline, for example, from the
energy community, from the environmental community, from the
ranching community, State and wildlife management agencies and
sportsmen's groups to participate in the process.
My main question here is just, what are your thoughts about
the approach identified in the outline?
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. I think it's a very good approach. The one
thing that isn't clear is the scope. Although on the second
page, it discusses that there may be six or more areas where we
would want to carry out sort of pilot projects, I guess.
The important thing is that management of the sage grouse
habitat is very different from place to place. In some places
you have intensive energy development, in other places you have
none. So it would be very site specific. I think working groups
such as you have identified here have been very successful in
bringing together various interests and putting some money on
the table. Sometimes it's worth it to an energy company to put
some money on the table for a private landowner to conserve
sage habitat. You identified Questar here, they've actually
been very progressive in the Pinedale, WY area about their
practices that they intend to follow in development.
Senator Crapo. I note that the State-Federal Sage Grouse
Conservation Planning Framework Team includes four State
agencies and three Federal agencies. Is there an impediment to
expanding that group to include the others identified in the
outline?
Mr. Calvert. That group sort of developed from the MOU. I
don't see any impediments to it, although right now it's all
State and Federal partners. One thing that you may run into is
FACA problems if you bring in private parties to sit in on a
panel and discuss or reach decisions. That could run afoul of
FACA if it's not properly chartered.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Knight.
Mr. Knight. The outline that was presented to us we can
embrace very warmly. It's the type of collaborative
conservation that we strive to do. Many of the folks that were
outlined within that and the goals of it are utilized in our
State Technical Committees. I might add that this is also very
much in keeping with the President's recent directive to us
about Cooperative Conservation, where President Bush had an
announcement about 3 weeks ago to each of the Federal agencies,
both the agencies represented here as well as EPA and the
Department of Defense, to engage in collaborative, cooperative
conservation efforts to ensure that we have fully embraced
cooperation and coordination between each of the Federal
agencies in responding to all conservation needs.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I think you can each see from my
questions and from the outline that we have here the overall
objective that I'm seeking to accomplish here is what I would
broadly describe as a collaborative effort for the kinds of
decisionmaking that we have to engage in on this and other
issues. I'm trying to find out if there are any legal or
structural impediments to that.
From what I've heard from both of you today, with the
exception of the FACA question, which we'll need to look into,
the impediment, I don't see any impediments to proceeding with
a very broad collaborative effort. Would that be a fair
description of your testimony?
Mr. Calvert. I've been very impressed just with the
progress that they've made so far. Sage grouse is sort of an
effort of first impression, if you will, to bring in all these
people and talk about how we're going to conserve habitat
across 11 States. It's really quite an unprecedented effort.
There are some success stories and lessons learned, I think,
out of that process that could be very easily incorporated into
what you've proposed.
Senator Crapo. Last question for me is, would each of you
commit to do your very best to try to implement a collaborative
effort like this as we approach these kinds of decisionmaking
processes?
Mr. Calvert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Knight. Yes, sir.
Senator Crapo. Senator Thomas, anything further?
Senator Thomas. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. All right. Again, we want to thank you for
your testimony. To the extent you didn't get to orally present
everything, I do want you to know that we're very thoroughly
reviewing your written testimony. Nothing that you have
presented will be overlooked.
Thank you very much.
We'll excuse this panel now and we'll call up our second
panel, all one of you. As a reminder, our second panel is Terry
Crawforth, the director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife.
Mr. Crawforth, we again welcome you here with us and we look
forward to your testimony.
You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF TERRY CRAWFORTH, DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
WILDLIFE
Mr. Crawforth. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to
discuss what I believe is the largest volunteer, species
conservation effort ever undertaken.
Sage grouse were first identified by Lewis and Clark in
1831 and have inhabited North America for over 11,000 years.
These spiny tailed pheasants once occupied 500,000 square miles
in numbers estimated at 2 million, and require healthy sage
brush ecosystems to survive. After undergoing significant
declines from 1965 to 1985, sage grouse currently occupy
258,000 square miles in 11 States and 2 Canadian provinces with
a total population estimate exceeding well over 250,000 adult
birds.
Having adapted to a harsh environment and extreme climate,
sage grouse embody who we are in the West. Concerned with the
decline in the numbers and distribution, the Western
Association of Wildlife Agencies committed to take the lead in
conserving sage grouse through development of a science based
local area conservation planning strategy.
To date, we have developed partnerships with all levels of
government, tribes, industry and a diverse array of local
individuals. We have installed an interdisciplinary science
team, achieved grants to fund planning efforts, completed
significant research, standardized data collection techniques
and increased data gathering efforts and published a peer
reviewed species status assessment.
This information and science was developed in order to
support our most important achievement, grassroots conservation
plans. Over 70 local working groups have volunteered
significant effort in developing sage grouse conservation plans
and are engaging in on the ground project implementation. There
is seldom a single silver bullet answer to species
conservation. So our conservation actions are designed to
evaluate local conservation challenges, implement treatments to
address these challenges, monitor the results of the treatment
and adapt future management based on those results.
In conclusion, we have learned from previous species
conservation efforts and succeeded in the largest mobilization
ever of the public in a conservation effort. Much of that
success can be attributed to the fact that local groups were
allowed to develop local solutions without the encumbrance of
rules and processes such as those required by the Endangered
Species Act.
Clearly this effort will benefit sage grouse, other
wildlife species that depend upon sage brush habitats, and the
culture and economy of the West. Successful implementation of
meaningful sage grouse conservation will require years of
coordinated effort and a substantial infusion of new money to
match existing Federal programs such as the Farm bill, Fire and
Fuels Management, Invasive Species and even the Wild Horse
Program.
Neither Federal agencies that manage over 70 percent of the
world's sage grouse habitat nor State and local government nor
private landowners have the resources to reallocate funds from
existing programs to sage grouse conservation efforts. What we
need is financial support in order to implement planned
projects. If I might even be as bold to suggest that this might
come in the form of increased State Wildlife Grants, or even a
separate federally funded sage grouse conservation initiative.
The range-wide effort to conserve sage grouse using an
incentive based, publicly driven process is an historic new
model for conserving a species before it needs protection by
the Endangered Species Act. Local folks are best qualified to
address such issues and have exhibited that they are more than
willing to step up to the plate. All they need at this time is
your support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to answer any
questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Crawforth. I
appreciate your testimony and have a couple of questions.
I particularly was interested in your last couple of
comments about the fact that the State and local personnel and
entities are prepared and ready and capable to deal with the
issues. They need resources.
I'll just give you a quick little aside. I served in the
House of Representatives for 6 years and this is my sixth year
in the Senate, so I have been here for 12 years. Back about 10
years ago, we engaged in a big effort to try to try to bring
the State and local participation more to the forefront in
environmental management under a number of the Federal
environmental laws.
What we ran into at that time, which totally stopped us,
was the argument that the States and local efforts were not
capable or committed to dealing with conservation in the
country, and that it was because of their unwillingness and
their lack of capacity, lack of expertise that the Federal laws
had to be passed in the first place, to do what the State would
not and could not do.
I thought that was a false argument at the time and
continue to believe that the State and local personnel are as
qualified as the Federal personnel on these issues, and stand
ready as strong, willing partners who are capable of dealing
with these issues. I assume from your testimony that you would
agree, but I would appreciate your comment on that.
Mr. Crawforth. I think that's why, Mr. Chairman, we took
the approach in the Western States that we did. We had the
opportunity to be proactive regarding the species. Although I
think it's our job to recognize that maybe there are some
troubles on the horizon and who we wanted to involve, we knew
the impacts to the lives of virtually every citizen in the
West. Problems with sage grouse and sage brush habitat could
impact the delivery of power to the Los Angeles metropolitan
area. It's very widespread.
So we thought if we involved all groups and the local
people who are out there on the ground every day, in many cases
they have the answers. They just need, I guess in my mind,
Government to do what it's supposed to do, and that's support
them in making their lives better.
Senator Crapo. Provide the support.
Mr. Crawforth. That's what we're asking for now. We've
worked on the planning. We have projects ready to go. They're
on a shelf. But they're simply too expensive. They're landscape
scale projects. I don't think I need to tell either of the
Senators on this committee what it costs to dig up the dirt and
do some other things with it.
Senator Crapo. Certainly. You're familiar with the outline
that we have put together from the committee.
Mr. Crawforth. Yes, I am.
Senator Crapo. What do you think of the approach
contemplated in that outline?
Mr. Crawforth. I think that approach is right on. I think
it's the approach that the Western States have taken in what
they're working, and certainly you can always look back and
evaluate what you've been doing and see if you can do some
things better. We need to refresh the memorandum of
understanding that we have with the various Federal agencies to
implement this program amongst ourselves. In fact, we have
recently discussed bringing in at least two other Federal
agencies.
You asked earlier about the framework team. The framework
team is a group of biologists and scientists. We wanted that to
stay as a science group, if you will. If there are other
partners who can provide that science based knowledge to the
group, we would certainly be willing to do that.
I would be hopeful that since it is, although it's a
science group and it's sponsored by the Western Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies that we could not have to worry
about FACA and some of those things.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate that, and we're going to look
into that. If there's a problem there, then maybe we need to
make some more flexibility in the Federal rules, Federal laws.
Just one other quick question before I turn the time over
to Senator Thomas. You indicated that one of the big issues was
resources, so that the State, local and private as well as
Federal entities involved could accomplish what they know they
need to do.
As I indicated earlier with regard to Mr. Knight's
testimony, we in the last Farm bill put an unprecedented amount
of new money into conservation programs under the Farm bill. Do
you see, have you seen as a result of that, have you seen more
money available, or are there problems we need to address in
terms of fine tuning the conservation titles in the Farm bill
to getting money to these issues, or is this something you're
familiar with?
Mr. Crawforth. I see money coming available. The Farm bill
has adapted enough to cover some of the western range lands. I
think it's taken us a while to work through that process. But I
see money coming available, I see a willingness, I mean, the
way the West was settled, the majority of the lands, the
richest soils and most well watered lands are in private
ownership. So private landowners absolutely have to be a
partner in this. The Farm bill is an ideal program to help us
with that effort, with the checkerboard land ownership in the
West.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. I guess all of us are very
interested in the cooperative effort that's happening here. Do
you find a conflict among the different species, wolves, for
example, or something like that in terms of trying to protect
the grouse?
Mr. Crawforth. We're hopeful, and to date it's proven out
that sage grouse, are a sage brush obligate. They literally
have adapted to the point where if they don't have sage brush
to eat during a good share of the year, they won't survive.
But there are about 20 plus other species that are almost
that obligated to sage brush. So we are hoping that sage grouse
can be the poster child for the sage brush ecosystems, and
today, and not become a spotted owl, where we have sage grouse
recipes all over the countryside.
To date, that has worked. So anything we do for sage grouse
would be good for the other obligate species, if you will.
Senator Thomas. You mentioned the wild horses being
something of a conflict. What do you mean by that?
Mr. Crawforth. We're hopeful that we can use the various
other Federal programs to help merge with sage grouse projects
and there's a lot of fire and fuels management, wild horses.
In some areas of the West, we have enough wild horses that
they are being destructive to the habitat. So the wild horse
program needs to be funded to where we can address those
issues. But certainly they have impacted, I know in my State, a
number of especially water sources are adversely impacted, as
for all species, agriculture, etc.
Senator Thomas. I agree with you. I don't know that funding
is the answer, but I think you need to find a way, and we do
too, if you have an overpopulation, you have to do something
with them.
Mr. Crawforth. Yes.
Senator Thomas. And we haven't done that.
We had an interesting bill the other day, however, in the
east coast, where they wanted to pass a law to have a minimum
number of wild horses. I told them we'd be happy to share with
some.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Crawforth. If people are thinking that, I may need a
brown paper bag.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Do you think the other State wildlife, game
and fish departments, are as committed to this as you are?
Mr. Crawforth. Yes, particularly the primary States, your
State of Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado and Utah have
a unique situation with the Gunnison sage grouse. But the
primary sage grouse States are very committed. The ones that
are on the fringes of current range, we're helping them, if
that's a good term for dragging them kicking and screaming or
whatever. But we're all working very much together on this and
there has been a significant commitment to it.
Senator Thomas. We hear from time to time that some
grazers, ranchers in their grazing leases and permits, are sort
of hindered from doing the grazing they would like to do. How
much of an impact do you think this has on other multiple uses?
Mr. Crawforth. I'm fully convinced that the multiple uses
on western range lands can be accomplished. We all might have
to make some adjustments. And certainly the argument has been
made that there were more sage grouse after grazing started
than beforehand. Others will argue that's just because they ate
everything and you could see the sage grouse. I don't believe
any of that.
I think the multiple uses and working together, maybe
adjusting seasons of grazing by a week or two, sometimes
enhancing hot season grazing, sometimes eliminating hot season
grazing, etc. I think that's the local solution part of it
that's so important. Because there's no overall, one answer to
this issue. So we need to look at it locally. It may be
predation in one area, grazing in another, pinyon juniper
encroachment in another. So we need to look at it in that
fashion.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Crawforth, the WAFWA report on sage
grouse attempted the difficult but important task of gathering
up existing data and trying to fit together the different types
and quantities of data. Where are the greatest weaknesses in
what we think we know right now about sage grouse?
Mr. Crawforth. It's the, as I mentioned, there are a lot of
things. But the primary is the loss and fragmentation and
degradation of range lands where sage grouse live. There's a
number of causes for that. I know in particular in Nevada,
range fires, we've had about 3.5 million acres of sage grouse
habitat converted to cheat grass and tumble mustard.
Senator Crapo. In my experience with collaborative groups,
especially on the scientific side, or information gathering
side of the situation, I've found that the answers for
monitoring and research are more acceptable to the parties when
they have had a part in developing the question in the first
place. If a partnership were to form such as we have suggested
here today in the outline, how do you think we could arrange
for all parties to be involved at the front end in framing the
questions they are going to be asked and analyzed?
Mr. Crawforth. I guess my hope would be, since we have an
established process for local area planning groups that they
ask the questions, establish the monitoring protocols and
evaluate the answers. We have over 70 local working groups out
there and would be excited about anybody else that wants to
join us in providing information. I think especially from the
perspective of industry, they have a huge stake in all of this.
Frequently they have the resources.
More importantly, they have the good ideas. I know in
Nevada when we originally had a problem with gold mining and
cyanide heat bleach and waterfowl were dying in the recovery
ponds. We met with industry, told them we had to do something
about this and they had the technical expertise to resolve it,
and they did. That's what we need here.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. My last question is sort of the
same question I asked the other panel, I think I know the
answer from your testimony, but if we move toward an approach
for collaboration like we've discussed here in the outline, do
you think that you and your colleagues are ready for this sort
of a broadened collaborative effort to address the issue?
Mr. Crawforth. I think we're more than ready. We demand it
of ourselves.
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you very much.
Anything further, Senator Thomas?
Senator Thomas. No, sir, I don't believe so. One of the
things I heard in terms of these kinds of programs by fish and
wildlife departments and so on is that many of them are funded
by licenses from the hunters. This really is outside of that.
How do you deal with that future funding issue in terms of
fairness and equity?
Mr. Crawforth. I think that's why we're, at this point in
time, we have rounded up a few grants, people have given of
their time, we have used some license dollars, if you will, for
sage grouse projects and other funding to do the planning.
That's the heavy lifting from the workload perspective but the
light lifting from the money perspective. And now putting the
projects on the ground is where we really need the help. I
mean, chaining a couple thousand acres of pinyon juniper
habitat is tremendously expensive, hundreds of thousands of
dollars. There is just not the resources to do that.
So we need to move on to new funding sources from what
we've done, because it's not there.
Senator Thomas. Your State and mine, of course, are heavily
Federal lands. That has a role and we need to work on that.
It's just kind of hard for you to keep your emphasis on these
kinds of projects when the basis of your income and so on comes
from the other things.
Mr. Crawforth. That's absolutely correct.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Crawforth. We
appreciate your testimony and your support.
Mr. Crawforth. Thank you very much.
Senator Crapo. We will excuse you at this time, and we will
now call up our third panel. Again, as they are coming up, I
will introduce them. We have Mr. Greg Schnacke, president of
the Colorado Oil and Gas Association; Mr. Gary Back, principal
ecologist at SRK Consulting; Mr. John O'Keeffe, the vice
chairman of NCBA Federal Lands Committee and Sage Grouse Task
Force; Mr. Ben Deeble, the sage grouse coordinator for the
National Wildlife Federation; and Mr. Jim Mosher, North
American Grouse Partnership.
Gentlemen, we welcome all of you with us here today and
look forward to your testimony and to getting into a dialog
with you. We would like to start in the order that I've
introduced you, so Mr. Schnacke, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF GREG SCHNACKE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, COLORADO
OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Schnacke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Greg Schnacke and I serve as executive
vice president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. I'm
here representing the Partnership for the West, which is a
grassroots coalition that we are a member of.
In summary, our testimony makes two important
recommendations. First of all, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service should allow State and local officials to continue
devising and managing locally led conservation efforts aimed at
preserving and restoring the greater sage grouse to greater
biological health and should not affect a Federal takeover of
these efforts via the Endangered Species Act. Such a listing
would not be in the best interests of the recovery of this
species and would chill ongoing sage grouse conservation
efforts.
Second, a private and public sector stakeholder group
across the region should continue to engage in innovative and
effective sage grouse and sage brush habitat conservation
efforts. Those efforts should be coordinated as much as
possible rangewide. We applaud your leadership, Mr. Chairman,
in facilitating these discussions across interest sectors on a
long-term conservation strategy for the sage grouse, and we
look forward to engaging in these discussions.
However, we must note what we believe is obvious. If the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service goes in the other direction and
lists these species, it will not only chill current
conservation initiatives, but will also discourage stakeholders
from engaging in further discussions about new rangewide
strategies. As the why we believe a listing of the greater sage
grouse is not warranted at this time, let me make these points.
First, an unprecedented set of innovative and aggressive
sage grouse conservation efforts has been launched across the
West in recent years. These locally led conservation strategies
will provide conservationists and wildlife managers with the
most effective tools to preserve these species. We have
summarized some of these in our testimony.
In contrast, threatened or endangered listing under the ESA
will have a dramatic and chilling effect on these locally led
conservation efforts and will discourage a wide range of
stakeholders from continuing to engage in these efforts.
Second, these locally led efforts are already making a
difference. The WAFWA analysis indicates population trends over
the past 10 or 15 years have been up or stabilized in most of
these States, in many cases, an increase in sage grouse
numbers.
Now, we have serious concerns about the reliability of some
of this data. An example are, many lek counts have been under-
represented in sage grouse populations because they were
undertaken in poor weather conditions, during the wrong season
or at the wrong time of the day. The assessment failed to even
recognized leks documented by many States simply because no
individuals were counted at the same time. It clearly under-
represents the number of leks in existence. I would suggest the
committee hold a special hearing on the validity of the data,
the strength of the science. Senator Thomas, the Petroleum
Association of Wyoming has a very good group that could assist
in this effort.
Third, Federal officials have an important role to play in
sage grouse conservation, and are already actively engaged in
these efforts. BLM is expanding its national sage grouse
habitat conservation strategy in close cooperation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It will address sage grouse
conservation needs across more than 50 percent of sage grouse
habitat. That puts the Federal Government in a key position to
continue to encourage locally driven conservation efforts in
coordination with State and local officials and the private
sector.
Fourth, in spite of the best intentions of Federal
officials and wildlife managers, the ESA as currently written
and the lawsuits that drive its implementation do not allow the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service experts to focus on the most
important goal of conservation efforts; that is, species
recovery. In its 30-year history, the ESA is not very
successful. Therefore, that's a debate for another day, but
it's something we need to engage in.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, let me underscore our
appreciation to you and your staff and the other members of
this subcommittee for holding this hearing and for your
interest and leadership in facilitating a continuing dialog
among stakeholders on long term management and conservation
strategies for the sage grouse and for sage grouse habitat.
We agree with you and the others who are testifying here
today that such a dialog on a long term, rangewide management
strategy must take place, and we look forward to participating
fully in those talks.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Schnacke.
Mr. Back.
STATEMENT OF GARY BACK, PRINCIPAL ECOLOGIST,
SRK CONSULTING
Mr. Back. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my
name is Gary Back, and I'm representing the Northeastern Nevada
Stewardship Group, Inc. On behalf of the Stewardship Group, I
want to thank the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on
Fish, Wildlife and Water for providing the Stewardship Group an
opportunity to testify at this hearing.
As a representative of one of the many volunteer local area
planning groups involved in sage grouse conservation, we
welcome this opportunity to provide you with information that
will help sustain these local efforts. I especially want to
thank Senator Reid and his staff for their assistance.
The Stewardship Group quickly realized that sage grouse was
an indicator species of ecosystem health. Because of the
variety of plant communities or habitats needed by sage grouse
for breeding, nesting, brood rearing and wintering, the goal of
managing sage grouse habitat for an optimal balance of shrubs,
forbs and grasses at community and landscape scales should be
analogous to restoring and/or maintaining form, function and
processes in the sage brush ecosystem. Consequently, the focus
of the effort changed from a single species conservation plan
to an ecosystem conservation strategy.
The purpose of this hearing is to identify what is needed
to continue developing and improving our conservation efforts.
From the local planning standpoint, the groups need the
following. First, recognition of the local conservation
planning groups. These groups must be recognized as having the
standing necessary to influence resolution of the regional and
national issues at the local level.
Second, give the local conservation planning process a
chance. The current conservation effort for this species in
over 11 Western States is being conducted by approximately 70
local conservation working groups, represents a new process for
addressing species conservation. The ownership of the issues as
demonstrated by local conservation working groups, is a
significant step in cooperation among the stakeholders and the
regulators. This process deserves a chance to demonstrate its
merit.
Third, continued and increased funding of existing
programs. There are already several mechanisms for funding in
place. Therefore, it is imperative that funding continue to be
appropriated to these programs. Some examples of existing
programs include the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002, known as the Farm bill. This program has several programs
that are directly related to landscape management. The funds
are primarily intended for private lands.
Some of the programs with direct application to either sage
grouse conservation or watershed management include Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program, the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, the Conservation and Technical Assistance
Conservation, Security Program, and Emergency Watershed
Program. Another source of funding is the Clean Water Act,
Section 319(h). These funds are often used in watershed
management. Another source is the National Fire Plan. This plan
and associated funding provides for a variety of management
actions that when effectively incorporated into a watershed
plan can be used to reduce fuel loading and in the process
improve habitat for sage grouse.
Another is the support for investigation into commercial
uses of pinyon and juniper. Funding for a land grant university
with a wood products lab to determine the feasibility of such
an industry could change the treatment of pinyon and juniper
from a cost-incurring process to a local wage producing
industry. This type of industry could be an economic life saver
for many of the rural communities of Nevada, Idaho, Oregon,
Utah and Wyoming.
The overriding goal for the stewardship group is to restore
functionality to the watersheds in our planning area, and by
doing so, maintain the economic viability of our existing land
base industries and develop opportunities for new land and
resource based industries as a means of economic development
and rural community sustainability. We believe that those that
are closest to the land can make the best decisions for how the
land can be managed and meet national, regional and local
resource and economic objectives.
We believe that the place based or community based
stewardship is necessary to reduce conflict and provide
sustainability. We also believe that watershed management or
ecosystem management is the most comprehensive and viable means
for achieving the land values that are important to the
community. The watershed as a well defined functioning unit
must have all processes functioning to provide long term
sustainability as well as ecosystem resiliency.
On behalf of the Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group and
the other local conservation planning groups across the Western
States, I thank you for this opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee on Fish, Wildlife and Water. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Back.
Mr. O'Keeffe.
STATEMENT OF JOHN O'KEEFFE, CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC LAND COMMITTEE,
OREGON CATTLEMAN'S ASSOCIATION; VICE CHAIR, FEDERAL LANDS
COMMITTEE, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION; OREGON'S
DIRECTOR TO THE PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL
Mr. O'Keeffe. Good morning, Chairman Crapo and
distinguished members of this subcommittee. My name is John
O'Keeffe. I'm here to testify about the sage grouse on behalf
of the Public Lands Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association. I serve as the chairman of the Public Lands
Committee for the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, the Vice
Chair of the Federal Lands Committee of the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, Oregon's Director to the Public
Land Council, and I chair the Public Lands Council Westwide
Task Force on Sage Grouse. I also represent private landowners
on Oregon's sage grouse and sage brush habitat working group.
At this time, I have one of the previously referred to LIP
grant proposals being reviewed that would do juniper control
and meadow enhancement on 2,500 acres of brood rearing habitat
that the O'Keeffe ranch owns adjacent to Sage Hen Butte in Lake
County, OR. My family has been ranching in the Warner Valley of
southeast Oregon since the early 1900's.
I am the third generation to ranch there. Part of the
fourth generation is attending his first week of college
classes as I address this subcommittee. It is my sincere wish
that my family can continue to ranch in the Warner Valley far
out into the future. That is why I became involved in the
associations that represent the livestock grazing industry. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today to provide some of
my experience with sage grouse on public land grazing to the
committee.
Environmental groups have filed petitions with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service seeking to have the sage grouse
listed. The Service is currently in the midst of a 12-month
status review to consider whether that available information
warrants the bird being listed. A principal source of
information to be considered by the Service is a conservation
assessment of the status of the sage grouse and its habitat by
the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. This
assessment concludes that the sage grouse populations have
tended to stabilize since the mid-1980's. In many areas,
numbers have increased between 1995 and 2003. Sage grouse
continue to occupy 165 million plus acres across the West.
We believe the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies reports supports the conclusion that listing the sage
grouse under the ESA is not warranted at this time. While the
number of birds has declined, a substantial population remains.
These birds continue to occupy a significant range of habitat.
According to the numbers in the WAFWA report, this is 55
percent of the original habitat, which is more than what was
quoted by an earlier witness. This evidence does not support
the need to list the bird at this time.
Moreover, there is a reasonable basis to believe that sage
grouse numbers and habitat will continue to be stable or even
improved because of the unprecedented conservation effort
underway. You have already heard from the BLM and the NRCS on
their efforts. Additionally, PLC and NCBA members have shown
their willingness to support conservation efforts by
identifying grazing practices that are compatible with sage
grouse habitat and transmitting these practices to the
Department of Interior. The Westwide conservation efforts are
just finishing the planning stage and getting traction on the
ground. The Fish and Wildlife Service would send a powerful
message that conservation efforts do not pay off, if warranted,
or warranted but precluded where the result of the status
review.
We are somewhat concerned that career staff in the Fish and
Wildlife Service be truly neutral as they prepare the documents
and recommendations used by the decisionmakers. Regulatory
agencies tend to regulate and there may be an institutional
bias toward listing. We urge the Administration to closely
manage the preparation of the documents to ensure an unbiased
process. Any help members of this committee can provide to
ensure adequate management takes place will be greatly
appreciated.
The Fish and Wildlife Service bears a tremendous
responsibility in making listing decisions. ESA is a cumbersome
Act. Groups opposed to ranching are very sophisticated about
using litigation to disrupt ongoing, permitted activities at no
benefit to the species. All across the West, we have seen
ranches cease to be economical, parcels are sold off for
development. Loss of open space, additional roads, power lines,
habitat fragmentation, all these things come with development.
All these things are among the current threats to sage grouse.
Finally, we urge the Administration to bear in mind the
importance of deferring to the State management of the wildlife
to the greatest extent possible. Conservation will not succeed
in the long run in this country unless stakeholders who live on
the land and make their living from it are involved in this
effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these remarks.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. O'Keeffe.
Mr. Deeble.
STATEMENT OF BEN DEEBLE, SAGE GROUSE PROJECT COORDINATOR,
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. Deeble. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my
name is Ben Deeble. I'm the sage grouse project coordinator for
the National Wildlife Federation, the Nation's largest
conservation, education and advocacy organization.
For more than 5 years, the National Wildlife Federation has
been involved in the development of monitoring and conservation
efforts for greater sage grouse in Western States, coordinated
from our Northern Rockies Natural Resource Center in Missoula,
MT, and through our affiliate organizations in Wyoming and
Nevada. During this time, we have been deeply engaged in
developing State conservation plans for the bird, involved in
public education about the conservation challenges presented
here, and we've facilitated an exchange of information about
both the ecology and the management imperatives for this
extraordinary species between agencies, other conservationists
and the general public.
Fortunately, there have been decades of research on the
life cycle of sage grouse, so there is ample information on the
needs of the species. High quality research of scientists
working under the umbrella of the Western Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies and several academic institutions has
combined historic population data with cutting edge habitat and
genetic analysis to synthesize a very solid understanding of
this bird and its habitats. Much of the full management picture
can be completed with information from the disciplines of range
science and restoration ecology.
While there are still some unanswered questions about sage
grouse, I am confident in asserting that we know as much about
this species' life cycle, habitat needs, behavior and ecology
as any bird in the Nation. Using both proven methods and strong
inference, we can implement effective conservation actions.
Using this broad scientific basis, it is my sense that there is
a potential currently for productive and meaningful
deliberations among agencies and other partners for
implementing effective management actions, for designing and
funding these efforts in specific geographic areas and for
verifying our results. It will be a huge task.
Let me make an additional important point at this time. To
the degree that a stereotype is being created in some places
that the conservation community wants to shut down livestock or
energy production in the West using sage grouse, that
stereotype is false. We believe that in some locations, well
managed livestock grazing is compatible with healthy sage
grouse populations and in fact, may work to maintain important
blocks of sage brush grassland habitat.
Likewise, there are excellent guidelines on important
practices related to minimizing and mitigating the effects of
energy production. All types of energy production will not be
compatible in all places with sage grouse. But both onsite
practices and offsite mitigation hold promise for maintaining
critical habitat in core populations of sage grouse. Using the
good science that already exists for the management of the bird
and its habitats, whether in the context of energy development,
livestock grazing or any of several other human activities, we
can maintain this important shrub-steppe ecosystem for a
variety of wildlife species and human uses.
As one step in rising to this conservation challenge, the
National Wildlife Federation in late 1999 launched in Montana
what for us is a relatively unusual field project named Adopt-
A-Lek. Starting with just a handful of volunteers, largely sage
grouse hunters, we began training and fielding people to count
sage grouse at dawn each April on their breeding leks. Most
State agencies generally did not and still do not have the
capacity to get multiple annual counts of a majority of their
leks, and we felt we could recruit and train a highly motivated
and competent labor force to seasonally assist with population
data collection. Using accepted State survey protocols, our
volunteers have proven to be reliable, competent and an asset
to regional survey efforts.
To give you a sense of scale, last April, 93 volunteers
drove over 35,000 miles in Montana, Wyoming and Nevada to
monitor more than 150 leks, in many cases getting multiple
counts. This constitutes somewhere between 5 percent and 10
percent of the total greater sage grouse survey effort
westwide.
The second leg in our program involves delivering
incentives to landowners to implement sage grouse habitat
enhancement measures. A primary objective of this project is to
explore economically acceptable methods for enhancing sage
grouse habitats and working landscapes, such as voluntary
incentives for altering grazing patterns as well as restoring
range land and habitat productivity through other techniques.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has offered NWF a
challenge grant to begin incentive delivery to private
landowners in 2005 who volunteer to participate in habitat
management actions related to livestock grazing.
The third leg of our conservation effort involves somewhat
more direct engagement with public land management agencies. I
see that completes my time. I would be happy to give you more
detailed comments.
Senator Crapo. We will get into that when we get into the
questions, then. Thank you very much, Mr. Deeble.
Mr. Mosher.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. MOSHER, Ph.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH
AMERICAN GROUSE PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Mosher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am the
executive director of the North American Grouse Partnership, a
wildlife biologist and at every opportunity, an upland bird
hunter. I have the privilege today to represent also the views
of the Boone and Crockett Club, Campfire Club, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Izaak Walton
League of American, National Wild Turkey Federation, the
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Quail Unlimited
and the Conservation Force.
This hearing focuses appropriately and in a timely manner
on the condition of sage grouse and the near and long-term
challenges to conserving this valuable resource. I thank the
committee for providing this forum and for looking toward
solutions that will protect sage grouse while permitting access
to and use of other important resources. I will take this time
to highlight some of my written testimony and briefly address
the suggestions offered by the committee for sustaining sage
grouse conservation.
Hunters and allied conservationists contribute in many ways
to sage grouse conservation. Individual sportsmen and their
organizations contribute through their license dollars, direct
contributions to projects, technical expertise and through
support of conservation organizations that represent their
interests. For example, in partnership with The Nature
Conservancy, the North American Grouse Partnership's Idaho
chapter is demonstrating how to manage for sage grouse on a
meaningful scale through specific habitat management of The
Nature Conservancy's Crooked Creek Ranch and through an
outreach program to other private landowners to implement
habitat improvements.
Quail Unlimited projects have benefited sage grouse in
California and Colorado. In partnership with the Bishop Field
office of BLM, a broad based group of stakeholders has drafted
a conservation plan to maintain a healthy sage grouse
population. Members of the North American Falconers Association
and others in the falconry community have contributed valuable
information on critical winter ranges used by sage grouse.
The National Wild Turkey Federation with their western plan
supports habitat improvements that benefit not only wild
turkeys but grouse and other species as well. Sportsmen are
also working to resolve resource conflicts involving sage
grouse and other wildlife through collaborative efforts with
other stakeholders. With support of the Bureau of Land
Management, the Izaak Walton League convened a series of
facilitated meetings amongst ranchers, the energy industry and
sportsmen's groups. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership convened a similar meeting with support from the
National Commission on Energy Policy. Our purpose was to
improve understanding on all sides of the issues and most
importantly to begin to craft solutions to conflicts that occur
when our interests overlap on the landscape. Progress was made
at those meetings and a network was created for further
communication that continues today.
The objectives for sustaining sage grouse conservation
offered by the committee are very consistent with
recommendations our community has made. We proposed that a
council be created with the charge of advising on issues that
arise at the intersection of economic development and wildlife
resources in order to find innovative ways to enhance both
these values so important to the country. With the technical
capacity and partner involvement suggested by the committee,
such a council could accomplish that purpose and address
important information needs.
I believe you have identified the key participants.
However, renewable energy interests would be an important
addition. Prairie grouse species appear averse to wind energy
facilities and wildlife experts warn of significant population
impacts where wind development occurs in proximity to critical
grouse habitat.
Your proposed deliberative process could be an effective
means for coordination and ongoing assessment of progress. The
council could provide a valuable forum for developing and
overseeing a variety of public-private partnerships that would
benefit from the synergy created by diverse interests and
technical capabilities. Effectiveness at a population level of
stipulations and conditions on public land are not well
documented. We are in agreement with the energy industry on the
fundamental need for more research, and stipulations or
conditions to be imposed should be both effective and
sufficient.
Last, I agree that creating pilot areas to test management
techniques and innovative programs is a sensible approach to
produce near term progress and information. We must, as well,
be prepared to modify activities in other areas as we learn
from these pilot projects.
In conclusion, we believe that Congress and the
Administration can and should tap the resources within the
hunting and conservation community. With commitments of funds,
effectively delivered programs, careful planning and most
importantly, implementation of real habitat management, we can
forestall further loss of sage grouse and other wildlife
resources and the consequences associated with such outcomes.
I would be glad to answer your questions, and we would be
happy to work with you and your staff as appropriate.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Mosher.
Let me start my questions back at the beginning with Mr.
Schnacke. I hear your point about the ESA listing process, and
it is a point that is commonly made by those who deal with
various Endangered Species Act issues, and the effect that the
listing could have on the current efforts underway to deal with
sage grouse. I was wondering if you could just discuss with me
a little bit in more detail the chilling effect that you
believe a listing decision could have on efforts to deal with
sage grouse restoration.
Mr. Schnacke. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Overall, the
threat of future listings, I think, discourages innovation and
efforts to go beyond what's required out there. It certainly is
a big drain on resources. It makes everybody stop in their
tracks and have to deal with procedures and deadlines and
requirements for those particular efforts. I think to step back
and try to take a bigger picture look, that's certainly why
we're here today, to take the pledge and try to help bring this
effort forward.
But we're certainly looking for something that's going to
provide some assurance to those that are going to go beyond and
put resources on the table and to do the right thing. That's
why this threat of future listings hangs out there as a cloud
over this entire process.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. Mr. Back, I found your
support of the local planning groups very refreshing and
appreciated your perspective. I particularly liked your point
where you indicate that we should give the local process a
chance, and that placed based decisionmaking is extremely
valuable.
I also noted that you brought up the funding issue. It was
helpful that you identified some of the sources of funding. Do
you believe that the funding sources that you've identified
that are out there are adequate for the task?
Mr. Back. Certainly, it's a start. But as Mr. Crawforth
indicated, we have millions of acres that will be managed in
one form or another, either through active treatments or
changes in management practices. That's going to require
additional funding.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. You are familiar with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, I assume? Do you believe that that Act
poses any impediments to our ability to accomplish what we're
talking about here in the outline?
Mr. Back. I don't think so. At the local level, we have had
the agencies involved in our stewardship group, they're a very
big portion of it. We've had State and Federal agencies, local
industry, business people, ranchers, environmentalists and
we've had no problem as far as that type of law being an
impediment. So I don't think having what's suggested in your
outline going forward would be an issue.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Keeffe, I
certainly appreciate your views on the uncertainty that we face
in trying to implement the recovery efforts with regard to sage
grouse and whether they will pay off. There is certainly no
guarantee for the sage grouse or for people. But one question
is, how we would proceed in the face of the uncertainty that an
ESA listing does pose right now.
Do you believe that you in your community, your neighbors
as well as those in the cattle business, are prepared to dig in
and engage in a process like we've identified in the outline
for a broad based collaborative effort?
Mr. O'Keeffe. Absolutely. I think we're ready to come
together and work on those things. I think it will be a
challenge. The real issue that concerns me with the outline is,
I think it's an excellent way to conserve sage grouse. What I
am really concerned about is, as written, that type of an
effort doesn't protect the grazing permits from being enjoined
by litigation when the consultation process or any of the other
technical aspects of the ESA don't quite meet the requirement
of the law.
Senator Crapo. That's an interesting point. At least one or
more of the other witnesses have brought up the point of
litigation based decisionmaking as opposed to more principled
decisionmaking based on recovery efforts. If I understand what
you're saying, you're saying that you're concerned that as much
as we all may have the right intentions here and get agreement
from the Federal agencies and others to move forward in a more
collaborative process, that that could be derailed by
litigation?
Mr. O'Keeffe. I think that's one of the biggest dangers
with the sage grouse situation. As Mr. Deeble points out,
there's a large segment of the conservation community just
wanting to get a good solution here. But I think there's
another segment that we can't forget that's there that is very
adept at using the Endangered Species Act to enjoin the land
use practices that they don't agree with. We have to be real
cognizant of that as we go forward.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. In my next round, I'm
going to get to you, Mr. Deeble, and Mr. Mosher, but it's time
for Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Let me go to you two gentlemen.
It seems like what we're seeking here is a broader sort of
management of land, open space, trying to keep the environment
and all those things. When we've been told that the grouse
thing is pretty well under control, why do we focus on that
specifically? What does that have to do with the overall
purpose of maintaining our lands as they are?
Mr. Deeble. Essentially, sage grouse are a bird of the
wildest lands we still have left in the western landscapes.
They are an umbrella species in that they need, the population
needs, a vast piece of territory to survive and sustain itself
over the long term. Because it's so dependent on sage brush, it
essentially can be seen as an umbrella species for the
ecosystem. If you protect sage grouse, you will also enhance
your populations of other wildlife, such as antelope, mule
deer, and elk. You will even in some cases maintain large
landscapes available for livestock grazing for the long term.
So clearly it is an umbrella for multiple benefits.
Senator Thomas. So it's a technique for land management,
then?
Mr. Deeble. It's one place, if you can focus through the
lens of sage grouse conservation on this landscape, we think we
can keep it intact for a whole range of benefits for the long
term.
Senator Thomas. Interesting. Do you have any comments, Mr.
Mosher?
Mr. Mosher. I would only add that the health of a landscape
is a relative issue. In this instance, we're looking at the
landscape through the eyes of a sage grouse, and I think in
this particular case that's a fair representation, as Ben
suggests, of conserving appropriately a very large population.
Senator Thomas. Right. Sage grouse is relatively, that's
just one of a number of elements, however. As you say, perhaps,
it's a measuring device.
Mr. O'Keeffe, are you suggesting that some of these
endangered species listings and so on are land management
techniques, rather than an animal technique? Or in addition to
that?
Mr. O'Keeffe. I think that it's become so through the
courts and otherwise, yes.
Senator Thomas. Yes. I think you're probably right.
Does the seasonal restriction have an impact particularly
on energy production?
Mr. Schnacke. Well, yes, it makes for short windows when
you have to schedule rigs and crews and try to get into areas,
particularly remote areas. It does have an impact. One of the
points I would make with regard to this discussion is that it's
been pointed out these ideas that are coming forward are going
to be very site-specific, and any process we go forward on
ought to encourage techniques, technology, the types of things
we can do and are currently doing to increase habitat rather
than mandate it. There isn't going to be one size fits all. We
have gotten our best results from efforts that encourage
companies to use innovative ways to enhance habitat.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Back, this is just one of the factors
in the broader aspect of seeking to conserve our resources and
conserve our land and conserve our open space?
Mr. Back. Yes, the approach that we have taken is to look
at things on a watershed or ecosystem approach, so they are not
focusing just on sage grouse. But as has been indicated by the
testimony here, sage grouse use a variety of habitats on a
landscape scale and as you manage for that species and the
different habitats that it requires, you are managing for many
of the other species.
So there may be a time on the landscape where you have a
grassland that's going to be very productive for things like
horned larks. But as that grassland changes and the sagebrush
comes in, you start getting brood habitat for sage grouse, it's
going to be pronghorn habitat as well. As the sagebrush gets
thicker and becomes nesting habitat for sage grouse, you have
something that may suit mule deer or even elk in the winter
time. As that sagebrush gets taller and becomes sage grouse
winter habitat, then you have habitat that's certainly suitable
for mule deer.
There is a variety of species that are associated with that
successional trend. So we need to keep that mosaic on the
landscape to maintain the watershed values as well as those
wildlife habitat values, as well as the livestock values.
Senator Thomas. That's interesting, because there are a lot
of issues there and sage grouse is just one of them, and not
necessarily the major one. But what you're saying is that it's
a measurement of something broader.
Mr. Back. If I may, I think the issue with sage grouse is
that because the species is so widespread over the 11 Western
States, sage grouse are different than many of our other
endangered species, where we have a specific spring or area, or
a mountain range where that species is found, and it's very
easy then to focus on that species in that location. When you
have a species that ranges over such a wide area as sage
grouse, as has been indicated in the prior testimony, one size
management doesn't fit all. It is important that we start
dealing with the system and not just the species.
That's the advantage; I think that's why this approach, the
conservation effort, that is taking place for this species is
unprecedented, because it forces people to look at the big
picture.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Deeble, I want to come back then and start out with
you. The first thing I wanted to do was to mainly just highly a
point of your testimony. On page 3 of your written testimony
you talked about the fact that there is a sort of a certain
stereotype out there to some extent that many people in the
conservation community want to shut down some of the multiple
use interests of our land. But you point out that that is not
the intent of a large portion of the conservation community,
and that instead, you believe there is the ability to manage in
such a way that we accomplish the objectives of conservation as
well as the objectives of many human uses of the land.
I personally just want to endorse that, and let you give a
little further comment on it if you would like to. One of the
most common things that I end up discussing as I discuss
environmental policy with my constituency is the fact that I
believe the vast majority of my constituents, and frankly, of
Americans, seek both objectives. They want to see our land
preserved and protected, and the incredibly rich environmental
heritage that we have in our Nation, whether it be the sage
grouse or the many other aspects of our environmental heritage.
They want to see it protected and preserved for generations in
perpetuity into the future.
At the same time, I believe the vast majority recognize
that we have an opportunity to have many other uses of the
land, economic uses, recreational uses, and public service
uses, such as generation of power and other types of uses, such
as that. People tend to believe that if we can sit down
together and work out in a collaborative fashion solutions to
these things, we can be very successful at accomplishing
significant progress in each of those areas.
I would just like to ask you to elaborate a little further
on that if you would like to.
Mr. Deeble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the
most common critiques of the Endangered Species Act is that it
delivers to us train wrecks, whether you're a member of the
conservation community or economic sectors or the general
public. I think the situation here that we have with sage
grouse, and its wonderful timing, is that we don't have a train
wreck yet. This is the time to be sitting down and sorting out
a strategy, moving forward in a way which delivers some long
term security to the bird and its habitats. We have time to
make relatively modest adjustments and clearly sustain the
species long term.
That said, right now the Fish and Wildlife Service is
involved in their petition review. We just have to very much
support the judgments of the professional staff there at the
Fish and Wildlife Service. They need to be given the resources
to provide a competent deliberation and decision. It's a very
complicated situation right now, particularly with emerging
factors like new diseases on the landscape, which we haven't
heard much about today.
But we've been doing all our work in the context of the
bird not being listed as threatened or endangered. We feel like
a lot of people have been. We'd like to see that work continue.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. Then also, before I
move on to Mr. Mosher, you didn't really get a chance to talk
about the third leg of your testimony, Mr. Deeble, with regard
to the more direct engagement with public land management
agencies. Would you like to go into that a little bit?
Mr. Deeble. The issue of litigation has come up, and the
National Wildlife Federation has been involved in
administrative appeals and litigation related to sage grouse
conservation. We heard earlier in testimony that public lands
agencies control about 70 percent of the birds' habitat. So we
feel it's important to keep our eye on that ball, because
implementation of some of the best practices for sage grouse
have been uneven at best, and in many cases slow to come from
the agencies.
In particular, there are issues related to things like
management indicator species status for sage grouse by the
Forest Service. That designation has now been withdrawn from
future planning processes and we feel like that's a step
backward potentially for sage grouse management on Department
of Agriculture lands.
The BLM has before them a lot of decisions related to
resource management plan preparation, where things like areas
of critical environmental concern designation has been proposed
for key sage grouse habitats, nominated by their own staff but
then rejected because they didn't consider sage grouse to meet
the importance criteria for moving the nominations forward.
There's those types of processes right now that we're very
concerned about. We think we could gain ground with them if we
could get some more unified Agency action.
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you very much.
Mr. Mosher, let me move to you. I have to say, as you began
your testimony talking about the interests of sportsmen in the
issue as well, I had to think back, and I can't remember for
sure, but I think that the sage grouse may be the first bird
that my dad took me out to hunt when I was a young boy. If it
wasn't the first, it was one of the first. So I have many good
memories of being able to go into the field and hunt sage
grouse.
The issue of preserving that opportunity and moving forward
is one that I think is very critical. In your view, how can we
best allocate our resources to optimize the tradeoff between
the need for knowing where sage grouse live and how they are
doing in each place and, I guess what I'm talking about is that
we need both extensive and intensive information. We have a
broad range here that we have to study, and we need a lot of
very intensive information about the range. How do we manage
that tradeoff in terms of trying to answer these questions?
Mr. Mosher. With great difficulty. You've had much better
experiences, actually, with sage grouse in that case than I
have. I have in my life actually shot one, and it was in the
State of Colorado some years back.
Senator Crapo. Well, I haven't been able to hunt them for
many, many years. Maybe we can recover them sufficiently.
Mr. Mosher. Maybe we need to work on that and get the kids
grown up and the dogs trained.
Senator Crapo. That's right.
Mr. Mosher. There are a number of levels, I think, to your
question, Senator. Clearly the local working groups and the
State agencies have been and are increasingly developing an
incredible amount of detailed information about the local
situations with regard to grouse, their particular management
needs, what needs to be done there. At a higher level, I think
an area of concern that we have had in the conservation
community, and this goes back to the collaborative discussions
that I referred to in my testimony, Senator Thomas left,
actually he was at Moon Crest Ranch when we had one of these
very first conversations with the energy and ranching folks.
What I see in my conversations across all the various
interests, from industry to the ranching community to the
agencies to other colleague groups is a need for a higher level
of coordination that I think you're referring to in the
committee's proposal, a way to step back and look at where,
with limited resources, do we need to allocate the lion's
share, where can we get the greatest improvement for the
resources that we have available.
This has been a longstanding problem I think that many
people have spoken to with regard to the adequate monetary
resources of the Bureau of Land Management, to do simple things
like monitoring, whether it's on grazing allotments, or whether
it's monitoring associated with energy leases. We're not doing
as good a job learning from what we're doing on the landscape
now as we could. That takes investment. That takes people and
money on the ground to gather those data.
It also takes a process whereby those data can be uniformly
gathered and effectively disseminated to the people that are
making the management decisions, whether it's private
landowners or State agencies or the Federal agencies through
their resource management planning processes.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I also wanted to note, or wanted
to let you know that I did make note of your comment that we
needed to expand our focus to include renewable energy.
Mr. Mosher. Yes.
Senator Crapo. As a matter of fact, in Idaho right now, we
have a number of wind projects that are under consideration and
the sage grouse habitat issue is directly involved in those
projects.
Mr. Mosher. I'm well aware of that.
Senator Crapo. So it's something we need to add to our
list. The need for more adequate research is clearly presenting
itself in those contexts.
I'd like to, before we wrap up here, I'd like to just go
over two or three questions with the whole panel and let you
each kind of make observations, if you would like, on some
broader issues. The first is the general question I've been
posing to all of the witnesses so far. Again, I think I know
your answers to this, but I'd like to ask it directly, and that
is, with regard to the outline that the committee has put
forward, do you believe it's a good idea and do you support us
moving in that direction for management?
Mr. Schnacke. Well, Senator, that's why we're here, we're
here to support this effort. I would just certainly ask the
committee in the overall effort to adhere to good science and
to make all this, take a look at this thing from that basis. We
will also certainly lend our effort to try to bring resources
to bear for the effort, both individually with our companies,
member companies as well as what efforts we can bring through
perhaps working with Senator Allard on the committee and in our
general assembly to see what we can do to help in this regard.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Anybody else want to pitch in on
that one? If you don't say anything, I'll assume that you
agree.
Mr. Back.
Mr. Back. I certainly agree with the effort and encourage
you to go forward with it. In the second part of your outline,
categories of participants and examples of specific ideas, I'd
certainly like to see the list expanded to include the local
stewardship groups and actually anyone that's interested in
coming to the table and working on the problem.
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you.
Mr. Mosher.
Mr. Mosher. I obviously would like to throw in my support
for this effort, and our appreciation for it. I think it is a
process that has been described that is very important and very
timely. Just the observation that sage grouse and other
wildlife don't recognize lines on maps, regardless of why the
lines are there, and it's very important to be able to take
that larger landscape look.
Senator Crapo. All right.
Mr. Deeble. Senator, I would like to speak as well in
support of this effort coming together. Clearly we have a
situation that is somewhat biologically complex, but much more
so complex in terms of social issues and economic issues.
Clearly it's going to require a broad community effort to
step up to this challenge.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Mr. O'Keeffe, I think I asked you
already, but did you want to add anything?
Mr. O'Keeffe. Again, I want to say I am incredibly
supportive of that type of an effort. If we don't have a
listing, it can continue quite well. If we do have a listing, I
think we'll need to be sure that the agencies have the manpower
to process the permits, because that's where the litigation can
really hurt the industry that I represent.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. The other question I kind of
wanted to toss out to see if anybody wants to comment on it is
really the question I got into with our first panel at the
Federal Agency level. That is, do you believe that we have
sufficient flexibility in the law as it exists today and the
regulations that we see the agencies operating under to
accomplish the objectives that we're talking about here to get
a broader, more comprehensive, collaborative effort underway to
truly impact our management decisions? In other words, can we
do this without changing the law or having new regulatory
regimes put into place?
Anybody want to jump into that? Mr. Mosher?
Mr. Mosher. Sure, I'll take a chance. The Federal
Government in my circle has occasionally been described as
trying to turn a tanker. When you get it moving in the right
direction, it turns. But it takes a while. I'm not an expert on
the laws and regulations as they apply in this instance.
But I have a reasonable familiarity, and I trust the first
panel this morning when they assured you that, yes, the
flexibility is there. I think we need not just the flexibility
within law and regulation, we need the will and the
determination down the line from the top to the bottom to the
folks that are deciding how to do things on the ground to make
it happen and with that determination I think it will.
I'm optimistic.
Senator Crapo. So what I understand you to say is that with
the help from the oversight of this committee and others and
the encouragement and support from many groups, we can get that
tanker starting to turn?
Mr. Mosher. We'd like to help you turn the tanker.
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you.
Anybody else? Yes, Mr. O'Keeffe.
Mr. O'Keeffe. I would say that we definitely would support
some amendments and changes to the Endangered Species Act in
the future. I think it's a cumbersome act that's been there for
a while and we could do some things to improve it.
I would say that if it's interpreted right, if things work
we can get through the sage grouse issue with the current rules
in place. But if some of the calls are interpreted differently,
I think we can have some real conflicts with the sage grouse
thing. It's in the details, Senator.
Senator Crapo. Good point.
Mr. Schnacke?
Mr. Schnacke. Let me just echo that. I believe that what
the livestock people pointed out earlier is true, that there is
a universe of folks out there that is certainly committed to
trying to use the Endangered Species Act for purposes that may
be outside of what this group is trying to accomplish. We do
share that concern that even if our good intentions are put
together and implemented, there is still going to be an effort
to try to take it in a different direction.
So we would encourage a debate on the Endangered Species
Act and probably some of the same amendments the livestock
folks are thinking about.
Senator Crapo. Good points.
Mr. Back.
Mr. Back. I think there are certainly laws and regulations
on the books within which we can work. What happens is when we
have the Endangered Species Act invoked, if this species is
listed, some of the tools go out of the tool box and we become
restricted. It's kind of like hanging wallpaper with one hand
tied behind your back.
Right now if we see a long-term issue that requires some
type of vegetation treatment where sage grouse currently live,
we can implement that treatment through the NEPA process, we
can work through the impacts and mitigation. Once the species
is listed, the question becomes, may that action adversely
affect the bird. If you're going to modify the vegetation in a
manner that has a short-term adverse affect but will improve
the habitat in the long term, then the answer to that question
is yes, you may adversely affect it and you won't be allowed to
do what may be in the long-term best interest of the species.
So we lose that tool for long-term planning, for long-term
benefit and sustainability. When we take those tools out of the
tool box, we're hurt in the long term. We may do something for
the short term to preserve the bird by preserving the habitat.
But we can preserve this bird to extinction, because habitats
are dynamic and we cannot preserve a condition of habitat; we
have to manage in order to make those ecosystems sustainable.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Mr. Deeble.
Mr. Deeble. Mr. Chairman, to your question, I'm not certain
that we need to change laws to implement many beneficial
practices for the bird today. But frankly, my experience
working on the ground, though, has been that often working with
private landowners, they can move faster with less baggage and
less sort of bureaucratic considerations than the agencies
themselves. The thing that I would ask for in the agencies is
that down at the field level we allow them to have some
innovative thinking and move forward in ways that they don't
necessarily or aren't used to historically. I think we can
bring the Agency tempo right up that what we're seeing from
some of the private landowners.
Senator Crapo. Good point.
Let me just say, with regard to the issues that you've
discussed, in fact, the discussion here already covered my
third area that I wanted you to get into, which was the
litigation threat and whether that creates a rigidity that we
need to deal with. Let me just say to the panel that I
personally believe we do need to change the Endangered Species
Act, and I've been trying to reform it and to address those
issues from my own perspective for more than a decade now and
will continue to do so.
In fact, this committee is currently as we speak working
with a number of the groups who are here today and others to
try to find some good ways to put more flexibility into the
Act, so that we cannot be trying to hang the wallpaper with one
hand tied behind us, as one of you has indicated. I will
continue to work on that.
The reality, however, the political reality, however, is
that making any changes to the Endangered Species Act right now
is very difficult. It requires a truly heroic bipartisan
effort, because there is so much distrust on all sides with
regard to any proposed changes. We're just working through that
dynamic. I know there may be some in the room who don't think
we need to make any changes or who think the changes we might
need to make are different than the ones I would think we would
need to make. That whole debate is ongoing, and frankly, I
think that not just the Endangered Species Act should be looked
at in that way. I think the NEPA process could be streamlined
and improved in some very significant ways.
But again, that's another very intense debate about which
the political realities are that we need more time and more
broad based support for those kinds of approaches before we
will be able to succeed on them. My hope is that while we are
moving through that debate and that process, we can find ways
to achieve the flexibility and the progress that we've been
talking about here in this committee without having to solve
the battle over legislative changes to some of these statutes
that some of us may believe are the right approach.
I was very pleased today to hear the testimony of our
Federal Agency managers that they thought we had that
flexibility in the context of what we are addressing in this
hearing. The support for the approach that we have tried to
talk about here has been virtually unanimous among the interest
groups represented here today, which includes the State,
Federal and the private sector interest groups.
So I just thought I would give you my little editorial on
where I think we're headed in that context. I'm pretty much
concluded and we're pretty much out of time, but if any of you
would like to make any final comments or statements, I would
welcome that before we wrap up.
Mr. Schnacke. On behalf of our organization, thank you for
having us here today.
Mr. Back. Ditto.
Senator Crapo. All right, well, again, I want to thank all
of you. Let's continue to work together, because I do believe
that we can make a tremendous amount of progress in the
direction of the collaboration we've talked about today.
Again, thank you all for your efforts in preparing and
coming to present your testimony. This hearing will be
concluded.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to examine
conservation efforts being implemented across the West for the Greater
Sage-grouse. I appreciate your attention and dedication to highlight
locally-driven conservation programs that are doing exactly what they
have been created to do: conserving a species without the added
mandates imposed by the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Chairman, Colorado is in a unique position with regard to
conservation efforts for candidate species. In 2000, the mountain
plover was a candidate species for the Endangered Species list. The
Colorado Division of Wildlife and many dedicated individuals worked
diligently to conserve approximately 350,000 acres of private land for
research and conservation. Through their continued efforts, the species
has not been listed. The recovery of the mountain plover is a great
example of how locally-driven conservation programs work, and I want to
ensure that these successful programs are continued throughout the
West.
As we will surely hear from some of our witnesses today, locally-
driven conservation efforts are the best way to effectively manage
candidate or threatened species. The worst thing that can be done for
these species is to support a blanket approach mandated from
Washington, DC that would supplant locally-driven plans. Specifically
in regard to the Sage-grouse, conservation strategies have been
developing over the past eight years in Colorado. To negate local level
studies for an all-encompassing national plan not only goes against
sound science, but takes a step backward from protecting the species. I
agree with Colorado's Northwest Resource Advisory Council's resolution
providing suggestions for the Bureau of Land Management conservation
strategy for the Sage-grouse. They comment that, ``The federal
government should clearly acknowledge that different approaches to
species recovery and habitat management will likely be different
throughout the country.'' Attention needs to be given to local
management strategies.
Locally-driven conservation approaches take into account land
management and multiple use standards critical to landowners in the
area, rather than blocking owners from their property as can be done
when a species is listed on the Endangered Species list. Existing land
uses should not be compromised because of the Sage-grouse, but
conservation plans should be developed with a multiple use guideline to
the extent possible conserving the species. Any national Sage-grouse
habitat conservation strategy should work with existing land uses to
manage Sage-grouse and Sagebrush habitat, and possible conflicts should
be resolved at the local level through planning groups that take into
account local concerns, and not by mandates from Washington.
Locally-driven conservation programs have a history of working,
especially in Colorado. I look forward to finding ways to help sustain
these conservation efforts, and to help the local land owner who
voluntarily assists in the conservation efforts of the Sage-grouse.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to discuss this
important issue.
__________
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. Taking a
hard look at the results of sage grouse conservation efforts and
considering alternative management strategies for the future is vitally
important to reducing conflict and ensuring healthy sage grouse
populations across the West, without the need for extensive federal
intervention.
Sage grouse conservation efforts have already begun at the local,
state, and federal levels, directed at both privately and publicly held
lands. As we all know, coordinating the efforts of so many involved
individuals and agencies over such a large geographic area is no easy
feat.
I would like to welcome Mr. Ben Deeble of the National Wildlife
Federation, who traveled from Missoula, Montana to testify about his
first-hand experience with innovative and cooperative conservation
strategies in Montana. I greatly appreciate his insight and knowledge,
and the efforts of his organization to gather good data and improve
sage grouse habitat in Montana and neighboring western states.
In Montana, we have committed significant resources to sage grouse
conservation efforts. Unlike many other states, in Montana the majority
of our sagebrush habitat is on private land, which is why cooperative
and incentive-based conservation strategies are particularly important
to our state. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has
partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake a
Sagebrush Initiative program that inventories sage grouse habitat,
prioritizes habitat to be targeted under the program, and then provides
landowner incentives to protect that habitat on private lands. It is
just this sort of collaborative effort--that joins private, state, and
federal efforts--that is the heart of establishing successful sage
grouse conservation efforts for the future.
Although many sage-grouse conservation programs are relatively new
and their impacts can not yet be determined, the existence of these
programs demonstrates the commitment held by many stakeholders to
maintain and improve the quality of sage grouse habitat across the
west. This is an important step in moving towards measurable
improvements in sage grouse populations, and away from more stringent
federal controls.
That's why we must make sure that these local, collaborative
efforts have the strength and durability to achieve their goals. We
should support them with strong and well-funded incentive programs, and
we can and should commit to landowners that we will help provide them
with technical and economic assistance.
We should help ensure adequate communication among all players so
that the resources available for conservation are allocated in the most
efficient manner. State wildlife departments should be in touch with
the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, local land owners
need to be directed to the appropriate agencies to take advantage of
rangeland improvement programs, and conservation organizations should
stay abreast of the developments and success of these programs.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my thanks to those who
testified today and to those who are committed to sage grouse
conservation. From our vantage point today, we can see that admirable
work is being done in the public and private sectors to help protect
the sage grouse and its habitat. What we need to ensure, however, is
that this work is encouraged, expanded, funded, and developed to last
well into the future.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Statement of Chad D. Calvert, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for providing
us with the opportunity to discuss the Department of the Interior's
(Department) efforts with state wildlife agencies, private landowners,
and others to conserve sage-grouse. As the discussion below reveals,
the Department is working with stakeholders across the spectrum to put
forth an unprecedented effort for this species.
Let me preface my remarks by noting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), the bureau within the Department responsible for
implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is currently
undertaking a comprehensive range-wide status review as part of its
determination of whether or not the species is warranted for listing
under the ESA. During this process, the FWS will consider input from
the public, states, and other Federal agencies. Because of this ongoing
review, however, my statement will not address issues that relate to
the FWS decisionmaking process. Instead, I will first discuss the
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) efforts to conserve sage-grouse,
followed by a brief discussion of some general FWS programs and tools
that relate to the Department's efforts to improve species
conservation.
BACKGROUND
Sage-grouse are a popular game bird once seen in great numbers
across sagebrush landscapes of the West. The greater sage-grouse is
generally found at elevations of 4,000 to over 9,000 feet, and its
historic range included Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, North and South Dakota, Nebraska,
Arizona, and three Canadian provinces. However, conversion of habitat
to agriculture and urban development, changes in fire regimes, and
fragmentation all have contributed to declines in sage-grouse
populations over the past century. According to the Western Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA), greater sage-grouse now occupy
just over half of the 118.6 million acres of habitat estimated to exist
prior to the arrival of European settlers.
The Department is responsible for managing a large number of acres
of that habitat. The BLM alone is responsible for managing half of the
remaining sagebrush habitat, approximately 57 million acres, in the
United States. Of these, 30 million acres are considered to be occupied
sage-grouse habitat, with another 10 million acres potentially suitable
for sage-grouse. As discussed below, the BLM currently manages for
sage-grouse as a special status species across its range and recognizes
the critical need to maintain and restore sagebrush habitat and
populations.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
In furtherance of Secretary Norton's ``4 C's'' philosophy of
communication, consultation, and cooperation, all in the service of
conservation, the BLM has been part of a collaborative approach to
ensure the conservation of the sage-grouse. As managers of much of the
habitat for sage grouse, the Department, through the BLM and FWS,
signed an MOU with the WAFWA and the U.S. Forest Service in 2000. A key
objective of this MOU is the development of a framework for
conservation planning across the 11-state range of the greater sage-
grouse. In order to achieve this objective, a State/Federal Sage-grouse
Conservation Planning Framework Team was developed and is comprised of
representatives from four state agencies and the three Federal
agencies.
Under the last 4 years of this state-Federal partnership,
information has been developed concerning the condition of sagebrush
habitats, the present status of populations, and potential threats to
sage-grouse. Much of this data is available on the SAGEMAP website,
found at http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/, which contains data that can be
used for research and management of sage-grouse and shrubsteppe
systems. Also important, a cooperative conservation planning for sage-
grouse, unprecedented in its breadth and scope, has been initiated
across all eleven states, at both the statewide and local levels. Those
plans are now being completed and the majority should be in place
within the next year. The BLM is committed to working with the states
and local partners to pull these plans into a rangewide conservation
strategy for sage-grouse.
In addition, in order to address the need for habitat improvement
to support sage-grouse populations on BLM-administered lands (pending
the completion of the MOU's range-wide state conservation plans), the
BLM drafted a National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy in the
summer of 2003 and made the draft available for public comment. The
Strategy is being designed to complement the cooperative conservation
efforts being led by state wildlife agencies. Many of the actions are
directly related to needs identified during the BLM Director Clarke's
``listening session'' visits to sage-grouse states in February and
March of this year. It will provide guidance to BLM offices on planning
and best management practices, as well as a resources guide, mechanisms
for voluntary participation in conservation efforts, and improved
access to science support. Feedback from stakeholders and written
comments from the public have been received and will also be taken into
consideration in finalizing the Strategy.
BLM's national strategy is designed to further improve the Federal
contribution to the state-Federal conservation efforts already
underway. The BLM has also offered information to FWS on the bureau's
land health standards and ecological improvement programs. Examples
include systematic monitoring and assessments, the mitigation measures
BLM requires for land uses, and BLM's fire and riparian restoration
efforts with native plants.
The BLM will spend over $14 million on sage-grouse conservation in
fiscal year 2004, and is seeking an increase of $3.2 million for fiscal
year 2005 for restoration and conservation of sagebrush habitats. These
projects supplement our planning efforts by supporting specific
cooperative projects to improve sage-grouse breeding, nesting, brood
rearing and wintering habitat.
The Special Status Species Program is the BLM's overarching
regulatory mechanism to address conservation efforts designed to avoid
listing of species. Pursuant to the Department's Manual at 632.16, the
BLM should ``utilize authorities to not only protect listed species,
but also to avoid precipitating the decline of other species to the
point where (ESA) listing would be appropriate.'' Furthermore, the
BLM's manual specifies that sensitive species will be given the same
level of protection afforded Federal candidate species. All states
where the BLM manages land classify the greater sage-grouse as a
sensitive species. Accordingly, the BLM addresses mitigation factors
for sage-grouse in all of its planning efforts. As an example, BLM-
Wyoming currently requires that habitat and population health for
special status species be one of six standards in their Standards and
Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands, which they use to monitor livestock
grazing. For other activities, such as fluid and solid mineral
development, recreation use and right-of-way development, the BLM's
Mitigation Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities are applied.
For sage and sharp-tailed grouse, this generally means no activities
are authorized within nesting habitat from Febuary 1-July 31, or in
critical winter concentration areas from November 15-April 30.
Mitigation like this is carried out by the BLM across the range of
sage-grouse using standards that are developed collaboratively between
the BLM and each individual state.
OTHER CONSERVATION TOOLS
The Department, through the FWS, currently has many conservation
tools available which provide for close cooperation with private
landowners, state and local governments, and other non-Federal partners
and that are particularly important in implementation of the ESA.
Through the Candidate Conservation program, the FWS works with
states, landowners, and others to voluntarily conserve candidate and
other declining species. Recently, the FWS applied the policy in the
case of slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum). In that
instance, a Candidate Conservation Agreement, developed by the BLM, the
State of Idaho, the Idaho Army National Guard, and several private
property owners who hold BLM grazing permits, served as part of the
basis for the FWS's determination to withdraw its proposal to list the
plant. Among other information central to the FWS's decision to
withdraw the proposal, conservation efforts in this formalized
agreement were determined to reduce risk to the slickspot peppergrass
such that this species is unlikely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future. The slickspot peppergrass story is a good example
of partners working together to conserve a species.
Another tool is a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances
(CCAA). Under a CCAA, non-Federal property owners who voluntarily agree
to manage their lands or waters to remove threats to proposed or
candidate species receive assurances that their conservation efforts
will not result in future regulatory obligations under the Act, beyond
what they agreed to, in the event the species becomes listed. Species
that are considered likely to become candidate or proposed species in
the near future may also be included in a CCAA.
CCAAs differ from Candidate Conservation Agreements in several key
respects. Candidate Conservation Agreements can involve both Federal
and non-Federal land, and they do not include assurances. Moreover,
there are no specific regulatory requirements concerning the content of
Candidate Conservation Agreements. In contrast, CCAAs are specifically
designed to provide incentives to non-Federal landowners. CCAAs are
available for non-Federal lands only, and they result in issuance of a
permit that is the mechanism for providing assurances to the non-
Federal landowner. The Service enters into such agreements when they
determine that the benefits of the conservation measures under the
CCAA, when combined with those benefits if they were taken on other
necessary properties, would preclude or remove any need to list the
covered species.
Under the Landowner Incentive Program, the FWS also provides
financial assistance to partners interested in implementing
conservation actions that benefit listed and other imperiled species on
non-Federal lands. This program provides competitive matching grants to
states, territories, and tribes to establish or supplement landowner
incentive programs that provide technical and financial assistance to
private and tribal landowners.
As part of the Administration's overall Cooperative Conservation
Initiative and funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife program is a voluntary habitat
restoration program that provides financial assistance and restoration
expertise to private landowners, tribes, and other conservation
partners who choose to improve the condition of fish and wildlife
habitat on their land. Recognizing that the majority of the Nation's
current and potential threatened and endangered species habitat is on
property owned by non-Federal entities, the program affords landowners
the tools needed to make private lands working landscapes that benefit
wildlife, while maintaining productive activities. Since its creation
in 1987, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has established
over 28,000 agreements with landowners resulting in the restoration of
1,060,000 acres of uplands, 649,300 acres of wetlands, and 4,670 miles
of riparian and in-stream habitat.
These programs reflect the belief that the conservation of listed
species and their habitat depends on the cooperative participation of
non-Federal partners. These programs, which require non-Federal cost-
sharing participation, reflect a strong commitment to conservation
through cooperation, communication, and consultation with private,
state, and other non-Federal partners.
PETITION REVIEW
Between May 1999 and December 2003, seven petitions were filed with
the FWS to protect the sage-grouse under the ESA. Three of these
petitions are to list the greater sage-grouse throughout its range. In
April 2004, FWS released its 90-day finding that there was enough
information presented to merit a status review.
During this status review, the FWS will utilize its Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE), which was developed by the
FWS and NOAA-Fisheries. PECE is designed to help guide agency personnel
in the evaluation of whether planned conservation efforts by other
Federal agencies, state, local, or tribal governments, businesses,
organizations, or individuals, contribute to forming a basis for not
listing a species or for listing a species as threatened rather than
endangered. The final policy, published at 68 Fed. Reg. 15100,
identifies criteria to be used by the agencies in determining whether
formal conservation efforts--those identified in conservation
agreements, conservation plans, management plans, or similar
documents--that have yet to be implemented or to show effectiveness
contribute to making listing a species unnecessary.
The policy lists 15 criteria that FWS personnel will use to direct
their analysis as to whether a particular conservation effort is
sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective. Examples of the
criteria include: (1) the conservation effort, the parties to the
agreement or plan that will implement the effort, and the staffing,
funding level, funding source, and other resources necessary to
implement the identified effort are identified; (2) the legal authority
of the parties to the agreement or plan to implement the formal
conservation effort, and the commitment to proceed with the effort, are
described; and (3) regulatory mechanisms necessary to implement the
conservation effort are in place.
The policy is not intended to provide guidance for determining the
level of conservation or types of efforts needed to make listing
unnecessary; instead, it is intended to ensure a consistent and
adequate evaluation process in making a determination as to whether a
conservation effort is sufficiently certain to be implemented and to be
effective, and that it contributes to eliminating or reducing one or
more threats to a species. Under this policy, those conservation
efforts that are not sufficiently certain to be implemented and
effective cannot contribute to a determination that listing is
unnecessary or to a determination to list a species as threatened
rather than endangered.
The FWS is currently reviewing material submitted by the BLM,
Forest Service, states, and other interested parties and intends to
meet the 12-month deadline for status review on December 29.
CONCLUSION
The Department is committed to working cooperatively with our
partners toward conservation of the sage-grouse and its habitat. Mr.
Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes my statement. I
am happy to answer any questions that you might have.
______
Responses by Chad Calvert to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. I gather from your testimony that most of the
regulatory procedures already required in BLM sage-grouse conservation
are provided as ``Standards and Guidelines'' that are written
specifically for each state and can be amended. What is the process--
step by step--for amending these requirements?
Response. ``Standards and Guidelines'' refers to the BLM's
regulations, ``Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and
Guidelines for Grazing Administration'' (43 CFR 4180). Policy direction
for implementing the regulations is set out in the BLM Handbook (H-
4180-1), as is the process for amending Standards and Guidelines. As
discussed more fully below, the key steps are: advice to the BLM State
Director from citizen-based Resource Advisory Councils (RACs); approval
by the Secretary of the Interior; and implementation of new or amended
Standards and Guidelines through BLM's land use planning process.
To ensure that the Standards are appropriate for individual areas
and to increase public support for the Guidelines, BLM State Directors
worked closely with their respective Resource Advisory Councils (RACs)
to develop State-level Standards and Guidelines. The BLM's 23 RACs are
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) chartered, citizen-based, groups
consisting of 12 to 15 members from diverse interests in local
communities, including ranchers, environmental groups, tribes, State
and local government officials, academics, and other public land users,
which advise BLM on the management of the public lands.
Standards are expressions of physical and biological conditions or
the degree of function required for healthy lands and sustainable uses.
Their purpose is to help the BLM, public land users, and others focus
on a common understanding of the fundamental resource conditions
required to assure that the land is healthy and functioning.
Guidelines explain to BLM managers, permittees, other public land
users, and interested groups, the methods which the BLM plans to use,
for example, grazing systems, vegetative treatments, surface occupancy
restrictions, or improvement projects, to manage activities on the
public lands in order to assure that the Land Health Standards are
achieved.
After State-level Land Health Standards and Guidelines are
developed by the RACs and the BLM State Directors, the Standards and
Guidelines are submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval.
New, revised or amended Standards and Guidelines must be approved by
the Secretary before being implemented. Once approved by the Secretary,
they are implemented within the geographic area (usually the BLM
planning area) for which they were developed, through the regular land
use planning process.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES MANAGEMENT
With respect to sage-grouse, the Standards and Guidelines for
Rangeland Health include specific direction to BLM State directors to
develop standards to promote conservation of habitat for special status
species. The goal of Special Status Species Management (BLM Manual
6840) is to implement management plans for the public lands that
conserve candidate and Bureau-sensitive species and their habitats, and
to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM do
not contribute to the need for the species to become listed under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
For example, as a result of the greater sage-grouse being
designated for special status species management, all authorized
activities occurring on public lands (including livestock grazing, off-
highway vehicle use, oil and gas drilling, and recreational
development) are evaluated in the regular land use planning process to
ensure that the activities will not contribute to the need to list the
species as threatened or endangered.
If there is a risk that authorized activities on public lands may
contribute to the need to list the species, the BLM works
collaboratively with individual States to develop mitigation factors
(such as stipulations on permitted uses) that are designed to reduce
the potential negative impact to the special status species from such
activities. In a March 2003 agreement between BLM-Idaho and the State
of Idaho's Department of Fish and Game, both the Federal Government and
State of Idaho designated the greater sage-grouse (among other animals
and plants) as a sensitive species to be managed under the provisions
of Special Status Species Management. BLM-Idaho and the State of Idaho
agreed to manage other activities on both public and state-owned lands
so as to conserve sage-grouse populations and sagebrush habitat, with
the goal of minimizing the need for the species to become listed as
threatened or endangered by either Federal or State governments in the
future.
Question 2. One way to expand the State/Federal Sage-grouse
Conservation Planning Framework Team to include non-governmental
entities might be to amend the Memorandum of Agreement that originally
formed the Framework Team. If you were to consider doing so, what would
be some pro's and con's to chartering a Federal Advisory Committee?
Response. The factors that make a FACA-chartered advisory council
uniquely useful--providing expert advice directly and exclusively to a
Federal agency--may be of less benefit in a collaborative, cooperative
effort involving many governments (Federal, State, tribal and local).
The structure and function of FACA committees is highly regulated,
which may limit the Framework Team's flexibility to take into
considerations the concerns of State and local governments.
Chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, an advisory
council would be able to provide the BLM with expert advice and
recommendations, as well as diverse opinions, on sage-grouse and
sagebrush habitat conservation on the public lands. The BLM currently
works with 39 advisory councils, ranging from our 23 Resource Advisory
Councils (RACs), which provide advice on multiple use management of
public lands within a State or region of a State, to area-specific
advisory councils, such as the Steens Mountain Advisory Council. All
recommendations by advisory councils are considered by the BLM's State/
field offices and by the Washington office when making decisions about
the management of public lands.
FACA-chartered advisory councils operate under formal rules and
regulations issued by the General Services Administration (41 CFR 101-
6.1001), including, for example: committee members must meet conflict
of interest standards; nominations of members to FACA advisory councils
are reviewed under a formal public process; meetings must be open to
the public and the news media, and announced in advance by publication
of a notice in the Federal Register; anyone may appear before or file a
statement regarding matters on a meeting agenda; minutes of meetings
must be made available to the public; a quorum of members must be
present to conduct official business.
In an effort involving collaborative and cooperative management of
a resource (for example, sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat
conservation) that occurs in several States and crosses multiple layers
of government jurisdictions (Federal, State, tribal, local), we would
have to ask whether the non-Federal governmental participants would
welcome the addition of a preferred advisor to the BLM that would have
to operate under strict regulations. FACA-chartered advisory committee
can provide advice solely to the Federal agency head regarding
management activities on the public lands. Inclusion of such a group in
the Framework Team may limit its flexibility to take into consideration
the concerns of State and local government participants.
The western states have led the collaborative efforts to develop
range-wide strategies for the conservation of sage-grouse and sagebrush
habitat. In 1999, wildlife agencies in the 11 western states that
comprise the range of the sage-grouse committed to undertake a
cooperative approach to the management of sage-grouse populations
within and among their states. In 2000, these state wildlife agencies,
through the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA),
joined with the USDA Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the Department of the Interior,
to develop, in collaboration and cooperation, a rangewide strategy for
the conservation and management of sage-grouse and their sagebrush
habitats on the public lands and on lands administered by State and
local governments. Under the 2000 MOU, the Federal agencies agreed to
collaborate with State and local governments in the development of
State and local sage-grouse conservation plans, and to develop plans
for conservation of sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat on the public
lands that would complement and coordinate with the State and local
plans. The MOU provides for the direct participation of private parties
and non-governmental entities through local working groups convened by
each State. A FACA-chartered advisory board would be a preferred
advisor to the BLM as to activities on the public lands and would
represent a fundamental shift in the BLM's collaborative and
cooperative approach to working with the western states in the State-
led sage-grouse conservation effort.
Question 3. In the Subcommittee Outline document, we are
envisioning a group that could recommend an organized overall approach
to sage-grouse conservation across many states and including many
contributing partners. These partners-including agencies such as the
BLM, states and state agencies, and private landowners-would still have
final say whether to adopt recommendations or participate in an
organized effort. How would you define the scope of this effort in
order to make it most likely to succeed in balancing site-specific
realities with the benefits of a regional overview?
Response. The Subcommittee Outline presents several interesting
points, and we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Outline
in greater specificity with Subcommittee staff. In many respects, the
Outline offers parallels to the collaborative and cooperative efforts
undertaken over the past four years by 11-state wildlife agencies,
local governments, and Federal agencies under the 2000 Memorandum of
Understanding between the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies (WAFWA) and the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service at the USDA.
Under this MOU, WAFWA led the effort to prepare a rangewide sage-
grouse Conservation Assessment, released on June 9, 2004, that examined
sage-grouse populations and habitat conditions across the 11 states
comprising the range of the sage-grouse. Each of the 11 States either
has completed or is currently working to complete, through local
working groups, state and local sage-grouse conservation plans. The
BLM's National Strategy for Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation on the
public lands was released on November 16, 2004. The State/Federal
effort under the MOU has produced both a rangewide overview (the
Conservation Assessment) and site-specific implementation (sage-grouse
conservation plans at the local and state levels, and sagebrush habitat
conservation plans for the public lands).
Question 4. What would be the most effective way to include the
ideas of local working groups in the effort envisioned in the
Subcommittee Outline?
Response. We cannot overstate the importance of the participation
of local working groups in the development of plans, at the local,
State, and public land levels, for the conservation of sage-grouse and
sagebrush habitat. Under the 2000 MOU, the ideas, opinions, and
recommendations of local working groups are channeled through the
individual States and are included in the development of local and
State-level conservation plans. The BLM takes into consideration the
ideas of local working groups as it develops, under the MOU, habitat
conservation plans for the public lands that complement and coordinate
with state and local sage-grouse conservation plans. As structured
under the MOU, this collaborative process has worked well to
incorporate the opinions and recommendations of local working groups.
Statement of Bruce I. Knight, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you today to present the Department of Agriculture's perspective
on habitat restoration and preservation associated with the sage grouse
in eleven western states. I thank the Members of the Committee for the
opportunity to appear, and I would like to express gratitude to the
Chairman and members of this body for your interest in USDA's roles in
helping farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners improve sage
grouse habitat. Under the leadership of Secretary Veneman, we at USDA
have taken proactive steps to provide additional program assistance
specifically for sage grouse habitat conservation.
I would like to take a moment to highlight the background of the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to place our
involvement into context. NRCS assists owners of America's private land
conserve their soil, water, and related natural resources. Local, state
and Federal agencies and policymakers also rely on our expertise. We
deliver technical assistance based on sound science and suited to a
farmer's or rancher's specific needs. In addition, NRCS offers
voluntary assistance to landowners in the form of financial incentives,
cost share and conservation easements. In 2002, President Bush signed
into law the most conservation oriented Farm bill in history, which
reauthorized and greatly enhanced conservation programs. In total, the
new Farm bill enacted by the President is estimated to provide a $17.1
billion increase in conservation funding over a 10-year period. In
addition, direction was provided to assist agricultural producers meet
regulatory challenges that they face.
From the standpoint of the mission and perspective of the NRCS, we
have recognized that the issue of sage grouse habitat has become of
increased concern to many farmers, ranchers, and other private
landowners. We also recognize that 28 percent of the existing sage
grouse habitat is found on private lands. This area represents about 40
million acres. Our goal is to help agricultural producers maintain and
improve sage grouse habitat as part of larger management efforts that
provide for multiple land benefits. Mr. Chairman, there exists
substantial potential to combine and coordinate sage grouse habitat
efforts across governments, with farmers and ranchers, sportsmen
groups, businesses and other stakeholders. NRCS is eager to join forces
with the many interested parties in accelerating our efforts for sage
grouse.
PROGRAM ASSISTANCE
Last month, the Secretary announced $2 million in Grassland Reserve
Program (GRP) funding available specifically for special projects to
help protect sage grouse habitat. The Grassland Reserve Program helps
viable ranching and farming operations protect and enhance grassland,
rangeland, shrubland and certain other lands and provides assistance
for rehabilitating grasslands. Eligible lands are enrolled in GRP
through easements and rental agreements. The additional $2 million for
sage grouse assistance was made available in Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and
Washington. Each state received $500,000 to protect and enhance sage
grouse habitat on GRP easement lands, with technical assistance and
additional financial assistance provided through state and local
partnerships. The sage grouse funding was in addition to nearly $70
million that was made available in fiscal year (FY) 2004 to enroll land
in the Grassland Reserve Program nationwide.
The Department also recently announced targeted sage grouse
assistance through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).
Specifically, NRCS provided $350,000 to protect habitat of sage grouse
at Parker Mountain, Utah. WHIP is a voluntary program for people who
want to develop and improve wildlife habitat primarily on private land.
Through WHIP, NRCS provides both technical assistance and up to 75
percent cost-share assistance to establish and improve fish and
wildlife habitat. WHIP agreements between NRCS and the participant
generally last from 5 to 10 years from the date the agreement is
signed. Under the targeted sage grouse initiative in Utah, landowners
will use the funds for brush management, reseeding, water development
and wildlife habitat management on approximately 104,000 acres.
But our assistance to the sage grouse goes far beyond the targeted
funding that has been announced. For example, our agency's flagship
conservation cost-share program, the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) is providing nearly $1 billion in conservation
incentives and cost-share assistance nationwide this year, with even
greater funding authorized for fiscal year 2005. We also know that the
conversion of farm and ranchlands to non-agricultural usage poses a
particular challenge to sage grouse habitat. I would note that the
Department's Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program is providing $112
million this year to partner with state, local, and non-governmental
efforts to protect prime farm and ranchland from development. While it
is difficult to quantify the impacts, we know that both of these
programs are making important contributions toward protecting and
developing sage grouse habitat. Combining the efforts of all our
programs and technical assistance, NRCS estimates that in fiscal year
2004 more than 80,000 acres of sage grouse habitat will benefit
directly from private lands conservation efforts with more than 1
million acres experiencing a secondary benefit. For fiscal year 2005,
we estimate that about 1.5 million acres of sage grouse habitat will
benefit from primary and secondary effects combined.
NRCS offers both technical and financial assistance that can help
producers preserve, restore, and enhance sage brush habitat. In terms
of conservation planning, NRCS provides a broad range of expertise,
largely through the agency's Conservation Technical Assistance program,
that can result in multiple complementary benefits, including the
reduction of soil erosion and water quality improvements. Specific
examples of NRCS assistance include the following:
<bullet> rangeland planting
<bullet> livestock fencing
<bullet> water developments
<bullet> rangeland treatments
<bullet> prescribed grazing
<bullet> conservation cover
<bullet> field borders
<bullet> land reclamation for fire control
<bullet> critical area planting
<bullet> reduction of incidental chemical spraying
<bullet> pest management
<bullet> brush management
<bullet> shrub establishment
<bullet> native grass and legume establishment
<bullet> riparian herbaceous plantings
<bullet> riparian forest plantings
<bullet> wetland restoration
<bullet> protection of sage brush habitat
While NRCS offers many established conservation planning and
practice measures that benefit sagebrush and sage grouse habitat, we
are also taking steps to develop new scientific and technical tools to
assist our field staff. For example, we recently developed new
technical guidance through a collaborative arrangement with the
Wildlife Habitat Council, which will assist field staff to implement
conservation measures that benefit sage grouse habitat. The guidance is
currently in peer review and is expected to be released before the end
of the calendar year. NRCS also operates Plant Materials Centers
(PMCs), which develop new plant cultivars and planning/management
techniques in order to meet conservation objectives. We are directing a
new initiative within the Plant Materials program to improve sage
steppe restoration efforts, such as developing new science for
improving restoration and interspersion of grasses and forbs within
sagebrush habitat, and to develop techniques for control and management
of invasive species such as cheat grass. Also, this year NRCS committed
funding to assess the effects of conservation practices on sage grouse.
We believe that we must provide our field staff with as much knowledge,
data, and technical standards and specifications as possible, in order
to ensure that farmers and ranchers are getting the expert advice that
they need. NRCS is also planning a training course on conservation and
management of sage grouse habitat for our field conservationists
planners this coming spring.
OUTREACH AND INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION
Mr. Chairman, while NRCS has focused to meet landowner needs, we
also want to ensure that we partner appropriately with agencies within
the Department of the Interior and governmentwide. We know that
significant gains are being made on private lands and seek to ensure
that the voice of agriculture is being heard and the stories of success
on farms and ranches are being incorporated into discussions and
decisions about the sage grouse. Also, we at USDA want to fully
understand the perspective and objectives of partner agencies in order
to ensure that our work is well directed, not duplicative, and best
suits the needs of our customers.
Earlier this year, we initiated a leadership retreat with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in order to give the top leadership
staff of both agencies insight into each other's operations. We are
also working together to develop many important concepts with respect
to how conservation improvements should be regarded in future
regulatory decisionmaking. Mr. Chairman, we know that the relationship
between agriculture and wildlife will become a matter of ever
increasing importance in the future. We want to ensure that we are in
the best position possible to explain the linkages and work toward the
most positive outcomes possible for the sage grouse, other species, as
well as farmers and ranchers alike.
We are also working with the Western Governors Association (WGA) on
ways to further define our efforts, products and develop a strategy for
further collaboration. NRCS maintains a full time employee on staff as
a liaison with the WGA. We are working to identify ways to engage
private land holders up front, on what it means to have sage grouse
present by obtaining their presence and viewpoints in early meetings.
Also, NRCS has developed a joint publication with the Western Governors
Association on the interrelationship of private lands and sage grouse
habitat.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize there will be many challenges ahead, but
we are enthusiastic about what is being done on private lands, and
about all of the further progress that is possible.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for
inviting USDA to participate in today's hearing. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that Members of the Committee might have.
______
Response by Bruce Knight to Additional Question from Senator Crapo
Question. The programs through which you are making funds available
are competitive, grant application type programs. How do ``State
Technical Committees'' make decisions in governing these programs? For
example, if a regional group such as that envisioned in the
Subcommittee Outline were to recommend priorities for' sage grouse,
what would be the process of adjusting the application ranking
procedure so as to adopt those recommendations?
What would be the most effective way to include the ideas of local
working groups in the effort envisioned in the Subcommittee Outline?
Response. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
conservation funds are available, not through a competitive grant
application, but through various cost-share and easement programs that
are available to farmers and ranchers. Each State then establishes an
application ranking period to allow evaluation of projects for
different program funding. Contracts are awarded based upon an
environmental score for each application that achieves the natural
resource benefits identified by local, State and national priorities.
Practices eligible for cost share and the ranking criteria are
developed with input from local work groups and State Technical
Committees. Applications are ranked in this manner for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Grassland Reserve Program and the
Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program. Ranking worksheets and
application information for these programs are available on-line at
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/.
State Technical Committees are established under the authority of
Section 1261 of the Food Security Act of 1985 to provide advice for
technical considerations and technical guidelines necessary to
implement conservation. The NRCS State Conservationist chairs the
committee. Additionally, State Technical Committees provide
recommendations on a number of natural resource issues within a variety
of conservation programs. Although the State Technical Committee has no
implementation or enforcement authority, the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) gives strong consideration to the committee's recommendations,
such as any recommendations on improving sage grouse habitat.
On April 20, 2004, the NRCS Deputy Chief for Programs issued an
internal memo to all State Conservationists in the 11 Western States
with declining sage grouse populations. The memo stated NRCS's
commitment to develop and implement a proactive strategy to conserve
sage grouse habitat. Recognizing that conservation programs could
provide significant benefits, each State Conservationist was encouraged
to consider sage grouse habitat in program ranking and project
selection criteria. Each State Conservationist made some adjustments in
the criteria to meet this objective in 2004, and further adjustments
are expected in 2005. Recommendations from a regional group, such as
envisioned in the Subcommitteeq Outline, could be provided to each
relevant State Technical Committee for discussion.
Local work groups have proven to be a unique and valuable source of
expertise and perspective on private lands conservation at the
grassroots level. We typically think of the role of the work groups as
providing recommendations on program and technical matters of interest
to USDA. However, we can certainly see the potential value in dialogue
on sage-grouse related issues with the regional group contained in the
Subcommittee Outline. Certainly, open lines of communication between
the groups would be important, and potentially more formal
collaborative arrangements could take place where membership deems
appropriate.
__________
Statement of Terry Crawforth, Director, Nevada Department of Wildlife,
and Vice-President, International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, Senators, thank you for inviting me to discuss our
sage grouse conservation efforts across the western United States. I am
Terry Crawforth, Director of Nevada Department of Wildlife. Today, I
would like to tell you of what I believe to be the largest volunteer
species conservation effort ever undertaken. An effort designed by the
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, with association
membership composed of the Fish and Wildlife Agencies from the 23
western states and Canadian provinces.
Sage grouse were first identified by Lewis and Clark in 1831 as
Centrocercus urophasianus. These ``spiny-tailed pheasants'' have
inhabited Western North America for over 11,000 years and are thought
to have occupied an area of approximately 500,000 square miles with
optimum numbers estimated at 2 million. Currently, sage grouse occupy
approximately 258,000 square miles in 11 states and two Canadian
provinces with a total population estimate exceeding well over 250,000
adult birds. Sage grouse are a sagebrush obligate and represent over 20
other species of wildlife that require healthy sagebrush ecosystems in
order to survive.
BACKGROUND
The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has been
engaged in sage grouse conservation since 1954 when it formed a
Technical Committee of scientists and managers. The technical committee
advised the western directors in 1995 that they were concerned with the
decline in numbers and reduction in distribution of sage grouse across
their range and recommended that the Association begin specific
conservation actions. That year, the member states and provinces
committed to take the lead in conserving sage grouse in a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), entitled, ``Conservation of Sage Grouse in North
America.'' That MOU called for development of science based local area
conservation planning efforts. The dimensions of this effort are
significant but successful. To date the western states have developed
the cooperation and assistance of the Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via a separate
MOU; installed an interdisciplinary range-wide planning framework team;
achieved several grants to fund the various planning efforts; completed
significant research; standardized data collection techniques and
increased our data gathering efforts (last year, biologists and
volunteers counted over 50,000 males on 2,600 breeding grounds or
leks); and in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, published a
600-page status assessment of greater sage grouse and sagebrush
habitats. In this report, our team evaluated the best science available
to determine the status of sage grouse and its habitat. We determined
that populations declined dramatically from 1965 to the mid-1980's,
declined at a slower rate from the mid-1980's and were nearly stable
for the past 10-years. While a wide variety of threats to sage grouse
were identified in the assessment, the most significant are the
degradation, fragmentation and out right loss of western sagebrush
habitat.
CONSERVATION EFFORTS
All of the information and science was developed in order to
support our most important achievement--grass roots conservation plans.
The western states, in cooperation with communities, Native Americans,
industry, NGO's, and the various Federal agencies have been developing
local area and state by state conservation plans. These local working
groups currently number more than 50 in 10 states and will number more
than 75 groups by 2006. These planning efforts are coordinated by each
state and are nationally coordinated by the National Sage Grouse
Conservation Planning Framework Team which has members from the
association, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. The leadership of Nevada Governor Kenny
Guinn has led the Western Governor's Association (WGA) to adopt three
resolutions supporting this approach to conservation planning and
implementation. On-the-ground conservation actions are being
implemented across the range, where funding is available and
cooperative projects are identified. The WGA has highlighted numerous
sage grouse planning and project success stories in their Endangered
Species Act listing submission to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
We sincerely appreciate the Governors' support and would like to
acknowledge the attention that Bureau of Land Management Director
Kathleen Clarke has applied toward sage grouse conservation. Our sage
grouse conservation actions are designed to evaluate conservation
challenges and implement treatments to address these challenges,
monitor the results of the treatment and adapt future management based
upon those results.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we have learned from previous species conservation
efforts and succeeded in the largest mobilization ever of the public in
a conservation effort. Much of that success can be attributed to the
fact that local groups were allowed to develop local solutions without
the encumbrance of rules and processes such as those required by the
Endangered Species Act. Clearly, this effort will benefit sage grouse
and all other wildlife species that use or depend upon sagebrush
habitats. We are finished with the first phase of the planning cycle
and are beginning project implementation. Successful implementation of
meaningful conservation will require years of coordinated effort and a
substantial infusion of new money to match existing Federal programs
such as Farm bill, fire and fuels management, invasive species, and
even the wild horse program. Federal agencies that manage 70 percent of
the world's sage grouse habitat, primarily the Bureau of Land
Management and U.S. Forest Service, do not have the resources to
reallocate funds from existing programs to the sage grouse/sagebrush
ecosystem conservation efforts. State wildlife agencies and local
government are similarly strapped for funds and personnel to conduct
planning, implementation, and monitoring efforts. The range-wide effort
to conserve sagebrush, sage grouse and associated species, using an
incentive based, publicly driven process is an historic new model for
conserving a species or ecosystem before it needs protection by the
ESA. Local folks are best qualified to address these issues and are
more than willing to step up to the plate. What they need is financial
support in order to implement planned projects, and if I might be so
bold as to suggest that this might come in the form of increased State
Wildlife Grants or even a separate federally funded sage grouse/
sagebrush conservation initiative.
Thank you and I would gladly answer any questions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.003
Responses by Terry Crawforth to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. Of the technical questions that remain to be answered
more satisfactorily, how would you rank the following types of
information in terms of importance to management: mapping of presence
and absence of sage grouse, improving the reliability of population
indices or estimates, estimating demographic parameters such as birth
and survival rates, elineating habitat types that correspond to
demographic parameters?
Response. It is difficult to rank the technical information needed
since species and habitat population demographic data must be achieved
somewhat simultaneously in order to design management prescriptions.
The western states and federal agencies have completed much of this
work on a gross scale. Our challenge now is to refine the gross data,
while developing smaller management unit specific data, techniques and
research needs in support of local area planning.
Question 2. What would be the proper relationship between local
working groups and state agency personnel if a region-wide initiative
were to from as envisioned in the Subcommittee Outline? For example,
would state personnel be most effective as advisors to the members of
the groups or as members of the groups themselves?
Response. The western states hope that everyone will join the
existing sage grouse planning effort designed and implemented by the
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. In that process, we
have a multi-agency range-wide team to provide range-wide technical
data and research. Each state and local group has functioned
differently, by design, in order to facilitate what works best locally.
We have been the most successful where one staff from each agency is an
equal member with other team members and can bring technical
information or experts to the table when needed.
Question 3. What would be the most effective way to include the
ideas of local working groups in the effort envisioned in the
Subcommittee Outline?
Response. With all due respect, the effort envisioned by the
Subcommittee is already several years in progress and in need of
support. Seventy local groups have brought their ideas to the table,
acquired the necessary technical information, completed plans and are
engaging in project implementation. What they need are any
unrepresented interests to join them with ideas, energy and funding.
S6621_____
Statement of Greg Schnacke, Executive Vice President, Colorado Oil &
Gas Association on Behalf of Partnership for the West
I. INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Greg
Schnacke and I serve as Executive Vice President of the Colorado Oil &
Gas Association. I am here representing the members of the Partnership
for the West grassroots coalition, of which our Association is a
member.
I am pleased to provide this testimony on local and regional
efforts throughout the West to conserve the Greater Sage-grouse. This
testimony has been specifically endorsed by a wide range of the
Partnership's members, and that list is included at the conclusion of
this testimony.
By way of background, the Partnership for the West is a non-profit,
broad-based alliance of people who support a clean environment and a
healthy, growing economy. The membership includes more than 400
companies, associations, coalitions and group leaders who collectively
employ or represent more than one million citizens across America in
the following sectors: farm/ranching, coal, timber/wood products, small
businesses, utilities, hard rock mining, oil & gas, construction,
manufacturing, property rights advocates, education proponents,
recreational access advocates, county government advocates, local,
state and Federal elected officials, grassroots activists and others.
Founded in 1984, the Colorado Oil & Gas Association is a non-profit
organization designed to foster and promote the beneficial, efficient,
responsible and environmentally sound development, production and use
of Colorado oil and natural gas.
As this Subcommittee is aware, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(USFWS) is currently reviewing this species for possible listing as
``threatened'' or ``endangered'' under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
Our testimony makes two very important recommendations:
1. The USFWS should allow state and local officials to continue
devising and managing locally led conservation efforts aimed at
preserving and restoring the Greater Sage-grouse to biological health,
and should not affect a Federal takeover of these efforts via an
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing. Such a listing would not be in
the best interests of the recovery of this species and would chill
ongoing sage-grouse conservation efforts.
2. Private- and public-sector stakeholders across the region should
continue to engage in innovative and effective sage-grouse and sage
brush habitat conservation efforts, and those efforts should be
coordinated as much as possible range-wide. We applaud the Chairman's
leadership in facilitating discussions across interest sectors on long-
term conservation strategies for the sage-grouse. We look forward to
engaging in those discussions. However, we must also note the obvious:
if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) goes in the other
direction and lists this species, that will not only chill current
conservation initiatives but will also discourage stakeholders from
engaging in further discussions about new, range-wide strategies.
II. STATE AND LOCAL CONSERVATION EFFORTS
In support of the first recommendation, I would like to make four
main points, which will be more fully developed throughout my
testimony:
1. An unprecedented set of innovative and aggressive sage-grouse
conservation efforts have been launched across the West in recent
years. It is these locally led conservation strategies that will
provide conservationists and wildlife managers with the most effective
tools to preserve this species. In contrast, a ``threatened'' or
``endangered'' listing under ESA will have a dramatic and chilling
effect on these locally led conservation efforts and will discourage a
wide range of stakeholders from continuing to engage in these efforts.
2. These locally led conservation efforts are already making a
difference. A recent analysis by the Western Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) indicates that population trends over the
last 10-15 years in nearly every one of the 11 Western states with
sage-grouse shows a stabilization of populations and, in many cases, an
increase in sage-grouse numbers. We have serious concerns about the
reliability of some of WAFWA's data. For example, many lek counts
underrepresented sage-grouse populations because they were undertaken
in poor weather conditions, during the wrong season or at the wrong
time of day. The WAFWA Assessment failed to even recognize leks
documented by many States simply because no individuals were counted at
the same time. This clearly under-represents the number of actual leks
in existence. However, this report does represent the best science thus
far available on this species. And, we believe that its findings
indicate that the conservation efforts that have been launched by
Federal, state and local governmental and private sector stakeholders
in the past decade are making a positive difference in the future of
this species.
3. Federal officials have an important role to play in sage-grouse
conservation and are already actively engaged in these efforts. The
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is expanding its National Sage-grouse
Habitat Conservation Strategy in close cooperation with USFWS that will
address sage-grouse conservation needs across more than 50 percent of
sage-grouse habitat. This puts the Federal Government in a key position
to continue to encourage locally driven conservation efforts in
coordination with state and local officials and the private sector.
4. In spite of the best of intentions of Federal officials and
wildlife managers, the ESA as currently written--and the lawsuits that
drive its implementation--do not allow USFWS experts to focus on the
most important goal of conservation efforts: species recovery. The
current ESA mechanism has, over its 30-year history, shown little
success in species recovery. By contrast, locally led conservation
efforts are far more successful in this regard. We believe that anyone
who truly cares about the future of this species will not want to see
its biological future constrained by the demonstrated failings of the
ESA.
1. Western States Are Mounting Aggressive and Unprecedented
Conservation Efforts
A. State Governments are Taking a Lead Role
The Governors of all 11 Western States with sage-grouse habitat are
crafting and implementing comprehensive conservation efforts aimed at
preserving this species. For example:
<bullet> Of the 11 States and two Canadian Provinces with sage-
grouse populations, nine have completed sage-grouse conservation plans.
Montana recently completed its draft plan. Colorado and Oregon are on
fast tracks to completing their plans, and North and South Dakota
completed their plans recently. Idaho has a completed plan and is in
the process of revising it. California has been working with the State
of Nevada on a joint plan up to this point, but is developing its own
work plan for its population of sage-grouse.
<bullet> Western States and Provinces are expected to have a total
of more than 70 Local Working Groups (LWGs) in various phases of
planning, implementing and monitoring progress by Winter 2006.
<bullet> There are 23 LWGs scheduled to have completed conservation
plans by the summer of 2004. Range-wide coverage of conservation plans
are expected by the Winter of 2008. In seven states, conservation
efforts have begun and are taking place whether or not a statewide plan
is complete: WA, UT, OR, NV, MT, ID and CA. In addition, Federal land
managers in Wyoming and Colorado are working with state Game and Fish
officials to develop a wide range of development stipulations aimed at
helping to conserve sage-grouse populations and habitat.
B. Private Sector Leaders Are Working To Implement
Conservation Programs
The innovation is not being left to state governments alone:
landowners and others in the private sector are engaging in multi-party
efforts on sage-grouse conservation across the West. Several of these
are detailed in the Western Governor's Association's (WGA) recent
report ``Conserving the Greater Sage-grouse.'' (see http://
www.westgov.org/wga/publicat/sagegrouse-rpt.pdf.)
Energy development companies are working range-wide to implement
conservation measures both on a voluntary basis and in conjunction with
state and Federal land managers.
Also, in recent years, Resource Management Plans developed as part
of energy development on Federal lands are increasingly focused on
factors such as noise restrictions near leks, as well as noxious weed
management, outreach and education, recreational disturbance of sage-
grouse, etc. These plans provide for lek surveying and clearances, as
well as conservation efforts including lek avoidance, seasonal
prohibitions and project ``visiting hours'' to limit or eliminate
disturbance to the bird.
A recent scientific analysis, submitted to the USFWS by the Western
Governors' Association, outlines a powerful array of sage-grouse
conservation efforts that have been undertaken by oil and gas companies
as part of the lease stipulations and conditions of approval on mineral
development on Bureau of Land Management lands. We have attached this
analysis and request that it be entered into the record as part of our
testimony.
Many natural resource companies are undertaking a wide array of
sage-grouse conservation initiatives. For example:
<bullet> In Wyoming, the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC), an oil and
gas development company, has begun coordinating with state and Federal
officials to improve sage-grouse habitat. In one project, BBC
instituted a pinyon and juniper pine tree clearing program to enhance
Sage-Grouse habitat. In another, Barrett installed a series of sediment
check dams in eroding wet meadows to improve sagebrush habitat for
grouse and other species.
<bullet> Western Gas Resources has been instituting practices to
minimize impacts on the sagebrush environment in its operations, such
as the use of mowing, rather than clearing, sagebrush for roads
wherever possible to minimize damage to soils and sagebrush under
story. The company has also instituted an education program for
employees and contractors regarding procedures to minimize impacts to
sage-grouse and other wildlife species.
<bullet> Utilities have also been heavily involved in sage-grouse
protection efforts. For example, several utility companies, including
Xcel Energy, are involved with the Eagle/Southern Routt Greater Sage-
grouse Working Group in Colorado. One of the results of this
involvement has been that the utilities actively consult with the
Colorado Division of Wildlife on electricity transmission line siting
to minimize impacts on sage-grouse populations.
<bullet> Hagenbarth Livestock Company in Idaho has cooperated in
several projects to conserve sage-grouse habitat, including the Spencer
Complex project. The Spencer Complex project seeks to enhance over
5,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat across private property and state
and Federal lands.
<bullet> The Gordon Cattle Company is involved in a significant
sagebrush habitat conservation project in Montana, cooperating with the
State to establish an uninterrupted expanse across private property,
state, and BLM lands. The resulting conservation corridor will provide
more than 24,000 acres of prime sage-grouse habitat.
<bullet> The Powder River Coal Company voluntarily instituted ``The
Prairie Project'' in 2001, which had four main goals: to identify key
sage-grouse habitats on its North Antelope Rochelle Mine; to collect
data on habitat quality and on sage-grouse reproductive data in the
Mine area; and to monitor the sage-grouse's use of reclaimed mine land.
This landmark effort has resulted in several awards, including a 2002
Mine Reclamation and Wildlife Stewardship Award from the Wyoming Game
and Fish Department and the 2004 ``Corporation of the Year'' award from
the Wyoming Wildlife Federation.
<bullet> Newmont Mining Company has been working with the BLM and
Nevada Division of Wildlife to develop and implement habitat
improvement plans on Newmont's lands in the Battle Mountain Range.
These planning efforts will ultimately result in both improved habitat
and additional sage-grouse habitat, throughout a significant area in
Nevada.
<bullet> Also in Nevada, the Round Mountain Gold Corporation has
been aggressively involved with sage-grouse protection at its Smoky
Valley Common Operation. Round Mountain Gold has been working to
incorporate sage-grouse considerations into all its work, from mining
operations through reclamation.
These are just a few of the hundreds of individual Sage-Grouse
conservation efforts being led by private-sector companies in the
energy and natural resource sectors.
2. These Local Conservation Efforts are Paying Dividends
The WAFWA assessment noted that if trends characteristic of the
1960's through the mid-1980's continued, the sage-grouse had a
relatively high likelihood of being extirpated. However, the report
found that for many populations, ``those trends have not continued.''
It goes further to state: ``. . . data suggest sage-grouse populations
in many areas have been relatively stable for the last 15-20 years and
some areas could be considered populations strongholds.''
In fact, many States in the West have seen population increases in
recent years. And, many of these population increases coincide with the
onset of state and locally led sage-grouse habitat conservation
efforts.
While the WAFWA assessment is widely recognized as the best and
most comprehensive science that has been compiled yet about the sage-
grouse, we have serious concerns about the validity of some of its
data. Nonetheless, if the USFWS ends up relying on the WAFWA assessment
in its status review for this species, we believe that it is impossible
to ignore the positive population trends for the Greater Sage-grouse
over the last 15-20 years across much of the West and the fact that
these trends coincide with the onset of increased sage-grouse
conservation efforts.
CALIFORNIA
<bullet> Annual rates of change standardized on 2003 populations
indicated a relatively stable to increasing population trend (Fig.
6.5). Sage-grouse populations increased at an overall rate of 0.7
percent per year from 1965 to 2003. (p. 6-25)
<bullet> The proportion of active leks remained relatively stable
and high throughout the assessment period, with 5-year averages varying
from 77 percent to 90 percent between 1965 and 2003 (Table 6.4).
<bullet> Although lek size class varied over the assessment period
no obvious patterns could be documented, further suggesting a
relatively stable population (Fig. 6.4).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.004
COLORADO
<bullet> Annual rates of change standardized on 2003 populations
indicated a relatively stable to increasing population trend (Fig.
6.8). Sage-grouse populations increased at an overall rate of 1.0
percent per year from 1965 to 2003.
<bullet> The average number of leks censused per-five-year period
increased by 159 percent from 1965 to 2003. The number of active leks
censused was similarly high, ranging from 35 to 114 and increasing by
124 percent over these same periods.
<bullet> Greater Sage-grouse in Colorado have been generally
increasing for about the last 17 years and available information does
not suggest a dramatic overall decline in breeding populations over the
last 39 years.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.005
IDAHO
<bullet> From 1985 to 2003, the population fluctuated around a
level that was approximately 7 percent below the 2003 population and
had an average change of 0.12 percent per year. Populations in the late
1960's and early 1970's were approximately 2 to 3 times higher than
current populations (Fig. 6.11). The population reached a low in the
mid-1990's and then has increased since that time.
<bullet> An average of 74 to 319 leks were censused in 5-year
periods from 1965-69 through 2000-03. From 1965 to 2003, the average
number of leks censused in 5-year periods increased by 331 percent. The
number of active leks censused was similarly high, ranging from 69 to
245 and increasing by 255 percent over these same periods.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.006
MONTANA
<bullet> From 1987 to 2003, the population fluctuated around a
level that was approximately 9 percent below the 2003 population and
had an average change of -0.07 percent per year. Populations in the
late 1960's and early 1970's were approximately two times higher than
current populations (Fig. 6.14). The population reached a low in the
mid-1990's and then has increased since that time.
<bullet> The number of leks counted increased and then remained
relatively stable until the late 1990's (Table 6.8). By 2000,
monitoring efforts increased substantially when the average number of
leks counted during 2000-03 increased by 146 percent over the average
number of leks counted in 1995-99 (Table 6.8). Overall, the number of
active leks monitored followed the same increasing pattern as total
number of leks (Table 6.8).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.007
NEVADA
<bullet> From 1986 to 2003, the population fluctuated around a
level that was approximately 1.1 percent above the 2003 population and
had an average change of -2.53 percent per year. Populations in the mid
to late 1970's were approximately 1.2 to 3.5 times higher than 2003
populations (Fig. 6.17). Populations in the late 1960's and late 1970's
fluctuated widely (Fig. 6.17) and there is no way of assessing whether
these were actual changes in the populations or artifacts of sampling
effort. The population reached a low in the mid-1990's and has not
changed substantially since that time.
<bullet> By 2000, monitoring efforts increased substantially when
the average number of leks counted during 2000-03 increased by 146
percent over the average number of leks counted in 1995-99 (Table 6.8).
Overall, the number of active leks monitored followed the same
increasing pattern as total number of leks (Table 6.8).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.008
NORTH DAKOTA
<bullet> From 1986 to 2003, the population fluctuated around a
level that was approximately 1.4 percent above the 2003 population and
had an average change of -0.66 percent per year.
<bullet> The average number of leks counted per 5-year period
increased by 42 percent from 1965 to 2003. Over these same 5-year
periods, effective monitoring was relatively stable with an average of
14 to 21 active leks censused (Table 6.9).
<bullet> North Dakota did not employ a standard monitoring scheme
of multiple counts spread over a four-six week period. Instead, all
counts were conducted in about a 1-week period during mid-April and
observers attempted to count all leks > 2 times (Sith 2003). However,
this approach was consistently applied over the last 40 years.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.009
Oregon
<bullet> From 1986 to 2003, the population fluctuated around a
level that was approximately 13 percent above the 2003 population and
had an average change of 0.95 percent per year. Populations in the late
1960's and early 1970's were approximately two to two times higher than
current populations (Fig. 6.23). The population reached lows in the mid
1970's and mid 1990's and then has increased somewhat since that time.
<bullet> Oregon has had a long-term extensive monitoring program
for sage-grouse and has identified 377 leks in the state. The years
1965-2003 were used as the assessment period. The average number of
leks counted per 5-year period increased by 750 percent from 1965 to
2003 (Table 6.10).
<bullet> However, recent brood survey data from Oregon indicates
that average production from 1985 to 2003 has steadily increased
(average = 1.55 chicks per hen), and indicates a 37 percent reduction
in production from the long-term average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.010
UTAH
<bullet> From 1965-85, the population declined at an average rate
of 0.83 percent and fluctuated around a level that was approximately
1.4 times higher than the 2003 population. From 1986 to 2003, the
population fluctuated around a level that was approximately 5 percent
below the 2003 population and increased at an average rate of 0.18
percent per year. Populations in the early 1970's were approximately
two times higher than current populations (Fig. 6.30). The population
reached a low in the mid-1990's and then has increased considerably
since that time.
<bullet> Utah has had a long-term extensive monitoring program for
sage-grouse and has identified 254 leks in the state. Although the
average number of leks monitored in the 1970-75 period increased by >
160 percent over the average number censused in 1965-70, we were still
able to use 1965-2003 as our assessment period. The average number of
leks counted per 5-year period increased by 289 percent from 1965-70 to
2000-03 (Table 6.13). The number of active leks monitored followed the
same increasing pattern as total number of leks (Table 6.13).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.011
WYOMING
<bullet> From 1968-86, the population declined at an average rate
of 9.66 percent and fluctuated around a level that was approximately 19
percent below the 2003 population. From 1987 to 2003, the population
fluctuated around a level that was approximately 2 percent below the
2003 population and had an average change of 0.33 percent per year.
Lows were reached in the mid-1990's and there has been some gradual
increase in numbers since that time.
<bullet> The proportion of active leks remained relatively stable
over the assessment period, ranging from 63 percent to 78 percent from
1965 to 2003 (Table 6.15).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.012
WASHINGTON
<bullet> From 1965-85, the population declined at an average rate
of 8.73 percent and fluctuated around a level that was approximately
1.4 times higher than the 2003 population. From 1986 to 2003, the
population fluctuated around a level that was approximately 1.2 percent
above the 2003 population and had an average change of -0.20 percent
per year.
<bullet> Washington has identified 62 leks and has had a long-term
monitoring program in place. Thus 1965-2003 was used as the assessment
period. The average number of leks counted per 5-year period increased
substantially over the assessment period (Table 6.14). In 1965-69, an
average of three leks per year were censused but by 2000-03, an average
of 47 leks per year were counted, an increase of > 1400 percent. The
average number of active leks counted per 5-year period also increased
by > 500 percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.013
3. Federal Land Managers Are Already Strongly Involved in Sage-grouse
Conservation Efforts
BLM, which manages approximately 52 percent of sagebrush habitat,
has also been very active and has released a draft National Sage-grouse
Habitat Conservation Strategy to serve as a framework to address the
conservation of sage-grouse habitats on BLM-managed lands.
As noted recently by the WGA in its report to USFWS, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) private-lands conservation programs
provide many opportunities for accomplishing the goals developed for
Sage-grouse conservation. The programs provide incentives for private
landowners to develop or set aside lands that can be utilized to create
or enhance Sage-grouse habitat. These programs include the Grassland
Reserve Program (GRP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and the Farmland
Protection Program (FPP). In the West, CRP lands are locally important
to Greater Sage-grouse and Sharp-Tailed Grouse conservation.
A variety of funding sources exist to implement the conservation
efforts of the state and Federal Governments. BLM maintains a lengthy
document on its Sage-grouse web pages entitled ``Funding Availability
for Partners in Sage-grouse Conservation Efforts.'' (see http://
www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/sage--grouse/Sage--Grouse--Funding--
Availability--for--Partners.pdf). This describes just some of the
funding that may be available to protect Sage-grouse from such sources
as USFWS, BLM, USDA, the Forest Service, Department of Defense,
Department of Energy, State Fish and Game Agencies, and nongovernmental
organizations.
In addition to partnering with government at various levels,
Westerners including farmers, ranchers, miners, drillers and others who
live and work on the land continue to fund ongoing research as well as
conservation efforts. Without them, many of the studies, lek
rehabilitation projects, lek mapping, disease control programs and
other efforts critical to the sustainability of the Sage-grouse would
end, imperiling the Sage-grouse and losing an opportunity to know
vastly more about this hallmark of the West and the sagebrush sea it
inhabits.
Existing Federal or regional conservation initiatives undertaken by
BLM and other agencies which affect the Sage-grouse and sagebrush
biome, as described in the BLM's Draft Sage-Grouse Conservation
Strategy (BLM, 2003, pgs. 3 to 4) include:
Plant Conservation Alliance (PCA) (1994). PCA is a public/private
partnership among 10 Federal agencies and more than 195 non-Federal
cooperators. In complying with Congressional direction, the PCA
(through BLM) is leading an interagency native plant material
development program for use in restoration and rehabilitation efforts
on Federal lands. Funds have been provided for the development of
appropriate native plant materials within the sagebrush ecosystems
(BLM, 2004a).
Great Basin Restoration Initiative (GBRI) (1999). The GBRI was
initiated by the BLM in response to widespread habitat losses from
wildfires and other causes in the Great Basin. Concern over the loss of
Sage-grouse and other sagebrush dependent species' habitats was a
significant and important factor that influenced how GBRI evolved. The
BLM proposed Sage-grouse conservation strategy is consistent with and
supports these efforts. The GBRI seeks to restore areas of high value,
reduce the effects of invasive grasses and noxious weeds, and reverse
the cycle of destructive wildland fires and weeds. The GBRI team
provides technical assistance and meets about three times annually
(BLM, 2004)
Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitat Conference (1999). Convened by
BLM in Reno, Nevada in November 1999, the conference hosted 150
attendees. Representatives from states affected by a possible listing
of the species under ESA shared information regarding possible
cooperative conservation efforts among the states and Federal agencies
(BLM, 2001).
Interagency Cooperative Agreement (2000). In July 2000, WAFWA
completed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between itself and the
USFS, the USFWS and the BLM. This MOU established state wildlife
agencies as the lead for state and local conservation planning efforts
for sage-grouse. In July 2002, WAFWA approved a proposal to develop a
range-wide Conservation Assessment (CA) for sage-grouse and sage-grouse
habitat to be completed in 2004. It was intended that the CA would form
the basis for development of future conservation measures.
Interagency Committee (2002). With increasing numbers of at-risk
species in the West, the BLM, USFS, USFWS, and state wildlife agencies
began addressing the need to coordinate more effectively for the
conservation of at-risk species. In 2002, an interagency committee was
formed to coordinate planning and restoration information for species
within sagebrush ecosystems, including the sage-grouse, and develop or
coordinate processes to integrate such information into Federal land
management plans.
Development of Cooperative Habitat Assessment Procedures (2002). In
2002 the BLM, in cooperation with the USFS Pacific Northwest Research
Station and the USGS Biological Resources Division Snake River Field
Station, developed science-based procedures that use existing
information to conduct regional sagebrush habitat assessments for
species of concern. Development of the procedures was completed in 2003
(Wisdom, et al, 2003). The procedures were used to develop the
prototype Great Basin assessment. Information from that assessment will
be used in support of sage-grouse conservation planning, in development
of the CA, and the Great Basin Restoration Initiative. They will also
be used to conduct, or support, prototype assessments for the other
geographic regions.
Sagebrush And Grassland Ecosystem Map Assessment Project (SAGEMAP)
(2003). The SAGEMAP project, conducted by the Snake River Field Station
of the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center and
cooperatively supported by numerous Federal and state agencies,
universities, and organizations, is identifying and collecting spatial
data layers needed for research and management of sage-grouse and shrub
steppe systems. The datasets, which can be queried, viewed, and
downloaded from the SAGEMAP FTP site, are important for understanding
and management of shrub steppe lands and associated wildlife. The data
can be used to identify factors causing the declines of wildlife and
shrub steppe habitats.
BLM Draft National Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy (2003). The
plan includes goals to guide BLM's implementation of a national
strategy for management of sage-grouse, including a consistent
management framework to address sage-grouse conservation needs,
increased understanding of sagebrush habitats, and the development of
partnerships to enhance effective sage-grouse habitat management.
This rather lengthy list indicates that the sage-grouse already
receives a significant amount of management attention from the Federal
Government.
4. The Endangered Species Act is a Flawed Statute, Driven by a Flawed
Petition Seeking A Listing for the Sage-grouse
The Partnership strongly believes that there are significant
problems with the way the current statute addresses threatened and
endangered species protection, and we hope to get into this important
policy matter in more detail over the next several months. To take just
one example: the scientific rigor employed by many Federal agencies in
their decisionmaking, such as in EPA's FIFRA program, is simply not
required under the ESA for the Fish & Wildlife Service.
Looking at the Greater Sage-grouse specifically, it is clear that
there is a great cloud of professional skepticism surrounding the
petition for listing the grouse under the ESA. An independent review of
the listing petition conducted by the Petroleum Association of Wyoming
found the petition is filled with ``gross overstatements,'' ``blatant
speculation,'' ``theoretical rambling,'' and ``misstatement of fact.''
They concluded: ``[Our] overall reaction to the petition is that the
review of literature is not objective and so clearly is driven by an
agenda that it damages the credibility of the entire document.''
To review a summary of this critical analysis, go here: http://
www.partnershipforthewest.org/sage--grouse--science--critique.pdf
III. CONCLUSION
It is our sincere hope that the USFWS allows state and local
efforts to continue and does not list this species. We believe this
outcome is the best outcome for the future of the Greater Sage-grouse.
It also will encourage stakeholders--both public and private--to
continue to engage in collaborative efforts on future conservation
efforts.
In that regard, we want to offer our praise and thanks to the
Chairman for his efforts and commitment to facilitate such a
collaborative dialog. We look forward to engaging with him and others
in those discussions. We hope, however, that this collaboration can
occur in the absence of a Federal takeover of sage-grouse conservation
via ESA.
Thank you very much, Members of the Subcommittee, for considering
the views of the Partnership for the West.
individual partnership members who have endorsed this testimony
American Gas Association
American Loggers Council
Arch Coal, Inc.
Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado
Berco Resources, LLC
Bill Barrett Corporation
BlueRibbon Coalition
Bob Balunda
CH 4 Energy
Colorado Rural Electric Assn.
Colorado Snowmobile Association
Colorado State Rep. Diane Hoppe
Colorado Timber Industry Association
David Haase
DDX Corp.
Devon Energy
EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.
EOG Resources
Evergreen Resources
Gerhard and Associates
Greenwood & Company
Harvard Petroleum Company, LLC
Helding Construction LLC
ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal
Independent Petroleum Association of America
Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States
Jackson County, Colorado
Julander Energy Company
Kennecott Energy Company
Kennedy Oil
Lance Oil & Gas
Lander County Public Lands Adv. Board
MDU Resources Group, Inc
Mountain States Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association
National Park Adventures
New Mexico Oil and Gas Association
North Dakota Farm Bureau
North Park Sage Grouse Working Group
Northwest Mining Association
Off-Road Business Association (ORBA)
Orion Energy Partners
Ozarks (MO) Chapter, Property Rights Congress
Peabody Energy Corp.
Ponderosa Resources Corp.
Resource Roundup
Southwest Chapter New Mexico People for the U.S.A.
Southwest Gas Corporation
Sunlight Massage/Bodyworks
Synergy Operating, LLC
The Paladin Group
Top of Utah Snowmobile Association
Twentymile Coal Company
United Four Wheel Drive Associations
Warrior's Society Mountain Bike Club
Washington County
Western Business Roundtable
Western Gas Resources
White Eagle Exploration, Inc.
Williams RMT
Williams RMT Production
Wyoming Ag-Business Association
Wyoming Mining Association
Wyoming Stock Growers Association
__________
Statement of Gary Back, Principal Ecologist, SRK Consulting and
Northeast Nevada Stewardship Group
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Gary Back
and I am representing the Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, Inc.
(Stewardship Group). On behalf of the Stewardship Group, I want to
thank the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fish, Wildlife,
and Water for providing the Stewardship Group an opportunity to testify
at this hearing. As a representative of one of the many volunteer local
area planning groups involved in Sage-grouse conservation, we welcome
this opportunity to provide you with information that will help sustain
these local efforts. I especially want to thank Senator Reid and his
staff for their assistance.
The Nevada State motto is ``Battle Born'' in reference to statehood
being granted during the Civil War conflict. Similarly, the Stewardship
Group was born out of conflict; conflict surrounding public land issues
in the West. As the level of conflict elevated, a private citizen (Leta
Collord) and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Field Office Manager
(Helen Hankins) agreed that there had to be a better way to not only
resolve the conflicts, but also to improve stewardship of the land. The
two agreed that the BLM Partnership Series was worth trying in this
arena of conflict. The Partnership Series is a series of training
modules in community-based collaboration or consensus building. This
training helps individuals, groups, organizations, and agencies with
diverse backgrounds and viewpoints to focus on their common values, and
to use these diverse viewpoints to develop plans and actions that can
achieve those values on the landscape, community, or economy.
In September 1998, the BLM Elko Field Office and several local
mining companies sponsored a three-day workshop on the collaborative
process that was followed a month later by a meeting of the trainees to
determine if the were interested in putting the training into practice
and forming a community-based stewardship group. The group agreed to
give this a try, and the Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, Inc.
was formed. Over the next several meetings, the Stewardship Group
developed a mission statement, a copy of which is included as
Attachment A. This mission statement can be paraphrased as: ``The
solution has to work for all of us, or it works for none of us''. We
believe it is imperative to conserve the natural resources of our
region without losing our heritage and culture, while maintaining our
local economy.
The Stewardship Group also recognized that to maintain credibility
with the public and the land management agencies, the work had to be
science-based. To this end, the Stewardship Group has sponsored one or
two science symposia each year since 1999. The intent of the symposia
has been to provide members and the public an opportunity to interact
with scientists specializing in various topics related to the issues we
were undertaking, and to educate ourselves about the processes that
occur on the landscape. Examples of the symposia include:
<bullet> National Environmental Policy Act Workshop, 1999;
<bullet> Great Basin Rangelands Science Symposium, 1999;
<bullet> Sagebrush Symposium, 2000;
<bullet> Fire Ecology and Revegetation Symposium, 2001;
<bullet> Restoration and Management of Sagebrush/Grass
Communities Workshop, 2002;
<bullet> History of Rangeland Monitoring, 2003;
<bullet> Sage-grouse Ecology and Management of Northern
Sagebrush Steppe, 2003; and
<bullet> Mining and the Community A Partnership
(Sustainability Workshop), 2003.
These symposia and workshops provided a forum to discuss the
various issues, dispel myths, and move the group to a common
understanding. This was an essential part of the process.
COLLABORATION AND SAGE-GROUSE CONSERVATION PLANNING
The Stewardship Group decided to focus on emerging issues; to work
on the issues before they became embroiled in heated public debate. In
1999 there were suggestions that environmentalists were preparing to
petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Greater Sage-
grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened and endangered under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). Because this issue had
the potential to affect land users of every persuasion, and therefore,
the potential to bring diverse viewpoints to the table to resolve the
issue, Sage-grouse conservation was selected as the issue for the
Stewardship Group to implement the collaborative process. This was a
new issue and hard-line positions had not yet developed. The potential
existed for a successful collaborative effort and the citizens worked
to resolve differences for the common good.
The Stewardship Group incorporated community values into the
development of this strategy, a strategy developed to provide for the
natural resources within the county, as well as to provide for the well
being of the people, continuance of the land uses, and maintenance of
the cultures of Elko County. The Stewardship Group quickly realized
that the Sage-grouse was an indicator species of ecosystem health.
Because of the variety of plant community types (i.e., habitats) needed
by Sage-grouse for breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering, the
goal of managing Sage-grouse habitats for an optimal balance of shrubs,
forbs, and grasses at community and landscape scales should be
analogous with restoring and/or maintaining form, function, and process
in the sagebrush ecosystem. Consequently, the focus of the effort
changed from a single-species conservation plan to an ecosystem
conservation strategy.
The emphasis on Sage-grouse has not been lost in the process.
Throughout the process, sagebrush obligate species, special status
species (both plants and animals), and other unique land features
(e.g., aspen stands, sub-alpine forests, etc.) were be considered with
the intent on maintaining the diversity of communities on the
landscape. Sage-grouse have been the impetus for this conservation
effort, but should be viewed as the ``means'' not the ``ends''; by
understanding the ecology of this species and the ecology of the
sagebrush plant community on which it depends, some of the general
concepts for ecosystem management can be developed. The ``ends'' is to
achieve properly functioning ecosystems that allow for sustainability
of the resources and the sustainability of the land uses that depend on
those resources.
During this time, Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn convened a statewide
Sage-grouse Conservation Team. The Stewardship Group was invited to
participate in this statewide effort. The result has been a Nevada and
Eastern California Sage-grouse Conservation Plan (State Plan). The
Stewardship Group's Elko County Sagebrush Ecosystem Conservation
Strategy (Strategy) has been incorporated into this State Plan. The
Stewardship Group's Strategy is a watershed-based, ecosystem
conservation strategy and the State Plan is primarily focused on Sage-
grouse conservation. While the two planning efforts share common goals
and considerable overlap in process, they remain separate approaches.
The end result is that the NNSG has incorporated some of the statewide
strategy for Sage-grouse conservation, but will implement Sage-grouse
conservation through watershed/ecosystem management.
The Strategy and the State Plan identify some common goals. The
goal of the Strategy is to:
Manage watersheds, basins, and sub basins in a manner that
restores or enhances (as appropriate) the ecological processes
necessary to maintain proper functioning ecosystems, inclusive of Sage-
grouse.
The objectives of the Strategy are to:
Implement a watershed analysis process on the watersheds within
the planning area by initiating the assessment of three watersheds each
year; and
Develop a watershed plan for each watershed within one and one-
half years following the initiation of the process.
The Strategy also includes goals specific to various resources
(e.g., Sage-grouse, vegetation, special status species, livestock,
recreation, mining, and fuels management). However, these goals are
general goals that can be refined at the watershed management unit
level.
The first goal of the State Plan is to:
Create healthy, self-sustaining Sage-grouse populations well
distributed throughout the species' historic range by maintaining and
restoring ecologically diverse, sustainable, and contiguous sagebrush
ecosystems and by implementing scientifically-sound management
practices.
The watershed assessment will follow range, watershed, riparian,
and Sage-grouse habitat evaluation processes developed by the BLM, U.S.
Geological Survey, NRCS, Agricultural Research Service, USFS,
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Western Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. The use of existing methodology provides acceptance
by the land management agencies and allows coordination with existing
data bases.
The watershed management plans will include actions and management
strategies that address the specific land health and Sage-grouse
habitat issues identified in the watershed assessment. Once completed,
the individual projects, groups of inter-related projects, or the
entire watershed plan will be subject to National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) analysis to determine the impacts of such actions on the
critical elements of the human environment, as well as the cumulative
impacts of such actions.
The Strategy identifies several management strategies that are
likely to be incorporated into the watershed management plans on a
site-specific basis. As other issues are identified in the watershed
assessment process, additional management strategies will be developed.
Monitoring at the watershed plan-level, at the individual watershed
project-level, and at the on-the-ground resources-level, will be part
of the watershed management process. For each monitoring level, the
responsibility for conducting the monitoring, the variable(s) to be
monitored, the frequency at which monitoring is to occur, and the
manner in which the monitoring will be reported will be specified. The
variables to be monitored will be directly related to the goals and
objectives of the watershed plan, the project, and the resources to be
affected by the project.
The feedback provided by the monitoring with respect to the
objectives will provide the basis for implementing adaptive management
strategies. If objectives are being achieved, then the type of action
implemented will continue. If objectives are not being achieved, then
the hypothesis on which the objective is based, the practice that was
implemented, the conditions under which it was implemented, the
variables being monitored, and monitoring methodology will all be re-
evaluated to determine where changes need to be instituted. The
Stewardship Group has been working closely with the University of
Nevada-Reno on developing the adaptive management process for the
watershed management plans.
This Strategy is the process for identifying the site-specific
issues, developing watershed-specific management/conservation plans,
proposing and implementing site-specific actions, determining the
appropriate monitoring of these actions, and implementing adaptive
management concepts to the entire process. The Strategy includes an
assessment of the planning area that consists of a summary of Sage-
grouse biology and ecology, a description of sagebrush ecology, a list
of factors that affect Sage-grouse and Sage-grouse habitats, and a
historical perspective of the landscape changes and Sage-grouse
populations. The on-the-ground watershed assessment will examine the
functionality of the watershed processes, such as water, nutrient, and
energy cycling.
The condition of the vegetation with respect to Sage-grouse habitat
requirements was also evaluated using soil mapping provided by the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), various vegetation
mapping efforts provided by the Elko Field Office, BLM, allotment
evaluation data from BLM and U.S. Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest (USFS), and field experience of the members of the
team. The evaluation generally followed the protocols developed in
Idaho and included five habitat categories:
<bullet> R-0: Habitat areas with desired species composition that
have sufficient, but not excessive, sagebrush canopy and sufficient
grasses and forbs in the understory to provide adequate cover and
forage to meet the seasonal needs of Sage-grouse (4,805,000 acres);
<bullet> R-1: Habitat areas which currently lack sufficient
sagebrush and are currently dominated by perennial grasses and forbs,
yet have the potential to produce sagebrush plant communities with good
understory composition of desired grasses and forbs (1,170,000 acres);
<bullet> R-2: Existing sagebrush habitat areas with insufficient
desired grasses and forbs in the understory to meet seasonal needs of
Sage-grouse (2,018,000 acres);
<bullet> R-3: Sagebrush habitat areas where pinyon-juniper
encroachment has affected the potential to produce sagebrush plant
communities that provide adequate cover and forage to meet the seasonal
needs of Sage-grouse (354,000 acres); and
<bullet> R-4: Habitat areas which have the potential to produce
sagebrush plant communities but are currently dominated by annual
grasses, annual forbs, or bare ground (251,573 acres).
The remaining 1,626,000 acres of the planning area were identified
as non-Sage-grouse habitats (forests, urban areas, salt-desert shrub,
etc.).
This breakdown indicated that although Elko County has considerable
acreage of intact Sage-grouse habitat (R-0 acreage), there are almost 4
million acres of habitats that are currently not supporting Sage-grouse
that are capable of providing Sage-grouse habitat if management actions
are implemented. The potential habitat on which sagebrush can be
readily established and sagebrush habitat that is in poor condition (R-
1 and R-2 acreage, respectively), and the areas formerly occupied by
sagebrush but now occupied by pinyon-juniper and cheatgrass (R-3 and R-
4 acreage, respectively) account for 44 percent of the acreage
(3,793,000 acres) within the planning area. These habitat condition
categories that represent risks to Sage-grouse also represent acreage
that is not functioning in terms of watershed values. Consequently, the
issues of habitat quantity and habitat quality were identified as major
issues to be addressed and are directly linked to watershed health.
WHAT IS NEEDED TO CONTINUE DEVELOPING AND IMPROVING OUR
CONSERVATION EFFORTS
Recognition of the local conservation planning groups
The collaborative process is not a process that moves quickly.
Building trust amongst the diverse viewpoints at the table requires
time. Recognition of these efforts occurs at two levels. The first is
recognition of the groups as a means of getting local input into the
decision-making process. These are about a place-based, community-
based, and in fact, community-led process for stewarding landscapes,
watersheds, and ecosystems. These groups embody the Western Governors
Association concept of ``en libra'', of local solutions to national and
regional issues. This is recognition on a functional level.
The second level is that of providing standing. These groups must
be recognized as having the standing necessary to influence resolution
of the regional and national issues at the local level. For example,
the Endangered Species Act is a federal law which applies across the
country, but implementation of recovery actions should be conducted
through collaboration at the local level where recovery actions impact
local economies and culture, and where local knowledge can be added to
the equation to resolve the issue. Groups that follow the principles of
collaboration and community-based stewardship should be recognized as
important components of the natural resource issue-solving process.
Give the Local Conservation Planning Process a Chance
Most of the local conservation working groups have just begun their
work. Others that have been working for several years are just getting
the implementation phase started. These groups need an opportunity to
implement their plans and to evaluate the success or failure of their
efforts. While many of these efforts were initiated to eliminate the
need to list Sage-grouse as threatened or endangered under the ESA, it
is too early to know if these efforts will have significant impact on
Sage-grouse conservation. However, it is likely that a listing of the
species will have significant impact on the local, voluntary
conservation effort and will remove some of the tools from the
conservation tool box. The current conservation effort for this species
over eleven western states and being conducted by approximately 70
local conservation working groups represents a new process for
addressing species conservation. The ``ownership'' of the issue as
demonstrated by the local conservation working groups is a significant
step in cooperation among the stakeholders and the regulators. This
process deserves a chance to demonstrate its merit.
Start up funding
The Stewardship Group was fortunate to be in an area with mining,
ranching, and business community, as well as federal and state
agencies, that were willing to provide the initial support. The mining,
ranching, and business community provided initial funding for postage,
supplies, symposia, demonstration projects, meeting facilitator, etc.
The BLM and USFS also provided funding and facilities, and the
Stewardship applied for and received several grants. Other state and
federal agencies have also contributed in kind services. However, not
all groups that have started or that will start in the future will have
the same resources available. A funding mechanism to provide at least
two years support for administrative needs could make a significant
difference in the success or failure of these groups.
This is probably best set up as a grant process whereby the local
groups apply for available funds and whereby the success rate of groups
can be tracked. This will also allow some follow-up to determine what
commonalities occur among the successful groups, as well as the
characteristics of the unsuccessful groups.
Continued and increased funding for existing programs
There are already several mechanisms for funding in place;
therefore, it is imperative that funding continue to be appropriated to
these programs, and as the demand increases, that the funding level for
these programs is also increased. Some examples of existing programs:
1. BLM Partnership Series--this training program has been in
existence and ongoing development for several years and the Stewardship
Group, as one of the groups whose success is largely based on the
initial and follow-up training through the Partnership Series, is
highly supportive of this program. This program uses the cultural
setting that defines the interrelationship of people to the land as the
basis for landscape or watershed or ecosystem management, and as the
basis for applying science to the management process.
2. Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm bill)--this
bill has several programs that are directly related to landscape
management. The funds are primarily intended for private lands, and in
Nevada and other western states where much of the private lands was a
result of the Homestead Act, these private lands are often the most
productive lands because they include most of the springs, streams, and
riparian zones. These areas are important seasonal habitats for a
variety of wildlife species, including Sage-grouse. Therefore, funding
to provide incentives for sustained stewardship of these lands is
critical. Some of the programs with direct application to either Sage-
grouse conservation (habitat improvement) or watershed management
include:
<bullet> Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)--this
program is administered by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) which works with private landowners and
operators, conservation districts, Federal, State, and Tribal
agencies to develop wildlife habitat on their property. Funds
from this program have been used to enhance habitats for Sage-
grouse.
<bullet> Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)--is a
voluntary program that provides assistance to ranchers who face
threats to soil, water, air, and related natural resources on
their lands. One of the national priorities for this program is
to promote at-risk species habitat conservation. These funds
could be applied to cheatgrass-dominated areas or areas
dominated by pinyon-juniper for restoration of these lands to
sagebrush-grasslands.
<bullet> Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)--this program
provides voluntary technical assistance to land-users,
communities, units of state and local government, and other
Federal agencies in planning and implementing conservation
systems. The assistance is for planning and implementing
conservation practices that address natural resource issues.
This program is currently under funded for the demand.
<bullet> Conservation Security Program (CSP)--this program
supports ongoing stewardship of private agricultural lands by
providing payments for maintaining and enhancing natural
resources. This is a watershed-based program which fits well
with the watershed approach being used by the Stewardship
Group.
<bullet> Emergency Watershed Program (EWP)--this program
provides funding to project sponsors for restoring vegetation
and stabilizing river banks; restoration of natural functions
of a watershed. This program is currently under funded for the
demand.
3. Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319(h)--provides grants to states
to implement Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Programs. CWA Section
319(h) grants are available for projects aimed at reducing,
controlling, and preventing nonpoint source pollution, such as
sedimentation, with the ultimate goal of improving water quality. These
projects often use the watershed management approach. These programs
can be used for implement best management practices to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. Comprehensive watershed projects are eligible for
funding. The Stewardship Group views this funding as an essential part
of our ability to acquire funds for the watershed planning and project
implementation for projects that have direct bearing on water quality.
4. National Fire Plan--this plan and associated funding provides
for a variety of management actions that when effectively incorporated
into a watershed plan can be used to reduce fuel loading (to reduce the
risk and intensity of wildfires), and in the process improve habitat
for Sage-grouse and other wildlife species and increase forage for
livestock by changing the ratio woody biomass to herbaceous biomass on
the landscape. These practices can be used to create mosaics of
different aged stands of sagebrush (i.e., different Sage-grouse
seasonal habitats) on the landscape while reducing the risk of
catastrophic wildfire. Similarly, dense stands of pinyon-juniper
woodlands can be managed under this program to restore sagebrush plant
communities to historic sites. These actions also have direct benefits
to the watershed. This type of multi-faceted project increases the
cost-benefit over single-faceted projects.
Sustainable funding for watershed coordinator
The priority need for the Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group,
Inc. is funding for a full-time watershed coordinator. We have managed
to complete the initial Strategy planning document using volunteer
efforts and small grants. However, as the watershed assessment process
for over 10.5 million acres is initiated, the need for a coordinator is
paramount. This is not a task that can be done appropriately on spare
time. Coordination with the public land management agencies, state
agencies, private landowners, and stakeholders alone is more than the
volunteer effort can accomplish and the actual coordination of
assessment data collection and data analysis dictates that a full-time
position be funded.
Development or application of new technology
The Stewardship Group is pursuing the application of new technology
developed in part by the Agricultural Resources Service (USDA). This
technology is a combination of digital imagery to conduct vegetation
cover sampling and the use of software to interpret the digital
imagery. This technology will allow the Stewardship Group to quickly
and cost-effectively assess the plant communities within the watershed
and asses the availability of various seasonal habitats and areas in
need of restoration. This technology appears to be able to reduce
initial field work by thousands of man-hours. The Stewardship Group is
seeking the opportunity to use this technology for assessment and long-
term monitoring of upland vegetation as well as riparian systems. The
Stewardship Group is currently seeking grant money to implement this
assessment technology. A federal program to encourage the development
and transfer of technology for conservation planning would greatly
benefit the conservation effort.
Support for an investigation into commercial uses of pinyon pine and
juniper
The expansion of pinyon-juniper woodlands into sagebrush range
sites is a common threat to Sage-grouse over much of the West. In the
past, the woodlands have been removed by chaining\1\ or other
mechanical methods that leave the biomass on site to slowly decay. This
is a costly technique and is not likely to be used at the scale
necessary to restore significant areas of Sage-grouse habitat. There
are preliminary indications that the fiber from these trees can be used
in a number of wood products, including flooring, woodstove pellets, as
briquettes to be added to coal-fired power plants (increases efficiency
and reduces emissions). Funding for a land grant university with a wood
products lab to determine the feasibility of such an industry would
change the treatment of pinyon-juniper from a cost incurring process to
a local wage producing industry. This type of industry could be an
economic life saver for many of the rural communities of Nevada,
Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chaining involves connecting a ship's anchor chain to two
bulldozers and having the bulldozers drag the chain across the
landscape, uprooting or breaking the trees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
The overriding goal for the Stewardship Group is to restore
functionality to the watersheds in our planning area, and by doing so,
maintain the economic viability of our existing land-based industries
and develop opportunities for new land- and resource-based industries
as a means of economic development and rural community sustainability.
We believe that those that are closest to the land can make the best
decisions for how the land can be managed to meet national, regional,
and local resource and economic objectives. We believe that the place-
based or community-based stewardship is necessary to reduce conflict
and provide sustainability. We also believe that watershed management
or ecosystem management is the most comprehensive and viable means for
achieving the land values that are important to the community. The
watershed, as a well-defined, functioning unit, must have all processes
functioning to provide long-term sustainability, as well as ecosystem
resiliency.
On behalf of the Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, Inc. and
other local conservation planning groups, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Fish, Wildlife, and
Water.
______
Attachment A--Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, Inc.'s
Mission Statement
As the Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, Inc. We appreciate:
Opportunities which allow us to live and work in Northeast Nevada;
Natural resources which enable local prosperity;
Productive ecosystems which provide healthy natural environments
and quality lifestyles;
And our western heritage, culture, and customs.
Therefore,
In order to ensure a better future for our families, community, and
future generations
To build trust among our diverse citizenry,
And to ensure sustainable resource use,
We join together as full partners
To provide a collaborative forum for all willing participants.
We are dedicated to the dynamic and science-based resolution
Of important issues related to: resource stewardship,
And informed management of our public lands,
And positive socio-economic outcomes.
(Adopted February, 1999)
______
Responses by Gary Back to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. What we are considering in the Outline specifically
involves the kind of recognition for local groups that you suggest. We
can do this under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which is a
formal process. Are you familiar with that process, do you think it
would help, or are there other ways to recognize local groups that you
have in mind?
Response. I have reviewed Public Law 92-463, Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Act), and the type of advisory board that can be created
under the Act is an appropriate means of initiating technical
deliberations among state and federal agencies and non-federal partners
on management actions.
Currently, the local working groups are not organized in any manner
that allows effective communication among groups and no one group could
adequately represent the other local working groups. While the various
western states are focal points or are working to become focal points
for the local working groups, the states cannot and should not
represent the local working groups. Having 70 or more local working
groups as members of any advisory committee is not feasible. Therefore,
there are at least two processes that can provide for local working
group representation and input into any formal advisory committee:
1. Solicit ideas and successful case studies from the local working
groups as a regular agenda item for the advisory committee meetings. A
representative of the local working group which has been involved in
the project or development of a management practice could be invited to
make a brief presentation.
2. Have a local working group representative as a standing member
of the advisory committee. This would be an individual or organization
with non-federal and non-state employment status that can represent the
various local groups and is in contact with the local working groups.
This individual or organization would be in regular contact with the
local working groups to identify the various successes, failures,
strategies, and technology for sage grouse habitat and/or population
management.
In reviewing the outline of ideas for sustaining sage grouse
conservation, drafted by the staff of the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Water, the participants that have been identified to date
(i.e., energy, environmental, ranching, state wildlife management
agencies, and sportsmen's groups) certainly represent those that are
likely to be impacted by sage grouse management. As indicated under
``Policy objectives for discussion,'' item II., these partners will
begin to ``negotiate stipulations, restrictions, and mitigation on
federal land to preserve a base of remaining breeding and winter
habitats.'' I can only speak for the local group to which I belong, but
our perspective has been to determine how the landscape needs to be
managed first, and then look to stipulations, restrictions, and
mitigation as last resort steps. This is why it is important to have
the local working group representation. Our group is focused on making
a better pie, rather than trying to determine how to slice the pie into
more pieces and to determine who should get what size piece. Our focus
is based on the recognition that the western rangelands are not
functioning near their potential, thus the pie has shrunk in size over
time and our priority is to increase the functionality of the systems.
From what we have been able to project, once we are close to potential,
dividing the pie becomes unnecessary. Therefore, I would recommend that
the policy objectives for discussion should include systems analysis,
specifically ecosystem analysis, as a solution to the confrontational
issues that develop out of Endangered Species Act, single-species
management policy (recovery plans).
Question 2. You have firsthand insight into the challenge for
working people who want to join a volunteer group such as a sage grouse
working group. In addition to recognition and money, can you suggest
what might be needed to provide encouragement to people who have worked
hard already and who see that there is a long road ahead?
Response. The two most important incentives that apply to most
individuals are self-determination and opportunity for improvement of
their cultural, social, or economic situation. True collaboration
addresses the incentive of self-determination. By being part of a group
that is working to resolve issues, not through negotiation or by vote,
but through consensus allows the individuals in the group to keep the
process going until the group has developed a solution that works for
everyone, that addresses the values of all who are in the group. For
the Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, Inc. the issue that brought
everyone to the table was the potential listing of sage grouse under
the Endangered Species Act, and how that listing would impact their
livelihoods, recreational pursuits, etc. While it is easy to identify
risks to sage grouse and their habitat, and then develop management
schemes that eliminate the risks, this becomes very contentious when
the risks are identified as grazing, energy development, certain types
of recreation, etc. However, when we worked through the risks to
understand how the ecosystems work, we found that a functioning system
was better for the livestock operator as well as for sage grouse; we
found that a functioning system was better for energy development and
transmission than a non-functioning or under-functioning ecosystem; and
we found that a functioning ecosystem is resilient. A resilient system
allows for a certain level of impact, such as the development of
mineral deposits or energy reserves, because other parts of the system
can provide for sage grouse while the impact takes place. Once the
impact is removed and the land reclaimed, the system begins to function
again. As mitigation for the short-term impact, the entity creating the
impact can contribute to projects that restore rangeland health.
The opportunity for improvement of an individual's or community's
cultural, social, or economic situation is a strong incentive. Many
rural western communities have limited opportunities for economic
development; therefore, sustainability of the existing ranching,
mining, tourism, energy, and agricultural industries is important. For
the operation of the Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, Inc. we had
the constraint that our solutions had to have positive socio-economic
outcomes. For example, that signaled our ranching community that we
were not going to use livestock grazing as the scapegoat for the
current sage grouse issue and that we were not going to improve the
situation for sage grouse at the expense of the livestock operator. As
a result, we had tremendous participation by the ranching community,
and we had better opportunity to develop solutions that were acceptable
to the ranching community because of their input. This approach is so
much more palatable to those who live and work in the community than
having solutions developed in a vacuum and imposed on the community.
When these solutions include not only benefits to the sage grouse, but
can truly improve rangeland health, then those who depend on the range
stand to benefit as well. Thus we can retain our western heritage and
culture, improve our economic condition, and improve the social aspect
of our community. I truly cannot think of any more powerful incentives
than self-determination and improvement of cultural, social, and
economic conditions.
Question 3. What would be the most effective way to include the
ideas of local working groups in the effort envisioned by the
Subcommittee Outline?
Response. As stated above, the 70+ local planning groups are not
organized and having the local groups included in the effort envisioned
by the Subcommittee Outline is truly a conundrum. However, I had a
discussion with Mr. Mike Brubaker, Executive Director/CEO of Council
for US Landcare Initiative, Inc. last week and due to there mission to
rally broad public participation in a conservation and environmental
framework, I thought the Landcare organization would be a good
representation for local working groups. I would suggest that you visit
the Landcare website (www.landcareus.org) and contact Mr. Brubaker
directly at 717-627-1043, or mbrubaker@landcareus.org, or at Council
for US Landcare Initiative, Inc., 29 Ridge Road, Lititz, PA 17543.
Landcare is relatively new in the United States, but it is likely that
they will eventually be working with many of the local working groups
and at the moment, this appears to be the best means of getting local
group representation in the partnership as outlined by the
Subcommittee.
__________
Statement of John O'Keeffe, National Cattlemen's Beef Association and
the Public Lands Council
Good morning, Chairman Crapo and Distinguished Members of this
Subcommittee, my name is John O'Keeffe. I am here to testify about the
sage grouse on behalf of the Public Lands Council and the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association. I serve as the Chairman of the Public
Land Committee for the Oregon Cattleman's Association, the Vice Chair
of the Federal Lands Committee of the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association (NCBA), Oregon's Director to the Public Lands Council
(PLC), and Chair the Public Lands Councils' West-wide task force on
Sage Grouse. I also represent private landowners on Oregon's Sage-
grouse and Sage brush habitat working group.
The Public Lands Council (PLC) represents sheep and cattle ranchers
in 15 western states whose livelihood and families have depended on
Federal grazing permits dating back to the beginning of last century.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) is the trade
association of America's cattle farmers and ranchers, and the marketing
organization for the largest segment of the nation's food and fiber
industry. Both PLC and the NCBA strive to create a stable regulatory
environment in which our members can thrive.
Ranching out west has been part of the landscape, the economy, and
the culture for approximately three centuries. About 214 of the 262
million acres managed by BLM are classified as ``rangelands,'' as are
76 million of the 191 million acres managed by the Forest Service. More
than 23,000 permittees, their families, and their employees manage
livestock to harvest the annually renewed grass resource grown on this
land. Western ranching operations provide important additional benefits
to the Nation by helping to preserve open space and reliable waters for
wildlife, by serving as recharge areas for groundwater, and by
supporting the economic infrastructure for rural communities. Our
policy is to support the multiple use and sustained yield of the
resources and services from our public lands which we firmly believe
brings the greatest benefit to the largest number of Americans.
My family has been ranching in the Warner valley of southeast
Oregon since the early 1900's. I am the third generation to ranch
there. Part of the fourth generation is attending his first week of
college classes as I address this Subcommittee. It is my sincere wish
that my family can continue to ranch in the Warner valley far out into
the future. That is why I became involved in the Associations that
represent the livestock grazing industry.
I believe that ranchers are natural stewards of the land.
Government incentive programs can help us do our jobs. At this time I
have a Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) Grant proposal being reviewed
that would do juniper control and meadow enhancement on 2500 acres of
brood rearing habitat that the O'Keeffe Ranch owns adjacent to Sagehen
Butte in Lake County, Oregon. The LIP program uses U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service dollars funneled through local wildlife agencies to do
on the ground conservation projects.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to provide some of my
experience with sage grouse and public lands grazing to the Committee
on behalf of the sheep and cattle rancher members of the Public Lands
Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
SAGE GROUSE
Environmental groups have filed petitions with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) seeking to have the sage grouse listed as a
threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). The Service is currently in the midst of a 12-month status
review under which is considering whether the available information
warrants listing the bird. A listing decision is expected around the
end of the current calendar year.
A principal source of information to be considered by the Service
is a conservation assessment of the status of the sage grouse and its
habitat by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(WAFWA). The assessment concludes that sage grouse population numbers
have ``tended to stabilize'' since the mid-1980's. ES-4. In many areas
numbers increased between 1995 and 2003, even though there continues to
be a decline in numbers in other areas. Id. Sage grouse continue to
occupy 668,412 km<SUP>2</SUP> of habitat, down from a pre-settlement
area of 1,200,483 km<SUP>2</SUP>. ES-4. A total of 50,566 male sage
grouse were counted on leks throughout western North America. Id.
PLC and NCBA recognize that the decline in numbers of sage grouse
has led some members of society to become concerned about the long-term
viability of the bird. Nevertheless, we believe the WAFWA report
supports a conclusion that listing the sage grouse under the ESA is not
warranted at this time. The legal issue for listing under the Act is
whether a bird is threatened or endangered. A principal criteria for
addressing the issue is the extent to which habitat has disappeared.
While the numbers of the bird have declined, a substantial population
remains. These birds continue to occupy a significant range of habitat.
Those who cite the decline in numbers or habitat as evidence of the
need to list the bird fail to acknowledge that substantial numbers and
habitat remains. The evidence does not support the need to list the
bird at this time.
Moreover, there is a reasonable basis to believe that sage grouse
numbers and habitat will continue to be stable or even improve because
of the unprecedented conservation effort underway. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) manages more than 50 percent of sage grouse habitat in
the United States. The Bureau has collected information on the
extensive effort it has already undertaken to conserve sage grouse
habitat, and on additional steps it intends to take for this purpose.
Each state with habitat has initiated habitat-wide planning efforts
involving local working groups composed of stakeholders in the welfare
of the species. The Western Governor's Association has collected
information on the conservation effort currently occurring on private
lands. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has committed
to spending a significant amount of its program dollars on habitat
restoration and conservation on private lands. The Senate has stepped
up and directed NRCS to make $5 million available for habitat
conservation in the next fiscal year. There is no need to fear the
imminent demise of the bird under these circumstances.
There is further reason to believe the bird may be safe. The best
research shows that sage brush vegetation communities can be treated to
produce the right mix of plant types needed to support viable
populations. The efforts of BLM, NRCS, and private stakeholders to
restore and conserve habitat can potentially make a positive
difference. Additionally, PLC and NCBA members have shown their
willingness to support the conservation effort by identifying grazing
practices that are compatible with sage grouse habitat and transmitting
these practices to the Department of the Interior.
In the face of these conservation efforts, FWS would send a
powerful signal to society that conservation efforts do not pay off and
so there is no reason to try should the Service decide to list the bird
at the end of the status review or decide that listing is warranted but
precluded at that time. Such a result would be particularly difficult
for the grazing industry to accept at a time when sage grouse
population numbers are viable (even if less desirable than some would
prefer), and in the absence of compelling information showing that
grazing practices are correlated to degradation of sage grouse habitat.
The WAFWA report states:
``[n]umbers used by agencies . . . do not provide the
information on management regime, habitat condition, or kind of
livestock that can be used to assess the direct effects of
livestock grazing on large regional scales. Indices of seral
stage used to relate current conditions to potential climax
vegetation may not correlate with current understanding of the
state-and-transition dynamics of sagebrush habitats. Over half
of the public lands have not been surveyed relative to
standards and guidelines established for those lands.''
ES at 2-3. Adapting my grazing operation to government regulation
is a burden I carry every day I stay in business. Fairness requires
there be a good reason for the U.S. Government to impose additional
regulations on its citizens. To date, this reason has not emerged in
the sage grouse debate.
PLC and NCBA are hopeful that facts will win at the end of the day
and the Administration will decide that listing the sage grouse under
the ESA is not warranted at this time. We are somewhat concerned that
career staff in the FWS be truly neutral as they prepare the
documentation and recommendations used by decisionmakers in deciding
whether to list the bird under the Act. Regulatory agencies tend to
regulate, and there may be an institutional bias toward listing because
that is what the FWS tends to do. We urge the Administration to closely
manage the preparation of the documents to ensure that career staff is
open to and present information that shows listing is not necessary as
well as information that suggests listing might be needed. Any help
members of this Committee can provide to ensure adequate management
takes place would be greatly appreciated.
The FWS bears a tremendous responsibility in making listing
decisions. Increasing the costs of doing business by listing the sage
grouse under the ESA could force additional ranchers to shut down their
operations. Eliminating ranches can threaten the very fabric of rural
life in parts of the west. Loss of ranches may have the perverse effect
of increasing the threat to sage grouse habitat. When ranches are sold,
the land often gets divided for subdivisions. Fragmentation of habitat
that comes with the loss of open space and the additional roads and
power lines needed to serve the subdivisions would not be far behind.
We hope the Administration carefully thinks through all of these
factors in deciding whether to list the sage grouse under the ESA.
Finally, we urge the Administration to bear in mind the importance
of deferring to state management of wildlife to the greatest extent
possible. We recognize that the ESA is a Federal statute that imposes
duties on the Federal Government. Additionally, much of sage grouse
habitat is on Federal land with a corresponding Federal responsibility
to manage that land. Still, conservation will not succeed in the long
run in this country unless the stakeholders who live on the land and
make their living from it are involved in the effort. For this reason,
PLC/NCBA are strong proponents of putting as much responsibility for
wildlife management State action that is adequate to conserve the
species should be fully credited tow.
As a practical matter, the FWS is incapable of managing wildlife
across the entire west. The Service simply does not have the budget,
personnel, or statutory mandate to undertake such a broad
responsibility. PLC and NCBA urge the Administration to defer to state
plans to the greatest extent possible in formulating its plan for sage
grouse management, whether or not the bird is listed under the Act.
Thank you for providing the PLC and NCBA this opportunity to
present these remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
______
Responses by John O'Keeffe to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. Can you see a way to improve the direction we are
headed with this Outline?
Response. My view is that the most likely area to make progress is
by proceeding with the six or more pilot areas proposed in the
discussion section of the outline.
It would be crucial that in each of the six areas the right person
is chosen to represent the private landowners of the area. This person
would have two functions: (1) be a liaison between the private
community and the agency community. (2) act as a sounding board to the
initial effort so that as the private community was made aware of the
effort, it would appear to them to be realistic, non-threatening, and
likely to have positive population and habitat results on Sage Grouse.
Question 2. What would be the most effective way to include the
ideas of local working groups in the effort envisioned in the
Subcommittee Outline?
Response. I would suggest that you go to some local working groups
that are established but not in deadlock or deep conflict. Allow these
groups to be involved in designing the pilots from the ground up.
Hopefully this would result in at least several successful efforts that
could be use as templates to take the process west wide.
__________
Statement of Ben Deeble, Sage-Grouse Project Coordinator, National
Wildlife Federation
I am Ben Deeble, Sage-grouse Project Coordinator of the National
Wildlife Federation (NWF), the nation's largest conservation education
and advocacy organization. Our members are America's mainstream
conservation advocates who share a commitment to instituting common
sense conservation of wildlife throughout this great continent.
For more than five years, the National Wildlife Federation has been
involved in the development of monitoring and conservation efforts for
greater sage-grouse in the western states, coordinated from our
Northern Rockies Natural Resource Center in Missoula, Montana, and
through our affiliate organizations in Wyoming and Nevada. During this
time we have been deeply engaged in developing state conservation plans
for the bird, involved in public education about the conservation
challenge presented here, and facilitated the exchange of information
about both the ecology and management imperatives for this
extraordinary species between agencies, other conservationists, and the
general public. We have organized conferences on sage-grouse
conservation and on broader topics related to wildlife and energy
development.
Fortunately, there have been decades of research on the life-cycle
of sage-grouse, so there is ample information on the needs of the
species. High quality research of scientists working under the umbrella
of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) and
several academic institutions has combined historic population data
with cutting-edge habitat and genetic analysis to synthesize a very
solid understanding of this bird and its habitats. Much of the full
management picture can be completed with information from the
disciplines of range science and restoration ecology. While there are
still some unanswered questions about sage-grouse, I am confident in
asserting that we know as much about this species' life cycle, habitat
needs, behavior, and ecology as any bird in the nation, and using both
proven methods and strong inference, we can implement effective
conservation actions. Using this broad scientific basis, it is my sense
that there is a potential currently for productive and meaningful
deliberations among agencies and other partners for implementing
effective management actions, for designing and funding these efforts
in specific geographic areas, and for verifying our results.
And it will be a huge task. In my mind, what complicates the
management of sage-grouse is two-fold. Foremost is that many different
factors can affect the habitat quality of the bird, from outright
conversion of their habitats for things like intensive crop production,
to much more subtle factors like weed and evergreen tree invasion.
Roads and their vehicle traffic, utility lines, fences, pesticides,
weeds, wildfire, new predator populations, pond building, urbanization,
extreme weather, over-grazing, overhunting--all have been shown to have
implications for sage-grouse reproduction and adult survival. The
second complicating factor is that sage-grouse, even where thriving,
exist in relatively low densities and move around a lot. Individuals
within populations can be highly mobile, in some cases regularly
migrating 80 miles or more in multiple directions, with sustainable
populations occupying areas that ultimately comprise huge landscapes.
Yet the birds are, to some extent, specialized, using relatively
specific parts of these large landscapes, parts which must remain in
high quality and interconnected by hospitable corridors. Both sets of
characteristics make populations particularly vulnerable to habitat
fragmentation and degradation. In addition, while any one of the above
factors alone may not be devastating to grouse populations, in many
places multiple factors likely work synergistically to both suppress
reproductive success and elevate adult mortality, resulting in
population declines and eventual extirpation. These several factors
also occur across multiple jurisdictions of federal, state, and private
lands, making coherent management for the bird bureaucratically,
socially, and economically complex. There are many examples where
bureaucracies are working at cross-purposes within agencies, and many
instances where private interests are doing the same.
Some populations remain robust, but many are clearly in an ongoing
downward trend towards local and regional extinction. Greater sage-
grouse populations and reproductive rates have been declining in the
West for at least the last four decades. Population declines are
estimated rangewide to average approximately 33 percent, while
productivity has declined an average of 25 percent (Connelly and Braun
1997). These declines are the result of a variety of causes, with
degradation and destruction of shrub-steppe habitats being dominant
factors (Wambolt et al. 2002). Unprecedented new activities in these
landscapes also have the potential to speed regional extinctions, and
new disease issues are emerging. Essentially sage-grouse are a bird of
the wildest sagelands we have left in the West, as evidenced by the
fact that we have already lost populations from at least one-third of
their historic range West-wide. All populations throughout the species'
range have now been petitioned for listing under the federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (WDFW 2000, Webb 2002).
That said, let me be emphatically clear. To the degree that a
stereotype is being created in some places that the conservation
community wants to ``shut down'' livestock or energy production in the
West using the:: sage-grouse, that stereotype is false. We believe that
in some locations well-managed livestock grazing is compatible with
healthy sage-grouse populations and, in fact, may work to maintain
important blocks of sagebrush grassland habitat. Likewise, there are
core guidelines on important practices related to minimizing and
mitigating the effects of energy production. All types of energy
production will not be compatible in all places with sage-grouse, but
both onsite practices and offsite mitigation hold . promise for
maintaining critical habitat and core populations of sage-grouse. Using
the good science that already exists for the management of the bird and
its habitats, whether in the context of energy development, livestock
grazing, or any of several other human activities, we can maintain this
important shrub-steppe ecosystem for a variety of wildlife species and
human uses.
Adopt-A-Lek: Population Monitoring
As one step in rising to this conservation challenge, the National
Wildlife Federation in late 1999 launched in Montana what for us is a
relatively unusual field project named ``Adopt-A-Lek.'' Starting with
just a handful of volunteers, largely sage-grouse hunters, we began
training and fielding people to count sage-grouse at dawn each April on
their breeding leks. Most state agencies generally did not, and still
do not, have the capacity to get multiple annual counts of a majority
of their leks, and we felt we could recruit and train a highly-
motivated and competent labor force to seasonally assist with
population data collection. Using accepted state survey protocols, our
volunteers have proven to be reliable, competent, and an asset to
regional survey efforts. We provided seed money for our affiliates in
Wyoming and Nevada to launch their own state-based Adopt-A-Lek programs
in 2001. The project has grown dramatically through support from the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, state agencies, private
foundations, the U.S. Forest Service, and we hope in 2005, the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM). To give you a sense of scale, last April
ninety-three volunteers drove over 35,000 miles in Montana, Wyoming,
and Nevada to monitor more than 150 leks, in many cases getting
multiple counts. This constitutes somewhere between 5-10 percent of the
total greater sage-grouse survey effort West-wide.
In addition to helping collect the on-the-ground data that is
critical to sage-grouse conservation efforts, we believe that
recruiting local people for population monitoring is perhaps the best
way to help educate and inform them about the landscape and habitats
the birds survive in, and bring their experience up to levels where
they can help develop and fully participate in further conservation
efforts. While NWF has been very successful to-date fielding volunteers
to census sage-grouse, and the project has proven relatively economical
compared to similar agency-based efforts, it is likely that a
substantial shift in geographic scope or census intensity would require
new multi-year funding mechanisms.
HABITAT ENHANCEMENT INCENTIVES TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS
The second leg in our program involves delivering incentives to
landowners to implement sage-grouse habitat enhancement measures. A
primary objective of this project is to explore economically acceptable
methods for enhancing sage-grouse habitats in working landscapes, such
as voluntary incentives for altering grazing patterns, as well as
restoring rangeland and habitat productivity through other techniques.
An additional objective of this proposal is to conduct habitat
management experiments to test if attaining WAFWA's recommended
guidelines for nesting and early brood-rearing habitats in the vicinity
of leks will increase the local grouse population. The new plan for
sage-grouse conservation in Montana and several other states identifies
grazing management as one of the available tools for enhancing grouse
habitats (MDFWP 2002). Elsewhere, both positive and negative impacts to
sagegrouse habitat from livestock grazing have been documented (Beck
and Mitchell 2000). A field tour of the majority of lek sites
throughout southwest Montana in April 2003 identified a lack of
herbaceous cover in otherwise relatively large expanses of sagebrush as
potentially the limiting factor for sagegrouse productivity and
populations in the region (Braun 2003). The National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation has offered NWF a challenge grant to begin incentive
delivery to private landowners in 2005 who volunteer to participate in
habitat management actions related to livestock grazing. Financial
support for landowners engaged in management experiments involving
reduced springtime grazing of grouse habitats is essential because of
the particularly significant economic impacts incurred by loss of
forage during this time of year (Torell et al. 2002). Private lands
with existing suitable sagebrush canopy will be prioritized for
breeding habitat enhancement. However, because of mixed land ownership
patterns and public lands grazing leases, enhancement sites could be a
combination of suitable private and public lands anywhere within lek
specified buffers, if we can get through the red tape. Landowners will
use financial incentives for the specific objective of meeting their
own herd forage needs while managing lands to achieve the recommended
guidelines for sage-grouse breeding habitat. Recommended breeding
habitat conditions will be achieved on the maximum number of acres
possible within buffers using the available incentives. Incentive
levels will be market-based, designed to be essentially economically
neutral for the landowners that enact the habitat prescriptions.
Management prescriptions will be developed and implemented with the
objectives of increasing herbaceous (grass and forb) vegetation within
sagebrush stands of >15 percent canopy from May 15-July 1 for multiple
years.
In addition to financial incentives, some landowners have requested
legal protections from potential liability, such as through inclusion
under a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurance (CCAA), should
sage-grouse be listed under the ESA while the species is being
conserved on their property. A CCAA will be developed for use in
Montana, and we anticipate some additional states will be able to offer
Certificates of Inclusion to private landowners by 2005.
CURRENT AGENCY ACTIONS, GREATER SAGE-GROUSE AND THE ESA
The third leg of our conservation effort involves somewhat more
direct engagement with public land management agencies. There are many
opportunities in agency actions to adopt improved and proven habitat
management practices for sage-grouse conservation. While some local
jurisdictions have made great strides, adoption of proven beneficial
practices have been, in many places, uneven at best. Guidance from
agency leadership has been slow in being issued, and agency
implementation at the field level has suffered from inadequate
information, staff, funding, conflicting priorities, economic concerns,
and business-as-usual inertia. As a result, NWF has found itself in the
unfortunate situation of challenging through the courts and
administratively some agency actions in efforts to gain management
improvements for sage-grouse habitat. NWF has been conducting all its
efforts in a regulatory environment that lacks federal recognition of
greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered, and progress in the
proliferation of state-level planning and research efforts during this
period has been significant. The question yet unanswered is whether the
current momentum to sustain greater sagegrouse populations and
habitats, particularly the expensive and time-consuming task of
delivering conservation on-the-ground, will continue without the threat
of further listing action.
Actions to conserve a closely related species, the Gunnison sage-
grouse in southern Colorado and Utah, have come almost too late, with
only a few thousand birds known to remain in some dozen small isolated
populations. This species most certainly requires upgrading in its
designation and more stringent protections under the ESA. Recovery, if
possible, will require a much more intensive effort relative to the
land area involved.
Regarding the petition pending to list greater sage-grouse as
federally threatened or endangered rangewide, here, too, we support the
professional wildlife biologists making their best evaluation of the
species' status, without political interference. There are new factors
emerging, like vulnerability of the species to West Nile virus, that
complicate the already complex task of evaluating the species across
eleven states, and the Service should be given every resource it needs
to competently complete this status determination.
Lesser classifications by agencies have both assisted agency
progress towards developing and implementing conservation actions, and
have been underutilized for grouse conservation. The Forest Service
considers sage-grouse a ``sensitive'' species rangewide and uses the
bird as a ``management indicator'' species in several forests and
grasslands, which has greatly aided conservation planning. In our
opinion, the loss of this latter management designation under newly
adopted planning regulations will be an unfortunate step backwards for
sage-grouse conservation on Department of Agriculture lands. State Fish
and Game agencies still manage sage-grouse as a huntable species in
many areas, and are doing their best to responsibly manage seasons and
bags to allow some pursuit of a harvestable surplus of sage-grouse
where healthy populations are still found. In our view this is
reasonable, professional wildlife management, and seasons should be
managed based on science, not political considerations. In some places
the science suggests the season should be closed. The BLM gives sage-
grouse special status classification through their planning process,
but in very few instances has taken substantive action to do new on-
the-ground special management for the bird. For example, despite a
decade-old agency directive to designate Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) for sage-grouse, none have been
implemented. As recently as last year, BLM field offices in Montana
were denying nominations of priority sage-grouse habitats as ACECs,
using the rationale that sage-grouse did not meet the ``importance''
criterion that would trigger full nomination review. As another
example, withdrawal of leasable and locatable minerals, has yet to
occur anywhere specifically to conserve sage-grouse.
CONCLUSION
The unfortunate situation today is that we cannot point to a single
place where a large sage-grouse population is clearly secure for the
long-term. Sage-grouse do not have a single place that is not
vulnerable to weed invasion or wildfire, open to potential energy
development or over-grazing, slated for agricultural conversion or
subdivision, and certainly no place that is shielded from the potential
impacts of disease. We need to take action to buffer the populations in
several places against both catastrophic and chronic events by
restoring the productivity and security of this species and its
habitat. Many mechanisms already exist and are being proposed for
conserving the large landscapes the birds need, through easements and
special management designations. Many talented people are already on
the ground doing potentially helpful work. What is lacking is the
precedent for enough diverse partners to work together to focus and
fund the tasks at hand, then get them done.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.015
Responses by Ben Deeble to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. What else would you recommend as a way to sustain and
encourage participation in local working groups?
Response. Working groups must be adequately funded, to support both
facilitated meetings where groups are guided through educational
exercises and project development, and for on-the-ground project
implementation.
Participation in working groups will be enhanced if participants
feel they are learning new things and gaining access to financial and
logistical resources for implementing new things on-the-ground. Perhaps
counter-intuitively, I also believe participation in LWGs will decline
as the proposed conservation actions prove unthreatening to particular
interests. There will be a certain self-selection process and LWG size
will decline as people who have been attending just to watch the ball
(instead of move the ball) fall away. You will end up with a small core
of people who are highly motivated, and (after a time) educated, to
move forward with positive on-the-ground work.
LWGs also need to recognize more than just local citizens as key
participants; resource professionals need recognition for providing
critical technical review. LWGs will have greater participation by
local agency staff if they feel they have a recognized role in the
proceedings. Some LWGs invite agency staff as passive advisors rather
than as decision-makers in the processes, and as a result sideline much
of the technical knowledge, de facto reducing competent review of LWG
proposals and products. This tendency may become the Achillies heal of
the LWG process. Agencies should be encouraged to have their staff
participate in meaningful ways, and LWGs should be encouraged to accept
the technical expertise of the agencies.
Question 2. We need both extensive and intensive information: we
need to know the extent of where sage-grouse occur and how they are
doing in each place. In your view, how can we allocate our resources to
optimize this trade-off?
Response. Sage-grouse population trends (intensive information) are
most readily obtained through lek surveys, where known leks are
repeatedly subjected to counts of cocks using a consistent protocol,
and from this annual monitoring the local population trends can be
inferred. Some states have so few leks, and enough field staff, to
conduct replicate counts of all their leks annually. Other states have
many leks, but not enough field staff, so must sub-sample their known
leks, and may not obtain any replicate counts. States do not have
consistent methods of determining this sub-sample; this should be
standardized to develop statistically comparable data between regions.
Replicate counts (three counts per year per let) of active leks is the
accepted protocol for optimal annual surveys. Using modestly trained
technicians through such projects as the National Wildlife Federation's
``Adopt-A-Lek'' is one means of increasing state capacity to obtain
intensive information through replicate counts; LWG participants could
also be used to conduct intensive surveys.
Intensive survey effort could, be stratified to survey both sage-
grouse leks found in the core of the known range as well as leks found
at the current periphery of known range, which could have the dual
benefit of detecting changes in core populations and population extent.
Extensive information about sage-grouse occurrence has generally
been determined by a thorough review of agency records. To my
knowledge, no call for data has been issued to bird watchers,
landowners, industry, hunters, or other individuals who may encounter
sage-grouse. Today unsurveyed habitats are generally searched aerially.
Instrumentation of sage-grouse has also resulted in learning the
migratory range of many populations. It should be assumed that range-
contraction is ongoing in some areas.
In my opinion, the collection of intensive information should have
a higher priority than extensive information. Resources need to be
mustered to conserve the bird in core areas, and intensive information
about population trends in these core areas is essential. The extent of
many populations is already well known.
Question 3. What would be the most effective way to include the
ideas of LWG's in the effort envisioned in the Subcommittee Outline?
Response. Local working groups should not be expected to work well
in a vacuum. LWGs should be encouraged to exchange information between
each other, and should be able to tap information resources of other
entities. In particular, success stories need to be exchanged and
successful methods needs to be propagated.
One approach for integrating LWG ideas with those of the
Subcommittee would be to present the proposed policy objectives to
them, and ask for their feedback in terms of their receptiveness to the
objectives and how that particular LWG could participate in achieving
the objectives. That response could provide guidance as to where the
Subcommittee may want to geographically launch their efforts and which
objectives to emphasize.
__________
Statement of Jim Mosher, Executive Director, North American Grouse
Partnership and American Wildlife Conservation Partners, Representing
Views of: Boone & Crockett Club, Campfire Club, International
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Izaak Walton League of
America, National Wild Turkey Federation, North American Grouse
Partnership, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Quail
Unlimited
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Jim Mosher. I
am the executive director of the North American Grouse Partnership, a
wildlife biologist and, at every opportunity, an upland bird hunter. My
professional career has encompassed university teaching and research,
environmental consulting and administration of non-profit conservation
programs and organizations.
The North American Grouse Partnership that I now serve is a very
young organization, incorporated in the State of Idaho by a group of
dedicated sportsmen and professional biologists concerned in particular
about the lack of adequate management to address the needs of prairie
grouse species and the grasslands and sage communities that support
these populations. Our organization's approach and strategy as we work
on behalf of grouse conservation at the local and national policy level
is based on a few fundamental principles: (1) sound scientific
understanding should drive resource management decisions, (2) the well-
being of the species on which we focus our attention reflects the
health, or lack thereof, of whole communities [it is the habitat that
supports those communities that is our primary concern], and (3) fair
and sustainable solutions to resource conflicts arise best from open
and honest dialog among all who have a stake in the outcomes.
THE CHALLENGES
This hearing appropriately focuses attention on the condition of
sage grouse populations, their habitats and the near and long-term
challenges to conserving this valuable resource--issues of immense
concern to us and our colleagues. I thank the Committee for providing
this forum to look toward solutions that will protect sage grouse while
permitting access to and use of other important resources. I must also
note here that the challenges that are faced today by sage grouse are
of no less concern for other grouse species. While we are working to
find the most effective measures to protect and restore sage grouse
habitat and populations, we must understand that we could be here again
very soon talking about lesser prairie chickens or other prairie grouse
if we are not successful in properly managing our grassland and sage
communities.
There are at least three fundamental problems affecting landscapes
that grouse depend on for survival: (1) habitat fragmentation [or
insufficient habitat scale], (2) habitat alteration resulting from a
number of human uses and (3) woody succession and/or invasive species.
Note also that the effects of prolonged drought exacerbate these
challenges. Absent our ability to control that factor, we must pay
particular attention to the amount and quality of remaining habitat.
It is worth acknowledging here that sage grouse populations are not
in the condition they are in today simply because of any one land use.
Many different uses fragment the habitat and/or impact species behavior
and habitat use. It is rather the cumulative affect of all of these
factors. Our system of land management has tended to drive public and
private land decisions to be made in isolation without fully
considering cumulative and range-wide effects. Addressing these issues
singly is moreover likely to polarize stakeholders and make sensible
solutions more difficult if not impossible to secure.
We suggest as this discussion about the positive actions that may
be taken continues, that we would benefit as well from a consideration
of underlying policy questions that arise from conflicting resource
interests, especially on our multiple use public lands. There is an
implication that we can do it all, everywhere, all the time we only
need to be more careful about how we undertake each activity. We do
very positive things like instituting Best Management Practices to
minimize impacts and/or mitigate for some that are unavoidable. We
trust that all the interests will be served. I imagine we would all
agree that's not always so. At least with respect to sage grouse, there
are clearly levels and scale of activities beyond which populations
will not survive. As local populations become disconnected from
adjacent populations they become more fragile and the likelihood of
collapse of each increases. There have been and will be places where
the real test is an `either/or' question. In these places we can't do
it all. The question is--do we permit activities that will likely
preclude maintaining viable grouse populations? How do we decide where
those places are? How then do we decide? These are difficult questions
because in large part they make us face unpleasant choices and imply
winners and losers. I think a positive step is to face these choices
and put these questions openly on the table whenever and wherever they
pertain with all the stakeholders engaged.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE HUNTING COMMUNITY
Despite difficult challenges we face to conserve sage grouse, the
community of hunters and allied conservationists for whom sage grouse
are an integral part of our lives none-the-less have and will continue
to contribute in numerous ways. As a threshold matter, it should be
recognized that sportsmen have largely paid for the restoration of
wildlife once in this country and should not be expected to do so alone
again. In this instance it is sportsmen-supported state wildlife
agencies that have taken the lead in the Conservation Assessment of
Greater Sage Grouse and Sagebrush Habitat as well as in development of
strategic planning that is now is process. This Assessment is a
fundamentally important document that begins to chart a course to
conservation measures--our ultimate success will be predicated on
effective and widespread implementation.
We are generally a practical-minded group and clearly understand
that prevention is nearly always less expensive than the cure.
Investments in sage grouse habitat improvement and range expansion made
now will be far less costly than any recovery attempts later. Moreover,
in the absence of appropriate management now we may foreclose some
recovery options entirely.
Individual sportsmen and their organizations contribute to sage
grouse conservation in many ways through their license dollars, direct
contributions to projects, technical expertise, through support of
conservation organizations that represent their interests and through
those organizations' programs. Sportsmen give generously of their time
and their funds whenever and wherever the effort promises successful
outcomes for wildlife. There are many specific examples of these
contributions including local projects that have been funded by and
implemented through volunteers. The following are a few examples of
what sportsmen's conservation groups can do and are doing specifically
for sage grouse.
In partnership with The Nature Conservancy, the N.A. Grouse
Partnership's Idaho Chapter is now demonstrating how to manage for sage
grouse on a meaningful scale. Working on TNC's Crooked Creek Ranch,
where sage grouse nesting success was acceptable, but the rate of chick
survival was poor. We have partnered with Idaho Fish & Game to improve
the habitat in a number of ways in this instance by increasing the
composition of forbs. Forbs are broad-leaved herbaceous plants
important during the first 10 days of the grouse chick's life for the
nutrition provided by insects, especially beetles and ants that they
attract. Geographically broader application of this management faced
the challenge of the expense of the seed mixtures that included
sufficient forb seed. The Chapter applied for and received a grant from
the Office of Species Conservation to create and administer the Grouse
Habitat Restoration Fund. The fund cost shares with property owners to
make the more expensive seed mix affordable, distributes information
about the program and encourages landowners to voluntarily improve sage
grouse habitat. With the implementation of this program more forbs can
be established in sage grouse habitats across the state of Idaho, and
an increase in chick survival should follow.
Quail Unlimited projects have benefited sage grouse in California
and Colorado. In partnership with the Bishop Field office of BLM, a
broad-based group of stakeholders has drafted a conservation plan to
preclude listing and maintain a healthy sage grouse population. They
will cut young pinyon-juniper trees encroaching on known breeding
habitat, build guzzlers in brood rearing habitats where habitat is
suitable but distribution is limited by availability of water, continue
radio telemetry study and habitat mapping to identify crucial seasonal
habitats for future conservation actions, monitor utility lines to
determine if anti-raptor perching devices may reduce predation, inform
recreational visitors on how to enjoy sage grouse habitat with minimal
impact and new builders on how to minimize their impact on surrounding
sage grouse habitat. These projects will serve to begin implementing
the conservation plan, monitor success of the actions, identify areas
for future conservation actions, involve youth in an active and
positive role, benefit the community, and educate current and future
users of sage grouse lands. With the BLM Craig district in Colorado, QU
has established a project to increase the grass and forb component and
increase the vigor of the sagebrush canopy in known sage grouse brood
rearing areas. Research has shown that sage grouse utilize new sage
growth as their nearly exclusive winter diet. Much of the sage in this
area is very old with little succulent new growth. This project has
restored over 4,000 acres of decadent sage through brush beating
(mowing) and chemical treatment of selected sites in a patchwork
design.
Members of the North American Falconers' Association and other
members of the falconry community have contributed valuable information
on critical winter ranges used by sage grouse. This information has
been provided at least for large areas of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
The National Wild Turkey Federation, with their Western Plan, supports
habitat improvements that benefit not only wild turkeys but grouse and
other game and non-game species as well.
Recently, the Western Governors' Association published a
compilation of examples by states of sage grouse conservation projects,
several of which have significant involvement by sportsmen and their
organizations.
In addition to volunteering time, money and labor on specific
projects, sportsmen have been effectively engaged in efforts to resolve
resource conflicts involving sage grouse and other wildlife through
support of collaborative efforts with other stakeholders. Nowhere has
that been more evident recently than with discussions about energy
development and its relationship to sage grouse and other wildlife that
share the same habitat.
With support from the BLM, the Izaak Walton League initiated 2
years ago a series of facilitated meetings among ranchers, the energy
industry and sportsman groups. The reports of those meetings are
available on the League's web site at www.iwla.org. The Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership supported a similar meeting in New
Mexico with the assistance of the National Commission on Energy Policy.
The purpose of the meetings was to improve understanding on all sides
of the issues, limitations and interests of our respective communities,
and most importantly to begin to craft solutions to conflicts that
occur when our interests overlap on the landscape. We made useful
progress at those meetings and built a network for further
communication that continues today.
Related to these discussions, we have used other opportunities to
more broadly engage with the energy industry. Representatives of the
Boone & Crockett Club, the Wildlife Management Institute and I have
made presentations at the National Petroleum Forum and Fluid Minerals
Conference about the outcomes of our facilitated meetings and the
issues of concern to sportsmen. In addition, I spoke on similar issues
to the National Energy Council comprised of state government
representatives. These forums have provided useful opportunities to
explain the concerns of the wildlife community and to make clear our
desire to find mutually acceptable solutions to the inevitable
conflicts.
In early November, the Wildlife Working Group of the National Wind
Coordinating Committee will meet here in D.C. We will discuss issues of
impacts from wind energy development on grouse in a session that will
address the affects of tall structures. As pressure increases to expand
and incentives are provided for renewable energy development, conflicts
over construction and especially siting of wind facilities will
increase. Prairie grouse species appear averse to such facilities.
Although additional research is needed to confirm preliminary data,
wildlife experts warn of significant population impacts where wind
development occurs in proximity to important grouse habitat.
In addition to the many cooperative efforts with industry, a
working group comprised of the American Sportfishing Association,
International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Izaak Walton
League of America, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership led by
the Wildlife Management Institute, North American Grouse Partnership
and Trout Unlimited, has met with senior Administration officials. We
have made a number of suggestions regarding ways to avoid future
impacts to fish and wildlife. For example, we have called for improved
monitoring. To work effectively and provide answers about real impacts
from land uses, monitoring must include not just species presence and
abundance, but longer term measures of whether they survive, reproduce
and sustain viable populations. We need to affirm Multiple Use
Management of Federal Lands. We need specific policy criteria developed
to assist Federal land managers in identifying and protecting high
resource value places and specific guidance to ensure that such a
review and subsequent action takes place in a timely manner. Federal
land managers should make decisions carefully when they may constrain
the government's flexibility to control activities that prove to pose
risks to important fish, wildlife, and water resources. BLM should
undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of
stipulations to determine if they are accomplishing their intended
purpose. Adequate financial resources for reclamation should be a part
of the cost of doing business on Federal lands.
To be sure, these recommendations have been considered and adopted
to some extent and we commend the agencies for that work. We think we
can all do more.
COMMITMENT TO DO MORE
All these projects, meetings and collaborative processes involve
considerable time and expense contributed by individuals and their
organizations. Yet, our organizations and the individual sportsmen
involved in all theses efforts on behalf of sage grouse are committed
to programs and resolution to conflicts that best meet our Nation's
needs and those of the various stakeholders. Above all we are resolute
in our commitment to sustaining, and wherever possible restoring, sage
grouse populations. We will contribute expertise, time, money and labor
individually and collectively within our respective limits.
RECOMMENDATIONS
What follows are a range of suggestions, made by sportsmen, to
improve conditions for wildlife. We have suggested authorizing royalty
reductions or credits to those entities with existing and future
Federal energy development leases, with proceeds used to enable Federal
land lessees to protect or enhance our nation's natural resources. The
purpose is to provide financial support to monitor, enhance and secure
populations of prairie grouse and other natural resources. We are
currently developing a North American Grouse Management Plan that
identifies specific actions which can be used to protect or improve
grouse habitats. Among these actions are habitat and population
monitoring, trapping and relocating grouse from healthy populations,
modified livestock grazing and watering systems, changing the season of
use and density of energy developments, and enrolling lands in the
suite of conservation programs available through USDA and the FWS.
The Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage Grouse and Sagebrush
Habitats is a good baseline, and some states have developed or are
developing conservation plans that should identify positive management
opportunities. However, improvements must occur on the ground to
achieve real progress.
From our perspective in discussions with other stakeholders, we
would encourage increased coordination and cooperation among all
stakeholders. Opportunities include developing a workable plan to
respond [adapt] based on returning monitoring data in a timely way--not
just for energy development but for other land uses as well; research
designed to assess if, how, where BMPs and stipulations are
accomplishing their purpose; a process for determining when/where
certain land uses are not compatible with sage grouse and/or other high
priority resources within or apart from formal management plans; and
the means to provide an effective opportunity to assess potential
conflicts prior to management actions.
There are opportunities to coordinate related activities and
leverage and prioritize limited resources by:
1. Identifying information needs. Are we measuring the right
things? Are we using the data we're collecting? What is the
relationship between what we measure and actual population
responses? We need to learn from what we are doing see appended
letter regarding a proposal by Questar.
2. Identifying conservation actions that can be implemented
now, such as pre-development assessment, identification of
protected areas, and restoration programs.
3. Developing a realistic budget to meet the information
needs as part of a funding needs package that addresses amounts
and potential sources of funds Federal, state and private. We
especially need to understand and make visible the real needs
of land management agencies to meet mandated requirements as
well as implementing sage grouse conservation measures.
4. Considering creation of a `Wildlife Conservation
Partnership Council'. The Council would be chartered to raise
the profile of wildlife conservation, the values of wildlife to
the country's heritage and economy and to encourage public/
private partnerships. More specifically, the Council could
advise on issues that arise at the intersection of economic
development and wildlife resources with the purpose of finding
innovative ways to enhance both of these values so important to
the country. This could focus significant human and fiscal
resources to resolving some of those conflicts.
This past February, while recognizing that many land uses that can
compete with grouse will and need to continue, several specific actions
concerning sage grouse conservation were suggested including:
1. Identify, with State agencies and private conservation
interests, all high value Sage Grouse range.
2. Apply available best management practices for any development on
public lands through appropriate agency authority.
3. Provide adequate funding to monitor populations and habitat
conditions throughout sage grouse range.
4. Support completion and implementation of the North American
Grouse Management Plan and its linkage to State conservation plans, and
consider legislative authority for the Plan through a mechanism similar
to the N.A. Waterfowl Conservation Act.
In some places and at some times over-utilization by livestock
grazing remains a challenge to successful reproduction and population
recovery for upland gamebirds as well as other grassland and shrubland
species. Poor range conditions for many reasons, combined with
herbicide and mechanical treatments carried out with the intention of
reducing all plants except grasses on rangelands, have had impacts on
endemic wildlife populations throughout North America. Although
conservation programs allow for reimbursement of prescribed burning
expenses, no allowance is made to create the necessary fuel, for
example through grazing deferment, for conservation success. State and
Federal programmatic and tax incentives could be applied to reduce
grazing intensity in areas of high conservation priority.
The Grassland Reserve Program is the one USDA program that not only
provides restoration and easement dollars but also restricts all forms
of habitat fragmentation for the term of the agreement. This program is
the first to recognize that a number of developments and structures can
measurably reduce the conservation value of a property. This program
needs increased funding.
We should consider expanding annual incentive payment options
available for modified grazing systems under the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP). At present EQIP offers only up to 3 years of
annual incentive payments to farmers and ranchers who choose to enroll
in the program. While this time period may be sufficient for some land
management practices, it does not provide the long-term incentive
necessary for many of the land management practices available under
EQIP. We are particularly interested in the gains that could derive
from modifying EQIP to enable producers to receive annual incentive
payments for up to 10 years for land management practices benefiting
prairie grouse. Many producers who support prairie grouse populations
have indicated that annual incentive payments throughout an extended
EQIP contract period would attract them to the program.
In highly fragmented or small land ownership areas, we should
consider financial incentives for neighboring landowners to form
wildlife cooperatives, whereby state and Federal taxes are abated to
provide a public benefit. Many landowners are eager to enter into such
wildlife cooperatives.
In conclusion, there are unavoidable and serious ecological
consequences should human development, in many forms, continue
unchecked on public lands, and financial investment is required to
conserve and restore wildlife habitats. All of our private efforts to
conserve sage grouse and their habitats will be insufficient to the
task if our policies and programs do not provide for and encourage
effective conservation measures. Government policies must address
cumulative impacts and establish landscape level ecological goals and
fragmentation ceilings. We believe that Congress and the Administration
can and should tap the resources within our community to the benefit of
all interests. It will take the commitment of funds, effectively
delivered programs, careful planning and most importantly
implementation of real habitat management to forestall further loss of
sage grouse and other wildlife resources, and the consequences
associated with such outcomes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6657.023
<all>