U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–994 2018

S. HRG. 114–504 

THE STATUS OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND FOREST SERVICE’S EFFORTS TO 

IMPLEMENT AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE 

PLANS AND SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS 

REGARDING SAGE GROUSE CONSERVATION, 

AND THOSE AGENCIES’ COORDINATION ACTIVITIES WITH AFFECTED STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 28, 2016 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

JOHN BARRASSO, Chairman 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO 

JAMES E. RISCH 

MIKE LEE 

STEVE DAINES 

BILL CASSIDY 

CORY GARDNER 

JOHN HOEVEN 

JEFF FLAKE 

LAMAR ALEXANDER 

RON WYDEN 

DEBBIE STABENOW 

AL FRANKEN 

JOE MANCHIN III 

MARTIN HEINRICH 

MAZIE K. HIRONO 

ELIZABETH WARREN 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

CHRIS KEARNEY, Budget Analyst and Senior Professional Staff Member 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SPENCER GRAY, Democratic Professional Staff Member 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

Barrasso, Hon. John, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Wyoming ...................................................................................................................... 1 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 

Oregon ................................................................................................................... 3 

Risch, Hon. James E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho ................................................ 4 

Lee, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Utah ........................................................... 6 

WITNESSES 

Lyons, Jim, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, 

U.S. Department of the Interior ......................................................................... 7 

Harper, Robert, Director, Water, Fish, Wildlife, Air & Rare Plants, U.S. 

Forest Service, National Forest System, U.S. Department of Agriculture ...... 20 

Clarke, Kathleen, Director, Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, State 

of Utah .................................................................................................................. 29 

Macdonald, Catherine, Oregon Director of Conservation Programs, The Nature Conservancy ................................................................................................. 35 

Richards, Brenda, President, Public Lands Council, and Rancher, Owyhee 

County, Idaho ....................................................................................................... 42 

Sweeney, Katie, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, National Mining 

Association ............................................................................................................ 50 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Barrasso, Hon. John: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Clarke, Kathleen: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 29 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 31 

Response to Question for the Record .............................................................. 221 

Harper, Robert: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 20 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 22 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 214 

Lee, Hon. Mike: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 6 

Lyons, Jim: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 7 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 10 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 88 

Macdonald, Catherine: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 35 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 37 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 222 

Richards, Brenda: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 42 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 45 

Risch, Hon. James E.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Sweeney, Katie: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 50 

Maps of Proposed Land Withdrawals for Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah 

and Wyoming ................................................................................................. 51 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

Sweeney, Katie—Continued 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 58 

Response to Question for the Record .............................................................. 228 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 229 

Wyden, Hon. Ron: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE STATUS OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND FOREST SERVICE’S EFFORTS 

TO IMPLEMENT AMENDMENTS TO LAND 

USE PLANS AND SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT 

PLANS REGARDING SAGE GROUSE CONSERVATION, AND THOSE AGENCIES’ COORDINATION ACTIVITIES WITH AFFECTED 

STATES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. The Subcommittee will come to order. Thank 

you all for being here to testify. We appreciate you being here. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to conduct oversight on the status of implementation of the Federal Sage Grouse Conservation 

and Management Plans under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service. This hearing is 

not designed to focus solely on the quality, timing or scope of the 

Administration’s top/down approach to conservation plans, but today’s oversight of the plan implementation does require recognition 

that the overlay of federal plans last September effectively pushed 

aside years of successful work by state and by private conservation 

in terms of their efforts. 

As part of their joint announcement last September, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the BLM and the Forest Service used the creation 

of federal management plans as justification for the decision not to 

list the Greater Sage Grouse as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act. This was despite the fact that the federal sage grouse 

plans had not yet been tested on the ground, let alone, finalized. 

Today marks 280 days since that joint announcement. Since that 

time, no instructional memoranda has been finalized. No final field 

guides have been made public, and agency staff on the ground are 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
2 

no closer to implementing the federal plans than they were last 

September. 

In March, when instructional memoranda drafts were leaked following a meeting with the Western Governors’ staffs, there was 

widespread concern that the documents would include inconsistent 

or unreasonable habitat targets that would not reflect on-theground range realities. These criticisms have plagued the federal 

plans from the beginning, in large part, because the federal plans, 

in many cases, failed to use successful state efforts as a road map 

for the federal plans. 

Now, nine months after the Administration announced their sage 

grouse plans, implementation of the federal plans has not yet 

begun. Undoubtedly, the Administration witnesses will say that 

agencies are making progress by beginning habitat inventories to 

prepare for implementation. 

In some states, like Wyoming, agency personnel have begun 

training to begin these habitat assessments this summer, but BLM 

and Forest Service personnel will be assessing sage grouse habitat 

conditions without instructional memoranda to inform them. 

To me it seems that these inventories are simply a way to demonstrate false progress in implementation. I expect that some of the 

witnesses today will say the federal plans themselves contain 

flaws. This is something we have heard time and time again since 

the plans were finalized last fall. I also expect to hear that in some 

states the Administration failed to meet their own planning requirements like the use of best available science, and I expect to 

hear concerns about the landscape scale approach that the federal 

agencies took when developing their plans. I share all of these 

same concerns. 

In this Subcommittee last week, we heard all of these things 

about the BLM’s overhaul of their planning rule, called Planning 

2.0. It seems that whether we are talking about the BLM’s planning process or sage grouse conservation across these 11 Western 

states, there is significant opposition on the ground to federal action that advocates broad, sweeping policy direction mandated by 

Washington. These one-size-fits-all policies cripple public access to 

public lands and disenfranchise those who have a vested interest 

in healthy resources. 

Future instructional memoranda will undoubtedly mention grazing, mineral extraction, oil and natural gas production and other 

public land uses. A CRS report from last Tuesday indicated that oil 

and natural gas production on federal lands is down 27 percent 

from 2010. I am concerned the BLM and the Forest Service plans 

will further reduce natural gas production on federal lands in Wyoming and other Western states. 

In Wyoming and many of my colleagues’ home states, their 

ranchers, their energy and mineral producers and their construction workers depend on production based on federal lands. In turn, 

the greater sage grouse depends on the people who depend on the 

land. For months, folks across the West have been using the 

phrase, ‘‘What’s good for the bird, is good for the herd.’’ The message is simple but clear. 

Maintaining healthy habitat is good for wildlife, for 

recreationalists, for livestock and other land users, as well as sage 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
3 

grouse. The use of best science that reflects true habitat needs is 

critical to ensure the plans can be implemented at a scale which 

benefits the bird and the ecosystem. 

At this point I think it is clear that I have significant concerns 

about the lengthy delays in the instructional memoranda and the 

way agencies have addressed public outreach since last September. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about their 

discussions during the last several months and the expected steps 

forward. 

Senator Wyden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Chairman Barrasso, thank you, and I want to 

say to you and to all our guests, the Finance Committee and the 

Intelligence Committee are two other Committees where I also 

have to be within the next 15 minutes. So I am going to be back 

and forth some, and I don’t want any of you to walk away with a 

sense that somehow this is not of enormous importance because it 

is. 

Oregonians, like those from Wyoming, are no strangers to the 

profound local changes that can come from listing an animal under 

the Endangered Species Act. So it should be no surprise that the 

possibility the greater sage grouse would be listed as a threatened 

or endangered species is important in Oregon and the fact is, it’s 

important to lots of people across the West. 

I recently had town hall meetings, for example, in Eastern Oregon. That is sage grouse country. There is a lot of work being done 

to implement sage grouse restoration plans. People asked me about 

it at the town meetings. Because of all this work, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service decided against listing the greater sage grouse. In 

my view, the decision not to list was a victory for all Westerners. 

The Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service’s updated 

land use plans build off the local collaboration that I heard discussed just a few days ago in Eastern Oregon, were, in my view, 

critical factors in the decision to not list the bird. 

Put simply, local folks got together to protect habitat to avoid a 

sage grouse listing. While no land use plan is perfect, I told everybody at those town meetings in Eastern Oregon that I’m certainly 

open to ideas and suggestions to plans to provide a road map for 

conservation, a way forward for ranchers and some real certainty 

for rural communities that rely on multiple uses of public lands. 

In my view what the decision not to list the sage grouse was all 

about was, sort of, a referendum on the proposition that working 

together, collaborating, actually pays off. Coming up with locallybased solutions that serve the interests of everybody involved is 

government the way, people tell me at town hall meetings, it’s the 

way government is supposed to work. 

That is why, I believe, it’s very troubling to see that some of our 

colleagues in the other body, in the House, somehow think it makes 

sense to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. This year, the House 

of Representatives in their defense authorization bill contains a 

sage grouse poison pill that would snuff out the years of collaboraVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:38 Feb 17, 2018 Jkt 021994 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A994.XXX A994

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
4 

tion that went into avoiding an endangered species listing in the 

first place. 

In addition to handing control of public lands over to the states, 

weakening the protections for the sage grouse, the decision prevents the Fish and Wildlife Service from revisiting its listing decision for at least ten years which are only going to increase the odds 

of an endangered species listing in the long term. This, in my view, 

is a frustrating and exasperating example of Congress making important endangered species decisions based on politics rather than 

science and collaboration. 

The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have 

worked together and with local stakeholders to create plans that 

are critical for ensuring continued multiple use of public lands 

throughout the West. That is almost an obligatory statement I 

make at a town hall meeting in rural Oregon is we ought to be 

building on the notion of multiple use of public lands in our part 

of the country, and that’s what’s being done here. 

The collective efforts of local stakeholders protect sage grouse 

and habitat and ecosystems that are all so key to benefitting local, 

usually agricultural, economies and continuing multiple range land 

uses that almost always involve grazing and recreation. 

So I thank the panel for their input. I look forward to working 

with my colleagues on this in a bipartisan manner. This Committee, colleagues, particularly for some of our newer members, has 

such a long, long history of working in a bipartisan way. This is 

where we wrote the Secure Rural Schools bill, for example. So we 

have a long history of working together in a bipartisan way to ensure the continued health and prosperity of our nation’s public 

lands. 

I especially want to thank Ms. Macdonald, with The Nature Conservancy, for making the trek. I apologize for the bad manners of 

coming in and out, but you’ve been on the ground, as I understand 

it, working on sage grouse issues in Harney County. 

A lot of people in this room have probably heard of Harney County now as a result of the last few months. You are doing work to 

bring people together in Harney County to collaborate, to show that 

it’s possible to find common ground, and I am going to do everything I possibly can to make sure that your hard work doesn’t go 

by the boards. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden. 

A number of members are equally pressed with time and multiple commitments, so I am going to give each member a chance to 

do any introductions of the guests who are here to testify or make 

a brief opening statement. 

Senator Risch. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to make a 

brief opening statement. I have other commitments like Senator 

Wyden, but I am going to be here for the afternoon. I am committed to this. The Intelligence Committee is important, but this 

is really important to Idaho. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
5 

First of all, let me say, when we get down to the question, Mr. 

Chairman, I am going to talk about where we are right now. But 

I want to talk a little bit about where we have been on this issue 

because I think it is important, as we go forward, to talk about 

what I think has been an abysmal handling of this issue by the 

Federal Government. 

This has its beginnings with the prior Secretary of Interior, Secretary Salazar. He wisely, wisely, suggested that the states should 

get together and create a committee and do the best they can to 

come up with a plan to save the sage grouse. 

Virtually everyone is in agreement that this magnificent bird 

should be protected to the degree that it is has a sustainable future. In doing that, to make a long story short, I am going to use 

Idaho because our experience probably mirrors the experience in 

some other states. The Governor, who by the way is the second best 

governor our state has ever had—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator RISCH [continuing]. Wisely put together a collaborative 

committee to work on this particular issue and write a sage grouse 

plan. The method he used, I think, was outstanding because it is 

the method I used when we wrote the successful roadless rule 

when I was governor. 

What it did is it brought everybody together at the table, everyone who would come, and indeed there were some who refused to 

come. But those who would come in a give and take process worked 

on the problem and came up with a plan. 

Included in this group the Governor asked and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service agreed to have a person who had a seat at the 

table. They worked long and hard, contributing thousands and 

thousands of hours to producing a plan which everyone—and used, 

by the way, some of the best minds on sage grouse biology in America. We have some of those people actually in Idaho, because we 

have the bird there. They wrote a really good plan, we believed. We 

were well on our way, I thought, to success when all of a sudden 

the BLM said, well wait a minute, not so fast. 

Now I was, still am, relatively new to this Federal business. But 

what I couldn’t understand was why would the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who had signed off on this plan, be trumped by the Bureau of Land Management? Mr. Lyons, you and I are going to have 

a little chat about that as we get into the questions. 

Sally Jewell got appointed to be Secretary of Interior, and I remember the day I met her. She came to my office seeking confirmation and she says, ‘‘Well I’m Sally Jewell’’. I said, ‘‘How do you do?’’ 

Then I asked, ‘‘Do you know what a sage grouse is?’’ That was my 

first sentence. Her answer was ‘‘Well, no, I really don’t.’’ I said, 

‘‘Well, you are going to before very long,’’ and we gave her a sage 

grouse 101 session. 

My biggest complaint was the fact, as we were right in the middle of the fact, that the BLM was trumping the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designation or affirmation that the Idaho plan was a 

good plan and should be accepted. 

I said, ‘‘You know, Sally, when you were head of REI, if your 

marketing department and your economy department were butting 

heads over an issue, you, as the CEO would step in and resolve 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
6 

that.’’ I said, ‘‘You need to do this here. If BLM can trump U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, why do we have a U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service? We may as well just have one department.’’ 

She liked that logic, and I really thought that we were on the 

way to resolving it. I felt at the beginning things were going well, 

but now we have regressed backwards again and then some other 

things really started to happen. 

Part of my undergraduate degree was in land management, forest management, to be specific. But I did a fair amount in wildlife 

and in range management. I have never heard of a focal area, and 

that was a long time ago that I went to school on those things. So 

I asked around, what’s a focal area? Nobody had ever heard of a 

focal area. 

But that thing was air dropped out of somewhere in one of these 

buildings, one of these great big buildings down here. I do not 

know why it was constructed, but it obviously blew up a lot of 

things. 

In any event, I am frankly disgusted with the way the Federal 

Government has gone about this. I am disgusted with where we 

are right now, and I am very disenchanted with the Department 

of the Interior’s efforts which, I think, have frustrated the states’ 

efforts which have made really good faith, solid efforts to try to do 

what needs to be done for these birds. 

In addition to that, the thing that has always bothered me and 

I have gone over it, is look, certainly there is science involved here, 

but it is not nuclear physics. We keep focusing on grazing, mining, 

transmission lines and everything else, when everyone knows that 

the problem is fire. 

If you have fire and it destroys the expanses of bold, mature sage 

grouse that we have, the sage grouse is going to have a problem. 

Yet everything we argue about is around fire and really is not focusing on what can we do to prevent fires in these very, very critical areas. 

I am hoping as we have this hearing that we will again refocus 

on what is the real problem for the sage grouse. With that, I have 

talked long enough. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to introduce our witness when we go to it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Would any other Senators like to make an 

opening statement or introduction? 

Senator Lee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator LEE. I would just like to chime in and express how proud 

I am of my state. My state has been a real leader in finding ways 

to balance the need to protect the sage grouse and at the same 

time allow for economic activity. 

I am proud to have the chance to introduce someone who has 

been at the center of that, Kathleen Clarke, who serves as the Director of Utah’s Public Lands Coordinating Office which is part of 

the Governor’s Office. 

Having worked in the Governor’s Office during Governor Herbert’s predecessor’s time in office, Governor Huntsman, I am familiar with the important role that is played by that office, and I am 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
7 

very proud to have Kathleen Clarke representing our state. She is 

someone who understands the competing needs and the need to orchestrate and harmonize the competing needs we have relative to 

our federal public lands. 

Prior to her time in her current job she served as the Director 

of the Bureau of Land Management from 2001 until 2006, so I 

think Kathleen Clarke’s unique experience as both a state official 

and a federal official uniquely qualifies her to be a witness in front 

of our Committee, and I am proud to introduce her today as a witness. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

If there are no other opening statements, it is now time to hear 

from our witnesses and we will start with Mr. Jim Lyons, who is 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals of the Bureau of Land Management. 

Welcome, Mr. Lyons, we appreciate you being here. 

STATEMENT OF JIM LYONS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members 

of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you 

today about our efforts in the Bureau of Land Management to develop our sage grouse land use plans. 

On September 22nd, 2015, Secretary Jewell announced the Fish 

and Wildlife Service had determined that in fact the greater sage 

grouse didn’t warrant protection under the Endangered Species 

Act. That outcome was the result of an unprecedented effort to conserve the species and its habitat across its remaining range by federal agencies, state agencies and other partners. Secretary Jewell 

referred to the effort that we undertook as epic collaboration to reflect the working relationship among all parties. 

Three elements of the strategy were key: strong federal plans, 

strong state and private land conservation, and, a new and integrated rangeland fire strategy to address the issues raised by Senator Risch. 

BLM manages about 50 percent of the remaining greater sage 

grouse habitat, the Forest Service about eight percent and the remainder is in state and private management. So planning efforts 

on public lands are an essential element in developing the conservation that was necessary to achieve that ‘‘not warranted’’ determination. 

I want to point out, however, that in 2008 Wyoming actually led 

the way in developing sage grouse conservation efforts through the 

development of the Sage Grouse Executive Order by Governor 

Freudenthal at the time which has been carried forward by Governor Mead. They continue to, I think, provide leadership in the development of a strategy that’s based on the identification and protection of what they call core areas. 

It was in late 2011 that Governor Mead, Governor Hickenlooper 

and Secretary Salazar convened a meeting of colleagues in the 

Western states and federal agencies and put together what’s known 

as the Sage Grouse Task Force, and that’s really been the conVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:38 Feb 17, 2018 Jkt 021994 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A994.XXX A994

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
8 

vening body that’s coordinated much of the work that has gone 

forth over the past five years. 

The BLM strategy was built on a foundation of sound science, developed by the states, federal agencies and academicians. I think 

most critical was the development of what’s known as the Conservation of Objectives Team (COT) Report which was called for by 

the Sage Grouse Task Force, put together by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and really provided a solid science-based and peer-reviewed foundation for sage grouse plans. 

The direction given to the sage grouse, excuse me, to the COT 

was to address the ‘‘unmet need for an action plan to ensure a viable sage grouse population in the West and preclude the listing of 

the species.’’ The COT was composed of ten sage grouse experts 

from the states, including a former colleague of Kathleen and mine, 

John Harger, from Utah and five individuals from the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The COT delivered their report in February 2013 

and really, that report provided the blueprint for conservation 

strategy that was used to build the BLM and Forest Service plans. 

Working from lands that were identified by the states through 

this COT effort, originally identified as PACs, or Priority Areas for 

Conservation, the plans were developed to address identified 

threats to the greater sage grouse, to avoid and minimize further 

degradation of priority habitat in those PACs and to restore degraded habitat areas. 

The goal was to work with the states to provide the regulatory 

certainty the Fish and Wildlife Service needed to achieve the ‘‘not 

warranted’’ decision that they made. In this regard, the plans were 

built upon the approaches developed by the states and actually reflect their geography, the nature of the risks that affected each of 

the states and the economic issues of concern to the states. 

As a result, the plans are not one-size-fits-all as they have been 

characterized but actually very different in their construction and 

their approach. We have the core area strategy in Wyoming. We 

have three different types of habitat designations in Idaho, not unlike the three types of roadless areas that were identified through 

the plan that you led, Senator Risch. We have the all lands all 

threats approach that was developed in Oregon. And Nevada developed its credit system from mitigating the impacts associated with 

greater sage grouse. So, each strategy was somewhat different but 

incorporated the basic objective of avoiding and minimizing impacts 

in priority habitat areas and protecting and restoring habitat 

where possible. 

This was the foundation for developing the plans, but I want to 

emphasize the unprecedented collaboration that continues into implementation. Recently the Sage Grouse Task Force renewed its 

charter to continue its collaborative efforts. Through the Sage 

Grouse Task Force, the states are providing input on policy guidance to implement the BLM and Forest Service plans. We’ve gone 

through an extensive process of review and discussion, some debate, but I acknowledge that has delayed the release of some of the 

guidance, but I think it’s improved the product and will certainly 

improve its implementation. 

During this past April, stakeholder meetings in each of the sage 

grouse states were convened to discuss the plans, current thinking 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
9 

about policy directions, listened to feedback and recommendations 

from all interested parties to help us move forward and to encourage further engagement in implementing the plans. We continue to 

work with the states to develop principles to guide mitigation 

which will be managed by each state in ways that offset habitat 

impacts and seek to optimize greater sage grouse benefits. 

State and federal agencies are working to identify targeted opportunities to protect sage grouse landscapes and restore those 

areas that have been impacted by fire through something called the 

Conservation/Restoration Strategy. A new MOU has been signed 

between the BLM, the Forest Service and NRCS which will be implemented through the Intermountain Joint Venture that will further the collaboration between ranchers, private landowners, permittees and other stakeholders on the ground and the integrated 

rangeland fire strategy, which I want to acknowledge was really 

the brainchild of Governor Otter, who, as Senator Risch pointed 

out, highlighted the importance of fire as a threat to the sage 

grouse in the Great Basin. His comments at a WGA meeting 

caught the Secretary’s attention and that led to the creation of a 

Secretarial Order and the rapid development of an integrated 

rangeland fire strategy plan which we are implementing with the 

states. And I want to thank the Committee and the members in 

general for their support of the resources we need to implement 

that plan. It’s been very effective. 

Through this collaborative approach to implementation, the plans 

will not only benefit the greater sage grouse, but we believe, will 

help to preserve the West’s heritage of ranching and outdoor recreation, protect hundreds of wildlife species, including elk and 

pronghorn and mule deer, who also rely on sage grouse. We hope 

to avoid the need to list other species of concern in the sage brush 

ecosystem, which is widely acknowledged as the most endangered 

ecosystem in North America, and balance conservation objectives 

and development goals. The plan seeks to conserve the most important sage grouse habitat while still providing access to key resources. One example, the vast majority of areas with high potential for oil and gas and renewable energy development, are outside 

of priority sage grouse habitat areas. Most importantly, the plans 

recognize that a healthy economy and a healthy ecosystem are inextricably linked. 

So I wanted to close by emphasizing that strong federal plans are 

one critical component but so too is the continued collaboration and 

coordination with the states, in particular, working to achieve outcomes on state and private lands. Effective conservation measures 

have been framed. Now it’s our job to implement them in a similar, 

collaborative and coordinated fashion. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear today, and I 

look forward to the comments of my colleagues and the discussion 

to follow. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
10 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 here 21994A.001
11 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 here 21994A.002
12 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 here 21994A.003
13 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 here 21994A.004
14 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 here 21994A.005
15 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 here 21994A.006
16 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 here 21994A.007
17 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 here 21994A.008
18 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 here 21994A.009
19 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 here 21994A.010
20 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Lyons. 

Next is Mr. Robert Harper, who is the Director of Water, Fish, 

Wildlife, Air and Rare Plants at the U.S. Forest Service. 

Thank you for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT HARPER, DIRECTOR, WATER, FISH, 

WILDLIFE, AIR & RARE PLANTS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. HARPER. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Wyden and 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

discuss USDA’s efforts to work with states, stakeholders on the implementation of amendments to the Forest Service land use plans 

for sage grouse conservation. I’m pleased to serve as the witness 

today and share Forest Service efforts to implement the amendments. 

The design and implementation of sage grouse conservation 

amendments represents a remarkable effort to develop and implement a landscape-scale, science-based and collaborative strategy to 

conserve the greater sage grouse in the sage brush ecosystem. 

We recognize sage brush landscapes of the interior West are valued and used by people with long and deep connection to the land 

and that our actions may affect many people. The amendments and 

their implementation are strengthened by the contributions of local 

partners and their expertise. Evidence of our work here is reflected 

in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s September 2015 decision that the 

greater sage grouse was not warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

We are deeply engaged with state and federal working groups at 

multiple levels and my colleague, Jim Lyons, mentioned a number 

of these. Agency leaders serve on the Sage Grouse Task Force, me. 

The Sage Grouse Task Force is comprised of governors’ representatives and federal executives who have worked together for several 

years and through the development of federal plans and have committed to continue our work to implement the plans. 

We’re contributing to the coordination of multiple state mitigation frameworks, and we’re engaged with state-specific sage grouse 

working groups. We’re developing implementation protocols, and 

we’ve shared our draft protocols with states and federal partners 

seeking their insights and feedback. And we have posted the protocols on a publicly available website. We are coordinating closely 

with other agencies. For example, we’ve developed an MOU with 

the State of Nevada and the BLM to cooperate on the use of Nevada’s conservation credit mitigation system. And we’re developing 

MOUs with the states of Utah and Wyoming to formalize frameworks necessary to formulize adaptive management and monitoring 

strategies. At the local level we’re working with livestock producers 

and states to assess range land conditions and identify if and 

where changes to allotment management for sage grouse conservation may be required. We’re also working with states and livestock 

producers to formulate on site monitoring and adaptive management frameworks. 

USDA continues to be instrumental in coordinating sage grouse 

conservation. Forest Service actions are enhanced by our work 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
21 

through our sister agency, the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, and we’re part of an over $200 million investment in sage 

grouse conservation through Fiscal Year 2018. 

We’ve entered into an MOU with the NRCS and BLM to provide 

a collaborative framework to conserve sage grouse in the sage 

brush ecosystem. We continue to work together to implement specific actions such as removing conifers, preventing the spread of 

invasive weeds and reducing the risk of wildfire. 

And finally, if I could leave two messages with the Committee it 

would be this: that the plans were collaboratively developed and 

their implementation is and will continue to be informed by contributions from local partners; and two, the rising cost of wildfire 

at the Forest Service continues to reduce the resources we have to 

implement non-fire related conservation work, including the implementation of these plans. We very much appreciate the support of 

the Subcommittee to find a fix to the Forest Service fire funding 

issue. 

With that, I thank the Committee for your support and I will be 

happy to answer any questions when the time is appropriate. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harper follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
22 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 here 21994A.011
23 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 here 21994A.012
24 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 here 21994A.013
25 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 here 21994A.014
26 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 here 21994A.015
27 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 here 21994A.016
28 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 here 21994A.017
29 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Harper. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Kathleen Clarke, Director of the 

Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office for the State of Utah. 

Thanks for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC 

LANDS POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE, STATE OF UTAH 

Ms. CLARKE. Chairman Barrasso and members of the Committee, 

it is a privilege for me to testify before you today on matters relating to the sage grouse conservation and implementation of federal 

sage grouse conservation plans. 

As was mentioned, I currently represent the State of Utah and 

serve in the position of Director of the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office. I was also asked by the Governor to be the state’s 

representative on the task force that has been referenced. 

In these positions I do oversee the implementation of Utah’s sage 

grouse conservation plan, and I oversee coordination with the federal agencies on the implementation of their plan. 

The sage grouse population in Utah makes up only about seven 

percent of the total national population. We have 7.5 million acres 

of habitat, and about half of that is owned by the Federal Government. 

Utah got on this problem years before it was—they were approached by Secretary Salazar or even by his predecessor. We have 

nearly 20 years of research and data that’s been accumulated by 

graduate students who have been digging into this problem for 

years, and that work was done based on the foresight of our division of wildlife resources and that actually started when I was directing the Utah Department of Natural Resources. Since 2006 the state has invested over $50 million into sage 

grouse management and research. We have protected 25,000 acres 

of habitat and increased sage grouse populations by 50 percent 

since 2013. 

The greatest threats to sage grouse in Utah are fire, cheat grass 

and the encroachment of Pinyon-Juniper trees into the sage grouse 

habitat. We have found that as we prevent and manage fire and 

restore sage brush habitat by removing excess trees, we actually 

can increase sage grouse populations. 

I just want to highlight a few of the issues and frustrations we 

have been dealing with our federal partners regarding the federal 

plans. 

I remain very concerned that one-size-fits-all national standards 

are being imposed to manage sage grouse in Utah. For example, 

the Forest Service is looking to implement grass heights, stubble 

height standards for livestock that are based on conditions in Idaho 

and Oregon, but they’re wholly unrealistic for Utah. Critical sage 

grouse conservation areas in the Southern part of Utah have likely 

never seen the seven inches that the Forest Service is looking for 

and they likely never will. Imposition of an unachievable grass 

height standard will result in the eventual elimination of graze 

stock or of livestock grazing in the area which could lead one to believe that, in fact, that is the desired outcome of the federal plan. 

In Utah alone, $2.5 billion a year comes from economic activities 

in sage grouse habitat. And under these federal plans, oil and gas 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
30 

development is being severely restricted, if not totally banned, depending on the designation or the classification of habitats the Federal Government imposes. Last year alone there were over 480,000 

acres of oil and gas leases, lease requests that were deferred by 

federal agencies due to sage grouse conservation. 

And my third point is that the feds are suffering from woeful inertia in dealing with their own plans. The federal officials in our 

state have been waiting for months for that Washington knows 

best implementation guidance. And as I have suggested, sage 

grouse conservation action needs to be the result of bottom/up processes that involves many partners and that is informed by the best 

available science for that particular locale. 

All too often while working with federal managers we have been 

told that sage grouse-related decisions are all on hold until its direction comes from the DC brain trust. What a waste of time and 

opportunity. 

In summary and drawing on 35 years of experience dealing with 

public land issues, I recommend just a few changes that, I believe, 

could help. 

First, I recommend the BLM follow the state sage grouse plan. 

It is working, and it will continue to work. It is an all lands plan, 

and we invite the Federal Government to fully participate. 

Second, we need less Washington, DC, interference in plan implementation. Local BLM and Forest Service officials are competent, they are very capable and we have worked closely with 

them in refining our shared understanding and knowledge about 

the sage grouse and in undertaking habitat restoration projects 

and habitat protection projects. These partners stand by our side 

regularly and they are essential to the successes that we have enjoyed. 

I urge the BLM and the Director of the BLM and the Chief of 

the Forest Service and their respective Cabinet Secretaries to step 

back and allow local federal officials to do their jobs without the 

nagging requisite of constantly seeking permission from the mother 

ship in DC before making decisions or taking action. 

And finally, we hope that the federal agencies will adopt the 

compensatory mitigation measures that are being developed in the 

states. 

Again, we feel like a one-size-fits-all standard would be inappropriate and very unhelpful. Our legislature directed the development of such a plan, and we are asking that the federal agencies 

adopt that. 

Let me assure you that the State of Utah will continue to protect, conserve and create sage grouse habitat regardless of the federal plan. We are confident that our plan addresses the real threats 

to conservation of the sage grouse in Utah rather than the federal 

plan that seems more focused on limiting access to federal lands 

than on species conservation. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
31 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 21994A.018
32 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 21994A.019
33 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 21994A.020
34 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 21994A.021
35 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Ms. Clarke. We appreciate you being here to testify. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Catherine Macdonald, who is the Oregon Director of the Conservation Programs of The Nature Conservancy. 

Thanks for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE MACDONALD, OREGON DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

Ms. MACDONALD. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, members of 

the Subcommittee. It’s an honor to have the opportunity to talk to 

you and testify about the federal agency’s efforts to implement the 

greater sage grouse land use plan amendments. 

I serve as the Oregon Director of Conservation Programs, and 

over the past six years I have worked closely with our federal agencies as well as state agencies and a wide variety of stakeholders 

to develop an all-lands-all-threats approach to greater sage grouse 

conservation in Oregon. 

The Nature Conservancy has over 60 years of experience working 

with private landowners and government agencies across the nation and across the world. Our mission is to conserve the lands and 

waters upon which all life depends and our efforts are grounded in 

science and collaboration. We work to find solutions that are good 

for nature and support healthy economies. Stabilizing and increasing sage grouse populations is a priority for The Nature Conservancy. 

We are witnessing a tremendous loss of native sage brush habitat across the West. Conserving habitat for sage grouse will benefit 

over 350 other species of conservation concern and healthy habitat 

for sage grouse also produces good range land for ranchers. 

Conservancy scientists and practitioners are conducting research 

and helping private and public landowners protect and restore 

greater sage grouse habitat across the West. In Oregon, for example, we are advancing research in partnership with the agricultural 

research station in Burns. We are working with a commercial, 

Italian pasta maker and a little ingenuity and problem solving with 

the scientists at that research station to try and improve restoration success of sage grouse habitat after wildfire. 

In addition, we helped to design a decision support tool to enable 

us to identify where the most important investments can be made 

to benefit sage grouse, and we’ve been providing technical assistance to ranchers who are interested in signing up for conservation 

agreements with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The work of many over the past six years really resulted in an 

historic accomplishment. The federal agencies should be commended for the land use plan amendments they developed. The 

plan amendments applied sound science and provide a cohesive 

strategy for addressing threats across the range of the species. 

They were an essential ingredient to the 2015 decision that the 

greater sage grouse did not warrant listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. That was a high bar to reach. 

In Oregon, the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
36 

have been valuable partners and great problem solvers. In 2010 

they began working proactively with the state. Over the course of 

the next five years they continuously engaged over 60 stakeholders, 

representatives from local governments, the Oregon Cattlemen’s 

Association, energy companies, conservation organizations, state 

agencies and our congressional delegation. Our delegation’s leadership and staff participation in this effort was greatly appreciated. 

Collectively, we discussed challenges, developed coordinated solutions and these helped inform both the federal plans and our state 

action plan. 

In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land 

Management worked with the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and 

eight Oregon counties to develop candidate conservation agreements. These provide options, guidance and critical assurances for 

ranchers with sage grouse habitat. This kind of collaboration continues today. For example, the federal agencies are working closely 

with our state and local government to develop joint implementation methodologies for determining disturbance levels. In response 

to the threat of wildfire, the Bureau of Land Management is working closely with range land fire protection associations to coordinate wildfire response in priority habitat. And after the massive 

Soda fire that burned more than 400 square miles in Oregon and 

Idaho, the Federal Government provided funding for restoration efforts on private lands. These examples of collaboration give us optimism that we will be able to collectively resolve challenges in the 

future. 

The Nature Conservancy remains concerned about legislative attempts to stall, delay or limit federal agencies’ authority to implement their greater sage grouse resource management plan amendments. 

Greater sage grouse populations have declined by more than 97 

percent over historic counts. Given that the BLM and the Forest 

Service manage nearly two-thirds of the remaining sage grouse 

habitat, the federal plan amendments are a critical part of an effort 

to restore and conserve sage grouse. Delaying or suspending the 

plan amendments will distract us from the most important thing/ 

task at hand and that is making significant progress implementing 

actions to stabilize and rebuild sage grouse populations. 

The federal agencies need the authority and funding to act. Oregon is counting on our federal partners. We need our federal partners to implement their plans in Oregon and across the West to 

avoid the need to list the species in five years. 

We urge Congress to give federal agencies support and the resources they need to collaborate with states and public land stakeholders to implement their plans. The federal agencies have already conducted public meetings across the West to get input on 

next steps. We hope that this engagement will continue and that 

all stakeholders will make a strong commitment to collaboration. 

With so much at stake, now is the time for us to focus on effective 

implementation. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Macdonald follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
37 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 21994A.022
38 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 21994A.023
39 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 21994A.024
40 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 21994A.025
41 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 21994A.026
42 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Ms. Macdonald. 

Senator Risch, could I ask you to please introduce our next 

guest? 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It is my honor and privilege to introduce to the Committee and 

welcome her to the Committee, Brenda Richards. 

Brenda has a higher calling than any of us. She is actually a 

county-elected official in Owyhee County, Idaho. She serves as the 

County Treasurer. 

More importantly than that, she is actively involved in this issue 

and many other issues having to do with the public lands. She and 

her husband, Tony, are fourth generation ranchers in Owyhee 

County, larger than some states in this United States. They operate in both Idaho and Nevada. 

She has served as on the Board of Directors of both Idaho and 

Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, and she has served as the Federal 

Lands Chair for the Idaho Cattlemen’s Association for five years. 

She worked with Senator Crapo very closely on the development of 

the Owyhee Initiative, and she has worked over 14 years on that 

and is in her fourth term as Chairman of the Board of Directors 

of that organization. 

Although her degree is in accounting, she knows a lot more about 

sage grouse than a lot of PhDs who study this, because she is right 

out in the middle of it. 

Ms. Macdonald, you talked about the Soda fire. That is ground 

zero for Brenda’s ranch, and they have been greatly affected by the 

catastrophe that was the Soda fire. 

With that, we welcome Brenda and appreciate hearing her 

thoughts which may run slightly contrary to some of the views that 

our agency friends have. 

Thank you so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Richards, thank you for being here with 

the Committee. We welcome your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BRENDA RICHARDS, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC 

LANDS COUNCIL, AND RANCHER, OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO 

Ms. RICHARDS. Thank you, Senator Risch, for that kind introduction. 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Wyden and members of 

the Committee, my name is Brenda Richards and I am the President of the Public Lands Council. As stated, my husband, Tony, 

and I run a cow/calf operation in Reynolds Creek, Idaho, which is 

in Owyhee County. 

The Public Lands Council is the only national organization that 

is dedicated solely to representing roughly 22,000 ranchers who 

graze in steward over 250 million acres of federal land while owning 140 million acres of adjacent private land. The businesses we 

operate form the economic nucleus of many rural communities, providing jobs and opportunity where it wouldn’t otherwise exist. 

Additionally, ranchers often serve as first responders in emergency situations across vast remote stretches of unoccupied federal 

lands. And simply put, public lands ranchers are an essential element of strong communities, healthy economies and productive 

range lands across the West. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
43 

Owyhee County is approximately 78 percent public land. Our terrain is high desert, and we have some of the best sage grouse habitat in the West. Owyhee County is in the heart of sage grouse habitat. 

Like much of the rural West, ranching drives our economy and 

it has for more than 100 years resulting in healthy, productive 

range lands that are as critical to the people of Owyhee County as 

the air we breathe or the water we drink. 

Ranchers are an essential component of any successful species 

conservation effort. Recognizing the integral role we play as land 

managers and the rising concerns about the sage grouse populations, Owyhee County established a sage grouse local working 

group in 1995. This local working group developed and implemented the Owyhee County’s Sage Grouse Local Working Group 

Plan by 2000, and it’s an effective conservation plan for the sage 

grouse. 

Over the years we have met and overcome numerous challenges 

all through cooperation and coordination at the local level. Whenever the Department of Interior moved the goal posts on us, our 

working group responded, amending our plan to ensure that it remained viable and effective as a conservation effort ensuring the on 

the ground successes were still being achieved by local ranchers, 

land owners, state agencies and the local working group and that 

they would continue. This working group is still active today. 

The results of voluntary local conservation efforts like this are all 

around the West, and they are undeniably a great part of the habitat that’s being preserved and how the species is responding. According to the latest data from the August 2015 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency’s report, the population has increased by 63 percent on the sage grouse over the past two years 

alone. 

So to be blunt, the BLM’s top/down approach of forcing a onesize-fits-all, or the landscape-scale management of sage grouse conservation efforts through the plan amendments that were finalized 

last year, risk undoing over 20 years of effective collaboration between local stakeholders. Time and time again the BLM has touted 

their collaboration with the local working groups and the state 

partners in newsletters, press releases and sage grouse meetings, 

but unfortunately, the land use plans that have emerged reflect 

none of that effort. 

Rather than embracing grazing as a tool for conservation benefits, these plan amendments impose arbitrary restrictions that 

seem to satisfy requirements from newly minted objectives such as 

focal areas and net conservation benefit. Perhaps because we were 

so easily regulated and utilized such a large area, many of these 

restrictions and limitations are aimed directly at grazing, totally ignoring the fact that proper grazing is not classified as a threat. 

Wildfire, invasive species and infrastructure are the major threats, 

all of which are most effectively managed through grazing as a 

tool. 

To arbitrarily restrict grazing when it’s needed is a recipe for 

failure. It is also critical to note that restrictions on federal grazing 

permits will absolutely impact adjacent private grazing land where 

as much as 80 percent of the productive sage grouse habitat exists. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
44 

The livestock industry has filed detailed comments on these 

plans at each stage in the process. While they are too numerous 

to go over here, these plans fail in a variety of important areas. 

Again, primary threats to the greater sage grouse are wildfire 

and invasive annuals like cheat grass and require active management through tools like grazing, not arbitrary objectives such as 

those in the habitat objectives tables, 2–2, found throughout the 

plans. 

Since the online newspaper, Greenwire, leaked the BLM’s instructional memorandum draft several months ago, our industry 

has repeatedly requested that BLM engage us in the finalization 

of this guidance. Repeatedly those requests have been denied. 

To date our only reference for what this guidance might look like 

comes from the leaked documents found online. We have been told 

we will get to see the documents once they are completed and 

ready for implementation, but we feel that is well past the point 

where we, as critical, on-the-ground partners, can offer any constructive input to the process. 

In conclusion, this lack of collaboration, the misplaced focus on 

reducing grazing and disregard for ongoing local management is 

precisely the reason these plans must be thrown out. Local input 

and decades of successful collaborative conservation efforts must be 

the starting point for federal involvement not an afterthought. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear and welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Richards follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
45 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 21994A.027
46 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 21994A.028
47 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 21994A.029
48 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 21994A.030
49 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 21994A.031
50 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you, Ms. Richards. We appreciate 

your testimony. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Katie Sweeney, who is the Senior 

Vice President and General Counsel of the National Mining Association. 

Thanks for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF KATIE SWEENEY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & 

GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION 

Ms. SWEENEY. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, other members of the Subcommittee. My name is Katie Sweeney. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Mining Association (NMA) about the impacts of the BLM and Forest Service land 

use plans related to sage grouse conservation. 

I want to emphasize that NMA shares the concerns of other panelists regarding the onerous restrictions imposed by the land use 

plans; however, today I will focus my testimony on an outgrowth 

of the plans that uniquely impacts the mining industry. 

As a consequence of the final land use plans, the Interior Department is proposing to withdraw ten million acres of sage grouse 

habitat from new mining operations, the largest land withdrawal 

in the history of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 

This is particularly troubling given that mineral development is already either restricted or banned on more than half of all federallyowned lands. 

The agencies assert that the mineral withdrawal is necessary to 

conserve the sage grouse but then attempts to downplay the impacts of the withdrawal by claiming that the lands involved are not 

highly prospective for miners. 

But existing USGS and state data that was submitted during the 

scoping period rebut this assertion, and one of the best indicators 

of mineral potential in any given area are the presence of existing 

mining claims. Yet BLM and Forest Service never quantified the 

number of existing mine claims in the area recommended for withdrawal, nor did BLM attempt to do so in the scoping process. 

NMA’s research, that’s attached to my testimony, identified nearly 6,000 existing mining claims in the ten-million-acre withdrawal 

area. The maps which I’m going to bring up on the screen, not only 

show that these areas are likely to be highly prospective for minerals, but the quantification of the footprint of mining activities in 

the proposed withdrawal area calls into question a necessity of the 

entire withdrawal. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
51 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 21994A.032
52 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 21994A.033
53 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 21994A.034
54 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 21994A.035
55 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 21994A.036
56 

The maps displayed show the overlap of each—of existing mining 

claims and the proposed withdrawal area in each of the affected 

states. We identified the number of existing mining claims in the 

proposed withdrawal area, the total acreage of those claims and the 

percentage of the proposed withdrawal area impacted by the existing mining claims, and I think the results are pretty telling. 

These are in alphabetical order, not order of importance. I know 

that there are many Committee members who have—who represent these states. 

In Idaho. So, you can see the overlap, the green and then the red 

and blue dots are the mining claims. We are looking at less than 

one percent of the nearly four million acres withdrawn are impacted by existing claims. 

Hold on. Uh oh, sorry. We’ll go to Montana, I promise. I can find 

it. There we go. In Montana, it’s less than two percent of the nearly 

one million acres withdrawn. In Nevada, it’s less than three percent of the nearly three million acres withdrawn. In Oregon, it’s 

less than one percent of the nearly two million acres withdrawn. 

In Utah, it’s less than one percent of the more than 230 thousand 

acres withdrawn. And in Wyoming, it’s less than three percent of 

the more than 250,000 acres withdrawn. So in total the existing 

mining claims impact only about one percent of the ten-million-acre 

area. How can a ten-million-acre withdrawal be justified by an activity with this small of an existing footprint? 

For comparison sake, in 2015, and I think this is the wildfire everybody else was mentioning, that wildfire eliminated 200,000 

acres of BLM sage grouse habitat. The footprint of mining in the 

withdrawal area barely registers compared to the impact of a single, large wildfire. 

The withdrawal will do very little to protect the sage grouse or 

its habitat as mining activities are not a major threat. And as others have said, government reports prepared in conjunction with the 

land use plans confirm this fact as they uniformly conclude wildfire 

and invasive species are the greatest threats. Data compiled by the 

U.S. Geological Survey clearly show that habitat loss due to mining, range wide, are minor totaling only about 3.6 percent and can 

be mitigated with appropriate project specific conservation measures. 

The proposed withdrawal also ignores the role that mining companies played in improved habitat for sage grouse with voluntary 

conservation efforts and well-designed reclamation, mining activities regularly result in higher value habitat than if the same lands 

were left unmanaged. The impacts of the withdrawal reach far beyond mining. 

Our domestic mining industry serves as the front end of the supply chain for the minerals and materials vital to the success of our 

health care, transportation, communication, national defense and 

countless other industries. Further limiting access to domestic minerals is detrimental. In the last two decades the United States’ dependence on mineral imports has doubled, and today less than half 

of the minerals American manufacturers need are sourced domestically. 

In summary, the proposed withdrawal is simply bad public policy 

that comes with a high price tag for U.S. mining and the vast secVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:38 Feb 17, 2018 Jkt 021994 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A994.XXX A994

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
57 

tors of our economy that depend upon a reliable and secure supply 

chain of minerals and metals. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sweeney follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
58 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 21994A.037
59 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 21994A.038
60 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 21994A.039
61 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 21994A.040
62 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 21994A.041
63 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 21994A.042
64 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 21994A.043
65 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 21994A.044
66 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 21994A.045
67 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 21994A.046
68 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 21994A.047
69 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 21994A.048
70 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 21994A.049
71 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 21994A.050
72 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much to each and every 

one of you. We are going to have some questions for members of 

the panel. 

We will start with Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to all of you for being here. This is an important topic. 

It is an especially important topic to those of us from the Western 

United States who have to live with the consequences of this issue. 

As I mentioned earlier, and as Ms. Clarke mentioned at length 

in her testimony, Utah has done an extraordinary job at managing 

these competing interests, at balancing the need to protect the sage 

grouse while at the same time maintaining an environment in 

which our economy can grow and where economic activity can occur 

in a responsible fashion. 

I am worried though. I am worried that Utah’s federal partners 

have been showing a pronounced propensity to ignore suggestions 

made by the state. When this happens trust between the state and 

its citizens on the one hand and the Federal Government and its 

agencies and its regulators on the other hand, tends to erode. 

When that trust tends to erode, it becomes far more difficult for us 

to achieve what we want to achieve; it becomes far more difficult 

for us to protect the bird; and, it becomes far more difficult for us 

to accomplish all the things, all the goals, the aspirations, that we 

have in common. 

On May 29th, 2015, just over a year ago, the BLM and the Forest Service released their proposed land use plan amendments. 

Utah seized on this opportunity and submitted a substantial comment making many dozens of suggestions about how best to manage the sage grouse in Utah. Utahans know well how to deal with 

this, within our own state. After all, Utahans have to live with the 

consequences of any efforts in those areas. 

In light of that, Mr. Lyons, I would like to ask you a question. 

Do you know how many of those suggestions, the suggestions that 

were submitted by the State of Utah, were adopted in the September 9th, 2015, final record of decision? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, Senator, I think I’d make two points. One is I 

would have to go back and I would have to talk with the state officials and others with regard to the nature of the requests for 

changes in the plans and how they responded. And I would also 

point out that many changes were made in the plans in collaboration with the state before those final drafts were issued. 

So I want to make clear that many issues were resolved before 

we got to that point. There may have been other issues that were 

raised in the consistency review which is what, I assume, you’re referring to, but I’d have to check with staff to see what changes 

were made both before and subsequent to the consistency review. 

Senator LEE. Okay. 

[The information requested was not provided as of the date of 

printing.] 

Senator LEE. I am going to ask Ms. Clarke, to get her perspective 

on this and on the point that you made in a moment. 

My understanding is that your answer to that question could be 

very simple. It is zero, none, not one of them, not one of the suggestions made by the State of Utah submitted to the Federal GovernVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:38 Feb 17, 2018 Jkt 021994 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A994.XXX A994

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
73 

ment were followed, not a single one of them. This is incredibly 

frustrating. 

I would like to think that my state has earned a seat at the 

table, not only because it is affected by this in a way that most 

states are not, but also because my state has spent upwards of $50 

million trying to figure out how to protect the sage grouse. That is 

a lot of money for a small, not terribly wealthy state in the Rocky 

Mountains. And they have spent this just studying the sage grouse 

and trying to get this right. 

It is not as though we have just thrown that money out there 

just to spend it. It is not as though we have wasted it. These efforts 

have had a pretty good effect. The sage grouse population in Utah 

has, as I understand it, increased by over 50 percent just since 

2013. To have every single one of Utah’s land use plan suggestions 

categorically rejected and not incorporated makes your agencies appear aloof and unresponsive, unconcerned about the dynamic of the 

state/federal partnership. 

The state/federal partnership, this is a dynamic that I am constantly told exists between federal land use managers on the one 

hand and state and local officials on the other hand. Yet curiously, 

at least within my own state, I hear that only from the federal officials. I never hear the state officers describe it that way because 

more often than a partnership it is much more of a dictatorial relationship. 

So, Ms. Clarke, I would like to ask you had the BLM and had 

the Forest Service adopted at least some of Utah’s land use amendment suggestions, what effect would those changes have made on 

the State of Utah and on the State of Utah’s ability to protect the 

bird? 

Ms. CLARKE. Utah’s plan and our many recommendations to the 

Federal Government were based on a directive that we had as we 

adopted the plan and that was to make sure we were taking good 

care of the bird, conserve the bird, but also protect economic opportunity. That wasn’t an easy balancing act, but we did a remarkable 

job with it. 

One thing we did is identify 11 separate areas where we created 

individual plans focused on the local threat. We have used incredibly good science as we go through this. We think we could have 

held on to that balance and wouldn’t have had to say no to many 

things had we been able to really have some of our recommendations accepted. 

One other thing is had they been accepted Utah probably 

wouldn’t be in litigation with the Federal Government over these 

plans right now. 

Senator LEE. What became of those suggestions though while we 

are on that topic? 

Ms. CLARKE. We had a lot of discussion with the Federal Government. They were available to talk. The frustration was we had a 

lot of talk and the Federal Government did what they wanted to 

do. 

Senator LEE. Okay, thank you. I see my time is expired. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

Senator Heinrich. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
74 

Senator HEINRICH. Mr. Lyons, greater sage grouse populations 

have declined from historical highs that have been at times estimated to be as high as possibly 16 million birds to just a few hundred thousand. Irrespective of exact population levels, which clearly fluctuate with precipitation, in particular, this represents an 

enormous and very alarming decline. 

In your opinion, based on the strength of the conservation included in the state plans alone, would the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service have been able to arrive at its decision not to list the greater sage grouse as threatened? In other words, do the state plans 

alone offer the kind of durable and scientifically sound conservation 

requirements to achieve long-term population success and avoid 

listing? 

Mr. LYONS. Well Senator, I don’t know that I can speak for the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. So I will not attempt to—— 

Senator HEINRICH. Let me point out that you are the only Interior federal—— 

Mr. LYONS. Unfortunately I don’t have to—— 

Senator HEINRICH. Yes. 

Mr. LYONS. But I would say that, you know, the challenge we 

faced was building plans in collaboration with the states as we did 

and then providing both the flexibility necessary to respond to local 

conditions and recognize local initiatives, as Kathleen just spoke of, 

but at the same time provide sufficient consistency across the larger landscape such that the threats identified by the COT report 

which again, was authored by a team that included a dominant 

number of state officials, to address those in a way that provided 

sufficient consistency so that the Fish and Wildlife Service felt that 

those threats were adequately addressed. And I think that was the 

challenge that we faced. 

Senator HEINRICH. Speaking of those threats, Mr. Lyons, if you 

listened to the opening comments from some of my colleagues, you 

could be left with the impression that the Department of the Interior has not taken seriously or addressed the deleterious impacts 

that fire has on mature sage brush. 

Would you tell us a little bit about what exactly Department of 

the Interior is doing in that area? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, I’d be glad to, Senator. 

I think, as I indicated in my opening statement, we recognized 

early on the significant threat associated with range land fire. I 

think we recognized as well that past efforts had not adequately 

dealt with that threat. 

And so, Secretary Jewell issued a Secretarial Order, 336, that directed us to develop a strategy for preventing, suppressing and restoring lands impacted by range land fire in short order. I think 

the Executive Order was issued in January. We had preliminary 

recommendations put together to deal with the pending fire season 

by March and a final plan for an integrated strategy put together 

in May. And in my 35 years in government I’ve never seen things 

move that quickly. So I was pleased to see that happen. 

We used that then to initiate efforts, again, in collaboration with 

the states to secure more equipment, to be in position, people in 

areas where we knew there was a high fire risk. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
75 

We worked with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, WAFWA, which is basically the states’ Fish and Game 

directors, to identify areas of high risk to fire as well as those of 

high resistance and resilience so we could better target our efforts. 

We made a significant investment in working with the states in 

helping to train and provide resources for Range Land Fire Protection Associations. Idaho has those. Nevada has those. Oregon has 

a program, as does Nevada. And those individuals become, really, 

the first line of defense in dealing with range land fire. And I think 

it was a very successful effort. We also put money into training veteran crews and added a substantial number of veteran crews to the 

effort. 

So, we took that threat seriously, and fortunately, we were able 

to limit losses last year. I think the Soda fire, though, was a reminder of how significant it is that we get prepared to deal with 

this threat. 

Senator HEINRICH. I am quickly running out of time, so I want 

to get to one more question. Thanks for your answer, Mr. Lyons. 

Ms. Macdonald, I wanted to ask a little bit about the sage grouse 

initiative that is led by NRCS. It has worked with ranchers, farmers and private landowners to voluntarily protect more than four 

million acres of sage grouse habitat. 

Can you just talk a little bit about this on the ground, collaborative work and how it has achieved so much success? 

Ms. MACDONALD. Absolutely, thank you for the opportunity, Senator Heinrich. 

The Sage Grouse Initiative has been amazingly effective. It’s 

done a great job of using science to inform its decision making and 

focus its resources. The Natural Resource Conservation Service 

does a great job working with private landowners, and we’ve been 

pleased to partner with them in the development of some of the 

science that’s been used to target resources. 

They move mighty quickly and they’ve also been able to really 

do things that not only benefit the bird, but also benefit the herd 

and I think that’s part of what have made them so successful. 

May I follow up just on a couple of other points you made? You 

know, in the State of Oregon our final request for changes in the 

Governor’s Consistency Report were also, I think, not taken. But 

our governor, our governor and state, really felt like it was so important to get the consistency across the BLM plans that we were 

comfortable having a little difference between our plan and the 

BLM’s plan. And we are pretty confident that we’re going to be 

able to work a way to get those differences to be more consistent. 

So, while I appreciate the frustration Senator Lee expressed, I 

think that there had been a lot of movement along the way to 

make changes. You can see that reflected in our plan and a lot of 

the other state plans where differences exist. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Montana is a state that has rich natural resources. We say that 

we are a state where we work but we also like to play. As MonVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:38 Feb 17, 2018 Jkt 021994 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A994.XXX A994

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
76 

tanans, I think we understand that balance we need to have where 

we want to have a place we can develop our natural resources. 

We can have a thriving agriculture business. At the same time, 

we want to make sure we protect our environment so we have a 

place to take our kids fishing and hunting and backpacking on the 

weekends. That is who we are as Montanans. 

I am an avid outdoorsman. I love spending time outside when I 

am not here in Washington, DC. We found in Montana that balance, and we struck that with hard work and the encouragement 

of farmers, ranchers, folks in the energy industry, from conservationists to put together a state plan in terms of sage grouse conservation. 

In Montana the sage grouse habitat is predominately occupied by 

private landowners, and 64 percent of the sage grouse habitat in 

Montana is in the hands of the private citizens. 

In Montana we also have a checkerboard land management 

structure, typically by sections, square miles, a section of 40 acres. 

Federal tracts are oftentimes surrounded by state and private 

lands, and these federal requirements can have a significant impact on operations on the adjacent private or state lands. 

I was disappointed, I must say, to see that the plan, put together 

by BLM, rather than complementing what was done with our state 

plans in Montana, there was conflict. I was disappointed to see the 

federal plans largely inconsistent with the state plans in some very 

important areas. Remember, the birds don’t know the difference between a BLM section, a private section or a state section. 

This is just another example of this long list of one-size-fits-none 

directives coming out of this town that do not take into account the 

unique nature of the states and their ability to provide home grown 

solutions. I am a firm believer that the folks closest to the lands 

ought to have the greatest voice in this process. 

Mr. Lyons, after reading Governor Bullock’s consistency review, 

and we have a democratic governor so this is very bipartisan issue 

back home and Governor Bullock’s plan—he listened to input from 

Montanans. Could you explain why it appears that the voices of 

Montanans were not incorporated into the planning process? 

Mr. LYONS. Well Senator, I would suggest that we did try to incorporate the views and concerns of the governor and others in 

Montana in developing the plan, and we will continue to do so 

through implementation. 

I’d point out that the checkerboard ownership pattern that you 

described is an important element here. And for that reason we 

sought to build flexibility into the plans with regard to, in particular, how oil and gas resources were to be developed and reached 

an agreement with the governor’s office in that regard. Montana is 

in a unique situation in that it is transitioning to adopting a strategy, known as the courier strategy, which is essentially what has 

been implemented in Wyoming. 

So, we’re working and we’ll continue to work with the governor’s 

office as that transition occurs, and I think that will provide additional flexibility for the state. 

Senator DAINES. Yes, and in that regard, thank you. 

I recognize, and to the credit of our state BLM office, they fought 

hard for clauses in Montana’s RMP to ensure that flexibility you 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
77 

talked about for the federal plans to be reviewed every two years 

and amended if and when the Montana state plan is proven to be 

‘‘effective.’’ 

I think the land users back home in Montana need more certainty that the BLM will indeed amend its land use plans to reflect 

the successes of local landowners in our state plan. We have been 

undertaking an active sage grouse conservation effort for over ten 

years. The irony here, of course, as you know, is the Montana plan 

is extremely similar to the Wyoming plan which was largely adopted by the BLM in Wyoming and not so in Montana. 

So as I understand it, the BLM is undergoing its guidance documents to implement these plans. How does the Department plan to 

resolve these differences on federal land within these first two 

years? 

Mr. LYONS. I believe what we’ll attempt to do is we’ll implement 

the plan as it’s written now and as the state develops its plan 

based on the courier strategy, we’ll review that plan and then 

amend the existing RMPs accordingly. 

Senator DAINES. Specifically, does the Department plan to revise 

its plans in Montana in 2017? 

Mr. LYONS. I think that’s a function of when the plans are presented by the State of Montana, and it’s a function of the construction of those plans. So, I can’t commit to something I haven’t seen 

nor has been delivered. So I think that’s why we built this transition in recognizing the desire to put in place this courier strategy 

which, I think, would work well for Montana. 

Senator DAINES. A follow up on that. 

They say that if you aim at nothing, you will hit it, in terms of 

clear objectives and targets. 

Could you define what you mean by ‘‘effective’’ and what ‘‘meeting management objectives’’ means so that Montanans have a target to work with? 

Mr. LYONS. Well effective means effective in sustaining the habitat; And the population of the greater sage grouse so as to ensure 

that it does not warrant listing in the future. I think that’s the objective across the range. It’s actually the objective that was created 

by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies over a 

decade ago, and we’ve consistently focused on that as an objective 

in working with the states. 

Senator DAINES. Right. 

I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Macdonald, let me say you were critical of language that is 

attempting to be passed at Congress that throws a bucket of cold 

water on the federal agencies that are involved in this. 

Let me tell you, first of all, you represent, in my judgement, one 

of the most successful conservation organizations in America and 

one that has tremendous respect by myself and this Congress, really. And you do it because you work from the bottom/up and not the 

top/down. 

With all due respect to the other gentlemen here, the Federal 

Government is notorious for doing things just the opposite. So I 

come back to the defense of those of us who are supportive of atVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:38 Feb 17, 2018 Jkt 021994 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A994.XXX A994

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
78 

tempting to handcuff these guys to a degree in dealing with this 

problem. 

We really think the states are doing a good job. In this town, you 

cannot get people to understand this. The states actually can do 

these things. We actually can manage things. We can accomplish 

things and we do. 

In our defense, we had to do this with wolves. Idaho had gotten 

rid of its wolves for a long, long time. None of us wanted wolves 

back. But the wolf, like the bird, is a magnificent animal. We have 

them now, even though we did not want them. 

But we just couldn’t. It was like the tar baby. We just could not 

get away from the Federal Government. So we finally passed a law 

and said, Federal Government, you are out of this business. We are 

going to do it, and we are still trying to get a handle on it. In Idaho 

and in a lot of places you can get five tags because we have still 

got to thin what we’ve got, but we have been successful in doing 

that. 

I would not worry too much about this. I think we are going to 

keep a close angle on this and see that this bird is—gets to the 

point where it has a sustainable future in front of it. But we think 

the states can do it. If those that worship at the altar of the Federal Government, they will not like this, but we think at the state 

level we can probably do that. 

But anyway, thank you for your consideration. We will just have 

to respectfully disagree on that particular point, but we have the 

same objective. There is not anybody that wants to see anything 

but the best for this bird. 

Let me say that and just in closing on that. What that should 

represent, and it doesn’t always, but what it should represent is 

just a depth of lack of confidence that we, who represent states 

here, have in some of the things that the Federal Government tries 

to do and this is certainly one of them. 

To my friends from the Forest Service and the BLM, it should 

be loud and clear that the top/down approach just simply is not appreciated. We really think and you have heard other people say 

here that the bottom/up approach will work substantially better. 

The other thing that I would stress, and my colleague from New 

Mexico, I think, stressed this, is look, let me tell you what this is 

all about when it comes to the sage grouse. Fire, fire and fire. 

The human activities that are being used as an excuse to regulate, as was pointed out by Ms. Sweeney, I mean, how preposterous 

it is to throw ten million acres out because one percent of it is affected by mining. It is just stunning. It lacks common sense, but 

that is not new to this town. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Lyons, we have not seen the grazing instruction memorandum. There was a story leaked from Greenwire 

that says there is such a thing. Can I get my hands on that? 

Mr. LYONS. I’m sure you can, Senator. 

Senator RISCH. I would like one, please. If you would get it to my 

office. 

There are rumors that there is going to be a seven-inch stubble 

requirement in every lek. Do you know whether that is true or not? 

Mr. LYONS. No, I don’t believe there’s going to be a seven-inch 

stubble requirement in every lek. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
79 

Senator RISCH. I think that would cause a lot of people to 

breathe a sigh of relief. 

I don’t know, this stubble thing has always amazed me and I 

suspect Brenda and others in the cattle business. This may come 

as a shock but cattle do not like the top part. They like the bottom 

part. Given their choice, they will take one all the way down because they have to eat the bad part to get to the good part, but 

unfortunately that is just the way it is. They do not do that to 

every plant, but depending upon how you measure the stubble it 

could be very difficult. 

How about a buffer? We are hearing rumors about a six-mile 

buffer around a lek. Is that true or is that just rumor that we are 

hearing? 

Mr. LYONS. I’m not aware of that. 

Senator RISCH. Okay. 

Mr. LYONS. Senator, so but I’ll gladly follow up and—— 

Senator RISCH. I would appreciate that, if you could—— 

Mr. LYONS. If there’s any truth to that. 

Senator RISCH. If you take that for the record. 

I have got in front of me this evening an email, although I am 

sure you wished you had never gotten it, that is dated April 26th 

from Chris Iverson. This is probably one of the emails you guys 

would have given to Hillary to guard. 

In any event it has gotten out. Mr. Iverson, in talking very candidly about the approach that is being taken, talks about the requirements. He says, ‘‘Does anyone suppose that any,’’ and any is 

in caps, so I suppose that means it is a shout. ‘‘Does anyone suppose that ANY allotment is currently meeting those standards?’’ 

Did you respond to that question that he asked you in this email 

or was this kind of a rhetorical email that you—— 

Mr. LYONS. I think it was a rhetorical question, Senator. And 

since we both have that email, you know, I would point out that 

subsequent to that Chris says that ultimately the range cons need 

to figure out how to meet those guidelines. So I would not necessarily agree with Chris that we can assume that people can’t 

meet these objectives. 

Stubble height is one element associated with a number of objectives for the plans. I want to point out for the record that no one 

variable, no one objective will be the determining factor as to 

whether or not someone is complying with the land health standards and further provide that it’s not simply a matter of meeting 

those standards, but if an operator could demonstrate that their 

operation is, in fact, moving in that direction and we certainly will 

work with permittees to achieve that, then they will meet the 

standards. 

I think there’s been a lot of confusion about stubble height and 

a lot of consternation. For that reason, we’ve had a number of 

meetings with the cattle industry to try to discuss this and correctly characterize it. 

Senator RISCH. We appreciate that. 

Mr. LYONS. And we will continue to have those conversations. 

I had the good fortune of meeting with Speaker Bedke just a few 

weeks ago to talk about this issue and some ways to try to work 

better together to try to address these concerns. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
80 

Senator RISCH. We appreciate that. There are 1,800 grazing permittees in Southern Idaho. I do not need to tell you they are all 

very, very nervous right now. I hope, through this hearing, both of 

you will take all of this in the spirit in which it is intended. We 

all want to work together to make a sustainable future for this 

bird, and the criticisms that are levied here are done so in the spirit of moving it forward. 

So thank you for what you do. We are going to continue to work 

with you and urge you in a direction that we think will be helpful. 

Mr. Chairman, I have got to excuse myself, but thank you so 

much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Risch. 

Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My questions are for Deputy Assistant Secretary Lyons as well, 

initially. 

In 2010, Interior looked at starting a process to list the sage 

grouse as endangered. In September of 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

found that listing the greater sage grouse as an endangered species 

was not necessary. That primarily came as a result of the successful conservation efforts at the state and local level. 

So my question is in regard to BLM’s sage grouse plan. Last year 

North Dakota’s Governor outlined six concerns about federal plan 

inconsistencies. He talked about not accounting for new well drilling technology for oil well drilling. He talked about balancing all 

the uses. He wanted a case by case analysis, and was concerned 

about BLM imposing net conservation gain requirements. He was 

concerned about the definition of ‘‘tall structures.’’ What does that 

mean? What is that requirement? Then there was a concern about 

adequate public comment. 

The state raised those concerns last year, and then in July 2015 

BLM basically rejected or dismissed the concerns. The state appealed, and in September of 2015 North Dakota’s appeal was 

turned down by BLM as well. 

So when you talk about extensive state/federal collaboration and 

when we see that those state efforts are working, why is it the 

state was turned down when they came with those concerns? 

Mr. LYONS. Well, Senator, the Dakota’s plans, along with the 

Montana plan, were really designed to try to address those threats 

where identified. 

I think in some instances, and I can’t speak to the specifics of 

that letter of appeal, in some instances, the recommendations were 

not consistent with what was judged to be necessary to deal with 

those threats. And so, the plan moved forward. 

I’d be glad to give you a more specific response, Senator, to those 

issues and go back and look at the letter and talk with Jamie 

Connell or the State Director about how that response was prepared. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, we work with Jamie and we really like 

her. We think she is great, so I am a little surprised that it was 

turned down. 

What I am really after here is how we create a better collaboration in that, again, I think what you are hearing pretty consistently 

up here is that the states can do a good job but they need both InVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:38 Feb 17, 2018 Jkt 021994 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A994.XXX A994

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
81 

terior, just Fish and Wildlife, BLM, they need some flexibility here. 

It cannot be a one-size-fits-all. Multiple use in North Dakota is different than it is in some of the other states. I think all of us have 

ranching, but we also have tremendous energy development. There 

has got to be some flexibility. How do we get a better collaboration? 

How do we improve that collaboration? How do we get better flexibility? 

We actually have a remarkably good relationship with Jamie. 

She is great. She is always looking for good ideas. She has always 

tried to help us do the things that we think are productive that 

makes sense, but she has got to be able to get that help from here 

in DC. 

Mr. LYONS. Well, I appreciate that. I think Jamie is an outstanding director. 

Senator HOEVEN. She is. 

Mr. LYONS. And a leader in BLM. 

I think the answer to this, and if I haven’t made this clear, I 

want to emphasize that it is in implementation is how we work together at the ground level to implement these plans in ways that 

respond to local needs and provide the flexibility necessary to address issues whether it’s buffers or as we’re working now with the 

states in redrawing the boundaries of priority habitat areas that 

were originally identified which we’re doing with a number of 

states. 

I think there are and will continue to be important opportunities 

to work together in a collaborative way on the ground to make 

these plans work and achieve the conservation outcomes that we 

seek to achieve. 

Senator HOEVEN. That is exactly what I am asking for. I am asking for more flexibility, and I am asking you to empower that Regional Director. I think we can do a lot if you do not have this 

mindset that it has got to be the same everywhere when it is not 

the same. 

Mr. LYONS. The goal is not to be the same everywhere, Senator. 

The goal is to provide enough consistency so that there’s certainty 

to the conservation outcomes that will be provided by the plans, 

but the flexibility to respond to those local needs and conditions. 

Senator HOEVEN. That is the key. That is where we need your 

help. 

Mr. LYONS. Glad to help. 

Senator HOEVEN. We appreciate your Regional Director and her 

willingness to work with us, and we just need you to empower her 

to do some of these things that were on the ground. 

I wanted to take just a minute to ask Brenda Richards a question from a rancher’s perspective. Obviously, we think it is a great 

benefit to the country to be able to have ranchers out on the grasslands. But if you would just talk in terms of the benefits to the 

public because, I do not think people realize it, but there is a big 

time benefit to taxpayers and there are other benefits that our 

ranchers are creating for everybody by being out there in the grasslands and grazing. If you could just touch on that for a minute, because I think it is important that people understand it. 

Ms. RICHARDS. Thank you, Senator, for that opportunity. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
82 

As I indicated in my testimony in many of these areas across the 

West, Idaho is not unique but ranching and grazing has been there 

for over 100 years which has helped provide the healthy habitat, 

the healthy range lands and the rural communities which is something we need to stress. So even if those ranches do change hands, 

many times, it’s still into the same intricate aspect of the ranching 

community. 

There is a vested interest in local input. Our local Sage Grouse 

Working Group which was started by the ranchers and then 

brought others in to work is over 20 years old. So it’s well before 

all of this came to the very forefront. 

And so, I think, you hit the nail right on the head. We are an 

extremely important and integral part for continuing with that because of the vast amount of public, private and state-owned lands 

so we all have to work together. 

And the ranchers have a vested interest there. They are the businesses, they are the communities and they’re long-term, 

generational often to make sure that that stability is there. 

Senator HOEVEN. Hasn’t your organization actually done some 

studies and determined what the benefit is to taxpayers on an annual basis? Do you have any of that information with you? 

Ms. RICHARDS. We have done some, and Owyhee County actually 

has an economic impact statement. We also have an economic analysis that shows what it does. I would be glad to provide that to the 

Committee. 

We’ve also pulled in some data through the National Public 

Lands Council based on the ranching and what the benefits are to 

the states, to the economic and the health of the resource. We do 

have that documentation and study done by the University of Wyoming and public lands sponsored it, and we will be glad to get that 

to the Committee. 

Senator HOEVEN. Right. 

I think some of those studies have shown on the order of $750 

million a year in benefit to taxpayers by having ranchers out on 

the ground. So you have got all this really good data there, and we 

appreciate you being here to talk about it. 

Ms. RICHARDS. If I could follow up. 

I would say that alone in Owyhee County we are 7,697 acres. We 

have 1.5 people per acre. Seventy-eight percent federal land. But 

we have put ourselves $318,000 through into local working group 

projects that are successful. So, you’re spot on with that, and we’d 

be glad to get that information to you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thanks, and we really appreciate what the 

ranchers are doing out there. 

Ms. RICHARDS. Thank you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. 

Mr. Lyons, I understand this ten-million-acre withdrawal is 

going to be the largest in FLPMA history, and the Department has 

justified this figure by saying there does not appear to be significant mineral development potential. 

Can you talk about whether your science or geological data informed that statement and is there a complete geological or mineral inventory of the ten-million acres? 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
83 

Mr. LYONS. Well actually, Mr. Chairman, I think as you understand, you know, we’re in the process of developing the withdrawal 

proposal. It’s a separate process. So the plan has actually recommended the withdrawal, segregation occurred, but the process is 

unfolding. 

So the mineral survey that would look at those particular issues 

is being developed for us by the USGS and is not yet completed. 

But we are and USGS did, in fact, reach out to all the states and 

to other entities to secure information about mineral potential and, 

I think, gather that as a foundation for developing the EIS which 

we hope to complete by the end of this year. 

I should also point out that the alternatives for that EIS are 

being developed in collaboration with cooperators. There have been 

several discussions as well as several meetings both for the scoping 

and as well as associated with the withdrawal proposal. 

So we will gather that information. We will share that information and that will be one of the components that goes into determining whether or not or how this withdrawal should move forward. 

Senator BARRASSO. We are trying to get this all figured out, because Ms. Sweeney’s organization has expressed concern about the 

withdrawal because BLM has yet to complete a number of mineral 

examinations under the 1994—you are talking how many years ago 

that was, congressional moratorium on, with regard to mineral patents. How does the BLM intend to complete, it looks like 6,000 

mineral examinations triggered by this potential withdrawal in the 

face of such a significant backlog? 

Then Ms. Sweeney, I am going to ask you to weigh in as well. 

Mr. LYONS. Well, I can say, Mr. Chairman, that the mineral potential report is to be completed shortly by USGS. I can’t speak to 

the particulars of the other analyses that you’re talking about, unfortunately. 

And we’ll use that as one of the components that goes into preparing the environmental impact statement. That will be a part of 

this process. It is a separate process from the plans. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Sweeney, go ahead. 

Ms. SWEENEY. I do think that there are significant concerns as 

to whether BLM has the resources to complete that number of mineral exams. I believe that between Forest Service and BLM there 

is probably less than 40 mineral examiners that are certified and 

able to do that kind of work. 

And I would say, most of them are probably close to, if not of, 

retirement age. I do think that delaying getting the claims—determinations done since 1994. And there’s still about 37 or 38 of those 

left, I think, that remain. I mean, it does raise the issue as to 

whether or not, that practically speaking BLM could even implement the claim validities that would be prompted by the withdrawal. 

Senator BARRASSO. One of the other things you talked about in 

your testimony, Ms. Sweeney, had to do with how you clearly spell 

out the economic impacts that can result from withdrawing ten 

million acres from mineral production. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
84 

In your view, did the Administration take these economic issues, 

foreign policy implications and national security implications into 

consideration when determining that ten-million-acre figure? 

Ms. SWEENEY. I would say they did not or else they wouldn’t 

have moved forward with recommending it. But as Mr. Lyons says, 

it’s still is in the preliminary stages. 

And so we’re hopeful with that kind of information provided to 

the agencies that they will realize that this withdrawal is not necessary to conserve the sage grouse or its habitat. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Clarke, in your experience on both sides 

of the table in this discussion, you are currently overseeing a number of conservation efforts in Utah. 

In your testimony you contrasted the successful conservation efforts on the ground in Utah with the now lack of what is happening in Washington. You referred to the mother ship. 

I am going to ask Ms. Richards to weigh in on this as well, but 

has your relationship with local land managers, including those in 

BLM and Forest Service on the ground at home, been compromised 

by Washington’s top/down mother ship approach to local conservation efforts? 

Ms. CLARKE. I would say that our forward movement has absolutely been compromised. Often we hear from these federal partners that they share our frustration. They want to get on with 

business and make things happen. But yes, it’s very frustrating. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Richards, could you comment as well? 

Ms. RICHARDS. Yes, I appreciate that opportunity. 

Both again from our local level and on our state level our governor put together a task force. We have a plan that was bought 

off on by the state BLM and local BLM. We were working on local 

working groups, and that has seemed to somewhat grind to a halt. 

I’d also like to add that although the question was not answered 

specifically pertaining to a six-mile buffer, for our county commissioners we were denied access to a gravel pit by the BLM because 

it was within a four-mile buffer of sage grouse pertaining to the 

documents, the implementation draft documents that had been 

leaked because on the ground is not sure of how to move forward. 

And as we know litigation is huge out there so they don’t want to 

take any risks. 

So they’re definitely, our local was/is and state has been trying 

to work with it, but we have been, as Kathleen said, ground to a 

halt somewhat by that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, because as a rancher in Idaho you have 

seen a number of federal resource management failures throughout 

your career, your time. 

By their own admission the Administration understands that, 

‘‘the primary threats to sage grouse are the widespread present 

and potential impacts of wildfire.’’ Senator Risch commented on 

that. ‘‘The loss of our native habitat to invasive species and the 

conifer encroachment.’’ 

Since the agency has announced the federal conservation plans, 

have you seen any improvement or changes at all in the way that 

they are managing wildfire or invasive species? What have you noticed? 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
85 

Ms. RICHARDS. In my area in Owyhee County, as was indicated, 

we were impacted tremendously by the Soda fire. So there have 

been a number of dollars that have been put forward to fire rehab, 

but that fire could have been prevented if there was flexibility 

within the plans for some grazing management as tools on the 

front. 

So I’m not sure, and maybe I need you to repeat that. We haven’t 

seen anything that’s actually come on the ground with that, but 

maybe you could repeat what you’re asking. 

Senator BARRASSO. I think you answered it in terms of whether, 

there have actually been policy changes once they have recognized 

the impact of what the real causes are and what they are trying 

to do to prevent the real causes opposed to the man-made relationships. 

Ms. RICHARDS. From what we’ve seen and the concern in the 

grazing community is again, we have had on a local level, because 

of the draft that was leaked out, we have had some conversations 

that have been very negative about restrictions that could be put 

on grazing which again, is counterproductive to the fire component 

of that, the threat, because grazing is a natural use of a renewable 

resource to reduce fuel loads. It will not completely eliminate fire, 

but it certainly is a tool that helps substantially reduce the fuel 

loads and protect those lands in the sage grouse habitat. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Lyons, in your testimony you highlighted the years of work 

that the Administration has undertaken on the issue of sage grouse 

conservation, an extensive period of time. I think your point is that 

the resource management plans and land use plan amendments 

announced last fall were an accumulation of years of work. If that 

is true, then why have we had to wait nearly another whole year 

for agency guidance if you have been working on this issue for 

more than a decade? 

Mr. LYONS. Well Senator, I would suggest to you that the reason 

there’s been delays is because we’ve made the extra effort to try to 

communicate with and coordinate with the various interests who 

might be affected by these plans. 

I would have to say, my father would say, ‘‘You’re in a damned 

if you do and damned if you don’t situation.’’ You know, draft IMs 

were prepared. We began to discuss those with cooperators and 

others and concerns were raised. We then elected to go out and engage more directly with various interests. 

So I reference the stakeholder meetings we had in April in which 

we used those not only for discussion but as, kind of, mini workshops in which we presented the drafts at that point in time. And 

there were additional concerns, and then the feedback was extremely helpful. 

We’ve continued the dialogue through the Sage Grouse Task 

Force with the states and a number of states have been quite helpful. Wyoming would be one, for example, with their experience in 

providing additional guidance. So we’re trying to get it right. We 

recognize how significant this is. 

We recognize how critical the collaboration is to be successful as 

we move forward and so the delays really, I think, reflect due diligence, perhaps maybe an over cautious approach to try and ensure 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
86 

that we can continue to move forward and implement these policies 

and procedures in ways that are going to be understood, that are 

going to be effective and will be welcomed by the partners who are 

critical to ensuring that we can achieve that. 

If I could make one other point, just about fire? 

You might have sensed that I’m very proud of the work that 

we’ve done on fire, and I think it’s important. And I, you know, the 

Soda fire was unfortunate and I certainly feel for Brenda and her 

family and the impacts that they felt. 

But you know, we’re trying to use the Soda fire as a mechanism 

to try new approaches to dealing with restoration, in particular. 

And one of those, in fact, is trying to use grazing more effectively 

as a mechanism to reduce fuel loads. Brenda and her family have 

been very helpful in that regard in trying to develop this. 

So we’re trying to learn from past mistakes and try to use these 

opportunities, a funny way to characterize the Soda fire, but this 

opportunity to do a more effective job in the restoration arena and 

also do that in a way that’s going to further reduce the likelihood 

of fire risk in the future. 

Senator BARRASSO. For your first answer let me just say that for 

your efforts with regard to coordination of efforts, I would appreciate if you do just not the states alone, but also the stakeholders. 

I think it is critically important to this. 

Now I want to thank all the witnesses for being here, for your 

time and for your testimony. It is clear that serious concerns remain. They remain about the future of public land access as a result of the federal sage grouse plans. At best, federal sage grouse 

plans were created to justify keeping the species off the Endangered Species list but at worst the plans really are a part of a larger campaign to restrict access to public land. 

It has been suggested that the agencies will use the Greater Sage 

Grouse Conservation Plan process as a model for future conservation efforts. This nine-month delay in implementation of the plan 

is not acceptable now, and it will not be acceptable in the future. 

If there are no further questions from members, they may submit 

written questions to you so the hearing record will be open for the 

next two weeks. 

Senator BARRASSO. Given that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank 

you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
(87) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
88 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 21994A.051
89 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 21994A.052
90 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 21994A.053
91 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 21994A.054
92 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 21994A.055
93 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 21994A.056
94 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 21994A.057
95 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 21994A.058
96 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 21994A.059
97 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 21994A.060
98 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 21994A.061
99 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 21994A.062
100 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 21994A.063
101 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 21994A.064
102 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 21994A.065
103 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 21994A.066
104 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 21994A.067
105 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 21994A.068
106 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 21994A.069
107 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 21994A.070
108 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 21994A.071
109 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 21994A.072
110 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 21994A.073
111 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 21994A.074
112 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 21994A.075
113 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 21994A.076
114 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 21994A.077
115 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 21994A.078
116 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 21994A.079
117 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 21994A.080
118 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 21994A.081
119 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 21994A.082
120 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 21994A.083
121 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 21994A.084
122 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 21994A.085
123 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 21994A.086
124 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 21994A.087
125 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 21994A.088
126 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 21994A.089
127 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 21994A.090
128 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 21994A.091
129 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 21994A.092
130 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 21994A.093
131 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 21994A.094
132 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 21994A.095
133 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 21994A.096
134 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 21994A.097
135 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 21994A.098
136 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 21994A.099
137 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 21994A.100
138 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 21994A.101
139 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 21994A.102
140 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 21994A.103
141 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 21994A.104
142 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 21994A.105
143 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 21994A.106
144 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 21994A.107
145 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 21994A.108
146 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 21994A.109
147 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 21994A.110
148 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 21994A.111
149 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 21994A.112
150 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 21994A.113
151 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 21994A.114
152 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 21994A.115
153 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 21994A.116
154 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 21994A.117
155 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 21994A.118
156 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 222 21994A.119
157 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 223 21994A.120
158 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 224 21994A.121
159 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 225 21994A.122
160 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 226 21994A.123
161 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 227 21994A.124
162 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 228 21994A.125
163 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 229 21994A.126
164 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 230 21994A.127
165 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 231 21994A.128
166 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 232 21994A.129
167 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 233 21994A.130
168 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 234 21994A.131
169 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 235 21994A.132
170 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 236 21994A.133
171 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 237 21994A.134
172 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 238 21994A.135
173 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 239 21994A.136
174 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 240 21994A.137
175 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 21994A.138
176 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 21994A.139
177 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 21994A.140
178 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 21994A.141
179 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 21994A.142
180 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 21994A.143
181 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 21994A.144
182 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 21994A.145
183 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 21994A.146
184 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 250 21994A.147
185 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 251 21994A.148
186 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 252 21994A.149
187 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 253 21994A.150
188 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 254 21994A.151
189 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 255 21994A.152
190 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 21994A.153
191 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 21994A.154
192 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 21994A.155
193 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 21994A.156
194 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 21994A.157
195 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 21994A.158
196 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 21994A.159
197 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 263 21994A.160
198 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 264 21994A.161
199 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 265 21994A.162
200 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 266 21994A.163
201 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 267 21994A.164
202 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 21994A.165
203 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 21994A.166
204 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 270 21994A.167
205 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 271 21994A.168
206 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 272 21994A.169
207 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 273 21994A.170
208 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 274 21994A.171
209 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 275 21994A.172
210 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 276 21994A.173
211 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 277 21994A.174
212 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 278 21994A.175
213 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 279 21994A.176
214 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 280 21994A.177
215 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 281 21994A.178
216 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 282 21994A.179
217 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 283 21994A.180
218 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 284 21994A.181
219 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 285 21994A.182
220 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 286 21994A.183
221 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 287 21994A.184
222 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 288 21994A.185
223 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 289 21994A.186
224 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 290 21994A.187
225 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 21994A.188
226 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 21994A.189
227 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 21994A.190
228 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 294 21994A.191
229 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 295 21994A.192
230 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 296 21994A.193
231 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 297 21994A.194
232 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 298 21994A.195
233 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 299 21994A.196